User talk:Jayjg/Archive 14

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.
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

Jewish Views of Jesus

my main source ares stated at the bottom by see also namely

Most Jewish views on Jesus and Christianity was stated by Nahmanides in his dispute with Pablo Christaini in 1254. Vikuach HaRamban found in Otzar Havikuchim by J. D. Eisenstein, Hebrew Publishing Society, 1915 and Kitvey HaRamban by Rabbi Charles D. Chavel, Mosad Horav Kook 1963.
The Real Messiah? A Jewish Response to Missionaries. Aryeh Kaplan. New York: National Conference of Synagogue Youth / Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, 1985, © 1976. (pdf)

Should I move this to a references section? Jon513 19:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Messianic Judaism

Thanks for inviting me to look at the talk page. I'll do that and drop one or two comments into it:=) David Cannon 20:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay... After reading through the talk page and the article, I feel physically ill. There is so much work to do on the article. Unfortunately, nothing on the talk page is of any practical value whatsoever in actually improving the article. Tom e r ^talk 02:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you for supporting me in my successful RFA. The admin tools will definitely be handy for dealing with vandalism more swiftly. Please drop a note on my talk page, should you have questions about any of my actions. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 00:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of VeryVerily

Dear Arbitrator,

There is a vote under way which would maintain the main restriction on me which forced me off Wikipedia. If it goes through, I will be effectively hard-banned, since (as the last year has shown) I can't function under these conditions.

I know I've had good interactions with you in the past, and I hope you will believe that, though I have edited in controversial areas and thus been in conflicts, I have always been a careful and conscientious editor. I once made hundreds of edits a week here, and every time I read Wikipedia see how much more I could do were I allowed. But with that rate of editing and the expanded defintions of "revert", I am too vulnerable to the stress of constant blocking.

I spent hours laying out a specific defense for everything the AC complained about last time. It will all be for nothing if this goes through. I explained my reverts "without discussion" (e.g., I was being stalked), the supposed basis for this. No "findings of fact" or anything like that have been put forth to respond to my points or justify continuing these restrictions, especially after a whole year!

I urge you to not go along with this. Thanks for listening,

Very Verily 18:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome

You earned it. Keep up the good work. It benefits more people than you know of.

WP:RCU

I am leaving this message to all 10 people at Special/checkuser list. Therefore forgive me for its being impersonal. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for CheckUser#cleanup needed. Your response and/or actions there would be very much appreciated. Thanks! --Irpen 23:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

You were super quick to do that tor proxy, faster than I could post the template and come back :) -- Tawker 09:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran-related articles

Hi. A number of users have tried to re-introduce the (racist interpretation of the) term "Aryan" into Iran-related articles such as Demographics of Iran, Persian people, and Iranian peoples. I've explained how this is factually inaccurate in these articles' talk pages. Could you take a look at these articles and either get involve or extend your comments? Thanks, Aucaman^Talk 16:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They all have problems, but Demographics_of_Iran seems the most troubling to me. Calling modern Iranians "Aryan" is factually incorrect. Aucaman^Talk 03:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aucaman is trying to shove his own interpretations of the term "Aryan" down everyone's throats. The term ""Aryan" in relation to Iran and Iranians has no racist implications. Iranians have used the term Aryan to describe their lineage forever. This is a fact that can be verified by every reliable source, and almost every Iranian user on wikipedia would agree with. Calling modern Iranians "Aryan" is factually correct just as calling modern Russians "Slavs".

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9009750?query=aryan&ct=

http://www.iranchamber.com/people/articles/aryan_people_origins.php

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/aryans.htm

--ManiF 04:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, and we're talking about the modern, 21st century citizens of the country of Iran. The ancient Indo-Iranian use of the word meant "noble". In any case the ancient Indo-Iranians lived more than 4,000 years ago in some distant region of the world from the present-day Iran. They spoke a completely different language (some unnamed Proto-Indo-Iranian language) and had a completely different cultural standing from the presend-day Iranians (most of whom are Muslim and don't identify with Gathic or Verdic understanding of the world). There's also no point talking about "race", but if there is such a thing as race, they were probably of a different race (as modern Iranians are genetically a mix of various invader groups). You're trying to POV-push certain ideas that more or less resemble the Nazi racial understanding of the world and were made up following their foot-steps in the 20th century. Most of these things are irrelevant to the modern demographics of Iran and cenrtainly don't deserve to be put in the first paragraph of the article. Aucaman^Talk 05:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "certain ideas" you are talking about, have nothing to do with the Nazi racial understanding of the world, and are mainstream understanding of history in Iran and by most academics around the world. Other Iranian users can confirm this. You still haven't provided a single source to substantiate your claim that "modern Iranians are genetically a mix of various invader groups" other than your own assumptions. That's simply a false racist notion. It's also a racist notion to assume that most Iranians are Muslim and therefore have no racial and cultural identity of their own. You need to actually pick up a history book and read it. --ManiF 05:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't believe in classifying people based on "race". It's highly subjective and unscientific. It doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Aucaman^Talk 10:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly Aucaman, all you can do is get your opinions heard, on the other hand ethnicity exists, and it can be tested scientifically. However, in this case, I am sure you would have to agree to go with the majority's opinion, rather than going down to Iran and testing their genes? ;) Thanks --Kash 21:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wilkes has violated his probation

User: Ted Wilkes has violated his probation, as he is continuing edit warring and has removed content from the Nick Adams page which deals with Adams's supposed homosexuality. See, for instance, [1], [2], [3], [4]. Wilkes also included some additional passages in the Boze Hadleigh article which try to denigrate this author who has written on the homosexuality of celebrity stars. See [5]. The arbcom clearly said that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from any article regarding a celebrity regarding which there are significant rumors of homosexuality or bisexuality..." and that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality." See [6] and [7]. Wilkes also removed an external link to a Crime Magazine website which includes the best account of Nick Adams's life, presumably because this webpage makes mention of Adams's supposed homosexuality. See [8]. Onefortyone 03:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ted Wilkes has again violated his probation, although he had been blocked for doing so yesterday. He is still calling me a liar. This is certainly a personal attack. He has deleted some passages concerning Nick Adams's supposed homosexuality and an external link from the Nick Adams page, although he is banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality. See

[9] and [10]. See also his aggressive behavior on the Talk:Nick Adams page. This is unacceptable. Onefortyone 19:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have two things to say.

While I agree User:Ted Wilkes has violated his ban, Onefortyone is also violating his probation with all these dubious edits to the sexuality section of the article. I humbly suggest that both be given clear warnings to cease and desist from any sort of editing in the article for now and that neither be blocked unless it becomes necessary as a preventative step to enforce the existing ruling (which I strongly disagree with but respect in terms of process).

I think the RfAr should be re-opened, there is much to discuss and resolve. The last RfAr has not worked. Wyss 19:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wyss has now accused me of being a sockpuppet of User:Karl Schalike (though, according to CheckUser, Karl Schalike is a sockpuppet of Ted Wilkes), and she again accuses me of fabricating texts, of being a troll etc., as she did in the past. She says:

User:Karl Schalike, like you, is a single topic editor (the very same topic and writing style, by the bye). Given your contribution history, for all I know User:Karl Schalike is a sockpuppet invented by you to for the purpose of making your wonted accusations of sockpuppetry while at the same time furthering your own narrow agenda of violating WP's writen sourcing policies and for the xth time, merely having been published or the presence of a PhD after an author's name do not of themselves automatically qualify sources for citation in articles under WP policy.

Moreover, multiple editors and admins have shown many of your article edits to be either fabricated from whole cloth or taken from sources which were similarly fabricated, never mind the vast quantities of repetitive and disruptive material you have posted to article talk pages. Please review WP:TROLL and WP:Sockpuppet, which I think apply to your edits on Wikipedia...

