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 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Jerusalem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. < eleland/ talk edits> 21:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the content at The Holocaust Industry, but the atmosphere at the talkpage is not helpful. Please try to keep future comments focused on the article only, and not the editors. Thanks, El on ka 04:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to post this on AN/I, with the title above, but I got an edit conflict. I then noticed that it says on AN/I that notices of edit-warring should go to 3RR Noticeboard. I looked at that, but they say it's only for violations of WP:3RR. Our dispute doesn't qualify for that either, so I'll post what I was going to post on AN/I here. I realize this might cause editors who like you and respect you to be drawn to the dispute, but then, I'm willing to take that chance in the interest of avoiding a "real" editwar. Here is what I was going to post:

I'm requesting help looking into this issue. User:Jayjg does not have consensus for the recent inclusion of his latest edit to circumcision (which I have left in his desired state), as I believe is evident here. Could an admin please take action and edit the article as policy dictates. I'm tired of doing it. I've made a good-faith effort to make my points, and I'm feeling that Jayjg is not addressing them, or those of other editors, adequately. Please read the discussion. Thanks. Blackworm ( talk) 06:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[End of post.] Since I didn't actually leave it in impartial admin's hands on AN/I, I reserve the right to revert your latest change. I hope I won't have to, and that you'll self-revert. Blackworm ( talk) 06:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's under discussion here. Having reviewed the article, I don't see any valid speedy deletion rationale. Is it possible that you erred there? Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 06:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This ANI thread involves a checkuser case you were a part of. Your insight would be appreciated. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

ok don't worry you're are not the one to blame Rezistenta ( talk) 21:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar; I've added it to my userpage. However, it might have come too soon. I don't plan on spending a large amount of time trying to fix the issues with the article. I, to put it simply, do not have the time to spend fixing the (legitimate) problems with the article within the short period the FAR process allows. Further, I certainly don't have the energy to argue with people who want every point about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict included. I would, ideally, like to see the FAR tabled for a bit because many of the issues -- almost everything except for those surrounding the introduction -- are being raised for the first time. But, it doesn't matter; if the article loses FA status, the issues can be addressed then and then brought to another (surely, painful) FAC -- if someone is up for that monumental task. -- tariqabjotu 10:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg,

Just wanted to draw your attention here [1]. I've asked Elonka to have a look at it / offer advice on dealing with it.

You expressed an opinion before that "Attempts to remove all links to Zionism on the Web seem a bit too opportunistic and ideological for my taste - a bit more of the 'making political hay' out of the CAMERA case, which no doubt will be milked for every ounce of propaganda and editorial value possible."

Given that is just what happened any further thoughts on handling it or on the new discussion are welcome.

Thanks Oboler ( talk) 22:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

		The Jewish Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your hard work improving wikipedia articles related to Judaism, for trying to defend articles on wikipedia from POV promoters. YahelGuhan ( talk) 07:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd noticed the green line push, it is definatly a POV push at this point, when multiple editors over multiple articles are telling him why it is wrong yet he persists. Arn't there ArbCom restrictions designed to stop this stuff on the mid east articles? Narson ( talk) 08:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Might be worth contacting Elonka? As he poke to LP about it before. The term really is just silly POV pushing that is not only obvious but pointless. Narson ( talk) 01:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've nominated Temple Sinai (Oakland), an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on July 11, where you can improve it if you see fit.

Mr. Jay, you don't know me, but I know about your contributions. I admire your contributions. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 03:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my error. I would also like to say few things about your contributions. Your contributions to articles related to Israel and Palestine are well-known. I've read about articles such as Rudolf Vrba in the past. I think you have also contributed to the article Israel. Now, it's a Featured Article. You are a wiki-celebrity. So many people know about you. And you have survived on Wikipedia for so long. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 03:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 03:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The day has finally come where we agree on something. Dang it; I had a whole speech prepared for such an event but I don't know where I put it! :-P -- Kendrick7 ^talk 21:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw where the decision on the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid article was DELETE. I noticed this statement by CJCurrie July 8 which troubled me : "As this page has now been retitled as Israel and the apartheid analogy, and all of the other "Allegations of [...] Apartheid" pages have been removed, there seems little reason to retain this article. CJCurrie (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC) updated 23:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)"

I notice that the one now redirects to the other. Does this mean the article will be kept with this new name which still specifically refers to Israel, or will the newly re-named article be removed as well? Tundrabuggy ( talk) 00:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll try to improve it. The article in question is here: [2] in relation to the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid article which was apparently ruled a DELETE as of yesterday.

The last entry in the discussion was by JCCurie on July 8 who said that since the article had been re-named to Israel and the apartheid analogy that there was little reason to retain the article Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. If it is decided that the article is to be deleted, then does the name change defeat the delete? (I can't see any serious difference between an article entitled Allegations of Israeli Apartheid or Israel and the apartheid analogy). Does that make any better sense? (I hope) Tundrabuggy ( talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! Sarcasticidealist just answered and explained that I got confused between Allegations of Israeli Apartheid and just plain Allegations of Apartheid. Apparently we still have such allegations against Israel, just no longer such general allegations. Israel seems to have a lot of such articles, such as the one I have been recently editing Zionism and racism--quite a separate article from Anti-Zionism. It is enough to make one's head spin. Sorry to take up your time with my confusions. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 02:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I remember you as a calm voice a few years back when a user (named Alberuni, I think) was trying to disrupt the Munich Massacre page. Anyway, lately my edits are normally just minor copyediting or disambiguating stuff as I come across it. But two oddities have popped up recently, and I'm asking for advice.

Second one first: a few days back, I wandered across the article Enemy of the people and saw an odd, unreferenced phrase suggesting it was common to both US and Communist history. I'm enough of a history geek that I'd think I would have come across that once or twice in American history. I haven't; "un-American" and "anti-American" are normal descriptors for those wishing to denounce others in the States. So I deleted it, thinking it uncontroversial to do so. I was surprised to have it reverted almost immediately with a mocking insult by User:SmashTheState; I let that get the better of me on my reversion (don't edit when tired!). My offense was not to the reversion; it was to the instant assumption that the only reason I would make such an edit was jingoism. Still, I should have been nicer, but I did explain it needed a citation. After more back-and-forth, he/she/it provided citations. Except that the first citation doesn't say what the editor claims; as I point out in my edit, it fails three different ways to support his point! The second reference I only just now checked; it only mentions the phrase as used by Ayn Rand in a fiction work! The editor then claims that "enemy of America" is used and that's why he put the references in (he then goes on to insult me as pushing a POV). I pointed out that the two phrases are not the same, and he could start a new enemy of America article if he so wished (there may even be enough history there to make a decent article). I thought that was pretty logical.

Not to our friend. He then engaged in this fun attack on me. (Edit-warring? Lately I've been italicizing ship names, mostly!) What I found interesting (other than that I've never seen "Red Dawn") was his failure to see that the relatively minor article enemy of the people should cover that subject alone; he conflated it with "enemy of the state," "enemy of America," etc. My latest reversion contains my lame apology for earlier profanity. But, in looking at SmashTheState short edit history, he'll never accept that. Examples of what he thinks are non-POV edits: [3]; [4] (on that second one, he missed a golden opportunity for a genuine NPOV fix by letting his views get the better of him).

My question (finally!) is: what to do in this situation? The editor (and at least one cohort) seem determined to put the information in, either without references or with false references (meaning the references do not even come close to saying what is claimed). Any suggestions are welcome.

