User talk:Jayjg/Archive 25 - Misplaced Pages

< User talk:Jayjg

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Briangotts (talk | contribs) at 13:29, 26 May 2006 (Talk:Khazars). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:29, 26 May 2006 by Briangotts (talk | contribs) (Talk:Khazars)(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.
*Use headlines when starting new talk topics.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Do not make personal attacks.
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

kkk

You accuse me of saying people are Jewish but I dont believe that I have done that even once so I have no idea what you are talking about. I have a thousand edits and most of them have nothing to do with me even making a reference to if someone is Jewish. You reverted my edits and I really believe that you are making a mistake and not conforming to NPOV policy.

Klan activity has also been diverted into other racist groups and movements, such as Christian Identity, neo-Nazi groups, and racist subgroups of the skinheads.

MY EDIT:

Klan activity has also been diverted into other groups and movements, such as Christian Identity, neo-Nazi groups, and subgroups of the skinheads.

The other way sounds amatuer like it was written by an anti racist liberal teenager who cant go two sentences without saying the word racist. If you want wikipedia to be a joke by all means feel free to do so. Misplaced Pages will just lose its credibility and defy the whole purpose of this website. If you will take notice I didnt remove a setence at the top of the page that said "The Klan preacher racism, nativism, etc. People have to make up their own minds on whether or not Christian Identity and Neo Nazism is racist. Chances are even if I remove the word racist the reader will still think they are racist the only difference is they will come to that conclusion by themselves instead of some editor shoving a conclusion down their throats. Why do you need to mention the word racist every sentence? If you followed the rules of wikipedia you would present the information and let the reader make up their own minds. Please do not change it again.

Thanks

Jerry Jones 00:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think Misplaced Pages will be a laughing-stock if it cannot use the NAZI regime as an example of rascism. To change, in the article on rascism,

Nazi racial policy and the Nazi Nuremberg Laws represented some of the most explicit racist policies in Europe in the twentieth century, and culminated in the Holocaust, a systematic murdering of millions of Jews, Gypsies, disabled people and others "undesirables".

Nazi ideology believed that Jews were controlling the German press and were not patriotic, and were subverting the German government with Bolshevism.

takes the NAZI's from being rascists to being patriots. -Will Beback 00:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Threatening Comments

Thanks! It caught be as quite a shock. It's the first time someone has used quite that tone with me in a long time. And that was in real life. --CTSWyneken 02:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jay: see below and on my page. --CTSWyneken 16:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not threatening anyone, Robert!

Do not lie, please. And read Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules

False Charges Against Gooverup?

I was intrigued by CTSWyneken‘s claim here and here that User:Gooverup "threatened" him. Not surprisingly, I could find no evidence supporting the accusation. Please read WP:Bite and this: "Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor. If threats were actually made, please post the diff right here and I will stand corrected. Doright 06:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Doright

Would you speak to Doright about ceasing his endless attacks upon me and others on the Martin Luther talk page? I came to the point a long time ago where I will not even respond to him. Yet still he will not stop. In the past, I've talked others out of filing an RfC on him. I do not know that I can find the patience to do it again. --CTSWyneken 02:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As usual, never a single link or diff to support CTSWyneken libelous defamation. Do you ever wonder why?Doright 21:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Case in point, Jay. --CTSWyneken 21:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

settlement/neighbourhood clarification

Hi Jayjg, I've attempted to more accurately describe the reality of Israeli residential areas constructed in the parts of Jerusalem conquered in 1967, and de facto annexed in 1980, by describing them initially as neighbourhoods, and then stating that they are widely considered settlements. Such formulations already existed on Pisgat Ze'ev and Neve Yaakov (in this case, you actively contributed to this statement ), and I extended them to Gilo (neighborhood) and French Hill, and asked for consensus for a similar move on Talk:Har Homa. There, Ramallite questioned the validity of the statement, and I believe considers it an Israeli POV. What, if any, wiki-consensus exists on the topic, and what do you believe would be an appropriate NPOV? Tewfik 03:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

