Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) at 02:57, 9 September 2006 (→Arbitration: I suspect that it's about time the arbitration committee looked at this New anti-Semitism kerfuffle). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

God

I like the way you played up crisp meaningful sentence. It almost makes me hungry! bikeable (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Jethro B Cornhusk

This user has appealed to unblock-en-l, among other things complaining that sending you copies of their ID is setting them up for identity theft crimes. Though I suspect you are an honorable person, their concern is justified as a matter of policy...

What are your specific suspicions regarding their edit patterns which make you think they're a Stark sock?

Would you be happy with someone at OFFICE reviewing their identity information, perhaps?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 03:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anything in the contributions of Jethro that make me suspect he may be Zephram Stark. He sent me an e-mail as well, so I am considering unblocking him and simply monitoring him if you don't mind. Thanks. Cowman109 18:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I just replied on unblock-en-l, but have no fear of me unblocking anyone without discussion, A) I'm not an administrator yet, which renders it sort of moot, and B) I wouldn't do anything without making multiple efforts to communicate and find out what the admins story is/was, if I were to be one.

Looking forwards to your followup on unblock-en-l. Georgewilliamherbert 19:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Range blocks vs. Zephram Stark

I started a discussion regarding your range blocks vs. Zephram Stark on Charter /24 blocks and others on WP:AN/I, where you may want to participate. Thanks! Demi /_C 03:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What has this got to do with original research?

I wrote: "Some academics, researchers and other individuals are working to identify instances of it and are attempting to formulate a precise description of the alledged phenomenon." You wrote: Because it is a new concept, academics and other researchers are working to identify instances of it and are attempting to formulate a precise description.

...claiming your revert had to do with "no original research". Quite obviously your revert was grounded in the following: Your POV. .... that is, unless you have a better explanation. pertn 07:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I see now that your reverted something else as well, so maybe it was a mistake. I reinserted my changes. If you want to remove them, please explain. pertn 11:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Time sensitive email

FYI, I just sent you what may be a time sensitive email (I'm not sure). JoshuaZ 14:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mistaken case of harassment

Hi, you removed some comments made by User:Deuterium, claiming that they were harassment. As far as I can see Deuterium was making an attempt at engaging you in civil dialogue. Removing these kinds of comments serves little purpose other than further enflaming the dialogue. Misplaced Pages is fantastic because it is possible to enter into a dialogue with those with whom you have a disagreement. Please make more of an effort to do so. jaco♫plane 22:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, apoligies if my comment was a little condescending regarding "what wikipedia is good for" :) Anyway, I still feel that you should restrain yourself from handing out accusations of harassment. I never doubted your credibility on Misplaced Pages, thanks for pointing out those fascinating statistics though. I remain convinced that no matter what kind of headers you might place on your talk page removing civil comments and accusing users of harassment is not appropriate. So you are a member of the ArbCom, don't let it get to your head. jaco♫plane 23:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well anyway if you'd like to have a chat I should be on IRC in the next couple of days in the channels I mention on my talk page. Perhaps that might be enlightening for both of us. jaco♫plane 23:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Rabinovich

As I explained on the talk page, the link does *not* say that Conde McGinley made up the quote. It says that Strom Thurmond said it, months before it appears in Conde's paper. Wjhonson 03:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK I have to eat my words a bit. I read the entire link again, and the first time it confused me. What it quotes Strom Thurmond as saying is a different quote of the same guy. On the Conde McGinley quote, it questions whether he *might* have made it up, it merely states that he could not provide a source when asked. I'll modify the page accordingly. Wjhonson 19:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Lutheranism

Jay, would you S-Protect Lutheranism? We have a spate more of vandalism there. Thanks! Bob--CTSWyneken 09:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for arbitration and help

(a) I have been accused of "sockpuppetry". This is totally unjust. I am not the same as any ot the Misplaced Pages-editors to whom I have been linked. I seek an arbiter who will listen to reason and logic. Contributors named Bioinformaticist, M&M Peace (i think), Philly Student...they are not I, at all --I do not know who they are, I vow as if in court! (b) Why are articles (bios of living people) on Marion Cohen, Roberta Wenocur, Elaine Zanutto, Linda Zhao, and other female mathematicians being held to standards different from male mathematicians like Herbert Wilf, Dennis DeTurck, &c .? (c) What is the problem with the corp, Daniel H. Wagner Associates? (d) All right, maybe articles need improvement, but deletion? and some with prompt deletion? (e) Misplaced Pages should be fun, not so contentious.

