User talk:Jayjg/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Centauri?

Hi there,

I've seen your and User:Calton's thread on that Centauri may well be a sockpuppet of Gene Poole; looking at their edit histories, I'd say that's probably true. (* = Centauri, # = Gene Poole). Any admin responses to this? Should this be on RFC? Radiant_* 10:31, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

* 10:29, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Calton (→Alleged Double Voting)  (top)
# 08:17, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia (schools ?)
* 07:54, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Mothman (top)
* 07:34, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Calton (alleged double voting)
# 06:04, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Saklan Valley School (→Saklan Valley School)
# 04:01, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Coppell High School (→Coppell High School)
# 03:42, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Canopic jar (rewrite section on heart + brain to correct mistakes) (top)
# 03:34, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Mummy (top)
* 03:29, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies (→Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies) (top)
* 03:24, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ashley House (→Ashley House)
* 03:21, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/You Kicked My Dog (→You Kicked My Dog) 
# 03:16, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jayjg (advice)
# 03:04, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Egyptian pyramids (→Temporary removal) (top)
# 03:03, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Egyptian pyramids
# ...
# 00:32, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Seborga (→Not a neutral article) (top)
* 00:10, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Gene Poole (→You're a sockpuppet!) (top)
# 00:05, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Centauri (friday amusements) 
* 23:59, Mar 31, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Gene Poole
* 22:54, Mar 31, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Thryduulf (olchfa footbridge) (top)
* 22:51, Mar 31, 2005 (hist) (diff) User:GRider/Schoolwatch (→Listed on VfD) (top)
* 22:47, Mar 31, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Harlaw Academy (→Harlaw Academy)

[edit] Centauri issue

Gene_Poole claims that an IP check confirms his separate identity from Centauri. [1] Is that true? Radiant_* 13:54, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • You know, back in December, a sock puppet felt that Centauri was a Gene Poole sock puppet here. At first, I did not believe him, but then I starting developing suspicions here and here. Another point: Centauri has the same point of view as Gene Poole on Sealand. Both users have the exact point of view concerning deleting articles. I am very suspicious about the whole affair here at this point. - from User:Samboy
  • Hi there! You said you were going to ask a developer about duplicate users (specifically, Centauri vs. Gene Poole). Would you please consider asking about some other people that claim to be new but behave like they've known the place for months? Specifically, the GRider impersonators (User:G Rider and User:GRuder, both blocked for vandalism and apparently old enemies of GRider), User:Klonimus (accused of being a sockpuppet of GRider, but judging by his behavior he likely isn't) and User:Sniffandgrowl (suspected VfD sockpuppet since he was created last week and has lots of VfD votes and little else). Yours, Radiant_* 09:31, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • While the developers are checking the accounts mentioned, would you mind asking them about User:School deletionist, User:Chriscf, and User:Radiant! as well? Cheers! --GRider\talk 17:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skver (Hasidic dynasty)

Sorry to call on you again, but tha above article has just appeared. I'm inclined to think that it's nonsense, but having had a girlfriend whose mother's family were Twerskys, I thought that I owed it to her to check. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who deleted it, but I still have it up on my screen, so it would be a doddle to recreate it. Should I? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've undeleted it, and I'll contact SpaceFalcon2001 and ChanochGruenman. Thanks for helping. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Next about User:STP

Hi, you may want to see and add your comments to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:STP [2] Thanks. IZAK 09:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Green-eyed monster

Mine is pink, Jayjg. Think pink. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:18, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Thank you Jay for the support on my recent admin nomination; your vote meant a lot to me. I've been appreciating your work here for a while now. Happy editing, Antandrus 21:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New article: Women for Israel's Tomorrow

Please consider reading this new article I just created. --AladdinSE 11:56, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China" for page titles

Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of Mainland China-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started here. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thank you. — Instantnood 15:08, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 24.91.96.179

You temp-blocked 24.91.96.179 a while back, but he's back with a vengeance. Can you help out? Matthewcieplak 23:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just got errant message from you

You just posted "Please stop reverting the Israeli West Bank barrier article" to my page User:Feco/cats. I know why this behavior occurs (it's complicated) and I'm working to resolve it. However, however you intented to give that message did not get it. Can you give me the link to the UserTalk page you were trying to edit? I'll fix the problem that redirected you to my page, and check back to make sure your 3RR notice gets there. Feco 02:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How did it happen: I use some templates to auto-generate messages to new users. It's very useful and saves a lot of time (see User:Feco/Templates if you're curious). For a while, I and a few other users were adding {{User:Feco/XXXX}} to pages as appopriate. This would load my template into their talk page on every page view. Cliking EDIT on their talk page would throw the editor back into my template. The problem is fixed by adding {{subst:User:Feco/XXXX}} to user pages. The subst function drops a static copy of my template into the edit window, rather than forcing a template-load each time the page is viewed. Feco

[edit] New Internationalist

New Internationalist was started by Oxfam, but now is independent. It is a liberal/progressive human righs magazine with a very good reputation for accuracy.--Cberlet 03:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Anonymous editor at Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism

I'll keep an eye on it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Roger that... --Viriditas | Talk 03:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I need to get into the office to dig up some research materials on NOI and white supremacists. It's a tricky area, but I think I have documentation. Might take a few days.--Cberlet 15:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Aqsa Intifada

Has there been a slip up? Dont you think it should be called "Second Intifada", as the current name is as loaded as "occupied territories" is a loaded word. I think we should initiate a change in the article name. Is there a way to do this?

Thanks,

Guy Montag 07:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks and sorry

Hi Jayjg. Thanks for notifying me on various disputed issues and inviting me to join the discussions. However, as have you probably noticed, I usually don't take up on these invitations. There are various reasons for this, the main two being (1) that you are doing such a good job arguing your position, that I usually can hardly find anything useful to add; and (2) that I currently don't have the time (and passion) to get into long, heated discussions. I used to spend a lot of my time arguing on Wikipedia. I found it to be a huge drain on my time and energy, and it was usually not very rewarding. So I'm currently following Wikipedia more from a distance, only getting into argument over my personal pet peeves.

I wish you luck and success in all your efforts here on Wikipedia. I really think you're doing a great job. I wish I had the talent, time, and motivation to do the same. Unfortunately, this is not the case, at least at this time. -- uriber 18:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hasid-stub nominated for deletion.

Hi, I have nominated {{Hasid-stub}} (Template:Hasid-stub) for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Hasid-stub [3] for reasoning and for your input. Thank you. IZAK 07:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-defamation League

We oughta get an uninvolved third party to intervene here. I'm pretty sure we're right, but it's not as clearcut as most of the usual Nazi vandalism, and we're too much in the middle of it to be any kind of adminly arbiters. It's an issue on the edge (opinion pieces with lots of facts in them as sources? reportage from David Irving's website, probably factual but strongly biased?). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, I thought about an RFC, but the instructions there suggest we try other methods of dispute resolution; I'm not sure we've exhausted those. (Sam Spade showing up isn't helpful; ever notice that he's the one sure to put a "welcome! be bold!" on every new Nazi's talk page?) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--WE NEED SOME ADMINISTRATORS to review jayjg, SlimVirgin, jpgordon, and others for collusion to harass other Wikipedians. jayjg, SlimVirgin, jpgordon, and others should not follow Wikipedians around the site deleting their input. It is obvious to any observer that they are acting in their own interests, not the interests of Wikipedia at large.

