User talk:Jayjg/Archive 23

Ritual washing in Judaism

Thanks! Today wasn't my best day. After all that talk, I'll need to put off working on the article, maybe until the weekend. Thanks again. --Shirahadasha 00:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

East Jerusalem synagogues

Hello Jayjg. Since two or three small synagogues in the Jewish quarter were not destroyed, do you mind if I change it back, or will you revert again? nadav (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you absolutely sure about this? It is possible, for example, that they were used for other purposes, then restored to synagogues? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well I know for a fact that the Ohr haChaim synagogue was still functioning up until the war. It was closed and then reopened in '67. This info is on the Israeli government websites [1] and [2]. The Ari synagogue I think was used only until the riots in '36. I have no info about the third Jewish quarter synagogue on the list. nadav (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Panairjidde Sock

You forgot to block User:Snoimaert Kingjeff 02:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

New sock, User:SmoothExit. In case you haven't been keeping up with his case, we had a formal revocation of his editing priveleges on WP... --Palffy 12:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind banning the new sock please? Continued editting back and forth on the Guus Hiddink page. --Palffy 23:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI

[3] - too exterme ? Zeq 15:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Martin Kramer

On antisemitism [4]. Might be of interest (the "What Are the Origins of Islamic Antisemitism?" section) . --Aminz 02:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

vexatious sockpuppet case

Someone neglected to inform you of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jayjg. I've closed it, but in case you hadn't seen it, I'm letting you know. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Zionism

What's your feeling on how we should proceed with the quote from Weizmann? BYT 19:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

...for helping undo Toussaint's mess :)--cj | talk 02:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Uggh. I should well be, but there's just no better distraction than Wikipedia.--cj | talk 02:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address

I'm curious about this reversion. What was wrong? -- Fyslee/talk 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. -- Fyslee/talk 22:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Original research?

Please explain your recent excision of material on David Frum?

I didn't know you were 46th by number of edits, or that you had been an administrator for three years when I left this note. I only have 15,000 edits, have been contributing to the wikipedia for 2 2/3 years, and am not an administrator. But it has been my experience that when a wikipedian goes and reverts something, without really explaining themselves, edit warring often ensues.

Maybe you think there is something "obvious" that I am missing, and you have no obligation to explain? I started a little essay on User:Geo Swan/opinions/Nothing is really "obvious" -- a parable. Feel free to read it. It is not meant to be patronizing, although someone told me it felt that way. It is really a plea for my correspondents to explain themselves more fully, because what is "obvious" is really highly POV, and vulnerable to systemic bias.

Cheers! Geo Swan 23:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

2006 Lebanon War mediation

Hi, I have opened a medation request for renaming the 2006 Lebanon War article to 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War. While it was originally planned to only included the two significant parties, other participants may join. Cheers. --Shamir1 23:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please take a look at this mediation. i recently added some comments, regarding some way to continue it, (IF people want to). thanks. --Sm8900 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Zionism

So -- can I ask your opinion on the work Slim has done re: the Weizmann quote? BYT 09:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we have a dialoge about this? What's your view on how we should proceed? BYT 15:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia, 1961

Dear Jay, I know you for an expert on the Holocaust issues. Although reliable sources are scarce, a wikipedian demands each sentence in the above article to be sourced.[5] [6] Could you refer me to some English-language literature on the subject of those trials? Thanks in advance, Ghirla^-трёп- 13:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I was able to find some sources, although they may not be the best. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA :)

Thank you, JayJG, for commenting on my RfA, which closed successfully with a tally of 76/0/1! I hope I will meet your expectations, and be sure I will continue trying to be a good editor as well as a good administrator :) If I may be of any assistance to you in the future (or if you see me commit some grievous error :), please drop me a line on my Talk page. Again, thank you, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins and 3RR

User:Bless sins has completed his 4th revert. Shall you fill out the paperwork or should I. (I have no experience in 3RR reporting). Prester John 21:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No need. I self-reverted to you.[7]Bless sins 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Arabs and antisemitism

Hello Jayjg,

It's nice to see that we've avoided conflict on Arabs and antisemitism. Perhaps we should come to a compromise on Islam and antisemitism as well?Bless sins 21:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hafrada (Separation)

The article is all wrong. Please see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,221415,00.html

Barak who coined the word sepration used it in the context of "We are at one of the most important junctions for the future of the country, and its citizens," he told MPs. "The big picture is clear. They are there, and we are here. There must be a division between us. But we have maintained the unity of Israel, and Jerusalem is our capital. "

Read the article and the clashes that erupted after barak transfered more territory to the hands of the PA. No not the settlers were against it but the Palestinians in Jerusalem areas of Abu Dis and Aazriye who prefered to remain part of Israeli jerusalem instead of being part of the PA. .... Zeq 05:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

PS the word הפרדה ןמ in Hebrew (look it up in Even Shushan - the source for Hebrew words) is not at all "sepration" but:

1. הרחקת דבר מדבר אחר 2. פירוק לחומרים מהם מורכב חומר

Or in english: To make two items far apart OR to dismentle matter to it's componenets.

clearly the word is used in Israel in the context of תכנית ההפרדה where ex PM Barak wanted to create the foundation for two independent states seprated by a border. IMHO people like Alper are strong exterm advocate and should be used as source for Hebrew words. Zeq 05:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian people

I have an aversion to revert battles, but I just don't know what else to do about the reinsertion of this Finn, Frazer, and Shahin material that keeps getting added. It looked like there was consensus previously, but now the attempt to portray Palestinians as direct descendants of the Canaanites has renewed with a greater vigor (is that an expression in English?). Almaqdisi is unwilling to accept that these sources cannot be taken as representative of current scholarly opinion. I'll defer to your judgment on how to handle this. nadav (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul Wolfowitz

I fail to see why you removed "American Jew" from the categories on the Paul Wolfowitz article. There are many individuals with Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers who are listed as American Jews. In an ethnic sense, he is half Jewish. I mean, the article even states within it that "even though he is Jewish". It seems that the article is contradicting itself. He is Jewish, and I would like you to provide a satisfactory explanation before I contact and bring in major wikipedia editors.

I read the entire talk page and fail to see why "American Jew" is being removed as a category. I agree with you that he has never publicly acknowledged that he is a member of the Jewish faith. However, he is half Jewish, and typically, wikipedians acknowledge this as being an "American Jew". An "American Jew" can be one who practices Judaism or one of Jewish heritage. There is a significant amount of evidence supporting the fact that he is an ethnic Jew. Consequently, it seems odd that one would deny a fact which is repeated throughout the article. --CommonSense101 00:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to all this so stay with me here ha...Well, the American Jew category does not only apply to religious Jews. We have clear evidence that he has Jewish heritage even though he does not neccesarily practice the religion. Most would recognize that as being an American Jew - though I do recognize that Jewish law would suggest that it only applies if the mother is Jewish. Nevertheless, there are enough supporting facts to confirm that he is half Jewish. Many high profile celebrities are listed as American Jews despite the fact that they're half Jewish (including one's with a Jewish father). Are all of these individuals falsely categorized? Please let me know --CommonSense101 01:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hi there; User:128.197.11.30, whom you blocked for two years as an editor working through a Tor proxy mode (unarguably blockable, no conflict there) has announced on WP:UNBLOCK that his situation has changed. I have obviously done no more than to tell him that I would draw your attention to his request, which I have now done. Whether I accept his statement I make no comment on.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 09:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Situation has not changed, that IP address is still listed as a tor exit node. --Yamla 14:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hello. I've requested arbitration on the disagreement over the MEMRI page which includes you as an interested party. Currently at Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration. Thanks, Jgui 15:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Swiftboating

That's exactly what I'm doing. - Crockspot 17:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Understanding how scientific findings are reported

Jaypg, thanks for your willingness to work with me on this. I think your latest rewording represents the best version yet! 201.220.15.66 20:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Alan

Possibly Panaijdde

Can we check User:Opalfrost out? Kingjeff 20:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ernest Renan is reputed as a great writer

Ernest Renan is reputed as a great writer

"Discredited maverick" is a odious peyorarive term. No any academic or critician from Said uses this phrase. It`s original from wikipedian author from this section and because it is a partialized point of view.

TOR

What's a TOR proxy? An RfA I was reading got me to wondering. I got the general idea but don't know what TOR stands for. Doczilla 07:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

see * m:Editing with Tor --BozMo talk 10:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

George Soros

Do you have an opinion on the section recently added to this article pertaining to charges by Bill O'Reilly? I find it disturbing that we are repeating a denied allegation that has not been verified by a third party reliable source.--Samiharris 14:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your good thoughts and editing in George Soros. Quick point of clarification. In the talk page I cited this portion of BLP:

"Biased or malicious content"

"Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."

An editor responded that the "pushing an agenda" refers to editors, not the sources. I wonder if that is so, and, even if not, whether there is still a requirement for reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability, when biased or malicious content is concerned? Thanks in advance.--Samiharris 15:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you considered not reverting edits that I and other editors have put alot of work into. If you feel that the edit is in conflict with WP:BLP you might consider changing it to coincide with your interpretation of that policy rather than reverting it entirely. A suggestion was made to have change it to state the particular effect that Soros has on right-wingers. You might consider amending my edits to something of that nature, rather than reverting entirely. Also, you might consider posting on the Biographies of Living Person's Noticeboard as well since you have a problem with my edits. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 18:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Concerning [8]: While I find your response humorous, it is neither productive nor civil, especially considering the Quibbler appears to be a new user. While at this point these warnings usually say 'please review WP:CIVIL', I know that you are already well aware of WP:CIVIL so I'm wondering why you weren't civil. The Behnam 15:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It was intended as a humorous response; no doubt that's why you found it humorous. It's rather disappointing when (obviously successful) attempts at levity are met with accusations of incivility. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Jayjg, even I found it funny. Bladestorm 15:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just be careful; you can't be too sure how the new user will receive it, especially it he doesn't consider his arguments 'quibbles.' But yeah, it was funny. The Behnam 15:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding one of these: would remove all doubt. . -- Avi 16:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

persecution in muslim lands

you said:If the allegations about 'muslim persecution' were correct these prominent Christian Palestinians would have made public statements to this effect. I have also posted a link above that expresses the majority view from a Palestinian perspective. So I would like to have this article changed ASAP. The fa"

the persecution is for real, palestinians who are christians only in a nominal fashion never denounces nothing made by muslims, because them are leaders from their political groups.

Please edit only articles where you are an expert on the issue discussed there.