The second is somewhat similar, but I think it's more likely that I'm wrong on it. The Oka crisis was a dispute in Canada between the government at several levels and native land claimants. I found odd use of the term "warrior" as fact throughout the article. Since the people in question are college students, etc. who showed up to confront the Canadian army, I thought that they were clearly not "warriors" in any normal sense. I took out the references, again thinking the POV was obvious. Two weeks later, I was surprised to see them restored. This talk entry records my snarky, but I think somewhat substantive, response. The editors who responded (more nicely that I) seem to be saying that, since these fellows call themselves warriors, they are, by default. Bizarrely, I was asked for a reference for NOT using the term "warrior," and accused of doing original research to conclude the term wasn't warranted! My point is somewhat similar to the Munich Massacre page; doubtless the Palestinians with guns that day would have called themselves "warrior," but it's agreed that it's POV to call them that. No, I am NOT saying the Oka crisis native fellows were terrorists; I just think calling a guy in a bandanna yelling at a soldier a "warrior" is a stretch. But I'm willing to entertain that I'm wrong here. Do you have an opinion, as a much more experienced (and calmer!) editor?

Anyway, I think I'll mostly stick to copyediting, or maybe go back to working on coin or asteroid articles! A²Kafir ( and...?) 03:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, you're one of the editors I remember working with in the past on a dispute resolution involving the 2006 Lebanon War, so I'm hoping you can advise on another contentious dispute I'm involved with. Myself and another editor, GreenEcho, aren't seeing eye-to-eye on several issues. I had filed an incident report on the Administrators' noticeboard, complaining that I considered his edits to be uncivil and disruptive, but it was pretty much ignored by the administrators (I may have included too many examples and diffs). Our current conflict involves the article 2008 conflict in Lebanon. We went back and forth between two similar, but fundamentally different versions many times over the course of a week. I requested a WP:3O, who gave good feedback, and suggested citing the sources and their statements explicitly, which I tried to do, but which was summarily reverted, twice. Could you per chance stop by the discussion on the talk page, and mediate our dispute? Would appreciate some outside input here. ← George ^{[ talk} 04:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Great! I may be confused as to which article it was, but I do think you may have mediated a dispute I was involved in at some point... or maybe not, my memory isn't that great. :) At any rate, this obviously isn't a request to "take my side," I'm just looking for a neutral party to look into the issue, and hopefully mediate our dispute and foster discussion towards consensus. I had also filed a request at the Mediation Cabal, which hasn't been fulfilled yet I don't think... I'm not sure if you're a mediator there or not, but just FYI. ← George ^{[ talk} 00:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

On 16 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Temple Sinai (Oakland, California), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- BorgQueen ( talk) 11:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barn star, and sorry for the late response - I've been on a relatively long break. Canadian Monkey ( talk) 18:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. All the best, Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yo Jayjg, I was wondering if you would care to weigh in here? Thanks, Skomorokh 14:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg,
There is a debate for which I think you should have the answer. Do you know if the highway (or the main road) that linked Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem after the war of independence was the Burma road or if it was another one, south of Burma road ?
Thank you. Ceedjee ( talk) 15:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you could voice an opinion over the issue currently being discussed at that article. Canadian Monkey ( talk) 14:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of synagogue articles you've done! Impressive contribution to the encyclopedia. Well-written, too. I'm sure people will appreciate them: members of the congregations will be very interested to see the articles, for example. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 02:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Temple Beth Israel (Eugene, Oregon) article. I'm not sure it's notable, but the place is important to the lives of many of my friends and I've attended many events there, so I will see what I can find to flesh it out. I can probably add a pic next time I'm in Eugene. Katr67 ( talk) 16:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that... I let TWINKLE get the best of me. Hope I didn't offend you. Happy editing! Scottydude _talk 04:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, I am a newbie requesting some help. I want to nominate the artice Racism and Zionism for deletion (again). (it was last nominated and kept in May 2007). I've been working on my reasons, and there are (at least) a few others that agree with me. I was wondering if you could help me understand the process? It feels like the WP:DEL page is overly complex. I know you are really busy but I am a fast learner, generally.  :) Tundrabuggy ( talk) 13:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've nominated Congregation Beth Israel (Lebanon, Pennsylvania), an article you created, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on July 23, where you can improve it if you see fit.

It's a fine article. Thank you for creating the article. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 10:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I will try my best to save the article. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 04:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice cleanup, and long overdue. Hope it stays. ThuranX ( talk) 01:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It does need a clean-up, but it's such a struggle to keep it the messy mostly NPOV version it is now for me that I dont' even try. It seems like every few months either an ultra-orthodox editor hits it saying all other jews aren't real jews, or a messianic hits it saying all messianics are the real jews, or someone else hits it saying israel is bigoted for the Law of Return. By the time it settles down, I don't want to look at that article anymore. ThuranX ( talk) 02:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article Congregation Beth Israel (Honesdale, Pennsylvania), and made a comment on it at the submissions page. Please feel free to reply or comment there. Cheers, Art LaPella ( talk) 07:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. As I think the User:Art LaPella/No qualifying article link I provided explains, Congregation Beth Israel (Honesdale, Pennsylvania) does not yet qualify in its present condition. Specifically, Wikipedia:Did you know#Selection criteria states: "Articles should have a minimum of 1,500 characters (around 1.5 kilobytes) in main body prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables)." (This rule is further clarified at User:Art LaPella/Unwritten rules, rule number A2.) For this article, this amounts to counting only the 3 paragraphs starting with "Congregation..." and ending with "...Smith.[1]" The purpose of the "main body prose only" rule is hard to explain, but they enforce it rigidly. So I count 497 bytes. If you could make the prose portion about 3 times longer (the infobox, references and categories don't count), you would pass my phase of the Did You Know review. Art LaPella ( talk) 00:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's long enough. It's barely long enough, so someone might ask you to if you could make it longer, and it probably wouldn't be picked first. But it will probably be picked unless there is a problem unrelated to length. When I said "rigidly" I meant outside the gray area from about 1300 to about 1900. Art LaPella ( talk) 02:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on being mentioned in the July 2008 edition of Harper's Magazine! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Jay. We were successful in saving the article Congregation Beth Israel (Lebanon, Pennsylvania). I want to promote the article to the Good Article status. I will try my best. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 08:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

On 28 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Congregation Beth Israel (Lebanon, Pennsylvania), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- BorgQueen ( talk) 16:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

just wanted to let you know I started a topic about my revisions on the holocaust denial page. Hopefully see you there. -- Circuitcheckr ( talk) 16:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This is fyl. Great synagogue, was a frequant usage in western and central Europe, Choral synagogue is the synonymous term in Eastern Europe. In scholarly literature, however, they are referred to as cathedral synagogues, a them no synagogue ever applies to itself. The term satisfies many Jewish scholars because avoids choosing between east andwest Europena terms. In great, choral or catheedral synagogues the goals were to: 1) build a big impressive building so that dignitaries could visit the Jews in an impressive space 2) have the worship within be decorous and synchronous, unlike orthodox congregations in which individuals pray at their own pace , disconcertin visiting dignitaries by standing up, bowing, and paraying aloud at varying times. The choir was there to drown out the sound of any off-cycle individual davening. hence, choral synagogues.

