User talk:Jayjg/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Ten Beard

You wrote on my page that one of my posts didn't conform to policy. Can you be more specific? What is the best way to discuss this with you, posting here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.75 (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Can I assume this is User:Ten Beard? I would recommend you login to your account when editing.

The issue with your edits is that they did not appear to conform with WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS. I realize that those are long pages to read, but I recommend you read them carefully before you start editing high-profile articles such as the ones in which you have taken an interest. I would also recommend proposing changes on the article Talk: pages, where you will likely get a more full explanation of any issues with your proposals. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Could you refer me specifically to the edit you are talking about? Ten Beard (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for logging in to your account. These edits, for example. Again, please review WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Overdue

This editor is a
Grandmaster Editor
First-Class
and is entitled to display
this
Mithril Editor Star
with the
Neutronium Superstar hologram.

Since you have been around foreverah!!! Thanks for all you do, all you've done and for putting up with folks like me!--MONGO (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

That's very kind, thank you! No "putting up" required. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eugen Schüfftan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Central Synagogue

I don't object to you moving Central Synagogue to Central Synagogue (Manhattan), but the move left a lot of links that are now pointing to a disambiguation page. I fixed a few of them, but would you mind cleaning up the rest? TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

TheCatalyst31, you are correct. Some links actually should go to a disambiguation page (or some other synagogue), but most I've seen should go to the Central Synagogue in Manhattan. I've started cleaning that up. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Liberal rabbis

Why are you changing the Categories on loads of rabbis to incorrectly designate them as Reform instead of Liberal? I reverted you on Brichto, but I now see you've been changing lots of others. I presume there's some kind of misunderstanding here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey User:Dweller. I started with the two German rabbis who were clearly Reform - just a different terminology. I then continued with the UK rabbis, who linked to Liberal Judaism, which was just a redirect to Reform Judaism. Then I noticed that there was also a Liberal Judaism (UK) article so I stopped. One could argue that Liberal Judaism is a type of Reform Judaism; it appears to me that all of these rabbis were trained/ordained by Reform seminaries, and served in Reform synagogues. Many were also in Reform rabbi categories. Or perhaps one could argue that Liberal Judaism is a distinct Reform movement, or a subcategory of Reform? I'm not sure where to go from here. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Good answer. In the UK they're two distinct movements, with different leadership, different burial schemes and similar but different takes on liturgy and ritual. Brichto was the first exec director of the Liberal movement here. Perhaps the best fix is to put them back but apply the right disambig to the natural but incorrect Liberal Judaism wikilinks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Is that something you would like me to do? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

OK User:Dweller, I've restored them all. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Liberal Judaism redirecting is a bad idea. It should be a dismbiguation page. Precisely to deal with problems like this! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point, but if you turn it into a disambig you'll be faced the problem I have in the section above. A much easier problem, as it turns out, as the article is only linked from about 20 articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If I have some time later I will do this. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

OK all done. Please feel free to modify etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, good stuff. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Haredi Judaism

You have twice reverted all parts of the edit of that IP user, even though your stated arguments in the edit summary did not pertain to all of the parts. Moreover, some parts of the edit are definitely an improvement. Please undo your revert, and change only those parts you think are wrong, or be more precise in your edit summaries. Debresser (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Which parts do you think are an improvement? I didn't see anything in particular worth keeping, but perhaps you've seen something specific you like. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

A saw a few. But, I repeat, if you don't, then you should have said so in your edit summary instead of mentioned one specific issue (each time). Debresser (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the first edit summary pertained to all of the edits ("appeared inaccurate"). I could have added "changes were completely unsourced"). Thanks for the feedback. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Chaim Rumkowski

I encourage you to resolve the current dispute on the following page Talk:Chaim_Rumkowski#Current_dispute.

Cautious (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit summary

I have no clue what your edit summary means. Can you please explain? --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You changed "an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly and enacts any blocks called for" to "an uninvolved editor should notify the subject accordingly and close the discussion". This is completely different; the instruction is for the administrator to block, not for any editor to close the discussion and notify the editor. Also, you changed "consensus" to "clear consensus", which is redundant. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The instructions for an admin to block is only if the sanction was an indefinite or temporary site ban, which is also reflected in the last statement where it's clearly stated generalized how-to for an admin enforcing a sanction. The point is, CBANs don't only include the site bans but as put right above that very paragraph, impose a topic ban, interaction ban, site ban, or other editing restriction which does not involve an administrator block at all. I do not personally mind "consensus" or "clear consensus", it's all the same to me. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

All of which, I believe, are officially enacted and/or enforced by administrators, not regular editors. Hence "administrator prerogative". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No, they aren't. Here's the most recent example I could find: [1]. Quoting an administrator GoldenRing addressing the closer, I have no particular problem with you closing this as a NAC....[off-topic]. As far as I'm aware, AE is the only sanction mechanism restricted to admins (or unblock conditions, et al.) --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess that's how GoldenRing feels about it. Why don't you open a section on the policy talk page proposing the change. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No time to delve into a full-scale discussion right now. You can if you want, I might take this up later. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Jewish collaborators with Nazi Germany (occupied Poland)

They were all Jewish by nationality and had Polish citizenship. The infobox person description [2] clearly states that you can add a citizenship section where nationality and citizenship are different. Mathiasrex (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Mathiasrex, nationality in the infobox is not for ethnicity; an ethnicity parameter has been specifically rejected for that infobox many times. I'm curious; of the ~1500 biographies of Polish Jews on Wikipedia, why did you choose only to update Jewish collaborators with Nazi Germany? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata

Hi. See diff (undid). The Wikidata data (all sorts of issues) gets displayed in lots of Wikipedias (e.g. in this case - 'till I flipped it - the hewiki has "Jews" (יהודים) in the country in the infobox). Looks like this is going on elsewhere too. 14:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Soviet Jews who died in the Holocaust

Hello, Jayjg,

Just a note to remind you that empty categories that are marked CSD C1 are kept for 7 days. If at the end of that period they are still empty, they are then deleted. There are several scenarios where categories are temporarily emptied and every day I take categories out of Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion because they are no longer empty.

Categories can also be emptied out of process by editors who prefer a different categorical system and we sometimes have to undo their efforts and the categories are then utilized. Although I'd guess that 85% of the categories that are tagged are deleted after 7 days, we still observe this delay. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Liz. I created the category, and it only ever had one item in it, so in this case I didn't see the need to wait for 7 days. I'm sure you will concur. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Ruth Deech, Baroness Deech

There are information on German wiki regarding her father, which you actually removed, and replaced with my previous, incorrect edits. Let us align on talk. Talk:Ruth_Deech,_Baroness_Deech#Josef_Fraenkel Cautious (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

2017 California Democratic Party chairmanship election copyvio speedy

Jay,

Not sure what to make of your tag here. It listed the article as being a copyvio of another article at enwp, which of course it can't be, since our own articles are GFDL/CC licensed and can be reused. I also ran the copyvio checker and couldn't find any obvious copyvios. I removed your tag, which you're of course free to add back if I am misinterpreting anything.

