User talk:Jayjg/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for visiting my Talk: page.

If you are considering posting something to me, please:

*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Use headlines when starting new talk topics.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment.

Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted.

Thanks again for visiting.

Old talk archived at Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12, Archive 13, Archive 14, Archive 15, Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

Contents

[edit] Black Flag Defense has never acquitted IDF soldiers of the charge of "failing to obey orders"

I have attempted to edit this article, with the statement and cite "However, 50 years have passed since the Kafr Qasim massacre, and the "Black Flag Defense" has failed to protect any IDF serviceman from conviction for "refusing to obey orders" eg [1]".

The statement I added has been summararily deleted, with no attempt at any form of explanation or discussion. The words quoted come User:PalestineRemembered|PalestineRemembered]] 20:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Redwall

Come join. Project was started to get the cruft reduced to an encyclopedic list. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Announcement: It's an administrator!

Jayjg, thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was a robust 62/1/1, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any questions about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks again, Chris Griswold

[edit] reposted from WP:3RR notice board

(re: report of Isarig (talk • contribs) and posted here:

It's only an old case because I was blocked for 24 hours for revert warring. This is a problem with the process here -- when only one party in a revert war is blocked, it appears as an administrative endorsement of that side of the war.--csloat 22:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ERM AfD

Vanity stub Ebionite Restoration Movement, now with original POV text, is up for 2nd AfD. Original deletion and two speedies have been reverted within the last 24 hrs. Ovadyah 01:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Some comments were left for you following the AfD on the creator's user page, see Deleted pages. It should be noted that this user has already received two npa3 warnings, here Good faith? and here meatpuppets. Ovadyah 20:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New York Sun

Jayjg,

When you get a chance, could you take a look at the New York Sun article and let me know what you think? Thanks. Dasondas 01:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I had come across the article by accident and was quite taken aback by the apparently uncontested POV that characterizes the piece from start to finish. The fact that the POV exists doesn't surprise me at all; what got my attention was the fact that it managed to insinuate itself so completely into a relatively non-obscure (albeit not really mainstream) topic. I asked you because I wanted the opinion of someone with a lot of Wiki-experience to make sure the problem was with the article and not with my perception of it. Thank you for taking a look. Dasondas 14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amoruso and Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Could you take a look at what is going on between me and Amoruso at Israeli-Palestinian conflict (especially the talk page)? I'm calling on you precisely because no one can accuse you of being anti-Israeli, and you have plenty of experience with what is and is not appropriate in Wikipedia.

It seems to me that Amoruso's idea of "balance" is that right-wing, militantly pro-Israel links constitute one side and everything else constitutes the other. Israeli peace groups, according to him, qualify as "pro-Palestinian". I suppose that is true, in one sense, but it doesn't make them anti-Israeli.

Some of his additions have been good (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs Palestinian Violence and Terrorism) but he repeatedly tried to add or re-add http://www.masada2000.org/, which is out there in Kach/JDL territory, and recently http://www.naamz.org/, which doesn't seem to me to have much to do with the conflict: it's a staunch right-Zionist organization, but their site is (in my view) only barely on topic.

Anyway, I'd appreciate if you would take a look both at the current state of the article and at some of what's gone by; I'm beginning to lose patience with his attitude, so I had probably best get out of there for a while. - Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - Jmabel | Talk 16:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
More, similar: Template talk:Israel-Palestinian Peace Process#Some questionably captioned links - Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I-V relations

I've been traveling, had house guests, and have more travel pending. Thanks for letting me know: I'll catch up over there as soon as I get a breather. I've got a long list. Sandy 15:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flex

Flex has now removed all criticism from Hugh Ross (creationist), despite you properly banning him.

[edit] 211.114.56.130

May I inquire why you reverted his edit to my page? JoshuaZ 14:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 81.154.252.34

You sprotected the 99 Names of God article a couple days ago due to the actions of User:81.154.252.34. This editor, has gone around a couple other pages, changing cited material, and adding POV content, and removing germane info and links when it doesn't suit his purpose (all multiple times). He's already been blocked twice for 3RR and he doesn't seem to want to discuss changes. Is there anything that can be done. -- Jeff3000 16:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Jeff3000 17:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, since your block, this user was blocked another 48 hours for 3RR on three different pages, and he doesn't seem to want to discuss his changes. He keeps just reverting the sourced information. Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julius Broyne and Plantgerd

Socks of Karmafist? Wow, Konstable and I blocked them knowing full well they werent Tawkerbots as they claimed, but never saw that coming? Wonder why he targetted me? Ive never exchanged a word with the guy... oh well, very interesting! :) Glen 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal information

Thank you, really. This is a bit much for me to handle on my own, and this guy really has earned at least a fair vote. --InShaneee 20:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subversive element is using a sockpuppet

Jayjg, fyi [2] Dasondas 22:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I figured as much, yet something is better than nothing. With all the heavy lifting you do, the least I can do is try to pass along some useful information when I see it. Dasondas 16:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:TwoHorned

Requesting unblock citing 48 hours being excessive for 3RR. Let me know your thoughts. Glen 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have replied to his request, here, thanks for the heads up Glen 14:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Ummm... can you explain this??? Glen 15:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Im just a little concerned - hopefully all our blocked users cant edit! Glen 15:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion/The Seven Worlds

Hi Jay: What do you make of this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Seven Worlds 2? Thanks. IZAK 09:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom election

If you have decided, I think potential candidates would be interested in knowing whether you intend to run for reelection in the upcoming ArbCom election. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected Bonaparte sock

Hey, could you do a check on Aromanian (talk • contribs)? He's definately a sockpuppet of somebody. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 00:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Also Ianos (talk • contribs). —Khoikhoi 17:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, it was because Bonny claimed here that he was him. He's done similar things before. Thanks for the congrats! Check your email. —Khoikhoi 06:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ebionites article

We have an editor that's been ranting on the talk pages for over 3 months now Talk:Ebionites. What's the best way to proceed? This editor also left some comments for you on their user page following recent AfD. See ERM AfD above. Ovadyah 02:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain your comments and actions in the ERM AfD and how they do not seem to be supported by reality? What does wikipedia think when someone such as OvadYah with his POV comes to and votes to delete an artical he has been hostile towards for 3 months?NazireneMystic 23:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A small sample of what we have been dealing with on an almost daily basis. Ovadyah 03:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just one small sample and you can see on my talk page alchemy or what ever his name is even joined the main group to see it and knows first hand there are around 400 people in the main forum alone but in the deletion process flat out lied. I believe Wikipedia Policy does say something about having a biased toward an issue and voting in articles for deletion hearings. You are a favored Admin in wikipedia I see. Maybe you didn't know the extent Ovadyah and Alchemy has worked at trying to claim some reason why that one group should be listed and not ours. side by side we proved each notability issue that was raised and more so then the other group and once it was clear even to Ovdyah then the groups were dropped from the article and the subs were made, Of which ours was voted for deletion by two editors that has tried every thing possible to keep both groups from being judged side by side on the notability issue. Are you going to be the first Honorable Wikipedian in this prossess? Doesn't matter to me really. It is worth noting while some editors claim I attack them when I only point TO the wikilawyering that was done, no one stooped as low as to carry a bias into the deletion hearing and enter a vote on the other group. No one is attacking them.NazireneMystic 03:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A larger sample. Jay, please give this user an admin warning to refrain from further personal attacks. Ovadyah 13:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice, Jay. I'll continue to work toward a creative solution. Ovadyah 17:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muchas gracias

Hey Jayjg, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 05:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please check your email. —Khoikhoi 05:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lieberman

Jay, I'm traveling, and am on an *excruciatingly* slow dialup connection. I saw you in the edit history, so I was hoping you could look into Joe Lieberman. The POV language in this edit is not supported by the source given. I have two questions, and a connection too slow to track down the answers. 1) If I come across something like this on a BLP, can I just revert it on sight (it's not particulary defamatory, just wrong and POV), or do I need to invest the time to read the source and rewrite the text to conform to the source (I can't do that on this trip, don't have time, connection too slow, and don't really know if that's my "job", or if I can just remove the misleading text per BLP)?? 2) The editor's contribs show it's likely the same POV text was entered on many other articles, but on this slow connection it's hard for me to track them all down. Should they all be reverted, even if not on BLPs? I can't track them all down from this slow connection. Sandy (Talk) 02:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at that, Jay. On this slow dialup, it's not possible for me to check the other articles on the editors's contrib history: it took me 45 minutes this morning to do WP:FAR notifications on two articles only, so I'll have to look at the rest when I'm on a better connection next week. Sandy (Talk) 16:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where do you find

the explicit calling for the destruction of Israel in Hamas charter. I'm not saying they would not love to destroy it, but still the word destruction can't be found anywhere in the charter. Habitual gardner 10:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks like you didn't really read the charter. Any way, probably the scariest statement in the charter is "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it". Which is by the way not part of the charter if you read it fully. If you read the charter, and fortunately it isnot that long, and you find other statements where "destruction" is understood let me know. I just find a statement like "Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel" absurdly unscientific and biased in a funny way. :) Habitual gardner 04:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship of votes on the Military Commissions Act of 2006

Think a second before you embark on this censorship, OK? You are deleting it from entries in which there is a comprehensive account of other votes, including votes on torture. This vote marks a change. I have added the copy on this habeas corpus/torture vote to Senators who previously co-sponsored the McCain Detainee Amendment, and to Democrats who voted against party lines to support the President's bill. In other words, to mark a change of policy and rhetoric in each case. To delete it is censorship and willful vandalism, and yes, I know my NPOV. Sandover 16:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is not a noteworthy vote? Why are you ignoring the citations and news articles? Why do you think the Senators who voted for it should not have it in their bios, even those who reversed previous positions? Why are you censoring this? Sandover 16:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the advice

I do not believe I am engaging in a campaign of wikistalking and I will work to avoid the appearance of such a thing in the future. I apologize. --Ben 16:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isarig 3RR

Now Isarig has four reverts in 24 hours and ten minutes. Are you saying this behavior is perfectly acceptable?--csloat 17:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Any chance you will respond to this question?--csloat 02:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom election query

In response to your question on my talk whether people are really wondering whether you (and others) are running again this year or not ... so far I've seen two people ask who's running or not (one on the elections page and one I forget where). Other than that, I wouldn't say there's a major groundswell of inquiring minds asking the question ... but the page for candidates to post their position statements is open (no one's posted yet as of the last time I checked) and they're due at the end of next month, so sometime soon you're going to get more inquiries. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, am curious now. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 02:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Thank you

Sure thing! Your report enabled a collaboration among admins and editors to determine a good plan of action, and you also set a great example for other admins to seek advice when directly involved or impacted in such an incident. Cheers mate! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 20:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Kosher tax

I note that you are making changes to the "kosher tax" article by making a derisive reference to "original research." I assure you that I engaged in no original research of any kind whatsoever in any of my contributions to the article.

This is an article about a manifestation of antisemitism. An encyclopedia requires a comprehensive approach to the topic that it explains. I also note that there are some users, in unsigned contributions, engaging in the same kind of antisemitic tirade that the article attempts to address.

Accordingly, a full explanation of what is meant by “kosher,” how kosher certification is obtained, and the business, economic, and marketing aspects of kosher certification are necessary for a comprehensive and encyclopedic description of this antisemitic phenomenon.

My contributions in that respect use nomenclature common to business, managerial accounting, financial analysis, financial accounting, and economics. Your reference to “original research” indicates to me that you are unfamiliar with this terminology.

I am a professional accountant with an undergraduate degree in Jewish history (wherein I took an interest in the history of antisemitism); accordingly, I believe my contributions should not be dismissed without discussion on the article’s talk page.--Lance talk 21:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please be specific in respect of your allegations of "original research" on the article's talk/discussion page. Please do not amend the article until you have indeed established that there is any "original research"; preferably on the talk/discussion page.--Lance talk 16:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA!

               Jayjg, thank you so much for your support for my RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your support on my RFA! --plange 15:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision#John Reid is banned for one week

Thanks for changing your mind. Don't know if there is enough time for others to also agree that it would no longer be a preventative measure, but even if it's only a gesture, it's the right thing to do, and appreciated. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isarig gaming 3RR

Thanks for your acknowledgement of my question above. I'm not sure I understand your answer though; more importantly, I don't know what to do about this situation. Can you as an admin offer any guidance? I showed you that Isarig made 4 reverts in 24 hours and ten minutes. You say that is more objectionable than doing it in 25 hours. The problem is that he does this day after day. When I reported him for 4 reverts in 25 hours, you said there was no violation, and you said that 24 hours and 5 minutes would be more of an issue. Then he does it in 24 hours and ten minutes, presumably feeling that he has a license to do so since it will not draw any objection from an admin. Today he has made another three reverts on the same page. Do wikipedia administrators consider the 24 hour mark a magic cutoff of some sort? The page on WP:3RR states clearly that "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day." I am not even asking that he be blocked. I am asking whether there is any way to discourage users from using reverts alone to solve their disputes. It is frustrating when arguing with Isarig because I tend to bend over backwards to compromise with him (often to the detriment of the page) but he never gives an inch and only responds by reverting, though he is mostly careful to stay exactly within the 24 hour limit. I must add that I do not have a current dispute with this user - I don't particularly disagree with his position on the page where he is revert warring; I just find his steamroller approach to reverting disconcerting and aggravating.--csloat 22:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry for using your Talkpage for this, Jay. csloat, if you want some guidance, let me offer some. (1) Start making your case based on facts, not hyperbole and exaggeration. A simple inspection of my contributions today shows there is not a single page on which I have made 3 edits. (2) The way to discourage users from using reverts alone is to use their Talk pages, and the article's Talk page. The reason you do not have a current dispute with me is that we have reached an agreement through discussion on the Talk page. You wanted a certain Cole response on the Karsh page, I did not like that response, we engaged in a discussion on Talk during which you suggested we remove the entire disputed section, and I agreed with that suggestion. Notice what happened there: (a) you did not "bend over backwards to compromise" - you made a suggestion, which I accepted. (b) I did not "never gives an inch and only responds by reverting" - I accepted a compromise solution which saw my favored version (which included more of Karsh, less of Cole) removed completely (c) We reached this position through discussion on Talk. (a), (b) and (c) are all in contarst to the allegatiosn you were making above, when you were engaged in hyperbole and exaggeration. Do you really want to end this edit war at the Karsh page and the Neo-Fasiscm page? I suggest you go to Will314159's user page and to Nielswik's user page, and show them what you and I accomplsihed through the use of Talk, and beg them to start doing the same. Isarig 00:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Isarig, but I was asking for guidance from someone other than the editor I am having a problem with. Your claim #1 is typical of your gaming of the rules - what I clearly meant was that you made three reverts in 24 hours on one page, which is easy to verify. #2 On the Karsh page you took a profoundly unreasonable position and when I offered an easy way out you took it. I am ok with that page but I am not ok with your constant reverts, and I am not ok with the way you argue with me on any page. The only reason you accepted a compromise on Karsh is because your position was ridiculous - you say it was "more of Karsh and less of Cole" but a more accurate characterization is "personal attack on Cole by Karsh and censorship of Cole's explicit response to that attack." You wanted to erase Cole's specific response to a specific claim. We went back and forth on this with you not giving an inch until I suggested we just remove everything to do with the dispute between the two of them. Other people seem to think the dispute between the two is important; rather than discuss the merits, you simply state that the fact that you accepted a compromise that I offered vindicates your view of how the page should look. I don't know anything about the other pages you are talking about; I have observed your objectionable behavior mostly on the Cole pages. And my suggestion is that instead of revert warring with everyone you disagree with that you instead try to see things from various perspectives and engage in talk communicatively rather than strategically. We should be using talk to discuss issues with a goal of reaching a better and more truthful understanding of the issues involved; not simply trying to "win one" no matter what it takes.--csloat 00:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subversive Element/87.78.158.95's Advocacy request to my Talk page

