User talk:Jsolinsky

Welcome!

Hello, 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:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

WP:Israel & WP:WNBI

Hi, consider yourself invited. Spread the word. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fork

Your article Jsolinsky:Arab-Israeli conflict has been there now for six months. You are no longer working on it. This seems to me to be a clear case of Wikipedia:Content forking and I've redirected it to Arab-Israeli conflict. If you need the material, it's in the history here, but please don't recreate the fork. Thank you. Chick Bowen 19:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit 9/11‎

I would love your input on the talk page, I am currently trying to propose that a solid Wikipedia definition for a documentary be made from a list of dictionary sources, as well as debating whether or not this film is a documentary. If you are interested in the later please go to the talk page of the film. And, if you are interested in the former, please message me back and hopefully you can help me understand Wikipedia and how I might go about this.

If you do go read the talk I have a rebuttle in a draft for Regimund's statement stage but will not post it for about 2 hours when I have time to go through it. But if you have any facts for either side I would love to hear them.

Thank you for your time :) Arcade123 17:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael E. Mann

I have commented on a recent edit made by you at Michael E. Mann. Please see the talk page of that article. --TS 18:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally I've taken the liberty of userfying an old fork by you, which is now at User:Jsolinsky/Arab-Israeli conflict. --TS 19:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I probably should delete that, if I can (how?). I think it was an aborted pre-attempt [from LONG ago] to completely refactor that page. I just made a couple of minor edits on the modern version, and at first glance it didn't appear to need a major rewrite.Jsolinsky (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the history of the article. All edits by editors other than you appear to be minor wiki-gnome work (format fixes, style, external links, etc) so you can just slap {{db-owner}} on it and somebody will delete it. Not that you need to, really. If it might come in useful sometime, there's no harm in keeping it around. --TS 20:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of Citation needed to make political comments has got to stop?

The CN was there because it was un-sourced. Using references that DO NOT accurately convey the documents they cite, for political purposes, is propaganda ... talknic (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I've never done anything of the sort. The only editor I've ever had this sort of problem with is you. Jsolinsky (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement was unsourced. Your insistence on purposefully keeping unsourced statements, against WP:RS, is what exactly, if not politically motivated? ... talknic (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No comments from talknic please

Talknic, please do not use this page for content discussion with me. When necessary, I will engage you on the talk pages of the various articles. Leaving discussion on those pages at least gives me the option of withdrawing and leaving the issue to other editors. (And anyway, discussion tends to flow between the two locations).

I have spent many hours debating issues with you, where you appear to be the only editor who supports a particular view. This is not a productive use of time, and I wish to minimize it as much as possible. Jsolinsky (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian Refugees

Hi,

It is a difficult question to try to understand why Talnik insists that much on that lede. Asking and answering to the question is also delicate per WP:AGF. Maybe that this is linked to the fact that talking about the Jewish refugees from the Old City as Palestine refugees is an additonal clue for someone who would like to prove or confirm that Palestine was a state or a binational state ? I don't know. Whatever, it doesn't matter.

Here is a source that may help to move forward :

• it is a secondary source (and not a primary one as currently used in the lede) ;
• it explains the main controversies around the definitions (and among them, the one currently selected).

Benny Morris, in a footnote of Appendix I in the Birth ... revisited gives some comments about the definition too but all these are details.

As a conclusion, the lede should indeed explain whether what is the topic of the article or what are today the Palestinian Refugees and the main issues or questions about or around this notion but not ~"just" give a 1949 definition that is confusing for who doesn't know the topic.

Noisetier (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wang Yang (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) 10:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem

Hi, I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Naming_Conventions_for_Locations_in_Jerusalem) and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs)

1 revert at UN partition plan for Palestine

Could you please explain if you get the 1 revert per 24 hours warning, on this article? I get this warning, and I wondered if you did as well, in view of the number of changes that you have made recently? Are changes that are made such as typos, re wording, moving text around, not counted as reverts? Thank you.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand reverts to be strictly undoing an edit made by somebody else. Additions, rewords, partial deletions, anything other than a straight revert, I don't expect to be treated as a revert for the purposes of 1RR or 3RR. So, for example, if two people are arguing over wording, they should be able to repeatedly edit the other person's words in an attempt to find a middle ground (something that often happens). A straight revert, however, doesn't have any potential to lead to progress.

For example, if you added two quotes to an article, and I removed one for a particular reason. You could go in and add an alternative quote in place of the one removed, and none of those edits would be considered a revert (as I understand it).

If you think I have violated the rule, then point me to the two reverts, and I'll probably self-rv the latter one. Jsolinsky (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

We have engaged in discussions before outside of Wikipedia

How wildly exciting. Where? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You've gone all quiet. Was it something I said?

Note that you, like me, now have 3R on that page. Presumably you want yourself to be blocked? I look forward to you submitting the report William M. Connolley (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that I have only made three edits on that page, of which only two are reverts (both of which were undoing your actions). Do you count otherwise?