The work you are doing on congregations is admirable. Elan26 ( talk) 20:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Many thanks for your continued diligence in removing weasel words from Holocaust denial. Regards, WilliamH ( talk) 10:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not sure I understand your recent changes on Emanu-El. It seems that the synagogues that have Wikipedia pages were mostly (but not totally) changed to put the location in parentheses, but the other listings were left alone. This makes the list look, in my opinion, sloppy, as the list previously had consistency where all the entries were the same format. I didn't want to touch anything without asking you for your thought process on the page or to disrupt whatever work you might be doing there. I appreciate any help to make these pages better. Thanks. JerseyRabbi ( talk) 12:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand why you changed the page names for the various synagogues to keep to a standard. I don't understand why the disambiguation page needs to show the names in the style of the link. If you look at the list of synagogues, it looks sloppy because the synagogues - those that are links and those that are not - are now all written differently. I think all the synagogues should be listed the same way. So unless you have a strenuous objection, I am going to make all the listings look the same. Of course the actual links will be to their correct - and in many cases new - link. But the internal Wikipedia link for a page need not be what is listed on the visible page (just as my username link doesn't include "User:" even though that is needed in the link.) Thanks for responding so speedily. JerseyRabbi ( talk) 07:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg,

I need you to take a look at UEFA Cup 2008-09 history to determine what status quo is. The issue is the scoring leaders' table. There has been an edit war between me and this guy called Grant and a decision from an admin not involved with the discussion on the talk page is needed. Kingjeff ( talk) 22:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Despite just being blocked for four days the restricted editor Dreamguy is still using his User page as an attack page against other editors. This is his latest comment at User talk:DreamGuy:

:"Ah. Well, then that's even more bizarre. The rewrite was in response to a couple of admins complaining that the one that is there now was too vague and showed bad faith against editors in general. I changed it to make it more clear, and everything in it was factual -- Elonka and Arcayne have both been described by admins as having harassed me. Elonka additionally has been blocked for said harassment in the past. I don't see how it at all violates my arbitration parole, and certainly if someone objected to it a more reasonable response would be to explain the problem and ask that it be changed, not just take it upon themselves to delete it permanently from the history and block me. The two admins in question probably should have left it to more impartial people. Kbthompson is directly involved in the conflict in question, and this is not the first time Jayig has blocked me for a reason that had no policy basis. But hey, it's a longstanding tradition here that certain admins seem to treat policies as things they are freely allowed to ignore in order to strike out at people they don't like."

I think he is thinking of adding you and Kb to the next version of his attack page. I.e. every admin who has given a judgement which is not in his favour is to be treated as a personal enemy involved in some vast plot against him. Colin4C ( talk) 06:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Have you followed this? You will see that I offered to make specific changes RPSM proposes if they comply with our core policies. Would you mind keeping an eye on this - if he does make specific proposals I and they conform with our policies I would appreciate your help in making changes to the articles; if he makes proposals that you think do not comply with our policies I would appreciate your pointing that out. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

On 31 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Congregation Beth Israel (New Orleans, Louisiana), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Admrb♉ltz ( t • c • log) 04:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought you having a yellow box would remind you to go here :) sorry for the pestering :) Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 22:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just one last reminder to to let me know whether you accept the solution or not. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 13:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. I haven't been editing Wikipedia for a while (partly because I've been doing some research on it) but you left me a note on 15 July [5]. To answer the question... from the list of problems I highlighted the ones I feel impact Wikipedia the most are:

These cannot be replaced with any other source and are factually significant: [6] [7] (In the case of the second it is significant because of who the group are... they represent students in the final years of school about to enter university for the first time)

These are in an of themselves significant: [8] [9]

This one I'd include because it was cited in creating edit of this article (and presumably therefore contributed significantly to it): [10]

As to the value of the source... I would have thought a Jewish Agency best site award would more or less remove doubt on that. Although they aren't awarding new ones, they were only released to a limited numbers of sites those were checked by JAFI who's education department are perhaps the leaders in the area. - None of which really matters when the site is being refered to not for original content but as a storage space for archived material. (It was being linked to for both, but the links above are all either archives of material or original documentry evidence that can't be got else where.)

Thanks for your time on this. Sigh. What a waste of time and effort all around. Sorry again for the slow reply. Feel free to drop me an e-mail any time though.

Oboler ( talk) 13:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, thanks again for the help with this. I guess we now wait and see if he objects. Oboler ( talk) 10:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazi moff 21:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy, again. The Jack the Ripper article, again. Disruptively pushing edits without consensus, again. Incivility, again. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed as the protecting admin for Ethnic nationalism. The page has been semiprotected for longer than 2 months without an expiry date set. Because Wikipedia relies on contributers to make the encyclopedia, I'm asking you to review your decision and either

• Unprotect the page if protection is no longer needed, or
• set a reasonable expiry date for the protection instead of leaving it on forever

I hope that you will do one of the two in order to reduce the backlog of pages that have been semiprotected for very long period of time. Thank you. - Royalguard11( T) 19:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Why am I receiving this message?

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 ( talk) 01:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you continue to edit the page on agudath israel etz ahayem with information that is not pertinent to the history. i am speaking as a member of the temple and a curious wikipedian.

Because other presidents have been awarded similar honors and to single out one president is kind of singling out one person. i would love to know how you know this information and why if it is so important why is it now on the synagogue's own website. also are you a member of this temple? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.135.119 ( talk) 13:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. I actually thought you had done a good job mediating thus far. I had asked for your assistance to act as a mediator after the mediation cabal had been unresponsive... it would appear they're very backlogged. Anyways, as long as the issue gets resolved I don't really care how, but thanks again. ← George ^{[ talk} 08:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, it would appear that after being indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet, the user is back as IP address 77.42.134.185, and has taken up a more aggressive revert behavior. Any suggestions? ← George ^{[ talk} 02:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! It's amazing, it looks like that user has used over a dozen sock puppets over the last year or more... talk about relentless. Anyways, thanks for taking care of this. ← George ^{[ talk} 02:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

...back again, as Monkaa (compare Monkaa's edits to 77.42.188.29's edits...) ← George ^{[ talk} 08:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, they undid your last version again here, yet again. User also called me a "cunt", how nice. ← George ^{[ talk} 11:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jayjg

i'm relatively new to wikipedia. I've spent time posting a link to the largest kosher certification agency in europe on several wikipedia sites. I've noticed that you have gone around and undid all my hard work. I'm not going around link spanning but have put a link on several relevant webpages that are relevant to kosher or kosher certification so i am really surprised by your actions. For all i know you might be working for another kosher agency but i don't know what i have done to upset you so much! Please can i respectfully ask you not to undo my work.

I await your response.

With kind regards Dari —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darimore ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I deleted the links is that they were generally not relevant to the articles on which you placed them. Please review WP:NOTLINK and WP:EL. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jayjg

I posted a link on the following pages 'Kashrut' and 'Kosher food certification organizations' amongst others. How much more relevant pages can one get?!!!

Please be fair and honest that's all i ask for. I hope you can LIVE AND LET LIVE.

I await your response. With kind regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darimore ( talk • contribs) 10:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I never deleted the link from the Kashrut article, and it was you yourself who deleted the link from the Category:Kosher food certification organizations, because links don't belong in Categories. See this edit of yours. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam, I was deeply dissapointed to see that the article I had satarted on Erich Feigl was eventually deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Feigl, a victim in my opinion, of politics. I would like to make a case for why this was an unfair and unjustified deletion. There were two reasons given:

Fails WP:PROF

- Most of the references I had come accross had this title in front of his name.

- Europeans, especially Germans and Austrians tend to be rather fussy about the use of academic titles, so I was not compelled to investigate. (Example: Verzeichnis der Bücher von Prof. Erich Feigl)

- Most importantly, as soon as the title was challenged, I had removed (I can not verify this at the moment) the title from the article and promised to investigate it further. Unless it was added in later by someone, this condition of failure did not exist at the time of the deletion of the article:

It is a good question. All my references refer to his Prof. title and U. of Vienna, but I have not been able to determine further detail due to my limited German. I need to ask around a little. Any help would be appreciated.--Murat (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

- Unfortunately, I was not able to pursue this further.

Fails WP:BIO

- This is the argument that I found to be rather weak. First of all, it seems Erich Feigl was known enough to a number of the folks who were insistant on deletion. Their knowledge of him certainly pre-dated my humble article.

- He is mentioned in Wikipedia/German. Are we to consider Wikipedia a source "triviality"? Isn't there a contradiction here?

- A goole search yielded +12,000 hits. Assuming many of them are trivial and repetitive references, still I think this is a rather high number by any measure for a "trivial" personality.

- At Amazon, with a simple click, I was able to find 8 (eight) of his books. Three of them the same title translated and edited in different languages. His bio lists 16 books. This is certainly not an absolute measure, but it is there. Not that trivial by most measures.

