Juicifer

Bradley Foundation

i will be happy to assist you in reworking the Bradley Foundation article at your convenience. Nobs 18:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Race and IQ

There is a movement to establish a connection between Race and Intelligence, they use differences in IQ test scores between ethnic groups within the united states to prove this. They do not do research that could disprove their thesis, rather they publish there work in small eugenicist magazines where they are not subject to peer review.

Others who do not hold their views have conducted research that disproves their conclusions, this research difinitively proves there is no link between race and intelligence (among blacks and whites). The cause of the gap in the United States has been firmly established as not genetic:

A Philidelphia study examined 3000 African Americans and found no link between the degree of white ancestory and IQ.*

A study conducted in the 1970's examined two samples of African Americans and found no correlation between degree of white ancestory and IQ. In fact in one study the correlation went in the "wrong" direction (ie. the more african ancestory the higher IQ).**

In a study involving Carribean children showed that there was no genetic basis for the IQ gap between blacks and whites, rather it showed the black children to be considerably more intelligent. The IQ of the children at the Orphanage was: Blacks 108, Mixed 106, White 103.***

In a study comparing the offspring of American GI's and German women, where the children where raised in Germany as Germans there was no correlation found between IQ and Race. Both the Biracial and German childredn had average IQ's of 97.****

Many "G" theorists mantian that the gap in white and Black IQ scores in the US (they claim it to be 15 points) reflects differences in innate cognitive ability, scientists who are not "g" theorists (the vast majority) contest this. The hereditarians have never conducted any serious research to prove their case.

• Scarr., S., Pakstis, S. Katz, H and Barker. (1977) "The abscense of a relationship between degree of white ancestory and intellectual skills within the Black population," Human Genetics, 39:69-86

• • Loehlin, J.D., Vandenberg, SG and Osbourne, R.T (1973) "Blood-group genes and Negro-White ability differences" Behavioral Genetics 3: 263-77

• • • Tizard, B., Cooperman, A and Tizard, J. (1972) "Enviromental effects on langauge development a study of young children in longstay residential nurseries." Child Development, 43: 342-3

• • • • Flynn, JR, (1980) "Race, IQ, and Jensen." London Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Refrences:

IQ in Question, The truth about Intelligence by Micheal J. Howe (Book)

The Intelligence Controversy, HJ Eysneck vs. Leon Kamin (Book)

Inequality by Design (Book)

My comments

The post you have on their is extremely biased and unrepresntative of scholarly opinion. It represents the beliefs of a tiny sliver of psychologists, but the question of race and IQ is also a sociological and political one. The psychometric tradition, and the innate difference beliefs are strongly opposed by most scholars, wikipedia is allowing a tiny vocal minority to define the issue.

Shame on wikipedia.

Are you committed

Are you committed to fighting racism on wikipedia? If you are answer email me, I will post your email here so you can confirm that it was really sent by you, we can work from there:

returntocastlewikipedia@yahoo.com

Are you LiveJournal user juicifer?

Kents Hill School

Hi Juicifer. I was wondering if you could visit the VfD page and review an article which is being voted on for deletion (VfD)? Here's the link: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kents Hill School. Best regards, [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 22:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

USS LIBERTY

Hi Juicifer. I saw that you blanked the content on the page USS LIBERTY. Though I can see the motivation behind your actions, it is important to follow the community process. Blanking a page is considered vandalism...but luckily there is another (community sanctioned) way to deal with troublesome pages. The page has already been nominated for deletion under the VfD process. It's better to participate in the VfD process to have an article removed permanently. To participate in the vote go to Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/USS_LIBERTY.

To learn more about the deletion process check out Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion.

Happy editing. Tobycat 05:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Laura

Juicifer, a lot of changes have been made to Laura Schlessinger since you put a NPOV tag on it. Please review and either remove the tag, or explain what problems you think still exist. Wasted Time R 01:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

Thanks for your good work on this article.

I too have been trying to piece together the situation and here's what I've gotten:

The article was originally created by SlimVirgin on September 28. This article developed well, but there was a conflict with Daniel Brandt, and as a result SlimVirgin agreed to delete the article. More information about the conflict can be found here and here.

The article was then recreated by a third party and speedy deleted as a non-notable bio. It was then created again only to be deleted again. It was then that I stumbled upon it restored one of the recreations, which has now been edited into the current form. This article is certainly about a notable person and should not be deleted again.

