Thanks for visiting my Talk: page.
If you are considering posting something to me, please: *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting. |
Talk archives |
The Ebionites article has been nominated for Featured Article. You are invited to show your support or suggest further improvements to the article. Ovadyah 07:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey jay, I was wondering if you could fix it so that teleosts redirects to Teleostei instead of Actinopterygii (which is the current situation). It is a pretty minor thing but it is kinda annoying. Thank you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not worth blocking, but Panairjdde popped in earlier today on 81.211.195.151. Dppowell 15:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Pretty sure User:Anriz is him; I filed the RFCU. Dppowell 16:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Since we've become hopelessly entangled in an edit-war, i've requested comment from the community. Itayb 19:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
What did you do here? Voretus 15:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jayig, I need your help. REDVERS, one of the Administrators that is working with the Fellowship of Friends page, left me the following message:
I wrote to REDVERS but he didn't reply to me. Do you know how can I find out who the sock pupeteers are based on this and this? Thanks a lot! Mario Fantoni 18:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been around, just kinda incommunicado. Since I'm here, have you seen this? Interesting timing, I think, on the nomination, and the rationales being put into supporting it are, I think, rather poorly-considered. Your thoughts would be welcome, I'm sure. There are probably multiple threads about the nomination on wikirev wikiwatch and whatever עמלק's forum site is... Cheers, Tomertalk 03:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate if in the future when you revert you not use the edit summary "tidying." A new user might forget to assume good faith and accuse of being deceptive. We would not want that. KazakhPol 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand your last post. Are you referring to the comment immediately above this? That was directed to SlimVirgin. I am fixing the formatting to make that clear in this edit. Please, if she missed that, point it out to her. I want an inane response about how I should not insult Mrs. Amal. KazakhPol 05:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your understanding. I wish Wikipedia had more kind souls. It would be so much more entertaining. KazakhPol 05:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg. The entry entitled "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is currently locked due to various edit conflicts and issues. I would like to invite you to add your comments to my comments on the article's talk page, to indicate our overall disagreement with this article's distorted outlook, and its use of such a loaded word to misrepresent Israel's position and actions. Thanks. --Sm8900 18:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you mean for the 12.75.40.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) block to not be AO? We have an unblock-en-L complaint from what appears to be a collateral damage editor who wants to know what's going on. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 01:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
When you locked the battle of Thermopylae page it was after referenced material that the Persian army was over 300,000 was deleted. Could you please remove the protection or at least allox a restoration of the referenced material? Ikokki 09:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
We're in the middle of improving the article, I don't think that when you locked it there was a rv-war going on. Sure there's editors with nationalist motives who will always be causing trouble. On the other hand there are also editors like Ikokki, myself and Jagged who are making contributions to the article in a serious level, and we preferred that it remains unlocked. Miskin 12:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Jay. I'm concerned by one (if not more) of the external links in the Ariel Toaff article, in particular the one entitled "Jews Still Use Christian Blood to Bake Passover Matzos". The interview is repellent in the extreme, and I'm inclined to delete it without a second thought, but in light of episodes like the continuing Katz debacle at Palestinian refugee, Palestinian exodus and UNRWA, I'm really at sea with the question of what's includible -- or, more importantly, what's deletable: whatever the guidelines say, the threshold for inclusion seems to have fallen so low that demonstrating that some rubbish was actually published in a verifiable source is deemed sufficient to justify putting it in an article -- the rest is treated as a content dispute: I've got my sources, you've got yours: see you in (wiki)court. It's rather dispiriting, I have to say. At any rate, what to do about the link in question? --Rrburke(talk) 13:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Since you all are discussing Toaff here, why not try to offer your rationale as to why the mere mention of his name is constantly removed from the Blood libel against Jews article when it is so obviously relevant to the subject matter? I even tried comprising by placing his name in a "See also" section, yet that too was removed. So what's going on here? I mean, it's not like this guy is a Neo Nazi or Muslim extremist or anything like that...he is a PROFESSOR (an Israeli professor!) that wrote a SCHOLARLY book on the subject, yet still all reference to him (however brief) is methodically removed from the page. It wouldn't be censorship would it? --Wassermann 05:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, Jay. I think I recall you saying that you speak/read Hebrew. If that's the case and you have a moment, could you have a quick look at the Hebrew-only site yigal-amir.com, which links from the Yigal Amir article, to assess whether it's an appropriate external link for WP? --Rrburke(talk) 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I see that you protected Juan Cole. Could you please post a note on the talk page or on Armon's user talk page asking him to engage in the discussion or in the [mediation] that I requested? The edit war is over a minor issue, but he is incredibly stubborn about it; he refuses to engage in the discussion on the talk page (other than to make unsubstantiated assertions about OR that are manifestly untrue) and he has ignored my attempt to compromise and my attempt to pursue mediation. csloat 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I come to you with hat-in-hand concerning our recent discussions at Talk:David Irving. My apology is concerning two things I said: First, in my asking you to look at my references when you had, in fact, already commented on them. Second, in my saying that you had "moved the target", when in fact you were consistent all along with your stated position. I take pride in not being sloppy and not misrepresenting others' comments on accident or on purpose, so I feel a sense of shame. My sole excuse is that I was very tired; I came home early from a concert and instead of jumping into bed, jumped on you. Again, I apologize. --09:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
(PS: I haven't read your comments since signing off last night, and this apology doesn't change my disagreement with your position.) --Otheus 09:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
"not that big of a deal"[1]. Yes, indeed! *uncontrollable laughter. Otheus 10:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I was about to file an RfC on an unrelated article, when I noticed the RfC on David Irving. Apparantly you forgot to make a section on the talk page and link to it, which I have done now: David Irving talk, link to talk section. Hope you don't mind. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 21:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to change anything I wrote on this page just put in a cite for each time you do. Also please read what mt cites first before jumping in. BernardZ 02:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
THIS IS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS!! SchmuckyTheCat IS THE ONE WHO DELETED AN ENTIRE SECTION (NOAH - POPULAR CULTURE) WITHOUT DISCUSSION!!! WHY DON'T YOU BLOCK HIM? ALL I AM DOING IS TRYING TO PREVENT HIS VANDALISM!! I TAKE OFFENSE AT BEING ATTACKED FOR TRYING TO STOP HIS VANDALISM. Musicman88
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/David Irving, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidudeman (talk • contribs) 22:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
Do you think this remark oversteps the bounds of WP:CIV? Tomertalk 22:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd want to contribute to the discussion on Template_talk:Israel-InfoBox#Request_for_Comment:_Israel.27s_area_figure_in_the_infobox. Isarig 02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. —AldeBaer 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Please explaint to me why you reverted my edits in "Kingdom of Judah", "Jewish Ethnic Divisions" and "Kingdom of Israel and Judah" and how they were in any way POV. Cheers -Kaliqx
Which part? The descendents from Israelites in general or Tribe of Israel in specific?
