User talk:Jayjg/Archive 22

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 or use the page for harassment. Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting.

Talk archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Ebionites nominated for FA

The Ebionites article has been nominated for Featured Article. You are invited to show your support or suggest further improvements to the article. Ovadyah 07:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad Redirect

Hey jay, I was wondering if you could fix it so that teleosts redirects to Teleostei instead of Actinopterygii (which is the current situation). It is a pretty minor thing but it is kinda annoying. Thank you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I kinda thought that you needed admin privledges to change a redirect. Sorry.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Maybe not worth blocking, but Panairjdde popped in earlier today on 81.211.195.151. Dppowell 15:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure User:Anriz is him; I filed the RFCU. Dppowell 16:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC re Cohn's review

Since we've become hopelessly entangled in an edit-war, i've requested comment from the community. Itayb 19:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

What did you do here? Voretus 15:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Help with sockpupettry

Hi Jayig, I need your help. REDVERS, one of the Administrators that is working with the Fellowship of Friends page, left me the following message:

Hi, Mario. On the talk page of Fellowship of Friends, I offered Wikipedia's best way for how to resolve these disputes (basically WP:RS); sadly, this was basically ignored and very obvious sockpuppetry was resorted to instead, by people who held the high ground in the dispute.

I wrote to REDVERS but he didn't reply to me. Do you know how can I find out who the sock pupeteers are based on this and this? Thanks a lot! Mario Fantoni 18:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jay

I've been around, just kinda incommunicado. Since I'm here, have you seen this? Interesting timing, I think, on the nomination, and the rationales being put into supporting it are, I think, rather poorly-considered. Your thoughts would be welcome, I'm sure. There are probably multiple threads about the nomination on wikirev wikiwatch and whatever עמלק's forum site is... Cheers, Tomer^talk 03:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I would appreciate if in the future when you revert you not use the edit summary "tidying." A new user might forget to assume good faith and accuse of being deceptive. We would not want that. KazakhPol 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like we have ourselves a deal. On another note, I would appreciate it if you would not refer to me as a non-native speaker of English as I am 1. A native speaker, and 2. Have a better command of its finer points. KazakhPol 05:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's all right for you to say you're "tidying," it's surely okay for others too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Methinks you missed the point. KazakhPol 05:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand your last post. Are you referring to the comment immediately above this? That was directed to SlimVirgin. I am fixing the formatting to make that clear in this edit. Please, if she missed that, point it out to her. I want an inane response about how I should not insult Mrs. Amal. KazakhPol 05:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I want one from SlimVirgin. Have I somehow not made that clear? How much complaining do I have to do? Do I need to insult Amal's honor? That can be arranged. >:( KazakhPol 05:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. I wish Wikipedia had more kind souls. It would be so much more entertaining. KazakhPol 05:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

article edits

Hi Jayjg. The entry entitled "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is currently locked due to various edit conflicts and issues. I would like to invite you to add your comments to my comments on the article's talk page, to indicate our overall disagreement with this article's distorted outlook, and its use of such a loaded word to misrepresent Israel's position and actions. Thanks. --Sm8900 18:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

IP block 12.75.40.0/24

Did you mean for the 12.75.40.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) block to not be AO? We have an unblock-en-L complaint from what appears to be a collateral damage editor who wants to know what's going on. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 01:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that AO isn't working against Jon specifically, or ? Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert 01:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Thermopylae

When you locked the battle of Thermopylae page it was after referenced material that the Persian army was over 300,000 was deleted. Could you please remove the protection or at least allox a restoration of the referenced material? Ikokki 09:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We're in the middle of improving the article, I don't think that when you locked it there was a rv-war going on. Sure there's editors with nationalist motives who will always be causing trouble. On the other hand there are also editors like Ikokki, myself and Jagged who are making contributions to the article in a serious level, and we preferred that it remains unlocked. Miskin 12:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If there was such a thing as an edit war at the time it was Miskin and Jagged85 that were involved. They tended to edit out each other's edits. Mine usually were not edited out. Ikokki 07:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a consensus to write "estimates vary" at the warbox and have the different estimates discussed in the appropriate section. If there was a way to protect the warbox only it would be great... Ikokki 07:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ariel Toaff

Hi, Jay. I'm concerned by one (if not more) of the external links in the Ariel Toaff article, in particular the one entitled "Jews Still Use Christian Blood to Bake Passover Matzos". The interview is repellent in the extreme, and I'm inclined to delete it without a second thought, but in light of episodes like the continuing Katz debacle at Palestinian refugee, Palestinian exodus and UNRWA, I'm really at sea with the question of what's includible -- or, more importantly, what's deletable: whatever the guidelines say, the threshold for inclusion seems to have fallen so low that demonstrating that some rubbish was actually published in a verifiable source is deemed sufficient to justify putting it in an article -- the rest is treated as a content dispute: I've got my sources, you've got yours: see you in (wiki)court. It's rather dispiriting, I have to say. At any rate, what to do about the link in question? --Rrburke^(talk) 13:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I read the interview again, and it's really putrid. I pulled it, but would still appreciate guidance on the threshold for inclusion of sources. --Rrburke^(talk) 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jay -- thanks for your reply. Well, Humus Sapiens restored the link with the rationale of "restoring evidence that the libel is still alive". To my mind, this link could be tossed per WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided 12: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article: the subject of the article is Ariel Toaff, and secondarily about Pasque di sangue and the attendant controversy, not the blood libel per se. To my way of thinking, the purpose of an article about Ariel Toaff is to provide readers information about Ariel Toaff, not to use an article about Ariel Toaff for the purpose of providing "evidence that the libel is still alive." But whatever. Candidly, I'm beginning to tire of the whole enterprise. --Rrburke^(talk) 03:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you all are discussing Toaff here, why not try to offer your rationale as to why the mere mention of his name is constantly removed from the Blood libel against Jews article when it is so obviously relevant to the subject matter? I even tried comprising by placing his name in a "See also" section, yet that too was removed. So what's going on here? I mean, it's not like this guy is a Neo Nazi or Muslim extremist or anything like that...he is a PROFESSOR (an Israeli professor!) that wrote a SCHOLARLY book on the subject, yet still all reference to him (however brief) is methodically removed from the page. It wouldn't be censorship would it? --Wassermann 05:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The proper place for this discussion is Talk:Blood libel against Jews, but the answer to your question is no: it isn't censorship. The guideline on exceptional claims is quite clear: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people" [italics mine]. The policy on undue weight is equally clear: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Toaff's work is an "exceptional claim" from a single source and represents a "tiny-minority view" and so doesn't belong in the article..

Apologies to Jay for invading his user talk page. --Rrburke^(talk) 03:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Rescinded the claims" -- has he back off of them altogether, or just, as he said a couple of months ago, decided to "re-edit the passages which comprised the basis of the distortions and falsehoods that have been published in the media"? --Rrburke^(talk) 03:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I took the position here that since he "has withdrawn the book from circulation pending re-editing, [] not only are there not multiple reliable sources making this exceptional claim, currently there isn't even one. The guideline on reliable sources states that 'Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources.' No reliable, published source makes this claim, so it doesn't belong in Wikipedia."

You may wish to weigh in, as I expect some ensuing weeping and gnashing of teeth. --Rrburke^(talk) 00:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yigal Amir external link

Hi again, Jay. I think I recall you saying that you speak/read Hebrew. If that's the case and you have a moment, could you have a quick look at the Hebrew-only site yigal-amir.com, which links from the Yigal Amir article, to assess whether it's an appropriate external link for WP? --Rrburke^(talk) 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Juan Cole

I see that you protected Juan Cole. Could you please post a note on the talk page or on Armon's user talk page asking him to engage in the discussion or in the [mediation] that I requested? The edit war is over a minor issue, but he is incredibly stubborn about it; he refuses to engage in the discussion on the talk page (other than to make unsubstantiated assertions about OR that are manifestly untrue) and he has ignored my attempt to compromise and my attempt to pursue mediation. csloat 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way you could specifically ask Armon to participate in the discussion? By protecting "his" version of the page, you have left him no incentive to bother with the discussion or the mediation, and I fear it will be a long time before the page can be unprotected. csloat 21:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

His "activity" on the page consists of posting quotes there without explanation. I have explained why each quote actually supports the version of the page that I supported. He has not explained any of his arguments. He has so far refused to agree to mediation on the page. csloat 21:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer the community-enforced mediation that I signed off on already. csloat 22:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I come to you with hat-in-hand concerning our recent discussions at Talk:David Irving. My apology is concerning two things I said: First, in my asking you to look at my references when you had, in fact, already commented on them. Second, in my saying that you had "moved the target", when in fact you were consistent all along with your stated position. I take pride in not being sloppy and not misrepresenting others' comments on accident or on purpose, so I feel a sense of shame. My sole excuse is that I was very tired; I came home early from a concert and instead of jumping into bed, jumped on you. Again, I apologize. --09:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(PS: I haven't read your comments since signing off last night, and this apology doesn't change my disagreement with your position.) --Otheus 09:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

LMAO

"not that big of a deal"[1]. Yes, indeed! *uncontrollable laughter. Otheus 10:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC David Irving

I was about to file an RfC on an unrelated article, when I noticed the RfC on David Irving. Apparantly you forgot to make a section on the talk page and link to it, which I have done now: David Irving talk, link to talk section. Hope you don't mind. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 21:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. —AldeBaer 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Judaism and Christianity

You are welcome to change anything I wrote on this page just put in a cite for each time you do. Also please read what mt cites first before jumping in. BernardZ 02:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS!! SchmuckyTheCat IS THE ONE WHO DELETED AN ENTIRE SECTION (NOAH - POPULAR CULTURE) WITHOUT DISCUSSION!!! WHY DON'T YOU BLOCK HIM? ALL I AM DOING IS TRYING TO PREVENT HIS VANDALISM!! I TAKE OFFENSE AT BEING ATTACKED FOR TRYING TO STOP HIS VANDALISM. Musicman88

Request For Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/David Irving, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidudeman (talk • contribs) 22:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

input request

Do you think this remark oversteps the bounds of WP:CIV? Tomer^talk 22:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute on Israel's infobox

Perhaps you'd want to contribute to the discussion on Template_talk:Israel-InfoBox#Request_for_Comment:_Israel.27s_area_figure_in_the_infobox. Isarig 02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/David Irving. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Unblock

Thank you very much. —AldeBaer 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

POV?

