User talk:Jgui~enwiki

Welcome to my talk page! Please be patient - I'm new here.

Talk Page Policy: Please don't leave abusive, slanderous, bogus or unfair comments - if you do I'll remove them. But if you want to leave a friendly word of encouragement or needed advice, then be my guest. Thanks!

If you want to discuss a Wikipedia entry I'm contributing to you're best off leaving comments in the Discussion pages of the entry - I think our work as writers and editors should speak for itself, with the help of the Discussion pages.

I have a real life which is sometimes very busy, so feel free to use email if you need to contact me with any urgency.

Isarig

Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think? Abu ali 20:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MEMRI page

Y'know, I think you picked a lousy page to begin with on WP -I say this from experience. I am attempting to make yours less bad, even if I disagree with you. Cheers <<-armon->> 03:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Hi Jgui. Please read WP:STALK. So far you've only edited 3 articles, in each following Armon there and opposing him. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, Hi. As a new editor here who has been editing for only two months, I am still a "newbie" and I admit I don't always know the rules. It therefore scares me that you think you should be putting a warning about WP:STALK on my page. But let me explain why I think your WP:STALK warning is not justified.

Jayjg, First of all, as far as I can tell from my edit history I have only edited two WP articles and not three: "MEMRI" and "Juan Cole". I have also asked questions on the WP:RS and WP:NOR talk pages to better understand WP policy - but I don't think armon ever contributed there. And I have voted on a policy page that armon voted on - is voting on a policy page considered stalking? Of the *TWO* WP articles I have contributed to, I think you will have to agree that I had to start somewhere. MEMRI was the first page I edited because I read it and found it to be poorly written, flagrantly POV and seriously in need of help. At the time I had no idea who any editor was. Armon chose to repeatedly delete everything I added on the MEMRI page which is how I came to know him. So I clearly hadn't done any "stalking" up to the point of contributing to the "Juan Cole" page. Now I must say I find inexplicable your suggestion that I am stalking Armon, when MANY of the editors who contribute to the MEMRI page also contribute to the "Juan Cole" page. Why did you choose Armon? If editing two pages is grounds for a WP:STALK warning, then why, for example, didn't you warn me about "stalking" csloat: I actually left a note on his user page, whereas I've never left a note on Armon's (although he has left a note on mine about my "bad" edits - see above). Are you seriously suggesting that I should not have contributed a compromise paragraph to the "Juan Cole" page because it is considered "stalking"? Can you cite ANY instance of where I have harassed or personally attacked Armon - which is a necessary component of "stalking" based on my reading of the WP:STALK page you referred me to?

Jayjg, Please answer me here on this page, because I am really concerned and intimidated that an editor would leave a warning about stalking on my page. If you think I have been WP:STALK, then please show me how and I guarantee you I will correct it. If not, then please let me know and please delete your warning. Thank you, Jgui 01:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared to me that you were following Armon to Juan Cole solely to oppose him. If you haven't been stalking, then I apologize. Please don't be intimidated, and please enjoy your time editing at Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated welcome

I just noticed by looking at your contributions that you are new here or at least newly registered. It used to be the case in WP that newbies were offered a welcome (with certain exceptions of course.) I remembered getting a welcome note from User:Angela after my first edit. It was a template but still, it was nice to see it. Seeing the above comments, I see that you haven't gotten exactly a rousing welcome: Let's see, an accusation of stalking from a contributor who definitely should know better and a somewhat garbled remark by another "I am trying to make yours less bad", whatever that means.

Anyway welcome. --CSTAR 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Oh come on CSTAR, Abu ali's invitation for Jugi to come beat up on Isarig certainly deserves a mention in your list above. That was rather collegial, don't you think? Elizmr 19:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome, Cstar. I appreciate it. Unlike armon's note which I found obnoxious (stating that the only way to improve my "bad" edits was to delete them), or Jayjg's which I continue to find intimidating (since he is an admin who's blocked more than 500 users in less than six months), I was pleased to get abu ali's note since he was referring me to a page I didn't know about that was discussing my personal user page as an example of isarig's abusive behavior towards me when I first started posting (I deleted isarig's comments to me from my page, although you can find them in history). I was glad to know about abu ali's link, although I chose not to contribute to that page. At the time I thought it would be best to stay focused on editing to improve WP pages. And I'm still trying and will continue trying. Thank you, Jgui 00:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struck above remark as unproductive and possibly uncalled for given CSTAR's concern on my userpage. Elizmr 03:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