Please help. I want to be nice, but it is difficult when being unjustly accused and bulliied.

I hope you are understanding, and believe me. I am not lying. This is the truth.

MathStatWoman 16:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised

As a longtime editor on Misplaced Pages and your status as an ArbCom member it surprises me that when an editor like myself makes a good faith effort to edit in accord with neutral point of view you don't respect it. Seriously, what is the problem with adding, "X says Y about Z"? This section of NPOV is rather clear about such issues. (→Netscott) 16:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You're not editing in accordance with NPOV. You're trying to add a POV. SlimVirgin 16:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read the top of this page, which says Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here. I've responded to your issues at length on the relevant article Talk: page. It baffles me why people cannot read the top of this page, or feel they need to discuss the exact same article content in two three different places, only one of which (the article Talk: page) is appropriate. Jayjg 16:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy discussions

Are you open to policy discussions here? I notice your stipulations only mention articles. (→Netscott) 16:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Article content disputes disguised as "policy discussions" should be discussed on the relevant article Talk: pages. If you want to have a real policy discussion, you should do that on the relevant policy Talk: page. Jayjg 16:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. (→Netscott) 16:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

new anti-semitism

While I agree with most of your recent revert there, I am confused as to why the part with http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2977086.stm as a citation constituted OR. What am I missing? JoshuaZ 19:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. JoshuaZ 19:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte again

He's attacking the Moldovan language article with socks and open proxies from Saudi Arabia. Can you please put a stop to it? —Khoikhoi 20:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Also see the Bucharest and Romania articles. —Khoikhoi 20:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! BTW, the users Kachik and Mizrak exhibit very similar behavior to the banned user -Inanna-. Would you mind doing a check on those two as well? (Inanna has a dynamic IP). —Khoikhoi 20:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Crazy Security Problem

Whenever I sign my name with "~ ~ ~ ~" my password is revealed as part of my name.  !!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Juicifer ]] 00:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wau! El_C 08:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Surplus having been dumped: now time to revive the MTHEL

"Representatives for leading US defense company tour Israel, offer to complete Nautilus project" ... Try to look surprised. El_C 08:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon

You asked What on earth would Lebanon have to do with this? Umm , ... I realise the poster image being discussed dates from 2003, however, aren't there similar protests over current events? Why is there no discussion about current events and reactions to them. If the answer is because neither I nor any other editor has added it, that's fine - I fully understand the concept of "sofixit". If it is because the current events in Lebanon do not affect semetic and anti-semetic perspectives, I find that surprising. I suspect Lebanon will have something to do with anti-Semetic feeling at present - however, not an area I care particularly to research or comment on. So, why do you think Lebanon has nothing to do with an article on anti-semetism?--Arktos 09:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• As I stated, I fully understand the concept of "sofixit". You replied "It's an article on New anti-Semitism. It quotes reliable sources on the subject. Which reliable sources have discussed New anti-Semitism in the context of Lebanon?". Google has 43,600 hits for "New anti-Semitism" lebanon - probably includes the odd reliable source. There is say this one from Finkelstein (who in fact gets hs own section on the article - so I assume he is of interest and his web site could be a source). He references this . There are also under current news items: article in the NY Sun by Foxman, writer of the book "The New Anti-Semetism" plus this article in the Jewish press, this editorial from Albuquerque. Why is the topic ignored? There are plenty of potential reliable sources out there.--Arktos 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Venezuela relations

