User talk:Jayjg/Archive 39

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jayjg. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

→

AN/I

There is a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review/unblock proposal, in which you might have an interest. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Flower for you

[1] "Respect". --BozMo talk 14:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Lewis DNA page

What do I need to do to resubmit my Lewis DNA Project Page? It has been on here for several years, now suddenly deleted. Emuchick (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You could take it to WP:DRV for review. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Emuchick (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Racism in Germany

Thanks for your intervention. Would you like to do more? Which weaknesses do you see in the article or how can it be improoved? Best Wishes --fluss (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I was really only correcting the inappropriate edits of a problematic editor, I don't know anything about the topic or article contents. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

--Actually you corrected my perfectly clear grammar edit. Your edit to Eternal Jew was unwelcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.44.153 (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You're referring to a different article, but you're right, your edit was good, and I've reverted mine. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Respect My Talk Page

Hi! Thanks for your contributions to wikipedia. Please do NOT revert MY edits to MY talk page - thank you!88.166.32.210 (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)FYI, you don't own your talk page and it must follow certain guidelines.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not a talk page stalker - I am talking about MY talk page! Guidelines say you should discuss with ME before editing my user talk page, and make no mention of paintings! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#Editing_of_other_editors.27_user_and_user_talk_pages 88.166.32.210 (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not your talk page (it's closer to that if you get an account). If it isn't related to Wikipedia, especially if it's also disruptive (like what you tried to post), it doesn't belong, period.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Menachem Begin

It was not my intention to edit anything on the Menachem Begin page. I must have clicked on or touched "undo" without realizing I had activated it. My apologies. --Chefallen (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC).

That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC description at talk:circumcision Why?

You recently changed the description of the debate to which a new RfC relates at talk:circumcision, with these edits. I've reverted your changes as unsubstantiated. Could you substantiate them please? Beejaypii (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated? Please stop writing nonsense. This is a description of a Wikipedia editing dispute, not material in an article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, why didn't you just add a comment of your own under the description I created, addressing your concerns, instead of editing my comment? Beejaypii (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The RFC instructions specifically state, in bold Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue. Your statements was not at all neutral. Please don't abuse the RFC process in this way again, and please restrict further comment to the article's talk page. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

External link

You removed the links to http://www.tallit-shop.com/ from Tallit. He has some interesting information about the various customs and more. Perhaps we could add it as an external link. I understand that he also sells them, but that doesn't diminish the interesting things he has on the site. Debresser (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

He does have a lot of interesting material, but he doesn't meet WP:RS, and he fails WP:ELNO #14. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, WP:ELNO is a list of links one should generally avoid. WP:RS is more serious, although we both seem to agree that his information is - as a matter of fact - trustworthy. Debresser (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I said it's interesting. I haven't assessed whether or not its trustworthy. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, don't you think so? You may say the truth, I'm not going to fight you on this one. Debresser (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems superficially plausible, but I haven't had any time to review in detail, or compare what it says to what reliable sources say. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Block Review

Regarding your block of User:Wimp O'pede, an unblock request has been made. I ran across this while checking the unblock request queue, and performed a CU for clarification (although no clarification was forthcoming, alas). Other than the user creating an account and diving directly into a contentious debate, do you have more evidence that the account is a sock of User:Joe Circus? Frank | talk 18:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to discuss the evidence with a CU, but not publicly. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

My email is enabled; I expect other CUs would be willing to discuss as well. Frank | talk 01:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't received any email; were you going to send me any, or contact another CU...or, perhaps, neither? Thanks - Frank | talk 17:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Frank, I've sent you an email. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Got it, and concur, to the degree CU tools can determine. Thanks. Frank | talk 18:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for checking! Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar

Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar has been nominated for merging with Template:Criticism of religion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Haredi Judaism

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Haredi Judaism". Thank you.

I am a talmudic scholar with a masters in talmudic law. the torah sh'baal peh is what moses was givin on sinai. this is what the rambam says. it is torah like the written law and if a person were to say that any part of that law is not from sinai (god) then he is considered to deny the divinity of the torah. what a rabbi decides in what the halacha should be is not considered to be [part of the torah as this was not given to moses on sinai. ruling on interpretation of the torah falls under a special authority that was given the rabbis of every generation to make rulings as to how to apply the torah. saying that what any rabbi says is part of the torah itself is adding to the torah of moses which is prohibited. this is a very important matter and it pertains to the tenets of jewish belief and heresy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learned69 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wondering if you could take a look

Hi Jayjg, I saw that you have gotten some articles about American Judaism up to featured status. I've been working on Elias Abraham Rosenberg, more or less the first Jew to visit Hawaii. I've gotten it up to GA and it's currently up for peer review at the moment. I'd love if you could take a look at it if you get the time, no rush of course. It's a fairly short article, but I'd like to try to get it up to featured status. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark. I will try to look at it. At first glance, it's a bit short for an FA, but there have been other short FA articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of what appeals to me about this. There are very few sources about him and I wanted to try and see if I could piece them together and make it a good article. Then I figured, since I have gotten that far I might as well how far I can get with it. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Reversion

Hi Jay, I'm afraid I can't understand the reversion of my contribution to the article Jews. Please explain? Thanks so much for your reply and for all your work on Wikipedia. Mark K. Jensen (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark. You may not have noticed, but I actually moved the material to the article talk page, and commented on it there. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Islamqa.com

I saw this discussion on RS/N. The guy is somewhat famous and does have an article here, as you can tell from my redirect. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It's not clear to me that the person meets the requirements of WP:BIO. Even if he does, that wouldn't make his website a WP:RS - see WP:SPS. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm withholding judgement on WP:BIO for now, but whether he is worth citing on any particular issue depends on the topic and on whether anybody else noticed that particular statement (or fatwa) of his. He does issue judgements on a lot of stuff, so I agree that not everything he says is automatically worthy of inclusion in some article. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

answer concerning edits on berber people article

NO! it was not me who did this neither the other one.

the infobox is really not adapted for berbers.

Dzlinker (talk) 11:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oral Torah

I am a talmudic scholar with a masters in talmudic law. the torah sh'baal peh is what moses was givin on sinai. this is what the rambam says. it is torah like the written law and if a person were to say that any part of that law is not from sinai (god) then he is considered to deny the divinity of the torah. what a rabbi decides in what the halacha should be is not considered to be [part of the torah as this was not given to moses on sinai. ruling on interpretation of the torah falls under a special authority that was given the rabbis of every generation to make rulings as to how to apply the torah. saying that what any rabbi says is part of the torah itself is adding to the torah of moses which is prohibited. this is a very important matter and it pertains to the tenets of jewish belief and heresy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learned69 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

An interesting distinction in theory, but in practice many seem to indicate that their rulings and the oral torah are identical. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It is much more than theoretical. There is no arguing with the torah either the written or the oral. However what a rabbi may say is only his opinion and any other competent scholar may say differently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learned69 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop Stalking

Please stop stalking the user as attended it is common sense not to put a citation needed on the House of Representatives of Pope Innocent III when shows proof.--Corusant (yadyadyada) 05:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The article shows a bas-relief of him, but there's no source for him being "commemorated as one of the world's great lawmakers". Please don't remove valid tags again. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the information showing it's just commemorated, doesn't mean it needs to tell it became commerated like so many pictures, or a citation needed when there is a source on the picture.--74.34.82.10 (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Fictional meerkats

Category:Fictional meerkats, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rcsprinter (whisper) 21:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops - quick apology

Sorry for reverting that edit on Talk:Ed Miliband. I added a few editing scripts (which I'm trying to get a hang of) and must have accidentally reverted an edit on that page without realising. Peter (Talk page) 22:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I guessed it was something like that. Thanks for explaining. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

XsitePro

Hi Jayjg,

I noticed that you recently deleted an article I have created (XSitePro). I wondered if you could give me some advice on how to get this article approved. Since then it seems my userpage has also been deleted.

I would very much like to see this go live soon and I am willing to adjust my article if you could give me some feedback.

Thanks in advance for your help :)

Carlpeterson300 (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Carl. The article was deleted as a result of this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XSitePro. If you wish to have the article stay, you need to address the issues raised there - in particular, you need to find significant coverage of the topic in reliable secondary sources. I see this has been explained to you on your User:Talk page several times over the past year, by several different editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Question from Jones7224

Why do you keep deleting my Gina Raimondo page? I worked hard on it. I put it up, and you delete it repeatedly. Why? Shall I begin to delete pages you dedicate time and effort to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jones7224 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The article was deleted because that was the consensus of the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina Raimondo. I'm sorry you feel your efforts were wasted, but Wikipedia has a Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline which indicates which people meet Wikipedia's requirements for an article and which do not. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Another Question from Jones7224

Yes, I have enjoyed Wikipedia as a reader for many years. I want to contribute and be a part of this community. However, I am finding the experience to be quite frustrating. My Gina Raimondo page has been deleted again. I understand there is a speedy deletion function in place. In your post on my talk page, you included some information on contesting speedy deletion. However, you did not include a link or instructions for doing so. I have read the user and intro guides. I am computer literate. Please, I am asking kindly for your help. I would like to create a Gina Raimondo page. Wikipedia touts itself as an accessible community of information. So far, it has not been accessible, rather, creating barriers to my contribution of information. Please assist me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jones7224 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jones7224. If you wish to contest the deletion of the article, please go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and follow the instructions there. Best of luck! Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Message from Jones7224

I am sending this message to you and User:JamesBWatson , both of whom have deleted the Gina Raimondo page I recently created. I understand your actions, but I politely ask you consider the following.