apology from the MEMRI talk page

Jugi--I apologize for the fact that I missed comments you have made in the sheer volume of what is posted there. It was not productive for me to have said you didn't supply the quotes when I asked. I was mistaken becuase the first time I had asked you had not supplied them, and I never saw that later you did supply them. I can totally see that it would be very upsetting to have done something and then be told that you had not. So please accept my apologies. Elizmr 02:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jugi, please agf on the MEMRI page and blowing up at me and let's deal with the ideas instead of each other. OK? Elizmr 12:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Here are the unnecessary bits imo:[reply]

"unfortunately your central point is irrelevant"---dismissive and insulting, please say why you disagree without attacking, and realize that I have gone to lengths to make my point and to say that it is "irrelevant" is dismissive. See WP:CIVIL
""Elizmr, you are still batting 1000, with three false accusations against me in your last three posts to me"---I have apologized above for some of this, and you might WP:AGF and give me the benefit of the doubt and realize that the central point is that I am objecting to the generalization you are making and asking for less generalizing langaage rather than attacking me for misremembering the magnitude of your generalization. OK?
"Elizmr, I am afraid you are taking this page FAR too personally"--bizarrely personal uncalled for statement.
"I am trying to improve this page, and I would appreciate your help in doing so"--bad faith accusation. I care about the quality of this page too. WP:AGF
"I hope they will not be vandalized again"--objections have been well described on the talk page, they are not vandalism. Elizmr 13:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizmr, as I said above, if you want to apologize for something you've said on the MEMRI talk page, please put it on the MEMRI talk page since I read this page very infrequently. As far as your accusations of me "blowing up" and being "bizarrely personal", thank you for the levity; I found your charges VERY amusing. If anyone is interested in seeing me "blowing up", please refer to THIS, which I've included below in its entirety. Cheers, Jgui 18:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armon and Elizmr, I appreciate your responses, but unfortunately your central point is irrelevant. Yes, Carmon, conceded making a translation mistake in one of the cited articles, but the sentence is not about the number of translation mistakes that Carmon has ADMITTED to. The sentence is: "The accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed": i.e. it is about the translation mistakes that MEMRI has been ACCUSED OF. I have cited three instances from indisputably RS where MEMRI has been accused of mis-translation. (Elizmr - the Livingstone data you are asking for is irrelevant - all that matters is that the Mayor of London claimed that MEMRI mistranslated, which he did). Three citations is more than enough to include this sentence and paragraph.

Armon, you could certainly use that line of defense (that all translation services sometimes mistranslate) in the "Response to Criticism" section - please feel free to add it to your other "Response" text that I have restored.

Elizmr, please let me get this straight. MEMRI says the US media "MISTRANSLATED" the bin laden speech, and a cited RS reports on the "translation problems". And yet you just wrote "I am not ever going to be able to agree with you the binLaden thing is a 'mistranslation' and I do not think it can be presented in the article as such." Are you stating that your personal opinion of when a mistranslation has occurred is the only one that matters - and that your personal opinion trumps all evidence to the contrary? And that you are prepared to delete this from a WP article no matter what?

Elizmr, you are still batting 1000, with three false accusations against me in your last three posts to me. Now you have stated that I am trying to argue that MEMRI's translations are "OFTEN" disputed. I DID NOT SAY THAT. I SAID "SOMETIMES". Please do not put words into my mouth; it is not productive and it is unfair. You wrote that three instances is not sufficient to state "often" disputed and I would agree with you on that. But clearly three instances is more than enough to state "sometimes disputed".

Elizmr, I am afraid you are taking this page FAR too personally. MEMRI has attracted its share of detractors and supporters. It is not "sullying the reputation" to include an accurate well-cited presentation of the facts of what the detractors and supporters have said in a balanced NPOV fashion. That is all I am trying to do. I am trying to improve this page, and I would appreciate your help in doing so.

I have reverted my changes based on this discussion and hope that they will not be vandalized again. Thank you, Jgui 05:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.N.S.W.E.R.