--We also cannot allow "tag-teams" like jayjg and jpgordon to circumvent the 3R rule and discredit the open process on Wikipedia. It is clear to anyone who reviews the activity of jayjg et al what a major theme of their beliefs is. We cannot allow individuals with personal (and perhaps racial or religious) biases to dominate, harass and block others' ability to freely contribute data and factual information into Wikipedia. They seem to believe that they alone can control the addition and deletion of material on certain articles. Their actions prove this, and I encourage any Administrator to review them.

[edit] Erm?

Why did you remove the link to recreational drug use from the drug abuse article? Guttlekraw 19:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Didn't mean to delete the link, but why do you think that linking to recreational drug use from a section of drug abuse entitled 'Advocation Of Recreational Drug Use' that says 'There are those who advocate strongly that the right to use drugs,' etc. is inapropriate? Guttlekraw 19:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, try that one! Guttlekraw 19:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sex education

I notice that you reverted this without explaining why. I'm guessing that you think that the education programs were aiming only to prevent what they considered 'abuse' of illegal drugs, rather than their use in any context? Could you explain why you preffer the term abuse to recreational use? The implication is that we are agreeing with their judgement that recreational use is automatically abusive. That seems like siding with one point of view to me. Guttlekraw 19:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good guess; the programs did not suggest abstention from all drugs (e.g. alcohol), but responsible use. Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure. The program refered to targetted 12-14 year olds, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it was encouraging abstention from all drugs, including tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana. The school based program staff probably feel that any recreational use of these drugs by 12-14 year olds is abuse. That's ok as a point of view, but it's not a fact. The fact is that they wanted to reduce or prevent all recreational use. Guttlekraw 20:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recreational use by 12 year old was seen as abuse; it's hard to argue that it's not. Can heroin be "recreationally used" by 12 year olds? Jayjg (talk) 20:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The program specifically mentions alcohol and tobacco. I think that it is certainly possible to argue that a 14 year old can use tobacco and alcohol recreationally without it being abuse. Many countries outside the US allow use of alcohol by people under 14 in certain circumstances, for example, in the UK children over 5 may drink in restaurants with their parents or guardians. Whether it is 'abuse' is a matter of opinion. Guttlekraw 20:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it can be argued that any use of tobacco by 12 year olds is not "abuse". Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's ok, I don't agree, but what about the alcohol example? Guttlekraw 20:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since use of tobacco by 12 years olds is abuse, the alcohol example doesn't really matter. Jayjg (talk) 20:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I dispute that use of tobacco by 12 year olds is automatically abuse in every case (for example, see native american coming of age ceremonies). It is still an opinion. Even if we accept that tobacco is, whether alcohol is does matter, since they are still (if we accept that 14 year olds can use alcohol non-abusively) trying to prevent recreational drug use (as well as drug abuse). Guttlekraw 21:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you think the position is of the people trying to prevent it, that they are trying to prevent "recreational drug use", or "drug abuse"? Jayjg (talk) 21:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, they are trying to prevent all use of these drugs. That includes recreational use of the drugs. They think any use of them (including recreational) is 'abuse'. I think that we should report that they think recreational use is automatically abuse, but not report it as fact. Guttlekraw 22:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems that as far as they're concerend, they're trying to prevent abuse. Presenting them as trying to prevent recreational use would not be an accurate summary of their intent. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is their point of view that any use = abuse. Others have a point of view that not all use = abuse. Therefore, the most neutral thing to say seems to be that they are trying to prevent use, which they believe to be abuse. Do you disagree with that? Are you really saying that they are not trying to prevent the recreational use of alcohol by 14 year olds? Guttlekraw 22:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Ford Coppola

Hi - you reverted this, without mentioning why - I am presuming again that you feel that the drug use on the film site was 'abusive', but can we reference who thought this? Did Coppola himself say this? If not, who did? Otherwise I prefer the more neutral 'recreational drug use'. Abuse is definately a judgement - If we use it, I think we should say who thought it was abusive. Guttlekraw 20:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schoolwatch

Sorry for leaving only 18 hours between the reverts. Would it be too much to leave it protected in the state it's in (i.e. without the bogus claims, and the "Vote now!")? For a start, GRider is blocked from editing, and when that expires he wouldn't be able to edit it anyway. Chris talk back 22:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Anonymous editor at Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism

I'm not really sure what you want from me in regards to this article. I have added in to my watchlist-- if you need more asistance please elaborate on my talk page. Thanks. -JCarriker 06:48, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Maxwell

Hi, you may want to look at some pathetic "editing" at Robert Maxwell. Thanks. IZAK 08:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] East Jerusalem dispute

We have a dispute in Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier with Mistiq and AladdinSE over the term East Jerusalem. I and Leifem are of the contention that East Jerusalem is a not a seperate city at and should not be called such, but has always historically been called Jerusalem, much like Berlin has never been called by its georgraphical areas unless under its brief stint under soviet control.

We need to settle the issue and you to arbitrate. I am aware that the apporpriate place to argue this is in East Jerusalem talk, but I would still value your opinion.

Guy Montag 20:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism listing

Did you check the vandal request at all? User is vandalising the project. --Cool Cat My Talk 03:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the listing. —Charles P. (Mirv) 03:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Corrie

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Powergrid 03:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"As per the arbcom ruling, your edits can be reverted for any reason or no reason. Jayjg (talk) 03:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)"
Please explain what this means.--Powergrid 03:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Feigning ignorance was a tactic you used with your other sockpuppets as well; it won't wash. Jayjg (talk) 03:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) "
Please explain specifically what you are accusing me of and what you are threatening me with in more detail - and avoid making the personal attacks. --Powergrid 04:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Think Pink was the best of the lot; use that persona again and you'll get much further. Jayjg (talk) 04:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) "
If you are unable to express yourself clearly, please stop trying. I don't know what you are trying to say. Your edits reflect a pro-Israel bias. That much is clear. --Powergrid 04:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for rv my page

Hello, Here is Messhermit. Thanks for reverting my page from Vandalism. A lot ! Messhermit 04:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo

The yahoo reference is because the company conciously is putting up references to its site. If one shall refer to all search engines it would be a long list. Why not Google as well. Its either all or none I say. See also the debate on main page about Yahoo. Axezz 21:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

THE main page of Wikipedia. I am just concerned with commercial messing with wikipedia. It has historically happened to almost every voluntarily webservers on the Internet. Just waiting till banners are flashing all over Wikipedia. I may be dystopical. Just put it back up if you'll like. Axezz 21:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User pages