So saying that Jews are the descendents of Israelites is POV? I didn't realize that. It's like saying that the English are the descendents of the Angolos, Saxons and Jutes is POV. Give me a break, Jayjg. I didn't realize this kind of stuff needed a citation.
Hello. I was surprised to see that you unilaterally re-added the sources at that location even though that was not the result of the discussion at talk:Jerusalem#Please don't remove any references. Most of us think the endnotes are excessive, and suggested an alternative resolution to the problem you mentioned there. nadav 03:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You may feel that way, but you should not brush off people who disagree with you so cavalierly, justifying your changes only with quotes from Dr. Seuss. As one of the most prolific and experienced editors, I am sure you know that this is not the wikipedia way. Respectfully, nadav 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. We're obviously on the same page regarding the Libby thing. However, the tone of your recent postings to the talk page is really not helping. I've found that the best method in dealing with people like this is to take the high road. I don't think the other editor is making much headway in convincing other folks anyway. Cheers. Notmyrealname 18:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
When I began nominating Islamophilia for deletion, I ran into [2]. Apparently user Limboot created the page after it was already deleted. The article has all the same problems it used to have (i.e. WP:NEO and WP:ATT). I think the article should be deleted and salted. It seems that it was deleted at least twice, and recreated at least twice [3]. Also, user Limboot seems to be trolling. Please see [4] and [5]. I will revert my AfD nomination since I noticed that the page was already deleted.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you're stalking me, tracing the pages I've visited and the correspondence I've sent. I contacted other Users to get their opinion on the page instead of just butting heads with you.
Don't bother to leave pissy little warnings on my Userpage, either. I've tried reasoning with you on the subject already. MarkB2 04:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I took your advice, and posted my comments on the noticeboard, where they were promptly deleted by Jeffrey O. Gustafson [6]. Since I did this at your suggestion, I would appreciate it if you would intervene in the event that Mr. Gustafson deletes it again. --NathanDW 05:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Was going to correct "document film" to "documentary film" but found no edit tab. Seems you protected the page w/o putting the appropriate template in place. Which may also explain why it's still protected, 40 days later... That means it doesn't show up on the list of most stale protects, I suppose. Andyvphil 14:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You said my IP address has been vandalizing pages like Robot Chicken, Totalatarism, and Billboard hot 100.Honestly, I never touched those pages.TaylorLTD 22:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha 04:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
mind if I steal your nifty talk page header? BTW: I would like to apologize if you feel I insulted you personally at all, I got a little too heated but to make personal attacks was not ever my intention. VanTucky 05:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not violate 3RR. I made one initial edit, and three reverts back to that edit. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Please pay attention to 2006 Lebanon War. They've used capturing so we can use capturing too.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm asking you and a few others for input. I'm moderating a debate on an article. Seems there is a dispute as to whether secondary sources are valid and that hinges on whether the source's characterization of the following quote is accurate. How would you rate the following quotation, on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being completely neutral, 5 being completely anti-semitic:
If you need more context, just look in my contrib history. --Otheus 21:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Started an arb request here [9]. Hoping this will lead to a resolution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 23:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#"Jewish descent" versus Jew concerning the problems of using the term "Jewish descent" versus "Jew" as well as the related proposal. Thank you, IZAK 09:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Jay,
I read your talkpage comments:
I more or less agree with the first sentence, but not the second. We have an editor relatively new to the page, user:Urthogie who mass edits and restructures. I don't want to be Wiki-uncorrect, but everyone on that page, I believe, edits with a strong POV. His is not so far from yours. I don't say that to condemn. On the contrary, I think he really means well. But this editing style tears up the article (and then it becomes a free-for-all again. You are looking at the result). Is there some sort of mentoring, guidance, editing help, etc, that might be suggested to Urthogie? And if there is, it might be nice to find an uninvolved user, or even a user who Urthogies perceives to be 'on the same side' to make the suggestion.
Here are examples of what edit histories looks like after one of Urthogie's sessions: 20 consecutive edits in 3 hours, April 17 250 edits from March 28 through April 1, vast majority by Urthogie He even moves text in two edits (one for a cut, one for a paste), and he moves a lot. He shuffles, reshuffles, unshuffles. All the same, he's been a Wikipedian far longer than I have been (since 2004). Anyway, if there is anything you can do (or suggest) to help, it would be appreciated. I am not looking for an advantage here of any sort. This guy is capable of compromise. He just implements everything so fast, and so piecemeal.
Thank you. Jd2718 00:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
See User talk:216.165.158.7. Regards, Iamunknown 19:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe I've violated 3RR. Can you show me the diffs? Gatoclass 23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take your word for it. I'll revert my last change. Gatoclass 23:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned to SlimVirgin, you might want to check out this Signpost article. Is the external link appropriate? What should be done? – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The featured article candidate discussion of Jerusalem (archived here) has been restarted. Please check if the current version of the article has addressed your concerns, if any, and voice your opinion on the FAC at the current nomination. nadav 19:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed this "This edition of Mein Kampf sells many examples in Britain in areas with a large Arab population [10]" from the page on mein kampf for good reason. The link given to support the sentance, doesnt support it at all. The entire thing is baseless. Yet twice now its been restored!!!