List of editors using Tor

As you are aware of and have revealed the name of at least one editor using Tor and as editing using proxies is against policy, where can one see the complete list of all editors who are using Tor proxies? Uncle uncle uncle 23:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jay, seeing your comment here, can I ask whether your policy is to only ask with admin candidates then? It would seem the same reasoning would apply to current admins as well, in which case we should want a policy of testing all admins for open proxies. As I said on the RfA talk page, I don't know if that's a good policy or not, but it would seem the only way of enforcing this consistently. Mackan79 00:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was an interesting topic, so I entered a discussion here: [9] Uncle uncle uncle 00:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Jay, your actions show a clear abuse of M:CheckUser policy and M:Privacy policy

Your revealing to the public of a portion of CharlotteWebb's checkuser information is a blatant abuse of power. I'm probably wading into deep shit as a small editor taking on a member of Wikipedia's "upper class", but you seem to hold policy as gospel and abuse the intent of Checkuser and our Tor policy. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 02:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I support your comment.  CheckUser is not for fishing --Random832 03:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you guys know exactly was behind this? Kingjeff 03:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and we know that it's inappropriate and against one of our strictest policies to release the results of a Checkuser to the public. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 14:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

But in some cases, like the case I mentioned to you, it's a reasonable violation to release this information. Kingjeff 15:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What was served here? You violated a policy to blindly comply with an essay. Checkuser is not to be used for political purposes, as Jay did by bringing this up on an RfA. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 15:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy states: "It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations ... policy does not permit public distribution of such information under any circumstances, except as described above." Just how exactly was this policy violated, I saw no personally identifiable data given out. Dureo 03:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Vrba book

Do you happen to remember the name of the Vrba biography I wanted to use for his article? I've tried to find it on Amazon but I can't seem to track it down. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of going through that to tighten the writing, by the way; feel free to revert if you don't like it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's okay. Found it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this a violation of WP:point ?

[10] Zeq 12:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI

[11],[12] Zeq 12:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Soros

That is not a blp violation. Take it up on the blp noticeboard if you disagree. As a regular patroller and commenter there, I will make my case briefly, then recuse myself from the further noticeboard discussion. - Crockspot 15:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that after I reflected on why you may have come to the conclusion that "stern actions" should be taken on the Soros page. I know that you are trying your best to protect Wikipedia and that's the only reason that you threatened the actions you did. Nobody wants a BLP violation for Wikipedia, of course.

And I would also state to you that one editor who was very opposed to the inclusion of the material is now "on the fence".

However, there are three remaining editors who are opposed to any inclusion of any material by O'Reilly. I can produce strong evidence that these editors have either a political bias and/or a personal hatred of O'Reilly that is causing a whitewash of the inclusion. Based on certain comments, I do not believe that THEY even think it is a BLP violation.

Anyways, I just wanted to let you know this because I was reflecting on your motives for threatening stern actions, and I thought it might give you a different perspective of the whole situation. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

re:persecution in muslim world

As a human rights activist, I tell you it`s no my intention to be hostile or agressive toward you, I`m sorry if you get offended by my comments on this sensitive issue. I was talking on your edits deleting sections on muslim persecution against christians in palestine`s articles. Remember many muslims denounces it as people in: www.rb.org.il www.arabsforisrael.com and 200 muslim palestinians just recently denouncing terrorist attack by Hamas against Bible Society.

Regarding the above user (Tioeliecer (talk · contribs)), you may want to see Guillen (talk · contribs) and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Guillen for more information. The short version of it is that he came here around a year ago, doesn't speak English very well at all (I always suspected he was contributing through Google translation), and, due to language issues, incorrectly perceived everything he read as being a pro-Catholic/anti-Protestatnt bias. (I am a very conservative Southern Baptist, but somehow, I was a part of this conspiracy.) AmiDaniel and I tried to work with him, but eventually, it got to be too much. Since then, a sporadic sock has appeared. I don't really care one way or the other if he is blocked or not, but if he isn't, his edits need to be closely examined because a lot of them in the past have just been incoherent. --BigDT 13:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd rumours

Hi Jayjg, could you just confirm for me that this is the first time we have ever spoken or indeed comminicated in any way at all. In fact this is the first time our paths have ever crossed. If we have met before I cetainly don't remember it - do you? There is an odd rumour doing the rounds that I am involving you in my nefarious plotting or vice versa. Funny place Wikipedia isn't it? Giano 22:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Giano, I do believe that Jayjg was one of the arbitrators in your case last year. Newyorkbrad 00:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

So why is it being claimed on IRC that I re-wrote the IRC page yesterday to draw attention away from whatever it is he is supposed to be doing? Giano 08:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what is being claimed on IRC, but I have seen this theory on an external blog, and I find it remarkably unlikely and unsupported. Newyorkbrad 11:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

who cares Brad, if it is said on IRCadmins it must be good and wise and 100% true. None of us would certainly be allowed to deny it. Why don't you go and uprotect the page for 10 seconds and go and add Ms Martin's latest pearls of wisdom, then protect it again quickly After all these are the heroes of the encyclopedia who boast of sharing a beer with Jimbo - wow! Licky Jimbp! If you think it is not true (heaven forbid) then go and do something about it. Giano 12:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just in case anyone is wondering what the latest venom being cooked up on IRC is - here it is [13] straight from the lips of Ms Martin herself. As always completely groundless lies and proving as ever I am completely correct in my suspicion of what goes on there. Poor old Jayjg looks like the reptile pit is about to turn on him next. No doubt even as I post this "He who must be obeyed" is sounding the trumpet calling the drones away from their chatter to comment and pronounce further rubbish against me. When are people going to see what is going on there and do something about it? Giano 12:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing new here. In case you don't know, there is a huge thread in the mailing list entitled "Jayjg: Abusing CheckUser for political ends?" It's too boring to read but, if you really care, I may forward it to you. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ghirla I would love that. Giano 13:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a half dozen conspiracy theories swirling about this incident, each one more bizarre than the last. Karl Marx said that history occurs twice, "the first time as tragedy, the second as farce." I think we're into the farce stage on this one. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal re Nazarene sect

Since you have taken on the thankless job of keeping the riff-raff off the Nazarene page in the past, I wanted to ask your opinion. How would you feel about restricting the article to the historical Nazarene sect and pushing it to GAC? Would you support adding it to WikiProject Judaism and getting some people to help in the effort? Ovadyah 03:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you have plenty of other things to do, so I'm going to post this proposal on the article talk page for comments. Add your comments there if you have an opinion one way or the other. Ovadyah 01:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

See my reply on my talk page. Thanks! Ovadyah 03:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

CheckUser information

Jay? I count you as a friend on Wikipedia, but mate: what on earth are you doing?!? Why are you revealing an editor is using TOR? Surely this is private information you should be sharing with the Bureaucrats only so they can take it into account? You're in a position of trust here: please don't do this! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I've made a bit of an idiot out of myself here, and potentially offended a long-standing friend on Wikipedia. It's been pointed out to me by a few people that it didn't reveal much info about the editor, and that it was a reasonable question. I always get very wary about privacy (if you remember, back when I first started I was targetted by Neo-Nazis), so I apologise if I've given you any grief over this one. Sorry Jay :-( - Ta bu shi da yu 08:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me butting in - but is this the terrible crime for which Kelly Martin and the IRClics are claiming I have created a smoke-screan for, by set WP ANI on fire. Because if it is it is very dissapointing I was hoping for something rather more exiting and interesting than a non-event. Giano 07:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for the heads up. Crum375 07:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

any advice?

Jayjg, since you are a veteran in Israel related articles, I decided to come here asking for a piece of advice. If you know a better place to ask, please point me there.

Years ago, an Israeli psychiatrist named Zvi Rex made the cunning observation that "The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz," roughly meaning that "if only there was no Auschwitz then Germans could vent their anti-Semitism much more freely" or that "Germans (and all of Europe that let it happen) do not want to live under the burden of the Holocaust forever". There is a de.wikiquote entry, as well as an abundance of both English ([14], [15], [16], [17]) and German language ([18], [19]) sources for the impact the quote has had on German popular discourse.

My question then is, where would I include this? I'm hesitating to start a new article, as it hardly seems to be a sufficient sole subject. —AldeBaer 15:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought perhaps New antisemitism or Holocaust denial. Some of the sources are putting the quote into that context, as it is a comment on related tendencies in the public domain. —AldeBaer 15:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've created a page on wikiquote. Googling some more, I found the quote first appeared in a book by German journalist Henryk Broder with the comparably clever title "Der Ewige Antisemit" [20]. It is being loosely associated with so-called "secondary antisemitism" [21], [22], a concept attributed to Theodor W. Adorno and others, often explained as antisemitism not despite of but because of Auschwitz. Maybe that would be worth incorporating. Going to look for some sources and post it at Talk:New_antisemitism. —AldeBaer 21:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The above still applies though, I'm just going to post it to Antisemitism talk instead and see what people think of it before making any changes. Thanks for the guidance. —AldeBaer 02:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Protecting Operation Entebbe

How do you decide which version of the article will be locked? The proponents of the version you have locked it to have not engaged in discussion for quite a while. This is because they are satisfied with the version it is locked to. --Agha Nader 18:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[23] Notification of request for arbitration

I have initiated a request for arbitration here. Your input is appreciated. Kamryn Matika 19:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

muslim persecution

I was saying this discussion on talk page: You appear to misunderstand me. I support you, but you need to includes the weblinks I mentioned you.

Palestine - bias

the article about Palestine gives historic from 10,000 BC while the article about israel starts at around 1948.

this is biased and non NPOV.

there should be a combine article for history from 10,000 BCE until....maybe 20th century.

after all at 10,000 BC the place was not called "palestine" more than it was called "israel" Zeq 13:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Soros

Well, Goethean appears to be taking advantage of my hesitance to edit the article (because of your warning to me, and is inserting what I see as a personal attack into his edit summary. I believe he may be trying to bait me into getting myself blocked, or at least is violating WP:POINT after feigning consensus. I feel that you've tied my hands here. - Crockspot 18:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

delete user's page

Hi Jayjg,
Can admin delete user's page ?
Would it be possible I request one of mine to be deleted ?
Thank you ! Alithien 18:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for revert on Anti-Zionism

Hi Jayjg, Thanks for doing the revert to Sefringle's edit. When we disagreed we talked on the article discussion page and reached a compromise that we both can live with. He (?) has refused to discuss his issues on the page. And I just felt that his slapping of the edit war warning on my page was gloating considering he has done as many reverts as me.--Peter cohen 11:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your input would be helpful

As you have contributed to the page for Category:Antisemitism, would you please look at Talk:Jerry Klein’s 2006 Radio Experiment. I have been debating another editor on whether its mention of the Holocaust renders it worthy of inclusion in the Category:Antisemitism. Your comments would be appreciated, either it does not qualify as I suggest or I have misunderstand the category. Either way your opinion would be helpful.--Wowaconia 18:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"God" article

My edits were the result of the discussion on the talk page, which established that the article needed to be written from a more NPOV and that an agnostic tone needed to be adopted. Your edits remove the NPOV and present only the theist view. Please don't edit-war over this. Please raise your concerns on the talk page first, especially for such a major edit on such a major and controversial article. Roccondil 23:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There are more sources in my edit, it is supported on the talk page (I think it's section 17 if you're looking for it), and I would argue mine's better written, so let's leave aside which is better written. DO NOT EDIT WAR. Roccondil 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a petty "you started it", but you'll see if you actually decide to read it that my relatively minor revision was backed by the discussion. Your near-complete rewrite was not. I'm going to leave it for a while, but you've been reverted I notice by two separate editors. You probably will be again, and if you re-revert back to your own personal, biased, poorly-sourced version (don't argue about your sources being better than mine, you didn't introduce any additional sources, you only removed some of mine) again I'll report you.

There was opposition to the original Template:In-universe suggestion, not to the compromise. And I'd report you to your fellow admins for violating WP:NPOV and WP:3RR. Just cos you're an admin yourself doesn't make you immune to such things, so please get that smug grin off your face. Or would you rather just go ahead and redirect the page we're arguing about to your own userpage?

