Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jayjg/Archive 25: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Jayjg Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:18, 12 December 2006 view sourceLlywrch (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators81,226 edits thanks← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:58, 30 April 2024 view source Jlwoodwa (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers82,061 edits +pp 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp|small=y}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
{|cellpadding=20 cellspacing=0 style="float:left;text-align:center; border:solid 1px black; background:rgb(255,255,100);margin=5"
|align="center" width="100%"|<big>Thanks for visiting my Talk: page. |align="center" width="100%"|<big>Thanks for visiting my Talk: page.
<p>If you are considering posting something to me, please: <p>If you are considering posting something to me, please:
Line 9: Line 10:
<P>Thanks again for visiting.</big></big> <P>Thanks again for visiting.</big></big>
|} |}
{| cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 style="float:right;text-align:center; border:solid 1px black; background:rgb(230,245,230);margin=5"

| align=center|Talk archives'''<br>]
<small>Old talk archived at ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] ] ]</small>
|-

|
== Black Flag Defense has never acquitted IDF soldiers of the charge of "failing to obey orders" ==
<small>

]
I have attempted to edit this article, with the statement and cite "However, 50 years have passed since the Kafr Qasim massacre, and the "Black Flag Defense" has failed to protect any IDF serviceman from conviction for "refusing to obey orders" eg ".
]

]
The statement I added has been summararily deleted, with no attempt at any form of explanation or discussion. The words quoted come User:PalestineRemembered|PalestineRemembered]] 20:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
]

]
== ] ==
]

]
Come join. Project was started to get the cruft reduced to an encyclopedic list. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 21:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
]

]
== My RfA ==
]

<br>
<div style="align: center; padding: .5em; border: solid 1px firebrick; background-color: skyblue;">
]
]]<center><big>'''<font color=firebrick>Announcement: It's an administrator!</font>'''</big></center>
]
----
]
'''Jayjg,''' thanks for your support on my ].
]

]
The final outcome was a robust 62/1/1, so I am now an ]. If you ever have any questions about my actions, please do not hesitate to ].
]

<br>
<div align=right>'''Thanks again, ]'''
]
</div></div>
]

]
== reposted from WP:3RR notice board ==
]

]
(re: report of {{User|Isarig}} and posted :
]
::It's only an old case because I was blocked for 24 hours for revert warring. This is a problem with the process here -- when only one party in a revert war is blocked, it appears as an administrative endorsement of that side of the war.--] 22:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
<br>

]
== ERM AfD ==
]
Vanity stub ], now with original POV text, is up for 2nd AfD. Original deletion and two speedies have been reverted within the last 24 hrs. ] 01:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
</small>

:Some comments were left for you following the AfD on the creator's user page, see ]. It should be noted that this user has already received two npa3 warnings, here ] and here ]. ] 20:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

== New York Sun ==

Jayjg,

When you get a chance, could you take a look at the ] article and let me know what you think? Thanks. ] 01:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:I had come across the article by accident and was quite taken aback by the apparently uncontested POV that characterizes the piece from start to finish. The fact that the POV exists doesn't surprise me at all; what got my attention was the fact that it managed to insinuate itself so completely into a relatively non-obscure (albeit not really mainstream) topic. I asked you because I wanted the opinion of someone with a lot of Wiki-experience to make sure the problem was with the article and not with my perception of it. Thank you for taking a look. ] 14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

== Amoruso and Israeli-Palestinian conflict ==

Could you take a look at what is going on between me and ] at ] (especially the ])? I'm calling on you precisely because no one can accuse you of being anti-Israeli, and you have plenty of experience with what is and is not appropriate in Misplaced Pages.

It seems to me that Amoruso's idea of "balance" is that right-wing, militantly pro-Israel links constitute one side and everything else constitutes the other. Israeli peace groups, according to him, qualify as "pro-Palestinian". I suppose that is true, in one sense, but it doesn't make them anti-Israeli.

Some of his additions have been good () but he repeatedly tried to add or re-add http://www.masada2000.org/, which is out there in Kach/JDL territory, and recently http://www.naamz.org/, which doesn't seem to me to have much to do with the conflict: it's a staunch right-Zionist organization, but their site is (in my view) only barely on topic.

Anyway, I'd appreciate if you would take a look both at the current state of the article and at some of what's gone by; I'm beginning to lose patience with his attitude, so I had probably best get out of there for a while. - ] | ] 05:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

: Thanks - ] | ] 16:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

: More, similar: ] - ] | ] 05:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

==I-V relations==
I've been traveling, had house guests, and have more travel pending. Thanks for letting me know: I'll catch up over there as soon as I get a breather. I've got a long list. ] 15:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

] has now removed all criticism from ], despite you properly banning him.

== 211.114.56.130 ==

May I inquire why you reverted his edit to my page? ] 14:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

== 81.154.252.34 ==

You sprotected the ] article a couple days ago due to the actions of ]. This editor, has gone around a couple other pages, changing cited material, and adding POV content, and removing germane info and links when it doesn't suit his purpose (all multiple times). He's already been blocked twice for 3RR and he doesn't seem to want to discuss changes. Is there anything that can be done. -- ] 16:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks. -- ] 17:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
::Hi, since your block, this user was blocked another 48 hours for 3RR on three different pages, and he doesn't seem to want to discuss his changes. He keeps just reverting the sourced information. Regards, -- ] 17:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== Julius Broyne and Plantgerd ==

Socks of Karmafist? Wow, Konstable and I blocked them knowing full well they werent Tawkerbots as they claimed, but never saw that coming? Wonder why he targetted me? Ive never exchanged a word with the guy... oh well, very interesting! :) ] 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

== Personal information ==
Thank you, really. This is a bit much for me to handle on my own, and this guy really has earned at least a fair vote. --] 20:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

== Subversive element is using a sockpuppet ==

Jayjg, fyi ] 22:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
:I figured as much, yet something is better than nothing. With all the heavy lifting you do, the least I can do is try to pass along some useful information when I see it. ] 16:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Requesting unblock citing 48 hours being excessive for 3RR. Let me know your thoughts. ] 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:I have replied to his request, ], thanks for the heads up ] 14:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

::Ummm... can you explain ??? ] 15:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Im just a little concerned - hopefully all our blocked users cant edit! ] 15:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

== Articles for deletion/The Seven Worlds ==

Hi Jay: What do you make of this ]? Thanks. ] 09:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

== ArbCom election ==

If you have decided, I think potential candidates would be interested in knowing whether you intend to run for reelection in the upcoming ArbCom election. Regards, ] 22:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

== Suspected Bonaparte sock ==

Hey, could you do a check on {{user|Aromanian}}? He's definately a sockpuppet of somebody. Thanks. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]]</span> 00:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

:Also {{user|Ianos}}. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]]</span> 17:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

::Ah, it was because Bonny claimed that he was him. He's done similar things before. Thanks for the congrats! Check your email. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]]</span> 06:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

== Ebionites article ==

We have an editor that's been ranting on the talk pages for over 3 months now ]. What's the best way to proceed? This editor also left some comments for you on their user page following recent AfD. See ERM AfD above. ] 02:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain your comments and actions in the ERM AfD and how they do not seem to be supported by reality? What does wikipedia think when someone such as OvadYah with his POV comes to and votes to delete an artical he has been hostile towards for 3 months?] 23:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:A small sample of what we have been dealing with on an almost daily basis. ] 03:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just one small sample and you can see on my talk page alchemy or what ever his name is even joined the main group to see it and knows first hand there are around 400 people in the main forum alone but in the deletion process flat out lied.
I believe Misplaced Pages Policy does say something about having a biased toward an issue and voting in articles for deletion hearings. You are a favored Admin in wikipedia I see. Maybe you didn't know the extent Ovadyah and Alchemy has worked at trying to claim some reason why that one group should be listed and not ours. side by side we proved each notability issue that was raised and more so then the other group and once it was clear even to Ovdyah then the groups were dropped from the article and the subs were made, Of which ours was voted for deletion by two editors that has tried every thing possible to keep both groups from being judged side by side on the notability issue. Are you going to be the first Honorable Wikipedian in this prossess? Doesn't matter to me really. It is worth noting while some editors claim I attack them when I only point TO the wikilawyering that was done, no one stooped as low as to carry a bias into the deletion hearing and enter a vote on the other group. No one is attacking them.] 03:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:A larger sample. Jay, please give this user an admin warning to refrain from further personal attacks. ] 13:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for your advice, Jay. I'll continue to work toward a creative solution. ] 17:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

== Muchas gracias ==

]

Hey Jayjg, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent ]. It succeeded, and I am '''very''' grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, ''please don't hesitate to ask''. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]]</span> 05:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

:Hi, please check your email. —<tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 05:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

==Lieberman==
Jay, I'm traveling, and am on an *excruciatingly* slow dialup connection. I saw you in the edit history, so I was hoping you could look into ]. The POV language in is not supported by the source given. I have two questions, and a connection too slow to track down the answers. 1) If I come across something like this on a BLP, can I just revert it on sight (it's not particulary defamatory, just wrong and POV), or do I need to invest the time to read the source and rewrite the text to conform to the source (I can't do that on this trip, don't have time, connection too slow, and don't really know if that's my "job", or if I can just remove the misleading text per BLP)?? 2) The editor's show it's likely the same POV text was entered on many other articles, but on this slow connection it's hard for me to track them all down. Should they all be reverted, even if not on BLPs? I can't track them all down from this slow connection. ] (]) 02:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for looking at that, Jay. On this slow dialup, it's not possible for me to check the other articles on the editors's contrib history: it took me 45 minutes this morning to do ] notifications on two articles only, so I'll have to look at the rest when I'm on a better connection next week. ] (]) 16:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

== Where do you find ==

the explicit calling for the destruction of Israel in Hamas charter. I'm not saying they would not love to destroy it, but still the word destruction can't be found anywhere in the charter.
] 10:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

*Looks like you didn't really read the charter. Any way, probably the scariest statement in the charter is "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it". Which is by the way not part of the charter if you read it fully. If you read the charter, and fortunately it isnot that long, and you find other statements where "destruction" is understood let me know. I just find a statement like "Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel" absurdly unscientific and biased in a funny way. :) ] 04:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

== Censorship of votes on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 ==

Think a second before you embark on this censorship, OK? You are deleting it from entries in which there is a comprehensive account of other votes, including votes on torture. This vote marks a change. I have added the copy on this ]/torture vote to Senators who previously co-sponsored the ], and to Democrats who voted against party lines to support the President's bill. In other words, to mark a change of policy and rhetoric in each case. To delete it is censorship and willful vandalism, and yes, I know my ]. ] 16:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think the ] is not a noteworthy vote? Why are you ignoring the citations and news articles? Why do you think the Senators who voted for it should not have it in their bios, even those who reversed previous positions? Why are you censoring this? ] 16:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks for the advice ==

I do not believe I am engaging in a campaign of wikistalking and I will work to avoid the appearance of such a thing in the future. I apologize. --] 16:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

== Isarig 3RR ==

Now Isarig has . Are you saying this behavior is perfectly acceptable?--] 17:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Any chance you will respond to this question?--] 02:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

== ArbCom election query ==

In response to your question on my talk whether people are really wondering whether you (and others) are running again this year or not ... so far I've seen two people ask who's running or not (one on the elections page and one I forget where). Other than that, I wouldn't say there's a major groundswell of inquiring minds asking the question ... but the page for candidates to post their position statements is open (no one's posted yet as of the last time I checked) and they're due at the end of next month, so sometime soon you're going to get more inquiries. Regards, ] 19:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

: I, for one, am curious now. Thanks. ] 02:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

== RE: Thank you ==

Sure thing! Your report enabled a collaboration among admins and editors to determine a good plan of action, and you also set a great example for other admins to seek advice when directly involved or impacted in such an incident. Cheers mate! ]] 20:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)



== ] ==
I note that you are making changes to the "kosher tax" article by making a derisive reference to "]." I assure you that I engaged in no original research of any kind whatsoever in any of my contributions to the article.

This is an article about a manifestation of ]. An encyclopedia requires a comprehensive approach to the topic that it explains. I also note that there are some users, in unsigned contributions, engaging in the same kind of antisemitic tirade that the article attempts to address.

Accordingly, a full explanation of what is meant by “kosher,” how kosher certification is obtained, and the business, economic, and marketing aspects of kosher certification are necessary for a comprehensive and encyclopedic description of this antisemitic phenomenon.

My contributions in that respect use nomenclature common to business, managerial accounting, financial analysis, financial accounting, and economics. Your reference to “original research” indicates to me that you are unfamiliar with this terminology.

I am a professional accountant with an undergraduate degree in Jewish history (wherein I took an interest in the history of antisemitism); accordingly, I believe my contributions should not be dismissed without discussion on the article’s talk page.--] <sup>]</sup> 21:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:*Please be specific in respect of your allegations of "original research" on the article's talk/discussion page. Please do not amend the article until you have indeed established that there is any "original research"; preferably on the talk/discussion page.--] <sup>]</sup> 16:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

== My RFA! ==

{| style="padding=5px; border:2px solid black; valign=center; background-color: #FFCC00;"
| &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; ]&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
|'''Jayjg''', thank you so much for your support for my ]. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your support on my RFA! --] 15:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
| style="valign=center"|
| ]
|} |}
<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>


== article help ==
== ] ==


Hi. i hope you;'re still watching the talk page at ]? just wanted to suggest that you continue to watch it. i appreciate your help with this. feel free to provide any input. thanks. --] (]) 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for changing your mind. Don't know if there is enough time for others to also agree that it would no longer be a preventative measure, but even if it's only a gesture, it's the right thing to do, and appreciated. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


== New rabbi categories sprouting like mushrooms ==
== Isarig gaming 3RR ==


Hi, I'm not a bucky in category creation, but ] is busily creating new categories of rabbis that seem quite superfluous. He/she just made up "Russian Orthodox rabbis" for one person, ], who was not even a rabbi! Now he/she just put ] under "Austrian Orthodox rabbis," which is absolutely ridiculous. Teller was born in Austria but moved with his family to America when he was very young; he didn't become a rabbi until later in life, and he is totally American. Can you do something about all these new categories? Thanks, ] (]) 22:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your acknowledgement of my question above. I'm not sure I understand your answer though; more importantly, I don't know what to do about this situation. Can you as an admin offer any guidance? I showed you that Isarig made 4 reverts in 24 hours and ten minutes. You say that is more objectionable than doing it in 25 hours. The problem is that he does this day after day. When I reported him for 4 reverts in 25 hours, you said there was no violation, and you said that 24 hours and 5 minutes would be more of an issue. Then he does it in 24 hours and ten minutes, presumably feeling that he has a license to do so since it will not draw any objection from an admin. Today he has made another three reverts on the same page. Do wikipedia administrators consider the 24 hour mark a magic cutoff of some sort? The page on ] states clearly that "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day." I am not even asking that he be blocked. I am asking whether there is any way to discourage users from using reverts alone to solve their disputes. It is frustrating when arguing with Isarig because I tend to bend over backwards to compromise with him (often to the detriment of the page) but he never gives an inch and only responds by reverting, though he is mostly careful to stay exactly within the 24 hour limit. I must add that I do not have a current dispute with this user - I don't particularly disagree with his position on the page where he is revert warring; I just find his steamroller approach to reverting disconcerting and aggravating.--] 22:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:Hi, I thought you had something to do with the launch of the discussion page, ], but now you say you were away! If you'd like to weigh in, please see there. Kol tuv, ] (]) 09:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:sorry for using your Talkpage for this, Jay. ], if you want some guidance, let me offer some. (1) Start making your case based on facts, not hyperbole and exaggeration. A simple inspection of my contributions today shows there is not a single page on which I have made 3 edits. (2) The way to discourage users from using reverts alone is to use their Talk pages, and the article's Talk page. The reason you do not have a current dispute with me is that we have reached an agreement through discussion on the Talk page. You wanted a certain Cole response on the Karsh page, I did not like that response, we engaged in a discussion on Talk during which you suggested we remove the entire disputed section, and I agreed with that suggestion. Notice what happened there: (a) you did not "bend over backwards to compromise" - you made a suggestion, which I accepted. (b) I did not "never gives an inch and only responds by reverting" - I accepted a compromise solution which saw my favored version (which included more of Karsh, less of Cole) removed completely (c) We reached this position through discussion on Talk. (a), (b) and (c) are all in contarst to the allegatiosn you were making above, when you were engaged in hyperbole and exaggeration. Do you really want to end this edit war at the Karsh page and the Neo-Fasiscm page? I suggest you go to Will314159's user page and to Nielswik's user page, and show them what you and I accomplsihed through the use of Talk, and beg them to start doing the same. ] 00:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks Isarig, but I was asking for guidance from someone other than the editor I am having a problem with. Your claim #1 is typical of your gaming of the rules - what I clearly meant was that you made three reverts in 24 hours on one page, which is . #2 On the Karsh page you took a profoundly unreasonable position and when I offered an easy way out you took it. I am ok with that page but I am not ok with your constant reverts, and I am not ok with the way you argue with me on any page. The only reason you accepted a compromise on Karsh is because your position was ridiculous - you say it was "more of Karsh and less of Cole" but a more accurate characterization is "personal attack on Cole by Karsh and censorship of Cole's explicit response to that attack." You wanted to erase Cole's specific response to a specific claim. We went back and forth on this with you not giving an inch until I suggested we just remove everything to do with the dispute between the two of them. Other people seem to think the dispute between the two is important; rather than discuss the merits, you simply state that the fact that you accepted a compromise that I offered vindicates your view of how the page should look. I don't know anything about the other pages you are talking about; I have observed your objectionable behavior mostly on the Cole pages. And my suggestion is that instead of revert warring with everyone you disagree with that you instead try to see things from various perspectives and engage in talk communicatively rather than strategically. We should be using talk to discuss issues with a goal of reaching a better and more truthful understanding of the issues involved; not simply trying to "win one" no matter what it takes.--] 00:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


== FYI ==
==Subversive Element/87.78.158.95's Advocacy request to my Talk page==


http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=prev&oldid=194120993 --] (]) 06:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm considering taking this case. From what I understand about it currently, you permanently blocked this user for reasons that have to do with spurious interventions to an RfA vote ]. I've looked over the interventions and while they seem to me insane I think the poster may have been just playing around with the RfA process rather than disrupting WP overtly. However, he does seem to have a more problematic history, and apparantly this the second time this user has been blocked for some reason. As of now I don't have the full context of this case and would appreciate being informed of your side of the situation. Best,--] 22:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


== Massive deleting on ] ==
:Thanks for your detailed explaination, I've declined the case. While your interventions here do seem to have been made without process, they do not seem to have been made without cause.--] 22:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


I was recommended to you by a friend at Phayul. http://forums.phayul.com/index.php?showtopic=1895
== Kosher tax ==


Could you prevent massive deleting by blocking that, encourage that talk be carried out instead ?
That's OK, it was only about an hours work. /sigh. I'll get to it another day then. The edit conflict killed the remaining ones anyway. /shrug Adding more cites is more important than how they look anyway ] I have this frustration on ] all of the time; don't worry about it -- ] 00:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== one more "harassment" ==

I replied to you on Ameriques talk page. ], editing from IP address: ] 10:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:In other words: You have nothing to fear. I wish you a happy live. ] 01:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::I'd appreciate it if you placed the block template on my user page, whenever you can find the time. Thanks. ] 12:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

== Email ==

FYI, I've sent you an email. ] 12:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== Block ==

Hi,

I just went to edit a page, only to be met with the message:

"Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.
You were blocked by Jayjg for the following reason (see our blocking policy):
open proxy

Your IP address is 203.146.247.78."

That's not an open proxy. The IP belongs to CS Loxinfo, one of the biggest internet providers in Thailand. The IP is used by countless users.

This is no great inconvenience to me (I have other options, obviously, since I'm editing this) but it could inconvenience a lot of people. Unless it's a short term block for vandalism, I would advise against blocking that IP. ] 15:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I sure it's not a proxy as well? No, I'm afraid that I don't understand enough about these things to be entirely sure of that. Regardless, unless it's actively being used for vandalism, I don't think it should be blocked for any amount of time, as it could block thousands of potential legitimate Thailand based users. ] 15:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== Semicolon is your friend ==

Hi,

I noticed that you said on ], "The semicolon is your friend, don't be afraid to use it."

I am not a fan of the semicolon in prose. I usually am happier to just put a period there and create two sentences. So, I'm curious what you meant by your comment and would appreciate it if you could give me some examples of situations where you think a semicolon is valuable.


Thanks. Thanks.


--] 19:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC) ] (]) 09:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:see ] for context. ] <small>]</small> 11:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


== User:Bhoustan == == ] ==


{{ul|Ahrimanius}}, who , requests to be unblocked. I would like to know why you think he's a sleeper, due to his request. I see, based on , that you seem to think that ] is an other sleeper of the same person. ] ] 06:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Jay, would you mind seeing my talk page. I've got an accusation of Zionist conspiracy against us both from this user based on my RV on the Israeli Apartheid page. Cheers. ] 02:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


== Could you check an unblock requestr ==
==Apartheid==
(i)There was no reason for Avraham to contact me on my page, (ii) my interest in that article has absolutely nothing to do with SlimVirgin (iii) there is a group of pro Israeli editors which must be balanced by a group of non pro Israeli editors. Regards ] 18:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:You and SlimVirgin are the people making this a political battleground by intimidating and harrassing any editor who expresses any criticism of Israel whilst making sure articles relating to Israel and the Palestinians have a pro Israeli outlook. Perhaps you'd like to tell me why you are the only member of the Arbitration Committee to have not revealed their identity? ] 20:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::I am not framing it is as a political battleground. The problem is you and other very pro Israel editors instantly leap on any edit you consider to put Israel in a bad light. As long as that is the case this website can not be considered neutral. ] 21:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Sorry but I have no power or at least very little power here. You are the equivalent of a senior editor. What would the public say about a publication that has secret senior editors? Oh and your first userpage quite clearly reveals that the reason you came to Misplaced Pages was to remove the bias, as you saw it, against Israel. ] 21:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::::I see you don't deny that you came to Misplaced Pages for the express purpose of correcting "''bias''" against Israel. So you, in fact, treated Misplaced Pages as a political battleground? ] 15:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


] is requesting an unblock. He has zero edits, and you blocked him in May 2006 as a sleep account, but you never indicated WHICH banned user he was a sleeper account of. Could you respond on his talk page with further evidence so I can act intelligently on his request? Thanks! --].].] 17:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
== Bonaparte? ==
I suspect that {{user|Dc76}} is a dormant one from ]. Khoikhoi says that you are good at figuring him out. The same pattern of brainless chaotic edits, superficial rearrangements of texts, monor changes in articles with no clue, anti-Moldovan attacks and personal attacks, toned down, probably not to attract attention. E.g. his major work ] leaves an illusion of authenticity until you read it carefully and understand that it is ''not'' about what is in the title. The overall history of <s>his</s> Bonaparte's edits under various names leaves an impression of mentally ill person (I don't mean his personal attacks, but the overall style of edits leaving a certain aura diffcult to describe). `'] 02:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


== Hello Jayjg ==
Hi, I saw you left a message on user Mikkalai's page, who has been attacking me in the last 24 hours.