I am reaching out because the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review%7CWikipedia:Deletion review page] states that when reviewing a speedy deletion, one should first invite the admin to take a closer look. That is the exact intent of this message. I hope to resolve this issue with you courteously.

I understand the page was deleted by Jayjg because it had been deleted per a [discussion], and that User:JamesBWatson deleted the page for the that reason and also because the page was "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Regarding the previous discussion, I must point out that the discussion took place in July of 2010. Since then, Gina Raimondo has been elected to office. MelanieN stated at the conclusion of the discussion that if Raimondo were elected the article could be reconstructed. 39 other State Treasurers/"Treasurer equivalents" have Wikipedia pages, see [list].

As for the other reasons, "unambiguous advertising or promotion", I accept that the content of my recently created page needs to be edited. Therefore, I respectfully propose the following: I will edit the content of the page and then you can reevaluate the worthiness of the page. I am assuming you have the ability to remove a speedy delete. If not, you could recommend to the appropriate person that the speedy delete be removed, granted that you approve my page.

I thank you in advance for your help. I apologize if I have been long-winded, but I have tried to be as precise as possible. I am new to the world of Wikipedia editing, though I have joined in part because I would like to one day contribute to this information community in the way you both already do. I hope we can resolve this issue together. Please let me know if this is an acceptable plan, and I will then begin creating a page that meets all of Wikipedia's standards. Jones 01:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Jones7224

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I have restored the article to User:Jones7224/Gina Raimondo. Please edit it there, and when you feel it is ready, let me know so I can help you evaluate it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your understanding. I will let you know. Jones 4:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Original research in Burchett article

Request for help. I have recently reverted text on the Wilfred Burchett page which seems to me to be original research. Karlkuzmich insists on using as a reference a purported KGB document. I do not want to get into an edit war, but I have explained that it is important that such an allegation needs a reliable source as a reference, yet he/she persists. [Wilfred Burchet KGB allegation again] Could you look at it or point me to somebody who might be interested in the issue.Joel Mc (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've protected the article for a short while so you can work this out on the Talk: page and avoid edit-warring. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Alderman Article

You wrote to me: "Enough of this nonsense. This trivia is improperly sourced and a WP:BLP violation. Take it to the talk page, or I'll semi-protect this a..."

Is this the assumption of good faith?? To me this sounds pretty much like bullying on your part because you can given your reputation.

I had provided better referencing both times I had restored the line. I will restore it again once the PCC publishes the outcome of its ongoing investigation if you disagree with the points I raise on the article talk page. I think you need to step back and be objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.138.196 (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is imperative that you carefully review WP:BLP, and my comments on the article's Talk: page. Please continue all discussion at the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You resorted to an ad hominem, in calling a well intentioned edit "nonsensical". That is offensive and that is not acceptable and is in contravention of wiki's rules as you well know. I will not continue this discussion on the alderman article talk page since it has to do with your behaviour, and not with my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.125.84 (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Civility

I think you should be a little more thick-skinned about civility. Saying you won't respond to perfectly legitimate arguments because an editor accused you of sophistry doesn't really help the consensus-building process. Honestly, I do not think any of the comments you have labeled personal attacks even come close. Reacting the way you do actually does more to create tension with other editors.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

TDA, I think it's exactly the opposite. Every argument and comment Guinsberg has made until now has, based on his comments, apparently been premised on the notion that those who disagree with him do so for purely personal or ideological reasons. There is no possible way one can come to an understanding with someone with this kind of approach. In such cases it is only by forcing the discussion to stay on the extremely narrow parameters mandated by WP:NPA and WP:TPYES that one can have a hope of reaching some sort of agreement or compromise. This is not a personal matter with me, and it should not be with Guinsberg either; rather, it is a discussion about what material is appropriate for a specific Wikipedia article. When Guinsberg realizes that the only thing we will be discussing will be policy and article content, the discussion will go much more smoothly. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are misconstruing WP:NPA to suggest something was an attack when it was not. Going after another editor's argument is generally expected on a talk page. On the other hand, repeatedly citing that policy to try and argue that anything criticizing your argument is reason to ignore the entirety of an editor's argument does represent incivility.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are misconstruing WP:NPA to suggest something was an attack when it was not. Talking about individual editors - speculating on their thoughts, beliefs, motivations, etc. is a personal attack. On the other hand, insisting they follow policy, and refusing to engage when they violate WP:NPA and WP:TPYES is not in any way uncivil. I am a volunteer here; if an editor refuses to follow WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, then I have no obligation to read, respond to, or pay any sort of attention to his comments. And if editors spent more time encouraging strict adherence of WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, and less time enabling those who violate them, there would be far fewer disagreements on article talk pages. When everyone knows the rules and knows they must follow them things settle down pretty quickly. By contrast, when editors say things like "you should be a little more thick-skinned", then policy is meaningless, Talk: pages become unpleasant free-for-alls, and nothing constructive is achieved. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

When you repeatedly use WP:NPA in a wikilawyer-type fashion to not engage in discussion with another editor it does reach the level of incivility. You repeated it again in response to a comment that was once more far from being uncivil. Someone suggesting that you are going by your personal preferences as opposed to input from other editors is not uncivil, at least not in the way Guinsberg phrased it. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" does not mean you are free of all criticism. In fact, the policy explicitly accommodates "constructive criticism" of another editor's behavior and arguments under acceptable discourse. One thing it certainly discourages is repeatedly citing WP:NPA instead of focusing on the content of an argument.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

TDA, WP:NPA states quite clearly, as its second sentence "Comment on content, not on the contributor". That's very, very clear, and it's repeated in WP:TPYES. It's easy enough to avoid this problem - don't use article Talk: pages to discuss other editors. What is "wikilawyering" is trying to find a way around this clear and sensible dictum, or claiming that quite reasonably invoking WP:NPA is somehow itself an example of "incivility". "Constructive criticism" is fine in its place, which is not an article's talk page. Save the "constructive criticism" for user talk pages, RFCs, etc. Instead, of enabling policy-violating behavior, please focus on getting Guinsberg to stop using article talk pages to talk about other editors, per WP:NPA. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Burchett again

Thanks for you help, but we don't seem to be getting anywhere. Take a look. I have been trying to find secondary sources which are reliable but nothing turns up which surprises me as Burchett was a controversial character.Joel Mc (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Archiving on Talk:Lua (programming language)

Please don't "fix" the archiving on Talk:Lua (programming language) again before discussing it on the talk page. I've restored the previous settings; they follow WP:A-A.--Oneiros (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:A-A is meaningless; it's just some guy's personal preferences, and carries no weight. Also, it was you who first changed the settings last week, also without discussing it on the talk page. If you really think discussion is needed, we can restore the original settings, including the 30 day archive rate, and open a discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Jayjg,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Einstein is jew

lol he was atheist. 1 - You obviously don't wikipedia rules of contribution. Wikipedia is not a place for religion wars. I properly filled the the commit log, even you said the opposit. 2 - Sources are not valid : a source that says that einstein is jew cannot be valid. 3 - The page could be renamed "list of nobel prises of jewish ancestry". And a column could be added which indicates the real point of view of the laureate about religion. As is this page contains many obvious lies, it cannot stay on wikipedia. 4 - Most physicists are agnostic since the discovery of non classical physics. 5 - In doubt, I removed only the laureates in physics that shared the same sources as for the Einstein case. Because those sources are wrong, they cannot be used. KevinPerros (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Jews are an ethnoreligious group; that means that there are millions of Jews who are Jewish only by ethnicity. See also Category:Jewish atheists, which contains hundreds of names, and Jewish atheism. Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say, not your personal opinions. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There are interrelated concepts of ethnicity, religious affiliation, and religious practice. That he may not have been religiously observant would only be part of the multifaced-equation. The categories are far broader than that. Indeed, he was Jewish enough to have to leave Germany in 1935 to get out of the way of Nazi persecution for being a Jew. The sources are all therefore contrary to KevinPerros's personal opinion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point. But I disagree. In France, we have traditionnally no-notion of ethnicity : it is considered as a form of racism, or lack of religious freedom. I bet it is the same in Sweden, The Netherlands, and in many non American countries who read the wikipedia. I think that we are in the case of some people willing to structure EN.wikipedia with an American point of view, as usual (see the propaganda about Irak or Afghanistan on en.wiki and compare that with the same pages of the french or spanish wikipedia and you'll understand). Why not create US.wikipedia for that and let en.wikipedia for a world wikipedia ? I am kidding. To give another example, in France Palestinians are mostly considered as an oppressed people, whereas in the US they are mostly considered as terrorists. I bet that if you compare both wikipedia pages, you'll see a totally different content, because in case of an edit war in the fr.wiki you'll have a vote with 10 average Frenchies, pro-palestinian, and in the us.wiki a vote with 10 average Yankees, pro Israel. It is a problem for wikipedia not to be able to solve that recurrent problem. 82.67.113.149 (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is based on what reliable sources say, not your personal views of ethnicity. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman says "Feynman himself was not only atheist, but distanced himself from being labeled Jewish even on ethnic grounds". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group says "An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other". So Feynman didn't "identify with each other", so is not an ethnic jew. So the 3 sources that say that he is ethnically jew are wrong. So those sources are not valid sources according to wikipedia policy.

