Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:49, 4 March 2013

This is Jayjg's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

RfC: Weight given to historical revisionist views

I have not found much in the way of guidelines for political/nationalistic/religious-based historical revisionism that seeks to rationalize, sanitize or idealize the past in a way that promotes a particular political/nationalistic/religious PoV. There is a current RfC at Juan Manuel de Rosas that needs more input than just the parties involved so far. Since you have dealt with similar situations in the past, and whether you agree with my take or not, I would appreciate your insight and any guidelines that would apply there and for future reference (this type of sparring occurs regularly). Thanks. • Astynax 20:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Jayjg 18:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a very complex discussion. I think it requires knowledge of Argentinian historians, and schools of Argentinian historiography; unfortunately, I don't possess that knowledge. Jayjg 22:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Constant Rijkenberg

Please undelete this article. The rules for poker biographies have been changed, see wikiproject:poker. One EPT win or a win of over $1 million is now sufficient. He won an EPT for over $2 million, among other things. And he's still always in the news, since that deletion took place, including becoming a sponsored pro for Partouche Poker. DegenFarang (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've started a Deletion Review discussion for you. See Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 18. Jayjg 21:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your level-headed focus on policy in both content and conduct, and your encouragement to others - often with carrot, sometimes with stick when necessary - to do the same, even when the discussion gets heated. Your efforts have been very much appreciated. Zad68 16:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Jayjg 21:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of fpp.co.uk links, etc

Jayjg, I understand and agree with removing links to the works of David Irving, but some of your removals are throwing out valid citations (e.g. to the Times and the Independent) which are merely copied onto Irving's website. I don't want in any way to defend or highlight Irving, but most of the references are to things unrelated to his Holocaust denial. Clearly, alternatives should be sought, but I am afraid they won't be if you don't leave a hint as to what was removed. Is it possible to simply tag for deprecation and cleanup? Malay Agin (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the speed at which you removed the links I would assume you did not read many of them? The ones removed seem to me to be often rather less offensive than the ones left for example on es.wikipedia see --BozMo talk 13:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally how did we get quite so many links in the first place? --BozMo talk 13:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If a source fails WP:EL, then we shouldn't be linking to it, even as a "convenience link". You may have noted that if the items had a proper source (e.g. "Story about Mr. X", The Guardian, May 23, 2007)", then I generally just removed the link. Jayjg 23:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Thanks in advance. Ignocrates (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:STALK and WP:HARASS probably apply, specifically to Ignocrates. He seems to be doing little if anything by way of constructive edits since I warned him about his habit of abusing others on the talk pages of other editors, specifically in this case Dougweller, and honestly all I see is the same sort of behavior which led me to think that he himself probably deserves to be taken to ANI, particularly considering that just about the only thing he seems to be doing lately is, basically, stalking me. John Carter (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are the one following me around and commenting on my edits. As to being "taken to ANI", I suggest you be careful what you wish for. Ignocrates (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Ignocrates, the evidence rather clearly proves you wrong. Your recent dialogue with Pass a Method, for instance, only came after I and others raised questions about that editor's basic competence, as can be seen per that editor's talk page and the history of you and I there. Also, honestly, if one were to review the recent pattern of edits, I think it is clear that since I warned you on Dougweller's talk page about your almost hysterical claims that In ictu oculi should be taken to ANI for matters which in no way merit such attention, you have, basically, been all but silent. I realize that since you have been warned about your clearly unacceptable conduct more than once on this matter, you, basically, are forced to engage in harrasment such as this, and I do think that if this matter were to be brought before ANI, the probable outcome would be that you, whose recent history has been little if anything beyond making accusations, are the one far more likely to be in some way sanctioned for misconduct. I gave you some lenience in the past, because, as I said before, you have, at least until the recent past, been at least once in a while in behavior other than harrasment, but that seems to have stopped since the Dougweller warning. I really wonder whether anyone would think that someone whose apparently sole current purpose is to basically make snarky comments about others is really here to contribute to an encyclopedia. And, FWIW, unlike you, I actually am trying to do a few other things around here lately, so I doubt I will notice if you make another basically pointless and less than productive snarky comment as the one above.

BTW, Jayjg, I am working on an article list from the one-volume Wigoder Encyclopedia of Judaism, which might be ready in a week or so. When it is finished, I will probably post a notice to it on the Judaism WikiProject talkpage, and I do think it would be useful if someone who might know the subject better reviewed the list. A lot of the shorter entries seem to be quotes from verses and other sources, and I'm probably not the one to best decide which if any extant article here most clearly and directly relates to it. John Carter (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've found that commenting about other editors is rarely helpful, even when (rightly or wrongly) I think they richly deserve it. I'm not always perfect at avoiding making such comments, but I try my best. Can I still recommend to everyone that they simply don't mention the other editor at all going forward? I think that will help ease tensions. Jayjg 23:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

