User talk:Jayjg/Archive 16

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, Archive 11, Archive 12, Archive 13, Archive 14, Archive 15

kkk

You accuse me of saying people are Jewish but I dont believe that I have done that even once so I have no idea what you are talking about. I have a thousand edits and most of them have nothing to do with me even making a reference to if someone is Jewish. You reverted my edits and I really believe that you are making a mistake and not conforming to NPOV policy.

Klan activity has also been diverted into other racist groups and movements, such as Christian Identity, neo-Nazi groups, and racist subgroups of the skinheads.

MY EDIT:

Klan activity has also been diverted into other groups and movements, such as Christian Identity, neo-Nazi groups, and subgroups of the skinheads.

The other way sounds amatuer like it was written by an anti racist liberal teenager who cant go two sentences without saying the word racist. If you want wikipedia to be a joke by all means feel free to do so. Wikipedia will just lose its credibility and defy the whole purpose of this website. If you will take notice I didnt remove a setence at the top of the page that said "The Klan preacher racism, nativism, etc. People have to make up their own minds on whether or not Christian Identity and Neo Nazism is racist. Chances are even if I remove the word racist the reader will still think they are racist the only difference is they will come to that conclusion by themselves instead of some editor shoving a conclusion down their throats. Why do you need to mention the word racist every sentence? If you followed the rules of wikipedia you would present the information and let the reader make up their own minds. Please do not change it again.

Thanks

Jerry Jones 00:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think Wikipedia will be a laughing-stock if it cannot use the NAZI regime as an example of rascism. To change, in the article on rascism,

• Nazi racial policy and the Nazi Nuremberg Laws represented some of the most explicit racist policies in Europe in the twentieth century, and culminated in the Holocaust, a systematic murdering of millions of Jews, Gypsies, disabled people and others "undesirables".

to

• Nazi ideology believed that Jews were controlling the German press and were not patriotic, and were subverting the German government with Bolshevism.

takes the NAZI's from being rascists to being patriots. -Will Beback 00:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Threatening Comments

Thanks! It caught be as quite a shock. It's the first time someone has used quite that tone with me in a long time. And that was in real life. --CTSWyneken 02:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jay: see below and on my page. --CTSWyneken 16:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not threatening anyone, Robert!

Do not lie, please. And read Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

False Charges Against Gooverup?

I was intrigued by CTSWyneken‘s claim here and here that User:Gooverup "threatened" him. Not surprisingly, I could find no evidence supporting the accusation. Please read WP:Bite and this: "Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor. If threats were actually made, please post the diff right here and I will stand corrected. Doright 06:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Doright

Would you speak to Doright about ceasing his endless attacks upon me and others on the Martin Luther talk page? I came to the point a long time ago where I will not even respond to him. Yet still he will not stop. In the past, I've talked others out of filing an RfC on him. I do not know that I can find the patience to do it again. --CTSWyneken 02:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As usual, never a single link or diff to support CTSWyneken libelous defamation. Do you ever wonder why?Doright 21:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Case in point, Jay. --CTSWyneken 21:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

settlement/neighbourhood clarification

Hi Jayjg, I've attempted to more accurately describe the reality of Israeli residential areas constructed in the parts of Jerusalem conquered in 1967, and de facto annexed in 1980, by describing them initially as neighbourhoods, and then stating that they are widely considered settlements. Such formulations already existed on Pisgat Ze'ev and Neve Yaakov (in this case, you actively contributed to this statement [1]), and I extended them to Gilo (neighborhood) and French Hill, and asked for consensus for a similar move on Talk:Har Homa. There, Ramallite questioned the validity of the statement, and I believe considers it an Israeli POV. What, if any, wiki-consensus exists on the topic, and what do you believe would be an appropriate NPOV? Tewfik^Talk 03:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

An appology

I'd like to appologise for being rude and inflamatory yesterday. I invested quite an amount of my time in a rewrite of WP:SOCK and was shocked to see it all go down the drain. But I understand now that the reverting of the rewrite was not an unilateral action by one or two admins (which I didn't understand at the time) and that the revert has the community support whereas the rewrite I executed doesn't. It was therefore my mistake not informing the community in proper way. I would like to appologise for not proposing the policy change the right way and for being rude to people who reverted it yesterday. I will now take a few days to cool off and will then try to propose some changes in policy and to create a broad concensus. I hope that the behaviour I presented yesterday will not influence my proposal as this is the first (and I sencirely hope the last) time I lost my head over something on Wikipedia. --Dijxtra 09:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet revert

I noticed you reverted an edit on Conventional warfare because it was done by a "sock puppet." I don't know if it is or isn't a sock puppet, but I don't see why the edit should have been reversed. The wording as it was before is much better. uriah923^(talk) 22:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think Uranian (talk · contribs) might be Zephram too. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

NGO Monitor

Jay, I just wanted to call your attention to NGO Monitor, as I see you were contributed to that page some months ago. The page has become in large measure an anti-NGO Monitor polemic. While I think it's great for an article not read like a press release from the organization, in this case it reads as if the article was written by enemies of the organization. I made some significant edits to restore NPOV. --Tomstoner 00:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

kkk

Wtf are you? I am not white washing anything. I try to make all articles balanced but people like you are trying to prevent it. Nice how you put up some other guys edits and say that they are mine. Who do you think you are?

Jerry Jones 01:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Saladdin1970

Hi Jay, a question has arisen as to whether User:Saladdin1970 also edits as User:62.129.121.63. They jointly violated 3RR at Zionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), reverting to the same version five times within two hours, and I believe it's the same person. If you have the time, it would be helpful to have a check user done, as Saladdin says it isn't him. See the 3RR report for more details. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Subcategorisation rollbacks

Hello Jayjg. I see you rolled back my edits to several Wik sockpuppet pages¹, which are currently triple-categorised to both sockpuppet categories and the parent category. Is there any particular reason for this, or do you simply disagree with the particular template² I applied? // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 14:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like all the sockpuppets to be on one page, and it's important that the ones you've edited go in in the order given. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is, in that case; the more specific template should categorise them to Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Wik in the same order. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 01:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, please stop removing those specific sockpuppets from the huge list of suspected Wik socks, and specifically please stop removing the order they are in. If you wish to know the reason, e-mail me, but please stop making this change. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am, in fact, adding them to a list of Wik sockpuppets. They are currently double-categorised to Wikipedia:Indefinitely blocked users, which is a top-level category, shouldn't contain pages, and is deprecated by Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia users. They are tagged with the generic administrator-judgement block template, rather than the more appropriate sockpuppet block template. The message spelled out by the names should be maintained even if they are correctly subcategorised.