Feynman doesn't have the final say in these matters though, and we don't make decisions about people based on definitions in Wikipedia articles. Please review WP:RS and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I used to have parts of those pages copypasted on my page... So on what basis do you decide who is an ethnic/religious jew ? If you have a better definition than wikipedia's page that is used internally, maybe you could write that definition down in the corresponding article. KevinPerros (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes these decisions based on what reliable sources say. I keep pointing you to that guideline for a reason. James Gleick, in his Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award finalist biography Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, describes him as "a New York Jew distinctly uninterested in either the faith or sociology of Judaism..." (p. 85). That sounds about right. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You have a definition of ethnicity that is reduced to genetics. And ethnicity goes beyond that, it is a mix of culture, religion, genetics... A jew that converts to islam is no more a jew, even if he has jewish parents. A muslim that converts to judaism is no more a muslim. A jew that converts to atheism, and don't live in a jewish culture is not a jew. You take a purely jewish religious, or islamist point of view, where you cannot abandon your religion/ethnicity. If you take a more modern point of view, every American (european) has freedom of religion and ethnicity. Anyway wikipedia is not meant to reflect one's country principles or the others. I think that modern principles of freedom of religion apply. My point is very precise here, I have understood that Einstein who was agnostic, but who made Israel inherit from him after his death, was of jewish ethnicity, and as a consequence belongs to the list. It is right to say that Feynman was of jewish ancestry, not ethnicity or religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinPerros (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Unlike you, I don't have any definition of a Jew. Wikipedia just goes by what reliable sources say. Have you read that guideline yet? That is all that matters. Read it please. Also, please read it. And in addition, please read WP:RS. And finally, if you remove Feyman from the list again, you'll be blocked for 3RR violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok I'll put the source saying that Feynman disregarded its ethnicity. As an admin you could temporarily ban me ? KevinPerros (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If you keep reverting, you'll get temporarily banned for violating WP:3RR. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

And you cannot act as an administrator when you are one the opponents in a conflict. I know a few rules. KevinPerros (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

He can remind you of the rules though and report any 3RR violation seeking third party enforcement.--MONGO 19:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

My last edit was automatically reverted, whereas it only contained a small precision, about jewish religion and ethnicity, MONGO I request your assistance if you are and admin. I am reporting to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Geopolitical,_ethnic,_and_religious_conflicts — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinPerros (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't "automatically reverted", someone reverted it because the insertion was obviously inappropriate (not to mention poorly written), and there's already an RFC on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think on a list "Jewish Nobel laureates", to put Einstein with three refs, kind of suggests that Einstein IS a Jewish Nobel laureat and that you can read so in the sources. It should be much clearer that Einstein did not identify himself as a Jewish Nobel Price winner, as now it is not so clear that "three "reliable" source say this, and other reliable sources say something else". Just the phrase "This Wikipedia article lists laureates of Jewish ethnicity, not only those of Jewish faith. As an example, many physicists were agnostic like Albert Einstein." in the beginning of the article is not enough in my point of view. It should say so right there at Einstein's entry. Beyond that, I find lists of Nobel laureates by ethnicity quite controversial. Where are the White, Christian, Finnish or Sovjet-lists? I thought Nobel prizes were to celebrate human achievement? But we're not having that discussion here :). -- Honorsteem (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, if you google, you immediately see that this list is subject to viral propaganda on social networks, aiming at showing jewish superiority of genetics, especially against muslim.KevinPerros (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What kind of nonsense are you going on about? Einstein had to flee Germany because he was a Jew! He was one of the founders of Hebrew University of Jerusalem! He was offered the first presidency of the State of Israel! Please do some real research before you post comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The stuff you have deal with...you're a better man than I for such patience.--MONGO 19:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! It's encouraging to get a bit of support from time to time. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Jajy, are you suggesting that we should use Nazi guidelines to define who is a Jew and who not? According to the Nazis guidelines, even Hitler was a Jew, but for obvious reasons not gassed. And we don't see Adolf showing up in any Jewish honours list.... So yes, Einstein fled Germany, as the Germans would have persecuted him, but that simple fact doesn't make him an ethnic Jew anymore than you or me, unless he identified himself as such. -- Honorsteem (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting we follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which say all material is based on what reliable sources say. And by the way, Hitler wasn't a Jew "according to Nazi guidelines", that's just something his enemies made up about him in the 1930s, and which historians have now debunked. Please inform yourself on both history and Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Honorsteem..."According to the Nazis guidelines, even Hitler was a Jew"...I'm "learning" something new everyday!--MONGO 20:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Jay, when you run out of patience, I have a two by four in the backyard that you are free to borrow. I do need it back, though. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I may have to take you up on that!

Jayjg ^(talk) 20:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC))

This entire thread is full of lols. Jay, sometimes you just have to accept that certain people are interested in arguing, facts be damned.JoelWhy (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The awesome **COWSTAR**...usually awarded to those who have had to put up with a huge amount of "stuff".--MONGO 20:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Completely unrelated to this issue being discussed, but just as a nice little note, the Nazi criteria for who was a Jew was actually a great deal stricter than Jewish law requires. The requirement of four Jewish grandparents was actually specifically about having a weak criteria given that a more open criteria would have meant countless more Germans, including many members of the Nazi party and hundreds of thousands of German soldiers, would have been considered Jewish. The only question with regards to Hitler having significant Jewish heritage has been the paternity of his father, with some suggesting that the father of Alois Hitler, i.e. Adolph's grandfather, might have been Jewish. While that speculation is taken less seriously, the paternity of Alois Hitler has not been clearly settled as some think the man who married Alois' mother was actually not the father, but the man's step-brother who was married at the time Alois would have been conceived.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

More conspiracy theories...why am I not surprised.--MONGO 23:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well deserved, although I think we all would perhaps wish that there were, in general, maybe welcome it if editors in general did not act in such a way as to make this sort of recognition necessary. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and you're right, I wish this kind of recognition wasn't necessary. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So we can safely assume Einstein left not because he was Jewish but because he felt it inappropriate to stay in a country where the Nazi's came to power, similar to many other German intellectuals at the time. What was the other argument again? Oh, and Drmies, please store your 2x4 in a location void of sunshine, thank you. -- Honorsteem (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about my wood, Mr. Cleanstart. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes

If it no unconvenience to you, please elaborate on your view of the (in)correctness of the sourcing of my adding of the 6 figure fundraising by Pipes for the Dutch Party for Freedom on my talk page. -- Honorsteem (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, lost track of the discussion. I've now responded. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Reza Aramesh

I think you gave the wrong protection on Reza Aramesh. The user asked for a create protection, i.e., a salting. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Oscar De La Hoya

Can you downgrade the protection of Oscar De La Hoya to semi-protection, which seems is what you intended to do? Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you're correct, and I've done so. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Tirelessness

Jayjg, I present to you this irrefutable evidence that you are tireless. I therefore wish to know what kind of coffee you are drinking. John Shandy` • talk 03:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I wish I was tireless!

Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing my talk contributions

Please stop editing my contributions to Talk:Daniel Pipes. I have moved the thread there for obvious reasons. For your appeasal I will replace the diff links to the ones from my talk page. Honorsteem (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop giving the impression that I commented on that page in that thread. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont give that impression, the whole thread is under the heading Moved conversation. -- Honorsteem (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

People often don't see headers or read them carefully, and you are giving the impression I commented there then retracted my comments. I did no such thing. Please stop doing this. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, I added a note to the ANI thread. See what you think. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your tireless editing, your unwavering dedication to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and your civility in the face of provocation, I think this barnstar is long overdue. Jakew (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Jayjg ^(talk) 15:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

All good

Hi there Jayjg, I actually wanted your view on an editing matter but I am pleased to say we have managed to work out a solution which satisfies all parties. So you may disregard this altogether. Best wishes, Nimom0 (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad you worked it out. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

3RR caution

Jay, you've reverted twice within 24h. This message is to serve as a caution that you are close to violating the WP:3RR rule. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Jay can count--can you, Jay? Also, see the talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I can count very well. Why would you even ask such a silly question? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  - I wasn't asking you. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

talk page stalker question: why is this motley group crawling out of the woodwork to argue over a one word in an obscure stub?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You talkin' bout me, Brewcrewer? I'll accept "motley", but my house is more than "woodwork". Drmies (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't be referring to anyone specific because the "diverse often incongruous" definition of "motley" [2] must by nature take everyone into account and thus can't by nature refer to anyone specific. Congrats on the house btw, I thought all wikipedians edited from their parents basement (except Jayjg who edits from an internet cafe in Bangkok). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha, a very egalitarian comment (though it does mean you include me--and I resemble that remark). Some of us is old, though not all of us is as old as Cullen328 is. I think that's 328 AD. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, in answer to your question "why is this motley group crawling out of the woodwork to argue over a one word in an obscure stub?", the answer is that anything I do is, by definition, controversial, and the subject of intense scrutiny. Unfortunately, I will now have to block you for outing my location - perhaps the only uncontroversial action I will undertake on Wikipedia today.

Drmies, I can indeed count to two, but cannot guarantee my ability to count any higher.

