This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Hello Jayjg. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 01:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
Jayjg, I read your question in the thread about John, and will respond to it here if you don't mind, because I am hoping someone will archive that thread so it is no longer an albatross for John. I've been keeping an eye on the Mantanmoreland related pages since shortly before the arbcom case closed, and Naked short selling for some time before that. They're the only pages on my watchlist where AGF isn't the rule of thumb; given the history, the reason is obvious. During the intervening months, I have occasionally forwarded some usernames to either checkuser-L or directly to one or more checkusers for their review. I've done that sub rosa because I don't want to mark an editor unnecessarily with the taint of alleged sockpuppetry. Only once have I posted an on-wiki request for CU of an account related to these articles. I operated on the theory that anyone who had been editing the articles before the close of the arbcom case was very unlikely to be a sockpuppet, and John had indeed been working on them for some time. I saw no reason to consider him a sock of anyone, and was not aware that his current account had started off as an alternate account; even if I had been aware, I would have been more inclined to email him and ask quietly what the current situation was. I know there are other admins (and possibly even arbitrators) watching those pages, mainly because other admins have taken action on them from time to time, but I don't recall ever having an off-wiki discussion with anyone specifically about these pages. One or two editors, yes, but not John. Can we maybe let that thread close so that it doesn't continue to hang over his head? Risker ( talk) 03:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your support in my RfA. Hope you had a nice High Holiday season, and best of luck with your massive project. Kindly, Lazulilasher ( talk) 00:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Re the 6th sentence here (beginning "You have..."): I've been asking Blackworm not to say things about other editors, so I feel that I must (hereby) give you the same message. Regards, ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 14:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I happen to have access to Messianic Judaism: A Rabbi's Journey Through Religious Change in America through a friend. Can you care to cite which exact page the quote you are posting is from since I do not find it on page 1 as is sourced in your cite. In fact, upon review of your "source" for "Christian funded and organized movement," the source you cited does not state such at all - anywhere - at all. Please review your source, and post proof verifying the quote, or remove your unsourced edit. Thank you. inigmatus ( talk) 05:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Once again, please stop revising the wikipedia page on the montgomery synagogue. I have kindly asked several times. While you may feel several sections are relevant, others do not. Please try and respect the wishes of the actual members of that synagogue. I will say again, please stop revising our wikipedia page. Feel free to respond with any questions or comments. I welcome them. You may be interested to view the website, agudathmontgomery.com. This website makes no mention of the several sections you deem important. Finally, for the life of me, I do not understand how you, an administrator no less, can intervene on this page so many times. Please try and communicate to me why you do so and exactly what your credentials are to make such a decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.187.142 ( talk) 01:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
You are in violation of the 3RR. Please self-revert now, or you will be reported. CJCurrie ( talk) 21:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Is a link to an author's column not an adequate reference? Eustace ( talk) 02:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you rolled back my version 16:08, 22 October 2008 to my previous version 06:56, 11 October 2008. There is nothing incorrect in the 11 October 2008 version, the only problem is the style: it is written more like a journalistic piece than an encyclopedic entry. My changes between 11 October and 22 October 2008 were intended to tighten up the rambling, verbose style and to make the discussion more organized and concise. I think I have accomplished that without sacrificing truth or relevant encyclopedic information. I obviously would like the 22 October version to stand. Please take time to compare the two versions (11 October and 22 October) and tell me specifically what items of information should be carried over from 11 October to 22 October. This will enable us to produce a good encyclopedic version for this section. You can write to me here, on my talk page, or on Dushanbe synagogue talk page. Thank you. -- Zlerman ( talk) 03:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I had a look around to see what on earth you were going on about when I referenced a bit of english translation of the Talmud to the come-and-hear site. I think now it must be because parts of the site were lifted from some anti-semitic writings so I can certainly agree with that. It would save a lot of time and annoyance though if you could be more specific about an objection rather than just pointing to the Wikipedia unreliable sources page. Dmcq ( talk) 10:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Re this edit: I don't understand how you think that's misleading. I don't think there's a consensus that it's a personal attack; and I don't think consensus supports deleting mild personal attacks against oneself. See WP:Talk#Others' comments; "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited." ( Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Removal of text); It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. ( Wikipedia:Civility#Removal of uncivil comments). Cheers, ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 01:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk:Agudath Israel Etz Ahayem has been mentioned at WP:HD#Report Administrator Abuse. Since the poster already knows about administrator abuse, WP:DUCK comes to mind, but I have nothing specific in mind. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg - people keep putting "Docking" as gay sex slang on the Docking page. It seems a little strange. I'd be interested in your opinion. Zargulon ( talk) 21:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg! Thanks for the support on RfA, which passed yesterday :) I haven't seen you in a while in articles, glad to see you still take an interest! You might have been the first admin I have encountered on Wikipedia (knowing that they were an admin), and will be sure to talk to you if I need help with admin-related work :) (hope you don't mind). Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 22:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you add your voice to the discussion at Talk:Irgun regarding this category? There is also an active discussion about its suitability for other articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Category:Palestinian terrorists and Category:Israeli terrorists NoCal100 ( talk) 22:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Jayjg! This discussion at the Wikipedia:New contributors' help page is regarding some actions of yours. Please present your views there if you can. I suspect that the user (or the other users mentioned) is not familiar with our policies. So I thought that if you gave the reasons for these actions yourself rather than someone else trying to explain to him, it would be better. Cheers and thanks. Chamal talk 13:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. You turned this page, which was formerly a disambiguation page listing articles with 'apartheid' in the title, into a redirect to South Africa under apartheid, citing 'undo edit by banned editor' as the reasoning. Could you please explain this? Perhaps I'm being dim, but looking through the contributors to that page since the version edited by RussBot that you reverted to, I don't see any banned editors. I have therefore restored the disambiguation page; if you simply feel it is inappropriate, please feel free to nominate it for deletion. Terraxos ( talk) 02:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
can we stop this. [4] thats disgusting. thank you 96.232.251.177 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC).