My goal here is to improve the articles, not play games or wage battle. I perceive you to be in a battling frame of mind (as your comments here make clear) and have no incentive to engage with you under those circumstances.

That said, if you attempt to use what I perceive as bullying tactics to push pages in the direction of your POV, I will do my best within the policies that govern Wikipedia to prevent that. Jsolinsky (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your goal is to improve articles? How nice. And how unlike the rest of us. Please see WP:AGF. Otherwise, why are you saying it?

You have two clear reverts and [1], which is arguably a revert too. And as you know, I have only three reverts too. You do know that, don't you? It has been pointed out to you, and is perfectly clear, and yet oddly you've not corrected your original report.

And you've evaded my original question William M. Connolley (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that you have only three reversions. I reported four edits which you yourself labeled as reversions. You have stated that two of these reversions only count as one. I don't know if that is true or not. However you count them, there were four edits labeled as reversions, so I certainly have not made an error. Anyone who reads the report will be quite clear on your claim that the last of these reversions does not "count".

I do believe that you are trying to make Wikipedia better. Unfortunately, your idea of better appears to involve pushing a particular POV. In this instance, the POV pushing material is not even supported by RS.

When I said I don't wish to engage with you at a time when you appear focused on battling, I meant that I am deliberately choosing not to answer your original question. Jsolinsky (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Odd. So you think the fact that we've interested is important enough for everyone to know about, but you refuse to tell people where. Are you ashamed of what you said, then, wherever it was? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Jsolinsky (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

But its a secret. You refuse to tell William M. Connolley (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If you feel I've somehow violated your privacy by disclosing that we had previously interacted, I'd be happy to delete the original mention. Jsolinsky (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no privacy issue. The issue is you being irritating by deliberately teasing. But I'm bored now. If you're still obsessed with your bizarre mixture of revealing irrelevancies and secrecy, then I give up William M. Connolley (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not here to play games. Jsolinsky (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a warning - you do indeed have 3RR on that article. 1st reverts Sousa's edit([2]) from the 8th, 2nd a revert WMC, 3rd a revert WMC. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kim. I doubt it was going to matter anyway, but its good to know the rules. Jsolinsky (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

And that seems quite right. I came to that article with the intent of checking Souza's edits. It makes perfect sense that half of my original edit would have been reverting something that he did. I simply forgot this. Jsolinsky (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

TONE

Hi, I see you have complained about my tone at the talk page for Global warming controversy. I give everyone a large dose of assumed good faith until there is a reason to not do that. In your case, you ran into a dispute with an editor, and after a half page of text your FIRST CHOICE for a next step was to complain to Jimbo. In my book, for new editors this is evidence of just honest ignorance of all the warm fuzzy wiki ways of consensus, dispute resolution and so forth. But you are hardly a new editor, so when you made that choice, it came bundled with inherent natural consequences, one of which is that it instantly looked like playground tattle-tale behavior, not the work of an editor sincerely interested in improving the article thru collaboration. I can't say I like the form and style of criticism I receive from all editors here. But running to Mommy Jimbo is so far down on the list of theoretical professional responses that it has fallen into the trashbin of non-good faith behavior. At least in my opinion.

Please apologize for that act of playground behavior, and the tone might change. If you wish to make a formal complaint, please do. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course (As I explained on NewsAndEventsGuy's talk page) this is false. It was Souza who brought this matter to Jimbo. I arrived at Jimbo's talk page by checking Souza's most recent contributions. So N&E has made a false accusation against me, and then piled on with an array of insults, both here and on the other talk pages. Lets see how he handles this sort of error... Jsolinsky (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I could easily be mistaken who poked the other in the eye first, and if I had a reason to talk to Dave maybe I'd use the same tone, I don't know. But does that matter? Big boys don't make excuses, and it takes two to have a schoolyard brawl. You did not have to reply there, you know. WP:Dispute exists for a reason. Next time, use it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The dispute process is for CONTENT DISPUTES. Jimbo's talk page is for responding to Jimbo's comments (especially when I have directly relevant information). This was not a content dispute. This was a conversation on Jimbo's talk page that dealt with the fallout (bad wikipedia publicity) from Souza's editing. What you are suggesting (taking this to the dispute resolution process) makes no sense. Jsolinsky (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"The dispute process is for CONTENT DISPUTES. "

If you think that, then clearly you have not actually read WP:DISPUTE in its entirety. There is an entire section about user conduct. At the moment you broke into the discussion at Jimbo's page, Souza was discussing sources with Jimbo, in response to Jimbo's interest in some outside criticism. At that moment you broke in to INITIATE your own nasty accusations about him outside the WP:DISPUTE process. If you have to smear the man instead of confining yourself to sources, then you are running to Mommy Jimbo. Fact that WUWT smeared the man first, or that you did not speak first is hardly an excuse for running to Mommy Jimbo instead of working with WP:DISPUTE to correct another's editing. I'm through with this discussion. If you wish to make a formal complaint via some mechanism at WP:DISPUTE please do. [The preceding unsigned comment is by NewsAndEventsGuy)

I'm just going to leave this up here as a record of what happened.