Best regards

Steve/UC UninvitedCompany 23:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW if your concerns are attribution per WP:COPYPASTE it would perhaps be sufficient to add attribution...? UninvitedCompany 23:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Steve. Lack of copy-paste attribution was the problem, which I thought had to be dealt with by deleting what existed, and perhaps then recreating with proper attribution. I'm not an expert in copyvio issues, so I'm open to any solution. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I see you've done that via a null-edit, so that appears to have solved the problem. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 12:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Cool, glad that took care of it. Steve/UninvitedCompany 16:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Afikoman

Hi, I was just wondering why you removed the Passover seder category from this page? That category contains many other items eaten at the Passover seder. Yoninah (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: It's already in Category:Matzo, which is a sub-category of Category:Passover seder. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh. OK. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Authorised Daily Prayer Book

Hello, Jayjg,

Thanks for creating Authorised Daily Prayer Book! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Valerie Cohen

I follow her temple's page. Terageorge (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Terageorge:, that makes sense. I wasn't expecting a huge number of page views. :) Jayjg ^(talk) 17:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I encountered some anti-Semitic people on Racial discrimination

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_discrimination&oldid=903968918

I recently made these edits. They are cited by this article (though you can find others):

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/are-jews-white/509453/

On the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Racial_discrimination

some seem to disagree that the Jews were discriminated against. These seem to be the same people who believe that the holocaust never existed. Nick is just a really bad person. At this point, I believe I need administrative help.

Nick has a track record of stalking and disruptively reverting my contributions to wikipedia. I was hoping Nick could be blocked from editing, or that a report be submitted against him, at the very least. But I appreciate your input on this urgent issue.

Alexkyoung (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Alexkyoung, I see no indication that Nick "disagree(s) that Jews were discriminated against" or "believe(s) that the holocaust never existed". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jayjg

I appreciate your edits to a number of Israel and Jewish related articles; and I appreciate your actions with regard to DoctorAldebaran and "Jewish POV-pushing" by the "Jewish ethnic lobby". I personally do not appreciate those anti-semitic morons either.

As of late, as you may be aware yourself, a number of editors have been retaliating and attacking me for what they believe are 'pov edits' on Xinjiang articles. I have addressed their concerns many times before, but they continue to refer to edits made months ago that I have already fixed or that have already been fixed.

I don't see what sort of political agenda they themselves are trying to carry out. But I have always welcomed them to make edits themselves, or to pinpoint specifically and exactly where articles could be improved; and that if they do so, I could help them improve the wiki.

My edits have been backed by citations from reliable resources. Even Darthkayak (who recently traveled to China or some other place where Internet is censored) admitted that my sources are the 'best' so I'm not sure what he or others are trying to do against me. I have been thanked by many fellow users including OhConfucius, Jamez42, DavidMcEddy; who have all recognized my positive contributions to wikipedia.

Hopefully this issue does not persist; and recognizing that you yourself are a believer in facts, I was hoping we can be friends. תודה Alexkyoung (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Alexkyoung, I appreciate your reaching out to me, but I too see issues with the edits you are making, particularly around WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Cantonese

Hi Jayjg. On the 5th, you gave the Cantonese article extended confirmed protection, in response to the situation described at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#Reference falsification at Cantonese. Unfortunately, the behaviour has resumed after the protection expired. Kanguole 07:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kanguole: I've extended protection another week to encourage the editor to engage on the article's talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, he/she has now moved to doing the same thing at Yue Chinese. Kanguole 05:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I've protected that for a week too. If he refuses to discuss this on the article talk pages and continues after the week is up, or moves on to other articles, you will have to take this back to the AN/I board. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks again. Kanguole 12:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Using what The real Dzhambulat Khatokhov has shared directly to me in this wikipedia article. explaining my edit and asking help to revert back adding my edits with better sources

please read my talk post on the article Dzhambulat Khatokhov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linas101 (talk • contribs)

I will take a look. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Gay-themed Talmudic sages?

Hi Jay, please see: Talk:Timeline of LGBT Jewish history#Allegations that Torah true classical scholars supported and implied pro gay themes and memes is ludicrous. What do you say? IZAK (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@IZAK:, I've responded on the article talk page. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jay, I have responded. IZAK (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I see 4 Jewish mentions of Muhammad, 3 can be interpreted as positive and one is Rambam

Article in question: Judaism's views on Muhammad

Why do the other ones not deserve their space in the summary? 92.32.147.76 (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@92.32.147.76: The positive views are obscure, only recently uncovered or rediscovered, and still pretty much unknown. The article even says as much. They had and have little impact on normative Jewish thought; mentioning them in the article is already WP:UNDUE, all the more so in the lede. The lede says "generally reject etc." not "universally reject" or "unanimously reject", which is more than enough weight for these obscure texts. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

CfD Conversos etc

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 7#Category:New Christians (conversos). Thanks, IZAK (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Categorization question

Hi, please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 7#Category:New Christians (conversos) that is trying to determine how best to classify Conversos/Marranos/Anusim. New Christians or Crypto-Jews or both. Your WP:EXPERT input would help the discussion. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@IZAK: You appear to have withdrawn the proposal; is that correct? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Protected Page "ZAKIR RASHID BHAT"

Can you please unprotect the page "ZAKIR RASHID BHAT" I really need to add information to the page, and I now have all the links that are needed. The page has a few hate words too and is portraying him in a negative way instead of a neutral way. Bhattakeel9 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bhattakeel9: Please propose changes on the article's Talk: page, and gain agreement with other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Usury

The additions add to our overall understanding of usury. Usury in ancient Rome --and today-- does not result from the inability to calculate interest as the old version suggests, but from the desire for gain on interest. The Romans were completely capable of performing complex mathematical equations and did so regularly. Albeit, not all Romans had this ability. The additions better inform the reader of the exact causes of usury and its historical causes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.170.145 (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@98.174.170.145: Please review WP:NOR. You can't contradict what sources say based on your own logic, arguments, or reasoning. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me

Do not make personal attacks or use my page for harassment.Xx236 (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Xx236: That's a standard WP:BLP notice. I believe it's the first time I've ever posted on your user talk: page. You've now been made fully aware of the policy, so I'm hoping we won't see further issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I think User:El C gave you excellent advice on this issue, which is exactly what I've told you. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

edits about charity

i had deleted the part that was extensive about ont random persons charity rashi in ethics of the fathers write that the intent is EVEN if one only has bread and water one should sacrafice and study torah. and that the pruzbol isn't isn't a legal fiction in Jewish law , is actuality works as discussed extensively in Tractate Gittin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.151.40 (talk • contribs)

@213.8.151.40: Please review WP:V and WP:NOR, and then discuss your proposed changes on the article's Talk page. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

ANI thread where I mentioned you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Problematic edits from 2.122.0.0/15 range. Nil Einne (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Menachem Mendel Schneerson

Pls do not state the death date of Menachem Mendel Schneerson on his wikepidia page as he lives forever in our hearts and in the hearts of the jewish people. The Lubavitcher Rebbe will live forever. Changing his Death date is offensive to the Jewish Religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.44.242 (talk • contribs)

