User talk:Jayjg/Archive 10

Thanks for visiting my Talk: page.
If you are considering posting something to me, please:
*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Use headlines when starting new talk topics.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Do not make personal attacks.
Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted.
Thanks again for visiting.

Old talk archived at Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9

Edit war on List of political epithets

Thanks for your dialogue on the edits to the use of 'self-hating Jew'. Whilst I'm glad that we came to a slightly more consensual wording, I'm not going to actually alter anything right at the moment because I'm not interested in taking part in the current edit war which seems to be rumbling on. Some participants can't be bothered to use the talk page (perhaps due to its massive length) and Godwin's Law has been broken one too many times for my liking. I have suggested to Liftarn that he/she calms down a bit and tries to separate his edits up. I think he/she has become unecessarily offended, but will hopefully calm down and start citing the more controversial additions on the talk page. Perhaps I will make some more suggestions, as I don't think his motivation is malicious.

I might also try and add some material (of a general nature) to Self-hatred at some point, if I can find the Journal references in my horrible filing system. I'll put anything on talk page first though. Thanks. illWill 23:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grr. I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for the meddling, all-powerful Wikicabal. I knew I'd go the way of Sollog and David Icke sooner or later :) illWill 21:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, could you please not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and flag it with "removing WP:POINT". // Liftarn

No worries :-)

Anytime Jay. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lend me your ears please

please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Update and see if it might hlep ,my cause. Gabrielsimon 03:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery

I will keep an eye on it. --Briangotts (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yigal Amir

Please remove the protection, according to the the page it's seems like most of the wikipedian prefering not to use the word "murder" there. I think that putting a protection on the article without adding a POV message is an abuse of adminship. I also would like to add some details to the article. --Haham hanuka 18:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

kmccoy's RFA

Hello!

Thanks for your support in my RFA. While you were correct that I'm unlikely to abuse admin commands, what you failed to take into account is that I intend to abuse admins themselves! :) kmccoy (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid editor

Well, I'm kinda lazy; I always search first on the page to see if the IP is already there, so the order doesn't matter. Besides, dupes don't exactly hurt, do they? Doesn't make much difference if he's using 100 sockies or 101. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I said I was kinda lazy! (Actually, I'm surprised; I did search first. Wonder why it didn't find?) --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet reversions

He's at it again. Take a look at "Jay-Z". --TJive 07:19, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the blocked users, it seems some have been autoblocked based on past sockpuppets. According to the time, though, I don't think this has been one of them, and the block expires. --TJive 07:57, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

POV at Foreskin

Thanks for your messages - unfortunately I was away at the time and unable to help. Looks as though the troublemaker has gone. - Jakew 13:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I'll be monitoring RfA regularly from now on and will look for a chance to "pay it forward". Cheers, --MarkSweep 02:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editor

No problem. :) Unbelievably persistent, isn't s/he? Func( t, c ) 04:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When you're right, you're right. It's really that simple. 69.209.225.121 07:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Massive disruptions

I see you have yourself encountered this user, so might your attention be drawn to this notice? It appears that he intends for each account to become more disruptive even while his "normal" one goes unperturbed. --TJive 05:15, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Tag-team POV

Great tag-team work with User:FeloniousMonk on Chip Berlet. Two minutes after they edited it! I'll have to keep that tactic in mind for future use. Noel (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am assured that this was not your intent, and that the timing was purely because it showed up again on your recent-changes. However, for future reference, if you were concerned about the edit war and were keeping an eye on the article, it would have been much better if you had protected the earlier version (TJive's compromise wording) - doing that would have completely avoided the appearance of being partial. Noel (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Thanks for your support. --Briangotts (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Melchizedek

I'm cleaning up after a spammer who is spamming a number of Micronation articles. I apologize for removing content from this page; the spammer added a link to Melchizedek in the Jerusalem article and I assumed it was more spam. If you restore the link youself, I won't revert it. Samboy 02:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...

Have another concern right now. I just got blocked by User:Stevertigo for rolling him back after he reverted in a locked page. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noclador (talk · contribs)

He also has a habit of blanking his talk page. See what he did after I left a polite NPOV reminder on his talk page. HKT ^talk 03:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Any reason you reverted me? The anon is a blocked disruptive editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for reverting you, but the comment was on a talk page, and in direct response to a comment by you. I don't think it is appropriate to make it look as though there was no opposition. You should just ignore it. (Then I don't know precisely what this editor has done in the past. Your action might have been warranted. I won't interfere if you revert me.) — David Remahl 06:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments are one thing, but personal attacks from Disruptive banned editors are another... Jayjg ^(talk) 06:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. However, I want to note that that message was not a personal attack. diff. — David Remahl 06:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for Deletion

Hi, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ritual Decalogue. Thank you. IZAK 09:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Perfect Matrimony

Hi!

I'm in the process of migrating articles marked with the old cleanup syntax to the new cleanup syntax. Due to the administrative difficulties in actively maintaining the list of articles needing cleaning in the old system, the majority of articles still listed in the archives have, in fact, been cleaned. I admit the process I take to determine an article's cleanliness is at times rushed (thousands of articles per day) but generally it is visible by just looking at the page and if not, the history since the cleanup tag was first used.

The article The Perfect Matrimony has undergone significant revision since its cleanup tag was first posted. Since it is not immediately apparent (due to stylistic elements) that the page needs cleanup, you should add the tag {{cleanup-date|August 2005}} to it (instead of {{cleanup}} as well as list it over at Wikipedia:Cleanup.

Thanks,
HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 14:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of criticism?

Hello Jayjg, I've been wondering about the removal of content generally through alleged "personal attacks" or WP:NOR or WP:POINT and I have to say I don't see how the following anon's comment you removed earlier today fits the definition of a personal attack? it seems like merely a challenge for you to explain apparent inconsistency, you can certainly choose to ignore the challenge but please don't delete it:

I'm waiting to see what other state publicly announces that it intends to employ assassinations, including assassinations on foreign soil Israel to kill in U.S., allied nations . Assassinations and helicopeter hits on wheelchair-bound clerics are terrorizing activity. Jayjg , why don't you do something, like write an article about another state's terrorism if you think it merits an article. Wikipedia is wide open for more information that you could provide.69.209.203.45 05:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC) [1][reply]

See a discussion here as well [2]. zen master T 16:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But your checkin comment claimed that the paragraph you were deleting was a personal attack, but I don't see how that is possible? There really really needs to be some sort of policy against censorship if entire paragraphs can be deleted merely because they were posted by a "disruptive" and/or "subsequently banned" editor with no consideration of the content itself, do you see the censorship danger here? Also, the paragraph you tried to delete seems like a very reasonable challenge for you to explain inconsistency to me... zen master T 16:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your comment. "Edits" means to actual articles, does it not? How is a talk page discussion post an "edit"? If you removed the paragraph merely because the anon was disruptive why did your checkin comment errantly claim there was a personal attack in the paragraph? Do you at all acknowledge the potential for censorship if someone mistakingly construes a debate consistency challenge with a personal attack? zen master T 17:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No further comment on your apparent misinterpretation or mischaracterization of the anon's paragraph that you deleted? zen master T 20:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing

You're welcome. HKT ^talk 20:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I will do my best to serve the Wikipedia community as an administrator. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and world religions

Thanks for the heads up; made the wrong edit! Fixed it...hope it's satisfactory. KHM03 19:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky 6.9's Vote

Well, it was a judgment call, and Ed made the judgment. IMO it could have been justified either way. Judging by the momentum, I think Lucky might make it next time around, especially if he addresses issues brought up this time.

Have you asked Ed Poor for his reasoning? Cheers -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical_persecution_by_Jews

You might be interested in what is being discussed at Votes for Undeletion regarding this article. See Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Historical_persecution_by_Jews --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Platypus Rex

Sorry Jayjg, I didn't want it to look like I was doubting your work. Now that you have pointed out the book, just say the same on the page about PR. If the revert war continues, I'd suggest you take it to the arbcom. --Gaurav Arora ^Talk 05:47, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for voting to support my RFA. I've been promoted, and I promise to wield the mop with good faith, patience, and fairness... except when I'm exterminating vandals with the M-16 recoilless nuclear Gatling mop. --malathion ^talk 08:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Yochanan

Hello: Could you please comment about which category best fits at Talk:Rabbi Yochanan. Thanks so much! IZAK 08:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Platypus Rex Support

Jayjg,

Thank you for your unconditional support in the revert war over the Platypus Rex page. People like Jyaus constantly delete the contents for fun and amusement and I and forever thankful for the support that you have given me for my credibility. To further show my thanks for your support, I have mentioned your name on the page. If you wish to, please feel free to endorse the credibility of the page. Just an option. Also, please help keep an eye on the page and revert any future vandalism caused by the likes of Jyaus. Thanks again for your support.