Hi Jay, I'm currently in a Community enforceable mediation which centers on the question of what is, or isn't WP:OR. It has been suggested that I'm incorrect in what I feel is OR, so I would appreciate your comments here if you have the time. Thanks. <<-armon->> 03:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I count beside this one at least. I feel like reporting you for vandlism. Y Slrubenstein MPerel Humus sapiens
I have news for you Kosher laws are quite different between Christians and Jews much more so then between Jews and Jews. By the way all religious non Eastern European Jews can eat Jewish food.
I'm confused by this edit: [11]. You seem to have summarily overruled an AfD close by another admin. This seems quite unnacceptable- could you explain? Also your close doesn't really make sense to me- how can one merge an article that has already been deleted? If we merge content GDFL requires us to keep the old article with a redirect to the destination of the merge... WjBscribe 05:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of United States military aid to Israel. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jay: There is a mix-up going on, see User talk:Hmains#Duplicate category?. The guy is screwing things up. IZAK 09:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like an apology for your actions in reversing my AfD decision.
Perhaps I was wrong in my close, I don't think so, that's beside the point. I can accept that, when we feel strongly about certain subjects, our neutral perspective can go out the window. So, if that's what's happened here, I will bear no grudge.
--Docg 16:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
In case you need a source for the "partially occupied" dispute with User:A student of history, here is one from Benny Morris: "so long as the occupation or semi-occupation (more accurately) continues" and "restrictions of the continuing Israeli semi-occupation". He writes this in both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian narratives. --Shamir1 17:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You have apologised for overturning me without discussion or due process and for your dismissive edit summary. Thanks for that. I accept your apology, and consider the matters closed.
We strongly disagree about the proper interpretation of the AfD. Shrug. That's for DRV to decide between our positions.
I apologise if I have stated (not sure I have?) or even implied you were biased. Nevertheless, since justice must both be done and be perceived to have been done, you might consider that you have at least a perceived conflict of interests here. Thus, your being bold in overturning what should be an impartial closing of a heated debate in this controversial area was unwise. You would have been best to ask others to consider it - which is what DRV is for. I'm not asking for a response to that.
As I say, I consider the matter closed, and look forward to working with you in the future.--Docg 21:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Your talk page has been semi-protected for a few months now. Think it's time to unprotect? John Reaves (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
See straw poll at Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#A_quick_straw_poll.--Urthogie 13:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Jayjg. Some time ago I modified Israel's area figure in the infobox to reflect internationally-recognized territory [12]. This change got reverted, as other editors thought the Israeli official figure is appropriate, and a revert war (which I took part in) ensued, which continued later in Template:Infobox Israel (to which the contents of the infobox were moved) and eventually lead to a page protection (on the template, that is). To make a long story short, Zero0000 at some point proposed a compromise by which both figures would be specified (with a brief explanation), but this was still opposed. After my dispute resolution efforts proved to be futile, I made a RfC which, in my opinion, lead to a clear consensus over the compromise proposal (7 supported it, only Isarig, and presumably also Shamir1 and Amoruso, objected). The administrator who protected the page (and proposed to make a RfC) lifted the protection and I made the edit according to the compromise proposal. Next, Amoruso and Shamir1 started to revert yet again. In order to avoid yet another edit war, I am refraining from reverting again. I've been working hard to reach a compromise with consensus on this rather minor issue for a month and a half now, is there any way to enforce this consensus? Thank you for your time.--Doron 20:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
What is you're opinion on this matter, Talk:Israeli lira#Requested move? Epson291 08:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jay: Please see my concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#User:Wasserman. Thank you, IZAK 13:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A compromise has been reached. Therefore the ban should be lifted. annoynmous 19:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
How can you say that. The user phaedriel edited the article to a point that I fully agreed with. The only reservation I had was with the new-antisemtism tag. Other than that I'm all for article as it stands. Therefore there is no reason to keep the article blocked. annoynmous 02:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I have left a message on Isarigs page and he refuses to respond. It doesn't really seem to matter anymore sense the changes have already been made by phaedriel. I agree with theses changes and sense this was what the dispute was originally over I would say that keeping the ban from ow on is unfair. It gives the feeling as if your tryin to prevent any edits to this article ever. As I understand bans are only for when edit wars get out of hand. Sense I agree with the passage than that is unlikely to happen. annoynmous 02:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
So basically now anything I get involved with your going to block and never allow me to edit anything again. It doesn't matter that subject that was under contention has been resolved, but now your going to block me because I might have a problem with something else unrelated to that issue. That strikes me as extremely unfair. You have no right to block the article because someoen might edit it.
Now that you've blocked the Ward churchill article it seems to me that you have a political bias in you methods. Why is it that you always block an article I'm involved in after the other user restores there version of the article. I haven't violated the 3RRR rule so blocking an article because you don't like edit wars smells to me of a conflict of interest. I'm beginning to feel you won't unblock these articles until I agree with the other users demands. annoynmous 03:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm angry. At first It was just a suspicion, but now I'm pretty sure you have agenda against me. How does Alan Cabal qualifie as an edit war. I made one revert of something and they reverted me and you blocked the article. You are purposefully going to articles I've contributed too and blocking them so I can't contribute to them. I beleive this is qualifies as wikistalking. This is an abuse of your authority.annoynmous 03:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
So your admitting that your not blocking these articles not because of edit waring, but because you disagree with my edits. I thought you were supposed to be neutral.
Saying I'm editing out valid information without explaining why is a flat out lie. I have explained just about every edit I've done to the ward churchill article. The information isn't reliable, it comes from a right wing talk show host who based his supposed findings on documents that no one can link to and verify themselves. Just because it's in the Denver Post dooesn't make it valid. By blocking this article you are protecting innacurate information.
I ask once again how is the Alan Cabal article edit waring. I made one revert and somehow that became an edit war. Basically I might as well give up editing because if I stick up for my point of view, you'll block the article.