Please explaint to me why you reverted my edits in "Kingdom of Judah", "Jewish Ethnic Divisions" and "Kingdom of Israel and Judah" and how they were in any way POV. Cheers -Kaliqx

Which part? The descendents from Israelites in general or Tribe of Israel in specific?

So saying that Jews are the descendents of Israelites is POV? I didn't realize that. It's like saying that the English are the descendents of the Angolos, Saxons and Jutes is POV. Give me a break, Jayjg. I didn't realize this kind of stuff needed a citation.

Notes on Jerusalem as largest city

Hello. I was surprised to see that you unilaterally re-added the sources at that location even though that was not the result of the discussion at talk:Jerusalem#Please don't remove any references. Most of us think the endnotes are excessive, and suggested an alternative resolution to the problem you mentioned there. nadav 03:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You may feel that way, but you should not brush off people who disagree with you so cavalierly, justifying your changes only with quotes from Dr. Seuss. As one of the most prolific and experienced editors, I am sure you know that this is not the wikipedia way. Respectfully, nadav 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Libby

Hi there. We're obviously on the same page regarding the Libby thing. However, the tone of your recent postings to the talk page is really not helping. I've found that the best method in dealing with people like this is to take the high road. I don't think the other editor is making much headway in convincing other folks anyway. Cheers. Notmyrealname 18:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware, trust me. He's even listed Libby on the Temple page. But we need to keep our part of the discussion on a grown-up level. Are there any other folks you might be able to enlist to weigh in on the subject? Notmyrealname 18:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The latest treatise made me laugh. He also reinserted his weird rfc on the bio page (but left yours in). Just remember that the guy is his own worst enemy. Don't get sucked down to his level. He has a curious habit of making personal attacks and then immediately denying that he is making them. Thanks for reverting the Temple page edit. These guys really think that anyone who deals with Israel should have a box saying whether they are a Jew or not. Creepy. Notmyrealname 04:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The rambling rfc is back on the politics page. I just re-deleted the temple page. I need to check out on this issue for the rest of the day. Notmyrealname 17:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Islamophilia

Resolved

When I began nominating Islamophilia for deletion, I ran into [2]. Apparently user Limboot created the page after it was already deleted. The article has all the same problems it used to have (i.e. WP:NEO and WP:ATT). I think the article should be deleted and salted. It seems that it was deleted at least twice, and recreated at least twice [3]. Also, user Limboot seems to be trolling. Please see [4] and [5]. I will revert my AfD nomination since I noticed that the page was already deleted.

Israeli Settlements

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you're stalking me, tracing the pages I've visited and the correspondence I've sent. I contacted other Users to get their opinion on the page instead of just butting heads with you.

Don't bother to leave pissy little warnings on my Userpage, either. I've tried reasoning with you on the subject already. MarkB2 04:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin RfC

I took your advice, and posted my comments on the noticeboard, where they were promptly deleted by Jeffrey O. Gustafson [6]. Since I did this at your suggestion, I would appreciate it if you would intervene in the event that Mr. Gustafson deletes it again. --NathanDW 05:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about the RfC until it was already posted. In fact, I didn't know there was such a thing as an RfC until it was already posted. I found out about it because of a notice on SlimVirgin's talk page. As far as I knew, I was doing it correctly -- it said "users who have tried and failed to solve the dispute." It didn't mention a time frame. Now that you point out the rule to me, I can see that it exists. So, I guess you were technically correct to invalidate my signature. What puzzles me is why you would make a big deal over a minor technical error on my part, thus suppressing discussion over what seems to be a whopping ethical breach on the part of SlimVirgin. It almost looks like a Code of silence thing working here. --Don't lose that number 14:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair

Was going to correct "document film" to "documentary film" but found no edit tab. Seems you protected the page w/o putting the appropriate template in place. Which may also explain why it's still protected, 40 days later... That means it doesn't show up on the list of most stale protects, I suppose. Andyvphil 14:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a bot that does that, as far as I know. Regardless, the issues don't seem to have been worked on on the Talk: page; a specific individual seems to edit Wikipedia solely for the purpose of edit-warring on this and 3 other articles. He doesn't appear to like to use the Talk: pages, but he regularly agitates to have pages unprotected so that he can start edit-warring again. As a result, I don't think the parties are ready for unprotection. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought the locking admin added a "protection2" (or other) template, like this: [7], and that triggers it showing up on category:protected_pages or somesuch. Andyvphil 13:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but...

You said my IP address has been vandalizing pages like Robot Chicken, Totalatarism, and Billboard hot 100.Honestly, I never touched those pages.TaylorLTD 22:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha RfA thanks

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha 04:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

quick question

mind if I steal your nifty talk page header? BTW: I would like to apologize if you feel I insulted you personally at all, I got a little too heated but to make personal attacks was not ever my intention. VanTucky 05:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I did not violate 3RR. I made one initial edit, and three reverts back to that edit. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

These were not simple reverts. I edited the section specifically to address concerns regarding WP:NPOV. I have asked for additional editors to weigh in on the matter at article RFC and do not intend to issue any additional reverts at this point. I maintain that my editing, while it does go up against the limits of 3RR (something I usually avoid) does not break it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel you must issue a report at WP:AN/3RR, do so. I stand by my edits and maintain that removal of sourced information (which I made a specific effort to make more compliant with WP:NPOV) is more consistent with Wikipedia policy than removal of that information because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mhm, so have you my friend.
* 02:49, April 20, 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) (92,804 bytes) ("militant" groups who enter foreign countries to "capture" their nationals are "kidnapping")
20:59, April 20, 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) m (92,804 bytes) (Reverted edits by Liftarn (talk) to last version by Jayjg)
02:45, April 20, 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) m (92,804 bytes) (Undid revision 124206766 by 72.189.173.73 (talk)) Ahmad Husseini 23:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours. Ahmad Husseini 23:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

kidnapping or capturing

Hi, Please pay attention to 2006 Lebanon War. They've used capturing so we can use capturing too.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate editorial war and prefer to discuss about it in the talk page. I can think we can solve it easily like other issues in that article.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted Hezbollah to one of your former editions[8] and made a separate part for consensus building:Talk:Hezbollah# Consensus building. By the way please forgive Ahmadhusseini. As his adopter I know he was not familiar with the rule. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for input

I'm asking you and a few others for input. I'm moderating a debate on an article. Seems there is a dispute as to whether secondary sources are valid and that hinges on whether the source's characterization of the following quote is accurate. How would you rate the following quotation, on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being completely neutral, 5 being completely anti-semitic:

The reason behind this whole charade of Jewish ecumenism is one, and one reason only: It is so the Jews can rebuild the nation of Israel that was lost after the time of Solomon. Everything the Jews do today is motivated by that single thought, and they are shrewdly using the Catholic Church to help them accomplish their goal. Prelates in the Catholic Church think that by helping the Jews they are fulfilling the mandate of neighborly love. In their perversion of the Gospel, they have convinced themselves that this mandate cannot include converting the Jews, for that would cause "offense." [God forbid that the Gospel should cause offense! (cf., 1 Cor 1:23-24)]. They have deceived themselves, and the Jews of today are feeding off this deception in an effort to build their long awaited "nation state." The Jews have no interest in Christ or Christianity. They are merely using Catholics as pawns for their own self-interest. When they have succeeded, then they will persecute the very Catholic Church that helped them gain their land, for Judaism, as has been historically true, can have no competitors.

If you need more context, just look in my contrib history. --Otheus 21:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbReq/NYScholar

Started an arb request here [9]. Hoping this will lead to a resolution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 23:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

"Jewish descent" versus Jew

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#"Jewish descent" versus Jew concerning the problems of using the term "Jewish descent" versus "Jew" as well as the related proposal. Thank you, IZAK 09:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Jay,

I read your talkpage comments:

At the end of January the article was relatively balanced and readable; since then it has deteriorated into a unreadable POV mess. Given the editors most actively editing it during that period, and their POVs, this was the inevitable outcome.

I more or less agree with the first sentence, but not the second. We have an editor relatively new to the page, user:Urthogie who mass edits and restructures. I don't want to be Wiki-uncorrect, but everyone on that page, I believe, edits with a strong POV. His is not so far from yours. I don't say that to condemn. On the contrary, I think he really means well. But this editing style tears up the article (and then it becomes a free-for-all again. You are looking at the result). Is there some sort of mentoring, guidance, editing help, etc, that might be suggested to Urthogie? And if there is, it might be nice to find an uninvolved user, or even a user who Urthogies perceives to be 'on the same side' to make the suggestion.

Here are examples of what edit histories looks like after one of Urthogie's sessions: 20 consecutive edits in 3 hours, April 17 250 edits from March 28 through April 1, vast majority by Urthogie He even moves text in two edits (one for a cut, one for a paste), and he moves a lot. He shuffles, reshuffles, unshuffles. All the same, he's been a Wikipedian far longer than I have been (since 2004). Anyway, if there is anything you can do (or suggest) to help, it would be appreciated. I am not looking for an advantage here of any sort. This guy is capable of compromise. He just implements everything so fast, and so piecemeal.

Thank you. Jd2718 00:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to blame Urthogie. He is reasonable to work with. I was looking to see if someone could give him help with his editing style, which makes things hard. If you have neither suggestions nor interest, I'll just apologize for bothering you, and leave it at that. Jd2718 01:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

For the article I don't have any immediate suggestions. I didn't like the January version, but it was far more coherent than what we are looking at now. Personally I am going to stay off the article itself (but not the talkpage) until it settles down a bit. Maybe it needs protection again. It was protected for a week (10 - 17 April) but was edited furiously as soon as protection was lifted. What do you think? At this point the discussion on the talk page is not extremely hostile (it was worse a few months ago, by a lot). (I think this partially reflects Urthogie's reasonable intentions). So maybe shutting it down and forcing some talk might help?

For Urthogie, at first I made some sharp comments; I thought he was intentionally disrupting the history. But no. He reacted positively to suggestions to use the preview button, but just doesn't get it, or chronically forgets. I don't know what structures Wikipedia has available. Forget the current article for the moment. How and where would you advise an awkward editor to seek help? If nothing formal, than a word from a supportive editor when he does something clumsy? I wish I had better ideas. Jd2718 02:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked IP requests unblock

See User talk:216.165.158.7. Regards, Iamunknown 19:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the IP's talkpage. I would appreciate your response as, perhaps inadvertently, I believe you have left this user unable to edit altogether. Newyorkbrad 21:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate that?

