User talk:Jayjg/Archive 21

Ahmadinejad's end of term

I HAVE put the information of when his term would end, numerous times. No matter where I put it, someone like you delete's it. It is amazing that such a basic piece of information has no place in the article. Frankly, if you delete it, YOU have the responsibility to put it in the place you think is better, not me. Otherwise, you are not editing in good faith. -- Paulgaham

someone misplaced this

in your archive — coelacan talk — 03:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Kgeza67

Hello again Jayjg, based upon your prompt message archival the last time I left you a message about User:Kgeza67 I'm not entirely sure if you want me to continue notifying you about his socks but user Kadlietgsd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is his latest one. If you'd prefer I stop contacting you about this please let me know. Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks for the response. Obviously Kgeza67 is hoping to benefit in some small way from his latest sock if we look at his sock's talk page. I hate to say this but if history on this is any indicator I suspect you'll be hearing a bit more still. :-/ (→Netscott) 16:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Another likely Kgeza67 candidate: Konsti4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) this based upon the first and only edits being to Michael Richards (and the editing style there) and the username itself. (→Netscott) 13:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Troublesome POV pusher & probable sock

Hi Jay,

Could you have a look at the following please?

• 02:43, February 13, 2007 User:24.167.107.118 edits circumcision
• 03:10, February 13, 2007 User:24.167.107.118 blocked for 48h (trolling)
• 12:34, February 13, 2007 User:Woodstock2010 makes almost identical edit

Last time Woodstock2010 was editing (roughly Jan 7), I was able to identify 24.28.143.218 as a sock. I suspect this is another one. I'm happy to file an RFCU, but this seems a fairly obvious case of abusive sockpuppetry. Can you confirm? Thanks, Jakew 21:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Jakew 10:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

I saw this diff: [1]. I consider it good overall, but I can't figure out what is wrong with "easter egg" link. Aren't all wikilinks like that? In this case, it just happened to link to a relevant section of the article. I don't see what is wrong with that link. The Behnam 23:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand what you mean by "easter egg," but I cannot figure out what exactly is wrong with the easter egg. I know that if it was taken too far, the lead would become a chunk of links and it would be really messy, but this didn't appear to be the case. It may be argued that it is not necessary anymore since the wording itself is now neutral, but I guess we will just see how the main editors behind the neutrality dispute will react. Anyway, I am wondering why Easter eggs are bad. Is it policy & guideline based, or just your personal preference in this case? The Behnam 23:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

81.182.0.0/16 collateral

You also forgot to provide a block reason.

Currently we have two editors in good standing being autoblocked:

• Mst06 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• TopAce (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Can you please take another look at this. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet more probable Panairjdde socks

User:Ustranimii_Uyet [contribs]

also

[contribs]

Back again, haunting and raising hackles on his pet topics of Roman/Italian history and football. Judging from the last edit, he may already have dropped this account for another sock. Since you're familiar with the case, I'll keep notifying you about any socks I happen upon (unless you ask me not to). Dppowell 06:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Woodstock2010 again

Jay, just to let you know, I've reported Woodstock2010 for continued evasion and abusive behaviour here. Jakew 11:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

...and again?

This seems an unusual first edit, and is vaguely familiar... Jakew 13:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed material from user page on it.wiki

Hi Jayjg, please ask Cloj to remove that material from his archive page, explaining why you wish it removed. I'm sure he won't have any problem in fulfilling your request. Regards. --Snowdog 16:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision

Please remember to add templates denoting protection to articles in future. --AdamM 12:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

See debate on deletion of the article Ashkenazi Intelligence

The article was proposed for deletion. I am the one who created the article. I did so not as some kind of fan of Gregory Cochran's work, but rather to get the material (which I find distasteful) off the Ashkenazi Jews page. I consider Cochran's theory to be an attempt to justify a genetic interpretation of race and IQ differences in general. Better material has been written about "Jewish Intelligence" and there is no agreement on the environmentalism versus genetics issue. I don't like to see the baby thrown out with the bath water. I would rather see a much better article written that would be balanced and inclusive. Barring that, I would like to see the Cochran material moved onto the page about Gregory Cochran himself, not back onto the Ashkenazi Jews page. Unfortunately, the Gregory Cochran page is one of those "admiration pages". Please see Ashkenazi intelligence and add your opinion if you wish. --Metzenberg 11:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Astonishment

I'm astonished that you won't understand that on it.wiki we have a different behabiour, and asking politely to a user to remove something from one of his subpages should be the first step. --Snowdog 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A wiki is a wiki, defamation is defamation, and "ask politely first" is "ask politely first"! I'm sure the foundation would approve. --Snowdog 16:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And "ask politely first" does not mean that if the answer is no you can't edit. --Snowdog 17:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Doc Ahmadinejad

I noticed this [2]. You say "per talk." I don't remember reaching consensus on that Easter Egg issue. The other guy who undid the EE recently was Beit Or, who claimed it was a "correction" in his edit summary (correction of what?). I hope you will reach consensus with the other editors before acting, especially upon a "per talk" basis. The Behnam 00:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on Arbitration Case

There is some confusion with regard to an Arbitration Case you handled. Would you please comment. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Clarification on Parole violations Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Provan

Although Provan has many odd ideas, he is not truly a "holocaust denier." He has been criticized by the latter.--John Foxe 19:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I'd like to stay away from the controversy surrounding the Polish lecturer Ratajczak, however, his opinion on The Painted Bird was brought in to illustrate the accusations of anti-Polish sentiment directed toward Kosiński by some of his Polish readers. I do not see the need to go any further than that and do not wish to engage in a dispute over this matter. I want the article to look ballanced and on the subject. Please try to help. --Poeticbent  talk  21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Antisemite (epithet). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Liftarn 10:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Please note that I have reported you for 3RR on Anti-Zionism. I encouraged that a neutral admin simply evaluate the situation, as I don't think blocking in this case would really benefit anything. Mackan79 20:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It has already been rejected; please review WP:3RR. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk page please

Could you add your thoughts to the ongoing discussion on the Template:Palestinians talk page instead of simply reverting edits? Thanks. Tiamut 21:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Binghum

Hello! Could you remember to put a block notice on the Talk page when you've blocked someone? It means that others don't have to go through the initial stages of the blocking process only to find that they're wasting their time. Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Holford

Is there any evidence for sock puppte use, as you claim in the protection log for this page? There were a few edits on the page but nothing like a revert war: I'm slightly baffeled as to why it was protected? --Robdurbar 10:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please comment in the Anti-globalization and antisemitism talk page

If you could submit a detailed accounting for how you ascertained that two of voters on the article's Afd page were sockpuppets, that would be very helpful. Thanks in advance. J.R. Hercules 14:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Black People

Hi,

as an uninvolved admin, could you take a look at the link included in this edit ? I agree with the editor's point, but am nervous that this is needlessly inflammatory, and might constitute WP:Point. Editor was hostile when I suggested that it went too far.

For future reference, what page do I go to when I am looking for input from an uninvolved admin? Thanks Jd2718 18:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Help needed with Joseph Carlebach article.

Hi Jay: Please see User talk:IZAK#Joseph Carlebach about the Rabbi Dr. Joseph Carlebach article where I have been contacted by a researcher from the German Wiki with lots of genuine and historical material about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Carlebach, the last Chief Rabbi of Hamburg Altona who was killed by the Nazis with his flock during the Holocaust. Rabbi Joseph Carlebach was probably one of the top rabbis in Germany prior to the Holocaust and was held in high regard by famous rabbinical peers in Europe. Developing this article would be a great thing. Please help. Thank you. IZAK 08:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Chabad Messianism

Hi there, could you please help me out I don't know what to do. I am being chased around by User:PinchasC who will not let me add a single word or link about Michichism, let alone create a separate article.

Every time I try he pulls another deceitful slight of hand, reverting endlessly, nominating good articles for AfD just to confuse people and so on and so forth.

Chabad Messianism is one of the major controversies in Judaism in the past 50 years with numerous books on the subject yet PinchasC (and co) have ensured that there can only be 1 paragraph in all wikipedia about it - which is followed by endless of the point Berger-bashing.

He nominated Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch for AfD to create a smokescreen, when there was a clear consensus expressed that there should be a Chabad Messianism article I un-redirected it. He then redirected back again, without any debate and falsely claimed that all the info was in the other article.

How can this be resolved?

David Spart 21:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

David and Abishag

Ok - I'd love to have seen the doctor's prescription :). PiCo 04:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hamas

I don't know where you heard this from, but you don't need consensus to add a POV check tag to a page. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 13:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar
For your civility in the Mediation Committe case, WP:RfM/Jews for Jesus, and for helping to solve an important dispute efficiently and sucessfully - and making my Mediation easier :) - I, Anthony, award Jayjg the Original Barnstar. Well done!
Kind regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]}

No stalking please

1. The "hebrew prayers, tallitot" part in the intro is already getting too specific.

2. I seriously question those estimates for the number of Messianic Jews in the intro. Other estimates are more like 30,000.

3. The intro incorrectly states that Messianics "worship" Jesus. If you ask the vast majority of Messianics if they worship him, they'll say NO and claim idolatry as the reason. This is not accurate.

4. Do not delete comments from your talk page. If you're not strong enough in your case to directly respond to me and others rather than evading behind the endless fences you've erected for yourself, then you are not adding much to this website.

5. You took out everything out of the categories article I made. I consider that blatant, textbook vandalism.

P.S. What have I violated in the yellow box? I'm not harassing you at all. Please, I'm not at all feeling well right now, answer me promptly rather than evading. Noogster 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply. Noogster 22:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Because you said you're not feeling well, and said please, I'll answer you here, but please don't post any more questions on my Talk: page about article content, and please don't order me to do things.