If you absolutely must guard your favourite version and flout discussion, please at least correct the redundant and erroneous categorisation. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 00:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

David Berger

Jay, I am having somewhat of an edit war with meshichist-leaning editor User:PhatJew at David Berger. Please help out. --DLand^TALK 16:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, HKT's edit was not regarding a point of contention, and only served to make PhatJew madder. However, it seems like he has gotten fed up with the "lies and distortions" of Modern Orthodox Wikipedians and has left the issue for now. If you read the discussion at Talk:David Berger you'll see that his charges are, indeed, unfounded and ridiculous. Best, DLand^TALK 06:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Saladin1970

Can you give examples of the copyright violations you cited in his block message. I did only a cursory glance of his edits and couldn't find any. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletionism facing (Judaism) articles

Hello Jay: I have just placed the following on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Shabbat Shalom, IZAK 09:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Shalom to everyone: There is presently a very serious phenomenon on Wikipedia that effects all articles. Let's call it "The New Deletionism". There are editors on Wikipedia who want to cut back the number of "low quality" articles EVEN IF THEY ARE ABOUT NOTABLE TOPICS AND SUBJECTS by skipping the normal procedures of placing {{cleanup}} or {{cite}} tags on the articles' pages and instead wish to skip that process altogether and nominate the articles for a vote for deletion (VfD). This can be done by any editor, even one not familiar with the subject. The implication/s for all articles related to Jews, Judaism, and Israel are very serious because many of these articles are of a specilaized nature that may or may not be poorly written yet have important connections to the general subjects of Jews, Judaism, and Israel, as any expert in that subject would know.

Two recent examples will illustrate this problem:

1) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zichron Kedoshim, Congregation where a notable Orthodox synagogue was deleted from Wikipedia. The nominator gave as his reason: "Scarce material available on Google, nor any evidence in those results of notability nor any notable size." Very few people voted and only one person objected correctly that: "I've visited this synagogue, know members, and know that it is a well established institution" which was ignored and the article was deleted. (I was unaware of the vote).

2) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berel Wein where the nominator sought to delete the article about Rabbi Berel Wein because: "It looks like a vanity project to me. While he does come up with many Google hits, they are all commercial in nature. The article is poorly written and reads like a commercial to me." In the course of a strong debate the nominator defended his METHOD: "... what better way to do that than put it on an AfD where people who might know more about the subject might actually see it and comment rather than slapping a {{NPOV}} and {{cleanup}} template on and waiting for someone to perhaps come across it." But what if no-one noticed it in time and it would have gone the same way as "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim"? Fortunately, people noticed it, no-one agreed with the nominator and the article was kept.

As we all know Googling for/about a subject can determine its fate as an article, but this too is not always a clear-cut solution. Thus for example, in the first case, the nominator saw almost nothing about "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim" on Google (and assumed it was unimportant) whereas in the second case the nominator admitted that Berel Wein "does come up with many Google hits" but dismissed them as "all commercial in nature". So in one case too few Google hits was the rationale for wanting to delete it and in the other it was too many hits (which were dismissed as "too commercial" and interpreted as insignificant), all depending on the nominators' POV of course.

This problem is compounded because when nominators don't know Hebrew or know nothing about Judaism and its rituals then they are at a loss, they don't know variant transliterated spellings, and compounding the problem even more Google may not have any good material or sources on many subjects important to Jewish, Judaic, and Israeli subjects. Often Judaica stores may be cluttering up the search with their tactics to sell products or non-Jewish sites decide to link up to Biblical topics that appear "Jewish" but are actually missionary sites luring people into misinformation about the Torah and the Tanakh, so while Googling may yield lots of hits they may mostly be Christian-oriented and even be hostile to the Judaic perspective.

Therefore, all editors and contributors are requested to be aware of any such attempts to delete articles that have a genuine connection to any aspect of Jews, Judaism and Israel, and to notify other editors.

Please, most importantly, place alerts here in particular so that other editors can be notified.

Thank you for all your help and awareness. IZAK 08:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Jehoshua Ben-Pandira

I think that was a bit sharp and impolite redirecting that without telling me.. seeems deliberately so. -- max rspct leave a message 11:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I said nothing about 'owning' the article.. just a bit of courtesy.. aww forget it! -- max rspct leave a message 21:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Violations of WP:Civil on Talk:Evolution

Hi Jayjg i have recently been trying to participate in a discussion on the Evolution talk page. It seems, hoever, that my views are in contradiction to the beliefs of some of the editors there, and they have repeatdly tried to silence me by resorting to personal attacks. Examples:

User:Slrubenstein

• maybe do not understand science in general
• think there is still value to being able to tell ignorant dogmatics like Sangil that their points are addressed in the article
• Now, Sangil may never be educated by the article, but smarter or less dogmatic readers who listen to creationist (or "ID") arguments because they are very open-minded or naive may indeed be educated by our article

User:WAS 4.250

• You display no such knowledge. You display gross ignorance. Who gave you the degree? Genesisversity

User:Plumbago

• he was countering your ridiculous statement

thx1138

• That's complete BS
• You posted a blatant lie. What kind of response did you expect?

User:Graft

• Arguing with you is like trying to hit a puppy by throwing a live bee at it
• I was going to do what WAS did and insult Sangil's education, but no need

These edits are taken from Talk:evolution#Kinds and Talk:evolution#Misconceptions_sections

My request is that being an administrator, you step in to stop this rather crude bullying, ans allow all views to be expressed equally (as long as they are expressed in a civil manner). i don't know what form of intervention would be preferable, but i feel that the current situation is not acceptable. I also beleive that User:Slrubenstein's attempt to "educate" users is rather problematic, and is in violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in regard to WP not being a soapbox.

I have posted a warning to these users regarding WP:Civil, which has been ignored.

Note: I have also posted this message on User:Slimvirgin's talk page. Thanks -Sangil 19:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi, I'm going to be mediating your case, regarding the Medical analysis of circumcision.

The mediation will take place here. If you are planning to take a wiki-break in the near-future or will be unable to partcipate in the mediation could you please let me know. --Wisden17 19:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you re: Christian views of Jesus

Thanks for adding a third opinion to Christian views of Jesus. It seems I have been butting heads with Bbagot the past couple days. I have got myself into a slow edit war with this editor over at Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke. If you have time, I would appreciate a third (or more) opinion on these matters. I'm not sure if I have lost objectivity due to the clashes over the past few days. Seeing edits like this, wholesale blanking of important, sourced sections, left a bad taste in my mouth. Thank you for your time.--Andrew c 21:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please

This is perfectly good edit [2]. What was most poignant was the level of denial of the anti-Semitism the Soviet Union engaged in. Fred Bauder 22:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Qadianism

The AfD was a fraud since the initiator Kuulman was Sockpuppet whicj onlu appeared for this AfD then disappeared. It is totally unacceptable. I will be moving for arbitration in Wikipedia. Siddiqui 22:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Open proxy block on User:200.51.32.150

I noticed the block log for this user shows you blocked it for a year as an open proxy on May 4. I was just curious if this block didn't "take" somehow, as there is no unblock showing before it was used a couple days later in another cartoon removal episode at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (which wound up in the ongoing Cyde RFC). It certainly seems like a likely open proxy - it has been blacklisted at dnsstuff.com[3] as well. David Oberst 00:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What is your problem?