I don't believe I've violated 3RR. Can you show me the diffs? Gatoclass 23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take your word for it. I'll revert my last change. Gatoclass 23:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Signpost

As I mentioned to SlimVirgin, you might want to check out this Signpost article. Is the external link appropriate? What should be done? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem FAC

The featured article candidate discussion of Jerusalem (archived here) has been restarted. Please check if the current version of the article has addressed your concerns, if any, and voice your opinion on the FAC at the current nomination. nadav 19:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did you put something back into the Mein Kampf

I removed this "This edition of Mein Kampf sells many examples in Britain in areas with a large Arab population [10]" from the page on mein kampf for good reason. The link given to support the sentance, doesnt support it at all. The entire thing is baseless. Yet twice now its been restored!!!

Clarification on OR

Hi Jay, I'm currently in a Community enforceable mediation which centers on the question of what is, or isn't WP:OR. It has been suggested that I'm incorrect in what I feel is OR, so I would appreciate your comments here if you have the time. Thanks. <<-armon->> 03:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How many sockets do you use?

I count beside this one at least. I feel like reporting you for vandlism. Y Slrubenstein MPerel Humus sapiens

I have news for you Kosher laws are quite different between Christians and Jews much more so then between Jews and Jews. By the way all religious non Eastern European Jews can eat Jewish food.

Overruling AfD closes?

I'm confused by this edit: [11]. You seem to have summarily overruled an AfD close by another admin. This seems quite unnacceptable- could you explain? Also your close doesn't really make sense to me- how can one merge an article that has already been deleted? If we merge content GDFL requires us to keep the old article with a redirect to the destination of the merge... WjBscribe 05:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that someone has raised this matter at WP:ANI. WjBscribe 05:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review notification

An editor has asked for a deletion review of United States military aid to Israel. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin help

Hi Jay: There is a mix-up going on, see User talk:Hmains#Duplicate category?. The guy is screwing things up. IZAK 09:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Reversal of my AfD close

I'd like an apology for your actions in reversing my AfD decision.

1. If you thought my action was invalid, you should have asked my to reconsider. It would have been courteous to do so, and to have allowed me time to respond. I don't claim to be infallible, and I'm always fairly reasonable about such things. I have admitted mistakes and reversed myself before.
2. If we hadn't reached an agreement, we could have sought a civilised resolution of differences at DRV. There was no urgency here. Reversing me without discussion or DRV was not at all good.
3. "Wikipedia:Wheel warring (undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable" per this arbcom ruling - which you yourself endorsed.
4. Reversing my work with 'Nonsense; read the discussion' was ungracious, patronising and unnecessary
5. Given your known point of view, your action clearly constituted a conflict of interest. If someone neutral had reversed me for some process reason, that would have been more understandable.

Perhaps I was wrong in my close, I don't think so, that's beside the point. I can accept that, when we feel strongly about certain subjects, our neutral perspective can go out the window. So, if that's what's happened here, I will bear no grudge.

--Doc^g 16:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, Jayjg, but you also labeled the edit "minor."

"A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."

—David Levy 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to assume that was a simple error.--Doc^g 16:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do so. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So am I, provided that Jay apologizes. —David Levy 16:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, this is really troubling. Either you knew your actions would start a ruckus and did it anyway, or you didn't realize that unilaterally reversing another admin's actions in the way that you did was going to be a big deal. Both options raise questions about your judgement. I ask that in addition to apologizing, you take a good look at how you make decisions. Kla'quot 17:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Partially occupied

In case you need a source for the "partially occupied" dispute with User:A student of history, here is one from Benny Morris: "so long as the occupation or semi-occupation (more accurately) continues" and "restrictions of the continuing Israeli semi-occupation". He writes this in both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian narratives. --Shamir1 17:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Your apology

You have apologised for overturning me without discussion or due process and for your dismissive edit summary. Thanks for that. I accept your apology, and consider the matters closed.

We strongly disagree about the proper interpretation of the AfD. Shrug. That's for DRV to decide between our positions.

I apologise if I have stated (not sure I have?) or even implied you were biased. Nevertheless, since justice must both be done and be perceived to have been done, you might consider that you have at least a perceived conflict of interests here. Thus, your being bold in overturning what should be an impartial closing of a heated debate in this controversial area was unwise. You would have been best to ask others to consider it - which is what DRV is for. I'm not asking for a response to that.

As I say, I consider the matter closed, and look forward to working with you in the future.--Doc^g 21:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Your talk page has been semi-protected for a few months now. Think it's time to unprotect? John Reaves (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 08:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

straw poll

See straw poll at Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#A_quick_straw_poll.--Urthogie 13:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Israel‎

Hello, Jayjg. Some time ago I modified Israel's area figure in the infobox to reflect internationally-recognized territory [12]. This change got reverted, as other editors thought the Israeli official figure is appropriate, and a revert war (which I took part in) ensued, which continued later in Template:Infobox Israel‎ (to which the contents of the infobox were moved) and eventually lead to a page protection (on the template, that is). To make a long story short, Zero0000 at some point proposed a compromise by which both figures would be specified (with a brief explanation), but this was still opposed. After my dispute resolution efforts proved to be futile, I made a RfC which, in my opinion, lead to a clear consensus over the compromise proposal (7 supported it, only Isarig, and presumably also Shamir1 and Amoruso, objected). The administrator who protected the page (and proposed to make a RfC) lifted the protection and I made the edit according to the compromise proposal. Next, Amoruso and Shamir1 started to revert yet again. In order to avoid yet another edit war, I am refraining from reverting again. I've been working hard to reach a compromise with consensus on this rather minor issue for a month and a half now, is there any way to enforce this consensus? Thank you for your time.--Doron 20:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Israeli pound

What is you're opinion on this matter, Talk:Israeli lira#Requested move? Epson291 08:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerned about User:Wassermann

Hi Jay: Please see my concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#User:Wasserman. Thank you, IZAK 13:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Nimmo

A compromise has been reached. Therefore the ban should be lifted. annoynmous 19:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you say that. The user phaedriel edited the article to a point that I fully agreed with. The only reservation I had was with the new-antisemtism tag. Other than that I'm all for article as it stands. Therefore there is no reason to keep the article blocked. annoynmous 02:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message on Isarigs page and he refuses to respond. It doesn't really seem to matter anymore sense the changes have already been made by phaedriel. I agree with theses changes and sense this was what the dispute was originally over I would say that keeping the ban from ow on is unfair. It gives the feeling as if your tryin to prevent any edits to this article ever. As I understand bans are only for when edit wars get out of hand. Sense I agree with the passage than that is unlikely to happen. annoynmous 02:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So basically now anything I get involved with your going to block and never allow me to edit anything again. It doesn't matter that subject that was under contention has been resolved, but now your going to block me because I might have a problem with something else unrelated to that issue. That strikes me as extremely unfair. You have no right to block the article because someoen might edit it.

Now that you've blocked the Ward churchill article it seems to me that you have a political bias in you methods. Why is it that you always block an article I'm involved in after the other user restores there version of the article. I haven't violated the 3RRR rule so blocking an article because you don't like edit wars smells to me of a conflict of interest. I'm beginning to feel you won't unblock these articles until I agree with the other users demands. annoynmous 03:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm angry. At first It was just a suspicion, but now I'm pretty sure you have agenda against me. How does Alan Cabal qualifie as an edit war. I made one revert of something and they reverted me and you blocked the article. You are purposefully going to articles I've contributed too and blocking them so I can't contribute to them. I beleive this is qualifies as wikistalking. This is an abuse of your authority.annoynmous 03:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So your admitting that your not blocking these articles not because of edit waring, but because you disagree with my edits. I thought you were supposed to be neutral.

Saying I'm editing out valid information without explaining why is a flat out lie. I have explained just about every edit I've done to the ward churchill article. The information isn't reliable, it comes from a right wing talk show host who based his supposed findings on documents that no one can link to and verify themselves. Just because it's in the Denver Post dooesn't make it valid. By blocking this article you are protecting innacurate information.

I ask once again how is the Alan Cabal article edit waring. I made one revert and somehow that became an edit war. Basically I might as well give up editing because if I stick up for my point of view, you'll block the article.

Sense on all these articles I haven't violated the 3rr rule I feel these blocks are unfair and that you should unblock them. If you don't I will be forced to to contact the wikipedia administration to complain.annoynmous 03:39, 30 April 30 2007 (UTC)

Contributor's name in image titles: self-promotion?

Hi, Jay. I wonder if I could ask you when you have a moment to have a look at a policy question I posed here about the appropriateness of an image-contributor adding his real name, which is identical to his WP username, as part of a large number of image filenames in an apparent attempt to advertise his work as a photographer. When adding these images, the editor also adds his real name to edit summaries, presumably to highlight his authorship of the images. As I mention in my post, one result is that Google searches on the editor's real name now return substantial numbers of hits linking to his Wikipedia images, and elsewhere on the web this editor invites people to visit his WP userpage to review his work as a photographer. I might also mention, as I neglected to in my post, that in each of the articles in which one of these images appears, the user gets free advertising on every mouse-hover over the image, since the alt-text displays the image filename, which of course contains his name.

I also asked Secretlondon to comment. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A followup: my objection to this practice is that it seems to me contrary not only to WP:NOT#SOAP, but also WP:OWN#Do not sign what you do not own. --Rrburke^(talk) 16:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Good or evil?

Hi Jay, Any thoughts? Thanks! --Tom 21:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:People who have renounced Judaism

Hi Jay, sorry I did not realise that the category had already been created. I thought the objection to the Category:People who have renounced Judaism was more in the wording and the fact that "renouncing" is not a particularly neutral or appropriate term. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Homey is back

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.70.20.132 part of a atg team: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Council_of_Churches&diff=127046451&oldid=127025463 Zeq 06:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

btw

sent you mail. have you seen it ? Zeq 06:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

?? Zeq 08:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Previous block history

While trying to figure out what to do about a particular editor (User:Threeafterthree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) who is being disruptive and pushing agendas, I noticed you blocked him for a month back in November. Is it inappropriate to ask if you remember the details surrounding the incident? I believe he's trolling and pushing an agenda, and I'm wondering if there's a history of this in the past. Not sure if it's out of line for me to ask, but I figured i'd at least learn something either way.  ;-) Thanks. /Blaxthos 17:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, please excuse me, but I have to respond. This user has an admitted bias towards Fox News [13], no big deal. We got into an edit war over a CATION for the Fox News channel LOGO of all things. I asked that he provide sources that make the claim that: "The Fox News "Fair & Balanced" slogan has been the subject of controversy due to trademark disputes and accusations of bias". That's all. I'm done with that user and that article since I don't really give a hoot about Fox News unlike this editor. Also, I'm getting very tired of battling folks over inclusion of thier ethnicity when its either not relevant or not properly sourced(Michael Baxter). I wish you the best of luck, but it seems like this place is getting more and more out of control and I'm admittidly beaten down at this point. Again, keep up the good work and thanks! --Tom 12:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"consensus doesn't mean every single non-admin agrees"

About This edit.