@2.25.44.242: I think your definition of "the jewish people" and "the Jewish Religion" might be too narrow, and your definition of "offensive" too broad. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The content that I edited on this page was to purvey that according to all followers of the Rebbe and the Rebbe himself, he is currently the Rebbe. I respect the rules so I will not change it again but I do request that you change the wording to reflect that. If you would like sources, I am more than happy to provide. Thank you. --Shoelaces1 (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Shoelaces1: You write according to all followers of the Rebbe and the Rebbe himself, he is currently the Rebbe. Have you had a conversation the Schneerson recently in which he affirmed that he still considers himself to be the "currently the Rebbe"? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg: How about instead of being condescending, let's be respectful of one another. A better way to ask your question would be: 'On what basis do you say that the Rebbe considers himself to be the current Rebbe?'. And to answer that, I can point you to many muga maamarim and sichos where the Rebbe clearly states these things. --Shoelaces1 (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Shoelaces1: Well, "currently" means "July, 2019". Do any of them state "in 2019 I will still be the Rebbe"? Also, if you want to be respectful of me, please review WP:RS before responding. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg: Here's where common sense helps; if the Rebbe being Rebbe does not end at death (as seen in previous generations), and in fact, according to the teachings of Chassidus and Zohar the role becomes greater, then it is clear that the Rebbe continues to be Rebbe. This is also maintained by ALL of his followers. Do you have to renew your name every year for that to remain your name, or does it remain the same regardless? --Shoelaces1 (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Shoelaces1: You'd need something much more explicit than "common sense" to avoid breaking Wikipedia's WP:NOR rule. Wikipedia would require multiple, current reliable sources stating quite explicitly "Schneerson is the current Lubavitch Rebbe". Please click on those links and read the linked pages to understand what "NOR" and "reliable source" mean on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg: Here is a letter of the Rebbe writing what a Rebbe is and also referring to the previous Rebbe - who had passed - as the current Rebbe of that time. Read Here. On another note, what is the source for the Rebbe being Rebbe at all? There was no document signed at the time of him becoming Rebbe... What source does Wikipedia have for that? --Shoelaces1 (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Shoelaces1: Again, please review WP:NOR and WP:RS carefully to understand what kinds of sources can be used, and what kinds of claims can be made based on them. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg: I have reviewed those and you still haven't answered my question. I assume you don't have an answer. Here is a more straight-forward source for the Rebbe still being Rebbe. --Shoelaces1 (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Shoelaces1: That's great that you've read them. Now, which sources do you have that meet WP:RS, and what exactly do they say? Please quote them. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg: "To hundreds of thousands of followers and millions of sympathizers and admirers around the world, he was — and still is, despite his passing — "the Rebbe," undoubtedly, the one individual more than any other singularly responsible for stirring the conscience and spiritual awakening of world Jewry." --Shoelaces1 (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Shoelaces1: Great. Now find sources that comply with WP:RS. Then review WP:LEDE, noting that the lede is not the place where you insert the stuff that's most important to you, but instead should be a summary of the most important parts of the actual article. Also, please note that the current lede in no way contradicts that statement or belief. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg: As I wrote in the first comment, I was writing that he is still Rebbe in order to clarify. You asked me if I had any conversations with him as the way to affirm that he is still considered Rebbe, which shows that some might be misled and think otherwise based on the current lede. The use of the word 'was' in the context of the current lede would cause one to think that the next part of the sentence also falls under that, implying that he is no longer, which is not true. As far as I know, the source that I provided meets the WP:RS requirements just as much as the majority of the sources brought on that page. --Shoelaces1 (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Shoelaces1: WP:RS is not measured against the sources on that page, which range from good to awful, but rather against the requirements of WP:RS, which are independent of any existing article. Also that "implication" and the current wording are a good way of accommodating the beliefs of his followers, who consider him to be still living and leading them as their rebbe, and the reality that he died in 1994. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg: I'm not sure if you're ignoring what I'm writing innocently or if you're trying to be difficult. I literally quoted where it says 'despite his passing'. The status of Rebbe, as seen in that source, is NOT affected. Also, please tell me what about my source doesn't meet the WP:RS requirements. My suggestion is, instead of playing the 'intellectual', try to understand and discuss. --Shoelaces1 (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Shoelaces1: The source you wish to use says "despite his passing", but I don't think that's relevant to my comment. Regardless, how about if we changed the first sentences to:

Menachem Mendel Schneerson (Hebrew: מנחם מענדל שניאורסאהן‎; April 18, 1902 OS – June 12, 1994; AM 11 Nissan 5662 – 3 Tammuz 5754), known to many as the Lubavitcher Rebbe or simply as the Rebbe, was a Russian Empire–born American Orthodox Jewish rabbi. The most recent rebbe of the Lubavitcher Hasidic dynasty, he is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the 20th century.

Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

SPI you might find of interest

In continuation to User talk:Nableezy#Block evasion, but still... - it seems that a different IP account was involved in reverting other edits by this IP account, including making unsubstantiated socking allegations in edit summaries - diff, diff. I ran across this IP in a different context, and filed a SPI report - which ended with the IP blocked as a sock of Claíomh Solais (who is indef blocked). Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Your support for my ban

Hi, you have supported my ban however would we be able to discuss your reasonings and both sides on here so we can see each other’s sides in a civil way thanks. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wiki Facts fixer: The view that nationality is determined by ethnicity is contrary to the MOS:BIO (particularly MOS:ETHNICITY). You show no signs of understanding this, much less being willing to respect it: thus, this series of seven reverts on one article over just two days![3][4][5][6][7][8][9] More of the same at Orkun_Kökçü[10][11][12][13] and pretty much every other article you've edited. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If you look at my more modern edits I changed from that attitude as I realised from what other users have told me that players national team is how they are defined. Yes in the past my edits were not in line, however all my edits recently starting with Tolgay Arslan have been accurate. The only edits I made to Orkun Kökçü was the removal of Dutch-born as it is unnecessary information and inconsistent across this platform. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This is the same with Ekpe Udoh as you also suggested. I sourced my edits and even agreed to the suggestion of “Nigerian-American” however it was never acted upon. However my source shows he is a Nigerian citizen and most importantly plays for Nigeria. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wiki Facts fixer:

1. Orkun Kökçü still lists him as "Turkish". Please explain what it should say according to MOS:ETHNICITY.
2. Ekpe Udoh was born and raised in the United States, and played most of his professional career there, including 10 years in the NBA. Please state how he should be described according to MOS:ETHNICITY. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

On the football Wikipedia pages, players are described by the national team and their birthplace are irrelevant information. As you can see almost every football player is written as the nationality of their national team (to even play for a national team you must be a citizen of that country). I do not believe I was the first person to put “Turkish” on Orkun’s page. Furthermore, Udoh can be Nigerian-American or Nigerian. Nigerian-American was proposed by the original user who opposed me however he chose not to add this. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wiki Facts fixer: According to MOS:ETHNICITY, how should those people be described? Please state it explicitly. Also, please review WP:INDENT. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

“previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.” I can’t understand what I am doing to read this/where this is for WP:INDENT Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wiki Facts fixer: Regarding WP:INDENT, please indent your comments properly, the way everyone else does, so your comments are readable. Do not start new lines for each sentence and for your signature. See WP:INDENT.