Please see my (possibly unsatisfactory) response to your request at A.N.S.W.E.R.#Ramsey Clark?. - Jmabel | Talk 03:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quaiqu is Elizmr

Hi I once had an exchange with an editor Elizmr, going over my contributions list I thought it was odd that my posts on her talk page where no longer there. Apparently she closed that account but finding a link to her archives I found that the person requesting the deletion was using the name User:Quaiqu. see:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elizmr/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=114402748

When I went to that new page I see that you have a request for Arbitration going on with her over the MEMRI page. I noticed in the archives that she had an extensive history in that page under the name Elizmr. Here is a link to the text of the archived page which shows the Elizmr was engaged in heavy disputes on the MEMRI page since March of 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elizmr/archive1&oldid=105134936

I don't know why the name change occurred but if it was solely to drop her contensious past I think that's a violation of the culture of wikipedia.--Wowaconia 18:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring reminder

Regarding the ongoing edit war on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which you are involved, I'd like to remind you of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule's prohibition of reverting as an editing technique. Please note that "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." I would request that you bear this in mind and use the article discussion page or dispute resolution to resolve your dispute. -- ChrisO 15:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO, Hi. I hope your statement to me is implying that I am involved in the House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page, and not that I am involved in the edit war. I think if you check the recent history of that page, you will find that I made a number of changes, adding new cited material, and reorganizing the page with my first edit at 7:24 July 20. I accompanied my changes with a comment describing them in the Talk page. These changes were deleted and added back four time in the next seven hours. I was not one of the editors who added my changes back these four times; but I was pleased to see that these other editors approved of my edits.

Please note that none of these editors who deleted my changes made any comments in the Talk page (whereas some of the editors who added them back did) - in fact one of the deleting editors did not even give any edit history comment with his deletion. My understanding is that this is against WP policy. The policy as stated in WP:revert that I follow when editing is that:

Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.
Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.

So, in this case not only did the deleting editors not leave my changes in the document and comment on how to improve them or improve them themselves; they did not even bother to describe in Talk what about my changes they considered "vandalism" or "not good faith" (the only reasons given in the WP:revert page for deleting text). Instead they simply deleted them in their entirety. Please note that I put a fair amount of work into those changes, adding cited text and increasing the size of the article by about 35%, and I think improving the page in the process.

I think I was fully justified, therefore, in pointing out to these editors in the Talk page that they had been deleting my changes without comment, and asking them to comply with WP rules. I did so and added back my changes for discussion or modification, one time. Please note that I have not made any changes to the page since then.

One of the deleting editors (Tewfik) deleted my changes three times in ten hours, so I left a warning on his User page that he was in danger of exceeding 3RR - he deleted my warning (as he also deleted your 3RR warning). This editor did finally leave a note in the Talk page, but he simply repeated claims that I had already answered; it was hardly a discussion and neither he nor any of the other deleting editors have made any specific suggestions for improving my changes.

Chris, I think it is clear that I have not been involved in edit-warring. Could I ask your help in getting the other editors to abide by WP rules regarding the removal of properly-cited, relevant text? Could you remind them that it is not appropriate to remove such text - it is appropriate to improve it? I think the changes I have to make are at least worthy of discussion, which will not happen the way things stand now. If I have the time I will work on a modified version of my changes; in the meantime I would appreciate any advice.

Thank you, Jgui 08:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I can only reiterate what I said in my earlier message (and it's something I've said to everyone involved in the article, whichever side they're on). Wikipedia works by consensus - if other editors are not being cooperative in developing an article, the best thing to do is to move on to dispute resolution to resolve your dispute. I'd suggest taking it to the Mediation Cabal. -- ChrisO 08:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your uncivility

Please do not lable my actions "vandalism" when they are not. Editors have been blocked for such uncivility in the past. Isarig 23:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel-Palestine Conflict

Thankyou for your NPOV edits on this article. I hope you continue to keep up the good work. Suicup 16:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Also, seeing it hasnt been done already: Welcome![reply]

Hello, Jgui~enwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Suicup 16:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on MEMRI