IP editor 140.247.141.165, I find your warning and reference to Wikipedia policies very intimidating. Perhaps it might be appropriate for an editor like User:Rmhermen, who joined Wikipedia on May 10, 2001, or User:AxelBoldt or User:The Cunctator, who both joined on July 26, 2001, but it makes a relative newcomer like me feel very unwelcome. Please review WP:BITE. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Farhat Hashmi

Hi, could you kindly take a look at this. A user is persistently removing a large chunk from this article because by his own admission, he sees it as "negatively" . He asked for a source for the content. So I provided this and restored. Surprisingly, he then removes it again within minutes under the pretext of brevity and balance as opposed to his initial edit summary contrary to his own edit sum. I am concerned because I have repeatedly advised him to stop removing things and tried to explain him why the content should be included and it is not a case of "loosely related topics". I have found at least 3 RSs which connect the subject and topics of extremism, conservatism, islamism. More exist. I have also come across another of his unwarranted removals in an article I have edited previously thus it is not an isolated event, it would appear. I would appreciate if you can look in this matter. Regards, Nimom0 (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not true. It has little to do with the RS he mentions and nothing at all to do with any personal likes or dislikes (aside from what I believe makes for a good encyclopedia entry).GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

But it is true as clearly evident from your very own edit summary. Your exact words "This material is not from Newsline; at least not as linked. I have removed unverified material until reliable, credible and neutral (third-party) sources can be provided.)". I am curious as to how you arrived here and the only conclusion I can arrive at is that you are now following my contribution list. Kindly stop that and await further review on this matter. Nimom0 (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Nimom0, I do not know you, I have no interest in your history of edits (I am busy enough with my own areas) and I am certainly not following you around Wikipedia. Purely by chance we seem to have intersected twice, but only twice, in the thousands of edits we have each made. This happens quite often with users. Your curiosity has thus led you to the wrong conclusion. Regards,GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You really have to stop this. It is very clear that the only way you could have reached this page of jayjg is by stalking my contributions list. I have asked you politely to resist and stop. You fail to pay heed - once again. Stop this immediately. Stop hounding me. I am not clearly not talking about editing on wikipedia but your unexplained turn up here. I don't appreciate this. You failed to explain your presence here because you can't. You are following my edits and I am warning you for the final time, to stop this behaviour immediately. This is disruptive. Pay notice when somebody asks you to stop. Nimom0 (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Nimom0, please do not see significance in a coincidence. We both edit Muslim-related topics quite often. It is no more than that. There's no need for accusations of stalking and dishonesty. I suggest that, because we are both causing the other stress (yes, you are stressing me also), we take care to stay well away from each other. This is not unreasonable. Ok? Now let's be in a state of peace. Please.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

GorgeCustersSabre, nonsense. It IS more than that. HOW did you get to Jayjgs talkpage? This page is not an article being edited. It is a personal talkpage where I contacted Jayjg. You simply stalked my contributions list and arrived here. Nothing whatsoever to do with editing muslim related articles. You got here by stalking me. Thats why you fail to explain your presence here on JAYJG's talkpage. So you ARE being dishonest and you ARE stalking me. This is proven by you talking here. You keep playing with words so to avoid having to admit that you are in fact stalking me and hounding me. I am not the one following you around nor do I monitor who you talk to and nor do I magically turn up there and disrupt. Don't play this blame game or victim role. Dishonesty and denial will get you nowhere. Stop hounding me. Your behaviour is inexcusable and the fact that you continue is not helping matters. As an editor I find your persistence in hounding me very disturbing and disruptive. Nimom0 (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Josephus on Jesus

I have been in e-mail contact with one of the editors on the above page. Although I have no intention of revealing what was said in that e-mail, I do believe that it might be useful to have a mediator-type, like yourself, involved in the content. I also think you might, maybe, know a bit more about the subject of Josephus, and possibly be readily able to access it, than others. Maybe. Anyway, just a thought. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Are there any current disputes regarding the article content? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, define "current". At least as of yesterday, one editor has been pushing for the significant inclusion in the article of theories relating to the possibility that Josephus' references to James might be forgeries. I myself don't know much about Josephus, and assume the others on that page do, including the dissident, but at least right now I'm rather pressed for time to try to add anything substantial to the conversation. John Carter (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I will try to take a look. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, there is a bit of a problem which has been pointed out to me by someone else, and that is no less than eleven reversions by one editor in one day, a very serious violation of WP:3RR. So, there are also apparently behavioral issues involved as well. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I may be able to add some context to this problem as an uninvolved editor. I stumbled upon this edit conflict about a week ago when I noticed there was still no article on Slavonic Josephus after all these years. (Now, suddenly, there is one as of last week). The long absence of an article on Slavonic Josephus is probably related to the dispute on the JoJ article. In both cases, there is material in Slavonic Josephus that conflicts doctrinally with the New Testament. The crux of the content issue on the JoJ article is the addition of reliably sourced content by the "dissident" editor which is then systematically deleted by the "consensus" of an editing cabal that frequently WP:tag teams on this and related articles. The problem is complicated by the behavior of the "dissident" editor, who appears to be a young person that responds emotionally to the WP:3RR#traps and repeated deletions. She/he is no match for the veteran WP:gamers that WP:OWN these articles and would probably benefit from the guidance of an experienced mentor. Best regards. Ignocrates (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The article's talk page is lengthy and confusing; is there a specific section that is relevant to this conflict? I do see a summary section on the Slavonic Josephus in the main article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Much of the disputed material has been minimized or quickly archived to dispense with further discussion after "consensus" has been achieved. You will have to check the edit logs to pick up the pattern. Ignocrates (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, there is a network of users on that article that act as a multiple tag team using the Wikipedia rule of consensus in order to achieve their biased aims, which does not involve fair usage of the subject matter, for apparent religious reasons. They also probably communicate with each other by e-mail about their prospective strategies. The article is terribly slated to one point of view, and the facts given that the passages in Josephus about Jesus could be disputed is buried within a welter of waffle, designed to soften the effect of the information. There is more information that can be given about this subject matter to show that the material is disputed. But the editors know their stuff, I certainly did not introduce the facts that Origen was ignorant of the passages in Josephus - they knew that from the get-go judging by 1) the way he was ignored completely initially by user history2007, and 2) the soft way Origen was written about by Euseubius, which currently still stands in the article. Alice Whealy is a passionate believer in the authenticity of the passages. But even in her 2003 book Josephus on Jesus she writes on page xiii in the Preface of her book about the Testimonium Flavianum - "In the sixteenth century the authenticity of the text was publicly challenged, launching a controversy that has still not been resolved today." Whealey presents her case that a passage by Josephus in her opinion is authentic, within the broader context that there is no agreement amongst scholars about the subject matter. The users have won their case to present a Wikipedia article based on the Wikipedia consensus guideline that no administrator can do anything about.Lung salad (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

One last comment and I am moving on. When seeking admin help, remain calm and be as concise as possible. Stay focused on provable facts, and use diffs wherever possible to support your arguments. Good luck. Ignocrates (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

They will win in arbitration. Lung salad (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Everyone will "win" if they work toward achieving a NPOV. A core principle of WP:consensus is that all the involved editors are acting independently. That is the real problem here. Just stay focused on the content and you will be fine. So long. Ignocrates (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Here:

requests for adminship

Two words - do it. I can't doubt that you would be successful. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What are the salary and benefits like? Paid vacations? Corporate jet for use? I will think about it if a few more people push me, but it looks like more unpaid work. One of these days I should just show up at WMF and demand pay.... sigh... History2007 (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

John Carter is backing history2007 to be an admin

23:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Lung salad (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jay, I think I can offer a quick summary of what has happened in all this, although full disclosure: I am part of that evil tag-team Cabal that owns this article (per the exceptionally fair description offered by Ignocrates). I came across this article a few weeks ago when it was in the midst of a struggle to offer various competing viewpoints on the topic in a mostly unsystematic and confusing way. As such, the article had become unwieldy, particularly for a generalist reader. Since this is an area of considerable scholarship, it is easy to get lost in the minutiae. The consensus was to move the detailed scholarly back and forth to its own section whilst keeping a general overview of the topic largely free from the Professor X says and Professor Y counters, quotation of the original Greek, and so forth. One user in particular had added much material that compounded the general confusion of the article. When the information he added was removed, the response was regrettable (11RR). What the user seems to remain steadfastly unaware of is that much of the information and sources he has provided has been retained and simply moved to another part of the article. Given the problems of the past, it was the consensus view that this new version should first be agreed upon on the talk page before being moved into the mainspace. You can see the emerging detailed analysis for the article here: Talk:Josephus_on_Jesus/testpage. Almost all of the positions adduced previously have found or will find their way into this section, making the editor's behaviour hard to understand. (Ignocrates too is apparently unaware of these efforts.) Frankly, the editors of that page have taken an article that was a complete mess, bewildering to an unfamiliar reader, and are turning it into an article that will easily pass GA, and could be an FAC. The characterisations above, therefore, strike me as particularly, even willfully ill-informed. In the end, the result will be a solid article on the topic, suitable for a generalist reader and informed by the leading scholarship. In short: this is an editor issue, not a content problem. Eusebeus (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are two sides to every story, and I'm sorry if you can't handle the unabridged version. I became aware of this edit conflict only a week ago and, frankly, I was just going to let it pass. I give John Carter kudos for giving a crap and trying to do something to help this kid. I was trying to provide some context for why an editor would become so frustrated they would blank their userpage and walk away from Wikipedia. I agree completely that this is a user conduct problem. Ignocrates (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO a rather odd reading of events and certainly not how I would interpret this. But so be it. Eusebeus (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There definitely are differing views on this conflict. I've started a talk page discussion on it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, the one point of contention might be the relative recentness of some of the sources Lung salad has provided as opposed to those provided by the other two, and the relative weight they might currently be given in the academic community. As most of us probably know, there are any number of different interpretations of just about everything related to earlier Christianity, some recognized by others, some not. But, like I said, this is a bit out of my field. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

All scholars acknowledge that Origen did not know the Testimonium and his version of the death of James differed from the version existing in the current editions of Josephus, first witnessed by Eusebius. This has nothing to do with scholars' "opinions", pick up any book about Josephus. Lung salad (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect

With all due respect, and hopefully you will not take this as me challenging your actions, I would like to request that you reconsider your deletion of my response to DGG here. I was trying to save my response at the AN/I, and ran into an edit conflict. When I finally did manage to figure out how to get my comment to save, you had in fact closed discussion many (15) minutes earlier, which I had not noticed during my effort to save my post.