I hope I've been some help. --Canderson7 04:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I reverted it again after it was blanked by User:70.84.48.58. I'll keep an eye on it and if it continues I'll run it by WP:ANI and protect it again need be. Rx StrangeLove 22:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I protected it again, I left a note at WP:ANI, I'll open it up again a little later and see what happens, ideas? Rx StrangeLove 22:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a thought...

> Since it was unprotected thepage has been blanked 5 times in an hour. Brandt has asked on his wikipedia watch site "Who will rid me of this meddlesome article?" As a result, he and his freinds are vandalising it systematically. What to do? jucifer 22:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a thought: Put the piece up for deletion and vote to delete. Brandt says he wants the article deleted, which means that your additions to the article are not appreciated by the subject of the article.

Anon

_______________________________________________________ Is that you again?

Biographies on wikipedia have no need to be authorised. So, in conclusion Brandt has no say in the matter whatever. In fact, he dosn't seem to find the contents of the article too offensive. What concerns him - what he has raved about - is that this may get high google ranking for his name, and this is beyond his control.

Delete the article because it's subject so decrees? You must be joking.

jucifer 01:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's another thought

Brandt files a "John Doe" lawsuit against Juicifer for defamation of character, and stipulates that by information and belief, Wikimedia Foundation has access to John Doe's IP address. The court orders Wikimedia Foundation to provide said IP address.

Brandt gets another court order requiring Juicifer's Internet Service Provider to provide Juicifer's name and address.

Brandt sues Juicifer and collects damages, because in the two years since the lawsuit was filed, the Wikipedia entry has been number one on the search engines. Juicifer portrays Brandt as a common felon for "refusing to appear for a physical" and "delinquency," when in fact the information that he was a draft resister who publicly opposed the draft, and refused a student deferment, and refused induction, is clear in the Ninth Circuit decision that Juicifer either hasn't bothered to read, or deliberately spins to defame Brandt.

Felony convictions are not taken lightly by employers, and in those two years Brandt has not been able to get a job because all the applications ask about felony convictions, and he is no longer able to deny this on applications.

Juicifer showed incompetence and/or malice by emphasizing the conviction in a manner that suggested criminality, rather than emphasizing the reversal by a higher court, and properly treating the whole situation as public, nonviolent, civil disobedience against U.S. policy in Vietnam. Juicifer claimed at the time that she did this that "Brandt has no say in the matter whatsoever" with respect to how his history is described by Juicifer.

Brandt then sues Wikimedia Foundation for allowing Juicifer's incompetence and/or malice to remain uncorrected on Wikipedia, after Brandt took all reasonable steps to try to get the article on him deleted, and despite being aware that Wikipedia articles are ranked very highly on all major search engines. Brandt collects more damages, this time from Wikimedia Foundation.

Does this sound like fun to you, Juicifer? 67.18.208.251 01:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting fable, but your ending is rather unrealistic. How's this:

The court promptly dismisses all Brandt's claims as entirely frivolous. Juicifer and the Wikimedia Foundation countersue under anti-SLAPP laws, and win a sizeable (multi-million-dollar) judgment against Brandt (most of which, of course, goes to the lawyers). Sheriffs show up at Brandt's house to confiscate all of his property, including the shirt on his back, to auction off as partial payment of the court-ordered award, and padlock the house so it too can be sold. Brandt lives the rest of his life as a penniless, homeless street person. *Dan T.* 04:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

And here's yet another thought

Hey Jucifer, have him bring it on. I'm sure the EFF would defend you, and Brandt would get even *MORE* negative press (if that's possible). That's assuming he didn't get laughed out of court or his attorney slapped with a Rule 11 (frivolous lawsuit). In the meantime, I'm tempted to link to his article on Wikipedia with his name on the several (very popular) sites I manage. If he wants to be a jerk and play hardball, that's his choice.

wikipedia-watch

Hi,

I'm leaving this message on the page of all the users mentioned by Brandt on (wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html) of his wikipeida-watch site. As you can see from the link, he's put together a list of the Wikipedia users that he sees as his enemies, and is trying to collect as much personal information as he can about each of them. Just thought I should let you know. Canderson7 12:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up, but that info was already on my user page... Broken S 20:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

check my user page again, when he got the info I put it up on my page. I'm not concerned (the email adresss is wrong anyways). Broken S 20:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm not concerned though. My name's not Craig Anderson, and I've never even been to Hialeah, FL. I don't where Brandt got that from. Canderson7 00:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

