Welcome!

Hello, Jzyehoshua, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Wikimachine 15:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the edit notice at the top of the edit page for Barack Obama. You've now reinserted material that was specifically removed with request to go to Talk:Barack Obama to discuss potential addition of the material. As the article is highly watched and under probation, further insertion of the same or similar material will earn you a block very quickly.  Frank  |  talk  21:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Immaterial comments were removed for spam purposes. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, which means don't accuse fellow editors of being spammers when that's complete bullshit. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your comment for language and I removed GoodDay's comment because they told me my comment had been reverted and then insulted me when I asked them on their page why it had been reverted. It's my page and I don't particularly like or tolerate profanity. I am all for freedom of discussion and speech - I just don't like it when that speech is used in an inappropriate manner. Tolerance of views is one thing - tolerance of how those views are stated is another. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might as well say this here - sorry to take so long to make any content proposals. I haven't forgotten, I'm just thinking through the best way to follow through. I'm kind of busy today as well. If you feel impatient please feel free to give me a little nudge on my talk page. Cheers, and happy holidays. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's fine, you're the only person at the moment actually addressing the edits at all. Users that even remain civil, like you, Frank, and Hoary I take note of. I appreciate it, and just wanted to make a new section addressing the subject of introduction controversies specifically so it didn't get piled back and overlooked. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, just for the record, that's why I take longer in responding to you. Users that respond civilly I am much more thoughtful and hesitant in replying to than to those that respond rudely, because it's easier to point out all their logical fallacies and argumentative mistakes, which comes very easily to me, than to carry on a conversation with someone. That's because in one case I don't have to concern myself with their reaction since they're just looking for a fight (plus I don't really care what their reaction is), and in the other case, I do. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy on biographies of living persons is non-negotiable and applies in all namespaces, including talk pages. Please rephrase your comments in a way that read rather less like a wingnut diatribe. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 00:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like already pointed out to you, the WP:BLP policy is essential here and applies even to talk pages. You need not include the entire (inappropriate) text on the talk page, and continuing to do so will only be labeled as disruptive. Grsz¹¹ 05:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think my discussion comments violated WP:BLP policy, please state how so. WP:BLP policy states only that assertions must be well-sourced by external accredited organizations or individuals, not that they avoid controversy or criticism. I went out of my way to provide those sources and expect those that criticize me of violating guidelines to do me the courtesy of taking at least some time, in contrast to the time I spent providing those sources, in stating exactly what it is that they disagree with. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I do not care what opinions others have about the facts I have provided. As I quoted from the WP:BLP rules on the Obama talk page, "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."

Whether you think this is a 'wingnut diatribe' is beside the point. Even if Obama were to hypothetically hate it and wished everyone so much as considering it were shipped off to fight in Afghanistan it would be beside the point. According to the guidelines, all that matters is whether it is well-documented, and in that regards, I went out of my way to provide the sources. If you disagree with the sources, or the validity thereof, that is another matter, and one I will make sure to address. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest comments on Talk:Barack Obama are yet another gross violation of WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then surely you can cite one example of how and clearly enumerate your position better than that. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied (as did others) on the article talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that I personally find pointed disregard for the health and well-being of a living thing of any age or circumstance to be repugnant, which is why I personally support a ban on partial-birth abortion, recognize that family planning, sex education and contraception are absolutely essential to limit the number of abortions, and support single-payer health care for every man, woman and child. To ban abortion on the one hand, but to absolve ourselves as a society of caring for the essential needs of those people who are born into this world is a contradiction I cannot accept. Two wrongs do not make a right, but then, in this world, we have a great deal more than two wrongs no matter what we do.

I found Alan Keyes' official public statement that Jesus wouldn't vote for Barack Obama to be shockingly absurd and cynically manipulative, as Jesus surely wouldn't have voted for Keyes either, and it seemed to be the epitome of taking the name of the Lord in vain. We live in a world where neither candidate is ever truly going to live and legislate in a perfectly Christian manner. That doesn't mean we idolize either candidate, but neither does it mean we live in a cacophony of bloodcurdling diatribes over every issue creating a dissonance that makes it impossible to live with or have a modicum of respect for anyone or anything. You're familiar with the expression "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good," and I would add "we should not be the enemies of the imperfect," because there is nothing but imperfection in this world. Frankly, I wonder if the point of this life would be moot if everybody did live in a perfectly Christian manner. Reading your user page as I have only done just now makes me hope that my responses at Talk:Barack Obama were not personally offensive to you, and I did acknowledge there that I respect your position. I maintain that this edit fails weight, sourcing, context and other BLP issues and this doesn't mitigate any editorial point I have made. Wikipedia is not the place for activism