PCRF Militant Islam Monitor References

Please stop perpetuating yoru external links section inclusion of the two militant Islam monitor weblog links. WP:EL policy clearly dictates that blog links are to be avoided; the MLM blogs with very strong biases and prejudices clearly fall under this category. Please do not revert to include these links. Thanks.

It's not a blog. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Check the header to your links, they say weblog--> blog. Thanks.

One of the articles is a blog entry, as such does not deserve inclusion as per WP:EL guidelines, its not a link to a blog as you claim. Thanks.

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/221; this is in the subgroup of blogs. Thanks.

THe other MIM article you have linked to is of extremely poor quality, numerous facts are stated without references:

The PCRF is also funded by the UAE based Zayed Foundation For Coordination and Followup, (which also funds "Medicins sans Frontieres".) In 2003 the Zayed Foundation website was demanded closed down by the US governement because it promoted Holocaust denial, blood libel, and that 9/11 was a hoax.

In 2002 PCRF director Steve Sosebee spoke at the Zayed Foundation and blamed "Zionist manipulation " for Arab problems.

In addition the PCRF receives funding from the Saudis and Prince Bandar. He has made no secret of his virulent hatred for Jews and Israel, and says he sees his work as a "means of aiding the struggle".

The PCRF is a wing of the Zayed Foundation and uses the guise of medical assistance to encourage combatants in the intifada . There are many other unsourced statements throughout the article, which severely diminish its quality. Further, it is poorly organized, and its thoughts disoriented, which makes it very hard to follow and read. Therefore not only in its poor quality but also under WP:EL guidelines dictating not to link to sites with unverifiable research, which this article clearly contains. Thanks.

I am sorry, I was unaware that I was in violation of the 3RR rule. I did not mean to violate the rules. However, I would also caution that you seem to also be in violation of the 3RR, and the only reason I went directly to the page is given the unilateral actions I saw being taken on the page in the first place, with little or no response to criticism raised in the talk section. Thanks.

which edit are you talking about?

Harassing sockpuppet disrupting Soros page

Hi, Jayig. I saw you had issued a warning on the Soros page, so I thought you'd be the best one to contact about this.

It seems either Crockspot or Bellowed has created a sockpuppet account[24] to attempt to get around 3RR on the Soros page. "Willie Peter" has been created today solely to revert edits on that page, in the same combative tone and manner that Crockspot and Bellowed have done ad nauseam. There's also some pretty entertaining "Hey, welcome to Wikipedia, and don't let anyone accuse you of being my sockpuppet, wink wink" stuff on "Willie Peter's" freshly created Talk page. It's self-discrediting.

Crockspot and Bellowed are also attempting to "engineer consensus" on the Bill Moyers page.[25] It seems both these users wish to insert POV directly from the Bill O'Reilly show into at least two Wikipedia articles.

Additionally, the new sockpuppet seems intent in removing the sockpuppet warnings from his Talk[26] and User [27] pages, while screaming "harassment." Kind of curious from a user whose account is less than 24 hours old.

Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Eleemosynary 01:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please tell this editor Eleemosynary to behave, assume good faith and stop harassing me.Willie Peter 01:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks

By all means, check his edit history. Eleemosynary 01:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for locking the Soros page. Do you have any advice on how to stop "Willie Peter" [28] from removing the sockpuppet evidence from his User and Talk pages? Eleemosynary 01:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I don't object to a checkuser being run on me, and when it is, I expect an apology from you. Your behavior is uncalled for. - Crockspot 02:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this guy's out of control behavior Eleemosynary . Run the checkuser on me and I fully expect a full; good faith apology from this editor, for his harassment and bad behavior.Willie Peter 02:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so it's a meatpuppet. Thanks for clarifying, guys. Eleemosynary 03:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I expect an apology here as well Eleemosynary. You are jumping to many conclusions well before there is any evidence. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• It should be pointed out that Eleemosynary was blocked last night for a continuing and disruptive violation of 3RR. - Crockspot 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Willie Peter. There's also a pending checkuser.--Chaser - T 20:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

God intro

Please discuss changes to the intro on the Talk page before applying them in the article. Thanks. --Serge 04:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, the source in question defines what he means by "supreme reality" where he uses it. Taking that term out of context, however, and defining the topic of an article in terms of it, makes no sense. It's meaningless. "Supreme" implies a hierarchy of (at least two) realities, hardly an NPOV concept. Besides, just because someone wrote something somewhere doesn't alone make it a basis for an intro sentence to an article. That's just one POV. --Serge 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations of POV

Jayjg, I resent your repeated violations of WP:AGF aimed in my direction. Specifically here, here, here, and here. (I realize that I have unfortunately reflected one of your comments here). "When you disagree with people, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project." I have been working towards neutrality (among other improvements) on several pages, most recently on the Hamas page. It is unpleasant and even intimidating to have an administrator tell me that I am doing things for POV reasons when I am in fact doing the exact opposite. It is also ironic, considering that your edits, which dwarf mine in number, appear to me to be almost uniformly in one particular political direction. I'm sure you believe that you are helping the project, but if so, then please do not publicly, and incorrectly, guess as to my motives for making an edit. Because administrators need to "gain the trust of the community" and can "protect and delete pages, block other editors, and undo these actions as well," I think it's particularly important that you can accept the actions of editors with different perspectives than your own. If not, I suggest that you step down as an administrator and work solely as an editor. Thank you. Organ123 18:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg replied: "Organ123, you managed to write a history of Hamas that didn't even mention suicide bombing. I think that pretty much says it all." Jayjg, I am disappointed in your reply, which continues to disregard AGF and even WP:Civility. Please note that the Hamas page already had an entire section called "Suicide attacks" and already mentioned suicide bombings roughly 20 times. No reader could possibly read the article without being made fully aware that Hamas uses suicide bombings. I am not fundamentally opposed to mentioning suicide bombings in the "History" section -- I was just trying to make the article more concise in a good-faith manner. Administrators especially should please adhere to WP behavioral policies and guidelines. Organ123 19:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Jayjg, I am not siding with this editor, since I am not familiar with this dispute. But while I would never go so far as to suggest that you should give up admin status, I would urge you to consider some of this user's points about bias in an objective way. By the nature of the fact that we are all human beings, we all bring certain biases and points of view to the table. As an editor who has always been open about my political leanings, I have come under constant attack by editors who assume that anyone who would be open about being a conservative must be pushing an agenda. I try very hard to always put the interests of the project ahead of my own views. Where my views and the interests of the project happen to intersect, then that's a bonus, and you might find me pushing a little harder for a change than I would for something that I don't really care much about. There's nothing wrong with that. Other editors, even admins, who lean opposite of me do it as well, and I don't assume a lack of good faith on their part (at least not until they start questioning my good faith). I just chalk it up to people having different views, and I try to convince them to see what I view as an error in their logic or judgment. I know that you and I share common concerns about certain editing practices (related to a certain ARBCOM which I will not name), but I also have a strong sense that you look upon me as someone to be kept watch on. But I would challenge you to find any nefarious patterns in my edit history. I started out a little rough over a year ago, but I quickly learned the ways of Wiki, and I would submit that since about last October, and certainly since the last MONGO RfC, one would be hard-pressed to find much to complain about in my edit history. In the beginning, I used to butt heads with BenBurch all the time. Now we are pretty good friends, and he is just as liberal, and I conservative, as we ever were. We both have learned the value of being reasonable, fair, and working within a guideline structure over just "winning". Now this may sound a little paranoid, but ever since there was some recent open discussion on my talk page about me making a request for admin status, I have been the object of what one could argue is a organized attempt to drag me into the gutter and ruin my reputation in advance of any RfA I might file. (Have you ever seen Jeremiah Johnson, the way the Crow warriors come at him unexpectedly one at a time?). It started with IP users, and "new" accounts, and now seems to be stepping up into established users. But whenever I find myself in a dispute these days, whether I am on the periphery, or more involved, I seem to be singled out of everyone else as the ringleader and evil master who controls the behavior of others. So far, most of these attackers have ended up getting hoisted on their own petard, and suffered a block for their trouble. My block history remains unsullied. That should tell you something about me. I may be a little paranoid, but that doesn't mean that they're not after me. But I remain unafraid, and will keep improving sources, fighting vandals, , rc patrolling, and will soon reinstate myself as a BLP patroller. - Crockspot 20:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg replied to me: "I'm willing to engage in dialog with you, but any further posts of your that assert violations of AGF or Civility, or refer in any way to my role as an administrator, will trigger immediate removal of all our correspondence from my Talk: page." Jayjg, where should I mention these topics if not on your talk page? I'm not saying that rhetorically; I'd really like to know the answer. Your talk page seemed like the most polite place to approach it. Organ123 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg replied to me: you wrote "Hamas rejects 'so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences' as incapable of realizing justice or restoring rights to the oppressed, but that is not what they say at all.". Actually, that quote predates my first edit to the page. When I created the condensed history section and created the History of Hamas page, I recall almost entirely deleting sentences, not writing new ones. I intentionally did not write new sentences to avoid POV accusations like the ones I am receiving. I do not appreciate being told that I have "filtered Hamas's views through the lens of liberal-left activism"; I do not self-identify as a "liberal left activist" and do not like to be pigeonholed by others. On my talk page and on other pages, you continue to falsely assume that I am violating WP:NPOV -- I do not appreciate it and I think you are out of bounds. Also, you are now trying to censor my genuine concerns from your talk page. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do here. Organ123 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll add that I appreciate your new statement that you are sure I mean well. Organ123 21:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Jayjg replied to me: Organ123, there is no need for our dialog to contain these kinds of bad faith accusations etc. There is not point in these kinds of topics, therefore it is best to focus on others. Regarding the sentence in question, you are right, it predates you, and I apologize for attributing it to you." Thank you for the apology about the sentence. I am willing to stop this dialog, for now, as well. It stresses me out.... Organ123 03:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

AFD listings

I don't think that afd would meet with success at this time. I can only think of a few reasons to have it deleted, and most are not even that convincing to myself. The primary reason why I don't think it's a good candidate for AFD just yet is because it's a subdivision of a much bigger list. Maybe in the future, if all Jewish-American lists were nominated for being gross OR or something like that, then maybe it would meet with success. But right now it's going to end in keep, I'm pretty sure. Out of curiousity, why did you want me to nominate it and not nominate it yourself? Bulldog123 20:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Good Lord. Shouldn't the image contained in the {{jew list}} template be gold? Even the template name makes me cringe. I would support deletion of this list if it were to come up. But it might be better to wait for the NYScholar arb to complete. There may be some slight changes to policy as a result that will give more justification to the deletion of something like this. - Crockspot 21:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Diyako checkuser logs

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zanyar (Possible sockpuppets)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyako (Diyako is stale)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/71.222.81.30 (Diyako is still stale so no check was made to compare him)

You are receiving this because your username either appears on the checkuser list or you were one of the arbitrators that participated in the relevant Arbcom case (User:Dmcdevit, User:Jdforrester, User:The Epopt, User:Charles Matthews, User:Sam Korn, User:Fred Bauder, User:Jayjg, User:Morven, User:Neutrality).