Thanks for fixing that: I couldn't understand why you were re-introducing the topic in a second section. Did you have a look at the controversy on the talk page ? Sandy 17:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, SuperFlanker and JRSP do that regularly on all the Chavez articles. They never have a valid reason, other than they refuse to accept negative content about Chavez anywhere. I'm kind of all alone in dealing with that, and there are only so many hours in a day. Sandy 20:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned on talk or in edit summaries, that the spurious deletes — using BLP as the reason — bordered on vandalism. I deal with this 24/7 on all the Chavez articles. You can see from the I-V article that I source content well, but it is repeatedly deleted with a BLP claim, and similar claims to what you see on the I-V article. I submitted an RfC, and another editor also pointed out to them that they were wrong. I raised the question at Talk-BLP, they were again told they were wrong. They still do it. There are three of them, and one of me, and they claim BLP on any content not favorable to Chavez. Any suggestions? Sandy 22:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've decided MedCab is somewhat unreliable, as it depends on volunteers and the luck of the draw. I've seen brand new editors to Wiki take a case, significantly worsen the situation, then disappear. I don't hold out much hope there. Sandy 22:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

oh, my, 'ya learn something new every day! Thanks, Sandy 22:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (and Sandy), do you see the tactic of guilt-by-association used in the material Flanker quotes? If guilt-by-association is being employed, is this a "valid reason" for a delete? I honestly want to know.

Yeah that is funny that not only it is plainly evident but policy even shields me from the 3RRR rule due to the severity of an article violating WP:BLP I await the mediation process but refuse to jump a spot the Mediation Cabal is the first step in the conflict's resolution and it should be taken.Flanker 03:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW I have been meaning to tell you WP:VAND official policy clearly states what vandalism is not:

Bullying or Stubbornness Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism.

Whatever my edits are as long as I justify them (and trust me the justification is extremely solid) is not Vandalism. Just a heads up. Flanker 03:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Stuff

Well, for a list that some of the IPs that Inanna used see Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of -Inanna-. She also edited after she was banned under the following IPs:

• 85.97.21.168 (talk · contribs)
• 81.213.96.251 (talk · contribs)
• 85.100.89.40 (talk · contribs)
• 81.213.98.179 (talk · contribs)

BTW, can you do me a favor and delete the edits by 82.137.209.13 (talk · contribs) (Bonaparte) to my userpage? And possbily also semi-protect it? He's also been editing the Romanians article. Sorry I ask you for so much help, I hope you don't mind... —Khoikhoi 21:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Big tóda on your help as well. Later. —Khoikhoi 21:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit

Hi. I find Dmcdevit continues to make unfair speculations about my efforts to keep a semblence of reason with Zeq and ME articles, and when I protest this, he continues with further speulations (while denying he is doing so): you are just playing with words because for some reason you have animosity towards either me or the Arbitration Committee as a whole or both. Can you have a word with him? I feel he treating me disrespectfuly and that I am unable to reach him. Best, El_C 06:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Now he is becoming outright abusive, removing my comment with an edit summary reading "I'm serious. Stop with your baseless accusations. My own talk page isn't the place to get your kicks in". Please speak to him. He might be under the mistaken imperssion that as an arbitrator he is not expected to adhere to civility standrads with these continued insinuations. El_C 08:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Einsatzgruppen

Nazrac, he of the long screeds on Talk:Examination of Holocaust denial, has gotten very active on Talk:Einsatzgruppen. Normally I would just let his rants go, but he's already convinced one editor to make changes to the article based on his nonsense. If you have any advice for this sort of thing I would much appreciate it. Thanks. Ergative rlt 07:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I just wanted to let you know ahead of time that I'm going to be making what I feel to be an important edit on the Zionism page, an edit that takes into account all of the specific requests for improvement that I've received over the past week or two.

If you disagree with that edit, I'd really appreciate if you discussed, with me and other editors, the grounds for your disagreement on the talk page before reverting my work. That way we can get some back and forth going on the talk page about these important issues and help build a more balanced article. I hope we can begin to bring about more examples of collaborative editing among people with differing viewpoints there. BYT 10:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

I mentioned your name here. (Sorry to put this out of order on your talk page, but I couldn't get my comment out of the colored template on the RFA thanks below.) Sandy 18:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

RFA

Clean

Could you explain what you mean by "keep this clean?" on the WP:NOR talk page? Wjhonson 04:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OR article?

That article, the Israel lobby in the United States, is very closely sourced to an article written by Mitchell G. Bard, the executive director of a foundation that promotes the US-Israel relationship and also runs the Jewish Virtual Library. The article is hosted on the JVL as well. Understanding subjects like these demystifies them. I also wrote one on the Arab lobby in the United States based on the same source. They are really stubs for the moment, I need to find additional sources. --Ben Houston 04:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean in this sentence "It's an article about a single article - the rest of its contents are original research on your part" when you are referring to "the rest of its contents are original research on your part." That article is so closely sourced right now that I don't know what you are talking about.

