User talk:Jayjg/Archive 11

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, Archive 10

Territories controlled by Israel

Thanks for your message, I've looked it over briefly and will examine it more closely as soon as I get a chance. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of it - it seems to be in the middle of an edit war and last I checked, the West Bank & Gaza were gone!! I've tried to follow the talk page but got lost. Anyway, I haven't forgotten, just wanted to let you know that it's frustrating.. Ramallite ^(talk) 06:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration note

Jayjg, raul mentioned to me about some sort of mentorship, I like the idea. I am not intentionaly screwing up ;) --Cool Cat ^Talk 19:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Archive award!

Dear Jay, for finally archiving your talk page, I am pleased to award you the following shiny image macro! Enjoy! Best regards, El_C 23:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please talk to Zora about this? :) --Viriditas | Talk 14:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War move

thanks for pointing me to additional info on the naming debate for the palestinian territories. i think i did in fact use that example in the right context. i was not current in the minutae but i feel the example did make sense (especially now that i read more on the topic). uri budnik 07:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

List of Vegs

Thanks, I think it was helpful. Wyss 14:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluidtime

May I invite you to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluidtime? - Tεxτurε 17:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

MEChA

Jayjg:

On your edit of the MEChA page: the campaign of developer Steve Soboroff did not participate in the criticism of Los Angeles Mayor (then-candidate) Villaraigosa for his past affiliations with the group MEChA during the 2001 campaign. A background fact-check will confirm this.

Best regards,

Inspectasobies

FuelWagon

I don't know what page in particular FuelWagon showed up at for the first time to revert a SlimVirgin edit. Please let me know. I assume it was not the RfC page, which had been a matter of existing contention. Since you say that the evidence is there, can you please provide me with at least a link? (I don't need a diff if I can check the history.)

As to your suggestion that I try to advise FuelWagon to change his behavior, I have tried, in particular on the RfAr talk page about his rant against Ed Poor. He essentially told me to butt out.

I can't tell him to quit stalking SlimVirgin unless I see that he is stalking her. Robert McClenon 21:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Saxet

Jay, I think you might want to go easier on User:Dervish Tsaddik. He seems to be doing his best in good faith as a new user, even if he has been supportive of contentious techniques. I have been doing my best to try to mediate, though I am not sure how successful that will ultimately be. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

A note

Jay, just a note to say I am not ignoring your request. I have things to say on the terminology and nuances but am too exhausted right now to say them and cite them properly. Not feeling 100% well for a week. Thanks for asking me. Maybe tomorrow or sunday. I want to dig up links which I haven't looked at in years; hope I can find them. Keep up the good work, and don't let people's nonsense get to you- hard to tell the real (semi)newbies from the new sockpuppets - and by the way, could you split some of your ill-gotten gains with everybody else?John Z 08:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I meant what Marsden or Dervish said, all the money you are getting, as confirmed by the two high-level admins, no? Doesn't that Jumbo Whales character demand a cut, too? :-)John Z 13:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Moab

I recently made extensive additions and revisions to Moab. Since you helped improve Edom after I did a similar overhaul on that article I thought you might want to know. --Briangotts (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

efoze??

Take a look at this guy's contribs; I assume it's spam, but I'm curious what. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a lost & found notice board; remove as spam, of course. El_C 09:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

English-language sources

Jay, there's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability about whether sources need to be in English whenever possible. Would you mind taking a look? Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Cool Cat, Davenbelle etc arbitration votes

I think you've voted twice on the third proposed finding of fact. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hanukkah bush

I'm not too happy about the faulty mechanics Jordain used to re-nominate this article. He did not create a new discussion. As a result, it appears to be a closed discussion, with a template saying not to edit it. I think this was a simple mistake on his part—I've struggled myself trying to figure out the proper procedure for a second AfD.

I'd like to make sure that potentially interested people are aware that the discussion is open, as I'd like to see a high level of participation. But for the life of me I can't figure out the technical means for doing this. I don't seem to see where the template indicating that it is closed exists. Any ideas? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. I figured it out. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Systemwars.com

Hi. Can I get your opinion of Tony's latest recreation and relisting of a valid VfD deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systemwars.com (second version). Thanks. - Tεxτurε 15:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Defense League

I'm really not sure what to say here, or even *if* i should post here; i have been attempting to bring the JDL entry more into line with reality -- by referencing FBI and State Department opinions, introducing factual reviews of past incidents, and that sort of thing -- but you seem to have frozen the page. I'm just curious if you've reviewed the history of the changes i've made? The page as it currently stands omits virtually the entire substance of all controversy surrounding the JDL, and any attempt that i've made to introduce information that provokes consideration of the JDL as a terrorist organization has been summarily removed. Stone put to sky 17:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Stone put to sky

ArbCom elections

Hello, Jayjg/Archive 11. In case you haven't noticed, I'm writing a special series on the upcoming 2005 ArbCom elections for The Wikipedia Signpost. In the October 17 issue, we will be profiling the current ArbCom members. Note that this should not be a platform for re-election; rather, it should serve as an insight into what you feel about the ArbCom, and your opinions of it are. Thus, I hope you don't mind answering a few questions. Many thanks!

1. Are up for re-election this year?
2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election?
3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom?
4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?
5. Weaknesses?
6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?
8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain.
10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently?
11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?
12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?

I hope you didn't mind me bombarding with you with questions; by no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of them. Thanks for serving Wikipedia, and for taking your time to help a Signpost reporter! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War

I only just saw your comment on Slim's talkpage. To "refute" something, you actually have to answer it in kind. You ignore, to your convenience, what the actual point was. It was that the title of the page reflects the POV of your faction and not that of the other side in the war in question.

Yes, the Arabs attacked on the Jewish holiday. But for whatever reason they still do not call the conflict "the Yom Kippur War" though. Your faction does. Please try answering that, Jay.

The point under discussion is not whether it is accurate to describe the war as "the Yom Kippur War". I am not interested in your and Slim's original research into whether it is accurate to describe the territories Israel is occupying as the "Occupied Territories". Accuracy has nothing to do with it, as I pointed out on that talkpage, because we are not here to judge POVs. We do not criticise them, Jay. We simply report them.

The point under discussion is, plain and simple, whether we use the common names for things as titles, or whether we should use an NPOV title. Which policy wins, Jay? And if we use a different policy for different pages, what is your standard for doing so? Are you seriously suggesting that a POV title is acceptable so long as it is accurate by your lights?

Jay, this is, I think, the point where you claim to have already refuted everything and that you're not going to bother to answer. You know you will win any dispute that comes down to numbers, because your faction is overrepresented in Wikipedia. But I am at least willing to give you the chance to discuss your view, a privilege you rarely extend to those you oppose. Grace Note 03:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

"The point under discussion is, plain and simple, whether we use the common names for things as titles, or whether we should use an NPOV title." - you seem to be operating under the impression that, in teh case of the Yom Kippur War article, these things are mutually exclusive. You are, of course, wrong. →Raul654 03:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Khazars

Shana Tova!

If it's not someone insisting that the Khazars are ancestors of all Ashkenazim, it's someone insisting against all evidence that no Khazars were ever Jewish. I could use your help dealing with this fellow. See [1] and [2]. --Briangotts (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm at a loss how to reply to his latest on the talk page. So I won't. Thanks for helping out with the vandalism patrol on this article. --Briangotts (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Holy drive by revert, Batman!