Have you seen this [5] edit Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed that this entire article was lifted practically verbatim from this webpage [7]. I'm not sure what to do about it; could you help? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 21:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I was impressed by your revert of your own edit. If there isn't enough turmoil at that page already, we now have editors having edit wars with themselves! :-)-- Ravpapa ( talk) 14:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
...for this edit. It appears I inadvertently restored a previous edit by someone else, when I had only intended to correct a grammatical mistake. I think I must have been editing a page in the page history without realizing it. Gatoclass ( talk) 03:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the articles on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and Freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia each has a section on the application of the term apartheid to Saudi Arabia. It is also the case that attempts ot start pages on Saudi Arabia and Apartheid have been dealt with by reducing the sections on these two pages. It occurs to me that Israel and the apartheid analogy could be treated in a more normal way if it was merged into the page on Human rights in Israel. Historicist ( talk) 03:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist
Jay, if you have time (and there's no rush), would you mind taking a look at the self-published section of WP:V? I've also posted this on Tim Vickers' page.
The section has been getting changed slightly over several months, I think mostly with a view to tweaking the writing, but the result (perhaps inadvertent) has been a significant policy change.
The change is that self-published and questionable sources, previously only allowed to be used as a source on themselves in articles about themselves, may now be used as sources about themselves and their own activities elsewhere too, albeit in a limited way. (This should not be confused with self-published expert sources being used as sources in their area of expertise, which is allowed -- the issue I'm talking about here is self-published and questionable sources with no expertise writing about themselves and their activities.)
Although I do support this change and have argued for it before, I'm wary of it, because it has the potential to open the floodgates to nonsense. It also wasn't clear to me that the change to policy was intentional. I therefore changed it back to the long-standing "in articles about themselves" version on November 5, [8] and left a note on talk asking whether the change had been intended. [9]
Since then, there has been fiddling back and forth, with some changes clearly intentional, others clearly not. The current version is here.
I think I support this wording, but my concern is whether the safeguards are strong enough to stop absurd sources (e.g. a self-published astrologer) from being used in articles where it would clearly be inappropriate (e.g. Astronomy)?
Any input would be appreciated at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_on_themselves. SlimVirgin talk| edits 22:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, your comments at WP:AE where you made accusations concerning other editors without providing evidence is poor behavior. I'm not at this stage going to apply a remedy, however you should consider yourself notified of the arbitration case. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, can take a look to Talk:Arabic Wikipedia? about it's restrictions. regards. -- Riyadi.asmawi ( talk) 13:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Fctedt ( talk · contribs) reverted the edit by Royal Lineage ( talk · contribs) claiming to keep it more streamlined (and before he edited his comment also less problematic), but he removed references Royal added in the process (which to me doesn't seem to be very constructive). Since he reverted to your edit, I figured it would be a good idea to ask you what you thought of Royal's edit. - Mgm| (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I came across your talk page and noticed that your yellow noticebox at the top of the page overlapped some of the posts. I have added a {{ clear}} template, which seems to have fixed it. However, I can revert this change if you'd like. Cheers! TN‑ X- Man 18:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
should I respond under the RFC lightbulb, or under the section below on "events?" Slrubenstein | Talk 14:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I saw your name in the history. The article was semi-protected for a couple of weeks because of sockpuppet vandalism. When the protection lifted, RolandR immediately re-requested protection, after one edit. I declined the request and then it was resubmitted today.