See [11]. I would say that this is a personal attack. This user, who is placed on Wikipedia probation (see [12]) seems to behave as aggressively against me as she did in the past. Onefortyone 19:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Article Vote

Come and vote. --CTSWyneken 11:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Talk Vote (again)

I think we're close to a resolution. Please come and vote. --CTSWyneken 15:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Could I ask you to do me a favor, using your admin eyes? Would you take a look at my actions, what Robsteadman charges me with and let me know if you think the criticism justified? I find it good practice to do self-examination when I find myself in such conflicts. Thanks! --CTSWyneken 19:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Jews

Looks to me like resolution is reached, even if the logic was peculiar. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am well used to being ignored

But I must restate the problems I have here. First of all, the statement of "insertion of POV" as a bannable offense is vague and open to interpretation, and I don't trust administrators, many of whom edit from a point of view that is ideologically closer to Ruy Lopez than to myself. Second, Ruy Lopez has done more than enough to receive a ban on KR related articles, in fact all articles (if anyone here bothered to look at the evidence). I have seen others banned from articles altogether for commiting lesser or equal crimes. It is disturbing that the Arbcom has not come up with a "finding of fact" condemning him of POV pushing. Third, there is no guarentee that his sockpuppets would be detected if he used a proxy or masked his IP. The provision I placed in the Workshop (which was ignored) called for the banning of people reasonably believed to be Ruy Lopez (i.e. making very similar edits). The Arbcom had no problem passing the same thing in a decision involving a certain User:Beckjord. Thank you. CJK 00:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of source policy

I've cut'n'pasted an excerpt from the Talk:Pro-Test page here, as it appears to have gotten overlooked in the flurry of edits.

You said:
Controversies like this are solved by quoting directly; the re-interpretation/removal of the quote about Stein is completely against Wikipedia policy, and the direct quote should be restored. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded:

This controversy isn't about quoting directly or not; it's about which direct quote is better for this context:
Prof Stein, who induces Parkinson's disease in monkeys and then attaches electrodes to their brains to test therapies which may help human sufferers.[13]
vs.
Prof Stein, who runs the laboratory where research into Parkinson's and dyslexia is carried out,...[14]

I think the latter, which comes out of a news article rather than a personality feature story, is more to the point, and makes for a less awkward sentance, besides. And are you saying that once a sourced quote is added to an article, the only way it can be removed is by a polled consensus of those working on it at any given time? --Dcfleck 15:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My questions are serious; why do you feel one sourced quote is better than the other? The applicaton of your "Wikipedia policy", as far as I can tell, would mean that once a sourced quote is added, it can never be removed except by consensus. Is that really what you are trying to say here? --Dcfleck 02:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you for supporting my successful request for adminship. I'll try to put the admin tools to good and responsible use. If I do anything wrong you know where to find me. Raven4x4x 08:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Midian et. al

Hello, Jayjg. I would like your opinion and feedback regarding a discussion I am having with Briangotts here about various categories including Category:Midian and Category:Edom. This issue is whether the categories themselves should be subcategories of Category:Torah people and Category:Torah places, or whether just the articles which actually are about Category:Torah people, such as the parent article Edom and Esau, should be tagged. Further explanation and a place to both voice your opinion and vote may be found on the talk page of Category:Midian. Thank you for your time and input. -- Avi 19:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Sorry to bother you again, but User:ManiF has become really trying. He continues to vandalize pages by removing the dispute tags and engaging in revert wars (another admin has already warned him against this). I gave him is last warning here, but he still did this, removing the dispute tags I've placed in the article. The dispute tags were explained in the talk page, but my concerned were never addressed, so they were supposed to stay there. He has also engaged in personal attacks against me and continues to vandalize my talk page by accusing me of vandalism (without any reason). Please help. I'm not sure what to do with him. I've already told him to stop, but he continues to post messages on my talk page, constantly threatening me. It is interfering with my ability to edit articles efficiently. If he's not stopped from following me undoing every edit I made, I'll have to leave Wikipedia for a while. Aucaman^Talk 03:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aucaman is in a minority on Persians. The majority of users on Talk:Persian_people (ManiF, Kash, Tajik, Zmmz, Amir85, Gol, Aytakin, 194.170.175.5) have fully addressed his concerns and voiced their opinion in favour of the version which he continues to revert to his preferred version without a consensus. That's called Sneaky vandalism. He also keeps placing a dispute tag on the page to bully his POV despite the fact that his concerns have already been addressed on Talk:Persian_people by different users citing different sources, which again is a clear violation of policies and regulations of wikipedia. Furthermore, Aucaman has broeken the The Three-revert rule (or 3RR) on more than one occasion. --ManiF 03:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again. I'd like to add that Aucaman's slander against me has already been turned down by another administrator, but he keeps posting the same thing on different administrators' talk page which shows his determination to have his own way. That attitude is exactly the problem that creates conflicts for him and he's been in many conflicts with many users. --ManiF 04:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting on my RfA, it passed with a final tally of 68/0/0 so I'm now an administrator. If there's anything I can do to help, you feel I've done something wrong, or there's just something you want to tell, don't hesitate to use my talk page. Thanks. - Bobet 10:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Vote Runoff

The final (I hope) vote on the Jesus page is underway. When it is done, do we go back to the admin that imposed the block or do we invite any non-involved admin to do it? --CTSWyneken 10:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! When the vote is done, I think I'll try the protecting admin. I'm glad that another person thinks I'm behaving OK. I'll keep going. --CTSWyneken 18:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi! Thanks for your support in my request for adminship (did you know that "adminiship" is not an English word? Unbelievable!). It ended with a tally of (51/0/0). As an administrator, I hope to better help this project and its participants: if you have any question or request, please let me know. - Liberatore(T) 12:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Help

Yeah, I explained my reasoning in a conversation with User:ESKog. I think a note has to be put in there to explain when taking out dispute tags is considered vandalism. I also mentioned how one of the anon users took out my tags more than 5 times and nothing has happened to him. (It's User:220.92.206.12. I'm not sure where he is coming from, but he seems too familiar with Wikipedia and other users to be total stranger.) In any case, sorry for losing my cool. I'll add an explanation to the talk page 2-3 hrs from now. Thanks, Aucaman^Talk 19:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Help

Jayjg, forgive me for being blunt, but I've taken a look at your contributions, and from what I've seen, you share the same political, religious and ethnic interests, and quite possibly the same background, as Aucaman. That seems to be the reason why Aucaman always comes here for "help". I hope that your own personal interests and views won't interfere with your job as an administrator. Perhaps it would be best if the resolution of such conflicts [15] was left to administrators, who are neither sympathetic, nor empathetic to any of the parties involved in the matter. Regards. --ManiF 19:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Israeli sources

Hello JayJG, I have a question for you. After an argument at Talk:Machsom Watch and a minor research into what sources are used on Wikipedia, I noticed that (extreme) pro-Israeli sources such as Arutz 7, palestinefacts.org/com, etzel.org and more were not used in Israeli-Palestinian conflict-related articles, often because there was a consensus not to use them due to POV. In that specific article (Machsom Watch), a user (Zero) removed an entire paragraph by MathKnight/Zeq, because the source was Arutz 7 (even though the paragraph's contents were obviously true). However, certain pro-Palestinian sources, notably palestineremembered.com in dozens of articles, and also AlJazeera, The Guardian, etc. are used freely without much argument. Are certain pro-Israeli sources banned from Wikipedia? And if not, why do some users say, seemingly with authority, that such sources are not allowed? A clarification from you would be appreciated since you're on the ArbCom and have contributed to Israel- and Palestine-related articles, and therefore probably know these things better than anyone. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 12:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a smart question. This is at the core of my ArbCom case. Sources like Radio Islam can be used (so sais ArbCom) but Holocaust Encyclopedia is considered propeganda source (so sais ArbCom)
Of course it may surprize you because I am sure most ArbCom memebres never bothered to look at the nitty greaty of the evidence and what they allowed to reman in the article after the "propeganda" is removed....

Zeq 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's really up to you, if you feel that a public intervention by you is needed, you should probably comment in that discussion about Machsom Watch, while if you feel it's enough to just explain the situation to me, please explain on my user talk page. I appreciate any clarification on the matter that you can give. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 20:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry White page

I'm new to the expectations of Wikipedia editing.

Please to offer background as to why clarification information & a link to a book has been removed as "POV" from the Harry Dexter White page.

So far much of the material here is strictly "POV" unfavorable to White. Surely one cannot just 100% accept blatantly political statements (e.g. "FBI identified White"... they did have an agenda) without offering a counter view point?

checkuser?

Hi, would it be possible for you to run a checkuser on Nameme (talk · contribs) and see if it matches up with deleted user Get-back-world-respect (talk · contribs)? I have reason to believe that Nameme is really GBWR avoiding a block and making controversial changes through a sock to avoid further warnings. I'm also being harassed on my talk page by the user. I'm not asking that you take any action: if there's any action to be taken I'll bring it up to arbcom or RfC or AN, or something else. But I'd like to know if they're the same person before I take any action that may make me look like a fool. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire!

