User talk:Jebba

Welcome!

Hello Jebba, 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
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• 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, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. 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!

-Poli (talk • contribs) 06:35, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

Thanks for remarks on Durants' article

Thanks for your remarks. I don't know of a third-party bio of the Durants. I have considered writing one myself. The problem is most historians (with certain, obvious, exceptions) don't lead very interesting lives. Edward Gibbon, imo, the world's greatest historian, led a life that might put one to sleep. Except for a few years in Parliament and the appointment to a governmental sinecure (that brought him 800 pounds/year) and his association with the Johnson circle, Gibbon devoted most of his life to his monumental work, living off the remnants of his grandfather's fortune left him by his father. Any book about the Durants would probably turn into a synopsis/review of their works.

And the books speak for themselves. I have the entire set (minus "The Life of Greece") and have read them so many times they are literally falling apart. I got lucky one time and Barnes & Noble was selling reprints for $14 a pop! I grabbed up nearly all of them, ordering a couple more from their website.

I love their style of writing. I often read it for its sheer beauty. In this era when the staccato truncation of journalistic writing mars even fiction, its wonderful to read writing as it should be: flowing, sinuous, with an eye for not just the facts but the aesthetics of the effort.

I felt I had to revert my paragraph after it was removed by the Anonymous reader. I also excised his contribution. It is, imo, especially during this time of war with Islamofascists that we avoid playing the game they so desperate want us to play. To whit: a war of "civilizations" between the West and Islam. That was the late Osama bin Laden's game and his successors (Zawahiri and Zarqawi, et al) are pursuing. Fortunately they are mostly getting their lobotomized followers killed; unfortunately they are taking a lot of innocent people with them.

Perhaps 10% of Arab Muslims are fanatical haters of the West (and only a much smaller number of them are prepared to commit acts of horror such as 9/11 and 7/7), the vast majority are not, however much they oppose US/Western policy toward Israel, etc. To lump the overwhelming majority in with a tiny minority is like claiming that the Klan speaks for "white" Americans when its membership isn't above 5,000!

PainMan 03:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

2003 invasion of Iraq

Hi there, when trying to go over the discussion at 2003 invasion of Iraq I saw it has become a big mess. If I see it correctly there was a conflict between an anon and others and now the page has been blocked. I think the anon had a point that an encyclopedia article about any military conflict should not be written exclusively by three members of one the conflicting parties, in this case Pookster11, Swatjester, and Dawgknot who according to this comment all belong to the US military. I therefore suggest to get more people into the boat, that should take the wind out of the sails of bias allegations. As I saw you also edited on that page, would you be willing to help out? Get-back-world-respect 22:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You are my hero

Dear Jebba,

Thanks for your many contributions to wikipedia, content-related and otherwise. I just noticed your monthly contribution... you are my new hero. I hope you can make it out to Wikimania this summer for at least a day; I would love to meet you.

Cheers, +sj + 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed... I second this. Thank you from all of us :) --Wolf530 (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No kidding! That's amazing, and I'm sure far more users would thank you if they knew about your gift! (Very few people read meta, still fewer the well-hidden donations page there). Again, thank you so much! --Zantastik talk 09:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Namaste from India. You south americans are really unplugged now. From Chavez to Jebba! We solute your spirits friend!talk

Thanks for the generous donations, Jebba. --Zalmoxe 16:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you a satanist?

What's with the donation of $6,666? --BigFishy 07:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the donations, ignore idiots like above... the 6 repeating number is obviously from division, you know, I have 20,000 and I want to give it to three groups or something like that. 71.77.207.50 19:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Actually, it was a series of one time donations of $2222 over a few years that added up to that amount! It gave me a laugh when i saw it--unintentional though. ;) Jebba 02:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you

Your generous support is sincerely appreciated. I believe that wikipedia is one of the most important contributions that this generation will have in the world. Not only are we creating encyclopedic content, but we are creating and refining wikiculture. A true global system of trust and inclusion and a never-before-seen peer-regulated society. I am proud to be a part of it, and thankful to people like you for helping make the infrastructure possible. Jerry lavoie 01:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You rock!

Er, no, I don't want to imply that you are some kind of mineral existing in large chucks in the earth. ;) I Just wanted to say "thank you" for your awesome generosity. Best wishes! CharonX/talk 13:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks jebba

Hello Jebba,

I would like to thank you for your "fun" donations (4096, 6666). Hashar 01:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of Linux distributions

Blag's goal is anarchy? Mike92591 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

P'haps: "...works to overthrow corporate control of information and technology through community action and spreading Free Software." http://www.blagblagblag.org/anarchism/ Jebba 00:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Subvertising

Hey Jebba, Just wondering why you removed the link i posted on Subvertising, this was a spoof political organisation/ media hack, they used an alteration/jam of a globaly regnoised brand as there logo.

this fits in with subvertising no?, if not can you give reasons ? regards .k

Well, in an article about cars, for example, you don't link to every car manufacturer in the world. It may be an example of a subvertising site, but isn't really "encyclopedic" nor does it enhance the article. Jebba 20:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Alejandro Jodorowsky