Regarding the rest, do you think being born and raised in America, and playing your entire college and professional career there, is "relevant to Ekpe Udoh's notability"? Do you think being born and raised in the Netherlands, and playing your youth and professional career for the Netherlands national under-19 football team and Feyenoord is "relevant to Orkun Kökçü's notability"? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

He has not played his entire career in America. The reason why where he played his career has no relevance is because he would be American-Turkish-Chinese. However he is either American, Nigerian or Nigerian-American. I believe in general “birthplace” does not need to be mentioned because if a player has chosen a team then he has chosen to be that nationality and allied with that nation. As you can see in almost every sportsman the words “x-born” are not included so I have shown consistency to the other users of this website. If he had chose to play for America then yes he should be referred to as American. But as he is evidently a Nigerian citizen and national team player. He should be referred to as Nigerian or at the very least Nigerian-American. This is the exact same for Orkun Kökçü. To write born in America/Netherlands should be written in the “personal life” section rather than the first seen section (unaware of its name but it’s above the picture of the person) Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wiki Facts fixer: yes, you believe... if a player has chosen a team then he has chosen to be that nationality and allied with that nation. MOS:ETHNICITY says something quite different. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

it also says in the context page whether it is relevant or not. It is only relevant in the “personal life” section and it is not relevant in the sections I have edited. Look at other sportsmen pages almost all of them have the same edit I have edited on Udoh and Orkun Kökçü. As I have stated on football and basketball Wikipedia the national team is what is written on the exact areas I edited other things like birthplace are in the “personal life” section. For example Roman Neustädter , Hakim Ziyech and Raheem Sterling as you can see none of these players have “Ukrainian born” or “Jamaican born” or “Dutch born”. This is the case for almost all players on this platform.Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you believe the fact that Ekpe Udoh was born and raised in the United States, learned all of their professional skills in the United States, played his entire high school career in the United States, played his entire college career in the United States, and played in the NBA in the United States for 10 years (almost his entire professional career), is not "relevant" to Udoh's biography, and certainly does not mean that he is an "American basketball player". On the other hand, the fact that he plans to play a few games for the Nigeria national basketball team in the 2019 FIBA Basketball World Cup, obviously makes him a "Nigerian basketball player".[14][15][16][17][18][19][20] But that's not what MOS:ETHNICITY says. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think you understand what I am saying. I have said that what you have put is perfect information for his biography for example in his personal life section hence why it is irrelevant to the section which I myself edited (I never removed anything American from his personal life). Just out of interest are you aware of which part I edited? Because Udoh playing basketball in any country does not change his nationality. It can be possible to put “Nigerian-American” as another user suggested which I infect agrees with the user. However he is a Nigerian citizen so this information is essential for his nationality. Hence why all I changed was “American” to “Nigerian”. What you are saying is perfect information to put on his page elsewhere to the area I have edited, but to deny him of “Nigerian” is completely false information. As you can see what I put in my edit is consistent throughout the whole of Wikipedia. You can see that another user did put that in Football Wikipedia (his section I presume) they put nationality as the national team which is consistent throughout all athletes regardless of the sport in which they play. You can also see this on sports team pages. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Has Udoh emigrated to Nigeria, become a citizen there, and given up his American citizenship? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Udoh is playing in China so he hasn’t emigrated to Nigeria. However, he has become a Nigerian citizen and also a Nigerian National team player (which you can only be if you are a citizen of the country) which is why I put “Nigerian” however I accepted the proposal of “Nigerian-American” as I was unaware whether he has given up his american citizenship or not. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You've claimed several times that Udoh is a Nigerian citizen. Which WP:RS states that Udoh is a Nigerian citizen? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The official FIBA website. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wiki Facts fixer: The FIBA website states that? Show me the link please. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

also is Udoh himself saying that he is Nigerian but no mention of himself being American a reliable source of what he is because he himself states what he believes he is and what he is. This is because I have also found sources like that. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You realize that when Udoh states he is Nigerian, he could well be referring to his ethnicity, or the fact that his parents are from Nigeria? People often say things like that. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

That is a fair point, however do you not think it is only fair to add “Nigerian” at the very least with “American” so as either “Nigerian” or “Nigerian-American” considering he personally identifies as Nigerian and also to be a member of the Nigerian National (or any national team) you must be citizen of that country. So is it not enough to be granted either Nigerian or Nigerian-American due to both of these reasons - personal identification and legal identification?. PS I would also like to thank you for peacefully speaking with me on here, I haven’t had this chance with many others and in some conversations it got heated so I thank you for allowing this. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wiki Facts fixer: Almost everything notable he has done appears to have been done in the United States, the place where he was born and raised. Reliable sources also describe him as "American". On the other hand, he doesn't appear to have spent any significant time living in Nigeria, nor do any reliable sources describe him as having Nigerian citizenship (your original research about national teams doesn't count). So, how does MOS:ETHNICITY say he should be described? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

again his playing career is not relevant to his nationality. If this is original research and it doesn’t count. Then does this not mean that almost the whole of Wikipedia’s pages are wrong? Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, we know his nationality is American. You believe it is also Nigerian, based on some original research you've done. His playing career is certainly relevant to what we say in the article lead, and particularly regarding his nationality; see MOS:ETHNICITY. And most Wikipedia biographies I've read are correct, because they follow MOS:ETHNICITY. Again, how does MOS:ETHNICITY say we should describe Udoh? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Nobody ever seems to answer my question - why are almost all sportsmen on this website l written in line with their national team, and how are the ones you read are correct when for example Hakim Ziyech is written as Moroccan? Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wiki Facts fixer: I would assume that most sportspeople who play for a national team are also people who are citizens of that same nation, and did what made them notable in that nation. It's certainly the case for most of the articles on sportspeople that I've read. It may be the case that Hakim Ziyech doesn't comply with MOS:ETHNICITY (I haven't read the article). It may be the case that some other articles on sportspeople also do not comply with MOS:ETHNICITY. Oh well, Wikipedia is not perfect; see WP:OTHERCONTENT. But speaking of a question that just doesn't seem to get answered, please answer the question I've asked several times: how does MOS:ETHNICITY say we should describe Udoh? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

To me MOS:ETHNICITY describes him as Nigerian, to you it describes him as American. Someone did propose “Nigerian-American” which I think is a good idea because they’re both relevant to his notability. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a problem. I tried to help. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience

This is my account. And I apologize for some of the earlier edits, I will not do it again. However, the other edits are not mine and have not been done by me. Sorry for the inconvenience. This is my account. Rydosyll (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rydosyll: What do you mean "the other edits are not mine and have not been done by me? Of course they were done by you; it's the same articles and the same POV! Jayjg ^(talk) 19:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan ANI

Jayjg, I responded to your last comment on El C's talk page; I'm not sure if you saw it.  I hadn't wanted this to be a drawn out thing, but as I don't feel that i have received due process or been understood, maybe i should put together a better case showing evidence of the pattern of behavior so that it is clear?  Highlights seem to be too ambiguous.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I just saw more of the same behavior today, this time directed at someone else[21] after they attempted to fix their RfC question.[22] There is a very frequent pattern of prejudiced thinking about other editors (and sources), false statements, and controlling behavior. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI, we came to a compromise; this is not about content. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Are you saying you've resolved your differences with Betty Logan? Or that you feel there is still an issue? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to emphasize that my dispute with her remains regardless of the fact that we have reached consensus about content, because this is not a content issue.  However, my complaint is not personal, I have observed her same problematic behavior with others.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Can you succinctly state what you think the problematic behavior is, and which policies or guidelines it violates? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:Civility

• Failure to "assume good faith".
• Failure to "be reasonably cooperative".
• "[B]eing heavy-handed" and "bossy".