First, that kind of takes the "adminship is no big deal" catchphrase and throws it away. Adminship is supposed to just be a set of shiny buttons, not something that makes your opinion any more valuable in measuring consensus of the encyclopedia. WP:ADMIN says: "Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions."

Second, you do realize I am an admin, right? And that I don't agree? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And furthermore, I'm sure you don't need to be reminded that comments like this and this are ultimately going to solve nothing. I don't know exactly when I got under your skin, but either we're working toward a resoltuion or not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of the Holocaust

The Ownership issue is the key issue in academic debate, I think it is relevant that it is addressed up front that some identify the Holocaust as only Jews and affecting others, whilst many see it as the murders in the camps in which the Jewish people were obviously many. The ownership debate is obviously far deeper and more complex than to write on a talk page, but clarity being an issue it needs to be addressed up top. Londo06 22:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that debate to which you refer has been played with for many years. I believe you are getting Ownership confused with Holocaust Denial, which is rightly derided as being nothing less than Racism. Londo06 23:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of reliable sources on Bernard Lewis

I don't have to discuss why stuff sourced to qualified sources like Journal of Studies in Contemporary Islam should stay. You should discuss them because you are removing them. --Aminz 00:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism

Can you please offer your opinion on some of the recent edits.--Sefringle 02:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, have you dealt with this editor before?

Who the hell can tell any more what people's agendas are except that they have them. I'm trying to reply to my talk page notes and wrap up some other loose ends and then I'm taking a break for awhile. I have NO idea how you can do it? Anyways, thanks again and cheers! --Tom 13:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

More garbage. Adolf Martin Schlesinger. --Tom 16:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

3 reverts

Thanks for the heads-up – It would be awful for both of us if I were to get blocked again :) – but are you certain I have three reverts? This isn't a revert; I don't undo any other editor's work (maybe the edit summary was misleading). That leaves at most two, if you count the first change of "usage" to "use." No? Thanks though – I mean it, jokes aside.--G-Dett 23:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again my dear. I guess it's sort of sinking in all the things a "revert" can compass. Will you take a look at this? Do I have three reverts there as well? I guess I thought it didn't include stylistic tweaks like use/usage.

Please don't go wrecking that page, or Tiamut will kill me.--G-Dett 23:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation necesary

Hi, Jayjg. There is an arbitration case regarding Transnistria for which I am kindly asking you to confirm a fact: User:MarkStreet confirmed to you that he is indeed the editor of "Tiraspol Times", as he claimed [14]. I remember that at that time on the Tiraspol Times "aboutus" page was a link to MarkStreet's userpage at Wikipedia. Actually, this link is not existing anymore. Can you please write a statement at "Evidence" subpage of arbcom case (you should open a new section "Evidence presented by Jayjg"), through which you can assure arbcom that indeed, in October 2006 you received confirmation that User:MarkStreet from Wikipedia is the editor of Tiraspol Times (as he claimed)? This is the only thing I am asking you for this arbcom case, as I don't remember you being involved in any way in editing disputes related with Transnistria article. It will be usefull for arbcom to establish beyond reasonable doubt this fact. Thanks.--MariusM 22:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A "new" category that is not new.

Hi Jay, Shavua Tov: I have a question. I have just come across Category:Jewish diaspora, which someone claimed was a "new" category, but unbeknownst to him when he created it as "new" in July 2006 [15], the category was actually voted for deletion in October 2005, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 16#Category:Jewish diaspora. What is the procedure in such a case? Can it be automatically deleted or does it need to be resubmitted all over again? Thanks for your help. IZAK 10:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking care of it. IZAK 03:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg

Hello, Jayjg. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Jayjg/Archive 15. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Just wanted to say hi. Guess I will be back editting for at least a little while. I also wanted to say I was touched that you emailed me when I left, and I apologize for not replying. 95% of my time since has been spent dealing with a family catastrophe, but it looks like nowI I'll able to spend some time here.John Z 04:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis Article

I responded to your post about M Shahid Alam and Juan Cole. Mr. Alam recently published a book on Islam, and has been featured in numerous Islamic journals, and is himself Muslim (putting in him a position to be offended by Mr. Lewis and a valid critic). Dr. Juan Cole peace originally appeared in another publication and is not considered self published, I will therefore correct the citation to reflect its original source, and not his own blog. Thanks.

Re: Softblocks

Sorry, I didn't know that soft blocks weren't okay. John Reaves (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Jay - please check your email. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, Jakew 21:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hard blocking tor proxies

Yes, I know that with the recent problem with a hijacked admin account it may seem like a bad idea, but before you changed it, WP:TOR advised that tor proxies should be soft blocked.
Users who value anonymity and/or users in China still make up a part of our user base. The solution to a hijacked admin account is to have people use decent passwords, rather than knocking off an anonymity network's access needlessly. Thank you. --Michael Billington (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've further outlined my reasoning here --Michael Billington (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, I could understand Jayjg's actions here, except they do not address the actual problem. Consider the following:

1. Password-cracking. If the attacker is running a brute-force attack using Tor, blocking the IPs (from editing) will not prevent the attacker's script from receiving an accurate success or failure response with each attempt to crack an account's password.

2. Use of the cracked accounts. If the attacker succeeds in cracking an admin account, and wants to use it for vandalism of any kind (including deletion of the main page), he could just unblock the IP address every time he gets a block message. A self-serving IP unblock is not even requisite for less significant disruption (such as blocking random well-known users).

So really there's no new advantage to hard-blocking the entire network. Only the other users (those who are not in the business of hijacking accounts) would be affected by this. —freak(talk) 10:35, May. 8, 2007 (UTC)

An established user of Wikipedia, and WP:MEDCOM member seems to have been hit by the blocks - I think that it's safe to say that many more legitimate accounts will be affected. Unblock, please :)? Martinp23 18:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is bigger than just page deletion; half of the deliberately vandalistic or vicious personal attack accounts I see these days are using TOR proxies that have been "soft-blocked". Because there are so many TOR exit nodes, soft-blocks do absolutely no good whatsoever; there's always a new exit node to be found. The account user just fishes around till they find an unblocked TOR proxy, then they're free to do what they want. When open proxies are blocked, then they're forced to use their own IPs. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what you mean. My rebuttal, however, was in response to comments like these [16] [17] [18], where you specifically cited account the recent password crackings as a reason to hard-block all of Tor. So I was letting you know that won't work... no amount of IP blocking is effective against an attack of that type (the only real defenses are increased password complexity and faster response time by stewards). Hypothetically (and at the risk of giving people new ideas) if I was a banned user (or if I desired to be a random vandal/troll), I would find AOL a much more intuitive and reliable means of evasion. —freak(talk) 00:37, May. 9, 2007 (UTC)

The people were still using TOR proxies to evade detection; if they had been blocked, they would have been forced to reveal their own IPs. Regarding AOL, at least they'd have to pay for it, and AOL IPs generally stick to a fairly small range, so they'd still be identifiable. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is they could still crack a password using a hard-blocked IP address, and still log into the compromised sysop account using a hard-blocked IP address, and then use the sysop account to unblock any addresses they want. Problem not solved. —freak(talk) 01:59, May. 9, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's already pretty convoluted; most people won't think of doing that, although your publicly publishing the idea will certainly make more of them think of it. And in any event, the bad password problem is going away, as people are forced to get new passwords. The real issue is the vastly more common instance of people using the open proxies with non-admin accounts for various kinds of nastiness. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I mentioned this elsewhere before, but I'll just note here again that IP-based blocks do not affect sysop accounts anyway. As a response to the Main page vandalism, hardblocking tor is certainly not the solution, but there are other problems it could solve (and create) --Michael Billington (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The attacker would not even know the IP is blocked until he has already cracked the account. I don't see why he'd turn back at that point, or how unblocking the IP would be "convoluted" or anything other than the logical next step for the attacker. One could block the entire internet from editing a wiki site and still be vulnerable to password cracking. —freak(talk) 02:31, May. 9, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Main page vandalism, or password cracking, which are recent and ephemeral problems. I'm talking about run of the mill nastiness. There's lots of it out there, and people are getting away with it using TOR proxies. That has to stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please undo it, what do we stand to gain? We are losing good contributors because of this, and I'm not sure where we are getting a benefit. In any case changing a policy like that should not be done post haste. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)`

I see no evidence we are "losing good contributors because of this", and I see a clear benefit; vandals and other ne'er-do-wells can no longer hide behind proxies. And I'm not "changing a policy", I'm enforcing it. Policy is that open proxies are not allowed to edit. Period. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually you changed it, as mentioned above, and I've yet to see a decrease in the amount of vandalism anyway. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I'm sorry, there is one good user mentioned above that has been blocked due to this. Any chance of at least unblocking his proxy? (He is running a tor exit node, and thus cannot "not use tor"). If there are problems with his node, then fine block it when we have to. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I never changed policy, which is quite clear: Users are prohibited from editing Wikimedia projects through open or anonymous proxies. Prohibited. Got that? It's echoed in Wikipedia: Wikipedia:No open proxies. No open proxies. That's policy. I've merely removed material from essays which encouraged people to violate policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'm sorry, its User:Armedblowfish, who is a member of the mediation committee. He runs a tor exit node which means that he cannot change his IP to not use tor. I would suggest unblocking at least that address. (you might have to ask him which). If his node gives us problems down the road we can deal with it, but right now this is one good contributor being blocked as a result of this. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 08:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, he could stop running a TOR exit node, and then the problem would go away. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, thats your view point, you can either help TOR, or help wikipedia, but not both? —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 08:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not my viewpoint. Wikipedia has a very clear policy about open proxies; you're not allowed to edit Wikipedia from them. Armedblowfish can make up his/her own mind whether editing Wikipedia or maintaining a TOR exit node is more important to him/her. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmm ok, if you wish to be insistant, its only a temporary stop gap till a new software feature is eventually implemented. Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 08:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well believe it or not, right now every admin on wikipedia could be using TOR (we are exempt from hardblocks on our IPs). There is a serious proposal to give stewards the ability to give trusted members of the community the ability to also use tor, which would be perfect in the case of ArmedBlowfish. I see no need to scare members of our community away, especially not those that are in trusted positions such as the mediation committee. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 08:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Joel C. Rosenberg

Hi, Jay. I notice that you recently edited the article Joel C. Rosenberg. Do you have any information about Rosenberg's ethnic or religious background? I ask because I note that he is included in the article List of notable converts to Christianity, but I've not seen any evidence to confirm that he was ever observant -- in which case, while he might be ethnically Jewish, he can't, in my opinion, be considered a Jewish convert to Christianity. Additionally, an unsourced claim included in some material that, incidentally, I removed from Joel C. Rosenberg as unsourced and insufficiently NPOV, asserts that his mother was not Jewish. If that's true, then from a Halakhic perspective he may not have been considered Jewish to begin with.