I put up a notice on [[WP:AN] regarding this possible violation. Please stop by and elaborate on your evidence. If GBWR is vioalting the arbcomm ruling, it needs to be dealt with. Thanks.Gator (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, would you mind checking on this: There is some question that User:Robeaston99 may be related to Robsteadman. Please run a check if you don't mind. Thanks.Gator (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have this page on watch if you find out anyting about this. You're also free to post on my talk page about it, since I'm originating the claims. Thanks! --Avery W. Krouse 21:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the above - particularly from DESKANA after his recent vandalism of my page ()be honest, you were responsible). I have no idea whjo robeaston99 is and I do not operate a sockpuppet. Now kindly retract your accusations and insinuations. After deskana's vandalism and the quorum/cabal calls and strangers turning up to supprt the unebncyclopedic version on the vote this is outrageous. And all a bit familiar from the way you all tried to get rid of SOPHIA. Robsteadman 22:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Been there Rob, I know it stings, but I'm not making an accusation, I'm jsut asking for a check to put the rumor mill to rest once and for all. If it doesn't come out that it's the same IP and there's no good reason then I will be your biggest defender. Gator (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please just let us know what you found. I'm not asking for details. Just let u know if the same IP address was used or what ever else you found that caused you to determien that he was usign sockpuppets. No details, jsut what was it? I am one of Rob;s most hated enemies, so I think I'm the perfect person to ask this. Vandalism from an IP address used by Deskana was revealed using checkuser adn he was able to defend himself knowing that info. Rob deserves the same. Was it the same IP or location. Please.Gator (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi jay

Please review this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Evidence#Evidence_ignored_by_ArbCom Thanks ! Zeq 20:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay,

Do you understand where I violated wikipedia sources policy ? Can you explain it as a general rule with examples in such a way that what Zero did would be fine but what i did was not ?

I am really trying to understand what i different than him. I saw you looked at the evidence (or was it just the formatting of the evidence ?) Why can the benny Morris quote that he removed go back into the article - is it propeganda to quote Morris ? Zeq 22:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps...

I said that because of this comment: "Your goal isn't a Palestinian state. It's the death of my people and establishing a sharia state on top of their cooling bodies." - the 'my people' is what made me assume, plus his Western slang (kneejerk jerk - whatever that means) suggested he's not Israeli but you're right, it isn't proof of anything - but anyway, it's no big deal. It was actually the 'terror apologist' edit summary comment that upset me - briefly ;) These edits occurred very soon after I had finished a discussion with an Israeli scientist colleague about the homeland; she was actually trying to convince me that most Israelis would prefer peace over a Jewish state if they had to choose!! Now even I had to defend Israel - to an Israeli - at that point!! Ramallite ^(talk) 23:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Wading in

Dear Jay: Thanks for the checkuser work. I'd never have suspected Rob of such a thing.

It's good to keep things honest and above board. Even though we've been on opposite sides of many issues, you've always been fair, helpful and willing to work with me. --CTSWyneken 02:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser on Rob Steadman

Thanks for uncovering those sockpuppets; that rather settles a long-running point of dispute at the article about the chap in question. Somewhat ironic that our autobio guidelines are so weak as to let that linger indefinitely, while the relatively incidental matter of vote-stacking on a vote that was going to be consensus-free in any event resolves it. Alai 04:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What large change ?

Jay,

I was asking about sources. Specifically scholarly sources.

Please look at the evidence and tell what i removed (other than a quote By B.G. and Sharet that are sourced to BM Book. - clearly a B.G. and Sharet speech are not "scholarly work" - especially when they are non relevant and the author of the book sais so)

On the other hand the real scholarly work (BM View that there is no connection between the speches and the exodus) was removed from the article by Zero. (because it does not fit the Original Research by Zero that B.G. speeches caused the transfer). Until today they have never cited sources for all this OR. (see the article). Until today this aryicle include propeganda sopurces (such as palestinianrememebered, radio Islam etc..)

Jay, Look at the evidence please that is the only thing I am asking.

The evidence is the edit diffs - please don't confuse the unfounded claims by Ian (that were put into the evidence section) with real evidence. Please look at actuall edits.

The other thing I deleted was a polimic cry by Hannan Ashrwaii that has nothing to do with the article. It is nmot a scholarly source but it is pure propeganda. (read it and see)

Please look at facts. I never removed real scholarly work. I also never added propeganda. You voted for putting me on warnning and probation on sources and there is nothing I can do to know what I did wrong. ArbCom should explain so it will not be repeated. If Zero removed even a "small" scholarly source that has to be mentioned so people will know what can and what can not be removed. Zeq 04:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero's change "not large" ?

[16]

Requesting m:Checkuser on an AfD

Hi Jay, this is regarding the afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination). The earlier afd and this one seem to be full of socks/straw man socks, and the subject of the article (John Bambenek) (User:Jbamb) is requesting a m:Checkuser to be cleared of accusations of editing the bio or making up the socks to vote for him. I do suspect 3 of the votes to be "Straw socks" from the afd nominator (anon). Anyway, take a look at the AfD, and look into the issue.

Thanks . --Ragib 04:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero is edit warring.....Again

Zero is edit warring again. This is what one editor had to say about the propeganda sources he is using:

[17]

ArbCom should have acted in a more equal way and you can still fix it before closing the arbitration. Zeq 05:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Nomination for Adminship

Jay, I've been asked if I would mind being nominated for adminship. Any thoughts or advice for me? --CTSWyneken 17:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

There is reason to believe that User:Raisinman is a sockpuppet of User:Kdbuffalo and may be being used to evade WP:3RR. Any advice? Is a "checkuser" possible? KHM03 22:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...KHM03 11:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, I noticed you were successful in terminating sock puppets on the Jesus page. Could you please check another user, Bcatt. I am suspicious of her using a sockpuppet by the name of Freedominthought. I have had several run-ins with Bcatt ont he Joseph Smith, Jr. page and I have not handled them well. However, Freedom always seems to pop up when Bcatt has a run in with an editor on the page. In addition, virtually every edit of Freedom's is on the Joseph Smith page or discussion page. The only other one is on his/her personal talk page...a discussion with Bcatt. Any help you could provide would be apprecaited. Storm Rider 09:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you!
Hi Jayjg/Archive 14, thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota ~ ° 23:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you for your support of my RfA

Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship. I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y Arktos 02:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For the congratulations and the comments.--Dakota ~ ° 05:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Mythology

I don't know why you deleted my editing of this article (See below my).

I think that the first paragraph is quite important, since it shows that there is a Jewish mythology with mythological animals similar to Greek mythology, which is quite unknown. The second paragraph gives a quite astonishing example of the mix of mythological animals and a supposed meeting between the Roman Caesar and this animal. It also gives some hints of connections between Roman and Jewish mythology. (The Roman Ceasar can not believe there would be a mythological lion that can not be killed by humans, but the "Jewish lion" is superhuman. Also: The lion has no problem to reign over the air, which is the element of the highest Roman mythological animal: the eagle.

I would appreciate, if you could publish this paragraphs. Thanks, Ulrich

In the Talmud (חולין נט ע"ב - ע"ב) exists a discussion about a giant deer and a giant Lion which are both originated in a mythical forest called "Dvei Ilai". The deear is called "Keresh". The lion is said to be such as big that there is space of 9 feet between his lobs of his lung. - The Roman Caesar once asked a Rabbi to show him this lion, since every lion can be killed, but the Rabbi refused and pointed out that this is not a normal lion. The Roman Caesar insisted, so the Rabbi turned into the lion of "Dvei Ilai". He roareds once from a far distance and all constructions and the city walls of Rome tumbled down. Then he came nearer - but still in a far distance - and roared again and the teeth of all Roman men fall out. + The Roman Caesar once asked a Rabbi to show him this lion, since every lion can be killed, but the Rabbi refused and pointed out that this is not a normal lion. The Roman Caesar insisted, so the Rabbi turned into the lion of "Dvei Ilai". He roareds once from a far distance and all constructions and the city walls of Rome tumbled down. Then he came nearer - but still in a far distance - and roared again and the teeth of all Roman men fall out.

DonSiano

Is this guy User:DonSiano possibly a sock-puppet of Disruptive Apartheid Editor? I ask because he keeps insisting on putting the Venus by Botticelli on the White (people) article and has also started an article called White race (history). ThePedanticPrick 15:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passover article attacked by missionaries

Hi Jay: Hope you had a good Shabbat! Please read over the Passover article (it's important because Pesach is coming soon) as we have a gang of missionaries trying to pervert the article and a few others for their own POV missionary ends (rachmana litzlan). Your input would be greatly appreciated as soon as possible. Zai Gezunt. Thank you. IZAK 18:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bcatt & Freedominthought; Socks?