Hi! What reversions are you talking about?? Afaik, I haven't edited anyone else's user page in a long time, save to put a nice image on Anthere's. +sj + 00:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, that's very interesting. I wasn't editing wikipedia at 10am today when this edit was made. I'll see what I can find out... thanks for the heads-up. +sj + 01:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, I checked with a developer to see what IP made that edit, and it was indeed me. I *was* looking for a link to Wikipedia:2004_Encyclopedia_topics this morning, which I finally found via Danny's contribution-history... I must have followed a "rollback" link in the process. Thanks for catching it (following a rollback link apparently requires no confirmation and doesn't give you any indication of what has happened; it looks as though you just followed a normal link to the target page). Unfortunately, I didn't get your message until Danny noticed the change himself and reverted it; how embarrassing. +sj + 04:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
When an administrator views someone's contribution history, every "(top)" edit (that is, every edit which is the most recent edit to that page) has a "[rollback]" link next to it, which when clicked will automatically revert the latest changes made by you to that article. So, for instance, your current edit history starts off with the following when I view it:
If someone slips while trying to follow the second link to Talk:Modern Orthodox Judaism, he may accidentally hit the "rollback" link instead... (at certain window widths, the links are right on top of one another) which will also take him to that talk page (except with your latest edits rolled back); unless he looks closely, he will not know that the wrong link was followed. I filed a bug report about this; hopefully this will be fixed soon and will prominently warn you that you have just rolled back recent edits (or even ask you to confirm that you wanted to do so). +sj +

[edit] Khazars

Khazars is up for nomination on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates. Since you were involved in some discussions I thought you would be interested. Your vote and/or comments would be appreciated. Thanks! --Briangotts 16:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your help Jmw0000 08:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Powergrid

Isn't this a simple case of kicking him out? I mean he's been vandalizing everywhere - Hawaii, for heaven's sake! Where do I sign? --Leifern 11:07, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

[edit] Killian documents

Hi, you have nothing to do with this article, but since you've been helpful in some controversial areas, I wondered if you might offer me a suggestion on how to deal with the recent problem I'm having over there. Probably the thing to do is to take a day or two away from the article but my honest feeling is that my NPOV changes are being blocked inappropriately. I'm not really sure what to do with that. Kaisershatner 23:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hang on, maybe we've fixed it without you...Kaisershatner 23:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yemenite Jews and the Mizrahi dillema

I'm not sure that what is mentioned in your edit summary is correct, Jayjg. First, a Mizrahi can be considered a Sephardi. Second, I'm not sure that Yemenite are considered a seperate category (nor, again, that these categories are directly applicable to one another). It is my understanding that this is often used as a distinction intimating origin from a Western(ized)/non-Western(ized) localities, rather than the place of origin being West-East to one another (for e.g. Bulgaria viz Tunisia, etc.). Interestingly, based on a cursory search I did just now (I forgot about this article and your edit summary reminded me of it), genetically, there seems to be less in common between Yemenite Jews than all others (including Ethiopian Jews), but I am unable to trace the actual study at this time. El_C 04:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it worked. Found a good synopsis from an article written by a Univ. of Tel-Aviv scholar (and honourary lecturer at UCLA and Berkley), Sami Shalom Shitrit. I'll translate it (first link) as soon as my tea is ready. El_C 05:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On closer read, my jubilation was a bit premature. He is, in fact, speaking of the "new Mizrachim," a concept increasingly viewed as cultural rather than ethnic:

What is "mizrachim" is something everyone knows [hah!] since the 1990s, at least ... but the question begs what is, or who are, the "new mizrahim." (from the first paragraph)

Then he goes on to tie it to culture, and esp. a political culture shared by Jews who originated from Middle Eastern countries, and includes Yeman, Iran, Morocco, and others — does that mean that Yeman was hitherto excluded from the (old) Mizrahi category, remains a pressing question. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. I'll see if I can revisit the topic soon. Incidentally, this was/is a matter of contention in .he's discussion, too. Perhaps I'll ask some of them to clarify and elaborate on their positions. Much of the .he article, incidentally, is based on studies by a sociologist, Yehuda Shenhav , who is a leading figure in the organization whose links above I cited. El_C 05:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chmielnicki massacre

Mental note: Chmielnicki massacre = / = Chmielnicki uprising, and most certainly could be its own article rather than remain limited to a section within the former (which presently does not even exist). El_C 08:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delete incorrectly titles Talk page

Hi Jay, please delete entirely this page --> Wikipedia talk:Israeli West Bank barrier/Archive1 ONLY, which I mistakenly created in the process of archiving the discussions at Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier. I subsequently successfuly created three CORRECT archive pages which are fine. Thanks. IZAK 08:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] oh boy,

Check this out: Hinduism and Judaism Cordially yours, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Killian documents

Listed on the talk page where? I stated on the talk page that the factual non controversial changes should go in, but the poor word choice changes and the censorship of information should not. How does that equal a factual dispute? Kaiser claimed there is a factual dispute with the article, you should give him time to state exactly what is wrong with the current version. If he/you don't that is borderline disrupting wikipedia to prove a point (adding a disputed tag when you aren't getting your version, you have to actually indicate what is disputed with the other version). I am careful about the 3RR, I only come close to it because I don't use sockpuppets. zen master T 02:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The version that you are reverting was arrived at by consensus. I am ok with factual additions going in but there is by no means consensus for the removal of information that you are trying to perform. And you don't appear to be trying to justify those changes logically (on the talk page or otherwise)... zen master T 02:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for fixing my English

And it seems like User:Islamist is on a mission. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Islamist

  • I think so too, since he is doing anything possible to make sure the Palestine flag is appearing on the Gallery of national flags, while saying that places like Palestine (eg. Scotland) should not be including. Judging by his user name, and his demeaner, his POV is that towards pro-Arab. Zscout370 11:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • One more thing, he has done a personal attack against you on his User page. He put your name under this list: "The following editors have displayed hostility, made biased edits and have reverted edits in an abusive way." Usually that means that you have been listed on there for editing not on a pro-Arab POV. Permission for a RfC on this person? Zscout370 11:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Persia

Thanks for attending to those links. Rich Farmbrough 08:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another Jewish template for deletion

Hi Jay, another stub {{Sefer-stub}} has appeared concerning Sefer! and so I have gone to the efforts of proposing that it be deleted, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Sefer-stub [4] Please vote. Thank you. IZAK 10:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nanjing massacre

Yes, that is a rather good example. Let's keep looking out for these. - Mustafaa 02:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

You should have blocked User:Slrubenstein as well. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:22, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Israel apologist?

Jayjg: Are you an Israel apologist? You seem to be involved in most of the articles concerning Israel's terroristic activities. Adraeus 00:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naming ethnicity

I wonder why you have deleted my addition of Poles from Anti-Semitism [5] page? The last sentence, a quote, in that section says: "Wherever they found the szlachta, royal officials or Jews, they killed them all, sparing neither women nor children. They pillaged the estates of the Jews and nobles, burned churches and killed their priests, leaving nothing whole." IMHO, besides Jews this quote refers to Poles, why then not to name their ethnicity? --Ttyre 00:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

User: SERDUN just wants to thank User: Jayjg for posting my article via email.