Sense on all these articles I haven't violated the 3rr rule I feel these blocks are unfair and that you should unblock them. If you don't I will be forced to to contact the wikipedia administration to complain.annoynmous 03:39, 30 April 30 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Jay. I wonder if I could ask you when you have a moment to have a look at a policy question I posed here about the appropriateness of an image-contributor adding his real name, which is identical to his WP username, as part of a large number of image filenames in an apparent attempt to advertise his work as a photographer. When adding these images, the editor also adds his real name to edit summaries, presumably to highlight his authorship of the images. As I mention in my post, one result is that Google searches on the editor's real name now return substantial numbers of hits linking to his Wikipedia images, and elsewhere on the web this editor invites people to visit his WP userpage to review his work as a photographer. I might also mention, as I neglected to in my post, that in each of the articles in which one of these images appears, the user gets free advertising on every mouse-hover over the image, since the alt-text displays the image filename, which of course contains his name.
I also asked Secretlondon to comment. --Rrburke(talk) 14:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jay, Any thoughts? Thanks! --Tom 21:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jay, sorry I did not realise that the category had already been created. I thought the objection to the Category:People who have renounced Judaism was more in the wording and the fact that "renouncing" is not a particularly neutral or appropriate term. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.70.20.132 part of a atg team: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Council_of_Churches&diff=127046451&oldid=127025463 Zeq 06:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
sent you mail. have you seen it ? Zeq 06:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
?? Zeq 08:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
While trying to figure out what to do about a particular editor (User:Threeafterthree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) who is being disruptive and pushing agendas, I noticed you blocked him for a month back in November. Is it inappropriate to ask if you remember the details surrounding the incident? I believe he's trolling and pushing an agenda, and I'm wondering if there's a history of this in the past. Not sure if it's out of line for me to ask, but I figured i'd at least learn something either way. ;-) Thanks. /Blaxthos 17:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
About This edit.
First, that kind of takes the "adminship is no big deal" catchphrase and throws it away. Adminship is supposed to just be a set of shiny buttons, not something that makes your opinion any more valuable in measuring consensus of the encyclopedia. WP:ADMIN says: "Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions."
Second, you do realize I am an admin, right? And that I don't agree? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The Ownership issue is the key issue in academic debate, I think it is relevant that it is addressed up front that some identify the Holocaust as only Jews and affecting others, whilst many see it as the murders in the camps in which the Jewish people were obviously many. The ownership debate is obviously far deeper and more complex than to write on a talk page, but clarity being an issue it needs to be addressed up top. Londo06 22:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that debate to which you refer has been played with for many years. I believe you are getting Ownership confused with Holocaust Denial, which is rightly derided as being nothing less than Racism. Londo06 23:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have to discuss why stuff sourced to qualified sources like Journal of Studies in Contemporary Islam should stay. You should discuss them because you are removing them. --Aminz 00:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 00:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you please offer your opinion on some of the recent edits.--Sefringle 02:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Who the hell can tell any more what people's agendas are except that they have them. I'm trying to reply to my talk page notes and wrap up some other loose ends and then I'm taking a break for awhile. I have NO idea how you can do it? Anyways, thanks again and cheers! --Tom 13:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up – It would be awful for both of us if I were to get blocked again :) – but are you certain I have three reverts? This isn't a revert; I don't undo any other editor's work (maybe the edit summary was misleading). That leaves at most two, if you count the first change of "usage" to "use." No? Thanks though – I mean it, jokes aside.--G-Dett 23:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Jayjg. There is an arbitration case regarding Transnistria for which I am kindly asking you to confirm a fact: User:MarkStreet confirmed to you that he is indeed the editor of "Tiraspol Times", as he claimed [14]. I remember that at that time on the Tiraspol Times "aboutus" page was a link to MarkStreet's userpage at Wikipedia. Actually, this link is not existing anymore. Can you please write a statement at "Evidence" subpage of arbcom case (you should open a new section "Evidence presented by Jayjg"), through which you can assure arbcom that indeed, in October 2006 you received confirmation that User:MarkStreet from Wikipedia is the editor of Tiraspol Times (as he claimed)? This is the only thing I am asking you for this arbcom case, as I don't remember you being involved in any way in editing disputes related with Transnistria article. It will be usefull for arbcom to establish beyond reasonable doubt this fact. Thanks.--MariusM 22:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jay, Shavua Tov: I have a question. I have just come across Category:Jewish diaspora, which someone claimed was a "new" category, but unbeknownst to him when he created it as "new" in July 2006 [15], the category was actually voted for deletion in October 2005, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 16#Category:Jewish diaspora. What is the procedure in such a case? Can it be automatically deleted or does it need to be resubmitted all over again? Thanks for your help. IZAK 10:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Jayjg. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Jayjg/Archive 15. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say hi. Guess I will be back editting for at least a little while. I also wanted to say I was touched that you emailed me when I left, and I apologize for not replying. 95% of my time since has been spent dealing with a family catastrophe, but it looks like nowI I'll able to spend some time here.John Z 04:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I responded to your post about M Shahid Alam and Juan Cole. Mr. Alam recently published a book on Islam, and has been featured in numerous Islamic journals, and is himself Muslim (putting in him a position to be offended by Mr. Lewis and a valid critic). Dr. Juan Cole peace originally appeared in another publication and is not considered self published, I will therefore correct the citation to reflect its original source, and not his own blog. Thanks.
Sorry, I didn't know that soft blocks weren't okay. John Reaves (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jay - please check your email. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, Jakew 21:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know that with the recent problem with a hijacked admin account it may seem like a bad idea, but before you changed it, WP:TOR advised that tor proxies should be soft blocked.
Users who value anonymity and/or users in China still make up a part of our user base. The solution to a hijacked admin account is to have people use decent passwords, rather than knocking off an anonymity network's access needlessly. Thank you. --Michael Billington (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Given the circumstances, I could understand Jayjg's actions here, except they do not address the actual problem. Consider the following:
1. Password-cracking. If the attacker is running a brute-force attack using Tor, blocking the IPs (from editing) will not prevent the attacker's script from receiving an accurate success or failure response with each attempt to crack an account's password.
2. Use of the cracked accounts. If the attacker succeeds in cracking an admin account, and wants to use it for vandalism of any kind (including deletion of the main page), he could just unblock the IP address every time he gets a block message. A self-serving IP unblock is not even requisite for less significant disruption (such as blocking random well-known users).