- His really significant books are "Myth of Terror", which is translated to numerous languages, and gained him the negative attention of various ethnic and nationalistic groups, and the other is "The Kurds", which is one

of the earliest books to look into this topic in detail. "Myth of Terror" is what earned him the label "genocide denier", since it did not bow to the establishment. I read the book, there is no denial there, he has mostly focused on the sources of the Armenian terrorism and the other side of the story that is rarely told (thanks to efforts like this).

- His Wikipedia/German bio includes 60 or so documentary movies he made for TV. It was for Austrian TV mostly, which is not a trivial country in a not so trivial part of the World. That is a large amount of significant,

if not earth-shattering work by any measure. His interest was mostly Asian and Near Eastern cultures and peoples. He can be found at: MRC FilmFinder-Directory Filmography.

- For his work he was given "Austrian Science and Arts Medal" and "Vienna Golden Service Medal". I am not sure if I have the right translations, and I do not have more detail on this, yet.

- Let's review the details of WP:BIO:

''The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.'' Condition met. See above.

''The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.'' Condition met. See the above books and TV movies.

It seems that the argument for deletion is rather weak, and even contradicts the established Wikipedia criteria. More disturbing is the nature of the requests for deletion, which seem to be more politically motivated than a concern for the quality of Wikipedia content. Such targeted efforts to remove "undesirable" persons and events and data from the global information space is one of the reasons why some of this information does not seem to get the attention it should get. This is no coincidence.

I was also disturbed about the generous use, and acceptance it seems, of undefined lables like "genocide denier" and "crackpot" while deciding the merits of an article about him. I was also very happy to see that an experienced editor unknown by me took an interest in the article and cleaned up my clumsy editing. It did not last unfortunately. I really hope that you can help me restore this article and let the facts about it stand on their own merit and be subject to the usual Wikipedia scrutiny. I am mostly away from my keyboard till Sept. I hope I am given an opportunity to respond to the result of this appeal. I would welcome any other suggestions you can make in this regard.-- Murat ( talk) 22:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. As a new user I found the process described on the page referenced, for undeleting a little confusing. I would like to insert the proper heading and copy the above in there. Can you guide me please?-- Murat ( talk) 01:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am embaressed to admit that I did read the instructions on the page, but still a bit intimidated: ...but look for the "BELOW THIS LINE" tag after the first paragraph, and paste in your request just below that). Then replace PAGE_NAME and UNDELETE_REASON in your addition with appropriate content. Your whole contribution is this single bracketted tag. The tag will create the proper section for you when you save the page, so you don't need to create a new header or do anything else... After I paste in the one line, then what does one do? Add in my discussion material under it? When it says ..your whole contribution... what does tha mean? Thanks.-- Murat ( talk) 02:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you.-- Murat ( talk) 02:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What exactly should I do now?-- Murat ( talk) 02:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

On 13 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beth Israel Congregation (Jackson, Mississippi), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

...and you can see here that there is a concern about too much US material on DYK and I can see by your nom that you are one of the perpetrators, therefore some balance needs to be struck... some australian synagogues may need articles written about them (these would be the most notable ones lacking currently) :) Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help organizing the Temple Israel article! WacoJacko ( talk) 04:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I just wanted to compliment you on the quality of the other Synagogue articles you've written. WacoJacko ( talk) 04:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome about the note. The articles are at risk of being deleted? What can be done to try and stop that? I obviously feel they should stay as well. I don't know what I could do, but if there is ever anything I can do to help stop them from being deleted, I would be happy to do it. WacoJacko ( talk) 05:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Every time I see your user name, I think in my head "Jay Jiggy". Here you go:

• Category:Congregation Beth Elohim
• East Midwood Jewish Center

I'll try to get the other ones you want at some point.--David Shankbone 01:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but i'm going to politely ask you to refrain from removing my post on the article pertaining to ZOG. This is a 'free' wikipedia, and you are not entitled to promote racism.

I am a reliable source. The post IS from a neutral posture. I am offended as the article is insinuating that I am a racist, which I am not.

If you do not like the format by which it is written, I highly suggest, as a mature, professional administrator, that you find a format to use and a place to put the text. This has also been mentioned in the discussions page by another editor, to be sure.

Edit: The references will be found and forwarded to you.

Thank you,

Desol333 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desol333 ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem? Why do keep deleting my posts in discussions on ZOG? I thought the discussion section was open to 'free discussion'? -- Desol333 ( talk) 06:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

They were most certainly NOT rants. Especially after the fact that we had discussed certain rules as per what wikipedia considers legitimate information? So, i was being extra careful...and thought i would take my 'heart-felt' concerns regarding these matters(israel) into discussion.

Deleted again. Delete delete...undo undo...sheesh. Wow. Admins should have control over referenced pages...but surely NOT over discussion?

Why bother trying to 'discuss' anything of a positive, controversial nature, when my right to free speech is even being shunned? 'Discussion' should be free here...as long as it isn't beligerant, racist or foul.

Desol333 ( talk) 23:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Beth elohim sanctuary exterior.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Beth elohim sanctuary interior.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you have been involved in editing the New antisemitism article, I would be interested in having you view of the current discussion concerning Tariq Ali [11], if you agree with me or not. I would like to find a way to improve the article. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 12:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg,

Just wondering if you could take a glance at [The Jewish Internet Defense Force] when you get time. I think I've undone most of the damage CJCurrie did to it but it perhaps needs watching. Here are the diff of the edits [12] they show referenced material being wiped (again sources I wrote or commented in - note that this is the same guy who removed all references to Zionism On The Web from Wikipedia without concensus and after discussion).

In this case the remove information described a Facebook group as antisemitic. He tried to make out that the claim the Facebook group is antisemitic was only the opinion of the JIDF (the topic of the article) by wiping supporting information. He then proceeded to add a "critisism" section which was entirely based on giving space to the Facebook group owners and sourced it directly to the Facebook group. This consistutes original research, and even then it only given the opinion of the group admins - which is about as far from a reliable source as one can get on the question of whether the group is antisemitic or not. All up I see the activity as both an attack me (again removing material related to my work from Wikipedia) and a PR job to defend anti-Israel material which in this case is also antisemitic. This is concerning. I've written to him and asked him not to stalk me or remove references to my work, but I doubt that will be effective. Anyway, that is a seperate issue from the article itself. On the plus side I found more RS stating the group is antisemitic... though these were all based on the original research I published and presented at the MFA's Global Forum.

I'm going to drop you an e-mail as well as I have two papers in for review that you may find interesting and am workign on a third you may be interested in reviewing before I submit it for academic peer review.

Keep well, and check your mail :) Oboler ( talk) 14:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thought you may like to see this, CJCurrie has opened a discussion accusing JIDF of conspiracy and drawing reference to CAMERA. You get a mention too. [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oboler ( talk • contribs) 07:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, the article is now nominated for deletion and the process itself seems politically motivated, please see my comments here [14] also if you feel any of those comments are out of line... please let me know? Oboler ( talk) 07:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, following your yello badge comment someone has removed the Jpost op-ed reference, the JEwish Week reference and the academic report. They did this by claiming that "group had previously been explored and described as antisemitic in a report[7] as well as in the press.[8][9]" was invalid as one reference in the press was an op-ed. Given the statement said "in the press" not "by the press" I think the original was actually the best wording possible. In any case removing all three sources when the users other comments on talk suggest that they actually disagree with calling the group antisemitic (contradicting the published research based on "I don't like it"). I've aksed puttyschool to take a look as well as while we approach the article form different directions I think this was one point we had reached agreement on. Oboler ( talk) 14:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. I've been having some difficulties with Ceedjee (and him with me, I assume). See here He suggested you as a mediator, and I am fine with that, if you have time. Thanks... IronDuke 00:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay, we seem to be at an impasse. If you could swing by... IronDuke 14:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks!

please delete my page, as i built it out of bits so that i could continue to contribute positively after getting deleted!