List of dictators

Hi Juicifer, I see no evidence of anyone blanking the page, or having deleted it. Can you say exactly what you mean and who is doing it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no sign of that in the page history. [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a case of blatant vandalism. 172 is not actually blanking the article, just reverting it to a redirect. This is a content dispute in which neither of you is obviously correct. Before reverting again, you should return to the talk page and continue to discuss until an agreement is reached. Canderson7 23:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I just noticed how many messages you left on users' talk pages. Although requesting assistance with a problem is always a good idea, leaving that many messages for that many users is generally frowned upon as "spamming". Canderson7 23:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There isn't actually a policy about leaving a message for lots of users, but putting the exact same message on the talk page of twelve users isn't a great idea. You're right though that the thing to do in a situation like this is try to get an outside opinion. Leaving a few messages or posting on a central page like WP:AN is a good way to go about that. In this case, I can see why you are concerned that it might be hard to reach a consensus, but this isn't an emergency and you should take your time in discussing the issue. My advice is to be careful to avoid an edit war, and be sure not to violate WP:3RR. Canderson7 00:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Juicifer. I'm sorry if I make it sound even more confusing, but WP:AN, the administrators' noticeboard, that Canderson7 mentions is explicitly not the place to raise content issues, it says so at the top of the page. I think Canderson7 must have meant to direct you to WP:RFC, which exists for the very purpose of bringing in more contributors to take stock of a content dispute and give some input on the talk page. This is what you're trying to achieve, if I've understood you. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 00:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Bishonen's right, I meant WP:RFC not WP:AN. I had AN on the brain for another reason. I hope that wasn't too confusing. Canderson7 13:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your advise.jucifer 14:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• In response to your comment on my talk page:

Perhaps, but I think Fidel Castro would disagree with you and call himself a benevolent, democratically elected leader, making the definition subjective. Also, I believe Saddam Hussein had an election once where he won with nearly 100% of the vote, which technically means he's democratically elected and the people want him. Unless you're talking about something else? JHMM13 16:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Juicifer, I take mild offense at your repeated attempts to change the subject to whether a user believes there are any dictators. As has been explained, the problem is not existence but demarcation. When is a leader's power "absolute"? What makes legislative body a "rubber stamp"? What constitutes a fair election? The more you look into these issues, the harder it is for people to agree about them. Whatever list we might end up with, it can't be one that simply pronounces people as "dictator." Gazpacho 02:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, however I thinkyou are confusing two things. The idea of a dictator is well defined, absolute means that he is not answerable to anyone else. Certainly that excluded most of the chinese and the russians after stalin and puppet dictators in eastern europe. An individual case might be complicated and as allways "if in doubt leave out", but there are certanily some dictators therefore there can be a list. What then goes on it, the finer points of the definition are open to debate, however clearly, since it is so unambigous in so many sources, the definition must be such that the "definates" are in and the argreed "no-ways" are out. This might be difficult, so what? Was is clear is that deleting the article cannot be justified by the POV that may get put in and the effort needed to make it good.

Yours, jucifer 03:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The vote

Looks like the list might be taken down, but as I read more into it, I feel it can be very useful, especially as a research tool. The list doesn't make any specific claims about the people except that they can be classified as dictators. No proper amount of research will stop at the list, but instead they will either click on those links or use it to do further, "proper," non-Wikipedia research on some of those fellows. I hope you manage to keep in touch with me and please don't hesitate to slam me when I am too quick on the speedy delete trigger on any page you might be monitoring. JHMM13 04:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Dictators

I think they're dictators, you think they're dictators, but it is not Wikipedia's place to "label" them as anything. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It is most definitely POV to label them as dictators. To do so violates Wikipedia's core NPOV policy. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

How so? jucifer 02:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You should know that you and I are probably on the same side politically, and I consider User:172 an apologist for every left-wing dictator who has ever lived, but I believe in the NPOV philosophy as it applies to Wikipedia, and the list of dictators doesn't meet it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Murrelet

I rollbacked because the addition apparently repeated existing info, but on more considered thought I've partially restored the text at the appropriate part of the article, jimfbleak 07:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey, thank you for your message, Jucifer. That was very thoughtful of you. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Hi Juicifer, the first placement of the comment does not count toward 3RR, so long as you are certain that no identical or similar-enough comment was made before your first placement, because if it was, your first placement could count as a revert. However, when you have to start counting reverts as carefully as this, it usually makes sense to take a break instead. The 3RR is meant to be a ceiling, but one we should try to avoid wherever possible. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

that's fine

Yeah. That new edit is fine. The other one was puzzling and as I was in the middle of dealing with a pain-in-the-hole vandal I hadn't time to fix it and we couldn't leave the page like that. Slán. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Kwame Nkrumah

