This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deuterium (talk | contribs) at 00:33, 22 August 2006 (→BTW...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:33, 22 August 2006 by Deuterium (talk | contribs) (→BTW...)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Thanks for visiting my Talk: page.
If you are considering posting something to me, please: *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting. |
Old talk archived at Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12, Archive 13, Archive 14, Archive 15, Archive 16 Archive 17
Could you protect Tay-Sachs Disease?
Jay. Sorry to miss out on the Jewish History discussion. I was away for several weeks. I was wondering, is there some way that you as an admin can protect a page so that only a person with a wikipedia log-in can edit it. I have worked a lot on the page on Tay-Sachs disease. The page keeps attracting vandals. It is sad, but anything that is remotely associated with "Jewish" seems to get vandalized. But that concerns me less than another kind of edit/review problem.
Somebody, who is probably very well meaning, keeps adding a sentence stating that the disease has been cured by new research at Duke University. I looked into the mater, and there is indeed research underway, but the successful treatments reported were for another disease, and the person who makes this modification is not reading the Duke University press releases correctly. Misinformation about a disease is a terrible thing. Could you make the Tay-Sachs Disease page only editable with a log-in. Maybe then I can at least figure out who this editor is and get them to understand the importance of the peer review process in science. --Metzenberg 06:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Talk: Circumcision
Hi Jay, Curious as to why you removed the discussion on Harvey Kellog as the person who spurred the American tradition of circumcision. Do you have sources that say something different? Best regards, bunix 09:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Jay, it is well-known in the field that Kellog was influential in the "circumcision drive" in the US. I have gone and read various sources, now that you have bought it up, and found that you are right though. Because it seems there was already anti-masturbation hysteria in the US and doctors that promoted circumscision that predated Kellog; so I am now unsure how much Kellog's book contributed. So I now have to find a proper source that discusses how intsrumental Kellog actually was, so I can re-word my statement to be more accurate. He certainly was influential....but to what extent I can't say right now until I check more sources. This may take me sometime to dig up, as I am pretty busy. I have heard claims that Kellog used a lot of his cornflakes empire money to campaign for circumcision, but I am still looking for a reference for that one....but if true, kinda puts me off eating cornflakes :-) Best regards, bunix 21:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
RfC filed "against" you
You may not be aware of this, as the author did not bother informing you, but a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/SlimJay was filed "against" you and SlimVirgin, which I have deleted and delisted as gross misuse of the RfC process. All the best, El_C 14:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
test --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Civility
Regarding : Template:Civil3 Paul Cyr 19:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yikes! Someone's taking themselves just a wee bit too seriously. Jayjg 19:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's interesting that, despite having been warned that using newbie templates on experienced users is generally perceived as an insult, he continues to do so. Presumably the insult in intentional then. Guettarda 20:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
David Ben-Gurion
Please add your support to David Ben-Gurion on the Misplaced Pages:Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Respectfully, Republitarian 16:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Stark
Carla Pehlke (talk · contribs) is Zephram. See This edit, and Terrorism edits. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Vote for me!
Vote for me! I will be a kid administor! Forfilling duties, watching reverting, and blocking, communicating and cooporating! Vote here!. Lindsay1980 23:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Bonaparte
Hey Jayjg,
Bonny has been pretty active lately, the most recent socks are Georgianis, Economistul, and Latinitas. Could you look into each recent IP used by these accounts and see if they're open proxies? Also, perhaps this would lead you to find more socks? (I'm referring to what you did that other time) Anyways, he's been a bit of a nuisance lately, it would be great if you could help out. —Khoikhoi 04:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also note his recent activity here and here. —Khoikhoi 07:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I might add that one of the proxies could have also been used by User:BookwormUK or another user. See the history of ShivLing of Makkeshwar. —Khoikhoi 04:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
ArbCom case
Jay, can you take a look at Proposed principles ArbCom case: Editing your guru's article
- Editing an article concerning a guru you are a disciple of is governed by the principles in Misplaced Pages:Autobiography. Briefly, such editing is discouraged due to inherent bias. If you do edit, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, and Misplaced Pages:No original research remain in full effect.