I'm considering taking this case. From what I understand about it currently, you permanently blocked this user for reasons that have to do with spurious interventions to an RfA vote User_talk:Subversive_element#Blocked_again.2C_permanently. I've looked over the interventions and while they seem to me insane I think the poster may have been just playing around with the RfA process rather than disrupting WP overtly. However, he does seem to have a more problematic history, and apparantly this the second time this user has been blocked for some reason. As of now I don't have the full context of this case and would appreciate being informed of your side of the situation. Best,--Amerique 22:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed explaination, I've declined the case. While your interventions here do seem to have been made without process, they do not seem to have been made without cause.--Amerique 22:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosher tax

That's OK, it was only about an hours work. /sigh. I'll get to it another day then. The edit conflict killed the remaining ones anyway. /shrug Adding more cites is more important than how they look anyway image:smile.png I have this frustration on Circumcision all of the time; don't worry about it -- Avi 00:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] one more "harassment"

I replied to you on Ameriques talk page. User:Subversive_element, editing from IP address: 84.44.172.138 10:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In other words: You have nothing to fear. I wish you a happy live. 84.44.170.228 01:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you placed the block template on my user page, whenever you can find the time. Thanks. 84.44.175.12 12:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 12:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Hi,

I just went to edit a page, only to be met with the message:

"Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Jayjg for the following reason (see our blocking policy): open proxy

Your IP address is 203.146.247.78."

That's not an open proxy. The IP belongs to CS Loxinfo, one of the biggest internet providers in Thailand. The IP is used by countless users.

This is no great inconvenience to me (I have other options, obviously, since I'm editing this) but it could inconvenience a lot of people. Unless it's a short term block for vandalism, I would advise against blocking that IP. TheMadBaron 15:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I sure it's not a proxy as well? No, I'm afraid that I don't understand enough about these things to be entirely sure of that. Regardless, unless it's actively being used for vandalism, I don't think it should be blocked for any amount of time, as it could block thousands of potential legitimate Thailand based users. TheMadBaron 15:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semicolon is your friend

Hi,

I noticed that you said on Talk:Kosher tax, "The semicolon is your friend, don't be afraid to use it."

I am not a fan of the semicolon in prose. I usually am happier to just put a period there and create two sentences. So, I'm curious what you meant by your comment and would appreciate it if you could give me some examples of situations where you think a semicolon is valuable.

Thanks.

--Richard 19:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bhoustan

Jay, would you mind seeing my talk page. I've got an accusation of Zionist conspiracy against us both from this user based on my RV on the Israeli Apartheid page. Cheers. Evolver of Borg 02:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid

(i)There was no reason for Avraham to contact me on my page, (ii) my interest in that article has absolutely nothing to do with SlimVirgin (iii) there is a group of pro Israeli editors which must be balanced by a group of non pro Israeli editors. Regards Arniep 18:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You and SlimVirgin are the people making this a political battleground by intimidating and harrassing any editor who expresses any criticism of Israel whilst making sure articles relating to Israel and the Palestinians have a pro Israeli outlook. Perhaps you'd like to tell me why you are the only member of the Arbitration Committee to have not revealed their identity? Arniep 20:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not framing it is as a political battleground. The problem is you and other very pro Israel editors instantly leap on any edit you consider to put Israel in a bad light. As long as that is the case this website can not be considered neutral. Arniep 21:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but I have no power or at least very little power here. You are the equivalent of a senior editor. What would the public say about a publication that has secret senior editors? Oh and your first userpage quite clearly reveals that the reason you came to Wikipedia was to remove the bias, as you saw it, against Israel. Arniep 21:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I see you don't deny that you came to Wikipedia for the express purpose of correcting "bias" against Israel. So you, in fact, treated Wikipedia as a political battleground? Arniep 15:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonaparte?

I suspect that Dc76 (talk • contribs) is a dormant one from Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bonaparte. Khoikhoi says that you are good at figuring him out. The same pattern of brainless chaotic edits, superficial rearrangements of texts, monor changes in articles with no clue, anti-Moldovan attacks and personal attacks, toned down, probably not to attract attention. E.g. his major work Northern Maramureş leaves an illusion of authenticity until you read it carefully and understand that it is not about what is in the title. The overall history of his Bonaparte's edits under various names leaves an impression of mentally ill person (I don't mean his personal attacks, but the overall style of edits leaving a certain aura diffcult to describe). `'mikkanarxi 02:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you left a message on user Mikkalai's page, who has been attacking me in the last 24 hours.

I am not Bonaparte. If an official administrator can do with respecting privacy, I can give my real-life name and address. (E.g. give me an email address, and I will email you.) But, on the same token, I would like to ask the same verification to be performed for Mikkalai.

I demand action with respect to the following sentence by user Mikkalai:

The overall history of his edits under various names leaves an impression of mentally ill person

I have never called anyone names and have never characterised anyone, even when in dispute. In real life I would ask Mikkalai to say again the same comment, to confirm that he stands by it, and then I would call the police. Is it possible to do anything about Mikkalai's agressivenes and language? I asked him repeatedly to talk about the articles, but he never replied to me. Instead he has experience and can follow me. I appeal for protection from Mikkalai.:Dc76 19:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I was referrintg to overall history of user:bonaparte. Since you claim that you did not edit under variuos names, you don't have to call police. If you are not user:Bonaparte, I strongly suggest you to start from smaller contributions, not completely reshuffling relatively good articles, supply your additions with reputable and verifiable references, and we will talk. `'mikkanarxi 20:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad al-Durrah

I saw you moved the TotallyDisputed template - thanks, I did not take the time to step back and realize that it was that particular section that bugged me. KazakhPol 22:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homey

Homey is not banned. Fred Bauder 00:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what his exact status is. I just wish he would stay away from hot button stuff. Fred Bauder 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giano RfAr and John Reid

Thank you for your follow-up and reconsideration of your position on the proposed ban of User:John Reid in the so-called Giano arbitration. The wording of your proposal is not exactly how I would have phrased it, but the point is made. I know this was a judgment call and appreciate your willingness to consider the matter afresh. I also hope that some of the workshop or talkpage discussion might have been of help to you in resolving a very complicated situation. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Israeli Apartheid

Jay,

Is protection really the best way to stabilize things over there? The article has been locked into a state that is simultaneously poorly-written/organized and POV -- not very encyclopedic. Locking it into that state doesn't appear to be a very good fix, unless the probability is that things would worsen with further edits. Would you support unprotection? Dasondas 13:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, where to begin? In general I agree with the criticism that the laundry list of people to whom the concept or phrase has been attributed is too long and is ineffectual, no matter which "side" you might be on. If we try to imagine a hypothetical non-politicized reader coming to the article to actually learn something, I can't believe that he or she would be happy with having to wade through that biographical swamp to search for content further down. Furthermore, it is patently POV to have the list of "apartheid affirmers" entirely presented in a more prominent location than the "apartheid deniers"; there needs to be a more organic approach to the whole issue of quotes and cites that a) doesn't present like an endless power-point slide and b)is NPOV.
Another problem is OR; almost the entirety of the "Issues" section, both "for" and "against" is made up of synthesized arguments in violation of WP:NOR. You could make a case for just deleting it lock, stock and barrel (It reminds me of UN242 where general principles of international law have been brought to bear on a specific case for which there is no -- or very, very little -- citable material). This is a case where there is no baby, only bath water. Throw it out.
Finally, sources. As tempting as it is for some of us to want to tie these arguments to organizations like JewWatch and the Institute for Historical Review, these are not Wiki-appropriate sources and should be removed from the article. They wouldn't be acceptable in other contexts, and I don't believe they belong here either. David Duke's views, on the other hand are citable and there is no reason to isolate him from the others by pinning a political label on his POV -- and, in any event, calling him an element of the "far right" is absurdly inaccurate. Many people believe that, aside from skin color and a Nobel prize, there is precious little difference between David Duke and Desmond Tutu -- for purposes of this article they should be seated at the same table and the reader can make whatever distinctions he or she wants. I also found at least one dead link for a source, and others that can't be verified. The footnote for the prominently-placed Economist source, for example, links to the Wikipedia page for the magazine. This needs to be fixed or gone. This entire following section is also interesting: According to Leila Farsakh, after 1977, "[t]he military government in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (WBGS) expropriated and enclosed Palestinian land and allowed the transfer of Israeli settlers to the occupied territories: they continued to be governed by Israeli laws. The government also enacted different military laws and decrees to regulate the civilian, economic and legal affairs of Palestinian inhabitants. These strangled the Palestinian economy and increased its dependence and integration into Israel ..." Many view these Israeli policies of territorial integration and societal separation as apartheid, even if they were never given such a name." You'll note that there is a missing set of quotes (e.g. three sets of quotes to bracket two separate quotations), and indeed I don't believe that the last sentence of this extract appears anywhere in the article. If not, it is OR and the sentence needs to go. (Note, though, as per my comment above, the whole thing should probably be gone anyway.) The Farsakh article itself, IMO, gives more to work with to the "anti-allegation" folks than the "pro-allegation" folks, so that might be an area that an ambitious editor could exploit to benefit. I suspect that this isn't the only problem of mis-quoted or mis-represented cites either.
Anyhow, Jay, I'll stop here because it's more than enough for now. I don't think this article is unsalvageable, but bringing it up to a reasonable standard will be a struggle -- and a particularly unfortunate one at that because at the end of the day the article itself shouldn't even be in the encyclopedia. Dasondas 23:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE -- The Farsakh reference does actually contain the quote I questioned. I didn't find it at first because the source has a typo which confused my text search. Smallish point, but if we lose clarity we've lost everything -- hence the correction here. Dasondas 06:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kane Street Synagogue Photo

Jay,

I am the photographer who took the photo you uploaded for the Kane Street Synagogue article. I appreciate your including it but Wikipedia did notify you that "To the uploader: this tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, [and] all available copyright information".

Your response that "I am claiming fair use because the image has no commercial value, there is no free-license equivalent, and it is being used to illustrate the subject. It is taken from the synagogue's website" is partially incorrect.The image most certainly does have commercial value and credit is given to me as the photographer on the synagogue's website.

I'm surprised, frankly, that you didn't bother to contact me to ask permission to use the image, which would have been immediately granted. Clicking on my credit line on the Kane Street website would have taken you right to my website where all contact information is posted. It would have taken you about the same time that it took you to respond to Wikipedia's notice to you regarding your posting of the photo.

I am more than happy to allow this photo to be used for your Wikipedia contribution, but, as Wikipedia stated, copyright information is required. Can you please place "© Hank Gans" under the photo? I wouldn't mind if my name was used as a link to my website, www.hankgans.com, but it's not mandatory.

I hope you won't pull the photo from your article but allow it to remain with proper credit. Pulling this message to you, however, off your talk page, will be completely understood. I would have emailed you, rather than posting here, if I could have found an email address for you.

Thank you for your understanding.

Hanknj1 15:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jay,

I have no problem with the Creative Commons Attriution License. Please restore the photo to the article with attribution. Can you make my name a live link to my website, www.hankgans.com? Thanks, much.

Hanknj1 02:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Bonaparte sock

Hey, I just blocked "Trudelstein" as an obvious sock of Bonaparte. Perhaps you could do a check to confirm this however. Thanks! Khoikhoi 18:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to confirm that this is Bonny because it is mobvious. But could you please check whether this is just Bonny himself, or also a Bonny through an open proxy. In a latter case, please ban whatever IP it is in addition to the user.

Newbies will soon have a difficulty finding a username since this fellow uses up so many. --Irpen 18:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(removed comments by banned user) Khoikhoi 22:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't share your fatalism and conspiracy theory, 148.233.159.57. If you care, you would help me defend from Makkalai's attack, instead of talking fatalist nonsense.
Is Mikka and Mikkalai the same person? Yes, perhaps he is an anti-romanian, he states so on his user page, at least. But his main deficiency is he is rude, agressive and intolerant. He is a bad person, judging by his actions. I don't care his nation. He is a shame for his nation.
Is Khoi and Khoikhoi the same person? He is a Hungarian Jew from Romania, and his name is Putnam, so what? I don't care. Maybe he is a Black Chinese from Germany, and his name is bin Laden. I don't care. This doesn't make him bad. Judge his actions, not his nation!
The biggest conspiracy, and the only one, is in the eye of the beholder. The best Makkalai can do is vandalize. Vandals do not have the guts to conspire, because conspiration requires intelligence, and an intelligent person would never behave like a vandal. An intelligent person always has other means.
Civilized people organize to defend against vandalism, not spread fatalist messages. It is because of rumors spread by your way of thought, that Securitate survived. If you are affraid, get lost. Not everyone has lost verticality, even during the worst of Securitate's persecutions.
I will not be banned, because there is no way I would vandalize. And even if, as you maybe think, the whole Wikipedia is a conspiracy, it abides by laws! You come from a nation which has 2500 years of history (Roman republic, empire, bizantine, etc) were the main value was the rule of law, you must know from your birth that evrything evil is sooner or later undone. Don't you know it by now? :Dc76 19:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(removed again) Khoikhoi 22:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I repeat again for everyone: this is my fisrt account.
Please, sign your comment. If you like using certain words, please sign!
I am located in northern europe.:Dc76 22:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on the "Personnal attack report page"

Thank you for your time in reading my report on the PA report page. You commented:

rm Mikkalai, no personal attacks shown, other problems must go through dispute resolution

I am a relatively new user, and have previously editted irregularly without a username. I never engaged in any edit wars. My contributions were to gather sourses on some subject, write a summary of the respective information, and put it on Wikipedia, in the idea that good-faith users would check through, and improve it. I never started an article before september 2006, but have expanded, sometimes substantially, existing stubs.