1. Those little bits of detail make it clear exactly what kinds of "Jewish customs" MJ's follow, otherwise the lead is confusing and obscure.

2. If you have better numbers, please provide them. I question those numbers as well.

3. The reliable source cited specifically states that, and it is quoted. Moreover, belief in the Trinity by definition involves worship of Jesus.

4. I've made it clear that I only respond to questions about article content on article Talk: pages, and that I will remove harassment (e.g. claiming I am "stalking", or that I am "not strong enough in my case", "evading", etc.) from my Talk: page - that's what the Big Yellow Box says.

5. You were basically taking every single person mentioned in the Bible and including them in a Category of "People important in Messianic Judaism." Aside from being unsourced POV, it was ridiculous; the category should contain people who are uniquely important in Messianic Judaism, not just a lengthy list of biblical characters.

6. I'm sorry you're not feeling well.

-- Jayjg ^(talk) 22:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1. We wear tefillin and kippas too and run services according to a siddur. You either mention most/all of it (too long for an intro) or you leave it out.

2. I already tried that; it got reverted.

3. Most of us don't believe in the Trinity. We do not promote and are actively against the "trinity" and the "worship" (G-d forbid it) of Jesus (anglicized from Greek Iesous, translation of Aramaic Yeshua, Aramaic of Hebrew Yehoshua). The single source cited may not know what it's talking about and only be guessing things.

4. Alright, I'll do that, but you must stop, and promptly, your endless pursuit and reversion of my articles without any notification of the fact to me. Because I feel it does get ridiculous at some point.

5. Moses is important in Messianic Judaism. You removed him to make us look like supersessionist Christian fundies, please admit it.

6. Oh, trust me, I was doing fine until I logged on to my computer. Noogster 23:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is not inconvenient, please answer these queries either here, in my talk page, or in the talk pages for the respective articles (if you do that, please notify it to me). Noogster 23:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Tube Guy

FYI: You left out the blocking reason for Tube Guy (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and now he's appealing his block. --  Netsnipe  ►  20:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Your block of Tube Guy

Hello. You recently blocked Tube Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) without providing a block rationale. They have now requested to be unblocked, asking "Why have I been blocked with no explanation?". Unless I'm missing something very obvious, that would seem to be a fair question. Would you like to comment? Thanks, Sandstein 20:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

When you fill out an edit line to read, "per talk"

You should write something in the talk. Please come back to Indigenous peoples and Lists of Indigenous peoples to discuss your reversions of properly sourced additions to those articles. Thank you. Tiamut 02:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

On the issue of Palestinian indigeneity, you are welcome to post your thoughts here: [3] Tiamut 03:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Woodstock2010 etc

Hi Jay,

User:ShitakiMan just made this edit. According to his user page, he's blocked indefinitely, but evidently not.

Based upon edits, I strongly suspect that User:The Blend is a sock of Woodstock2010 aka ShitakiMan. Can you confirm? Jakew 17:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I indefblocked Shitaki and filed a WP:RFCU on the blend. -- Avi 18:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, so I see. Thanks. :) Jakew 19:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this considered a sock?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=The_Blend —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avraham (talk • contribs) 22:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Osli73

Jayjg, in the Kosovo arbitration case, you voted to put Osli73 on revert parole. I wish to bring to your attention that he has been violating his parole with impunity for some time now. On February 24, this behavior was brought to the attention of the arb enforcement board (see link below), but there has not been any action or comment since. Meanwhile, edit warring is heating up again at the Srebrenica article. If those who have been put on parole can violate the limits put upon them with little or no consequence, it puts us at risk of the article falling back into a free-for-all. Could you either respond to this or contact the appropriate administrator? Thank you. Fairview360 01:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#.5B.5BUser:Osli73.5D.5D

Zero/ Palestinin exodus

Jay:

The use of wikipedia as a place fopr propeganda continue with the aid of edit wars and the fact that honorable people like you don't want to get into this mess.

see this: [4], [5], "anon" edit: [6], help from the gang: [7]

this has been going on for long time: [8]

I maintain that what I said a year ago in my arbitration case remain true: If wikiepdia is unable over 3-4 years now) to get to an NPOV article on such subject the best thing is to delete the article all together. Wikipedia can not be the host for such blant propeganda. This is an important issue. The part that Zero keeps deleting [9],[10] is a VALID POV just like the other. Either both POV have an equal standing in the article (this is far far from what we have now) or tscrap the whole thing. Zeq 07:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

here is a quote from a recent WP:RS source:

"Saleh recounts what he was told happened to the house, his family and the other villagers during the first Arab-Israeli war. Arab soldiers appeared in the village one day in late 1947 with dire news. "They asked people in Salameh to leave, because a war was going to happen there," he said. "They said, 'Go for a week, or a month -- then come back.'

[11].

It is part of the conflicting narrative on this big issue. Why is wikipedia allowing Zero to turn the article to support only one side claims (the whole division in "stages" is already POV) instead of simply saying: There are two views. here is ione and here is the other. Zeq 08:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

well ? and while you are ponderi8ng the answer please see failed mediation at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-19_Inayat_Bunglawala#Discussion

Zeq 05:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

christianity link

You wrote "the linked terms are there because of the name "Messianic Judaism" - the word "Christianity" is not in the name"

Thanks for clarifying. I just wanted you to know that I support this reasoning. :) inigmatus 20:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning on my user page

Jayjg, Hi. You left a warning on my user page about "stalking". I have responded to you on my page, and would appreciate your taking a look and leaving a response. Thank you, Jgui 01:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Jayjg," huh?

Just curious, but why did you append the J.G. Ballard's initials to the end of your username?--John H. Dillinger 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

Any chance, if you get a second, you could pop over to RFCU and clear out the 27-strong backlog? Recent events - two of them - have led to this, and due to the latter of the two I can't see it going anywhere without your intevention. Any help would be much appreciated. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 02:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BLP courtesy deletion

Would you be willing to help write this proposed policy? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Buenos días

This user is requesting unblocking. I see that he/she violated 3RR on WP:V and so probably does deserve a block (but one with a duration)...but indefinite seems harsh to me, unless this is part of a bigger pattern I'm not aware of: the user claims they have to use proxies because of their connection type. I'm sure you can tell more about the situation than me, though. Mangojuice^talk 05:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you weigh in again on the Lewis Libby dispute?

Things have gotten a little out of hand on the Lewis Libby talk page. A certain user has accused me of making it personal, and I feel the same way about the user (please see my talk page as well). I'm going to check out of the whole debate for a while, but I'd appreciate if other cooler heads would weigh in. Thanks. Notmyrealname 23:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:David Spart/Chabad Messianism

Following a recent wheel-war over Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch in which PinchasC did not let me write an article on Chabad Messianism even after an AfD implied consensus for such an article I was advised to write such an article in my user space. I have now done so and would be grateful for any feedback from you before I put it up. Happy Purim. David Spart 00:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

A question

I have asked a question regarding your edit on the Islam and Antisemitism talk page. --Aminz 21:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Banned user?

[12] Arrow740 00:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be BhaiSaab again. His IP is similar and can't be traced, the style is the same, the subject matter is the same. Arrow740 04:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[13] is currently blocked, and as soon as he was blocked [14] stepped in. Arrow740 05:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comment in the discussion page for Template: Messianic Judaism

I have responded to your false comment in the discussion page for the template. I'm tired about having my religion repeatedly lied about and misunderstood as a misunderstood. Noogster 00:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a reply in the discussion for the template. Your POV attacks must end. The very fact that the Tanakh shows up in the Judaism template and it's kept shows that you are definitely biased. Noogster 03:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

One more probable Panairjdde socks

User:Uyet Ustranimii seems to be a sockpuppet of Panairjdde and his various derivatives, of which User:Ustranimii Uyet was the latest one. --Angelo 02:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: he re-registered under a new username, User:Uyet Ustranimi. His first contribution was a revert of a vandalism of his to U.S. Città di Palermo. P.S. This is getting very annoying, don't you think so?!? --Angelo 23:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a hunch that he created User:Francis_Escort after the block of the sock reported above. Dppowell 04:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

indentation/thread sorting

Hi, Jayjg. Please use proper indentation when replying on talk pages. It's the only way to keep threads of conversation intact so they can be followed by readers. Always use one more colon (:) than what you're replying to. Thanks. ⇔ ChristTrekker 04:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, there are multiple standards, but some are more helpful than others. Inserting your own (differing) style in the midst of an ongoing conversation that is already using a different style is not very...neighborly, for want of a better term. Thanks. ⇔ ChristTrekker 04:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your replies read, to me, as if they are in response to what is directly above them. However, the indentation is not one level deeper than that. This does not promote clarity. I may be misreading your posts, true, but they really do not read as if they are new top-level discussions on the topic. (At least one reply to your post seems to have indented back up to an appropriate level, which indicates to me that I'm not the only one reading you this way.) Everyone else on the topic is using reply-indented-one-level-deeper style for replies. If you don't also follow that convention (in discussions where it's already established) you do not promote clarity. Again, I may be reading you wrong. I'm just trying to be helpful (not everyone knows the conventions), not to start a flame-fest on threading style. ⇔ ChristTrekker 04:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have a question and hope that you can help because you were the arbitration community member. I am asking from you because you are the only one I know who was arbitrator. I hope you will not delete it thinking a personal attack (I never do personal attacks). The question is that if the arbitration can also handle content dispute when mediation fails? I am asking it because mediation about Muhammad pictures has failed to reach any solution. Hence I wish to find other options available. I will be thankful with your reply. regards. -- ALM 19:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. But now mediation failed and we think some policies are not applied correctly on that page. Espacially WP:NPOV#undue_weight. What you suggest should be our next step? --- ALM 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

