User talk:Jiujitsuguy/Archives/2012

foreign volunteers in 1948

Here is what Morris has to say about foreign volunteers in 1948:

"Of the Arab states, only the Jordanians, who increased their roster of Britons during the war, managed to recruit and deploy foreign military experts to any real effect. The handful of ex-Nazi Germans or Bosnian Muslims recruited by Syria, Egypt, and the Palestinian Arabs proved of little significance." (Page 403)

If reputable secondary sources do not consider this contribution to be significant, it really doesn't belong in the info box. GabrielF (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I would not object to the phrase "foreign volunteers" - particularly since there were volunteers from Arab countries not mentioned. I would object to the use of flags or to listing countries of origin in the info box. GabrielF (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

For your attention

Hi, I'd like to draw your attention to my comments here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brewcrewer) and, in particular, to my requests at the end. BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs) 12:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

AE

[1] -asad (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother commenting at AE. Asad is obviously taking up the fight. Ignore it and don't get into drama. The best defense here is similar to not feeding the trolls (no offence meant to Asad but the situation deserves a flipped response). I could have emailed you this response but thought that being open about it would serve a better purpose. Hope life is treating you well. I guess they think it is serious. Whole lotts drama. Cptnono (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

AE

You need to move your comments to Tim to your own section. Second, you're not doing much to allay my concerns about your behavior by doubling down on sources indicating support of your position. That's not in dispute, your use of those sources is what is in dispute. --WGFinley (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

okay--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

AE Closing - Indefinite TBAN

Per the recent AE Report this notice is to advise you that you are banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces indefinitely. I think HJ had to best message for you JJG, some folks may not be cut out to participate in this topic area without letting their emotions get the better of them and falling prey to tendentious editing. I encourage you to stay with the project, return to other topics to edit and petition to have your ban lifted after a period of time of harmonious editing. You can do that directly to me on on WP:AE. --WGFinley (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jiujitsuguy for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A redlink, huh? How about you stop poking your nose where it does not belong. You are only here to argue and we have enough of that without the amateurish BS. Go away.Cptnono (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Wgfinley's talk page.

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Jiujitsuguy/Archives. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Your email

The block was based on both behavioral evidence, and checkuser results that are not inconsistent with the conclusion of socking. As to the question why N. send these emails to me, your guess is as good as mine, although I suspect that it has something to do with the relatively small intersection between the set of regular AE admins and the set of SPI clerks. T. Canens (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What is up my [insert some slur meant in good humor here]

You know how it is with all of the shit. And I feel that it has gotten to the point where I know better than most admins (since I do) even if I express it poorly. I'm still around but debating if I am going to keep with the clean start or do the frowned upon clean v bad hand accounts. Regardless, the amount of time on has been reduced substantially since I only started poking around on Wikipedia when work was slow. Maybe I will get laid off again and come back with a vengeance! Keep in mind that the I-P area is bogus. I would have been a different editor if I had never gotten involved. I know that you have to care about it but I don't have to. And it all does not matter since we know how it is going to turn out on the ground. All the crying from the hippies won't make a lick of difference. Thanks for the good words. Keep your head up and learn to say "screw it" when they are pushing for something that is ridiculous. It will all work out in the end for the project (assuming Nableezy keeps on getting bounced). Cptnono (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I also have a massive conflict of interest now which impacts editing.Cptnono (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jiujitsuguy/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share. I found your username from the Highbeam application list.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Hi, I see from your edit history that you've sent User:Timotheus Canens an email. I'm guessing I know what it's about. If you recall, a while back on your Talk page I suggested approaching ARBCOM in the matter of Timotheus Canens' inconsistent enforcement actions and proposals relating to the I/P topic area. Shortly after my message to you, he voluntarily stepped down as Admin without explaining why, hence I didn't pursue the matter further. He then, however, reappeared and demanded his tools back, in the process arguing that he had gone on vacation and making nasty remarks to at least one non-pro-Palestinian editor who sought clarification in his regard. Now with this latest business of Nishidani on top of about a dozen other questionable enforcement actions and proposals he's made since having his Admin tools reinstated, I'm of the opinion there's again an urgent necessity to have ARBCOM examine whether Timotheus Canens needs to be considered a biased Admin in the context of I/P. Please let me know what you think.—Biosketch (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comment addresses only a small portion of the demonstrated problematic behavior, which on the face of it, appears blatant. However, I'll reserve further comment until I hear directly from Tim. I'm hoping that there's an innocent explanation and that the pattern merely reflects an unfortunate set of extraordinary coincidences.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Below is compilation of statements regarding the recent Nishidani's 1rr breach:

• Nishidani: "I think I definitely have, and Scarpia's reliable, inadvertently... broken the I/P IRR rule."[2]

"I realized I was technically at fault."[3]

"Shrike is quite correct. It's no excuse that I didn't realize at the time that my two edits constituted an IR infraction."[4]

• Shrike: "Hello You broken 1RR on Zeitoun incident please revert yourself."[5]
• ZScarpia: "I would recommend adopting caution and reverting your second edit."[6]

"What constitutes a revert is... subjective interpretation, but your second edit does look like a revert to me"[7]

• Sean Hoyland: (Supported Nishidani at AE) "... from my perspective your (Luke 19 Verse 27's) actions caused this (although I'm sure triggering a 1RR violation was not your intent)"[8]
• Ed Johnston: "Nishidani, unless you see a BLP violation against a named person or an obvious falsification of sources it seems like you should revert your own edit pending discussion."[9]

(AE response) "If this AE request is closed with a sanction, can anyone suggest what it ought to be?"[10]

• Jiujitsuguy: "There was a brightline violation of 1R. The subject editor acknowledged the violation"[11]
• Floquenbeam: "Definitely a 1RR violation...Being right is not a defense for 1RR... I propose a one month I/P topic ban"[12]
• Stephen Schulz: "Mostly agree with T. Canens. This may be a minor infraction"[13]
• T.Canens: If we are sanctioning this 1RR violation, then to me an 24 hour block is the only reasonable sanction. The suggestion of indefinite topic ban is beyond ludicrous...since the topic ban was lifted almost a year ago, Nishidani has not been sanctioned under ARBPIA as far as I can tell. Moreover, after looking at the edit...it is not clear to me that a sanction is appropriate at all."[14] T.Canens later stated, "Looks like I missed the August and December episodes" after Floquenbeam subsequently identified that Nashidini "did something similar in August 2011 and December 2011".

I am of the view that T.Canens grossly unrepresentative assertions served to poison the well, were unsound, and indicative of a wider problem concerning his I-P arbitration.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC).

So AnkhMorpork, since you think that Nishidani has been sanctioned under ARBPIA since his topic ban was lifted, you should be able to point out exactly when that was, shouldn't you? Here's the list of ARBPIA log of blocks and bans to help you out. If you can't point out when a sanction was put in place, it won't say very much about your ability to discern the truth will it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I asked you in relation to Zero whether it was a matter of concern that a Wikipedia editor was libelled in a Wikipedia article, you said no. Taken together, it maybe indicates you have a bit of a problem in regard to the truth and other editors ... and that's not very promising when you're also making claims about admins being biased, is it?

At AE, I did not intervene to support Nishidani (as he had specifically asked editors not to do that). I intervened to ask Jiujitsguy to substantiate his claim that other editors have been indeffed for far less.