) that was bad faith sarcasm. seriously, i would appreciate any links to wiki-tutorials on my talk page. go with g-d! 5768altalena ( talk) 16:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

On 23 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Temple Beth Israel (Niagara Falls, New York), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Gatoclass ( talk) 14:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jayjg. Thank you for your contributions. I'm glad to know that the article has achieve the FA status. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 02:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, DreamGuy isn't supposed to be using multiple accounts { 1), or be uncivil ( 2). However, in a recent discussion, he used an anonymous account (previously identified as being in his IP range) to make a personal attack ( [15]). I don't want to be the one again reporting DG for again ignoring his ArbCom restrictions. The last time I did so, an admin accused me of baiting. His last block was for 96 hours, less than a week ago. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Link to admin accusing you of baiting, please? Were there chipmunks nearby? El_C 07:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The blocking admin, Arthur Rubin blocked me after I reported DG for 3RR vio, claiming: "Edit warring: Not exactly, 3RR, but baiting, as well" ( 1). Sorry, El. I thought you might have seen that.

I am afraid I do not understand the "chipmunks" reference. Could you explain the reference? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Bishonen#DreamGuy. was yesterday, but I see it's unrelated (see top of that page). El_C 07:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, well, that was pretty tangential, wasn't it? :)

Yes, the two matters are unrelated, and the IP range was pretty clearly almost identical to one that DG has used before (and what prompted the modification of the restrictions) and the language of both the post and the edit summary are pretty outstanding violations of that behavioral parole - and this is quite important: he was responding to comments which neither attacked nor addressed him at all. They were unprovoked. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

AS El_C seems to have dropped the ball on this, I was curious as to whether you were planning on acting upon this. I do not intend the matter to go stale. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

tangentially related conversation

I thought you were talking about me. I was going to ignore it, but I will point out that your comment from above, "I don't want to be the one again reporting DG for again ignoring his ArbCom restrictions.", is disingenuous, this is exactly what you are doing - except you are Forum Shopping. This is the third admin you've gone to in an attempt to remove DG from the DAB page discussion.

I'll suggest that you take your own , albeit ironic, advice from the post just preceding the diff [16] you listed: The one which states: "Sigh. As a long time user, I am guessing you kow precisely where to submit a request to an admin regarding suspected sock, right? I ask bc it would seem awfully clear that this page doesn't appear to "be that place."

Forum shopping and multiple unsubstantiated attacks against a single editor strewn across Wiki admin's talk pages, without even placing a note on DG's page, is hardly acceptable. You are baiting, forum shopping and attacking relentlessly a single editor over nothing and have been told so in at least five? separate forums over this single Disambiguation edit. That's my opinion on the topic you've created and placed into discussion here. 75.57.160.195 ( talk) 14:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about you in the post that DG responded to. You have been labeled by others as a stalker and a troll, and have been repeatedly blocked for such. As you continue to engage in the same behavior, you will be called by the title you have earned. Period.

Secondly, had you done your background work, this isn't forum shopping; Jayyig was the last person to block DG for violation of his ArbCom restrictions; therefore, rather than use my precious time to engage in filing another AN/I that would likely get bumped up to ArbCom Enforcement, I decided to confer with the last person who acted in an official capacity regarding the AE restrictions - apparently you missed that in your sad attempt to poison the well.

As well, if a DAB discussion creates dissent as to interpretation rules/guidelines, the wisest move is to seek confirmation of those rules and guidelines from those places where they are discussed exclusively. My initial post after the JTR dab was to dab discussion itself, and another editor suggested the conversation continue in yet another page. That you chose to stalk my edits in the first place, and continued to be disruptive and make personal attacks is an entirely separate and unrelated matter. It doesn't escape my notice that you have the capability to retain the same IP; your prior defenses for your two dozen IP addresses was that you had no control over your IP address, and refused to create an account using the flawed idealism of a "public account", Thank you for confirming that you do actually have control over your IP, and can choose when to alter your IP. Your suggestion that I thought DG was socking is entirely incorrect - you are the only person poor-man socking in this matter, and I am on pretty firm ground by accusing you of it. I thought that was made abundantly clear - unless you are denying you are the same anon user as (the other two dozen) before now, which will initiate an SSP on my part.

Back on topic, DG has banned me from his page, and another editor (a former admin) suggested that even giving him notice or warning of impending rules violations is akin to rubbing salt on the wound. As well, this isn't an official complaint; it is me seeking input from someone who knows DG better than I. Were it to turn official, I would have asked someone to notify DG. As for removing DG from the dab discussion, you are mistaken. Again. DG removes himself from his behavior. No one is posting for him. No one is ordering him to break his own ArbCom restrictions at gunpoint (and stop to consider how long of a bad interaction history someone has to have to be constrained by behavioral restrictions). Frankly, your failure to actually consider the weight of my posts is a knee-jerk reaction to any post I make. Were it not for the fact that you post utter fabrications and misrepresentations, I'd never have a single reason to interact with you. Consider: if you hate me so much, why do you follow me around? You have posted in AN/I 7 or 8 times, and each time have been told to essentially go away. Take the hint, and follow their astute and pointed advice.

Lastly, until you build up a real edit history under a real account, cease your trolling, stalking and personal attacks, or at the very least bother to think about the things you post (I count at least four factual errors in your post here), you may consider my well of good faith towards you bone dry. Act like a grown-up, and you will be treated as such. Fail to do so, and you haven't any right to complain over the consequences.

And that is the last I will respond to the anon - unless of course, he/she makes further outlandish claims, in which case, i will simply take the matter elsewhere more official. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's neither a reasonable nor possible interpretation of your comments on the JTR talk page. Your attacks on me are interesting considering that I've never edited the JTR page and have expressed no opinion as to how the link in question should be listed. My only opinion, ever, has been a civil discussion on the Talk page in support of inclusion. This is wholly in agreement with your position [17] also in support of inclusion.. A casual reader might assume we were engaged in an edit war given the tone of your remarks. 75.57.160.195 ( talk) 15:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Same argument already utterly refuted elsewhere. See the title of this section, and kindly go away. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Utterly refuted elsewhere" ? I made three claims, two negative: 1)I never edited the main page. 2)I put forth no suggestions on how the edit should be written. My third claim, that my only opinion was in support of inclusion and that it was wholly in agreement with your position (and that of the entire community) was supported by a citation. [18] Please feel free to support your claim of "Utterly refuted elsewhere" with a citation. Unsupported allegations and specious claims do nothing to further rational discussion. 75.57.160.195 ( talk) 16:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Special Note. My earlier edit was refactored by Arcayne. He has a habit of changing other peoples edits, words, inflection, emphasis, punctuation, and the deletion of sigs and their timestamps, etc as well as substantially altering his own historical edits in an effort to change history and warp the discussion "deck". This behavior was just commented on in the very same DAB discussion at the heart of this: [19] [20]. Here, again, is the edit as it was originally posted, and intended, in this same section on Jayjg's talk page:

I'll suggest that you take your own , albeit ironic, advice from the post just preceding the diff [21] you listed: The one which states: "Sigh. As a long time user, I am guessing you kow precisely where to submit a request to an admin regarding suspected sock, right? I ask bc it would seem awfully clear that this page doesn't appear to "be that place."

