User talk:Jamaissur

Reverting

This is just to give you fair warning of our three-revert rule (3RR), which states that, if you revert another editor's work more than three times in 24 hours, you may be reported and blocked from editing for up to 24 hours. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule for more information. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If you revert again at Anthony Parnes, you'll be in violation of 3RR. Please put a link to the source on the talk page so I can see it. I've looked online and I can only find anti-Semitic websites, which we can't use, obviously. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Magnesium

Can you please not add irrelevant links? Magnesium is a silvery-white metal that is very light but incredibly useful, and therefore has little in common with Diane Abbott (although it does tarnish rapidly in air). David | Talk 16:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I know it burns very brightly. I studied Chemistry at Cambridge. David | Talk 21:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits

This is not a minor edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

A minor edit is when you make no change to content, but correct a spelling mistake or typo. You might take some time to read our editing policies, but I guess you're keen to press on with your cataloguing of Jewish criminals. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I just came here to make the same comment as SlimVirgin: please check the policy on minor edits and act accordingly. Edits like [1] and many of your other recent contributions marked by "m" are unlikely to be considered minor. If you add text, chances are it's not a minor edit. -Phoenixrod 04:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

List

Urhh... Wikipedia is maddeningly slow again now! They should do something about the speed. Anyway, as soon as the speed lets up, I'll look for sources for these people. Vulturell 22:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Labour Friends of Israel

The edits you made are original research. The offical site says that it is a "...two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what it's called. To make the edits you are making is original reasearch and vandalism. Read the offical site. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

So a bunch of conspiracy groups think it's something else. So add it to the criticism section. I've already seen most of those. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks please

Just because I live in Canada does not mean I remain ignorant about the rest of the world. The isolation of my living ensures that I remain aware of the worlds events. I still have family in the UK and they also help keep me updated on things. Don't be making personal attacks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You said "LEARN about a topic b4 interfering w/ it. i see u're in canada -- how much do u know about uk politics? or do u just rely on innate infallibility?" In other words you are saying I am either ignorant or stupid and that's a personal attack. Please read WP:NPA. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I had the fortune to visit the UK last year. Canadians aren't all ignorant about the country their Queen is from (I happen to be part British). Kindly do not paint us all with the same brush. There is no reason to attack any specific groups of the population so I suggest you stop now before an admin comes along and warns you even more harshly. You may also wish to stop the netspeak & spell full words, it does not expend much effort just to type a few extra keys. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 12:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

don't pretend i was attacking a group. i was raising a legitimate question about whether someone in canada knew enough about the topic to edit. that would apply just as much in reverse. in fact, they clearly didn't know enough. but pls don't let the facts get in the way of the campaign now under way. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

Disruption

Your repeated violations of WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:BLP have been noted, and if they continue, you're likely to be blocked indefinitely for disruption. Please start editing within our policies and in the interests of Wikipedia, not in accordance with your personal agenda, which appears to be to make British Jews look bad. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Block

Hi. You have been blocked for twenty four hours for disruption. Here are some ways to prevent this from happening in the future: avoid personal attacks, avoid offensive edit summaries, avoid sarcasm (ambiguous and otherwise), avoid undue tension, in general. I would also advise you to adopt (consistently) a more intelligible and clear writing style when attempting to communicate with other editors. I am referring specifically to the (u= you, /w = with, and so on) shortcuts, which often tend to look like code rather than English. It is a practice that is probably not worthwhile to retain (even intermittently) here, even if you end up saving a fraction of a second. I will leave this matter at your discretion, though. Thanks. El_C 11:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

just bn looking at sm of yr comments and bn reminded y i do it, el -- i hate ppl thinking i'm a windbag. or shd tht be gabdniw? jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

i give up -- dancing on the heads of endless pins when the conclusion is foregone is not my idea of fon. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