Currently User:Diyako/User:Xebat is at a stale state for not editing over a month. User hasn't edited for slightly over a year due to an arbcom sanctioned ban. I have a reason to believe ([29], [30], [31]) there may be a connection as the edit pattern seems similar in many ways. Diyako's wikipedia ban has recently expired but if he is continuing a similar behavior as User:D.Kurdistani, there needs to be a further consideration either by ARBCOM or Community Sanction board (latter seems more appropriate IMHO). A successful checkuser would be very helpful in the decision making process on this issue.

This inquiry is to request if you have "personal logs" of Diyako/Xebat's IP's to compare with User:D.Kurdistani and possible other socks. This is NOT a request for the logs themselves but on weather or not you have them. Please reply on my talk page to confirm if you have the logs or not. User:Mackensen appears to be the only person to have preformed a successful checkuser but others may also have this info.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Jewwatch

I was comparing that article with Jews_for_Jesus (another antisemitic organization imo). Wouldn't it conform with NPOV if we could have all the organizations calling it antisemitic being listed in the first paragraph? To be honest I didn't know there was an edit dispute re: calling it antisemitic, so I'm sorry if I seemed like barging in.--Flamgirlant 16:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

HE

With Tom harrison gone would you take the lead on HE socks? The latest is User:Error1010 and has been harassing Matt57 and myself. This follows edit-warring with proxies that is summarized here. What should we do about this? Arrow740 00:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say rather you two have been harassing me. I don't think it's me that's been following your edits on every article that you go to. Error1010 00:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Rogue Admin

Please see my User talk:68.110.8.21 and User_talk:Akhilleus#WP:POINT.2C_WP:HOAX.2C_WP:PN.2C_WP:BIAS. Wikipedia seriously needs your help Jay. Thanks. 68.110.8.21 03:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I sought out admins I thought would be helpful, which ended up a larger ensemble than expected. Well, I have at least gotten your attention. Please give me your full attention, rather than make threats. If you don't want to help, just say so. 68.110.8.21 03:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

BhaiSaab (talk · contribs)

I believe he is socking again, this time masquerading as an Hkelkar sock. Gr8India (talk · contribs) was blocked by DaGizza (talk · contribs) as an Hkelkar sock. However the checkuser has not proved anything and DaGizza is obviously acting out of spite in relation to the arbcom we are involved in. Please see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of BhaiSaab for more of BhaiSaab's accounts.Bakaman 17:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User Page questions: How do you get table of contents and picture?

Hey man. I like your user page. I have two questions:

• How do you get that Table of Contents Box to appear?
• How do I upload a picture, so that I can use it on my user page as you do?

Reverted links Re: "best known for suicide bombings"

Before you reverted the links i deleted you should have checked them as i made clear in my comment that they were not relevant. To save you some time here is a breakdown on why for each:

• "Hamas makes inroads; peace route gets rockier" . Article does not mention suicide bombings at all.
• "Best known for the violence it launched against Israel through suicide bombings and rocket attacks... “ Dead link
• "To the outside world, Hamas is best-known — infamous — for its reliance on suicide bombers.” This one is OK and I left it.
• "Defined as a terrorist organization by Israel, the U.S. and the European Union because of its suicide attacks on Israeli civilians..." This sentence does not equate to “best known for”. The article goes on to say “The organization is best known for the exploits of its military wing, the Izzedine Al Qassam brigades.”
• "Hamas is best known abroad for the scores of suicide bombings it has carried out and its commitment to the destruction of Israel." Dead link
• "...the militant organization, best known abroad for its attacks against Israeli civilians" Article does not mention suicide bombings at all.
• "Although Hamas is best known for its suicide attacks..." Article is not a news item but opinion and does not say best known by whom.
• "...it was best known in Israel and abroad for the suicide attacks it used..." If we add the first part of the sentence that was edited out: “Until it participated in this election” the meaning becomes Hamas is no longer “best known” for this.
  The page already has a whole section on suicide bombings with masses of links and the claim in the lead still has a good link for reference so to have so many other inappropriate ones is not necessary. In fact the TIME magazine articles description of the suicide bombings is much more appropriate in a lead than what is there now. Wayne 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth would a dead link make a difference? It's still properly cited material from the source. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the first link, I didn't insert it, and didn't check it, so I've left it out now too. Regarding "attacks", the wording has been changed to accommodate that. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How can now dead links be acceptable as a reference just because they "once" existed? The whole idea of references is for readers of the WP articles to read original sources for themselves. Leaving dead links in leaves an opening for abuse.
Another concern i have is that many of the references have sentences where the name of the article usually is for other pages. It makes the page look very messy and unprofessional. Does the layout of refs in WP have rules or not? Is it just a mistake no one has noticed yet? Wayne 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

For example:

• "To the outside world, Hamas is best-known — infamous — for its reliance on suicide bombers." (Palestinian territories:Inside Hamas,PBS FRONTLINE:World, May 9, 2006)
  It has a sentence from the body of the text in front of the article title.
  There are a large number of links on the page like that making it look like someone is writting an essay instead of just adding links. It really needs tidying up. Wayne 18:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

the sources don't say that, and this distinction is a false one

A link you put there yourself says exactly that. Also, why is the distinction false? The Izzedine Al Qassam brigades is the military wing which is why my country recognises Hamas as the democratically elected government while only the Brigades are listed as a terrorist organisation. As my edit comment said... it was more appropriate for the article lead and more accurate. As it is now it gives the false impression that everyone in Hamas is a terrorist. Wayne 18:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This link
We make the distinction in other pages so why is this one special? claiming no distinction is the same as claiming all are guilty which is POV and against WP policy. Wayne 19:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I have reported your breach of 3RR on Norman Finkelstein. I have responded to your spurious argument and threat on my own talk page. RolandR 01:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:You have to think of a different way of editing

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. However, I find many incorrect assumptions you make about my editing.

• I come back a couple of days later, because I'm currently busy in my personal life.
• a)Once again, I don't think there is any rule on wikipedia prohibiting large changes. Especially if articles are in terrible shape (i.e. they have few or no references). If there is, please inform me of it.
• b)With all due respect, I haven't seen you do much of this either. Infact, when was the last time you actually said something positive or even neutral about Islam?
• c)The fact that I correspond on talk far more than other editors is enough evidence that I'm trying to dicuss my changes and reach compromises. On our recent dispute on Islam and antisemitism, i've already reached compromise with you once, but so far you've yet to concede on any issue.
• d)Again, you never got concensus on talk before you added the S & P material. I haven't really seen you get concensus first. Why should I do the same?
• e)In many cases there is quite a bit of support for my edit. But the only reason users oppose some of edits, frankly, is because of their animosity towards Arabs/Muslims. Sefringle has already declared that on his/her user page. Your position on this I'm not sure of.

Yes, but certainly I would be willing to follow this, if you yourself followed this. I would also follow this if you showed any sign of trying to understand my arguments instead of opposing them because you have incorrectly assumed that I "only want to whitewash".Bless sins 11:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi first of all: consider this edit. Did you achieve concensus on talk first, and then make those edits? Secondly, I never accused you of bieng anti-Arab or anti-Muslim, though it is certain you have very strong views. Also, can you please stop making personal attacks on me. Please stop accusing me of "whitewashing" and having "hidden intentions". That way we'll work much better.Bless sins 03:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

State terrorism

Hi. Too much opposition at the moment. Chomsky has lots of supporters. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by the United States (sixth nomination). The list article has so many strange accusations that hopefully most people will not be fooled. So I am concentrating on other articles for now.Ultramarine 15:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial GA/R

Hey there Jayjg, I just wanted to give you a heads up on the GA/R process as I don't think you're watching it anymore. The other regular reviewers of GA/R are starting to weigh in the article---and they are all supporting a delist. I'm mentioning this to you for the same reason that I alerted the people who wrote on the Talk Page that they thought the article should go through GA/R---because I think it's the right thing to do. People who have expressed concern about a subject should be notified when/if that subject comes up. (I don't consider it canvassing when you are willing to alert both sides to a debate. ;-) ) I still think the article should be delisted---but I don't want it to catch you guys off guard.Balloonman 18:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW... I approve of the new wording for the first sentence... a lot more NPOV... I'm going to re-read it to see if I can change my vote now that some others are making solid recommendations.Balloonman 01:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to Participate?

Hi Jayjg,

We've not met in Wikipedia, but some other users recommended I contact you.

I'm an Australian research student who is writing her thesis about Wikipedia. The thesis is about virtual places and citizenship online, and the ways that communities are formed in virtual spaces. Wikipedia is my main case study for this. As part of this I am interviewing Wikipedians (via email) about their thoughts and experiences while editing and using Wikipedia.

I'd love to interview you for my research, if you are amenable. I know that you have been a member for many years, as well as an admin and a prolific contributor. I would be interested in also talking to you about your experiences on the Arbitration Committee.

The interview would take place via email at a time convenient for you, and you would of course be anonymous in the research. All up, it should take about an hour spread over small intervals.

If you are interested please say Hi on my talk page or send me an email and I can explain the project and what it involves in more detail.

I hope to hear from you! tamsin 07:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Shia1's new WikiProject

Do you think that this is an appropriate use of WP space?--DLand^TALK 13:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Chief Rabbis

I am having diffculty following your logic. They come from Germany, so they are British but not English! In fact they all lived in England and held appointments in London, so that makes them English rabbis, doesn't it? --Redaktor 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

		Thank you for your support and comments at my RfA
		Hi Jayjg, It still amazes me that otherwise "anonymous" editors take the time to place !votes and comments on RfAs. Whilst I would have normally thanked you at the time of you leaving your message, the importance of my not appearing to be canvassing prevented me from so doing. Now that everything has progressed successfully I can finally thank you. I intend to uphold a style of good adminship and will welcome your further comments at any time in the future, even if they are in the form of admonishment. I will be happy to help as an admin wherever and whenever I can --VS talk 23:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hardvice check

Hi Jayjg. I don't plan to contribute to Wikipedia anymore, but just in case I change my mind some day could I ask you to check mine and Hardvice's IPs to confirm via some iplookup tool that shows locations that we are not the same person and make a note of it, just for the record? While editing, I had to deal with some nasty trolling saying that I was. (btw I'm curious - how'd you get Hardvice's IP when he hasn't edited in so long? But if that's sensitive info then forget it). --Miltopia (posting anonymously) 01:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

GA/R pt 3

Hey Jayjg, Just so you know, with the changes that have been made on this article over the past two weeks or so, I've changed my statement on the article to conditional keep. The article is VASTLY improved and IMHO much more NPOV.Balloonman 04:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

His excellency

He's at Islam in the United States. Arrow740 05:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The last sock, User:Benizer, was blocked for only 24hrs by a responder to WP:AIV, who was obviously unaware of the situation.Proabivouac 05:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Protestant POV pushing at Template:Books of the Old Testament

Just thought you might be interested in User:Alastair Haines attempts to push a Protestant POV at Template:Books of the Old Testament, see for example [32]. 75.14.208.224 19:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Response

I don't think so. I personally have seen our good buddy in a while. Kingjeff 23:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Peace Process MedCab

A request for Mediation Cabal intervention in our ongoing dispute at Template:Israel-Palestinian peace process exists at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-29 Israel-Palestinian Peace Process. Eleland 02:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you are free to add the users you mentioned, or to add more on the definition of the conflict. And I don't believe that a Mediation Committee request would be accepted since the only resolution attempts have been debate on the talk page. That was my original intention but the relevant pages seem to require a lot more informal dispute res. to be tried first. Eleland 04:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You may want to comment on that page because it won't go anywhere without your comments. MessedRocker (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

re Reverting

You didn't make an "argument" either. If you have no idea whether or not the categories should be included, then you should investigate, not revert. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't used an argument because it was up to you to use it. That was my point. Now:

• You are confusing "Western Sahara" (a region) with the gov't in exile "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic".
• Western Sahara has Spanish speaking towns - wrong. Do you have any source? You mean that Tetouan (the former capital of Spanish Morocco) is a spanish speaking town as well?
• Under occupation - That i am not sure about. It is up to you and the other co-editors. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1. See this map: [[33]]
2. Spanish_language#Africa
3. Then you shouldn't revert. 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Again. You were editing Western Sahara article and not the the SADR article. It is just like confusing Palestine and the PNA.