Once every 4-6 months I would randomly check the pages I previously editted. In about 60-80% of cases I was very pleased to discover that someone took pain to read through and correct grammar, double check the sourses, and add more very useful stuff. I felt proud to be part of such a community. In about 10-30% the edits were itchy, i.e. piecies of information were erased, sometimes in quite a biased way. But the core of my original contribution was still present. 5-10% of my edits were vandalized, but there was nothing I could do about it.

In September I thought about starting articles myself, and uploading pictures, files. I engaged in some discussions about some subjects with several users. Most of them are neutral. A good 1/4 are strongly biased, but agree to compromises if presented in a way more acceptable to them. And none of them ever, before user:Mikkalai, engaded in personl attacks.

From reading the history of the last 48 hours I understand that this user was in some edit wars with some other user Bonaparte, who was banned. Apparently Mikkalai thought I am his arch enemy Bonaparte. He targetted all the pages I contributted to in the last days, and revertted everything, including substantial contributions by other users. I asked him kindly several times to explain his actions. There was no answer on any page. I was in the imposibility to edit anything because of Makkalai. He also threatened me to ban me from Wikipedia. He does not motivate his actions, and he does not discuss anything. He just reverts my pages. Mine, not someone's else, regardless of their content. He reverted even spelling mistakes!

He was targetting me personally.So I asked for administrators' protection from personal attacks from Mikkalai.

I would have expected Mikkalai to appologize and become constructive, but obviously it is not the case. From your answer, I understand that I should revert the vandalism done by Mikkalai. What if this infuriates Mikkalai more? What should I do if he continues to revert all my edits? Should I become more agressive too, is that what you are suggesting?

Of course, if Mikkalai will not revert again, the issue would be closed. But how far can I go if he continues to target pages editted by me? I hope you will not suggest me to engage in all-out war with Mikkalai, I hate wars! I would appreciate if you would answer :Dc76 17:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I was in no way suggesting you simply revert other users, what I suggested is that you review our page on dispute resolution and use the methods listed there to resolve your dispute. Shell babelfish 18:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How about the main issue, the fact that fact that he targets me? Is it possible to ask him not to do this anymore? He does not listen to me, he just erases all my comments and questions. Can you kindly ask him not to target me? I would really appreciate if you could do so.

As for the articles, he did not revert my work only, but other people's as well, only that other users are affected on one article only, while me - on all I edit. I do not ask for support in reverting other people's work. That would be vandalism from my side to do and from your side to support me. And I am talking about the set os users composed of only one user: Mikkalai. I have tried steps 1, 2, 3. Still in 3, and looking for help from someone who can guide me through 4: 1 Avoidance 2 First step: Talk to the other parties involved 3 Second step: Disengage for a while 4 Further dispute resolution 4.1 Informal mediation 4.2 Discuss with third parties 4.3 Conduct a survey 4.4 Mediation 5 Last resort: Arbitration 6 Requesting an Advocate (at any time) thank you.:Dc76 18:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Banned user talk pages

[Copying my previous reply here also for your convenience]

SlimVirgin wrote:

Fon, are you Gurch? I was wondering about the wisdom of deleting talk pages of banned users. It can be quite helpful to read talk page posts of sockpuppets if they turn up again in another guise. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Raul654 wrote:

I just came here to point out the same thing. Please desist from deleting users whom I tag as sockpuppets. Raul654 00:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if this has caused any problems; you are of course free to reverse any deletions you think were inappropriate. My intention is not to delete all banned user talkpages, or all sockpuppet pages. I'll try to explain my rationale. The bulk of these userpages are simply being removed from Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages; a category that was set up about a month ago and into which all new pages with {{indefblockeduser}} or similar templates are placed. The idea is that once these pages have gone a month without being edited, they are to be removed. The month-long delay gives the blocked user plenty of time to make an unblock request, or otherwise contest the block before the pages are removed. Usually, the userpage will consist only of {{indefblockeduser}}, and the talkpage will have something like a username block message or a series of vandalism warnings. Since the category is relatively new, there are a large number of similar pages that are not in the category because {{indefblockeduser}} has been substituted on to them; I have also been deleting these (if they have not been edited in over a month). I'm sure you'll agree that there is little point in having pages like these; I should clarify that the original idea was not mine (the category is the end result of a series of CfDs and other changes none of which I participated in) – it has just fallen to me to do the actual deletions.

I do, however, understand the problems caused by deleting certain banned user and sockpuppet accounts, and I appreciate the need for these to stay. The pages of banned users (as opposed to merely blocked users) shouldn't be in the temporary userpages category, nor should sockpuppet accounts blocked for being sockpuppets (as opposed to username or vandalism blocks). I have taken extra care not to delete any banned users' pages, so if one or two have slipped through, I apologize. I have ignored sockpuppet pages in most cases – again, it is certainly not my intention to delete them all. However, I have deleted these in some cases – when the page's title is not only inappropriate but extremely offensive; this includes violent personal attacks against specific contributors, anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi sentiments, and other excessive uses of profanity. Most of these are blocked for inappropriate username but some are tagged as sockpuppets. I refuse to believe that there is any valid reason for retaining pages titled, for example, "User:I'm in ur germany, gassing ur jews", no matter what they have done or what the admininstrative need may be. These usernames, sockpuppet or not, were created purely for the purposes of getting attention.

If I have deleted talk pages of banned users (those prohibited from editing under any account by an ArbCom ruling or Jimbo) then this was a mistake; it was certainly not my intention, and feel free to reverse it immediately. If I have deleted sockpuppet pages which contain useful information and do not have an offensive page title as described above, then once again I apologize; these must have slipped through the net. The material on most of these pages seemed to be limited to witty {{unblock}} requests or simply a block message, however if there is more than just that, it negates my argument that the page is pointless – Gurch 03:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


SlimVirgin wrote:

Hi, thanks for your note. I don't see how we can easily reverse the deletions given there are so many; and we may not necessarily remember all the names and know which ones to restore anyway. The thing is that, in order to spot sockpuppet patterns, we do need to keep track of all the accounts that have been used. That's why they're tagged. This applies to blocked and banned users alike. Apparently some Zephram Stark sockpuppet pages have been deleted and now have been lost track of. I don't know what a temporary user page category is, or who would have tagged them as such. Are you deleting user and talk pages? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg wrote:

Gurch, did you not see my comment before from the 18th? You continue to delete user pages of users tagged as sockpuppets; in fact, one user page you've deleted twice already: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:Sappho_of_the_Far_Hemisphere Tracking sockpuppets is an important way Wikipedia deals with problem editors; please do not delete any more pages listed as sockpuppets, and please restore any others you have already deleted. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. SlimVirgin, I wasn't suggesting you reversed all the deletions; merely the one or two that you have presumably noticed me deleting in error – as I said previously, my intention is not to delete all sockpuppets and the vast majority of the pages I deleted are not sockpuppets at all. I've decided to pick out and restore the incorrectly deleted pages myself, so don't worry about that. I also don't follow your argument that you need to keep track of all accounts, whether blocked or banned. Most blocked user accounts – tens of thousands – are either one-time vandalism accounts or accounts with deliberately offensive usernames. While some of these may have been created by the same person, I still don't see the need to retain all the pages; if another account appears that is only being used for vandalism, or has an unacceptable nane, it is obvious that it needs to be indefinitely blocked and that is what will happen – who the account happens to belong to is irrelevant. I do understand the need to keep the usernames of sockpuppets in cases where (a) their edits are not obvious vandalism, and (b) the username does not violate username policy – because in these cases, it will be necessary to look at edits from previous accounts to determine whether a block is necessary. Although I'm not entirely sure why that entails keeping a userpage for each user, rather than simply listing the names somewhere. (Why not archive them at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets or Wikipedia:Long term abuse, for example?)

Again, I did not intend to delete any sockpuppets that didn't have unacceptable names, but it would seem that some have been deleted anyway, for which I apologize. The temporary userpage category is Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, into which all pages with {{indefblockeduser}} are placed. As I said before, the creation of this category and the steps leading up to it were nothing to do with me; I am simply following the instructions on the page and deleting those not edited within the last month. I have also deleted some pages not in that category, some with names that violate the username policy, some with a subst-ed old version of {{indefblockeduser}} which doesn't contain the category, and I accept full responsibility for these.

I will continue to delete userpages for which I think deletion is appropriate; however I accept that a few of my deletions were out of place. I understand Jayjg's argument and apologize for deleting the same page twice. I did read Jayjg's first comment and I thought I'd replied to it; evidently it slipped my mind.

Per your various requests, I will review the deletions (all 20,000 of them) and pick out the problem ones. I'll restore any user/talk page pairs that are tagged as sockpuppets, unless they have unacceptable usernames that are actually offensive. (As I stated before, I refuse to believe there is any need to retain a page with a name like "User:I'm in ur germany, gassing ur jews", no matter what). I don't quite understand the need to tag accounts that have done only blatant vandalism as sockpuppets, as they would be indefblocked even if they weren't sockpuppets, but as there seems to be a demand for them I will restore them anyway. I hope this is an acceptable compromise – Gurch 06:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned or blocked?

How about edits like this? Btw: Am I blocked or banned? And does indef. blocked mean that I am effectively blocked/banned from editing Wikipedia forever? 87.78.189.168 13:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Come on, can't you at least for once give a simple reply, without me going elsewhere first? 84.44.172.71 09:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See

this. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad al-Durrah

69.140.101.199 undid your reversion on Muhammad al-Durrah. KazakhPol 21:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert his edits because I do not wish to get involved in this particular dispute. If a third opinion is needed, I am happy to provide one. I have commented on the 69.140.101.199's talkpage. I suggested he comment on the article's talkpage or contact you and view the WP:OR policy since you raised the subject in your edit summary. I think you may want to talk to comment on his/her talkpage or I predict they will revert again. Regards, KazakhPol 02:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

I object to your attacks on me "I understand you feel a need to promote certain POVs on Wikipedia", and especially "You're interested in inserting POV regardless of how poorly written, policy-violating, and non-encyclopedic it is.", and would like an apology (just for these, I understand we may disagree about everything else). —Ashley Y 22:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Would you please comment on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#Request_for_Comment

Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 11:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] inappropriate username?

Maybe I'm just inventing things, but without too much imagination, User:Neigerig seems like a pretty offensive and inappropriate username. Whether it's intended to say what I think it is (it does have another non-offensive meaning, but I'm not sure how many people are aware of it on en:wp...)... Tomertalk 14:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't asked him anything at all. I was just curious whether or not anyone besides me thought there might be something inappropriate about it, before I go ruffling his feathern. Tomertalk 00:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's just German dialect (Austrian? South Tirol, maybe?) for neugierig, meaning "curious, inquisitive". (When I was a lad in Bayern, a common phrase was Sei nicht so neugierig, which has about the same meaning as "Curiousity killed the cat" -- i.e., "don't be so nosy". So this one kinda jumped out at me.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
That's correct Gordon. -- Szvest 15:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®
Oh, certainly "neugierig = curious" is correct; the only guessing I'm doing is that "neigerig" is Bairisch for "neugierig". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tourism apartheid

INHO, that hardly means it belongs in the lead. But I have gotten enough limbs stuck in the apartheid tarbaby, so have it how you like. -- Kendrick7 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Vandalism of Talmud

It scares me thinking that was there for six days and no one was the wiser. :| Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

At least we'll be aware of it before it happens. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 23:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:12.65.54.115

I think it's highly likely this is another Zorkfan sock per similar IP and Special:Contributions/12.65.54.115. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 00:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello.

I recently received a message warning me to desist deleting information from Wikipedia articles.

Granted, I believe I have done so on a few occasions, but I am reasonably certain that most of these occasions related to grammar. Might I see a list of the changes I have made to pages?

[edit] Question

Did you ever get my email? Khoikhoi 02:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've re-sent it. BTW, could you do a check on AGNLDM (talk • contribs) (possibly Bonaparte). Thanks, Khoikhoi 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

Thanks for protectign Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. A similar protection my be required at 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict over this same issue of Hezbollah casualties. Isarig 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion, Dungeons and Dragons

What is your opinion of Dungeons and Dragons cruft (if you'll forgive me for poisoning the well)? IronDuke 03:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but I've been doing my own informal random article patrol, and I keep coming across them. It seems eminently proddable to me, but maybe there already has been discussion about this. (I'm also feeling the same way about highway cruft and school cruft. And here I thought I was an inclusionist.) IronDuke 03:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Stuff like this and this. IronDuke 03:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wissahickon Creek

Ah. I never had much dealings with Bonaparte. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Nor had I. Thanks for taking care of that. Should W.C. be added to User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry? (I'd do it, but I'm unsure of the format being used there.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's a bit of a handful — I suppose it's good enough that the category is linked from that page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeesh again. If I get a burst of energy I'll see if I can help with this. (Is this part of the WP:DENY fetish? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me to remove evidence...) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there discussion of this somewhere that I should be paying attention to? (I'm afraid that I don't read AN and AN/I as closely as I should sometimes...) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
You might be interested in chiming in at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Vandal user pages. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha! The guy is truly incredible. Thanks for the heads-up. Any time to investigate that other case I was telling you of? :) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No worries

Hey Jayjg. Regarding your comment, no worries, I understand that emotions are high right now. I'm on hiatus from doing major editing work for a while anyways. I recently have been reading this book Getting to YES -- which I recommend -- and Elizmr this evening pointed me towards the sequel Getting past NO saying it was also quite good. Have a good evening. --Deodar 04:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you...