I work hard on all of the articles I work on and I add references to nearly all of my edits. I contribute a lot and I really dont appreciate you reverting every single edit I make. I tried to resolve my disputes with you and Will but you both just ignore me. I went to Will Bebacks talk page to describe why I am removing far right from every page so I would appreciate if you can read that. I am not adding anything in bad faith. You can't just revert legitimate information. I provided plenty of references for the CPUSA article and its not my personal opinion but history. Foreign born residents in the CPUSA was so prevalent that it led to the Palmer raids and restrictive immigration in the 1920s. Anti Semetic literature became widespread in the United States. You can read plenty of sources that will tell you this along with the rise of the KKK in the 1920's. This is just the part of history I focus on so you accuse me of Judiazing articles. You make it seem that all I do is add something Jewish to an article but you ignore all of my other edits. I do a lot of work on political articles from this time period and you just ignore my other contributions. I am just trying to make wikipedia better and you are stalking me and removing stuff that I worked really hard on. How would you feel if I reverted every single edit you made that I didnt like and continually accused you of commie washing articles without even listening to you?

For the Charles Coughlin article I have studied him for years and I have read over his work and he frequently cited Goebells. I agree I didnt put the proper reference the first few times but I cited it in his work at the bottom. They reference that Coughlin quoted Goebells as saying that but I will even go down to the library and try to find it in his original social justice writing. I would have to say 80-90 percent of the edits I do have to do with historical government persons and adding pictures and making small edits. The only reason why my adding if something is Jewish seems widespread because it keeps getting reverted and I keep reverting it back. It's the other people who make me focus on it. If I were to revert your edits on whatever religious article you do and keep reverting it you would defend it to and I could make it seem that all you do is focus on Jesus. I just want to come to a conclusion here and move on. I am not trying to defame anyone but just contribute to wikipedia. If you dont like my edits thats one thing but it's not right to remove my information. Everyones edits is a contribution no matter what they add just as long as its accurate. You also accuse me of moving "far right" from every article but you ignore how I move far left from others articles. The reason I dont remove far left to the same extent I do right is because its already been covered. Most extreme leftist groups are not listed as "far left" so I was just trying to follow the same standard for the right and you claim I am white washing articles. I dont understand why you ignore virtually all of my other edits and portray me a certain way. If we can please work this out I would apprecaite it.

Jerry Jones 00:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Berel Wein editing issues continue

Hi Jay, would you mind reviewing the recent editing at the Berel Wein article as some editors are still tagging it and "nagging" at it. Thanks. IZAK 08:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Judiasm Page

Jayjg –

Hi. I’m contacting you in reference to the Messianic Judaism page. I realize and understand the whole POV issue – but isn’t it good for a page to show what the people at subject actually believe, and what others say that are against their belief? Rather than stating what it is BELIEVED they believe? Because when I look at the current Messianic Judaism page, that is what I see. And since I and many of my constituents are MJs, I feel quite offended when I read the page. Why don’t *I*, then, make some edits? Because I’m not good at writing essays or journalistic type articles on any specific topic. Well I’m sure I COULD be. But I haven’t the time in any respect, and I fear shaking whatever someone else hath put forth. I understand that most Jews feel that Messianic Judaism is out to convert them to Christianity, but that simply is not the stance of many MJs out there. To say that our interest lies in converting Jews to Christianity, when Christianity is not our OWN goal is misleading. Those of us who are not Jews-by-birth take Messianic Judaism to be closer to the truth of what God wanted for us, and so we observe Torah (to different extents, yes). Christianity has many things that differ with us, a lot of things that we are completely against. We feel that the believers in the New Testament were US (MJs) and NOT Christians, and that Christianity sprouted up (and took over) along the way. Therefore we would not be a newer faith, but an older, perhaps more originally based faith than Christianity. I could go on about that, but I won’t. I feel that since the page is about us (MJs) our standpoint should be the focus – not someone else’s standpoint. The page before – the one with the Torah-pole/evangelical-pole topics – says what MJs believe about themselves – whether or not others think it’s true or right. I look at the Jewish pages and I see them from a Jewish standpoint and what they believe. I look at Christian pages and I see the same. Why are we not able to have the same right?

Thanks for your time, Rivka 17:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Reliable Sources

"An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion."

If this is what you're needing I could more than provide it, as could any knowledgeable MJ. Since religions are generally based on opinion (being that it is more than logical to believe what we see rather than the faith that most religious people lean upon) I could cite for you a number of books and authors that fully state what we believe. Is that what you would like? Thanks, Rivka 21:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to a very well written paper that gives the nonbiblical history of Messianic Judaism. The gentleman that wrote it has a ph.D.[4]I think that it could be used for the nonbiblical history. Then one could say what MJs believe about themselves... perhaps Inigmatus would like to take a look at the article and then write something up that is more pleasing? (I have already contacted him in regards to… ? Rivka 21:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Kiddush Club

Hi, Jay, you seemed to have made the same error I did. Your vote is on the bottom of the redirect page, as opposed to actual page. Dr. Zak's links made everything go a bit awry. Just a heads up. Thanks. -- Avi 20:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[5] made on May 23 2006 (UTC) to Christian views of Jesus

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 3 hours. William M. Connolley 07:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, the last few times he was blocked for 3RR or disruption, he got 24-hour blocks. Working from my own experience, I would think that a 48-hour block would be appropriate at this point.

Instead, he's getting a 3-hour block in the middle of the night, which is so minor that he'd probably miss it if it weren't pointed out by your message. Frankly, this is barely a slap on the wrist and makes me seriously wonder whether you admins treat each other more gently than you do the rest of us. It certainly leaves behind the appearance of impropriety, and that's bad enough. Al 07:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Last few times? Are there some blocks missing from his block log? I see a mistaken block from two months ago, and one from a year ago that lasted 15 minutes... Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This block is an error. Jayjg only made three edits during the relevant period. William has been asked to undo it, and if he's not online, someone else will. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Since there were not four edits here, and not all of those count as reverts, I have gone ahead and unblocked you. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just unblocked, only to see Skakkalle had already done so. Anyhow, will await word from the blocking admin on the basis. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I was in a bit of a hurry this morning and have been offline till now. I'm afraid I misread the timestamp on the [6] rv William M. Connolley 14:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Jones/JJstroker

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jerry Jones/JJstroker. -Will Beback 10:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Are the so-called "Jews" descended from the biblical Israelites?

Of course they are! Despite some claims to the contrary. However I've had a hard time finding sources that give hard-genetic data. You posted in the Black "Hebrew Israelite" talk page: "The genetic evidence shows the opposite; that Ashkenazi Jews are indeed descended from Israelites. Jayjg (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)" can you get me a source for that? Either in a journal or online, I'd be really glad to have something hard to point to. Is there anything besides the Aaron Y-chromisome data? Thanks a lot! Avraham 15:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation News

I've now added my initial questions and comments on this page. I would ask that you add this page to your watchlist, as this will be where the mediation will take place.

As I've said on the page, we must keep all debate Civil, and I will not tolerate any personal attacks. In order to resolve the issue all of you must be willing to listen to each other's view. It does appear that you have debated this issue qutie extensively already, and so if we are to achieve anything we must not keep repeating what has already been said, although reference may well be needed back to previous comments you have made.