Hi again. I'm not able to answer whether it should be a gabdniw as I have absolutely no clue what gabdniw is. Irrespectively, I want to make it clear that if you continue with incivil exclamations, terrestrial and otherwise, you will be sanctioned. Please aim toward more utilitarian edit summaries, ones devoid of sracastic innuendo. Otherwise, the block durations will become incresingly more lengthy. Thanks again. El_C 12:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

hi again, c. pls don't pretend my blocks have anything to do with incivility: the rule i'm breaking is 'obey the jocular community or else'. comedian slimvirgin (see above) stalked my editing till she found an excuse to criticize me aggressively for it. she hasn't had a word of reproof and never will. if i'd done that, otoh... jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

Hi. Not only have you been violating WP:Civility in your response to me directly above, you also violated it with your following reply (the far from subtle "windbag" insinuation), and you are continuing to violate it bellow and elsewhere. It should be self-evident that this "jocular community," etc. type of comments exhibit the same sarcastic, mocking innuendo I warned you against. It should not be a great challenge to title edits you take exception with something, say "questionable edit", and as mentioned above, the block duration will become more lengthy from here-on. Before you return from this latest block, I urge you to read carefuly WP:NOT, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:WQT. I'm confident it will prove of great benefit to you here. Thanks again. El_C 10:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

far from subtle... when in rome, c. and any comment on jay's 'bleating' and 'crap' comments, not to mention slim's 'this is not a minor edit'? thought not. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

You are extremely close to being indefinitely blocked. The ethno-centred focus of your edits are highly problematic and appears striking in selectively targetting Jews; an attempt which appears to consist of systemically taking various scandals out of their context by only mentioning the Jews among them. This isn't an acceptable, balanced, or intellectually honest approach. Why would any group, be they Jewish, African, Tamil, or whatnot not object to being targetted? It seems like an intentional provocation, taking advantage of Wikipedia's incompleteness in a way which now enables you to establish the Wikipedians against censorship wikiproject as a soapbox to denounce "Jewish admins," the power they purportedly hold. An unrepresentative, narrow-focus since you are not targetting Hindus, or Protestants, or any other group in the same way (one could do that in a veriety of ways, too, with the key component being an unrepresentative context). It simply isn't possible for you anymore to dismiss these concerns with unsubstantive one-liner responses. Please write about scandals in a balanced way, demonstrate that you're interested in sharing knowledge about these events in their totality, not just pick and choose whatever Jewishness in them is available for these sorts of exploits. Anyway, if you were seeking "proof" of the Judeocentric nature of Wikipedia in order to boast on StromFront, accelerate the re-nazification at the Wikipedia Review forum, or for any other reason, I think you have enough selective facts now. El_C 03:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

indeed, being blocked for a week for politely asking whether jews have special power here isn't 'proof' that jews have any special power here. An unrepresentative, narrow-focus since you are not targetting Hindus, or Protestants, or any other group in the same way.. well, not all groups have the same power here, c, and if i targeted one of them, the same criticism would apply, would it not? therefore no group can ever be criticized for having special power, even if it does. and obviously, if it does have special power, it will behave exactly as you, slim and jay have been doing: denying the special power while exercising it. but tshaali m'bara dlumaan, as they say in botswana. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

Too evasive an answer, I find. You have not attempted to target Hinduists or Protestants in a negative way (or at all) as you have Jews. El_C 10:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps as an experiment, you could spend the next week creating critical stubs about Irish Catholics, week two about Palestinian Arabs, week three about Italian-Americans, then we could do an ethno-religious analysis of the admins who block you. That's assuming you could bear to drag yourself away from the jocular community, of which you are clearly so fond. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

i'm sorry, slim, but jocs are at the heart of this scandal (and several others) -- blair gave the go-ahead, and i'm sure brown and mccartney know much more than they're pretending. and where do jowell and her hubby come from? reid is also said to have been sailing close to the wind. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

Regarding your heartfelt plea

In response to your heartfelt plea, I'd like to make my own heartfelt plea that you cease using Wikipedia as a forum for personal attacks, and that you also realize that editing the encyclopedia solely for the purpose of trying to tie Jews to political scandal and crime is disruptive, and will likely lead to your being blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

facts are facts, jay, and the disruption occurs when members of the jocular community try to suppress the facts. editing the encyclopedia solely for the purpose of trying to tie Jews to political scandal and crime... wrong again. i've tied kevin strom to homophobia (a fine example of what has earnt wikipedia its increasing reputation). and i note that hatewatcher's 'sole purpose' earns no rebukes. why might that be, i wonder? jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