Have a look at [3]. Try giving me a minute next time XD I'm currently making fun of the situation @ Talk:David_Hilbert. All in good fun, of course... Sam Spade 22:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You Need to Stop Immediately

You need to immediately cease reverting my edits, or I will inform an administrator and have you banned. Jordain 20:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

CoC

Here is a proposed framework for an improved article; feel free to add to it and/or edit in the days ahead. Eventually - hopefully - it can replace the POV monstrosity that currently exists. Thanks...KHM03 23:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Persian/Farsi

Could I ask you to address my question at Talk:Jewish_American#Persian.2FFarsi since you seem to be one of the people who reverted? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

"Apartheid Wall"

In response to your comment on the issue I raised about renaming the "Apartheid Wall" article: I understand what you are saying and I appreciate the role you have played in trying to make sure that these types of articles steer a reasonable and moderate course -- and the grief you have received for doing so... but, I also think that what you have said justifies a slightly different name for the article in question. If as I believe you said, the article presents "arguments" (which I distinguish from being an article about the object in question) then shouldn't the title be something like "Apartheid wall" controversy? Or "Apartheid wall" debate? Or "Apartheid Wall" argument? Anything but just Apartheid Wall. If you say no, I will defer to your judgment and experience. 6SJ7 05:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Religion in Israel

Congrats on filling out this page properly. I was really suprised it didn't already exist—perhaps a topic so obvious it never occurs to add it. Islam in Israel remains an interesting sub-point which will hopefully elicit contributors. Marskell 22:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, it was deficient. I thought it might start out so when I suggested it and saw it was so when I moved it (and really didn't have the on-spot to knowledge to make it not so!). But the very creation of an article, even with one sentence and 1000 words begging to be added, can be a great way to move forward in edit wars. Once it exists, you have the right name and right placeholder for the info that was being reverted on a borderline page. Obviously no one can argue that Religion in Israel shouldn't exist as a page and (to be fair to FW) it's also hard to argue that the info he wanted in "Historical Persecution by Jews:" shouldn't be included in "Religion in..." (if it can be verified). In short, a fair compromise and a good page created :). Marskell 23:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Religious hatemongering and race baiting by Wikipedian "Fenian Swine (Play Brian Moore)"

---

Is this the way a proper encyclopedia is supposed to be run?? How dare any of the Irish censors (editors/administrators) dare refer to NPOV while the allow the below-referenced to continue unabated??

Demiurge, Djegan, Jtdirl, Ali-oops, PhilipO, etc. all hover around Fenian Swine's pages to protect him like guardian angels, and he is never sanctioned for any of his twisted hatemongering and his username (which is offensive and provocative, a no-no according to Wiki rules as I read them) which shows active support for a terrorist organization (the Provisional Irish Republican Army) and/or its supporters. In fact Ali-oops dismissed it with an "Naughty you!" (see below).

               EXCERPTS FROM "FENIAN SWINE (PLAY BRIAN MOORE)"'S USERPAGE

Hey. Notice you're still editing under that name. Naughty you! - Ali-oops✍ 15:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Very insightful.--Play Brian Moore 15:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Big word Brian Tunney, no what it means tho? Avril 15:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC) you want to ask tunney then ask him not me, gobshite.--Play Brian Moore 15:42, 7 :September 2005 (UTC)

* C,mon Brian/Bobby/Fenian/Swine/Muc, we all no u are Tunney HaHaHaHa do u no what it means HaHaHaHa --Avril 16:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

here the only thing I no in relation to you is that your a thick bollocks.It means an accurate observation BTW you sad bastard.--Play Brian Moore 16:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

* Please try to improve Bobby/Brian//Fenian/Swine/Muc. Now look here Old Chap, the only thing I know in relation to you is that you're a thick bollock. BTW, that means an accurate observation IMO, you sad bastard. Avril 11:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

be original bobby/avril/glen prats/carlos prats/muc/SAD BASTARD.there all you you unionist swine.--Play Brian Moore 15:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"be original" HaHaHaHa Tunney, nice one coming from a plagiarist tit like you HaHaHaHa. No what a plagiarist is Tunney? U need 2 learn 2 spell too. Avril 09:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

you need to learn the differnce between tunney and fenian swine but i wouldnt expect anything more from a protestant.--Play Brian Moore 00:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Avril was born into a fine catholic family, but from the age of 10 chose to follow a secular, atheist and agnostic path. Do not let your republican leanings cloud your judgement, what chance is there for WikiPedia if that becomes the 'norm' HaHaHaHa. Avril 10:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

i suppose atheism is better than protestanism.--Play Brian Moore 20:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

* Have to agree with that Fenian, looks like we can call a truce now ;-) How's your pal Tunney? I declare a truce with him as well. Avril 18:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why is he allowed to use a provocative and offensive username, which Wikipedia instructions clearly direct the would be-Wikipedian NOT TO USE, which in this case clearly indicate support for or active volunteering in a terrorist organization, the IRA. Why was my former Username "Taigkiller" immediately blocked by "Jtdirl" as "derogatory", while Fenian Swine's has not ever been??

This is clearly a concerted effort to block the ugly (or uglier in some cases) truths regarding the (all deceased) Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, John Charles McQuaid (averred by the late Noel Browne to have been a pedophile), Eamon de Valera, Michael Cusack (who founded the GAA, see below), among others

All of my edits have been factual (never denied by anyone except for the boilerplate ubiquitous NPOV), and in some cases footnoted or quoted directly from the Irish Constitution (McQuaid), (excerpt from) James Joyce's Ulysses (Michael Cusack), (quotes from) Tim Pat Coogan (in his book on the IRA) re his clear pro-nationalist (if not pro-republican) biases, and, in the case of de Valera, simply facts that are readily available and which expand on the soft-soaping of his more horrific behavior (i.e. denying refugees entry in Eire during WWII, thus causing thousands, perhaps many thousands, of lives to be lost which was eventually reported by Andy Pollak many decades later in the Irish Times some years ago).

This has nothing to do with NPOV (which is usually subjective), it has to do with dealing with the brutal honesty that important issues require even at the cost of offending the Irish Catholic censors, apologeticists, and relentless propagandists who have kept the horrific brutalities perpetrated by Irish Catholics from the October 1, 1910 (95 years ago) bombing of the Los Angeles Times, primarily by the McNamara brothers (Jim and John) that killed 21 Americans (no public memorials to them) to the fatal WW2 refugee policies of Eamon de Valera which is soft-soaped in the only format the censors will permit to stand (and at last view was locked in) to the ethnic cleansings of Protestants and Unionists from the Irish Free State and most recently, Northern Ireland. In fact what does Fenian Swine contribute to the Wikipedia community that this should be indefinitely tolerated, and he not be expelled ignominiously from the Wikipedia community (although admittedly he could always come back under a different alias)??

1) He spews religious and racial hatred. 2) He cannot write English properly. 3) His contributions are limited to neighborhoods in or around Dublin, and to the GAA - an ultra-sectarian, ultra-nationalist, pro-IRA "Irish sports" association that bans "foreign games" (rugby, soccer, etc) from being played on its tax-exempt fields, and which is of no interest to anyone who is not an irredentist Irish nationalist.

Respectfully submitted,

Rms125a@hotmail.com 00:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Rfc

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay KHM03 12:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the response! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 19:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Israeli Arabs

Please see comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israeli_Arab. Thanks. (adn thjanks for your help on the barrier. It stopped the edit wars. Zeq 19:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Vfd

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Day of Atonement, Christian - please vote. JFW | T@lk 03:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your vote in my RfA. I'll do my best to live up to the wiki standards and be a good admin!

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

nice

Nice to see you can always find a compromise, so long as its exactly the wording that you want. I am of course referring to your blind reversion here with the quite useful and specific edit summary "restore important fact and precedent". My previous edits fixed grammatical problems with passive voice and removed subjective policy requirements. There are no "facts" that were deleted with my edit, only your personal POV on the matter. And there is no "precedence" here since SlimVirgin only put this into the instruction page after I filed the RfC against her a couple months ago, and I've been disputing her modification since. But of course, "facts" and "precedence" are really cover words for "what Jayjg wants". keep up the good work. FuelWagon 18:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Terrorism

Can you check out Talk:Terrorism? Something has been attributed to you that doesn't sound like what you'd say. - Tεxτurε 18:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Zionist terrorism

Mirv, and a coterie of sympathetic editors are engaging in a buffing campagine, could you take a look? Klonimus 01:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Categ:Jewish diaspora, vfd

Hi, Category:Jewish diaspora has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 16. IZAK 04:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Please be more careful with reverts

This does not strike me as a sound revert, nor the right wording regarding it. Please be more careful with reverts and edit summaries. Sam Spade 20:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The revert was sound, the reasoning was sound, and please do not bring up 3 month old edits on my Talk: page any more. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

If there was any basis for that revert (which you have chosen not to explain) the personal attack was of course unwarranted.

I will continue to bring attention to unfortunate misuses of the revert function, and politically motivated personal attacks in the edit summaries. If you refuse to accept or discuss your mistakes, and they continue, I will of course go forward with the next step of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. Sam Spade 12:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon RfC

Hi. I wanted to bring to your attention that an RfC has been posted concerning User:FuelWagon. Please add any comments you believe are appropriate. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 23:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Accusations?