Grateful, --Killertunes 08:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, As a actual member of the band Platypus Rex, I can assure you that Killertunes' biography is completely false; for instance, if Glen Daniels were Time magazine's Man of the Year, surely he'd be easily able to provide documentation! (It's not as if Time is a low-circulation magazine.) A photograph of a book cover is the best he's been able to do -- while the band's actual website (www.platypusrex.org) openly contradicts him. -Jyaus

Passover disambig

Please take a look at Passover, which someone has decided to make into a "disambiguation" page so that anyone looking for the link to "Passover" on Wikipedia (and there are many articles with links to it) will now get a Jewish and Christian version/choice. Do you agree to this move and what can be done? As far as I know, Passover is strictly a Jewish holiday and it is most certainly NOT an official Christian holiday AFAIK. Thanks. IZAK 11:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New article on Judaisms view of holy people

Please see my proposal on talk:chabad about starting a new article about Judaism's view of holy people which would combine the parts from chabad Breslov Hasidic Judaism etc. into one article about it. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kishinev

Interestingly, though User:DonaldDuck clearly represents a strong POV, he is basically right in this case. Though there was certainly local incitement, and there were no clear orders from Moscow to stop the riots, historians have been unable to demonstrate that the pogrom itself was orchestrated from Moscow, although other pogroms certainly had more central planning. At least this is the argument I have picked up from reviews of what is supposedly the definitive work on the subject, Kishinev: Anatomy of a Pogrom by Edward H. Judge. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

== Anti-semitism ==

I guess it's much easier for you to report a 3RR violation than to prove a point and justify unsourced information. --Vizcarra 20:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minhag

Have a look at this new page: Minhag. JFW | T@lk 23:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Platypus Rex

Jayjg,

I am sorry to hear that you do not support our version of the Platypus Rex page. I understand however. It is alright if you choose not to help with our cause, but I only ask that you do not support Jyaus and his bogus claims on credibility. His webpage is highly suspect. With this letter I am removing your name from the Platypus Rex page claiming your support. Once again, I am very disappointed with the news, but I respect your decisions.

--Killertunes 23:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If ever do wish to help support our cause, feel free to contact.

Func's RfA :)

Thank you for supporting my adminship, Jayjg, and congratulations on ArbCom, (though I'm not sure if arbitration is an honor to serve or a nightmare to endure). :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e, ) 00:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap.

Check out the sources that Ril gives on his talk page: User_talk:-Ril-#Source. Good grief! Can you help me make sure that this absurd and most likely unreliable quote stays out of the Ariel Sharon and Islamophobia article? Seems like an organised smear campaign to me. Disgusting behaviour. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I knew it sounded dodgy and seemed like an unsophisticated attempt to demonise Sharon. Many thanks for your help (as always!). - Ta bu shi da yu 01:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an article on this ficticious general. Now if anyone quotes it, we can refer them to the article - see Ouze Merham. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Woodrow

This is up for deletion. I would like to have it kept as he is a significant critic of The Two Babylons. Would you care to vote on the VfD? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!

Oops, I did get you confused with the unsigned comment. :-) Sorry about that.

--Gaurav Arora ^Talk 06:29, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

New article to complain about

Writing new articles is more pleasurable than arguing over old ones. See Patria disaster. --Zero 13:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

voting

Hi, Jayjg. For future reference, at what point should I place my comments on votes on the discussion page? --goethean ॐ 20:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The comment practice has become quite entrenched. Thanks. --goethean ॐ 20:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Just a quick note to say thanks for supporting my adminship nomination. I'll rely on you to tell me when I'm being stupid :). It's always nice to get support from valued contributors - thanks a lot and happy editing! Slac speak up! 22:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who is a Jew

Hello. I reverted the edits there for the following reasons (I believe everything meets at least one of these criteria):

Inaccuracy
Violation of WP:NPOV
Violation of WP:NOR
Lack of clarity
Irrelevancy

HKT ^talk 17:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm not sure if this is how to post properly here but I just received an undeserved notice of vandalism. I have NEVER tampered with this topic or even viewed this page before. Having just switched cities/ISPs I'm wondering if you've mistaken my URL for someone else? I respect and appreciate Wikipedia far too much to vandalize it. Yours, Jason

Aelia Capitolina

User:Humus sapiens and I are trying to deal with User:TheUnforgiven's nonsense additions to this article. Already he has violated 3RR. As a member of the "vast, international Jew conspiracy" against poor Unforgiven, can you take a look and help out with cleanup? --Briangotts (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli criminals

I extended the definition of the category a little, because sometimes Israelis are captured in dictatorial countries, brought there to court and later exchanged against criminals from the country in question. An example is Azzam Azzam, who is definately not a criminal, yet would fit under the old definition.gidonb 20:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Resh Lakish

Started another of those articles-from-the-Jewish-Encyclopedia-that's-been-heavily-modified-and-wikified-but-could-probably-use-more-work. Feel free to weigh in ;-) --Briangotts (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yitzhak Shamir

Hello Jayg, can you please look into the chain of edits that I made tonight. If I broke any rules, as a user suggests on my talk page, please let me know. Regards, gidonb 05:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for editing the draft, I knew it would do that, but forgot. I do really stoopid, stoopid things when too tired. You know who.

Thanks

For the support, the kind words and your welcome. --Briangotts (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sirkumsize 03:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Given your last reason for revert can I assume you are on a personal vandette against me? Please explain? Sirkumsize 03:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kempler video of Rabin murder

really wierd of that you find it so important to censor this historic video.... did you see the Kempler video at least, the explanation is accurate

Another vandal

I don't know for sure if this guy is the same JdAe vandal, but watch 69.231.226.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Tomer ^TALK 08:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

POVing

Thanks for the info. How nice to see him back with us. Actually, the edit histories are pretty funny. :-) - Jakew 10:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tzadik

Please see what I wrote in Tzadik, and if I only wrote from a chabad viewpoint please add in other viewpoints as well. Thanks. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also please comment on the talk page of chabad regarding what I wrote there: I have created a new article that deals with the concept of a Tzadik, and merged the contents of the "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers" section into it. Therefore if there is consensus I will be removing the section from here and replace it with a link to Tzadik. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of anti-Semitism

That IP is likely Molloy (talk · contribs), a member of the NZNF. HKT ^talk 16:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 16:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: kashrut/Macht/Johns Hopkins/Lancet/Biblical Archeological Review

Dear Sir,

Johns Hopkins, Lancet (UK's premiere medical journal), and BAR are all mainstream science. I also see that one person restored what one person deleted with no commentary and with no comments in the talk page, thus I see no general reaction that the material should not be there. I also offered opposing arguments so it is not POV. I am returning the material to the article. I respect your right to disagree but I do not believe in arbitrary exclusion. I have no desire to get into a edit war. That is why I offered opposing arguments. Please be reasonable here.

Lastly, science is probabilistic and provisional. I would be happy if you found and offered material which falsified/controverted the Macht/JohnsHopkins, Lancet, and BAR material.

al-Andalus

I've put in my two cents, for what it's worth. I'll keep an eye on the discussion. --Briangotts (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC over Aposthia

I have filed a RFC over your conduct over the article Aposthia. Hopefully this will not come as a great surprise. Sirkumsize 21:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment on kashrut article

jdwolff (who I believe you are aware of) appear to have come to an agreement on the kashrut article. I appreciate the input of you and jdwolff in regards to this issue. Please see the talk page for kashrut. ken 21:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]

Samaria

Some IP has been removing the term "Samaria" from the Israel unilateral disengagement plan article, claiming that it's "Zionist POV." In the article, the term "Samaria" is used to specifiy a portion of the West Bank that is relevant to the article. I doubt that this anon is acting in good faith (I've notice a number of vandalism warnings on his talk page), but if term is really considered POV, I'll obviously leave the changes alone. HKT ^talk 23:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know, only Zionists call the northern West Bank "Samaria". It's a politically loaded and POV term. Our article on Samaria reflects that. If you think that it has wider application, perhaps you could source it. I don't think anyone should have a problem with its being used to describe the area being "disengaged" from, so long as on first mention it's fully clear that it's not necessarily a broadly accepted term.