Moreover, it seems to me that the inclusion of any Jew who was not never observant in the first place mixes apples and oranges: a person who is ethnically Jewish but non-practicing and who adopts Christianity might fairly be considered a convert to Christianity, but not a convert to Christianity from Judaism because that person never practiced Judaism in the first place. The inclusion of such a person in the list confuses Jewish ethnic identity with Judaism as a religion. Does that seem a reasonable objection? --Rrburke^(talk) 18:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I made the case here, in case you're interested in the outcome. --Rrburke^(talk) 02:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You are a brave man

Jay,

Please read this evidence (this is just ther tip of the iceberg):

[19]

[20]

I think we should be able to hear what you think about the evidence. Zeq 20:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

so what need to be done to get people to look at and even comment on the evidence ??? Zeq 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI: [21] Zeq 07:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

peppe

Peppe is as biased as they come. I have no idea if what he sais is true or false but the man is clearly biased to the core. If he is a valid academic source we may have a systematic bias in the academic comunity against israel. Wouldn't it be simpler to remove him altogether ? [22] Zeq 18:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

jay some curtesy ? replies maybe ? Zeq 19:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Council of Jerusalem

Care to get involved in Council of Jerusalem again? Looks like User:Roger Arguile is proposing some major changes. 64.149.82.195 21:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible libelous article

Hi Jay, please take a look at the way the article about Rabbi Milton Balkany has been written by David Spart (talk · contribs) (who tends to write in a provocative way about Lubavitch). I am concerned that the Milton Balkany article may violate WP:LIBEL and open up a slew of problems. What do you think? Thanks for taking the time. IZAK 03:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wars of 1948

Hi Jayjg,
I have answered on the talk page.
Alithien 06:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust

I'm troubled by your use of Original Research in your edit summary. No one is at war here. There is no call for smearing me. Jd2718 01:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I took the translation from the Babi Yar article. It was obvious that the Ukrainian had been mauled by Berenbaum's source. That is also where I found the image. I had previously discussion with SV on the talk page both the need to look at Babi Yar and to question some of Berenbaum. See Talk:The_Holocaust#New_version Jd2718 01:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

lack of clarity in "supremacy"

i would like to resolve this civilly. i have no agenda except to be specific. what kind of supremacy did dhimmis have to acknowledge? please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.157.159 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Your edits to the article Jew

I appreciate the way you go about your edits. Lately I have had some harsh reversions done to my edits, which I've done on precious time as I have a very busy life besides Wikipedia. I do not mind people disagreeing with me, and am easy to admit an error. What I do mind is people who are busy deleting instead of adding; destroying instead of building and are constantly busy accusing others of POV which they are mighty guilty in themselves. You on the other hand have taken my edits and made them better. You deserve a thanks and I hope others will learn to do the same. Itzse 18:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sarkozy

Having a grandfather who was a Greek Jew who converted to Catholicism doesn't make you a Jew or a "French-Greek". Rather than supporting the tendentious edits of a new editor who has already been blocked twice for making these kinds of edits, it would probably be better if you edited in areas where you had more expertise or knowledge. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind advice. You are wrong if you thought i was supporting a new editor and you are wrong if you think i emphasized on the Jewishness of Sarkozy's g/father. The fact is that his gf's life is notable and very relevant to the article. He has gained a "had gained a formidable reputation as a urologist" in Paris w/ a status of an emmigrant. He was a "doctor in the French army during the First World War". He "took refuge at a small farm in Corrèze to avoid being sent to a concentration camp" during WWII".

All in all, there is nothing notable for being a Jew or having converted to Christianity. What is encyclopaedic is the background Nicholas is coming from. Please assume good faith next time. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit's reverted in the information the (now blocked) editor kept inserting. The article already discusses his grandfather, but this insertion was only there to misleadingly describe his ethnicity. In addition, you failed to respond to the point about your insertion of incorrect categories. Sarkozy had four grandparents; for some reason people keep trying to focus on the ethnic origin of only one of them, the Greek Jew. It's not encyclopedic, but rather something else entirely. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the inconvenience Jay. I've just noticed that the g/father info is quite there in place. It wasn't about his religious affiliations at all. I hope this is clear and i'm taking this opportunity to apologize for the misunderstanding. All i find encyclopaedic is that he is a son of immigrants and a son of a persecuted Jewish family Mallah. That's history which got a meaning and a context. This is what i consider encyclopaedic. The fact being an etnic x/y/z has no value for wikipedia except if there are plenty of secondary sources focusing on that- which is not the case here till this moment.

I am sorry but which categories are you referring to? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Which categories? You inserted categories with your edit; perhaps you should re-examine that edit to refresh your memory. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't paid attention to the fact that categories were involved. Whatever the case is (i apologized for the things i am aware of and it is my mistake for not paying attention) my comment above explains my intention and if i'm afraid your tone makes me feel my message was not enough crystal clear to you. If not, i must point you out to my userpage and get to know whose person i am considering being my favourite Human. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean you "haven't paid attention to the fact that categories were involved"? You were the person who inserted the categories, no-one else did, including Category:French Jews. Did your fingers just type in those categories without your noticing? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The "haven't paid attention to the fact that categories were involved" means that it wasn't me who did insert them. It was the "new user being blocked" who did that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, you can't have it both ways. Either you were supporting the now-blocked tendentious new editor, or you were deliberately inserting those categories. Now, it looks to me like you were just supporting the blocked editor, by reverting for him. If I were you I'd just leave it at that. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I only can have it my way, maybe not in the colour you prefer. however, it wasn't neither for your first claim nor for the second. The fact that you haven't paid attention to whom he did insert that proves that we liked the same colour; the colour of being a bit in a rush w/o having enough time to breathe. I've already talked a couple of days ago about the fact that not only me who is having problems. Please take it easy Jay and assume good faith again and again. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's assume the it was me who did insert those cats. Doesn't the person who falls into my "favourite human" category (there is only him indeed!) is contained in similar categories? So what's your point exactly? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

RCU

Can you prove that Buffadren (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is MarkStreet (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? He is Des Grant, from Dublin, Ireland.

• Jay -- for whatever reason, anonymous and new editors have been repeatedly asking for checkusers on Buffadren. I've carefully paid no attention to Buffadren's actual edits; but consistantly, Buffadren uses a small number of IP addresses, and is the only one that uses those IP addresses, and they're not related to whoever the request is trying to connect Buffadren to. I ended up blocking one of the requesters, as a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte. More Tranistrian stuff, I imagine. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Buffadren&diff=130541396&oldid=130535541

" Confirmed. Buffadren = 193.120.95.11 = Mark us street. The checkuser log shows that 193.120.95.11 is in fact Mark (the edit was true). Soonpush = Showninner, which are not related to the others.Voice-of-All 14:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC) "

• Why would I care enough to lie one way or another? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you'll find that Britlawyer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is Buffadren as well.

Claim ?; Islam and antisemitism

"The Qur'an claims that the Jews of Medina rejected his apostolate, taunted and mocked him and opposed him both religously and politically"

I am sorry? Nobody ever has said anything to the otherwise, as far as I am ever. Everybody says they rejected his prophethood and Watt says that they indulged in mocking Muhammad quite unnecessary. But nobody (as far as I am aware) disputes this sentence.

P.S. I will be soon done with this and will remove the tag. --Aminz 03:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

+ I would appreciate it if you could borrow Lewis's book from library: "The Qur'an reflects Muhammad's hostility towards the Jews of Medina in passages in which" twists what Lewis says. Thanks --Aminz 03:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not correct. Please see Historicity of Muhammad. Further, it is quite awkward to attribute everything to the original sources. Historians tell us which ones are reliable and which ones aren't. No historians (except a few who reject the whole matter altogether), as far as I am aware, has challenged that statement. Using "Claim" there seems just unnecessary.--Aminz 03:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Three days? I have never added it for more than a couple of hours. --Aminz 03:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

reported User:Nazrac to WP:ANI

The username complaint was declined; I reported the user to WP:ANI: here's the link. --Rrburke^(talk) 04:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Forking

I noticed that you have been posting exactly the same material already in two articles [23][24]. While there may be a reason for it in the article about uprising, reposting it all over again word for word in another article about a historical person is spam. If you want to add information on Khmelnytsky, please write something about him. So far you have not been very helpful and wage revert wars on two different articles simultaneously. This is not very productive.--Hillock65 18:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not the same material; in Khmelnytsky_Uprising it is included as a full quotation in the article itself, in Bohdan Khmelnytsky it is an abbreviated footnote supporting the higher range of estimates. It's also a rather bizarre complaint to make, considering that you just took an even lengthier quotation from the Khmelnytsky_Uprising#Jews_and_the_Uprising article, and posted it verbatim as a footnote in the Khmelnytsky article.[25] Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit comment.

Precisely which content dispute[26] is this [27]likely to help me win? I think if you think about it, you will discover I am in fact broadening the scope of possible controversies. This operates in a direction precisely opposite to my supposed desire to keep criticism of various unpleasant people out of the lead. Please don't let the fact that you're convinced about my motives overwhelm simple common sense.