Hello, I don't know if it's appropriate for me to be writing to you, but I really am concerned about something. I have an arbitration case brought against me, and I cannot find out what I am being accused of. The case says the case has beeen opened mainly to consider the behavior of REX. That doesn't mean anything. I asked all the arbitrators who accepted the case what I was being accused of (ie what behaviour will be considered) and none of them would (or could) tell me. It is not fair, how can they expect me to defend myself against accusations I don't know? I suspect bias in this case, because once a suggested that an arbitrator espouses double standards and then in a few hours, I have a request for arbitration against me by, that same arbitrator, with the purpose of considering the behaviour of REX, and in a few weeks, it is accepted. I think OK, what am I being accused of? and I can't find out, there isn't even an accusor. The case's whole point is to consider my behaviour. Interestingly enough, when the case was accepted, that arbitrator notified all the people who I was in dispute with and did nit notify anyone who supports my views. What should I do? (I am asking you, because you are known as the kind and reasonable arbitrator by almost everyone). I don't want to end up being banned for something as trivial as implying that an arbitrator has double standards (it may not be wrong either, a casual glance at that arbitrators talk page would reveal that his "way of doing things" has been questioned before). Please reply (even if it is to tell me to leave you alone). REX 18:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFAR/SV

Re: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Stevertigo/Proposed_decision#Ommision_of_fact

I understand that some are quite busy and may have missed recent discussion and questions regarding my Arbcom matter. Ive taken the liberty of posting here to remedy any inadvertent oversight regarding my case. Sinreg, St|eve 22:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Help with anonymous apparent obsessive

Hi. 69.193.242.60 seems to be obsessed with me, based on his behaviour on Talk:Israeli-occupied territories. What should I do about it? Thanks, Andjam 17:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Jay, that is completely false. I hold no such obsession; I felt my comments were topical, if a bit light hearted at times, but without malice. 19:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The Signpost

Hello, Jayjg! I just wanted to deliver this week's issue of The Wikipedia Signpost, which features the current ArbCom, directly to your front door. :-) Also, if you wish to read your fellow Arbitrators' full and unabridged responses, you can find them here. Thanks again for all your help! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:613 mitzvot

Please have a look and offer your comments here. JFW | T@lk 10:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources for allegations of unsolicited email from NGO monitor

Thanks for your comments regarding my edit to the NGO monitor. I agree that it's important to be accountable when making these sorts of claims. Specifically, you asked for a source for my claim that the NGO monitor sends out unsolicited email. I did a fair amount of google searches and couldn't find any specific web sources mentioning it. All I have is my personal experience of being recieving their emails unsolicited. The emails themselves contain no unsubscribe information and a search on the website brings up no hits for "unsubscribe." I've replied to their emails and requestetd to be unsubscribed but have gotten no response.

Do you have any suggestions on gathering further evidence to support my claim? I could forward you one of the emails to show that it has no information on how to be removed from the list... Let me know what would be most helpful. mennonot 18:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Ten Commandments

FDuffy (talk · contribs) has been working his magic on Ten Commandments. Please review the edit history. JFW | T@lk 12:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Ariel (City)

Palestinian/Disputed territories cruft. I sense a possible little edit war brewing. IPT insists on using the term "Palestinian" territories, since the land in question has not been given to the Arabs, it's not "palestinian" yet, it's disputed at best. Klonimus 03:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

AIDS conspiracy theories...

...was just moved to AIDS origin theories by ((User|Zen-master)). Did I miss something? --Calton | Talk 00:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

My e-mail-to-user link is enabled but won't do much good, since I can't access my e-mail until I get home from the office in the evening (about 10:00 UTC). Expect delays, forgetfulness, and -- if my overly strict e-mail filter overreacts and trashes/redirects -- even my not knowing about e-mails. --Calton | Talk 05:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you considered creating an e-mail account where people could actually reach you, say a Hotmail or Gmail account? Been there, done that, but since my workplace explicitly blocks those sites it doesn't do any good. --Calton | Talk 06:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your support. I know we've had our small differences ;). --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I have however withdrawn my requests for adminship because I intend to re-run in the near future. It was exciting though. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Renaming

Jay, can you please not rename the History of the Jews in... series? At least without discussion? --Goodoldpolonius2 05:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it has been "discussed many times" and the link that you gave me did not seem to address the history articles at all -- the only talk we had about it that I know ended with my last response, see Talk:History of the Jews in Algeria. I could agree to changing the names to Jews in ___ but not to the "Algerian Jews"-style names you were moving things to (for the reasons discussed on my move comments). Anyway, it would have been nice to keep me in the loop on these moves, given that I think I started about 20 of these articles. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see the discussion now -- but I think that ___ian Jews is not a good title: History of the Jews in Spain could become Jews in Spain, but not Spanish Jews, for obvious reasons, a similar problem would occur with Algerian Jews (as opposed to Jews in Algeria), etc. If you want to start relabelling to Jews in ___ and fixing double redirects, we could take that approach. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If you have any ideas on where to propose this, that would be great. I find that each of the articles has a rather limited group of editors. Otherwise, I am okay with Jews in ____. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Email

Hi Jayig,

Are you now able to email me? Andjam 05:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor RFA

Hi Jayjg, I'm blown away that you are supporting AE for adminship. Look at some of the diffs people on the oppose side have linked to! Yes, there are a few bigoted nutters on the Oppose side, but there are more who just think this guy has spent his brief Wikipedia time as an apologist for his particular POV, for example his belief that Hamas's persecution of gay Palestinians is "irrelevant to Wikipedia". Regards, Babajobu 08:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As regards your reply, fair enough, though it's a bit of a strawman to say you think that multiple POVs should be represented in Wikipedia. I've certainly never felt differently, nor, presumably, do more than one or two of the oppose voters. It's a question of how he'll deal with his own POV in exercising his admin powers on related articles: responsibly, or not? On that question, we'll agree to disagree. Babajobu 17:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I confess I didn't understand your comment in your support vote either. You seemed to be saying that because some of the opposers were "bigoted nutters" (to borrow Baba's phrase) you felt obligated to support. Yet you said you are concerned about AE's POV. Is it right to make someone whose POV is so blatant an admin simply because some dispicible opinions were expressed in opposition to him? I don't mean to stir up tzures with you, but I was surprised by the reaction. --Briangotts (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I don't agree with your conclusion in this particular case but I now have a better understanding of your reasons.--Briangotts (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Ammon (nation)

I've made substantial revisions to this article, adding a lot of material from Jewish Encyclopedia and elsewhere. It still needs a lot of work and I will add more archaeological stuff when I have time. Thought you might be interested though. --Briangotts (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Israeli settlements

Hello Jayjg, I hope I was not out of line with my edits after the double reverting. I think I was not, but Marsdan claims I was. Can you double check? Best regards, gidonb 19:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we have seperated peacefully. Is this ok with the policies? Some redirects may still be a mess. gidonb 22:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad

Please check out the recent rearrangement of the Ahmadinejad article, following Ahmadinejad's hearty endorsement of Khomeini's call for the destruction of Israel. AE either thinks that Ahmadinejad allegedly made a "controversial" call for the destruction of Israel, or AE has mistakenly siphoned important info from the main article. I'd get involved myself, but I'm on an extended wiki-break. Thanks, HKT ^talk 05:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. Please see other recent edits by AE to the article. HKT ^talk 05:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The Muslim Guild

I thought you might be interested in joining The Muslim Guild.--JuanMuslim 06:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahmaddiya

Hi jayjg. I think it is easier to just call them Ahmadis rather than Ahmadi Muslims. Why? Because Muslims don't consider them to be Muslims, Ahmadis consider themselves to be Muslims. However, Ahmadis and Muslims can both agree to calling them Ahmadi. Regards a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh and it wasn't deceptive. I just didn't have enough space to completely write out this minor change. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It was a mistake and it wasn't deceptive. I just felt one edit was easier, wouldn't you? Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't. It avoids writing that they are considered heretics and also calling them Muslims. It is a name that both they and Muslims will agree to. And the Lahori Ahmadi movement might actually consider a reference to the Ahmadi Muslim Community to be pov. So this avoids this little tangle. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again. Still they prefer called Ahmadi or Ahmaddiya or Ahmadiyya community, even though most of them classify themselves as Muslims. I actually researched them and worked on their article, I actually know quite a lot about them. So to avoid both POV isn't is better to just give a wording that both sides agree to? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Really? Well then I guess that's a difference between you and me. And it's not controversial to the other regular editors in the article. However, I will note this for the future. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure it's on their site and that is what they classify themselves as, but that does not mean that they don't agree to being called Ahmadis, they call themselves the Ahmaddiya at many occasions. And isn't calling them Muslim a pov?Look at this page from their official website > [4] and notice how they don't refer to themselves as Muslims in the title there. I believe the exact term is Ahmaddiyat. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but if the Messaianic Jews did not mind being called "messianites" or something and the mainstream didn't either than wouldn't it be easier to use the term that they both agree to? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