I'm largely retired (temporarily?) as an active contributor, and I was getting some spam from my userpage. Everything is OK, thanks for caring. :) ] 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not Bonaparte. If an official administrator can do with respecting privacy, I can give my real-life name and address. (E.g. give me an email address, and I will email you.) But, on the same token, I would like to ask the same verification to be performed for Mikkalai.


== Please comment on edits, not editors ==
I demand action with respect to the following sentence by user Mikkalai:


adds nothing to the discussion on how to improve the article and erodes the prospects for collegial and collaborative editing. Please comment on edits, not editors. Focus on how to improve the article in question by discussing content, rather than making ] that amount to very thinly veiled ]. Thanks. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
''The overall history of his edits under various names leaves an impression of mentally ill person''


== Hertzel ==
I have never called anyone names and have never characterised anyone, even when in dispute. In real life I would ask Mikkalai to say again the same comment, to confirm that he stands by it, and then I would call the police. Is it possible to do anything about Mikkalai's agressivenes and language? I asked him repeatedly to talk about the articles, but he never replied to me. Instead he has experience and can follow me. I appeal for protection from Mikkalai.:] 19:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:I was referrintg to overall history of user:bonaparte. Since you claim that you did not edit under variuos names, you don't have to call police. If you are not ], I strongly suggest you to start from smaller contributions, not completely reshuffling relatively good articles, supply your additions with reputable and verifiable references, and we will talk. `'] 20:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


Did Hertzel really supported transfer ? I have seenwriting in which he offered cooperation with residents already in palestine. I don't know the english version but the Hebrew version of "medinat ha-Yehudom" has this part of his plan. is this ref true ? could Herzel change his mind few times ? In any case what relance is there between someone who died in 1904 to evenst in 1948 that were caused mostly because what the Mufti sis in 1929 1937 and 1948 ? ] (]) 18:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
==Muhammad al-Durrah==
I saw you moved the TotallyDisputed template - thanks, I did not take the time to step back and realize that it was that particular section that bugged me. ] 22:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


== I think you hit the nail on the head ==
==Homey==
Homey is not banned. ] 00:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
::I'm not sure what his exact status is. I just wish he would stay away from hot button stuff. ] 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


all I see is bits and peices here and there. I did not know what is wrong but I know it is wrong. Now I know what it is: A gross violation of NPOV and UNDUE. The ME conflict is so comlex and full of contradicting facts (over time) that all it takes is to take partial facts present them without the other mitigating facts and voila we have a whole new history. This is the systematic bias I saw in Misplaced Pages but until now could not articulate it as well as you did. Now we have it formulated. ] (]) 05:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
== Giano RfAr and John Reid ==


== ] ==
Thank you for your follow-up and reconsideration of your position on the proposed ban of ] in the so-called Giano arbitration. The wording of your proposal is not exactly how I would have phrased it, but the point is made. I know this was a judgment call and appreciate your willingness to consider the matter afresh. I also hope that some of the workshop or talkpage discussion might have been of help to you in resolving a very complicated situation. Regards, ] 01:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi, Jay. A very belated welcome back. I've not been around much so hadn't noticed you'd returned. Pleased to see it.
== Allegations of Israeli Apartheid ==


If you have a moment, do you have an opinion to offer on ''']'''? I'm not sure why I participated, as doing so tends to lend credibility to the ], but anyhow. Cheers, --]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 13:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Jay,


== ''Binding of Isaac'' article name change ==
Is protection really the best way to stabilize things over there? The article has been locked into a state that is simultaneously poorly-written/organized and POV -- not very encyclopedic. Locking it into that state doesn't appear to be a very good fix, unless the probability is that things would worsen with further edits. Would you support unprotection? ] 13:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your comments and contributions at ]. About 3 weeks ago, I proposed to change the name of the article to "Sacrifice of Isaac" at ], but so far haven't seen any response. I plan to go ahead and rename the article on ], ] unless there are objections. I invite you to visit the article and submit any comments you have on the matter. Thanks! --] (]) 17:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
: Oh my, where to begin? In general I agree with the criticism that the laundry list of people to whom the concept or phrase has been attributed is too long and is ineffectual, no matter which "side" you might be on. If we try to imagine a hypothetical non-politicized reader coming to the article to actually learn something, I can't believe that he or she would be happy with having to wade through that biographical swamp to search for content further down. Furthermore, it is patently POV to have the list of "apartheid affirmers" entirely presented in a more prominent location than the "apartheid deniers"; there needs to be a more organic approach to the whole issue of quotes and cites that a) doesn't present like an endless power-point slide and b)is NPOV.
: Another problem is OR; almost the entirety of the "Issues" section, both "for" and "against" is made up of synthesized arguments in violation of WP:NOR. You could make a case for just deleting it lock, stock and barrel (It reminds me of UN242 where general principles of international law have been brought to bear on a specific case for which there is no -- or very, very little -- citable material). This is a case where there is no baby, only bath water. Throw it out.
: Finally, sources. As tempting as it is for some of us to want to tie these arguments to organizations like JewWatch and the Institute for Historical Review, these are not Wiki-appropriate sources and should be removed from the article. They wouldn't be acceptable in other contexts, and I don't believe they belong here either. David Duke's views, on the other hand are citable and there is no reason to isolate him from the others by pinning a political label on his POV -- and, in any event, calling him an element of the "far right" is absurdly inaccurate. Many people believe that, aside from skin color and a Nobel prize, there is precious little difference between David Duke and Desmond Tutu -- for purposes of this article they should be seated at the same table and the reader can make whatever distinctions he or she wants. I also found at least one dead link for a source, and others that can't be verified. The footnote for the prominently-placed Economist source, for example, links to the Misplaced Pages page for the magazine. This needs to be fixed or gone. This entire following section is also interesting: ''According to Leila Farsakh, after 1977, "he military government in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (WBGS) expropriated and enclosed Palestinian land and allowed the transfer of Israeli settlers to the occupied territories: they continued to be governed by Israeli laws. The government also enacted different military laws and decrees to regulate the civilian, economic and legal affairs of Palestinian inhabitants. These strangled the Palestinian economy and increased its dependence and integration into Israel ..." Many view these Israeli policies of territorial integration and societal separation as apartheid, even if they were never given such a name."'' You'll note that there is a missing set of quotes (e.g. three sets of quotes to bracket two separate quotations), and indeed I don't believe that the last sentence of this extract appears anywhere in the article. If not, it is OR and the sentence needs to go. (Note, though, as per my comment above, the whole thing should probably be gone anyway.) The Farsakh article itself, IMO, gives more to work with to the "anti-allegation" folks than the "pro-allegation" folks, so that might be an area that an ambitious editor could exploit to benefit. I suspect that this isn't the only problem of mis-quoted or mis-represented cites either.
: Anyhow, Jay, I'll stop here because it's more than enough for now. I don't think this article is unsalvageable, but bringing it up to a reasonable standard will be a struggle -- and a particularly unfortunate one at that because at the end of the day the article itself shouldn't even be in the encyclopedia. ] 23:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:UPDATE -- The Farsakh reference does actually contain the quote I questioned. I didn't find it at first because the source has a typo which confused my text search. Smallish point, but if we lose clarity we've lost everything -- hence the correction here. ] 06:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


:Five editors have responded to the proposal described above. Four oppose and one is neutral. The consensus is opposed to the name change. I'll therfore leave the article as currently named ("Binding of Isaac") and consider the matter closed. Thanks for your participation! --] (]) 03:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
== Kane Street Synagogue Photo ==


== Thank-you ==
Jay,


{| style="float: left; margin-bottom: 0.2em; border: black solid 2px; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background-color: pink; padding:5px;" align=center"
I am the photographer who took the photo you uploaded for the Kane Street Synagogue article. I appreciate your including it but Misplaced Pages did notify you that "To the uploader: this tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information".
|]
|style="text-align:center;"|Hi Jayjg! Thank-you for your ] (91/1/1).
:I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being
:an admin to the high standard that the community deserves.
:] ] 17:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
|}
{{clear}}


== fyi ==
Your response that "I am claiming fair use because the image has no commercial value, there is no free-license equivalent, and it is being used to illustrate the subject. It is taken from the synagogue's website" is partially incorrect.The image most certainly does have commercial value and credit is given to me as the photographer on the synagogue's website.


http://www.justiceforjews.com/ --] (]) 04:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised, frankly, that you didn't bother to contact me to ask permission to use the image, which would have been immediately granted. Clicking on my credit line on the Kane Street website would have taken you right to my website where all contact information is posted. It would have taken you about the same time that it took you to respond to Misplaced Pages's notice to you regarding your posting of the photo.


== RfA Thanks ==
I am more than happy to allow this photo to be used for your Misplaced Pages contribution, but, as Misplaced Pages stated, copyright information is required. Can you please place "© Hank Gans" under the photo? I wouldn't mind if my name was used as a link to my website, www.hankgans.com, but it's not mandatory.


{| width="65%" style="border: 2px solid black; background:#2645FF; cell-padding:0px;"
I hope you won't pull the photo from your article but allow it to remain with proper credit. Pulling this message to you, however, off your talk page, will be completely understood. I would have emailed you, rather than posting here, if I could have found an email address for you.
|-
!width="30%"|<!-- Commented out because image was deleted: ] -->
!width="40%" style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size:3em; line-height:2em;"|Thanks!
!width="30%"|]
|-
|colspan="3"|
{| class="collapsible collapsed" width="100%" style="background:none; border:0px; margin:0px;"
|-
!'''<small>So, yeah, you know how these work... »»»»</small>'''
|-
|style="text-align:center; border: 1px solid black; background:#CCCCFF;"|Thank you very much for your support in ], which closed with a final tally of '''(75/1/0)'''. Your trust in me is greatly appreciated, and I can assure you it has not been misplaced. I shall use these tools to the best of my ability, and will do my best not to let you down. Thank you once again, and happy editing as always! ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 20:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
|}
|}
== AfD nomination of Ouze Merham ==


]An editor has nominated ], an article on which you have worked or that you created, for ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "]").
Thank you for your understanding.


Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at {{#if:Ouze Merham | ] | ] }} and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).
] 15:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.<!-- Template:AFDNote --> ] (]) 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Jay,


== Please comment ==
I have no problem with the Creative Commons Attriution License. Please restore the photo to the article with attribution. Can you make my name a live link to my website, www.hankgans.com? Thanks, much.


Hi, Suppose I remove the Category:Antisemitism from ] stating that it isn't inherently antisemitic, but created in response to the ], what would you do? ] (]) 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
] 02:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


::Sorry, I should have reworded it, what would be your argument to include the category. The editor who added the cat is no longer active. ] (]) 19:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
== Another Bonaparte sock ==


::Thank you very much. ] (]) 21:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I just blocked "]" as an obvious sock of Bonaparte. Perhaps you could do a check to confirm this however. Thanks! <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 18:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


== Speculation? ==
:There is no need to confirm that this is Bonny because it is mobvious. But could you please check whether is just Bonny himself, or ''also'' a Bonny through an ''open proxy''. In a latter case, please ban whatever IP it is ''in addition to the user''.


What, was I wrong? ] (]) 18:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Newbies will soon have a difficulty finding a username since this fellow uses up so many. --] 18:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:Where did I ABF? ] (]) 23:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
:Oh, and are you seriously telling me that my description of the likely response was ''wrong''?
:By the way, you might want to look at my suggestion about ] at ]. ] (]) 23:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
::Jay, I notice you didn't say that that would not happen. I note also that you don't need to assume bad faith to have that happen. Think about it - its exactly what happens when someone removes a cat against consensus. I understand your sensitivity on the point, but the way to get over that is not to try and see insult when there is none.
::Note further that "speculation" is exactly what Talk: pages are sometimes for. It is difficult to plan anything without attempting to predict what other individuals in the same project will react.
::''..half your comments to me to make insulting statements...'':sorry, Jay, if you think they're insulting. But next time, mention how they're insulting - and also how they're ''wrong''. Don't just say ''patently false'', say patently false ''how''. People will predict your behaviour based on your past, people working with you on a project will feel the need to discuss your probable choices and reactions if your editing schedule does not match theirs; you can't ban the latter, which is more than permissible, and changing the former will take more than a couple of messages ordering people around on talkpages.
::I treat you with extraordinary civility, I treat you with as much good faith as I or any rational being could muster, and I don't see how stating a very likely response to a stated intent is ''not'' within the bounds of "Talkpage policy". I note that you have decided not to mention that what I was trying to do was determine whether you were being trolled or not, with a view to taking action if required. That determination is usually also conducted on talkpages.
::''And if you do indeed support my "well-known and extremely useful 'lobby argument'", then use it to support me when I object to people inserting obvious original research into articles, rather than for sniping at me about comments I haven't made and content I haven't authored.'' Jay, the whole point is that if your argument is valid, it need not always be used in your ''support''. On the occasion I used it, it could effectively be used against material which you were defending passionately. (Even though you hadn't written it.) What I hoped to demonstrate to ''you'' was the inconsistency that some see in your behaviour, something which, without exception, all your fellow-editors here would probably like to see changed.
::Thank you for your time, and do try and think about some of what I say.
::] (]) 07:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
:::''...I would not have reverted it''. I will take you at your word, and congratulate you successfully conquering that instinct.
:::''- no. You shouldn't be using Talk: pages to comment about me, period.'' So you claim is that although I was not uncivil, your objection was that I referred to you on a talkpage? I see nothing in ] to supports that view that mentioning other editors in perfectly normal contexts is outlawed on talkpages? If that's your interpretation, perhaps you should cut down on some of your .
:::''you never use it in my support, but instead only use it to castigate me for comments I haven't made and content I haven't authored. The material I added .. Secondary sources. You cannot demonstrate "inconsistencies" that do not exist.'' Except I used it in response to the statement "I count 17 references at the bottom of the article, but the number does keep changing, not long ago it was 19", which constrained me to point out the number of those excluded by the Lobby Argument.
:::Jay, I suggest you admit to yourself, if not to me, that inconsistency is a bad thing, and that someone merely mentioning someone else (on-wiki) in neutral terms and not as an irrelevancy can hardly be a giant violation of our guidelines.
:::I am also interested to see that you think that reversion of the sort I thought it would be probable that you would perform is something you claim you would not do. Good, its a start. ] (]) 08:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


== ] ==
''(removed comments by banned user)'' <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 22:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Heya ].
:: I don't share your fatalism and conspiracy theory, 148.233.159.57. If you care, you would help me defend from Makkalai's attack, instead of talking fatalist nonsense.
:: Is Mikka and Mikkalai the same person? Yes, perhaps he is an anti-romanian, he states so on his user page, at least. But his main deficiency is he is rude, agressive and intolerant. He is a bad person, judging by his actions. I don't care his nation. He is a shame for his nation.
:: Is Khoi and Khoikhoi the same person? He is a Hungarian Jew from Romania, and his name is Putnam, so what? I don't care. Maybe he is a Black Chinese from Germany, and his name is bin Laden. I don't care. This doesn't make him bad. Judge his actions, not his nation!
:: The biggest conspiracy, and the only one, is in the eye of the beholder. The best Makkalai can do is vandalize. Vandals do not have the guts to conspire, because conspiration requires intelligence, and an intelligent person would never behave like a vandal. An intelligent person always has other means.
:: Civilized people organize to defend against vandalism, not spread fatalist messages. It is because of rumors spread by your way of thought, that Securitate survived. If you are affraid, get lost. Not everyone has lost verticality, even during the worst of Securitate's persecutions.
:: I will not be banned, because there is no way I would vandalize. And even if, as you maybe think, the whole Misplaced Pages is a conspiracy, it abides by laws! You come from a nation which has 2500 years of history (Roman republic, empire, bizantine, etc) were the main value was the rule of law, you must know from your birth that evrything evil is sooner or later undone. Don't you know it by now? :] 19:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


I would first like to apologise on behalf of the ] for the delay in this case being dealt with, which is due to a shortage of available mediators. I have expressed interest in taking this case to help with the backlog and to assess my nomination to join the committee. As i am not currently a member it is common practice to for the involved parties to consent to mediation of an RfM from a non-committee member. To give your consent for me to act as mediator for this case please sign as you have for the acceptance of the case on the . I look forward to working with you and finding a solution to the dispute.
''(removed again)'' <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 22:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 17:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
:::I repeat again for everyone: this is my fisrt account.
:::Please, sign your comment. If you like using certain words, please sign!
:::I am located in northern europe.:] 22:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


== Your comment on the "Personnal attack report page" == == Is this the way you interact with adults? ==


I don't know anything about you, and I don't recall ever interacting with you before, so I find your not just unpleasant, but odd. If you have a complaint with me personally, please lay it out explicitly. If you have a disagreement, state it civilly. If you can't communicate like an adult, don't communicate with me. ] (]) 01:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your time in reading my report on the PA report page. You commented:
:Vitriol? Did you post the wrong diff by mistake? I don't see any vitriol there. I see a sense of humour. You might want to review ]. --] (]) 01:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
::Indeed, as I just pointed out to Noroton, that was intended as humorous. I'll try to be more serious in the future. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Nothing mastodon-like in my comment. Nothing in these parts of the . Jayjg, your level of maturity is your choice. Conversation over. ] (]) 01:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
::::I was in no way intending to imply that there was anything mastodon-like in your comment, Noroton. That is not the point of the ] essay.
::::I see nothing wrong with making serious statements and also making humourous statements in the same conversation. I also see nothing wrong with statements which make a point while also being humourous. Humourous is not synonymous with "merely humourous".
::::As I to someone on Majorly's talk page recently, "Getting along with others is an integral part of the wiki process. Having and using a sense of humour is an integral part of getting along with others. Therefore, having and using a sense of humour is an integral part of the wiki process. :-)" I hope you won't eschew a sense of humour too much, Jayjg. --] (]) 02:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


== Change to ] ==
''rm Mikkalai, no personal attacks shown, other problems must go through dispute resolution''


Per your advice, I posted my proposed change to the talk page of the policy and discovered that someone else had already made a similar proposal without significant objections being raised. If you'd like to take part in the discussion other than just reverting the policy edit, please come join in the discussion. As of now, it appears that there isn't any real objection to the proposed wording addition. Thanks! ] (]) 01:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I am a relatively new user, and have previously editted irregularly without a username. I never engaged in any edit wars. My contributions were to gather sourses on some subject, write a summary of the respective information, and put it on Misplaced Pages, in the idea that good-faith users would check through, and improve it. I never started an article before september 2006, but have expanded, sometimes substantially, existing stubs.
:You're right, there's no "real objection", as long as you ignore all the people who object. In any event, please get a '''real''' consensus for this '''significant''' policy change before attempting to modify policy. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
::What is the (notice, I said "the" not "your") "real" consensus? How many people? What percentage of project participants? Only established editors? If so, what's an established editor? Only admins? Please, tell me where it says what "the real" consensus is. I think the policy will be changed, because right now there is a discrepancy between Harassment and COI. ] (]) 01:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Check out the COI noticeboard where several threads currently out other editors, apparently without censure. If the harassment and block policies really trumped COI, then this wouldn't be going on on the COI noticeboard. By not doing anything about it, you and other admins have already set the precedent that outing for COI reasons is ok, whether it says so or not in the rest of the policies. ] (]) 02:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
::::Which specific threads are you referring to? ]<sup>]</sup> 02:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::Here are a couple . ] (]) 02:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::In the first example, the userid appears to include a name. Regardless, it may be that some of the postings on the COI noticeboard are inappropriate. If so, that's an issue with the COI noticeboard, not ], ], and ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I'll collect more diffs/links if necessary, but it appears that we've been outing COI editors since the project was started. The policies need to be updated to reflect what's already, rightfully going on to maintain the integrity and credibility of our NPOV encyclopedia. ] (]) 02:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::::No, there's no particular need to modify the existing policies, which are what maintain a reasonable working environment for our volunteer editors. Moreover, as explained, it's not our COI policy that "maintain the integrity and credibility of our NPOV encyclopedia", it's the quality of the articles and the sources used, strict adherence to the core content policies, and a welcoming environment for editors. Indeed, if all editors adhered strictly to the core content policies then COI would be irrelevant. ] is a guideline intended to help editors recognize when they might have difficulties adhering to the core content policies, not a manual for others to out editors they suspect have a conflict of interest. Your puffing up the COI guideline as the savior of Misplaced Pages's "integrity and credibility" seems to me to be a case of exaggerating the guideline's impact and intent, and devaluing far more important policies. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::You honestly feel that I'm exaggerating the importance of the COI guideline? Have you been paying attention to Misplaced Pages-related news lately? One of the major reasons the Jimbo/Marsden/Merkey story was so noticed was because of the allegations that Jimbo might have violated COI by influencing the bio article of his girlfriend and the bio of Merkey for money for the Foundation. I would think that you would be very concerned about allegations of COI by our editors, because, if true, it could call into question the credibility of large numbers of articles in our project and the good faith of some of our most active editors. In fact, after our conversations here and at WP:AN and the COI Noticeboard, I'm now fairly sure that the COI guideline needs to be upgraded to policy status, because, our credibility does depend to a great deal on investigations of and resolving COI allegations. ] (]) 07:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::The reason those stories were so noticed was that Jimbo is an important guy, not because the articles allegedly edited under such circumstances were particularly important articles. If someone less important than Jimbo wrongly edits an article, it's not news: it's accepted as a common occurrence the way the occurrence of minor crimes and automobile collisions is accepted. We all know that not all the information in all Misplaced Pages articles is true. The various guidelines and policies balance each other. Putting current practice into words is sometimes a mistake, because the words are then interpreted to apply even more widely than originally intended. --] (]) 11:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::That's true that we need to be careful about how we word our policies, but this discrepancy between our COI and other policies needs to be resolved. Another example of how COI generates bad press even if a famous person insn't involved was the recent Register article about ] editing the ] articles even though he is a follower and paid employee of Rawat, the extent of which he had tried to keep hidden. ] (]) 23:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


== Emails ==
Once every 4-6 months I would randomly check the pages I previously editted. In about 60-80% of cases I was very pleased to discover that someone took pain to read through and correct grammar, double check the sourses, and add more very useful stuff. I felt proud to be part of such a community. In about 10-30% the edits were itchy, i.e. piecies of information were erased, sometimes in quite a biased way. But the core of my original contribution was still present. 5-10% of my edits were vandalized, but there was nothing I could do about it.