An appology

I'd like to appologise for being rude and inflamatory yesterday. I invested quite an amount of my time in a rewrite of WP:SOCK and was shocked to see it all go down the drain. But I understand now that the reverting of the rewrite was not an unilateral action by one or two admins (which I didn't understand at the time) and that the revert has the community support whereas the rewrite I executed doesn't. It was therefore my mistake not informing the community in proper way. I would like to appologise for not proposing the policy change the right way and for being rude to people who reverted it yesterday. I will now take a few days to cool off and will then try to propose some changes in policy and to create a broad concensus. I hope that the behaviour I presented yesterday will not influence my proposal as this is the first (and I sencirely hope the last) time I lost my head over something on Misplaced Pages. --Dijxtra 09:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet revert

I noticed you reverted an edit on Conventional warfare because it was done by a "sock puppet." I don't know if it is or isn't a sock puppet, but I don't see why the edit should have been reversed. The wording as it was before is much better. uriah923 22:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Uranian (talk · contribs) might be Zephram too. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

NGO Monitor

Jay, I just wanted to call your attention to NGO Monitor, as I see you were contributed to that page some months ago. The page has become in large measure an anti-NGO Monitor polemic. While I think it's great for an article not read like a press release from the organization, in this case it reads as if the article was written by enemies of the organization. I made some significant edits to restore NPOV. --Tomstoner 00:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

kkk

Wtf are you? I am not white washing anything. I try to make all articles balanced but people like you are trying to prevent it. Nice how you put up some other guys edits and say that they are mine. Who do you think you are?

Jerry Jones 01:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Saladdin1970

Hi Jay, a question has arisen as to whether User:Saladdin1970 also edits as User:62.129.121.63. They jointly violated 3RR at Zionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), reverting to the same version five times within two hours, and I believe it's the same person. If you have the time, it would be helpful to have a check user done, as Saladdin says it isn't him. See the 3RR report for more details. Cheers, SlimVirgin 13:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Subcategorisation rollbacks

Hello Jayjg. I see you rolled back my edits to several Wik sockpuppet pages, which are currently triple-categorised to both sockpuppet categories and the parent category. Is there any particular reason for this, or do you simply disagree with the particular template I applied? // Pathoschild (/_map) 14:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like all the sockpuppets to be on one page, and it's important that the ones you've edited go in in the order given. Jayjg 17:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is, in that case; the more specific template should categorise them to Misplaced Pages:Sock puppets of Wik in the same order. // Pathoschild (/_map) 01:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

David Berger

Jay, I am having somewhat of an edit war with meshichist-leaning editor User:PhatJew at David Berger. Please help out. --DLand 16:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, HKT's edit was not regarding a point of contention, and only served to make PhatJew madder. However, it seems like he has gotten fed up with the "lies and distortions" of Modern Orthodox Wikipedians and has left the issue for now. If you read the discussion at Talk:David Berger you'll see that his charges are, indeed, unfounded and ridiculous. Best, DLand 06:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Saladin1970

Can you give examples of the copyright violations you cited in his block message. I did only a cursory glance of his edits and couldn't find any. - Mgm| 09:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletionism facing (Judaism) articles

Hello Jay: I have just placed the following on the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism. Shabbat Shalom, IZAK 09:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Shalom to everyone: There is presently a very serious phenomenon on Misplaced Pages that effects all articles. Let's call it "The New Deletionism". There are editors on Misplaced Pages who want to cut back the number of "low quality" articles EVEN IF THEY ARE ABOUT NOTABLE TOPICS AND SUBJECTS by skipping the normal procedures of placing {{cleanup}} or {{cite}} tags on the articles' pages and instead wish to skip that process altogether and nominate the articles for a vote for deletion (VfD). This can be done by any editor, even one not familiar with the subject. The implication/s for all articles related to Jews, Judaism, and Israel are very serious because many of these articles are of a specilaized nature that may or may not be poorly written yet have important connections to the general subjects of Jews, Judaism, and Israel, as any expert in that subject would know.