Also, I am not saying that the article describes what the anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists are talking about any more than the linked word to Israel just before it is saying there is truth to that shit about Israel. But those conspiracies are extreme and hateful distortions of a real lobby though, just like conspiracies about Israel are extreme and hateful distortions of a real country. This perspective is why I linked it. --Ben Houston 05:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Request

Jay, if you have any time and inclination, would you mind taking a look at Islamophobia and the talk page? A couple of editors have reduced the page to a list of quotations, and the intro is an attempt to poison the well by hinting that there's no such thing as Islamophobia. The same editors have also insisted that material that does not actually use the word "Islamophobia" should not be used as a source; therefore, other editors have had to create Anti-Muslim sentiment to accommodate that material. A bad situation, in other words. The page is currently protected and I'm starting to tidy it by rewriting the intro. The current intro is here; my proposal here. Would you mind giving an opinion? SlimVirgin 07:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte again (and again)

Could you do a check on Zhangshou please? BTW, do you think I should take things like this seriously? —Khoikhoi 18:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. —Khoikhoi 23:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just thinking about what happened to Katefan... —Khoikhoi 23:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I actually heard that form someone else too. :p —Khoikhoi 23:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser backlog

Hi there,

I'm sending this message out to the 6 active admin with CheckUser priveleges. Just wanted to let you all know that there is a lengthy backlog on the CheckUser page and it has not been checked since August 21, 2006. According to the CheckUser site, it says that user records expire within a week or so, so it would be great if one of you could go through it sometime soon. Thanks, --Palffy 20:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Hi Jayjg: just letting you know that when you protect/unprotect a page listed at WP:RFPP, don't remove it from the page, just add a comment (like this) saying what you did, and then VoABot will move it automatically to the bottom of the page, and later remove it. —Mets501 (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI

See: Why pretending there is no lobby isn't productive --Ben Houston 03:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

1929 Palestine riots

Administrator needed to move page back to that title. 'Incident' is quite a strange term for what happened here. I cannot revert to 1929 Palestine riots myself. Note that Deir Yassin massacre was not renamed into Deir Yassin incident. If that would also happen, I would agree... --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm just cutting it back some (well, more than some). Maybe in a while I'll become more active again. It was just taking over my life... Good sign to take a little wikibreak. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Bonaparte sock?

Special:Contributions/Djavakhi. Compare this guy to Georgianis. —Khoikhoi 18:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol, how do you tell it's him, anyway? Does he only use open proxies when he uses sockpuppets, or does he edit from his homebase in Romania? —Khoikhoi 23:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I knew it! :-) —Khoikhoi 23:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, did you ever do a check on AdoniCtistai (talk · contribs)? —Khoikhoi 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}

WP:V not passed on ruwiki

• Results: Passage fails
• 53 (59 %) Yea, 33 (37 %) Nay, 4 (4 %) Neutral.
• 2/3 threshold not met

Among the oppose arguments:

• What is a reliable source?
• Project will slow down
• Malicious abuse
• Rule is obvious
• Against bureaucracy on WP
• Unclear when can delete unverified info and when not
• Rule too soon for this young wiki - should follow practice as it develops
• Preference for "truth" (OR) vs. "verifiability"
• Many articles would have to go
• Translation from English imperfect
• Enwiki mentality different from ruwiki mentality

Despite the fact that this edition did not pass, the necessity to cite sources follows from NPOV, per 5P.