...for your nod of support during my recent RfA. If I can help out on any admin projects or if you need a pair of disinterested eyes to look at an article, just let me know. BTW, are you running for re-election for Arbcom? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I likely would not have asked if I didn't think that you should. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blocked users may not edit

You can see my illicit edits here. Please revert them immediately. 87.78.180.237 16:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonaparte again

See: User:AGNLDM. Same edits and arguments as User:Wissahickon Creek on the same page. - Pernambuco 16:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet user pages

Following your comments and a request from SlimVirgin, I've restored all user and user talk pages I deleted that were tagged as sockpuppets – Gurch 00:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usercheck request

My User page was vandalized by Anon 138.9.57.189. I am suspicious that User:Duke53 is the same person as the ANON that vandalized my page. Could you please check if the the IP address for both editors is the same? Your assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. Storm Rider (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do check and when the result is known please post it here. When that is completed could you then please start proceedings against Storm Rider for making false allegations about me? TY Duke53 | Talk 17:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
(Copied from my talk page)

Usercheck request

The evidence here doesn't look all that strong to me, so I'm reluctant to do a CheckUser; perhaps you could try this request on WP:RFCU. Jayjg (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir here; did you post this at the user page of the one who actually requested the usercheck? I knew that it wasn't me doing the vandalism, that's probably why "The evidence here doesn't look all that strong". It was another attempt at an attack upon me. Duke53 | Talk 20:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Duke53 | Talk 20:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you know whether or not I can request a usercheck at WP:RFCU on myself in this incident? I would like to prove that I wasn't the one who vandalized that page; I don't believe that the user making the allegation will request it there. Duke53 | Talk 22:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The motivation for the request is that the editor involved has been a source of conflict. The article that causes the most conflict is Mountain Meadows Massacre. The ANON involved made two edits when this was requested was made: vandalize my page and the MMM article. Nothing more than coincidence led me to think of this editor first. Are you aware of ANONs coming out of the blue just to vandalize a stranger's page? My personal experience is that vandalism of one's personal page is the result of conflict with a familiar editor.

Since I made the request I checked the location of the ANON and it appears that the ANON is from the University of the Pacific. UP seems to have been a source for other vandalism of late.

Jayjg, is there a problem with asking for a check? Are there guidelines that I should review before asking for a check? My thought has always been that a check clarifies an issue; either the proposed editor is "redeemed" or convicted. As the editor above states rightly, "I would like to prove that I wasn't the one who vandalized that page". He is also correct, the matter is not of such significance that I would pursue it further. Storm Rider (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No need, I went to the site you referred to me. Though I saw no guidelines, it did give several classifications. In working with you in the past I have gained a high degree of confidence in your counsel. Storm Rider (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
"He is also correct, the matter is not of such significance that I would pursue it further". I never said that it was insignificant; the reason that I said that you wouldn't request a usercheck again was because you were 100% wrong. The matter must have been significant only while you believed I had done it, otherwise you wouldn't have reported it. :) Duke53 | Talk 05:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN

I begin to despair of using WP:AN as a way to get another administrator involved in an issue. The latest case? WP:AN#User:Jose(Cha-Cha)Jimenez. Here I am, explicitly asking that another admin also get involved also in a situation so it doesn't get personal, and it's been about 40 hours and not a single person seems to have responded in any way. And people wonder why I (and others) have been known at times to "climb the Reichstag"?

Any suggestions? - Jmabel | Talk 22:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought WP:AN/I was for incidents calling for specific action. If not, then is there any reason at all for the (confusing) distinction? - Jmabel | Talk 23:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you have a look at the latest on Talk:Young Lords? I just don't know what to do with this. If we could get this guy to focus on what actually belongs in an encyclopedia article, I'm sure he would bring a lot to the table, but it seems that he doesn't get the concept at all. - Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huge problem with Hookrej

Hello, there's a user: Hookrej, the one that keeps editing P!nk articles according to his/her (any idea if is a boy or girl, child or adult?) likes, reverting every other editor edits, ordering according to peaks because he wants everyone to see the #1 positions first, also bolding those (which I think violates the Neutral View policy) H may think that this is a free 'fansite' for only him to edit. He also provides false and nonsense Summary Edits. You can check his latest "contribution" at U + Ur Hand edits history. Another user (Extraordinary Machine) has had many problems with Hookrej too, but he seems to be currently busy in real life. Is there any way to report Hookrej? Thanks a million in advanced. DanV 04:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC) |}

[edit] circ page shenanigans

Jayjg, I just had an exchange with an IP at the circ talk page here. I didn't realize it at the time, but after the fact it occurred to me that this is almost certainly Subversive element back for another round. Just fyi. If you agree that it's him and want to remove his comments, please feel free to remove my responses as well. Dasondas 05:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Jay, I agree completely. I didn't put 2 and 2 together until after the exchange. I wouldn't have knowingly engaged him, regardless of the provocation. When folks like him show up do you feel it is generally best to delete the posts or just let leave them alone where they sit? Dasondas 19:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet tagged; not blocked

On Nov. 1, 2006 you placed ({{SockpuppetCheckuser|Semlow}}) on the user page of Ilterandhome but no block was ever placed. This user is now editing, not blocked, with this tag on his/her user page. Was this tag placed incorrectly or was the block simply forgotten? -- AuburnPilottalk 07:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment

I've already explained my actions, and I stand by them. If it had been a "community ban" block, I would not have intervened. It wasn't. The rationale for the block was absurd, so "conflict-of-interest" concerns did not apply. CJCurrie 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Response:

  1. I can't agree with your assessment. This wasn't simply a block I disagreed with, it was an absurd block based on a misunderstanding.
  2. Assuming for the sake of argument that I did violate conflict-of-interest guidelines, wouldn't this make FeloniousMonk equally culpable? CJCurrie 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Response:

  1. FreakofNuture believed Gehockteh leber was a sockpuppet. This view is demonstrably false. The ban was therefore absurd, and my personal connection to the subject is irrelevant.
  2. No, but FeloniousMonk has a history of hostility toward HotR, to say nothing of questionable blocks.

Btw, do you not see a certain asymmetry between this and this? CJCurrie 23:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] List of terrorist organizations

I do not believe that it is anachronistic to describe Irgun and the Stern Gang as 'Israeli'. Their objectives included the establishment of an Israeli state - therefore they fit the description of 'Israeli nationalist terrorist organizations'. The adjective 'Palestinian' is usually taken to refer to the Arab inhabitants of the former mandated territory, and it is therefore misleading (and I would suggest inflammatory) to label Irgun and the Stern gang as Palestinian - unless you are seriously suggesting that the attrocities carried out by them shpuld be lumped together with those carried out by Palestinian terrorist organizations. DuncanHill 00:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm not convinced by the reasoning you give, but don't want to get into any big 'fight' over it - hopefully most readers will realise that Irgun and the Stern gang were Israeli terrorist organizations - certainly they were not referred to as 'Palestinian' by their British victims - and not confuse them with Palestinian terrorist organizations. I think the word 'dissolved' is a trifle misleading, as it suggests that a voluntary decision by the terrorists. Anyway, best wishes. DuncanHill 03:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quisling

My comparison between the term "a Quisling" and the American term "a Benedict Arnold" was removed with the comment "revert edit by banned editor". However, I, Sensemaker, am no banned editor as far as I know and the comparison is both relevant, interesting and pedagogic.

Sensemaker

I was reverting the edits of User:Sindicate, a banned editor. Regarding the comparison between "Quisling" and "Benedict Arnold", that sounds like original research to me. Do you have a source for that? Jayjg (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If you removed my comparison by mistake why don't you just say so? We all make mistakes, but defending an error is to err again (and a much worse error in my opinion).

Do you really need a source just for pointing out a synonym? With such strict standards wiki would be stuffed to the gunwales with links and source references. Just read the Benedict Arnold article and the Quisling article and you will see that the terms are similar.

It is not original research. I found it in a dictionary. I'll see if I can find out which one.

Sensemaker

[edit] Reliable Sources

Jayjg, can you kindly tell me if Salon.com qualifies as a reputable or reliable source as per WP:BLP & WP:RS? Salon.com is an internet "magazine" that does not publish a newspaper, magazine, or anything else in hardcopy form. On the Sathya Sai Baba article there are numerous mentions to Michelle Goldberg's article entitled "Untouchable?". Needless to say, this article has only been published on Salon.com and has never been published in reputable media newspapers, magazines or the like. Since this article contains critical, negative and potentially libelous information about Sathya Sai Baba, how can it be used as a reputable or reliable source when it has never been published by reputable media? It is only available on the internet as an online article/resource. To me, this appears to violate WP:BLP & WP:RS. I have asked other admin for their opinions and none, so far, seem willing to give a response. Not sure why. SSS108 talk-email 18:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, can you read this thread and then comment? More information is provided on why I think it should not be used a source. Especially when it contains critical and potentially libelous information that was not published by other reputable or reliable media sources. SSS108 talk-email 16:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User conduct rfc

Hi, Jayjg. I noticed that you've had some contact with User:Fix Bayonets! in the past at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center. I recently started a user conduct Rfc regarding Fix Bayonets! conduct at that article and elsewhere, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fix Bayonets!. I would appreciate any input you have, if any. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks!


[edit] Mediation cabal request re: Khazars

ColumbanAgain has requested informal mediation regarding Khazars#Theorized Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim and has identified Jayjg, Humus Sapiens, and Briangotts as interested parties. I've tried to summarize the dispute on the mediation page. I also have a few short questions that I think may be helpful in resolving the dispute.

  • Columban, I have a few questions for you here;
  • Any of the others who would like to respond, I have a few questions for you here.

Thanks -- I'm looking forward to working with you all. TheronJ 23:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support!

Se la face ay pale, la cause est...

23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If I'm a bit pale in the face now,
it's because of the amazing support
during my recent request for adminship
and because of all those new shiny buttons.

And if in the future
my use of them should not always be perfect
please don't hesitate to shout at me
any time, sunset, noon or sunrise.

[edit] Wow

I really admire the way you handle debates like the one on the talk page of 'hamas'. Keep doing a great job and good luck!---(i shall create an account pretty soon and work to help improve wikipedia, so cya later)

Thanks for your compliment, and I look forward to seeing your new account. Jayjg (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubai

You appear to have attempted to stop the spammer by blocking their IP. Most internet users in the UAE, including this one I think, have dynamic IPs - there is no choice of ISP here and it is illegal not to go through their proxy. Whilst the spam is a nuisance, blocking their IP won't affect them. They just need to wait a few seconds or minutes for the IP to change. Or disconnect/reconnect. But blocking the IP will affect other non-spammers who attempt to edit that page and happen to be connected with that IP - it's happened to me often enough. Apologies if I've misunderstood what you've done.

No I realized it was a shared and dynamic IP, so I didn't block it. Instead I just semi-protected the pages being spammed. Jayjg (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Sorry. I'm still getting familiar with WP. I'll look up semi-protection now :) ...

[edit] Wik check

I seem to recall that you've worked at identifying Wik/Gzornenplatz reincarnations before. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Harvardy and see if you can help in identification? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 05:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nannu-ctg

This person logged on to WP for the first time today and set up an account, having asked me for help in doing so. In order to help him get familiar with the system, and while I had him on the phone, I logged on once under his username, and with his password, to help him place a sentence on his userpage, which he was having trouble with. We are two individuals. Just wanted you to have all the relevant information. Peace, BYT 17:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Beit Hanoun November 2006 massacre

You might want to check this talk page. They say that the incident where 19 Palis were killed by a stray shelled is a massacre. Also, please protect Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident against moves. MathKnight 21:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't see how it can be anything other than a massacre. When Hezbollah fire rockets into Israel with the aim of defeating it militarily, any mis-hits are (quite reasonably) considered to be unwarranted attacks against civilians. The same principle must apply to IDF actions - particularily when, as in this case, they've first occupied the affected region, making mistakes and 'collaterall damage' even more inexcusable.
PalestineRemembered 19:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:FuManChoo

Thanks. We\'ll see how it goes.

He seems to be saying that he still can\'t edit because an IP address is blocked. Do you have any idea what\'s up with that? Probably his user talk page is the best place to continue any conversation on this, so that he will see it. - Jmabel | Talk 00:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

He was caught under Autoblock #298908. I unblocked that (as Jay unblocked the main Fu), so perhaps it will work now. -- Avi 00:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Account

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thepresident1 , and archive this page, it´s too much kbs

[edit] Thanks

Hi Jayjg, its an honour for me to be supported in my RFA by a senior wikipedian like you. Thanks:) -- Lost(talk) 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cbuhl79 case

Thanks for pulling the case. I was hesitant under the circumstances. (4-0 and 1-4 are easy, 4-2 was sure to annoy someone). I'll be on top of it the next time. Thatcher131 19:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It was definitely within the rule but it was the first case since the rule change to have a significant number of accept votes, so I was nervous. :) Thanks. Thatcher131 19:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg, I'm not sure if you'll see the discussion on the RfAr talk page, in which a couple of the participants in this case have expressed bewilderment about why 4-2 to accept counts as a rejection, so please pardon me for jumping in here. (For the record, I have no knowledge of the underlying case whatsoever.)
I agree it's clear this case was rejected under the rule as currently written. However, I don't see how the rule as written makes much sense, at least as applied to a case that has waited through the full 10-day consideration period.
I take it that 4 accept votes suffice to open a case because if as many as 4 arbitrators believe a case has sufficient merit to go through arbitration, then it should. Thus, there is no need to for a majority of the entire Committee to vote to accept (which might take awhile, and it's often difficult to know who's going to participate in a given case anyway). But if the vote is 4-1 or 4-2, then accellerating the case to acceptance might not be warranted, because enough reject votes might come in to change the result, and hence the qualification that 4 net accept votes rather than 4 accept votes (ignoring reject votes) are required.
But when all the votes are in or the case review period expires, I don't see the rationale for a rule that 4 more accept than reject votes are still required, so that at 4-2, for example, the case will not be heard. In fact, it's possible to imagine an even more perverse application that occurred here: suppose virtually the entire committee votes on a case, and there were 8 votes to accept and 5 to reject. By a literal reading of the current rule, the case would not be heard. Is that really what's supposed to happen? I'd be interested in your thoughts. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help please!