So really there's no new advantage to hard-blocking the entire network. Only the other users (those who are not in the business of hijacking accounts) would be affected by this. —freak(talk) 10:35, May. 8, 2007 (UTC)
Actually you changed it, as mentioned above, and I've yet to see a decrease in the amount of vandalism anyway. —— Eagle101Need help? 07:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Mmm ok, if you wish to be insistant, its only a temporary stop gap till a new software feature is eventually implemented. Cheers! —— Eagle101Need help? 08:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Jay. I notice that you recently edited the article Joel C. Rosenberg. Do you have any information about Rosenberg's ethnic or religious background? I ask because I note that he is included in the article List of notable converts to Christianity, but I've not seen any evidence to confirm that he was ever observant -- in which case, while he might be ethnically Jewish, he can't, in my opinion, be considered a Jewish convert to Christianity. Additionally, an unsourced claim included in some material that, incidentally, I removed from Joel C. Rosenberg as unsourced and insufficiently NPOV, asserts that his mother was not Jewish. If that's true, then from a Halakhic perspective he may not have been considered Jewish to begin with.
Moreover, it seems to me that the inclusion of any Jew who was not never observant in the first place mixes apples and oranges: a person who is ethnically Jewish but non-practicing and who adopts Christianity might fairly be considered a convert to Christianity, but not a convert to Christianity from Judaism because that person never practiced Judaism in the first place. The inclusion of such a person in the list confuses Jewish ethnic identity with Judaism as a religion. Does that seem a reasonable objection? --Rrburke(talk) 18:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Jay,
Please read this evidence (this is just ther tip of the iceberg):
I think we should be able to hear what you think about the evidence. Zeq 20:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
so what need to be done to get people to look at and even comment on the evidence ??? Zeq 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
FYI: [21] Zeq 07:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Peppe is as biased as they come. I have no idea if what he sais is true or false but the man is clearly biased to the core. If he is a valid academic source we may have a systematic bias in the academic comunity against israel. Wouldn't it be simpler to remove him altogether ? [22] Zeq 18:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
jay some curtesy ? replies maybe ? Zeq 19:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Care to get involved in Council of Jerusalem again? Looks like User:Roger Arguile is proposing some major changes. 64.149.82.195 21:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jay, please take a look at the way the article about Rabbi Milton Balkany has been written by David Spart (talk · contribs) (who tends to write in a provocative way about Lubavitch). I am concerned that the Milton Balkany article may violate WP:LIBEL and open up a slew of problems. What do you think? Thanks for taking the time. IZAK 03:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg,
I have answered on the talk page.
Alithien 06:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm troubled by your use of Original Research in your edit summary. No one is at war here. There is no call for smearing me. Jd2718 01:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
i would like to resolve this civilly. i have no agenda except to be specific. what kind of supremacy did dhimmis have to acknowledge? please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.157.159 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
I appreciate the way you go about your edits. Lately I have had some harsh reversions done to my edits, which I've done on precious time as I have a very busy life besides Wikipedia. I do not mind people disagreeing with me, and am easy to admit an error. What I do mind is people who are busy deleting instead of adding; destroying instead of building and are constantly busy accusing others of POV which they are mighty guilty in themselves. You on the other hand have taken my edits and made them better. You deserve a thanks and I hope others will learn to do the same. Itzse 18:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Having a grandfather who was a Greek Jew who converted to Catholicism doesn't make you a Jew or a "French-Greek". Rather than supporting the tendentious edits of a new editor who has already been blocked twice for making these kinds of edits, it would probably be better if you edited in areas where you had more expertise or knowledge. Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Your edit's reverted in the information the (now blocked) editor kept inserting. The article already discusses his grandfather, but this insertion was only there to misleadingly describe his ethnicity. In addition, you failed to respond to the point about your insertion of incorrect categories. Sarkozy had four grandparents; for some reason people keep trying to focus on the ethnic origin of only one of them, the Greek Jew. It's not encyclopedic, but rather something else entirely. Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean you "haven't paid attention to the fact that categories were involved"? You were the person who inserted the categories, no-one else did, including Category:French Jews. Did your fingers just type in those categories without your noticing? Jayjg (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Look, you can't have it both ways. Either you were supporting the now-blocked tendentious new editor, or you were deliberately inserting those categories. Now, it looks to me like you were just supporting the blocked editor, by reverting for him. If I were you I'd just leave it at that. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you prove that Buffadren (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is MarkStreet (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? He is Des Grant, from Dublin, Ireland.
" Confirmed. Buffadren = 193.120.95.11 = Mark us street. The checkuser log shows that 193.120.95.11 is in fact Mark (the edit was true). Soonpush = Showninner, which are not related to the others.Voice-of-All 14:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC) "
I hope you'll find that Britlawyer (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is Buffadren as well.
"The Qur'an claims that the Jews of Medina rejected his apostolate, taunted and mocked him and opposed him both religously and politically"
I am sorry? Nobody ever has said anything to the otherwise, as far as I am ever. Everybody says they rejected his prophethood and Watt says that they indulged in mocking Muhammad quite unnecessary. But nobody (as far as I am aware) disputes this sentence.
P.S. I will be soon done with this and will remove the tag. --Aminz 03:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
+ I would appreciate it if you could borrow Lewis's book from library: "The Qur'an reflects Muhammad's hostility towards the Jews of Medina in passages in which" twists what Lewis says. Thanks --Aminz 03:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The username complaint was declined; I reported the user to WP:ANI: here's the link. --Rrburke(talk) 04:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you have been posting exactly the same material already in two articles [23][24]. While there may be a reason for it in the article about uprising, reposting it all over again word for word in another article about a historical person is spam. If you want to add information on Khmelnytsky, please write something about him. So far you have not been very helpful and wage revert wars on two different articles simultaneously. This is not very productive.--Hillock65 18:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Precisely which content dispute[26] is this [27]likely to help me win? I think if you think about it, you will discover I am in fact broadening the scope of possible controversies. This operates in a direction precisely opposite to my supposed desire to keep criticism of various unpleasant people out of the lead. Please don't let the fact that you're convinced about my motives overwhelm simple common sense.