I think a quick apology might be in order, just to set the record straight. Thanks. Hornplease 19:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand. No harm done. Hornplease 02:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Panairjdde is back

User:Boat-proof is the last reincarnation of the puppetmaster. --Angelo 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Another of his accounts is User:GodShores. This made some interventions on User talk:Dppowell/PPP and User talk:Dppowell trying to explain his point of view on WP things. --Angelo 01:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Jesus

I wikified the above article, which touches on Jewish-Christian relations. You might like to have a look at how some references to the Talmud are handled in it - I don't know if they are accurate. Itsmejudith 22:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

I have requested an ArbCom case on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#PalestineRemembered, which you are involved. Please make your statement or comments there. Thank you! Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh thanks for the notice. I have a question, if I am listed as involved, does it mean I would be penalized in the end? Frankly I didn't edit any of those articles or engage in the Palestine dispute. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't be sanctioned unless there were a specific finding that you had violated a policy or otherwise done something wrong. The arbitrators don't penalize a person just for being in the case! Newyorkbrad 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. ArbCom cases always cause stress, so I give you a smile here. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I don't understand the reason for opening an Arbitration case. No one can reasonably allege either that Jayjg's accusations were wholly false, or were made in bad faith. Palestine Remembered by his own admission cited a source he hadn't read, he is a single-issue sockpuppet whose record is widely ackowledged as questionable, and having seen the same material on the site of a notorious Holocaust denier, Jayjg made the obvious call. The only questions are whether Palestine Remembered committed major fraud or merely totally unacceptable citation practices, and whether he should or should not be community banned.Proabivouac 02:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't take a side here, the only thing is on WP:CN there is strong emotion from either side and the discussion turned into a mess. I think that in a heated discussion like that when both sides get emotional no problem would be solved. ArbCom case would make both sides cool down and look into the facts, facts are more important than opinions. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 02:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As the deliberations of the Arbitration Committee are held privately off-wiki, I have at this point no basis upon which to conclude anything in particular about their character, or to assume, as you assert, that they are based only on facts.Proabivouac 05:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Recentism

Most of those material belonged to a period of 50 years out of 1400 years of Islam. It is giving undue weight. I have already summerized this by "Some modern writers have applied this term to the Jews of twentieth century." I have further inserted a summary from Lewis saying " the language of abuse was often quite strong among Muslims with the conventional epithets of apes for Jews, and pigs for Christians."

Please remember that this is about Qur'an; not about Muslims. The Qur'anic verses do not say that all Jews are pigs. Some modern muslims misuse them and that could be covered in the modern time section. --Aminz 05:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It is only a recent phenomenon on the behalf of some modern writers. The source I used clearly says that: "the qur'anic verse ^{[Quran 5:60]} qualifies the Jews of Medina with the epithets apes and pigs. Some modern writers have applied this term to the Jews of twentieth century."

What we are doing here is filling up a lot of space quoting these modern writers who all make the same point. This is only 50 years.

In fact, I think it is more appropriate to use note the application of the term to the Jews of Medina as a continuation of previous statements about the Jews of Medina. --Aminz 05:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So? --Aminz 05:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw reference 23 and 24. Thanks. In fact, I myself added reference 24 and I am aware of that in North Africa. But please note that the section we have is about antisemitism inside the Qur'anic literature. That for example during tensions between the two community, the phrase was used by Muslims in abusive language, or that a certain Muslim dynasty in North Africa set up certain regulations are indirectly related. They deserve a brief mention in a few sentences (with the details coming in relevant sections). Currently, we have dedicated more than 1 page to it writing about what Dr. Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar stated on Syrian TV or what 'Abd Al-Sattar on November 8, 2005 said on the section which is supposed to explain antisemitism in the Qur'anic literature. By 2000+ quotes I mean quotes coming from year 2000 and afterwards. --Aminz 08:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

1948 Wars (2)

Hi Jayjg,
It is a pity no more people participate to this discussion.
I also see you are quite occupied with pov-pushers.
I answered this on the talk page :

Hi Jayjg, do you mean that if you agree that in the title of these books we find "war", "Palestine" and a date referring to the period (1947 or 1948), the precise locution "1948 Palestine War" is never used and that is a problem from your point of view ?

There are different way to solve this but to avoid misunderstandings and to try to work efficiently, could you answer my simple questions :

• As asked just here above, is it indeed the "absence" of the "precise locution" in the titles that minds you ?
• Do you agree the "Arab-Israeli War" started on May 15 ?
• I precise I fully agree that there must be an article (extremely important) named "1948 Arab-Israeli War". I am neither mad nor pov-pushers or whatever else.
• Even if you don't agree with my point, could you tell me if you understand precisely it ?

Thank you,
Alithien 12:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please respect the tag

Hello,

Your edit here is discourteous and doesn't respect the "inuse" tag. I always add the tag when I edit and I always remove the tag after I'm done editing. I never take more than 2 hours to do so.

After I'm done editing, you are free to edit (and use tags) as you wish. The reason I'm posting here is because you have stopped using the article's talk page.Bless sins 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have other edits to make as well. Please be patient.Bless sins 01:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You to have made edits without getting concensus (even without discussing) on the talk page. thus you can't blame me for not getting concensus. Also, you have seemed to stop usin the talk page, while others, like me, Sefringle, and Itsmejudith are still active.Bless sins 01:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You contradict yourself. If I've done edits on a large scale, and you've undid those edits, then your edits are on a similar scale as mine. When you do undo my edits, please explain on talk. All my edits are sourced to very reliable sources.Remember not to blindly revert, me and aminz are always adding sourced content that you seem to delete (perhaps accidently).Bless sins 01:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

An you also get concensus first, before making edits, (let's see how much you heed your own advice). Also, pls. re-join talk, as there are many issues to resolve.Bless sins 01:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

ANI comment

• I have recently made an agreement from a polite outreach by User:Bishonen, not to post further to WP:ANI, along with other editors. However, I must emphasize that I have heeded User:Coelacan's advice, and am utilizing Coelacan's suggestions on pages such as Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#Groups_referred_to_as_cult_in_the_media and Talk:Scientology in popular culture, to positive affect and polite dialogue with others. The confusion regarding "fork", will not happen again, at least not with me. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 00:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Village pump post

You should be aware that someone posted a diatribe directed at you here.

Also, a different take on cynicism, from Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary:

Cynic

A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.

Λυδαcιτγ 02:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Jewish American businesspeople

Do you know that Blue Jays eat the eggs of other birds? Also, do you know that there are tens if not hundreds of Jewish people lists other than List of Jewish American businesspeople? Why haven't you targeted and made sure that they only include only sourced information? The policies of Wikipedia do not say everything must be sourced, only that it should be verifiable. Please stop being biased for or against this article (I'm not sure which it is) when there are many other articles like it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scifiintel (talk • contribs) 05:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

FYI

[28] Zeq 13:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi

FYI, I updated History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinians must sure be glad that Israel left Gaza, eh? See you. --Sm8900 14:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI (2)

[29] Zeq 16:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

may I suggest - I think this is more NPOV

For the Palestinian annual holdiday, see Nakba Day.

Palestinian refugees in 1948

The Palestinian exodus (Arabic: الهجرة الفلسطينية al-Hijra al-Filasteeniya) refers to the refugee flight of Palestinian Arabs from areas under Israel control during and after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. It is called the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة), meaning "disaster" or "cataclysm," by Palestinians. Not all Arabs have been escaping battle areas and those who remained were awarded Israeli citizenship.

Prior to the beginning of the war, friction between Jewish and Arab communities intensified, frequently erupting into violence. After the Israeli Declaration of Independence in May 1948, the fighting intensified further. Civilians from both sides had to leave areas that were captured by the opposing armies. By the end of the war hundreds of thousands of Arabs had fled or been expelled from areas controlled by Israel; in 1951 the United Nations gave the final estimate of their number as 711,000.

The initial exodus - as well as the related Jewish exodus from Arab lands - and the current situation and final status of the Palestinian refugees form a contentious and politically controversial topic of great importance to all parties in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Zeq 16:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Racism by country

Hello, a request for mediation has been filed given the deadlock at racism by country. You previously offered comment on it, but were not involved in any edit warring. As such, I'm inviting you to add yourself to the RFM if you feel that you're part of the dispute. You can do so here. If you feel you're not involved in the dispute, please disregard this message and thanks for your earlier opinion. WilyD 21:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI(3)

[30] Zeq 04:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"....Civilians from both sides had to leave areas that were captured by the opposing armies. By the end of the war hundreds of thousands of Arabs .."

signature

[31] Zeq 05:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Luther Talk page

Jay, I think that this is uncalled for on the part of this editor [32].--Drboisclair 16:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Jews in countries pages

Hi Jay: Something needs to be clarified: The use of the term "Jews and Judaism" is for categories only. Thus Category:Jews and Judaism is the parent category for two main sub-categories: Category:Jews and Category:Judaism. Almost no articles are called by that name. There were a few instances where "Jews and Judaism" was used as a name for articles and I have tried to correct it now, to "History of the Jews in _____". The few remaing instances below require help from an admin because of problems with double-redirects and the risk of losing edit histories. I have spent a few hours going through the categories and articles to be found in Category:Jews and Judaism, Category:Jews by country, Category:Jewish history by country (a few hundred items) and the only exceptions that exist are the ones below. Once these are corrected there should be consistency. Most articles about Jews in specific countries are in the relevant Jewish history categories for those countries. In Category:Jews by country the contents (i.e. articles/biographies) for each country's category are basically just names of people who are Jews who were either born there or lived there. So after having sorted through a few loose ends I need some technical admin help, as well as the understanding that you have of this subject and the experience with it over the years. The following eight are the articles that need to fit with the basic naming convention in Category:Jewish history by country:

1. Jewish history in Japan (and the Jews and Judaism in Japan redirect page) needs to be moved to History of the Jews in Japan (I tried to do this, but it says that admin help is required because of a double direct problem.)
2. Jews and Judaism in Kazakhstan needs to be moved to History of the Jews in Kazakhstan (I tried to do this, but it says that admin help is required because of a double direct problem.)
3. Jews and Judaism in Pakistan needs to be moved to History of the Jews in Pakistan (I tried to do this, but it says that admin help is required because of a double direct problem.)
4. Jews and Judaism in Serbia to History of the Jews in Serbia (I tried to do this, but it says that admin help is required because of a double direct problem.)
5. Jews and Judaism in Tajikistan to History of the Jews in Tajikistan (I tried to do this, but it says that admin help is required because of a double direct problem.)
6. Jews and Judaism in Uzbekistan to History of the Jews in Uzbekistan (I tried to do this, but it says that admin help is required because of a double direct problem.)
7. Jews and Judaism in Switzerland to History of the Jews in Switzerland (I tried to do this, but it says that admin help is required because of a double direct problem.)
8. Jews and Judaism in Africa to History of the Jews in Africa (I tried to do this, but it says that admin help is required because of a double direct problem.)