Ok, but is there a reason to move the discussion from AN? I see WordBomb's comment on WikBack was , where he says he recalls Humus sapiens and you quoting the email at some point. If my reading of the situation is correct, he probably sent any email through Misplaced Pages rather than from his email (he's said this is how he first contacted SV). I have no way of verifying this, but unless IPFrehley posted something where SV would have seen it, it seems consistent with his statements that this is how she came to block that account. ] (]) 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
In September I thought about starting articles myself, and uploading pictures, files. I engaged in some discussions about some subjects with several users. Most of them are neutral. A good 1/4 are strongly biased, but agree to compromises if presented in a way more acceptable to them. And none of them ever, before user:Mikkalai, engaded in personl attacks.


== Copyvio ==
From reading the history of the last 48 hours I understand that this user was in some edit wars with some other user Bonaparte, who was banned. Apparently Mikkalai thought I am his arch enemy Bonaparte. He targetted all the pages I contributted to in the last days, and revertted everything, including substantial contributions by other users. I asked him kindly several times to explain his actions. There was no answer on any page. I was in the imposibility to edit anything because of Makkalai. He also threatened me to ban me from Misplaced Pages. He does not motivate his actions, and he does not discuss anything. He just reverts my pages. Mine, not someone's else, regardless of their content. He reverted even spelling mistakes!


I got as far as I could, but all of ] is a copyvio. I've reached my limit for the day, and my prose stinks; can you go in and reword that section? ] (]) 21:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
He was targetting me personally.So I asked for administrators' protection from personal attacks from Mikkalai.
:Looks like it was a move from another article, where it was added by an IP. If you have time to fix it, it's only that one section. ] (]) 22:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


== Zionism tag ==
I would have expected Mikkalai to appologize and become constructive, but obviously it is not the case. From your answer, I understand that I should revert the vandalism done by Mikkalai. What if this infuriates Mikkalai more? What should I do if he continues to revert all my edits?
Should I become more agressive too, is that what you are suggesting?


Hi Jayjg,<br/>
Of course, if Mikkalai will not revert again, the issue would be closed. But how far can I go if he continues to target pages editted by me? I hope you will not suggest me to engage in all-out war with Mikkalai, I hate wars! I would appreciate if you would answer :] 17:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why you are losing your time with that guy. He doens't answer questions and just asks his ones and claims for answers. Just ignore him. The pov tag can stay one year. It doens't matter. ] (]) 21:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
:The problem is, it's his ] way of disfiguring the article; he's basically saying that the article will remain tagged ''ad infinitum'', until everyone agrees with him. This is an abuse of the tagging system, which is intended to alert readers to ''current'' and ''real'' issues, not the same rhetorical questions repeated again and again, regardless of the number of times they have been answered. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
::Of course. But why would it matter ?
::If we stop interacting with him, he will stop.
::] (]) 06:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


== Hi Jay ==
:I was in no way suggesting you simply revert other users, what I suggested is that you review our page on ] and use the methods listed there to resolve your dispute. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Would you please replace the POV tag at ]? There are six outstanding issues I feel we still have yet to resolve. Many thanks, ] (]) 21:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
How about ''the main issue'', '''the fact that fact that he targets me'''? Is it possible to ask him not to do this anymore? He does not listen to me, he just erases all my comments and questions. Can you kindly ask him not to target me? I would really appreciate if you could do so.


== Offline contact ==
As for the articles, he did not revert my work only, but other people's as well, only that other users are affected on one article only, while me - on all I edit. I do not ask for support in reverting other people's work. That would be vandalism from my side to do and from your side to support me. And I am talking about the set os users composed of only one user: Mikkalai. I have tried steps 1, 2, 3. Still in 3, and looking for help from someone who can guide me through 4:
1 Avoidance
2 First step: Talk to the other parties involved
3 Second step: Disengage for a while
4 Further dispute resolution
4.1 Informal mediation
4.2 Discuss with third parties
4.3 Conduct a survey
4.4 Mediation
5 Last resort: Arbitration
6 Requesting an Advocate (at any time)
thank you.:] 18:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi Jay, is there anyway to contact you offline (or at least via e-mail)? ] (]) 09:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
== Re: Banned user talk pages ==


== Comment to ] ==
<small></small>


I'm not sure if you're aware, but I've been researching for an RfC that I'm ]. During my research, I noticed this comment by you to ] after a discussion about merging policies ] at ]. In your post, you ask SandyGeorgia to "to retract your statement". I've read the thread in question, and I don't see anything wrong with what SandyGeorgia said. She was providing a legitimate concern with how the initiative was proceeding at the ATT page. So, I was just wondering, do you stand by that statement? Do you still think SandyGeorgia needs to withdraw her statement and that it was "insult enough" merely for stating her opinion? ] (]) 04:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
'''''SlimVirgin wrote:'''''
:''Fon, are you Gurch? I was wondering about the wisdom of deleting talk pages of banned users. It can be quite helpful to read talk page posts of sockpuppets if they turn up again in another guise. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)''
'''''Raul654 wrote:'''''
:''I just came here to point out the same thing. Please desist from deleting users whom I tag as sockpuppets. ] 00:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)''


== Copyright violation? ==
Hi, sorry if this has caused any problems; you are of course free to reverse any deletions you think were inappropriate. My intention is not to delete all banned user talkpages, or all sockpuppet pages. I'll try to explain my rationale. The bulk of these userpages are simply being removed from ]; a category that was set up about a month ago and into which all new pages with <tt><nowiki>{{indefblockeduser}}</nowiki></tt> or similar templates are placed. The idea is that once these pages have gone a month without being edited, they are to be removed. The month-long delay gives the blocked user plenty of time to make an unblock request, or otherwise contest the block before the pages are removed. Usually, the userpage will consist only of <tt><nowiki>{{indefblockeduser}}</nowiki></tt>, and the talkpage will have something like a username block message or a series of vandalism warnings. Since the category is relatively new, there are a large number of similar pages that are not in the category because <tt><nowiki>{{indefblockeduser}}</nowiki></tt> has been substituted on to them; I have also been deleting these (if they have not been edited in over a month). I'm sure you'll agree that there is little point in having pages like these; I should clarify that the original idea was not mine (the category is the end result of a series of CfDs and other changes none of which I participated in) – it has just fallen to me to do the actual deletions.


A new user named ] posted a very professional picture of Rabbi ] on the ] page, which was lifted off the Rabbi's website. (I moved it to the Rabbi Schik page, but Wikibiki613 insisted it should also go on the Breslov page.) I left Wikibiki613 a note on his/her discussion page asking if he/she took the picture or scanned it off the website, but have not yet received any answer. It seems that Wikibiki613 started contributing on March 30 and stopped contributing on March 31. Please advise what to do about that picture. Thank you, ] (]) 16:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I do, however, understand the problems caused by deleting certain banned user and sockpuppet accounts, and I appreciate the need for these to stay. The pages of ''banned'' users (as opposed to merely blocked users) shouldn't be in the temporary userpages category, nor should sockpuppet accounts blocked for being sockpuppets (as opposed to username or vandalism blocks). I have taken extra care not to delete any banned users' pages, so if one or two have slipped through, I apologize. I have ignored sockpuppet pages in ''most'' cases – again, it is certainly not my intention to delete them all. However, I ''have'' deleted these in some cases – when the page's title is not only inappropriate but extremely offensive; this includes violent personal attacks against specific contributors, anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi sentiments, and other excessive uses of profanity. Most of these are blocked for inappropriate username but some are tagged as sockpuppets. I refuse to believe that there is ''any'' valid reason for retaining pages titled, for example, "User:I'm in ur germany, gassing ur jews", no matter what they have done or what the admininstrative need may be. These usernames, sockpuppet or not, were created purely for the purposes of getting attention.
:Here is the link: . ] (]) 19:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Look at the picture closely. On the website the book in Mohorosh's hand is at the very bottom of the picture. In the picture on wikipedia there is a large space under the book. While it is possible to take the picture on wikipedia and crop it to look like the picture on the website, it is impossible to take the picture on the website and somehow create that space under the book. It is also impossible to take a small picture, like the one on the website, and increase the size and quality so that it looks like the "very professional picture " on wikipedia. It should be obvious that the picture was not "lifted off the Rabbi's website". (] (]) 01:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC))
If I have deleted talk pages of ''banned'' users (those prohibited from editing under any account by an ArbCom ruling or Jimbo) then this was a mistake; it was certainly not my intention, and feel free to reverse it immediately. If I have deleted sockpuppet pages which contain useful information and do not have an offensive page title as described above, then once again I apologize; these must have slipped through the net. The material on most of these pages seemed to be limited to witty <tt><nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki></tt> requests or simply a block message, however if there is more than just that, it negates my argument that the page is pointless – ] 03:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


:Sorry, I don't understand this reasoning. The pictures are identical; only the upper half of the picture is used on the webpage. Since Wikibiki613 just started plugging the inclusion of Rabbi ] on the ] page, I have the feeling he's an insider in Rabbi Schik's organization and has access to the picture. The only question is whether he himself took this professional, studio portrait? ] (]) 19:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


The reasoning is really quite simple. You claimed that the picture was "lifted off the webpage". I proved to you that it wasn't. What is there not to understand? (] (]) 10:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC))
'''''SlimVirgin wrote:'''''
:Did you take the picture yourself? Please answer yes or no? ]<sup>]</sup> 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
:''Hi, thanks for your note. I don't see how we can easily reverse the deletions given there are so many; and we may not necessarily remember all the names and know which ones to restore anyway. The thing is that, in order to spot sockpuppet patterns, we do need to keep track of all the accounts that have been used. That's why they're tagged. This applies to blocked and banned users alike. Apparently some Zephram Stark sockpuppet pages have been deleted and now have been lost track of. I don't know what a temporary user page category is, or who would have tagged them as such. Are you deleting user and talk pages? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)''


No - I have permission to use it. (] (]) 01:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC))
'''''Jayjg wrote:'''''
:From whom? ]<sup>]</sup> 01:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
:''Gurch, did you not see my comment before from the 18th? You continue to delete user pages of users tagged as sockpuppets; in fact, one user page you've deleted twice already: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&page=User:Sappho_of_the_Far_Hemisphere Tracking sockpuppets is an important way Misplaced Pages deals with problem editors; please do not delete ''any'' more pages listed as sockpuppets, and please restore any others you have already deleted. Thanks. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)''


From Mesivta Heichal HaKodesh. (] (]) 02:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC))
Hi all. SlimVirgin, I wasn't suggesting you reversed ''all'' the deletions; merely the one or two that you have presumably noticed me deleting in error – as I said previously, my intention is not to delete all sockpuppets and the vast majority of the pages I deleted are not sockpuppets at all. I've decided to pick out and restore the incorrectly deleted pages myself, so don't worry about that. I also don't follow your argument that you need to keep track of ''all'' accounts, whether blocked or banned. Most blocked user accounts – tens of thousands – are either one-time vandalism accounts or accounts with deliberately offensive usernames. While some of these may have been created by the same person, I still don't see the need to retain all the pages; if another account appears that is only being used for vandalism, or has an unacceptable nane, it is obvious that it needs to be indefinitely blocked and that is what will happen – who the account happens to belong to is irrelevant. I ''do'' understand the need to keep the user'''''names''''' of sockpuppets in cases where (a) their edits are not obvious vandalism, and (b) the username does not violate username policy – because in these cases, it ''will'' be necessary to look at edits from previous accounts to determine whether a block is necessary. Although I'm not entirely sure why that entails keeping a userpage for each user, rather than simply listing the names somewhere. (Why not archive them at ] or ], for example?)


:Okay, please now tell me what we should do about the free-license declaration which Wikibiki613 put on the photo of Rabbi Eliezer Shlomo Schik. Should the declaration be altered? Should some kind of note be put on the image on the pages on which it appears (] and ]? Thanks, ] (]) 19:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, I did not intend to delete any sockpuppets that didn't have unacceptable names, but it would seem that some have been deleted anyway, for which I apologize. The temporary userpage category is ], into which all pages with <tt><nowiki>{{indefblockeduser}}</nowiki></tt> are placed. As I said before, the creation of this category and the steps leading up to it were nothing to do with me; I am simply following the instructions on the page and deleting those not edited within the last month. I have also deleted some pages ''not'' in that category, some with names that violate the username policy, some with a subst-ed old version of <tt><nowiki>{{indefblockeduser}}</nowiki></tt> which doesn't contain the category, and I accept full responsibility for these.


== Mediation Update ==
I will continue to delete userpages for which I think deletion is appropriate; however I accept that a few of my deletions were out of place. I understand Jayjg's argument and apologize for deleting the same page twice. I did read Jayjg's first comment and I thought I'd replied to it; evidently it slipped my mind.


Just to let you all know, the case has been started. I have created a little navbox for you to navigate between pages and will be expanded as the case goes on so that its easier for you to navigate. The first page you need to visit in this case is ] so you can give youre opening statement. There i have left a few questions for you all to answer. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.
Per your various requests, I will review the deletions (all 20,000 of them) and pick out the problem ones. I'll restore any user/talk page pairs that are tagged as sockpuppets, unless they have unacceptable usernames that are actually ''offensive''. (As I stated before, I refuse to believe there is ''any'' need to retain a page with a name like "User:I'm in ur germany, gassing ur jews", no matter what). I don't quite understand the need to tag accounts that have done only blatant vandalism as sockpuppets, as they would be indefblocked even if they weren't sockpuppets, but as there seems to be a demand for them I will restore them anyway. I hope this is an acceptable compromise – ] 06:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes ] channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to ]. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page or both to make sure. You can also leave a message on my ] which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can. ] (]) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
== ''Banned'' or ''blocked''? ==


:Your welcome. I wanted to make sure this case was as smooth as possible :) It means its esier for me to go back and forth between pages as well. If you have any suggestions feel free to say. ] (]) 23:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
How about ? Btw: Am I ''blocked'' or ''banned''? And does ''indef. blocked'' mean that I am effectively blocked/banned from editing Misplaced Pages ''forever''? ] 13:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
:Come on, can't you at least for once give a simple reply, without me going elsewhere first? ] 09:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


== External link to antisemitic litterature ==
==See==
]. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I don't know how this problematic is managed on wp:en and I am involved on wp:fr on the same issue. Could you please take care of this here ? Thank you...
==Muhammad al-Durrah==
The first website that is given in the external links section of this article ] gives access to 2 books (among many) in free download :
] undid your reversion on ]. ] 21:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
:* "Our Financial Masters" - By A.Raven Thompson : Reprint of the British Union publication showing how Jewish financers had control of the money supply and thereby the British Government Economic Policy in the 1930's.
:I did not revert his edits because I do not wish to get involved in this particular dispute. If a third opinion is needed, I am happy to provide one. I have commented on the 69.140.101.199's talkpage. I suggested he comment on the article's talkpage or contact you and view the WP:OR policy since you raised the subject in your edit summary. I think you may want to talk to comment on his/her talkpage or I predict they will revert again. Regards, ] 02:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
:* "The Holy Land: Arab or Jew - Capt R. Gordon-Canning M.C." Published in 1938 this book exposed the disproportionate influence of Zionism, and Jewish finance, on the British Government, British politicians, and the media over the question of Palestine. Capt Gordon-Canning, exposes the lies and propaganda used by Zionists in their efforts to seize a Palestinian homeland irrespective of the cost to the indigenous population
:with the following excerpts : "(...) the genius of the Jewish race apparently lies in its power to put over specious arguments and to build up a case based upon a false premise" et "(...) the money power of British Jewry (...) permits this racial minority (...) to censor truth and to mirror falsehood. Or, in other words, this power, when exerted, is able to prevent publication of facts inimical to Jewry, (...)".
Thank you. ] (]) 08:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
:I don't see the links to those sources; can you point them out please? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
::Hi Jayjg,
::Here is the link to both books : http://www.oswaldmosley.com/downloads/free_ebooks.htm (they are on the third and sixth rows).
::] (]) 06:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Hi Jayjg,
:::In the following webpage, there are books in free download : http://www.oswaldmosley.com/downloads/free_ebooks.htm
:::Among these books, 2 are antisemitic litterature.
:::The first one is : "Our Financial Masters" (this is the 6th one in the left column on my screen).
:::The second one is : "The Holy Land: Arab or Jew" (this the 3th one in the left column on my screen).
:::If you download the second one ("The Holy Land: Arab or Jew"), you can read inside this :
:::"(...) the genius of the Jewish race apparently lies in its power to put over specious arguments and to build up a case based upon a false premise" et "(...) the money power of British Jewry (...) permits this racial minority (...) to censor truth and to mirror falsehood. Or, in other words, this power, when exerted, is able to prevent publication of facts inimical to Jewry, (...)"
:::] (]) 06:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jayjg,<br/>
Ok. That is also my opinion concerning wp:en policy.<br/>
On wp:fr, I argue it must be deleted because laws in France forbids "incitement to racial hate".<br/>
Concerning wp:en, having in mind there is a policy that protects against copyright violation (a crime...), another that protects the biographies of living person (a bad thing), do you think that there could be one that prevents links to antisemitic litterature ? (how to describe this... Isn't this a crime worse than darkening a living person ?)...<br/>
(Note here, on wp:fr, some argue that this is more "historical litterature" than "antisemitc litterature").<br/>
What do you think concerning both these questions ? ] (]) 06:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


==Personal attacks== == Haskalah ==


Hi -
I object to your attacks on me , and especially , and would like an apology (just for these, I understand we may disagree about everything else). &mdash;] 22:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


] seems to me be inserting incomprehensible essay-like elements into ] and ]. I'd be interested whether you agree. ] (]) 20:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
== RfC ==


Would you please comment on this:


== Osli73 ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Muhammad#Request_for_Comment


I made the following posting on the Administrators Noticeboard.
Cheers, ] ] 11:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Osli73_violating_parole.2C_repeat_violator
== inappropriate username? ==


] (]) 05:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just inventing things, but without too much imagination, ] seems like a pretty offensive and inappropriate username. Whether it's intended to say what I think it is (it does have another non-offensive meaning, but I'm not sure how many people are aware of it on en:wp...)... ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 14:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:I haven't asked him anything at all. I was just curious whether or not anyone besides me thought there might be something inappropriate about it, before I go ruffling his feathern. ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 00:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
::I ''think'' it's just German dialect (Austrian? South Tirol, maybe?) for ''neugierig'', meaning "curious, inquisitive". (When I was a lad in Bayern, a common phrase was ''Sei nicht so neugierig'', which has about the same meaning as "Curiousity killed the cat" -- i.e., "don't be so nosy". So this one kinda jumped out at me.) --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:::That's Gordon. -- ''] 15:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)'' <small>]</small>
::::Oh, certainly "neugierig = curious" is correct; the only guessing I'm doing is that "neigerig" is ] for "neugierig". --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


== Tourism apartheid ==


User Osli73 http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Osli73 has a history of willfully violating probations including the use of sockpuppets on articles related to the former Yugoslavia.
INHO, that hardly means it belongs in the lead. But I have gotten enough limbs stuck in the apartheid ], so have it how you like. -- ] 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


One can see at the bottom of this arbitration webpage that he has been blocked repeatedly for willfully violating sanctions placed against his edit warring and sockpuppetry: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Involved_parties
== The Vandalism of ] ==


For example:
It scares me thinking that was there for six days and no one was the wiser. :| ] (] | ]) 22:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:At least we'll be aware of it before it happens. ] (] | ]) 23:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) 3 months per 1 month tthis AE post. Please note this is Osli's fourth block. --wL<speak·check> 07:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
== ] ==


Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for 2 weeks for breaking the revert limit on Srebrenica massacre; also banned from editing Srebrenica massacre for 3 months. Thatcher131 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's highly likely this is another Zorkfan sock per similar IP and ]. ] (] | ]) 00:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for two weeks for directly violating his probation and revert parole at Srebrenica massacre. --Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello.


Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for one week for directly violating his probation and revert parole by using a sockpuppet to edit war at Srebrenica massacre. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I recently received a message warning me to desist deleting information from Misplaced Pages articles.


Blocked KarlXII (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Osli73 (talk · contribs) proven by checkuser. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Granted, I believe I have done so on a few occasions, but I am reasonably certain that most of these occasions related to grammar. Might I see a list of the changes I have made to pages?