And I'd rather not bicker over what we'd mean by "Zionist". Our article on Zionism is clear enough on what Zionism was and what it tends to be today. If you can think of a better word for the grouping who thinks that particular area of the world is called Samaria, please do put that.Grace Note 03:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers

Please see my response to your comments on Talk:Chabad_Lubavitch#Relationship_between_God.2C_the_Rebbe_and_his_followers Thanks. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Female circumcision

Nice edit at female circumcision. It might even settle the dispute. - Jakew 15:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will you support my request for deletion of Current events in Cisjordan?

I have requested the deletion of Current events in Cisjordan. Will you please support that request? brozen

Larry Franklin renamed unilaterally

The article Larry Franklin has been moved to AIPAC espionage scandal by User:Daniel Case. Have you not, in the past, indicated that acronyms are inapropriate in article titles? I dont know the rules surrounding article titles, or how to move content (it also looks like some was lost in the shuffle). If you have a minute I would appricate some information. --Uncle Bungle 21:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon IP

Agree, that does not sound like a good faith behavior. Is that the same anon who refused to register for fear that he'll get banned? ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 23:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Credible sources

Jay, would you mind taking a look at Talk:David Myatt? There's a dispute about what counts as a credible source. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Red Sox-Yankees Wars

Hi, thank you for intervening in the ongoing battles on the Manny Ramírez and Derek Jeter pages. Just a note for the record: I was accused of running a sock puppet and my comments at the Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress were deleted. I deny the first compare my IP address with the alleged sock puppet and am upset by the second. Just thought I'd make the record clear, and thanks again for your mediation and assistance. Friejose 12:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC if you are interested

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/USS_Liberty_incident ? Gzuckier 15:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Political Epithets

Hi Jay, I'll take a detailed look at the article tomorrow and try and make some suggestions. I'm a bit busy tonight to give it my best attention, and I think it's a bit more complex than the average dispute becuase it stretches across so many sections. I think there's a lot of problems with the article which could be helped by some consistency, and you're right that there's a lot of WP:POINT problems, although it's not just restricted to Liftarn, or Jewish-related sections (although that's the bulk of them). I'll try and make some suggestion on Talk which might calm things down. 22:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

You're #1!

Found this on Stormfront. The author is User:Amalekite using his Stormfront pseudonym of "Frank Sinatra". He seems to think highly of you Homey 23:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC) :[reply]

Re: Zionist Cabal taking over Wikipedia Wikipedia Intelligence Report #001

The following is an incomplete list of those suspected to be members of, or to be the "useful idiots" of, the so-called "Elders of Wikipedia" (the Zionist cabal which has Wikipedia in its grip). Those at the top of the list are definite members and are the most ruthless and vicious of the bunch; those at the bottom I'm less sure about. Monitor the activities of the first 5 on the list (watch their user contribution pages and their user talk pages) and you'll have a good idea of what the entire gang is up to.

The suspected "Elders of Wikipedia" are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayjg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jfdwolff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gzuckier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IZAK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eliezer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TShilo12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Max_rspct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ezra_Wax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MathKnight

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Humus_sapiens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fintor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kuratowski's_Ghost

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PhatJew

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jpgordon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jdavidb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Themindset

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robert_McClenon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RyanFreisling

hehe, that's funny, the way the guy presents it. I'm alost jealous of not being in such a list. Fadix 23:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh... I am not on the list. I feel left out. Guy Montag 05:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. What have I done to deserve #2? Expressed an interest on editing Judaism-related articles and possessing some general knowledge? Oh, of course, I defended the use of "Anti-Semitic" as applied to Jew Watch. Sure enough to get the brown train rolling. JFW | T@lk 15:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of political epithets again

Hi Jay. I’ve taken a look at the edit history of the article and, whilst it is true that Liftrarn is disrupting this article to make a point, If I'm being fair I can vaguely understand why he’s doing it. I think there seems to be a greater burden of proof attached to certain sections, which is based on the fact that many editors originate from common backgrounds where epithets can be understood to mean the same things – and so less proof is required to them. This also means that people are more used to collaborating with each other to produce mutually acceptable definitions. You personally don’t need to be told that when the term ‘Zionist’ appears in a Syrian newspaper op-ed it isn’t referring to Theodore Herzl, but this might be a lot less obvious to people from different backgrounds (such as many of my fellow leftists, for example). Conversely, when I read the word ‘Commie,’ I can easily work out whether it is an accurate description of somebody’s politics or a political slur, but I can’t assume the same of everybody. The large number of individual sections of the article, and correspondingly large number of editors/viewpoints, mean that it’s pretty messy, and so much easier to devolve into edit wars.

I think the focus on the Jewish section is not too surprising because there are a number of editors who are working from a specific viewpoint (pro-Israeli, if somebody wants to be reductive), whose views sometimes coincide with a number of right-wingers who also edit the article (including troublemakers like Coqsportif). This gives the article the impression of being slanted towards one POV occasionally, even if this isn’t actually the case. Liftarn seems to have become annoyed at being outnumbered, and is reacting by disrupting the article. Personally, I don’t think Liftarn’s inputs to the article are much more disruptive than some of Guy Montag’s, who has also removed compromise edits on a number of occasions, though this is may be to do with difficulty in keeping track of a very fragmented talk page discussion.

There is also an inherent difficulty in citing and sourcing this article in that political epithets, by their very nature, are often euphemistic and change their meaning depending on who uses them and in what context they are used. For example, the only people that I have ever heard use the term ‘Islamofascist’ are islamophobes, so I would naturally lean towards including that information in the article. However, this is possibly because, unlike US-based editors, I live in a country with a high Muslim population where it is not acceptable to use that term in print, so I try and assume that the term has different connotations in different countries, based on different media standards. Conversely, the terms ‘Judeofascism’ and ‘Zionazi’ are sometimes used in my personal experience by people who are not anti-Semites, but just lack tact and/or experience of talking politics with Jewish people, whereas I doubt this is the case in the US as people are more aware of Jewish concerns, and also more likely to be offended by the term ‘Nazi’ than they are here. This is only an example, as I think similar distinctions would apply to many, if not the majority, of the epithets cited. Consider the wildly varying interpretations of a term such as ‘liberal’, which means utterly different things in different English-speaking populations.

The problem is cased by the extent to which people keep asserting their own understandings of the epithets – to use Guy as an example again, I don’t think he is very well placed to understand the use of terms in circles politically critical to Israel (which are more diverse than he credits), as his reaction will always be emotionally clouded by preconceived opinions. In my own case, I wouldn’t pronounce on the use of certain terms (such as 'blue dog democrat') in US conservative circles to the extent that I don’t know very much about them.

The only suggestion that I can make is that editors try and find a common format for all the epithets. via discussion on talk page, and stick to it rigorously. I would say that each one needs to have a description of the term without an assumption of the type of people who use it, and shying away from complicated descriptions of context and interpretation. Even if this means actually deleting most of the cites, it would be better than the amateur textual interpretations which currently comprise many of them. Either that, or each and every definition must be expanded to include context. I’m not sure exactly how to go about it, but consistency is what’s needed.

I have copied this message (following a bit of context) onto Liftarn’s talk page, and will try and think of something to put on the talk page of the article. As it currently stands, it is non-encyclopaedic, and a POV playground. Sorry if I don’t have too much time – I’m moving house at the moment. Get back to me with your thoughts, and maybe we could put detailed suggestions on the talk paage for the benefit of all editors. Thanks illWill 17:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I hate to say it

...but you were right. - Jakew 10:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

used with permission

Jay, I've removed File:RibbonGIC its name- should not-Collide with another file now utdtjgf87676.jpg from the Genital Integrity article, as my understanding is that use by permission is incompatible with Wikipedia policy & licensing. I think that the image should be deleted as well. Do you agree? If so, should I list it for VFD or is that not applicable for images? - Jakew 13:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright, I found out about IFD. :-) Jakew 15:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New info

Ah ha! I wonder what Michael Glass will have to say now about female circumcision. It seems his theory is riddled with holes. - Jakew 14:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

King David Hotel Bombing

A bit of impartiality from an administrator (i.e. your good self) would be welcome on this topic!