You tied Kevin Strom to homophobia only as a dig against me, stalking my own edits. Well, that, and as a cover for your own actions here, which, as have been noted, consist almost exclusively of trying to tie British Jews or alleged British Jews to various crimes and scandals. and ideally link them to Israel as well. And if you can't prove people are Jews, then you try to link them to Jews or Jewish organizations or Israel in as prominent a way as possible, typically using dubious evidence, and usually none whatsoever. Your edits contravene a number of Wikipedia policies, including WP:BLP, as has been explained many times. Bleating "suppressing the facts" will do you no good, since you have little interest in any facts about any of these people, unless it's some incredible trivia that happens to somehow imply alleged Jewishness, or tie an alleged Jew to crime or scandal. Do you seriously think that attending a "friends of Israel" meeting is noteworthy? If you still feel compelled to write articles about British Jews, then make sure they look more like this article I cleaned up after you, rather than the defamatory boilerplate crap you prefer to create. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

so now i'm 'stalking' your edits? is kevin strom a homophobe or not? true, i've had a sense you might have an interest in the topic, but it hasn't been based on your edits. Bleating "suppressing the facts" will do you no good... this is news, already? you're right, of course, and nor will bleating to the comedy cabal that 'bleating' and 'crap' constitute personal attacks. you seriously think that attending a "friends of Israel" meeting is noteworthy? i do indeed, just as you do. that's why i put it in and you take it out. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

p.s. Sir David Garrard did more than 'attend' that meeting. he was singled out by name by the then leader of the british conservative party. funny that. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

Wow, Garrard attended a meeting and the speaker mentioned him by name!!! We should have an article on that earthshattering speech alone. And no doubt you'll soon create one, filled with boilerplate text tying it to Lord Levy and Cash for peerages. Meanwhile, back in the real-world, Wikipedia is about creating an encyclopedia, not about trying to tie alleged Jews to scandal. Enough already; abandon your agenda and edit for the benefit of Wikipedia, not your special interest group. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

tsk, tsk. Wow, Garrard attended a meeting and the speaker mentioned him by name!!! We should have an article on that earthshattering speech alone. not on your best form there, jay. Enough already; abandon your agenda and edit for the benefit of Wikipedia, not your special interest group. that's much better. but i don't like your use of 'alleged jew'. 'alleged' generally goes with unsavouriness. i'd suggest 'purported' or 'pretended'. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

Guilt by association

If you make any more guilt-by-association edits, which the arbitration committee has ruled are unacceptable, you may be blocked indefinitely without further warning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

facts are facts, slim, and the blocking occurs when members of the jocular community try to suppress the facts. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

Actually no, the blocking occurs when members of the anti-Semitic community select only certain facts for publication while ignoring others. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

...members of the anti-Semitic community... 'i wish i had said that.' ('you will, jam, you will.')

...select only certain facts for publication while ignoring others. a) that tends to happen during scandals; b) the solution is not to cut the facts.

It's odd to stick in the first paragraph of an article the name of the subject's father-in-law, unless of course you're an anti-Semite desperate to find a Jewish link to the subject because he's involved in a scandal... it's not odd when the father-in-law is part of an important business family. the article i linked to spends some time on the topic (and makes gold-digging insinuations i left alone).

...and flailing around are able to find only... that was by no means the only fact i'd found and had censored by jay on that page. 'that the wife's father is a Jew, so bang, in that goes as practically the first sentence. If you discover that the subject's dog walked past a synagogue last week, that'll doubtless be your next edit. not unless the subject was with it. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

calling slimvirgin or a.n. other

could you note on Wikis against censorship that i'm on 48-hr block and unable to reply to sv's comments there yet? thanx if so. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

One week, rather. El_C 03:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

maybe you could note it, c? it does seem a little unfair for people to reply to my comments there but not note i'm unable to reply in turn for a week. indeed, for ever, because i presume that any attempt to pursue my thesis will trigger the indefinite block now hanging over my head like the sword of danobert. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