[edit] Meforshim and rabbis

Hi, please see discussion at Talk:Meforshim, and see RK's recent edits about Rabbi at [6] thanks. IZAK 07:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thimerosal

Hey there Jayjg, would you mind taking a look at Thimerosal? I was drawn there from an RFC about it, but I'm running up against a POV editor who insists on deleting cited information that is at odds with his/her POV. The article is a mess right now and I hope to be able to help clean it up, and I would appreciate your feedback and help there. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 15:18, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism

FWIW, I think IrishPunkTom is right in this case. The paragraph in question was extremely unbalanced and frankly read like a piece of pro-Israeli nonsense. He has put it into perspective by giving other examples that take the false dichotomy between Arab and Israeli terrorism away. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] (returning page to description of drug abuse, not whatever it was talking about now)

Could you take another look at this revert? Drug abuse is clearly a value judgement - the definition changes depending on who you are and your opinion. There is no one 'official' definition, even British and American medical associations disagree on what it is. The current version does not reflect this. Please let me know what you think, specifically why you think the topic of harm reduction is not relevant to a discussion of treatment for drug abuse. Guttlekraw 19:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Harm reduction is certainly relevant, but you refuse to cite sources. This has been explained to you many times. --Viriditas | Talk 00:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For one thing, I didn't ask you. Secondly, citing sources is not strictly required unless something is controversial. Your continually removing every word I add stating that I didn't cite sources is harrassment and frankly vandalism. The harm reduction article has plenty of references, if you want more why don't you add them, since you agree it is relevant to the article. Do you want me to go through everything you write pulling out every statement that is not explicitly sourced? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. Oh, yes. I see. Guttlekraw 00:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Everything I have ever written is sourced, but the subject is you, not me. You have adamantly refused to cite sources for your controversial edits. You have been asked many times to read and understand Wikipedia:Cite sources, but you refuse to do so. If you had bothered to read it like I asked you, you would have discovered that your opinon is wrong: This applies even when the information is currently undisputed. --Viriditas | Talk 00:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please take this irrelevant rant off this page. My question is to Jayjg, not you. Guttlekraw 18:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of National flags (regroups vs. enumerates)

I have been following the content dispute over at List of national flags, and of the diffrences between the two versions there is one thign I don't get. I am not sure how regroups is better than enumerates in the first paragraph. Actually I am not sure how regroups even makes sense in that location. Even though I am a native speaker of english I looked both words up to try and find some way that regroups would work and I came up blank. Enumerates does seem to work. But, grammar and such have never been my strongest point and since you committed the version with regroups each time I though I would ask. (Incidently I think I agree with you version of the rest of the article) Dalf | Talk 07:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Female "rabbis" in Orthodox Judaism?

Hi Jay, RK is now "building a case" for the beginnings of lady "rabbis" within Orthodox Judaism. See what's happeing at Rabbi and Talk:Rabbi, you may also want to contribute more information to this important article about rabbis in general. Thank you and have a Chag Kasher VeSameach! IZAK 08:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cite your sources

Help me out here, because I'm trying not to jump to the conclusion that V is either malicious or stupid. You want me to cite sources that state that harm reduction is revelant to a discussion of treatment for drug abuse? Are you serious? What other articles have people removing relevant sections for this reason? If you like I can pull up some scientific article on harm reduction, but I don't see what difference that will make, even V agrees that harm reduction is relevant. Can you please explain what you mean? Guttlekraw 18:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A number of your edits have made unsourced claims. As well, they seem to all revolve around replaing the phrase "drug abuse" with "drug use" in various articles, implying that drugs can only be used, but never abused. Jayjg (talk) 18:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Two things: 1. It does not address the issue of why you removed the section on harm reduction from the drug abuse treatment article. Can you specify what kind of sources you think should be cited for this? 2. I have, in some places, replaced the phrase 'drug abuse' with 'drug use', but only where the term drug use is more appropriate. Where someone is describing the use as abuseive (a medical or legal opinion) I have tried to reference who that is, since there are multiple opinions on what abuse is depending on whether you are a doctor, a lawyer, an American or a European. I'm not actually on some pov crusade. Please take another look, especially at the harm reduction issue, which I really don't understand you reversion of. Guttlekraw 19:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Hello, J. I'm new to all of this. But I couldn't help but see on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review entry an aside that most likely was written as a joke that your re-inserted onto the main page.

More recently the Greensburg Tribune-Review has created a free evening city paper, entitled Trib P.M., which helps boost the publisher's readership and increase ad rates. Many believe the "Right-Wing Rag of the Three Rivers" does this to remain in the same category as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

I am sure you would agree that this isn't cricket with Wiki's POV neutrality requirements. It's a snide joke, and not a real fact about the newspaper in Pittsburgh.

The other comments were cut out because they weren't really on point or were redundant.

Please respond to my disussion page if need be. I'll go back and take out the sections I mentioned.

Lionel of Pittsburgh

J,

That IP address is for the research library computers at a pooled newsroom. Hundreds of people use them every week. I have started on this and am not one of the original people making corrections.

The person who drew the ire of Gamaliel is an unpaid student intern. While she probably wasn't very polite, she was right about his intransigence. Apparently, he began the entry with an outright lie, and refused to change it.

She continued to try to edit the entry. She is using the experience on the copy editing of that and another as a thesis topic.

Please review what I mentioned above. I'm sure you will see that it is not neutral. No one would seriously write this and consider it "neutral."

More recently the Greensburg Tribune-Review has created a free evening city paper, entitled Trib P.M., which helps boost the publisher's readership and increase ad rates. Many believe the "Right-Wing Rag of the Three Rivers" does this to remain in the same category as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Lionel of Pittsburgh 21:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)Lionel of Pittsburgh

1. The newspaper is not headquartered in Greensburg, but Pittsburgh, hence the name. See also other references in the main article. 2. There is no "Right-Wing Rag of the Three Rivers." This is a snide joke. 3. "does this to remain in the same category as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette." Ibid. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is the slightly larger competitor. 4. The evening paper isn't an evening paper. It's an afternoon paper (distributed beginning at 2 p.m.), and it costs 25 cents. There is a link from the newspaper's official website that says as much. 5. The author of the comment has admitted in another forum that it's a joke, that the editors of Wikipedia have fallen for [www.voy.com/158430/1184.html] & [www.voy.com/158430/1187.html].

If this is a question of the IP address, I can simply post from my own desk instead of the library, which will have a different IP user tag.

[edit] Harm reduction

Hi there, it looks like my question got lost in your archive - why did you remove the section on harm reduction from drug use in your revert? Did you mean to or was it accidental? Thanks, Guttlekraw 15:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda

Could you please vote on the proposed move Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda → Alleged links between pre-invasion Iraq and Al-Qaeda? The vote is here . Thanks. ObsidianOrder 17:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:LevelCheck

Hey. To let you know, this user is also subject of a RfC (I had nothing to do with that one). I also think this might be a stretch, but could this user be a sockpuppet of User:Islamist? Zscout370 21:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islamofascism

Howdy,

Jayjg, even though we disagree on some things, I respect you alot. I was wondering if you could take a look at Islamofascism for general wikiness. Hopefully we can get it to FAC soon. At the moment, various leftists/Islamists/Arabists are objecting left and right. The article seems pretty NPOV to me, but it always helps to get more people involved. Since your extensive experience with Israel leads me to beleive, that would bring good experience and edits to it.