You've passed 3RR on memeri and I've addressed the issues on talk. It would be a good idea to self-revert. <<-armon->> 00:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armon, thank you for your notice. However, I belive that you have mis-read the 3RR page. As you know, I did not make four edits in 24 hours; I made three edits in 24 hours. It is true that I made four edits in about 25 hours, but it is also true that you made four edits in about 25 hours at 7:49, 21:41, 7:06 and 9:06. So if you think I have broken some rule, then I think you will agree that you have broken the same rule. Furthermore both of us were not simply reverting to previous versions of the page at this point, but were trying to address comments and changes suggested by the other. Even more important is the fact that we seem to be making some progress on finding a compromise for our differences; I appreciate your now contributing to the MEMRI talk page since I think we can reach accord even sooner there. Nevertheless I will self-revert to your version as a sign of good faith. I do not think it matters which version we start from as long as we are both willing to discuss and make changes rationally and courteously. Thank you, Jgui 20:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MEMRI

I've tried my best but even hacking down your revisions to bare bones Armon still persists in his rampant reverting. Hell, I'm fairly sure he just notched beyond the 3RR in 24 hours, but either way, I'm done with it. If he wants to have his very own WP article to guard, he is welcome to it. Narson 13:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert limitation

Based on my investigation of a complaint at WP:AE, I am applying the general sanctions enacted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles as follows:

You are placed on revert limitation. You are limited to one revert per week per page on all pages related to the conflict area, excepting obvious vandalism, subject to a 24 hour block per violation. Reverts must be discussed on the talk page. Mischaracterization of content disputes as "vandalism" will double the block. This restriction expires in 30 days (22 February 2008, 00:00 UTC) unless extended. Thatcher 01:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish lobby article mediation

I have requested mediation on the Jewish lobby article. If you wish to participate, please sign up here. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jewish lobby.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 02:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Jewish Lobby, OED, etc.

(copied from G-Dett's user page to keep discussion in one place)

G-dett:

You made a statement on the NOR noticeboard that surprised me, stating that you thought the OED quote I found does not belong on the JL page. I expected that statement from the POV-pushers, but I don't consider you to be one of them, so I am curious why you said that. It strikes me (and it was long argued by Jayjg back when he thought that no such usage existed) that a usage in a dictionary is a clear indication of a reliable and accepted usage of a term or phrase. And it also seems to me that a dictionary can be used without reservation or arguments about primary/secondary/tertiary sources.

Can I ask whether you read this explanation that I added:

In fact, the OED is defining "lobby", and is defining "special interest lobby", and by extension is defining "Jewish lobby" as a sectional special-interest lobby by using it as an example of a sectional special-interest lobby. This is the context (please refer to your own OED if you have one to verify):

OED2 p. 1074 definition of "lobby" as a noun; number 3. "In the House of Commons ... chiefly serving for interviews between members and persons not belonging to the House"; c. "In extended use: a sectional interest (see INTEREST sb. 4), a business, cause, or principle supported by a group of people; the group of persons supporting such an interest." Followed by examples of its use in this way as a sectional interest; 1952 from Economist "American interests have maintained their effective lobby against the project"; 1954 ibid. "France has to face powerful colonial lobbies in parlaiment"; 1958 from The Listener "The United States Government, sensitive to the Jewish lobby backed the Jews"; 1959 ibid. "They even tackled the vested privileges and subsidies of the powerful alcohol lobby"; 1971 Daily Telegraph "The anti-pollution lobby might claim that a spot of exaggeration is justified in such a cause".

It is not, as I was accused, that the term is used randomly somewhere in the dictionary, of course; it is the fact that it is used as an example of a special-interest lobby in a definition of a special-interest lobby; thereby making plain that it is considered by OED in the example they cite as a straightforward adjective phrase to describe a special-interest lobby: it was used to simply mean "lobby for and by Jewish members" just as "alcohol lobby" was used to simply mean "lobby by the alcohol industry".

It is this straightforward "descriptive" usage that Jayjg is blocking with his misapplication of WP:NEO. When this usage is incorrectly blocked by WP editors we are left with a WP article that is slanted and inaccurate that denies the non-pejorative way it has been actually used for many decades (and is still being used in Israeli media and elsewhere) and we are left with the only usage Jayjg will allow: as an antisemitic slur. We are left, in effect, with an article that is promoting Jayjg's view of the meaning of "Jewish lobby" (as an antisemitic slur based on his OR that the term is a "neologism") and nothing else, when it is clear to any scholar that it has historically been used in this other way. We have found scholarly references (OED and others) to back up that usage - but in a Catch22 we are not allowed to use them - can you see the source of the frustration caused by this?