I understand that in the normal course we don't accept comments being added to already closed discussion, especially if the comments are substantive as mine are here. But under the circumstances, I wonder if it is not possible to allow my comments to be incorporated in the record. I drafted them before you had closed the discussion, and without seeing your close, but I of course only saved them after you had closed the discussion, so I do understand that as a technical matter your deletion of them was certainly appropriate.

I would expect my post should only be incorporated as part of the record if DGG consents, since I am replying to DGG in my post. I'll point DGG to this discussion, and seek his input. If DGG objects for any reason whatsoever, I withdraw my request.

I think it is important to save my response, if possible, since it replies to an entirely new and important policy issue that DGG raised, and your close advises me to try acting in accordance with DGG's suggestion more often. I know that DGG is keen to have thoughtful discussion and records on policy matters, which makes me think it is possible that he may be amenable to it. But I understand that he may object for any reason whatsoever, and respect that.

I'm not, I hope you understand, seeking to challenge your close or amend it in any way. Whatever my views may be (obviously, we have different ones).

I appreciate your consideration.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I appreciate that you put significant effort into your post, and unfortunately got caught by an edit conflict. That said, you posted 15 minutes after I closed the discussion, and in any event I think it's best to let closed discussions stay closed. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, I am very uncomfortable with even the appearance that a criticism of me was deleted. I would have wanted to see the post. The rule I think is NOT BURO. I suggest you reopen the discussion , since I do not think we are finished & neither does Epee. And we both think the discussion remains productive. I'll just mention now, that Epeefleche commented I could have snow closed the obvious AfDs myself--but he should understand that I will never close AfDs where I have a strong opinion on a divided issue. I always argue them instead. I would think it very wrong to close any of these school AfDs--I am not neutral. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

DGG, I appreciate what you're saying, but the discussion is over and closed now; it was quite apparent that additional discussion would not lead to any tangible outcome. I didn't read what Epeefleche wrote in his comment, so I cannot vouch for it being "criticism" of you, but if you personally found your dialogue with Epeefleche to be productive, wish to discuss this further with him, then he can certainly repost whatever he wrote on your user talk: page, and you can both continue from there. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh -- that's not what I said at all; apparently DGG misunderstood me. Nor, of course, was it criticism of DGG. I only said that since my comment had edit-conflicted with the close, and since I know that DGG is keen to have thoughtful discussion and records on policy matters, I thought that it might be appropriate to record my comment. But it is all a discussion on policy matters, so to record it I'll simply post my comment on DGG's talkpage, so there will be a record of it. It will no doubt go on and on, and is purely a policy discussion, so that is no doubt the more appropriate place for it to take place in any event. I'll start the policy dialogue on DGG's page now.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, I regret you chose not to fulfill my request, but I'm not going to bother arguing with you about procedure. I will continue part of it on my talk p. A good deal of the previous discussion is there in any case. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I really think this is for the best for everyone. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Igor Tamm. Is he a jew?

You asked: "Is Igor Tamm's Jewishness "contentious"?. I think it is. I did search “Russian internet” (and Russian books in my personal library) and (by far) most of the references to Tamm’s parents are similar to the one below (not a direct quotation):

Tamm’s father was Evgeni Tamm (Евгений Фёдорович Тамм) German: his grandfather moved to Russia from Thuringia. His mother was Olga Davidova (Ольгa Михайловнa Давыдовa).

His mother’s first name a typical Russian name; last name could be Jewish. I could not find any references to his mother ethnicity or genealogy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.27.60 (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

All we can do is go by what reliable sources say, and if they disagree, report that disagreement. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My point is: his "Jewishness" is questionable and most of the “reliable sources” I found, do not state that he was a religious Jew (as a convert), nor that he was a Jew by birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnida101 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Judaism and Christianity

Just thought you, and those who watch this page, might be interested in indicating your opinions about maybe changing the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish Christianity to a slightly broader scope of Jewish-Christian interactions in general, as per Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard#Possible changes in subprojects. I myself think the subject is broader, and maybe a bit more easily referenced, than the rather ill-defined "Jewish Christianity". Also, I have found at least one encyclopedia/reference work on the subject, which I haven't found on "Jewish Christianity" per se, so it might even be easier to come up with a clearer definition of scope. John Carter (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

for the help with Burchett. I do think that it is an important issue.--Joel Mc (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. I think it is a good example of the hazards of using primary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Was Marx jewish

Marx's father converted before Marx was born, but his mother converted after he was born. But Marx was baptized as a child. So was Marx Jewish or not? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it appears he was born a Jew, and according to Jewish law he was Jewish. Surely you don't think one must practice Judaism in order to be Jewish? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No, but I think if one is baptized it amounts to a renunciation of Judaism and a separation from the community. Am I wrong? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That falls right into the the issue that Judaism is both an ethnicity and a religion. Marx was a Jew, even according to halacha, who did not practice Judaism. Anyway, according to most branches of Judaism (if I am not mistaken), one cannot "renounce" being a Jew, one can only stop practicing. -- Avi (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should state what WP:RS say about it.On personal lever I agree with Slrubenstein--Shrike (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Which means we say something like "he came from Jewish family, but his father converted to Christianity a few years before Marx was born" and leave it at that. -- Avi (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am asking a genuine question. I do not know the answer. of course we should follow RS. My question is, what do RS say about the identity of a person born a Jew who is then baptized? (Or, what do Jewish scholars - scholars of Judaism, not scholars who happen to be Jewish - say about Marx's identity?) It is a question, not an argument. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If they not saying it in direct connection with Marx it would be WP:SYNTH--Shrike (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if there's any one answer to the question. Marx's Jewishness is a particularly complex issue, not only because he was baptized as a youth, but because he is often viewed as antisemitic, particularly for writings such as On the Jewish Question. From what I can tell, most reliable sources either consider him to be a Jew, or give a lengthy explanation of his Jewish familial origins, knowledge of Judaism, cultural influences, etc. The famous Marxist historian and historiographer Eric Hobsbawm views him simply as a Jew, for example, in this October 2005 essay on the "Benefits of Diaspora" in the London Review of Books, in which he states "issues to do with the nature, structure and possible transformations of society in an era of radical historical change both in practice and in theory have attracted emancipated Jews disproportionately almost from the beginning, starting with the Saint Simonians and Marx". Julius Carlbach's Karl Marx and the Jewish Question has an interesting discussion of "The Jewishness of Marx" starting on page 310, in which he describes the views of a large number of sources. Whole books have literally been written on the topic of Marx's Jewishness; for example, Dennis K. Fischman's 1991 work Political Discourse in Exile: Karl Marx and the Jewish Question. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

THanks, a great answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 18:04, 28 February 2012‎

My pleasure! Jayjg ^(talk) 17:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Censorship about racism

I saw you censor what I wrote on the talkpage of List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Yet Charles Murray and Richard Lynn have been described as racist and as an example of Scientific racism in many news media, in books and on many very mainstream websites (see http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/ta_010912.html ; http://www33.homepage.villanova.edu/edward.fierros/pdf/Dennis,%20Social%20Darwinism.pdf ; http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1271 ; http://books.google.fr/books?id=UVLaKci3uOIC&printsec=frontcover&dq ; http://books.google.fr/books?id=C-jIEhfKPaYC&pg ). I am really shocked to see you defend this kind of persons who talk about the superiority of some races compared to others. Do you really share the ideas of the link you gave us? That there would be an intellectual hierarchy of races? You can't really believe that?!? Eleventh1 (talk) 09:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:BLP? Adhering to WP:BLP is not "censorship". These sources are either not reliable, or do not describe the individuals as racists. Also, I am not in any way "defending" these individuals; do not make that claim again. I know nothing about them, and am, in fact, defending Wikipedia. When I read their Wikipedia bios after you described them that way, I noted that they were careful not to call them this, but rather more neutrally said things like "Some critics denounced the book and its authors as supporting scientific racism" and "He also sits on the boards of the Pioneer Fund, an organization that has been frequently described as racist in nature,[7] and of the Pioneer-supported journal Mankind Quarterly, which has been called a white supremacist journal". That is the way things are done on Wikipedia; we repeat what reliable sources have said on a topic, and write it in a neutral, dispassionate way. Again, please read WP:BLP, and make sure you do not do this kind of thing again. And finally, I did not give you that link; in fact, if you had been following the discussion, you would have noted that it was User:AndyTheGrump who first provided the link, and used its contents to attempt to prove his point. That's right, AndyTheGrump, who insists that the list should be deleted. Are you now going to accuse him of harboring racist views? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right. I just verified on the talkpage and I misunderstood what you wrote when I first read it. I apologize for my mistake.