Thanks in advance for your help. Sincerely, IZAK 07:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to butt in on your conversation, but I would simply like to express my support for the notion described above - the format of "History of the Jews in X" ... The page "Jews and Judaism in Japan" was recently moved through this title and then to "Japanese Jews", which is an inappropriate title as most Jews in Japan are not Japanese. In addition, the logic behind using the phrase "Jews and Judaism" is that it can incorporate other Jewish-related topics that are not directly related to individual Jews. I've commented about this on that page's discussion page, but I just wanted to express my concerns again, here, as they likely parallel relevant arguments for many of these other topics. Thank you. LordAmeth 11:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ganging up

It looks to me as though there are several editors ganging up against one (Bus stop) - here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_converts_to_Judaism and here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_notable_converts_to_Christianity, can you look into it? Modernist 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:JJay seems particularly vindictive against user bus stop. Thanks Modernist 11:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What to do?

When User:Sylviecyn abuses other editors off-wiki See warning message. How can one collaborate under such circumstances? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease on my talk page

FYI, Hornplease is threatening to revert-war on M.A. on my talk page. I can only imagine why he chose to pick on me for my edit yesterday, which added two sources, and not on you for your edit three days ago, which added one source to the exact same footnote. - Merzbow 02:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islam and antisemitism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

--Aminz 06:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Judeo-Christian

Hi! It seemed to me that although the "post WW2" bit was unsourced, the "criticism" paragraph you reverted could be salvaged by removing POV and badly sourced pieces and leaving a few remaining sentences. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep! See it at the bottom of the article now. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Religious Zionist texts

Discussion initiated on removal vs. restoration of new section. Please see Talk:Religious_Zionism. Hertz1888 17:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation for MA article

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.--Pejman47 19:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad

Wait, are you trying to say that Holocaust believers were not at the conference? Are you kidding me? For example, there were Jews present (and they believed in the Holocaust!): [33] The conference was not a Holocaust denier convention, it was a conference to talk about the Holocaust, and there were both believers and deniers present. Respect Wikipedia's NPOV policy. That statement that I inserted was 100% correct, and I can source it if you like. Also, that section title is highly POV. Let the reader judge for themselves. You cant say that Holocaust denial is anti-Israeli, can you? Thats ridiculous, thats like saying denying the Armenian genocide is anti-Armenia, etc... Let the reader judge for themselves, respect Wikipedia NPOV.Azerbaijani 13:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense, ofcourse, if there are those who deny the Holocaust and we call them Holocaust deniers, then do you not agree that those who believe in the Holocaust are Holocaust believers? Its vocabulary we're dealing with. Answer this question, do you deny that there were those who believed in the Holocaust present at that convention, yes or no? Its a simple yes or no question. Also, WWII has nothing to do with this, I dont even know why you bring it up, because many (if not all) Holocaust deniers do believe in WWII. I've yet to hear one deny that WWII ever happened.Azerbaijani 13:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Who said it was a Holocaust denial conference? You do know that POV is not what makes a good article right? The conference was not intended to be a denial conference. Infact, many Holocaust believers were invited to come but rejected or were forced to reject, but still, more than just a few did show up.Azerbaijani 15:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL, talk about Western bias.Azerbaijani 15:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

How could it have been a conference solely about denying the Holocaust when the people who set it up clearly said it was just to discuss the Holocaust and inviting both sides of the dispute, Holocaust believers and Holocaust deniers, to attend.Azerbaijani 15:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Quit, playing games, you know what I'm talking about when I say Holocaust believers. The only reason many Holocaust believers were not present was because they refused to attend (because of the popaganda and bad publicity against the conference) or where not allowed to attend by their own governments. The Holocaust conference was open to everyone who wanted to talk about the Holocaust, the subject matter was not simply about Holocaust denial.Azerbaijani 15:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, I sense that you are just playing with the words. Yes, we don't have a word called "holocaust believer" or "gravity believers" in Oxford Dictionary. But there do exist people who believe in them, don't they? And good portion of the attendants of that conference believed that concept. they may as (you called them) be plumbers but they attended that conference even by the sources you provided. for a NPOV report of that article, their attendance must be mentioned, and if you like you can add the sources which call them, unqualified (in your word "plumbers")in this matter. --Pejman47 20:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, what is the interpretation of this silence?--Pejman47 13:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Netzarim Nonsense

Sorry to waste your time with this. I have an acerbic fellow cluttering up my user talk page, claiming to be the only authentic something or other. This person is making similar claims on the Nazarene page and screwing up the Jewish-Christianity template. Sounds like Zestaferov or a clone. Please call pest control. Ovadyah 21:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that. He has pestered me too. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How can I help?

Would you like your user page semi-protected, for example? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please place an sprotected2 tag on my user page, and temporarily place one on the Jewish-Christian template until Loremaster has time to return and help me fix it. Thanks. Ovadyah 13:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered again

A proposal to close this arbitration is currently being discussed. However, it's unclear whether you still stand by your original charge against PalestineRemembered. Could you please clarify this so that it's clear whether there is a case that still needs to be considered by the Arbitration Committee? -- ChrisO 22:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Khmel'nycchyna

I have separated the casualty section into CURRENT and EARLIER, to minimize all conflict possibilities. Feel free to expand the latter.Galassi 12:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro for Palestinian Exodus

Looking forward to hearing your concrete suggestions! Cheers, Pedro.Gonnet 14:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume bad faith

Hey Jayjg, I gave you a Strom Thurmond award as a jest instead of offense, and you reverted them mechanically two times. This is ABF, and you should understand what is a joke and what is insult. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My awards

I do give awards with names of real people, like I have given Gracenotes himself a Samuel Alito award for RFA controversy, and User:Alabamaboy a Hugo Black award for improvement of law-related and Southern U.S.-related articles. There is no bad faith, I guarantee. Please, I have given all barnstars/awards in good faith. Please, why do you think I have any bad intentions? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, you have to look into the context. Strom Thurmond was a segregationist in the 1960s, but not anymore later. In the Senate, long after Thurmond renounced racism, he voted "Nay" for every judicial nominee he oppose on the ground of ideology, that those nominees are too liberal, and that's nothing to do with racism. And your opposition to Gracenotes is also based on ideology, the view on attack sites, and not his skills and experience. That's the reason why the award is given. It has nothing to do with racism, nothing to do with segregation. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 18:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, I'll get on with that. Could you take a look at Jtpaladin's latest edit to Talk:Circumcision? It's a blatant copyright violation, and I can't decide whether to leave it, edit the comment, or request rollback. Jakew 21:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Middle East stub

One normally doesn't engage in an edit war, nor does one normally violate the 3RR rule. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] Since we're not doing what "one normally does," what's the harm in leaving the tags in the interest of ending the edit war? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not implying that you violated 3RR. I'm stating it as a fact. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." In every one of these instances, you did exactly that. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing articles

What are you doing Jayjg? In the interest of being inclusive toward people of all faith traditions, I am creating a category for "Jews who have renounced Judaism" that will go in the Category:People by former religion category. If you continue this type of editing behavior (POV, reverting fully valid/factual edits, incivility, vandalism, irrationality, alienating editors rather than working with them) I will have no choice but to take some sort-of formal action against your increasingly unhinged and disruptive behavior. Please moderate your editing behavior or else face the necessary consequences. --Wassermann 23:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg: you thrive on conflict, drifting as you do from idiotic argument to argument and getting nothing accomplished in the process; so please, start building something around here and stop tearing everything and everyone down. We are all trying to build an encyclopedia here, not constantly argue over petty ESSAYS and arcane policies that don't carry any real weight because they are constantly broken by the majority, even by yourself. That being said, please do not continue your irrationality and POV by trying to wave this essay in my face; I quote from the top of All or nothing: "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors." Jews MUST be represented along with the other faith traditions at Category:People by former religion. To not include them in that category is discriminatory to say the least; the problems with those previous categories were merely the NAMES of said categories, NOT the content of them. --Wassermann 23:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Broken content

Hello.
One of your edits seems to have broken the notes in an article. You can see it here. Rather than reverting the edit (and undoing any other changes you might have been making), or trying to fix it myself (and probably making it worse), I thought I'd just point it out to you so you could fix it.
(If it isn't readily apparent what I'm talking about, scroll down to the "Notes" section. ouch) Bladestorm 23:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A good Antisemitism image I found

I found this good image of antisemitism that would fit well in the Islam and antisemitism article. [41] I am not sure if this is fair use or Public Domein, but if it is, can you please upload it? --Sefringle 06:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islam and antisemitism. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

Three other possible Panairjdde sockpuppets

User:Itham, User:EndlessReturns and User:Fantocci, the most recent and active one. Can you please have a look at them? --Angelo 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Jay. --Angelo 02:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you check User:Gethomas3? Kingjeff 03:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Kingjeff 03:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you check User:Tozzi Fan? Kingjeff 20:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this a valid edit summary ?

"Do not make revisions based on Zeq's fallacious reasonings, please" [42] Zeq 01:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hasidic Mediation Cabal case needs serious help

Hi Jay: You may perhaps be able to help solve the logjam at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty) between Klezmer (talk · contribs) and ChosidFrumBirth (talk · contribs). An additional question being raised is if Wikipedia should define a "Hasidic dynasty," see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty)#Response to mediator: from Klezmer. Any attention and help you may wish to render would be greatly appreciated. Wikipedia has gained many diverse articles about Hasidic Judaism that can be found nowhere else on the web, and this case may help to resolve and establish some important precedants and guidelines. But right now, the matter is stalled and needs outside help before it heads for more serious mediation. Thank you, IZAK 12:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism

Did you see the sentence:

"All Hasidic Jewish opponents to Zionism, including Rabbi Teitelbaum and Rabbi Shapira, do approve of Jews living in the Land of Israel. Their opposition is not to Jews living in the Land of Israel, but to the ideology of Zionism, which includes taking control of the land by force."