I have no problem with restricting cited text to secondary/tertiary sources in the article as per the normal (non-NEO) WP policy - I agree with you that it will lead to a better article. But I absolutely oppose Jayjg's "law" that the term must only be discussed as an antisemitic term, since clearly that is simply Jayjg's fantasy world (which is once again clear from reading the OED definition of "lobby").

So can I ask why you stated you are opposed to using the OED quote? Is it that you think the quote is usable but poorly worded and can be improved? Is it a technical issue having to do with including dictionary examples? Do you question that this article should even include its descriptive usage as it has been and continues to be used for decades in a non-pejorative fashion? Or more likely something else I haven't considered? I'll check back here on your user page unless you prefer to discuss this somewhere else. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 07:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Jgui (talk) 16:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, if you have the time and haven't already seen it, here's Jayjg's current version of the JL page HERE; here's the version that included its Descriptive usage and Antisemitic Criticism HERE. Jgui (talk) 07:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jgui, many apologies for such a late response. I've been thinking through what you wrote. I'll begin with the narrow question regarding the OED and then briefly comment on the broader issues you've raised. But let me just briefly say that I endorse your work on the article and want you to be able to continue improving it unencumbered by obstructionism and pettifogging.

I think where your reasoning regarding the OED runs into trouble is in saying that "by extension [the dictionary] is defining 'Jewish lobby' as a sectional special-interest lobby by using it as an example of a sectional special-interest lobby." When a dictionary gives examples like this, it's not "defining" any other word than the one in the heading, and it certainly isn't commenting on whether the example in question is merely "descriptive" (vs. derogatory, antisemitic, or whatever). The sentence you added to the article read as follows: "The Oxford English Dictionary uses it in this way to serve as an example of a special interest lobby, quoting from a 1958 article in the Listener." I agree with Jay that this is original research using primary sources. If you maintain that the OED is actually a secondary source attesting to the conceptual viability and descriptive neutrality of the phrase "Jewish lobby," then be aware that you are in effect making the same case for alcohol lobby and colonial lobby. If we turn dictionaries into secondary sources on every subject mentioned in their illustrative examples, we will truly be opening a gigantic can of worms.

Why, if I may ask, do you even want to go to the OED in the first place? Jay has put great emphasis on dictionaries, but this emphasis is a total red herring; the presence or absence of a term or phrase in the dictionary has no relationship whatsoever to the question of whether it's a neologism, which is what Jay's after. By making a strained case for the OED as a secondary source, you're implicitly giving credence to this specious logic. Forget the OED; there are at least two, and probably many more, excellent secondary sources for the descriptive neutrality of the term: the Dictionary of Politics and the piece on J.J. Goldberg's book. Jay's case against the latter was weak to begin with and has anyway been thoroughly discredited. The Goldberg piece is a superb secondary source, one of the best and most incontestably relevant secondary sources yet to be found by any editor working on this article. If it needs to be edit-warred into place, so be it. Another writer to look into here is Philip Weiss; he has interesting things to say about the term's use.

One thing that's fairly clear from reading through primary sources is that the term used to be in common use, has become more controversial over time, and in recent years has been steadily replaced by "the Israel lobby." I am confident that with a little effort and energy, we can find good sources describing its use over time. I will look into that end of it. Anyway, thanks for all your good work on the article.--G-Dett (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-dett, thank you for your reply. It is my turn to apologize for my late response.

I appreciate your taking time to analyze my argument. Let me explain it a bit better to see if I can be a bit more convincing.

I agree that the portion of my argument that is, well, arguable, is my claim that "by extension [the dictionary] is defining 'Jewish lobby' as a sectional special-interest lobby by using it as an example of a sectional special-interest lobby." I certainly agree that they are not explicitely defining it, which is why I included "by extension". So why do I continue to disagree with you and believe the word is being defined descriptively "by extension"?

There are two reasons for this. The first is that it is clear to me that OED would not use a phrase they considered inherently antisemitic or racist in an off-hand fashion in their dictionary without being sensitive to its antisemitic or racist nature. If you disagree, and think they might, then let's consider more extreme examples. For example do you think they would also use "Jxx boy" in a sentence in their definition of "boy", or "Nxxxxx lover" in their definition of "lover"? Would they have used one of these antisemitic or racist terms in 1989 when the OED came out and it was abundantly clear how offensive those terms are? I am certain they would not - do you agree? This to me argues very clearly that the OED did NOT consider the phrase JL or its use in the sentence they included to be antisemitic when they used it in 1989, otherwise the same standard would have applied.