First, I am more than willing to send you the entirety of the e-mail exchange between Ignocrates and myself, which consisted of three e-mails total, the first in which I tried to be conciliatory to a degree after his retirement, the second of which involved what I did and continue to regard as frankly insane aspersions on myself by him, and the third in which I admit having lost my temper. Since then, and, specifically, since his return from retirement, during which, so far as I can tell from the reasons he gave for his return on his user talk page, he has done little if anything along the lines of the reasons he gave for his return, he has continued to engage in the sort of abusive talk page edits which were so frequent here for a time. At this point, I honestly cannot see that I have any reason to assume good faith of Ignocrates, or, for that matter, to assume even a basic grasp of policies and guidelines if they do not support his promoting his own personal opinions. Also, it is worth noting that just about every comment he has made has been on a page which shows up on my watchlist, and in general I think I have only commented regarding him when I see his name appear as the most recent edit on that list. So, in short, I have not been "stalking," but observing the often problemattic, inflammatory, and irrational conduct of what seems to me to be a committed POV pusher. That is considered acceptable by policies and guidelines. If Ignocrates were to perhaps get over his longstanding greivances against me which seem to be based almost exclusively on his having, basically, lost an argument regarding the content of what seems to have been the only article he had been significantly involved in, and perhaps refrain from the sort of bombastic, irrational, inflammatory, and well silly behavior that he seems to have adopted, particularly regarding me, since then, there wouldn't be a problem. Once in a while he has shown an interest in actually trying to build the encyclopedia in accord with policies and guidelines. Sadly, that seems to be more of the exception than the rule of late. If that were to change, then, certainly, I would have no reason to continue to feel the need to review what seem to me still to be generally problematic edits. Basically, so far as I can see, it's up to him. If he begins to predictably conduct himself according to wikipedia principles, guidelines, and policies, I would have nothing to say about him. As long as he continues to do otherwise, however, I can honestly say that I do see that my monitoring his conduct is more than acceptable as per guidelines and policies. John Carter (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

And, as a PS, the Wigoder encyclopedia contained far fewer articles and subarticles than I expected. The list can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Judaism/Encyclopedic articles. Like I said on its talk page, I acknowledge that I am far less than expert on that subject, so I have no doubt that there are several typos particularly regarding capitalization and other things. But it is at least a start.

P.P.S. Regarding the alleged threats, I think it worth noting that ArbCom and ANI have repeatedly indicated that editors who are, in the opinions of those speaking, not here to contribute to an encyclopedia are potentially eligible for sanctions. Rarely, except apparently when he is so warned, have I seen much if any interest on Ignocrates' part to actually make an effort to build an encyclopedia. Instead, there is, unfortunately, more regularly an attempt to, as with the Jehovah's witnesses some time ago, tell people who are often much better informed on matters than he is what he in his somewhat amusing self-aggrandisment thinks about subjects. Out of control ego coupled with little interest in actually doing anything productive are in general considered a very bad combination, and that seems to be in general an apt description of Iggy except in those instances when he is actually, well, warned. I am not sure that basically advising someone to abide by conduct standards is genrally a threat, except to those who might have never had much interest in abiding by them from the beginning. John Carter (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing I can say that illustrates the ongoing problem more clearly than these last two edits. Ignocrates (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Because a thorough review of the facts, which I welcome from Jayjg or anyone else, would reveal their accuracy. In short, you can't say anything about them because it is hard to deny the reality of your own recent edit history. I regret that you seem to believe that somehow policies and guidelines shouldn't apply to you simply because you can't admit that the great Ovadyah/Ignocrates could ever be wrong, but the evidence seems to bear out at least in my eyes that your reasons for returning to editing are, basically, vindictiveness and an unwillingness, or inability, to deal with a fairly clear and rational application of policies and guidelines. Feel free to check ArbCom and ANI rulings for the phrase "not here to build an encyclopedia" or similar, by the way, and see how often they turn up. And, if at all possible, maybe try to once in a while do something other than engaging in snarky whining? John Carter (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that your own actions could be called into question in an arbitration case due to extreme prejudice, and as a result, your supposed findings of fact may be disregarded as fruit of the poisonous tree. I'll say it one more time - find a way to let go of a dispute that ended almost two years ago, and move on. Ignocrates (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent discussion on Elazar Shach page

Hi,

Your input would be appreciated here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Elazar_Shach#Works

Yonoson3 (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked, but I'll assume it's the usual; Chabad followers trying to discredit Schach. I wish I had the time and energy to deal with these kinds of persistent, on-going policy violations, but unfortunately I don't. Perhaps you could try some of the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution suggestions; I'm sorry, but it's the best I can do right now. Jayjg 23:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Limerick Pogrom

Hello, there is an RFC at Talk:Limerick Pogrom about a proposed change to reduce the amount of detail given to discussion of the term pogrom. Everyone who's been involved in this discussion is receiving this notice. Your input is appreciated, thanks. Zad68 04:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Definitions of Pogrom

Hi Jay, hope all goes well. I am sure it was a pure oversight on your part most probably because you are busy, but after you nominated Definitions of Pogrom for deletion you did not follow-up by informing the creator of that article, per WP:ETIQ and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors: "Notifying substantial contributors to the article" Use {{subst:AfD-notice|article name|AfD discussion title}}. I have now done so: User talk:Oncenawhile#Nomination of Definitions of Pogrom for deletion. Be well, IZAK (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)