. / 75.57.160.195 ( talk) 15:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your hastily posted warning. I will give it the consideration it deserves. Mamalujo ( talk) 00:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It came up before, in the first AN/I about DG and Jack the Ripper. He was posting from anons intermittently and then supporting them from the DG account. It was my first time filing an ANI or Ae, so I took too long, and El_C declared it stale (which is kinda a cop-out, but there it is). I don't actually link DG's numerous brushes with 'the law', but I am pretty sure that Texas Android or Elonka can confirm the range. If I could find the AN/I and AE links, I would go through them to find the noted IP range, if you wished. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Are you watching Ten Lost Tribes, including the talk page? Might be good to have your input there. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 13:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

On 29 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Congregation Beth Israel, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg,

CJCurrie has got back involved with the JIDF article, again pushing to include information about why the "Israel is not a country" group was originally set up. This is an attempt to show the group as legitimate to off set the RS evidence that the group was widely reported as being antisemitic at the time JIDF got involved. There is a temporal gap however and only the nature of the group at the time of the JIDF action is relevant to the JIDF article.

At any rate this pulled more efforts at white washing the group out of the wood work. One, put there by what looks like a sock puppet, is openly antisemitic [22]. The user page was also a problem, e.g. "Zionism (Jewish fascism)..." History of the talk page [23] - maybe Lihaas is related to this account?

If you have time to read the last three talk topics i.e. [24], [25] and [26] that would be great.

I've made a small change which may fix the content on the article itself (if it is left in)... but there is still something fishy going on here and the antisemitic stuff still needs addressing.

Oboler ( talk) 12:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for my long overdue review of Congregation Beth Elohim. I have posted a few notes and will post more later. However, the article is well done. Lazulilasher ( talk) 13:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I happened across your user page and saw that you write a tremendous number of articles on synagogues. I am a new user but I would be very happy to help you in any way that I could.. Just to note, I live in Atlanta. With respect. aharon42 ( talk) 05:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I am really open to anything as long you just teach it to me and then just let me loose. I do like to collect research and data on all topics, it dovetails with my need to become a better researcher in general ( I am doing research right now with a doctor at Emory University. We are looking at EMS services and the potential of hybrid vehicles to lower fuel costs in emergency vehicles.).. I have not been vandalized 42 times, its a reference, like my cognomen, to Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Is it ok that I put it there to be facetious? If not I'll delete it. aharon42 ( talk) 01:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm very pleased that I've figured out a way to download and upload wikitext so I can run it through a Perl script. It's not perfect: many of the special characters are preserved, but not all; if I avoid editing the interwikis I may be OK on most articles. (I check using "Show Changes" to make sure I'm not changing things I shouldn't.) See here, and example edits here and here. Let me know if you have any articles you'd like me to try modifying in this way, i.e. to put links from the Notes section to the References section. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 14:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that any discussion about this take place on my talk page. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 16:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, very nice work! I've submitted it to be reassessed by WikiProject Oregon--I moved it up from Stub to Start, but I'm sure it's better than that. I'll tell my non-Wikipedian friends who go there to check it out! Katr67 ( talk) 04:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you advise me on how to proceed here? I perceive an attempt to impose Arabic terminology in an English language encyclopedia. Elan26 ( talk) 17:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Hi there. I was penning my position on why both Meleke and Jerusalem stone deserve to be articles in their own right, when you moved the page. Would you mind moving it back so that other editors who oppose a move page can continue discussing with those who do to reach consensus? Thanks. Tiamut ^talk 01:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that a suggestion was made to move the page to Meleke in April, which was closed without consensus. Nevertheless, one editor moved it there, in an egregious violation of WP:COMMONNAME. I've moved the article back to its original name, per the guidelines, which is where it should stay, unless someone suddenly creates 100,000 webpages using the term "Meleke". Whether or not there should be a separate article on "Meleke" is another question. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Does WP:COMMONNAME trump WP:CONSENSUS? There's an ongoing discussion and my suggestion that there was place for both articles might have led/lead to a breakthrough. I would appreciate you moving the page back until a consensus on how to proceed between the parties involved in the discussion can be achieved. I think it sends the wrong message when an admin comes into a place where there is contention over the name and unilaterally decides what name is best for it, without regard for the views of other editors. But heh, that's just me. Tiamut ^talk 01:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You have WP:CONSENSUS backwards. The original article name was "Jerusalem stone", and it was moved to "Meleke" without WP:CONSENSUS. I've restored it to the original name, pending a consensus forming. Please take further discussion to the article Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're welcome. I saw your name and I saw the article and I wanted to review it. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes: Read and enjoyed. Congratulations. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 13:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that, as well. I read it and wondered if you'd had a hand in it. Looks like you did :) Excellent work and congratulations. Lazulilasher ( talk) 23:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jay, sorry for the inexcusable delay. I got around to taking a photo of the Temple House this afternoon, and that is now on the article. Also, I tagged the old image with {{di-replaceable fair use}}. So, the article has passed. Congratulations! Regards, Lazulilasher ( talk) 23:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

was on the front page all through shabbos - how appropriate for a conservative temple! :) or, as they say in soviet russia, LOL. -- Y  not? 02:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg , Thanks for the warning, I'd appreciate you letting me know, from where exactly did you get an idea that I've added purely sourced names to X-Americans? I've reverted blanking of some lists in my mind, exactly like about 4-5 other editors that were reverting blanking of some of those lists by a single editor that seems have some own ideas how the lists should look exactly. For now however I've already have chosen to stay out of those articles f Since things got really strange, suddenly the editor who has been removing names on selected X-americans lists added "Hungarina American" to Estonian-Americans list. That was too much for me and I've staid out of it ever since-- Termer ( talk) 03:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are examples of you adding poorly sourced or unsourced material to these articles: [27] [28] [29] I'm glad to hear you will cease doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What makes you say I added these names to the list and how come these are poorly sourced? I reverted blanking that's all I did. The sources seem fine by me. In case you disagree please address the issues at the talk page. Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 04:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You added the material, and many of the names there are poorly or completely unsourced. This is not a matter for debate or for game-playing. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You say you come from ANI at one of these talk pages. Please note that it would be nice to let people know in case they have been accused of something so that they could have they say. Currently I'm not aware of any relevant ANI-s and pretty much am not aware of what exactly are you talking about. I haven't added any names to these articles. I've reverted blanking that wasn't brought up at the talk pages first.-- Termer ( talk) 04:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm going to say this. You put material into the articles that was removed because it was poorly sourced or completely un-sourced. If you do it again, you will be blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Once more, I'd like to know where exactly is this ANI you mentioned brought up? I haven't touched those articles since yesterday And i;m not intending to, so you have no reason to warn me all over again.-- Termer ( talk) 04:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, from a quick inspection of the diffs, I dont see what it is that you are clamping down on so hard so I have asked for clarification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#More inflammatory threats to a productive WP contributor. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 07:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah it looks like I missed the main section of the ANI thread which provides more details. I'll sheepishly go read that now. :-) John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 07:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Beth elohim temple house exterior.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Jayjg. I owe you one (or two, or three). My head was spinning by the time you reached the discussion and I probably made some reverts I shouldn't have. It's hard to keep track of what you're doing when you have three users who simply won't read anything you write them. Whoa, that's a long sentence. Better. Sorry, I'm half-asleep right now. Bulldog123 ( talk) 08:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Please comment: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Proposal_to_Remove_List_of_X-American_lists. Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 18:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No thanks, I'm involved as an admin, not a content editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, your comment was needed not to get you involved with the content but was about principles of "poor sourcing" in the context of your warnings. Since "poor sourcing" and your warning is dependent on how do you exactly interpret the X-Americans on the lists? Either like Bulldog who seems to think that for example Norwegian-Americans are strictly 'Norwegian born Americans' and demands all the names on the list to be sourced accordingly. Or are the N-Americans like the article Norwegian Americans defines it: Americans of Norwegian descent? Since your warning were connected to Bulldogs complaint, it makes things very uncertain what exactly did you have in mind while placing the warnings? Since, once again, most of the people of Norwegian descent removed by Bulldog were sourced accordingly -Americans of Norwegian descent. Nobody has ever questioned that things have to be properly sourced. Just that it remains unclear what exactly is a "Norwegian American" and how it has to be sourced according to your warnings? thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 02:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