In looking at the diffs closely today, I was reminded of RolandR's wording in the first request, which is that the edits are "arguably racist". As someone familiar with the subject, perhaps you could give your opinion on the matter, or clarify what I am maybe misunderstanding. In my view, the two versions convey the same information, so no version is more or less racist than the other. The major difference is that RolandR's version contains some really nasty quotes which follow the word to avoid, "alleged", and are referenced to a dead link which through Internet Archive leads to a download for an executable file. As far as the quotes are concerned, from reading the section, my understanding is that these quotes were determined to have been fabricated, thus I don't believe they should even be in the article. RolandR noted to me that because it's a BLP it can be indefinitely semi-protected if it is the subject of persistent BLP or NPOV policy violations. A true point, but the POV edits appear to be coming from him as well. The version he reverts appears to be the better version, though it needs a source or a reworking of prose. Either way, at one point you removed these quotes, and another user questioned the source of the last sentence in the criticism section (the information is attributed to the ADL, but cited to another site).
Basically, I just seek your help. I'm further confused by the fact that he's tagged these users as sockpuppets of an editor with only five edits that were all directed at RolandR. He's clearly being stalked, but I don't understand why this obvious sock of another user is being noted as a prolific puppetmaster. Perhaps it is all really obvious and I'm just having a blonde moment, so please let me know if I'm missing something. لenna vecia 17:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm posting it here since it is fairly urgent. Wikipedia:LTA/MG has turned up again as User:Almighty Guy; would you be able to checkuser him, find the underlying IP and block it? He uses a dynamic one, but it should keep him away for at least a few days. Ironholds ( talk) 03:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Concerns about the article "List of countries".
I understand that the argument of "whether Taiwan is a country or not" has been going on forever and has never been settled.
However, please note that the UN, together with most of the governments in the world, have claimed that Taiwan is not an independent country. How can Wikipedia, or you, ignore the claim and state that Taiwan is a country?
Wikipedia is not a place for you to state your own opinions. When dealing with questionable matters, like this one, I believe that Wiki should always rely on reputable sources (in this case, the United Nations).
TensaZ ( talk) 08:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
If it wasn't for their editing times being so vastly different, I would say it looks suspicious when Single Purpose Accounts are joined by fresh Single Purpose Accounts with not dissimilar editing strategies and interests. -- Narson ~ Talk • 07:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
must be the geckos ... or are they dragons ? -- Henrywinklestein ( talk) 04:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
A good egg told me to pass this on. Now, DRINK! DRINK!!! (On second thought, don't.)-- G-Dett ( talk) 02:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Per this now archived discussion, do you think we should do an RfC regarding whether to change the "established experts" clause in WP:SPS? I made an edit, reverted here, in which I attempted to improve that part and generally make the section clearer and easier to follow. I don't think I really changed the effective meaning. PSWG1920 ( talk) 01:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
A banned editor involved? I didn't notice that at all. Royal Lineage could edit fine, could you - from the top of your head - remember the name of the banned editor so I can compare their edits? Even if one source is a school essay, it seems a bit overkill to nuke all the sources at once. (The edit summary didn't mention any banning.) - Mgm| (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Could you comment on this request? What block is he evading? Thanks, Sandstein 15:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this paragraph Deccan Mujahideen#False_flag acceptable? The cited source is an op/ed that seems to rant on about antisemitic conspiracies of " Jewish power" and what not. And Infowars? Is that reliable? Could you also take a look at Talk:Deccan_Mujahideen#Anti-Semitism_link? Thanks. Neverfake ( talk) 19:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you have been involved in previous WP:SYNTH discussions at Wikipedia talk:No original research. Would you care to comment on the section Wikipedia talk:No original research#Insidious OR? Thank you. -- Thermoproteus ( talk) 11:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
If you're editing articles like this on old synagogues and want a little written on the architecture of their old buildings, drop me a note. Historicist ( talk) 22:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist
Added a little info to an old synagogue stub today, your name was there, as usual. I do admire the work you do. Historicist ( talk) 21:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
Hi Jayjg. Well done on your recent FA's. Your hard work has paid off! Can you remind me how to find a user's email address? Thanks. Chesdovi ( talk) 23:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
If I enable my email, how private is it. I ask because I know that administrators can discover a user's IP address. I assume that email adresses are equally non-secret, if an administrator wants one. Historicist ( talk) 23:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist
I invite your attention to this guy's article and what the times of India has to say about him. [10] 70.112.79.217 ( talk) 09:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Your actions are being discussed at an AN/I report. The user who filed this report did not see fit to inform you of this. NoCal100 ( talk) 16:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)i
At this diff User:Jayjg created a REDIRECT of David Abrahams (Labour party donor) to 2007 Labour party donation scandal noting (per WP:BLP1E and WP:OTRS ticket 2008030910010087 . Take both seriously) I have a big problem with this for a number of reasons:
Carol Moore is a long-time very problematic editor and I think some sort of forum should be initiated regarding her editing habits and interaction with other editors. The problems start with her userpage, whose apparent purpose is to get visitors to her website and maybe buy some of her stuff and to propagate her anti-Israel views and conspiracy theories. Indeed, her userpage violates numbers 1-10 of Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page?.