I think a quick apology might be in order, just to set the record straight. Thanks. Hornplease 19:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Boat-proof is the last reincarnation of the puppetmaster. --Angelo 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I wikified the above article, which touches on Jewish-Christian relations. You might like to have a look at how some references to the Talmud are handled in it - I don't know if they are accurate. Itsmejudith 22:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I have requested an ArbCom case on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#PalestineRemembered, which you are involved. Please make your statement or comments there. Thank you! WooyiTalk to me? 00:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
WooyiTalk to me? has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding ((subst:Smile)) to their talk page with a friendly message.
Most of those material belonged to a period of 50 years out of 1400 years of Islam. It is giving undue weight. I have already summerized this by "Some modern writers have applied this term to the Jews of twentieth century.[1]" I have further inserted a summary from Lewis saying " the language of abuse was often quite strong among Muslims with the conventional epithets of apes for Jews, and pigs for Christians."
Please remember that this is about Qur'an; not about Muslims. The Qur'anic verses do not say that all Jews are pigs. Some modern muslims misuse them and that could be covered in the modern time section. --Aminz 05:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg,
It is a pity no more people participate to this discussion.
I also see you are quite occupied with pov-pushers.
I answered this on the talk page :
There are different way to solve this but to avoid misunderstandings and to try to work efficiently, could you answer my simple questions :
Thank you,
Alithien 12:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
Your edit here is discourteous and doesn't respect the "inuse" tag. I always add the tag when I edit and I always remove the tag after I'm done editing. I never take more than 2 hours to do so.
After I'm done editing, you are free to edit (and use tags) as you wish. The reason I'm posting here is because you have stopped using the article's talk page.Bless sins 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You should be aware that someone posted a diatribe directed at you here.
Also, a different take on cynicism, from Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary:
Λυδαcιτγ 02:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you know that Blue Jays eat the eggs of other birds? Also, do you know that there are tens if not hundreds of Jewish people lists other than List of Jewish American businesspeople? Why haven't you targeted and made sure that they only include only sourced information? The policies of Wikipedia do not say everything must be sourced, only that it should be verifiable. Please stop being biased for or against this article (I'm not sure which it is) when there are many other articles like it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scifiintel (talk • contribs) 05:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
[28] Zeq 13:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I updated History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinians must sure be glad that Israel left Gaza, eh? See you. --Sm8900 14:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
[29] Zeq 16:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The Palestinian exodus (Arabic: الهجرة الفلسطينية al-Hijra al-Filasteeniya) refers to the refugee flight of Palestinian Arabs from areas under Israel control during and after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. It is called the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة), meaning "disaster" or "cataclysm," by Palestinians. Not all Arabs have been escaping battle areas and those who remained were awarded Israeli citizenship.
Prior to the beginning of the war, friction between Jewish and Arab communities intensified, frequently erupting into violence. After the Israeli Declaration of Independence in May 1948, the fighting intensified further. Civilians from both sides had to leave areas that were captured by the opposing armies. By the end of the war hundreds of thousands of Arabs had fled or been expelled from areas controlled by Israel; in 1951 the United Nations gave the final estimate of their number as 711,000.[2]
The initial exodus - as well as the related Jewish exodus from Arab lands - and the current situation and final status of the Palestinian refugees form a contentious and politically controversial topic of great importance to all parties in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Hello, a request for mediation has been filed given the deadlock at racism by country. You previously offered comment on it, but were not involved in any edit warring. As such, I'm inviting you to add yourself to the RFM if you feel that you're part of the dispute. You can do so here. If you feel you're not involved in the dispute, please disregard this message and thanks for your earlier opinion. WilyD 21:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
[30] Zeq 04:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
"....Civilians from both sides had to leave areas that were captured by the opposing armies. By the end of the war hundreds of thousands of Arabs .."
[31] Zeq 05:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Jay, I think that this is uncalled for on the part of this editor [32].--Drboisclair 16:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jay: Something needs to be clarified: The use of the term "Jews and Judaism" is for categories only. Thus Category:Jews and Judaism is the parent category for two main sub-categories: Category:Jews and Category:Judaism. Almost no articles are called by that name. There were a few instances where "Jews and Judaism" was used as a name for articles and I have tried to correct it now, to "History of the Jews in _____". The few remaing instances below require help from an admin because of problems with double-redirects and the risk of losing edit histories. I have spent a few hours going through the categories and articles to be found in Category:Jews and Judaism, Category:Jews by country, Category:Jewish history by country (a few hundred items) and the only exceptions that exist are the ones below. Once these are corrected there should be consistency. Most articles about Jews in specific countries are in the relevant Jewish history categories for those countries. In Category:Jews by country the contents (i.e. articles/biographies) for each country's category are basically just names of people who are Jews who were either born there or lived there. So after having sorted through a few loose ends I need some technical admin help, as well as the understanding that you have of this subject and the experience with it over the years. The following eight are the articles that need to fit with the basic naming convention in Category:Jewish history by country:
Thanks in advance for your help. Sincerely, IZAK 07:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks to me as though there are several editors ganging up against one (Bus stop) - here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_converts_to_Judaism and here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_notable_converts_to_Christianity, can you look into it? Modernist 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
When User:Sylviecyn abuses other editors off-wiki See warning message. How can one collaborate under such circumstances? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
FYI, Hornplease is threatening to revert-war on M.A. on my talk page. I can only imagine why he chose to pick on me for my edit yesterday, which added two sources, and not on you for your edit three days ago, which added one source to the exact same footnote. - Merzbow 02:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islam and antisemitism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