No, you've yet to answer what your "heretical views" amount to, and especially, how these relate to yourself targetting only Jews. You are the one who mentioned these as such, after all. Please do that first & foremost, and only then move on to the admin "thesis". You will face no sanctions or censorship for outlining these here, even if I view them as amounting to hate speech, so long as you follow this order. I, in turn, am open to answer any question about my own views. But you need to make the first step (two steps, rather – in order). And please capitalize words at the beginning of sentences, there is really no need for you to make it difficult for myself (as a non-native English speaker) to read your writings. You've now abandoned the often incomprehensible shortcuts and appear to be writing with your normal mode of expression, please adjust your style just slightly (in comparison to the shortcuts, it's slight) and write using normal capitalization conventions. If you choose to persue my challenge, that is. Again, I would really like to know what you meant by "heretical views" and how these tie, not to "Jewish administrators" (that's step 2), but your own seemingly wholy negative focus on Jews, editorially (step 1), since day 1 of editing. El_C 10:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

My heretical views are that different racial groups have different (and probably innate) abilities. Jews, for example, are very good at both chess and business/finance, which demand similar skills (concentration, good memory, ability to plan and outmanoeuvre etc). But bending the rules is a skill too, and I think Jewish skill at bending the rules is a deliberately neglected topic. It's rather as tho' Kasparov could conceal his side of the board from his gentile opponents: a big innate advantage gets bigger. Hence my interest. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

These are definitely not innate traits, they are a product of historical forces. For example, the medieval laws that prohibited and restricted Jews from certain types of labour, thus, compelling them toward forms of labour such as loan sharking, which the Church did not allow Christians to engage in. It is shortsighted to turn a few centuries into something intrinsic to human nature. The same applies to women, and so on. It is an outdated, archaic view which only examines the surface but insidiously neglects the depth & complexity of reality and the human condition. This oversimplification always ends up serving the powerful, even when it divides some sections of it; i.e. personifying (wealthy) Jews vis-à-vis economic contradictions rather than examining the system. El_C 17:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your English has got very confused there, perhaps because you doubt what you're saying at some level. If so, you're right to doubt. These are definitely not innate traits... Many scientists (including Jewish ones) would disagree with you. ...they are a product of historical forces. Innate traits can be produced by historical forces. This oversimplification... Surely you think it's plain wrong, not an oversimplification? ..always ends up serving the powerful... The blank-slate theory of human nature seems to have done a pretty good job of serving the powerful too and I'd imagine most (if not all) admins here adhere to it, including Slimvirgin and Jayjg (in answer in your questions, Jay: yes; no; no; yes; probably; hand over the money first). jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

I am free of doubt. Not about what can be produced, nor what can be undproduced. The language is of no consequence, and can be translated with relative ease. Your many 'scientists' are ether to my theory. Oversimplification serves as a way to qualify "plain wrong." Sometimes the powerful need to dig for the most selfish and self-serving elements of the mob, to disrupt progressive opposition, that's where, without fail, people like you step in. You, like them, subscribe to economic contradictions as nature divine; the imperialists are willing to subscribe and pretend to apply what you call "blank-slate" theory of nature to any and all things except for this one pivotal dimension, crucial to their ownership over the planet. The historical role of your kind is to serve them when their goings get rough. El_C 10:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I am free of doubt. Not a philosophically healthy position to be in or even a statement anyone with a subconscious could make, I'd have thought. And your English, which is usually v. good, has got confused again. Your many 'scientists' are ether to my theory. Not sure what you mean by that and I don't agree with what I can understand of the rest. But, as you've probably guessed by now, I'm not a Marxist. Neither was old Karl, if I remember right. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

You two of course do realize that this discussion has nothing to do with the actual content of Wikipedia? Jamaisur's theory is a known stereotype about Jews, and the issue of ethnic stereotypes is covered in Wikipedia in articles ranging from White supremacism to Ethnic stereotypes in pornography. It is however still not allowed to add inadequatly (if at all) referenced and/or irrelevant information to the articles in order to support a theory, it is as simple as that. -- Heptor _talk 21:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

this one of the two thinks it has a lot to do with the actual content of wikipedia and that the facts in question are recognized as 'relevant' by both sides. that's why one side puts them in and the other side... jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

Reliable sources

I reverted your addition to National Vanguard (American organization) because it appeared to be sourced to a blog. I say "appeared" because the link didn't acutlaly work. If it isn't a blog but is some source that qualifies under WP:RS, then please retore it. Cheers, -Will Beback 22:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Block contd.