So says the Russian 'crat. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, User:Ericsaindon2

Hi. I was wondering why no arbitrators have added the information from the workshop to the proposed decision about Coolcaesar. I know that we are two different people, but you said that you would consider what he has done in making this decision (since he did initiate the whole thing). Yet, only the stuff presented against me is open for voting. I think you need to add the other stuff that pertains to Coolcaesar that was left out. Plus, I apologize, and have been very productive the past few weeks. Since my ban ended, I have not engaged in edit warring, and have been constructine in my edits. Please reconsider your votes, for I know I did do all that stuff, and I am truely sorry, but know that I have changed from doing that, and I do not get into personal conflicts with others, edit wars, etc. Thank you. Ericsaindon2 00:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Bonny Boy

Could you do a check on Aircea (talk · contribs) please? —Khoikhoi 00:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

external links question

hey Jayjg -- I'm asking you this more or less random question because you're the last admin I've talked to, and you seem to have a level head on your shoulders. I just noticed today a large number of external links by User:Kitoba to his personal website. I find most of them to be marginally relevant, generally of little interest, and not "professional" in any way -- no different than a random blog -- see, for example, the very tangential reference to Rushmore (film) which he links to here. He fixed a couple dozen of these links today, see . I am inclined to go remove all links to his personal web site, but I want at least one more pair of eyes before doing so. Can you tell me what you think? thanks. bikeable (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have called it that ("linkspamming") myself, but wanted another pair of eyes before editing so many pages. thanks. I'll get on it tomorrow. bikeable (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey there

SOrry the password thing was my mistake i realise now. I hope I didn't waste any of your time. Ive been laid up and have been going thfouhg the Jewish Encyclopedia missing articles. it is very time consuming tedious work.

I know nothing about about programming but surely there must be a simple way to have a bot change all the unusual charachters to ch and tz etc.. And to put the link things in the correct places add the Template:Jewish encyc,lopeida tag.

Someone could then go through the stuff and add categories from a set list, change the first lines styling and POP!! Great new article,

I think that this is the only way that the 15,000 or so outstanding articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia will ever get done.

juicifer 10:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Concern addressed at J4J?

I am wondering if I have addressed your concern here and, if so, whether I can re-insert that statement without being in violation of 3RR. - Abscissa 01:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this Bonny?

Check the edit histories of the Bač and Árpád dynasty articles. 123uiop (talk · contribs), AttilaThe... (talk · contribs), 82.208.233.127 (talk · contribs), and 82.208.233.123 (talk · contribs) seem to be sockpuppets/meatpuppets, I don't think the IPs are him, however. If one or more of these users are him, then the articles should probably be semi-protected to prevent further disruption - look what happened on the Slovakization article the second it got unprotected. —Khoikhoi 03:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

123uiop may also be Juro. —Khoikhoi 05:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My block of Netscott

Hi there Jayjg. just saw your ANI post on my watchlist. Was Bastique in the content dispute when he unblocked Netscott last week? I do not follow this sphere at all closely so I don't know about these things. I'm a bit surprised you didn't have anything to say on my talk page about my block of Netscott last Friday because a few guys did - the topic is still there if you would like to say something - I'm happy for my page to be used as a debating forum. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

reply

i've not figured out how to send messages but i don't have other wiki accounts Jebus1 19:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

not me, though i know them Jebus1 19:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop Blocking Me

I was just about to save a page I was editing when this came up:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Jayjg for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Little Miss Cheerleader". The reason given for Little Miss Cheerleader's block is: "Zephram Stark".

Your IP address is 64.233.172.34.

Jayjg: I am not Little Miss Cheerleader and 64.233.172.34 is NOT my IP address. I am Weekeejames and I don't want to tell here my IP address. Before you block, please make sure you have investigated and have proven everything to be TRUE. Now, unblock me ASAP. Thanks. --Weekeejames 02:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Kitoba External Links

Hi Jayjg,

I know you're just doing your job, so no hard feelings. However, either the wikipedia style manual has changed recently or it's being applied a lot more aggressively. Either way, there's lots of things in it that I simply wasn't aware of when I began my relationship with wikipedia.

However, what it comes down to is this: Most of my links have been in articles for at least two years without any one of the many users who has encountered them feeling they were delete-worthy. Further, as far as I can remember, I've never re-added a link that was deleted --all I've done is update links when the url changed so a link wouldn't go dead.

In summary, from this point forward, I will cease adding new links to self-written pages, but I would argue for letting the process take care of the ones that are already in existence.

Kitoba 14:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

To summarize: Discussion of global issues which concern use of "apartheid" and all polls shall be at Misplaced Pages:Central discussions/Apartheid with subsidiary dialog on the talk page of affected articles. Based on the difficult and controversial nature of this matter, with the exception of Zeq (talk · contribs), who remains banned from editing the article, the principal participants in this dispute shall be granted an amnesty for past actions, but are strongly encouraged to engage in negotiations. All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus.