See I have started writing basics at User:ALM_scientist/arbitration_Muhammad and will provide many references before moving to next step. --- ALM 20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read the mediation page then you will find that many members think that it is failed. Each voting has resulted with no consensus and it has been filed since many many months now (November 2006). I have right now started a vote to ask with other people that if they all think that mediation has failed or not. I am sure that many (may be all) will agree with me on this point and I will move forward with at least that consensus. --- ALM 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Having said above, I do not know what should be my next step and still looking for some answer from you. --- ALM 20:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

We are ready to have the picture on that page. But it should not be against WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. It says "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.". We have references that show it is minority tradition. Hence a picture near the bottom of the page will fix undue weight problem. The reason we are not having solution is that many people are assuming using bad faith that we are doing censorship and working for our religion. Well I have no objection in having pictures in Depiction of Muhammad, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy or even do not have any objection in having pictures in Muhammad. However, it should not be violating WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. The reason mediation fail is because many people assume bad faith towards other that we are censoring for Islam and are even not listening to our arguments. --- ALM 09:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity in bios

Hi Jay, why is so important to list ethnicity in some articles and omitt it in others. Please see Lewis Libby. I agree that the conspiracy/cabal stuff should be limited, but it seems that there is an effort to not include Libby's ethnicity in the bio? I would love to remove ethnicity from most bios but it seems that it has been included in most. Anyways, thanks --Tom 21:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you reverted my Apartionalism link in the Colonialism page. I'm a new user so I hope I am not messing things up. But I believe that Apartionalism deserves to be put in the link. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanfordwolf99 (talk • contribs)

Kurt Nimmo/Dershowitz Finkelstein affair

Could you please remove the blocks from these two articles. After each edit I post on the discussion page my reason for making the edits. When you block the articles it sends the message that no matter what I say on the talk page, my viewpoint will pretty much be shut out. I believe that Isarig is trying to bias these two articles to reflect his viewpoint. I have begun to discuss my edits on the talk pages and instead of debating me and arguing his viewpoint Isarig runs to the wikipedia administration and to ban me from editing to shut me out of the debate. I think I should be allowed to express my viewpoint. Please give me the chance to make my point and I promise I will try to keep the edit waring to a minimal.annoynmous 04:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way Isarig recently lied when he said on the talk page that the listing of the similarities between Dershowitz and peters books was my own original research. That section has been in the article for some time now and was only recently deleted by NYScholar. I feel the information was relevant and if you ask me it is Isarig who should be banned for reverting my edits, but because Isarig apparently has some powerful admirers on the administrative board I got banned instead.annoynmous 05:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit to Partnership minyan

Hi Jayjg! an edit was made to Partnership minyan adding the following paragraph:

Recently in the JOFA 10th Anniversary International Conference on Feminism & Orthodoxy, three members of these minyanim (Elitzur Bar-Asher, Michal Bar-Asher Siegal and Alanna Copper), in a session under the title: "Beyond Women Issue: Partnership Minyanim Engages Orthodoxy," articulated for the first time the methodology of the halachic decision process and the ideology behind these minyanim. <ref>[http://www.geretz.org/partnership_minyan.htm "Orthodox Conference explores "partnership minyan"],''The Jewish State''</ref>

I don't have any problem with the reliability of the media source, which contains excerpts from the JOFA paper which could legitimately added to the article. The paper itself, if it were published, could be cited and its content excerpted. But it doesn't seem to me that the mere presentation of an unpublished paper in a conference -- with nothing about the content, just the presentation of a paper and a claim the paper is a first -- is appropriate encyclopedia content for this article. (I'm also skeptical of the claim of first publication. For example, Tamar Ross wrote about these topics in her 2004 book Expanding the Palace of Torah, although doubtless not in as much detail). I want to be helpful to these people and if they have value to add and can reliably source it, I want to them to get their content in and they're welcome to cite any acceptable publication. However, I feel that simply adding a paragraph about the existence and virtues of an unpublished paper without meaningfully describing what it says on the article topic is not appropriate encyclopedia content and is possibly WP:SOAP. I'd appreciate a second opinion on this issue as well as your input about how to proceed. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Help in deleting an uploaded image

Hello, Jay, I wonder if you could delet an image, or non-image as the case may be, that I uploaded within this past hour. It is Image:Deerslayer.gif. It is problematic for two reasons: 1) it didn't upload properly and 2) the copyright issue is not clear. If I can delete it, please tell me.--Drboisclair 19:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What?

What is your specific objection!? Jooler 00:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

List of political epithets - didn't know this was a prior delete

I didn't realize this had been deleted; it just came up on some page, and I thought, "A list I can populate, and thus contribute to the Great Project!" Thanks for putting a protect on it. --Orange Mike 01:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Gnetwerker

I was looking over an old thread and found Gnetwerker's name in an "odd" place, the Intel i860 article talk page. I went from there to the talk page, and found a perm block for sock. I cannot find the evidence for this, however, and see a suggestion that you e-mailed it to another admin. Can you e-mail it to me too? Maury 13:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have had several "dealings" with Gnetwerker in the past, where he basically said I was a know-nothing noob. I came across another example in the i860 article, only because it popped into my watchlist after a recent post by an unrelated user on an unrelated topic. So I went to his talk page, and that's when I noticed the block.

But try as I might, I cannot find any of the evidence for the most recent block, the one on 23 December. One of the last posts was "you know why". Perhaps that is true, but I don't know why, nor would anyone else coming to the page. There is some evidence of the 1 December issue with Anomicene, and the tie-in to Tuttovenuto, but no evidence of this link is presented in the talk page, it's only mentioned as being "out there". The ArbCom case is earlier, and I can't find anything in the logs for a mid-december ArbCom, RfC or checkuser.

I want to make this point clear: I am not disputing the block, and given my past dealings, I can't even say I find it surprising. But what I'm concerned about is that all that's on the page are the accusations, not the evidence.

Maury 15:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

ping! Maury 23:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it disconcerting that a user was indef blocked with no evidence being presented that I can find. You have twice suggested that "this is not public information", but I really don't know what you are referring to. All I'm asking for is what mechanism was used in this case? ArbCom? RfC? RfM? Checkuser? Maury 23:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been looking over the various policy docs, and as far as I can surmise, all ArbCom decisions are supposed to be publically posted. I'm not trying to be a jerk here Jay, all I'm asking for is a clear and concise description of the notes "you know what you did" and "the latest attack page" be posted to the bottom of talk page in question. If anything, it will likely be very effective in ending Gnetwerker's apparent e-mail spamming. Maury 23:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about your deletions

I have a question about your recent deletions in Self-hating Jew and List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. It seems to me that you delete recent additions that, in your opinion, are poorly sourced, but let stand language that is tagged "fact", "who?", or unsourced altogether. Sometimes you delete language that has been in the article for months or years without a reference, but you delete it only when an editor adds a reference that, in your opinion, isn't reliable. (I understand that they show up as "recent changes", but why can't you leave them with "fact" tags?)

Why do you let stand some unsourced sentences and delete others? Why do you delete long-standing sentences whose only "crime" is that an editor has tried to provide references for them? If unsourced material is inappropriate, why don't you delete all of it? — Malik Shabazz | Talk 18:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - I'm asking you here, and not on the Talk pages of those articles, because this is a "meta" question that isn't specifically about the content of your deletions.

Thank you for your response. I understand your attitude toward the addition of unsourced or improperly sourced material, but I don't understand your approach vis-à-vis pre-existing material that an editor has tried, in good faith, to source. Why not revert it to the way it was (unsourced), or replace the "bad" reference with a "fact" tag? Self-hating Jew has three or four "fact" and "who?" tags, but you deleted the phrase "mainly by [Jews]" as "unsourced". It isn't any more unsourced than the other items so tagged in the article, but you deleted it because I tried to provide a source for it, thereby bringing attention to it. I can't understand the logic in that.

I also think that selective deletions of this type may unintentionally introduce a POV to articles. If I were to provide a reference for the sentence "Some Zionists describe a Jew who supports most forms of anti-Zionism as self-hating", and you find that source lacking, will you delete the sentence and thereby impose a POV on the article? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Instead, why not restore the status quo ante? — Malik Shabazz | Talk 19:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal Thoughts

I'm going to post this here because I have been having some personal thoughts that I'd like to share that probably do not belong in the discussion page of an article. I will concede with you, an administrator, about the article. But here are some opinions about it:

Know that I am a Messianic Gentile (in favor of conversions) that accepts only Halakhic and Torah-observant streams of the movement.

Acceptance of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, I believe, is in no way outside the Jewish tradition if and only if he is viewed as the Jewish Messiah (Mashiakh) within the context of Judaism only. Christians like to call him the "Messiah" (in a more or less lukewarm fashion) because they feel it gives them some amount of Biblical precedent, but in reality their view of him is almost diametrically opposite the Jewish view. I quote: "The Christian ‘christ’ is depicted as one who abolishes the practices of God’s Torah, while the Jewish Mashiach will be sent by HaShem to bring Israel back to the Torah. The Christian ‘christ’ brings the destruction of the Temple and hates the offerings connected with it, while the Jewish Mashiach loves the Temple and will eventually oversee its rebuilding. The Christian ‘christ’ is viewed as a ‘god-man’ who demands the worship of his devotees, while the Jewish Mashiach is a human who demands the worship of HaShem alone, as is required by the Torah. The Christian ‘christ’ is sent to destroy Israel and the Jewish people, while the Jewish Mashiach is sent to redeem them and restore Israel to her proper place before God. These comparisons could be made for another several pages, but for now the idea is obvious. The ‘messiah’ that is being expected by Christianity is the opposite of the true Mashiach being anticipated by Judaism." The difference is clear, then, that Messianic Judaism very clearly associates him with Jewish Messiahship and not with the near-inversion of him presented by Christianity. Believing that any Tzaddiq Jew of the tribe of Judah with plausible lineage to David Ha-Melekh ("Jesus" happens to be the only Messianic claimant in history with which this has even been shown plausible) is the Jewish Messiah, even one as misrepresented as the Jew Yeshua of Nazareth, is entirely and natively within the realm of Judaism.