The refs mentioned in Spanish_language#Africa are a spam article and the CIA factbook which says nothing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a spam article. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And this as well http://www.wsahara.net/people.html. Let me tell you that most Saharawis speak Spanish the same way i do in the northern part of Morocco. Meaning that we lived under Spanish protectorate/occupation for some time. That's all the story. As for the map Jay, i lready explained to you the point. Western Sahara is a territory. It is SADR which is a member of the AU. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jay. By now it is obvious that there was a confusion between Western Sahara as a disputed territory, and the SADR (Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic), the self-declared government-in-exile of the Polisario front, which is a member of the AU. As to the language, the population is Arabic speaking the Hassanya dialect. Spanish might be more or less understood by over 40 years aged. Nowadays French is the first foreign language, as in the rest of Morocco. When we come to the third point, occupied or disputed, you said that all occupied territories are disputed. That is true, but the opposite is not true; a disputed territory is claimed by two or more parties where in the end it will either belong to one party or a sort of compromise is reached between the parties on how the solution would be. If you say that Morocco is occupying Western Sahara, then why was the UN calling for a referendum where one of the options is integration with Morocco? would not that be approving occupation?. As of June 2007, the UN is holding direct talks between Morocco and the Polisario to look for a solution to the disputed territory. As a last word, I find no better proof that WS is not occupied than your own statement:" By definition a territory can only be militarily occupied if it has not been annexed. Once it is annexed, it is no longer militarily occupied.". Morocco has annexed WS in the seventies and the "Southern provinces" are part of Morocco's geographical, political, economical, cultural,... reality. I hope this point is now also clarified.--A Jalil 21:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection of NOR

Hi there. Just a note to let you know that editors are working on a consensus wording for my copy-edit to NOR that provoked this edit war. The section on talk is here. A word of caution though, although it might appear from reading this discussion that consensus has been reached, the editors who objected strongly to the copy-edit have not yet participated. Therefore, in order not to further inflame an already delicate situation, it might be best to leave this for a week or so. After all, these are very minor changes that do not alter the meaning of the policy, so there is no hurry. All the best, Tim Vickers 13:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I was wondering if, as a neutral party, you could contact the editors who were involved in the edit war and see if the current consensus wording (Discussion here), is acceptable? I want to make sure that all the relevant opinions on this draft are considered on the talk page. Tim Vickers 16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Moses and Exodus

Portion removed

According to the book of Exodus, Moses was born in a time of dynastic change in Egypt when the Sons of Israel had become numerous enough to raise concerns lest in a time of war they might take arms against Egypt.

Text it refers to

Exodus:1 7-9 But the descendants of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong; so that the land was filled with them.

8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9 And he said to his people, "Behold, the people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us. 10 Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and, if war befall us, they join our enemies and fight against us

Portion removed

Moses and his brother Aaron were born to a Hebrew mother who hid him when a Pharaoh ordered all newborn Hebrew boys to be killed, and ended up being adopted into the Egyptian royal family. After killing an Egyptian slave master, he fled across the sea where he tended the sheep of his father in law on the slopes of mt Horab at Elat on the Gulf of Aqaba which borders Midian, Moab, Edom, the Rephidim and the Amalekites of the Negev. The port of Elim where Hatshepset built her fleet and the port of Elat are closely linked in the story. Rktect 06:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Text it refers to

3:1 Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Mid'ian; and he led his flock to the west side of the wilderness, and came to Horeb, the mountain ... 15:27 Then they came to Elim, where there were twelve springs of water and seventy palm trees; and they encamped there by the water.

16:1 They set out from Elim, and all the congregation of the people of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin

17:1 All the congregation of the people of Israel moved on from the wilderness of Sin by stages, according to the commandment of the LORD, and camped at Reph'idim; but there was no water for the people to drink. 2 Therefore the people found fault with Moses, and said, "Give us water to drink." And Moses said to them, "Why do you find fault with me? Why do you put the LORD to the proof?" 3 But the people thirsted there for water, and the people murmured against Moses, and said, "Why did you bring us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?" 4 So Moses cried to the LORD, "What shall I do with this people? They are almost ready to stone me." 5 And the LORD said to Moses, "Pass on before the people, taking with you some of the elders of Israel; and take in your hand the rod with which you struck the Nile, and go. 6 Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb ... 8 Then came Am'alek and fought with Israel at Reph'idim.

18:1 Jethro, the priest of Mid'ian, Moses' father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses and for Israel his people, how the LORD had brought Israel out of Egypt. 2 Now Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, had taken Zippo'rah, Moses' wife, after he had sent her away, 3 and her two sons, of whom the name of the one was Gershom (for he said, "I have been a sojourner in a foreign land"), 4 and the name of the other, Elie'zer (for he said, "The God of my father was my help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh"). 5 And Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife to Moses in the wilderness where he was encamped at the mountain

Since Jethro lives in Midian and Moses tends his flocks at Horab, Horab is either in Midian or adjacent to it as its border. Since the Rephidim and Amalek are of the Negev and Moses stands on Horab to oversee the battle the only place it can be located is at Elat, a port at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba between Midian and Rephidim in Sin. Since the people move from Elim to Sin (the Negev) and camp at Rephidim and Rephidim is at Elat it would be logical that they moved by boat and convenient that Hatshepsets new fleet was at Elim at that time.

Rktect 06:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR, WP:V, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect/Proposed_decision#Proposed_findings_of_fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is going to discuss a character in a story which may or may not be historical, why isn't it germane to the discusion or verifiable to reference parts of the story to the history and archaology of the period in order to see if there is verifiability?

How is there a point of view involved in just refering to what the story actually says? Is it a point of view to even reference the opening scenario of Exodus because some might then note there are periods when it matches the historical geopolitical climate?

As to verifiability there is quite a lot of evidence that stripped of their religious gloss the people, places and things discussed in the story do agree well with the facts. There was trade across the Red Sea between Elim and Elat documented in Egyptian literature going back as far as the Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor.

Hatshepset built a fleet in this period to capitalize on this trade and voyaged herself as far south as Punt (modern Yemen) in search of the Frankincense and Myhr used in Egyptian mortuary rituals and mummification.

Cargos of benjamin or juniper oil was combined with bitumen and Naptha, from Napthali, Salts came from the Dead Sea region, were collected at Elat where they were traded for the Egyptians nubian gold. All of this came back to Elim the Red Sea port servicing Thebes. At that time Thebes was the location of the royal court mentioned in the story.

Across the Red Sea at Timna near Elat there were Egyptian pottery and faience found dating to the period c 1350 at sites evidencing Egyptian miners exploited a copper boom going on there then.

Many people seem to throw these tags around simply because something is mentioned they personally have no knowledge of. That doesn't mean it isn't common knowledge in academic circles Rktect 12:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is a reference to Gardiner reverted in favor of Budge

- Hotep is an English rendering of a word from the ancient Egyptian language transcribed as htp Gardiner p 579 and 617 = law. The phrase m hotep has been translated to mean literally from law "peace", Gardiner p 583 and 620 "to rest" " be satisfied", "become at peace" and "at ease" as in the Egyptian philosophy of living the life in Ma3t. Rktect 12:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this addition of a couple of wikipedia references reverted

Baal-zephon (בעל צפון Hebrew) is a semitic phrase refering to the power of the air [Baal] in the form of a storm or [zephyrus]. The name referred to a prominent landmark at the Red Sea next to Pi-hahiroth (Egyptian for the mouth of the gulf) and Migdol, (high place) where the Hebrews(Israelites) made their Passage of the Red Sea in their [Exodus] from Egypt. Rktect 12:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

why is this Bartelbys semitic roots reference reverted

ENTRY: dbr2, - DEFINITION: see dpr.ENTRY: dpr. - DEFINITION: To turn one's back on (probably denominative from an old word for “back”). West Semitic variant (assimilated) form dbr. Aldebaran, from Arabic ad-dabarn, the following, follower, from dabara, to follow. Rktect 12:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

why is this Judges 4 and 5 reference to Kadesh reverted

whose name means to follow was a prophetess and the fourth Judge and only female Judge of pre-monarchic Israel in the Old Testament (Tanakh). Her story is the story of the battle of Megiddo where the Egyptians attack the king of Kadesh with whom the apiru bandits are allied. The story is expanded upon inJudges 4 and 5. Judges 4 begins with a claim that Jerusalem is taken, a claim that is not made during the Conquest. The comparison of Egyptian campaign records with Judges 4 makes it clear that Kadesh is the antagonist and among the Sons of Israel who participate its the northern tribes who are at the forefront. The adversary is clearly Egypt as the commanders name indicates. Despite that Egypt wins the battle from the perspective of the northern tribes of the not yet unified nation to be of Israel, they aquitted themselves well Rktect 12:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial : Night and Day

Hey Jayjg, A few days ago, I postted a comment about how improved the Lead was. Igor posted what appeared to be a sarcastic response, "That was easy enough to do." You then posted a "Thanks" between my comment and his comment. He has been moving your thanks to after his comment. He has now reworded his comment to state that he is the one to remove the word "Anti-semetic". And I've been telling him that if YOU put the "thanks" in the wrong place, it is up to you to move it...not him. IF you want to move the thanks to after his comment could you do so, if you put it in the place where your wanted it, can you please let Igor know that.Balloonman 15:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Alan colmes

In this edit you re-add the word "doormat". The word does not appear in any of the three refs.Genisock2 16:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

removal of reference

Well referenced documentation summarized in "The Times Atlas of World History", Hammond, 1989, ISBN 0-7230-0304-1 shows that Palestinians have lived in Palestine since it was called Canaan and they were called Peleset by the Egyptians 3500 years ago. From 1917 until the formation of modern Israel the British mandate that followed the Ottomans ruled Palestine. pages 228-229. IBID pp 170-171 prior to that in the period 1516-1917, when Palestine was under the Ottomans. Within the Ottoman Empire in the period 1516 the Palestinans were Part of the Maluke empire and after 1520 part of Syria. The Abbysid sovreignity is discussed IBID pp 134-135. From 610 to 1204 they were part of the Byzantian empire IBID pp 112-113 and before that part of the Roman empire. Christianity developed in Palestine 2000 years ago pp 90-91. under the Romans Palestine was a part of Judea. IBID pp88-89. 550 BC to AD 637 Palestine was part of the Persian Empire, everything south of Phoenicia as far south as the brook of Egypt IBID pp 76-77. Ptolomaic Egypt, and various Egyptian Dynasties pp58-59 going back to c 2000 BC. Counter claimaints such as Bernard Lewis argue that these claims are made mostly for political purposes:

Your revert cited "remove WP:NOR. Please stop)" Please explain where the original research is in the cited reference above Rktect 11:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

When you claim "You have invented your theories, or put them together from a bunch of sources in a novel way." aren't those mutually exclusive with your theory of original research? If I invented theories I wouldn't be able to source them. Where you admit I am in fact referencing more than one reputable source in each article you can't call my contributions original research on that ground either. When you say the sources I use are put together in a novel way, might that just mean I am including sources you haven't read or given much thought to so they are common to academics they are new to you Rktect 13:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Franciszek Gajowniczek

Hey Jayjg, I wrote an article last night on a survivor of Auschwitz, a Franciszek Gajowniczek. His primary claim to fame is that his life was spared when a Franscican Priest, Maximilian Kolbe, switched places with him after a prisoner escaped. Maximilian Kolbe was later cannonized by the Catholic Church. I don't know if Franciszek Gajowniczek is Jewish---I haven't seen anything that specifically addresses that... (He appears to have been sent to Auschwitz for helping the Jewish Resistance in Poland.) As this is an area that you are more interested in/knowlegable about, I was wondering if you might be able to suggest some Categories to add to the page? Eg I looked at some pages and grabbed some, but I don't know if there are any others that would make sense for him.Balloonman 18:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for taking a look at the page.Balloonman 03:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state

Just curious as to why you reverted my cleaning up of the references on this page. Did you find it problematic? Is this something we should discuss? --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

So I am working on them. I find the footnotes much more clear regarding sourcing than forcing people to click on them each to find out if they are relevant. We seem to differ in our viewpoints on this issue. I am going through the rest of them as we speak to try to improve them with titles, if titles and sources are clear when I click on them. When you reverted my work with no edit summary commentary, it was not clear what your intent was. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The tone of your comments, basically telling me what to do…is not really in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia. Like I said, we differ on this issue. I think the inline citations are problematic in subject matter that draws fire from differing viewpoints, you feel that if it is a URL, it does not belong in the footnotes. I am not seeing this "rule" you are giving me in Wikipedia:Footnotes. I will look around to see if I have missed reading about it somewhere, as I have been wrong before... --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, you seem to be doing a great job monitoring an building that article...I wish you well with your work and thank you for the time you are putting into improving wikipedia. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to message a 5th time. Due to your advice, I have been studying up on referencing and will try to improve my work. Just thought you might like to know. Thanks for the heads up. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 01:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Please check your Talk-page history, Jay. --Aminz 09:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine; thank you.Proabivouac 09:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Israeli settlements

User:Number 57 has been removing articles on Israeli settlements from Category:Religious villages in Israel (and similar cats) en masse on the grounds that they are not in Israel. See his contribs for details. Best, DLand^TALK 13:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

See the ensuing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel#Category:Israeli settlements.--DLand^TALK 18:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Article edits

Hi. I'd appreciate it if you could please go to Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Edit_protect, and leave your comments there, hopefully in support of my comments towards restoring an NPOV. This article is currently edit-protected due to edit warring. We would appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 20:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Jews Kazakhstan

Hello

Can you please indicate a reliable source where the term "Kazakh Jews" is mentioned? The terms sounds very off. I believe the best term in Jews in Kazakhstan or Kazakhstani Jews is better. Kazakh refers to the name of the ethnicity that has nothing to do with Jews, whereas Kazakhstani reflects their characteristics by their home country. Parishan 01:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

Because the dispute being arbitrated has resolved and any restrictions on the involved editors have been lifted, this arbitration case has been closed with no further action being taken. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You participated extensively in the Talk.

And made many arguments. You are clearly not an "outside view" in the naming dispute whether you edited the article itself or not. Do not order me to cease highlighting your past dispute participation on the RFM, Jay. I have moved your comments on my User_talk page to the RFM discussion. Italiavivi 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't act like you've never been involved in past naming arguments, and I won't highlight your past participation. Trying to order me to not highlight your past arguments isn't going to accomplish squat with me, Jay. Italiavivi 22:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Take your idle threats elsewhere; I have done nothing but highlight your past participation. You are clearly an advocate in the naming dispute given your past Talk arguments. I am interested in seeing what you consider to be "sterner measures" and what policies you intend to invoke to enforce them. Be my guest. Italiavivi 21:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Inveterate edit warrer Verklempt.

I know that you did not name anyone when you protected the "Ward Churchill " article. I am none the less curious as to who requested the protection. i think it was a good idea unless it was done by Verklempt himself. I say that because he seems to be on a mission to be disruptive. If you yourself have any information about that user that you are allowed to share please feel free to do so. Albion moonlight 09:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Noam Chomsky

I've responded to your message on Criticism of Noam Chomsky, sorry for the delay.Nwe 21:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

David

If you have time, I'd appreciate if you could take your usual critical look at my latest additions to the David article. Please give me your ideas on such things as whether I'm being impartial, and suggestionsa s to other points that need covering, in fact anything at all that could improve the section. Thanks. PiCo 13:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

We have been through this before

In Egyptian, Gardiners Egyptian Grammar, (mes = birth; ses = protect) is a common name in 18th Dynasty Egypt. It refers to both birth and the actions of the midwife to guard the birth seeing to it that the child comes forth after the mother breaks water. Other examples of the name are found in the cartouches of the Pharoahs Tutmoses and Ramesses. In the case of the Pharoahs it sometimes refers to their responsibilities to guard the birth of the sun (ra or re)

references were placed at the bottom of the page but apparently deleted how come? Rktect 18:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Similaun

User:Similaun admitted to being Panairjdde at User talk:Dppowell/PPP. Kingjeff 19:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming RfM

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/factory_farming, 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. Jav43 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Peace Process MedCab, 2

Do you intend to participate in the mediation cabal discussions at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-29_Israel-Palestinian_Peace_Process and Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-29_Israel-Palestinian_Peace_Process?? I informed you of these ten days ago but you have not responded. Eleland 16:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

request

Hi. I hope you're keeping an eye on Israeli-Palestinian conflict? We now have someone suggesting they will add material on Palestinian refugees, stating their viewpoint more. appreciate any help you could give on this. thanks. --Sm8900 16:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

George Soros, again

Afraid that George Soros has reared its unhandsome head. There is a request to unprotect the page page, which I believe you had protected, for the purpose of reinserting objectionable material without a consensus.[34]. Perhaps you can drop by when you have a chance?--Samiharris 02:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see it was declined by the time I sent my note. Fast work! I will keep you posted.--Samiharris 02:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Gary Weiss

Another BLP issue here. I reverted an edit by a new user to a paragraph in Gary Weiss related to a corporate smear campaign targeting Weiss and others, back to a compromise version that was hammered out some weeks ago. I am uneasy about this paragraph in general under WP:NPF. I frankly was not aware of this portion of the BLP policy during the original discussion. Are my concerns correct? Weiss is a journalist who is notable but not well known, and whose notability is related to his writings on stock fraud. As you can see from the recent edits, this paragraph relates to personal attacks by a corporate executive and is at best tangential and unrelated to Weiss's notability. I think the paragraph is inoffensive but has potential to be a troll magnet, which I assume is why the article is semiprotected in the first place.

And then there is Bill Moyers, which is a headache for another day! ;)--Samiharris 17:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems the editor who made that edit was a banned editor. Any thoughts on my NPF concerns? --Samiharris 04:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could assist. Since NPF applies, then the entire paragraph should go and I shall remove it. Would appreciate your keeping an eye on the article, as it is edited by some editors who have axes to grind that they do not attempt to conceal. --Samiharris 04:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Cla68 06:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of the disturbing issues set forth in your Request for Comment, which directly concern this article predating my time at Wikipedia. The misstatements of fact, very much distorting the issues, that you just made on the talk page of the article in question further make it difficult if not impossible for me to assume good faith on your part.--Samiharris 13:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad mediation update

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad --Sefringle^Talk 19:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

Are you editing the Ward Churchill page without discussing it with those you have locked out ? It looks like it, I am fairly new to wiki so please tell me what is going on pursuant to that article. Albion moonlight 07:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

2006 Lebanon War mediation

Hi Jayjg. Unfortunately, due to Italivivi's withdrawl, it appears our mediation has been closed. As the closest thing to a third party in the dispute (aside from the mediator), I wanted to try to explain my position to you, as the mediation itself never got to that point.

First I think it's critical that we re-read the relevant policies and guidelines. From Wikipedia's naming conventions for events:

1. If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.
2. If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one... However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event.
3. If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications.

• A common name exists if most English speakers who are aware of the topic call it the same thing. Slight variations on the name, such as changes in word order, count as the same common name. For example, World War II is often called the Second World War; they are close enough to be considered variations of the same common name.
• A generally accepted word is a word for which there is consensus, among scholars in the real world, on its applicability to the event.

From the Military history WikiProject's Military conflict naming conventions:

"An article should generally be placed at the most common name used to refer to the event... If there is no common name, the name should be a descriptive geographic term."

Now, the first thing to note is that common names take precedence. The second thing to note is that when there is no common name, descriptive names take precedence, and in the case of the WikiProject Military history naming convention, we're told that descriptive geographic terms should be used. Note that the conventions do not call for the use of descriptive involved parties terminology to be used.

The first question becomes, how can we figure out what "most English speakers... call it", as prescribed by policy. Now, I'm well aware that in past discussions Shamir1 has dumped a whole slew of sources using the term "Israel-Hezbollah War"; I fully admit that that name is used, and it is used in literally thousands of websites and articles. The problem is how we can determine what name is the most common, and to what degree it is the most common, without resorting to a pissing match to see who can collect the most sources. I guarantee you that there are thousands of sources that support each of the various titles, but how to determine which is the most common among English speakers, as prescribed by policy? That is where I started running search engine queries:

Google search results for title variations across all websites, news articles, and scholarly sources (as of June 10, 2007)

Title variation query	All websites		News articles*		Scholarly sources
"Lebanon War" -1982 -"First Lebanon War" -"Israel-Lebanon War"†	661,000	68.7%	1,479	64.6%	22	51.2%
"Second Lebanon War"	102,000	10.6%	492	21.5%	2	4.7%
"2006 Lebanon War"	31,500	3.3%	8	0.3%	2	4.7%
Total (2006 Lebanon War)	794,500	82.6%	1,979	86.5%	26	60.5%
"Israel-Hezbollah War"‡	64,700	6.7%	88	3.8%	4	9.3%
"Israeli-Hezbollah War"‡	25,000	2.6%	186	8.1%	5	11.6%
"2006 Israel-Hezbollah War"&#135;	382	< 0.1%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
Total (2006 Israel-Hezbollah War)	90,082	9.4%	274	12.0%	9	20.9%
"Israel-Lebanon War"	70,300	7.3%	31	1.4%	7	16.3%
"2006 Israel-Lebanon War"	7,250	0.8%	5	0.2%	1	2.3%
Total (2006 Israel-Lebanon War)	77,550	8.1%	36	1.6%	8	18.6%
* Limited to the last month, to eliminate any articles about the 1982 Lebanon War, and avoid recentism immediately following the end of the conflict. &#134; The addition of -1982 -"First Lebanon War" -"Israel-Lebanon War" to this query eliminates any overlapping results, or results that are about the 1982 Lebanon War, as well as any results about the 2006 Lebanon War that even mention the 1982 war, making this figure lower than it actually is. &#135; The spelling Hezbollah appears approximately ten times more often than either Hizbollah or Hizbullah.