Anti-Semitism

You reverted here an information addition which was true, relavent to the article, generally relavent to the pre-existing paragraph it was inserted into and phrased to include only the fact. And Wikipedia:Revert#Admins restricts what you did to "mass vandalism". What i did was not mass and not vandalism. Race Reality 05:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You were atleast right about citation being necessary. Sadly. Political incorrect edits will need documentation. I did that now. Race Reality 06:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a 3RR

I've done what you asked, and removed the piece I have been unable to cite thus far. I have not reverted to the previous version. How is it a 3RR? --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know you wanted a source for "Noted for it tolerance". Hows this [3], [4], [5] and [6]?

Terrorism

User:Zephram Stark and his Merry Band of Sockpuppets has returned to reimpose his original research into Terrorism. I've reached my revert limit, sockpuppets or no, and his obstinacy bordering on the delusional is really starting to piss me off. So you might want to take a look while I call it a night. --Calton | Talk 15:52, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the edit history, and I did, in fact, revert 4 times in less than 24 hours (03:39, 03:55, 14:50, and 15:08). It's not obvious vandalism, but a content dispute, so I had no choice, really, but to revert myself. --Calton | Talk 16:04, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

al-Andalus

I've posted a response to Tom's talk page. [7]

Religious terrorism

Why do you remove known terrorist groups from the line up? Follow the links provided by these groups and you get a summarized history of their terrorism. --Carlossuarez46

Please Help

Sorry. New user. I noticed that someone is deliberately and repeatedly spreading false information under "Canada Free Press", "Judi McLeod" and "Paul Fromm". If you can look into it, I'd appreciate it. I don't know how the sandbox works either so if you could explain it to me, I'd also be grateful for that.

--Hobbes000

Sorry

I really don't understand how this works. How do I take something to the talk page, or edit false information?

Hobbes000

Thanks!

Thank you very much for the warm welcome and help. I'm reading those pages you sent me right now. And I've used this for a year or so, found it to be a great resource for research, so I'm very satisfied here without having even done anything. I was wondering if there's a way to bring a page which either suffers from vandalism to the attention of moderators or administrators or whoever is in charge. Hobbes000 19:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC) Embarassinglly enough, I had had one, but I had not logged in properly. *smacks head* Very awkward first day here. Oh well. ;) Hobbes000 20:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC) Sorry for the confusion then. I shall go change it. I put it on the talk pages now too. Hobbes000 20:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewwatch.org

I noticed that you removed the Jewwatch.org link from Who is a Jew. I don't know the intention of the anon who added the link, but you might have mistaken the Jewwatch.org link for Jewwatch.com. The link that was put in the article was relevant and fairly accurate. Just to let you know (if you didn't know already)... HKT ^talk 23:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the link that was removed is actually a redirect to http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm, which is already in the article (in fact, it's the first one on the list.) Aquillion 00:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Sorry, my mistake. HKT ^talk 00:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism

I never agreed to any of Zephram's suggestions, I just went away for a few days and, as nobody else was paying attention to the talk page, he went ahead and implemented them. – Smyth\^talk 18:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Hi Jayjg, EKBK (talk · contribs) has claimed by email and on his talk page that he is not a sockpuppet. Unless he does anything else wrong, I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt for now, so have removed the block. I've reminded the user to discuss the issues at talk:terrorism rather than reverting the article. Angela . 18:55, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, if you would have followed Angela's advice, Jayjg, none of this would have happened. EKBK was only undoing the damage you did when you failed to "discuss the issues at talk:terrorism rather than reverting the article." --Zephram Stark 01:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, and you would know, being intimately acquainted with him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:51, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg and I are not lovers. No matter what kind of rumors you want to start, this is not a lovers spat. --Zephram Stark 18:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

AIPAC locked

Jayjg, you locked American Israel Public Affairs Committee two weeks ago to prevent vandalism. Over a week ago I posted a request on the articles talk page requesting a modification to the section which refers to Larry Franklin. The content at Larry Franklin has been moved to AIPAC espionage scandal and for the sake of readers I think the content should reflect that. Could you please either unlock the article, or add (see AIPAC espionage scandal) to the controversies section.

Also, thank you for the clarification regarding the title of AIPAC espionage scandal.

--Uncle Bungle 00:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiChampion

I personally do not know you, however, I have admired your work here for quite some time. Here is a Barnstar of Diligence for excellent endeavors on Wikipedia.

Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) Image:St. Petersburg, Florida seal.png 17:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

King David Hotel Bombing

Glad the whole thing was solved before it got out of hand. I don't think he was even reading the edits he reverted.

Guy Montag 18:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:External links

Hi Jay, do you happen to know whether there's any precedent for interpretation of the "number of links expressing one POV should not overwhelm those expressing another" (paraphrasing) policy? I'm thinking "must be equal" is too strict, and "not more than double" is a reasonable rule of thumb, but wondered if you were aware of previous discussions. Thanks in advance. - Jakew 18:53, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. - Jakew 09:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Placing users in danger

Jay, FYI Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Placing_users_in_danger SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Are we sure that Alex Linder = user:Amalekite? -Willmcw 08:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Jewish texts

Hi Jay: Someone has tried to create a new "Jewish texts" template and has been pasting it on related pages without any discussion. This is a serious matter and your input is needed ASAP. See Template talk:Jewish texts. Thank you. IZAK 05:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stormfront etc.

What's the deal with the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Placing_users_in_danger? I can't go to the nazi page as I'm on my work computer. Are people listed by name or by Wikipedia user name? --Briangotts (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Medical analysis of circumcision

According to the ArbCom in the Robert the Bruce case, removing referenced material is inappropriate (regardless, apparently, of merit). I personally think that this is one of the strangest ever decisions, but I have no option but to accept it. The merits of Van Howe's "cost utility" have been discussed previously on the relevant talk page. Unfortunately, many of them, though clearly true, are original conclusions. I have added some info regarding context for the current claim. Let's see what happens. - Jakew 20:14, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

re: vandalism charge

I removed my own material today. I generally use the discussion page before removing others material.

Names and titles of Jesus -- maybe "clearer and shorter", but really clearly wrong

If you don't know the linguistics involved, then maybe you should be less bold in decorrecting my corections -- Yeshua` and `Isa CANNOT be "derived from the same root" (as the older version has it), since the consonants occur in a DIFFERENT ORDER (yod-shin-waw-`ayin in Hebrew, `ayn-ya-sin-ya in Arabic). And the word "modern" when applied to transcriptions such as "Yahshua" has an inappropriate positive emotional value which makes it seem as if they must be more accurate than older transcriptions, when actually they're much LESS accurate than the older transcriptions. AnonMoos 22:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About the arbitration cases

Hi, I was just wondering what it means to vote two times for the same propositiong [1]

Also, I still don't understand how I can be included there, had I known that one can be dragged like this in a cases, I would have prepared mine with evidences, also will have answered evidences against me. Fadix 15:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Breastfeeding

Could you keep an eye on this article? Walabio seems determined to enforce his POV. Thanks. - Jakew 21:08, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

tax: obligated vs obliged

don't these two words mean exactly the same thing? Paul Beardsell 09:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obligimugated

Is there some history to this?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 11:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

back

Hi Jayjg, thanks for your message. Yes I'm sort of back although I don't think I'll be contributing all that much or with regularity. - pir 11:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus and Judaism

I noticed you deleted what I wrote concerning Jesus being the Jewish Messiah. I see how you might think that it's not exactly NPOV, perhaps we should modify it instead of deleting it entirely.

Also, in that paragraph, there is a line concerning Chabad-Lubavitch which seems to say that lubavitchers are no longer waiting for Messiah. I removed this line entirely because it is misleading. Lubavitchers claim to know who Messiah is, but that are certainly still waiting his arrival.