    ←   ZScarpia   23:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I shall amend the above description of your comments, and I shall amend what I wrote regarding subsequent blocks for added clarification. It is my opinion that this administrator has entirely lost the support of of one of the two 'camps' that edit I-P topics. This may be attributed to unsound judgements, or perhaps, misguided claims of 'bias' from editors belonging to this camp. In any event, I am of the view that the current situation requires resolution, either through a voluntary recusement, or by an investigation from ArbCom or an appropriate body, to address a significant amount of editors' concerns. You are entitled to to state that I have a "problem in regard to the truth", but I am similarly entitled to express my own views without being stifled.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 00:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you for making the amendments. Nobody is trying to stifle your views, just that if you are expressing them as statements of fact about other editors, that you can back them up with evidence.     ←   ZScarpia   11:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC) (sorry for the mangled logical flow of that last sentence)

Point noted. I have tried to emphasize that these are my personal views, and I will further correct/clarify my statement if necessary.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

When evaluating ZScarpia's comments, please note that in the past he reported another editor for a violation of 1RR despite not having an issue with the actual content of their edits. Apparently in that case he felt that if an editor doesn't self-revert a 1RR violation, administrator action is required regardless of past violations (the editor who was reported didn't even get the ARBPIA warning prior to that report). One has to wonder how he would have "intervene[d] to support Nishidani" if he was not asked not to. I'll leave it as an exercise for other editors to guess which side of the IP conflict ZScarpia feels the editor he was reporting is on. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Had a bad day No More Mr Sunshine? [Sorry, succumbed to temptation -- ZS] A trip down memory lane! It went -- like this: I told AnonMoos that I thought he'd breached the 1RR rule and gave him a chance to revert; AnonMoos disagreed, giving a peculiar interpretation of the 1RR rule as a justification; I gave it to the AE board to sort out; at AE it was decided that there'd been no breach of the 1RR rule but that AnonMoos should be given an ARBPIA warning. A simple enough tale, no?     ←   ZScarpia   21:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been having a lovely day, thanks for asking.

I'm also enjoying our trip down memory lane. You seem to be suggesting you reported someone at AE because you just wanted to find out if he violated 1RR or not. Unfortunately, the AE report I linked to doesn't exactly support that interpretation. Here's a quote of something you said in the discussion you linked to above which I liked in particular - "When it comes to ARBPIA articles, I think that enforcing the current 1RR restriction on them rises above the level of insisting that petty-bureaucratic details are respected". Seems you changed your mind about that, eh? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• And 1--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If I seem to be suggesting to you that I reported someone because I wanted to find out if he violated 1RR or not, then I would say that you seem to be putting a spin on what I wrote, which was that I handed it to the AE Noticeboard to sort out, meaning, I reported it to the AE Noticeboard so that they could do whatever they wanted with it. There, it was, of course, decided that a 1RR violation had not occurred.

By making the report, I was told that I seemed to have a zeal for petty-beaureaucratic technicalities. I responded that as far as ARBPIA articles were concerned, I thought that trying to ensure that the 1RR restrictions on them was enforced rose above that. How have I shown a change of my mind?

Would I do the same thing again? No. For one thing, the climate has changed. At the time of the report, 1RR restrictions were being strictly enforced. Now, editors are being encouraged not to report ARBPIA problems to AE. For another, I learned that I interpret what policy says a reversion is much more literally than is the norm.

    ←   ZScarpia   08:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Climate change. It's responsible for everything. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. You may have just incriminated yourself.Ankh.Morpork 19:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, that cool info is not included in the Clare Short article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

These bright minds keep seeing right through our well laid plans. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You really have to pay more attention in your Hasbara classes and stop worrying about the world's banks that you run.Ankh.Morpork 20:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that someone at the Media Control Directorate is slacking off. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

How is he still getting away with this? It is obvious that he is lenient with one "side". He has made enough comments at AE that we could have a good old fashioned... (well I will stop before engaging in that). Basic point: The balance of comments made for cases involving all too similar scenarios is disconcerting. He swooped back in to get some tools, huh?Cptnono (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Good to hear from you Cptnono. Glad to see that you haven't left. I've gone back quite a bit to do some research on this issue and unfortunately, what you say has merit. A disturbing pattern emerges that paints a very disconcerting picture of the situation. Some form of remedial action is required.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Jiujitsu, I need to know if you've received a reply from Timotheus to your email.—Biosketch (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, it's made clear that it has no intention of cooperating.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Old City