But believe me, in 1994 and 1995, these two men were called far worse by nearly everybody (well, maybe not exactly everybody, they, unfortunately, had their supporters). About the list of Jewish Nobel laureates, I think I will just avoid it for a few days, to be more dispassionate. Eleventh1 (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dalai lama ding dong

He is banned from I/P area and I think his participation in Fundamental Rights Agency article is breach of his topic ban.--Shrike (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes thanks, I've already told him that. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Re Elinor Ostrom

With regard to this reference [3] you've added to the 'Jewish Nobel laureates' article, are you citing the headline, or the article itself? I'd suggest that since headlines are often written by people other than the author of an article (and occasionally contradict it entirely), we should probably quote from the text itself - which one would hope would be more explicit, and actually state outright that Ostrom was Jewish. Unfortunately, it seems to be in a paid archive, which doesn't help. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually added the reference based on the headline of overcoming antisemitism, which is prejudice against Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

On that basis, given what I've said, would you prefer to remove the reference, or discuss it at WP:RSN? I think we've had quite enough discussions over appropriate sourcing for the article, and am in no mood to engage in arguments about what 'antisemitism' means in relation to a headline for an article you haven't read. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing that source, given your objections. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ooops! Actually, as far as I can see, the other source cited [4] doesn't describe Olstrom as Jewish either. It says that her father was, and that she was taunted as a child because of this - any comments? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see the problem. It's not a source I added. I've now read the earlier ("anti-Semitism") source too, and it describes her as "half-Jewish". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've now removed Ostrom from the list for now - I couldn't find a source that backed up her inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Revision of my Menachim Begin contribution.

Could you please enlighten me as to why you reverted my contribution to the Menachim Begin article. 1: Did you read my post on the talk page section 'Why not accept the fact that "Irgun" was a terrorist organization?'. 2: If you did not please read it. 3: Can you then please explain the double standards by which you found it valid to revert my contribution. 4: If you can, then can we perhaps compromise on stating in the main part of the article that Irgun and therefore Begin were considered 'terrorists' by the British mandate authorities? Please bear in mind here the King David Hotel bombing article, where a source for this statement is clearly provided.

PS: Your 'rule' above: 'Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here' sounds like a cop out to get away with any revert action you feel like without having to justify it properly. I do hope I have posted in the correct place for you to respond to my points, as it is always very easy to hit the 'undo' button without justifying one's actions.1812ahill (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I both read your comment and responded to it; perhaps you should have checked the article's Talk page before commenting. Also it's not my 'rule', it's Wikipedia's rule. Please review WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, both of which state it quite clearly. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Good god, how did you respond to that so fast. I was about to say the same thing, that I had just looked back at the talk page, and spotted what you said. So, I take it then that you have no problem with me using the reverted details in the main part of the article.1812ahill (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with them going into the body of the article, so long as the sources are reliable and refer specifically to Begin. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Btw there was no WP:NPA intended, I just don't recall coming across such defensive statements before at the top of a user talk page. I'm trying to be as polite as possible here, with no offence intended at all.1812ahill (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm the target of a lot of abuse; my user page alone was vandalized 127 times (until it was protected). I'm here to support Wikipedia and create and improve articles, not engage in battles with ideologues. The notice is there to encourage editors to use this page for its intended purpose. Sometimes it even works. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Jayjg: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

PVV

I see that you removed the link to the NRC article about Pipes and Horrowitz [5]. Next to that it is a correct representation of the sources. I am a bit surprised about your own demonstrated sensitivity of WP:HOUNDING and seeing these edits of yours? Also, how did you establish it violates WP:V if you do not understand Dutch? (Oh and do see the 'nutshell' info at wp:v about inline citations, regarding the continuing discussion at the list of jewish nobel prize winners). Have a nice day! -- Honorsteem (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Josephus on Jesus

This is an article by fundamentalists for fundamentalists. Censorship exists on Wikipedia. Lung salad (talk) 20:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I still don't fully understand what the issue is, I'm sorry. Is there a specific sentence you wish to add to the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is POV suppression of reliably sourced article content. I believe Lung salad is referring to an account of the death of James the Just which Origen attributes to Josephus, but the passage is missing from all existing manuscripts. There are several reliable secondary sources which mention this account including John Painter in Just James pp.205-208. I just looked it up and Painter shows in parallel the differing accounts of Origen and Eusebius. Ignocrates (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The theory that part of the Testimonium Flavianum may be authentic (it's a theory, presented as such by those who propose it) is built upon Origen's original statement that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as Christ". Scholars believe this is a reference to an earlier version of the Testimonium that existed in Origen's period that was later interpolated by Christians ("did not believe in Jesus as Christ" turned into "he was the Christ"). This theory by Biblical scholars is founded on Origen's original statement in Contra Celsum I:47. This information is missing from the article. It's covered in all books on the subject matter. Because the majority of the current editors of that article wish to have this information omitted from the article, it has to remain absent. Origen is the earliest witness to statements about Jesus in Josephus --- yet this is considered off topic and discussion threads become collapsed on the Talk Page. There is a statement in the article that it is also possible that others, including the third-century patristic writer Origen also knew of the passage, without defining how important to Biblical scholarship Origen's statements are relating to the theories about the Testimonium to those who think it may be authentic. Lung salad (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The content part of this dispute is easy to solve. Rather than focusing on what Origen had to say, keep the focus on what the reliable sources have to say about Origen. For example, you can summarize Painter's conclusions about Origen's attribution to Josephus in the body of the text along with a reference citation that includes page numbers and a quotation of Painter's words. The embedded quotation should also include his citation of Origen and can even include a quotation of Origen's words within that citation. Do the same for all the other reliable sources you have. The disputants can argue that, despite all the documentation, none of your sources are reliable. However, that can easily be defeated by a RS/N, a content RfC, or in mediation. The rest of this dispute is a user conduct problem that should be handled separately. The larger point is to be impeccable with your editing and handling of sources so that a discussion of the content can't be turned into a discussion about you. Ignocrates (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You will get the same thing as me if you did the same thing as you proposed above. Lung salad (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The first step is to work with Jayjg to make sure the article content is an accurate summary of the sources and that all of the sources you are using are acknowledged as reliable. You can then address the secondary considerations of WP:Fringe and WP:Weight. "Fringe" is easy to deal with because it requires the application of an objective standard and the only "standard" being applied to this article is religious dogmatism. Ignocrates (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I decided I'm going to help out with the content part of this dispute. Jayjg, can you create a semi-protected page where Lung salad can write whatever content he wants to add to the article and which is supported by reliable secondary sources? We can take a look at that content to see how it fits in the immediate context of the article and make sure it is an accurate summary of the sources. We need a protected editing environment so that the content is not subject to almost immediate deletion and so active discussion about the content is not repeatedly minimized or archived. If we can initiate the process, I will read up on the history of the dispute and the sources added to the article, as well as look for my own sources, over the weekend while Jayjg is off-Wiki and we can tackle this problem next week. I think this is more of a WP:3O than a mediation at this point, although it might turn into a mediation later. Is that an acceptable way to proceed? Ignocrates (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I read over the article, the arguments on the talk page, Painter's quotations of Origen and Eusebius and his subsequent conclusions (JJ, pp.205-208), and looked at Origen's original Greek here. Lung salad is correct in stating that the article omits some important findings. These include: 1. the accounts of Origen and Eusebius are different, 2. however, Painter thinks Eusebius' account is dependent upon Origen's reading of Josephus, and 3. Origen's account clearly states that "he (Josephus) did not believe in Jesus as the Christ". Ignocrates (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

90% of the content of said article will consist of scholarly opinions and hypotheses, which is subject to change like the weather. That's why giving the demonstrable facts supported by verifiable citations is important. The demonstrable facts will not change, unlike the opinions. In 10 years time the article will have to be rewritten on that point. The facts will remain the same. Lung salad (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That's ok because the only relevant facts are what modern scholars say they are at this time. We merely report and let the reader decide for themselves. I have no doubt the article will be updated, and probably a lot sooner than 10 years. That's fine because Wikipedia articles can and should be subject to continuous improvement. Ignocrates (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Does there need to be a semi-protected page in article space? Lung salad could simply create a draft in his own user space, and work on it there - this is quite commonly done. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That is an excellent suggestion. Part of the problem with this article is that all the real work is being done on a test page, and 99% of the editing there has been done by one editor. However, I have joined the editing team, as of this morning. I plan to make a draft page in my own user space for the work I have been asked to do on arguments against the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum. Maybe Lung salad should do likewise. However, any edits that are not incorporated onto that test page are likely to be ignored, and I doubt the other editors on the page will be willing to consider his edits. Therein lies the problem. Ignocrates (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I resent that! Much of what was moved to the test page came out of the collaboration from the talk (subsequently archived). Sheesh, no respect. Anyway, Jay, we have told Lungsalad over and over and over again that the article was being developed out of mainspace and yet he has shown no interest in collaborating on the rewrite. Protection would be salutary until the thing is finished, although we will probably import the article in toto once it is done. So says the author of the manuscripts sections, ahem Ignocrates. Eusebeus (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No comment. Lung salad (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why you took my comment personally. Maybe you have a guilty conscience. Ignocrates (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The "Josephus on Jesus" article is part of a larger agenda. Lung salad (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI?

Hi Jayjg. I'm not sure what this is for, but I may be being dense. Can you clarify for me? Best, EyeSerene^talk 20:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You were involved in the original discussion to ban him, which was also a subject of this new thread. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes you're right :) I must have looked at the wrong link. Indeffed now anyway, quite rightly imo. Best, EyeSerene^talk 08:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't agree, though; see here: User talk:Honorsteem#Jayjg's ANI request for administrative action. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Would would be the best name for the article about the Israeli Ethiopian Jewish community?