- Mgm| 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This is really weird

Today it seems that Ianosistvan (talk · contribs) created the accounts Titirenko (talk · contribs) and Yancu (talk · contribs), but based on this comment it looks like Bonaparte. See also the edit history of Avram Iancu, Alba. Can you do a check on these three? Thanks again. —Khoikhoi 23:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The edit history of Poiana Braşov, and then Avram Iancu, Alba. That's why I thought they were all the same guy. —Khoikhoi 06:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Long-Overdue RfA Thanks from Alphachimp

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which was successful with a an overwhelmingly flattering and deeply humbling total of 138/2/2 (putting me #10 on the RfA WP:100). I guess infinite monkey theorem has been officially proven. Chimps really can get somewhere on Misplaced Pages. With new buttons come great responsibility, and I'll try my best to live up to your expectations. If you need assistance with something, don't hesitate to swing by my talk page or email me (trust me, I do respond :)). The same goes for any complaints or comments in regard to my administrative actions. Remember, I'm here for you. (Thanks go to Blnguyen for the incredible photo to the right.) alphaChimp 01:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Editor Review

Hi! I've requested an Editor review and would very much appreciate your thoughts. Best,--Shirahadasha 20:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

...and he's back!

Can you do a check on Peter IBM (talk · contribs) please? If it turns out that it's Bonny (which I'm pretty sure he is) the Mircea Eliade article should definately be semi-protected, as this appears to be a ridiculous amount of disruption. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 20:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Also Moldoveanul (talk · contribs) —Khoikhoi 21:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your help would be appreciated

take a look at the 3RR report recently filed against me, regarding edits to Battle of Bint Jbeil. I believe this is a bad faith report, but would accept your judgement. Isarig 03:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish WIKIVERSITY

Hi Jay: NEW: On Wikiversity there is now a "Jewish Studies School." Will it become a "duplication" of many things on Misplaced Pages? What should it's goals and functions be? Please add your learned views. Thank you. IZAK 09:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

NAS - why the hysteria and false accusations?

Hi Jayjg. Why the hysteria and false accusations? I have responded to you on the NAS talk page. The issue is that I used a sentence within the article while you used one in the lead. Besides that I left in both the left-Islamist association and the fact that some criticism of Israel was used as a pretext for anti-Semitism -- the two things you and SlimVirgin claim I removed. My only explanation for SV and your behavior is that you couldn't take the time to actually read through the changes I made but rather preferred to jump to the conclusion that I was whitewashing. --Ben Houston 18:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wondering if you could...

Use your oversight powers to delete my user page history? There is sensitive personal information on there that I would like removed. Everything up to the most recent edit? Magic Window 14:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this Bonny? (again)

Hey Jayjg. I was wondering if you could let me know if Jeorjika (talk · contribs) is Bonny or Constantzeanu (or perhaps neither). Thanks. —Khoikhoi 23:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Protocols of the wise men of Zion

Greetings! From a novice Wikipedian--since August 31, 2006--consider this:

• I propose changing the title of this WP article.

The above proposed title is the one used by the Library of Congress.

It is also the earliest title of this text.

The title currently used by WP

is a dignified subsequent English language translation

of the 1905 title of the appendix of Sergei Nilus' book,

whose romanized English language title reads:

    Velikoe v malom i antikhrist, kak blizkaia politicheskaia vozmozhnost.
    Zapiski pravoslavnago

• The title of the appendix, transliterated from the Russian is:

    Protocoly sobran??ii S?ionskikh mudretsov

• The roots of the immediately above four (4) Russian words

translate/transliterate, successively to:

    (1) protocol
    (2) meeting, gathering, assembly, convention, congress
    (3) Zion
    (4) sage, elder, wise man

• Accordingly, that's one source of the English language title.

• On the other hand, the Library of Congress owns an undated text,

which is 64 pages in length

--apparently a pamphlet

--and bears the romanized Russian language title:

    Protokoly sionskikh mudret?s?ov

• This has been translated/transliterate]]d], word for word, into:

    Protocols of the Elders of Zion

• Accordingly, it appears that the longer title

derives from the longer Sergei Nilus version of the text

while the shorter title comes from the G. Butmi version.