If you have any questions or comments then please either e-mail me or leave a message on my talk page. Again if you are planning to take a Wikibreak, or know you will be unable to access Wikipedia for any length of time then please do infrom me.

I look forward to working with you. --Wisden17 20:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:SpinyNorman

Jay, if you have any time, could you take a look at the edits of SpinyNorman (talk · contribs)? He appeared in December 2005 at a number of vivisection and animal-rights related articles, and began to make edits which introduced errors, then reverted aggressively for three weeks to his preferred versions. You'll get the flavor of his editing style from this diff, where he deletes as sources an Italian pathologist and the Encylcopaedia Britannica at Vivisection, because he doesn't like their definition, and inserts his own view instead, backed up an online dictionary. He reverted to his version from December 19 until January 8 against Viriditas, Grace Note, Nandesuka, and myself, behaving in the same way at a number of related articles. He stopped suddenly in January, but has recently started up again, reverting to his preferred versions at Robin Webb and Center for Consumer Freedom, violating 3RR on both, for which he was blocked. Would you mind either helping out as an editor, or having a word with him as an admin? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Link spamming on Tetragrammaton and elsewhere

Could you have a look at the pages Tetragrammaton, Sephirot (Kabbalah), and I am that I am? There's been an anon user spamming a link to a personal site with highly questionable original research on these pages for quite some time now. I and a few others have removed the link when we come across it in the past, but lately the anon editor has been reintroducing it (without talk) as fast as it's removed.

I left a message at User_talk:159.134.221.59, which is the last IP that the anon user posted from, but I doubt that he or she will get it, simply because it doesn't seem to be a static IP. Dbratton 22:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the sprotects - hopefully they'll encourage the person to introduce him or herself on the talk pages. Dbratton 22:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:JJstroker

Hi. In re your note on my Talk, I'd look into the matter and respond, but, oddly, WP:AN won't load for me. I note from their userpage that they have been banned, which is almost certainly the right result for any conversation about this user. I'm leaving this note here to express the fact that the action has my full support, in the unlikely case that this needs to be demonstrated to someone. Jkelly 16:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Technical issue

Hi Jay: I can't seem to click onto my User talk:IZAK page when I am logged in. I am not blocked, I am able to get onto other pages except my own talk page. However, I can get onto it when NOT logged in. Is there anything that can explain this from a technical point of view? Can you look into it for me. Hopefully by the time you read this message it will have solved itself. I will let you know. Thanks a lot. IZAK 16:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just happened to see this note. I was reading recently about how logged-in users may require special formatting, so when the databse is acting badly they suffer the most. -Will Beback 16:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There's currently some problems with the database. It should be cleared up soon.--Sean Black 17:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, things do seem to be clearing up, I got onto my talk page now. I did notice that on some random pages things were not running smoothly, all in a days work I guess... Thanks again! IZAK 17:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Village pump discussion

I still agree with you 100%. But being less offensive than him isn't your goal—it would be a rather low standard anyway. Your goal is to get your point across, and I don't think that comparison helped with that. That's all I'm saying. -- SCZenz 23:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I'm very unhappy with Arinep also. Very, very unhappy. -- SCZenz 23:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see on the village pump, I am attempting to declare the debate over by administrative fiat, and I have warned Arniep that his generalizations/assumptions are unacceptable whether he feels they are justified or not. Further argument serves no purpose; I consider his approach to be obviously beyond the pale and will treat his actions appropriately as an administrator. Hopefully you will find this satisfactory; I'd urge you not to continue the argument with him. -- SCZenz 19:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I find your claims that I have a strong anti Israeli POV offensive. Where exactly have I expressed such a POV? If you cannot provide any evidence for that claim I will consider it a personal attack intended to disrupt the discussion about Palestinian articles. Arniep 19:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Jay there is a problem with neutrality in Palestinian articles. I brought this up on the pump, then you first implied that I was making a list of Jewish editors, and secondly that I had a strong anti Israeli POV, both of which are complete nonsense and just a way of distracting the community from the issue I was trying to present. Unless you can show how exactly I have a strong anti Israeli POV I will consider it a personal attack. Arniep 20:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Majorities

We should perhaps be careful in using "majority" as the only bar for including a scientific point of view. Quite possibly, a majority of people do not view astrology as pseudo-science, as Ian points out here. I think the stronger argument is that an SPOV is NPOV (disinterested presentation of facts). Marskell 18:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"A majority of what reliable sources have to say on the matter". Agreed and understood. But note that our page doesn't actually state that at present (explicitly, at least). NPOV is very wordy and there's a lot of wedges you can drive between individual sentences. Why not present that or something like it as a sentence to be used off the top? Marskell 21:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Philip Sandifer

Under normal circumstances you would be correct; however, I have no wish to act obtuse. An AFD would result in a huge battle and many nonconstructive interactions, for almost no value to the encyclopedia. I haven't seen a clearer application of IAR in a while. Demi ^T/_C 22:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I will thank the two of you to stop accusing me of repeatedly deleting the article, as I did no such thing. Secondly (I have asked SlimVirgin this and she responded with an accusation rather than an answer), you will have to be more specific about what is you don't understand or can't make "heads or tails" of. I said "An AFD would result in a huge battle and many nonconstructive interactions, for almost no value to the encyclopedia. I haven't seen a clearer application of IAR in a while." which I, obviously think it's clear. I invite you to tell me what you don't understand about it and I will be happy to explain. Thanks! Demi ^T/_C 00:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Then don't AFD it - see GNAA. The fact that an AFD would cause drama does not mean we should delete something! --SPUI (T - C) 22:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not undelete this page, for obvious legal and tactical reasons. It would suck if we had to call in OFFICE on this. Let's actually show that en.wikipedia can do the right thing themselves. Kim Bruning 22:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if I had legal and tactical info, I would not supply it. This situation is ongoing. If one is involved in a "situation", one does not divulge information. In this case wikipedia is tangentially involved, and it would be immoral to undermine the real life of one of our editors. Kim Bruning 22:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn Kim Bruning 22:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you don't know that there are any "legal and tactical reasons". --SPUI (T - C) 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Katefan's talk page

Xsease persists in adding a link that provides personal information that Katefan clearly does not wish to be posted. Is it possible that something could be done about his actions? His actions would classify as harassment from my perspective. Cowman109^Talk 23:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems the page has been deleted by Musical Linguist to solve the problem, and the edits have been removed from the history. Still, the issue remains - what policy is followed in such an event where a Wikipedian adds personal information concerning another? Cowman109^Talk 23:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well that was fast! The user in question has been blocked, so I'll stop bothering you now, hehe. Thanks anyway! Cowman109^Talk 23:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked for a week, not because I thought a week was correct, but because I didn't want to waste time deciding on the appropriate length. Anyway, Sean Black changed it to indefinite, and I think he was perfectly right. AnnH ♫ 00:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox rabbis categories for deletion

Hi Jay: Please see and vote at

1. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23#Category:Haredi rabbis
2. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23#Category:Religious Zionist Orthodox rabbis
3. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23#Category:Contemporary Orthodox rabbis
4. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 24#Category:Modern Orthodox rabbis