Two recent examples will illustrate this problem:

1) See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zichron Kedoshim, Congregation where a notable Orthodox synagogue was deleted from Misplaced Pages. The nominator gave as his reason: "Scarce material available on Google, nor any evidence in those results of notability nor any notable size." Very few people voted and only one person objected correctly that: "I've visited this synagogue, know members, and know that it is a well established institution" which was ignored and the article was deleted. (I was unaware of the vote).

2) See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Berel Wein where the nominator sought to delete the article about Rabbi Berel Wein because: "It looks like a vanity project to me. While he does come up with many Google hits, they are all commercial in nature. The article is poorly written and reads like a commercial to me." In the course of a strong debate the nominator defended his METHOD: "... what better way to do that than put it on an AfD where people who might know more about the subject might actually see it and comment rather than slapping a {{NPOV}} and {{cleanup}} template on and waiting for someone to perhaps come across it." But what if no-one noticed it in time and it would have gone the same way as "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim"? Fortunately, people noticed it, no-one agreed with the nominator and the article was kept.

As we all know Googling for/about a subject can determine its fate as an article, but this too is not always a clear-cut solution. Thus for example, in the first case, the nominator saw almost nothing about "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim" on Google (and assumed it was unimportant) whereas in the second case the nominator admitted that Berel Wein "does come up with many Google hits" but dismissed them as "all commercial in nature". So in one case too few Google hits was the rationale for wanting to delete it and in the other it was too many hits (which were dismissed as "too commercial" and interpreted as insignificant), all depending on the nominators' POV of course.

This problem is compounded because when nominators don't know Hebrew or know nothing about Judaism and its rituals then they are at a loss, they don't know variant transliterated spellings, and compounding the problem even more Google may not have any good material or sources on many subjects important to Jewish, Judaic, and Israeli subjects. Often Judaica stores may be cluttering up the search with their tactics to sell products or non-Jewish sites decide to link up to Biblical topics that appear "Jewish" but are actually missionary sites luring people into misinformation about the Torah and the Tanakh, so while Googling may yield lots of hits they may mostly be Christian-oriented and even be hostile to the Judaic perspective.

Therefore, all editors and contributors are requested to be aware of any such attempts to delete articles that have a genuine connection to any aspect of Jews, Judaism and Israel, and to notify other editors.

Please, most importantly, place alerts here in particular so that other editors can be notified.

Thank you for all your help and awareness. IZAK 08:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Jehoshua Ben-Pandira

I think that was a bit sharp and impolite redirecting that without telling me.. seeems deliberately so. -- max rspct leave a message 11:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I said nothing about 'owning' the article.. just a bit of courtesy.. aww forget it! -- max rspct leave a message 21:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Violations of WP:Civil on Talk:Evolution

Hi Jayjg i have recently been trying to participate in a discussion on the Evolution talk page. It seems, hoever, that my views are in contradiction to the beliefs of some of the editors there, and they have repeatdly tried to silence me by resorting to personal attacks. Examples:

User:Slrubenstein

maybe do not understand science in general
think there is still value to being able to tell ignorant dogmatics like Sangil that their points are addressed in the article
Now, Sangil may never be educated by the article, but smarter or less dogmatic readers who listen to creationist (or "ID") arguments because they are very open-minded or naive may indeed be educated by our article

User:WAS 4.250

You display no such knowledge. You display gross ignorance. Who gave you the degree? Genesisversity

User:Plumbago

he was countering your ridiculous statement

thx1138

That's complete BS
You posted a blatant lie. What kind of response did you expect?

User:Graft

Arguing with you is like trying to hit a puppy by throwing a live bee at it
I was going to do what WAS did and insult Sangil's education, but no need

These edits are taken from Talk:evolution#Kinds and Talk:evolution#Misconceptions_sections

My request is that being an administrator, you step in to stop this rather crude bullying, ans allow all views to be expressed equally (as long as they are expressed in a civil manner). i don't know what form of intervention would be preferable, but i feel that the current situation is not acceptable. I also beleive that User:Slrubenstein's attempt to "educate" users is rather problematic, and is in violation of Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not in regard to WP not being a soapbox.