"There's no evidence that "they" agree to the removal of that designation from themselves" - see the link I gave you from their site. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Also notice that the site you were looking at is only of one sect of the Ahmadiyyat which is the Ahmadiyyat Muslim Community. This ignores the smaller Lahori Ahmadiyyat . Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, just one question. Don't they also call themselves just the Ahmaddiyat or the Ahmadi movement? Isn't it better to avoid a dispute and just go with what both sides agree to? Look at their site once more and see how many times they also use stand-alone terms. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[5] Official website: Look at the title. Islam is stated separately and notice how they don't call themselves Muslim in the title, which is what we are disputing (not Islam). --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Lol! Yeah the "true Islam". :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg it is their view on Jesus, which has in part made them heretic and to call them that on the Jesus page is pov. It would be taking the Ahmadi side. Therefore using a title which neither side disputes is better. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ofcourse it is when it's in the title. You disputed Muslim being added, which is different than saying Islam. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay I have changed it in the article and used a name that I think can refer to both of them. Does that solve your dispute? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

"the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam" is what I inserted. Do you agree with that? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No, the Muslim was removed because this is not the proper name of the Lahori ahmaddiya and it would be pov not to apply to them, but glad to hear that you are happy. Btw, why did you make a big deal of this? Regards a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

A Muslim is someone who has submitted him or herself to God. Ahmadi Muslims have done this. Therefore, they are Muslim. --Zephram Stark 03:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Using that Definition, are not every observant religious person Muslim? --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

That is what the term "Muslim" literally means. In practice, one must also sincerely recite a ritual declaration of the submission to God, called the Shahada, and assert one's belief in Muhammad, as the last prophet, and the foretold return of the Caliphet to the right-guided one at the end of days. --Zephram Stark 19:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Zionist Terrorism

Done. I had previous put in a note on the WP:3RR page about Unbehagen's constant reverts. Interestingly, since appearing as an editor on the article three weeks ago, he's pretty much been exclusively reverting the same section over and over. LeFlyman 04:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Put the ski resort crap in the Israeli-occupied territories article one more time ...

... and I'm going to file a complaint against you for vandalism. Marsden 08:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You two are so intelligent and make such valuable contributions, please call a truce, both of you. You can be so productive when you work together. Getting worked up doesn't do anyone (not to mention Wikipedia) any good. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

I was trying to participate in the article on "Anti-Semitism" but my entry was deleted (by Jayjg I guess) because of the control upon such a sensitive topic. I was trying to say the following: This article describes "Anti-Semitism" as "Anti-Jewish". Many might consider this article as biased, for the reason that "Anti-Semitism" is actually a discrimination against Semitic people as a whole. The Jews are a People of the Semitic People; thus, it is believed that "Anti-Semitism" should not refer to "Anti-Jewish". So, could you please tell me where I am mistaken? Thanks.

Dear Jayjg, Thanks for answering me. I had already read the parts you meant; however, I still believe that there is not enough space for the other opinions. I am not talking about original research, but rather about citing more articles that consider "Anti-Semitism" as discrimination against Semitic people as a whole. I think it is not fair to add one sentence that this view is not acceptable. I am talking about having a fair entry of information concerning all view points on "Anti-Semitism".

If you are interested about expanding this topic, I will definitely try to provide you with such articles. I will need some time as I am extremely busy these days.

How can I have private discussions with you?

Circumcision / Jenchurch / Mad Merv

Jenchurch aka Mad Merv has gone on a rampage, as you'll see on Talk:Circumcision. I'm out of reverts, but the latest needs reverting. What is it about this subject that attracts psyc... people like this? Jakew 16:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

skiing

Perhaps so, but I would hazard that most tourists who come to Israel don't come to ski. (The skiing on Mount Lebanon is better anyway, I hear—though why anyone would come to the Middle East to ski escapes me.) As well, the special forces unit which trains there seems to exist solely to defend the area—and guess why it's so important that it be defended? Not to keep the ski resort open. Skiing is a diversion, fresh water is a vital necessity, and presenting them as equally important makes no sense. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel your use of the word "cr**" in an edit summary was a bad idea. As well as giving Marsden ammo, I'm disappointed that that kind of word appears in an edit summary. Andjam 14:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It's better than saying "fucking Jew." Believe me. --Zephram Stark 19:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not...

Hello Jay: Please see User talk:FDuffy#What Wikipedia is not... for observation and input. Thank you. IZAK 04:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Please cease making 'ski resort' edits

The reason why CNN and BBC almost every day have news about things that have happened in the Occupied Territories or in the negotiations about them is not because of a ski resort in the Golan Heights. If it was not a 'ski resort' edit, you violated WP:POINT. In any case, the ski resort doesn't belong in the article. --saxet 19:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

New articles

I've started a few articles I thought you might have an interest in. Right now they are largely pastes from the Jewish Encyclopedia, but I've wikified them and made some edits. I plan to do more in the future but I'd be glad for any help you choose to give:

• Talmudic Academies in Babylonia
• Nehardea
• Dosetai
• Anilai and Asinai

Briangotts (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

History of Arab-Israeli Conflict

Hi Jay, please take a look at History of Arab-Israeli Conflict. Is it needed since it is basically a somewhat exanded version of the Arab-Israeli conflict article? I put a "merge to" sign on it. What do you think? Thanks. IZAK 09:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Location of Jerusalem Temple

Hi Jay: See Location of Jerusalem Temple? It can and should -- after some good editing for removal of "fluff" -- be easily merged into the main article at Temple in Jerusalem. I have indicated that on the former's page. IZAK 11:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ezekiel 38-39 War

What do you make of this: Ezekiel 38-39 War??? IZAK 15:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yehoshua ben Yosef

This is a work in progress, so don't delete it on me halfway through making it. In defense, I believe there should be a page for "Historical Jesus" that does not use the term Jesus. Furthermore, I believe any attempt to put all topics concerning Yehoshua under the umbrella "Jesus" is blatantly POV. There is the Jesus that Christians believe is the Son of God, and then there is the Yehoshua referred to by the Tesofta Shebota, the Qu'ran, the Ebionites, the Arians-in short, everyone but the Catholic Church after the Nicean creed. I think a page is needed for the separation of the two topics, and that page shouldn't be listed under the title Jesus. Scientz 11:24, 1 November 2005 (EST)

Wikipedia has existing naming conventions which mandate the use of the name "Jesus", and it strongly disapproves of POV-forks (that is, a new version of an article written from a different point of view). It also has an article on the Historicity of Jesus. Please bring your concerns about the Jesus article to the Talk:Jesus page - the typical fate of POV forks is deletion or re-direction, and it would be so much easier if we could avoid the AfD process. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

A user-created encyclopedia has dogmatic naming conventions regarding the use of the name "Jesus"? Where are these conventions written? I would like to read them. To be fair, I think information on a non-Christian perspective requires its own page that refers to him by his historical name, because as is the Jesus page is entirely Christian POV. Scientz 11:45, 1 November 2005 (EST)

Yes, Wikipedia has naming conventions: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Also, the idea that his name was "Yehoshua ben Yosef" is a conjecture and a POV, not an established fact. Finally, WP:NPOV says that multiple POVs must be presented in an article, not just one POV, and that POVs must be presented in proportion to their signifigance. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I looked up the naming conventions, and I think I understand your point. However, I must disagree on the idea of the name Yehoshua ben Yosef being conjecture. It is very simple. There is no contemporary "historical" record of Jesus, there is historical record of Yehoshua, son of Yosef (Joseph). Whether using Qumran scrolls, or the supposed "Q" document, or the Tesofta Shebota, the unaltered writings of Josephus, or even Quranic Sura 4:157, it can be clearly shown that there is a Yeshoshua, but this is not the "Jesus identity" grafted onto Yehoshua by Paul, and later, the Catholic church. I'm only interested in scholarship, not controversy. Christians can believe whatever they want about the mythical figure that became their Jesus Christ, but I believe anyone intersted in historical (non-religious) research should have access to a page that treats the historical Yehoshua separate from the biblical Jesus. Scientz 13:09, 1 November 2005 (EST)