Therefore, I ask that 1. The part of Jesus being Messiah should be put back, albeit modified. 2. The part about Chabad Lubavitch should be modified to make it more clear that Lubavitchers do not believe that Messiah has arrived. Mench 22:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mordechai Vanunu

Israeli West Bank barrier

Chuckstar (talk · contribs) has reverted your edits and instead linked the article to Road map for peace, where he is crusading for illogic (and/or some other unfathomable agenda). See his edits there, and see Talk:Road map for peace for his attempted rationale, as well. Thanks, HKT ^talk 05:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Ashkenazi Jews

Hi Jay: Do you think it's reasonable to "categorize" all the Ashkenazi Jews etc. on Wikipedia? See Category talk:Ashkenazi Jews. Thanks. IZAK 05:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

jesus and jews

why dont you put back what you erased and edit it yourself mench

moshiach

In the Talmud it is said that in every generation there is a Moshiach. Now that does not mean the redemption has happened so why is he Moshiach? The answer is simply because till God commands him to reveal himself he is only a highly probable candidate to be Moshiach meaning that if it is the time for Moshiach to reveal himself he will be the one this is what Lubavitchrs hold and they also believe and hope like the Rambam says you have to that he will reveal himself very soon ,but not that he came .mench

Arbitration schedule

I requested Arbitration against Ultramarine two weeks ago. Since you are one of the four arbitrators who voted to accept the case, I ask you: how will we know the case has been accepted, and is there anything I am failing to do? Septentrionalis 20:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; please keep me posted if things change. Is there common practice on what constitutes consensus to accept? Septentrionalis 19:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JAG and Brit shalom

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews Against Circumcision - please vote. JFW | T@lk 21:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

terrorism vs. militant

It seems very strange to me that self-described terrorists cant be described as such to the point of censorship. Ive just noticed on the wikipedia entry for 'stern gang' their called 'terrorist'-so theres a form of schizophrenia in wikipedia. Can you rule on this? Thanks. Eric A. Warbuton 06:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Adam Carr. He abuses me. Attempts to gang up on me with others. Never cooperates with anyone. And now he is paranoid. All my editing has been in good faith. The great majority of my edits have been incorporated. Would it be possible for you to tell Adam Carr not to be offensive towards me? Cant he grow up? thanks Eric A. Warbuton 06:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help on Talk:Zionism

Can you help arbitrate between me and the uniquely belligerant new user User:Marsden? He seems intelligent and cogent, yet he blindly lashed out at me, resorting to attacks and insults at the slightest disagreemeent, refuses to respond to points, and told me that I wasn't worth hist time after a brief exchange. If he really intends to rewrite the page, I see big trouble ahead unless he changes his attitude. Perhaps you could help before things get bad? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Giladi

Jayjg, I'm still waiting. You can either cite your sources, or leave it as it is!

You're very good at employing EVERY SINGLE wikipedia rule in its smallest technicality to your own benifit; and so keeping anything that you deem dangerous to your agenda out of articles. It is my personal belief that you do have an agenda.

So far it has been noted by so many that you have hounded countless genuine contributors to this encyclopaedia to the point where any input they had was watered down to nothing of any worth. It's a peverted tactic.

NOW, CITE YOUR SOURCES, AND COMPLY BY THE SAME RULES YOU ARE NOTED TO UPHOLD ON OTHERS! Al-Andalus 04:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

About the grammar edit on "Self-defence ..."

Obliged and obligated are synonymous. No further edits are required.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=obligated

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=obliged

--J-Star 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism

BYT put my article on this informative book up for VfD, I'd be honored if you'd take a look at the article and its VfD. Thanks. User:Klonimus/AINB Klonimus 07:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

forbidden?

Another user has repeatedly edited my userpage, last time did so against my warning. Is this regarded as outright vandalism? Or if not, what is the policy that deals with such violations of userpage? Arrigo 10:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look

Please have a look at Category:Superstition, its CFD, the editing of WholemealBaphomet (talk · contribs) and a sweet little exchange on Talk:Prayer. JFW | T@lk 11:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark

I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark. Please contribute to it. – Smyth\^talk 18:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote comments on 3RR

Hi Jayjig. Thanks for the note and your support in this case. I have added my comments to the page ([8]). Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 21:35, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Redirects of 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories (and questions about adminship)

Hello. I have received your message. As the orignal page was moved against consensus and unfortunately this is not the first time this editor has done this, I just wonder how exactly that page should be named because so many editors move pages with no regard to double redirects.

I am currently a sysop at Chinese Wikipedia (getting more complex and difficult to manage), Chinese Wiktionary (very easy to mamage due to very limited users and only 1000+ articles), and Wikisource (easy to manage but being broken up into language subdomains). As you are a sysop here and I may want to become one here sometime soon as well, I would like to know if being a sysop here is a very busy job so I can get better perpared.--Jusjih 07:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kempler video

hey Jayjg, very soon I will be giving interviews to world press on Kempler video and it would be ridiculous for someone of your stature to go down in history as the guy who worked hard but unsuccessfully to keep Kempler video out of wiki. You have probably noticed that I take this seriously. I do. I also know that "killers are free." Kempler video 07:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coolcat RFAr

I think your recent alternative proposal is probably better than the plain probation. The problem I see is that he has alienated so many people that some admins may find it hard to be fair. What's your opinion of a closed mentoring system, where specific nominated sysops would have power to restrain him? In promoting this case in the first place I had hoped that this option would be considered. The hard ban for three months seems reasonable, in order to clear the air. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Krinsky

Hi I noticed you keep on reverting my changes to the article. I got your message that changing back my article to as I wrote it is vandalism. I would like to know why you keep on puting information that is a. not true, b. not relevent to a bio on a individual. if you have any relevent information on Rabbi Krinsky please post, if you have on Rabbi Avram Shemtov write him a bio. There is no need to have information in RK's bio of others.

Good work

For all the good work you do on controversal topics, I wanted to tell you that the work you do is appreciated. →Raul654 06:30, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Mossad Article Changes

I'm kinda new to patrolling of the Judaica articles, and I was wondering if This is the appropriate way to set about making changes, or if this justification is necessary at all.

Thanks, --jonasaurus 03:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute advice needed

I have expanded and improved Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda article considerably and more is needed. My goal is to get the "Disputed" label removed. However, I have had an entry on Able Danger deleted several times by people claiming it is not relevant to the article. I have expanded the entry over time to make it more clear and show the relevance to the article and I have explained the relevance on the Talk page. Still it is deleted. I have viewed their deletions as simple vandalism and not subject to the 3RR but an administrator did not agree and suspended me for an hour. If you can find the time, I would like you to read the entry and the talk section on "Able Danger" (it is discussed in more than one place). I would appreciate hearing your point of view on the relevance of the entry on the Talk page and any advice you can give me on my User Talk page. Can people just claim information they do not like is irrelevant and delete it? RonCram 13:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strangley enough, I'm with RonCram on this. Maybe the piece he added was a bit too long, but a mention should still be provided. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Baphomet's new stub

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Myth. Thanks, HKT ^talk 17:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Anti-Semtism

Jay, I really don't appreciate your last message on Talk:Anti-Semtism. I've been following your comments in several pages and you always struck me as a centered, if maybe a tad zealous, editor. Most of the times I really want to jump in and say "Well done!" on some of your answers... This time, I think you were unnecessarily sarcastic, though. I thought I tried to push my point across respectfully and without resorting to put-downs... I don't know, just feel a little disappointed and frustrated in my first conversation with you; I expected a little more but, hey, we're all human after all.
No need to answer if you don't feel like it, but I just wanted to let you know how I felt.
--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, c'mon... you can't really use the Franks term related to Anne Frank and expect me to take it seriously, it's a far fetched comparison at best. I didn't take it as a personal attack though, but there surely are better examples than that to express your point. In any event, the fact that Semitic and Anti-Semitic aren't exactly antonyms will lead to confusion, especially users as little "enlightened" as yours truly. I think it deserves at least a side note in the first paragraph even if it is to set the reader's mindset on the right track. But I'll leave it there, I think you understand my position.