Klonimus 04:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet editors

Jay, thanks for your note. I've seen what you and other editors have been subjected to, and I sympathise. I can well understand that that would get to you. Our viewpoints might vary but I am right behind you on one score: there is absolutely no way you should have to put up with that vile shit from anyone. We are supposed to be colleagues working in a great endeavour, not combatants in whatever war those guys (guy?) think they are fighting. Grace Note 04:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New_anti-Semitism

Jay, could you have a look at Talk:New_anti-Semitism#Highly_POV_paragraph_cut? I know that your views are much closer than mine (though probably not identical) to those of the person who inserted the material that I cut. Perhaps you could help frame some of this in an encyclopedic manner. Or perhaps you can suggest someone else who might work on this. Right now, I'm much to busy to do the heavy lifting on behalf of appropriately presenting a view with which I disagree completely. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:10, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Right to exist vote for deletion

I think you will be interested in the outcome of this very convoluted stub. Guy Montag 14:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace, copy edits please

Dear Jay: Good Mo'ed to you and yours! I have asked for some expansion of the article about the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace and User:MathKnight was kind enough to do so, but his style needs copy-editing please. Hope you can oblige. Thanks a lot. IZAK

[edit] El C vote

In cas you missed it, you didn't sign your vote. Guettarda 17:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nazarene Qara'im?

Hey J, Can you check out the text at Karaite_Judaism#Nazarene_Karaites or do you know of someone who knows more about this stuff? It sounds strangely familiar (i.e., similar to some of the stuff that was being promoted a couple of months ago on Nazarene#Modern movements. Jag saméaj. Tomer TALK 09:10, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New template

Hey again again. I've started a little project at Wikipedia:Sandbox/Template:Judaism as you can see...please help out in any way you can, or tell me why I should just stop it. :-p Tomer TALK 09:57, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pandeism vfd

Please consider changing the basis for your vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pandeism from "original research" to "non-notable." I believe I have adduced sufficient referential evidence to show that this article was not "original research," but simply an exposition on a philosophy which, although real, lacks enough adherents/proponents to be notable enough for inclusion. I apologize for having overestimated the importance of this topic. It was, after all, one of my first posts, when I was new to Wikipedia and not yet familiar with the criteria for notability. -- 8^D BD2412gab 04:40, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

  • Thank you. -- 8^D BD2412gab 05:31, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
  • I just found conclusive evidence of the use of the term "Pandeism" dating back to 1833 [7], being used by Godfrey Higgins, a follower of John Toland, the creator of pantheism.[8]. The term is used in a book written by Higgins called the Anacalypsis. -- 8^D BD2412gab 10:49, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

[edit] Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism

...Dunno. Is it someone's puppet? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we can do other than protect the page. The last two days have been pretty busy for me, so I haven't had as much time for Wikipedia as I would like. --Viriditas | Talk 05:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New_anti-Semitism, again

Could I prevail on you to have a look at Talk:New_anti-Semitism#Lead_POV? It seems to me that Viriditas (and maybe a couple of others) have been taking this article in a polemical direction. When I've tried to discuss this with him, he and I seem to be talking at cross purposes. I feel like I'm engaging with someone who feels that he "has the Truth" about this controversial topic and that NPOV consists of the article expressing that Truth without qualification. Your opinion would likely be helpful, I know you were involved in this article earlier. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:47, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • You have certainly targetted the part that seems most disingenuous to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:11, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nehruvian-Stalinism

It seems the vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nehruvian-Stalinism resulted in quite some new editors for Wikipedia, typically with edits only at this vote. I've left some notes highlighting this fact. Is anything else to be done in such cases? --Pjacobi 06:46, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

[edit] Strong POV and good faith editing not mutually exclusive

Jayjg, I would like to commend you for so beautifully demonstrating that having a strong POV and making sure it's accurately represented in articles in a NPOV way is not mutually exclusive from good faith editing. The best articles are the collaboration of reasonable, articulate editors like you who represent various and opposing POVs while adhering to policy. I would challenge any editor with a strong POV to be able to produce a list like your User:Jayjg/Edits, evidence of your good faith efforts and adherence to policy even on behalf of opposing POVs. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:09, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Well my thoughts on this were originally articulated here where I probably diverged too much from the actual issue at hand, which was dealing with an anon vandal. Maybe I only ended up humoring the vandal by even defending against such slurs and personal attacks. I have this ideal notion that we all ought to work alongside each other toward common goals and treat each other like fellow human beings. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:35, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What!? You're rving yourself so I have to do the dirty work!?!? :-p

Why'd you rv your correction of User:Al-Andalus' edit to Mizrahi Jew? It's almost shabat here, so I don't have time to put in the Arab Jews mention in the article itself. Is there some way to set a reminder to do something, so I can remember to look at it sunday night or monday? Tomer TALK 19:39, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Request 3rd party mediation in International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict

Zero is being totally unreasonable. He is erasing relevent information in relation to the refugee status in the article. He doesnt give any valid reasons in talk, and is obstinate in every manner. I am interested in your opinion to the situation. If this is not resolved, I will have to use mediation or arbitration to resolve this.

Thanks,

Guy Montag 01:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, Jay!

For your vote and very kind words in my RfA. And for all your encouragment, in general. Yours always, El_C 01:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It seems your POV remains

"conspiracy theory" in an article's title is very POV. zen master T 05:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The point is to have a neutral title for an article (I am not pushing a POV other than neutrality; you intentionally mischaracterize the issue). "conspiracy theory" in an article's title connotes that the subject is unworthy of being taken seriously which is the anti-thesis of an encyclopedia. zen master T 06:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
How is 9/11 domestic complicity theory not a more neutral and a better title all around? That is an exact summary of what the article is about (allegations of domestic complicity in the attacks). Encarta is hardly a reputable source (M$FT [yes this is my POV but a valid point]). Every subject in an encyclopedia should be taken seriously so the reader can form conclusions based on the actual facts and merits of the issue, not tricked into believing the "majority" view through the use of psychologically subtle word games. zen master T 06:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
What was the point of this edit other than to cover your tracks? [9] zen master T 07:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I mean what other reason is there for that edit other than covering your tracks? You seem to be sweeping the naming controversy under the rug? (I am assuming good faith by asking) On the 9/11 article's you've done a pretty good job of misframing the issue in terms of me supposedly pushing my POV, your boss should be proud. zen master T 07:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
The most recent checkin comment (that most people see) will be blank, no hint of a naming controversy. If you have another explanation for that edit I'd like to hear it. zen master T 07:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
So you have no alternative explanation for that edit? Would it be valid to characterize your actions on wikipedia as being part of a conspiracy? ;-) zen master T 07:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
So what is the explanation? zen master T 18:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Your edit started it. Absent a reasonable explanation I am free to think of "conspiracy theories" of my own. I wouldn't have expected a Wikipedia admin to try to sweep things under the rug, but I guess I was wrong. zen master T 19:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree w/Zen, that "complicity" more accurately describes the nature of the theory in question. To apply he term "conspiracy" instead is not only inaccurate, its letting right-wing ad hominem abusive attack campaigns (which have been pretty successfull, obviously) invade wikipedia. watch cspan or cspan2 on contentious issues, such as the 2004 ohio electoral vote objection, and see who uses these phrases, in what context, and think about why.
not on wikipedia. wikipedia is held to a higher standard. we don't follow, we lead. we do things not because that's what other people do, we use words not because they've been heard a lot, we do things the way we do because they are the most accurate and informative ways to do them. So don't come here saying "I say this presented this way on FOX news, so we should present it the same way here." We can do much better than FOX news. Kevin Baastalk: new 07:15, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
I was using FOX news as an example of mainstream media that is very biased. Kevin Baastalk: new 07:22, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
Then you understand my point. It's bad idea to use traditional mainstream media as an example of what to do on wikipedia when we can do better than that.
Henry David Thoreau once said "There is nothing more sacred than the integrity of one's own mind." If we all keep our minds strong, preserve their integrity, and use them, we can do better, because we have more minds, more perspectives, and a mountain of knowledge and information at our fingertypes. Kevin Baastalk: new 07:36, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
You said the following on zen's talk page: As for what is "encyclopedic", I simply note that Encarta refers to the Protocols of the Elders of Zions as an "anti-Semitic conspiracy theory". and ...with noting which views are majority and which are minority. Conspiracy theories fall into the latter group, and can (and should) be characterized as such.. From this, and the fact that zen already told you that the theory is one of complicity not conspiracy, i gathered that you wanted to call it a "conspiracy theory" because you believed it was a minority view, and this was the right thing to characterize (in contrast to note) that, because that's what encarta did with a different article (which may be a theory of conspiracy, rather than one of complicity). Kevin Baastalk: new 07:44, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
don't you think that that's a little convoluted? Is it a theory of conspiracy to be complicit? Because then it would just be a theory of conspiracy. Is it a theory of complicity in a conspiracy? Because then it would just be a theory of complicity. 19:15, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
The literal meaning is not. the social, derogatory meaning, canalyzed, by right-wing "active public perception influencers", is inapproriate. ad hominem attacks and appeal to ridicule do not belong in titles of wikipedia articles. "radical left-wing conspiracy theorists" who belong in the "x-filed" according to people like Tom DeLay (User_talk:Kevin_baas#DeLay.27s_Jan_6._speech), like senator Barbara Boxer, senator Russ Fiengold, congressman John Conyers, congresswoman and former Judge Stephanie Tubbs Jones, congressman and Civil Rights leader Jessie Jackson, and thousands more, have, unlike the people who use those tersm, valid arguments. I've already discussed all of this before. Please read back over what I have written to you already more carefully. I don't feel I should have to repeat myself. Kevin Baastalk: new 19:42, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