--Aminz 06:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi! It seemed to me that although the "post WW2" bit was unsourced, the "criticism" paragraph you reverted could be salvaged by removing POV and badly sourced pieces and leaving a few remaining sentences. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep! See it at the bottom of the article now. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Discussion initiated on removal vs. restoration of new section. Please see Talk:Religious_Zionism. Hertz1888 17:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.--Pejman47 19:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Wait, are you trying to say that Holocaust believers were not at the conference? Are you kidding me? For example, there were Jews present (and they believed in the Holocaust!): [33] The conference was not a Holocaust denier convention, it was a conference to talk about the Holocaust, and there were both believers and deniers present. Respect Wikipedia's NPOV policy. That statement that I inserted was 100% correct, and I can source it if you like. Also, that section title is highly POV. Let the reader judge for themselves. You cant say that Holocaust denial is anti-Israeli, can you? Thats ridiculous, thats like saying denying the Armenian genocide is anti-Armenia, etc... Let the reader judge for themselves, respect Wikipedia NPOV.Azerbaijani 13:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to waste your time with this. I have an acerbic fellow cluttering up my user talk page, claiming to be the only authentic something or other. This person is making similar claims on the Nazarene page and screwing up the Jewish-Christianity template. Sounds like Zestaferov or a clone. Please call pest control. Ovadyah 21:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you like your user page semi-protected, for example? Jayjg (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
A proposal to close this arbitration is currently being discussed. However, it's unclear whether you still stand by your original charge against PalestineRemembered. Could you please clarify this so that it's clear whether there is a case that still needs to be considered by the Arbitration Committee? -- ChrisO 22:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I have separated the casualty section into CURRENT and EARLIER, to minimize all conflict possibilities. Feel free to expand the latter.Galassi 12:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking forward to hearing your concrete suggestions! Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 14:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jayjg, I gave you a Strom Thurmond award as a jest instead of offense, and you reverted them mechanically two times. This is ABF, and you should understand what is a joke and what is insult. WooyiTalk to me? 17:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I do give awards with names of real people, like I have given Gracenotes himself a Samuel Alito award for RFA controversy, and User:Alabamaboy a Hugo Black award for improvement of law-related and Southern U.S.-related articles. There is no bad faith, I guarantee. Please, I have given all barnstars/awards in good faith. Please, why do you think I have any bad intentions? WooyiTalk to me? 17:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll get on with that. Could you take a look at Jtpaladin's latest edit to Talk:Circumcision? It's a blatant copyright violation, and I can't decide whether to leave it, edit the comment, or request rollback. Jakew 21:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
One normally doesn't engage in an edit war, nor does one normally violate the 3RR rule. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] Since we're not doing what "one normally does," what's the harm in leaving the tags in the interest of ending the edit war? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
What are you doing Jayjg? In the interest of being inclusive toward people of all faith traditions, I am creating a category for "Jews who have renounced Judaism" that will go in the Category:People by former religion category. If you continue this type of editing behavior (POV, reverting fully valid/factual edits, incivility, vandalism, irrationality, alienating editors rather than working with them) I will have no choice but to take some sort-of formal action against your increasingly unhinged and disruptive behavior. Please moderate your editing behavior or else face the necessary consequences. --Wassermann 23:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
One of your edits seems to have broken the notes in an article. You can see it here. Rather than reverting the edit (and undoing any other changes you might have been making), or trying to fix it myself (and probably making it worse), I thought I'd just point it out to you so you could fix it.
(If it isn't readily apparent what I'm talking about, scroll down to the "Notes" section. ouch) Bladestorm 23:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I found this good image of antisemitism that would fit well in the Islam and antisemitism article. [41] I am not sure if this is fair use or Public Domein, but if it is, can you please upload it? --Sefringle 06:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Itham, User:EndlessReturns and User:Fantocci, the most recent and active one. Can you please have a look at them? --Angelo 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
"Do not make revisions based on Zeq's fallacious reasonings, please" [42] Zeq 01:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jay: You may perhaps be able to help solve the logjam at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty) between Klezmer (talk · contribs) and ChosidFrumBirth (talk · contribs). An additional question being raised is if Wikipedia should define a "Hasidic dynasty," see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty)#Response to mediator: from Klezmer. Any attention and help you may wish to render would be greatly appreciated. Wikipedia has gained many diverse articles about Hasidic Judaism that can be found nowhere else on the web, and this case may help to resolve and establish some important precedants and guidelines. But right now, the matter is stalled and needs outside help before it heads for more serious mediation. Thank you, IZAK 12:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you see the sentence:
Kudos for your good work there. --Guinnog 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jayjg, This is a mirror note of what I put on Tiamut's talk page regarding his irresponsible and wholesale changes to the Nazareth article. I'm an expert in Nazareth archaeology, and am finishing a book on the subject. Rene Salm
Hello Tiamut, I see you have not outgrown the problems we wrote about in October 2006 (on your Talk page). Then, you were citing a newspaper article (The Guardian) as a source on Nazareth archaeology. Now you are citing a tourist guidebook to Palestine. Of course, these are NOT scholarly sources. Jayjg is entirely correct in reverting to the pre-Tiamut article of 25 May, 2007.
I have not looked at the Nazareth article in a week (I generally check it daily), and look what happens. It's completely rewritten according to nonscholarly sources!
One can use Mariam Shahin only for the location of Nazareth and obvious information of that basic type. For archaeological data, you must use Bagatti, Kopp, Viaud, AND recent scholarly studies, that is, those with footnotes, illustrations, and the accepted scholarly apparatus. This excludes newpapers and guidebooks.
Renejs
Hello JayJugs I'd like to know why open proxies are not allowed, I constantly want to edit articles while I'm at school but wikipedia won't let me because it says my IP address is blocked, so I have to wait till I return home to edit articles...and usually by then, I'm playing Half Life or doing something else. Thanks very much jug
Hi again. I wondered if you were aware of User:Dppowell/PPP? You are mentioned on the discussion page and it has been used as justification for the reversion of seemingly good edits to East Germany national football team. I would like to prevent such instability in articles on my watchlist for obvious reasons; if the user in question is a sock, I would say they need to be blocked. Failing that the articles in question could be protected I suppose. What do you think? --Guinnog 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Jay, I'm not trying to bug you here or defend a bad user, but isn't your block of Wolfowit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) dubious in regard to WP:BLOCK#When blocking may not be used? Specifically "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute or personal dispute. Instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." I gather the problem appears to be sockpuppetry (determined via CheckUser?) though it doesn't seem to be documented anywhere. If you can confirm this, I'm happy to reblock Wolfowit myself so that any appearance of impropriety can be avoided - there's no point giving the usual trolls something else to obsess about. -- ChrisO 19:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you check User:Kiff2, User:Kiff3, User:Kiff4, User:Bert Patenaude and User:Tozzi Fan? Kingjeff 23:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 04:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
is this exterme:
The church has been criticized for its focus on anti-Israel activities while not giving other world-wide humanitarian crisis such strong emphasis as it gives to Israel.[3]
As you're one of the best editors I know at spotting OR, would you mind taking a look at Factory farming, where I'm being accused of it by WAS 4.250?