I have posted a warning to these users regarding WP:Civil, which has been ignored.

Note: I have also posted this message on User:Slimvirgin's talk page. Thanks -Sangil 19:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi, I'm going to be mediating your case, regarding the Medical analysis of circumcision.

The mediation will take place here. If you are planning to take a wiki-break in the near-future or will be unable to partcipate in the mediation could you please let me know. --Wisd e n17 19:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you re: Christian views of Jesus

Thanks for adding a third opinion to Christian views of Jesus. It seems I have been butting heads with Bbagot the past couple days. I have got myself into a slow edit war with this editor over at Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke. If you have time, I would appreciate a third (or more) opinion on these matters. I'm not sure if I have lost objectivity due to the clashes over the past few days. Seeing edits like this, wholesale blanking of important, sourced sections, left a bad taste in my mouth. Thank you for your time.--Andrew c 21:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please

This is perfectly good edit . What was most poignant was the level of denial of the anti-Semitism the Soviet Union engaged in. Fred Bauder 22:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Qadianism

The AfD was a fraud since the initiator Kuulman was Sockpuppet whicj onlu appeared for this AfD then disappeared. It is totally unacceptable. I will be moving for arbitration in Misplaced Pages. Siddiqui 22:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Open proxy block on User:200.51.32.150

I noticed the block log for this user shows you blocked it for a year as an open proxy on May 4. I was just curious if this block didn't "take" somehow, as there is no unblock showing before it was used a couple days later in another cartoon removal episode at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (which wound up in the ongoing Cyde RFC). It certainly seems like a likely open proxy - it has been blacklisted at dnsstuff.com as well. David Oberst 00:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What is your problem?

I work hard on all of the articles I work on and I add references to nearly all of my edits. I contribute a lot and I really dont appreciate you reverting every single edit I make. I tried to resolve my disputes with you and Will but you both just ignore me. I went to Will Bebacks talk page to describe why I am removing far right from every page so I would appreciate if you can read that. I am not adding anything in bad faith. You can't just revert legitimate information. I provided plenty of references for the CPUSA article and its not my personal opinion but history. Foreign born residents in the CPUSA was so prevalent that it led to the Palmer raids and restrictive immigration in the 1920s. Anti Semetic literature became widespread in the United States. You can read plenty of sources that will tell you this along with the rise of the KKK in the 1920's. This is just the part of history I focus on so you accuse me of Judiazing articles. You make it seem that all I do is add something Jewish to an article but you ignore all of my other edits. I do a lot of work on political articles from this time period and you just ignore my other contributions. I am just trying to make wikipedia better and you are stalking me and removing stuff that I worked really hard on. How would you feel if I reverted every single edit you made that I didnt like and continually accused you of commie washing articles without even listening to you?

For the Charles Coughlin article I have studied him for years and I have read over his work and he frequently cited Goebells. I agree I didnt put the proper reference the first few times but I cited it in his work at the bottom. They reference that Coughlin quoted Goebells as saying that but I will even go down to the library and try to find it in his original social justice writing. I would have to say 80-90 percent of the edits I do have to do with historical government persons and adding pictures and making small edits. The only reason why my adding if something is Jewish seems widespread because it keeps getting reverted and I keep reverting it back. It's the other people who make me focus on it. If I were to revert your edits on whatever religious article you do and keep reverting it you would defend it to and I could make it seem that all you do is focus on Jesus. I just want to come to a conclusion here and move on. I am not trying to defame anyone but just contribute to wikipedia. If you dont like my edits thats one thing but it's not right to remove my information. Everyones edits is a contribution no matter what they add just as long as its accurate. You also accuse me of moving "far right" from every article but you ignore how I move far left from others articles. The reason I dont remove far left to the same extent I do right is because its already been covered. Most extreme leftist groups are not listed as "far left" so I was just trying to follow the same standard for the right and you claim I am white washing articles. I dont understand why you ignore virtually all of my other edits and portray me a certain way. If we can please work this out I would apprecaite it.