Jay, I noticed you were successful in terminating sock puppets on the Jesus page. Could you please check another user, User:Bcatt. I am suspicious of her using a sockpuppet by the name of User:Freedominthought. I have had several run-ins with Bcatt on the Joseph Smith, Jr. page and I have not handled them well. However, Freedom always seems to pop up when Bcatt has a run in with an editor on the page. In addition, virtually every edit of Freedom's is on the Joseph Smith page or discussion page. The only other one is on his/her personal talk page...a discussion with Bcatt. Any help you could provide would be apprecaited. Storm Rider 07:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

need clarification about minor edits and reverts

are all reverts minor edits? need clarification. elizmr 15:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying on my talk page to the question above. I'm reproducing the conversation, so this will make sense.

Irishpunktom: According to Jayjg, all reverts are minor --Irishpunktom\talk 15:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr (Me): fair enough. I was basing my remark on the following: Wikipedia:Minor edit which states: "Whether to use this flag is somewhat a matter of personal preference. The rule of thumb is that an edit which is confined to spelling corrections, minor formatting, and minor rearrangement of text should be flagged as a "minor edit."..."Any "real" change, even if it is a single word, is a major edit." and "Reverts to a disputed page are unlikely to be minor". Of note, the MEMRI page is disputed. The Wikipedia page states that, "Marking a real change as a minor edit is considered bad behavior, and even more so if it involves the deletion of some text" elizmr 15:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Jayig (you): Irishpunktom is presenting a simplified view of a more complex issue. When an admin reverts an edit, the edit is marked "minor" by default; thus, one could say that reverts are minor by default. However, one could also argue that the revert button should only be used for cases of obvious vandalism and similar, and reversion of vandalism is a minor edit. So, it's a bit of a chicken and egg issue. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I am new here, and appreciate your reply. I understand that you are saying that when an admin makes a revert, it is marked minor by default. It sounds like this is because the reverts an administrator makes are really intended to be used for vandalism. This is fair, but just so you know, the edits I made which Irishpunktom reverted were not vandalism. They were discussed on the talk page and I commented them out. I took some time with them and the revert was dismissive. elizmr 02:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sockpuppets

68.88.81.17

68.88.81.17 (talk • contribs) The user has made only very few edits but all of them are sockpuppetery to Rick. Maybe an IP check? ems 20:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

66.135.233.230

66.135.233.230 appears to be a sockpuppet for RPJ . You 24hr blocked him February 19, 2006 for a 3rr violation at Lee Harvey Oswald. He was 24hr blocked again March 3, 2006 by Freakofnurture. Freakofnurture for trolling. He appears to have 3rr'd today on the Kennedy assassination theories page under RPJ and 66.135.233.230. For total disclosure: There has been an ongoing edit dispute going on between RPJ v myself, and several other editors/admins, re. several Kennedy wikipages. Mytwocents 02:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(cur) (last) 20:14, March 6, 2006 66.135.233.230 (→The House Select Assassination Committee)
(cur) (last) 19:54, March 6, 2006 66.135.233.230 (→The House Select Assassination Committee - This is apparently the verification Mytwo cents wanted. Doesn't this add too much. Any reader can click and see evidence is photocopies of originals.)
(cur) (last) 16:38, March 6, 2006 Mytwocents (rv to version by GARYsurvivor for NPOV, citation tags, spelling corrections. See talk)
(cur) (last) 15:24, March 6, 2006 RPJ (→The House Select Assassination Committee -deleted tag saying "TotallyDisputed-section" Talk page says nothing. The same goes for the "TotallyDisputed" tag. Mytwocents needs to read rules.)
(cur) (last) 14:34, March 6, 2006 Mytwocents (rv to version by GARYsurvivor for NPOV, this replaces the templates too.)
(cur) (last) 23:34, March 5, 2006 RPJ (Revert wholesale deletions by someone of much referenced information. This persons goes from article to article slashing out whole sections. He is being "bad" again.)
(cur) (last) 05:28, March 4, 2006 RugerMK1 (→Organized Crime Conspiracy)
(cur) (last) 00:51, March 3, 2006 GARYsurvivor m (Spelling mistake "assassinationsaw")

Wik again?

Will you be able to check whether Reviraz (talk · contribs) is yet another reincarnation of Wik? Pecher ^Talk 21:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Reviraz == Wik, the edit he/she was making was entirely reasonable (restoring relevant sourced content that another user was trying to purge). Please unprotect the article. Thanks. --Lee Hunter 01:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it can be worked out on the talk page with the page protected in its current state. Is it possible to give me permission to edit the page or to simply ban Reviraz? It seems absurd to shut down an article completely because of one troublesome user (who, in this case at least, is making an entirely reasonable contribution) --Lee Hunter 01:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mind of the ArbCom about scholar sources - consequences of Zeq's case.

Hello Jayjg.

I am very satisfied by the final issue of the case with Zeq. I think you made good job but I am a little bit disappointed that due to the climate the discussion the heart of the matter has not been discussed. Could you, yourself or ask the ArbCom to vote, precise if the way the following is presented is neutral, scholar and documented enough. Thank you very much.

(...) deleted for clarity.

User:ChrisC 23:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not very helpful but thank you anyway... User:ChrisC 19:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you could help me. I am very tired by the way things evoluate all around these topics. I would be grateful from you if you would read these quotes and their reference, then the talk page [18] and whether on this, whether to me by email, you give me your own's mind about this. There is no 1000 solutions. Whether I misunderstand what is neutrality, whether some people are not honnest, whether I have fallen in the battle of a propaganda war in wikipedia around these types of articles User:ChrisC 08:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AD/BC Again

There's someone on talk:Jesus arguing for AD/BC again. I've stopped engaging him because I'm going to start repeating myself. I vaguely thought I saw one about a wiki-wide decision to stay with BC/BCE, AD/CE? Do you know of one, and, if so, do you know where its hiding? Bob --CTSWyneken 02:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (66/2/3), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! Stifle 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying request! (apologies)

Could you take a moment to update Irishpunktom on marking edits as minor and commenting/discussing reverts? It looks like he is an administrator (so should know how things are supposed to be done), but he reverted me without good reason or appropriate comment and then marked as a minor edit. He didn't respond to a couple of requests to explain the reasons for his revert on his talk page; he did reply to my note that the revert should not have been marked "minor" to say that "all reverts are minor". There are a few other notes on his user page from others asking for these kind of comments and to desist from these kind of actions. Hard to assume good faith here. I welcome being edited, but not thoughtlessly and dismissively. elizmr 18:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here's a working link to userpage: Irishpunktom\^talk elizmr 18:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New anti-Semitism

Jay, I'm thinking the new anti-Semitism article needs to be reorganized because it doesn't flow well and there's a lot of repetition. I've set up a draft page at New anti-Semitism/reorg, which I'll start work on over the next couple of days. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident Voice

User:68.126.186.175 has deleted a parapgraph on this page about a dozen times, his only edit summary is: "removal of troll comments" or variations of it. He has not answering my inquiries on his talk page nor on the article's talk page. Could you look at this article?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

banned user ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.219.203.209

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.211.66.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.214.35.104

and various other IP at that range 68.211.x.x - 68.219.x.x

Zeq 07:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The case is over but the NPOV remain

Mediation

While I am banned from the Pal exodus article I am not giving up on the quest to make this article NPOV.

Fred Bauder suggested your name as a mediator. It is a tough job but I hope you will accept it. This article is in need of a major overhaul. BTW, you may want to get in touch with the Hebrew wikipedia guys, this article in Hebrew is indeed NPOV (not pro Israel as might be expected, they do a good job in Hebrew Wiki) and also shorter than the English version. maybe we can use a translation of the Hebrew wiki article about Pal exodus (called Nakba in Hebrew wiki) as a base to start re-writing the article.

I am banned from directly editing the article but I hope you will help me and Wikipedia in the effort to make it represent all POVs about this issue. That is what I was always after and that has not changed even if ArbCom has not understood what I am trying to do.