But userpage violations and a general interest in propagating extremist POV's would not be that problematic if not for her way of interacting with other editors. See for example Talk:Rahm Emanuel in which she repeatedly accuses everyone who disagrees with her of working for either Rahm Emanuel, the American government, or the Israeli government. This is an encyclopedia built by the collaborative effort of volunteers. If there's one editor that's antithetical to what we are trying to do here it's the one that goes around accusing everyone who disagrees with her of having COI's.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
backdent<----:::::By the way, I posted this whole thing because I thought Jayjg was the editor who originated WP:OTRS ticket 2008030910010087 (per his edit summary) and he was just being coy by not admitting it was him when he mentioned I should contact that person on David Abrahams (Labour party donor) talk page. Wikipedia:OTRS doesn't make it clear where to link ticket numbers and volunteers, so I'm going to ask the Volunteer Coordinator a second time. Unless Jayjg wants to tell me who it is. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Benjamin M. Emanuel. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Suntag ☼ 19:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me to this. I think rather than inflame this editor, it may be better to see what (if anything) she does, and then go for large if it is out of order..... what do you think? Best regards -- Smerus ( talk) 21:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jayjg, I am having an edit war with a new user named Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun, whose very first edit was to dump all kinds of POV information into the above article. Nothing was written in an encyclopedic style and all of it sounded extremely partial to the camp of Rabbi Yisroel Ber Odesser (a controversial figure in Breslov) and the "Na Na Nachies" (who are not accepted by mainstream Breslov Hasidut). I have the feeling that this user is connected to nanach.net, a pro-Odesser website. If you would like to see his edits, please look in the history under Nachman of Breslov, 16 December, from 14:57 to 17:46.
In response to his edits, I posted a courteous "welcome" on his talk page, followed by an explanation of why his POV edits were more appropriate for the talk page than the article. I also moved all his edits to the talk pages of Nachman of Breslov and Yisroel Ber Odesser. Today, however, this user undid all my revisions and sent me the following note on my talk page:
I greatly appreciate your assistance. Thank you, Yoninah ( talk) 19:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jay. I know that you have some history with a couple of the editors on the I-P pages, and I try to stay out of back and forth discussions, as long as things stay relatively civil and focused more on the article than the other editors. A certain amount of vigorous debate is great. :) However, in my opinion, some of your comments are starting to get a bit too personally focused, and you also seem to be to the point of just copy/pasting more or less the same comment on multiple pages. [11] [12] [13] There's really no need to reply to everything that others say, is there? Also, telling someone that their opinion is "irrelevant", is not a good way to de-escalate disputes. [14] Please, if you disagree with something, and it's not related to the article, just let it go, or go through another step in WP:DR?-- El on ka 16:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Jay, in the poll you said you preferred option #1 but I believe it was an error since your argument seems opposite your 'vote'. The other "side" is claiming that you are "voting" with them. Would you please check it and see if it was what you intended? Thanks, Tundrabuggy ( talk) 20:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. I am at a loss to figure out what to do about this new editor, Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun, who is busy putting his two cents into every discussion point on the Nachman of Breslov talk page, and who today (22 Dec 2008) made some horrendous edits to the Breslov (Hasidic dynasty) page, including deleting the picture of a well-known Breslov rabbi ( Elazar Mordechai Koenig), saying he has "no claim to leadership of Breslov." I believe this editor is running the nanach.net website, as I found his posts [15] and [16] telling his friends how he has infiltrated Wikipedia to fight against "biased" editors who keep taking the Na Nach philosophy off the Breslov pages (and — read the comments — to get more publicity for their website). Everything he contributes violates WP:SOAP, as he insists that the Na Nachs are the only true interpreters of Rebbe Nachman's teachings. In fact, "Na Nach" was and still is considered a very fringe element in Breslov circles, and one should be very wary of any of their interpretations of Rebbe Nachman’s teachings. All the leading Breslovers of the previous generation totally rejected the "Na Nach" chant and presentation of Breslov teachings. The Na Nach movement came into being only in the early 1980s, when the “Saba” was in his 90s, speaking Hebrew and Yiddish and was taken out of an old-age home to be cared for by English- and French-speaking baalei teshuvah, most of whom were well-versed with the then-drug scene and were seeking a guru to teach them Rebbe Nachman. Today they dance on cars and block traffic in downtown Jerusalem, among other places; certainly not what Rebbe Nachman had in mind with his deep and erudite teachings.