There is a dispute about whether the terms "intensive farming," "intensive agriculture," "industrial farming," "industrial agriculture," and "factory farming" refer to the same phenomenon or practice, or to different ones. The reason we're exploring this is to find out how many articles we ought to have on this practice (or these practices), and what those articles should be called.
I have gathered together some mainstream sources showing that the terms are used synonymously (with factory farming referring to the same intensive farming practises, but reserved for animals). See Examples of articles in which reliable sources use the terms "intensive," "industrial," "factory," and "modern" in the SAME way).
On the basis of that research, I've suggested we have two articles: Intensive arable farming, and Intensive livestock farming, with the other terms added as "also known as" in the leads.
WAS is saying that this is "original research." He won't say clearly what he means, but I believe he wants us to use a dictionary definition, instead of looking to see how mainstream sources use the terms. Trying to find out how the term is actually used is OR, in his view.
If you have any time, would you mind leaving your opinion in this section? I've also left a note for Slrubenstein, as he once had a problem with someone trying to define "capitalism" using a dictionary. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg,
I see a number of articles (mostly politically motivated) which rely on quotes from a wide range of unrelated individuals. Maybe you can point me to some WP essays or guidelines which adress this. I need to know: if an individual has their statements published in a reliable source, are those statements immediately acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia, even if that individual may not be qualified to speak on the topic?
Thanks and best regards --Uncle Bungle 14:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
After the "alleged" were removed, I added a pov flag but this were removed.
I know bring more "material" to describe this.
Could you help this material is introduced in the article or pov flag is put back ?
Thank you. -> It is here.
Alithien 16:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
On multiple IP addresses: All of my cpu time takes place in my school library. I will edit from a range of different cpus and will often not bother/forget to log in. I'm not trying to be "sneaky" or make it look like multiple people share my viewpoints. Most of the edits I made- as you can see- were the placement of NPOV tags. I believe they were placed correctly, seeing how there is a substantial neutrality disbute. Why these keep being deleted is beyond me. Perhaps it would hold more weight if I placed these while logged in under my username.
On being a member of Rogue Admin: I was not under the impression that "Rogue Admin" was strictly an administrators only club. I found the userbox to be aesthetically pleasing- skull and cross-bones against red, it doesn't get much more badass than that. To claim that it's for Wikipedia admins only seems to go against what the club stands for, sort of like the oxymoron "anarchists club." I think it's pretty obvious to most users that I'm not an admin and was never trying to "masquerade" as one.
I've always seen this edit war as a neutral battle between those who seek a literal definition of HD and those who seek to define it as a philosophy that incorporates certain beliefs. Please don't see it as a battle against Antisemites and Holocaust Deniers, because, speaking for myself, that is certainly not the case. Meilander 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
This is in response to your comments on my talk page. It would be very hyporcritical of you to delete my comments on your talk page (like you've done in the past), while making comments on my talk page.
Can you start working reasonably with me? I would really appreciate that. Regarding your edits on Islam and antisemitism, you have not explained even 10% of your reversions. You always pick some little error in some of my edits, and then revert all my edits.
Recently, you started reverting my edits because you said they moved/removed Schweitzer and Perry. Yet now you yourself are removing Shcweitzer and Perry.[44] In addition to that your edit summary in your last edit was very vague ("done for now"). Add that to the fact that you make even more vague comments on the talk page.
I would really appreciate it if you started working reasonably, and stopped justifying large-scale reverts with meaningless comments/edit summaries.Bless sins 03:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg. As I understand it you are the blocking admin for this IP. In light of these comments: [45], [46], would you be willing to consider changing that block from a hardblock to a softblock (with account creation disabled)? WjBscribe 08:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[47] TNX. Zeq 17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
btw, does this makes any sense to you: [48] - it means that Jordan did not allow Arabs (Chrstians and Muslims) into the holy sites. Is that so ? I don't think so.
In Jordan there are specific rules against jews: for example anyone who sell land to jews is subject to death penalty. Zeq 17:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg, could I get your response on NAS? I'd like to think after so much time that we're ready to give it another shot with the page open. Thanks, Mackan79 17:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg. I'm going to need to totally rewrite this article. The article is on the beliefs and practices of Judaism (in its various denominations), and while the views of academic scholars etc. have a place in the article, either the article needs to focus on its subject or it needs to be renamed. Peake's commentary on the Bible, for example, is not a reliable source for the views of any branch of Judaism, and the Jewish Encyclopedia is often not reliable for the views even of Reform Judaism, since it's based on the largely outdated classical reform approach. Reform Judaism no longer considers ritual washing a "taboo" etc. etc. in the manner it did when the Jewish Encyclopedia was written; this way of thinking isn't part of any contemporary branch of Judaism (except possibly for Humanistic Judaism, although the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia is obviously not reliable for its views.) Views from outside of Judaism add appropriate counterpoints to the subject of ritual washing in Judaism and are appropriate article content; however, they shouldn't occupy the introduction and main sections. An example of a well-structured article is Eucharist (Catholic Church), which begins with views within Catholicism and then brings in external views. That article focuses on church teachings first, stating them straightforwardly as religious beliefs without endorsing or criticizing them. "Historical development" (from various points of view) comes next, and this section is appropriate for viewpoints criticizing the Catholic teaching that the Eucharist was instituted by Jesus etc. I believe WP:NPOV requires an approach like this for articles on religious beliefs generally, and Judaism articles as well. Otherwise Wikipedia is stating an editorial opinion on the religion's beliefs about its rituals' origins, purposes, etc. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you check User:Snoimaert. Kingjeff 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
((cite web))
: Check date values in: |date=
(help)