Your position on acceptance of the "New Testament" (neutral language, Apostolic Writings) being an exclusively Christian theological idea is a very subjective and touchy matter. In Messianic Judaism, it all depends on the factor of the practices of the original community. The best Orthodox Jewish scholarship on the matter can attribute that most (if not all) NT works were set to parchment by Pharisaic Jews. I would say that acceptance of NT is in continuity or outside of continuity with legitimate Judaism to the extent with which the Apostolic texts used match the earliest reconstructible versions that exist (which, various scholars agree, lacked a "christology" in any form) absent of any later gentile additions/weasel wordings. One good example is the work "Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu", which traces Matthew back very accurately as originally a Hebrew text using every pre-Constantinian source available, and that today's form has had its share of token changes from the earliest versions. If a version of a NT text is proven (by reliable scholarship) to be inconsistent with the earliest reconstructible version of that text and a particular group chooses to keep their version regardless, then yes that particular group has a Christian theology. The group in question would definitely have a Christian-type theology if they believed there was something sacred about the NT order of canon itself, which we are today familiar with (it was not compiled until the 4th century by Roman gentile Christians of the most quintessential order!).

I'm not sure if your reference to the three groups having "overlapping memberships", especially in the modern day, has much (verifiable) truth within it. Virtually no Messianic Jews worship in a Gentile church, and I am pretty sure that living within that environment is a pretty significant prerequisite for properly meriting the label "Hebrew Christian". And as far as JfJ is concerned, all it's comprised of is some leaders and a number of individual missionaries affiliated with a larger network of Christian missionary organizations. Some of its members may adopt the term "Messianic" in passing but no major Messianic organization is in acceptance of them adopting that descriptor.

So those are just some non-article thoughts of mine that don't violate that yellow box at the top; I just thought to share them with you in taking a break from the rigors of WP editing. Thanks for reading it. Noogster 01:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about User:Kgeza67

Jayjg, outside of the Michael Richards article I think you might be a bit more knowledgeable of this individual's editing habits. Did he make a point of editing much on political/politician articles? (→Netscott) 01:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, its just that a rather new editor who is demonstrating a Kgeza67 pattern of editing has showed up on the Michael Richards article of late but he has also done a bit of editing on politician related articles. Other than the similarities in POV on this one article and this editor's newness I'm not seeing a decent match for puppetry. Thanks for your response. (→Netscott) 01:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about Ashkenazi Jews

I just noticed you at the White people article. I've had something of a dispute on Talk:White people that I think that you may have good knowledge about. Am I right in considering Ashkenazi Jews white? There has been a lot of dispute over pictures on the talk page, and for some reason, I've met resistance towards treating Benjamin Netanyahu as white. Some things was posted that used some evidence of Middle Eastern genetic ties as 'proof' that they shouldn't be considered white at all (or "barely"). Now I am not sure about the matter. Your input would be appreciated, thanks. The Behnam 02:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It's sort of my mistake not linking you correctly; the active discussion is way at the bottom. I don't know if anyone looks at the "More whites" section anymore. The Behnam 02:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Kosher "Tax" issue

Jayjg, I knew you would be the best person to which to ask this question so I posted it here and at the Kosher Tax article.

Here's my question:

Guys, I know there's a reasonable answer to this but I don't know it. And that is, why are Kosher symbols appearing on non-food items like aluminum foil and household cleaning products? Does it have something to do with the concern as to whether these products have touched dairy or meat products? Please let me know. Thank you.

Would you please leave a response on my Talk page? Thanks again. Jtpaladin 17:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Links in the Nazarenes (Netzarim) article and the question of validity

Upon further examination, and careful deliberation, I have decided that both the "INJS" and "Nazarite site" links are I proposed are, more or less, personal websites.

This same categorization for the "Netzarim, Ra'anana" site, however, does not hold a single drop of water. The group (centralized ultimately in a Teimani synagogue) has hundreds of people formally affiliated or in their "khavruta" (home study), in over 40 countries, and is near-universally recognized as being within Orthodox Judaism (the exception: a minor number of antimissionaries). I will publish my case with the appropriate citations after tomorrow.

I will post the information in that article's discussion page after tomorrow ends. This is just to inform you that I will be doing it. Thanks Noogster 00:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Nimmo

Could you please unblock this article. We are moving towards a consensus, but one of the issues of contention is that the article is blocked. I feel that it gives Isarig and unfair advantage because no matter what I say, his version of the article is perserved and he can ware me down until he gets the version he want's. I feel that is unfair and we should both be allowed to edit and then discuss our edits and reach a consensus. As long as we don't violate 3RR there is no reason to block this article. If we do go ahead and block it, but as long as we don't give us a chance to work it out on our own.

I ask again please unblock this articleannoynmous 06:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about Checkuser codes

I have reason to believe that these users are sockpuppets of Usergreatpower (talk · contribs): Cloudcheck (talk · contribs), Givenoften (talk · contribs), Scenebadly (talk · contribs). They have had a hand in introducing some POV pushing to Iran about its nuclear program (except Scenebadly, who vandalized a userpage in a related way). My question is: which code does this fall under? The Behnam 21:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I originally asked this to User:Khoikhoi but he said that a checkuser would know better. I then asked User:Dmcdevit, but he seemed inactive. I decided to ask you since you had replied to previous queries. Should I ask this question to some other checkuser instead? The Behnam 01:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Image problem

Administrator, I just ran into a problem regarding image use. In WikiCommons I uploaded a portrait of former U.S. Senator James Semple, here, but in Wikipedia there is an image with the same name image:semple.jpg, depicting a soccer (football) field, is there any way to rename an image or get around it? Thanks! Wooyi 02:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Image

The problem is when I insert "[[Image:Semple.jpg]]" to the senator's article, it appears to be a football field, I want to put the commons photo on the article, how can I do it? Wooyi 02:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Block of Jooler

You accused me of "acting dumb" and blocked me for 24 hours because of it. I would like you to discuss this matter in a civilized way on talk:Gillian McKeith Jooler 10:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Pallywood

Please read (and if possible respond to) my comments on the lead at Talk:Pallywood#By some before reverting it again - thanks. -- ChrisO 11:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay, what is it about the following sentence that you find so objectionable that you have to revert it:

• original - "The term was coined with the publication of a short 2005 documentary video Pallywood, produced by American historian Richard Landes of Boston University, in which he argued ..."

• revised version - "Professor Richard Landes of Boston University originated the term in a short 2005 documentary video Pallywood, in which he argued ..."

Disclaimer: I wrote both versions but I feel the second works better. So why don't you like it? I've already asked for your input above but you haven't bothered replying either to that or to my comments under Talk:Pallywood#By some. -- ChrisO 21:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Nimmo-Please Unblock the article

The article as it stands contains inaccurate information in it. Nimmo did not denie the holocaust or endorse David Irving. He said in a blog entry criticizing the convicton of Irving that the gas chambers were discredited. Nimmo himself has stated on the talk page that he meant dicredited in the sense of "cause to be doubted" not "didn't happen". Nimmo in his blog has on many occasions acknowledged the Holocaust. See this entry:

"Indeed, it does seem transparent. However, it remains to be seen if the French people will rally behind the miscreant and Muslim-baiter Nicolas Sarkozy or like-minded individuals who have signed on to the “Clash of Civilizations” demagoguery. The French government may go over to the dark side. But the French people (and in fact most people in Europe) are steadfastly against the neocon plan for total war and “reshaping” of the Muslim Middle East. Of course, it would not be a historical milestone for the people of France and Germany to be dragged kicking and screaming into the deadly machinations of the neocon master plan. In fact, it was only 70 years ago the German people embraced fascism and there was very little kicking and screaming, save by those carted off into the night to the torture chambers and death camps by the Gestapo."

This is from an entry entitled "Sarko and the French Strategy of Tension" it is therefore libelous to call him a holocaust denier. Just go to Nimmo's blog "Another Day in Empire" you can see it for yourself.

If you unblock this article I give you my word I will not violate the 3RR rule and will try my best to keep the edit warring to a minimum. Please unblock the article.annoynmous 22:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

???

While I don't agree with anything you put on my talk page, I am glad "we" don't have a problem. I am done talking about this with you. Have a good night. MetsFan76 01:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Watch out for Noogster on Jews and Evolution page

I saw that you had removed a few of his additions. His material is basically fundamentalist Christian POV, and not Jewish material. He is a "Messianic" who has been trying to work on Jewish issues all over English Wikipedia. I backed up the evolution article to February 25th to remove Noogster's additions. --Metzenberg 05:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

BhaiSaab

He is edit-warring again: [15] Arrow740 06:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment1

My name is Alan Davidson. You blocked my daughter (Comment1), so she cannot make this contribution to your site. She has asked me to. She was blocked for making 4 edits which were regarded as reverts in 24 hours. I know of this rule. She assures me she did not know. It has also been claimed that her user name may be a Sockpuppet. We find this strange, as the problem arose with her making 4 edits on the Greer website and I did not make any edits. So clearly we made no attempt to collude on this site. I believe Greer fans did not my daughter's view and took inappropriate revenge. We both have made edits from our home computer. Indeed my wife has an account as well, but she rarely usees it. My wife has not checked, but she may be affected as well. My daughter asks that you unblock her. Doesn't Wikipedia take into account that there may be a family which together enjoys editing separately. Alan Davidson 11:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you let me know your response please. Alan Davidson 00:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My daughter would like an account back. Could you please respond. I would like to encourage her use of Wikipedia. If it will help, we will ensure we do not contribute to the same articles. Alan Davidson 03:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir, again, I would like to encourage the use of Wikipedia. Could you please respond. Alan Davidson 00:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I can see by your log you have been quite busy. Could you please respond.