Reaching for the revert button and you beat me to it. Nice work. =) --Dvyost 00:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

for your work with the List of dictators page. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. Wizzy…☎ 21:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Husayni issue

I've dropped a note on Ian's page for now. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've looking at the debate on the Talk: pages, and its lengthy and complicated. I might not be able to comment intelligently on the subject today, but I will start reading. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

A few comments

Regarding your summary to Jayjg copied below:

• I pointed out to him that this is predicated on three unverified premises:
  • a) The Mufti's Nazi-ties were exaggerated after the war.
  • b) This was done by Jews/Zionists to further their malign aims, by gaining sympathy.
  • c) There is a campaign to "explicitly mobilize the Holocaust in the service of Israeli politics and state policy."
• I put it to him that before he can add such a POV quote to the article he must provide the writers answers to how, where and when this was done and not just the why (to gain sympathy by abusing the memory of the holocaust).

Some (not particularly detailed but hopefully sufficient) comments:

a). According to Zertal during the Eichamnn trial there were "systematic references - in the press, on the radio, and in political speeches - to the former Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin El-Husseini, his connections with the Nazi regime in general and with Eichmann and his office in particular. In those references he was depicted as a prominent designer of the Final Solution and a major Nazi criminal. The deeds of Eichmann - and other Nazi criminals - were rarely mentioned without the Arab-Nazi dimension". (p. 100). Zertal presents examples from Davar, Yedioth Aharonoth, Ma'ariv and speeches by Ben-Gurion to Mapai activists during the trial. She points out that after the trial the Yad Vashem Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (Hebrew Edition) included an entry for the Mufti almost as long as that for Hitler and that later Netanyahu explicitly linked the Mufti to the Holocaust saying he was "one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry... collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of the plan" (p. 175). There is no historical evidence for Netanyahu's claim. As Arendt said in Eichmann in Jerusalem: "The trial revealed only that all rumors about Eichmann's connection with Haj Amin El Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, were unfounded". (Arendt, 1994, p. 13). b). This is nothing to do with Jews/Zionists or with "sympathy": Zertal is talking about the manipulation of the Eichmann trial by the State in the service of political aims in the Arab-Israeli conflict. c). That's right. The Netanyahu book (A Place Among the Nations) characterizing Palestinian nationalism from the 1920s onwards as National Socialist and anti-Semitic was published in 1993, when he was party leader, though it was probably written whilst he was deputy prime minister. Netanyahu goes on to describe the UN as a proto-Nazi organization with racist achievements exceeding those of the Inquisiton and the Holocaust. Zertal also provides evidence from speeches by Dayan and Ben Gurion to support her claim. Will you agree to this material being added to the article with accompanying evidence as outlined above? --Ian Pitchford 23:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Your input needed at Talk:Amin_al-Husayni. --Heptor 16:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

re:Sterling Newberry talk page

It may have been permanently deleted, but not sure...this is what I found: User talk:Stirling Newberry/archive 1 and that is all.--MONGO 07:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I went looking for it and that was all I could find...maybe I was not looking in the right place. I came across as kind of hostile, but lately I have grown weary of POV pushing and I don;t care if they are right wingers or left wingers...just tired of it. Even when I checked his histroy, it led back to a redirect I think by User:Curps but I may be mistaken and that is where I found that archive above. Let me know if you have any luck.--MONGO 21:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Its at User_talk:Stirling_Newberry_01. He did the same page move for several other archives. It really needs to be moved to the right name, as a subpage of his own user page. This basically hijacks the user talk page for a hypothetical user named "Stirling Newberry 01". -- DS1953 21:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there a remedy to the abuse of the user in question. He goes around causing general chaos. He must have created more of these fake users to dump things from his user page that he wanted to hide. What is the remedy here? jucifer 22:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think he just made a mistake when he first tried to archive his talk page and created a talk page for a non-existent user rather than a sub-page. I see no reason not to assume good faith here. He has been a long time user and probably simply followed the pattern of his firsst archive attempt, not knowing it was the wrong way. The pages exist, the history is preserved and it is unlikely that there would ever be a user named "Stirling Newberry 01" anyway, so the only harm is that it makes it difficult for someone to figure out where the archive is. Nothing is hidden and I don't see this as an attempt to hide anything. Also, I think the statement that he "goes around causing general chaos" is not true, though I certainly don't like his external link in his signature. -- DS1953 22:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed this: [2]