WP:Etiquette

• Does not acknowledge making "misrepresentations" nor "apologize".
• Does not "admit when [she] disagree[s] based on intuition or taste."
• Fails to "[r]ecognize [her] own biases, and keep them in check."

WP:Ownership of content

• "The editor [...] claim[s], whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article."

Did you want me to start like this before finding more diffs? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: the point is that you need to establish a pattern of misconduct. Calling the question "disingenuous" might not have been the best choice of words, but if that's all you got, it's not a lot. El_C 19:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: This is because Betty Logan made this edit, you immediately reverted, and then Betty logan almost immediately opened this Talk: page discussion to discuss it? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

No, this is not because of any one particular edit or statement. I am now reporting to you the nature of the conduct and how I believe it violates policy. I can try to provide more thorough evidence if my last comment was responsive to your question. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: When I review Talk:Millennials#Pew paragraph, I see Betty Logan opening the discussion's (per WP:BRD), and you immediately stating BL, please follow WP:BRD and discuss your proposed edit "with the person who reverted your contribution", who is I. Please do not invite others to the discussion without attempting to discuss with me. Please stop being dishonest and prejudiced. Are you aware that the "Discuss" of WP:BRD means "Discuss this with any interested party on the article's Talk page", not "Discuss this with, and only with, the person who reverted you"? Also, which specific action of BL's led you to describe her as "dishonest and prejudiced" in your first reply? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I am not aware that BRD means that; I was taking it literally where it says "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution." What happened is that Betty Logan made a bold edit in July and I didn't revert it until three weeks later [23] because the RfC had been started around the time of her edit so I was ambivalent about whether and when to revert the edit I disagreed with before waiting for consensus. She then reverted my reversion without discussion, [24] stating there was no rational reason for my paragraph structure, even though I made it clear in the previous edit summary that everything was carefully considered. I don't know that it's a good idea to begin examining our dispute in the context of edits and discussions that are months after I first observed her pattern of behavior. I'm confused about why you're asking me what led me to say that she was being dishonest and prejudiced, because I explain that in the same comment. I keep feeling like I want to know if you understand my narrative before we dive into examining whether the evidence supports it. Also, I don't understand the complaint process. I would think administrators would act as the defense attorneys, prosecutors, and the judge. I understand the process of assuming good faith and examining the evidence through that lens, but I feel like to get to the truth we have to secondly, separately, and hypothetically assume guilt and examine the evidence through that lens, and compare the two "cases". I feel like if we don't also look at the events while seeking out evidence of bad behavior we're not going to notice any potential patterns. I can start from the beginning with diffs if that helps. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

But yes I see where she said that there is "no rationale reason for dividing the Pew content" (sic) doesn't necessarily mean she is saying that I had no rationale for my edit, but probably just means she doesn't think there is a reason to divide the content. This goes beyond a simple misunderstanding. When she doesn't listen and empathize, we cannot come to an understanding over conduct (or content). I thought the most illustrative example was where I tried to open a dialogue by writing on her talk page that I had a problem with her conduct, but she kept saying that there was no personal dispute, just a content dispute. I was completely shut down. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Betty Logan doesn't have to agree with you that there is any problem with her conduct, even if you think there is. Reverting edits, disagreeing on content, discussing things on talk pages, coming to agreement (or, unfortunately, perhaps not) are all part of the normal Wikipedia editing process. I don't see anything particularly unusual in Betty Logan's conduct, and I seriously doubt any other kind of resolution process on Wikipedia would either. I regularly see behavior on Wikipedia that is much more clearly disruptive/negative/inappropriate dismissed as "not a big deal", so I don't think you will get any satisfaction from trying to pursue this further. Most of your energy on Wikipedia should be devoted to trying to improve article content, not seeking justice. In this case, you say the content issue has been resolved, so I would advise you to drop this issue, move on, and accept that Wikipedia can be a rough place, where other editors often don't care how you feel, and aren't interested in empathizing with you. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: I'd like to add, that Wikipedia is reasonably good at dealing with issues like WP:Edit warring, WP:BLP, and egregious or obvious violations of WP:V and WP:NPOV. It's not at all good with dealing with issues of WP:Civility, WP:Etiquette, and WP:Ownership of content. So, even if you feel all of those have been violated, you will likely have a happier editing experience if you ignore violations of them, unless they are outrageous (e.g. someone calling you a racist name, or other equally obvious problems). Jayjg ^(talk) 13:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not attempting to prove something now. I have just been trying to illustrate the nature of the complaint before I try to prove it. I didn't say that Betty Logan didn't agree that there was a problem with her conduct, I complained that she disagreed that I have a dispute with her about her conduct. I feel like you're not hearing me. I was not asking that she empathize with my feelings; I was asking her to understand what I was observing in her conduct that made collaborating towards consensus challenging. I was also asking that she empathize with my arguments; if she didn't understand my point of view about content we couldn't move forward. I am not seeking "justice", I want recognition that a pattern exists so that collaboration will improve in the future.