Alan Davidson 13:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Jay, Could you please respond to the last email. Alan Davidson 10:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Judaism and evolution

Hi Jay,

Could you have a look at the Judaism and evolution article when you get a chance? Noogster made some significant edits there that as far as I can tell were almost completely straightforward, uncontroversial stuff that even as an Orthodox Jew I wouldn't have any problem with (though it was poorly sourced).

You rightly reverted ([16]) one of his unverifiable statements on the 8th of March, but otherwise left the rest. On the 12th, all of his changes were blanket reverted ([17]) by Metzenberg, with the edit summary "Noogster's additions do not represent Jewish views on evolution. Noogster is a Messianic and a Christian Fundamentalist."

I'm a bit troubled by this - I'm regularly involved in preventing MJ/christian views from being inserted into articles on Judaism, and have clashed with Noogster and Inigmatus in the past over it. This seems like it's going too far, however, and that he's being reverted due to his personal theology rather than the content of his edits.

Anyway, you clearly had a look at his contributions to the article when you made your smaller revert. Could you look over it again and let me know if I'm missing something? I don't doubt that I am, but this is the sort of situation that should be handled very carefully, to be sure that members of the Judaism project are spotless when the MJ proponents falsely accuse us of unencyclopedic discrimination. Daniel^C/_T+ 16:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Metzenberg is getting a rather bad impression of me, and seems to discriminate actively on the basis of personal background. I have had a single encounter with him. I admit, I was POV. Do you want to know how? In the article discussion for Jewish denominations, I got a little too excited and said that Orthodox Judaism is the only unbroken continuation of the Rabbinic system and equated the Reform Judaism movement = assimilation (rightly, in my opinion, but forgive me for my lack of NPOV in that situation), and questioned Humanistic Judaism being included as a Jewish movement because of its rejection of a pretty basic Jewish concept (belief in G-d). Furthermore, he actively misrepresents my religious beliefs to other edits, probably as a matter of intention (quote: "Christian Fundamentalist", whereas I actively deny Christianity, defend the concept of Messiahship exclusively within the Jewish context, demand non-selective Torah observance, and promote worship inexcusably within the Pharisee=Orthodox Beit Din system that Ribi Yehoshua and the 1st century Netzarim lived and taught within). Please resolve this to the best of your ability. Thank you, Jay. Noogster 03:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research

You said "It is prohibited to remove relevant material sourced to reliable sources because you have done some original research and decided the reliable source is actually wrong." It is a bit more nuanced than that. Original research is encouraged by editors so they can make correct editorial decisions including removing material known to be out of date (or other reasons a reliable source might be wrong) due to original research such as an example I brought up early in the ATT discussions about a covered bridge that has three "reliable sources" and two said it was unused but it could be seen from a nearby highway (it was now on private land) that it was used and thus while "being used" could not be added, "being unused" was properly deleted as it now appeared due to a users comment that that data was probably out of date. And no I don't want to argue about it. WAS 4.250 02:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, does Jewish-American belong in the lead sentence

Of the Marty Glickman article? It seems like the article does a good job of fleshing of the sorrid details of his discrimination ect. I even suggestted some mention of this in the lead? Anyways, thanks --Tom 03:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC) ps would you also check out user:Epeefleche contributions. He has added ethnicity to most Jewish baseball players in a way that doesn't read well, imho. Cheers.

Are your ears burning?

[18] Say it ain't so buddy!! -- Kendrick7^talk 04:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Charles Peirce

I wonder if you'd care to put in an administrative comment regarding the current discussion at Talk:Charles_Peirce#Franks_Valli_Has_Born_False_Witness? It appears some explaining may need to be done about WP policy. Thanks, Kenosis 14:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a check-user on User:Created Equal? This user has an approach that appears identical to User:Jon Awbrey. Thanks again. ... Kenosis 17:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Abu ali

Hey, I figured you could tell me if I'm overly-sensitive or over-reacting to his user page. I contacted him regarding his list of zionist leaders a while ago and that was when he changed it from a "list" to a "list of articles i watch." [19] It seems to me that the rewording is just a way to sort of bypass what isn't allowed. I think it's quite obvious for anyone to see the common denominator of these people and although it's doing this indirectly, it is, in a way, saying, "Zionism is bad. Look at all these horrible Zionist people and what they did, zionists=criminals." at least IMHO. I don't like any of these people myself, by the way. Thanks in advance, Yonatan (contribs/talk) 13:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Banned user Jon Awbrey

Is there anything that can be done about this? You blocked his sock User:And Dedicated To a couple hours ago, and now he is back with another one, User:Zelda Zilwaukee restoring his text to Charles Peirce as usual. (Note the similarity to his already blocked sockpuppet User:Amy Zilwaukee). --Blainster 20:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:MiddleEastern

Hi Jayjg. Could I ask you to take another look at the User:MiddleEastern case? You indef blocked this user earlier today as a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of User:Frogsprog. I suspect that there may be a little more to the story here. Looking at the edit histories of the two accounts, I don't see anything in common - though I may have missed something. What's more MiddleEastern is claiming to be using an IP anonymizing service to edit with and it may well be that Frogsprog used the same service.

Now, I'm not a big fan of MiddleEastern (see that user's recently failed RfA for example), but this story rings true to me. I think it might be in order to give the user another chance. That said, obviously we couldn't allow MiddleEastern back while they are using the anonymizer. In fact we should block the underlying IP as an open proxy whatever happens. But if I could persuade MiddleEastern to stop using the anonymizer, would you be prepared to lift the indef block? I'll undertake to keep an eye on this user.

If there's more to this case than I am seeing, let me know. Thanks for the consideration, Gwernol 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet block to review

User talk:Keeppower needs your input, pending if it is a behavioural case or one involving checkuser. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you have your own cranks but...

My user page has been vandalised by User:Thumperward using a certain sock [[20]] - check out the coincidental intrest in "Cunningham" in recent days by "both" users. This is ironic since I was trying to reason with him about how to describe the Glenn Greenwald Sock-puppetry scandal (covered in the MSM) only gaining a promise that he would "delete on sight due to BLP".

I find the homophobic remarks by this user particularly offensive. How should I deal with this situation? David Spart 16:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as none of this is true, what's the score on having these allegations removed once the checkip comes back with nothing? This user has added this allegation to a half-dozen pages now, and I'm not keen on having it stick around. Chris Cunningham 19:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Behavior from User:Kirbytime

I saw you had some interactions with Kirbytime of which he made a mention here. He has made personal attacks on me and other users before. He said "GTFO" here which means "Get the Fuck out", as I discovered from the Internet. Also, he said to Noogster "you dont own the fucking template", while leaving a heading of WP:DICK in the Title of his message. So we can see this is his normal way of talking to people. If he is abusive and uncivil again, I hope he will be blocked for some time. I think he will fix his behavior now that I have highlighted his abuses, but he may return to his old self later. Just to let you know that I had experienced the same kind of hostility as you probably did while dealing with him. This is definitely an abusive and intimidating user just waiting for a block.--Matt57 17:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Uninformative edit summaries

Jay, could I ask you to be more forthcoming in your edit summaries? Your last edit to Pallywood was a straight reversion with the summary "restore sensible version", without explaining why you consider it to be "sensible". It would be helpful if you could give your reasons for undoing an edit - I'm sure Coroebus would appreciate it if you could provide an explanation on Talk:Pallywood of why you find his edits unacceptable. I'd be interested to know too. -- ChrisO 21:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

you're close to 3rr on Kevin B. MacDonald

I'm not going to do the template thing, but you've reverted three times now. Maybe we should let others weigh in?--Media anthro 21:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime

Jay,

With regard to your comments here, I believe it constitutes a personal attack to misrepresent an opponent's reductio ad absurdum arguments in order to suggest that the opponent is a Holocaust denier. Have I misunderstood something? CJCurrie 21:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On a related matter, could you please address the concerns raised here? Thank you. CJCurrie 21:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, I already did. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that your "summary" of Kirbytime's remarks was a distortion. It's almost unbelieveable to me that you'd try to shield yourself in this manner, after the fact. CJCurrie 22:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I know no such thing, and I didn't "summarize" his remarks. It's almost unbelievable to me that you would make that accusation. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Read this. Is Quadell "unbelievable" as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How else should I interpret this, where you selectively quoted an obviously facetious statement (or did you miss the quotation marks in the original?) as though it represented the poster's actual opinions? CJCurrie 22:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

When someone says the Holocaust is "alleged", then it's hardly clear that he doesn't also consider it a "political epithet", even when he encloses it in quotation marks. His subsequent refusals to clarify his views did nothing for his (or your) case. Now, why don't you sweep through that Talk: page, gather up the dozens of personal attacks made against me on it, and go warn the various people who made them about it? Otherwise one might think that your focus on me was singular and personal. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime has clarified his views, more than once (for instance, here). To your second point, you should be aware that I came across this matter via your statements on the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid page, which were obviously intended to portray Kirbytime's statements as something they were not. CJCurrie 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No, he has not "clarified his position". You are well aware of what he said and what he meant. Your defence of Kirbytime is very disturbing. You should really think about what kind of people you want to defend. David Spart 23:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this. CJCurrie 01:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion from a few days back

If I am not mistaken, it seems like you did not get around to resolving the discussion that took place in Talk: Judaism and evolution about me and the blanket revert that took place. I have no problem when people revert some of my edits because the content may be questionable, but not when the user that reverted thinks that anything Judaism-related that I touch with a ten-foot pole is bound to spontaneously combust. You simply may have not gotten around to it yet and I need to give you more time, or you have a reason for not responding that I am not aware of. Please let me know if possible. Shabat shalom. Noogster 22:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Another one

I'm starting to feel a bit beaten down in the whole "let's only mention religion if it's relevant" debate, but if you're feeling bored you might want to add your thoughts to a silly discussion I'm having on the talk:Joshua Bolten page. And this is even after I made their case for them! Keep up the good fight on the Lewis Libby thing. Notmyrealname 23:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Would you mind checking out this? Khoikhoi 05:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent block of MiddleEastern

Hello. You recently blocked MiddleEastern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and they have asked to be unblocked. You have indicated that he is a checkuser-confirmed sock of Frogsprog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but this appears slightly implausible: Frogsprog normally vandalises Korea-related content, while this guy is fixated on the Middle East. He says he's using some sort of IP masker to leech BBC videos, which according to him has caused the checkuser to be positive. Now I guess MiddleEastern would have eventually wound up blocked anyway for his generally disruptive attitude, but... could you comment on why you think this is Frogsprog? Thank you, Sandstein 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, there is a growing debate on the certainty that MiddleEastern is a sock of Frogspog, both in on her talkpage and at AN/I. Your input would be most welcome. Thanks. Rockpocket 00:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Panairjdde again?