Thank You. Zeq 17:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! Thanks, Fred, and good luck, Jay. If you need my help, please do hesitate to ask. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who tried to do this at 1948 Arab-Israeli War, I'm happy to not offer my assistance as well. Good luck, and please, don't ask me for help if it's needed :).--Sean Black ^(talk) 23:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meditation

Hi Zeq. I don't think I can mediate on the article itself while the case is still before the Arbitration Committee. I'd be happy to do so once the case has closed. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. As I said, I won't be able to look at mediating the article until the case is closed. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hebron

Hello Jayjg. You are probably aware that some anon using a range of IPs in the 67.72.98.* range has been making the same edit over and over in Hebron since January, without ever trying to argue for it. I think 'he' has done it about 140 times so far. Many people, including you at least once, reverted him. Since 67.72.98.* is a public ISP it would be undesirable to block the range. Would you support an {{sprotect}} for a while? --Zero 09:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Name of Jesus

Just so you know, Haldrik has proposed inserting the Hebrew form of Jesus' name into the first paragraph and backed it with a scholarly quotation. --CTSWyneken 14:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I like the harmony we've achieved recently and like applying my old moderating skills to keep a lid on things. --CTSWyneken 17:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, I hate to break it to you, but Haldrik has convinced me as to Jesus's Hebrew name. It is backed by legitimate sources (not just this Talshir person) and the parallel article on Hebrew Wikipedia also states this as fact. Just letting you know. --DLand 14:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to move this to the exit. Can we avoid debating the "whether" Jesus had a Hebrew name and get to the issue of the text of the article? I've put a proposal on the table to describe the options, their strengths and weaknesses. I intend to argue against inclusion of either Greek or Hebrew nameforms here on asthetics -- it just doesn't look good and can confuse casual readers. I'd like to see the whole article as a summary of the various subarticles, reading like an orientation piece. What do you think? BOb --CTSWyneken 15:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser backlog

I bothered a few checkusers with this a few days ago, now I'm bothering the rest :-) There's a large and growing backlog on WP:RFCU. I have a request in there but I'm sure many others are equally important. If the workload is too great for the existing checkusers to handle, is it time to create more? — ciphergoth 21:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A couple more were recently created; are they not helping out on the page? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I looked there were over 80 unsatisfied requests, some stretching back six weeks. — ciphergoth 15:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry if it seems agrresive

Jay,

Human interaction, for tens of thousands of years, included tone of voice and face/body langauge.

In Wikipedia, all this was gone and we are left with written comunication (for people who's English is not first language)

So not agresive "tone" was intended. I just cut and paste the old exchange about it.

Now to the point:

Nakba is one of the highest POV articles in Wikipedia. It has been so for years. It is completly representing a Palestinian POV. Yes it need to chenge and I hope you will now take on this task. In effect this article could become a model for NPOV policy: Here is an historical event seen completly different by both sides. For one it is the foundation of their herritage, what define them as nation and for the other it is part of long forgetten (let bygone be bygone) events of a distant war. In the eyes of Israelis this was an unfortuinate part of the war, in part due to palestinian own actions (and of Arab leaders) etc... and used today (and for 55 years0 as a way to perpetuate the conflict. This subject really desrve to be handled in Wikipedia in a different way that it is today. Thank you. Zeq 21:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your e-mail

Hi, Jay. Yes, I got your e-mail, thanks, and I've just replied to it. Apologies for the delay. I owe lots of e-mails at the moment, and am hoping to get the backlog cleared in the next few days. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 22:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Sockpuppet

The IP did sockpuppetery it may or may not be a sockpuppet that is why I asked for an IP check. ems 18:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Israel Public Affairs Committee

Do you think you could help resolve the current dispute between me and User:AladdinSE over the inclusion of a quote by Paul Findley. Aladdin stakes his claim on the basis that it is relevant because Paul Findley is still a "well respected former congressman" which I feel is farce, today Findley is definitely far from the mainstream for advocating beliefs such as that the Iraq war was launched primarily on behalf of Israel and that Congress is being led astray by a dictatorship of Israel and Aipac. I will support your ruling regardless of your decision, I just want to get out of this conflict. Thank you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

I'm leaving this macrophage, a particularly hungry white blood cell on your talk page, I just finished a rewrite of its article and realized they're not so different from administrators, as they keep their surroundings clean, doing away with anything that's not supposed to be there...
Anyway, with that short lecture on cell biology done with, I'd like to thank you for your vote on my RfA, which passed with (49/2/0), I'll do my best to not let you down, and if you see me heading towards a common newbie mistake, please nudge me in the right direction :)

--O bli (Talk)^? 20:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kofeir

Please excuse me for posting this message. I am attempting to combat a very inappropriate google bomb that I recently unearthed. Hopefully Google searches for kofeir will soon turn up the WP page on heresy as the #1 result as opposed to the bio page of Yeshiva University's president. --DLand 21:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JDoorjam's RfA

Thank you!
Jayjg/Archive 14, thank you for your support in my RfA: it passed with a final tally of 55/1/2. If you want a hand with anything, please gimme a shout. Again, thanks! – JDoorj a m Talk 22:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

nakba. Thank You.

It is much a tougher one than the 1948 war.

I suggest you take your time and read about it first.

Benny Morris is one important source but Karsh's "The fabircation of the Israeli history" is an important source which analyze one by one all of Morris claims. Zeq 22:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He as back

This time as 69.40.27.200 in Nakba. the style is similar [19] . Zeq 04:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hey Jayjg/Archive 14, how is it going? Thank you for supporting my Request for adminship! It passed with a final vote of 73/1/1, which means that I have been granted adminship! I look forward to using these tools to enhance and maintain this wonderful site. I will continue regular article/project contributions, but I will also allocate a sizable portion of my wikischedule toward administrative duties :) Thanks again, and if you have any questions/comments/tips, please let me know! — Deckiller 04:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian exodus

Oh boy, you really must be a glutton for punishment ;) Ramallite ^(talk) 20:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Maxwell

Hi - I've reverted an edit you did earlier on the article, as the comment varied significantly from the edit made. I agree about the 'see also' change, but can't see why the references were removed. Hope this makes sense. Regards, --OscarTheCat ^talk 21:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socks of Shran/CantStandYa

FYI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Socks of Shran/CantStandYa. -Will Beback

"punishment"

Jay,

If you see the effort on NPOVing Nakba as punishment maybe we should not do it.

This is an important article, at the core of the conflict - I want it to become a model for an NPOV article and hope you will join me in wanting the same. If we don't do it it will be endless editwars and a strong POV article . Zeq 11:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haldrik has inserted the Hebrew

Just to let you know. I really wish he would have sought our consent. --CTSWyneken 03:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to say passionate! As I see it, you're both right. All the scholars I've seen believe Jesus = Joshua. But we have it only in one Syriac version, and that's a translation. To me, it just is ugly in an intro to put any etomology in an intro. I may crack an encyclopedia or two before its over. --CTSWyneken 10:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq

Jayjg, please note that 1948 Arab-Israeli war and Palestinian Exodus (Zeq calls the latter Nakba but that's only a redirect) are the two articles which Zeq is banned from editing. He is trying to continue his disruption of those articles via the Talk pages and by trying to get other editors to make the changes he wants. You would know better than I whether this violates the intention of the AC even if it doesn't violate the letter. --Zero 04:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is fine for him to ask you to mediate, and I also think it would be fine for you to mediate. What I think is very doubtful given the AC ruling is that Zeq be an active participant in the mediation. It would allow him to be nearly as disruptive as he was when he was editing directly--behavior that got him banned. Note that the AC ruling doesn't say he is only banned from editing these articles, but rather "Zeq is banned indefinitely from 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Palestinian exodus". --Zero 04:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So now, raising the issue of making an article NPOV is a "disruption" ?

Yes. Surly it is. Zero has a goal of making as many articles as possible be anti-israel and I stand in his way. Sorry, I want these articles to be NPOV. really appologize but I am not gong to give up on this. Zeq 04:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why ?

Jay,

I hope you trust me that I am not trying to be difficult delibertly. Not sure why it is precivied this way. If you will be specific I will know what to do differently. Zeq 04:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not for "vanity"

Jay, I really don't care if my contribution remain. I care about NPOV.

If it is others who end up NPOVing the articles it is fine by me. see Talk:Al-Sarafand (ended with agreement after Zero tried edit war) and Talk:Amin_al-Husayni#Mediation which concluded succesfully (also after Zero understood that Edit war will not work).

Zeq 05:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

btw, the intro in Hamas is largly my work although I had to deal with many many edits from IP at that range 68.211.x.x - 68.219.x.x . Long ago I asked that he will be checked but until you found out who he was all we had was edit wars (very similar in style and in choice of articles as Zero). Zeq 07:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Findley

Paukl Findley is definitely a marginal figure today, as such no mainstream websites will quote him or interview him. So I used as a source an interview that Findley gave to National Vanguard in order to better represent Findley's actual views. I also used other websites as a source including at least one that Findley wrote himself. None of the article had info that was that different from each other. I understand that in most cases National Vanguard would be unnacceptable to reference on wikipedia, but do you think in this case it is different?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect User:AladdinSE is using 65.81.21.57 as a sock puppet to repeatedly revert edits without having to discuss them on the talk page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV at Medical analysis of circumcision

Hi Jay, could you have a look here please? A user who I suspect was the banned Robert Blair added some text, and another user is defending the additions. I'd be grateful if you'd add your thoughts. Thanks. Jakew 17:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psst

Please check out this page. Pass it on! — Catherine\^talk 01:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nakba mediation

Hi Jay,

Have you got an answer from ArbCom ? can i participate ?