The second reason I would argue they would not have done it is more technical. When OED is giving examples of the usage of words they do NOT want to use word phrases that have a pre-defined slant or meaning, since if they do, then the meaning of the phrase would change the meaning of the word they are trying to define. So if, for example JL WAS a well-known antisemitic slur implying world-wide domination (as Jayjg argues), then when they used it in a sentence to illustrate the meaning of "lobby", they would give the reader the impression that the word "lobby" implied MORE than just a sectional special-interest group - that the word "lobby" could imply some sort of world-wide domination. It is clear to me that they would not have used a term with an extended meaning such as this, since it would leave confusion about exactly how big the lobby is (world-wide or just a special-interest group) that is implied by the word "lobby". This leaves only the descriptive usage, which is what they were trying to illustrate.

So we are left to conclude that if the phrase JL was a well-known antisemitic phrase, then for OED to use it they either must not have known the meaning of a well-known phrase (impossible since they are the determiners of well-known phrases), or they would have to be both willing to throw around antisemitic slurs and willing to mislead and confuse the readers of their dictionary. Since these options are all untenable, I am forced to conclude that the term was NOT a well-known antisemitic phrase when they used it in 1989.

I would argue that they are using "alcohol lobby" and "colonial lobby" in the same way - as types of lobbies that readers will recognize DO have a lobbying presense trying to affect legislation. I am not arguing that they are necessarily claiming that the goals or outcome of their lobbying is "neutral"; only that the phrase "alcohol lobby", "colonial lobby" and "Jewish lobby" are all descriptive phrases without inherent special meaning.

As for your question of why I consider OED worth arguing for, it is primarily pragmatic, based on experience here at WP. I have found from experience that the best way to win arguments against POV-pushers is to come up with a very clear argument with a limited number of counter-argument that can be raised. Failure to do so will often allow them to continue their abusive deletions, taking the page down a rat-hole as they keep shifting their arguments justifying their deletion with one claim after another. That is why, for example, I was careful in my edit to leave all the sentences that were in the article before my edit, so that no one could claim I was "removing cited text" - although you may remember that this claim was made against my earlier edit a month ago, even though I didn't do it then either. But if the article had not been blocked and I had not been sanctioned I would have won that argument because my argument was proveably true.

Now it is easy to show that Jayjg has been stating in the JL Talk pages for more than a year that if the term is used in a dictionary then it should be included. I certainly agree that it is a red-herring argument. But when I found it being used in OED in a descriptive non-antisemitic way I considered it worth using since it would be impossible for Jayjg to argue against. I considered its usage in the dictionary an easy argument to win, although it looks like I was clearly wrong about it being an easy argument.

Can you point me to which of the Goldberg quotes you are talking about? I don't have the Goldberg book, although it is clear from his speeches that he talks freely about the JL. Could you cull some more quotes from the book and include them here or in the Talk page? Based on his speeches he is probably the best chance for finding a secondary source that talks about the history of the term - from descriptive, to its imprecision leading to IL, to the recent claims that the term itself is antisemitic. But note that its pure descriptive usage is by no means finished - it is STILL being used in its original descriptive fashion. I did a search at Jerusalem Post and recorded some of its usage there, and it is used by them only a few months ago in a non-pejorative, non-antisemitic way: see HERE for some of the uses I found grouped (by me) into categories.

Can I ask what your thoughts are on the M&W quote that Jayjg has deleted many times, that was the second example I gave on the NOR noticeboard? I think that is a crucial quote, and I can't see any valid objections to that one - do you agree?