Thank you and Shabbat Shalom! IZAK 12:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Khazars

Perhaps it's my poor command of the English language, but I have no idea what this fellow is on about: [7]. Any thoughts? --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Appeal of Saladin1970 to Arbcom

Saladin has requested to appeal his indefinite block to Arbcom. I have entered his plea on his behalf at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (making no judgement as to its legitimacy) and have named you as a party in the request. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes revisions

What do you think about these [8]? HKT^Talk 20:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. HKT^Talk 20:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I do not think that Sabeel is anti-Zionist as you ahve it currently in the Daniel Pipe's article. From the definition given here Anti-Zionism#Defining_anti-Zionism says "characterized by opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish state, for instance by those who advocate a binational state comprising the territories of the State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in which both Jews and Palestinians would be citizens." Sabeel is anti-Christian Zionist which still uses the words "anti-" and "Zionist" but it doesn't mean the same thing as "anti-Zionist". For example Sabeel describes its anti-Christian Zionist position as such: "we categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as a false teaching that undermines the biblical message of love, mercy, and justice." They go on to say that "Sabeel's vision embraces two sovereign states, Palestine and Israel, which will enter into confederation or even a federation, possibly with other neighboring countries, where Jerusalem becomes the federal capital." Although they do say that "Indeed, the ideal and best solution has always been to envisage ultimately a bi-national state in Palestine-Israel where people are free and equal, living under a constitutional democracy that protects and guarantees all their rights, responsibilities, and duties without racism or discrimination - one state for two nations and three religions." Anyways, I am going to correct the erroneous assertion that they are anti-Zionist. --Ben Houston 20:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jayjg, I believe that you are poisoning the well with a fairly contentious claim on a secondary association to an author that belongs in the Sabeel article even if it is true. You have reverted my change twice, I do not understand your behavior. --Ben Houston 20:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, your first change POVd the rest of the text as well. In addition, you originally claimed Sabeel wasn't anti-Zionist, now you're claiming its poisoning the well - changing the reason for your objection once it has been disproved makes it suspect at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You are coming in assuming bad faith and ignoring evidence to the contrary. I made a number of other clean-ups in that article, but you have only taken up one of them. I am not sure what you mean by my first change POV'ed the rest of the text -- I left in the source of the information as well as the denial that Daniel Pipes said this. I removed long explanation of why the author was associated with anti-Zionism since it was unweildly and it was poisoning the well -- I said in my edit comment that it belonged in her article, not here (which is compatible with saying that it was poisoning the well), thus I am not changing my position. I know nothing about Sabeel until today. But when you restored it I looked up the article referenced. They believe that they are primarily anti-Christian Zionist -- which is a different thing than anti-Zionist, which I brought up since I figured you were incorrect in pushing for this association above all else. You are arguing, and I buy it, that their long term hope for the region is something like a binational solution is inheriently anti-Zionist -- althought it is one of the weaker forms of anti-Zionism since it just wants everyone to be happy and coexist. From my perspective, an accurate description that is neutral and focuses on what they claim is "anti-Christian Zionist and advocates of a binational solution." This way the description is accurate, captures the points that are relevant to you and I do not feel as if it is poisoning the well by coming off as POV. Can we compromise on this? --Ben Houston 21:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I already edited the Pipes article with an exact quote from Sabeel. And it is not poisoning the well when the info is relevant. Poisoning the well would go something like "a support group for the drug-addicts at Sabeel" (assuming that would be true). HKT^Talk 21:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Either way, the way it is now is pretty decent. I did make a small change to your text HKT but I don't think you'll disagree since it captures their position accurately. --Ben Houston 21:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment request

Hi Jay! Could you please tell me about your opinion wheather Ali Sina belongs to Category:Humanists or not? Thanks in advance. -- Szvest 20:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Neo-Nazism

Please, do not vandalize this page again!--Purger 22:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Untermensch

I noticed that you engaged in debate there once. A user has appeared that started entering a lot of data and POV. I advised him to make a seperate article in regards to his theories(he bases them on a book unrelated mainly to National Socialism) and purge the text from his private views(he states for example "as far as we know", "not many historians now this" etc. I tried talking to him, but he seems quite strong in desiring to enforce his rather controversial changes (for example he wrote It is often claimed or insinuated, especially in British and American discourse on Nazism, that the usage of "Untermensch" was commonplace in Nazi propaganda and writin). A lot of his changes seem to fall into original research. If you would look at his changes and gave opinion I would be greatefull. --Molobo 00:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Your Wikistalking insinuation

I am not Wikistalking you. I have many Islam related articles in my watchlist as I do Palestine related articles as well as the articles relating to AfD's I'm either involved with or interested in. As well as articles whose AfDs I was once involved with but am trying to edit to improve. Please see WP:AGF--Strothra 21:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF doesn't mean "be stupid". You've been stalking Moshe Constantine Hassan al-Silverberg, and now me. Please edit in a more constructive manner. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Your talk page is on my watchlist because I was trying to have a discussion with you earlier. I am not wikistalking you. I already told you that I have many Islam related articles in my watchlist. I made one edit earlier which you are attempting to accuse me of wikistalking for. I suggest you gather better evidence before you make such hasty conclusions. And and FYI, Moshe was wikistalking me. --Strothra 01:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Retroactive changes in AfD discussion

Jayjg, I think changing history of a discussion retroactively is inappropriate. If I am wrong, please let me know. Thanks, Crum375 01:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC).

• here. Crum375 01:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I actually commented on this earlier in his talk page about the same exact edit but removed it from his talk page. You can see his talk page history.

--Strothra 01:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well I for one, AGF. Crum375 02:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As is quite obvious, I didn't notice the AfD was closed. You both should know better, especially you Strothra, as you were just above talking about WP:AGF. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid

Nope, not this time. Sorry but I don't think it's acceptable to bury references to "Israeli apartheid" for POV reasons. Like it or not it is a phrase that's common enough to merit an article and it and other apartheid analogies (like Global apartheid) are common enough to justify an apartheid disambiguation page. See [9] and [10]. Instead of trying to bury Israeli apartheid through subterfuge, why not try to make sure the article is NPOV?Homey 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jay but your attempts in the past to excise any exposition of the phrase "Israeli apartheid" is pure POV. You are attempting to bury the phrase for purposes of political expediency rather than for any purpose related to wikipedia policies. Homey 03:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the Israeli apartheid article then. Sorry, but your claims that I am POV are not sustained by my edits. Your POV is quite evident though and is unacceptable on wikipedia, particularly from an ArbComm member who should know better. Homey 03:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for standing down. I can't see how your attempts to redirect an apartheid disambiguation page or remove links to Israeli apartheid would have withstood community scrutiny. Homey 04:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Haj Amin al-Husseini

Hi. Now that it seems than Ian Pitchford has resigned, may I ask you to have a look at al-Husseini's article. It is a good one but it is already damaged by some IP. Unfortunately I am not often on the en:wiki to do this myself. With your permission I will contact you when I see some problems. Regards, Alithien 16:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Problematic new user name

