Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Carter (talk | contribs) at 23:28, 30 December 2011 (→Ebionites and Ignocrates and general comments: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

concern

Hi, could you kindly have a look at the article for Khalid Yasin, as one person keeps changing the article in breach of wp:synth, wp:rs, wp:claim and agf. I have tried to explain the reason for reverting them, but they are not interested in these policies and continue to restore to a version clearly not in line with basic BLP policies. Nimom0 (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Are you concerned that the article is becoming to pro-Yasin or too anti-Yasin? Jayjg 19:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, well I am just concerned about the edits removing reliably sourced content, calling views "claimed" and adding OR and self interpretation without RS. If you view the edit I linked. Nimom0 (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me some specific examples? Say, the top two most obvious problems? Jayjg 19:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well the diff is pretty clear with all violations. But alright, 1) he removed reliably sourced content (articles sourcing the views, see: Homosexuality (adding the word bestiality), Family life, Education 2) he interprets the view stating "This statement seems wrong and taken out of context", which is WP:SYNTH 3) and adds primary source OR (youtube) to source his edit 4) 5) ignores WP:CLAIM renaming the 'View' section 'Claimed views' and then further inserting "Yasin is claimed to" 3 times. Clearly not how we edit BLP's. Nimom0 (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've left a number of comments on his Talk: page. Jayjg 16:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thanks and certainly appreciated. I have just viewed the 30+ edits he has since made to KY. Again he removed most of the quotes , , rewriting significantly from the previously quoted content and added counterviews but sourcing is mainly a video interview and I'm unsure that the video link is an RSS. The websites are both in Dutch, where the former looks like a blog while the latter I am unsure about. Also unsure about this. Not sure we need to specify that "yasin has been quoted". Though foreign RSS are admissable, I noticed 3 Danish news articles, which look fine for RSS though they certainly offer more information that what is selectively cited. And the videos, still, may fall under OR. Nimom0 (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, can you have a look at the above in terms of the 2 video links being RS? The vidoe link(s) are used extensively to "counter" views of YK in a BLP which requires strict RS. Nimom0 (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If they're the ones I think you mean, they're in Dutch, so it's hard for me to assess. Can you confirm the specific links you mean, here on my page? Also, I think you are correct, "he was quoted" adds verbiage and a sense of doubt that is not warranted. Jayjg 22:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, been away, so just logged on and found your message. Hope you are well. The links are these: http://tegenlicht.vpro.nl/afleveringen/2010-2011/aanval-op-europa/de-vreemdeling.html and http://player.omroep.nl/?aflid=9617163 (originally hosted by a Dutch Muslim org NMO - now dissolved). Though Dutch, it still may fall under OR. If this was an article it would be easier to cite. But finding interviews (in english as KY is english speaking so only the background commentator are foreign languaged) and select statements (according to ones own subjective understanding) and then insert as "opposing view" is a concern. This interview is now sourcing everything that the other user deems "incorrect information", "inaccurate cherry-picked claims", "obviously mis-quoted or false views" and "a heavily biased, outdated and locally (Australia) dominant version". He actually held these preconcieved POVs prior to even having found "opposing" primary sources. In terms of objectivity, not a constructive approach for editing or good faith towards editors such as myself. We only report what reliable secondary sources say, as you know. Here we take an interview (OR) and pick statements we find will oppose the existing version. This is a BLP afterall, whether sources are Dutch are not. Even if this interview was on BBC online, we'd be careful, when citing views or controversy. In my previous search for sources I also found this . You see the problem? And the only heavily edited article to his credit is KY. Nimom0 (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Misplaced Pages Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

Buster Seven Talk 15:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It's actually more, when you include deleted edits, but it's nice to be recognized. Jayjg 01:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I use the total at Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. They do not include deleted edits. If I may, on a side note (only to appease my curiosity and certainly not to stir the pot) why do we assume that User:Cincinatis is tagging Jews in the manner of yellow badges? Could it not be that he (Cincinatis) is proud of their Jewishness, as they seem to be, and is just adding pertinent information that the subject has self-expressed? We were all new at one time and entered rooms we were not ready for. Buster Seven Talk 05:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure your premises are correct. Have the subjects all "self-expressed" pride in their Jewishness? As far as I can tell, only one of them has even mentioned it, and even then in an off-hand comment. Jayjg 17:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