I stand by everything that I have said, and do not appreciate your personal attack.


Wrong. Neither is a personal attack. As you have noticed, you did need to reread what I said. For example, i was responding in the last comment to arguments that i have already responded to in on of my first arguments. this is evidence that the conversation is not being productive. This is a problem. Furthermore, saying that someone's arguments are wrong is inappropriate, and is not an argument, and it is not productive. repeating "you're wrong" "you're wrong" "your argumetn doesn't hold water", without making any logical argument is childish and unproductive. pointing out logical fallacies in the other persons arguments is appropriate and productive. For instance, your last comment included fallacies such as reductio ad absurdum, appeal to ridicule & ("i dont mean that literally, ofcourse") argument ad nasueam (repetition), and statements that are outright false, such as "the literal and social meanings are pretty much the same". Kevin Baastalk: new 23:24, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

[edit] Rev of Bru

I tend to agree with you, but as I am a party to the dispute I don't think it is appropriate for me to do anything. Should I leave it to SV, or can you bring this up at the ArbCom? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] conspiracy theories

What a mess! I wrote comments on the 9/11 and AIDS pages you called attention to. If you think anything I wrote on these two pages is relevant to another page/discussion (and has merit, of course), feel free to copy my remarks. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I only watched the rumours page before to keep outlandish material from a couple of the sections. I think I'll also keep an eye on the AIDS conspiracy theory page. Cool Hand Luke 17:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] reverend cantor Kepecs

uh...this guy is not enamored, he's obsessed. I'm normally a big-time inclusionist...but this guy is barely marginally noteworthy for an encyclopedia. I'm also not entirely comfortable with the fact that there are no source references given. I'm not as big a stickler on this as some others, as long as the information is independently verifiable, but <grind teeth> this guy has demonstrated a definite desire to inject jewish-catholic reconciliation into a number of articles, and a good part of it seems to be not entirely well-informed. I'll be back shortly, hopefully...IE is in the process of crashing on me... :-p Tomer TALK 21:23, May 2, 2005 (UTC)


Image:Pope letter.jpg
Please note bottom of letter the way the Vatican addresses "Cantor" is Reverend Cantor. In addition, the information that is being inserted is all correct, as I know most of the people who were there at that meeting with the Pope.

The information regarding the term Hazzan which was added today, was received from a school of Cantorial Studies, and from practicing cantors who have been cantors for decades. Cantors, or "Reverend Cantors" as more notably used in Europe, are more than just singers. Along with Rabbis, Cantors are the Jewish clergy, and in the Conservative and Reform movements they are ordained ministers. This meeting was deemed so important, that the Israeli government was even involved in this meeting.


The Jewish Theological Seminary of America (conservative), The Belz School of Jewish Music (orthodox), Hebrew Union College (Reform) The American Seminary for Contemporary Judaism (multi-denominational) all train and grant Cantorial Diplomas thereby ordaining Cantors. The official title conveyed by most schools is Reverend Cantor. JTS grants the title "Hazzan," and "Cantorial Soloist."

[edit] Bad faith nominations to WP:VFD

A relatively new user, User:SmarterChild3, has nominated virtually all of the WP:BJAODN pages to WP:VFD. This user's brief edit history shows several instances of vandalism as well. I am certain these nominations are in bad faith. Can anything be done about this? Firebug 22:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Middle East peace according to religion

Hi Jay, please review the article Middle East peace according to religion. Thank you. IZAK 03:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy theorists

And, they are sooooooo annoying.--Cberlet 20:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense on Jews as a chosen people

It appears enough people are keeping an eye on it...I just sat here, paging through all the individual edits, and shook my head. I'd recommend a 24-hr block on 4.241.* or whatever that IP addy domain and sub are. Judging by anon's edit on the talk page there, I'm gonna go ahead and say attempts at reasoning w/ him/her would be an exercise in utter futility. Tomer TALK 23:39, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Spastika

Well, this user has decided to add his POV and add the Palestine flag without talking to us first. From checking his contributions, all he did is went to certain pages and add a slight pro-Arab POV. Most of his edits were reverted, and I will watch this user for a few days. Note, I also have seen a notice on his talk page that his username is offensive, since it combines spastic and swastika. Zscout370 (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Your possibly right about the sockpuppet stuff, because ever since we did the RfC on Islamist, he quit. There has been no edit for almost a month. I will talk to the admins about that RfC, but we should keep an eye on him. Plus, the guy that was causing us problems on the China/Taiwan issue, 50Stars, (from what I was told) could be a sock puppet of another user. Damn I hate these socks. I wish the dryer makes these socks go away than the ones that I wear. Zscout370 (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
One more thing, see this: User_talk:Phil_Boswell#Mirror_Image. This is what is going to possibly help us and hurt him. BTW, the other user User:Tagteam213, could be a sockpuppet or friend of this user. Zscout370 (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Let's gang up on him. Let's use the system to eliminate editors that disagree with our goals. Let's push our POV in peace. --Tagteam213 22:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beirut-Blog.de / Beirut-Diary.com

Hi Jayyig, would you please stop removing the resources Beirut-Blog.de/Beirut-Diary in Lebanon´s country profile?! Even though the name is Beirut-Blog.de the German site is not a blog at all nor is the English site Beirut-Diary. Both are just names. They are asolute valuable sources of the so called "cedar revolution". You do find every major event covered there, including exlusive audio, photo and video material. One example: None of the big western mass media covered the case of Samir Geagea until today. Beirut-Blog.de / Beirut-Diary.com covered it two weeks ago in-depths. Another example: Where else on the web do you find the video coverage of every bombing that occured in March and April in Lebanon? And there is a more. So please put the links back, there is not good reason to remove them.