I agree with you that Wikipedia is not good at dealing with behavioral problems, including the highly toxic pattern of civil POV-pushing I have sometimes observed from others. I think that Wikipedia's failure to address disruptive behavior has allowed a toxic culture to grow that pushes out new editors.   I will work on evidence to try to prove what I have observed, and let it go after that.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Betty Logan is allowed to say that there is no conduct dispute here. Perhaps she meant, or could have written, that she did not believe there was any legitimate conduct dispute, but she also doesn't have to word things in exactly the right way. She doesn't have to agree with your assessment of her behavior, or agree that your observations of it are correct, or recognize any patterns regarding it, or even acknowledge your observations or statements regarding it. She also doesn't have to empathize with your point of view or understand it. Wikipedia's main focus is article content, not ensuring that you have a good working relationship with some other editor; if an editor is behaving in a way you find problematic, and refuses to engage with you regarding that, then your only real recourse is to take them to WP:AN/I or WP:RFARB. You took this to AN/I, and did not get any traction; on the contrary, it was shut down quite quickly, with the suggestion that a WP:BOOMERANG might follow if you didn't drop it. Your previous somewhat similar interaction at AN/I with SashiRolls in April was equally unsuccessful, and was closed soon after a suggestion that you be banned from the "drama boards". Based on my experience, I believe it is highly unlikely that WP:RFARB will look at this either. My impression is that you are looking for a kind of acknowledgement or validation from some Wikipedia editors that they will not give, and that Wikipedia will not make them give. Gathering more evidence to "prove what [you] have observed" is unlikely to result in this changing, and will likely be an unproductive use of your time. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I have absolutely no intention of bringing my complaint against Betty Logan to Arbcom. SashiRolls is completely different. He has been repeatedly banned for repeatedly engaging in much more severe behavior and virtually never changing. I feel like severe action is not taken because administrators know they made mistakes in the past when dealing with him. I still haven't heard that you understand what I am saying I have observed from Betty Logan. Why not play the devils advocate? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: I still haven't heard that you understand what I am saying I have observed from Betty Logan. I think this is an important point; why do you feel you need that kind of acknowledgement/validation? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that validation. If I tell a cop I see flashlights in the house across the street and they say "if that's all you got, we're not investigating". And I say, "did you hear me, I think my neighbor's in danger", and they respond with, "we can't investigate every burglary in this crime-riddled town". I need to know that they hear that I am reporting a person in danger, not just a burglary. If I know they understand the nature of the complaint, and they understand what evidence it is I think I'm seeing and what evidence may be available, then I have a better idea of whether my information is being evaluated properly. That's not a great comparison obviously. I know you understand which policies I feel are violated. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

You reported what you saw as a behavioral issue with another editor; your issue was reviewed and dismissed. Maybe it shouldn't have been dismissed. Maybe you weren't understood. Maybe you weren't listened to. Maybe everyone involved was lazy or uninterested. Why are you expending such a huge effort now on ensuring that you were understood? Wikipedia isn't your local municipality, you aren't a taxpayer/citizen, and administrators aren't the police. It's an online encyclopedia mostly managed by unpaid volunteers, and there's no appeals or redress process for this. Can you live with that? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I feel like a basic first step in responding to any dispute, big or small, is making sure the issue is understood. This isn't about working so hard to get understanding.  I care about good information getting to the public, which means I care about Wikipedia.  There is dysfunction in Wikipedia that's interfering with good information getting to the public.  Editor misconduct is part of that dysfunction; administrators failing to address that misconduct is part of that dysfunction; administrators failing to recognize editor misconduct is part of that dysfunction.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

So what exactly are you hoping to change/fix now? Betty Logan? Administrators? Wikipedia? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm just answering questions, but the least I can do is put evidence together to show that a conduct issue exists with Betty Logan.  The reaction to the complaint concerns me more than her behaviour, but addressing her behaviour is the first step, and I haven't yet even attempted a thorough investigation.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The only valid reasons for putting together evidence and conducting such an investigation on an individual is to bring them to mediation, incidents, or arbitration. Betty Logan appears uninterested in the first, the second has already been dismissed, and you've stated you don't want the third. You can't gather a bunch of evidence about an individual and just leave it lying around; that would be a violation of WP:HOUND. I strongly recommend you use your time more productively, by improving articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't you want Wikipedia to function better?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course I do. Unfortunately, I don't see how this course of action can possibly achieve that. To be honest, the most likely outcome I see of you doing this is your getting sanctioned, restricted, or even banned. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

What about putting the evidence here?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I've tried to explain to you in at least a half dozen ways (above) that I think gathering this evidence, and focusing on Betty Logan in this way, will not be helpful for you. I strongly recommend, for your own benefit, that you focus on article content, and not on the actions of other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful for me in that I would gain a better understanding of Wikipedia policy, my perceptions, and the level of dysfunction that does or does not exist in Wikipedia.  This is (no longer) personal about Betty Logan; this editor just happens to be connected to this experience.  I am curious about your interpretation of policy and guidelines.  Do you disagree with my interpretation of BRD which states that edits should be discussed (specifically) with the editor who reverted them?  Regarding WP: Civility, I'm confused by your statement that BL does not need to "even acknowledge [my] observations or statements regarding" her behaviour. She also doesn't have to empathize with [my] point of view or understand it." If WP:Etiquette is part of WP:Civility, I would think an editor would have to do those things.  WP:Etiquette gives as examples of problematic behavior: does not acknowledge making "misrepresentations" nor "apologize"; does not "admit when [she] disagree[s] based on intuition or taste;" fails to "[r]ecognize [her] own biases, and keep them in check." She couldn't have done any of those things if she refused to acknowledge that my point of view even existed.  Am I missing something?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

But to acknowledge your point about this potentially not being good for me, I would say that focusing on self-preservation may not be what's best for the encyclopedia.   Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you disagree with my interpretation of BRD which states that edits should be discussed (specifically) with the editor who reverted them? That interpretation is incorrect, as I stated above.

She couldn't have done any of those things if she refused to acknowledge that my point of view even existed.  Am I missing something? Yes; it's not a violation of WP:Etiquette and WP:Civility to have a fundamentally different understanding of a situation than another editor with whom one is interacting. It's also not a violation to feel that interaction with that editor on anything besides article content will be unhelpful outside of WP:ANI and WP:RFARB. I suspect this is the case with Betty Logan.

I would say that focusing on self-preservation may not be what's best for the encyclopedia. I believe that in this case it is what would be best for both you and Wikipedia. I don't know how to say this more clearly; you are focused on the wrong thing. You have made fewer than 500 edits to article pages; parsing the minutiae of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (particularly as they relate to the behavior of an editor with whom you are in conflict) is not helpful for anyone. What would be best for both you and Wikipedia is for you to focus solely on improving article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Article content is influenced by editor behavior.  The first editor I interacted with was a Civil POV-pusher who made every single word I tried to add a battle.  Maybe it was the second editor who was a sock.  I was advised not to go to admin boards because they don't work and I could get boomeranged.  Something is not working here.  The edits that I care about are often small pieces of information that may be controversial and mostly require working with other editors to find consensus.  As I have felt convinced that my editing was disrupted by BL, and I am told she has not engaged in misconduct, I feel I must examine the events and the policies to gain a better understanding of what happened.  I still feel she should be warned, but I don't know if the evidence I find could be taken back to ANI to clear things up.

Please edit WP:BRD to make the policy more clear if you are confident your interpretation is correct. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Or better to wait until consensus is reached on the talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Brad Hoylman

There is literally nothing on the "Meet Brad" of his website that states he is not Jewish. Here are several sources that either mention Hoylman being Jewish or discuss his practice of it:

• The Patch - "Hoylman, who is Jewish and openly gay"
• NY State of Politics - "Three members of the Democratic conference are Jewish – Sens. Daniel Squadron, of Brooklyn; Toby Stavisky, of Queens; and Brad Hoylman, of Manhattan."
• The Vilager - "So while I’ve not formally converted yet, ***I do identify with my husband’s Jewish faith***. I follow exclusively his religious traditions and we’re raising our daughter in a Jewish home."

There are also a number of articles where Holyman and his family were victim to a hate crime that I do not care to reference here, but all explicitly state that he's is Jewish.