On March 19, 2008, Osli73 received the following probation from administrator Thatcher explicitly forbidding Osli73 from more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen article http://en.wikipedia.org/Bosnian_Mujahadin , http://en.wikipedia.org/Mujahideen
== Question ==


::''Your topic ban is lifted and replaced with a revert parole. You may edit Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen but for one month (from 17 March) you are limited to one revert per article per week. Obvious vandalism is excepted from the revert limit, but you should take care in distinguishing true vandalism from content disputes. You are permitted to revert the edits of banned users such as Grandy Grandy/The Dragon of Bosnia but you should be extremely careful in doing so, because if it turns out the editor you are reverting is not a sockpuppet of the banned user you will have violated the revert limit. It would be better to report suspected sockpuppets to WP:AE or WP:RFCU. Thatcher 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)''
Did you ever get my email? <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 02:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


see user Osli73 talk page for the above probation notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Osli73
:Ok, I've re-sent it. BTW, could you do a check on {{user|AGNLDM}} (possibly Bonaparte). Thanks, <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Despite the explicit probation against more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles, user Osli73 has again engaged in edit warring, reverting the Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen articles repeatedly, for example Osli made the following 8 reverts to the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles from April 8 to April 14:
== Page protection ==
diffs:
Thanks for protectign ]. A similar protection my be required at ] over this same issue of Hezbollah casualties. ] 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
== Your opinion, ] ==
What is your opinion of ] cruft (if you'll forgive me for poisoning the well)? <font color="green">]</font> 03:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:No, but I've been doing my own informal random article patrol, and I keep coming across them. It seems eminently proddable to me, but maybe there already ''has'' been discussion about this. (I'm also feeling the same way about highway cruft and school cruft. And here I thought I was an inclusionist.) <font color="green">]</font> 03:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::Stuff like and . <font color="green">]</font> 03:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205563168
==Wissahickon Creek==
Ah. I never had much dealings with Bonaparte. ]|] 03:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205562519
:Nor had I. Thanks for taking care of that. Should W.C. be added to ]? (I'd do it, but I'm unsure of the format being used there.) —] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205439461
::Well, that's a bit of a handful — I suppose it's good enough that the category is linked from that page. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205437228
:::Yeesh again. If I get a burst of energy I'll see if I can help with this. (Is this part of the ] fetish? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me to remove evidence...) —] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205144618
::::Is there discussion of this somewhere that I should be paying attention to? (I'm afraid that I don't read AN and AN/I as closely as I should sometimes...) —] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204899529
::You might be interested in chiming in at ]. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204888935
Ha! The guy is truly incredible. Thanks for the heads-up. Any time to investigate that other case I was telling you of? :) ] ] 06:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204184557
== No worries ==


From his statements, Osli73 has shown that he fully understands the restrictions placed upon him. From his actions, he has shown that he is not willing to abide by those restrictions.
Hey Jayjg. Regarding your comment, no worries, I understand that emotions are high right now. I'm on hiatus from doing major editing work for a while anyways. I recently have been reading this book ] -- which I recommend -- and Elizmr this evening pointed me towards the sequel ] saying it was also quite good. Have a good evening. --] 04:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


I am notifying the administrators that have sanctioned Osli73 in the past as well as notifying Osli73 of this posting. Especially with articles involving the former Yugoslavia, it is imperative that users respect the limits placed upon their editing. If the more vitriolic editors involved in former Yugoslavia articles see that Osli73 is not held accountable for his his transgressions, then there is greater likelihood of out-of-control edit warring as there has been in the past. Fairview360 (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
== Thank you... ==


== violations of WP:TALK restoration at Climate change denial ==
...for your nod of support during my recent RfA. If I can help out on any admin projects or if you need a pair of disinterested eyes to look at an article, just let me know. BTW, are you running for re-election for Arbcom? ] <small>(])</small> 17:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:I likely would not have asked if I didn't think that you should. ] <small>(])</small> 18:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Can you tell me exactly what the restoration of this is good for? As far as i can see they have no content that in any way can or will improve the article. (per WP:TALK) or are pure soapboxing. --] (]) 07:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
== blocked users may not edit ==


== New Anitsemitism Mediation ==
You can see my illicit edits . Please revert them immediately. ] 16:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


Heya. I noticed that you hadn't left your statement ] regarding the New Antisemitism case. Its important for the success of this mediation that you stay involved in this otherwise i cannot guarantee that your views will be taken into consensus agreed upon by the parties. I hope that you will be able to participate soon. ] (]) 23:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
== Bonaparte again ==
See: ]. Same edits and arguments as ] on the same page. - ] 16:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


== Sockpuppet user pages ==


== Unbalance tag on circumcision ==
Following your comments and a request from ], I've restored all user and user talk pages I deleted that were tagged as sockpuppets – ] 00:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi Jayjg,
==Usercheck request==
My User page was vandalized by Anon 138.9.57.189. I am suspicious that ] is the same person as the ANON that vandalized my page. Could you please check if the the IP address for both editors is the same? Your assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. ] ] 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
: Please do check and when the result is known please post it here. When that is completed could you then please start proceedings against ] for making <B>false</B> allegations about me? TY <font face="raphael" color="green">] | <sup>]</sup></font> 17:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


I was surprised you removed the unbalanced tag from circumcision. I have kept away from the article because there are strong ] issues and I haven't got the energy to deal with one of the most persistant ] editors on WP but I would have thought it was one of the least balanced articles in WP. There are a broad range of notable opinions on the issue varying from "it should be universal" to "it should be illegal except for medical reasons" with a strong trend toward the latter in the last two decades but the article has a high degree of selection and emphasis. e.g. WHO has highlighted the risk of circumcision itself as a route for HIV transmission and there are a bucket full of serious medical organisations who object to it buried in the article or excluded completely but only the possible benefit is highlighted in the intro. Fine, WP has articles where few people have the energy to fight like ] and this one but you are an Arbcom member and I would have thought papering over the cracks was a bit beneath you? Chasing everyone off happens but then protending there is no issue? C'mon. --] ] 06:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
::(Copied from my talk page)


:Short term history of the tag I have no idea, as I say I don't follow it. I was reviewing it because unbalanced tag removal happened just after it was proposed for the ] and I am rather busy going through 10,000 articles. However if you accept Raul654's law "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie." I have no doubt that the circumcision article is not neutral. Perhaps the law doesn't work: I am sure I would think you speak with an accent whereas I speak unaccented English and vice versa. I guess we can disagree about Jakew: I don't track his edits day to day and the bits and pieces turned up by were a long time ago. He looked like a civil POV pusher to me, perhaps he has moved on. I daresay both you and I have an imperfect past too and if you say he deserves such praise then fine. --] ] 08:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Usercheck request


== CAMERA ==
The evidence here doesn't look all that strong to me, so I'm reluctant to do a CheckUser; perhaps you could try this request on WP:RFCU. Jayjg (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


Seeing no-one else has bothered to contact you heres a thread that might interest you as you are mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WikiLobbying_campaign_organized_offsite_by_ethnic_pressure_group ] 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You're preaching to the choir here; did you post this at the user page of the one who actually requested the usercheck? I knew that it wasn't me doing the vandalism, that's probably why "The evidence here doesn't look all that strong". It was another attempt at an attack upon me. Duke53 | Talk 20:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC) <font face="raphael" color="green">] | <sup>]</sup></font> 20:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:I would be interested in your comments as well. It seems that CAMERA describes you as "an effective and independent pro-Israel advocate." . As an experienced administrator, do you feel that a topic, or even community ban for Zeq is in order? I think your input would be helpful in the discussion, because I remember in the past seeing you proposing many topic and community bans for POV-pushers that you caught. ] (]) 00:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


Here are the relavant quotes from the article:<br/>
:::: Do you know whether or not I can request a usercheck at ] on myself in this incident? I would like to prove that I wasn't the one who vandalized that page; <I>I don't believe that the user making the allegation will request it there</I>. <font face="raphael" color="green">] | <sup>]</sup></font> 22:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


A veteran Misplaced Pages editor, known as "Zeq," who according to the emails is colluding with CAMERA, also provided advice to CAMERA volunteers on how they could disguise their agenda. In a 20 March email often in misspelled English, Zeq writes, "You don't want to be precived as a 'CAMERA' defender' on wikipedia that is for sure." One strategy to avoid that is to "edit articles at random, make friends not enemies -- we will need them later on. This is a marathon not a sprint."
The motivation for the request is that the editor involved has been a source of conflict. The article that causes the most conflict is ]. The ANON involved made two edits when this was requested was made: vandalize my page and the MMM article. Nothing more than coincidence led me to think of this editor first. Are you aware of ANONs coming out of the blue just to vandalize a stranger's page? My personal experience is that vandalism of one's personal page is the result of conflict with a familiar editor.


Zeq also identifies, in a 25 March email, another Misplaced Pages editor, "Jayjg," whom he views as an effective and independent pro-Israel advocate. Zeq instructs CAMERA operatives to work with and learn from Jayjg, but not to reveal the existence of their group even to him fearing "it would place him in a bind" since "e is very loyal to the wikipedia system" and might object to CAMERA's underhanded tactics.
Since I made the request I checked the location of the ANON and it appears that the ANON is from the University of the Pacific. UP seems to have been a source for other vandalism of late.


] (]) 21:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, is there a problem with asking for a check? Are there guidelines that I should review before asking for a check? My thought has always been that a check clarifies an issue; either the proposed editor is "redeemed" or convicted. As the editor above states rightly, "I would like to prove that I wasn't the one who vandalized that page". He is also correct, the matter is not of such significance that I would pursue it further. ] ] 23:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:No need, I went to the site you referred to me. Though I saw no guidelines, it did give several classifications. In working with you in the past I have gained a high degree of confidence in your counsel. ] ] 03:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
::<I>"He is also correct, the matter is not of such significance that I would pursue it further".</I> I never said that it was insignificant; the reason that I said that you wouldn't request a usercheck again was because you were 100% wrong. <I>The matter must have been significant only while you believed I had done it, otherwise you wouldn't have reported it. :) <font face="raphael" color="green">] | <sup>]</sup></font> 05:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


:Not a problem to let you know, to be honest could you do a sanity check on what i'm saying as i've been accused of participating in a holocaust of jewish editors on wikipedia so many times durring the last 48 hours that it might help my mental state just to check. ] 00:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
== WP:AN ==
:Thanks for the sanity check, i disagree with some points you made (such as taking EI views as fact, i read every email and made my own mind up) but you made them one rational human being to another, thank you very much. After thinking about what you said i'm going to change my vote on the template. As for the tag teaming of IvP articles i'm certain it happens and the articles should be looked into, i'd expect a big push of Pro-palistinian POV soon. I also don't agree with "the group didn't actually do very much, aside from sending around various e-mails" as just because this became public early on it does not change the intention i read in those emails but hey we all have our POV don't we. Lets see what arb com says about this sorry mess. ] 01:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


== RSN commentary ==
I begin to despair of using ] as a way to get another administrator involved in an issue. The latest case? ]. Here I am, explicitly asking that another admin also get involved also in a situation so it doesn't get personal, and it's been about 40 hours and not a single person seems to have responded in any way. And people wonder why I (and others) have been known at times to "climb the Reichstag"?


May I suggest that those who don't believe reasoned discussion based on factual evidence about the reliability of sources "," have lost their way when they find themselves at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Regards.] (]) 05:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Any suggestions? - ] | ] 22:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
:Jay unfortunately I don't think I'm aware of a point that you made which I could have addressed, unless you mean the one that I and half of the editors at the RSN have now addressed repeatedly. I left the quote below for your educational benefit, in another naive hope that you might follow some educated leads. Cheers.] (]) 01:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
::Clearly I meant to "break your signature," or the RS/N page. You caught me. Feel free to add that to your list of grievances. BTW you are aware of the fact that an ] whose ''apparent'' aim it was to ] in order to gain advantage in pushing their POV, . Unlike this group I find that someone who diverts "issues to policy," is quite simply being disruptive, not to mention disingenuous. Feel free to add this to your list of horrible policy violations directed towards you, but someone has to say it as it is. Cheers.] (]) 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Exonerate you from what? No one has suggested you have any ties with this group whatsoever, or that you shared ''their'' "tactics." Do you see any such suggestion in what I wrote? No Jay, what I wrote, is that they apparently were impressed by yours.] (]) 02:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


== Marx ==
: I thought ] was for incidents calling for specific action. If not, then is there any reason at all for the (confusing) distinction? - ] | ] 23:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


Jay, this is from the first paragraph of the introduction to the Marx-Engels Reader, written by ]:
Could you have a look at the latest on ]? I just don't know what to do with this. If we could get this guy to focus on what actually belongs in an encyclopedia article, I'm sure he would bring a lot to the table, but it seems that he doesn't get the concept at all. - ] | ] 07:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
*"A knowledge of the writings of Marx and Engels is virtually indispensable to an educated person in our time, whatever his political position or social philosophy. For classical Marxism, as the thought of Marx and Engels may be called, has profoundly affected ideas about ], ], ], ], ], and ] ... Not to be well grounded in the writings of Marx and Engels is to be insufficiently attuned to modern thought, and self-excluded to a degree from the continuing debate by which most contemporary societies live insofar as their members are free and able to discuss the vital issues."
I hope that helps. Regards.] (]) 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


:I noticed this comment in passing and wanted to second what Pelle says. I studied Marxist ] years ago, and although I wouldn't touch Marxist political theory with a bargepole I can confirm that other aspects of Marxist thought are still highly regarded as academic tools. Many Marxist historians actually prefer to use the term "marxian" (with a small "m") to distinguish them from the political side of things. Nobody would dream of excluding Marxist historians such as ] or ] from consideration merely because they use Marxist analyses. -- ] (]) 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
==Huge problem with Hookrej==
Hello, there's a user: Hookrej, the one that keeps editing P!nk articles according to his/her (any idea if is a boy or girl, child or adult?) likes, reverting every other editor edits, ordering according to peaks because he wants everyone to see the #1 positions first, also bolding those (which I think violates the Neutral View policy) H may think that this is a free ''''fansite'''' for only him to edit. He also provides false and nonsense Summary Edits. You can check his latest "contribution" at . Another user (Extraordinary Machine) has had many problems with Hookrej too, but he seems to be currently busy in real life. Is there any way to report Hookrej? Thanks a million in advanced. ] 04:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
|}


== circ page shenanigans == == Notification of review ==


Please see ] for the conclusions of an administrative review concerning the recent controversy over a mailing list run by CAMERA, in which your editing was discussed. -- ] (]) 22:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, I just had an exchange with an IP at the circ talk page . I didn't realize it at the time, but after the fact it occurred to me that this is almost certainly Subversive element back for another round. Just fyi. If you agree that it's him and want to remove his comments, please feel free to remove my responses as well. ] 05:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


== An idea worth trying? ==
:Jay, I agree completely. I didn't put 2 and 2 together until after the exchange. I wouldn't have knowingly engaged him, regardless of the provocation. When folks like him show up do you feel it is generally best to delete the posts or just let leave them alone where they sit? ] 19:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi, here's a thought that might do some good. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.
== Sockpuppet tagged; not blocked ==
On Nov. 1, 2006 you placed <nowiki>({{SockpuppetCheckuser|Semlow}})</nowiki> on the user page of ] but no block was ever placed. This user is now editing, not blocked, with this tag on his/her user page. Was this tag placed incorrectly or was the block simply forgotten? -- ]] <small>07:52, 6 November 2006 <sub>(])</sub></small>


Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Misplaced Pages editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, ]<sup>'']''</sup> 06:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
==Your comment==


== Enough is enough ==
I've already explained my actions, and I stand by them. If it had been a "community ban" block, I would not have intervened. It wasn't. The rationale for the block was absurd, so "conflict-of-interest" concerns did not apply. ] 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


Either you stop reverting and start NEW, rational, fact-based discussion of your endless reverts and patrolling of the article, or I will take this to an arbitration. Your name has already surfaced as a part of a pro-Israel Misplaced Pages lobby , and I shall not tolerate your incessant efforts to erase controversies regarding said country. You HAVE to accept there is controversy regarding Israeli settlements (which, in fact, are in violation of international law), otherwise I'll have to expose your morally questionable techniques of neutralising statements that are compromising to your particular point of view of a political issue. Thanks. ] ] 18:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Response:


Thanks. I've added the section, with reliable sources and appropriate wording. --] ] 05:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
#I can't agree with your assessment. This wasn't simply a block I disagreed with, it was an '''absurd''' block based on a misunderstanding.
#Assuming for the sake of argument that I '''did''' violate conflict-of-interest guidelines, wouldn't this make FeloniousMonk equally culpable? ] 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


== CAMERA lobbying ==
Response:


I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on CAMERA's lobbying. ] (]) 23:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
#FreakofNuture believed Gehockteh leber was a sockpuppet. This view is demonstrably false. The ban was therefore absurd, and my personal connection to the subject is irrelevant.
#No, but FeloniousMonk has a history of hostility toward HotR, to say nothing of questionable blocks.


== ] vs. ] ==
Btw, do you not see a certain asymmetry between and ? ] 23:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm not creating a new article - I'm trying to DAB what we've got. Help me out please. Check out what I'm trying to do, and please advise according. I recognize your name. I'll listen very carefully to your advice. But I think you misunderstand. Cheers. --] (]) 00:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:See also: ] --] (]) 00:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


== ] → ] ==
==List of terrorist organizations==


*'''] → ]''' -- It's the common usage. --] (]) 01:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe that it is anachronistic to describe Irgun and the Stern Gang as 'Israeli'. Their objectives included the establishment of an Israeli state - therefore they fit the description of 'Israeli nationalist terrorist organizations'. The adjective 'Palestinian' is usually taken to refer to the Arab inhabitants of the former mandated territory, and it is therefore misleading (and I would suggest inflammatory) to label Irgun and the Stern gang as Palestinian - unless you are seriously suggesting that the attrocities carried out by them shpuld be lumped together with those carried out by Palestinian terrorist organizations. ] 00:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:I would appreciate your assistance. Thanks. --] (]) 02:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for your reply. I'm not convinced by the reasoning you give, but don't want to get into any big 'fight' over it - hopefully most readers will realise that Irgun and the Stern gang were Israeli terrorist organizations - certainly they were not referred to as 'Palestinian' by their British victims - and not confuse them with Palestinian terrorist organizations. I think the word 'dissolved' is a trifle misleading, as it suggests that a voluntary decision by the terrorists. Anyway, best wishes. ] 03:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


== Quisling == == Asking a big favor ==


My and my fellow students are creating questions to ask a Holocaust survivor who will come to our school in the near future. Seeing as you're a big Holocaust contributor (or so I've been told), do you have any recommendations for questions to ask? Thanks. ] (]) 14:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
My comparison between the term "a Quisling" and the American term "a Benedict Arnold" was removed with the comment "revert edit by banned editor". However, I, Sensemaker, am no banned editor as far as I know and the comparison is both relevant, interesting and pedagogic.


== user talk page/article talk page ==
Sensemaker


Sorry, due to me lacking patience I didn't read your notice on the top of the page. My mistake.
I was reverting the edits of ], a banned editor. Regarding the comparison between "Quisling" and "Benedict Arnold", that sounds like ] to me. Do you have a ] for that? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, I tend to put messages on article talk pages, when I want a general opinion. In this case, I was looking more for a one to one discussion.
But whatever, it's not a big deal. The reverts are still going on, on that article, but sooner or later there will be a version that everyone will agree on. (feel free to delete this message, when read) ] (]) 03:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


== Please consider taking the ] ==
If you removed my comparison by mistake why don't you just say so? We all make mistakes, but defending an error is to err again (and a much worse error in my opinion).


I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the ] which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by ]. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--] (]) 17:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you really need a source just for pointing out a synonym? With such strict standards wiki would be stuffed to the gunwales with links and source references. Just read the Benedict Arnold article and the Quisling article and you will see that the terms are similar.


== New AS mediation ==
It is not original research. I found it in a dictionary. I'll see if I can find out which one.


The mediation im getting rolling as its been a long time waiting so i think its best to get moving. Most of the mediation will be on the talk (discussion) page. so make sure its in your watchlist. ] (]) 23:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Sensemaker


== ] ==
==Reliable Sources==
Jayjg, can you kindly tell me if ] qualifies as a reputable or reliable source as per ] & ]? Salon.com is an '''internet''' ''"magazine"'' that does '''not''' publish a newspaper, magazine, or anything else in hardcopy form. On the ] article there are numerous mentions to Michelle Goldberg's article entitled ''"Untouchable?"''. Needless to say, this article has only been published on Salon.com and has never been published in reputable media newspapers, magazines or the like. Since this article contains critical, negative and potentially libelous information about Sathya Sai Baba, how can it be used as a reputable or reliable source when it has never been published by reputable media? It is only available on the internet as an online article/resource. To me, this appears to violate ] & ]. I have asked other admin for their opinions and none, so far, seem willing to give a response. Not sure why. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 18:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:Jayjg, can you read and then comment? More information is provided on why I think it should not be used a source. Especially when it contains critical and potentially libelous information that was not published by other reputable or reliable media sources. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 16:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


You might want to purge a couple of edits there, and tweak the protection. Cheers! -- ] <sup>]</sup> 10:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
== User conduct rfc ==


== ] ==
Hi, Jayjg. I noticed that you've had some contact with ] in the past at ]. I recently started a user conduct Rfc regarding Fix Bayonets! conduct at that article and elsewhere, ]. I would appreciate any input you have, if any. &middot; '''<font color="#707070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' &middot; 18:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


To me it means your a good guy - you now get some points towards a ]!!! Don't let it upset you! --] (]) 18:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
== RfA thanks ==


== Weasel words on AIPAC ==
<div style="font-family: times new roman; font-size: larger; border: 1px tan solid; background-color: wheat; color: #500">]<div style="padding: 1em; padding-bottom: .3em">Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. {{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|}} I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks!<div style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: cursive; width: 98%; text-align: right;color: black">&mdash; ]</div></div></div><br clear="all" />


Hi Jayjig. I would like you to weigh in on the discussion topic of "Weasel Words" on the talk page for AIPAC (]). A user keeps inserting the word "controversial" in the opening paragraph, providing no sources that describe AIPAC as "controversial," only fringe sources that criticize AIPAC. I would appreciate your input when you get a chance. Many thanks. ] (]) 16:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
== Mediation cabal request re: ] ==


== New Antisemitism Mediation ==
ColumbanAgain has requested informal mediation regarding ] and has identified Jayjg, Humus Sapiens, and Briangotts as interested parties. I've tried to summarize the dispute on the ]. I also have a few short questions that I think may be helpful in resolving the dispute.
*Columban, I have a few questions for you ];
*Any of the others who would like to respond, I have a few questions for you ].