The only documents we have with Jesus name are Greek ones, dating from decades after his death. We have no documents listing his original Hebrew or Aramaic name, so it's all conjecture. Yehoshua ben Yosef? Possibly. Yeshua bar Yosef? Maybe. Yeshu ben Pandera? Could be. We just don't know. In any event, I'm going to point your article back to the Jesus article now; please work these issues out on Talk:Jesus. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I highly disagree with your conclusion, and as such, I no longer believe that you should be considered to have enough knowledge of the subject to edit my information. There is a wealth of information that predate the Greek, and they are known as the Qumranic documents, or the Dead Sea Scrolls. More a hundred authors have written about these 1947 finds, and they really shed on a light on the life of Yehoshua, his ministry, and the more importantly the ministry of his brother James (Yacov), and what the Qumran community thought of Paul and his interpretations. I believe the issue deserves another article with no Christian bias. This is a separate article, and I have no intention of pointing the (Christian) Jesus to my page, so please do not point my page to the Christian Jesus. Keep in mind that I have no interest in this becoming a territorial pissing issue. I'm also curious as to why it bothers you that a fellow Wikipedian would like a page for Yehoshua that treats the information surrounding his life as separate from later-Catholic add-ons. I really have no interest in the article I intend to finish today being constantly deleted by an over-zealous editor with a problem. If your problem is what I name the article, please, sugest another name. If your problem is that I am creating it in the first place, I think you are the one with the POV issue. At any rate, allow me to finish the article, and then open up the discussion to all community members. As it stands now, I feel you are making a decision which you have not been granted the power to make. Scientz 13:56, 1 November 2005 (EST)

The Qumran scrolls do not mention Jesus, the supposed "Q" document was supposedly written in Greek, by "Tesofta Shebota" I assume you mean "Tosefta Shabbat", which was written in the second century and not transcribed until the 6th century, the "unaltered writings of Josephus" were written in Greek, and Quranic Sura 4:157 was written in Arabic in the 6th century. None of these sources mention "Yehoshua ben Yosef". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The Qumran scrolls do not mention Jesus? Are you serious? Look, I see where you are going with this, and I disagree. Where do those Wikipedians interested in researching a non-Christian perspective go for that information? What should that article be called? Because bar Yosef, or ben Joseph, simply denotes who his father was according to Jewish custom. And anyone not inclined to believe he was a God/Man, must believe he had a father, and the most likely candidate for his lineage is very well known. Not to mention there is clear reference to him being called Yeshu, or Yeshua, or Yehoshua, but "Jesus" is an entirely Hellenized version that comes years after the fact as well. I agree that "Yehoshua ben Yosef" has the potential for conflict, but what should we call it? I do not want to have to sift through information on the Christian Jesus if I am looking into the topic of Yehoshua the Ebionite. Do you not understand what I am getting at? The topic deserves its own page. Scientz 14:05, 1 November 2005 (EST)

Template:Mormon_jew

Looking at a new article called Groups Exiled from Judaism, and not quite sure what to make of it, I was shocked to see that the well-used Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar has now been "taken-over" by a pro-Mormon user and a new similar-looking Template:Mormon_jew is now being utilised. This Mormon template plagiarises and makes confusing use of the original Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar. The Mormon template must be radically changed ASAP. Your attention is needed. Perhaps we should follow official channels too. Thank you. IZAK 16:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert war in Israel & West Bank

Take a look at the antics of User:Aabaas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aabaas recently in Israel and West Bank articles. He is no doubt a sock-puppet for someone or other, perhaps he should be blocked? Thanks IZAK 07:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi - Sorry I've been out all afternoon. I've been trying to balance between lying low while responding to criticisms when necessary. I don't mind at all if you'd like to bring other people in. I was also going to thank everybody once this is over (whatever the outcome), but since I'm writing this, thanks a lot for your support - I greatly appreciate it. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert warring, but not 3RR

I need input from a much more experienced Wikipedian about how to handle a user who is gaming the three revert rule. If you look at the history of Bokak Atoll you can see that User:Johnski is very carefully putting his fourth reverts just after each 24 hour period.

Now technically there's no policy basis for blocking him there, because he hasn't violated the letter of the law. But he's been a very cantankerous editor about his pet project, the Dominion of Melchizedek. DOM is a micronation involved in some kind of fraudulent schemes. Johnski has a level of interest that suggests to the rest of us that he is the one running the scheme, but he claims his interest comes from DOM as being an offshoot of his religion Christian Science. He showed up around September or so and made a real vandalistic pest of himself. He's calmed down quite a bit but is still revert warring and there have been a steady stream of new accounts show up interested in Dominion of Melchizedek with their first edits. Johnski, of course, claims that they are all separate people and that it shouldn't be unusual at all that there are so many people interested.

I'm all for seeing if there's anything that needs to get into these articles to make sure they are NPOV but Johnski has shown himself incapable of working with that process.

At this point, would it be appropriate to look around for a few more admins and try to get some kind of consensus on blocking him temporarily for gaming the 3RR in order to get him to listen, or should we go some other route? I'd like to finally get this settled as it is starting to drive poor User:Davidpdx, who first offered to try to work with Johnski before discovering that was impossible, nuts. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually we already protected Dominion of Melchizedek and he simply moved the fight. He's had at least seven different articles that he's seen fit to try to insert DOM references into, probably as many as twelve or more. It'll at least protect Bokak Atoll, but if he follows his usual modus operandi he will simply move on to another article that he thinks he can use to promote his country. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there may be a policy basis. From WP:3RR:

Chronic offenders may be subject to rulings by the Arbitration Committee. This can also apply to those that try to "game" the rule on a regular basis, such as by making fourth reversions just outside of the 24-hour time period, or by making complex reverts which attempt to disguise the restoration of the editor's preferred wording. Andjam 02:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Martin Luther redux

Could you take a look. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for the heads up on that RFA. I will take a look, Godwillling. Best to you and yours, BrandonYusufToropov 03:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Success!!! Thanks for your support! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite RfA

Your sensible comments in this vote are much appreciated. --Ian Pitchford 13:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Luther and Anti-Semitism

I appreciate your attention to the Martin Luther article. As an administrator, you have to see to it that we follow in the principles of Wikipedia. We have placed the paragraph you put into the Luther article on the "talk page" for discussion. Perhaps it might be just as well to create a new article on Luther and Anti-Semitism where we can really look at these issues in depth. I appreciate your watchfulness against the vandalism, which is disheartening. I concede that one may not whitewash, present opinions as fact, and violate POV protocol. Respectfully, drboisclair 19:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Okay. . . Just don't make me real the whole RFC. It would take the patience of an arbcom member to get through that! :) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If I make my way all the way through it (trying right now, but I'm not sure I'm going to make it) does that mean I qualify to serve on (or be sentenced to) the arbcom? :) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 03:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein

I'll keep an eye on it (by the time I read your message Willmcw had ridden in to the rescue). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Would you please help...

There is a surprisingly blatant 3rr problem from Zeno of Elea at 2005 Paris suburb riots -- I count four, and he's apparently only getting started. (The fourth is a reversion of anonymous vandalism that happens to reinstate all the text under dispute.)

I've forgotten the procedure here. (Clearly, I was never cut out to be an admin.) Can you point me in the right direction? User:BrandonYusufToropov

Thanks for the seasonal greetings! Well, I darn near went blind -- the article has been a blizzard of changes, as you saw -- but I posted the diffs as you requested. See what you think. Many thanks. User:BrandonYusufToropov

Not a problem. I appreciate your pointing me in the right direction. BrandonYusufToropov 23:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Email

Hi - no I didn't, in my experience Wikipedia email usually arrives about 24 hours late and is deposited into my junk mail box (which I also checked). My email is abuhamraan at hotmail.com (I figure it's ok to post it here because it doesn't really give anything away). Ramallite ^(talk) 17:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Your editorship and scholarship appreciated

I appreciate the work you have devoted to the Martin Luther and AntiSemitism. I agree with User, Slrubenstein, who urged the point that everything should be laid out honestly. I would like to help in any way I can. Cordially and professionally, David R. Boisclair drboisclair 17:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Behavior of Ted Wilkes

User:Ted Wilkes is still removing my contributions to the Elvis Presley article, though they are well supported by credible sources. See [6] and [7]. He also aggressively continues to make personal attacks against me (and some other users) on the Talk:Elvis Presley and the User talk:Onefortyone pages and repeatedly violated the 3RR rule. I think the arbitration committee should place a note about this behavior on his talk page. Thank you. 80.141.255.90 20:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuber is back at it again

Removing a link (by blind revert) to a Daniel Pipes article on Nikah about the abuse of Islamic "temporary marraige" as a front for prostitution. I hope you can watch this page.