Best wishes Profesorarguile

[edit] Beirut-Blog.de / Beirut-Diary.com 2

Hi Jayyig, the author of the sites is a friend of mine. He is a freelancer from Germany. His name is Alexander Jenniches.

You are right, the "about" sections begins with "... this is my diary from the lebanese capital Beirut". That is close to a blog. The second sentence is: "Here you will find political news, coverage of the local life and just short entries you would expect in a diary". That looks like more the stuff you can make use of, doesn´t it?

So, if you can link his site to Wikipedia, please do it. Otherwhise, just leave it. I don´t think, he feels the need to appeare in such discussion. Best wishes Professoraguile


[edit] Edited Israelis Template

I would like to propose an edited template I have put together at: User:Goodoldpolonius2/israel. Your comments are appreciated. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sock puppetry at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Christofascism

Hey Jayjg, In reading the comments attached to some of the "keep" votes in this VfD, I'm beginning to suspect the some of the votes are being cast by sockpuppets. Know anyone w/ the time to look into it? Also, User:Klonimus made a charge of vote-meddling against User:Doc glasgow, but I'm having difficulty verifying what he's talking about. Tomer TALK 12:50, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time, I think, for Gary Krupp to go as well...

I see you've added some stuff to the Gary Krupp article. As the founder of some questionable organization, he is perhaps arguably notable...although until I hear of "Pave the Way Foundation" from source other than Wikipedia, I'll continue to consider Pave the Way Foundation as of doubtful relevance. That said, the article contains very little useful information, and is, in fact, comprised of a picture of dubious relevance, and text which is approximately 2/3 external links. It also seems to be yet another in a pattern of worthless articles by Merlin\Zor and his/her sock puppets. Tomer TALK 16:26, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but it's a posterchild for [[Wikipedia:In_Soviet_Russia,_Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Nonsense_Delete_YOU!#The_late.2C_lamented_Template:Sucks|Template:Sucks]]. Tomer TALK 17:09, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Wiesenthal Center

Have you discussed it with him? Has he responded? You might list him on Vandalism in Progress and/or WP:AN/I. RickK 19:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

By "delete" I assume you mean revert? Then, yes. RickK 19:09, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I also personally doubt the SWC has approved this user to put all of this information on the article, since I have checked the website. When I went there, it was copied word for stinking word. That, to me, is a copyvio. Zscout370 (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burnout or Burnup on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Lawrence_Eliezer_Kepecs

I think I'd better take a breather on this. I'm ready to start spanking people. Take over for me, will ya? Tomer TALK 21:31, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hahahaha. I just got the newmail notification so I went to read it, and you put it in the Gary Krupp section...so I had to re-read what you wrote about your modifications to the very hairy reverend (Jewish person) Gary. It's a good thing I'm the only one around, because I erupted into howls of glee every 0.076 seconds reading it, which might have been mildly embarrassing if anyone had heard me.  :-p Tomer TALK 21:42, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pandeism vfd

Hi, I adjusted the tally to reflect your re-affirmed vote. As currently written, I think maybe it's a borderline case, but I'm in my exam period and have not had time to do further research. I still think that there are more significant references to be found for this term, but I respect your opinion as to the article in its current state. Cheers. -- BD2412 thimk 23:02, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

[edit] Hate group

Thanks for cleaning up Hate group. It was on my 'to-do' list. That anon has been making a number of questionable contributions. Cheers, -Willmcw 17:14, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lost Ten Tribes nonsense coming up?

Yet another anon is adding some questionable information to the Lost Ten Tribes. Might wanna check it out. Have a good shabat. -t Tomer TALK 18:01, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jizyah and Yuber.

Howdy,

I've had my daily dosage of Yuber's edits to Jizyah for the day. Would you care to have a look and see what if anything can be pulled out of this mess.

Klonimus 23:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for you edits and links. Nice work. Yuber has now gone for 4 (or more) reverts on Jizyah today Including some that not labeled as such. Now El_C is involved as well. Why does every attempt to improve an article about islam quickly descend into an edit war with the same gang of people (El_C, Yuber, Yusuf [I expect Yusuf to get involved at any moment])? Someone starting from a neutral perspective could easily be lead to conclude that all Islamists are rude obscurantists.

El_C has at least contributed some new material, but all of it is is attempting to blow smoke, on the fact that Jizyah is established by the Koran, and has always been a monetary tax. That issue has been settled to the point of being common knowledge by the actions of the early caliph's, Mohammed himself, and the historical record.

The part of discriminatory taxation is not original research. All modern Human rights convention's and almost all modern consitutions would prohibit taxation on the basis of religion or sex. All the meterial in the critcism section, is based on the works of Bat Ye'or and Ibn Warraq.

A quick little test of reverts is if 1697 is mentioned in the section on the Mogul empire. Yubers reverts keep clobbering little things like that. Personally I think the Islamists are uncomfortable with Jizyah, since it shows Islam in a negative light.

Klonimus 01:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

He calls me an Islamict(!) — איזה שעשוע! El_C 08:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I am not an islamist nor am I uncomfortable with Jizyah. What I am uncomfortable with is your [Klonimus] attempts to say that you should have a literalist interpretation of the Qur'an when talking about Jizyah. Jizyah wasn't established by the Qur'an. The Sura talks of giving tribute or respect, it doesn't specifically mention monetary tribute. Later, when taxes were collected from dhimmis, the name Jizyah was given to the tax. Jizyah doesn't mean tax, it means compensation/respect or tribute. That is why the name jizyah was changed later to sadaqah (literally, friendship charity) by the caliph Umar to make it have a less negative connotation that is distanced from the Qur'anic verse. These are all cold hard facts, but your POV slant isn't willing to compromise on them (although I have compromised twice on the article).Yuber 01:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, Jizyah is a tax imposed on non-muslims because they are non muslims. The rest is just commentary. Klonimus 07:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good edits

Good edits, Jay. I am especially impressed how quickly you were able to track down sources for the Criticism section and npov it therefrom. El_C 08:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

"According to Al-Mawardi jizyah is paid by the enemy in return for peace" would infact be a ransom to use the Enigh equivalent. Nobs 19:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
See these references [10] and [11] Nobs 19:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Ransom. It is recognized in Judaism that compensation can be paid to avoid punishment, slavery, or death. In ancient Israel, it was common to pay ransom as an alternative to corporal punishment except in the case of murder (Numbers 35. 31–4). The issue of whether a ransom is possible, or whether exact retribution must be made, was disputed between Sadducees (whomaintained that no ransom by way of payment is possible) and their opponents (who held that substitution by way of payment is possible except in cases of wilful murder). This means that the remark attributed to Jesus in Mark 10. 45 is more likely to be authentic than not, since there are other instances of Jesus using the current debates to make his own creative interpretation. How to cite this entry: "Ransom" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Ed. John Bowker. Oxford University Press, 2000. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of New Mexico. 12 May 2005 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t101.e5965>
ransom hold someone or something to ransom (1) hold someone prisoner and demand payment for their release. (2) demand concessions from a person or organization by threatening damaging action. How to cite this entry: "ransom" The Oxford Dictionary of Idioms. Ed. Judith Siefring. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of New Mexico. 12 May 2005 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html subview=Main&entry=t35.e2037>

Nobs Subscribed and sworn before me on this 12 May in the Year of our Lord 2005 at 20:40 (UTC)

[edit] ambulance photo

Hi Jayjg, just wondering whether you agree with the readdition just now of the highly controversial ambulance photo to the UNRWA article. [12] As you may recall, there was an extensive discussion about it on the talk page last summer and the photo was eventually removed. I am all for images in articles, but this one seems unencyclopedic at best. I would be interested in your opinion. -- Viajero 15:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Will every shtiebel get its own Wikipedia article?