Thank you, Jgui (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jewish lobby

It has been more than a month since mediation was requested so I am asking everyone to re-confirm their intent to participate in the mediation. Please stop by and indicate whether or not you still wish to be involved. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response on Mediation -- I couldn't find your original in the archives so just answering you here:

You wrote: I am curious why this section was archived? Was some conclusion reached here? Is there dispute that the term has been used descriptively? Is it necessary to prove this, or is it as patently obvious to others as it is to me that an adjective phrase ("Jewish lobby") with an adjective ("Jewish") describing a noun ("lobby") is descriptive? Do we need to delve into basic English grammer? Thank you, Jgui

Shell suggested we find another word for section. I siggested definitions which Jayjg adopted, and added "activitiesd" section. Then the article was locked. I haven't thought to much about it, but off hand don't have a problem with those two sections. If you do bring up as new topic, I'd think. Carol Moore 00:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

re JL

Hi. I took a brief look, and I must admit that it wasn't as easy as I thought to find many "neutral" usages of the term by noteables. I found a few newspapers using it and so on, but not much of much use I believe. Actually I found one example where a major newspaper had changed a title from "... Jewish Lobby" to "Israel-Lobby". On fairly notable source is this [1] from [dagbladet] "Critizism of Israel - State or regime" where the jewish professor Morten Levin defends [Jostein Gaarder], critizises the excessive use of antisemitism-accusations against critics of Israel, and draws a paralell to how M&W were condemned by "the jewish lobby". He seems to use the terms interchangibly. (Note: Levin also notes that he is regarded a "self hating jew" by the jewish environment in Norway). I know Jayjg will say he is not notable enough, but anyway.

I found some other interesting things here however: [2] referring to this review of M&W : [3] The NYT reviewer refers to the "jewish" lobby all the time when talking about M&W's book on the Israel Lobby. This has probably been discussed before, but I just wanted to mention it in case you hadn't seen it. I will contact you if I stumble over more. This is only based on a few minutes in front of the computer. pertn (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If I get the time, I might translate it myself, but I'm quite busy now so it will be a few days at least before I'm done. pertn (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish lobby mediation

I've created a new mediation page so that we can try this again, hopefully with a better result. If you wish to join, please sign here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note about the concerns you brought up in the archived sections. It wasn't my intention to ask anyone to justify their position, and I apologize if any of my comments have come across that way. My intention is to encourage participants to fully explain their viewpoints so that everyone involved can better understand each other; in fact, in the particular discussion you asked about, my questions and your further explanations eventually led to one of the participants changing their mind and agreeing to your proposal. Its unfortunate that we were unable to get everyone to agree, but I really believe that further questioning was not going to change that situation. If you feel in any of the other discussion that I'm being harsh or asking for justifications of your views and not others, can you please bring that up when it happens so I can try to clarify or change things right away? Thanks for all of your work on the mediation. Shell ^babelfish 01:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

WP:BLP is really, really serious stuff. If you disagree with a WP:BLP removal, then bring it up on the article's Talk: page. Do not simply restore the material via a revert. Re-read Wikipedia:BLP#Restoring_deleted_content in particular. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, as an admin who has been stripped of your Checkuser and Oversight tools and who has been prohibited from editing most of the articles that you have been "contributing" to for many years, I think it is clear who should have been re-reading WP policy pages and who should have refrained from obvious attempts to intimidate other editors. It was nice working with you. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza additions

Greetings Jgui! Sorry for not going to the talk page first. I've stated why I removed the passage you added at Talk:Gaza. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a notice, I have replied at the article talk page. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP Palestine

Thank you for joining WikiProject Palestine, a collaborative effort to make the project more comprehensive. A lot of articles need improvement; below are some ongoing tasks for you to take part in, or you can add a task to do. Another great place to check out is Category:Palestine stubs.

I saw that you have taken an interest in some Palestine-related articles (Gaza, Hamas, etc.) so I thought you might want to join the project. Cheers! Al Ameer son (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Palestine, tasks you can do:

Thanks for your invitation. I've not been much of a joiner here, in part because of my erratic ability to contribute, but I appreciate the offer and will consider it. Jgui (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Nice to meet you, and thank you very much! Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat my thanks for your spirited and cogent intervention at the RFA. I feel guilty that, so far, you have put more effort into my defence than I have myself. So, thank you. Far from being able to do a better job than you are doing, I had actually forgotten the extent of Gainline's vandalism in his previous incarnations, and you have summed up my case very well. I have asked the arbitrators to say whether they are pleased with the way the arbitration is proceeding, as I know from experience (and as no doubt you now also know) that trying to thrash things out with Falcon9x5 and Gainline in discussion can be very frustrating, not to mention time-consuming. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LP's Participation