I came to get the ball rolling I am the now the blocked OLPC Wiki user 216.194.21.142.Please remeber JayjG its poor kids and the UN we are talikng about in other nations. We are from the USA.Make sure it is only 2 weeks as a first offence or lifted if you can . [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] What is he with the Klu Klux Clan this #7guy? 4USA=this guy [8] [9] I did this made a question and directed people to my page he changed the file entry and said he did it He's a cad! [10][11] [12] The list was long if some one came they need to know it was questions.Yeah I left Walter a meassage and said after he reads it he could delet it. This Wiki's rules said you could use space if some one was not using it they promote that! I did. He delted it I left a message on his page about it based on what i had saw so far on the OLPC site.They also did win a contest to build laptops for the worlds poor! What is on my page has a meaning style and effect over a few days you can see it work. This was yesterday OK. Thanks Hunter OLPC at laptop.org. they also requested this on several pages at OLPC of laptop.org I email SJ as I am blocked and he didnt give an address as he said only an address to the survey. I also when I first started asked if what was on my page content wise could be what I want? They did not ssy any thing. So then I went public with Pros and Cons as #4 and Question list as #1 on the question list they removed that too! --216.194.21.142 20:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 02:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Hi Jayjg, I am very thankful to you for supporting and comments on my succesful RfA. Shyam (T/C) 06:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hello Jayjg. I wanted to thank you with flowers (well, flower) for taking the time to participate in my RfA, which was successful. I'm very grateful for your support, especially since our paths first crossed over a difference of opinion. I assure you I'll continue to serve the project to the very best of my ability and strive to use the admin tools in a wise and fair manner. Please do let me know if I can be of assistance and especially if you spot me making an error in future. Many thanks once again. Yours, Rockpocket 06:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempts to blame Muslim Palestinians for the terrible plight of Christian Palestinians

You claim at [13] that: Some of Lance's links appear to come from Palestinian Christians themselves; why are your links more convincing than his? Jayjg 19:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that your contribution in this case is more than a trifle perverse. Two of those three references from Lance6Wins come from Palestinian Christians - they blame the "Christian Right" of the US and Israel, respectively, for their plight. They're not running from their Muslim neighbours but from occupation and terrorism by brutal soldiers, and ethnic cleansing threats such as these: "House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) was even more forthright: 'I'm content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank… I happen to believe that the Palestinians should leave..
(The third reference is a vicious polemic against Muslims by the author of " Eye to Eye will give you the latest documentation ...... of the consequences suffered by U.S. Presidents, Israeli Prime Ministers, and world leaders when they participate in the dividing of the covenant land of Israel and interfering with God's plan for the nation of Israel".)
And we know that Israel is also ethnically cleansing it's own Christians eg [14] - March 2005. Where do you get the idea that Muslims are the oppressors in all of this? In fact, how about letting the Palestinians back to their homes first, before we discuss who is carrying out the the crimes committed against the Christians amongst them?
PalestineRemembered 14:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would you bother posting a two-year old comment on my Talk: page? Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I was puzzled why you would defend clips which said the opposite of what was claimed for them.
Particularily when the claimant was making allegations against people suffering under a harsh occupation.
Of course, you may wish Muslims to suffer unwarranted accusations, and be blamed for crimes (whether real or imaginary) alleged against Israel.
There again, you might have mended your ways in the succeeding two years - I'm sure you'll welcome the opportunity to tell us you've changed.
PalestineRemembered 08:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks!

My brand-spankin' new mop!

My RfA done
I hope to wield my mop well
(Her name is Vera)

I appreciate
The support you have shown me
(I hope I don't suck)

Anyway, I just
wanted to drop you a line
(damn, haikus are hard)

EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks
Thank you for the extra feathers on my wings!

Thank you so much, Jayjg, for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Húsönd 21:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the congrats. :-) Regards.--Húsönd 03:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CfD Orthodox Jewish communities

Shavuah Tov Jay, please add your learned views. See vote at: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 12#Category:Orthodox Jewish communities. Thanks. IZAK 11:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian refugee edit wars

Hi, Jayjg. I note that you're a longtime contributor to Palestinian refugee and Talk:Palestinian refugee. I'm trying to generate substantive discussion of an issue involving WP:RS and WP:NPOV in this thread, but with no success. I hope a genuine airing of the issue might calm the current edit wars. I would engage Zero to participate, but unfortunately he has been front-and-centre in the tit-for-tat reversions and the accompanying discussion, which has become bitter; the atmosphere is poisonous. The discussion could really use your patient and even-handed approach: it desperately needs the patient mediation of editors willing to discuss facts and policy in as dispassionate and even-handed a manner as possible.

I'm also in the process of soliciting opinions from other longtime contributors to the article to see if widening the circle of participants might defuse some intransigence and help break the deadlock. If you had the time to review the thread and respond to my (overample) comments, which begin about half-way down, it might help move the discussion toward a workable consensus.

The other editors I am planning to contact include Mustafaa, Stevertigo, SlimVirgin and perhaps Leumi and Viajero. If you had any reservations about the names on this list, or can think of contributors I should include, please let me know. If you're unable or disinclined to participate, please just drop me a note to that effect and I'll try to soldier on without you :( . --Rrburke 16:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Hi Jayjg, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as I expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 (chit chat) 22:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shiny new buttons

Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use.
~ trialsanderrors 06:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I have filed a formal complaint against NazireneMystic on the Personal Attack noticeboard if you want to add any comments [15]. This is the same individual that repeatedly restored the deleted Ebionite Restoration Movement stub. There are also some comments directed at you that are relevant Deleted pages. Ovadyah 08:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] But

This is getting a bit silly. Your only argument so far has been "because I say so". Such pages as NOT, BLP, Copyvio etc are (1) policies, and (2) about content. That makes them content policies by definition. There is obvious precedent for the removal of content that fails any of these three policies, and possibly others. That makes them content policies de facto as well. I think it's fine if people create an essay about which policies they like best, such as WP:TRI, but that shouldn't be part of the policy pages themselves. (Radiant) 16:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It hasn't been like that "for years" (specifically, it was added by SlimVirgin when she reworded the page about a year ago), and if this has been agreed upon anywhere please point that out to me. Now I don't particularly see why we should have a dichotomy between "content policies" and "legal policies" (indeed, a policy can be both legal and about content) but the statement that there are exactly three content policies is obviously incorrect. For instance, while I agree that BLP is a corollary, but it's nevertheless a content policy. The concept of "core" policies isn't elaborated upon anywhere, but it is obvious that there are other core policies, such as CIV and IAR. Furthermore, it is incorrect to state that all material that meets NPOV, V and NOR is therefore appropriate for Wikipedia, as material regularly gets removed on grounds of copyvio or WP:NOT. As you just admitted, content that fails WP:COPY is inappropriate for Wikipedia - precisely for the reason of failing to meet a content policy. So apart from the fact that it's existed for awhile, please explain the reasoning behind this triad. (Radiant) 16:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but by the same token, if a new book got published tomorrow that describes recent additions to an article (which is not unlikely regarding e.g. pop culture hypes), that text is then verifiably sourced and no longer original research. Again, it's not the content that changes, it's the published status. (Radiant) 16:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad al-Durrah

I have changed the introduction to Muhammad al-Durrah.[16] I feel the current version is better grammatically and in terms of POV, though it may be less pleasing stylistically. I am notifying you because a little ways back you and I discussed the article. KazakhPol 00:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on the talkpage. I wasnt sure if you were planning on leaving one first so sorry if this resulted in an edit conflict. Regards, KazakhPol 01:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
How about now? KazakhPol 02:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Open Orthodoxy" & Avi Weiss

Hi Jay: User:Shirahadasha has created an new article called "Open Orthodoxy" - about a new notion (that is "neither fish nor fowl") recently coined by Rabbi Avi Weiss. After having been asked about it, I attempted to redirect Open Orthodoxy to the Avi Weiss article and post all its content there because on it's own it's a neologism in violation of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, but Shirahadasha has reverted my redirect. What do you think should be done, please add your views at Talk:Open Orthodoxy. IZAK 09:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on RPJ

Hi. I'm advocating a case on behalf of a user who is experiencing numerous problems with RPJ. I can see from RPJ's talk page that you have interacted with him in the past. If you have a moment, would you be so kind as to head over to the RfC page and leave any guidance that might help in resolving this dispute. Thanks so much, and have a great day! →Bobby← 15:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:159.105.80.92

Hi, Jayjg. What warnings have to be issued to User:159.105.80.92 before issuing a block? I removed one of his edits to a talk page per How to use article talk pages: Keep on topic, then I had a look through his edit history I discovered he'd never used to account for anything except arguing on talk pages. The arguments are typically about the subject of the article, not the article itself, and include PAs. --Rrburke 22:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your views please

Hi Jay: I have just contacted new User:Chavatshimshon who has made some big moves in long-standing articles about Jewish topics. Please read what I wrote to him and add your expertise and intervention. Thank you. IZAK 08:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

STOP your changes NOW!
Dear Chavatshimshon: Welcome, and thank you for contacting me. Regarding your changes @ Chavatshimshon edits Please do not make any more changes or moves to Jewish articles. You are too new to Wikipedia. You are not even reverting articles correctly (by creating multiple double reverts). You are also creating duplicate articles of existing articles, which creates even more problems. The articles you are fiddling around with have been worked on for many years. You cannot move and change these articles without discussing it with the nearly one hundred known members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism; Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history; Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish culture and others. I am going to ask some experienced editors, who are also admins, to examine your recent changes and to revert your moves until we can get some better idea of what it is that you are doing, and if it is going to help the Jewish and Judaism articles on Wikipedia. Stay tuned. This message is being shared with User:Jmabel; User:Jayjg; User:Jfdwolff; User:TShilo12 and User:Humus sapiens. Thank you. IZAK 08:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Williamwells

Jay, could you sprotect this page? Subversive element is still trying to edit, in spite of his ban. Thanks, Jakew 18:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest. I didnt miss any messages (they will be in the history even if deleted, right?). I think you can unprotect the page whenever you wish and I appreciate your help. I clearly dont understand the underlying politics on this subject but I will continue with trying to improve the accuracy. Williamwells 20:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Criticism of the Quran

Hi, this is a new article we're having problems with. You might be interested in helping out. Check out the history for the state of affairs [17]. Aminz has recently claimed on 3 admin pages that anti-Semitism doesn't exist in the Muslim world, and is keeping out well referenced criticism from prominent critics (though not on the specific issue of anti-Semitism). Arrow740 00:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jean-Thierry Boisseau

It looks like you skipped FoF #2 User:Musikfabrik. Was this intentional or just a miss? Thatcher131 01:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser

you should look at User:70.218.34.233 Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 06:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Host desecration

It is my uderstanding that you do not like me very much; but notwithstanding, I hope you can be of some aid at Host desecration in your capacity as an administrator.--Lance talk 10:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal

Hi Jay: Care to comment? Please see: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-17 Religious opposition to same-sex marriage in South Africa. Thank you. IZAK 12:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jews for Jesus

You recently twice reverted a change without any comment on the talk page. Since this is a highly contended page, please would explain your reasoning on the talk page rather than simply reverting without comment. Thanks. DJ Clayworth 18:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops sorry, only once. Still an explanation would be useful. DJ Clayworth 18:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another Bonny sock

See Europeanul (talk • contribs) Khoikhoi 18:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ger Toshav

You've stripped out the cut-and-paste element referencing the Wikipedia page on Kach that stated Kach's current use of the Ger Toshav concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kach_movement), which rather goes against the grain of it falling out of use with the Fall of the Temple. Any particular reason? It is indeed a minority viewpoint, but so is Dhimmitude! Oudemos

[edit] User:Threeafterthree

Jayjg, reading your comments on WP:ANI, I would support an indefinite block on this user. Suggesting hatred towards a religious group is just not on. I think you have done very much the right thing here. --SunStar Net 00:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I copy-pasted that to WP:ANI as you requested. --SunStar Net 00:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Reliable source

A conservative Journalist is a reliable source when we have Lewis and others???????? --Aminz 00:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

He is a popular writer. Not respected within the academic circles. His argument is clearly false; you can accept it but it is false. --Aminz 00:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Now it becomes interesting. A Florida university-press published book is polemic and a conservative journalist is a reliable source. Interesting. Indeed. --Aminz 00:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am also interested to hear why Rejwan is a polemicist. Apparently she is a research fellow at the Harry Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.--Aminz 00:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wik is back

I noticed the recent edit war at Empire of Atlantium, and I'm pretty sure that Crooked allele (talk • contribs), Enenkian (talk • contribs), and 200.253.168.2 (talk • contribs) are all Wik—the IP appears to be an open proxy. Do you know what should be done about this? Khoikhoi 02:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I request that my block be shortened