I would suggest that look at the mening of transfer as it was used in the 1930s and 40s here: Peel_Commission and also get some familiarity with the writing of Efraim_Karsh.

Best, Zeq 09:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The debate got slightly off topic (well, discussing Zero's marital status probably constitutes way off topic), but I think it is back on track in the New Section. I hope you will continue mediating. -- Heptor _talk 21:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so as well. WEll wkipedia require us to describe the various POV in a somewhat detached way. Current article and current discussion in talk is highly emotional and one sided. It is time for someone to help us all take a step backword and descrbe what we know instead of some of us trying to proove or disproove what took place (or did not took place). I still don't see how much of what is in this article actually belog there. Zeq 19:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Hello, Jayjg! I thought I'd give you a heads up that I've unblocked Robertg9, who you blocked back in February with the summary of "sleeper account". The user contacted OTRS and asked to be unblocked, so I did. Let me know if you disagree with the unblock. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No; he said he tried to create an article or edit something and found that he was blocked. He doesn't have any edits; is there any reason you thought it was a sleeper account? We should all try to assume good faith here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to assume good faith, though, given that he emailed us, explained that when he tried to create a new article, found that he was blocked and wasn't sure why. If he does turn out to be a vandal, we can immediately reblock. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! Yes, I was only referring to the one user who emailed info-en. Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Blair

Hi Jay, thanks for your note. He's still editing. See here, for his latest (agree with the edit, but he's banned from doing so). On his user talk page he effectively confirms that he edits from 207.69.*.*. Does the ArbCom have any position on editors who do not respect A/C rulings? Do they just get away with it, or are bans extended? Regards, Jakew 22:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Article

Dear Jay: Can we try things out on the talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate subpage? If we're going to have extensive discussion, I'd like to get it out of the main flow of traffic and I fear an edit war if we go to the article itself. Bob --CTSWyneken 04:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that we will unleash a storm over this paragraph and want to keep it out of the flow of the rest of the good work being done. I suppose we can stay on the main page, but...

Some tried to argue for "vast" majority.
Others argue to make a distinction between the Biblical scholars and historians in the majority and the small minority of philosophers, German culture specialists, etc. that make up the nonexistance school.
Slrubenstein keeps arguing for "critical" with the same intensity you want to keep the Hebrew out of the first paragraph. 8-)

If you think we won't go on for days, grinding all else to a halt, then I'm game to stay on the main talk. What do you think? (my mind is mush right now). --CTSWyneken 17:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fischbach

I don't own the book but have the first 74 pages and related footnotes. That is most of the chapter on Israeli actions towards refugee property up to the early 50s. Something you want from there? Also, this book can be read both at Amazon and books.google.com. Amazon will give you access to more pages than google, maybe 50. --Zero 22:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apparently the same publication (but not a letter, some sort of report). Footnote 137 reads in full: "JNF, Jewish Villages in Israel (Jerusalem: 1949), p. xxi, in Walter Lehn with Uri Davis, The Jewish National Fund (London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1988). p. 347, fn. 285." --Zero 00:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seudah

I created the above article. Could you take a look and help or advise on content/format? Thanks! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made changes recommended by JFW and HKT. Could you take another look? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine

Do you think it is necessesary to have half of this page devoted to History, I understand why we should go back to Ottoman times but should we really go all the way back to Roman times especially since we already have a History of Palestine article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help in Village Pump question

Jayjg -- If you have a moment, would you be willing to take a look at a question I posted in the "Village Pump" section? I'm trying to resolve an editing problem without launching a formal dispute (because I do not have time for that), and have been unable to determine Wikipedia policy regarding deleting and reverting past comments within Talk pages. My problem can be found here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Arguments on talk page: who may delete them?. Thanks! - Lawrence King 02:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alberuni semis

I noticed that there are several pages semiprotected for around a week now because of a banned user, Alberuni, messing with them. In your estimation, would it be a good time to try unprotecting one or two of them now, or is he known to be very persistent? --Tony Sidaway 04:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beis Yakov School

Hi Jay, would you be able to verify the Beis Yakov School stub? Also, could you review the Plagues of Egypt article and perhaps imrove upon it? Wishing you and yours a Chag Kasher VeSameach. Thanks. IZAK 08:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus (again)

Would you drop by? People are not listening to me. I'm going to stay away (yeah, sure) for a few hours. --CTSWyneken 11:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haj amin al-Husseini's article

Hello. I think the discussion is blocked about these quotes concerning Haj Amin al-Hussein. Note nobody insulted anybody else (yet ;-)). This is really the topic that is controversed and hot but we are blocked.

May I ask you to help to move forward ? I also ask to Rossami who proposed his support (and should accept) but he precised he didn't know anything about the topic. Maybe a third mediator with you and Rossami could help too ? (I am not familiar with procedures here on the english wikipedia)

Thank you in advance. User:ChrisC 17:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello Jayjg. No, the problem is not to determine if the Mufti was antisemite or not. It turns around this matter of course but there is an important nuance. I would rather say that the Mufti is widely reported as being an antisemite. Of course I have my own mind but that is not the real matter. I try to summarize the different points of views around the matter :

mine

I think these quotes should be gathered in an article with a link from Haj Amin al-Husseini. All these quotes are real and refered to their author. More there are comments about each of these authors describing who they are so that the reader can make an idea of their potential bias. 2 of them are historians but I consider all of them deserve to be quoted given the point is not that "the mufti was antisemite" but and I underline this that "he is widely reported to be antisemite".

A vote

A vote gathered 2 trends : one (majoritary) claiming that the material should be merged in the article. The other that it should be deleted. I am therefore alone defending my point of view that an article must be written apart and that a reference in Haj Amin Husseini will link to this.

Ian and Zero

They are the only one to participate in the current discussion. They want this contribution to be deleted. They are nevertheless others who follow the discussion. Ian and Zero suggested different arguments. As I understand this : Ian says that whether these sources are not relevant whether their author doens't give their source or worse (this is what he says about eg Arend, a Princeton Professor or Elpeleg, an historian specialized on this matter).

To this I answer :

Some are contemporaries of the Mufti.
Arendt is a Professor who studied Nazism and who studied the Eichmann case where collaboration of the Mufti with Nazis were first reported.
Elpeleg is an historian who were referred to me by Zero himself as a reliable source I should focus on.
In the article I have a reference about Elpeled from a French journalist of LeMonde who introduced Elpeled and Mattar as two historians reliable concerning the Mufti and more specifically Elpeled because he was "positive" with Mufti
I don't have comment on the caricature excerpted from the Time of 1948 and commented : "Not like Dachau. Is it ? Herr Mufti).
Whatever we don't play fairly : it is not important if they give their source or not. All of them are whether relevant, notorious or controverse. This only justifies they can be quoted. The reader is "adult enough" to analyse what he reads. My responsabilily as wikipedian editors is to introduce this a npov way.
The material was introduced on the French wikipedia without problems and only minors modifications.

I add :

I agree to discuss the title and welcome any suggestion.
I precised I welcomed and even asked for quotes stating the contrary.
I gave one but not add it in the article because coming from a revisionnist organisation.

My griefs against Ian :

I consider he refuses to work constructively or "play the game" as we say in French. First he said they had to be deleted even before he read this and when he first commented this, again to conclude they were not relevant, he didn't read the article as shown by his criticisms (he critized 17 references where there were only 9). Now he comes back on the eternal arugment he declines under different form : "this is not true" so it cannot be introduced in wikipedia.

The reason why mediation is needed :

We are turning round
His last intervention started by "that will be my last comment on the subject". I had already suggested a "rest" in the discussion to cold the minds
He wrote in his last interventin "the word antisemitism doesn't appear in the quotes". He is right but I refuse to discuss (and this is the only thing I refuse to discuss) that promoting the or a final solution would not be antisemitism.

User:ChrisC 20:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion: POV pushing

Dear Jayjg, could you please have a look into the articles Saint James the Just and Josephus. I have run into a conflict with one User:TrumpetPower!, who is bent on inserting a not very widely (if at all) accepted POV that the James mentioned by Josephus is not the brother of Jesus. This is discussed concisely in Josephus on Jesus. I slimmed down the coverage in the two mentioned articles to avoid an undue weight while retaining a link to the discussion. TP! however assumes his preferred identification of Josephus' James with one (otherwise unknown) James, son of Damnaeus, as the default option. He also mixes personal attacks into the argument. Please help if you will. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RCU—anybody home?

