Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:52, 6 May 2007

Talk archives

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

Ebionites nominated for FA

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

Bad Redirect

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

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

FYI

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

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

RfC re Cohn's review

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

My talk page

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

Help with sockpupettry

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

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

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

Hey Jay

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

Edit summaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

article edits

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

IP block 12.75.40.0/24

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

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

Battle of Thermopylae

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

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

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

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

Ariel Toaff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yigal Amir external link

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

Juan Cole

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

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

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

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

Apology

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

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

LMAO

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

RfC David Irving

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

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

Judaism and Christianity

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

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

Request For Mediation

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

input request

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

Dispute on Israel's infobox

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

Request for Mediation

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

Unblock

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

POV?

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

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

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

Notes on Jerusalem as largest city

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

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

Lewis Libby

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

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

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

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

Islamophilia

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

Israeli Settlements

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

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

SlimVirgin RfC

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

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

Protection of Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair

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

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

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

Shirahadasha RfA thanks

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

quick question

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

3RR

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

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

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

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

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

kidnapping or capturing

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

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

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

Request for input

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

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

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

ArbReq/NYScholar

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

"Jewish descent" versus Jew

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

Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Jay,

I read your talkpage comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked IP requests unblock

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

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

Can you demonstrate that?

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

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

The Signpost

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

Jerusalem FAC

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

Why did you put something back into the Mein Kampf

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

Clarification on OR

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

How many sockets do you use?

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

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

Overruling AfD closes?

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

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

Deletion review notification

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

Admin help

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

Reversal of my AfD close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please do so. -- FayssalF - 16:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Partially occupied

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

Your apology

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

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

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

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

Protection

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

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

straw poll

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

Template:Infobox Israel‎

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

Israeli pound

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

Concerned about User:Wassermann

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

Kurt Nimmo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good or evil?

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

Category:People who have renounced Judaism

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

Homey is back

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

btw

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

Previous block history

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

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

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

About This edit.

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

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

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

Ownership of the Holocaust

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

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

Removal of reliable sources on Bernard Lewis

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | 00:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism

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

Hi Jayjg, have you dealt with this editor before?

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

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

3 reverts

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

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

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

Confirmation necesary

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

A "new" category that is not new.

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

Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg

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