Jayjg, please shorten my block. This is an extremely anxious time in my life. Yes, I KNOW I am not supposed to editing with IPs while blocked, and I apoligize for doing that. But I was blocked under wrong premises in the first place, please understand this. Please understand that 3 months is simply too long; impossibly long for a dedicated wikipedia volunteer to wait. As an administrator you have the power and responsibility to decide what is ethically right and wrong, so it would be too radical for me to request that you lift my block altogether (even though that is probably what should have been done). But please reset my block back to what it was before: two months. 12.65.96.84 01:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not ignore my requests, and please reply to my topic as soon as you can. This is rather urgent as far as Wikipedia goes. 12.64.158.197 20:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Stop ignoring me, Jayjg. My request is urgent and I require your attention, whether I am blocked or not this is irrelevant, as I am not editing at all. Please, I repeat, reply here. I ask you with with straightforwardness and dignity. 12.64.216.126 21:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, you continue to edit Wikipedia: [18]. If anything, I should lengthen your block. However, if you stop editing right now, and stay away for the rest of the three months, I won't do so. Jayjg (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I come to you declaring that a three-month block is without justice. Why will you not hear me out? 12.65.222.15 22:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You edit-warred and avoided blocks for weeks until you were finally blocked, and the pages you edited protected. As soon as the pages were unprotected, you evaded your blocks again and started edit-warring again. The only "injustice" I see is that you have not yet been permanently blocked; is that what you are looking for? Jayjg (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, Jayjg, stop labelling my IPs as sockpuppets; I am NOT sockpuppeting! I have no other way to contact you, which is why I must communicate with you this way. How will you allow me to voice my concerns, that a 3-month block is unfair and counter-productive? I mean all this in the most straightforward way possible: I do not believe I am under a fairly assigned block, and I need to be able to communicate to you why. I ask you, please listen to me. Will you? 12.64.72.215 22:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Make your case here. Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The simply reason that the block is unfair is two-fold. One reason is because getting into a 3RR battle is not enough to block someone for more than a couple of days (especially when it was one person against 5). The particular 3RR baattle i was in was primarily with PinchasC, tho, who reverted my edits without sufficient comment. I explained why I made an edit in the talk page, and told him point by point why it was an improvement. PinchasC on the other hand didn't reply on the talk page at all: he kept reverting it and the only note he added was "this is more pov", no further reasons as to why. When I told him his actions with idiotic, he called it a "personal attack" and had the audacity to mark it as such. And thus I was blocked. And there is also the matter of the block being 3 months long: it's simply too long, especially when I get blocked for NO GOOD REASON worth being blocked 3 months. So there's my basic problems. 12.64.72.215 22:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
You left out all the sockpuppeting and reverting as User:Luzadi3, User:Luzadi7, User:Luzadii, User:Mraleph, User:Zorkael, User:Zorkmin, User:Zorkmon and dozens of IPs, along with the violations of WP:CIV. Your initial block was 24 hours, then 48 hours. You kept sockpuppeting, and the second you would return from a block you would revert war again, and then sockpuppet until the pages in question were locked. It didn't start at three months. See [19]. Jayjg (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Not to be rude, but I don't think that's how blocks work at WP. I had already served my time for past breaches at WP and dedicated myself to serious editing after coming out of a lengthy month-long block. All the revert wars I've gotten into have been rooted in the fact that people are apathetic, and they would rather just revert something than whole-heartedly go over it in the talk page, made more apalling to me knowing that I constantly tried to set up a scenario to do just that. I definitely consider reverting edits and not adequetly making it clear why, to be POV pushing. I've never made an edit to an article that I didn't wish to adhere to Wikipedia's standards of quality. And then I had to be thrown into a rediculous revert war where my character was essentially assassinated by multiple bigots at one time. The people who reverted me never responded to any messages (probably because they had no factual evidence for why the edit was invalid, they just didn't like the edit); they just assumed I was wrong! And why'd you revert my message to User: Noahlaws. It's clear that his experience at Wikipedia is not a pleasant one, I wasn't editing any articles, I wanted to comfort him, regardless of whether or not he shares my beliefs. The administrators are WP are never held accountable for their indifference here, not that I've seen. They've always been very ban-happy, but extremely reluctant to listen to anything I have to say. I can honestly, without a flinch, tell you that most administrators here really care more about policy than doing the right thing and common sense, speaking in terms of how they interact with non-admins. And to you, the fact that I'm under a block seems to override any premise of whether or not I should be under the block, and that's simpleminded. I'm also one of the only people in project: Messianic Judaism. None of the people that ever reverted it are part of project: MJ. Thus, it is only reasonable to assume that as a dedicated part of a certain project, I have a better intrinsic understanding of what is and is not true about that topic (and I do cite references, regularly). I'm not saying lift the block, but why in the world is it 3 months? The block is too long, it needs to be shortened, it's cutting a person off from a big wikiproject that only has four whole members. 12.64.72.215 00:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

He is back editing again. IrishGuy talk 01:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed he is. Zorkfan, I said you could speak your piece here, not start editing the encyclopedia again. Each time you have been blocked, you have insisted that you are exempt from Wikipedia's rules, and should not be blocked. You continue to do so today. Show you have changed your attitude by not editing Wikipedia for the period of your ban. If you do, you will be allowed to return. If not, I will extend the ban, and eventually make it permanent. The choice is yours. Jayjg (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg, I can't believe you set the block forward to four months! Please set it back to three. I didn't do anything; I continue to faithfully observe your prohibition against editing any articles. This of course does not extend into private converstations in user's talk pages, as I am allowed to make private messages as long as it is productive to articles and not spam. If not for my sake then for G-d's, set it back to three, this is just being sadistic. 12.64.228.59 01:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you are a blocked editor, which means you cannot edit articles, talk pages, category talk pages, user talk pages, or anything else. Next time you edit anything at all on Wikipedia, including my Talk: page, it will be reset to 6 months. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think you're being too harsh? I have friends on wikipedia that I have no other way of communicating with. Why be inflexible? I can't harm anything if I'm not editing articles, can I? You're going to keep me away from talking to some of my best friends and closest associates for months? Shouldn't wikipedia blocks exist to teach rather than hurt? This is not to mention, once again, I should never have been blocked in the first place! You instantly took a block from 48 hours to 2 months. That was such an injustice, such inconsideration, with so few checks and balances, that it cannot reasonably be called fair. Please consider all of things in advance of potentially ruining my life. 12.64.140.155 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am serious; edit one more time, and I extend it to 6 months. Take this very, very, very seriously. One more edit, anywhere, including my Talk: page, and it will be 6 months. Do not respond to this post. Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, would you consider reducing the block to 2 months, letting him editing only at his own talkpage at User_talk:Zorkfan, and the first time he offends bouncing it back to 6 months? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would consider reducing it to 3 months, if he promises to edit only Talk:Zorkfan; but the first time he offended , I would make it a permanent block. Zorkfan, do you agree to these conditions? If so, post your agreement as Zorkfan on Talk:Zorkfan. Nowhere else, not here, or any other Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Will314159 Legal threats

Please see here. I'm fed up with him. << armon >> 12:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chabad

Hi Jay: I came across the page of User:Chabad and I see that he has not made any edits since December 2004! [20] almost two years! Is there any rule about user pages being voided if they have not been used for such a long time?, especially with such a "catchy" name, I also suspect it may have been a sockpuppet of an editor who became more active later, but I have no way of being sure. Best wishes and Shabbat Shalom! IZAK 13:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:64.229.209.85

I've already put a warning on his Talk page, and was just about to rollback all of his vote stacking spam. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added a comment on the subject to the CfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser page of Khosrow II

  • Hey, I'm waiting about for 2 months for checking user of Khosrow II Can you please take a look? Here the link [21], Thanks Zaparojdik (talk • contribs) 15:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review Ebionites Article

Loremaster and I would appreciate it if you would look over the Ebionites article and provide suggestions to get it ready for nomination as a featured article. We just finished incorporating the suggestions of Slrubenstein from peer review. Ovadyah 16:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Jay, do you think you will have time to give us your thoughts on the article? James Tabor informed me that he will drop by to comment and share his latest thinking about the Ebionites. He is a major author on this subject, so it should be interesting. Also, I could use your advice on coming up with an appropriate image for the article. Ovadyah 14:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please help me improve this contribution to Benjamin Netanyahu BLP.

You've reverted this with the comment "m (Doesn't appear to be any particular "Controversy" about this, aside from it appearing on the website on an unreliable source. Please remember WP:BLP)"

I can't see anything wrong with it - the comments were widely reported (and sometimes condemned) within Israel and further afield. I chose to highlight the jewsagainsttheoccupation link because it was succint and almost devoid of other verbiage that could have been objectionable.

Here's what I added:

In 2003 Benjamin Netanyahu said (speech to the Herzliya Conference on security issues) [22]: "if there is a demographic problem, and there is, it is with the Israeli Arabs who will remain Israeli citizens." Arab-Israeli Knesset member Azmi Bishara commented, "the scandal lies in the fact that this is the only country that speaks of millions of people, who are natives not immigrants, as a demographic problem ... Describing the original residents of this land as a demographic problem would be considered racism in any normal, or even abnormal, country."

Here's what Ha'aretz said on the same topic - should I post this instead?

Aluf Benn and Gideon Alon - Haaretz (18 December 2003) Israel's growing demographic problem is not because of Palestinians, but of Israeli Arabs, Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said yesterday. Speaking at the Herzliya Conference on security, Netanyahu said Israel had already freed itself from control of almost all Palestinian Arabs. He said he could not foresee a future in which "any sane Israeli" could try to make Palestinians either Israeli citizens or "enslaved subjects." The Palestinians would under all circumstances rule themselves and administer their own affairs, he said. "If there is a demographic problem, and there is, it is with the Israeli Arabs who will remain Israeli citizens," he said. The Declaration of Independence said Israel should be a Jewish and democratic state, but to ensure the Jewish character was not engulfed by demography, it was necessary to ensure a Jewish majority, he said. If Israel's Arabs become well integrated and reach 35-40 percent of the population, there will no longer be a Jewish state but a bi-national one, he said. If Arabs remain at 20 percent but relations are tense and violent, this will also harm the state's democratic fabric. "Therefore a policy is needed that will balance the two."

[edit] Could you please help?

Jayjg, could you please take a look at this difficult situation? It would be much appreciated.

It relates to Tgubler (talk • contribs). This person was involved in a legal dispute with an organization related to Prem Rawat, having been found stealing computer data as per his own admission, and subsequently involved in a legal imbroglio. He signed an affidavit that was filed with the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, in which he admits to stealing computer data "with the purpose of harassing and harming Prem Rawat and his students". He later attempted to recant his testimony, by stating that he signed the affidavit under duress, but the court negated his request on the basis of a "credibility handicap". (State Reporting Bureau - Supreme Court of Queensland, Order 9538 01/03/2004 p.5-7 "The affidavit also makes it plain that the interaction between those present [Gubler and Ms McDonald from Quinn and Scattini] on this occasion was not stressful and that no illegitimate pressure was brought to bear.[...] Gubler suffers from the credibility handicap of having sworn one thing in one occasion and another on a later occasion after having spoken to a party to the proceedings about his evidence" J. Muir.) You can read his affidavit here.

Given what I perceive as a very obvious COI, and given the precarious situation he may find himself when editing Prem Rawat and related articles, I have advised him to contribute to the talk page and have other editors assess his contributions on its merits.

He believes that he does not have such COI, despite being advised that he may. Note that I have welcomed him and attempted to explain why he should be cautious. See User_talk:Tgubler

As I am in a conflict of interest myself in this matter, my advise to him may not be accepted. I would appreciate it if you, as a neutral person, can take a look and offer any help to this user in a way that may be better received.

Many thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The incident took place three years ago and his actions then were based on his dislike of Prem Rawat. That has not changed. I do not see why Tgubler now has a conflict of interest. Andries 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
His dislike of Prem Rawat is noted, but that is not what the issue is about. A person that by his own admission entered into a conspiracy to steal data with the intention to harm Prem Rawat and his students, may have a strong inclination to use WP as a plattform to "get even" for the obviously embarrassing situation he found himself in through his actions. He can always contribute to related articles by means of the talk page, so if his intentions are sound, there will be no problem in accepting his suggestions for improving these articles. As a person that is advising Tgubler in private on how to edit Wikipedia, and that has in the past defended and supported the views of detractors such as Tgubler, and and as long-standing contributor to this project, you should be putting Wikipedia ahead of your own POV rather than exacerbate the difficult situation user Tgubler finds himself by encouraging him to disregard his very obvious COI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, first you write that he may try to get even. I believe that your speculation in this respect is untrue. And later you write that he has a "very obvious COI". In other words, you contradict yourself and hence your statement is unconvincing. I care about Wikipedia and that is why I think that your effort to limit the edits of a potentially good editor who has access to a lot of sources (more than anybody else in Wikipedia, I believe) are not constructive. Andries 21:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, it has not exactly been my experience that you recognize sound intentions on the talk page due to your strong POV on the subject. You try to dismiss every criticism as coming from a biased source. I believe that you try to be fair and objective (like everybody else involved), but I do not think you have succeeded in this. Andries 21:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Andries: I care deeply about this project; I have welcomed Tgubler and others that have opposing views to me; I have been extremely careful in my comments to Tgubler and I have welcomed his involvement in these articles; I have suggested ways to discuss the concerns he raised so that these can be addressed; I have explained to him that he may have an ax to grind and that he should be cautious; I have asked for third-party opinions to assure myself that I am not crossing any lines I should not. My success would be measured by my actions and the composure I have demonstrated. As for your assessment of tgubler having the potential to be "a good editor", he can demonstrate that by engaging in discussions and seeking consensus in talk. Regarding your assessment of Tgubler having access to "a lot of sources", I disagree, as these sources are available to anyone with access to newspaper archives and a good library as we have demonstrate it in the meticulous sourcing of these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desmond Tutu

I reverted your last edit to Desmond Tutu. Please explain why that's being given undue weight. I also do not understand how that's unsourced... KazakhPol 22:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I see, thanks, KazakhPol 01:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messianics again

Hi Jay: The Messianic Judaism editors have been busy lately, you may want to know the following. Thanks. IZAK 19:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the publicity IZAK. Jay is familiar with who I am. Thanks for the publicity anyways. I haven't updated my userpage in ages; before I was even Messianic. But I really can't address this right now. It's almost time for maariv, and for me to go to bed. I'll be on later if you or Jay would like to interview me to discover my "POV". Shalom. inigmatus 04:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
When you daven ma'ariv who do you pray to? "Hevel Varik"? IZAK
  • User:Stjamie (contributions) created a new article (yet again) about "Rabbi" Isaac Lichtenstein (did this person even exist or this a hoax?), as well as about Boaz Michael (is this person notable or is this a vanity page?)
  • Hi Jayjg. You seem to be particularly concerned about the 'original research' aspects of the "All Jewish organizations..." phrase in Jews for Jesus. I've added a detailed look at the references onthe talk page. You might be surprised to discover that "All Jewish organizations consider..." is unsourced, while "Virtually all Jewish organizations consider..." is well sourced. Can I urge you not to look on this as a "Jews versus Christians" debate but actually a debate about whether the JFJ article should follow the NPOV policy. DJ Clayworth 22:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I can vouch for the validity of all these people in the project. Inigmatus is the leader and founder of Project: Messianic Judaism. Whether or not he "plagiarized" anything is pretty much irrelevant; the Messianic Judaism template is now sufficiently and completely different from anything I could have been based off of, and there is no reason to remove it, so let it go. The thing that says "a mystery user with a point to be made" is irrelevant; all of his edits are NPOV. Rabbi Isaac Lichtenstein is a real person; multiple cross-referencing citations do not lie, and look him up on a major biography site and you will find him. Maybe you should at least check these things before making accusations 12.64.24.20 01:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi anonymous anon: Why don't you register and use the four tildes ~~~~ that may give you and your comments some credibility. IZAK 03:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. When Messianic Jews daven, they pray only to the G-d of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaa'kov. They do not pray to any man or woman of this earth, whether he the man next door or the Mashiach (Yeshua), for this is idolotry. 12.65.162.119 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel lead paragraph

Greetings. If you get a chance, please have a look at my lead rewrite of Israel (the prior version read like a travel/ranking guide and almost entirely avoided touching on history). I tried to be understated, but have already met with an unspecified, blind reversion. Thanks. All the best, El_C 21:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please consider addressing the changes rather than blindly reverting. You've removed unrelated fixes. I expect better from you. Thanks. El_C 00:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will you attempt to renew your ArbCom seat or not?