Jerry Jones 00:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Berel Wein editing issues continue

Hi Jay, would you mind reviewing the recent editing at the Berel Wein article as some editors are still tagging it and "nagging" at it. Thanks. IZAK 08:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Judiasm Page

Jayjg –

Hi. I’m contacting you in reference to the Messianic Judaism page. I realize and understand the whole POV issue – but isn’t it good for a page to show what the people at subject actually believe, and what others say that are against their belief? Rather than stating what it is BELIEVED they believe? Because when I look at the current Messianic Judaism page, that is what I see. And since I and many of my constituents are MJs, I feel quite offended when I read the page. Why don’t *I*, then, make some edits? Because I’m not good at writing essays or journalistic type articles on any specific topic. Well I’m sure I COULD be. But I haven’t the time in any respect, and I fear shaking whatever someone else hath put forth. I understand that most Jews feel that Messianic Judaism is out to convert them to Christianity, but that simply is not the stance of many MJs out there. To say that our interest lies in converting Jews to Christianity, when Christianity is not our OWN goal is misleading. Those of us who are not Jews-by-birth take Messianic Judaism to be closer to the truth of what God wanted for us, and so we observe Torah (to different extents, yes). Christianity has many things that differ with us, a lot of things that we are completely against. We feel that the believers in the New Testament were US (MJs) and NOT Christians, and that Christianity sprouted up (and took over) along the way. Therefore we would not be a newer faith, but an older, perhaps more originally based faith than Christianity. I could go on about that, but I won’t. I feel that since the page is about us (MJs) our standpoint should be the focus – not someone else’s standpoint. The page before – the one with the Torah-pole/evangelical-pole topics – says what MJs believe about themselves – whether or not others think it’s true or right. I look at the Jewish pages and I see them from a Jewish standpoint and what they believe. I look at Christian pages and I see the same. Why are we not able to have the same right?

Thanks for your time, Rivka 17:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Reliable Sources

"An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Misplaced Pages if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion."

If this is what you're needing I could more than provide it, as could any knowledgeable MJ. Since religions are generally based on opinion (being that it is more than logical to believe what we see rather than the faith that most religious people lean upon) I could cite for you a number of books and authors that fully state what we believe. Is that what you would like? Thanks, Rivka 21:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to a very well written paper that gives the nonbiblical history of Messianic Judaism. The gentleman that wrote it has a ph.D.I think that it could be used for the nonbiblical history. Then one could say what MJs believe about themselves... perhaps Inigmatus would like to take a look at the article and then write something up that is more pleasing? (I have already contacted him in regards to… ? Rivka 21:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Kiddush Club

Hi, Jay, you seemed to have made the same error I did. Your vote is on the bottom of the redirect page, as opposed to actual page. Dr. Zak's links made everything go a bit awry. Just a heads up. Thanks. -- Avi 20:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on May 23 2006 (UTC) to Christian views of Jesus

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 3 hours. William M. Connolley 07:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, the last few times he was blocked for 3RR or disruption, he got 24-hour blocks. Working from my own experience, I would think that a 48-hour block would be appropriate at this point.

Instead, he's getting a 3-hour block in the middle of the night, which is so minor that he'd probably miss it if it weren't pointed out by your message. Frankly, this is barely a slap on the wrist and makes me seriously wonder whether you admins treat each other more gently than you do the rest of us. It certainly leaves behind the appearance of impropriety, and that's bad enough. Al 07:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Last few times? Are there some blocks missing from his block log? I see a mistaken block from two months ago, and one from a year ago that lasted 15 minutes... Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This block is an error. Jayjg only made three edits during the relevant period. William has been asked to undo it, and if he's not online, someone else will. SlimVirgin 08:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Since there were not four edits here, and not all of those count as reverts, I have gone ahead and unblocked you. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just unblocked, only to see Skakkalle had already done so. Anyhow, will await word from the blocking admin on the basis. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I was in a bit of a hurry this morning and have been offline till now. I'm afraid I misread the timestamp on the rv William M. Connolley 14:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Jones/JJstroker

FYI: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jerry Jones/JJstroker. -Will Beback 10:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Are the so-called "Jews" descended from the biblical Israelites?