2011-12 Jewish conspiracy theory

Hello,

Since you are a long-term user of en.wikipedia.org, could you tell me why Jewish conspiracy and Jewish conspiracy theory are currently both redirect, and not a real article? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You created Jewish conspiracy theory as a redirect yourself, two years ago. Perhaps you can explain that? Jayjg 00:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, you have the answer yourself then. So, what is it? Jayjg 16:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Mocky

Hi Jayjg. There's something of a WP:COI situation on the Mocky article that I'd appreciate your advice on and/or help with if possible. The details can be found here, but basically, a user has more or less outed himself as being intimately connected with the subject of the bio. He has alluded to the 'wishes' of the artist in question vis-a-vis the latter's Misplaced Pages entry (c.f. ), and otherwise appears to be speaking on behalf of/acting as an intermediary for the musician (viz. "Is there a way for Mocky to contact you? He'd be happy to tell you so himself" ). I'm disturbed by this obvious conflict of interest, but am unsure as to the common procedure under such circumstances. The user has been very aggressive in his edit summaries (call-outs, personal attacks, etc.), is knee-jerk reverting, replacing reliable sources with a blog link/SPS, and has intransigently refused to engage in discussion. Please advise. Kind regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's dubious to label him as "Somali-Canadian", given that (according to the article) his mother is English, and his father was actually born in Yemen (it would be no issue if Mocky was born in Somalia and later gained Canadian citizenship). I would suggest first running this by the WP:BLP/N for their view on what description and sources are appropriate for this biography. You might also consider bringing the editor to WP:COIN. Jayjg 01:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Mocky's father was actually an ethnic Somali born in Yemen. That's why he has a typical Somali last name, "Salole" (e.g. ). The artist is also often identified as Somali-Canadian in reliable sources. For instance, in this review in the The Guardian. To be honest, I think there's an even more pressing issue at hand than the ethnic designation in the lede; viz. the WP:COI situation. Thanks for the links & advice. Middayexpress (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can find examples of Mocky describing himself that way, there would be no issue either. Jayjg 17:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to bring these User:WölffReik contributions to your attention

Notice that this disruptive user has sandboxed these articles in a sock's sandbox so they can be recreated anyway. I'm applying to AN/I to have user indef blocked for continuing disruption.

• User:Minowafan/SuperKombat World Grand Prix Final
  
• User:Minowafan/SuperKombat World Grand Prix IV
  
• User:Minowafan/SuperKombat World Grand Prix III
  
• User:Minowafan/SuperKombat World Grand Prix II
  
• User:Minowafan/SuperKombat World Grand Prix I
  
• User:Minowafan/SuperKombat ‎
  

I believe the pattern of disruption is so egregious the user warrants a very long term block. BusterD (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I had already brought these articles to AfD, even before your note. Were there any I missed? Jayjg 21:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll continue to look. IMHO, the first step is shutting the user down. I have faith even if blocked we'll still be dealing with this dedicated disruptor. BusterD (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

María Viramontes

Hey there, I think you should review the deletion for several reasons. First of all, the way your phrased it implies to me that you found it to be notable but since most people found it not notable you went with delete. But it's not a vote and that seems to be treating it as such. Secondly it was part of a mass nomination of articles related to the Richmond City Council that editors have been scrambling to rescue, and every other one looks like it will be successfully saved. Now having said that it doesn't necessarily bare weight if other things are kept but the point is that more time was needed. Also most of the delete votes were based on the articles previous state before the sourcing and copyediting was done by rescue. The sources for this woman are numerous and based on them she is generally notable and if anything she it notable for merger into the Richmond City Council or city of Richmond, California article. I would like you to reconsider your approach here and suggest the article be kept.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My comment wasn't that she met Misplaced Pages's notability requirements, I just assessed the arguments on the AfD page. Jayjg 16:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure biut my point is that I would like you to review this deletion and to reverse your decision on the matter. I believe the result was actually no consensus. Will you reverse the decision?LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like some review also.  And please comment about Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the discussion of a deletion review this article (which IMO, is clearly unwarranted; the article fails POLITICIAN and ANYBIO in spades) be discussed in a public forum so that people other than Lucifer may comment? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my close, but anyone is free to take any deletion to deletion review, if they wish. Jayjg 06:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I really would rather not bother them with all that, as I think the content could easily be salvaged into the city council article. Is that something your willing to do? And for the record asking the closing admin on his ramtalkpage is a procedural prerequisite for a deletion review as outlined on the deletion review steps, this is nothing but a man to man request and no public comment is warranted here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean by "the closing admin on his rampage"? Are you referring to me? Jayjg 09:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please accept my apology that was meant to be "talkpage" but I must have had a Freudian slip that was directed at the nominator not at you. I think the mass nominations were a bit of a rampage but I hadn't even noticed I used that here and it seemed like an odd question and I had to reread.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for explaining. Jayjg 17:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes

Please comment about Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge

Is there anyway I can have the content from the article to add to the city council entry?LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for María Viramontes

An editor has asked for a deletion review of María Viramontes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciferwildcat (talk • contribs) 10:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Abraham Lincoln's patent

ping!--Doug Coldwell 15:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

fyi

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/CIS

You seem to know about this... Alarbus (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked and tagged, apparently. Jayjg 17:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Joseph Henle

I noticed you speedily deleted Joseph Henle as per G4. I had thought about requesting speedy deletion for that reason, but instead re-nominated it as an AfD (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henle (3rd nomination)). Assuming there isn't a bot to do it automatically, could you close out or delete the AfD discussion on this article? Thanks for your help. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done so. Jayjg 16:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit War/Content dispute

I'd appreciate some help concerning recent attempts to whitewash Slavic Neopaganism. Thanks.--Galassi (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Jayjg 21:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It has moved to AN/I? Or has been there for a while now? Jayjg 04:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Reform Judaism

Hey Jay. I took your lead and edited out the Hebrew & Yiddish at Orthodox Judaism, for consistency between the denominations. Cheers, A Sniper (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care, but this isn't some tit-for-tat game where if one movement has no Hebrew name in the lede, then the others can't either. Reform Judaism is primarily an American phenomenon, with some strength elsewhere, and relatively little support in Israel. On the other other, Israel is the center of Orthodox Judaism in the world, with at least three times the Orthodox Jewish population and infrastructure (schools, synagogues, etc.) as the United States. Having a Hebrew name makes far more sense for Orthodox Judaism than for Reform Judaism. Jayjg 04:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar

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

Clarification of Guilt by Association in WP:BLP

Due to the holidays, I didn't reply, and now this discussion has been archived. Just noting that I appreciate your comments and alerting me to the problem on the Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar, which I am now proposing to merge (see above). Furthermore, while I understand your comment about how WP:BLP policies apply to all of Misplaced Pages, I don't see how your comment really addressed my proposal in any meaningful fashion. It seems to me that it falls entirely outside of the guidelines that I proposed. The rules of logic are very clear, and the examples I proposed (Jodie Foster and Sarah Palin) are written in the manner that is clearly not an Association fallacy, and that this is a model for such incidents. All I am attempting to do is to insert such basic logic back into the guidelines.Jemiljan (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Racism in Germany

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

Ebionites and Ignocrates and general comments

I am in the process of obtaining the book Who on Earth was Jesus by interlibrary loan which, if I remember correctly, says rather explicitly that Eisenman's theories regarding the above named subject are rejected by the academic community. I expect to file an RfC regarding that opinion, and that of others, like James VanderKam and Lawrence Schiffman, which seem to me to rather clearly demonstrate those theories of Eisenman are rather clearly fringe as per WP:FT. Also, I guess, I feel that I might well express concern regarding the editor above who sought to change his name. As I recall, that editor rather clearly stated to you that he was "too close" to the subject of the Ebionites to be impartial, which I take as a rather clear indication of the relevance of WP:POV. Granted, that editor has been rather generally inactive of late, but I would have to wonder whether he might have similar POV problems regarding other topics from that era, like perhaps Gospel of the Ebionites. And, yes, much as I am less active recently, I am in the process of trying to get together broader lists of encyclopediae and other sources which, I think, tend to be among the most acceptable indicators of current academic opinion, provided the sources themselves are current of course. Anyway, with luck, maybe within a few weeks or so, I should be able to provide at least basic "bibliography" articles for most major faith traditions, and possibly at least a few on more focused topics, with articles on the individual books where notability is established. I don't know whether the topics of interest to you might benefit from such separate articles, but I can try to add and develop them as well. Anyway, thanks again for all your efforts in what is an often thankless and contentions subject. John Carter (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)