Problematic new user name Hi Jay: Please encourage new User:Jewish to change his user name, see User talk:Jewish#Problem with your user name. Thank you. IZAK 16:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

New "Israeli apartheid" article

Hi Jay: Vigorous editing and debate is taking place at Israeli apartheid (phrase). Please take a look at it and add your comments. Thanks a lot. IZAK 20:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Jay. -- Avi 17:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reit-Irate

Hi! Earlier this month you blocked a set of IP's ([11] here in your log) that the perma-blocked Irate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was using in the 84.9.*.* range - as there's been no collateral damage that I've noticed, could you block the ones around 84.9.210.112 too? He has got through on this one today, and immediately started attacking his favourite articles and editors [12], [13]. I doubt he's going to go away without another multi-article edit war otherwise. Many thanks, Aquilina 12:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, much to my relief it didn't develop much further, and has stopped for now. I'll leave the block to your discretion! Aquilina 16:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

...but my good faith was misguided - [14]: please block as you see fit. Aquilina|Aquilina 19:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much! But look who's still editing as User:84.9.193.155... (and earlier today as User:84.9.193.230, User:84.9.210.112 and User:87.75.131.146). Is it worth going back to AN/I and seeing if this new range he is using can be blocked? Sorry to take up your time like this, it's just that you know the history behind it all. Aquilina|Aquilina 21:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Know it?. He invented it.--84.9.194.100 00:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, you owe me an apology.

In a recent edit comment, you accused me of wikistalking. In fact, I've had this article, as well as many of the other circumcision articles, in my watch list for some time now. Your comment was uncivil and entirely out of line, particularly given the current RfM. I demand a retraction and an apology. Al 18:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Page move request

Hey Jayjg, can you move Bacteria to Eubacteria, the problem is that right now Eubacteria redirects to bacteria, but really it should be the other way around since scientifically "bacteria" usually refers to all prokaryotes (both Archea and eubacteria), but in this case it is only refering to the latter so it is technically a misnomer. Thanks- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I just came upon the article yesterday so nobody has responded on the talk page. But it looks like someone had already wanted to do move it but they couldn't since the "Eubacteria" article already technically existed it just redirected to "bacteria". Also in the introduction makes clear that the article only refers to "eubacteria", I really can't see this being controversial.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess that if infomation about Archea was added then the page move wouldn't exactly be necessary, but since there is already an article for prokaryotes the result would be superfluous.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would still say move.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Doright and Archive Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews/Archive 3

Jay, would you explain to Doright that he shouldn't blank an Archive page? He seems to not like that I archived the page, blanked it, leaving me an insulting message and, I'm guessing, put it all back on the talk page. I'm reverted the archive, but will leave it to you as to what to do with the main talk page. Thanks! --CTSWyneken 03:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

He also blanked Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies/Archive 2. I reverted it. --CTSWyneken 03:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser help

Hi Jayjg, would you mind to check the following for me? The sockpuppet is: [15] and the suspected user is: User:RichardMalter. The article in question is Yoshiaki Omura. Thanks for the help. Crum375 10:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hiii

{{Smile}}

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Oleg of Novgorod

I just noticed this comment of yours. I hope you will explain what you are "baffled" at in detail. Since WP has become a haven for fringe theories ridiculed by mainstream historians, I consider it important to keep them in one place and not to reiterate over and over again endlessly in every stub, however distantly related to the subject. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've added extensive citations to the article. I've removed the original research tag. I'm inclined to remove the factual dispute tag since I don't see how there could be a factual dispute about what X and Y said (nowhere does the article assert the truth of the theories presented). I will defer to you on that. I suspect that the citations, which include some of the most respected Slavic studies folks of the 20th century, will not satisfy Ghirla, who will continue to insist that they represent insane fringe theories. I note with interest, too, his edit summary here; while noting that I did not make the addition he objected to, and have no idea about the source, this user has a history of assuming bad faith and antagonism towards anyone who dares to violate his "empire" of Russian history-related articles. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Land ownership of Palestine

I'm not sufficiently familiar with the history of this page or how controversial it was, but Talk:British Mandate of Palestine has a discussion about reviving a Land ownership list. I hope that this is the proper way to go about maintaining a NPOV. Tewfik^Talk 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte

GDP (talk · contribs) is obviously him because of the following reasons:

• Compare Bonaparte's trollish threats like these to GDP's threat here.
• How would GDP, a brand new user know about what an RfC is, anyways?
• Bonaparte was obsessed with trying to prove that there are 35 million speakers of Romanian, when there are actually only 24 million. See GDP's edit here.
• After I revert GDP, I get reverted by an open proxy. Bonaparte was in fact banned for his use of sockpuppets and open proxies.

—Khoikhoi 02:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again! —Khoikhoi 03:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't Greier be blocked indef then? —Khoikhoi 03:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

sockpuuppet ?

Article 18 and article 19 refer to "freedom of speech" and "freedom of thought" in the Universal declaration of human rights.

can you checkuser for these two:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hafrada&action=history

Thanks,

Zeq 19:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

another sockppupet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.60.226.91 Zeq 19:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Moshe

Moshe has been warned by myself and by Tim Usher but refuses to admit he violated policy by altering a talk page and you say "lay off"? Homey 20:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll back off but the next time I see Moshe breaking policy I'm going to ask you to discipline him. Are you willing to do that? Perhaps you should warn him as well that he broke policy so he's not under the illusion that next time he breaks policy one of this friends will ride in on a white horse and protectd him? That's certainly the impression you just gave him. Homey 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see the actual diff. He didn't just delete his own comment, he also deleted part of mine. That is a clear violation of policy. Homey 20:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Further, I attempted to respond to his comment while it was still there - when I posted I saw that his comment had disappeared so I added an explanation of what had happened in order so that my comment would make sense. Moshe then deleted my comment. Homey 21:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As I told Timothy I gained no advantage in a content war as I did not edit the article back to my version but left it at Moshe's version. Nor did I make any additional comments to the talk page - all I did was revert it to its state before Moshe altered *my* comments. So, no advantage. Homey 21:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Deleting a comment immediately after you've made it is hardly a violation of policy"

It's clear you haven't been following this (it's unfortunate you've deigned to interfere without ascertaining the facts). The violation of policy isn't Moshe removing *his* comment after making it, it's that he altered *my* comments after I made them.Homey 21:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Jay, Homey has been engage in a serious delbarate effort to turn wikiedia inti his own soapbox, POV pushing. In the process he entred into fights with many users and completly disruppted wikipedia to make his WP:Point. I suggest you take notice of what happened in the most comprehensive, dessicive way under your disposal. Zeq 04:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

checkuser needed

hey dude... looks like a user you blocked is back with yet another sockpuppet... I'm pretty damn convinced User:Duckdid is User:Beisnj. The userpage list of articles he created were mostly edited by Beisnj... figured you'd probably want to run a checkuser to make it official however before blocking.  ALKIVAR™ 06:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey violation of blocking policy