Can the "Yuber banned" template be used in this case? I was really hoping that the arbcom case would deal with Yuber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s abusive behavior once and for all.

Klonimus 05:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

1967 Six Day War

I'm not sure if you have noticed but somone has completley changed this article around to basically explain Israel had no right to attack her neighbors and that Egypt was completly justified in her actions before the war and anything that says differently has no basis.

I'm not sure if I'm just being an evil jew here but will you look at the article and respond on my talk page if you will help me change it back? Thanks- Talk Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 09:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I can think of pro-Israel sites sich as The Jewish Virtual Library, but I figure since most western historians agree that the war was a justified pre-emptive attack it is possible to cite neutral sources that will less likely be a point of contention. Do you agree?- (talk) Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 01:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I was notsuggested that the JVL should be used.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 01:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank-you for expressing your confidence in me at my recent Request for Adminship. The final result was 40/0/0, and my "superpowers" have now been activated. I look forward to helping out with the development of the encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk · contribs)

Because you couldn't do that as an editor? --Zephram Stark 00:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Jay, discussion going on here that might interest you, regarding possibly setting up a WP page or project where editors can make a note of good or dodgy sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuber violation of RfAr

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#Yuber_Violation_of_RfAr

Perhaps you can share your input?

Klonimus 01:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Stalking

Is there a policy against Wikipedia:Wikistalking? Because it looks like that's what FuelWagon (talk · contribs · block log) is doing to user:SlimVirgin.

FW is also a very difficult person to deal with. His complaints against others echo what I see him doing himself.

What shall we do? Is there any hope that this Wikipedian can be taught to make useful contributions to the project AND avoid hurting other contributors' feelings with personal remarks, "stalking" behavior, and so on? Uncle Ed 14:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps mediation Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ed Poor and FuelWagon would have solved any dispute you might have had, Ed Poor. But apparently you don't have time for that. But you do appear to have an abundance of time for, what did you say to me on the SlimVirgin RfC.... oh, yes, how could I forget, "building a case" against an editor who is an unpaid volunteer. FuelWagon 01:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

PRueda29 RFA

Thanks for your support! I really appreciate it. PRueda29^(talk) 22:39, 07 November 2005 (UTC)

Question for you

at Talk:Jewish ethnic divisions#"Migrating" Jews. Tomer ^TALK 02:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuber violation of RfAr Part II

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#Yuber_Violation_of_RfAr

Is there going to be any action on this? Klonimus 05:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The longer this goes undelt with, the more I get the impression that no one in the community of wikipedia admins (excluding yourself/SV) cares about what Yuber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does. Or maybe they care, but they don't do anything about it because he belongs to a "protected class", and no one dares do anything lest they be accused of being "biased". The great deference shown to Yuber vs Guy (And yuber even used sockpuppets, which Guy never did) in the RfAr seems to support my hypothesis. This is depressing. Klonimus 10:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again!  ALKIVAR™ 07:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Blog

I noticed that you deleted some blogs, saying "no blogs please". In this case I certainly agree with you! However is there a general rule against blogs? Or any other rational? Thx. -PBS-

FireFox RFA

Jayjg/Archive 11

---

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (96/2/0), so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any queries about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again, thanks!

FireFox 19:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Apartheid outside South Africa

Thanks for the heads up, but I'm the one who nominated it for deletion! :P Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 01:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Big thank you

I wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your support as well as your putting in a good word for me with others. I must say it feels like I snatched victory from the mouth of defeat after all of that controversy on my RfA. Thanks again, I really appreciate it! Ramallite ^(talk) 04:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Very much for your kind support of my adminship. I'll do my best to live up to your and my other supporters' expectations. If you have any comments or concerns on my actions as an administrator, please let me know. Thank you! — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 14:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

St|eve 18:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Would Like Your Advice

Hello. You seem to know a good amount about Jewish religious subcultures and movements. I would like your advice. I need to know the difference between Haredim, Hasidim, Orthodox, and Ultra Orthodox. As I understand it:

Orthodox (sometimes modern orthodox) = Haredi Ultra orthodox = Hasidim (subset of Haredim)

Is this correct? If not, please advise at ratioscripa (((AT))) gmail (((DOT))) com

Thank you...

I tried e-mailing you, but it bounced back. In brief, "Hasidic Jews" are a subset of "Haredi Jews", and "Haredi Jews" are a subset of "Orthodox Jews". "Ultra-Orthodox" is just another term for "Haredi", but many people consider it pejorative - essentially haredi Jews call themselves haredi, and those who don't approve of them call them "Ultra-Orthodox". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Philwelch's RfA

Thanks for supporting my successful Request for Adminship! — Phil Welch 03:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help with the translation. I will try someday to take better pictures. It is always very sad to be there (on the cemetery), if you realize that the rich Jewish culture and "footstep" in our city's and region's history disappeared. - Darwinek 10:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Links in headings

Thanks Jayig. I must have missed that part of the style manual. Well...live and learn...thanks for the heads-up.--Jfurr1981 18:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You're Welcome

The CDVF allows color coding of non-user user page edits. As they do not happen often they stick out like a sore thumb. The edit summary "More truthful" also gave me some impetus. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

the tools

Yeah, I was squirming and wincing before I had the courage to hit that revert button for the first time; it may prove mighty addictive! :) Ramallite ^(talk) 19:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Would Like Your Advice (2)

Thank you for your prompt reply. Just one more follow up:

"Haredi Jews" are a subset of "Orthodox Jews"

Can you explain? I was under the impression that: Orthodox Jews are followers of the traditional Ashkenazi Jewish tradition as passed down. Hasidim are Jews that follow the teachings of the Besht.

What is the difference between the Orthodox and the Haredi? I thought that the term "Haredi" was a synonym for "Orthodox," and not that Haredi were a subset of Orthodox (taxonomically speaking).

I just need to know the difference between Orthodox, Haredi, and Hasid, b/c I seem to be confused. I know that the Hasidic communities were an outgrowth of the Orthodox, but where did the Haredi come from? How do Haredi practices differ from those of the Orthodox and Hasidic communities?

My (correct) email is ratioscripta (((AT))) gmail (((DOT))) com, I apologize, I didn't spell it out correctly before.

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Walabio_and_Jakew

An interesting development. I may be unable to perform some necessary reverts in order to comply with Sam's request, so could you keep an eye on the articles? It shouldn't take long. Thanks. Jakew 22:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

your attention requested

Please see Talk:Jordan#Blatherskyte. Tomer ^TALK 06:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Judaism

Hi Jayjg, I see you also questioned "non-Judaizing Christians of Hebrew stock". I removed that whole section, but I'm a new user so I don't know whether that was the right thing to do. Please put it back if it wasn't. That whole article could use a clean up, and I read somewhere that there's a clean up tag but I couldn't get it to work. Thank you. Pintele Yid 08:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

History of the Jews

I dunno, I thought we reached some sort of consensus around two sets of articles "___ian Jews" and "History of the Jews in ____"/"Jews in ____." So I have sort of just kept chugging on my merry way since, as it did not seem to be too passionate a subject. Are you okay with that split? Do we want to propose it for a vote or something? --Goodoldpolonius2 16:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Fronts and cutouts

After reading the article Agent handling I was appalled by not only the editorial style but also by some "facts" that appear to be Original Research. For example: “The extensive use of cutouts, so long as they are trusted and reliable persons, can become a long chain of individuals. This performs another purpose, similiar to the extensive use of "front organizations"; by their sheer number, it becomes a shell game with counterintelligence investigators, who have finite and limited resources. When suspicion arises, the large number of persons and organizations connected to the conspiracy can devour endless hours and cost, which has the effect of slowing down the process of exposing an espionage organization.” [8]. Would you be so kind and review that article to see if any improvements can be made? Thank you in advance. Dearlove Menzies 16:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Help with Martin Luther and Antisemitism

Hi, Jayjg, an anonymous editor took the material from the Martin Luther and Antisemitism and created a new article "Martin Luther and Anti-Judaism". I believe that this article should be deleted. This anonymous editor also removed things from the Martin Luther main article. It is a bit of a mess. I have put a "candidate for immediate deletion" note on the Martin Luther and Anti-Judaism article.drboisclair 16:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou, Jay, for swift action. I wish the article to stand as we have agreed to have it stand. I will be watchful. Thankyou for your help. drboisclair 17:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Foreskin

Christopherk is reverting to Walabio's version. Why do people have such problems with following policy? Jakew 16:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Ma'ariv

The Ma'ariv article is a dab that links only to Jewish services (and a newspaper). Shouldn't Ma'ariv (or Maarib or whatever) have its own article? As a goy, I don't know enough about it to be useful, but do you know any scholarly Jewish Wikipedians who would want to flesh out this glaring oversight? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I realize I'd previously been confusing you with User:Jguk. Had me really confused there for a while. Sorry!