Hiya. Just a quick note, I've asked LP to contribute to the discussion twice, as has another user, just for context about my (and perhaps others) opinion on LP's attitude to the RfA process. Thanks! Fin ©™ 18:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think its only fair to note that he has contributed, but he has not yet left a note in the Evidence page, perhaps because he is completely unfamiliar with this rather legalistic process that seems to be completely obscure to a newcomer - for example I know that I had to bookmark the pages I contributed to - since I couldn't otherwise find them. And I'm still not sure what is done next and by whom. Hopefully he will be able to participate soon, since it isn't clear what the deadlines are (if there are any?) Shouldn't someone at least communicate a schedule to the participants in this process? Jgui (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LP has contributed, but only in a minor capacity, and I have been encouraging (in good faith). I'm totally the same about being unfamiliar - this is my first RfA, I've no real idea of the process, what's next, who does it, or when the deadlines are (though I think I read something somewhere saying September 1?). Thanks! Fin ©™ 19:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and LP has been through an RfA before, so I assume they've at least a passing knowledge of its operation. Thanks! Fin ©™ 19:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite right. I left Wikipedia for fifteen months; upon my return, I learnt I'd been the subject of an RFA. So no, I don't have even a passing knowledge of its operation. I've left a message for the arbitrators, hopefully they'll get back to us soon. I gave a detailed rebuttal of Steve's assertions; I was waiting for a reply from him or the arbitrators before I moved on to yours and Gainline's. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I think Steve is the only one with prior RfA experience so. Left a note on your talk. Thanks! Fin ©™ 12:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't replied to your evidence yet, merely as I haven't had the time to do so yet. I want do do it all in one go, and I'll need about two hours to reply fully. I've been struggling to find two spare hours recently. That said, I don't get the impression that the arbs are in a hurry. I'll try to put something together either today or tomorrow. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thanks for the support, but I really dont need the help, and AGK's talk page is not exactly the proper forum for you and Jaakobou to be arguing. There are many more important things to do, things that I am now restricted from doing, such as dealing with straightforward BLP vios or fixing badly slanted articles or any number of other things that would be a more valuable use of your time rather than continue over there. Happy editing, nableezy - 22:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza war strength

Hi Jgui, well we had this discussion awhile ago, the reasoning was that it was impossible to determine how many Hamas fighters had actually participated; likewise with IDF. So to put the two sides' total strength "(total)" emphasized on the Israeli side. The Noung source mentioned only the number of IDF ground troops who entered Gaza, which ignores the air campaign (from what bases did Israeli fly their sorties or berth their naval vessels, surely they were involved). Also we can't look only at activities in Gaza, as some editors have insisted on defining the Gaza war as a conflict that took place in Gaza and Israel. This does suggest we are right to include both sides' total strength, if Israel proper was under attack. So I reverted again from "20,000", it is ridiculous to suggest that Israel and Gaza's strength were equal in this war. I would also support listing the number of IDF tanks and fighter aircraft, as well. This is relevant information. Cheers, RomaC (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, the article infobox did list total troop strength for both sides for a long time, until Noung's edit last week. Maybe you realized this. Cheers RomaC (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close race

Let me guess. You're voting for Keating. Me, I don't even live in the state.166.137.138.190 (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, bad guess - they weren't on my ballot either. But when I find a WP pages that is flagrantly POV because some editor or editors are controlling the page, and allowing only one side of an issue to be discussed, I feel the need to try to remedy it to the extent that I can. The Perry page was one of the worst I had seen in some time. Jgui (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find that reputable Wikipedia biographies don't have any "controversy" section, because they're a magnet for negative material, which is contrary to NPOV. In that sense and others, the Perry article needs a lot of work. But it can wait until after the election, by which time the political partisans will hopefully have gone.166.137.136.187 (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A misunderstanding

FYI, I was not referring to you when I created the subsection on the Barack Obama article and I mentioned edit-warring, because you did not revert me, I reverted you, so it would be imposible for me to accuse you of edit-warring. During the discussion at the article talkpage I thought you were the editor who reverted me but after checking the article history again I verified that the editor who reverted me was not you. So it was all a misunderstanding. Please see this also. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anwar al-Aulaqi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to UAV

Hello Jgui, I've replied to your message on my talk page. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is continued on the ARTICLE's talk page. — RCraig09 (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Jgui. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Jgui~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

00:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

14:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jgui~enwiki. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]