Before blocking Homey there were other violations. Also I am getting a bit tired of homey false acuusations leveled agaisnt anyone he has an edit dispute with. Zeq 09:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

on top of blocking me while he had a debate with me (twice, once while he himself was under block for 3Rr violation 99there is also a use of sockppupet to leave a message during tyhe block)) there is also this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=41414983

There is a pattren here. a long pattern of bulliing and abuse and turrning wikipedia into a personal soap box. Zeq 09:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal Information: Wikipedia policy

Good morning, Jay. I know Wikipedia has a policy regarding the dissemination of personal information and the like WP:HA. What about the following situation. In a certain internet community, there exist quasi-anonymous handles. Ostensibly the handle should not be able to be used to identify the real name of the user, but often it can be uncovered. There are also board moderators, who have ID's such as Moderator1, Moderator2, etc. It is an egriegous offense to publicly “out,” or even speculate, as to the board handles of these mods, let alone their real names. This is partially due to the fact that real-life harrasment and interference with ones job and/or livelihood may result from identifying these figures. The mods have the trust of the vast majority of the community and of the adminsitrator. Recently, a wiki-editor, whom I strongly believe is a troll, is using an the article about the community and its talk page to disseminate that information. Please see here: [16] Is this a violation of Wikipedia principles, or is it Wiki-legal and just a violation of the board’s policies?

If you feel there is a better place to ask this question, please feel free to post it there and let me know.

Thank you for your time. -- Avi 14:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it truly personal information? If so, it's a blocking offense. If it's just a username on a board, I'm not so sure. Jayjg (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the people mentioned, JMO, uses her real name in her signature, so outing her as a mod (if she is one) is displaying personal information, since mods are supposed to be anonymous. I will erase that name and I would like to knoe what steps may be taken to prevent this [17] in the future? Thank you -- Avi 13:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Jay, if you wanted to merge the article you should have brought that up in the Deletion Debate. The article survived the AFD so it seems a bit peculiar that you'd want to merge it now, particularly when merger was rejected as an option. CryingLion 16:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"You've got mail." (Actually, since that is a buzzword from America Online, maybe I shouldn't assume that everybody in the entire world knows it. But I think it's fairly self-explanatory.  :) ) 6SJ7 19:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq

Well here you go, you want me to ask another admin to discipline Zeq so I'm asking you:

Zeq (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction for having removed "well sourced material" and for "tendentious editing". The final decision in their case is here: [[18]]

He has removed well sourced material and/or engaged in tendentious editing as follows:

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• Hafrada

removing well soruced material and tendentious editing

• Israeli apartheid (phrase)

removing well sourced material and tendentious editing

• Israeli apartheid (phrase)

tendentious editing. There is no evidence the politician in question supports the policies Zeq is attributing to him. This is an extremely POV edit.

• Israeli West bank barrier

removing well sourced material and tendentious editing

• Apartheid (disambiguation) (June 2)

tendentious editing

The remedy proscribed is "He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans and the reasons for them to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq#Log of blocks and bans.

Homey 18:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Jay,

See my reply here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Zeq_.28June_5.29

use of sockpppuet by "you know who"

also please cehck this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.60.226.91 - a clear sockppupet from canada I think it is obvious who uses it. Zeq 20:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

and : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=72.60.52.126

Zeq 07:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq 20:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Jayg, Difference being that he's on probation Homey 21:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Jay,

Difference being that Homey violates any possibile wikipedia policy in order to push his political agenda (on multiple political campaigns that he is part of) . He should be handled just the way an other group were handled when they tried to do that. Zeq 03:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Response from Nistar =

Being on the same subnet does not make us the same person, Lorem (who doesn't always login and shows up as 12.218.144.90) and myself are different users at the same location. no 3RR violation occured. Nistar 20:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by revert myself since you already reverted the article. Obvoiusely i can't convince you that we are different, since you have already made up your mind that we are the same person. Nistar 21:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong on apartheid outside of South Africa

You've misrepresented the situation. The article had actually been blanked and redirected last February to segregation. I deleted the redirect in May because [nothing linked to it - in other words it had been used as a repository for the deterius of the apartheid dispute and then dispersed and turned into an redirect (an orphaned one at that). You've only recreated it for purposes of political expediency. Homey 21:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Pot. Kettle. Black

And being on ArbComm you should know better than trying to, for POV reasons, eliminate an article the day after it survived an AFD.Homey 22:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging a POV stub into its proper context is hardly "eliminating" it. Please, take a breath and calm down, and try to assume good faith, just for once. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Jayjg, you make your point very clear here in this comment of yours: [19]. --Ben Houston 23:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to merge the article into an article you've just recreated (as a duplicate, actually) for the express purpose of conducting a merge, mere months after you helped merge that very article into another article. Homey 01:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Recommendation: ArbCom - I think things have progressed so far that maybe this whole set of related articles, AfD, merge proposals and moves be taken to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and be settled properly. --Ben Houston 00:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Carol Harris-Shapiro cite on Messianic Judaism

Hey Avi, you've left the page numbers off that citation (p. 88, p.102), and I don't know how to add them to that template. Could you please put them in? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's there

1. ^ Harris-Shapiro, Carol (July 1999). Messianic Judaism: a rabbi’s journey through religious change in America, 88, 102, Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press. ISBN 0807010405 LCCN 98-54864.

But I'll make it clearer. Thanks, -- Avi 23:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Slimvirgin's user page

It is a technicallity. The babel box and the barnstars were overlapping (at least at my screen), and I put it in the table context. Just as I did a few days ago to get the barnstars nicely 5 in a row. Nothing of the info was lost, and it was definatly not a revert. I did it at the time she was hardly active and just to make it look better, but now that she is active again, I won't do it just like that anymore, but if she asks, I will help out. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

pot kattle - take 2

Jay,

You wrote:

"In my opinion your complaint about Zeq's editing was essentially the pot calling the kettle black. Jayjg (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)"

what does this expression means ?

Thank You, Zeq 09:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

On The Jews and Their Lies

Hi Jayjg, Please take a look at the section "Relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism," prior to its removal by CTSWyneken [[20]].