However, in reality, most of the items I saw being reverted into the articles had no sourcing whatsoever. Many others were sourced to completely unreliable sources. This has all been explained to you on AN/I, as has the point that "but it's in the linked Wikipedia article" doesn't count. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

All this is fair enough, lot of names need sourcing, better sourcing or bringing over the sources from the main articles etc. Once again, nobody has ever questioned it but that is not what I'm after. If you look at the recent edit history of List_of_Norwegian_Americans: Badagnani keeps putting back the names and references according to the way he understands it and the way it's been defined at the main article Norwegian Americans-Americans of Norwegian descent. However Bulldog123 insists If you want a list of mothers and fathers who are Norwegian. Make it: List of Americans with a Norwegian parent, and removes the sources added by Badagnani.
That is the core of the misunderstandings, since Americans with a Norwegian parent are Americans of Norwegian descent, meaning "Norwegian_Americans" according to the definition. To avoid confusion, I've suggested to rename the lists to 'Americans of X-descent' and avoid X-Americans all together that seems only creates conflicts. Hope its more clear what I've been talking about-- Termer ( talk) 03:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

But you clearly didn't understand that. Otherwise you wouldn't have made reverts like this, which by my rough count, inserted 90 unsourced names, and many others sourced to unreliable sources, such as nndb, AOL websites, or "the Hollywood movie The Untouchables." Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please lets put this un-sourced reverting blame behind us and figure out how to solve the problem before it gets out of hand again. And I did tell you right in the beginning that my intention was not to add any unsourced names to anywhere, I simply acted on an understanding that Bulldog is removing names randomly without any clear pattern from the lists. And I had quit reverting bulldog about 24 hours before your formal warning, so I hope this is not a question any more that interferes with solving the actual problem - most likely due to cultural differences, what exactly is X-Amercan considered in Europe and in the US gets interpreted very differently and that causes conflicts on WP.-- Termer ( talk) 03:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bulldog123 was quite clear as to why he was removing the names, as anyone who looked at the history of the articles, or was at all familiar with WP:BLP and WP:V, would know. It is unseemly for you to continually pretend otherwise, as you did at AN/I, and now on my Talk: page. I'm not going to help you make editorial decisions about the content of the articles; I am going to ensure that no more unsourced or poorly sourced information about living people is inserted into them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't pretended anything, I didn't get it what exactly drives Bulldog and I bet Badagnani is not going to get it why all the sources he added to the article have been removed again by Bulldog. Bulldog removed people that were born in Norway and added them back yesterday after I pointed it out. But you're free to question my good faith regarding the issues and not helping out solving the thing is your choice I hope you reconsider, since you chose to get involved. I'm not going to bother you again with this and take all X-American list off my watch list, it's just not worth the trouble. In case you reconsider using your administrative prestige for solving the conflict, please let me know, I'd be clad to help as well any way I can.-- Termer ( talk) 03:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed one thing: is Bulldog123 continually reverting unsourced or poorly sourced claims about living people into articles?' I did mention that several times at An/I that I quit editing the lists after Bulldog made a living person an Estonian-American photographer Kiino Villand based on a source yahoo movies that did NOT mention Kiino Villand but spoke of an Estonian-American journalist Priit Vesilind. as seen from the diffs [30] [31] [32] the living person Kiino Villand turned into Hungarian American journalist based on that source according to Bulldog. further on, Bulldog commented his reverts with rev WP:TROLLing, readdition of improperly sourced material, etc. So I hope you undrestand why Bulldogs edits did not make any sense, at least to me. -- Termer ( talk) 04:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Termer, you've claimed that before, that you reverted him on a half dozen articles, over and over again, because he inserted one name you didn't like on one list. However, he explained to you days ago that it was a clipboard copy-paste error. And he explained that to you again two days ago on WP:AN/I So, your continual claims that you had to revert in hundreds of unsourced or poorly sourced names on multiple lists, because you didn't understand one edit he made, doesn't hold water. Now please stop wasting my time with disingenuous comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

NO, I said I quit reverting him after -his "clipboard copy-paste error" 3 times in a row. removing people who have born in Norway and then adding them back to the list again despite no references where there whatsoever. And not just one guy keeps telling you that whatever bulldog did didn't make any sense and still doesn't since he now removes references instead of names? Sorry for wasting your time. I go back to my post @ 03:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)-- Termer ( talk) 04:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You justified all of your reverts based on that single error he made, and on the incredible claim that you couldn't understand why he was removing all those unsourced names, despite the fact that his edit summaries and talk page comments explained why. In any event, that single error doesn't justify you (or Badagnini or Hmains) reverting in hundreds of unsourced or poorly sourced names on multiple lists, and it never did, despite your claims. Now, you've been saying for a couple of days that you have not been editing those articles for days, have taken them off your watchlist, have no wish to continue this, etc. Despite that, you posted multiple times on the subject on AN/I, are involved in various discussions about the articles, keep trying to draw me into discussions about the article content, and have been posting multiple times about it on my Talk: page. So I hope you'll forgive me if I view anything you say with extreme skepticism. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop it!
-You justified all of your reverts based on that single error he made.
NO, I justified giving up my reverts based on that "single error"
-have taken them off your watchlist,
NO . I said I'm going to take them off my list

Is your and Bulldog's intention to drive editors away from the lists? It's working, congrats!-- Termer ( talk) 04:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. While I'm not usually one to criticize how other people spend their time, surely there are better uses of yours (and, for that matter, the community's). And to not even discuss your issue with Majorly first? Bah. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The I is for incidents, no? WP:AN or a village pump or WT:RFA or WP:BN would've been more appropriate forums. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		H Jayjg! I award you this barstar for your eloquent and logical arguments on ANI =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg: As an admin could you please take a look at the notice I gave User Holy Bible of Judaism & Christianity ( talk · contribs) and the request I have made of him to change his user name per Wikipedia policy at User talk:Holy Bible of Judaism & Christianity#Please change you user name ASAP. I have also placed a notification at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention#User-reported [33]. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 12:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

On 16 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Temple Beth Israel (Eugene, Oregon), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this one on the front page! Are you doing all the Temple Beth X's? That's quite a project :) Best of luck, and congrats on the work already completed! Lazulilasher ( talk) 17:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed this myself -- thanks from WikiProject Oregon for getting this up to DYk level!! - Pete ( talk) 01:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jay, I should like your opinion on an ongoing matter that involves a user who claims to be Jewish. I don't want to go into what the rest of the case is about (though that might be obvious) I just want your opinion on how likely it is for a Jew to want to be erasing references to people as "half-Jewish" on the grounds that Jewishness is a religious not a racial matter. It struck me as peculiar as the whole concept of the Jewish People is engrained in the religion, the patriarchs and matriarchs are treated as literslly so etc. Any views?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 09:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm thinking of User:Nobody of Consequence aka User:The Parsnip! aka User:TheQuandry. Part of his argument for clemency was that he is Jewish.

The explanation for [34] strikes me as quite bizarre for someone form a Jewish background to post. Talk:Debbie_King#On_her_Jewishness shows him only thing of being Jewish as a religion. [35] again shows a misunderstanding of the distinction between Jewishness and Judaism. There's more under an id that hasn't been officially outed.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC) (Ps, whilst I remember, wish you a sweet New Year and well over the fast)

I think the pleading for clemency has been mainly offline to User:FayssalF who is leading the investigation on behalf of Arbcom. The main discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive168 under section 57 (Please review this block).-- Peter cohen ( talk) 07:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You recently changed the lead in WP:NOR from "sources that provide information directly related to the topic" to "sources that refer directly to the topic".

You cite "the discussion on the talk page". I've been searching through the talk page and archives, and can't find any discussion about this.