I had been pronouncing both names "Jay-Gee" in my head. (It's strange how we mentally abbreviate things.) And I kept thinking "Why would a jew be so adamant about using Anno Domini? And why would an arbitrator be jeopardizing his position for something so trivial?" Makes much more sense now.

Hebrew naming conventions

Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 18:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Psy guy's RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA. It recently closed with final tally of 51/1/2. I sincerely appreciate it and I hope I can live up to your expectations. I will try my best to be a good administrator. If you ever need anything, just let me know. Thanks! -- Psy guy (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup

Hi, Jayjg. Thanks for your vote of support on my nomination to become an administrator. I passed, and my floor rag has since been bestowed upon me. Please let me know if you need me to help with anything in particular! —BrianSmithson 16:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Crazy changes by Gilgamesh

Unfortunately, User:Gilgamesh is now imposing his own views by changing the transliterated Hebrew names of articles with redirects to unreadable Hebrew names and fonts, as if his criteria are the only ones to reckon with, when there are in fact several. My computer, as I am sure many others' as well, does not pick up his type of fonts, and thus he is messing up articles such as Safed, Hadera, Holon, Afula, Arad, Israel and many others defacing them and making them unreadable on the web. He is going to DESTROY the normal usage of Wikipedia's Hebrew transliterations to satisfy his own needs without there being any consensus. Common usages are being thrown out in favor of obscure and pedantic academic usages familiar to only a handful of unkown academics. He should be called upon to stop BEFORE he rushes to do further damage without any consensus being reached. All his changes should therefore be reverted. See all his recent contributions via: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gilgamesh I thank you for your interest, and urge all readers here to act. IZAK 03:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Circumcision advocacy

In an on-going dispute with User:Michael Glass, I'm coming to the conclusion that much of this article is original research. When you have a moment, would you mind looking at the end of Talk:Circumcision advocacy and giving your thoughts? Jakew 15:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

141

Would you be so kind as to examine my edits to James Dean and Nick Adams? As one of his assigned mentors, I have attempted to distill onefortyone's edits, which I consider, in these two cases at least, to be well-sourced, balanced, verifiable and encyclopedic discussion of the actors' sexuality. They are repeatedly being reverted (and I've now been taken to WP:3RR as "violating the ArbCom order." I do not consider them to do any such thing. I would appreciate your input. FCYTravis 22:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yigal Amir

Hi Jayjag, user Haham Hanuka keeps on reverting other persons' edits, sometimes disguised as minor edits, while adding POV to this article. To the best of my knowledge, he has just violated the 3RR rule. I would like you to consider restoring the article to its previous NPOV version and warning Hanuka that he cannot violate our rules. Regards, gidonb 17:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The issue was taken care of by Jpgordon. gidonb 17:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

My e-mail

Hi Kelly, did you get my e-mail? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did, thank you. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Posting on the Talk:Martin Luther proofs

Since you have requested proofs for some of the recent edits, please see the page for responses to your requests, D. Boisclair drboisclair 19:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

for the heads-up re: South African Jews :) Fintor 07:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to drop a note thanking you for responding to my RfA. I appreciate the comments and will certainly strive to interact more with the community. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Israeli Arabs

Have you any views on the recent generous helpings of section-POV-warning templates, in principle (given that the whole article already has one) as much as in this particular case? Regards, Palmiro | Talk 19:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Your Conclusion

Your stance then about Martin Luther is that the paragraph "Luther and the Jews" should remain as is? Along with that what other changes do you feel should be made to it as it stands now? I have removed the sentences that asserted that Luther and Antisemitism was a controversial issue. I agree with you that it is not, at least outside of Wikipedia. drboisclair 19:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Glad you stoppd by

Noticed your contribution to israeli arab. Have you missed the total biased propeganda placed there recently ? Have you also missed the violation of 3RR by Palmiro ? Thanks for stopping by. Zeq 20:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a gang revert in this article by the anti israel camp. I trust that you are able to identify sections which are 100% biased and are written as bad joke (see talk) Zeq 21:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There are two options:

Either the clearly biased sections are removed or we will have to go into issues that will turn this article into another argument about Zionism. For example: The "routes of the comunity" are clearly not in 1948. There is ample evidence that the country was virtually empty in the 1800s and that many so-called Palestinians were brought by the British in the 1930s to build the haifa Harbor. Other have self migrated as a result of the economic boom created by the earluy wave of zionist immigration.

The rest of the disputed section are written poorly and should not be the main focus of the article. For example the whole section of the "origin" 9as it is now) is already mentioned in one sentnse in the introduction, saying that Israel arabs are arabs who remaind in Israel after the 1948 armed conflict and the exodus.

If you will not delete these sections we will have a daily revert war and an article that will deal with Maek Twain instead of focusing on Israeli arabs. Zeq 04:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

In case you did not read these sections here is an exmaple with high encyclopidic value :

" The Israeli Arab community continues to grow in confidence. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the outbreak of the first Palestinian Intifada in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip were defining moments for it, helping form the identity many (but by no means all) of its members adopt as being part of the Palestinian people yet part of the Israeli state." This is bullshit propeganda and you as an admin should have been the first to remove these sections. You and all the other admin who clearly have seen it (like Slim, ramallite etc.....) Not acting on this mean you aprove of it. Zeq 04:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed that you yourself added this bullshit: [9] you are indeed helping make Wikipedia great .....Zeq 05:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

That article needed a fresh pair of eyes. Thanks for taking the time to look and comment. Jakew 20:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks too!

For your vote on my RfA. I am trying to decide whether to get involved in the Martin Luther fight, given that I am still working on the recent changes to Pius XII. I'll take a look at the article though. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

can you help?

i dont know if you remember me, but I've put comments on your page before. can you please help me with an editor named yuber? everything i do he just reverts, and he makes up new stories every time as to why. I have brought good information with links, but he pretends that i have not and deletes the links. John McW 03:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Israel article

Thank you for your note. I'm not sure why that editor wanted to put that in the article, but it didn't make much sense. I looked at the section again now, and it looked fine to me. Preaky 03:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

article quality

Thanks for your note.

The diff you sent is a. Written well b. maybe true c. written in fairly NPOV fashion

so there is no reason for me to change it even if I don't like it.

On the other hand the recent addition to the Arab Israeli section are a. written as a rssion propeganda style: pumping up the (non) belivers b. not supported by facts in large parts c. parts of that are true are half truth and/or mentioned already in the article and/or belong in other articles (where most of apear already) and/or need to moved to other sections (for example about politics in the Arab sector in israel) d. Written in a strong POV fashion.

Now, will you help ?

PS (I am not an anarchist but I do think some writings are better just deleted and built from scratch instead of trying to be fixed. Every good progrmmer will also tell about such things)

Zeq 15:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Marsden?

Obvious revert warring over Self-hating jew, and all recent contribs are reverts. If this IP is indeed somebody who has been warned in the past for revert warring, then a block would be appropriate. 3RR is a limit, not a right. Radiant_>|< 16:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that I don't have time right now for a lenghty investigation. Please query at ANI. In particular, I don't see the link between this IP and Marsden, nor am I fully familiar with Marsden's past as his talkpage isn't that helpful. However, I must say that I have contempt for people who revert three times and then add a spurious link rather than reverting a fourth. My online time is somewhat erratic these days, and I may not always be able to give a quick response. Radiant_>|< 17:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Firstly: as I recall: Marsden wasn´t blocked for revert warring, he was blocked for personal attacs.

Secondly: 69.138.215.194 has been editing since August, he was wished welcome on 22 Aug by user Humus sapiens (who had "noticed high quality of your contributions"...doesn´t sound like H.S. general opinion about Marsdens edits(?))

Thirdly: Marsden never edited Self-hating Jew as far as I can see (which 69.138.215.194 edits now)

Fourthly: Isn´t Marsden allowed to edit under his own user-name now? The "block"-period mentioned on his user-page has certainly passed. Cant´t he then edit either under his old user-name, or any new user-name, or anon.? Regards, Huldra 17:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

First, continuted disruption, trolling, and personal attacks (e.g. accusing people of promoting hate speech) are blockable offences.