I meant I am free of doubt about the nature of the historical forces at play & how they should be understood in relation to purported innate traits. El_C 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You're Marxist, then? History isn't a science. Marxism is a crypto-religion and Marxists have always behaved like religous believers: making contradictory claims of certainty, persecuting each other, allowing dishonest means for pious ends, censoring heretics, etc. It's also religious in the sense that it preaches spirit-over-matter (whatever its official dogmas) and so rejects innate traits. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

Then. Reductionism is easy but it isn't particularly intellectually honest or rigorous, and it is certainly not genuinely undogmatic. In reality, innate traits are inextricably intertwined with inherited one (and which trait is seen as which is context-dependent and relational). Applied to human potential, anti-racism, anti-sexism, etc. have proven scientifically sound. Hailing 'human nature' as eternally rigid invariably finds its origin in self-serving circles, often characterized by their adherents' deep psychological insecurities. El_C 23:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

(And please see 'Wiki error alert' below.)

Applied to human potential, anti-racism, anti-sexism, etc. have proven scientifically sound.

And Marxism is 'scientifically sound'?

Hailing 'human nature' as eternally rigid

Eh? I believe in significant evolved differences between races (and sub-races) of Homo sapiens. I also believe that Marxism is highly pernicious. How can I simultaneously believe in an 'eternally rigid human nature'? I'm not sure you've understood my particular self-serving circle very well.

invariably finds its origin in self-serving circles, often characterized by their adherents' deep psychological insecurities.

Well, yes, I've got lots of those. Then again, isn't 'deep psychological insecurity' a constant theme of the jokes Jews tell about themselves? 'The neurotic Jew' has been Woody Allen's v. profitable and popular shtick for decades. But he's on your side, not mine. Of course, Jews have good reason to be insecure, because they face unfair and irrational prejudice wherever they go, but if they have good reason to be insecure, they also have good reason to invent self-serving and often v. destructive ideologies. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

reply 2 j

Your actions belie your words. You rearranged the order of the text for a very specific reason, obvious to anyone who reads the article. No, not true: I rearranged the text to avoid repetition and to remove ugly English like 'viable' and 'UK Parliament based'. Why don't you spend 6 months editing articles totally unrelated to Jews? Because Jews and Jewish power are very important topics, as any glance at the current news will show you. Then, once you've established good faith, we can talk about you resuming your main campaign of trying to link Jews to crime and communism. The patterns are there and important. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

off to wikiquote now, jay et al -- same user-name. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}

Blair and Brown love triangle

I removed this from the articles. Let me explain my reasons. The main one is that of reputability; we are trying to be a serious encyclopedia, and I don't think including material based on "long-standing rumours" contricutes to that. The second is the policy WP:BLP; including material like this exposes us to lehal risk in my opinion. I would add that I enjoy Private Eye as much as anyone, and am far from being a political supporter of Mr Blair. I hope that makes the reasons for my reversion clear. Best wishes, --Guinnog 12:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've edited your additions to restrict the story to that which can be referenced. Can I add that I don't appreciate my efforts to improve our encyclopedia being described as "censorship"? Please work with me to help improve the project rather than adding material which cannot be verified. Thanks. --Guinnog 12:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

wiki error alert!

This is wrong in Amaretto but I can't correct it because of my block:

The name is a diminutive of amaro, a cognate of the English "almond", the French "amande", and other such Latin-influenced words[2]

'Amaro' comes from Latin amarus, 'bitter'. It's not related to 'almond'. See List_of_English_words_of_Italian_origin:

amaretto, diminutive of amaro bitter, from Latin amarus

Could some kind non-blocked editor, Jewish or goy, please correct Amaretto? jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}