Shurely Shome Mistake? jucifer 22:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

But that was after the earlier ones. I don't think he has created an archive page since the message from Curps. -- DS1953 22:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no evidence that he was trying to hide his user talk pages and I wasn't insinuating such. I stand by the comment that he uses unreferenced additions to critical articles and that he accuses those that revert him as vandals. His edit summaries substantiate this. Regardless, his additions are always welcome by me, so long as he utilizes accurate citations to support his arguments.--MONGO 01:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Lord Ahmed

Hi Juicifer,

I have posted the edit on the discussion page.JohD 12:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

economic fascism

Hey, do you want to be an "involved party" in the arbitration case I'm filing against Firebug? As you know, he keeps redirecting and moving the page. Now it's locked by an adminstrator as a result and no one can work on it. He's dead set against complying with Wikipedia policy to seek a consensus. [3] Let me know. RJII 18:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's locked up because Firebug keeps redirecting it and administor Jkelly locked it up [4]. Firebug won't comply with standard of getting consensus before reverting, so things are at a stand still. Ok, so I added you in, so you can leave a little comment there if you want [5]. Unfortunately, he filed a case against me about (regarding clowns and personal attacks) and they merged it together so it's kind of confusing (He filed the Arb as a result of an RFC he filed about me --I'm convinced he filed that because he was upset about that I created the economic fascism, and that the vote succeeded, and that I voted against him in an adminship vote). About NPOV of the article I added that some economic libertarians use the term. I'd like to know if you think anything more is not NPOV. I honestly tried to write that thing as NPOV as possible. As far as I can tell, it's not pro or against anything. RJII 00:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC) RJII 00:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The Black List

I think that you should be informed that you are on the (wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html) Black List. I wouldn't worry or anything if I were you, just conceal any personal information he doesn't have about you. No need to make things easy for banned users. Izehar (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Rebbe 1928 berlin.jpg

Hi, this message is to notify you that the image that you uploaded Image:Rebbe 1928 berlin.jpg has information on its source, however it does not have information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted in seven days. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No consensus

In Wikipedia:Consensus, "consensus" (for AFD) is defined as "two-thirds or larger majority support". It does not say "'consensus to delete' and 'consensus to keep' are defined by different numerical threshholds". I interpret this to mean that if more than 33%, but less than 67%, favor either position (delete or keep), it is considered "no consensus" and defaults to keep (exceptions being made in cases where one side has tangibly stronger arguments, where there are obvious indications of sockpuppetry, or where votes have been cast in bad faith). In WP:AFD/U.S. v. Brandt, there is barely more than 50% support for keeping, thus I consider it "no consensus" (though it is a moot point, as the article gets kept either way). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:18, Dec. 27, 2005

Examining other comments on your talk page, I'd like to further clarify that the terminology used in the closure of WP:AFD/U.S. v. Brandt is based on the above reasoning. I was not, am not, and will never be, motivated by fear of appearing on Brandt's shit list. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:24, Dec. 27, 2005

Aish HaTorah

Hi Juicifer: Hope all is well. Care to critique Aish HaTorah ?Best wishes, IZAK 05:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Re Stalin Article

Hi:
Your remarks hit the nail on the head. The Stalin article is a typical example of the left wing anti-American bias that is considered NPV by the folks at Wikipedia. I refuse to contribute as long as such nonsense is tolerated.
Berndd11222

Van der Graaf

Why did you upload a picture of Mohammed Bouyeri under the name of Volkert van der Graaf, and why did you place that picture in the latter's article? I have removed it. — mark ✎ 09:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Psychology

Hi! I noticed you categorized yourself as a psychologist. Maybe you would like to join the Psychology WikiProject? I see you're on a break, but when you come back... you'll be happy to see that we've reached a million articles too. :) /skagedal^... 16:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Laureano gomez.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Laureano gomez.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Sinatra and Mafia.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Sinatra and Mafia.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 07:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ali Ben Isa

Please respond at Talk:Ali Ben Isa. --tyomitch 11:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Juicifer, good to see you back, and I'm sorry you got caught up in the Israelbeach nonsense. Without going into detail, suffice it to say there was very good reason for that account's indefinite block, and to best of my recollection, the article in question was a vanity article. I'll look into the issue of your block, but I have to caution you that as a rule I don't undo other admins' blocks, in the absence of a very obvious error, and also that admins are asked not to interfere with Danny's decisions. Would you mind e-mailing me with an account that shows which IP address you're using, and we can take it from there? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Block