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Jebba! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule suicidegirls\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 16:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ya, well Jodorowsky does interviews in weird places. I can see why suicidegirls gets blocked, but it's still legit... /me runs off to talk to a bot, apparently... Jebba 17:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know that the link has been removed from the blacklist again (for now). At the moment I blacklisted it I knew it might cause some collatoral damage; I indeed think the link is legit. The link was blacklisted because it was spammed (wikipedia definition, mass addition of external links) by 72.231.22.203. I cleaned the pages where this user added the link, but when there is consensus for adding the link, that is fine with me (strictly, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL would allow some interviews, but linkfarms should be avoided, and the information may be better as a reference, but I'll leave that to other editors on these articles). I might blacklist it again (for some time) when this user returns. Hope this explains, regards, --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely understood--thanks for your work removing spam from wikipedia. To me it's amazing how little spam I see in articles, but now watching things like Recent Changes I see that wikipedia gets hit incessantly. I also agree that the interview itself may not be the best external link, but lets leave that decision to page editors and not the bot. ;) Thanks again. Jebba 18:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

We catch a lot, and more to come. I don't know if you do IRC, but have a look at this. See you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

War of 1812 'vandal' not really

68.168.87.115 was right just wrong in where he entered it. At the same time you hit undo I did as well but put in the summary "this fact is handled in just a few sentences later" he's right much of the war was well after 1812. Seems a 'good faith' edit to me not vandalism. Normally I am pretty quick to spot these guys but this one didn't come across at all worthy of warning. Would you consider deleting your warning to him in good faith? Thanks for your time. --Xiahou 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In a subsequent edit nearly all dates have been changed to 1815 (even ones that were 1813 &c.). For example he changed one battle as running from June 18 1815–February 18 1815, which would be backwards in time. I'd suggest taking a closer look at all of that IPs edits to the article.

I only saw his first one. After that, heck yea he needs a warning! --Xiahou 01:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Egypt

Can I get your help on Egypt. -- Jeff3000 02:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll help where I can. :) Jebba 02:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm nearing my 3RR limit, and so I need help in the reversions. -- Jeff3000 02:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it appears what you are restoring has the exact same text duplicated twice. Double-check it. Jebba 02:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

He's removed the information about the December 16th court decision which is crucial to all religious minorities from the intro paragraph (sourced) and then info about the specific religious minorities in the bottom paragraphs (Baha'i section for sure sourced). Here's the content that I believe should be there: It's not duplicated info and removes some of the unsourced statements the user has removed, but restores the religious minorities info.

Well, at least one edit that I looked at did have some parts duplicated twice. I also removed the whole Egypt Religion section you added to my talk page... Jebba 03:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

PRC

Please solve your misunderstand about Vandalism I have moved the Order of the article but I have not deleated articl actually. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.239.229.7 (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Domincan Republic

Hmm ok I'll add my source w/o deleting the other info but it I could use help with wording it(Dualldual 01:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

HEY

what did you call me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.46.101 (talk • contribs) 9:29, 4 April 2007

Twinkle

It appears that you have installed Twinkle, too, which in itself isn't bad or good, but you should, however, not become dependent on it. When you reverted the edits (vandalism, to be truthfully told) on First law of thermodynamics, you did not completely revert, which I should surmise to be the assumption that only one editor vandalised, or that the rollback feature was truly a miracle. Well, in truth, it isn't, and next time, Jebba, please be careful and perhaps you should check your revision afterwards.:) Thanks. --Qwerty (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it appears it was vandalised multiple times from multiple IP addresses. I only reverted the last vandalism, not all of them. Thanks for catching it. Jebba 16:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Camels

What the world needs now is camels.

Sweet camels.

Don't you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.251.26.28 (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Camels aren't the only ones who need love, Jebba.

See the friends of camels Jebba 03:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the edit on Benjamin M. Emanuel. Let's see if the page stays. P. DeadNative (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania in August

I hope you will come for at least part of it! I'll be there for a few days before. +sj+ 02:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Julian Assange

Hi, thanks for your message. The website you mentioned does not actually contain a quotation from Chief prosector Eva Finné, but rather a description of what she said. Viz "Chief prosector Eva Finné has come to the desicion that Julian Assange is not suspected of rape" rather than "Chief prosector Eva Finné said, "I have come to the desicion that Julian Assange is not suspected of rape.""

Her actual words were "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape.", which is why I replaced your quotation with that one. This actual quotation is being reported by all the major reputable news sites including the BBC, AP, MSNBC and The Guardian, as a quick google search will confirm.

Thanks, Little Professor (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That page is a bit of a moving target (different today than yesterday), but I get your point. :) Thx. Jebba (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Allegations Against Assange

Jeba, This information that I put up concerning the specific allegations against Assenge is available freely in Sweden and to the Press. They are allegations, and it is public information. I do not say they are true or not (of course I've no idea), and make clear that they are allegations. Yet, any mention of these public allegations either in the Discussion or on Assange's main entry gets deleted. However, unfounded smears and attacks against his alleged victims (reference supported by only by a single blog in the Sates) are allowed to remain. 80.47.55.173 (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like the unfounded smears referenced in a single blog should be deleted too. I don't know which edits in particular you are talking about, but feel free to delete them in accordance with wikipedia's policies. Thx. Jebba (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Up-and-coming companies"?

Please read WP:UPANDCOMING next time you're tempted to write in Wikipedia about the latest "next big thing that will change the industry". --Orange Mike | Talk 11:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Which edit are you talking about? Jebba (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2015 (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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jebba. 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.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jebba. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jebba. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)