There are only about 4 days left for you to decide whether or not to renew your ArbCom seat - have you decided yet? If so, will you please make your decision public? Scobell302 23:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Sure are cutting it close...lol! Take your time, let your supporters sweat it out. --humblefool® 19:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reconsider ban of threeafterthree

I made a comment on ANI (see here), but maybe it was late so you didn't see it. I have no opinion about the actions of this editor, whether they were anti-Semitic or not. I didn't actually look at them. But he asked me to look at his case, and I see that he was blocked without being given a fair warning or attempt at discourse. I would therefore like to shorten or waive the remainder of his ban, if you didn't object. -lethe talk + 01:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

He's been edit-warring over this for months, was blocked several times in the past week over it, and used sockpuppeting to get around his blocks. And no one needs special warnings to avoid the other nasty stuff he was doing. I would strongly object to any shortening of the block. Jayjg (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I will pursue the matter no further. -lethe talk + 23:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello I am User:SuperDeng and have been indef blocked by an admin

To make a long story short

The admin who has a personal grudge against me, had made up some very nice stories about me and has continuously blocked for me 6 months. And a few months ago one of blocks ended and I made a grand total of 0 edits, but then a new char whos ip was not possbile to check appeared started makeing similar edits to mine so he was accussed of beeing a sockpuppet and I got blocked again. Now this can not be a sock puppet since I Superdeng did not do any edits and even if we were the same person then that dosent matter since superdeng was makeing zero edits the new account was created one week after my block was lifted. Bahh this is not a short story it is long. Anyway all I want is a fair trial on the arb com board where I have a chans of defending myself and not where everyone of the imaginasions of the admin is percieved as fact.

So what ever policy i violated has been served in full after 6 months.

[edit] Dispute over Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism

Hi Jay: I am having a difference of opinion with User:Inigmatus who insists that Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism be a sub-category of Category:WikiProject Judaism. I have tried to edit the page [24], and have even tried a compromise of having it be part of Category:Christian and Jewish interfaith topics instead which would be perfect for it, but each time he reverts me, claiming "We make that call, not you. We're not part of "normative" Christianity either." [25] and this:" "We" is Messianics. either both Judaism and Christain categories, or none go here. We make the call, because Messianics know best what is Messianic." [26], and he adds on Category talk:WikiProject Messianic Judaism#Main categories: "Either Christian and Judaism categories go here, or they both don't. Not one or the other. Messianics do not ascribe to Chrisitanity, and Judaism is an unrelated category. I didn't put either category in, so I request both be removed, but if one is to be listed, then I request both Christianity and Judaism be listed. "We" Messianics have the right to inform the readers who "we" are affiliated with. inigmatus 04:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" What do you think should be done? Thanks. IZAK 14:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The only case for why mainline Judaism would be unrelated is because the majority of its adherants reject MJ. Messianic Judaism's theology is, obviously, borderline verbatum mainline Judaism's theology for most cases, which is enough by its own right to include Judasim. I could just as easily make a case for why Karaism is of no connection with mainline Judaism. 12.65.114.243 01:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source check

I don't know these sources - can you check out this edit? Best, Sandy (Talk) 18:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if I was missing something ... but I just noticed something even more interesting ... scan down the contribs here. Same thing everywhere - I don't know a lot of those sources. Sandy (Talk) 22:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messianic "Halakha" etc?

Hi Jay: On 25 October 2006 [27], User:Inigmatus moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha with the lame excuse "moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha: As discussed in prior archives, with the creation of the new Messianic Judaism template, this page can now be targeted for clean up: This entire page is better split into two articles" [28] thus opening up a whole new can of worms. This fits into this new pattern of vigorous pro-Messianic Judaism POV edits, moves, categories, projects and articles, basically without warning and ignoring the consensus that has been maintained for some time. The main problem is that the over-all thrust of the recent pro-Messianic Judaism activity is to mimic and and get as close as possible to any and all Judaism, particularly Orthodox Judaism, articles and efforts, so that anyone looking at the one will arrive at the other by sheer proximity and similarity. And I repeat this again, because of its relevance: *User:Inigmatus (contributions), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make anything he does as automatically POV?), has added a number of features to Messianic Judaism. A month ago he evidently plagiarized [29] the Template:Judaism and created Template Messianic Judaism based on it. He also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Messianic Judaism also obviously plagiarizing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this. I would suggest that a new template be develpoed that would be placed on Messianic Judaism pages with a "Note: This article deals with Messianic Judaism. It does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations." IZAK 03:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Jews actively call it halakha, and you're the only one in over a month to protest deeming it as such, and it was agreed upon by concensus as a matter of fact. I don't know what you mean by "many Christian elements", as MJ halakha is generally 90% Talmudic. Just because you don't like Messianic Judaism, gives you no free license to make it appear as falsely Protestant as possible on Wikipedia, sorry. No, no, and no. As a matter of fact, the articles as they are currently written are from the dying extreme protestant wing of Messianic Judaism, not the center (I got blocked for representing MJ's center with my edits), with of course no representation given to the emerging orthodox wing. Not that you'd frikin KNOW these things, as you've probably never spent a day of your life researching the Jewish movement you're probably so adamantly opposed to. Whether or not you LIKE Messianic Judaism is of no issue, whatsoever. Messianic Jews have particular beliefs that may make you uncomfortable. Your warning labels are obviously POV; people recognize it's obviously about MJ cause it has a big, fat MJ template, not the standard Jewish template. Conclusion: no. 12.65.162.119 04:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed anonymous: This must surely be the "joke of the month" your ridiculous and absurd claim that "MJ halakha is 90% Talmudic" - sure, and there are mice on the moon that eat the cheese that makes the moon shrink each month... The only thing you need to get right is that there is no connection between MJ and OJ (Orthodox Judaism) no matter how hard you try to spin it, and what's with the anonymity by way? IZAK 05:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome the NotJudaism template

Hi: In view of the above, please see the new {{NotJudaism}} template:

Note: The subject of this article or section does not represent normative Judaism and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any Jewish denominations.

Feel free to use it where applicable. Thanks. IZAK 05:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

 Oh, the humanity!

I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel Talk 13:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Chrysostom

I'm interested in knowing why one major edit (as per discussions on Talk) and two reversions merit a block of unregistered users, but not, for instance, the many, many more edit-warring reversions and edits by registered users. If the article is going to be protected, it should be fully so, rather than aimed simply at those who prefer to edit without an account. Thanks for your attention, and please respond to this note on Talk:John Chrysostom, if you don't mind, especially since it would be nice if you'd explain your action there, too. Thank you! 70.105.220.100 02:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Many different IP editors have been edit-warring and revert-warring on the page for weeks, adding further instability to an already unstable article. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Take a look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizenship_and_Entry_into_Israel_Law&diff=91069002&oldid=90963419

Jay,

I know some people think of you as "pro israel". I know you think of yourself as fair and pro-NPOV. The problem is that if you strive for accuracy you need to seeq out the real facts - even those facts that are not easy to find on the net. The pother problem (in the above article and in the apartheid article ) is explained in this:

Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#NPOV.

So I suggest you ignore the critics and indeed work on making Wikipedia NPOV. It is impossible that you will make an edit in the name of "accuracy" and yet leave the article body starting with the words "critics argue" and the Lead will be without the most important fact about that law. Zeq 03:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonaparte

Thanks! Were there any others? Khoikhoi 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new sockppupet

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hafrada&diff=prev&oldid=91197177 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeq (talk • contribs) 18:38, 30 November 2006.

[edit] Gnetwerker

Gnetwerker (talk • contribs) is requesting unblock, after you blocked him/her for using sockpuppets (block reason: "Has been told again and again not to sockpuppet"). I'm going to hazzard a guess it was a CU finding, hence you should probably deal with it. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any objections to me listing a CU case, to quell this users' complaints that you are fabricating evidence (which I find hard to believe), given he/she seems to think you "have it in" for him/her? Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Response. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you mean to do this?

[30] the edit summary doesn't make much sense with the edit. JoshuaZ 21:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wondering why you blocked me

Could you please tell me why you blocked me? I have only done minor proofreading-type corrections to articles (unless my username has been hijacked or something). thanks oh, I am Tyranny Sue —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs) 23:33, 1 December 2006.

I am unaware of blocking you; can you please give me the exact message you get? Jayjg (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please comment

here: [31] Slrubenstein | Talk 16:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist

Hi Jayjg. I noticed that last week you blocked DrL, an involved party in the case. Would you consider recusing? Thanks, Tim Smith 20:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a standard by-the-book 3RR report. It is not at all necessary for him to recuse based on that. You think that administering basic policy somehow makes him automatically biased? JoshuaZ 21:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my talk page, Jayjg. I understand that you consider yourself to be uninvolved, but your actions have received comment (second paragraph) in the evidence, and per WP:RfAr, grounds for recusal need only be "possible, or perceived". I respectfully ask you to reconsider. Tim Smith 21:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read the comments on your Talk: page, and the comments above. Rather than "possible or perceived" grounds for recusal, this looks like a pretty lame ex-post facto attempt to remove the votes of an uninvolved and neutral arbitrator after he has voted in a way that you don't like. Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I humbly disagree, Jayjg. I noticed the same thing when I described your block-trading maneuver on the Evidence page. (In all fairness, it might not have looked so bad had it not come directly on the heels of a blatant abuse of administrative authority by FeloniousMonk, and had it not been directed at one of the people being attacked by FeloniousMonk and the troll he turned loose to aid him in an ongoing RfAr over which you were presiding.) However, although I considered asking you to recuse, I decided instead to give you the benefit of the doubt. I now see that this was a mistake. Did you even bother to take a close, in-context look at the evidence on the strength of which you voted to ban DrL and me from editing the article that FeloniousMonk and his friends have been attacking? I rather doubt it, for the simple reason that it doesn't support your actions. My edits to the CML bio were almost nonexistent, and DrL was the only editor in persistent compliance with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. If not for her, the article would have been a defamatory shambles months ago. In view of these circumstances, which I regard as undeniable, I'm politely asking you to do the right thing and recuse yourself after the fact...not because I think you will, mind you, but because I sincerely believe that it's the right thing for you to do. Thanks for your attention, and have a good day. Asmodeus 08:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISM Sprot

While many of the editor's edits had NPOV issues I'm not sure it was so bad as to justify semi-protection. JoshuaZ 04:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer it removed for now but have no strong preference (I just don't see much of a policy justification for it). If if it continues then I'd agree with semi-protecting. (Also, feel free to become involved and have another admin deal with protection decisions, the current article is in very poor shape). JoshuaZ 04:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zionism Reversion

What is your explanation for reverting my edit? It's a valid edit, please see my comments on the talk page of the article for my reasoning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arch NME (talk • contribs).

[edit] Nation of Islam

Hello, you should definitely watch him because he really has an agenda. Thanks, cheers, 82.230.180.185 15:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The ScienceApologist RfAr

Hello, Jayjg. Please read my most recent edits to the ScienceApologist RfAr Workshop page. [1,2,3,4] and particularly this one right here. I hate to seem impertinent, but may I ask who you people think you are, that you can define the class of articles relating to the work of Christopher Michael Langan to include Crank (person)? Do you really think that this is appropriate? And if not, then why are you voting on proposals without understanding exactly what they say? For that matter, why are you ignoring over five months of background on this case, including a long history of vicious personal attacks made against me and DrL? Regardless of any opinion to the contrary, we've tried very hard to address our problems within the bounds of WP at the expense of vast amounts of our own time, and I'm still trying very hard to avoid reaching some extremely unpleasant conclusions here. But in view of the above observations, it appears to me that your decisions may contain substantial elements of personal bias and antipathy. Thanks in advance for your considered response. Asmodeus 18:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have accused me of something that is not true