I think someone needs to order this editor to cite references rather than opinions. However, if he chooses to cite his own writings on his website, I assure you that that site carries absolutely no weight with true Breslov scholars. I feel that we're looking at months of arguing and page-ruining unless we put a stop to it now. Thank you for everything you can do. Yoninah ( talk) 21:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this an article that most admins won't touch with a barge pole? Justin talk 21:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Jay, hi, it's me again. :) I know I've talked to you about what appears to be some frustration on your part at the Israeli settlement article (and others). [17] I'm glad that you're trying an RfC at Talk:Israeli settlement now, but there's one other thing I wanted to make you aware of. I was looking through your edits on the Israeli settlement article, and of your edits since early November, nearly every single one of your changes (18 out of 19) has been to re-insert the same thing, the word Samaria into the lead of the article. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] And your 19th edit was Samaria-related as well. [36] You are not making any other changes to the article, and you do not appear to be making any attempt to find compromise wording, you just keep reverting and reinserting the same thing, over and over. Please, can you stop reverting, and just continue to engage in discussion at the talkpage? I've looked through the discussions thus far, and though there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus either way, the general feeling seems to be leaning towards not including the word in the lead. So until there is a clear consensus for the change, please stop with the reverts on this one thing? You are still welcome to make other changes to the article, and to continue to engage at the talkpage of course. Hopefully with additional opinions from uninvolved editors, we'll be able to find a proper consensus, and ensure long-lasting changes to the article. Thanks, -- El on ka 19:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Vaya pues. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem, you have enough to do without de-vandalizing your talk page as well. As for the big yellow box, it provides such an easy way to remove trolling without getting dragged into justifications that I couldn't pass it up. ;) Daniel C/ T + 14:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we were both only partly right. The discussion needs to stay sequential, and his response was not timestamped to show that it occurred later. But WP:TP specified that I was wrong in indenting his response, because as you said it made it look like he was responding to me. Thank you for helping me learn more about Wikiquette. ^_^ arimareiji ( talk) 21:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Stop deleting a quote from the book...The book is RS. The quote comes from Yahiam archives...who he is is of no import it is an observation on the poverty caused through Israeli policies...Israel had the policy that the Palestinian citizens of Israel were under martial law and that all produce was to be sold at a set price to Israel...previous RS citations within the article have that in...I will be putting a whole string of citations up to back that...If you want to develop the article fine but it is under construction and stop deleting, add by all means .... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Write the article yourself. And then I'll delete all that does not directly fit... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Your disruption of article development is typical of Israelophile stupidity... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that you are not ready for wiki...I think that the article does need development and I also think most of the development could have been done on Banias until it was ready for a split but the deletionist israelophile propagandists are not able to seek any form of consensus and only want full compliance in reproducing of the minority global POV and an wiki as an Israeli mouth-piece...I think that fair words are not a substitute for obscene actions...please review WP:CIVIL you use disruption to hinder development with WP:Tend. May I suggest that you go away and develop your own articles leaving those who do wish write to get on with it instead of practising disruption.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 10:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow Jayjg you make out as though you have never even heard of the actions of Israel in the DMZs...you almost make out as though you're incredulity is real, but since you are not new to IP conflict your protestations are, to put it in the least inoffensive manner, bizarre...and in 60 days I will be placing lots of citations to back up the claims...
Ashley kennedy3 (
talk) 12:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dispenser. Is PDFbot still active? I've always found it very useful, and was hoping it would go through some articles. Jayjg (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
As far as I was aware, I reverted four words in a problematic statement added by an IP user. Was there something else? Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 18:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
User User:DonaldDuck deletes all mentions of any antisemitic activities by Russian historical figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lute88 ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Hope 2009 is a great year for you!-- MONGO 15:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jayjg,
Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.
Kind regards,
Majorly talk 21:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I see you've made some edits on this one in the not too distant past (of the reverting vandalism variety). I'm strongly leaning towards nominating this thing for deletion since I can find no reliable sources for it and it seems to mostly be fly paper for people who love/hate this non-notable, vaguely christianish org in central PA. If you've given this any thought, particularly if you think deletion is a bad idea for some reason that's not apparent to me immediately, let me know. Happy new year. Bali ultimate ( talk) 22:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia ( talk) 06:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to get your opinion on this, if posible. THanks! Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Precedent_for_inclusion_of_nicknames 24.21.105.252 ( talk) 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you on there not being any RS. I actually did a very thorough search for sources, because this would have been a keeper if there where sources. Like say, " Comical Ali". Not that I agree with the sentiments, but gallows humors holds my heart...
Anyways, I have requested the redirect page speedy deleted as an attack, because that is the only thing it is under the circumstances, even after all this years. That's what happens when there is no deadline ;) Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 15:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar | ||
Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. |
seems like you're everywhere i am! care to join me on the list of ethnic slurs page and we can discuss there? ethnic slurs, according to wiki are "used as insinuations or allegations about members of a given ethnicity or to refer to them in a derogatory (critical or disrespectful), pejorative (disapproving or contemptuous), or insulting manner . . . used to insult on the basis of race, ethnicity, or nationality." the term self-hating jew seems to meet all of these qualifications - the def. implies only one is necessary. thanks so much for your patience, i'm new here and not trying to step on toes, although it seems i have already. Untwirl ( talk) 00:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for alerting me to the vote on this important and valuable topic. I am glad that the truth and neutrality has prevailed. Majority has agreed in consensus, that Syria's illegal "presence" of Lebanon was indeed, an occupation. -- Eternalsleeper ( talk) 21:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations, you're nominated to be the official I-P diplomat! I know you're thrilled, but you don't have to thank me quite so effusively... ;-)
Seriously, PalestineRemembered is building up a head of steam at the Rachel Corrie page; specifically
Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Tom_Gross. Could I ask you to intervene with even a few words? In my limited experience, you're the only one I've seen him listen to. My thanks in advance for your time, even if you look and decide I'm being uncivil and have to rebuke me instead.