Hi Jayjg. I know you have a lot of knowledge on this topic. Please participate in this discussion and express your opinion on the matter. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

JM

I noticed you stopped by the Justin Martyr page. I moved the disputed content to the talk page and suggested a content RfC. If the involved editors are more interested in tit-for-tat edit warring than community input, I suggest AN/I as the next stop. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The content is back again, so this really should go to an RfC. RS is not the issue here as much as scope and weight in the lede. Ignocrates (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no apparent interest in a content RfC and more interminable edit warring. I gave up. Can you take another look at this? Ignocrates (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I will take a look. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting

This contributor made a brief appearance at ANI tonight, with a bit of whining and some disruption for which they, and then another IP, got blocked. I skimmed through their contributions and knew that something looked familiar (I happened to see "their" desysopping Hawkeye on Recent changes a few weeks ago); you may feel the same way. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sadly a rangeblock of all of Harvard would be insane.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't ring a bell with me; who is it? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. When you recently edited Free Synagogue of Flushing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City Harvest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Berber People

Hello I'm inviting you again to participate in the consensus about berber people infobox pictures. New elements have been added to the discussion Talk:Berber people, please take a look and leave feedbacks - Dzlinker (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Rushdoony

There's a discussion about this on the talk page. Lionelt is referring to WP:REDFLAG. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion: help preventing edit war, solving conflict

Dear Admin, please give your opinion here, it would be most welcomed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#William_Muir.27s_opinions_in_Life_of_Mahomet

Thanks in advance--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on something at the Fringe noticeboard

Jayjg, what are your thoughts on this: Monetary hegemony at WP:FTN? I interpret it as blatant yet subtle form of POV-pushing or soapboxing, but nobody seems to have been able to reason with the editor. I don't know what, if anything, should be a next step. So, your advice would be appreciated. John Shandy` • talk 20:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Question re Reconstructionist Temple Beth Israel in Maywood, NJ

Hello Jayjg - I noticed you wrote the original text on Reconstructionist Temple Beth Israel in Maywood, NJ (RTBI). The reason I am putting the question here is because I am not able to access the talk page for RTBI. You mention that the building was constructed in 1901. Can you please let me know how you verified this? I am a board member of RTBI and applying for a Homeland Security grant and they ask for this information. Your page is the only place where I could find this so far. Your response would be greatly appreciated. Pgcohen (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pgcohen. As the footnote there indicates, the source is:

Brown, Robin T.; Warmflash, Schuyler; DelGiudice, Jim. The Architecture of Bergen County, New Jersey: The Colonial Period to the Twentieth Century, Rutgers University Press, 2001, p. 153. ISBN 978-0-8135-2867-0

Hope this is helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it is! :-) Pgcohen (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Protection of Survivor: One World‎

I see that you protected the page after a RFPP request. Would you mind resetting the semi-protection of Survivor: One World‎ to 00:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)? The contentious area of editing should be resolved at that time because that is the start time of the next episode. I would do it myself, but since I am heavily involved in editing the article, I think it would be best if the protection was set by an outside admin. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

Hello, I noticed that you reverted my edits. I am asking that you please undo your reverts. Alexander the Great was the King of Macedon and he was born in Macedon. His empire is rarely called a "Greek empire" by contemporary historians, rather it is called the "Macedonian empire" (see Google Books search here: [6] ) or sometimes "Hellenistic empire". Extratall (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, bear in mind that there was no "Greek" state at that time, the Balkan region was divided by city states and kingdoms. The Kingdom of Macedon took over the city states (except Sparta) and the Persian empire and so that's why historians call it a Macedonian empire (because it was Macedon that expanded, not the other Greek states). It is erroneous to call it a "Greek empire", or that Alexander was king of "Greece". Extratall (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

DRN thread

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Circumcision". Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Berber People

Hello, I just saw the archive of the article of berber people. You didn't find reliable sources for many berber origins. Your methode is correct, but you need some historical background. You're right in stating that Omar almokhtar and Averroes are not Berbers, but Massinissa and Juba I (or II) are somehow clearly Berbers. The confusion is due to the fact, that the berbers were never called berbers before Arab era. But Massinissa and Juba I were know as Numidians. Finding reliable sources that the Numidians are ancestors of the Berbers (spoke Berbers) is possible. Read also Ancient Libya, Best regards; Amazigh-cause (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Blanking of sourced content

At the article about the word Mohammedan - I saw that you used to edit it in the past, and did the most reversions for blanking sourced material. Anything about modern non-Islamic use of the term is blanked, even when that use comes from public figures and is needed to show the only non-archaic use of the word - that of modern pundits to make an implicit judgment of the religion. I ask your assistance in whatever way you can render it, by notifying me or the other editor of the appropriate policies (if either of us are breaking them), or as a third opinion. Thank you. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 06:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm pressed for time these days, but I will try to take a look. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't alone - the user was permabanned for doing the same thing on other related pages with other users persistently (which seems a reasonable conclusion from the fact that it was for breaking formerly-imposed 1RR sanctions), so the problem seems to have been solved. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 06:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Appeal by Healthnet11

Healthnet11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has appealed their block to UTRS, claiming that the other two editors are indeed separate individuals, and that they were all editing Wikipedia in tandem from the same library. I'm curious if the CU evidence that was the basis for this block could be misleading in the case of many editors editing from the same IP and from browsers with the same user-agent (as is common in computer labs, where all of the computers are imaged). This does not excuse the WP:BATTLEGROUND problem here, but if there isn't any socking going on here then we can at least discuss the POV/BATTLE issue. --Chris (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. So we've moved on from the "a guy handing out this paper at UCLA" story to working with two other editors and knowing them well enough to know that they edit Wikipedia from the library. And by pure coincidence, all three happen to have identical editing style, share the same characteristic spelling mistakes and quirks of Wiki markup usage, etc. Not to mention the fact that Zinbarg and TipPt have operated multiple sockpuppets in the past. I've rarely seen a more obvious case of sockpuppetry... Jakew (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Another admin decided to decline his request, so I guess that's that. --Chris (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I cant create edit notices, can you help or make one for me?

Dear admin, i was advised to make an edit notice on a certain page but dont have the ability as its says only admins and account creators are allowed to make one.

It is regarding this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#What_can_be_done_to_prevent_the_constant_addition_of_the_same_fake_information

Can you please kindly make an edit notice on the page The Farewell Sermon with the Message: "STOP: are you here to add an english version of the Farewell Sermon of Muhammad? Please see the talk page as a famous fake version of the sermon attributed to Muhammad is floating around the internet with no primary source", please make it with a red background like edit notice on Muhammad article. Thanks in advance.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible Edit War

Hello,

Your input, as an administrator, on the Talk Page of the Talmud article concerning the use of AD/CE is requested. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Farewell sermon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Khutbatul_Wada%27 this is where i gave evidence its fake. but more evidence its fake is found here: http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://bjhollingum.blogspot.com/2010/05/farewell-sermon.html&date=2011-03-01 --Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI on Eisenman and Tabor as authors

This is apparently a prelude to further mischief diff. See also, recent posts here, here, and here, which suggest a rather unbalanced frame of reference regarding these scholars. Since you are familiar with the history of this edit conflict, I thought you should be aware of these recent developments before any edit wars erupt on the article pages. Ignocrates (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

We have apparently begun the latest round of this seemingly never-ending dispute with a decidedly non-neutral post Talk:Ebionites#Eisenman_and_Tabor. Btw, User_talk:Jdtabor is now an editor on Wikipedia, so this could get interesting. Ignocrates (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Help getting to good article status

Can you help or advise how to get this to good article status: Invasion of Banu Qurayza, i was thinking you may have some knowledge in this area, and is it possible to get that featured on front page like DYK articles?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

To get it on the front page now, you'd have to get it to WP:FA status, which is quite difficult to do - and even then there's a long waiting list for FA articles to get onto the front page. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over factual accuracy tag

Can you please take a look at this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Nadir , do you see any problems with it? If so how to fix it. 1 user added a tag 8 months ago, didnt make reason why article is "factually inaccurate" clear--Misconceptions2 (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I've commented there. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for an administrative review