Jayjg, you here accused me of "making things up that are not supported by the references. If you go to the article and question, and read references 4 and 5 you will find that what I wrote was exactly suported by the references. I expect an apology immediately. DJ Clayworth 18:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Not one of the references that was actually quoted for that specific sentence (and there were 12 of them, in reference #14) that "the majority of Jews" believe anything. References 4 and 5 were supporting different claims, and even then reference 4 doesn't say that "the majority of Jews" believe anything, but rather that there is virtual unanimity among Jewish denominations that Jews for Jesus is not Jewish. The 12 references provided in reference #14 supported a different point, specifically the exact one made, that a belief in the divinity of Jesus is incompatible with Judaism. You can't go radically changing what a well-referenced sentence states, based on what you believe some other reference supporting some different sentence elsewhere in the article says. Now, are you going to apologize immediately? Jayjg (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Allow me to quote. Reference 4 says this "There is virtual unanimity across all denominations [of Judaism] that Jews for Jesus are not Jewish." Note virtual unanimity. That means not all. If there is 'virtual unanimity' about something then it can be safely said that a majority believe it. If you want to change the wording to 'virtually all then I am fine with that.
Quoting again: reference 5 "For most American Jews, it is acceptable to blend some degree of foreign spiritual elements with Judaism. The one exception is Christianity, which is perceived to be incompatible with any form of Jewishness. Jews for Jesus and other Messianic Jewish groups are thus seen as antithetical to Judaism and are completely rejected by the majority of Jews". Note the words most and majority. These references are both from the Oxford University Press Encyclopedia Judaica.
Finally, if there is 'virtual unaniminity' (almost but not complete unanimity) among Jewish denominations then logically there must be almost but not complete ananimity among Jews. How else? Now, how about that apology? DJ Clayworth 19:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Still waiting for your response here. DJ Clayworth 19:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, I'm fully familiar with references 4 and 5, since I am the person who brought them to the article in the first place. I daresay I've brought at least 50% of the references to that article, perhaps more. Next, did you read my initial comment? Sadly, I'll have to repeat much of it. Reference 4 does not refer to what "most Jews" believe, or indeed, to what any Jews believe - rather, it talks about virtual unanimity among denominations. Denominations are not Jews, and we don't care what "Jews" believe, since they believe a million different things - rather, we are writing about the doctrines of Judaism. Next, references 4 and 5 are used to support other sentences and thoughts in the article. They were not used to support the statement that "belief in the divinity of Jesus is incompatible with Judaism". Reference #14 was used to support that point, and it used 12 reliable sources to back it up. You changed the wording to make an entirely different point about what "most Jews" believe, but still left reference 14 as the footnote - but none of the sources used in reference 14 backed up your claim about "most Jews", since none of them referred to what "most Jews" believe. Therefore, you made up things that were not supported by the references that were supposed to support your claim. Now, how about that apology? Jayjg (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No Jayjg I don't get your point at all. Are you somehow saying that because you originally introduced references 4 & 5 to support some point you made, I am not allowed to cite them in support of what I wrote, even though they do support that?
The area round what I wrote was hacked mercilessly by other editors, so it is possible that when you looked at it references 4 & 5 were not actually quoted near the sentence; however when I wrote it, reference 5 was certainly quoted immediately after.
I agree with your point that Jews believe a whole load of different things that are not in agreement with the doctrines of Judaism, but the point I am making is also at the denomination level. Exactly what is a Jewish denomination? That's as ill-defined as the rest of Judaism. There is no group charged with making definitive statements about what is Jewish doctrine - it's done by consensus.
HOWEVER: let's look at the reference again. Reference 4 says ""There is virtual unanimity across all denominations [of Judaism] that Jews for Jesus are not Jewish." This time note the word denominations. Even in your own terms, reference 4 supports what I wrote. I would happily apologize for any attack I have made on you, except that I didn't make one. DJ Clayworth 22:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, reference 4 does not back up your claim; denominations and Jews are different things. When you say "virtual unanimity among denominations" that is an entirely different claim that "most Jews". I can't think of any way of saying that more simply. And Jewish denominations are extremely well defined; they have seminaries, educational institutions, organizing bodies, affiliated synagogues, etc. Conservative Judaism is not some fuzzy concept. Next, this is the edit you made. Note, the sentence you changed is supported by reference #14. Not references 4 or 5, which support different points made 2 sections earlier. Reference 5 is nowhere near the sentence you changed. Please read the article carefully. You claimed to be making the text match the references; however, the existing text matched reference 14, and the text you changed it to did not match reference 14, which was the reference supporting that sentence. Read what the references for that sentence say; they talk about the incompatibility of a belief in Jesus with Judaism. They don't talk about what "most Jews" believe. When you changed the sentence, you misrepresented the sources backing it up. Then, to compound the problem, you insisted that the reference said exactly what you said, when reference 14 said nothing of the sort, and demanded an apology from me, and continue to make claims about your edit that simply do not square with the facts. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What wording would you consider acceptable and supported by these references: "Virtually all Jewish denominations consider Jews for Jesus not Jewish" would certainly convey the sense I was trying to get across, and satisfy your requirement for the distinction between Jews and Jewish denominations. I would also accept "virtually all of Judaism...". DJ Clayworth 23:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How can I explain this? That's a different point!!! There are two points here; whether or not Jews for Jesus is "Jewish", and whether or not Jesus as deity is compatible with Judaism. Jews for Jesus is an evangelical organization, Jesus as deity is a religious doctrine. They are separate points, regarding different ideas, supported by separate sources. Both points are made in the article. Virtually all Jewish denominations consider Jews for Jesus not Jewish, and belief in Jesus as deity, Christ, etc. is not compatible with Judaism. Separate points, both true, both referenced, both mentioned in the article. Jayjg (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did not realise that that was your point. I was not meaning to imply that virtually all individual Jews believed that JFJ was not Jewish. However we also need to get rid of the phrase "belief in Jesus as deity, the son of God, or in Jesus as Christ, is incompatible with Judaism." because it states as fact something which is under dispute. What I am looking for is a phrase that means the same as that, but with a slight qualifier: "most" or "virtually all" or "majority" or anything like that. I'm open to suggestions about what would be valid wording here. DJ Clayworth 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need to get rid of that? Is it indeed under dispute? Again, there are 12 sources that say exactly that, that belief in Jesus etc. is incompatible with Judaism; are there sources that say belief in Jesus etc. is compatible with Judaism? Which sources say it is compatible with Judaism? Jayjg (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ScienceApologist RFAR

Did you intentionally skip voting on prinicple #8 8) Wikipedia administrators are expected to consult...? Thatcher131 21:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jew Watch

שלום חביבי, I don't want to get involved in the stupid flamewar on the Jew Watch talk page, but I'm really curious why this page can't actually call Jew Watch anti-semetic. Because I hate overused holocoust examples, I'll avoid one, but if you look of the Protocols of the elders of zion page it's clearly lists as antisemitism (it get's the antisemitism sidebar!) So my question is, how is Jew Watch different from the protocols? Sure it claims objectivity, but so did the protocols. When it comes down to it, isn't Jew Watch, like the protocols, just a bizarre blend of fact and fiction put together to achieve maximal antisemitic bias and effect? I don't think you'll find much controversy (except from anti-semites) that this sort of stuff (like opposing a state of Israel for its own sake in spite of other non-opposed states with the same issues) is just antisemitism in a different guise? Thanks! Avraham 02:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Policy

Amazing- you refer me to a rule that was edited out of the policy over six months ago. And not "unilaterally" as you would have it, but after months of discussion going back to April, 06. See the archived discussions there please. The bottom line is that for the last six months the policy has read :

"Talk page vandalism-
Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion."

Also, it is clear that you cannot erase my own comments from my own talkpage without a good reason. Until now I have assumed good faith and I would like to continue to do so. Take this as friendly advice: please do not erase comments from my talkpage. Good luck 68.198.236.57 17:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. For your information, a very similar issue is being discussed on the Administrator's notice board here and in the archives here. If you'd like to affect policy, feel free to comment there and attempt to gain a consensus. Thanks 68.198.236.57 18:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
P.P.S. Just wanted to inform you, as an inexperienced editor, I have asked some administrators to monitor the situation to make sure that it does not escalate. LOL 68.198.236.57 19:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khalid Abdul Muhammed

Hi. According to its content, this page should be moved to Khalid Abdul Muhammad, but only an admin could do it. Would you be so kind? Many thanks ! 212.198.152.222 19:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From User:Nobs01's AMA advocate

Hi, I'm advocating Nobs01 on a try for appealing a decision against him taken by Arbcom some months before. The point is that we think that is necessary to restore some mediation pages in order to see the evidence that it was there and was deleted. There is already someone willing to help us, but, I considered that maybe you could take a look on this. If interested, the list of pages is on User talk:Flcelloguy/Sandbox. Thank you! --Neigel von Teighen 00:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

In the interest of promoting sweetness and light, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Chocolate Chip Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Thank you for all your hard work in the terrible mess. This is the closest thing I could find to a plate of cookies.NinaEliza 06:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The "thing that shall not be named", otherwise known as the RFarb regarding User:Hkelkar. :)NinaEliza 03:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Nomination

Jayjg, I have nominated the Ebionites article for Good Article status [32]. Can you review it or suggest someone else knowledgeable about early Judaism and Christianity to take a look at it? Ovadyah 01:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] racism

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Embargo&oldid=93568874 Zeq 14:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:Panairjdde is back

I knew he was back, but I've been under the impression that he's been playing nice with everyone on WP. Thanks for leaving a note on my Talk page. -- llywrch 03:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I was under the same impression as well, Llywrch. This is an old matter I thought'd we'd resolved following the misunderstanding with Stifle[33]. User:Dppowell and User:Palffy have been actively lobbying to get Pan banned again (in Palffy's case even going so far as harassing Llywrch about it[34]).

Jayjg, I strongly urge you to use the reason and good judgement which have earned you the respect of so many in this community, and reconsider this block. Thanks--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been actively lobbying to get anyone banned, and I challenge anyone to produce a diff showing otherwise. I usually only crossed paths with Panarjedde on Roman-related articles (first on Julian the Apostate). My last run-in with him was on Masada, where his attempts to push POV in the face of consensus are well-documented. That was almost two weeks ago. He's got nobody to blame but himself, and the people who've repeatedly lobbied for him to be reinstated should be ashamed of themselves. Look at the talk pages for him and his socks (hello, socks?). The guy has gone out of his way to be confrontational with every editor that disagrees with him, even snarling at newbies. He's the living embodiment of "assuming bad faith." Good riddance. Dppowell 18:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Panarjedde

By a comfortable margin, the most difficult person I've encountered on Wikipedia to date...and that was before I knew about the new generation of sockpuppets. I don't know if it's considered poor taste to thank an admin for banning someone, but I suspect admins don't get a lot of thanks for their dirty work. Thank you for your diligence in investigating his activity. Dppowell 05:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isaac/Ignatz Lichtenstein is back.

Hi Jay: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignatz Lichtenstein (2nd nomination). Thanks. IZAK 10:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli apartheid

I'm very curious. Why do you feel that there should be no article on the term and/or allegations of "Israeli apartheid". Could you be specific on what wikipedia criteria for omission this article would fall under. I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but what you have said so far seems to be "well since we couldn't delete this objectionable article, we decided to change the article's name, ignoring typical wikipedia naming conventions." So I am inquiring further to learn more. --Andrew c 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well saying "It's hardly an encyclopedic topic" doesn't explain to me what specific wikipedia criteria for inclusion this article fails. I understand that you believe that a lot of the "absurd obloquy at Israel" is disproportionate. But wikipedia is NOT the platform to try and correct this. In fact, wikipedia is the exact opposite. We treat our sources neutrally, giving due weight to majority and minority positions respectively. So if there is a lot of negativity (even if it is biased and 'wrong') aimed towards Israel, we shouldn't downplay that (as you seem to be suggesting). Hypothetically speaking, I know for a FACT that there is no "homosexual agenda". A lot of extreme right wingers and fundementalist Christians put out propaganda about LGBT issues. I KNOW that they are wrong. However, there is nothing in wikipedia policy that says false positions need to be excluded. The term "homosexual agenda" however is thrown around by notable people, and therefore an article describing the term (and perhaps the arguments used by those for and against the terms use) are all encyclopedic content. How specifically does the term "Israeli apartheid" not compare to this situation. The arguments you are giving me are all emotional and political. Please look beyond those things, and consider specific wikipedia guidelines. It doesn't matter to me if the term is used for propaganda, and that too many people don't support Israel. "Homosexual agenda" is a propaganda term, and not enough people support gays. I agree that wikipedia is not a soapbox. We should cut out any such material for sure, but I don't see what that has to do with the title of the article. --Andrew c 23:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me about this, and I apologize if I sounded argumentative at times. I also apologize for confusing the article's existence with its title. I, however, thought that the issues were intertwined; because the article couldn't be deleted, the title was changes. And because you brought up the articles existence during discussion of the title on the talk page, I assumed that these issues were related. I, for one, do not wish to see the word "allegation" or "alleged" in front of every article about a controversial term. But perhaps this isn't a policy issue, but a case-by-case, whim of the voting majority kind of deal. Thanks again.--Andrew c 01:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The desysopping of MONGO

Thank you for voting oppose to the motion to close. Even if the final decision goes counter to my hopes, I am hoping that further consideration by the members of the ArbCom will at least cause you to reword your propseal, as of right now, those of us sitting on the outside are feeling that we can't do anything right no matter what we do. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help me out with the Ahmadinejad article

I posted my question for you there. I hope for clarification and agreement. I do not want to battle you on reverts, since its unpleasant and, with my lack of Wikipedia experience, will probably just end up with you and others slaughtering my username. The Behnam 19:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Bedrick

submitted to DYK. Improve if you can. - crz crztalk 19:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan

Please be aware that there is active, ongoing work on proposed decisions regarding this case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop. Closing may be premature. Please review that page. Thank you. --Durin 13:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Whats your take on my jewish welcome template {{bruchim}}? Its been nominated for deletion. frummer 23:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Israeli Art Students Controversy article

I noticed that you recently deleted this new page in utmost possible haste. Thanks so much for your graciousness, tact, explanation, and most of all your strict POV-based censorship. I understand that a previous version of the page had been voted for deletion a few months ago (though I doubt the 5 or 6 voters thought very much about the issue), and I realize that Deleting is one of your officially designated hobbies on Wikipedia. Looking at your Contributions, I can see that you are very sensitive to and engaged in all Wikipedia matters concerning Israel. So, it makes sense that you would spring into action to suppress anything that may reflect negatively on Israel. Never mind how well known it is that every country spies on its allies; never mind the many mainstream media sources and references that were given in the article; never mind that it was written in an even and neutral tone; you had to expunge it from Wikipedia as fast as you could. "It's a conspiracy theory," you say, and your peanut gallery of 5 honorable voters nod their heads gravely. Actually, it's not a conspiracy theory, it's reality; some people have extrapolated from the reality into the realms of 9/11 fantasies and other nonsense, which the article did not mention, but the fact remains that dozens of young Israelis were traveling around the US, ostensibly selling paintings, trying to gain access to federal facilities, and the DEA wrote a 60 page report about it. True, this document is not hosted on a DEA web site, but did you see all the mainstream news stories in which DEA says yes, this report exists? A little later, dozens or even 200 Israelis really were deported. Anyway, if your "Standard of Proof" is so doggone high, and if everything not meeting this standard must be deleted as fast as possible, I demand the immediate deletion of the following Wikipedia articles, among hundreds of others: Acupuncture, Ball lightning, Bermuda Triangle, Bigfoot, Cattle mutilation, Chiropractic, Clairvoyance, Extra-sensory perception, Ghosts, Homeopathy, Leprechaun, Loch Ness Monster, Ouija, Psychic, Qi, Shroud of Turin, Telekinesis, UFO, Will o' the wisp, Yeti, and Zombies. Thanks for being such an even-handed super-heroic arbiter of Justice. I am so impressed.

[edit] Admin opinion needed

Hi Jay: Could you please take a look at what I have said so far at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthodox Halakha, someone is playing the fool one time too many and something needs to be done about it before things get out of hand. Thanks a lot and Shabbat Shalom. IZAK 10:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox Halakha

Just delete it altogether! He created it to send to AfD, for crying out loud. Either POINT or CSD G7 gets you there - crz crztalk 17:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work on Bedrick! Good shabbos and a freilichen Chanuka - crz crztalk 20:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On 16 December 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jason Bedrick, which you helped out on. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Either source it, or take it back please

You made the claim that "The New antisemitism is about antisemitism that started with the left in the late 80s, and gained significant ground through alliances with the far right, and Muslims in the 21st century" Please either source it or take it back. If you take it back, please don't remove the added material or at least the tag before providing another argument. [35] --Aminz 21:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/y/User_talk%7EJayjg_Archive_19_9fc4.html"