After working on the above, I experienced an edit conflict and took the liberty of deleting the other addition to your page as it is unacceptable Wikipedia behavior. I apologize for any religious intolerance that is and may be expressed here; while every editor has the right to his own opinions, it is inappropriate for someone to arrive here without any previous interaction with you to say such a thing. Intolerance is as repugnant when it is directed toward the religious community from the outside as it is when it is directed from inside the religious community to others.

I would like you to know that it is my deeply sincere wish that you continue to travel the path toward truth and love that you relate on your user page, something I was moved to read, and that you have all the guidance, support and rewards I hope for us all along the way on our respective paths. Abrazame (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just saw this comment of yours. Sorry for taking so long to respond. I will agree with you that some of Keyes' comments are a bit insensitive and vitriolic, to put it mildly. I hardly excuse all of Keyes' behaviors or his words, nor do I try to idolize the man. I simply overlook it to some extent, as I admire his candidness when compared to the typical politician who does not even state what they believe. One thing I dislike about Obama is that he says one thing and does another, or tells different parties different things. He tries to appease when he is acting and voting very radically, and I do not like the dishonesty. Keyes on the other hand is an unapologetic radical, and I recognize it, but at least like the aspect of honesty in the man's character - even if he puts his foot in his mouth on occasion.

I also accept your apology. I have a tendency to get overly defensive when there are a lot of fallacies and attacks flying, and it wasn't all just directed at you, but some of the other users using the tactics made me more defensive than I was initially. At any rate, I look forward to a better understanding between us, and hope later comments won't clash as much as they did already. Not that I mind disagreement, I just hope to avoid it becoming personal, rather than constructive, that's all. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have a strong interest in adding criticism of Barack Obama to wikipedia, even though there is a strong consensus against your edits. I used to do that a lot, and I also did so against consensus. I have been topic banned and blocked multiple times - and it is not fun. I mean, it is not fun at all. It really sucks. I urge you to find less controversial parts of the encyclopedia to edit. Please do not follow the path down the dark side and get your self topic banned or blocked. Good luck! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the concern and for the suggestion, but I do not believe in shying away from that which is most important simply due to opposition. Indeed, I previously stopped participating in Wikipedia for a time when I suspected the community was so liberally biased as to unfairly discriminate against opposing views, apart from objectivity and guidelines. If Wikipedia were to disallow opposing views from being presented, why would I want to participate at all? I have participated in editing less controversial parts of Wikipedia before - however, I stopped because I thought for a while that Wikipedia would discriminately disallow objective examination of controversial criticisms of liberal politicians when it does not do so for conservatives. My participation in the future in Wikipedia will depend only on the extent to which I believe it to be a good and honest community for providing unbiased content. I would definitely not help further a medium I did not believe in, otherwise. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a lot in common! Grundle2600 (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw while browsing you'd been involved in an arbitration dispute. I would imagine it might be similar to this one, and a verdict was reached prematurely before full examination could be done? I noticed one admin seemed skeptical about the verdict.[[1]] I have already taken this discussion into Mediation myself.[[2]] --Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--John (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on the new section tab and for whatever reason it created a new page, perhaps due to a large page size already? I was just trying to reverse it myself. I only wanted to create a new section, not a new page, and had used the feature before without issue. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just switched to the Beta yesterday and this is just the 2nd time I tried using that New section tab with it. Could this be a glitch? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An edit summary like this one[3] will hurt your case. Threats to edit war are not going to go down very well, particularly given that the Obama article is on probation (you can see the discussion at the top of the talk page). I've stayed a little removed from the issue for a little while but I still think that if everyone can cool down a little there can be a more productive discussion. Cheers.... - Wikidemon (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I will give it a few more days after creating a section asking anyone to provide proof against the edit having a NPOV, and if no proof can be provided on the talk page, will make the edits once more. I will create the section soon to make crystal clear whether or not there is proof about the NPOV accusation. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Keep in mind that individual editor are often POV - they're supposed to check that at the door but human nature is what it is. The key thing is that the resulting article is NPOV. If we can achieve that, it's not so important what's in people's hearts of hearts. Happy holidays, if that's what you're into.... - Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]