I think thats its time we got moving. A couple of the points have been raised before and felt they were the foundations to the dispute:
Thanks -- I'm looking forward to working with you all. ] 23:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


*Firstly whether the picture can be confirmed to have been taken in the rally in San Fransisco.
==Thank you for your support!==
*Secondly to come to an agreement on what new antisemitism is and then to decide what the image is depicting and whether it purely illustrates New Antisemitism or whether it also addresses other issues which could be confused with new antisemitism by new readers.
{| style="border:2px solid gray; background:#FADDA8; padding:5px;" align=center
*If we cant confirm the those then we need to find a viable alternative.
|]
<small>23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)</small>
|style="text-align:center;"|
If I'm a bit pale in the face now,<br />
it's because of the amazing support <br />
during my recent ]<br />
and because of all those new shiny buttons.<br />


A point i would like to raise is that at some point a lead image might need to be found if this article got to FA. The image in question is not free and couldn't be put on the main page with this article as todays FA. Although not an immediate point a long term solution might wish to be found so that this article could feature on the main page with a viable alternative.
And if in the '''<span class="plainlinks"></span>'''<br />
my use of them should not always be ''']''' <br />
please don't hesitate to shout ''']''' me<br />
any time, sunset, noon or ''']'''.<br />
|}


Does anyone have access to Lexis Nexis? It might help as a search on the network could uncover something not readily available on the internet. Reliable sources that use the image would be helpful. Do you reckon that there would anyway of finding third party images that might possibly contain the poster/placard? Also i would be grateful if images of other placards at that rally could be found to find whether this was a small minority at this rally or perhaps a larger group.
== Wow ==


Whilst that is being done i wanted to find out on what the consensus view is on what New Antisemitism is? I have read the article and the previous discussion and attempted to get a proper understanding but i wanted to ensure that this was current.
I really admire the way you handle debates like the one on the talk page of 'hamas'. Keep doing a great job and good luck!---(i shall create an account pretty soon and work to help improve wikipedia, so cya later)
:Thanks for your compliment, and I look forward to seeing your new account. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


:'''PS''' any sources you find can you please post in the section at the top of the ]. ] (]) 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
== Dubai ==

You appear to have attempted to stop the spammer by blocking their IP. Most internet users in the UAE, including this one I think, have dynamic IPs - there is no choice of ISP here and it is illegal not to go through their proxy. Whilst the spam is a nuisance, blocking their IP won't affect them. They just need to wait a few seconds or minutes for the IP to change. Or disconnect/reconnect. But blocking the IP will affect other non-spammers who attempt to edit that page and happen to be connected with that IP - it's happened to me often enough. Apologies if I've misunderstood what you've done.
:No I realized it was a shared and dynamic IP, so I didn't block it. Instead I just semi-protected the pages being spammed. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Sorry. I'm still getting familiar with WP. I'll look up semi-protection now :) ...

== Wik check ==

I seem to recall that you've worked at identifying Wik/Gzornenplatz reincarnations before. Could you take a look at ] and see if you can help in identification? Thanks. ]·] 05:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

This person logged on to WP for the first time today and set up an account, having asked me for help in doing so. In order to help him get familiar with the system, and while I had him on the phone, I logged on once under his username, and with his password, to help him place a sentence on his userpage, which he was having trouble with. We are two individuals. Just wanted you to have all the relevant information. Peace, ] 17:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

You might want to check this talk page. They say that the incident where 19 Palis were killed by a stray shelled is a massacre. Also, please protect ] against moves. ] 21:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
:'''Can't see how it can be anything other than a massacre'''. When Hezbollah fire rockets into Israel with the aim of defeating it militarily, any mis-hits are (quite reasonably) considered to be unwarranted attacks against civilians. The same principle must apply to IDF actions - particularily when, as in this case, they've first occupied the affected region, making mistakes and 'collaterall damage' even more inexcusable.
:] 19:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

== User:FuManChoo ==

Thanks. We\'ll see how it goes.

He seems to be saying that he still can\'t edit because an IP address is blocked. Do you have any idea what\'s up with that? Probably his user talk page is the best place to continue any conversation on this, so that he will see it. - ] | ] 00:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

:He was caught under Autoblock #298908. I unblocked that (as Jay unblocked the main Fu), so perhaps it will work now. -- ] 00:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

== Account ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Thepresident1 , and archive this page, it´s too much kbs

== Thanks ==

Hi Jayjg, its an honour for me to be supported in my RFA by a senior wikipedian like you. Thanks:) -- ]] 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

== Cbuhl79 case ==

Thanks for pulling the case. I was hesitant under the circumstances. (4-0 and 1-4 are easy, 4-2 was sure to annoy ''someone''). I'll be on top of it the next time. ] 19:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
:It was definitely within the rule but it was the first case since the rule change to have a significant number of accept votes, so '''I''' was nervous. :) Thanks. ] 19:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
::Jayjg, I'm not sure if you'll see the discussion on the RfAr talk page, in which a couple of the participants in this case have expressed bewilderment about why 4-2 to accept counts as a rejection, so please pardon me for jumping in here. (For the record, I have no knowledge of the underlying case whatsoever.)
::I agree it's clear this case was rejected under the rule as currently written. However, I don't see how the rule as written makes much sense, at least as applied to a case that has waited through the full 10-day consideration period.
::I take it that 4 accept votes suffice to open a case because if as many as 4 arbitrators believe a case has sufficient merit to go through arbitration, then it should. Thus, there is no need to for a majority of the entire Committee to vote to accept (which might take awhile, and it's often difficult to know who's going to participate in a given case anyway). But if the vote is 4-1 or 4-2, then accellerating the case to acceptance might not be warranted, because enough reject votes might come in to change the result, and hence the qualification that 4 ''net'' accept votes rather than 4 accept votes (ignoring reject votes) are required.
::But when all the votes are in or the case review period expires, I don't see the rationale for a rule that 4 more accept than reject votes are still required, so that at 4-2, for example, the case will not be heard. In fact, it's possible to imagine an even more perverse application that occurred here: suppose virtually the entire committee votes on a case, and there were 8 votes to accept and 5 to reject. By a literal reading of the current rule, the case would not be heard. Is that really what's supposed to happen? I'd be interested in your thoughts. Regards, ] 20:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

== Help please! ==
I came to get the ball rolling I am the now the blocked OLPC Wiki user 216.194.21.142.Please remeber JayjG its poor kids and the UN we are talikng about in other nations. We are from the USA.Make sure it is only 2 weeks as a first offence or lifted if you can .
What is he with the Klu Klux Clan this #7guy? 4USA=this guy
I did this made a question and directed people to my page
he changed the file entry and said he did it He's a cad!
The list was long if some one came they need to know it was questions.Yeah I left Walter a meassage and said after he reads it he could delet it. This Wiki's rules said you could use space if some one was not using it they promote that! I did. He delted it I left a message on his page about it based on what i had saw so far on the OLPC site.They also did win a contest to build laptops for the worlds poor!
What is on my page has a meaning style and effect over a few days you can see it work.
This was yesterday OK. Thanks Hunter OLPC at laptop.org.
they also requested this on several pages at OLPC of laptop.org
I email SJ as I am blocked and he didnt give an address as he said only an address to the survey. I also when I first started asked if what was on my page content wise could be what I want? They did not ssy any thing. So then I went public with Pros and Cons as #4 and Question list as #1 on the question list they removed that too!
--] 20:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

== Email ==

FYI, I've sent you an email. ] 02:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

== RfA thanks ==

Hi Jayjg, I am very thankful to you for supporting and comments on my succesful ]. ] <sup>(]/])</sup> 06:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


== My RfA == == My RfA ==


Hi Jayjg,
{|cellpadding=1 style="border: thin solid pink; background-color: white"
I wanted to say thank you for supporting my ], which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, ] | ] 23:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
|-
|]
| Hello Jayjg. I wanted to thank you with flowers (well, flower) for taking the time to participate in my ], which was successful. I'm very grateful for your support, especially since our paths first crossed over ]. I assure you I'll continue to serve the project to the very best of my ability and strive to use the admin tools in a wise and fair manner. Please do let me know if I can be of assistance and especially if you spot me making an error in future. Many thanks once again. Yours, ]<font color="black">e</font>] 06:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
|}


== "Cooperation" ==
== Attempts to blame Muslim Palestinians for the terrible plight of Christian Palestinians ==


I thought you might be intrigued/amused by by ], which describes us as cooperating to maintain the Zionist orientation of Misplaced Pages. ] and ] are apparently our co-conspirators! ] (]) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You claim at that: ''Some of Lance's links appear to come from Palestinian Christians themselves; why are your links more convincing than his? ] 19:46, 24 Nov 2004'' (UTC)
:It seems to me that your contribution in this case is more than a trifle perverse. Two of those three references from ] come from ] - they blame the ''"Christian Right"'' of the US and Israel, respectively, for their plight. They're not running from their Muslim neighbours but from occupation and terrorism by brutal soldiers, and ethnic cleansing threats such as these: ''"House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) was even more forthright: 'I'm content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank… I happen to believe that the Palestinians should leave.''.
:(The third reference is a vicious polemic against Muslims by the author of ''" Eye to Eye will give you the latest documentation ...... of the consequences suffered by U.S. Presidents, Israeli Prime Ministers, and world leaders when they participate in the dividing of the covenant land of Israel and interfering with God's plan for the nation of Israel".'')
:And we know that Israel is also ethnically cleansing it's own Christians eg - March 2005. Where do you get the idea that Muslims are the oppressors in all of this? In fact, how about letting the Palestinians back to their homes first, before we discuss who is carrying out the the crimes committed against the Christians amongst them?
:] 14:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Why would you bother posting a two-year old comment on my Talk: page? Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
:I was puzzled why you would defend clips which said the opposite of what was claimed for them.
:Particularily when the claimant was making allegations against people suffering under a harsh occupation.
:Of course, you may wish Muslims to suffer unwarranted accusations, and be blamed for crimes (whether real or imaginary) alleged against Israel.
:There again, you might have mended your ways in the succeeding two years - I'm sure you'll welcome the opportunity to tell us you've changed.
:] 08:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


== RfA thanks! == == Mediation ==


Following discussion at the mediation talk page, i would like to bring up a suggestion that until the end of the mediation to remove both images from the article. There is currently no real consensus on the images so in the interests of fairness it seems best to simply have no images. If you have any suggestions or comments then please come to the ] to be discussed. The discussion will be open for around 5 days if there are no problems. But the discussion will go on if there is ongoing discussion. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
{| style="background-color: #cdd; border: 2px solid #699; border-right: 2px solid #366; border-bottom: 2px solid #366; width: 300px;"
|-
| valign="top" | ]
| align="center"|
My RfA done<br />
I hope to wield my mop well<br />
''(Her name is ])''<br />


== Could I get your views on this? ==
I appreciate<br />
The support you have shown me<br />
''(I hope I don't ])''<br />


Hi Jayjg,
Anyway, I just<br />
wanted to drop you a line<br />
''(damn, ]s are hard)''
|} ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 17:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


Could you please take a look at this
==RfA thanks==
I'd appreciate your thoughts on it given the discussion there (given you edit in the area so have some idea about how notable something must be for it to be notable).
{| style="border:5px solid gray; border-color: #082567; background:#50C878; padding:10px;" align=center
|]
|<font style="color: #082567"><center><big><strong>Thank you for the extra feathers on my wings!</strong></big></center></font>
<font style="color: #082567">Thank you so much, Jayjg, for your support in my ], which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of '''82/0/2'''. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to ]. Best regards, <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 21:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)</font>
|}
Thanks for the congrats. :-) Regards.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 03:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 12:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
== CfD Orthodox Jewish communities ==


== <s>Deuteronomy issue rereloaded</s>Jews chosing their own hangman</s> ==
''Shavuah Tov'' Jay, please add your learned views. See vote at: ]. Thanks. ] 11:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Hello, maybe you are interested in ]. Your input is welcome. Cheers, ] ] 20:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
== ] edit wars ==
:Could you also state this on the article talk page, thereby preventing a feigned consensus? ] ] 00:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


== Mediation Note ==
Hi, Jayjg. I note that you're a longtime contributor to ] and ]. I'm trying to generate substantive discussion of an issue involving ] and ] in this ], but with no success. I hope a genuine airing of the issue might calm the current edit wars. I would engage ] to participate, but unfortunately he has been front-and-centre in the tit-for-tat reversions and the accompanying discussion, which has become bitter; the atmosphere is poisonous. The discussion could really use your patient and even-handed approach: it desperately needs the patient mediation of editors willing to discuss facts and policy in as dispassionate and even-handed a manner as possible.


So that you know i have given an indirect response into an issue i wish to look further into. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm also in the process of soliciting opinions from other longtime contributors to the article to see if widening the circle of participants might defuse some intransigence and help break the deadlock. If you had the time to review the ] and respond to my (overample) comments, which begin about half-way down, it might help move the discussion toward a workable consensus.


== Please join talk ==
The other editors I am planning to contact include ], ], ] and perhaps ] and ]. If you had any reservations about the names on this list, or can think of contributors I should include, please let me know. If you're unable or disinclined to participate, please just ] to that effect and I'll try to soldier on without you :( . --] 16:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


I asked you politely to join the discussion on this issue(). As I see you haven't - although you reverted my edits - I'm asking you again: please join the talk page.] (]) 01:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
== RfA thanks ==


== Baseless warnings ==
{| style="border:3px solid black; background-color: orange; padding:5px;" align=center
|]
|Hi Jayjg, and thanks very much for your support during my ], which succeeded with a final tally of '''64/0/0'''. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as I expand my participation on Misplaced Pages. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please ]. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --] <sup>(])</sup> 22:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
|}


Dear Jay, I am writing to you as an administrator. BS, who has also posted above, posted on my talk page. I think it disingenous in the light of his taking his recent RfC, which he knows to be only part of the views on the matter, to feign a consensus here. Also, I don't think he has the authority to issue such warnings. Could you please clarify the position? Cheers, ] ] 08:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
==]==
<div style="clear:all;">
{| style="background:#def;" cellpadding=0
| ]
| style="text-align:justify; padding:10px; background:#def; font-size:9pt; line-height:12pt;" | Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I ] (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can ] on unsuspecting articles or ] in their defense. The move button has now acquired ], and there's even a feature to ]. With such ] at my fingertips I will try to ] to avoid causing ] and getting into any ]. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be ].
:~ ] 06:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
| ]
|}
</div>


==Comments== == Massacres ==
I have filed a formal complaint against ] on the Personal Attack noticeboard if you want to add any comments . This is the same individual that repeatedly restored the deleted Ebionite Restoration Movement stub. There are also some comments directed at you that are relevant ]. ] 08:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


Please take notice of my comment ]. ] (]) 09:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
== But ==
This is getting a bit silly. Your only argument so far has been "because I say so". Such pages as NOT, BLP, Copyvio etc are (1) policies, and (2) about content. That makes them content policies by definition. There is obvious precedent for the removal of content that fails any of these three policies, and possibly others. That makes them content policies ''de facto'' as well. I think it's fine if people create an essay about which policies they like best, such as ], but that shouldn't be part of the policy pages themselves. (]) 16:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*It hasn't been like that "for years" (specifically, it was added by SlimVirgin when she reworded the page about a year ago), and if this has been agreed upon anywhere please point that out to me. Now I don't particularly see why we should have a dichotomy between "content policies" and "legal policies" (indeed, a policy can be both legal and about content) but the statement that there are exactly three content policies is obviously incorrect. For instance, while I agree that BLP is a corollary, but it's nevertheless a content policy. The concept of "core" policies isn't elaborated upon anywhere, but it is obvious that there are other core policies, such as CIV and IAR. Furthermore, it is incorrect to state that all material that meets NPOV, V and NOR is therefore appropriate for Misplaced Pages, as material regularly gets removed on grounds of copyvio or WP:NOT. As you just admitted, content that fails WP:COPY is inappropriate for Misplaced Pages - precisely for the reason of failing to meet a content policy. So apart from the fact that it's existed for awhile, please explain the reasoning behind this triad. (]) 16:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
**Yes, but by the same token, if a new book got published tomorrow that describes recent additions to an article (which is not unlikely regarding e.g. pop culture hypes), that text is then verifiably sourced and no longer original research. Again, it's not the content that changes, it's the published status. (]) 16:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


To second Imad Marie's comment, the renaming of Passover massacre to Passover Suicide Bombing was the consequence of an extensive discussion of the use of the word massacre in politically sensitive articles, specifically those concerning Israelis and Palestinians. Were you aware of this discussion when you effectively reverted that action? --] (]) 10:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
==Muhammad al-Durrah==
:Extensive discussion, but clearly no support for his unilateral action, which managed to rename a dozen massacres of Israelis, but none of the dozen or so listed massacres of Arabs. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the introduction to ]. I feel the current version is better grammatically and in terms of POV, though it may be less pleasing stylistically. I am notifying you because a little ways back you and I discussed the article. ] 00:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
:I left a message on the talkpage. I wasnt sure if you were planning on leaving one first so sorry if this resulted in an edit conflict. Regards, ] 01:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
::How about now? ] 02:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


== "Open Orthodoxy" & Avi Weiss == == German Nazi/German Camps ==


Hi Jayjg,
Hi Jay: ] has created an new article called "]" - about a new notion (that is "neither fish nor fowl") recently coined by Rabbi ]. After having been asked about it, I attempted to redirect ] to the ] article and post all its content there because on it's own it's a ] in violation of ], but Shirahadasha has reverted my redirect. What do you think should be done, please add your views at ]. ] 09:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Word "German" is nessesarry when we read about Nazi and Nazi Death Camps.
- The political correctness should not prevent the presentation of historic truth. And the truth is that the labor camps, the concentration camps and the centers of annihilation were established by the German authorities, they were erected and maintained out of the German state budget, they were exploited by German companies, and at the end of the war it was the Germans who ordered their destruction. Germans were the perpetrators - unfortunately this knowledge is not universal, especially to the young .- I hope you recognize the seriousness of this.
Thanks <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->--] (]) 17:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


== RfC on RPJ ==


== Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Beth elohim sanctuary exterior.jpg} ==
Hi. I'm advocating a case on behalf of a user who is experiencing numerous problems with ]. I can see from ] that you have interacted with him in the past. If you have a moment, would you be so kind as to head over to the ] and leave any guidance that might help in resolving this dispute. Thanks so much, and have a great day! ]]] 15:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by ]. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an ] linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
== ] ==
:* That there is a ] on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
:* That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an ]; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.


If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our ]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. ] (]) 03:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Jayjg. What warnings have to be issued to ] before issuing a block? I removed one of his edits to a talk page per ], then I had a look through his edit history I discovered he'd never used to account for anything except arguing on talk pages. The arguments are typically about the subject of the article, not the article itself, and include ]. --] 22:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


== Your views please ==


== Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Beth elohim sanctuary interior.jpg} ==
Hi Jay: I have just contacted new ] who has made some big moves in long-standing articles about Jewish topics. Please read what I wrote to him and add your expertise and intervention. Thank you. ] 08:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by ]. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an ] linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
:'''STOP your changes NOW!'''
:* That there is a ] on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
:* That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an ]; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.


If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our ]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. ] (]) 03:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:Dear Chavatshimshon: Welcome, and thank you for contacting me. Regarding your changes @ Please do ''not'' make any more changes or moves to Jewish articles. You are too new to Misplaced Pages. You are not even reverting articles correctly (by creating multiple double reverts). You are also creating duplicate articles of existing articles, which creates even more problems. The articles you are fiddling around with have been worked on for many years. You cannot move and change these articles without discussing it with the nearly one hundred known members of ]; ]; ] and others. '''I am going to ask some experienced editors, who are also admins, to examine your recent changes and to revert your moves until we can get some better idea of what it is that you are doing''', and if it is going to help the Jewish and Judaism articles on Misplaced Pages. Stay tuned. This message is being shared with ]; ]; ]; ] and ]. Thank you. ] 08:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


==]==


== Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Beth elohim temple house exterior.jpg} ==
Jay, could you sprotect this page? Subversive element is still trying to edit, in spite of his ban. Thanks, ] 18:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by ]. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an ] linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
Thanks - seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest. I didnt miss any messages (they will be in the history even if deleted, right?). I think you can unprotect the page whenever you wish and I appreciate your help. I clearly dont understand the underlying politics on this subject but I will continue with trying to improve the accuracy. ] 20:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:* That there is a ] on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
:* That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an ]; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.