PS: The use of the word "enlightened" is meant as self-deprecation, and a crude attempt at lightening the situation and being slightly funny in the process. :)

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never said irrelevant and was going to let it go at that... but either you seem intent to be sarcastically humorous or you just don't want to see it. There is a huge difference between an antonym that is not really an antonym (Semitic and Anti-semitic) and two words that share a common etymology (Garden-Kindergarten and Anne Frank-Franks). And let's just leave it there, please. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Murdoch

I've never seen it suggested that she is Jewish - can you cite a source for this assertion? Adam 12:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether she is Jewish, but whether it has been claimed that she is. If it has been claimed, then you can't object to the article saying that it has. You are free to add the fact that she is not, and to point out that the claim comes from anti-Semites like Irving. Adam 02:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-148248.html here] for evidence that the claim is widely made by anti-Semite groups. Adam 03:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are getting confused between two statements.

The statement "Murdoch's mother is Jewish" is false and should not be allowed to appear in the article.
The statement "some people claim Murdich's mother is Jewish" is true, and cannot be deleted. It can however be amended to say "some people (namely anti-Semites) falsely claim that Murdoch's mother is Jewish." Adam 03:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Evidence

I added some new evidence there a couple days ago. I hope it doesn't disappear under the radar screen. Just to give you a heads-up... HKT ^talk 18:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

tildes

I am currently in Ecuadorand the keyboards here do not have the tildes (forthe mostpart, the one I am using now does but I think that is just to compensate for the spacebar not working half the time) and I don´t know the ascii code. So,I figured, I can log in sopeople know who I am and next week I will be back tothe keyboard I knowand love.Well, apparently the key with the tildedoesn´t work either, so for the moment I remain, SR

What, a Spanish-speaking country with no tildes? JFW | T@lk 19:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

recursion

Who denies that Stalin's collectivization scheme ended up causing famines which killed millions of kulaks? -- does this make you a Ukrainian holocaust denier denier? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A small joke. Too small, I guess...you seem to be denying that there are Ukrainian holocaust deniers. If I denied the existence of those, I'd be a denier denier denier. Like I said, small joke and I guess I haven't eaten my breakfast yet so my sense of humor is outpacing my internal editor... --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you very kindly for your support for my nomination. I promise your trust will not be misplaced; I may occasionally be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:37, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Reopen 911 link removal

Hey Jayjg, I was wondering why did you remove the link to reopen911.org website, from 9/11 conspiracy theories page? The website is perfectly valid in the context of everything else on that page (even if it's poorly designed). Any reason for this?

(Jayjg 22:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC): It doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic; hard to really tell what is on it, in fact.)

Ok, but that seems so (to you) because you haven't seen their documentary. I assumed as much since I really believe that should you have seen it, you would not remove the link. Their website really is badly designed, but the 3 hour documentary features various experts talking precisely about the subject of the page, on a seminar that unfortunately recieved very little, if any, media coverage. I don't think the website is less encyclopedic than for example the website linked under "Question 9/11, a collection of free video downloads about 9/11" (http://question911.com).

Edom

Thought you might be interested; I've done a major revision of the article Edom, including the latest research. --Briangotts (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Briangotts (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zephram Stark

Hi. There is an email on the WikiEN-l mailing list from someone named Zephram Stark who has made certain accusations about your conduct. I thought you'd like to know. The archived copy of that message is here. - Mark 03:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

Can we do something about this silly dispute at Israel. The State of Israel was not the birthplace of either Judaism or Christianity. This statement is highly tendentious, and is obviously being inserted for political reasons. I don't mind some comment to this effect in the history section, but putting it in the opening section is misleading and provocative. Adam 06:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Poor case closed

Hi Jayjg. I wondered if you are aware that Ed Poor's case was closed yesterday only a short time after I had presented my rather lengthy evidence, and only a couple of hours after a motion to close was made? Did you get the opportunity to read through my presentation? I was in fact in the process of adding to it and preparing a statement of conclusions when the case closed. Are you satisfied with how this was handled? Paul August ☎ 15:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

University of Miami

I saw you have dealt with User:Brian Brockmeyer before and was wondering what you thought I should do about his latest antics? On the University of Miami page, there is a section of notable alumni. They are organized by field (arts and entertainment, athletics, business, politics, televsion and attended but did not graduate). The problem arises because football player Ray Lewis played football at Miami but received his degree from the University of Maryland. Brockmeyer won't allow the player to be listed in the "attended but did not graduate" category, and on 3 or 4 occasions now, I have added the note that Lewis got his degree from UMD, Brockmeyer reverts it. It looks like you have a lot of experience will settling disputes, what do you think? Thanks. AriGold 16:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where you've dealt with him before. [9]

Now it looks like he is making the changes under two names, both the Brian one and now JuicedPalmeiro, or something like that. If it's not the same person, they must just edit the same pages.

Humble request

Hello Jajyg -- hope all is well with you and yours. Could I ask you to wind down Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism according to your best lights? No one has voted there for days. Many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 10:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments precisely -- thanks for pointing this complex bird in the right direction. BrandonYusufToropov 22:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Divided Attention?

Jay, by my rough estimate, you spend an average of about 4 minutes per edit for nine hours a day. While you may not like my attitude, it has been clear to me on a couple occasions that you've made comments and edits without quite understanding what the situation is. You end up being obstructionist more than anything else when you do this. Please at least give this some thought. Marsden 03:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear: my concern is that you have been obstructionist. Give some indication that you have actually considered the discussions and the comments of others before you make a comment of your own or an edit, and I'll never have cause to question how much time you spend on each of your edits. Is that so very much to ask? Marsden 20:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my article Occupied Territories (Israeli) is POV. Yes, some POVs don't like the term "Occupied Territories" when used to refer to the territories occupied by Israel after the Six-Day War, but that is the term used broadly by the Western Press (excepting, as you noted, AzerTag, although I'm not certain that Azer Baijan is Western), by the United Nations, by the United States State Department. I consider it NPOV, though you may note that I clearly indicated in the article that it is a contentious term. I am disappointed, Jay, with your ominous comment "If you prefer I can turn your fork (sic) into a re-direct. Think carefully about that please." I am not sure how I am supposed to take that comment, but I would hope that we could come to a reasonable compromise through discussion. Also, while you have recommended that my article be merged with the vaguely related article on the Occupation of Palestinian territories, it would again be disappointing if you have already resolved unilaterally and oblivious of my comments that it "will be merged," as you have written to me. You might have noticed that Brian Tvedt described my article as "a good start," and recommended -- contrary to your apparent intent -- that "whatever is sensible" in the "Occupation of Palestinian territories" be merged into it. Jay, your POV is not the NPOV, and you are doing a disservice, in my opinion, to this community when you continually make changes without discussion much less consensus. Marsden 21:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Jay, but, far from being unilateral, with most of what I have done I have made clear what I was planning on doing, and I invited comment. When people -- including you -- made criticisms of changes I made, I listened to what they had to say, and worked with it. I had indicated a call for the split of the "Occupied Territories" page for a couple of days before I did it, and I had indicated a couple days prior to that that I thought that a disambiguated "Occupied Territories" page referring specifically to the Israeli Occupied Territories was needed. You had no comment, but to continue your insistence that any link to anything regarding the territories controlled by Israel was inaccurate while simultaneously contending elsewhere that a link that would be accurate would "just another one into which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict spills." Also, when I did my disambiguation, I didn't destroy or fold into history anything, as you have just done. You may also note that, unlike you, when I make a change and someone reverts it, I generally try to resolve whatever differences we may have before I restore it. You can check your history on that. Marsden 21:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bmicomp's RfA

Well, my RfA has not quite completed yet, but either way, I'd like to thank you for your vote and your support, regardless of the outcome. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA. I'll work hard to try to live up to the confidence you're showing in me. See you in articlespace. Nandesuka 01:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yuber's sockpuppets

Would you please place any accounts or ips which you believe to be Yuber's sockpuppets on the evidence page of his arbitration case. Fred Bauder 16:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user

Good work. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I thank you for your support for my RfA, We shall surely interact more. I am certain that our association shall grow. --Bhadani 10:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alberuni range blocks

Jayjg:

A contributor brought up in IRC this eveing that several ranges of IPs that had been blocked in order to prevent Alberuni's actions were blocking an entire ISP's dialup service. Ilyanep (who is more tech-savvy than I) did the research to determine that they are indeed registered to a "level 3 POP" used by several ISP's, including Earthlink. I've been nominated as the one to bring the issue up, and I don't feel it appropriate to unblock or bring up on AN/I without discussing it with you first. Is there a compromise measure we can try other than these range blocks, as it seems to be inconveniencing apparently innocent users? I look forward to hearing back as quickly as possible. Thanks for all your great work (and a belated congrats on your ArbCom promotion.) -- Essjay · Talk 23:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm not tech savvy enough to have any suggestions other than blocking individual reincarnations as they occur, which I'm sure is quite stressful for those involved. Perhaps the devs could suggest something? -- Essjay · Talk 02:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, whatever.