Is anyone currently working WP:RCU? As I type this, the backlog is at 88 requests. Radio Kirk talk to me 13:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to about a dozen; how's that? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much :) Radio Kirk talk to me 15:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that the way CheckUser is designed, the page loads very slowly each time, so it can take an hour to do one proper check of several userids and related IPs, particularly when Wikipedia is slow (of course it's faster early Sunday morning). I'm trying to get that fixed. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that info, thanks. The main reason I made the request was that the page history suggested no (or very little) arb activity for several days. Another told me that the tool was broken, then tried it and found it working. Radio Kirk talk to me 17:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anonymous vandal in connection with NPOV dispute...registered user in "disguise"?

Hi Jayjg. You recently checked if FreedominThought was my sockpuppet (and determined that they probably weren't - you were right). In connection to the same dispute, an anonymous user vandalized my user page, I would like to check if this IP is connected to any registered user: 67.186.215.2. Thanks in advance. bcatt 05:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't have a specific user in mind, but if it were a registered user, it would most be likely to be: Storm Rider, Trödel, or Cookiecaper. Less likely, but still possible would be: Visorstuff or MrWhipple. If it helps, the IP shows as being from Provo, Utah. Thanks. bcatt 05:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zadil (talk · contribs)

I took a look at the edits to Halakha, which, as expected, are made to appear well-sourced and neutral (as their author explicitly claims on his talk page). It looks like this is probably one of those guys who has been in yeshiva for a little while and decided that (a.) he's an expert scholar of Judaism, and that (b.) religion is immoral. To quickly summarize the mistakes in one short part of the edits:

The Rambam was talking about a consentual relationship, not rape (zadon is referring to the woman). In fact, the Maggid Mishneh demonstrates that the Rambam's ruling doesn't apply in case of rape.
This law is not targeting three-year-olds. This is talking about any female (whether adult or adolescent) who can demonstrably be determined to have willingly had relations with the male, provided that (by the way) the female was no younger than 3 and the male no younger than 9. The age of the girl is practically irrelevant here, anyway, given that a consentual relationship wouldn't apply to such a young girl. "Three years and one day," an unrelated standard, is frequently mentioned by the Rambam in many places.
Takalah doesn't mean "shame" (it means something closer to downfall, as in his spiritual downfall in having sinned).
The Rambam doesn't say that she would have "brought" anything on anyone, as Zadil claims. Rather, the Rambam writes that something would have occurred through her involvement.
"Yisrael" here refers to the individual Yisrael (i.e. Jew) involved, not "the Jewish People."
He implies that the Rambam rules that a non-Jewish man would be liable for death for raping a minor Jewish girl. That is false, as the Rambam states explicitly.
"Needles (sic) to say" is not exactly the most neutral intro possible to hideous slander.

I believe that is seven significant problems in two sentences. There's no place like Wikipedia. HKT 11:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Sharon

Do you think that "the Butcher of Beirut" belongs in the introduction of this article? I have tried to move it to another section as I feel it is too POV to be included in the intro, but my efforts thus far have been to no avail.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon vandal on Hebron

Hi Jayjg, our anon vandal on Hebron has reached a new low by fraudulently signing as a legitimate user on the talk page. I'm wondering if there is a way to check whether blocking the range 67.72.98.81-101 would block any legitimate users. All these addresses translate as accelerate.att.net. I assumed it was a public ISP but actually it seems to be an "internet accelerator" run by Propel Corporation. Thanks. --Zero 13:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser for Adityanath/Baba Louis/Chai Walla

Hello, Jayjg,

I respectfully request that you take another look at Adityanath/Baba Loius/Chai Walla. We are three separate individuals. We are all members of the same organziation and had a meeting at my place in Austin on 3/11. I introduced them to the ongoing antics of User:Hamsacharya dan and they decided to get involved and created accounts. (They are already familiar with MediaWiki as our org uses one [20], and I helped them to understand WP policies). We took a trip together to Albuquerque and Taos, NM—BL& CW shared a laptop at the Hilton Garden Inn in ABQ and at the Wired Cafe and Taos Inn in Taos. During the trip, I stayed out of the controversy and let them have their fun. On the 16th we were back in ABQ and I flew on to Austin. They spent the night at the Hilton again and I presume shared the laptop then as well. Both flew to Seattle by seperate routes. I've received messages on my talk page from both of them since we separated: from BL at Dallas airport and then Seattle, and from CW in Seattle. If you check the activity carefully you will be able to see all the travel including that we are now in seperate locations. BL is currently at CW's so are using the same computer again, but BL will be moving to Everett for some contract work starting tomorrow.

TIA, Adityanath 16:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser clarification

What does most likely mean? -- Jbamb 16:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly be happier if you used most likely - you didn't, you said is. And you can certainly verify that the users are posting from seperate locations. I am insulted by your attitude and insist that you have someone else check your work. —Adityanath 17:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I've put a request for an independent review on the RequestForCheckUser page. How do I volunteer to do checkuser? I have the skills and would of course not partcipate in any review of myself... Adityanath 17:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josephus

No, Jayjg, I am not satisfied. IMHO "may or may not have been" gives undue weight to a fringe theory doubting the identification of the James killed by Ananus. The "highly disputed" seems a bit too strong for an encyclopedia article (when other wordings would do the trick as well), but I am willing to compromsise on that. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seudah/Seudat mitzvah

Ok, as the consensus seemed to be to merge, I went ahead and did so, making quite a few changes along the way. Please comment, or make corrections, additions, improvements. : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

Hi Jayjg. How much work is involved in a checkuser? I don't really care about the Corax issue anymore, but it might be worth doing a checkuser just to clear his name, or not. I'm not planning to follow up no matter the result, but he might appreciate it if he hasn't been sockpuppeting. The problem rapidly disappeared after I posted the original notice. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 10:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Judaism

I've explained to Zadil (talk · contribs) that his links are vanity links, and that the section is a vanity section. He already has 3 reverts on Anti-Judaism. If you revert him, make sure to warn him that re-entry of his material will violate 3RR. HKT 11:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regarding confirmed sockpuppets Adityanath and NoToFrauds

I'm reprinting this message from CheckUser page, just to be thorough.

Jayjg - thank you very much for bringing this out into the open finally. I have been hounded ceaselessly by these two for weeks. I have documented a long list of their violations on my talk page, not the least of which is sockpuppeting. I know I am biased in asking this, since I have been the primary disputant with them, but pending a full investigation, and based on their long list of offences, I would like to nominate them for banning from Wikipedia. Please tell me if I need to take further action independently, such as petitioning an arbitration committee?? Thanks. Hamsacharya dan 19:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Nakba

Hi jay,

The Pal exodus (nakba) article continued to be "virtually" owned by anti-Israel editors.

Indeed after the arb Com case, the edit war have somewhat stopped (although everywhere els Zero is continuing to revert and edit-war) because after I left there is very little of the other POV present in this article.

You have agreed to mediate this and few others have "congrtulated" you on this monumental task.

I don't blame you for wanting to dismiss your self from this promise. Nakba is such a hot poteto that no one want to touch it.

The result is that for years this article is strogly one side (non NPOV). This is against wikipedia policy.

If this article can not be fixed, Wikipedia should not be a place to promote one sided propeganda. Maybe the answer is to delete an article that can not be made NPOV after attempts that took years have failed ?

Zeq 19:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay,

There is no point for me to write an new article (I am banned from this article anyhow) as there is total control over it from the pro palestinian side.

The problem is this:

The article is completly written froma palestinian prepective starting with the name of the article (Nakba) which means disaster in Arabic (yet they refuse to menton that they set Nakba day on the date Israel was established)

Nearly every line in this article is written from hat prespective. Even presenting the ideas of the scholars who are considered pro israeli (like karsh) is being twisted quotes and idea are cherrypicked to make these view look unreasonable. This is one of the poor articles in Wikipedia. talk is full of suggestion to fix it. I have several times cut and pasted Alian (who is an editor in Geramn Wikipedia now) idea on how to structure an article that would be NPOV. maybe we can start by agreeing to that. The effort that now goes on restruturing this article (on talk) is done from aPalestinian prespective not from an NPOV one. Someone needs to guide this process to arrive into an NPOV article I thought you can do it. Zeq 21:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay: Talk:Palestinian_exodus#Fundemantal_problem_with_this_article_not_addressed

Jay: here is another one (but the above is much more fundemental problem): Talk:Palestinian_exodus#What_does_this_have_to_do_with_the_Exodus

Circumcision article

Eek! I'm embarassed that I missed those. You were absolutely right to delete them.