1. Souza attempted to retain false information on the S&B webpage by citing the Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, essentially putting Verifiability over truth.

2. Because the information was obviously false, negative publicity for Wikipedia resulted, especially on WUWT (a blog that neither Souza nor I hold in high regard).

3. The author of the three "RS" that were used by Souza to support the false statement admits his error via an email to a blog that I do read ocassionally

4. Jimmy posts this on his talk

Sphilbrick, I'm not so quick to dismiss this one. How long was the sentence wrong? Is the description of people defending inclusion of a blatant falsehood accurate? This looks to me like a great example of what is wrong with "verifiability, not truth" - to say that an academic journal published an article despite all 4 reviewers recommending rejection is obviously an error, that isn't how the academic review process works at all. That's true even if a newspaper article says otherwise. And it seems in this case there were other sources that were ignored, all for the purpose of POV pushing. I should be clear on something, although I shouldn't have to be clear on it: I have little sympathy for climate-change skeptics in the political press who seem to be not up to speed on the scientific research at all, sometimes exhibiting what I can only call willful blindness. At the same time, nothing can justify inserting falsehoods into Wikipedia under flimsy policy rationales.

5. Souza continues to retain the false information on the S&B webpage. Simultaneously he posts on Jimmy's talk page: "Jimbo, there's no evidence that Pearce's statement in two newspaper articles and his book is a falsehood"

6. I read about this dispute on Montford's blog

7. I edit the article and the talk page to correct the problem

8. Souza continues to defend the erroneous statement, leading me to believe that he is deliberately trying introduce POV into climate articles.

9. I look at Souza's history, which leads me to Jimmy's blog where I discover Jimmy's comment suggesting that there is a problem with Verifiability, not truth. I also see Souza's response.

10. I disagree with this. The problem, in my opinion, is not the policy of requiring verifiable sources, it is an editor who insisted on retaining verifiable information even after its falsehood was evident

11. I post on Jimmy's page directing him to the S&B talk, which makes it abundantly clear what Souza has done

12. I begin to edit another of article that Souza had touched.

13. NewsAndEventsGuy attacks me with a long stream of insults and generally uncooperative language

14. I complain that he is not behaving civilly

15. NewsAndEventsGuy admits this, but says his incivility is a result of my communication with Jimmy.

Honestly, NewsAndEventsGuy looks alot worse to me than Souza. Souza is actually behaving cooperatively outside of his very poor judgement on S&B. NewsAndEventsGuy, by his own admission, deliberately treats other editors with incivility if he disagrees with their postings on talk pages. N&E should grow a pair. The opinions I express on other on people's talk pages are none of his business. I have a right to express my opinion, and will not be deterred from this by threats of continued incivility. Jsolinsky (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2012 (U

The issue is your use of USER TALK PAGES to smear editor A in the eyes of editor B contrary to WP:TALK and WP:DISPUTE. From your comment on Jimbo's page, it sounds like you were objecting to an alleged POV edit by Souza before the WUWT article was posted. Had you successfully used WP:DISPUTE back at that early point in time, the WUWT would never have appeared. So your own failure to use the mechanism designed for the purpose at the appropriate time contributed to the appearance of the article you are concerned about! That is hardly a reason to smear editor A on editor B's talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

1. I wasn't even aware of the issue before the WUWT article appeared (or even after; I didn't become aware until Pearce's retraction appeared on Montford's site). Obviously using the dispute resolution process at that time would have been impossible.

2. You are claiming that it was an error to honestly respond to Jimbo's inquiry because it portrayed Souza in a bad light. Tough. Souza's own actions portrayed him in a bad light. I merely corrected the record when Souza misrepresented what he had done on Jimbo's talk page. It was my right to do so. I would do so again.

3. All this misses the main point. YOU are deliberately behaving uncivilly towards me. Instead of following your own advice and manning up or following the dispute resolution process, you decided to deliberately violate one of the Pillars of Wikipedia in an article unrelated to the original incident. If you actually think that my response on Jimmy's talk page violates some Wikipedia policy, the please do file a complaint. Because as I understand Wikipedia policy, it was a completely legitimate response. Contrariwise, you seem to be perfectly well aware that your actions are in violation of Wikipedia:Civility. Jsolinsky (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My dispute with you is your saying bad things about another editor on another editors talk page. The first step in DISPUTE is to talk to each other, which I have done. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)

Your first step was to call me names on the talk page of global warming controversy. When I complained about your incivility, you advised me that it would continue unless I apologized for commenting on Jimmy's talk page. Jsolinsky (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian Authority issue

Dear user, since you participated on a geopolitical context discussion on Palestine [3], you might be interested in expressing your opinion on a reformulated discussion Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity?. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2012 (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) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jsolinsky. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)