Please note that I wrote these down when the mediation started, as I was planning to update them when the mediation progressed to a point when it became relevant. As such, the figures are about a month out of date, but if you look at the current statistics they're not too far off.

What does this tell us? It tells us that, by and large, the term "Lebanon War" is the most common term used. I make no claims regarding the reliability of the sources Google is indexing, as reliable sources isn't what's called for by policy: only what "most English speakers" use. "Most English speakers" would include bloggers and forum posters who normally wouldn't be considered as they aren't reliable sources. It likely doesn't matter at this point, since mediation was closed, but if you have any issues with the way I conducted this data survey, or any ideas as to why this data might be inaccurate or skewed (I tried to make the queries as precise as I possibly could), I'm more than open to hearing your thoughts. Cheers. — George ^[talk] 07:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

While this is fairly obvious, George has made his own conclusions based on no evidence. Tewfik told him already that his process does not prove anything and is not a source. When asked to pick a scholarly source, George could not find even one. The search is incredibly sloppy, and does not represent what he claims. The many other flaws have already been pointed out to George, who counts a single mention of the conflict by the European Journal of Cardio-thoratic Surgery a source. I will not devote any more time to this nonsense.

Among scholarly sources, Israel-Hezbollah War is largely found. No other name comes close at all.

What is also important is the title of other articles (encyclopedia-like) on the war. Here is an all inclusive round-up.

• • PBS: Israel-Hezbollah Clash

• • Los Angeles Times:The 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war
  • The Washington Post: The Israeli-Hezbollah War (Crisis in the Middle East) [35][36]
  • San Francisco Chronicle: Israel-Hezbollah war
  • Reuters: War in Lebanon
  • The Boston Globe: Crisis in the Middle East (Israel/Lebanon Conflict)
  • The Jerusalem Post: Second Lebanon War
  • Ynetnews: Israel at War
  • Newsday: Complete coverage: Israel and Lebanon
  • NPR: The Israel-Hezbollah Conflict
  • Associated Press: Lebanon-Israel Conflict

So far, all that have use "war" in the title have used Israel-Hezbollah, with the exception of one I recently found. 0 have used "Lebanon war."

• • Some others have such pages, but they do not help us either way since they also cover the conflict in the Gaza Strip, not this one specifically. They are: Major Attacks in Lebanon, Israel, and the Gaza Strip from The New York Times, Middle East in Crisis from CBC, and Middle East crisis from ABC. Again, those do not specifically cover this war but also the one that was ongoing in the Gaza Strip. 0 have used the title "Lebanon War".
• I included just a couple, but well-known, statistical polling agencies, from BBC[37], Harris Interactive[38], and Gallup Poll[39], just to show that this is the accurate term that the groups have to determined the public is familiar with, as that is the term used for surveying the general public
• Then, we look at scholarly sources. All are publications and events by highly prominent research institutes.
  • Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the United States Congress [40]
  • Brookings Institution, the most commonly cited liberal research institute by members of Congress, 3rd most commonly cited in general [41][42] [43]
  • Heritage Foundation, the most commonly cited research institute by members of Congress [44] [45] [46]
  • Washington Institute for Near East Policy, "the most influential of the Middle East thinktanks, and the one that the state department takes the most seriously" (according to The Guardian) [47]
  • Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [48]
  • United States Institute of Peace [49] [50]
  • Center for Strategic and International Studies [51]
  • Mideast Monitor [52]
  • Academic research groups are Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy (of Harvard University) [53] [54],
    Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies (of Columbia University) [55],
    Crown Center for Middle East Studies (of Brandeis University) [56] [57],
    Center for International Studies (of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) [58][59],
    and the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies (of Tel Aviv University).[60]

The scholarly world has been covered. All full reports and comprehensive articles on the war are included above. Thanks.

Actually there are plenty of such sources available, however, if you read what I actually wrote, trying to have a pissing contest to see who can build the biggest mound of crap isn't very useful in the whole scheme of things. — George ^[talk] 22:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there are no research institutes or scholarly sources more prominent than the ones listed above, so it is not a matter of building anything. The scholarly world is covered, as mentioned.

Another very obvious point is the collection of other summaries of the war. These are like encyclopedia articles. What do they have as the title? All are listed. Nothing is left out, no matter what the name. It is in no way a contest, it is called editing seriously. --Shamir1 11:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If (and when) we end up going to arbitration, I suppose I'll be forced to start dropping dozens of sources too. Oh well. — George ^[talk] 11:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Masada

Hey Jay, I am conducting an informal mediation with regards to this article. Please drop by here to contribute your opinion. Hopefully we can reach consensus on this matter. Cheers--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 04:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay, he didn't break any of the four rules. He was asking a question directed at you regarding your actions, I don't think that constitutes a personal attack. An answer might help things move forward. Cheers--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 05:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

fyi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1948_Palestinian_exodus#Section_on_modern_nakba Zeq 07:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Israli-Palestinian conflict

Are your claims against my proposal in the Talk page of the article are simply unfounded. I would like you to read the message I left there and give examples and proofs of your claims please, otherwise they will continue to be unfounded. Thank you.--Jorditxei 10:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi thank you for your useful contributions on the talk page of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Please, if it is not asking for too much, could you state whether you oppose or support my proposal in the way I have done here I think that will make it easier for any user to see whether it got support or it didn't. I would appreciate a reasoning which does not include false claims. Thank you very much.--Jorditxei 10:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I don't understand why I deleted that text (?) Yesterday I was having problems with my connection, maybe that caused the deletion but I wasn't aware... Thank you anyway.--Jorditxei 09:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have given a response to your claims on the JPS and other claims you have done in the Talk page. I have given proof that your claims are unfounded: here and here. If my proposal is finally opposed using such unfounded claims I will go to the ArbCom and let them evaluate those claims against mines. I think you may already know what the result will be. I just do not want to keep loosing my time looking for sources that support each single word of my proposal when it is very obvious that "traditional israeli POV" is commonly used to refer to the traditional israeli historiography and their claims. Shall you have any other problem with my proposal, let me know. Thank you. --Jorditxei 11:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I posted a message supporting you. i don't quite get this wholde discussion, actually. What is this search engine which they keep talking about? What are some other ways to verify credibility of journals? I feel that if we want, we can quote from any legitimate, well-known community source able to articulate the pro-Israel point of view, to give equal balance. the goal is not to meet some mythical standard, just provide full information. If a book was published by Admas-Moodley, that has a validity. Now we're arguing over whose published book to accept. --Sm8900 14:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jay

Hi Jay, just a heads up. This has something to do with categories being deleted?? Cheers! --Tom 17:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian Arabs verses Palestinian People

I need your help. As you're aware I renamed the page to "Palestinian Arabs" to remove an injustice. Those that are interested in keeping that POV reverted my change. I want to do this the correct way and I need your help. Thank you. Itzse 17:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

We have the ok from everyone involved to rename the Palestinian people article to "Palestinians". Your the only administrator that I'm aware of on that talk page, so please make the name change. I can't do it because the new name exists already as a redirect with edits.

I think that the name should be "Palestinan" not "Palestinians", but do as you see fit.

While it will still remain POV, it's better then the current name which is flagrant POV. Thank you, it's greatly appreciated. Itzse 15:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete action?

On 31 May 2007, you updated User:74.116.118.230 as a confirmed sockpuppet on the userpage, so the template indicates an indefinite block. But the block log shows only a 1 month block. Which is mistaken, the log or the stated indefinite block? GRBerry 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar

The above named arbitration case has closed. All involved parties are granted an amnesty over the edit-warring that had been ongoing but has given the administrators the ability to sanction anyone who begins disruptive editing again.

You may view the full case decision at the case page.

For the Arbitration Committee,

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

David again

I haven't been adding to the David page lately, but will get back to it soon I hope. But ni the meantime, would you mind taking a look at a note Ileft on the Talk page about a blog and what it says about the Talmudic tradition re David? I know nothing about this subject but it could potentially be a vauluable reference if it's notable. PiCo 11:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine

I apologise for bothering you, but I have raised a few points about the Middle East Quarterly (and the JPalStud, by extension) on the talkpage on which we last met; I would greatly appreciate your input if at all possible before the conversation is moved on by others; things move so swiftly in these subjects. Hornplease 21:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Infidel

Care to engage in discussion? --Tigeroo 10:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I did, but elicited no response from you. I engaged user Arrow740 in one which you had no wish to be a part of either.--Tigeroo 13:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OOh Stalk, That is a strong and egotistical word. Did you consider that after changing the focus of the page that perhaps one would not click the disambiguation link at the top of the page to correct the referencing link as well? Relax, its not personal.--Tigeroo 14:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you calling my upholding of policies "vandalism"?

Per this, you once again added a fair use image of a living person to the infobox. Please don't do that again. The Evil Spartan 00:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee notes that CharlotteWebb remains a user in good standing, and is welcome to return to editing at any time. Jayjg is reminded to to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Accusations

Please see this, says in the edit summary that it was FAKE page numbers!!!thanks

Chabad

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule at the Chabad article. When you return, please use the Talk: page to work out issues. Jayjg (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why did you write this - "please use the Talk: page to work out issues" - when you know that I had already stated the issues on the talk page? You could not have participated in the discussion, as you did, without knowing that I had been asking the editors of the Chabad article to engage in discussion on the talk page instead of reverting my tag, and that I had explained what I saw as the problem with the article. Kwork 14:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Palestinian Holocaust → Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Psychomelodic 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources help

Since youa r eobviously active editor of issues around israel/tranjordan/palestine etc, I was going to ask for a few sources for an article I want to start on the deplorable conditions of Palestinians in Jordan. Someone suggested this in Allegations of Jordanian apartheid, and I think it is a great omission. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Some help

[61] by Rohini Hensman - Lanka Academic, [62], [63] by Izzeth Hussain, [64], [65] by Asian Center for Human Rights Sri Lanka: Disappearances and the Collapse of the Police System. Kowloon,Hong Kong: Asian Human Rights Commission, 1999 [66], [67] Book: Sri Lanka the untold story by KT Rajasingham editor of Asian Tribune [68] - Himal Magazine - state terror in sri lanka [69] - Sri Lanka practises state terrorism - couple of references here.12:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is a Jew?