So do you have any objections to my proposed title change?

Yours truly, Ludvikus 01:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Also, your THIRD RULE is incoherent to me--can fix it or explain please?

Articles for deletion/Jew Year's Eve

Hi Jay: Take a look at this please: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jew Year's Eve. Be well. IZAK 17:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Brian Klug

In reference to the conversation yesterday, I don't think that Brian Klug is trying to minimize the attacks. His thesis isn't that the evidence for increased hostility as well as attacks is wrong. Rather his main issue with the concept of NAS is that it causes one to believe that anti-Semitism is the core commonality and driver, leading one to believe in a growing global coalition, when in fact the root causes of the various trends are distinct and anti-Semitism is more a secondary effect rather than the driving root cause.

His essay is particularly difficult to read but I still recommend you read it. --Ben Houston 18:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

An analogy might make more sense: its like seeing a red car, a red apple and a red pen. While one can try to focus on their red-ness in trying to understand their nature, there is a limit to the depth of understanding possible from that approach. An overfocusing on their red-ness to the neglect of their real distinctions else may lead one to draw incorrect conclusions. --Ben Houston 19:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the analogy your making. I do believe that Islamophobia is to be condemned but you are right that it is a secondary issue that is driven by people misunderstanding Islamist-associated terrorism -- it is clear that attacks on Arabs or people suspected to be Arabs (such as turban wearing Hindus) tends to rise after the 9/11 attacks and so forth. It would be a mistake to say that those retaliatory attacks on Arabs are the primary result of a deep seated Islamophobia. Also on that topic I can say this: I do favor viewing the battle against Islamist extremists as a policing matter as is a more common perception in Europe/Britian than as a global "War on Terror" or a conflict of civilizations. Viewing it as a policing matter that is just targeting criminal activity avoids making things more complex than necessary. I don't view a "War on Terror" as particularly effective concept -- for example, it never really made sense how Iraq under Saddam fit considering he wasn't really engaged in what is normally termed terrorism, claims he was aligned with al Queda were fairly flimsy, rather he was a relatively isolated, although brutal dictator of a fairly secular state. I guess I favor viewing things as they actually are rather than trying to fit them into contrived, simplified and potentially misleading conceptual frameworks. --Ben Houston 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg asked "I'm not talking about prejudice against Arabs or Hindus, or the War on Terror, I'm talking about firebombing mosques in response. Would that be an example of Islamophobia?"

I understand that it can be problematic in the way Brian Klug formulated his response in order to say that those attacks were not anti-Semitic -- that is your issue. I am now being put by you in the position of defending his piece. If you read his piece, I believe that when he is saying that those attacks are not necessarily anti-Semitic it is in the context of his claim that the primary cause is not anti-Semitism, it is a secondary effect based on misunderstanding. That said, outside of the context of the case he is making in his essay, those attacks can obviously be classified as anti-Semitism. Just as firebombing mosques can be classified as Islamophobia (although I would argue its a lot more than just a phobia if it involves firebombings.) If you read his essay you'll understand what I am talking about. I think that we're sort of stuck at the moment of talking past each other. --Ben Houston 21:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

CIVIL

Don't talk to me about unbased and unfounded personal attacks that you don't intend your recipient to see. Bastique▼ _voir 18:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It was not an attack, and I don't care whether you think you deserve an apology. Don't leave messages for me on my talk page. I don't like you and any further commentary from you is going to be completely ignored, because I think you are dead wrong, and an incredible bully. Bastique▼ _voir 19:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

After stepping back, and VoiceofAll's words, I will offer an apology. Idiotic was not intended as an attack. It was a personal opinion of your collective behaviour. I'm sorry about that choice of words and if it hurt yours or SV's feelings in anyway. It was not my intent, and as I've explained before, my message was meant for BHouston and not you. As I'm certain SV will be reading this page, that apology extends to her. Bastique▼ _voir 19:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Perhaps I'm being a bit too previous, but I suspect that it's about time the arbitration committee looked at this New anti-Semitism kerfuffle. I've applied for arbitration . --Tony Sidaway 02:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)