May you please check this User:Francis Escort? He seems to be yet another Panairjdde sockpuppet, at least for the contibutions he made at U.S. Città di Palermo and others. Thanks. --Angelo 09:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Charles Peirce (-again)

I'd like to call to your attention that it appears you have protected the article in the form that is disputed by virtually all editors except Jon Awbrey and his sockpuppets. Perhaps it would be sensible to revert to the last version by SlimVirgin or the last version you were at when you tried to protect earlier, since there appears to be no talk-page resolution to the issues involved that would satisfy all of Jon Awbrey's sockpuppets. ... Kenosis 13:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:And Seven, another of Jon's sockpuppets, caught it just a few minutes before you protected it. ... Kenosis 14:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, my mistake. It's now back at a fairly reasonable version of somewhat reasonable length and without the obscure technical table and such (the 62kB version). Thanks. ... Kenosis 14:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC) And, thanks very much for your many efforts both here and throughout the wiki. ... Kenosis 14:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So your going to continue to ignore me

I have asked you 4 times now to remove the ban on Kurt Nimmo. This article as it stands contains inaccurate information in it. Nowhere in the Blog entry cited does Kurt Nimmmo deny the Holocaust or endorse David Irving. If one wishes to cirticize Nimmo for statements he makes in the blog fine, but it is slander to call him a Holocaust Denier.

Your continued refusal to respond to my post's makes the suspicious parts of my nature tingle. It makes me think that you and Isarig are in a conspiracy too defame Nimmo. Please respond.annoynmous 23:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

We've come to a kind of compromise. We've agreed to include the entry, but have it say what the entry actually say's. We have a disagreement about exactly where in the article to place it. I want it in the External links section because I feel it isn't relevant to main article. Isarig disagrees and wants it in the main article.

I have commented before that I feel it's unfair to block the article with Isarig's version of the article intact because it puts Isarig in the position of power. He can keep arguing with me until I submit to what he wants the article to be. If I try and stand firm on something he can just say that we haven't reached a consensus and the block remains with his version of the article intact and he can wait until I agree with his version of it.

I have said before that I will make a solemn vow to not violate the 3rr rule and try to keep the edit waring to a minimum. If I do either of these things you can fill free to reinstall the block. However, as long as I stick to these standards I feel it would be better to let me a isarig work it out on our own honestly where one of us isn't at a disadvantage.

I would also like the banned lifted on Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair for the same reasons.

annoynmous 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't come to consensus because Isarig won't accept any of my proposals. All I'm asking for is a little window of time where the block can be lifted and we can work on it by ourselves. If the edit waring gets too bad or I violate the 3rr rule feel free to put the block back up. Please just give me chance. If I screw it up feel free to put the block back on.annoynmous 00:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I really need your help!

Could you have a look at these articles and their talk? --Metzenberg 03:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Jewish reactions to intelligent design
• Jewish opposition to evolution

I feel the articles are extremely well sourced and balanced. I'd like somebody else to remove the tags. Please look at my last versions, because I have run up against somebody from the evolution/creation universe who wants to troll around for lehakholis (Aramaic word, you might be able to guess what it means).

Jay, I really need your help here. ZayZayEM is engaging in troll-like behavior, such as making edits on the very materials I am editing, removing materials immediately after I add them, and so forth. It is a harassment pattern that extends across multiple articles. The main articles involved are:

* Jewish reactions to intelligent design

* Jewish opposition to evolution

* Natan Slifkin

It is bizarre behavior, because I can see no reason why he is even interested in this material. As you and I both know, it is material you have to really understand well to edit. Over the last week, I have substantially rearranged all the materials on Judaism and evolution in an effort to clean up the main Judaism and Evolution page first of all, so that it can be turned into a page that is not dominated by issues (such as the Slifkin affair) that would have undue weight. ZayZayEM has simply made it impossible for me to work. He has followed me from one article to another, demanding arbitrary changes. many of his edits, and his changes, show that he knows very little about the subject, which as you and I both know, is quite abstruse at times. --Metzenberg 16:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Palestine. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. The image caption was not meant as an expression of POV, and your assertion of POV-pushing is both misplaced and offensive. Please leave out the snarky remarks in future - they're not helpful. -- ChrisO 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

BhaiSaab

Since you seem to have been involved on the technical side regarding BhaiSaab and His Excellency's sockpuppets (or alleged sockpuppets), you may want to comment on this thread here:

Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#BhaiSaab_and_His_excellency

There is some confusion over whether BhaiSaab really did sock, and whether or not he deserves the indefinite ban he is now under. (There is no such confusion over His Excellency, however). - Merzbow 03:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Heeeeelp me Jay!

I have no idea how to to file the right kind of request for comment or mediation or arbitration, or whatever. I have a determined troll following me around "proceduring" me to death. He has been following me around through a series of articles that I have been working on, constantly editing things while I am in the process of editing them too, demending changes, moving things around.

• Jewish reactions to intelligent design
• Jewish opposition to evolution
• Natan Slifkin

One of the big problems, frankly, is that the topics I am working on require some knowledge of Hebrew and a lot of knowledge of Jewish philosophy and theology. This editor, who knows nothing about these matters, is simply creating one stumbling block after another, always citing some wikipedia procedure. He appears to be going to my contributions file to see what I am working on, and then going there to mess something up.

I frankly don't want to know all the Wikipedia policies and procedures. I want to write. I've been doing so for about a year, and so far, I've been very happy with it. I've asked him to back away. I asked him to come back and edit the article later in the day, or in the evening. I've offered for both of us to leave and come back in a week, to allow some other writer a chance to work.

Wikipedia needs contributors who are writers, who know a subject well, who do careful research work in the subject and write well balanced and thoroughly sourced articles. I am such a person. I don't claim authority in any field, like an advanced degree. (I do have an advanced degree, I just don't claim that it matters here on Wikipedia.)

What I can do is easy to see from what I have done. I have started dozens of articles, and never had one deleted, working some of them through to completion. Many of them are on serious scholarly topics. I enjoy writing. I don't claim to "own" these articles. If I wanted that, I would write somewhere under my own name.

What happened to me over the last few days was an incident of procedural harassment. I have never experienced anything like it. User:ZayZayEM has been following me around through a group of articles that I have been working on, creating a long series of procedural problems. Each time, he cites some Wikipedia policy for why he is right.

I'm not interested in arguing about Wikipedia policy X or Y. I am interested in writing. I am not interested in going thourgh some kind of elaborate Wikipedia arbitration determination procedure, in which we somehow determine who was right.

It's very simple. There are 1,697,000 articles on Wikipedia that this person could be working on, and most of them do need work. User:ZayZayEM could be working on any one of them, but instead, he chooses to harass me.

Looking at his recent logs, his last RfC was a few days ago. I've never had one. I didn't even know what an RfC was until a few days ago. This user is simply looking for fights.

If I'm supposed to go to some kind of arbitration panel and write some kind of elaborate defense or request, I'm outta here. I'm not interested in spending time doing that. I've never bothered to figure out how to cite logs, and I don't want to. User:ZayZayEM has presented an endless series of procedural hurdles, and such a process would be more of the same, and a complete waste of time. I'm sure that once the process was finished, he would be back to more of the same.

He knows nothing about the topics that I am trying to write about. I would welcome a collaborator or two who does, but this fellow isn't that collaborator. He simply creates endless headaches. Each time, he cites the wikipedia policy under which he is of course "right," but if I then try the same thing back, or try to suggest something else, there is some other Wikipedia policy under which he is also right.

I've read that Wikipedia is interested in the product, not the process. Well this user is obsessed with the process, and presents endless hurdles to improving the product.

If your answer is that I'm supposed to file wiki-dot-colon-xxxcite-procedure and wait for a wiki-xxxxarb-med-committee to volunteer to handle the case, my answer is no. That's his game, not mine. I'm sure he is good at it too. --Metzenberg 04:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am being stalked!

Jay,

I have attracted the attention of a Wikipedia stalker, so I have decided that I am finished with this. Wikipedia needs a policy on stalking, which is where some person obsessively follows you around, trying to disrupt your activities.

I have e-mail enabled, which allows you to contact me through sending me an email.

I can't be active on Wikipedia when I am being followed by a stalker. My stalker has an amazing knowledge of wikipedia policies and procedures for someone who, according to edit logs, has been active for just over a month. He has been here before, with other identities, and he has other identities. He is likely an administrator, perhaps under some other identity.