I would like to request an administrative review of John Carter's fitness to be an administrator. If he considers himself to be too cognitively impaired to participate in an arbitration process he demanded, he shouldn't be performing other administrative duties either. Ignocrates (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I welcome the review, actually, as the request seems to itself clearly violate WP:HARASS. You will know yourself that he has already been warned regarding this harassment on this page. This repeated harrasment, and I believe clearly demonstrable stalking, while at the same time completely refusing to address issues of substance regarding reliability of sources, seems to me to be clear evidence of the misconduct of Ignocrates himself. If you find the complaints groundless, as I do, I believe it would be reasonable to raise concerns regarding this harassment at WP:ANI. Please conduct the review as quickly as reasonably possible. Please also note that the link provided by the above editor in no way supports his own comments. In other words, Jayjg, the request here is based on what I believe is a clear and willful lie, by Ignocrates. Willful misrepresentation of fact is a very serious example of misconduct, is it not? John Carter (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The link provided seems germane and portrayed accurately. How does that justify accusations of lying, John? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well for a start the linked to text does not imply that he is too cognitively impaired to participate in an arbitration process. Characterising his description as cognitive impairment looks provocative as well as inaccurate. --BozMo talk 07:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Still doesn't justify accusations of lying. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Look. John Carter has stated in several forums and on editor talk pages that he has difficulty controlling his emotions in conflict situations. He attributes that to lingering effects of his being mugged. Imo, he also has great difficulty organizing his thoughts. Much more so than the person I remember before 2010. That is why he is asking for someone to do the work for him in arbitration. It's really a shame this happened, but I think it affects his work here. Ignocrates (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And yet, you yourself have not provided the evidence here or elsewhere. I do acknowledge, given that you, who first requested input regarding Michael and his completely irrational devotion to the fringe theories of Robert Eisenman, and actually brought and won an arbitration case against him on that basis, have now made an about face because having reviewed the available reference material, I have found that the content of the Ebionites article does not even remotely meet basic quality standards. The only reason I can see for that is that the independent reference sources, basically, do not in any way substantially support your own preferred version, which, so far as I can tell, probably is a mirror of the content of the fringe theories of the non-notable Ebionite Jewish Community, and of its leader and apparent "prophet", Shemayah Phillips. And, in all honesty, Ovadyah/Ignocrates, I find it ridiculously amusing that you of all people make accusations of irrational conduct of others. I make user page comments to James Tabor on his user talk page, and you instantly accuse me of stalking you despite the fact that my comments were basically to him, not you. Not to mention your frankly laughably stupid attempt to get me banned as a scokpuppet of User:John because I had the temerity to point out that what has been basically your driving purpose in your life as an editor here, from the first edit of your user page as Ovadyah, has been to promote the "James was Jewish" perspective, which they seem to support, and which has never had substantial academic support. So, yes, after a serious head injury, and after rather visible attempts on your part to basically ignore wikipedia standards to provide a soapbox for the non-notable Ebionite Jewish Community, as I have said earlier, my disgust for your hypocrisy and inability to act in an even remotely acceptable way has proven to be detrimental. It's really a shame that your own behavior has, so far as I can tell, never really met the basic standards of acceptable behavior in wikiipedia, but there is no question that it is the driving force of your own actions here. And, I once again notice that you provide only your own assessment of the situation. Your own rather obvious inability to abide by, or perhaps even grasp, behavior guidelines is itself I believe even more obvious in your history.

In all honesty, I have to think that the most relevant principle here is WP:COMPETENT, related to the behavior of Ignocrates/Ovadyah. I believe someone whose history indicates an extremely zealous, possibly at least to the point of pathological, devotion to the absolute truth of theories which have received rather little support in academia raises very serious questions regarding his own ability to contribute to an encyclopedia.

Also, anyone interested is free to contact User:Dougweller. I recently asked him for assistance in developing an Arbitration Committee case regarding this matter, because my disgust for the conduct of the others involved has become as pronounced as it is. I also indicated my willingness to revoke my own adminship if he thought such indicated. Please feel free to contact him directly regarding his response. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think this response just about says it all. It has gotten to the point where all I feel about this situation is sadness and pity. Ignocrates (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

These three user conduct warnings are also relevant: first warning second warning third warning. Ignocrates (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Despite the name change, as far as I can tell all these warnings are from you, right? So WP:HARASS does seem to be an issue here? --BozMo talk 08:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Your joking right? The talk page warnings are an attempt to ask John Carter to behave in a more civil manner and stop harassing me. This attack page is just one example of what I have had to endure here. He was asked by another admin to take it down. Then he put it back up a few weeks later when no one was watching. Please get your facts right before you make any sweeping judgements. Ignocrates (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Try to deal with some of the facts, Ignocraes. The facts were that you violated WP:AGF by literally questioning whether I was rreproducing material accurately. I recused myself from editing and produced the material in full, to eliminate such concern. And how did you and Michael react. So far as I can tell, by completely ignoring the information. The evidence of your own misconduct is, so far as I can see, stronger than any evidence of misconduct by others you have yet to produce. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

John, I did no such thing. I asked you several times to produce a diff or point me to where I said that. You either ignored my request or said you were too busy. I invited you many times on the talk page to add the material you found to the article and you refused. You had no reason to recuse yourself from editing other than your own preference. If my opinions on the article matter so little to you, why would this be any different? This is just like the other incident where you were running around claiming that I said "I hate you" on the talk page. I did no such thing that time either. We went through an AN/I to prove it and you couldn't come up with anything. Please try to not confuse my actual record on the talk page with your own thoughts. Ignocrates (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ignocrates, I realize you have no intention of dealing with verifiable reality, but I think the record will indicate that after your challenge to my accuracy of reproduction, I recused myself from editing. Regarding the "I hate you" comments, I believe it is possible for an editor to delete a page, and then restore only part of the history, removing the objectionable material. I believe the editor in question who may have done that was Jayjg here. So, yes, you asked me to basically break my word. Also, please provide a diff yourself to support your comments. The evidence of User talk:Jdtabor, I believe, makes it quite clear that the person who has displayed the most recent inability to separate his own thoughts from reality is you. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll say it one more time. There is no way you can hide content on the web servers from the IT guys who have administrative level permissions. They looked during AN/I and there is no such content. There is no way I can prove that something doesn't exist. Most people would just accept that and move on. I'm sorry you can't do that. With regard to the incident on Tabor's talk page, even if you were directing some of your comments to Tabor, that doesn't change the fact that you interjected yourself into a discussion I was having with him. And the only way you could have known about that discussion was by trolling my edit logs. Ignocrates (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is a way one can hide content on the web servers from admins, but it is more complicated than a straight content delete and requires a higher level of permissions than humble admins. More to the point, if you are questioning John C's role as admin can you provide any evidence of abuse of tools? If not this is a waste of time. --BozMo talk 16:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This blanking of an entire section of sourced article content and two of the sources diff followed immediately by locking the article is an example. However, there is more to being an admin than using tools. They are supposed to set a positive example for the rest of us. Jayjg is intimately familiar with the details of this dispute, so I will leave it to him to make the call. Ignocrates (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find any trace of the article being locked immediately afterwards: [7]. In fact you editted it yourself a couple of hours later. And it was two years ago. All of which tends to give the impression that your complaints are unjustified, and being made for other reasons. --BozMo talk 06:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this request. I'll try to find the diff and leave it on my talk page later as I am done here to avoid the threat of a block. Ignocrates (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a question here. Was it I who locked the article, or someone else? I honestly don't remember. And, in all honesty, does it make even the slightest degree of sense to raise such complaints at this late date, or could it perhaps be seen as simply trying to provide some sort of excuse for what would otherwise rather clearly perhaps be seen as perhaps unjustifiable harassment? Requesting that someone else lock an article, after it had been vandalized, is another matter completely. And, actually, Ignocrates, when I was asked to delete the User:John Carter/Ebionites page by Smartse, I was given very specific instructions as to how to blank pages in such a way. You seem to perhaps once again be making assertions which cannot be verified in any reasonable way. Do I see a pattern here, I wonder? And, out of curiosity, didn't you make a comment to Michael here about my request that Dougweller review the history here, which specifically included a review of my own behavior to see if I merited de-sysoping? And, considering your apparently remarkable memory of other older material, how on earth can you so quickly have apparently forgotten that much more recent event? Out of curiosity, have you made any effort to see how Doug responded, or, as it appears to be, is this whole request simply another form of misdirection and harassment? John Carter (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You failed to point out that you didn't delete the page User:John Carter/Ebionites as you were asked to do, in violation of copyright, and Smartse was forced to return and do it for you diff. I also notice you are now providing evidence of trolling Michael Price's edit logs in addition to my own, so it seems by remark to him was on point. Ignocrates (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And you completely failed to respond to the question. By the way, as Jayjg also knows, that page was created as it was after your completely baseless allegation of my misrepresenting the sources either in or before mediation. I reproduced them in full, recused myself from editing on the basis of [[WP:AGF}], and found that both you and Michael decided to ignore them thereafter. The record will bear out my statement above. You will also find I left a note with Smartse saying I had only done the reproduction to copy it into my e-mail. Now, Ignocrates, do you think there is any reasonable possibility that you will directly respond to the point regarding your apparent refusal to ask Dougweller, which you clearly knew about, or should I take this as yet another instance of your simply wishing to engage in extremely dubious conduct yourself? John Carter (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how Dougweller responded. Why don't you enlighten us? Ignocrates (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I note that you still seem to refuse to address the question as to why you have not already done so yourself. Basically, in this situation, I don't think I should speak for Doug, so I won't. You obviously knew about it. Also, if you would notice my own user page, you will note that I have set up my own criteria for recall. But, then, you apparently never did notice. 'Can you explain why you seem to refused to take what just about any person would have considered the most reasonable immediate action, given the recent nature of the contact, as just about any person of normal intelligence would have probably instantly done? I believe your having failed to do so raises very serious question regarding your motivations and, yes, competence.John Carter (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Presumably there was a private email exchange between Dougweller and yourself. If so, that's your issue with Doug. It has nothing to do with me. I don't sneak around sending private emails. Ignocrates (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That's actually an attack on me, Ignocrates, and I don't appreciate it. John Carter didn't email me, I emailed him as some of the discussion was, to my mind, personal. I did tell him I saw no reason for him to give up his tools. Because I've been out of this area for some time I did not feel able to give him any practical help with an ArbCom case or the articles. However, if you are going to continue these personal attacks I may feel it necessary to get more involved. Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

My statement was in no way intended to be a personal attack on you. Since you and BozMo are threatening me with a block in response (on my talk page), I've said all I intend to say here. Ignocrates (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I would only add that his earlier statement about not "sneaking around sending private e-mails" is one which I can prove false with the e-mails exchanged before the first Ebionites arbitration. Considering the above editor seems to have made such a self-serving lie as the one above, I think once again there are serious issues regarding his basic competence to edit. Also, Jay, I would appreciate some sort of response from you, as you apparently haven't made one yet. Like I have said from the time I became an admin, I am very open to withdrawing adminship if there is found to be just cause. John Carter (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)