Jayjg wrote: "Here's the story of what happened to your new buddy Amin123; he made such a nuisance of himself on a particular article, reverting time and again to his own version and refusing any discussion or compromise, that eventually 1/2 dozen other editors got sick and tired of him and simply reverted him regardless of what he edited."

Those 1/2 dozen editors -- did they get reprimanded for involving themselves in revert wars for purely retaliatory reasons, as you advised Amin against doing? When you find yourself, Jay, continually trying to influence people through veiled threats -- many of them hollow -- that might be a good time seriously to think about whether or not you're doing the right thing with your life. Just a thought.

Marsden 03:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg wrote: "I take it from your needlessly personal comments that you are uninterested in reconciliation, or in working collegially? You prefer the revert war approach?"

Not at all. However, I have seen your handiwork enough to know that your idea of compromise is when everyone agrees with you, and your idea of discussion is repeating your original position again and again until everyone else wearies of the game -- this differs from a revert war how?

Consider your comment to me in one of your recent reverts: "Tell you what; how about if you stop trying to link to 'this POV fork' until the discussion is concluded, and then I'll stop pointing it to 'the correct article'. Seems like a reasonable compromise." This after I have repeatedly protested your characterization of my article as a "POV fork." And obviously, in order to accept your "reasonable compromise," I would have implicitly to accept what you describe as "the correct article," which you know I do not.

I am sorry, Jay, if you are somehow condemned to exist among people so wretched that you would have gotten the idea that the sorts of underhanded manipulations that you attempt here could be effective. If it gives you any hope, let me note that I don't think things have to be that way.

Good luck wherever your life takes you.

Marsden 03:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Robert Blair?

Hi Jay,

I believe I've identified an anonymous user. Could you take a look and see what you think?

History of ridged band: history

Current anon, clearly the same individual: 207.69.139.134 contrib 207.69.137.12 contrib 207.69.138.143 contrib 4.230.234.81 contrib 207.69.138.144 contrib 207.69.137.40 contrib 207.69.137.21 contrib

On his user page (section 'Complaints'), Blair effectively admits that he is the 207.69.* anon. The same editing pattern is also seen. Blair had a habit of editing in a text file, then when he was happy with this pasting the entire file into the edit box, thus overwriting others' changes (see his old talk page). We're seeing this again, with reverts not even being noted (because, of course, with that editing style you wouldn't be aware of reverts).

Blair was banned on the 14th of March, but I think that he has come back to haunt us. What's your view, and if you agree, what's the appropriate course of action? Jakew 10:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - strangely, I didn't notice your first message. Jakew 20:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-Israeli conflict

I couldn't find your question on the talk page. If you meant the one on dhimmi, I've replied on the talk page there. Palmiro | Talk 19:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise

Please review my comments here, here and here, and advise. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to me. My problem is that I have blocked a page because of an edit war. I set forth several guidelines which I suggested might help toward getting the page unprotected; but it appears to me that the user who started the trouble (ken) prefers to have the page protected (just an impression). I have been extraordinarily aggressive in this case; and I would like to have a review of my comments and actions, to gauge whether I've taken appropriate actions, and for advise on how to proceed from here. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an impression of whether what I've done is out of line, or not? I'm uncomfortable; but will continue if it seems appropriate. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel ignored; I noticed the difficulty you mentioned. It appears as though my intervention might have been helpful. At least, things are quiet now, and I haven't been informed by the participants, if they any of them resent what I did. Thanks for getting back to me. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Violation notice

Jay, you've violated the remedies imposed upon you at Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg. In particular, you have violated the prohibition that you may not "remove any adequately referenced information from any article which relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" during the "period of editing restrictions" (apparently 16 January 2005 to 16 January 2006; one year from the date the arbitration was closed). You violated this prohibition in at least two manners, with both violations repeated several times. The violations include changing the article Occupied Territories (Israeli) into a redirect and removing a link to this article at Occupied Territories. The enforcement of this prohibition includes that any user may remove any edit by you that is in violation of the remedy, and that you may be blocked by an administrator for up to one day for intial violations and up to a week for repeat violations. Given the aggravated nature of your violation, I will be seeking to have an administrator block you immediately. Marsden 14:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, I'm sending this message to a few administrators in order to get the enforcement of the arbitration remedies enacted:

I'd like to have an administrator impose a 24-hour block on Jayjg for violating the prohibition imposed by Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg that he not remove "adequately referenced information from any article which relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" for the period 16 January 2005 to 16 January 2006. Jayjg violated this prohibition repeatedly by changing Occupied Territories (Israeli) to a redirect and by removing link to this article at Occupied Territories.

It would really be easiest if you just imposed the block on yourself.

Marsden 15:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kazan et al

I received the following query from a Tatar editor with whom I've worked on some articles:

Hi! Could you start a stub Hebrew edition of Kazan and Tatars articles. Some my friends are studing Hebrew, but thel level of knowlege isn't advanced as well... Please, note, that Semitic 'q' should be used in word 'Qazan'! Thank you, --User:Untifler 13:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help him out but I don't have a Hebrew-typing program and I don't have the knowledge of Unicode necessary to do this efficiently; in any case my knowledge of day-to-day conversational Hebrew will probably not help much in a scholarly encyclopedia piece. Would you be interested in helping out and/or do you know anyone who would be interested? --Briangotts (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

Why didn't you reply to any of my emails? If you are going to take on the role of an administrator shouldn't you make yourself available to administrate? WikiDon 19:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:203.134.48.170

Jay, if you want to block someone, block this NUT:

Edit war. I am having an edit war with an anonymous User:203.134.48.170 on the 1986 NBA Draft article. I see some of his points, and have even added some of them to the article. But his methods I can't get passed. He keeps using VULGAR comments about me in the Edit summary. ("Don't post crap; No shit, Sherlock; stop being a fucking idiot; Stop being a fucking idiot; WikiDon seemed to have an eight-grade education, at best;" etc., etc..) I find this an offensive way to communicate with me. He didn't try to communicate with me in a civilized manner until he had gone to far, and was being blocked. Also check User talk:203.134.48.170 for his warnings, and Talk:1986 NBA Draft for my reply to his charges. WikiDon 08:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't mind those words, but I do.

Also, I have contacted Earthlink about them and Wikimedia working togeather to try and indentify the exact user that is causing the problem: User:Robert Blair. I don't know if anything will come of it, but we can try. WikiDon 09:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of Venona documents

Someone, not I, has consolidated the discussion over the Venona documents and how to represent them (prompted by the text written on many pages) onto a single page: Talk:VENONA project. I hope you will join us in trying to resolve many of the issues that keep cropping up across Wikipedia in this matter. Thanks.--Cberlet 13:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfArb against Zephram Stark

I've requested arbitration against Zephram Stark. Please add any details or comments you feel are appropriate. Carbonite | Talk 16:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish categories

Hi I noted your input in the Jewish lists so hopefully this will interest you. I started making a few new categories: Category:Jews in music, Category:Jews in science, and Category:Jews in the visual arts, however User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters has nominated all these for renaming due to his aversion to the phrase "Jews in". The reason I created the Jews in music category was because I knew Category:Jewish musicians and Category:Jewish music existed but mainly covered yiddish/religious music. I have persuaded Lulu to change the name of the current category to Jewish classical musicians (as this basically covers the people I had added to it) but I still feel a category such as Category:Jews in western music needs to be the parent category of all classical, pop, jazz, rock, musical sub categories to avoid confusion with yiddish music, Klezmer etc. I would appreciate your views on this here Talk:List_of_Jews#Jewish_categories Arnie587 23:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marsden