This wording causes problems as fringe theory promoters can insist that no citations that disprove their claims are included unless the article directly refers to their fringe theory with wording such as "fringe theory XXX is incorrect because ...". The older wording was long standing, and I have changed it back.

lk ( talk) 09:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You've a new one, Jayjg. Anthøny ✉ 21:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, we're both trying to make Wikipedia better. We have an honest disagreement. Let's just try to work it out civilly, ok? I apologize if I have seemed brusque in my previous interactions. lk ( talk) 18:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I just took a look at the Lauren Booth article following an earlier request for assistance from User:Dead-or-Red at wp:blp/n. His or her logging out (if that was indeed intentional) to make edits is questionable, but I believe the most recent edits ( [36], [37]) are in line with wp:blp. There were serious issues with the neutrality of the statements and they were poorly sourced. I have removed unsourced editorial that was in the article (for example, Booth's statements were called "claims" and "sensationalist"), and I will continue to watch it for further wp:blp issues. In the meantime, it may be appropriate to reduce or remove User:Dead-or-Red's block, given the circumstances (with an admonishment to not log out in an attempt to disguise edits).   user:j     (aka justen)   02:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why again is it a BLP issue to call her claims "sensationalist" if they caused an uproar? -- Y  not? 21:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Could you have a look at Left Bloc (Palestine)? I suppose there could be additional sources in Hebrew, i tried to google for Derekh Hapoel in Hebrew but most seems to relate to the football team. I came across http://tnuathaavoda.info/zope/home/100/press/, but the years doesn't match with the english reference that i've got. Most of all I cannot dechiffer from the english link whether this group was a political party of its own or a bloc within Histadrut? -- Soman ( talk) 10:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. LDS Church temples are typically not considered "churches". That church has other buildings used for worship that would be classifed as "churches", but not the temples. Thanks! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That sucks :(

How are you Jay? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware that ChrisO has been vandalizing your comments on Talk:Cyrus_cylinder [38]? -- CreazySuit ( talk) 17:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

To me, that looks like some sort of edit conflict where Jayjg's comment was accidentally removed. [39] Why don't you ask ChrisO about it, before jumping to conclusions of bad faith, Jayjg? Jehochman ^Talk 18:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jay, Seems to be adding categories against WP:CAT. Anyways, -- Tom 14:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jay, User:Threeafterthree (AKA 70.109.223.188) seems to be deleting factual, valid, and accurate categories which goes against the core principles of this encyclopedia. Cheers, -- Wassermann ( talk) 20:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jay,

I notice on the List of Registered Historic Places in Brooklyn that Congregation Tifereth Israel comes up as red. Do you think this is any interest for you as the-article-writer-I-know-who-handles-such-things? Regards, Lazulilasher ( talk) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jayjg, there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#ChrisO.60s_conduct_2 regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- CreazySuit ( talk) 20:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why you removed a category which seems to apply to this article? -- Good Damon 22:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at the article User:Hudavendigar/Feigl and make some comments and see if it is ok to release? I have am trying to get feedback from folks who were involved in the deletion. Thanks.-- Murat ( talk) 04:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have pusued it further and last verdict was that the original was not to be undeleted but with no prejudice against its re-submission fresh. Thus I am asking an opinion, not as an expert on matter, and not an official verdict, but if anyhting is in there that is objectionable and questionable from wiki perspective.-- Murat ( talk) 16:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg! May you have a happy Jewish New Year! -- Ynhockey ^{( Talk)} 19:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, no offense on NOR- I know you mean very well, and I also know that to many what was just put in the article would seem common sense. It's just that I deal with a subset of articles which would be destroyed by this- from both sides of the POV spectrum. —— Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

See either Talk:Criticism of Human Rights Watch or this dif where he did 3 days ago. However, the point is moot, since you can't just explain yourself on the talk page and then proceed to edit war. His unblock is declined because despite that talk page comment, he never stopped reverting to his preferred version, and there is no consensus for his version. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This: Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom. I considered a speedy delete since a third of the article's content violates either NPOV or NOR or both, and the other two-thirds are not very informative; it seems like a title designed to make an argument. On the other hand, maybe it really is an encyclopedia topic and we should just delete the non-compliant stuff? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI: I've sent you the exhaustive list via email.
Anthøny ✉ 22:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I see that you were one of the participants in the recent AfD on the article Christianity and Judaism. That AfD recommended (in a snowball result) that the article be merged into Judeo-Christian. However, since the AfD concerns have been raised, most notably

• Per WP:ADJECTIVE and WP:MOSNAME, we use nouns and noun-phrases for article titles, not adjectives. So a general survey on the relationships between Christianity and Judaism (a topic this encyclopedia should certainly cover) should be called Christianity and Judaism, as per the articles Christianity and Islam, Islam and Judaism.
• The reason the article Judeo-Christian exists, as its own hatnote declares, is specifically to survey the history and use of that word-phrase -- which has its own controversy, and its own tale to tell. (See here where I've set things out in a bit more detail.) That story is a good fit for its own article, and will get completely lost if the contents of Christianity and Judaism get inappropriately dumped on top of it.

Having contacted the closing admin, his advice was to open a new discussion at Talk:Christianity and Judaism, advertise the discussion widely, and if a new consensus can be reached in that discussion [his emphasis], then per WP:CCC the new consensus should be followed, rather than the AfD decision, without the need for a DRV or a new AfD.

Concerns about the proposed merge have also been expressed by Slrubenstein ( talk · contribs), LisaLiel ( talk · contribs) and SkyWriter ( talk · contribs).

This post is therefore to let you know that that discussion is underway, at Talk:Christianity and Judaism#Overly speedy deletion, with a view to perhaps setting aside the AfD decision.

Of course, some significant issues were raised in the AfD about the article in its present form, so the best way forward is a question that needs some thought. Please feel welcome to come and participate! Jheald ( talk) 07:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, I left a note to Tony1 about clearing up the as of year links; I was surprised to see that is still in MOSDATE. When I sent you to WP:MOSDATE#Precise language, I was referring to the actual section heading, "Recent events". Maybe you can follow up with Tony1? Since dates are no longer linked, maybe they just missed that section and failed to update it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Goodness ! Fast. But I still have to get Tony1 to see if they overlooked that when the rest of dates went delinked. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Too many West Coast baseball games in my case ! 'Night! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well. Now we both know more about "as of" than we ever cared to know :-) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle East Textbooks/Invitation Michael Safyan ^{( talk)} 19:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, Spencer ^{T♦ C} 02:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, and thanks again for your comment on my talk page about Stonewall riots. Some weeks ago, an anonymous edit was inserted into the Harvey Milk article regarding his grandfather's involvement in three Long Island, NY synagogues. We removed them because the information was dubiously cited. I just got off the phone with Harvey's nephew who said it was his brother who was trying to add the information. So I wanted verification that Morris Milk was involved in establishing three Long Island synagogues. I don't know where to look for that. I was hoping with your experience in the Jewish congregation articles you knew of some resources that could verify that. Milk's nephew will be sending me the names of the congregations, but that's all I have to go on for now. Let me know. Thanks! -- Moni3 ( talk) 18:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

After doing some searching, Morris Milk's NYT obituary says he started Woodmere Congregation Sons of Israel in Woodmere, NY. Harvey's biographer says he started Beth Israel. I, uh, feel like a dolt because I don't know if that's the same thing or not. -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I'll answer you here - I'm watching your page. Harvey's nephew says that Morris Milk was involved in organizing B'Nai Sholom in Rockville Centre, the Sons Of Israel in Woodmere, and Moses David, all on Long Island, but the Sons of David is no longer active. I wrote to the 5 Towns Jewish Times, hoping they might have print sources confirming this, and they gave me a rabbi's name and number to call. I'll do that Monday I suppose. I have access to a university library (that appears to have a significant store of Jewish resources), but since I've never worked on Jewish topics, I don't know the names of newspapers or publications to look for. Any ideas? -- Moni3 ( talk) 01:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)