Wik is voting at RfAs

Hi Jayjg,

I just thought I should let you know that it appears from this edit that either Wik or an impersonator is voting (See NoPuzzleStranger's userpage). This may be him as well, as the IP is very similar (both are 205.188.117.xx). Although the IP here is different, I somehow have a feeling that it's him again based on his distinctive pattern. I recall that his sock Gzornenplatz used to go that page quite a bit, so it seems to make even more sense. Regards, —Khoikhoi 21:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

another sock ppuet vandal from Ontario canada

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=216.9.243.104

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riots_in_Palestine_of_1929&diff=prev&oldid=57301819

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Nidal&diff=prev&oldid=57299032

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARiots_in_Palestine_of_1929&diff=57302582&oldid=33225509

jay, are you doing something about all this sockppuet activity. I think it is quite clear who is it. Zeq 07:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I received this request from an editor who is also in this area: User_talk:Zeq#Ontario.2C_Canada_.22sockpuppet.22 makes you go mmm....but I think his request his reasonable. Let me know what you think I should do. Tnx. Zeq 11:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not assume that everyone who uses Canada's largest ISP is a sock puppet or that everyone in Ontario (which has 9 million people) is a sock puppet regardless of their ISP ? Stop referring to unlogged in users as sock puppets? As it is, I can't log in at the moment so I'm posting as an IP (though I've never posted to the articles Zeq references above - I suspect the edits may have something to do with a) the Greater Toronto Area has over 3 million people b) Sympatico, owned by Bell Canada, is by far the most widely used ISP in Canada (I use sympatico though looking at the IP refernced above it seems Zeq's "vandal" does not)c) the Greater Toronto Area has the largest concentration of Jews, the largest concentration of Israelis and the largest concentration of Muslims in Canada. d) on a per capita basis Canadians use the net more heavily than even Americans. Homey65.95.48.183 13:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

A humble thanks

Hello there, mate. I wanted to thank you for putting in loads of time and effort into the ArbCom, taking loads of abuse, for little compensation. I'm hoping to give back a little of that, by just making sure you know that all of us think highly of you and deeply appreciate the time you put into keeping this place running. Let me know if there's ever some task I can take off your shoulders and I'd love to help out. Thanks again for all your work. Snoutwood (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My great pleasure! Snoutwood (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wik

No, not at all. Bonaparte, on the other hand, is. Look what happened on History of the Moldovan language yesterday. Have you indef. blocked Greier yet? —Khoikhoi 22:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah sure, no problem. —Khoikhoi 22:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tnx for your answer

btw, about the edit that was placed on my user page [21]

Homey provided this explnation:

1. He was able to block me forever (while he himself under block) cause "that an option on his dashboard" and "thats his function here"

2. He was not able to place a message on my user page since he was blocked.

3. "some" other admin must have been watching http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block (all night aparatntly..) and noticed I was blocked and that no message was placed on my user page announcing the world that I got kicked out of wikipedia.

4. That admin (loged out, dialed to an AOL address in NY area) and placed this message on my user page: [22]

all this within 4-5 minutes from the moment Homey blocked me (for ever he hoped)

I must say, very effective admins do their work here. I wish 3RR notice board would get such a response time. Zeq 22:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid

Jay, there is no consensus, whatsoever, to merge Israeli apartheid into Apartheid outside of South Africa. You have no mandate or authority to unilaterally make a merge and there is no reason for the article to duplicate another article. Homey 01:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

=The Rabin murder

Hey Jay, I am not sure where you stand on the Rabin murder today. But I do recall that you worked hard in the past with gidonb to delete the film from wiki. I actually thought last summer that both of you were getting paid. Now I realize that you are ok and that it was gidonb that was on problematic. BTW, the plague of conspiracism article was written by gidonb. That is what he wrote on the hebrew wiki. As well another 5 videos from the night of the murder are translated into english, you can see them on my site, www.davidrutstein.com. I am really off the whole wiki trip, because in the end it won't make the biggest difference. If you want to contact me to appologize or whatever after you see the other five videos. Please do, I like to have faith in the goodness of mankind. As well gidonb reads and writes hebrew fluently, so he knew what was going on the whole time. Because the hebrew sites are really convincing, the whole case is there. David Rutstein

Thank you

for keeping your sense of humor in all this: [23]

btw, in west bank barrier in "name of the barrier " section there is a missing ) - but if I will add it I risk being blocked. can you fix it ? Zeq 04:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources used in your edit

Jay,

Sources you used in this edit:[24] include advocay sites, propeganda sites such as globalexchange, ifamericaknew, monabaker.com and more. These sources are in clear violation of an ArbCom decision you have actually signed on See Talk:Israeli_apartheid_(epithet)#Decision_by_ArbCom. Please reconsider this edit as it is also giving undue representation to the claims(and counter claims) against Israel and thus single it out. Thank You. Zeq 06:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

add later: I think you don't need to worry about it since Curie already reverted your edit that included these sources> He already everted my edits as well. I guess some people are allowed to do as they please but other are banned if they try to object the politixation of wikipedia. Zeq 09:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

added later: Well now Humus added these sections again: [25] so amybe you do need to worry about why such sources are used in wikipedia in clear violation of WP:RS and arbcom decisions. Zeq 10:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly if it was me who either remove or add these kind of sources I would be banned from this article. Zeq 10:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

How did this page got recreated ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier/Apartheid_wall

I've moved it to Homey's userspace, I'm sure that's what he intended to do. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't recreated. On June 3, the day before the Apartheid wall article AFD ended and in anticipation of the finding of a consensus to merge I copied the article to a subpage of Israeli West Bank barrier so I could undertake the merge once the AFD was complete. I anticipated that the reviewing admin might blank and redirect the page without merging it. S/he did so on June 4 and once that happened I copied the contents of the subpage and pasted it into the main article thus executing the merge. Jayjg then made some adjustments. I had intended to delete the page but forgot. If you had brought it to *my* attention I would have deleted it. Instead you tried to make a federal case out of it.

I really, really am tired of your fishing expeditions Zeq. Homey 01:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Homey, I accept your explanation of this and appologize. Clearly you must understand that your over all edit pattern (using propeganda sources to turn wikipedia into a tool of the various political campgains you are enegae in) makes it seems this was just one more of your other POV pushing edits. I am glad it was only out of your concern to make sure content that you deeply care about (a political one indeed) will not be lost as a reulst of the Afd. Zeq 03:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Homey, I accept your explanation of this and appologize."

You should have stopped there. Your next sentence effectively nullifies your apology. Homey 03:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiSource

Hi Jay,

I suppose this isn't a novel idea, but I'm not quite sure how to pursue it. It seems that a lot of effort is spent on removing internet sources that cease to function, and repeating the research process to find new and comparable sources (not always successfully, as I'm sure you're aware). Is there any project in the works dealing with a database of sources, a host insulated from the ebb and tide of the WWW? It seems that such an organ would provide a tremendous service to editors and enhance the quality of Wikipedia. Please let me know if such a project is being developed, or whatever discussion on the subject may have already happened. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 21:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 21:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR

• (i) Could you provide an example of someone being blocked over a tag notice?

• (ii) I believe we should give editors the benefit of doubt in circumstances like this, where the rules are ambiguous open to interpretation. (I'd have the same opinion if, say, someone like Zeq were blocked under similar circumstances.) CJCurrie 21:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom editing as normal

I do see one edit in article space; otherwise it looks like user talk pages and the arbitration, but nothing for the last eight hours. If he does edit for any reason other than his arbitration, I support blocking, or will block myself. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

He may not be the most popular WP editor nowadays, but the one mainspace edit he's made is a reversion of clear-cut vandalism.[26]Timothy Usher 00:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reset his one-week block. He'll have to ask someone if he wants to edit for his arbitration. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oversight edit review

• 12:22, 8 June 2006 Jayjg removed an edit from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence/Full version (PI)

Shouldn't you have asked someone else to do this for you, as a manner of neutrality? Or was it vandalism added to the page sometime after the case? Ashibaka tock 18:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Ashibaka tock 19:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)