Second, 69.138.215.194 is Marsden's IP - I suppose he imagines that using it gives him a measure of anonymity, in order to sow doubt in people's minds as to whether or not it is really him.

Third, Marsden has indeed never edited Self-hating Jew before - more proof he is simply Wikistalking me, which, as he has stated clearly, is his whole purpose for editing Wikipedia.

Fourth, Marsden is indeed allowed to edit under his old name, but not disrupt, troll, or attack, under his old name, or under any IP. Regards, Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not know what proof you have that 69.138.215.194 is a sockpuppet for Marsden, but if you say you have proof, then ofcourse I accept if. However, regarding what you write above: "Marsden has indeed never edited Self-hating Jew before - more proof he is simply Wikistalking me, which, as he has stated clearly, is his whole purpose for editing Wikipedia." Is Marsden/69.138.215.194 wikistalking you? I have taken a closer look at the edits of 69.138.215.194 (nb: I have only included the article-pages, not the talk-pages. Also I have not included the very first 4 edits, in August, (all to British Mandate of Palestine) they seem "genuine" pos. contribution). The rest is as follows (roughly! I might have missed some!):

• Palestinian nationalism: previous edit (before 69.138.215.194): by Palmiro. Else: Jayjg activ, while 0 edits by SlimVirgin/JohnMcW/Marsden.
• Self-hating Jew Marsden never edited this page, previous edit (before 69.138.215.194): by Jayjg (and later: SlimVirgin (several edits ))
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics: Marsden never editet this page(??-too long to check all), previous edit by Radiant! (cannot see Jayjg or SlimVirgin among the last 100 edits)
• Syria: previous edit (which 69.138.215.194 reverted): by JohnMcW (0 edits by Marsden, 0 edits by Jayjg (in the last 3 months))
• Lebanon: previous edit (which 69.138.215.194 reverted): by JohnMcW (0 edits by Marsden, 0 edits by Jayjg (in the last 3 months))
• Syrian occupation of Lebanon: previous edit (which 69.138.215.194 reverted): by JohnMcW (0 edits by Marsden, 0 edits by Jayjg)

• Anti-Semitism: previous edit (which 69.138.215.194 reverted): by JohnMcW. In addition: both Jayjg, SlimVirgin and Marsden active here. (69.138.215.194 first appearance on this article was to revert JohnMcW.´s first (and only) edit.)
• Anti-Semitism: 2 more edit (which 69.138.215.194 reverted): by Viriditas. In addition: both Jayjg, SlimVirgin and Marsden active here.
• Shechem: previous edit (which 69.138.215.194 reverted): by Guy Montag,(undone by Guy Montag). Also: 1 edit by Marsden, 0 edits by Jayjg/SlimVirgin/JohnMcW.
• Nablus: previous edit (which 69.138.215.194 reverted): by Guy Montag, (undone by Guy Montag). Also: 1 edit by Marsden, 0 edits by Jayjg/SlimVirgin/JohnMcW.
• Moroccan Wall: previous edit (which 69.138.215.194 reverted): by JohnMcW. (his first). JohnMcW. then made his 2.nd (and last) edit undoing 69.138.215.194.´s edit. In addition: both Jayjg, SlimVirgin and Marsden active here.
• Israel: previous edit (which 69.138.215.194 reverted): by JohnMcW. In addition: both Jayjg, SlimVirgin and Marsden active here.
• Heeb Magazine: previous edit (before 69.138.215.194): by MarisaB. Neither SlimVirgin, JohnMcW. or Marsden active here, while Jayjg has exactly 1 edit, namely; undoing the edit of 69.138.215.194)
• Palestinian territories: previous edit (which 69.138.215.194 reverted): by JohnMcW. (his first). JohnMcW. then made his 2.nd (and last) edit undoing 69.138.215.194.´s edit. In addition: both Jayjg, SlimVirgin and Marsden active here.
• Amira Hass: previous edit (before 69.138.215.194): by Sarge Baldy. Neither Jayjg, SlimVirgin or Marsden active here.
• Shabak: previous edit (before 69.138.215.194): by Itamar. Edit undone by Jayjg. SlimVirgin/Jayjg/Marsden are all active here.
• Temporary International Presence in Hebron: previous edit (before 69.138.215.194): by A2Kafir, 0 edits by SlimVirgin, JohnMcW and Marsden, while Jayjg has exactly 1 edit, namely; undoing the edit of 69.138.215.194)
• Edward Said: previous edit (before 69.138.215.194): by 212.98.158.4, Neither Jayjg, SlimVirgin or Marsden active here. (But JohnMcW has exactly 1 edit, namely; reverting the edit of 69.138.215.194)
• Declaration of independence: previous edit (before 69.138.215.194): by Howrealisreal. Neither Jayjg, SlimVirgin or Marsden active here. (But JohnMcW has exactly 1 edit, namely; undoing the edit of 69.138.215.194)

To sum up: only in one case has 69.138.215.194 reverted/edited just after Jayjg (in Self-hating Jew). However, about half of all edits of 69.138.215.194 have been just after user John_McW, or they have been reversed by the same user. Indeed, it seems to me that 69.138.215.194 has definitely been wikistalking John_McW, and partially the opposite. (Actually, both user:John_McW and user:69.138.215.194 have been gone from WP for long periods, but if one appear here, then the other seem to appear just afterwards.) Now, if, as you say, 69.138.215.194 is a sockpuppet of Marsden, and Marsden "is simply Wikistalking me, which, as he has stated clearly, is his whole purpose for editing Wikipedia." (according to you), the why on earth is this sockpuppet actually wikistalking John_McW? I just don´t understand. Regards, Huldra 09:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Marsden's disruption

Since I have replied to the anon, and reverted his filth on El C's page, I suppose I'm tainted as blocker too, however much I'd like to do the honors. To please the block cops, I suppose you'd better find somebody who likes Marsden to block him. A week? How about a month? Bishonen|talk 17:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

May I strongly suggest creating a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Marsden so that the evidence is in one place, and it will be easy to make a request for an uninvolved admin to block, by pointing that admin to the evidence? I can't remember if I've crossed his path or not, but I probably have, given the topics on which he edits, and so I'm probably "tainted" in terms of being the one to block. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The thing with an RfC is it provides a good, central place for documentation. I'm not so interested in it as part of a formal dispute resolution process, more as a way of (1) shaming those who actually have shame and (2) for the shameless, providing clear, permanent documentation of their behavior so that when there is another incident they cannot pretend it was an isolated matter.

Yes, real problem people often use the RfC as a place to rant on. But you know what? When they do that, they generally just help hang themselves by displaying the same bad behavior that got them in trouble in the first place (insults, accusations without links to edits/content, etc.) The purpose of the RfC is as a place to gather evidence, and I think it serves its purpose well. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

suggestion

I suggest you take a look at attempted compromise in Israeli arabs. Will you let stand the baltent POV sections (see talk) ? Zeq 19:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

About a month ago I placed this note on Israeli Arab talk page Talk:Israeli_Arab#One_big_POV. Since then the article has been improving. I find it odd that you as an editor, as an admin have allowed this article to be the way it was as that time. Surly you have seen it. Are you really looking to improve wikipedia to make it comprehansive NON POV. If so, even if you don't "like" me you should take part in the effort of improving such articles. So far you are not helping. You allowed a text that is clearly Marxist propeganda to be on this article. Zeq 05:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

No apology needed...

..but thanks! anyway, Regards, (a bit late) from Huldra 09:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Maurice Joly's 'Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu'

Greetings, Jay!

I have an answer to your request on the "talk page" [[10]] about the Wikipedia entry for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, [[11]] for "links to the source documents from which The Protocols were forged."

At this point, I can only provide you with the URL of the Web page for The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu: Humanitarian Despotism and the Conditions of Modern Tyranny, by Maurice Joly.

The text is the original French (Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu), however, but it is complete and available as plain text or in HTML format (ISO-8859-1 encoding).

The URL is as follows:

> http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1318

I have checked the Project Gutenberg Web site, however, and there is no English version.

The book was recently published in English, so we can anticipate that there will not be a free on-line version.

I hope that this information helps, Jay!

Cordially,

David M. Dickerson (http://ddickerson.igc.org)
http://ddickerson.igc.org/protocols.html
http://ddickerson.igc.org/antisemitism.html