arimareiji (
talk) 21:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hiya, regarding your recent edits to Israeli settlement, I see that you reworded a section to remove the term "biblical". [66] That particular sentence has been the subject of edit wars recently, and it's pretty clear that the "biblical" term is well sourced. I have no strong preference on whether or not it stays in the article or not, but if another editor re-adds the term, please do not remove it again unless there is a clear consensus to do so at the talkpage. Thanks, -- El on ka 21:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It's nice to see you back after your absence.— Sandahl ( talk) 02:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 02:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
How is the edit for recent developments not justifiable? The article at guardian.co.uk article is a legit source. CNN has also reported this. Here is an Israeli news source confirming Israel breaking the ceasefire: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050460.html "Six months ago Israel asked and received a cease-fire from Hamas. It unilaterally violated it when it blew up a tunnel, while still asking Egypt to get the Islamic group to hold its fire." Also, the way it is currently worded in the wiki article, it claims the ceasefire collapsed when Hamas shot rockets. The truth is the ceasefire already expired by then so how can Hamas cause the ceasefire to collapse? Please remove your undo. — Illxchild ( talk · contribs) 05:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I see how this conflict can be very tricky. Thank you for your fast response. — Illxchild ( talk · contribs) 05:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jayjg take a look at User:Steve3849's edit-warring on State terrorism [67] where he puts in dubious Pakistani government propaganda sources to slander India ( unreliable sources) and tendentiously quotes PBS etc to slander Israel ( WP:SYN). 72.179.45.108 ( talk) 06:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Would you lend a hand in settling an edit war in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn#Accusations_of_Antisemitism ? Galassi ( talk) 19:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you have contributed to this page in the past, I thought you might be interested in the edits now being introduced by somebody or other from Kabul.-- Gilabrand ( talk) 07:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
-Vandalism to Talk Page- Unfortunately, the below links may not work as the Talk Page has been vandalized and evidence of a dispute removed from the article and Talk Page [ [68]] Doright ( talk) 05:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg, this article links to the Main Page so I would have thought that at least one admin would have shown up by now to address the problem. Could you take a look and try to fix it or suggest how to proceed? Thanks. [ 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict Remedy for documented POV violation] Doright ( talk) 08:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Jayjg, also please take a look at this Iranian content. It is located on the same talk page above the link I already provided above. It has been deleted from the article. Obviously, some editors don't like how this [WP:RS] edit disturbs the Palestinian narrative orthodoxy. [ Section titled Iranian involvement] Doright ( talk) 09:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Also see this NPOV dispute regarding another element in the same article. [ another NPOV dispute] Doright ( talk) 09:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Does this merit its own article? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you please have a look at these articles because what happens there seems to me not very wise and a little bit not in compliance with wp:npov but rather more with wp:soap. Thx. Ceedjee ( talk) 18:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Further more Ceedjee it is against wikipedia policy to rally people to your ideas/cause on wikipedia, please see WP:CANVAS-- Rockybiggs ( talk) 09:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Jayjg/Archive 27 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems you've had contact with this hater too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lapsed_Pacifist
Please see below:
Yours, Bounce78 ( talk) 09:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg, Can you please look at User:MichelleSBernard contributions as far as adding categories to bios. If the bio does not mention ethnicity or religion, it seems the category should not be added. I will defer to your judgement. Thank you, -- Tom 15:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jayjg, I am not sure whether this is a village pump inquiry or what - if you can't answer y questions I am hoping you know where I should go. I have never uploaded any images to Wikipedia. I have images made from photocopies of pages from a book. First, I am not sure whether I legally am allowed to upload them (the book is an English translation of a French book, copyrighted 1955. The book itself has been translated into English twice, and one translation was originally published by Atheneum, now by Penguin. The images of course are always the same). Second, if I am allowed to upload them (I want to use them to illustrate a section in the Culture article that discusses the author's theories), I do not know technically how to. If you can tell me what to do or where to look I would appreciate it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fayssal,
I've brought the edit in question to the Talk page for further comment. Cheers, Jayjg (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You reverted a lot of work I had done including reference corrections (at the moment this article is poorly referenced). Your comment was addressed to "Moze of Kabul" but its my work you were reverting.
If I don't hear from you within the next 24 hours I will revert back to my introduction. I have no objection if you wat to correct my introduction but I object to it being summarily replaced with the inadequate earlier version.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 05:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
So why not delete what you don't like? I at least know hwat I'm talking about...
Telaviv1 ( talk) 05:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I will keep try to keep improving this.