You made a unilateral move without consensus. I will AGF and think you overlooked at least three editors who object to removing the bit about UNESCO. Are you going to self-RV? -asad (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion centralized at Talk. Responded there.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, next time you do something that I feel could warrant an A/E filing, I will address it on the article's page instead. -asad (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Your tone is uncalled for. Most of the editors who commented at Talk were supportive of some form of change regarding the weight given to UNESCO's views, whether in the Lead or the infobox. Moreover, my edit was well in line with WP:BRD. I made an edit by moving content from one section to another and thoroughly discussed it at talk. If you disagreed, you were free to revert or further discuss at Talk or any of a number of forums to discuss the subject edit. Instead, you think the right course of action is to jump to AE, which represents Battleground behavior in the extreme.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not a policy, WP:CONSENSUS is. Furthermore, there was no "Bold" edit. A discussion on a proposal was opened and taking place. I made the last point on the issue, no one, including yourself, responded to it. Instead, you took it upon yourself to make the edit. If I thought the right course of action was A/E, then this talk would be happening over there, wouldn't it? In all honestly, you don't need to care about anything I say here. If you want to keep editing in a way that has historically led to very long topic-bans, you are free to do it. I don't really care. -asad (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Jenin

Hey, yeah, my bad. That source only intimated it was mostly civilians, so I thought I'd check it to get something definite. Just as well, since I found another HRW source that says "Human Rights Watch identified fifty-two Palestinians who were killed during the operation, of whom twenty-two were civilians." I'll change the article now to reflect it. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, someone already did it, looks like! ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A question

Hi, I've asked this a couple of times in the current discussion on the legality of settlements question but it has not received an answer. Could you clarify what the current proposal is? Some people are taking it as a proposal to revisit the question of consensus whilst other people are taking it as a proposal to overturn the consensus. Unless there is some clarity on this point it is going to make it very hard to assess how to weigh comments on the topic as the two questions require different arguments to support them. Best, 15:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs)

Hello there newbie. I'm still waiting for you to wend (your) way over to ancient Greek and Roman philosophy. When you get around to that, let me know and I'll see if I can lend some expertise.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

How about you answer my question rather than throwing out veiled sock-puppet accusations? I am certainly under no obligation to edit in any given topic area in order to satisfy you but if you want to open a discussion and try to achieve consensus you, on the other hand, are under an obligation to actually engage with questions that are pertinent to that discussion. This is now the fourth time I've asked and your behaviour is beginning to look deliberately disruptive. BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I just thought I would draw your attention to this document in case you weren't aware of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette). 'Do not ignore questions' is just one of the many useful guidelines ... BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Topic Ban

You are mentioned here: Topic Ban --Eric (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jiujitsuguy. You have new messages at Waggers's talk page.
Message added 09:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WaggersTALK 09:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jiujitsuguy. You have new messages at Carwil's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Carwil (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jiujitsuguy. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
Message added 01:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WilliamH (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Media coverage IP conflict tweet section.

Thanks for pointing out my error. I meant to state that according to the Jerusalem Post Hyam's call was backed by a 'huge volume' of users, as he did not state that himself. It was a simple mistake, and I will add in the correct attribution.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Just a kitten.

Activism1234 04:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

Under the authority of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, as incorporated by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Standard discretionary sanctions, and per the consensus of uninvolved administrators in this AE thread, you are hereby banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces. This topic ban may be appealed to AE after six months, and every six months thereafter; it may also be appealed to AE once within six months of its imposition, and to the Arbitration Committee at any time. T. Canens (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Good to see you back Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much bro! Your kind words pervade my heart with warmness. I hope everything has been well with you as well. I love the falafel. --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)