If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our ]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. ] (]) 03:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


== Zionism On The Web ==
==]==
Hi, this is a new article we're having problems with. You might be interested in helping out. Check out the history for the state of affairs . Aminz has recently claimed on 3 admin pages that anti-Semitism doesn't exist in the Muslim world, and is keeping out well referenced criticism from prominent critics (though not on the specific issue of anti-Semitism). ] 00:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Dear Jayjg,
== Jean-Thierry Boisseau ==


You were kind enough to add your thoughts here:
It looks like you skipped FoF #2 '''User:Musikfabrik'''. Was this intentional or just a miss? ] 01:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Since then CJCurrie has made a false accusation against me and someone else for being the same person.
== Checkuser ==


He also started systematically removing all links to Zionism On The Web. Despite policy of citing things were you see them, and despite the discussion which suggested Zionism On The Web was perhaps notable enough to have its own page. At Zionism On The Web we also host a collection of primary source material related to Zionism (these are historic, out of copyright and sometimes not available online else where). These links too are gone. I'm absolutely shocked he would do this, specially after discussion which should have convinced him it was not a good idea. The academic boycotts in the UK (which he have the leading archive on) has also been ignored and articles have been significantly trashed by the removal of content (e.g. the statement by AJ6, the movement representing Jewish high school students above to enter university... a significant statement and one we had permission to host).
you should look at ] ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 06:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


What do I do about this? I've feeling very harassed personally and feel that Misplaced Pages has been trashed in support of his personal agenda. (Oh he's stalking me as well, so he'll probably see this).
== ] ==


If this sort of thing is allowed it speaks very purely for Misplaced Pages as a whole, surely someone on Misplaced Pages cares about that?
It is my uderstanding that you do not like me very much; but notwithstanding, I hope you can be of some aid at ] in your capacity as an administrator.--] <sup>]</sup> 10:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 11:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
== Mediation Cabal ==


: I've detailed specific damaging edits to Israel / Jewish topics in my evidence page, the main section for this is at:
Hi Jay: Care to comment? Please see: ]. Thank you. ] 12:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
: Not sure if these should be rolled back before they are (possibly) considered by the ArbCom or if that needs to wait. In either case I am unwilling to get into an edit war over links to my site, most of which were not placed there by me. Two exceptions are documented here ] (]) 05:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


:: Hi Jayjg, just to updated you.. ArbCom doesn't seem to have looked at it. I spoke to one of the members... initially got a reply saying he at least hasn't noticed it / considered it. I asked where I should send it so it gets considered and so far (some days later) I've got no reply. See . Any ideas welcome. ] (]) 04:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
== Jews for Jesus ==


== Cvc42 and Jacurek ==
You recently twice reverted a change without any comment on the talk page. Since this is a highly contended page, please would explain your reasoning on the talk page rather than simply reverting without comment. Thanks. ] 18:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:Oops sorry, only once. Still an explanation would be useful. ] 18:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


What is your evidence that cvc42 is Jacurek's sock? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 13:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
== Yet another Bonny sock ==
*(raising hand) Checkuser evidence is unambiguous here. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
**Ah, that's fine. I just couldn't find a checkuser linking to his userpage or talk.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 17:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
***Most checkuser analyses happen without RFCU; RFCU is only a convenience to keep the checkuser operators from being bothered too often. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


You are incorrect. Just as established, well meaning editors can make mistakes that need to be reverted occasionally, so can problematic editors make useful edits that should not be reverted simply because they were made by such editors. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 09:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
See {{user|Europeanul}} <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 18:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


== Ger Toshav == == advice? ==


I forget the policy - is the kind of joke people are welcome to make on their userpages, or is this the kind of thing that gets reported to AN/I or Jimbo? ] | ] 10:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You've stripped out the cut-and-paste element referencing the Misplaced Pages page on Kach that stated Kach's current use of the Ger Toshav concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/Kach_movement), which rather goes against the grain of it falling out of use with the Fall of the Temple. Any particular reason?
It is indeed a minority viewpoint, but so is Dhimmitude! Oudemos


What to do? I do not have check user privileges and haven't followed racist trolls enough to be sure who he might be. let me know if you have any ideas, ] | ] 11:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
== ] ==


i am grateful that you put the time into cracking these cases. But is this something I can do myself? Do you have any suggestions for me about steps i should take to investigate these things? I don't want always to have to impose on you. But, thanks, ] | ] 23:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, reading your comments on ], I would support an indefinite block on this user. Suggesting hatred towards a religious group is just not on. I think you have done very much the right thing here. --] 00:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


== User:Prince Paul of Yugoslavia ==
::I copy-pasted that to ] as you requested. --] 00:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Requesting unblock and claiming he's not a CTD sock. You put the sock tag with a checkuser link on his page. What's the specific case? There is nothing at CTD suggesting checkuser was used. ] (]) 03:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


OK, so he's definitely a sock, whether a case was opened or not. Just wanted to know. ] (]) 03:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
== Reliable source ==
A conservative Journalist is a reliable source when we have Lewis and others???????? --] 00:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


I declined and cited your comment. It's just easier, when reviewing unblock requests where checkuser was used, to have something to look at or a blocking admin to talk to. Perhaps we should amend the template a bit to reflect this? ] (]) 03:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
He is a popular writer. Not respected within the academic circles. His argument is clearly false; you can accept it but it is false. --] 00:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


What I meant was, if the template said something like "blocked indefinitely after a checkuser done by ADMIN", then you'd know right away who to go to without looking it up. It's possible that a greener admin, seeing no case, might have thought it a mistaken block and lifted it. ] (]) 03:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Now it becomes interesting. A Florida university-press published book is polemic and a conservative journalist is a reliable source. Interesting. Indeed. --] 00:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


== Palestine vs. West Bank and Gaza Strip ==
I am also interested to hear why Rejwan is a polemicist. Apparently she is a research fellow at the Harry Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.--] 00:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Replacing ] with ] may or may not be a good idea, but rather than changing the parent of ], ] and ] from one to the other, as you did , , , it might be better to propose a formal rename using ]. Otherwise, it looks like you are attempting to simply change the name of the category without gaining a consensus for it. Alternatively, the WBGS category could be a subcategory of the pre-existing "Crime in Palestine" category. Since you are an admin, I expect you do already know this, or at least should. I thought I should explain to you why I reverted these edits. Thanks. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
== Wik is back ==


:You didn't get any approval when you unilaterally created those categories, did you? "Palestine" is not a country. It was a territory controlled by the British until 1948, and became Israel and other things after that. That's why I'm reverting your reversions. If you must unilaterally create categories in the future, please create accurate ones. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the recent edit war at ], and I'm pretty sure that {{user|Crooked allele}}, {{user|Enenkian}}, and {{user|200.253.168.2}} are all Wik—the IP appears to be an open proxy. Do you know what should be done about this? <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 02:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


::"Approval" to create a category? I'm not aware of any approval that is required. There are many categories that use "Palestine" as the name of the place, but I'm not terribly interested in discussing it here, nor is this the place to have that debate, anyway. The place would be at a ]. (Just one potential problem that could be discussed in a CFD: What if there was a Palestinian criminal who committed crimes pre-1948 in the territory that is now Israel? Why is he in a subcategory of "Crime in the WB & GS" when he committed the crime in not one of those places?) Even categories that you think are misnamed cannot simply be changed at will by you. Please go through the process of proposing a proper CFD. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
== I request that my block be shortened ==


:::What, because you created a category a few hours before me, now you get the right to control what goes in both your categories and mine? I didn't delete your categories, I just created more accurate ones, and populated them. "Palestine" is not a country. It may well be, one day, but it's not one now. Please stop creating inaccurately named categories. Thanks. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, please shorten my block. This is an extremely anxious time in my life. Yes, I KNOW I am not supposed to editing with IPs while blocked, and I apoligize for doing that. But I was blocked under wrong premises in the first place, please understand this. Please understand that 3 months is simply too long; impossibly long for a dedicated wikipedia volunteer to wait. As an administrator you have the power and responsibility to decide what is ethically right and wrong, so it would be too radical for me to request that you lift my block altogether (even though that is probably what should have been done). But please reset my block back to what it was before: two months. ] 01:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


::::Please, I'm not trying to start a fight with you and I don't feel that I'm being mean or unreasonable. It's obvious you care deeply about the issue, but my quibble is not with whatever you may believe about it. For all you know, I agree with your position. My problem with your behaviour concerns process. When you take categories and ''change'' the parent category for all of them to something similar but different, you are essentially attempting to change the name. See my comments above for potential problems with such a name change; these issues should be discussed in CFD. I could understand adding the new category as a parent ''as well as'' keeping the old one, but to delete the first parent in favour of the second acts essentially as a unilateral name change. For now, I've included both parents. I'd welcome a CFD on the matter, though. PS --hope it's OK to move the conversation here; I'd prefer to keep the discussion all together for future reference or whatever. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
:Please do not ignore my requests, and please reply to my topic as soon as you can. This is rather urgent as far as Misplaced Pages goes. ] 20:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::And I don't want a fight with you, so let's avoid one. I'm not trying to delete your categories, I'm just trying to ensure that they are accurately populated - and one does not need any sort of approval to do that. Your categorization scheme does not really make sense - are the "Palestine" categories also the "parents" of the "Israel" categories? If not, why not? As for discussions, I prefer to have them the normal way, you comment on my page, I comment on yours. If you prefer to replicate my comments on my page, I won't object, but please don't undo my additions to your page as well. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::See, the questions you raise are ''exactly'' the type of thing that should be discussed and sorted out by multiple editors during a CFD. It's not "my" categorization scheme. The "Palestine" could be kept as a geographical descriptor, in which case, yes, Israel could be a subcategory; ''or'' it could be used as a political entity category, encompassing either pre-1948 Palestine or post-1967 WB&GS, or both. This is not an either/or black and white accurate—not accurate issue, so I would appreciate keeping both sets of parents for now if you are not going to formally go through the process of nominating these for discussion, as I will at a later time. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Well, as you might have noted, I didn't delete your pre-1948 "Palestine" categories, nor did I delete it as a parent when sub-categories included pre-1948 events. But if you start opening up categories to things other than existing countries, then you've opened up a can of worms. Do we have "Yugoslavia" categories, and include all Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian etc. categories in them? How about Holy Roman Empire categories? What about a ] category, and include the items you have listed in ]? After all, it's just a geographic region. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Perfect argument for a CFD. I recognize you didn't destroy the category as you might have, but you ''did'' remove "Palestinian" categories as subcategories of it even though there are some pre-1948 Palestinians in the categories. As I said, it's not "my" categorization scheme, but my original intent was to have the "Palestine" signify a geographical area, not the current WB/GS. If you think that's impractical, that's what CFDs are for. So yes, Israel should in theory be a subcategory, but the sole reason I did not add it was because I feared the outrage and wrath that would pour upon me from editors that get very touchy about these types of things without stopping and asking if there is some sort of underlying rationale. Sometimes it just doesn't hurt to ''ask'' and not assume that someone else (1) has malicious intent or (2) doesn't know what he is talking about. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I didn't assume you had malicious intent, I just thought you had made an error/errors. Let's use another example. Today, as you noticed, I created the category ]. Now, let's say instead I had created the category ]. Do you think that people might have strongly considered that to be an error? And, perhaps, might have re-categorized all relevant articles to ]? As for your argument that the category was intended to signify a geographical area, can you provide examples of similar categories, used in the same way, that refer to a geographical area? ]<sup>]</sup> 05:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I mentioned that I'm not terribly interested in this debate in this forum, but... I don't really think your Constantinople is apposite. There are currently no categories that I can find that use "Constantinople". However, there are many that use "Palestine", and the temporal and/or geographical scope of these categories is not always clear. (See, e.g., ], ].) Usually "Palestinian territories" is used when referring to WB+GS and "Palestine" when the geographical area is referred to ], but this general principle is inconsistent and not always clear. Some categories seem to use "Palestine" as a synonym for what you would call WB+GS. It's inconsistent, which is why some CFD to clean it all up could help, rather than people unilaterally assuming they know what it should be. For similar types of categories, see the quite large ], where you'll find plenty of examples. ] and ] and their subcategories readily spring to mind. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::And since we are disagreeing about the categories and their scope, can you ''please'' leave both parents on the "Palestinians" categories? Why is this too much to ask? ] <sup>]</sup> 05:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I've ] the 3 categories for discussion and proposed a renaming and structuring system. I trust we can at least let the categories rest with both sets of parents until it is closed. I still believe with issues like this where there are disagreements between two editors it's best to hear what others think in an attempt to gain some degree of consensus. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


== CfD nomination of ] ==
::Stop ignoring me, Jayjg. My request is urgent and I require your attention, whether I am blocked or not this is irrelevant, as I am not editing at all. Please, I repeat, reply here. I ask you with with straightforwardness and dignity. ] 21:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
In fact, you continue to edit Misplaced Pages: . If anything, I should lengthen your block. However, if you stop editing ''right now'', and stay away for the rest of the three months, I won't do so. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


I have nominated {{lc|Terrorism deaths in the West Bank}} for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ]. Thank you. ] 17:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I come to you declaring that a three-month block is without justice. Why will you not hear me out? ] 22:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
You edit-warred and avoided blocks for weeks until you were finally blocked, and the pages you edited protected. As soon as the pages were unprotected, you evaded your blocks again and started edit-warring again. The only "injustice" I see is that you have not yet been permanently blocked; is that what you are looking for? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


== Hoping you have an opinion ==
::::Please, Jayjg, stop labelling my IPs as sockpuppets; I am NOT sockpuppeting! I have no other way to contact you, which is why I must communicate with you this way. How will you allow me to voice my concerns, that a 3-month block is unfair and counter-productive? I mean all this in the most straightforward way possible: I do not believe I am under a fairly assigned block, and I need to be able to communicate to you why. I ask you, please listen to me. Will you? ] 22:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Make your case here. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


] suggested I drop you a note about . Am I crazy, or is this a subtle acceptance of racist POV? ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 22:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
:The simply reason that the block is unfair is two-fold. One reason is because getting into a 3RR battle is not enough to block someone for more than a couple of days (especially when it was one person against 5). The particular 3RR baattle i was in was primarily with PinchasC, tho, who reverted my edits without sufficient comment. I explained why I made an edit in the talk page, and told him point by point why it was an improvement. PinchasC on the other hand didn't reply on the talk page at all: he kept reverting it and the only note he added was "this is more pov", no further reasons as to why. When I told him his actions with idiotic, he called it a "personal attack" and had the audacity to mark it as such. And thus I was blocked. And there is also the matter of the block being 3 months long: it's simply too long, especially when I get blocked for NO GOOD REASON worth being blocked 3 months. So there's my basic problems. ] 22:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:Hey, OM, don't know if we've met, but I just read your note. Can you tell me what specifically he said on his blog? I'm inclined to agree with you, but would like specifics first. (You can email me, if you prefer.) Thanks. ] 23:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
:You left out all the sockpuppeting and reverting as User:Luzadi3, User:Luzadi7, User:Luzadii, User:Mraleph, User:Zorkael, User:Zorkmin, User:Zorkmon and dozens of IPs, along with the violations of ]. Your initial block was 24 hours, then 48 hours. You kept sockpuppeting, and the second you would return from a block you would revert war again, and then sockpuppet until the pages in question were locked. It didn't start at three months. See . ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


== Request for unblock: ] ==
::Not to be rude, but I don't think that's how blocks work at WP. I had already served my time for past breaches at WP and dedicated myself to serious editing after coming out of a lengthy month-long block. All the revert wars I've gotten into have been rooted in the fact that people are apathetic, and they would rather just revert something than whole-heartedly go over it in the talk page, made more apalling to me knowing that I constantly tried to set up a scenario to do just that. I definitely consider reverting edits and not adequetly making it clear why, to be POV pushing. I've never made an edit to an article that I didn't wish to adhere to Misplaced Pages's standards of quality. And then I had to be thrown into a rediculous revert war where my character was essentially assassinated by multiple bigots at one time. The people who reverted me never responded to any messages (probably because they had no factual evidence for why the edit was invalid, they just didn't like the edit); they just assumed I was wrong! And why'd you revert my message to User: Noahlaws. It's clear that his experience at Misplaced Pages is not a pleasant one, I wasn't editing any articles, I wanted to comfort him, regardless of whether or not he shares my beliefs. The administrators are WP are never held accountable for their indifference here, not that I've seen. They've always been very ban-happy, but extremely reluctant to listen to anything I have to say. I can honestly, without a flinch, tell you that most administrators here really care more about policy than doing the right thing and common sense, speaking in terms of how they interact with non-admins. And to you, the fact that I'm under a block seems to override any premise of whether or not I should be under the block, and that's simpleminded. I'm also one of the only people in project: Messianic Judaism. None of the people that ever reverted it are part of project: MJ. Thus, it is only reasonable to assume that as a dedicated part of a certain project, I have a better intrinsic understanding of what is and is not true about that topic (and I do cite references, regularly). I'm not saying lift the block, but why in the world is it 3 months? The block is too long, it needs to be shortened, it's cutting a person off from a big wikiproject that only has four whole members. ] 00:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm bringing this request for unblock to your attention, as you have indicated in your block notice that there is a RTV issue involved, and the user has addressed comments directly to you. Unless I hear from you otherwise, I will leave this request in your capable hands, and simply note on the user's talk page that you have been informed of his request. Thanks, ] (]) 06:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
He is back . <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 01:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:Jayjg, based on my own review of this, I have serious doubts that Tom Ketchum is one in the same with the banned user. Please see ] for my comments. Would you either (a) consent to him being unblocked or (b) point out any errors in my analysis or further reason to believe that he is, in fact, the banned user? Thanks. --] (]) 23:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
:Indeed he is. Zorkfan, I said you could speak your piece here, not start editing the encyclopedia again. Each time you have been blocked, you have insisted that you are exempt from Misplaced Pages's rules, and should not be blocked. You continue to do so today. Show you have changed your attitude by not editing Misplaced Pages for the period of your ban. If you do, you will be allowed to return. If not, I will extend the ban, and eventually make it permanent. The choice is yours. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


::Jayjg, I can't believe you set the block forward to four months! Please set it back to three. I didn't do anything; I continue to faithfully observe your prohibition against editing any articles. This of course does not extend into private converstations in user's talk pages, as I am allowed to make private messages as long as it is productive to articles and not spam. If not for my sake then for G-d's, set it back to three, this is just being sadistic. ] 01:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
No, you are a blocked editor, which means you cannot edit articles, talk pages, category talk pages, user talk pages, or anything else. Next time you edit ''anything at all'' on Misplaced Pages, including my Talk: page, it will be reset to 6 months. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


== UNRWA ==
:::Don't you think you're being too harsh? I have friends on wikipedia that I have no other way of communicating with. Why be inflexible? I can't harm anything if I'm not editing articles, can I? You're going to keep me away from talking to some of my best friends and closest associates for months? Shouldn't wikipedia blocks exist to teach rather than hurt? This is not to mention, once again, I should never have been blocked in the first place! You instantly took a block from 48 hours to 2 months. That was such an injustice, such inconsideration, with so few checks and balances, that it cannot reasonably be called fair. Please consider all of things in advance of potentially ruining my life. ] 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I am serious; edit one more time, and I extend it to 6 months. Take this very, very, very seriously. One more edit, ''anywhere'', '''including my Talk: page''', and it will be 6 months. Do '''not''' respond to this post. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Dear Jayg,
Jayjg, would you consider reducing the block to 2 months, letting him editing '''only at his own talkpage''' at ], and the first time he offends bouncing it back to 6 months? --]<sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 02:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:I would consider reducing it to 3 months, if he promises to edit only Talk:Zorkfan; but the first time he offended , I would make it a permanent block. Zorkfan, do you agree to these conditions? If so, post your agreement '''as Zorkfan''' on Talk:Zorkfan. Nowhere else, not here, or any other Talk: page. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


I noticed you reverted some changes made on the page for UNRWA. These changes were legitimate, sourced, and were aimed at restoring a balance in the article. Could you please let me know the reasons for your revert?
== ] Legal threats ==
Thanks you,
Trouvaille <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Request for notification ==
. I'm fed up with him. ] 12:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


Jayjg, I am sure you are aware of the ] about Palestine-Israel articles that resulted in the enactment of broad editing restrictions. The case established a formal procedure under which editors must be first made aware of the case, as a prerequisite to possible follow-on warnings and sanctions. I have recently been involved in an edit dispute with ], who is also an administrator, at ]. This editor recently posted the required notification on the pages of a couple of new editors, as well as on my own page (despite the fact that I have already been notified of its existence months ago). For some reason, this editor chose not to post a similar notice on the pages of the editors who share his POV in that dispute – ], ], and ]. I was wondering if you, as an administrator, might place that notice on their pages as well, so we do not have such a one-sided application, which appears to some as intimidation. ] (]) 03:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
== User:Chabad ==


:Thank you. I have also made a similar note directly to ChrisO on the article's Talk page, making sure he (and everyone else) understands that as a heavily involved administrator he may not use any of his admin tools on the article or the participants in the dispute. Your point re: Tit-for-tat is taken. I won't press that issue. ] (]) 04:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jay: I came across the page of ] and I see that he has not made any edits since December 2004! almost two years! Is there any rule about user pages being voided if they have not been used for such a long time?, especially with such a "catchy" name, I also suspect it may have been a sockpuppet of an editor who became more active later, but I have no way of being sure. Best wishes and ''Shabbat Shalom''! ] 13:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


::Jay, please ] in future. I've already explained on the article talk page why I notified those three new users of the arbitration restrictions. See ]. -- ] (]) 23:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
==]==
I've already put a warning on his Talk page, and was just about to rollback all of his vote stacking spam. ]|] 22:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


== Thank you for the clarification ==
I've added a comment on the subject to the CfD. ]|] 22:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


You said that an involved administrator cannot personally sanction someone for disagreeing with him. I did read that in the notice, though to my way of thinking, logging my name at ] is a form of sanction in itself. Furthermore, at he characterises me and others and asks for uninvolved admins. Admin Moreschi has answered the call. ] (]) 13:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
== Checkuser page of ] ==


Is there some way I can have that logging reviewed? He refers to me (and Julia1987) "single-purpose account editing," claims we are both promoting personal views, and indulging in "original research". Is there some Misplaced Pages measure that permits review of such a log? ] (]) 03:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
*Hey, I'm waiting about for 2 months for checking user of ] Can you please take a look? Here the link , Thanks {{User|Zaparojdik}} 15:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


==Review Ebionites Article== == Amoruso ==
Loremaster and I would appreciate it if you would look over the ] article and provide suggestions to get it ready for nomination as a featured article. We just finished incorporating the suggestions of Slrubenstein from peer review. ] 16:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


You may be interested in the analysis I posted to his ] page. ] 15:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
:Jay, do you think you will have time to give us your thoughts on the article? James Tabor informed me that he will drop by to comment and share his latest thinking about the Ebionites. He is a major author on this subject, so it should be interesting. Also, I could use your advice on coming up with an appropriate image for the article. ] 14:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


== Al-Durrah article, FYI ==
== Please help me improve this contribution to ] BLP. ==


I have used your name and a diff here . The use of the word "reported" in relation to the death of Mohammed al-Durrah is being discussed as unacceptably POV, conspiracy -theory and may be a bannable/blockable offense at this point or in the near future.] (]) 20:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You've reverted this with the comment "m (Doesn't appear to be any particular "Controversy" about this, aside from it appearing on the website on an unreliable source. Please remember WP:BLP)"


== Harper's ==
I can't see anything wrong with it - the comments were widely reported (and sometimes condemned) within Israel and further afield. I chose to highlight the jewsagainsttheoccupation link because it was succint and almost devoid of other verbiage that could have been objectionable.


Hi, Jay. I presume you've seen the July Harper's? --]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's what I added: <blockquote>In 2003 Benjamin Netanyahu said (speech to the Herzliya Conference on security issues) : ''"if there is a demographic problem, and there is, it is with the Israeli Arabs who will remain Israeli citizens."'' Arab-Israeli Knesset member Azmi Bishara commented, ''"the scandal lies in the fact that this is the only country that speaks of millions of people, who are natives not immigrants, as a demographic problem ... Describing the original residents of this land as a demographic problem would be considered racism in any normal, or even abnormal, country."''</blockquote>


== Happy post-Shavuot ==
Here's what Ha'aretz said on the same topic - should I post this instead? <blockquote>Aluf Benn and Gideon Alon - Haaretz (18 December 2003)


Jayjg, I think it is now time for you to comment on {http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=218841835&oldid=218834128 this] thread - you should look at some of the preceeding talk but I do not think you need to read the entire section. ] | ] 13:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Israel's growing demographic problem is not because of Palestinians, but of Israeli Arabs, Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said yesterday.


== Mediation Conduct ==
Speaking at the Herzliya Conference on security, Netanyahu said Israel had already freed itself from control of almost all Palestinian Arabs. He said he could not foresee a future in which "any sane Israeli" could try to make Palestinians either Israeli citizens or "enslaved subjects." The Palestinians would under all circumstances rule themselves and administer their own affairs, he said.