Telaviv1 (
talk) 08:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology ( C)( T) 08:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
Sorry to keep asking, but could you briefly weigh in on the subject of
Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Tom_Gross again? IronDuke has come back, and is saying that by
rebuking PR for wanting to exclude Tom Gross from the article altogether (agree), you were really arguing that Gross's Spectator article
"Dead Jews Aren't News" belongs in "Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie." (disagree) My understanding was that you only meant that PR was wrong in wanting to completely exclude Gross from the article. If I'm wrong, please say so and I'll retract my mischaracterization.
(Extra context for the above: The original addition was made under the subterfuge that "telling the story of The Forgotten Rachels" would indeed belong in "Artistic Tributes" in a perverse way, but Gross barely mentions them. Once the actual source was found and this was determined, there was strong consensus for removing it from that section (4-0). IronDuke recently came back and re-added it, along with several other major reverts, and said that you were his second vote.) arimareiji ( talk) 15:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
An article who voted on in the past concerning to delete it or not, has been recreated and nommed for deletion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignatz Lichtenstein 3rd nom -- Joseph3333 ( talk) 21:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Threeafterthree, who I noticed you worked with on a similar matter recently, has repeatedly ignored and deleted vandalism warning tags posted to his talk page without responding. On the contrary, he continues to repeat prior activities. He recently violated a WP:3RR warning notice to his page by reverting a 3rd time to Sergey Brin. There appears to be no way to communicate with this user whose activities have now become clear harassment and vandalism per Wiki's policies - what's worse he seems proud and gleeful of his display of arrogance and audacity in thumbing his nose at all guidelines. I'm hoping you can review this. This user is wasting a lot of my time and affecting numerous valuable bios.
Hope you can help. Thanks. Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 23:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, Jayjg. Arguably Temple Israel isn't really a disambiguation page anymore, at least not within the strictures of WP:MOSDAB (a topic on which I've recently been lectured in stern terms by one of the DAB "specialists"). I was considering deleting the POWdis template from this page. Since you have been involved in maintaining this page, and since I have very much appreciated your efforts to develop and maintain good synagogue articles, I wanted to ask your opinion on what you think would be best here. Thanks very much.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 23:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi JayJg,
Given :
what would you think of a move ? Ceedjee ( talk) 10:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Did Meteormaker 'win' the argument? I must have missed that RFC. -- Shuki ( talk) 00:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg, an ip is adding this to bios. Not sure what the deal is. I edited a few but sort of gave up. I am really tired of dealing with this "stuff" and trying to figure out what is the "right" thing to do so I will probably just defer to you in the future if you don't mind. Anyways, I give you alot of credit for dealing with this never ending nonsense. Cheers! -- Tom 18:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, my suggestion to both of you: when you are one of the parties involved in a dispute, it's a bad time to act as judge and jury. I'm an admin, too, but when I'm involved in a dispute with anyone who has made substantive contributions - and sometimes when I am not a party to the dispute, but just find that one side really rubs me the wrong way - I avoid being the one to take action and bring it to WP:AN/I and, as dispassionately as I can, ask someone neutral to look into the situation in the rule-enforcing capacity instead of being the enforcer myself. - Jmabel | Talk 20:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jayjg, A new user named Treesheads, who just surfaced for the first time last Thursday to edit the above article, has been resisting all attempts to conform with Wikipedia policy on categorization. Three editors, including myself, have tried to explain to him/her that specific categories are preferred over general ones, but s/he has reverted all efforts to delete categories like "Jews," "Judaism," "Aliyah" and "Religion in Jerusalem" (where Noah Weinberg is the only person listed). Can you help us here? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 16:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Treesheads ( talk) 03:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Is in not accurate? Does it cormorm to WP standards? If not, please explain? Is is not vandalism to remove a Rosh yeshiva from the a Rosh yeshiva catagory? Treesheads ( talk) 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Jay, would you mind commenting on a content dispute at Nativity of Jesus. It concerns a table comparing the accounts of Matthew and Luke. There are concerns over the use of primary sources, OR, novel synthesis, lack of explanation/context which would be afforded by prose, and even its necessity, given the section "The nativity as myth". The table can be seen at this version of the page: [75] at section 1.3, "The narratives compared". Discussion on the issue can be found at Talk:Nativity of Jesus, in the threads "The two narratives compared", "The two narratives compared, part 2", and at "Task List (January 15, 2009)". Your input on the issue would be greatly appreciated, as very few persons have commented on it. Thank you, Jay. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
So you are can just delete infobox people for no reason and it is not vandalism. This is good to know for future reference. If anyone has a problem with deleting infobox's for no reason I will refer them to you. Thanks, Treesheads ( talk) 03:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Treesheads
Added new source to Brad Delson to verify ethnicity, even though it's painfully obvious. What I don't understand is, half the article is without sourcing, shall we delete those components as well? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 06:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{ Sockpuppet category}} template.
Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards,-- Stepheng3 ( talk) 20:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Jay, a fellow editor who wishes to be anonymous at wiki has asked me if he activates his email can administrators or "elites" see it? I wasn't 100% sure so I was asking... Tundrabuggy ( talk) 03:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Jayjg, I would like to get your opinion of the addition of the Antisemitism template to the Self-hating Jew article by Stevertigo. In my view, the antisemitism category is enough. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 13:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Jayjg, things were still hoplessly stuck yesterday on the question of it "self-hating Jew" is an antisemitic insult, so I took the question to Wikipedia:Third opinion. First Arimareiji refactored my request, them started to participated in responding to Third Opinion requests [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82]. Since all of this user's Third Opinion activity seems to have come after my Third Opinion request, you will understand if I view this as less than kosher. Any suggestions? Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 20:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Jayjg, I appreciate your input and analysis of the problems at the Self-hating Jew article. When you look at the talk page next, you will see that Arimareiji has just kicked up a lot of dust. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 15:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I took a few pictures of the front of the temple when I was in Scottsdale last month. Unfortunately the sun was behind the building and the front of it faces a very busy street so the pictures didn't come out great. I've got two that went merged together should show most of the front but I need to find somebody with Photoshop to do it. If you would like to see them I'll email you the pictures. BJ Talk 19:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
You might want to weigh in with your opinion. --David Shankbone 17:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Jaygh: I wanted to thank you for this sussint comment on the False Flag talk page:
This should be fairly straightforward; you should look for things that reliable sources describe as "false flag" operations. You shouldn't be trying to find examples based on your own definition of the term, and how well you think various actions fit it - that's original research.
It was so susscint and helpful, it has stuck with me ever since. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
What do you make of this edit summary? Is this acceptable commentary? NoCal100 ( talk) 04:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
You recently banned the above user for vandalism. This has continued (there are warnings with diffs on the talk page) and we now have [ abusive language]. Also worth noting this statement "No, I think I'll just break the rules till they ban me forever" on his talk page on the 17th after the ban. Any chance you could have a look? Thanks -- Snowded ( talk) 07:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I see you have edited this page before, and had dealings with the editor who is now launching a mini-edit war. If you have time, take a look.-- Gilabrand ( talk) 09:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't need krep like this. Having a disruptive editor follow me around and disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me and reverting my edits is not what I signed up for. THF ( talk) 22:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this, you may wish to comment at the related complaint I have made here. Canadian Monkey ( talk) 01:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I have a question. Pedrito has been removing all references to Judea and Samarea from the geographical location of this settlement and all others, saying that this is according to Talk:Israeli settlement. I have looked there and it seems that there was a long argument, but I could not see any conclusions (but maybe I did not look well enough). Since you were involved in that argument, can you please tell me if there was some policy emerging from that discussion regarding the omission of these names? Thank you. Tkalisky ( talk) 17:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick pickup! but now I have a question: since I -- a fairly well-informed and usually careful yet hasty reader as well as being an editor by vocation -- did not notice that this particular wording was that of a quoted source, how to indicate that this is the reason for the [erroneous] phrasing of the page text (and lede at that)? I'll put a note on the Talk page and will hail you for further comment there, for the record. Excellent page, outstandingly sourced... and it truly came in handy just now, when I was having my morning dose of good faith!. -- Deborahjay ( talk) 06:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind having a look at the problem of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Nazi history and swastika flag being systematically deleted/vandalized? This removes an important aspect of neutrality from the article. References from many reliable sources are provided. See its talk page. The edits are being done by users with IP addresses from very similar domains. Thanks, Histopher Critchens ( talk) 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai ( talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I have started a Request for Arbitration regarding the use of northern/southern West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria. Since you have been involved in this debate, I have included you in the request.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 25.02.2009 09:32
Hi, A new user, Parthian Scribe, has just created this category and is busy populating it with 106 Jewish personalities to date, saying that the category is needed to distinguish between these and Jews who don't keep Judaism, like Noam Chomsky. Huh? Seems to me that the already-existing category, "Jewish Atheists," will take care of the small number of non-believing Jews compared to the large number of believing Jews, and the latter already has many sub-categories under Category:Jews. I'm not sure where to register my complaint, though, so I'm turning again to you. Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 08:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I see that you are familiar with issues regarding the Middle East Quarterly. Can you take a look at an argument over a series of tags on the page A land without a people for a people without a land. the dispute revolves around cherrypicked and POV tags put up on the grounds that the article cites an article that appeared in MEQ. Thanks. Historicist ( talk) 13:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments needed to stop edit war at Talk:Khmelnytsky_Uprising#Dates. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Just to keep things straight, and despite what the edit summary says, it wasn’t my edit you reverted [85]. CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 06:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg. I just wanted to express my appreciation of the clarity of expression in this post. I particularly like 'Just because a reliable source makes an argument, it doesn't mean the "door is open" for Wikipedia editors to construct counter-arguments (or even supporting arguments) on the same topic'. I thought that this (or something very like it) would make an excellent addition to NOR itself, as this kind of problem seems to come up over and over again, and your summary of policy is so clear and quoteable. Jakew ( talk) 19:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)