Now I'd appreciate you retracting your warning to me. The closest we get to anything sources saying he is not Jewish was "has not officially converted but identifies with the Jewish faith", with nothing at all saying explicitly "he is not Jewish" as you claim.

Also (per Jeremy Moss), what was the issue with the LGBT Victory Fund, a PAC that exclusively endorses and supports LGBT candidates, as a source? Or did that just need a separate source to more clearly identify Moss as Jewish.

Agpuh (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Agpuh: There is literally nothing on the "Meet Brad" part of his website that says he is Jewish, either. On the other hand, we have multiple sources where he himself states he has not converted (e.g.[25][26]), which you are aware of. Does Hoylman state he is Jewish? No, actually, he is quite careful not to. It's great that he "identifies with [his] husband's faith", and that he "follows exclusively his religious traditions", but he'd actually have to convert to Judaism to be a Jew, something he clearly and deliberately states he has not [yet] done. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg: What about Moss? He is unambiguously both a member of the LGBT community and Jewish. And for the record, I really don't want to be coming to you with every little thing but given that you've warned me, I'd rather bother you than be blocked. Agpuh (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Agpuh: Moss has been on the list since yesterday, ever since Horse Eye Jack added proper sourcing for him being both gay and Jewish, something you failed to do. Also, when adding citations, please do not add bare urls as citations. There are citation templates that help create proper citations; I'm sure you're aware of them, you've used them in the past. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg:Are you referring to any specific edit or me having this conversation with you on your page and showing you sources instead of adding references. Agpuh (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Agpuh: I'm referring to the specific edit I linked to in my previous comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Jewish vulture capitalists

Do not censor informations and references on jewish vulture capitalists!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.203.122.15 (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Jews are bad! Jayjg ^(talk) 20:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You were right

@Jayjg: Thanks for pointing that out I appreciate the explanation it helps me learn more about Wikipedia Jack90s15 (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jack90s15: Glad it was helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Hello, I'm Uamaol. I noticed that you recently removed content from List of Jewish heads of state and government without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. UaMaol (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Synagogues completed in 1836

A tag has been placed on Category:Synagogues completed in 1836 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Germany

Hi. The user Haplandare has reverted the page. Please make a judgment if he is right or me. thanks.Sepehr.Sǎsǎni (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1836 in Judaism

A tag has been placed on Category:1836 in Judaism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Austro-Hungarian Jews who died in the Holocaust has been nominated for discussion

Category:Austro-Hungarian Jews who died in the Holocaust, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Le Deluge (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

"Beth Israel Synagogue disambiguation" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Beth Israel Synagogue disambiguation. Since you had some involvement with the Beth Israel Synagogue disambiguation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. DannyS712 (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Richard L. Friedman

I saw this also, but though a significant removal and unexplained, I thought it was a good clean-up - removing some unsourced and/or promotional content, WP:BLPNAME issues, etc. Would you reconsider reverting? Dorsetonian (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right; though a significant removal and unexplained, when I read through them carefully, they seemed to generally improve the article. I've self-reverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Requirements for listing someone as Jewish

I am being told that to list someone as Jewish there needs to be multiple references "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" and self-identification (or that mention that being Jewish is part of their notability). To me, this standard seems to be pretty extreme. I have generally treated references to a subject's being Jewish as an ethnicity since one's religion depends on one’s state of mind at the time. It seems like it would be a pretty high hurdle to meet on most biographies and it has not been my experience that that is the required standard. Am I out of line here to think this way? Patapsco913 (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Patapsco913, that standard is more than Wikipedia demands. The requirements for this are the same as for pretty much anything else; reliable sources identify the individual as Jewish. Regarding "part of their notability", that is only relevant when deciding whether they should be described that way in an article lede. So "Moses ben Maimon, commonly known as Maimonides was a medieval Sephardic Jewish philosopher" is good, but "Henry Benjamin "Hank" Greenberg was a Jewish-American professional baseball player" is not. That said, removing unsourced entries from Lists of Jews is a good idea. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jayjg. I did not have the time to comment on your thoughtful comment at AN before that thread was closed. You are correct that I am not an enthusiastic list editor although I did complete a major cleanup of List of members of the Black Panther Party a few years ago. I am 100% in favor of case by case removal of names on American Jewish lists, but not mass removal based on extreme deletionist algorithms. If you want to discuss this matter in greater detail, I am willing. Thanks again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: WP:LISTVERIFY, however, is not an "extreme deletionist algorithm"; rather, it is basic policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

That is a guideline not a policy, and nowhere does any policy or guideline say that the only solution to poorly referenced lists is immediate mass removal of the unreferenced entries. Far less disruptive solutions include copying over references from the individual biographies, searching online and in books for new references and adding them, selectively removing individual list items one by one if references cannot be found, or tagging items with "citation needed". I will continue to object to the notion that policy requires robotic machine-like deletions in situations like this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328:, if it's a living person, then it must be deleted immediately per WP:BLPREMOVE, which is policy. And in my experience, tagging unsourced entries rarely, if ever, produces results. Even someone as highly motivated as you are gave up after 75 entries, and there are thousands of these unsourced items in the various Wikipedia Jew lists. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I cannot disagree more strongly with the assumption that listing someone as Jewish is inherently "contentious" and instead, I believe that immediate and undifferentiated mass removal is what is actually contentious. I also disagree with your notion that I "gave up". I finished my work on that particular list, which is now in vastly better condition than when I first ran across it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Making any claim of religion or ethnicity (particularly regarding a living person) is inherently "contentious", at least in the way Wikipedia means it. Furthermore, removal of unsourced claims regarding living people is not "undifferentiated", but, rather, is highly specific (and fundamental policy).

Regarding being "finished your work", yes, you did leave the list in vastly better condition than when you first ran across it. That was in part because you sourced 75 names, and in part because you did not restore an additional 70 unsourced names.

Finally, regarding "giving up", what else can you call it? User:Coffee cleaned up over a dozen lists; you restored half the names to one of them. Once you'd made your point (that it is possible to source names on these lists), you moved on to things that were much more enjoyable/rewarding/easy to do. In doing so, you inadvertently made a different point; that, regardless of how many times people claim that items should be "tagged" so that someone can come along and source them, in practise no-one will actually provide those citations, because it's tedious, hard (frequently impossible) work. Thus items remain unsourced for years before they are finally deleted.