Hello, I've been looking through Mardsen's User contributions links and he has been attacking a few users, and putting bias in articles. he seems to be especially wound up about you and saying crazy things about you. is there something that should be done about this? John McW 18:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i still think something should be done. John McW 21:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Hi. I have made a new suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#A new suggestion in order to try to overcome the present impasse. I would appreciate discussion of this on the talk page before we all get into reverting again. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 21:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Middle Eastern deities

I'm really not sure what to think of this template. It's probably harmless but could be used to push a POV. Are there other templates for comparison (e.g. Nordic deities, Ganges valley deities)? It may require a deletion discussion to clarify its merits. JFW | T@lk 16:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi POV pusher

Well i had no idea that he would push such garbage like anything Nazi on a Jewish page. Although i welcomed him 7 hours before he even made any contributions. Job E 6 18:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Log/newusers Thats how Job E 6

19:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3rr violation

Hey jayjg. 70.21.180.97 (talk · contribs) has violated 3rr on Muhammad article. Please deal with this. Thanks, --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was going to warn but I though admin only were allowed. Oh well, next time I will. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish music category

Hi I think maybe I'll just put Jewish classical musicians, Jewish pop and rock musicians as sub categories of Jewish music even though it may be not ideal. If I created category Jews in western music would you support that if Lulu nominated it for cfr or cfd or can you think of a better title? Arnie587 18:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

feeding frenzy

so damned hard not to feed 'em.... --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV forks -and common sense

And what is a POV fork? And rest assured: you will see me on the appropriate talk-page. And, frankly, I do not need to post on the talk-page in order to use commen sense. I was actually following the "discuss merger" link..and the way you had redirected the article meant that it looked as if there was a long discussion about merging 2 exactly similar articles -really!! I do not know what agreement you have made with other users, or if they have broken them; but it is NOT the correct response to make life more difficult for a 3rd party! (oh dear, that sounded more serious than it is meant) Regards, Huldra 01:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

..................Jayjg on Huldras talkpage: (copy &paste)...................... I showed Marsden the Occupation of the Palestinian territories, he decided he didn't like it, so he created a new article that suited him better. Wikipedia doesn't permit two articles on the same topic from different POVs; if he wanted to improve the original article, he should have done so, rather than creating a new version. And it's rather inconsistent of you to insist that others need to use Talk: pages, but that you have no need to because you use "common sense" instead. And by the way, regarding this comment, [1], it would help if you actually knew the sequence of events before drawing conclusions. Marsden stated he was leaving Wikipedia, then "re-considered" and stated that he was sticking around so he could edit war with those he disagreed with:[2] He then immediately went to 5 articles he had never been to before, 3 to revert me, and two to argue on Talk: pages where I was in disputes with others. This was long before the events that you comment on, so maybe you should investigate a little further in the future before you laugh quite so hard in the future. Jayjg (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC) ............................................................
Jayjp:
First: I strongly object to the way you twist and misrepresent other peoples opinion. (I have copied & pasted your reply above here for ref.) Eg. I: I wrote: "It is completely silly to redirect an article! Grow up! -see you in the discussion-room". That, and my statement above (on this page) are the only things I have written about talk-pages. You twist/misrepresent that to: "...it's rather inconsistent of you to insist that others need to use Talk: pages, but that you have no need to ..." Just when have I insisted that others etc., etc.?? You better show me, or retract your allegation.
Eg. II: Marsdens statement: "I've decided that I'll occasionally participate in Wikipedia, but only for the purpose of countering the Hasbara Mafia. At least for as long as I consider their POV-pushing to be a major problem here" [10] ..becomes according to you: "[Marsden]...has pretty much stated that his only purpose for staying on Wikipedia these days is to revert me, which is inappropriate behaviour for an editor." User_talk:John_McW . "Pretty much", eh? Are you officially (or unoficially) known as the "Hasbara Mafia"? (If there are other statements by Marsden you refer to, then please tell me.)
Second: I will definitely continue laughing whenever I see somebody doing exactly the same thing as they accuse others of! I would not have found this funny if it had not been for your pompous statement about other peoples "inappropriate behaviour" on your newborn friend John McW´s talkpage. When you then do exactly the same....LOL! ROTFL!! And this does not mean that I approve of/defend everything that other people (read: Marsden) write/do. I don´t. That Marsden has played the same silly little wars as you (and SlimVirgin) do, does not excuse you. You are moving into a glasshouse while throwing stones! Actually, you said it best youself: "[it]... is inappropriate behaviour for an editor". (Yes, it is a pompous statement. It is also correct. IMO) (Well, of course you have not stated that your only purpose for staying on Wikipedia is to revert others...but that is (part of) what you are doing, nontheless.)
Thirdly: Actually I was/am working on text to the Talk:Occupied Territories (Israeli) pages.(...but get interupted by your posts!...and that the articles in question have to be hunted down doesn´t help.) Well, I have made my point here: I will not continue answering here; any future contributions will be on the Talk:Occupied Territories (Israeli). (But not tonigh: you guys must be living in the US/Canada or something...here in Europe it is soon early morning. Goodnight!) Regards, Huldra 03:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC) PS: thanks for educating me about POV forks. I looked for it on Wikipedia, but found no ref....[reply]

PPS: You know: what people do not say can sometimes be as interesting as what they do say: I see that you are not interested in discussing the misreprestation of my views -how interesting. Or editing wars in general. Also quite interesting. That we obviously don´t have the same sense of humour; well, I guess we both just have to live with that :-D Huldra 04:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)PPPS: logging out of Wikipedia for 2 days: I have another life which desperately demand my attention. Regards.[reply]

Advice requested

An anon, 206.70.251.252 (talk · contribs), made the following threat on his talk page -

I run a web site that averages about 300 hits per day, they are more like loyal followers, imagine 300+ people hitting your site, and editing the evolution page real nice,lol
I have many usable IP's at my disposal, just wait;)

While I don't think he's able to deliver on that threat, and I have no fear that Wikipedia can handle such a threat, I was just wondering what the most appropriate (procative) way to deal with that might be. Thanks for the advice. Guettarda 21:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was thinking the best thing to do would be do nothing, but keep watch, but I wanted to make sure. Guettarda 14:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I think you have become the new RickK - point man on dealing with vandals...and opinionated editor ;) - Guettarda 14:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

sheesh. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't say this often, but Jay, I think it's time for you to archive your talk page! Do this, and I will greatly reward you (I'll image spam the hell out of this page). Don't do so, and you shall face my wrath (I'll image spam the hell out of this page). Many thanks! Best Reagrds, El_C 04:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on List of political epithets

No worries :-)

lend me your ears please

kmccoy's RFA

Apartheid editor

Sockpuppet reversions

POV at Foreskin

Thanks for your support

Disruptive Editor

Massive disruptions

Tag-team POV

RFA

Hmmm...

Noclador (talk · contribs)

Revert

Vote for Deletion

The Perfect Matrimony

Censorship of criticism?

Sure thing

RfA

Lucky 6.9's Vote

Historical_persecution_by_Jews

Platypus Rex

Thanks for your support

Rabbi Yochanan

Platypus Rex Support

Passover disambig

New article on Judaisms view of holy people

Kishinev

== Anti-semitism ==

Minhag

Platypus Rex

Func's RfA :)

Holy crap.

Ralph Woodrow

Oops!

New article to complain about

voting

My RfA

Israeli criminals

Yitzhak Shamir

Thanks

Thanks

Sirkumsize 03:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Kempler video of Rabin murder

Another vandal

POVing

Many Thanks

Re: kashrut/Macht/Johns Hopkins/Lancet/Biblical Archeological Review

RFC over Aposthia

additional comment on kashrut article

Samaria

Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers

Categories

Female circumcision

Will you support my request for deletion of Current events in Cisjordan?

Larry Franklin renamed unilaterally

Anon IP

Credible sources

Red Sox-Yankees Wars

RFC if you are interested

List of Political Epithets

You're #1!

List of political epithets again

And I hate to say it

used with permission

New info

King David Hotel Bombing

How is it a 3RR

Please Help

Sorry

Thanks!

Jewwatch.org

Unblock

AIPAC locked

WikiChampion

King David Hotel Bombing

Placing users in danger

Jewish texts

Stormfront etc.