I'm concerned by the lack of good faith and ongoing personal attacks between you and csloat . This mediation has gone far and it would be a pity to spoil it at the last hurdle. I ask you just to think about your responses and to not react so defensively. I understand this is a delicate topic so lets just take some extra care in what we say. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 22:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
"If there is a demographic problem, and there is, it is with the Israeli Arabs who will remain Israeli citizens," he said. The Declaration of Independence said Israel should be a Jewish and democratic state, but to ensure the Jewish character was not engulfed by demography, it was necessary to ensure a Jewish majority, he said.
== London Times ==


Thanks for catching that. I must have been asleep at the wheel. --] 00:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
If Israel's Arabs become well integrated and reach 35-40 percent of the population, there will no longer be a Jewish state but a bi-national one, he said. If Arabs remain at 20 percent but relations are tense and violent, this will also harm the state's democratic fabric. "Therefore a policy is needed that will balance the two." </blockquote>


== Could you please help? == == Hi Jayjg ==
Jayjg, could you please take a look at this difficult situation? It would be much appreciated.


Please have a look at this. Peace, ] (]) 11:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It relates to {{User|Tgubler}}. This person was involved in a legal dispute with an organization related to ], having been found stealing computer data as per his own admission, and subsequently involved in a legal imbroglio. He signed an affidavit that was filed with the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, in which he admits to stealing computer data "with the purpose of harassing and harming Prem Rawat and his students". He later attempted to recant his testimony, by stating that he signed the affidavit under duress, but the court negated his request on the basis of a "credibility handicap". <small>(State Reporting Bureau - Supreme Court of Queensland, Order 9538 01/03/2004 p.5-7 "The affidavit also makes it plain that the interaction between those present on this occasion was not stressful and that no illegitimate pressure was brought to bear. Gubler suffers from the credibility handicap of having sworn one thing in one occasion and another on a later occasion after having spoken to a party to the proceedings about his evidence" J. Muir.)</small> You can read his affidavit .
:Thank you for warning me.
:I have given my mind on the talk page.
:] (]) 09:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


== Your block on a newbie ==
Given what I perceive as a very obvious COI, and given the precarious situation he may find himself when editing ] and related articles, I have advised him to contribute to the talk page and have other editors assess his contributions on its merits.


Your block on ] was manifestly excessive I think (a very bad block). I agree the first mainspace edit had major civility issues, but this doesn't mean we block newbies, that too without informing him or even counselling him, and worse, reverting an edit on the same page - that wasn't vandalism was it? It seems to be a strong assumption of bad faith. That too, a block for incivility directed at yourself. Is this a known sockmaster - if so, why is it not noted in the block logs? ] (]) 14:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
He believes that he does not have such COI, despite being advised that he may. Note that I have welcomed him and attempted to explain why he should be cautious. See ]
*Some of us recognize sockpuppets immediately. Some of us also don't like to encourage their behavior by rewarding it with public recognition; it's not worth the keystrokes. Counseling someone to stop being yet another sockpuppet is pretty pointless. This one is obviously JPMason/JackofTradeA/JJargons. And what made you think the obnoxious comment was directed at Jayjg? He hasn't edited that article in months, and was not involved in the recent edit war. Kinda ironic that you claim an assumption of bad faith while making an assumption of bad faith. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
::The incivility directed at Jayjg that Ncmvocalist refers to was , done by a different account but obviously the same person.
::For the record, I don't have a major problem with the block. However, I'm a bit incredulous that you are using ] to make a case that a block summary of "sock of banned user JPMason" would somehow be less desirable than . heh... :D --] (]) 21:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::But that comment was made ''after'' I blocked him. How could I block him for incivility directed towards me ''after'' the block? ]<sup>]</sup> 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
::::::Ah, so you did. I dunno, I guess I didn't look that closely. In my defense, I'd reiterate that I never had a big problem with the block even ''before'' it was revealed to be a sock (I don't think that someone whose first edit to Misplaced Pages is a rant about a Jewish conspiracy is likely to reform into a productive editor, and that's exercising my maximum capacity to AGF ;D ). My main beef is that the block summary should have indicated it was a banned user, so that nobody had any reason to question it. --] (]) 01:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
:::(@ jpgordon) These are outright criticisms for the record. The matter is not whether an admin recognizes a sockpuppet immediately, or after a decade - the matter is that an appropriate block summary should be noted in the log. Any reasonable person is going to check this to find the reasoning for the block (and they are entitled to review blocks in this manner or any other admin action performed for whatever reason, just as a user's edits may be reviewed) - the purpose of the block summary/log is to avoid having to go to some gypsy's crystal ball that attempts to read into your minds. It's not at all impressive (and seems to be in bad taste) that you endorse this attitude of "I'm exempt from following standard widely-accepted procedure because I think it's not worth the keystrokes or in some demented way, it's publically recognizing problematic users and giving them attention that in my opinion, they do not deserve". Your role as administrator (even checkuser or arbitrator) is not to determine this, nor is it to contravene standard policy/procedure, and you are (or should be) well aware of that by now. ] (]) 14:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
::::Mcmvocalist, can you explain what you meant when you said "a block for incivility directed at yourself"? Which incivility directed at myself were you referring to? Also, regarding reverting the edits of banned editors, please review ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::Jaysweet explained it (above) - I didn't look closely at the timing either. The point of this was: there'd be absolutely no cause for concern, nor would it seem inappropriate, if the block summary or log (clearly) stated "sockpuppet of banned user and incivil 'angry jews' comment" or something to that effect. ] (]) 05:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


== ArbCom enforcement ==
As I am in a conflict of interest myself in this matter, my advise to him may not be accepted. I would appreciate it if you, as a neutral person, can take a look and offer any help to this user in a way that may be better received.


Many thanks. ] <small>]</small> 22:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your support. ] ] 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
:The incident took place three years ago and his actions then were based on his dislike of Prem Rawat. That has not changed. I do not see why Tgubler now has a conflict of interest. ] 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


== Bigger and brighter is not what you want, I don't think ==
::His dislike of Prem Rawat is noted, but that is not what the issue is about. A person that by his own admission entered into a conspiracy to steal data with the intention to harm Prem Rawat and his students, ''may'' have a strong inclination to use WP as a plattform to "get even" for the obviously embarrassing situation he found himself in through his actions. He can always contribute to related articles by means of the talk page, so if his intentions are sound, there will be no problem in accepting his suggestions for improving these articles. As a person that is advising Tgubler in private on how to edit Misplaced Pages, and that has in the past defended and supported the views of detractors such as Tgubler, and and as long-standing contributor to this project, you should be putting Misplaced Pages ahead of your own POV rather than exacerbate the difficult situation user Tgubler finds himself by encouraging him to disregard his very obvious COI. ] <small>]</small> 21:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Jossi, first you write that he ''may'' try to get even. I believe that your speculation in this respect is untrue. And later you write that he has a "very obvious COI". In other words, you contradict yourself and hence your statement is unconvincing. I care about Misplaced Pages and that is why I think that your effort to limit the edits of a potentially good editor who has access to a lot of sources (more than anybody else in Misplaced Pages, I believe) are not constructive. ] 21:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Jossi, it has not exactly been my experience that you recognize sound intentions on the talk page due to your strong POV on the subject. You try to dismiss every criticism as coming from a biased source. I believe that you try to be fair and objective (like everybody else involved), but I do not think you have succeeded in this. ] 21:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


Hey, sorry to butt in, I was glancing at the history of your user talk page for a totally unrelated reason, and I happened to spot . I very much sympathize! :D However, the weird thing is that I was like, "What big yellow box?", even though I had just clicked on your talk page 30 seconds earlier. I think the yellow is just so bright and obtrusive (and painful to look at! It actually hurts my eyes if I look at it for more than a few seconds) that my brain's natural spam filter screened it from my senses. Or something, that's just a theory :D heh...
:::: Andries: I care deeply about this project; I have welcomed Tgubler and others that have opposing views to me; I have been extremely careful in my comments to Tgubler and I have welcomed his involvement in these articles; I have suggested ways to discuss the concerns he raised so that these can be addressed; I have explained to him that he ''may'' have an ax to grind and that he should be cautious; I have asked for third-party opinions to assure myself that I am not crossing any lines I should not. My success would be measured by my actions and the composure I have demonstrated. As for your assessment of tgubler having the potential to be "a good editor", he can demonstrate that by engaging in discussions and seeking consensus in talk. Regarding your assessment of Tgubler having access to "a lot of sources", I disagree, as these sources are available to anyone with access to newspaper archives and a good library as we have demonstrate it in the meticulous sourcing of these articles. ] <small>]</small> 22:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


I dunno, just a comment :) --] (]) 16:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
==Desmond Tutu==
I reverted your last edit to ]. Please explain why that's being given undue weight. I also do not understand how that's unsourced... ] 22:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:Now I see, thanks, ] 01:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


* Yeah, and one gets tempted to go right past it as a result. ] (]) 18:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
== Messianics again ==


== joining the ranks of the admins ==
Hi Jay: The ] editors have been busy lately, you may want to know the following. Thanks. ] 19:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*] (), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make ''anything'' he does as automatically ]?), has added a number of features to ]. A month ago he evidently plagiarized the ] and created ] based on it. He also created ] also obviously plagiarizing the ] page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this.
::Thanks for the publicity IZAK. Jay is familiar with who I am. Thanks for the publicity anyways. I haven't updated my userpage in ages; before I was even Messianic. But I really can't address this right now. It's almost time for maariv, and for me to go to bed. I'll be on later if you or Jay would like to interview me to discover my "POV". Shalom. ] 04:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:::When you daven ma'ariv who do you pray to? "''Hevel Varik''"? ]
*] () created a new article (yet again) about "Rabbi" ] (did this person even exist or this a hoax?), as well as about ] (is this person notable or is this a vanity page?)
*Hi Jayjg. You seem to be particularly concerned about the 'original research' aspects of the "All Jewish organizations..." phrase in ]. I've added a detailed look at the references onthe talk page. You might be surprised to discover that "All Jewish organizations consider..." is unsourced, while "Virtually all Jewish organizations consider..." is well sourced. Can I urge you not to look on this as a "Jews versus Christians" debate but actually a debate about whether the JFJ article should follow the NPOV policy. ] 22:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 01:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)]]
::I can vouch for the validity of all these people in the project. Inigmatus is the leader and founder of Project: Messianic Judaism. Whether or not he "plagiarized" anything is pretty much irrelevant; the Messianic Judaism template is now sufficiently and completely different from anything I could have been based off of, and there is no reason to remove it, so let it go. The thing that says "a mystery user with a point to be made" is irrelevant; all of his edits are NPOV. Rabbi Isaac Lichtenstein is a real person; multiple cross-referencing citations do not lie, and look him up on a major biography site and you will find him. Maybe you should at least check these things before making accusations ] 01:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:::Hi anonymous anon: Why don't you register and use the four ]s <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> that may give you and your comments some credibility. ] 03:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


== An ArbCom case you might be interested in ==
::::P.S. When Messianic Jews daven, they pray only to the G-d of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaa'kov. They do not pray to any man or woman of this earth, whether he the man next door or the Mashiach (Yeshua), for this is idolotry. ] 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


I have commented on one of your recent actions . You may wish to make a statement of your own. ] (]) 02:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
==Israel lead paragraph==


== You got noticed ==
Greetings. If you get a chance, please have a look at my lead rewrite of ] (the prior version read like a travel/ranking guide and almost entirely avoided touching on history). I tried to be understated, but have already met with an unspecified, blind reversion. Thanks. All the best, ] 21:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:Please consider addressing the changes rather than blindly reverting. You've removed unrelated fixes. <s>I expect better from you.</s> Thanks. ] 00:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


Just an FYI, you got a mention in the July 2008 issue of ] with respect to the CAMERA lobbying effort:
== Will you attempt to renew your ArbCom seat or not? ==
<blockquote>
Jayjg is a key Misplaced Pages editor. He has edited Israel-related articles and taken a lot of heat for it. Jay is Jewish, most likely an attorney, and writes very well. Learn from the way he does things, but do not let him know about this groups, as it will place him in a bind: he is very loyal to Misplaced Pages and once even served a few years in the Misplaced Pages supreme court.</blockquote>
:D -- ] (]) 06:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


== Rfa thanks ==
There are only about 4 days left for you to decide whether or not to renew your ArbCom seat - have you decided yet? If so, will you please make your decision public? ]<font color="green">]</font>] 23:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*Sure are cutting it close...lol! Take your time, let your supporters sweat it out. --]''']'''] 19:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


{{User:Lenticel/Rfa}}
== reconsider ban of threeafterthree ==


== Jew GA Sweeps Review: On Hold ==
I made a comment on ANI (see ]), but maybe it was late so you didn't see it. I have no opinion about the actions of this editor, whether they were anti-Semitic or not. I didn't actually look at them. But he asked me to look at his case, and I see that he was blocked without being given a fair warning or attempt at discourse. I would therefore like to shorten or waive the remainder of his ban, if you didn't object. -] <sup>] </sup> 01:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


As part of the ], we're doing ] to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the ] and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed ] and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a ]. In reviewing the article, I have found there are multiple issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using ). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --] (]) 07:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
:He's been edit-warring over this for months, was blocked several times in the past week over it, and used sockpuppeting to get around his blocks. And no one needs special warnings to avoid the other nasty stuff he was doing. I would strongly object to any shortening of the block. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 10:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:I have also reviewed ] and have raised some issues on the talk page that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. I would appreciate any assistance you can provide in addressing the issues raised. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page. Happy editing! --] (]) 08:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


== You may have missed this ==
::OK, I will pursue the matter no further. -] <sup>] </sup> 23:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Could I ask for your response here ? ] (]) 18:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
==Hello I am ] and have been indef blocked by an admin==


To make a long story short


== Request for mediation not accepted ==
The admin who has a personal grudge against me, had made up some very nice stories about me and has continuously blocked for me 6 months. And a few months ago one of blocks ended and I made a grand total of 0 edits, but then a new char whos ip was not possbile to check appeared started makeing similar edits to mine so he was accussed of beeing a sockpuppet and I got blocked again. Now this can not be a sock puppet since I Superdeng did not do any edits and even if we were the same person then that dosent matter since superdeng was makeing zero edits the new account was created one week after my block was lifted. Bahh this is not a short story it is long. Anyway all I want is a fair trial on the arb com board where I have a chans of defending myself and not where everyone of the imaginasions of the admin is percieved as fact.


{| class="messagebox" style="width:90%"
So what ever policy i violated has been served in full after 6 months.
|-

|]
== Dispute over Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism ==
|A ] to which you were are a party was ] and has been delisted.<br>You can find more information on the case subpage, ].</center><br>

::''For the Mediation Committee,'' <span style="font-family:Verdana;">]]</span> 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jay: I am having a difference of opinion with ] who insists that ] be a sub-category of ]. I have tried to edit the page , and have even tried a compromise of having it be part of ] instead which would be perfect for it, but each time he reverts me, claiming "We make that call, not you. We're not part of "normative" Christianity either." and this:" "We" is Messianics. either both Judaism and Christain categories, or none go here. We make the call, because Messianics know best what is Messianic." , and he adds on ]: "Either Christian and Judaism categories go here, or they both don't. Not one or the other. Messianics do not ascribe to Chrisitanity, and Judaism is an unrelated category. I didn't put either category in, so I request both be removed, but if one is to be listed, then I request both Christianity and Judaism be listed. "We" Messianics have the right to inform the readers who "we" are affiliated with. ] 04:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" What do you think should be done? Thanks. ] 14:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

:The only case for why mainline Judaism would be unrelated is because the majority of its adherants reject MJ. Messianic Judaism's theology is, obviously, borderline verbatum mainline Judaism's theology for most cases, which is enough by its own right to include Judasim. I could just as easily make a case for why Karaism is of no connection with mainline Judaism. ] 01:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

==Source check==
I don't know these sources - can you Best, ] (]) 18:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:Wasn't sure if I was missing something ... but I just noticed something even more interesting ... scan down the contribs Same thing everywhere - I don't know a lot of those sources. ] (]) 22:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

== Messianic "Halakha" etc? ==

Hi Jay: On 25 October 2006 , ] moved ] to ] with the lame excuse "moved Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha: As discussed in prior archives, with the creation of the new Messianic Judaism template, this page can now be targeted for clean up: This entire page is better split into two articles" thus opening up a whole new can of worms. This fits into this new pattern of vigorous pro-Messianic Judaism POV edits, moves, categories, projects and articles, basically without warning and ignoring the consensus that has been maintained for some time. '''The main problem is that the over-all thrust of the recent pro-Messianic Judaism activity is to mimic and and get as close as possible to any and all Judaism, particularly Orthodox Judaism, articles and efforts, so that anyone looking at the one will arrive at the other by sheer proximity and similarity'''. And I repeat this again, because of its relevance: *] (), self-described as "A mystery user with a point to be made" (wouldn't that make ''anything'' he does as automatically ]?), has added a number of features to ]. A month ago he evidently plagiarized the ] and created ] based on it. He also created ] also obviously plagiarizing the ] page. This may mislead unsuspecting readers and there ought to be some warning or guidance about this. I would suggest that a new template be develpoed that would be placed on Messianic Judaism pages with a "'''Note: This article deals with ]. It does not represent normative ] and does not have any connection with, or official recognition from, any ].'''" ] 03:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:Messianic Jews actively call it halakha, and you're the only one in over a month to protest deeming it as such, and it was agreed upon by concensus as a matter of fact. I don't know what you mean by "many Christian elements", as MJ halakha is generally 90% Talmudic. Just because you don't like Messianic Judaism, gives you no free license to make it appear as falsely Protestant as possible on Misplaced Pages, sorry. No, no, and no. As a matter of fact, the articles as they are currently written are from the dying extreme protestant wing of Messianic Judaism, not the center (I got blocked for representing MJ's center with my edits), with of course no representation given to the emerging orthodox wing. Not that you'd frikin KNOW these things, as you've probably never spent a day of your life researching the Jewish movement you're probably so adamantly opposed to. Whether or not you LIKE Messianic Judaism is of no issue, whatsoever. Messianic Jews have particular beliefs that may make you uncomfortable. Your warning labels are obviously POV; people recognize it's obviously about MJ cause it has a big, fat MJ template, not the standard Jewish template. Conclusion: no. ] 04:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::Indeed anonymous: This must surely be the "joke of the month" your ridiculous and absurd claim that "MJ halakha is 90% Talmudic" - sure, and there are mice on the moon that eat the cheese that makes the moon shrink each month... The ''only'' thing you need to get right is that there is ''no'' connection between MJ and OJ (Orthodox Judaism) no matter how hard you try to spin it, and what's with the anonymity by way? ] 05:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

=== Welcome the NotJudaism template ===

Hi: In view of the above, please see the new {{tl|NotJudaism}} template:

<div style="padding:0em;border:1px solid black">
:'''Note''': The subject of this article or section does '''not''' represent normative ''']''' and does '''not''' have any connection with, or official recognition from, any ''']'''.
</div>

Feel free to use it where applicable. Thanks. ] 05:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

==My RfA==
{|cellspacing="8" cellpadding="0" style="width:80%; clear:both; text-align:center; margin:0.5em auto; background-color:#ccc; border:2px solid #000;"
|]
|'''Oh, the humanity!'''
I had my doubts about ], but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
|} |}
<div style="text-align:center; font-size:smaller;">This message delivered by ], an automated bot account ] by the ] to perform case management.<br>If you have questions about this bot, please ].</div>


==]== == Stormfront ==
I'm interested in knowing why one major edit (as per discussions on Talk) and two reversions merit a block of unregistered users, but not, for instance, the many, many more edit-warring reversions and edits by registered users. If the article is going to be protected, it should be fully so, rather than aimed simply at those who prefer to edit without an account. Thanks for your attention, and please respond to this note on ], if you don't mind, especially since it would be nice if you'd explain your action there, too. Thank you! ] 02:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
:Many different IP editors have been edit-warring and revert-warring on the page for weeks, adding further instability to an already unstable article. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

== Take a look at this ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Citizenship_and_Entry_into_Israel_Law&diff=91069002&oldid=90963419

Jay,

I know some people think of you as "pro israel". I know you think of yourself as fair and pro-NPOV.
The problem is that if you strive for accuracy you need to seeq out the real facts - even those facts that are not easy to find on the net.
The pother problem (in the above article and in the apartheid article ) is explained in this:

].