I have asked for an administrator to lock and close my user page and hide my contributions log. I naively had such information as my real identity available on my user page. I don't want to be stalked.

I am asking Wikipedia to take these measures to protect my identity. I must warn that, while I hate the idea of this, Wikipedia could be sued by someone in the future who suffers from harassment by another member. It won't be me, because I don't file lawsuits, but I now realize that this community is susceptible to such tampering. So I am recommending that Wikipedia look carefully at its policies, and also at its own administrators.

Would a high level administrator please lock my user page and hide my contributions log.

Thank you! and goodbye. --Metzenberg 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Anthroposophy

Since you have participated decision making about anthroposophy, I have to ask you to read through my comments in Talk:Anthroposophy#About anthroposophical sources, please. I'm sorry that I was at first unaware what an arbitration is. Erdanion 14:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Osli73

Since Osli's block ended March 14, he has resumed reverting the same sentence in the intro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Edit_this_section_for_new_requests

Fairview360 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

have you ever notice how...

Discussion of the Middle-East conflicts always degrades into a semantic debate, largely because far-left and far-right arguments rely on the pathologization of otherwise uncontroversial words?--Urthogie 17:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

blood libel

For the first time ever, I disagreed with you to the extent of reverting one of your edits. A single link to the article on Toaff is not undue weight. I discussed the rationale on the article talk page. We all are disgusted that it happened, but he has made himself prominent. Even as one critic, it cant be ignored. One 18th c. critic, sure. but not a contemporary one with worldwide newspaper coverage. DGG 10:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree "undue" is relevant, and is sufficient to justify not discussing his work in detail in the blood libel article--it is probably also sufficient for not even mentioning what it is in that article. But as the latest person to publish a widely noticed book on the subject, I think a bare cross reference to his page is called for. (Alternatively a one-line summary and the link). I think we want to provide pathways between articles like this, for I think someone might possibly want to find the work and remember the subject but not the name. It's pretty minimal, and I think it does not violate "undue"--there is a tendency to think what one doesn't approve of to be unimportant, and I think its better to err on the side of making the reference. As for his actual work, I haven't read the book yet, but from published reports I am unclear if he has changed his mind about his theory, or just about the wisdom of publishing. DGG 02:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Panairjdde, once again

Hello, Jayjg. I mentioned him to you a week or two ago, but there is no longer much remaining doubt that User:Francis_Escort is a Panairjdde sock (See [21] for latest RFCU results). Is there anything that you or anyone else can do to faciliate a permanent block on the serial sockpuppetry from his known IP addresses? I haven't been able to identify the proper channels for dealing with users like this in a post-block context. Dppowell 18:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah well. I guess we'll keep playing Whac-A-Mole, then! Dppowell 02:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

User:GrayToday is the latest. Filing a RFCU now. Dppowell 15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

User:TermsThey as well. Added to the RFCU. Dppowell 18:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You know there have been users, including myself, who have been blocked just because Panairjdde had game the system. Is there any chance all the blocks he has caused being wiped off the record? Kingjeff 13:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

A great deal of collaboration went into this revision, and then SlimVirgin showed up and undid it without any effort to participate (and apparently without reading the relevant discussion).
I attempted to discuss this with SlimVirgin, and I waited more than two hours for her to respond. She completely ignored my reply (while continuing to edit both the project page and the talk page).
Now you've joined her in appearing out of nowhere and reverting hours of cooperative work with nothing more than a "this is how it should be"-style post (and without any indication that you familiarized yourself with the reasoning behind these changes). —David Levy 06:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the discussion, didn't agree with most of it, and took into account who was making it as well, and for what purpose. The poll needs to see who agrees with the move in principle first. Claiming that that question is in some way "vague" only serves to discredit the person who says it, not the question itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Are you saying that you possess the authority to overrule opinions with which you disagree?

2. As noted on the talk page, the question currently labeled "3" asks exactly the same thing without without forcing respondents to select one of the extreme outcomes. The question that you restored is 100% redundant, discourages compromise, and needlessly complicates an otherwise simple poll. —David Levy 06:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

David, I say what I mean. Please don't put words in my mouth. As for you, SMcCandlish, there was no consensus to remove that question. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Okay, what did you mean by the above remarks? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so please provide the needed elucidation.

2. The question was removed by Jossi (who was its strongest proponent until being persuaded to reconsider the situation). Where is the consensus for its inclusion? —David Levy 06:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Faisal of Saudi Arabia

Jayjg, please see this article, should you find the time, for an example of what we are dealing with these days.Proabivouac 06:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Commons media in English wikipedia categories

Commons media are for the use of all wikipedia sites worldwide. The English wikipedia category pages for those commons media list the English wikipedia pages on which those commons media are used.

The commons page for a particular image does not list the English wikipedia pages on which that image is being used.

Sometimes better images are uploaded that can replace lesser-quality images. Without the list of English-language wikipedia pages it would be very difficult to find and replace a particular image on multiple English-language wikipedia pages.

There are images in English wikipedia categories that would not be accepted in the commons. Gif images, fair use images, etc.. So the link to the commons category allows for more public-domain images to be used in English wikipedia pages.

The existence of the English wikipedia category allows for links to be made to the commons category of the same name. So English wikipedia editors then know of the additional commons media available to them. Those images are sometimes better, as explained previously. Oftentimes there is a larger selection of images at the commons.

The existence of the English wikipedia category also allows a logical location for links to the English wikipedia subcategories.

Not all commons images are suitable for placement in English wikipedia categories. Images captioned in other languages for example.

As many others have done I put some of the English-language commons images in the English wikipedia categories. This saves editors time in finding images. Because they don't have to click many commons images to open them up and see what language is used on the image.

It is common for a map or media to be in several categories. There are many examples of this. Maps, for example, often show several nations, territories, etc..

Tewfik today added categories to some maps. So he left those maps in several categories.--Timeshifter 09:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"User:Jayjg tactic"

I've warned you about these kinds of violations of WP:CIVIL before: [22] (see #"User Jayjg's policy" above). This will be your last warning. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Last warning" huh? And what happens next time I question and/or expose your (often times) unethical/biased 'editing tactics'? Too terse, too brief, often rude, unworthy, unexplained, and pathetically unsubstantiated "responses" (either in the edit summary, but mostly on talk pages) does indeed seem to be a 'tactic' that you and others use in order to silence debate on a particular edit/topic/issue (trust me though: you're not the only admin. that uses this 'tactic,' though you are among the worst offenders). I'm just stating the facts, Sir -- I can't help but tell the truth, especially when it comes to the wrongdoings/shortcomings (and clear bias) of people in 'positions of authority' (is an administrator position on a 2nd-rate internet encyclopedia even considered a real 'position of authority'?). Sometimes the truth hurts a little bit (though I obviously didn't intend the "User:Jayjg tactic" comment to be a personal insult, it was more like constructive criticism). After all you've been through here on Wikipedia, surely you can handle a non-issue as minor as this? --WassermannNYC 14:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a request for arbitration

You are allowed to make a statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Metzenberg-ZayZayEM

Please review the record and feel free to comment. --Metzenberg 16:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also entered proposal for a compromise on Talk:Jewish reactions to intelligent design. If my proposal is accepted by User:ZayZayEM and User:Guettarda I will withdraw this request for arbitration, and we can consider this resolved. I have informed them. --Metzenberg 01:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Panairjdde crossed a line with me this evening when he began vandalizing my userpage. Now I'm annoyed.

I have created a page intended to help organize volunteers to monitor Panairjdde's sockpuppetry, with my thinking being that his ban has been ineffective as a means of preventing him from editing. Several of his socks have enabled him to enjoy editing privileges for weeks at a time.

I would like your feedback on this effort; particularly on ways that such an effort might be prohibited under Wikipedia policy. What I'm proposing could be perceived as "mob justice," but my response to that would be that any volunteers are assisting in the enforcement of an existing ban. We're trying to provide extra eyes for the administrator corps. Thoughts? Dppowell 02:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yourhelp

Yourhelp in making this: [23] as NPOV as possible is appriciated. Zeq 06:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that you (Jayjg) leave this article alone. I follow my own guidance there aswell... --Asucena 15:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

New Antisemitism

Hi Jayjg,

It seems that there is no consensus on unblocking the page. If there is no disagreements over my suggested addition here [24], I'll go ahead and ask some admin to add this to the article. --Aminz 09:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested a proposal here [25]. I added what I found to be the main argument of Laquer in the other side as well. --Aminz 07:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Your standpoint

Dear Jayjg,

There is little doubt in my mind that you are staunchly pro-Israel and have yet to provide any real reasoning for your guarding of the Hamas and PNA articles. Myself and a colleague with our judicial profiling service have serious doubts over your motivations here. Whilst it is beyond me to request you to justify yourself, and the PNA has no jurisdiction in cyberspace, I would however indicate that you may be violating the Wikipedia policies. I await your reply --Asucena 15:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

...for expressing your support on my Talk page. I think it's going to take us a little while to get organized, but I'm cautiously optimistic about our chances for success. Dppowell 03:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I did notice his new sock decoration of choice. You know what they say about imitation... ;) Dppowell 04:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Chełmno extermination camp

Hi Jayjg. Someone has moved the article Chełmno extermination camp to Kulmhof extermination camp, which is a far less well-known name for the same place. I think it should be moved back as I explain here: Talk:Kulmhof extermination camp#Chełmno extermination camp. If you agree, could you revert the move? As I understand it, I shouldn't do it by cutting and pasting to preserve the page history. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm possibly too pedantic here, but the 'L' in the name has a Polish accent on it: 'ł'. Should it be moved to 'Chełmno extermination camp', which is where most incoming links go to? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Latest known Panairjdde sock

User:GuideEggs Dppowell 02:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Now confirmed by CheckUser. Dppowell 17:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

New Jon Awbrey sock

JA is now editing as User:Samboner, and once again expanded Charles Peirce by 32k. --Blainster 16:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

2004 Madrid train bombings

This article and attendant talk page discussion could use really use your imput, if you have a moment. --Mantanmoreland 19:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Israel Shahak poll

Please vote in the poll for replacing the Praise, Criticism and Accusations sections with a short summary. Your opinion is much valued. Thanks. Itayb 22:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

More Jon Awbrey?