Are you aware of the implications of this proposed principle?
- Tibetan Buddhists could be discouraged from editing the Dalai_lama and Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama articles
- Sikhs could be discouraged from editing Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Guru Gobind Singh
- Ravidasis could be discouraged from editing Raidas
- Followers of Vedānta, yoga, tantra and bhakti schools could be discouraged from editing articles about their teachers
- and so on
All this when there are no discouragement or limitations for
- Roman Catholics from editing the Pope_Benedict_XVI or Jesus articles
- Orthodox Jews from editing articles about their rabbis (e.g. Habbadniks editing Menachem Mendel Schneerson)
- Sufis from editing articles about Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi
- and so on
Don't you think that this could be construed as a dangerous precendent of discriminating against followers of Eastern faiths? What do you think Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhist and others will feel about Misplaced Pages when they learn about this..?
I have raised concerns with ArbCom members about this, but somehow I feel my concerns are not being addressed. Fred is of the opinion that the ArbCom can make value judgements about the "quality of the relationship" between a dispicle of a certain faith and its teacher and differentiate it from others. One can call that discrimination. What is your opinion on this?
Another concern is that this interpretation of WP:AUTO may be in contradiction with existing WP policies, such as WP:AGF and WP:NPA, the latter that reads " Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. Please note that I am not arguing that for a disciple of a "guru" it may not be challenging to edit neutrally. It would be a good advice to pay attention to bias. But to make a distinction betwen faiths in this respect may not be appropriate. Also note that apostates of faiths/gurus will have as much as a challenge in this regard, but there is no mention of that conflict in the proposed princple. Look forward to your comments after you revise the evidence. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Mediation request for Resolution 242 article
Hi Jayjg. Here's the request:
This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead. |
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vjam (talk • contribs) 15:24, August 20, 2006.
Hello Jayjg. As well as being one of the parties involved in the content dispute and invited for mediation, I have also been following the recent discussion regarding OR. I agree entirely with what you have posted on the topic to date and appreciate your patient efforts to try to work this out directly. While engaged in a formal dispute resolution process I obviously would present my own understanding of any substantive issues, I intend to follow your lead wrt issues of policy and procedure and therefore am waiting to see if you accept mediation before responding to the invitation. Hopefully my service provider will not change my IP address during this process, although I am thinking of registering at this point and will continue to give the issue due consideration. If I do register or if my IP address changes (as it has in the past from time to time), is there a way for me to continue with this process if I choose to?201.53.27.33 22:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. What on earth is going on with the un sc res 242 article? I come back a month or so later and it seems entirely re-written in a very biased pov way. How can I help? affinity292@yahoo.com
Hello Jayjg. This is "IP 201.53.27.33" again. As Murphy would have it my dynamic IP address changed again sometime late last night or early this morning, and I am no longer "201.53.27.33". I do not know how this affects the mediation request, but I suspect it becomes moot because I will be unable to respond with the invited IP address. On a positive note, I did indeed register with Misplaced Pages (I had no idea it was so painless, but I suppose I should have suspected as much) and will not be "lost" again. For what it's worth (I suspect not much due to verifiability issues and other matters of protocol, but I'll toss it out there anyhow) I unequivocally and irrevocably claim authorship of and responsibility for every edit and comment made by IP address 201.53.27.33 to the Misplaced Pages site(s) since making my edit to the UN SCR 242 article at 02:26, 17 August 2006 until, and including, my edit to the Talk page of the same article at 23:25, 20 August 2006. I will post an alert to Vjam to let him know so he can decide what he wants to do about his mediation request, although I do still hope we will all be able to forge an agreement without having to further tax the formal dispute resolution resources.Dasondas 20:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW...
Could you do a check on User:AdoniCtistai too? —Khoikhoi 23:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also, Wik is being disruptive again: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Oruj —Khoikhoi 01:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello
Why did you remove my questions to you regarding Foreign relations of Israel? Please see WP:TALK: "Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings."
I await your reply on my talk page, where I have reproduced my original message. Deuterium 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)