I don't think there's anything wrong with your giving up; it's what everyone does regarding this, and you're not responsible for fixing this problem. There are only a very small number of Lists of Jews that are reasonably comprehensive and properly sourced: List of Jewish American politicians, List of Jewish American businesspeople (and its sub-articles), List of Jews in sports, and List of Jewish Nobel laureates. The first three are that way because I fairly ruthlessly enforced WP:BLP and WP:V on them until motivated editors interested in the specific list got serious about sourcing (as did you regarding another list); and the latter because so many editors became incensed at its mere existence that I decided to source it myself. But for every one of those, there's a List of Jewish historians (riddled with unsourced items, ancient citation requests, and non-notable entries), List of Jewish Academy Award winners and nominees (completely unsourced), and List of Scottish Jews/List of Latin American Jews/List of Sephardic Jews/etc. (mostly unsourced and woefully incomplete). If not for User:Coffee's bold and praiseworthy work, there would be far more like that. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Bold? Yes. Praiseworthy? No. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with that. Had he shown the slightest trace of individual judgment, then I would agree with you. Consensus at AN is that he went about it the wrong way. I will take a look at the list of Academy Award winners later. Thanks for the tips. By the way, I completely support removing list entries without articles and do that myself frequently, especially from alumni pages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Odd entry at talk page

Hi Jay, sorry to intrude here, but this IP edit (a week ago) seems controversial and may warrant looking at by someone more knowledgeable than me. TGCP (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@TGCP:, it was problematic, but Jpgordon ably handled it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

just saying hello

are you still here? I came across your user name elsewhere. I'm pleased to see you are still here. I had no idea your service here was so extensive. congrats on a great page and a great set of achievements!! let me know how you've been, and please ping me when you do so. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Sm8900:, it's nice to hear from you. I'm doing well, still editing, although much more intermittently than I used to. I hope you are well. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: thank you! Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Dear Jayjg, I hope you are fine. I'll be very grateful if you, as an administrator, will please look at this discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard. The discussion is about when it is OK to remove sourced material, when there are objecions concerning the reliability of the given sources. Both parties gave their arguments, but we need a wise man to come to a judgement. Thanks and regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff5102: sorry, I missed the discussion. Was it resolved to your satisfaction? I see Horse Eye Jack hasn't edited since Feb 4. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for asking! At 3RR-noticeboard, those, who opposed Horse Eye Jack's actions, were advised that if there's a need for admin intervention, WP:ANI is the place to detail the issues. And so I did. The result was, in my view, not satisfying. One uninvolved editor stepped in, all kinds of rules were appealed to and/or dismissed, with or without sound reasoning. Unfortunately, no administrator came around to make any sort of judgement, and all the discussion lead to was the archive.

During the discussion, the uninvolved editor urged me on my talk-page to take it to RS/N and open up a request for comment so that a consensus can be built, before continuing the ANI discussion. I politely declined the suggestion to repeat myself in a (possibly pointless) third and fourth discussion. Thus, I turned to the less controversial and more satisfying task of categorizing uncategorized files at Commons. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

And on another note: How are you doing? I saw you did not edit for a month. Is everything OK? All the best,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry the result was unsatisfactory. I'm doing well, just prioritizing other things. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Re: Hitler's Pope

The part that was taken from that page was, specifically, the part that starts with "After Hitler came to power in January 1933, he made the concordat negotiations with Pacelli a priority." After that, it was essentially a copypaste for the next three paragraphs. [27] This link confirms most of what I cut being a direct rip. The main Reichskonkordat article is clean though, so if need be I can always move some text to do some degree of restoration. Wizardman 22:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wizardman: I see. It looks more like close-paraphrasing of the Vanity Fair article, which was also cited in our article, but it's still problematic. Pseudo-Richard inserted it with this edit; he hasn't edited in almost five years, so I doubt we can ask him about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Ask

Thanks for giving me information but can I put links of my youtube video related to the content in articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by InformationWorld1 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@InformationWorld1: that's usually not a good idea: see WP:YOUTUBE. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

re: User:Chuckwick 2020

Hi Jayjg, I just wanted to follow up with you on the topic of this discussion that you started earlier this month. I think the user is unfortunately continuing the problematic edits, and I was just wondering if you were going to go through with the administrative action you suggested in the thread (or anything else that might be necessary). Thanks! – Aranya (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Conservative synagogues in Vermont has been nominated for merging

Category:Conservative synagogues in Vermont, which you created, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. TM 14:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Conservative synagogues in Alabama has been nominated for merging

Category:Conservative synagogues in Alabama, which you created, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. TM 14:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Conservative Judaism in Vermont

A tag has been placed on Category:Conservative Judaism in Vermont requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Do you consider restoring Superkombat Fighting Championship please? It was the Promotion-of-the-Year in Kickboxing in 2011, beating Ultimate Glory (eventual Glory) and It's Showtime of the Netherlands (formerly No. 1 in Europe for years). Rico Verhoeven, Roman Kryklia, Benjamin Adegbuyi, Mladen Brestovac, D'Angelo Marshall and Ismael Londt fought in SUPERKOMBAT, 6 out of top 10 heavyweights [on the list. And the list can continue, No 2 light-heavyweight Pavel Zhuravlev, No 1 middleweight Alex Pereira (kickboxer), No 4 middleweight Jorge Loren, No 5 middlweight Yousri Belgaroui, No 7 middleweight Igor Bugaenko etc My arguments are very valid! .karellian-24 21:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Genocide of Serbs

Dear Jayjg, I hope you're doing well these days. I've noticed your contributions to the The Holocaust articles. There is some kind of edit war in the Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia article. There is also an ongoing debate about the lead and Background section, the chronological order of events, broader context etc. If you have the time, I would like you to look at the situation and try to give your opinion, as a kind of neutral side. It would mean a lot to calm a tense situation, and the topic is extremely significant. I'm sure you can help. All the best.--WEBDuB (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Brazilian Jews who died in the Holocaust

A tag has been placed on Category:Brazilian Jews who died in the Holocaust requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

God Nisanov

I was contacted about editing God Nisanov's page. You said that I may be in an editing war. The only thing I changed was "Jewish" to "Jewish". I do not know what is offensive or wrong about that. I do not even understand why it keeps reverting back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymarcc (talk • contribs) 01:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: Ethnicity parameter

It is related to this thread on Twitter: [28] [29] (unfortunately the discussion is in Polish). --WTM (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@WTM: thanks, I thought the edit and the next would be related to something like that. Every few months the Rumkowski article heats up again (and related articles about Polish Jews), with impassioned first-time/newish editors insisting that Rumkowsi's nationality must be described as "Jewish" not "Polish", and generally ignoring the fact that ethnicity and nationality are not the same thing. Of course, there's an ugly undertone to these discussions as well, with the insistence that Jews cannot be "real Poles", and that there must be some sinister conspiracy trying to hide this. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pundit: in relation to this, perhaps you can comment on this edit you just made referencing Chaim Rumkowski; it's your third edit this year, and the first you've made in weeks. Did you also make the edit in response to that Twitter thread? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Jayjg. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Shortolani01 (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I see you've told El C it's about a specific article. Which article concerns you? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of specific link

You undid the addition of Prophets in Judaism to the See also section of Judaism, calling it "too specific for this top level article".[30] How would you view the link Sabbateanism in that same See also section in light of that edit summary? Debresser (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser:: good point. In fact the vast majority of the links in the "See also" section were a random grab-bag of minor topics, or topics already linked in the article or in the navboxes. In my experience "See also" sections of prominent overview articles tend to fill up with this kind of stuff, as people come by (often without reading the article), and dump in links to whatever happens to be on their mind at that moment. A well-written, FA article will generally not have a "See also" section, as everything relevant will have already been linked in the body/text of the article itself. Anyway, I've tried to clean it up. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Well done. Thanks for being responsive. Debresser (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)