Is this more Jon Awbrey? He also nominated content for deletion. - Denny 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And here. - Denny 22:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing that I have not done...

...is to accuse any of my opponents in this debate of acting in bad faith. As strongly as I disagree with you, I trust that you're doing what you feel is best for the community. I only ask the same in return. —David Levy 01:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're doing this in good faith, David, but at some point it crosses a line. WP:ATT was conceived of as a way of reducing 3 pages to 1. It became policy after many months of discussion. Then Jimbo raised concerns, and said he would like to gauge Wikipedia opinion as to whether the 3 pages should have been merged or not. Now you say you want other options, completely unrelated to that (and, in fact diametrically opposed to that), otherwise Wikipedians aren't being "given a choice". Whether you realize it or not, whether in good faith or not, you've crossed over the line from honest discussion to disruption. Step back a little, please, and think about this. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I do not dispute the fact that WP:ATT was conceived of as a way of reducing three pages to one. I dispute the idea that its authors' intent is sacrosanct.

2. Why are you claiming that I'm unilaterally causing "disruption"? Have you read the entire talk page? Numerous other editors have expressed this opinion, and a version of the poll containing these compromise options garnered significant support (and opposition) in the pre-poll poll.

3. The idea originated in comments made by Jimbo himself. If I'm not mistaken, he was the one who originally added such a compromise option to the poll. But perhaps I've misinterpreted Jimbo's wishes. Certainly, someone has (because it seems as though everyone is citing his remarks to support their arguments), so I've asked him to clarify. I agree to abide by whatever he says (even if it directly contradicts my preferences). Do you? —David Levy 02:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would sincerely appreciate a response. Do you honestly not see the comments from other editors who share my opinion? Was Jimbo trying to make a point when he added the compromise option "The current version of ATT is acceptable, RS/NOR/V should be explanatory" to the poll? Do you agree to adopt whichever format Jimbo sanctions? —David Levy 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review the fallacy of many questions. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What am I presupposing? You accused me of causing disruption (and defying Jimbo's wishes) by unilaterally arguing in favor of including such a compromise option in the poll. I've pointed out that numerous other editors have advocated this format and that Jimbo himself first suggested such an option and added it to the poll. I'm asking you to address these facts. —David Levy 19:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I still await a meaningful response. —David Levy 02:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Israeli Apartheid article

Hi Jayjg. Could you please keep an eye on Allegations of Israeli Apartheid ? Urthogie is trying to defend the pro-Israel viewpoint, and is generally making a lot of unwarranted edits. Apreciate if you could please take a look. You will see a section on the talk page where I had to disagree with him. Appreciate if you could pitch in. Thanks. --Sm8900 13:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

a question

What would you say if I dismissed some organization on the grounds that it was "staffed almost entirely by Jews"? --Zero^talk 11:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Hi there. I saw your edit immediately after mine, on this article. You removed text that I had tagged as citation needed. I had also commented in discussion that a quick search suggested that the text wasn't untrue in it's entirety; in fact it was primarily correct but needing just moderate alterations. I will of course move on to provide the citations. However, I would merely comment that in such situations it is prudent to allow people to see text needs citation and give them an opp to fix, especially when the text isn't just a mischievous POV stunt. When I put the citations feel free to fix them if I don't comply with the article format completely. Any comments just leave a messae for me on my talk page. Thanks. ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 07:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your abuse of speedy deletion

Please see WP:AN/I#Blatant abuse of speedy deletion by Jayjg. Your actions are completely unnecessary and unjustifiable, and your personal attack is unacceptable. -- ChrisO 08:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think his action of deleting a seriously 'POV pushing' image (and image title) was very justifiable and that your reaction is an interesting/puzzling one. Jaakobou 09:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Jay, please revert your deletion. The overwhelming view on AN/I is that it was well outside the boundaries of what is permitted by WP:SPEEDY. I will take it to DRV to be overturned if you don't sort this out yourself. -- ChrisO 18:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your question, I expect you to not misuse your admin privileges like that again - I will be uploading a new compromise version of the map which I hope will satisfy the objections that have been raised, and I don't want to find that it's been "disappeared" in the middle of the night without any explanation. If you have a view, please express it on the talk page and not through arbitrary use of the deletion command. -- ChrisO 19:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you help

Ian refused mediation and just edit waring:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni&diff=119551860&oldid=119525594

can you help ?

what should be the next logical step to deal with this issue ? can you help re-ward it better Zeq 20:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Jayjg, as much as you want to support your friends, there is nothing in this page that constitutes speedy deletion, or even deletion. I ask you to review: Wikipedia:Attack_pages, most notably:

It should be noted that this guideline is not meant to apply to formal good faith reports on a user's conduct or pattern of behavior made in accord with policy. For example, a request for comment filed in good faith would not be considered an attack page.

Surely, since informal mediation is considered valid and helpful, then why wouldn't this page fit? --Otheus 11:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tor softblock request

I live in China and have to use Tor. You've blocked me:

This account or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Jayjg for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

TOR proxy

Your IP address is 204.13.236.244.

Please change this to a soft block. (See WP:TOR#Request a softblock.) —Babelfisch 06:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Same for this one:

This account or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Jayjg for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

TOR proxy

Your IP address is 87.230.18.148.

Please change these to a soft block, or tell me where to take this issue. —Babelfisch 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm blocked again:

This account or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Jayjg for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

TOR proxy being used for vandalism

Your IP address is 128.197.11.30.

Would you care to react to my requests?

Please change these blocks so signed-in users can edit. —Babelfisch 06:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I saw you've just posted a comment here: Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy # Softblock for Tor proxies. I strongly disagree, but that can be discussed there. —Babelfisch 07:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers. - Michael Billington (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Shahak

Itayb is futzing with the article and re-adding the misinformation you corrected. He and Abu Ali are ganging up on me on the talk page, calling me a Jewish fundamentalist, etc., so I'm pulling out of the article per WP:CALM. Perhaps you can fix things up. -- THF 21:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Katz versus Pappe

I have almost no time for WP. You asked about Katz and Pappe. They are hard to compare directly so I'll add two more villains. One can note about Pappe that:

1. He has a PhD in the right field from a prestigious university.
2. He holds an academic position in the right field at a prestigious university.
3. He has published extensively in the peer-reviewed literature.
4. He is cited regularly and widely in the peer-reviewed literature.
5. Many, though not all, of the citations in the peer-reviewed literature from the mainstream (those from the political extremes can be ignored) are negative.
6. He often writes in a polemic fashion, especially in the past 10 years.
7. He has come to be known as a political activist with a position that many, though not all, regard as extreme.

All of those attributes, both positive and negative, apply to Ilan Pappe and also to (say) Ephraim Karsh. There is no doubt that both of them pass the requirements to be a Wikipedia Reliable Source. On the other hand, I would not personally cite either of them when a less-controversial source is available, except maybe to illustrate what the range of professional opinion is. In the latter case it would usually require "according to ..." or similar.

On the other hand, Shmuel Katz:

1. Has no higher degree.
2. Never held an academic position.
3. Never published in the peer-reviewed literature.
4. Is almost never cited in the peer-reviewed literature, and the few citations that exist are negative (to the extent of my knowledge).
5. Has been actively employed as a propagandist most of his life (not just that he writes propagandistically, but that "propagandist" was his job description).
6. Even sources on his side of the political spectrum (JVL and Irgun web site) call him a propagandist.
7. Well known as a politician of the political extremes.

There is only a small intersection with Pappe. Someone similar on the left would be the anti-Zionist journalist Jeff Blankfort, who also publishes books with the overt appearance of history books but actually full of unreliable claims with a clear political purpose. Neither Katz nor Blankfort are Wikipedia Reliable Sources, so they should only be cited in matters related to themselves, or if there is a need to illustrate the extremes of popular political opinion on something. Certainly they should never be cited on issues of fact. That's my opinion. --Zero^talk 10:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

More Jon Awbrey socks

Here are a couple more: User:Diverting Internet Gossip Dress Up Game and User:Semi Virgil along with some IP talk page messages that he reverted, perhaps they were used by him?: [26], [27], [28]. --Blainster 18:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Does that man have no life? Jayjg, I am so sorry you spend waste so much time on this guy... oh, and please consider archiving your talk page, thankee muchly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick answer

Hello.
Just thought I'd answer this here, since it isn't entirely related to the incident itself (and I have a tendency to go off on too many tangents in AN/I). First, being an employee of the government (controlled by Hamas), and being a volunteer for Hamas do not necessarily add up to being an employee of Hamas. (Anymore than a person who's pro-Conservative and currently employed by the canadian government is an employee of the Conservative party of canada) Not that that part really matters very much. :)
However, "she is employed as part of her PR duties to edit Wikipedia" certainly looks like an accusation that she is being paid to edit articles. Of course, it may not have been your intent to suggest that, but it very much looked that way. (You can reply here or on my own talk page, or simply delete this if you aren't terribly interested) Bladestorm 20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh... the giant text really wasn't necessary...

It's actually kinda insulting... You implied that she was being paid to edit articles. Her statement didn't state that. I'm not illiterate, and you really don't need to treat me as such. You don't see me using really big words or typing really short words for you, do you? Bladestorm 03:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)