Of course they are! Despite some claims to the contrary. However I've had a hard time finding sources that give hard-genetic data. You posted in the Black "Hebrew Israelite" talk page: "The genetic evidence shows the opposite; that Ashkenazi Jews are indeed descended from Israelites. Jayjg (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)" can you get me a source for that? Either in a journal or online, I'd be really glad to have something hard to point to. Is there anything besides the Aaron Y-chromisome data? Thanks a lot! Avraham 15:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation News

I've now added my initial questions and comments on this page. I would ask that you add this page to your watchlist, as this will be where the mediation will take place.

As I've said on the page, we must keep all debate Civil, and I will not tolerate any personal attacks. In order to resolve the issue all of you must be willing to listen to each other's view. It does appear that you have debated this issue qutie extensively already, and so if we are to achieve anything we must not keep repeating what has already been said, although reference may well be needed back to previous comments you have made.

If you have any questions or comments then please either e-mail me or leave a message on my talk page. Again if you are planning to take a Wikibreak, or know you will be unable to access Misplaced Pages for any length of time then please do infrom me.

I look forward to working with you. --Wisd e n17 20:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:SpinyNorman

Jay, if you have any time, could you take a look at the edits of SpinyNorman (talk · contribs)? He appeared in December 2005 at a number of vivisection and animal-rights related articles, and began to make edits which introduced errors, then reverted aggressively for three weeks to his preferred versions. You'll get the flavor of his editing style from this diff, where he deletes as sources an Italian pathologist and the Encylcopaedia Britannica at Vivisection, because he doesn't like their definition, and inserts his own view instead, backed up an online dictionary. He reverted to his version from December 19 until January 8 against Viriditas, Grace Note, Nandesuka, and myself, behaving in the same way at a number of related articles. He stopped suddenly in January, but has recently started up again, reverting to his preferred versions at Robin Webb and Center for Consumer Freedom, violating 3RR on both, for which he was blocked. Would you mind either helping out as an editor, or having a word with him as an admin? SlimVirgin 21:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Link spamming on Tetragrammaton and elsewhere

Could you have a look at the pages Tetragrammaton, Sephirot (Kabbalah), and I am that I am? There's been an anon user spamming a link to a personal site with highly questionable original research on these pages for quite some time now. I and a few others have removed the link when we come across it in the past, but lately the anon editor has been reintroducing it (without talk) as fast as it's removed.

I left a message at User_talk:159.134.221.59, which is the last IP that the anon user posted from, but I doubt that he or she will get it, simply because it doesn't seem to be a static IP. Dbratton 22:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the sprotects - hopefully they'll encourage the person to introduce him or herself on the talk pages. Dbratton 22:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:JJstroker

Hi. In re your note on my Talk, I'd look into the matter and respond, but, oddly, WP:AN won't load for me. I note from their userpage that they have been banned, which is almost certainly the right result for any conversation about this user. I'm leaving this note here to express the fact that the action has my full support, in the unlikely case that this needs to be demonstrated to someone. Jkelly 16:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Technical issue

Hi Jay: I can't seem to click onto my User talk:IZAK page when I am logged in. I am not blocked, I am able to get onto other pages except my own talk page. However, I can get onto it when NOT logged in. Is there anything that can explain this from a technical point of view? Can you look into it for me. Hopefully by the time you read this message it will have solved itself. I will let you know. Thanks a lot. IZAK 16:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just happened to see this note. I was reading recently about how logged-in users may require special formatting, so when the databse is acting badly they suffer the most. -Will Beback 16:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There's currently some problems with the database. It should be cleared up soon.--Sean Black 17:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, things do seem to be clearing up, I got onto my talk page now. I did notice that on some random pages things were not running smoothly, all in a days work I guess... Thanks again! IZAK 17:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Village pump discussion