I'm not entirely surprised to see these additions, though. A message went out on last week on the Yahoo group, against_circumcision. It was essentially grumbling that Wikipedia was not an anti-circ propaganda site (the author didn't put it in those terms, of course). One of the group moderators proposed editing the page. This probably explains, at least in part, the recent edits. Jakew 19:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Message at User talk:Mushroom

I am the wife of User:Danny B. (usurped), as he advised the Wikipedia Welcomer User:Wiki alf and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:

This user is a sock puppet of Ted Wilkes, as established by Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006#Ted Wilkes (talk • contribs) and related accounts,

Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [21] you wrote:

"See this request for CheckUser: Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike are the same person." Mushroom (Talk) 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [22] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.

However, at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 User:Sam Korn who did the checking said only:

"Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike appear likely to be the same."

Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone [23], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. (User:MrDarcy, User:Arniep, User:Lochdale, User:Func, User:DropDeadGorgias and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).

Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a Wikipedia:Administrator has the responsibility for stating facts, not making quick guesses to spin there own version of what User:Sam Korn who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.

Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia B. 19:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Cynthia B. is identical with User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias User:JillandJack. Both Cynthia B. and DW/JillandJack or Ted Wilkes contributed to the following articles: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30],etc. This suggests that DW alias Ted Wilkes has created many more sockpuppets, as DW did in the past. Onefortyone 23:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References versus direct links

I am noticing that you are changing some links such as [[31]] to a more complex reference, which then includes a notation at the bottom of the page. Is this a formal policy of Wikipedia? It seems to complicate the article further by adding a whole slew of links at the bottom of the article, rather than just direct links. Lokiloki 20:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference, I will check it out. I personally think it makes the pages more complicated: in effect someone would have to do a lot more work to go to the reference... click on the number, find the number amidst a sea of numbers, click on the article/reference link. As well, sometimes I prefer to just roll-over the link so I can see what site it is going to, but this now precludes that. Is there somewhere to discuss this new policy? Lokiloki 21:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

Hi Jayjg! Thank you for supporting my RfA and for the kind words. The RfA passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 21:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected?

Did you know both of your userpages are semi protected? -Splash^talk 23:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Just checking as I came across it in CAT:SEMI and it wasn't protected by its (not)owner. -Splash^talk 23:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just subst:ed the tags and taken your userpages out of CAT:SEMI, since the tidy-minded part of me thinks you shouldn't be in that category, but we don't have a tag for "self-protected" userspace yet. Hope that's ok. -Splash^talk 13:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war over Carlebach "allegations"

Hi Jay:I am not making much headway with User:Ckessler at Talk:Shlomo Carlebach#Allegations, yet again. I have placed this message on her page, and she is going for mediation, but I have yet to see where.

Hi Ckessler: You are on the borderline of breaking the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule in the Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach article, see [32] I do not wish to revert you a third time today. Twice is enough for me, I have no choice but to wait another 24 hours to do so. You are treating hearsay and gossip as if they were the legal equivalants of allegations in a duly constituted court of law. A number of admins who know something about this subject will be contacted, to advise how we should proceed. Your refusal to discuss to resolve this matter on the article's talk page is disappointing.

Your input into this matter would be highly appreciated. Thank you. IZAK 09:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-23 Shlomo Carlebach

Also add your comments at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-23 Shlomo Carlebach. Thank you. IZAK 10:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

	Thank you! Thank you for supporting / ~~opposing~~ / ~~vandalising~~ my RFA! The result was 71/3/0 and so I am now ~~still a normal user~~ / an administrator / ~~indefinitely banned~~. Your ~~constructive criticism~~ / support / ~~foulmouthed abuse~~ has ~~given me something to think about~~ / helped me immensely / ~~turned me into a nervous wreck~~. If there's any way I can help you in return, please ~~ask someone else~~ / ~~suffer and die~~ / drop me a line! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve. N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON!

Societal Attitudes Towards Homosexuality

The article "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is being used, not for the benefit of the reader, but to promote the agenda of a well-organized group of gay advocates. I can provide you with many examples if you would like. I have gone through all of the proper channels to raise a red flag about this.

The first item on the "workshop" page is a request to "remove the article" [33]. But, so far, that option has not been added to the "proposed remedies" section of the "requests for arbitration" page [34].

I hope that you will seriously consider adding this remedy to "proposed remedies" section, as that is the only remedy that will actually correct the problem.

Best Regards, Lou franklin 03:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I convey my greetings to you on my completion of one year as a wikipedian. Come here, we shall have a party tonight. The biggest laddus have been ordered, bigger than your talk page. --Bhadani 15:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a heartfelt plea

jay, i've long thought you, like slim, either have or ought to have a successful career in stand-up comedy, but after your latest 'trivia' cut i have to ask: can you please please stop bringing your work/hobby into what is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia? i realize that it isn't really and that a complaint to the governing soviet (packed with your fellow comedians) would be useless, but where's your ethical sense? you're giving the jocular community a bad name. Jamaissur

So it is absolutely clear then. Only a martian unfamiliar with earthling ways (or a [another] comedian) would suggest that Jayjg is not a successfull comedian when not editing Wikipedia. I'd better start an edit war on his user page right now! </sarcasm> -- Heptor _talk 10:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you so much for supporting me in my recent RfA, which passed with a final tally of 56/1/0. I thank you for your confidence in my abilities. If you ever need anything or find that I have made an error, please let me know on my talk page. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 21:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Jayjg, and thank you for taking time to vote on my RfA. I understand that my last 6000+ edits were not sufficient to convince you that edits like some of my early ones would never be repeated again, but I sincerely hope that at some point I would be able to convince you of my transformation. Looking forward to working with you in future. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alberuni

Hi, Jay, must the term of Alberuni's ban be reset to start with the time of his most recent edit? Pecher ^Talk 08:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zadil tampers with Ovadia Yosef

Hi Jay: Could you please take a look at what User:Zadil has been up to in the Rabbi Ovadia Yosef article. Thanks. IZAK 12:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you accidentally shot a new user.

Hey. I think you blocked User:The Cleaning Lady (talk), but I think she's not a sockpuppet, and I didn't see a rationale on checkuser or anywhere else. She's made several helpful edits, too. Thanks for your attention. Snargle 16:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've put a reponse back on my talk page. It may be important. --Snargle 05:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request

Can you do a checkuser on User:Jerry Jones, User:JJstroker (see [35]) and User:Zadil based upon similiar editing patterns on Talk:Talmud. Thanks. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also anote similar interest in obscure individual, Breckinridge Long. -Will Beback 23:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

My RfA recently closed and it was a success, passing at 84-02-00. I would like to thank you for taking the time to weigh in and on your subsequent support. And I know it's quite cliche, but if you ever need any assistance and/or want another opinion on something, grab a Pepsi and don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks again. Pepsidrinka 05:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

See latest attempts at putting dubious "Yeshua" in intro again... --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

	My RfA
	Thank you for supporting/opposing/commenting on my request of adminship, sadly the result was 54/20/7 an thus only 73% support votes, resulting in that the nomination failed. As many of you commenting that I have to few main-space edits, I'll try to better my self on that part. If you have any ideas on what kind of articles I could edit, pleas send me a line. :)	_→AzaToth 09:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti

Please take a look at the edit war there. Calton and Lethe are insisting on including a quote that does not exist. The person being quoted, Waldyr Rodrigues, specifically removed his statements because they were being misrepresented in Wikipedia. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand

Hi, Jayjg. You're my go to guy for Jewish wiki-issues, and I am interested in your opinion on this: Talk:Ayn_Rand#By_any_other_name. The question is essentially whether to include someone in "Category:Jews", (Russian Jews, Jewish philosophers, etc.), based on birth rather than self-identification, or in spite of deliberate non-identification with Judaism. The root question is probably how to define the category more than how to classify Rand per se, but either way I thought you might find it interesting or might care to opine. If you'd prefer to send a colleague or just to ignore this, that's probably safe too. Cheers, Kaisershatner 20:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talmud talk page

ive had another editor apporch me about this [36] re-fractorment of an on-going discussion and before i reply itd be really helpful to hear your side, thanksBenon 23:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that jayjg, Zadil seemed a little annyoed at it, maybe a quick note on his talk page would help to smooth things over? thanks Benon 23:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist

Hey, thanks for letting me know that was was dealing with a sockpuppet of a user with multiple bans. --Descendall 00:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]