I am attempting to rectify this situation, so that the accusations against you are removed, and you are once again able to edit. I am quite hopeful that I will succeed. However, the Leyden/Israelbeach situation is complex, and I request that you just stay away from it entirely. If you want, you can e-mail me for more details. Jayjg ^(talk)

Juicifer, before commenting on this again, can you please e-mail me? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Brandt

I'd like to invite you to review and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Brandt. This is not a request for your endorsement, simply a request for your participation in the discussion. Thank you. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 18:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Objectivist

As a Wikipedian that also identifies as an Objectvist, I would like to invte you to contribute to the objectivist wiki which is just getting off the ground. Crazynas 14:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Smile

-- Malber (talk • contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

THANK YOU!!

Thank you so much for fully expanding the organised crime section in Frank Sinatra's bio. I've been afraid of the wikinazis for too long to do this, and if you go to the talk page you'll see that a member of the Sintra family board even tried to keep it off! I'll remain vigilant to changes to this section, which i expect will be erased within days :( Gareth E Kegg 21:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Password issue

That's really bizarre! I'll try to find out more about it. Nice to see you editing again. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you are laid up. I corresponded with one of the main developers about that issue, and he was quite sure it wasn't a bug, and suggested exactly how it had actually happened. Regarding automated conversion of Jewish Encyclopedia articles, I have no idea how to do that. User:Interiot is good at writing tools. Cheers. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure

that you really want this as your last word? It's getting a bit personal. Up to you. --Monotonehell 07:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks

Juicifer, I agree with you with regards to the matter of whether or not the article count should be at the top of the Main Page. However, edits such as this are totally unacceptable, and not only do huge damage to the credibility of the point of view we are both parties to, but are also in themselves explicitly against all sorts of policies. Because of the sheer vitriol of the above diff, I have decided to formally warn you. I am sorry to have to do this, but I cannot see another way:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Batmanand | Talk 15:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not prone to personal attacks, but sometimes mockery is the only way. Specifically, in dealing with people that wont debate constructivly anyway. I wanted to put the fullest possible stop to the matter and make him realise that I was not movable on the subject of needing a vote in any way. Sometimes I just feel like breaking the rules to save time, but yes you are correct. juicifer 17:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but 1. there are rules that can be broken (perhaps in the spirit of WP:IAR), and then there are things so basic as courtesy and WP:NPA which should never, ever be broken and 2. the scale of you personal attack I felt was above and beyond mere "annoyance". I appreciate the fact that you admit that you have done wrong, and I hope you now stop, but that does not mean that the original act was right. I hope this is the end of the matter, and that the real issue, of what to do to article count, can now be resolved harmoniously. Batmanand | Talk 18:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Look a number of people had been trying to pin him down on the matter for 2 weeks and rather that making or responding to substantive points, discussing both sided of the issue etc, he simply kept responding with with word-games pedantry and obfuscation. I get the feeling that he would happily go on forever. Indeed he wore out zoggy and a number of other contributors with his trolling, and they dropped out of the debate begging others to take up the reigns. His behaviour has been utterly insufferable, as an admin he should be straightforward and productive, my response was not writ en not in anger but as a calculated way to put an end to the matter. I don't believe he would now be brazen enough to change it back without a strong consensus. That is all want, I think that has been achieved, and if I have underestimated his zealotry, he must know that he will only end up looking very

AfD nomination of Abraham Lewinsky

I have nominated Abraham Lewinsky, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Lewinsky. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 06:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

WikiProject Objectivism Salutations, Juicifer. I've noticed you identify as an Objectivist Wikipedian and would like to invite you to join the freshly resuscitated WikiProject Objectivism, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to Objectivism. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. Yours in enlightened self-interest, Skomorokh 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Judaism/Information

Portal:Judaism/Information, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Judaism/Information and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Judaism/Information during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- -- -- 02:11, 31 March 2014 (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) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

March 2022

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that it has been compromised. If your account is locked, please contact cawikimedia.org. Otherwise, if you are able to confirm that you are the user who created this account, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section), then add this below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=your reason here ~~~~}}.Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of lowest-income places in the United States

The article List of lowest-income places in the United States has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

inacurate data. See talk page

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.