I still agree with you 100%. But being less offensive than him isn't your goal—it would be a rather low standard anyway. Your goal is to get your point across, and I don't think that comparison helped with that. That's all I'm saying. -- SCZenz 23:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I'm very unhappy with Arinep also. Very, very unhappy. -- SCZenz 23:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see on the village pump, I am attempting to declare the debate over by administrative fiat, and I have warned Arniep that his generalizations/assumptions are unacceptable whether he feels they are justified or not. Further argument serves no purpose; I consider his approach to be obviously beyond the pale and will treat his actions appropriately as an administrator. Hopefully you will find this satisfactory; I'd urge you not to continue the argument with him. -- SCZenz 19:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I find your claims that I have a strong anti Israeli POV offensive. Where exactly have I expressed such a POV? If you cannot provide any evidence for that claim I will consider it a personal attack intended to disrupt the discussion about Palestinian articles. Arniep 19:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Jay there is a problem with neutrality in Palestinian articles. I brought this up on the pump, then you first implied that I was making a list of Jewish editors, and secondly that I had a strong anti Israeli POV, both of which are complete nonsense and just a way of distracting the community from the issue I was trying to present. Unless you can show how exactly I have a strong anti Israeli POV I will consider it a personal attack. Arniep 20:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Majorities

We should perhaps be careful in using "majority" as the only bar for including a scientific point of view. Quite possibly, a majority of people do not view astrology as pseudo-science, as Ian points out here. I think the stronger argument is that an SPOV is NPOV (disinterested presentation of facts). Marskell 18:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"A majority of what reliable sources have to say on the matter". Agreed and understood. But note that our page doesn't actually state that at present (explicitly, at least). NPOV is very wordy and there's a lot of wedges you can drive between individual sentences. Why not present that or something like it as a sentence to be used off the top? Marskell 21:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Philip Sandifer

Under normal circumstances you would be correct; however, I have no wish to act obtuse. An AFD would result in a huge battle and many nonconstructive interactions, for almost no value to the encyclopedia. I haven't seen a clearer application of IAR in a while. Demi /_C 22:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I will thank the two of you to stop accusing me of repeatedly deleting the article, as I did no such thing. Secondly (I have asked SlimVirgin this and she responded with an accusation rather than an answer), you will have to be more specific about what is you don't understand or can't make "heads or tails" of. I said "An AFD would result in a huge battle and many nonconstructive interactions, for almost no value to the encyclopedia. I haven't seen a clearer application of IAR in a while." which I, obviously think it's clear. I invite you to tell me what you don't understand about it and I will be happy to explain. Thanks! Demi /_C 00:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Then don't AFD it - see GNAA. The fact that an AFD would cause drama does not mean we should delete something! --SPUI (T - C) 22:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not undelete this page, for obvious legal and tactical reasons. It would suck if we had to call in OFFICE on this. Let's actually show that en.wikipedia can do the right thing themselves. Kim Bruning 22:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if I had legal and tactical info, I would not supply it. This situation is ongoing. If one is involved in a "situation", one does not divulge information. In this case wikipedia is tangentially involved, and it would be immoral to undermine the real life of one of our editors. Kim Bruning 22:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn Kim Bruning 22:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you don't know that there are any "legal and tactical reasons". --SPUI (T - C) 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Katefan's talk page

Xsease persists in adding a link that provides personal information that Katefan clearly does not wish to be posted. Is it possible that something could be done about his actions? His actions would classify as harassment from my perspective. Cowman109 23:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems the page has been deleted by Musical Linguist to solve the problem, and the edits have been removed from the history. Still, the issue remains - what policy is followed in such an event where a Wikipedian adds personal information concerning another? Cowman109 23:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well that was fast! The user in question has been blocked, so I'll stop bothering you now, hehe. Thanks anyway! Cowman109 23:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked for a week, not because I thought a week was correct, but because I didn't want to waste time deciding on the appropriate length. Anyway, Sean Black changed it to indefinite, and I think he was perfectly right. AnnH ♫ 00:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox rabbis categories for deletion

Hi Jay: Please see and vote at

Thank you and Shabbat Shalom! IZAK 12:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Khazars

Perhaps it's my poor command of the English language, but I have no idea what this fellow is on about: . Any thoughts? --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)