Hi Jay, take a look at this new addition Congregation Tiferes Yisroel, I am not sure every obscure shtiebel on this planet is deserving of its own article. It may contravene Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider, and I think it's more of a Wikipedia:Vanity page, what do you think? (I am also asking User:Jfdwolff.) Thanks. IZAK 05:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zvi Block: Notable enough?

Hi again Jay, please see article about a Rabbi Zvi Block submitted by a new user. Is every last rabbi on Earth going to get their own Wikipedia article? Is this one "notable" enough in your opinion? Your views please. Thanks. IZAK 05:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seen this? Ibbur

Thought you may want to peruse Ibbur. IZAK 06:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] jesus

Care to check out the brewing revert war on Jesus concerning BC/AD -- and the stubborn comments by Arcturus and Rangerdude on Talk:Jesus? I think your input would be valuable. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I came to ask the same thing. Please vote at Talk:Jesus. Warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 21:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lithuanian School of Kabbalah

Hi, I just finished editing User:Fivetree's new entry about Lithuanian School of Kabbalah, but I do not know what to make of it really, and I cannot help but wonder if it really can be placed in Category:Orthodox Judaism. Is it too much self-promotion? What do you think? IZAK 05:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NZNF image

Please see the NZNF discussion page for an official notice from the New Zealand National Front in regards to the Images marked for deletion.

By the way, I'm not in the photograph. (Note: This message was left by IP User:203.109.147.40)

Hey, I know that you do not feel ok being pushed around by the NZNF and its supporters. I will vote keep for all images, though if those people decide to be very uncooperative, I still think the photos I showed on the NZNF talk page can be used. Zscout370 (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saudi Arabia and anti-Semitism

Howdy

May I ask you to reconsidder your vote on Saudi Arabia and anti-Semitism to Keep or Merge with Saudi Arabia

Arabs and anti-Semitism, and Islam and anti-Semitism are broad articles. Saudi Arabia and anti-Semitism is a specific article about a specific country with a long history state sponsored and condoned anti-Semetism. Everything in Saudi Arabia and anti-Semitism is cited and verifiable and the article has plenty possibilites for expansion and organic growth. Klonimus 04:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible impostors

I've been doing some impostor hunting lately, seeing as how we've had a rash of them lately and all, and you got the following hits: JAYJg (talk · contribs), JAYjG (talk · contribs), JAYjg (talk · contribs), JAyjg (talk · contribs), JaYJg (talk · contribs), JaYjG (talk · contribs), JaYjg (talk · contribs), JayJG (talk · contribs), JayJg (talk · contribs), JayjG (talk · contribs). Of course, this may be nothing, but I thought I would let you know. – ClockworkSoul 05:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I would tell you, but then our impostor friend would have that information too. :) If you're really interested, I could email it to you. – ClockworkSoul 05:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Check your email. – ClockworkSoul 05:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] fyi

Copyright problems#Fair use claims needing a second opinion see my entry at bottom; molloy. Gzuckier 17:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Sockpuppet proposal

  • Good idea. Please add some examples of socks-for-revert-warring, if you know of them. Radiant_* 17:38, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet overload Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Lawrence_Eliezer_Kepecs

I don't know what's going on anymore on the VfD for the reverend cantor kepecs. The sockpuppet overload is insane. I'm seriously thinking about asking some overlords to look into possibly banning a couple of IP addys. Tomer TALK 17:57, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NZNF

Considering your history, the comments on this page, the ADL discussion page (good for a laugh) and things I've heard about you from other Wiki admins, I don't think you should be making un-informed edits to the NZNF article. Your edits are obviously anti-NF POV, and don't reflect well on Wikipedia. - Molloy

  • Authenticity of above is suspect; edit history shows creation is by an anonymous user. --Chanting Fox 12:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I claim the above statement, check edit history. - Molloy

[edit] Hey, I need some help

Could you look into User:EricI234 for me. I thought I understood the change username policy, but apperently I have no clue. Thanks. El_C 12:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, blocking dosen't include the ip? I misread that part of the blocking policy then. El_C 12:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I was looking at To unblock the IP but not the username, wait until the user next tries to edit a page, and something like #1234 was blocked because they share an IP with OldUserName will appear at Special:Ipblocklist. Click "unblock" next to that number. Then the user can log in under their new name. and I thought it would be simpler for the user to change their name rather than be confused in being blocked – I suppose that could be explained to him/her though; at the time I just thought changing a user name is very simple (I confused that with the sig on special:pref.). Say, while I'm asking stupid questions, what is the procedure for changing a username? El_C 12:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Roger that. I'm not fully clear-headed at the moment, probably I shouldn't have touched it. :\ Thanks. El_C 12:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

Hey, if you noticed on the NZNF, Malloy also attacked FightDemBack, since Malloy stated "You seem to have the IQ of a small child" to him. Zscout370 (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] International Law

thanks for the move and suggestions - yah I'll add the sources list once it is completed, I do have a source list on APA format, but as I'm still condensing info and putting it into relatively short paragraphs - I'm still working on the list.

thanks! ps - any tips for how to format the sourcing in this place? there seems to be no consensis

BlindingCranium 18:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


The sources would most likely be references because what I wrote was more of a synthesis of information than independent sources... I could make footnotes, but that may be more complicated.


Sorry but I can't find the footnote tool! Can you give me a link?

19:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image deletion in articles Jewish Defense League,Israel, and Religious Zionism

These images have been hosted there for over a year without controversy. Yesterday, a user has marked them for deletion. As I am not fully versed in all wiki policies, could you find out what is going on if you have the time? The user in question is Burgundavia.

Thanks,

Guy Montag 22:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] your input

Can I convince you to look at and comment on this: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Iranian physics news - (It's a weblog masquerading as a scientific web site.) - Tεxτurε 22:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is it?

Please stop being abusive and try engaging in constructive article editing --Dogtag 02:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Would you care to explain yourself? Your threats are entirely obnoxious and accusations unfounded. I suggest an RFC, mediation, arbitration or whatever you wish. We need an otside observer to review your conduct. --Dogtag 02:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Is that your defense for threatening and obnoxious behavior? That I know something about Wikipedia policies? You will need more evidence than that to explain your ugly behavior. Instead of threatening users with bans for disagreeing with you, why don't you use the Talk page on Zionism to explain why you insist on putting typos and original research into the article? --Dogtag 02:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abif

Please review the "Biblical" article Abif. Thanks. IZAK 05:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 04:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)