Is not this POV? Mind if I remove it? Perspicacite 06:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

David Irving

Kudos for your good work there. --Guinnog 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Kudzu, too. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nazareth article

Hello Jayjg, This is a mirror note of what I put on Tiamut's talk page regarding his irresponsible and wholesale changes to the Nazareth article. I'm an expert in Nazareth archaeology, and am finishing a book on the subject. Rene Salm

---

Hello Tiamut, I see you have not outgrown the problems we wrote about in October 2006 (on your Talk page). Then, you were citing a newspaper article (The Guardian) as a source on Nazareth archaeology. Now you are citing a tourist guidebook to Palestine. Of course, these are NOT scholarly sources. Jayjg is entirely correct in reverting to the pre-Tiamut article of 25 May, 2007.

I have not looked at the Nazareth article in a week (I generally check it daily), and look what happens. It's completely rewritten according to nonscholarly sources!

One can use Mariam Shahin only for the location of Nazareth and obvious information of that basic type. For archaeological data, you must use Bagatti, Kopp, Viaud, AND recent scholarly studies, that is, those with footnotes, illustrations, and the accepted scholarly apparatus. This excludes newpapers and guidebooks.

Renejs

User:Laucheehung

Hello JayJugs I'd like to know why open proxies are not allowed, I constantly want to edit articles while I'm at school but wikipedia won't let me because it says my IP address is blocked, so I have to wait till I return home to edit articles...and usually by then, I'm playing Half Life or doing something else. Thanks very much jug

Question

Hi again. I wondered if you were aware of User:Dppowell/PPP? You are mentioned on the discussion page and it has been used as justification for the reversion of seemingly good edits to East Germany national football team. I would like to prevent such instability in articles on my watchlist for obvious reasons; if the user in question is a sock, I would say they need to be blocked. Failing that the articles in question could be protected I suppose. What do you think? --Guinnog 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocking issue?

Jay, I'm not trying to bug you here or defend a bad user, but isn't your block of Wolfowit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) dubious in regard to WP:BLOCK#When blocking may not be used? Specifically "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute or personal dispute. Instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." I gather the problem appears to be sockpuppetry (determined via CheckUser?) though it doesn't seem to be documented anywhere. If you can confirm this, I'm happy to reblock Wolfowit myself so that any appearance of impropriety can be avoided - there's no point giving the usual trolls something else to obsess about. -- ChrisO 19:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's a BLP issue, and glancing at his contribs it seems to be, any admin may block, "involved" or otherwise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I explained to ChrisO. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The line I cited from WP:BLOCK seems to advise against this - it's quite categorical and gives no "outs" for dealing with BLP violations. I think this would be worth clarifying over on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. -- ChrisO 20:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP: "Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves." Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidently we have a mismatch between WP:BLP and WP:BLOCK. We can resolve this easily enough by adding the line you quoted to follow the line I quoted. Do you think the change I've just made here will suffice? -- ChrisO 20:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. I've reblocked Wolfowit for the remainder of the 48 hour period. There was a notice on Wolfowit's user page about sockpuppetry, so I've issued the block on that basis rather than for BLP (not sure what the issue was there). It would be helpful if you could in future give a reason for blocking a user, otherwise it's not obvious from the log what the problem was. -- ChrisO 20:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It seemed obvious from the contribs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but it should also be obvious from the block log. It shouldn't be necessary to play detective to find out why a user is blocked. It's not a big issue, but it does make it easier for the rest of us if there's some documentation to accompany a block. -- ChrisO 20:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Panairjdde sockpuppets ... Again

Can you check User:Kiff2, User:Kiff3, User:Kiff4, User:Bert Patenaude and User:Tozzi Fan? Kingjeff 23:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at User:Wervolnogs. It seems to be him as he removed several sockpuppets reports from some of his past accounts.[43]. Thanks in advance. --Angelo 00:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 04:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

World Council of Churches

is this exterme:

The church has been criticized for its focus on anti-Israel activities while not giving other world-wide humanitarian crisis such strong emphasis as it gives to Israel.

Zeq 18:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Query about OR

As you're one of the best editors I know at spotting OR, would you mind taking a look at Factory farming, where I'm being accused of it by WAS 4.250?

There is a dispute about whether the terms "intensive farming," "intensive agriculture," "industrial farming," "industrial agriculture," and "factory farming" refer to the same phenomenon or practice, or to different ones. The reason we're exploring this is to find out how many articles we ought to have on this practice (or these practices), and what those articles should be called.

I have gathered together some mainstream sources showing that the terms are used synonymously (with factory farming referring to the same intensive farming practises, but reserved for animals). See Examples of articles in which reliable sources use the terms "intensive," "industrial," "factory," and "modern" in the SAME way).

On the basis of that research, I've suggested we have two articles: Intensive arable farming, and Intensive livestock farming, with the other terms added as "also known as" in the leads.

WAS is saying that this is "original research." He won't say clearly what he means, but I believe he wants us to use a dictionary definition, instead of looking to see how mainstream sources use the terms. Trying to find out how the term is actually used is OR, in his view.

If you have any time, would you mind leaving your opinion in this section? I've also left a note for Slrubenstein, as he once had a problem with someone trying to define "capitalism" using a dictionary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Verifibility not relevance

Hi Jayjg,

I see a number of articles (mostly politically motivated) which rely on quotes from a wide range of unrelated individuals. Maybe you can point me to some WP essays or guidelines which adress this. I need to know: if an individual has their statements published in a reliable source, are those statements immediately acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia, even if that individual may not be qualified to speak on the topic?

Thanks and best regards --Uncle Bungle 14:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at these "Apartheid" articles. Take Islamic Apartheid, with it's quotes from Phyllis Chesler. What qualifications does a psychotheripist have to compare anything to Apartheid? In Allegeations of Israeli Apartheid, there are quotes from Ian Buruma or Amira Hass and I have no idea what their qualifications are for speaking on the matter. There are examples of this in new anti-Semitism, and anti-Zionism as well. I need to have an idea of at what point I can say "Yes, they're educated and published, but in this instance they have no idea what they're talking about".

A similar problem exists with published editorials which don't provide dates or examples and could be little more than the authors errant recollections.

The other side of the argument is that in order to be published, some sort of fact checking had to be done so I should take any published words at face value. That, however, I do not accept.

Thanks your your help, it is really appricated.

--Uncle Bungle 19:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila : a genocide

Hi,
After the "alleged" were removed, I added a pov flag but this were removed.
I know bring more "material" to describe this.
Could you help this material is introduced in the article or pov flag is put back ?
Thank you. -> It is here.
Alithien 16:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

On your inquiries

On multiple IP addresses: All of my cpu time takes place in my school library. I will edit from a range of different cpus and will often not bother/forget to log in. I'm not trying to be "sneaky" or make it look like multiple people share my viewpoints. Most of the edits I made- as you can see- were the placement of NPOV tags. I believe they were placed correctly, seeing how there is a substantial neutrality disbute. Why these keep being deleted is beyond me. Perhaps it would hold more weight if I placed these while logged in under my username.

On being a member of Rogue Admin: I was not under the impression that "Rogue Admin" was strictly an administrators only club. I found the userbox to be aesthetically pleasing- skull and cross-bones against red, it doesn't get much more badass than that. To claim that it's for Wikipedia admins only seems to go against what the club stands for, sort of like the oxymoron "anarchists club." I think it's pretty obvious to most users that I'm not an admin and was never trying to "masquerade" as one.

I've always seen this edit war as a neutral battle between those who seek a literal definition of HD and those who seek to define it as a philosophy that incorporates certain beliefs. Please don't see it as a battle against Antisemites and Holocaust Deniers, because, speaking for myself, that is certainly not the case. Meilander 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to your edits on my talk page

This is in response to your comments on my talk page. It would be very hyporcritical of you to delete my comments on your talk page (like you've done in the past), while making comments on my talk page.

Can you start working reasonably with me? I would really appreciate that. Regarding your edits on Islam and antisemitism, you have not explained even 10% of your reversions. You always pick some little error in some of my edits, and then revert all my edits.

Recently, you started reverting my edits because you said they moved/removed Schweitzer and Perry. Yet now you yourself are removing Shcweitzer and Perry.[44] In addition to that your edit summary in your last edit was very vague ("done for now"). Add that to the fact that you make even more vague comments on the talk page.

I would really appreciate it if you started working reasonably, and stopped justifying large-scale reverts with meaningless comments/edit summaries.Bless sins 03:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hardblocking of Armedblowfish's IP

Hi Jayjg. As I understand it you are the blocking admin for this IP. In light of these comments: [45], [46], would you be willing to consider changing that block from a hardblock to a softblock (with account creation disabled)? WjBscribe 08:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me with the english ?

[47] TNX. Zeq 17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

btw, does this makes any sense to you: [48] - it means that Jordan did not allow Arabs (Chrstians and Muslims) into the holy sites. Is that so ? I don't think so.

In Jordan there are specific rules against jews: for example anyone who sell land to jews is subject to death penalty. Zeq 17:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

NAS

Hi Jayjg, could I get your response on NAS? I'd like to think after so much time that we're ready to give it another shot with the page open. Thanks, Mackan79 17:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ritual washing in Judaism

Hi Jayjg. I'm going to need to totally rewrite this article. The article is on the beliefs and practices of Judaism (in its various denominations), and while the views of academic scholars etc. have a place in the article, either the article needs to focus on its subject or it needs to be renamed. Peake's commentary on the Bible, for example, is not a reliable source for the views of any branch of Judaism, and the Jewish Encyclopedia is often not reliable for the views even of Reform Judaism, since it's based on the largely outdated classical reform approach. Reform Judaism no longer considers ritual washing a "taboo" etc. etc. in the manner it did when the Jewish Encyclopedia was written; this way of thinking isn't part of any contemporary branch of Judaism (except possibly for Humanistic Judaism, although the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia is obviously not reliable for its views.) Views from outside of Judaism add appropriate counterpoints to the subject of ritual washing in Judaism and are appropriate article content; however, they shouldn't occupy the introduction and main sections. An example of a well-structured article is Eucharist (Catholic Church), which begins with views within Catholicism and then brings in external views. That article focuses on church teachings first, stating them straightforwardly as religious beliefs without endorsing or criticizing them. "Historical development" (from various points of view) comes next, and this section is appropriate for viewpoints criticizing the Catholic teaching that the Eucharist was instituted by Jesus etc. I believe WP:NPOV requires an approach like this for articles on religious beliefs generally, and Judaism articles as well. Otherwise Wikipedia is stating an editorial opinion on the religion's beliefs about its rituals' origins, purposes, etc. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Panairjdde again

Can you check User:Snoimaert. Kingjeff 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)