See Who is a Jew? for the latest with Bus Stop, this time a rewrite of the intro. It may be worth considering protecting the page until a) he listens to what is being said, or b) he moves on. Crossposted to Jon. Daniel^C/_T+ 14:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm stealing your Big Yellow Box, if you don't mind. I can see that comes in handy. Daniel^C/_T+ 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel^C/_T+ -- You have simply been asked to use the Talk page (of the article Who is a Jew?) to discuss. That is a reasonable request. Instead you have resorted to twice reverting my edit. That is a recipe for edit warring. That is counterproductive to the ideal Wikipedia process of cooperatively writing articles. Please engage in the more difficult process of intellectual discussion rather than the brute force process of reverting (twice) someone else's edits. Bus stop 15:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Chabad

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule at the Chabad article. When you return, please use the Talk: page to work out issues. Jayjg (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you write this - "please use the Talk: page to work out issues" - when you know that I had already stated the issues on the talk page? You could not have participated in the discussion, as you did, without knowing that I had been asking the editors of the Chabad article to engage in discussion on the talk page instead of reverting my tag, and that I had explained what I saw as the problem with the article. Kwork 14:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Kwork 16:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Attachment Therapy

Thanks for the note, and for the courtesy and thought inspiring it. It's been a messy case so far, hopefully this helps clean it up, and I'm sure a number of editors will appreciate your help in that.

Ironically as you were noting that post to me, I was considering how to let the editors of the other 33-odd articles inmplicated in their POV warring know to review their articles too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sock_ring_-_cleanup_alert

I'm glad we don't in fact have to worry as much now, and thanks once again for the prompt investigation. Lacking IP evidence I had to do the best that could be done with behavioral cues. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please comment

This is a message for all regulars at the “apartheid” AfD series. I believe there may have been a breakthrough. Please share your thoughts here. Thanks. --Targeman 03:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust article

You appear to have weighed in on (or be familiar with) issues with The Holocaust's article before, can you weigh in on the use of the word 'slaughter,' as seen here? —Parhamr 10:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Overdue page moves

Would you be able to help out by moving two pages over redirects? Consensus has already been established on talk for both: Beth midrash to "Beit midrash" and Yisroel ben Eliezer (The Baal Shem Tov) to "Baal Shem Tov". Thank you, DLand^TALK 14:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEDE

Can you explain how rearranging citations can be possibly understood as "encouraging non-citation" of sources? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bukharian Jews

Why are you changing the population of Bukharian Jews? There are only 150,000 of them not 160,000-180,000.

Toursist Segregation

There is another article called Tourist segregation which at a quick glance seems to be the pretty much the same article as the one that you keep redirecting. I will look at these to articles and see if they can be merged and then expanded on. Also I noticed that another user also reverted your redirect. Let me have a look at the two that I have mentioned above so that I can possibly merge the two or either have one speedily deleted. Thanks.--Ad@m.J.W.C. 03:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Tourist segregation should be speedily deleted with the other article redirected back to the Cuban article. Or maybe Tourist segregation should eventually be expanded to cover other countrys as well. It could improve in future. --Ad@m.J.W.C. 03:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe you could speedy delete tourist segregation and redirect the other to the Cuban artiicle.--Ad@m.J.W.C. 03:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, somebody else my come along in future and add to it with reliable sources. Maybe even myself someday.--Ad@m.J.W.C. 03:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR Violation

You are in violation of 3RR on Allegations of Apartheid. Please revert before you are blocked.--G-Dett 04:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not; consecutive edits count as one edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My mistake; apologies. Do you mind explaining why when I replaced Critics of this use of the term view it as an epithet with In some instances, the analogy is contested and dismissed as an epithet, you a) reverted it, and b) described it as "vandalism"?--G-Dett 04:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect Ward Churchill?

I notice Ward Churchill has been fully protected since April 29, almost 2 months. Can we try unprotecting? I don't have much of an interest in the text, but I do have a free image (!) given that the one there was deleted. Can I unprotect to put it in? Maybe reduce to semi-protect? Maybe just use my magic mystical mop powers and put in the image despite protection? Surely whatever the warring sides are warring about, they will each agree that having an image is better than not? What do you think? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I've been able to tell, one of the editors in particular in that dispute edits mostly for the purpose of reverting a small number of articles, and is willing to wait out months of protection in order to revert. Is there any indication on the Talk: page that a consensus has been reached? I rather doubt it, knowing the individuals involved, but you could check. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm willing to try. It's been 2 months, that's not really "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". At worst, it gets vandalized, we can re-protect. But I asked on Talk:Ward Churchill#Unprotection? Image? anyway. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd offer to unlock it with the proviso that the first editor to revert it will be blocked for a week. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what the debate was about, so don't know how to recognize a revert specifically. What was the debate about? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. While I was away, one admin unprotected the article, another editor added the image, and cropped it, both without telling me (I guess that's what "edited mercilessly" means), an anonymous editor vandalized the article, and another admin semi-protected the article. I had nothing to do with any of that. It seems that yesterday Churchill got fired from his job, drawing his article attention. I had no idea, honest! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky

Having a discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky#An_Analysis_of_the_page_starting_from_the_top and would appreciate your opinion. An editor have asked for administrator input and asked a specific administrator. A a second opinion would be good. Thank you.Ultramarine 23:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Most welcome

The game of whack-a-mole never ends on Wikipedia, but it is sometimes satisfying to whack `em. ;) IronDuke 02:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Dear editor, I have added your reasearch work into this article. Can you keep a watch so that it want be deleted. Thanks Taprobanus 14:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been deleted already :)) Taprobanus 15:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me....

Could you please answer at the relevant talk page for things I have raised. I am not sure how we can take something written by some tamil sympathisers as a reliable source. Do you know who are those people ? And what makes their remarks so special ? And finally please be noted that the editor involved in those article is a contributor to racist tamil web-sites..Waiting your response.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 15:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it back since I found most of the sources were making rubish statements. One source claiming Sinhalese forces occupying jaffna in 1970's, and this alone should disqualified this source. There are no sinhala armies in SL, and Jaffna is a part of Sri Lanka and government has right to send forces there.Not to mention Jaffna had a sizeable Sinhalese population for over 200o years untill they were expelled by a blood-driven tamil king sankili,who also killed 600+ tamil Christians. Also, I strongly oppose having Prof Tambaiyah as a source , he is sympathetic to tamils and also a blood relative of an ex- TULF leader. How can we take things written by him regarding this matter as neutral ?? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 16:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A question

What do you think of this series of personal attack as an admin ? Taprobanus 17:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Not at all - I have no personal interest in this article. In response to a request at WP:RFPP, I protected it as a redirect to the page which the AfD decided it should point to. Of course, if there is a consensus that overrides this AfD, please point me to it and I'll revert. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 18:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've put the protection down to semi. I still think this is the right place for the article to point to at the moment, though. I've asked for comment at WP:AN.ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 18:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Jayjg, were you planning to comment or respond to the thread on WP:AN? Section link for your convenience. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid wall

(From User talk:EliminatorJR) You appear to have edited an article, then protected it on your preferred version. This, of course, is an abuse of your admin powers. Please remove your protection before I have to take further action. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the basis for this claim? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Occupied territories

I didn't actually restore the link, you'll notice. CJCurrie 04:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks, I'll take a look. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of French apartheid

Hello,

About this article, there were two things :

• The link between both apartheids.
• My other changes, mostly about neutrality.

I understood, you disagree with my opinion about the link. Right. But please do not revert all my other changes because of that. Assume good faith, please. I wrote a long paragraph about this on the talk page. Please say if you disagree with one of the points stated (each of one is about one change), we'll try to work properly on this. I do not want any war. I'd like to neutralize as much as we can this article, which is not NPOV for now... I'll wait for your opinion before doing anything else, but please, next time, ask for mine before acting. NicDumZ ~ 10:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up Sri Lanka state terrorism

Thanks for cleaning it up and stopping the edit war. Sometime strong admin action is needed when people are clouded with emotions. On a different note, User:Snowolfd4 has revealed my true identity violating WP:STALK putting me in great peril in an ANI posting. What is my recourse ? Thanks Taprobanus 13:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party is now active, and your input is requested. Further information is available at the Mediation location, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Kind regards, Anthøny 16:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

ANI comment

You said: "Similar problems"? I've stated that you abused admin tools?

No, but you did accuse me of "vandalism" for removing a fair use picture of David Duke from the infobox, and you did use your own admin tools in an edit dispute on the Al-aqsa intifada (though I agreed with you, there does seem to be a pattern here. Like I said, not to harp, but accusing other people of vandalism/abuse of admin tools for upholding policy is a problem. The Evil Spartan 17:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, that statement that Jayjg accused someone of vandalism for removing a fair use picture of David Duke surprised me, so I had a look at the history of the article. I saw that you removed a fair use image on 2 July, and on 5 July, Jayjg reverted the article back to your version from someone else's, which he'd hardly have done if he thought your edit was vandalism. The image was readded by Tim Long, without edit summary, then a lot of edits were made, in the middle of which you removed the image again, without edit summary. More edits were made. Jayjg then reverted back to TimLong's version, with a rvv edit summary. Perhaps he should have seen that in undoing other edits, he was also replacing a fair use image, but since the history was a little short on edit summaries, it may not have been immediately obvious. In any case, I see absolutely no reason to think that the rvv summary in any way was directed at your edit. Sorry for butting in here. Just my own thoughts. ElinorD (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

I hope you know that the flower award on your userpage is overlapping a userbox of yours. Cheers! --KitKatKelly93 19:44, 29 July 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)

Hi Jayjg, sorry it took so long to get back to you, I've been on vacation. Lets assume that everyone who speaks on the issue of apartheid is doing so in good faith, attempting to describe a real and demonstratable phenomenon. This can apply to anti-Zionism, opposition to Islam, whatever. Are editors supposed to tolerate any remarks as long as they've been published in a "reliable source"? Can an article ever reach FA status when just blindly following WP:V? Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 03:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust content dispute

I've created a sandbox page to discuss the content dispute on The Holocaust. Your comments are welcome! – Dreadstar † 07:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

revert rule

Thank you for informing me about the 3 revert rule, had you not told me I might have unknowingly violated it. As it turns out you have violated the rule here in Social apartheid. Please inform me of what steps I need to take in order to report your infraction. -- LOTHAR

Social apartheid

Hello !

I do think that Lothar of the Hill People has gone too far with his brutal edits on Allegations of French apartheid, but I don't really think that his article was a NPOV fork. I know you'll probably disagree on this, as we do disagree on a lot of things :p  ; but I think we should seriously discuss this issue, as calmly as we can, instead of brutally blanking it. :) It may end on a deletion/redirection, but at least we will have discussed the matter, and avoided as much as we could the angry WP:MASTODONS ! ;) NicDumZ ~ 21:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You moved the social and urban apartheid articles without any dialog and your reasons for moving them are weak, these are recognized concepts with a lot of literature behind them. Titles like "French apartheid" and "Brazilian apartheid" are nonsensical as those terms don't exist in the literature but are made up. I'm sorry about moving the "French apartheid" article around but when it was mentioned that the proper term is "exclusion sociale" it looked like a no-brainer and since there had been discussion a move seemed appropriate. What I don't understand is how you can complain about my moving France and Brazil without discussion at the very same time that you move social and urban apartheid without discussion. -- LOTHAR

Ok. Please have "urban apartheid" put back since it primarily discusses a South African concept rather than an "allegation". I won't arbitrarily move any of the "Allegations of" articles but I think a number of them need to be renamed. What is the proper procedure for requesting a name change? -- LOTHAR