So I suggest you ignore the critics and indeed work on making Misplaced Pages NPOV.
It is impossible that you will make an edit in the name of "accuracy" and yet leave the article body starting with the words "critics argue" and the Lead will be <b>without</b> the most important fact about that law. ] 03:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

== Bonaparte ==

Thanks! Were there any others? <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

== new sockppupet ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hafrada&diff=prev&oldid=91197177 {{unsigned|Zeq|18:38, 30 November 2006}}

== Gnetwerker ==

{{user|Gnetwerker}} is requesting unblock, after you blocked him/her for using sockpuppets (block reason: ''"Has been told again and again not to sockpuppet"''). I'm going to hazzard a guess it was a CU finding, hence you should probably deal with it. '''] <sup>]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</sup>''' 06:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
:Do you have any objections to me listing a CU case, to quell this users' complaints that you are fabricating evidence (which I find hard to believe), given he/she seems to think you "have it in" for him/her? '''] <sup>]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</sup>''' 02:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
::. '''] <sup>]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</sup>''' 07:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Did you mean to do this? ==

the edit summary doesn't make much sense with the edit. ] 21:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

== Wondering why you blocked me ==

Could you please tell me why you blocked me? I have only done minor proofreading-type corrections to articles (unless my username has been hijacked or something). thanks
oh, I am Tyranny Sue {{unsigned|Tyranny Sue|23:33, 1 December 2006}}
:I am unaware of blocking you; can you please give me the exact message you get? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

== please comment ==

here: ] | ] 16:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

== Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist ==

Hi Jayjg. I noticed that last week you DrL, an involved party in the case. Would you consider recusing? Thanks, ] 20:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

: This is a standard by-the-book 3RR report. It is not at all necessary for him to recuse based on that. You think that administering basic policy somehow makes him automatically biased? ] 21:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my talk page, Jayjg. I understand that you consider yourself to be uninvolved, but your actions have received ] (second paragraph) in the evidence, and per ], grounds for recusal need only be "possible, or perceived". I respectfully ask you to reconsider. ] 21:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:Please re-read the comments on your Talk: page, and the comments above. Rather than "possible or perceived" grounds for recusal, this looks like a pretty lame ex-post facto attempt to remove the votes of an uninvolved and neutral arbitrator after he has voted in a way that you don't like. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I humbly disagree, Jayjg. I noticed the same thing when I described your block-trading maneuver on the Evidence page. (In all fairness, it might not have looked so bad had it not come directly on the heels of a blatant abuse of administrative authority by FeloniousMonk, and had it not been directed at one of the people being attacked by FeloniousMonk and the troll he turned loose to aid him in an ongoing RfAr over which you were presiding.) However, although I considered asking you to recuse, I decided instead to give you the benefit of the doubt. I now see that this was a mistake. Did you even bother to take a close, in-context look at the evidence on the strength of which you voted to ban DrL and me from editing the article that FeloniousMonk and his friends have been attacking? I rather doubt it, for the simple reason that it doesn't support your actions. My edits to the CML bio were almost nonexistent, and DrL was the ''only'' editor in persistent compliance with ], ], ], ], and ]. If not for her, the article would have been a defamatory shambles months ago. In view of these circumstances, which I regard as undeniable, I'm politely asking you to do the right thing and recuse yourself after the fact...not because I think you will, mind you, but because I sincerely believe that it's the right thing for you to do. Thanks for your attention, and have a good day. ] 08:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== ISM Sprot ==

While many of the editor's edits had NPOV issues I'm not sure it was so bad as to justify semi-protection. ] 04:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer it removed for now but have no strong preference (I just don't see much of a policy justification for it). If if it continues then I'd agree with semi-protecting. (Also, feel free to become involved and have another admin deal with protection decisions, the current article is in very poor shape). ] 04:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Zionism Reversion ==

What is your explanation for reverting my edit? It's a valid edit, please see my comments on the talk page of the article for my reasoning. {{unsigned|Arch NME}}

== Nation of Islam ==
Hello, you should definitely watch ''']''' because he really has an agenda. Thanks, cheers, ] 15:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

==The ScienceApologist RfAr==

Hello, Jayjg. Please read my most recent edits to the ScienceApologist RfAr Workshop page. ,,,] and particularly . I hate to seem impertinent, but may I ask who you people think you are, that you can define the class of articles relating to the work of ] to include ]? Do you really think that this is appropriate? And if not, then why are you voting on proposals without understanding ''exactly what they say''? For that matter, why are you ignoring on this case, including a long history of vicious personal attacks made against me and DrL? Regardless of any opinion to the contrary, we've tried very hard to address our problems within the bounds of WP at the expense of vast amounts of our own time, and I'm still trying very hard to avoid reaching some extremely unpleasant conclusions here. But in view of the above observations, it appears to me that your decisions may contain substantial elements of personal bias and antipathy. Thanks in advance for your considered response. ] 18:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

==You have accused me of something that is not true==
Jayjg, you accused me of "making things up that are not supported by the references. If you go to the article and question, and read references 4 and 5 you will find that what I wrote was '''exactly''' suported by the references. I expect an apology immediately. ] 18:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:Nonsense. '''Not one''' of the references that was actually quoted for that specific sentence (and there were 12 of them, in reference #14) that "the majority of Jews" believe anything. References 4 and 5 were supporting different claims, and even then reference 4 doesn't say that "the majority of Jews" believe anything, but rather that there is virtual unanimity among Jewish ''denominations'' that Jews for Jesus is not Jewish. The 12 references provided in reference #14 supported a different point, specifically the exact one made, that a belief in the divinity of Jesus is incompatible with Judaism. You can't go radically changing what a well-referenced sentence states, based on what you believe some ''other'' reference supporting some different sentence elsewhere in the article says. Now, are you going to apologize immediately? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 19:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


:Allow me to quote. Reference 4 says this "There is virtual unanimity across all denominations that Jews for Jesus are not Jewish." Note '''virtual unanimity'''. That means '''not all'''. If there is 'virtual unanimity' about something then it can be safely said that a majority believe it. If you want to change the wording to 'virtually all then I am fine with that.
:Quoting again: reference 5 "For most American Jews, it is acceptable to blend some degree of foreign spiritual elements with Judaism. The one exception is Christianity, which is perceived to be incompatible with any form of Jewishness. Jews for Jesus and other Messianic Jewish groups are thus seen as antithetical to Judaism and are completely rejected by the majority of Jews". Note the words '''most''' and '''majority'''. These references are both from the Oxford University Press Encyclopedia Judaica.
:Finally, if there is 'virtual unaniminity' (almost but not complete unanimity) among Jewish denominations then logically there must be almost but not complete ananimity among Jews. How else? Now, how about that apology? ] 19:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:Still waiting for your response here. ] 19:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
To begin with, I'm fully familiar with references 4 and 5, since I am the person who brought them to the article in the first place. I daresay I've brought at least 50% of the references to that article, perhaps more. Next, did you read my initial comment? Sadly, I'll have to repeat much of it. Reference 4 does not refer to what "most Jews" believe, or indeed, to what ''any'' Jews believe - rather, it talks about virtual unanimity among '''denominations'''. Denominations are not Jews, and we don't care what "Jews" believe, since they believe a million different things - rather, we are writing about the doctrines of Judaism. Next, references 4 and 5 '''are used to support other sentences and thoughts in the article'''. They were not used to support the statement that "belief in the divinity of Jesus is incompatible with Judaism". Reference #14 was used to support that point, and it used 12 reliable sources to back it up. You changed the wording to make an entirely different point about what "most Jews" believe, but still left reference 14 as the footnote - '''but none of the sources used in reference 14 backed up your claim about "most Jews", since none of them referred to what "most Jews" believe'''. Therefore, you made up things that were not supported by the references that were supposed to support your claim. Now, how about that apology? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:No Jayjg I don't get your point at all. Are you somehow saying that because you originally introduced references 4 & 5 to support some point you made, I am not allowed to cite them in support of what I wrote, even though they do support that?
:The area round what I wrote was hacked mercilessly by other editors, so it is possible that when you looked at it references 4 & 5 were not actually quoted near the sentence; however when I wrote it, reference 5 was certainly quoted immediately after.
:I agree with your point that Jews believe a whole load of different things that are not in agreement with the doctrines of Judaism, but the point I am making is also at the denomination level. Exactly what is a Jewish denomination? That's as ill-defined as the rest of Judaism. There is no group charged with making definitive statements about what is Jewish doctrine - it's done by consensus.
:HOWEVER: let's look at the reference again. Reference 4 says ""There is virtual unanimity across all denominations that Jews for Jesus are not Jewish." This time note the word '''denominations'''. Even in your own terms, reference 4 supports what I wrote. I would happily apologize for any attack I have made on you, except that I didn't make one. ] 22:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, reference 4 does not back up your claim; '''denominations and Jews are different things'''. When you say "virtual unanimity among denominations" that is an entirely different claim that "most Jews". I can't think of any way of saying that more simply. And Jewish denominations are extremely well defined; they have seminaries, educational institutions, organizing bodies, affiliated synagogues, etc. ] is not some fuzzy concept. Next, . Note, the sentence you changed is supported by '''reference #14'''. Not references 4 or 5, which support different points made 2 sections earlier. Reference 5 is '''nowhere near the sentence you changed'''. Please read the article carefully. You claimed to be making the text match the references; however, the existing text matched '''reference 14''', and the text you changed it to '''did not match reference 14''', which was the reference supporting that sentence. Read what the references for that sentence say; they talk about the incompatibility of a belief in Jesus with Judaism. They '''don't talk about what "most Jews" believe'''. When you changed the sentence, you misrepresented the sources backing it up. Then, to compound the problem, you insisted that the reference said exactly what you said, when reference 14 said nothing of the sort, and demanded an apology from me, and continue to make claims about your edit that simply do not square with the facts. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:What wording would you consider acceptable and supported by these references: "Virtually all Jewish denominations consider Jews for Jesus not Jewish" would certainly convey the sense I was trying to get across, and satisfy your requirement for the distinction between Jews and Jewish denominations. I would also accept "virtually all of Judaism...". ] 23:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
How can I explain this? '''That's a different point!!!''' There are two points here; whether or not Jews for Jesus is "Jewish", and whether or not Jesus as deity is compatible with Judaism. Jews for Jesus is an evangelical organization, Jesus as deity is a religious doctrine. '''They are separate points, regarding different ideas, supported by separate sources'''. Both points are made in the article. Virtually all Jewish denominations consider Jews for Jesus not Jewish, and belief in Jesus as deity, Christ, etc. is not compatible with Judaism. Separate points, both true, both referenced, both mentioned in the article. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:OK, I did not realise that that was your point. I was not meaning to imply that virtually all individual Jews believed that JFJ was not Jewish. However we also need to get rid of the phrase "belief in Jesus as deity, the son of God, or in Jesus as Christ, is incompatible with Judaism." because it states as fact something which is under dispute. What I am looking for is a phrase that means the same as that, but with a slight qualifier: "most" or "virtually all" or "majority" or anything like that. I'm open to suggestions about what would be valid wording here. ] 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Why do we need to get rid of that? Is it indeed under dispute? Again, there are 12 sources that say exactly that, that belief in Jesus etc. is incompatible with Judaism; are there sources that say belief in Jesus etc. is ''compatible'' with Judaism? Which sources say it is compatible with Judaism? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

==Your input is requested==
Your input would be appreciated at this ]. ] (]) 19:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

== ScienceApologist RFAR ==

Did you intentionally skip voting on prinicple #8 8) Misplaced Pages administrators are expected to consult...? ] 21:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Can you explain how exactly how the current version contains weasel words? It attributes the claims of being a hate site and supremacism. Also, it's actually closer to NPOV - definitively calling something a "hate site" is inherently a NPOV violation. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 14:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
==Jew Watch==
שלום חביבי, I don't want to get involved in the stupid flamewar on the ] talk page, but I'm really curious why this page can't actually call Jew Watch anti-semetic. Because I hate overused holocoust examples, I'll avoid one, but if you look of the ] page it's clearly lists as antisemitism (it get's the antisemitism sidebar!) So my question is, how is Jew Watch different from the protocols? Sure it claims objectivity, but so did the protocols. When it comes down to it, isn't Jew Watch, like the protocols, just a bizarre blend of fact and fiction put together to achieve maximal antisemitic bias and effect? I don't think you'll find much controversy (except from anti-semites) that this sort of stuff (like opposing a state of Israel ''for its own sake'' in spite of other non-opposed states with the same issues) is just antisemitism in a different guise? Thanks! ] 02:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


==Misplaced Pages Policy== == RedSpruce ==
Amazing- you refer me to a rule that was edited out of the policy '''over six months ago'''. And not "unilaterally" as you would have it, but after months of discussion going back to April, 06. See the archived discussions there please. The bottom line is that for the last six months the policy has read :
:"Talk page vandalism-
:Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages '''other than your own''', aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. '''The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion.'''"
Also, it is clear that you cannot erase my own comments from my own talkpage without a good reason. Until now I have assumed good faith and I would like to continue to do so. Take this as friendly advice: please do not erase comments from my talkpage. Good luck ] 17:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:P.S. For your information, a very similar issue is being discussed on the Administrator's notice board ] and in the archives ]. If you'd like to affect policy, feel free to comment there and attempt to gain a consensus. Thanks ] 18:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::P.P.S. Just wanted to inform you, as an inexperienced editor, I have asked some administrators to monitor the situation to make sure that it does '''not''' escalate. LOL ] 19:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


I have been trying to reach consensus with RedSpruce at a few articles involving The Red Scare.
==]==
Hi. According to its content, this page should be moved to ], but only an admin could do it. Would you be so kind? Many thanks ! ] 19:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Here is a summary of the same deletion multiple times at ], despite 3 editors reversing his deletions. Even when consensus was established the edit warring continued: Here Redspruce removes facts not added to the article by himself , reverted by AlanSohn and again the same deletions here . Again during an active Arbcom on this very subject. He does it again on , reverted by AlanSohn and once again on the same day , again reverted by AlanSohn; again here on reverted by me; reverted by BioPhys; and again and it is reverted by me. Then the war moves to a new article, now we are at ], and ]. Before the Schine article it was ]. Could you take a peek and help with the consensus building in either direction.
== From ]'s ] ==


There are active RFCs at each article, and the more opinions that are voiced, the more likely consensus will be reached, no matter which direction it takes the article. --] (]) 16:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm advocating Nobs01 on a try for appealing a decision against him taken by Arbcom some months before. The point is that we think that is necessary to restore some mediation pages in order to see the evidence that it was there and was deleted. There is already someone willing to help us, but, I considered that maybe you could take a look on this. If interested, the list of pages is on ]. Thank you! --] 00:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
==Thank you==
{{User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward5}}Thank you for all your hard work in the terrible mess. This is the closest thing I could find to a plate of cookies.] 06:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::The "thing that shall not be named", otherwise known as the RFarb regarding User:Hkelkar. :)] 03:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


why he deletes what I add to articles: "I would agree that the use of quotes in footnotes, in any single article, is a minor, even trivial issue. As I noted in my first statement regarding this case, what makes Richard Arthur Norton's behavior non-trivial is that he is repeating this "minor dis-improvement" (as I called it) over literally thousands of articles. I wanted to convince him that this was wrong, and since he has at times been profoundly, insistently resistant to engaging in discussion, ''the only way to force a discussion was through edit warring'' (my emphasis added). If you look at this as a dispute over one or a few articles, I'd agree that this particular instance of edit-warring over a stylistic issue was lame. I looked at it as an effort to stop the dis-improvement of thousands of articles. It was with those thousands of articles in mind that I initiated this ArbCom case." --] (]) 16:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
==Good Article Nomination==
Jayjg, I have nominated the ] article for ] status . Can you review it or suggest someone else knowledgeable about early Judaism and Christianity to take a look at it? ] 01:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


== Palestinian Political Violence ==
== racism ==


Lapsed Pacifist seems to be trying to re-insert the same edits you reverted previously. Just to give you a heads up. ] (]) 16:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Embargo&oldid=93568874 ] 14:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:And there he goes again with the same edit. ] (]) 13:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
== Quotes in footnotes ==


has moved here on quotes in footnotes. Can you join it with any comments you may have. --] (]) 18:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
== Re: User:Panairjdde is back ==
I knew he was back, but I've been under the impression that he's been playing nice with everyone on WP. Thanks for leaving a note on my Talk page. -- ] 03:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:58, 30 April 2024

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 or use the page for harassment.

Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted.

Thanks again for visiting.

Talk 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













article help

Hi. i hope you;'re still watching the talk page at Israeli settlement? just wanted to suggest that you continue to watch it. i appreciate your help with this. feel free to provide any input. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

New rabbi categories sprouting like mushrooms

Hi, I'm not a bucky in category creation, but Java7837 is busily creating new categories of rabbis that seem quite superfluous. He/she just made up "Russian Orthodox rabbis" for one person, Michel Dorfman, who was not even a rabbi! Now he/she just put Hanoch Teller under "Austrian Orthodox rabbis," which is absolutely ridiculous. Teller was born in Austria but moved with his family to America when he was very young; he didn't become a rabbi until later in life, and he is totally American. Can you do something about all these new categories? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I thought you had something to do with the launch of the discussion page, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism#Orthodox rabbis, but now you say you were away! If you'd like to weigh in, please see there. Kol tuv, Yoninah (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=prev&oldid=194120993 --Zeq (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Massive deleting on Battle of Baghdad (1258)

I was recommended to you by a friend at Phayul. http://forums.phayul.com/index.php?showtopic=1895

Could you prevent massive deleting by blocking that, encourage that talk be carried out instead ?

Thanks.

Geir Smith (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

see WP:FTN for context. dab (𒁳) 11:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahrimanius

Ahrimanius, who you blocked in May 2006 as a sleeper, requests to be unblocked. I would like to know why you think he's a sleeper, due to his request. I see, based on the block log, that you seem to think that Mathisfun12 is an other sleeper of the same person. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you check an unblock requestr

User talk:Ahrimanius is requesting an unblock. He has zero edits, and you blocked him in May 2006 as a sleep account, but you never indicated WHICH banned user he was a sleeper account of. Could you respond on his talk page with further evidence so I can act intelligently on his request? Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jayjg

I'm largely retired (temporarily?) as an active contributor, and I was getting some spam from my userpage. Everything is OK, thanks for caring. :) Masterhomer 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on edits, not editors

This comment adds nothing to the discussion on how to improve the article and erodes the prospects for collegial and collaborative editing. Please comment on edits, not editors. Focus on how to improve the article in question by discussing content, rather than making bad faith assumptions that amount to very thinly veiled personal attacks. Thanks. Tiamut 11:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hertzel

Did Hertzel really supported transfer ? I have seenwriting in which he offered cooperation with residents already in palestine. I don't know the english version but the Hebrew version of "medinat ha-Yehudom" has this part of his plan. is this ref true ? could Herzel change his mind few times ? In any case what relance is there between someone who died in 1904 to evenst in 1948 that were caused mostly because what the Mufti sis in 1929 1937 and 1948 ? Zeq (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head

all I see is bits and peices here and there. I did not know what is wrong but I know it is wrong. Now I know what it is: A gross violation of NPOV and UNDUE. The ME conflict is so comlex and full of contradicting facts (over time) that all it takes is to take partial facts present them without the other mitigating facts and voila we have a whole new history. This is the systematic bias I saw in Misplaced Pages but until now could not articulate it as well as you did. Now we have it formulated. Zeq (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:David Paterson

Hi, Jay. A very belated welcome back. I've not been around much so hadn't noticed you'd returned. Pleased to see it.

If you have a moment, do you have an opinion to offer on this? I'm not sure why I participated, as doing so tends to lend credibility to the mistaken idea that such matters are decided by voting, but anyhow. Cheers, --Rrburke 13:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Binding of Isaac article name change

Thanks for your comments and contributions at Binding of Isaac. About 3 weeks ago, I proposed to change the name of the article to "Sacrifice of Isaac" at Talk:Binding of Isaac#Name of this article, but so far haven't seen any response. I plan to go ahead and rename the article on March 20, 2008 unless there are objections. I invite you to visit the article and submit any comments you have on the matter. Thanks! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Five editors have responded to the proposal described above. Four oppose and one is neutral. The consensus is opposed to the name change. I'll therfore leave the article as currently named ("Binding of Isaac") and consider the matter closed. Thanks for your participation! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you

I can has mop?
I can has mop?
 Hi Jayjg! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1).
I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being
an admin to the high standard that the community deserves.
Seraphim♥ 17:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

fyi

http://www.justiceforjews.com/ --Zeq (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thanks!
So, yeah, you know how these work... »»»»
Thank you very much for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with a final tally of (75/1/0). Your trust in me is greatly appreciated, and I can assure you it has not been misplaced. I shall use these tools to the best of my ability, and will do my best not to let you down. Thank you once again, and happy editing as always! Hersfold 20:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ouze Merham

An editor has nominated Ouze Merham, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ouze Merham and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please comment

Hi, Suppose I remove the Category:Antisemitism from Iran_Holocaust_Cartoons_Contest stating that it isn't inherently antisemitic, but created in response to the Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy, what would you do? thestick (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have reworded it, what would be your argument to include the category. The editor who added the cat is no longer active. thestick (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. thestick (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Speculation?

What, was I wrong? Relata refero (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did I ABF? Relata refero (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and are you seriously telling me that my description of the likely response was wrong?
By the way, you might want to look at my suggestion about Category:Anti-Islam sentiment at Talk:Faith Freedom International. Relata refero (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Jay, I notice you didn't say that that would not happen. I note also that you don't need to assume bad faith to have that happen. Think about it - its exactly what happens when someone removes a cat against consensus. I understand your sensitivity on the point, but the way to get over that is not to try and see insult when there is none.
Note further that "speculation" is exactly what Talk: pages are sometimes for. It is difficult to plan anything without attempting to predict what other individuals in the same project will react.
..half your comments to me to make insulting statements...:sorry, Jay, if you think they're insulting. But next time, mention how they're insulting - and also how they're wrong. Don't just say patently false, say patently false how. People will predict your behaviour based on your past, people working with you on a project will feel the need to discuss your probable choices and reactions if your editing schedule does not match theirs; you can't ban the latter, which is more than permissible, and changing the former will take more than a couple of messages ordering people around on talkpages.
I treat you with extraordinary civility, I treat you with as much good faith as I or any rational being could muster, and I don't see how stating a very likely response to a stated intent is not within the bounds of "Talkpage policy". I note that you have decided not to mention that what I was trying to do was determine whether you were being trolled or not, with a view to taking action if required. That determination is usually also conducted on talkpages.
And if you do indeed support my "well-known and extremely useful 'lobby argument'", then use it to support me when I object to people inserting obvious original research into articles, rather than for sniping at me about comments I haven't made and content I haven't authored. Jay, the whole point is that if your argument is valid, it need not always be used in your support. On the occasion I used it, it could effectively be used against material which you were defending passionately. (Even though you hadn't written it.) What I hoped to demonstrate to you was the inconsistency that some see in your behaviour, something which, without exception, all your fellow-editors here would probably like to see changed.
Thank you for your time, and do try and think about some of what I say.
Relata refero (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
...I would not have reverted it. I will take you at your word, and congratulate you successfully conquering that instinct.
- no. You shouldn't be using Talk: pages to comment about me, period. So you claim is that although I was not uncivil, your objection was that I referred to you on a talkpage? I see nothing in WP:TALK to supports that view that mentioning other editors in perfectly normal contexts is outlawed on talkpages? If that's your interpretation, perhaps you should cut down on some of your edits.
you never use it in my support, but instead only use it to castigate me for comments I haven't made and content I haven't authored. The material I added .. Secondary sources. You cannot demonstrate "inconsistencies" that do not exist. Except I used it in response to the statement "I count 17 references at the bottom of the article, but the number does keep changing, not long ago it was 19", which constrained me to point out the number of those excluded by the Lobby Argument.
Jay, I suggest you admit to yourself, if not to me, that inconsistency is a bad thing, and that someone merely mentioning someone else (on-wiki) in neutral terms and not as an irrelevancy can hardly be a giant violation of our guidelines.
I am also interested to see that you think that reversion of the sort I thought it would be probable that you would perform is something you claim you would not do. Good, its a start. Relata refero (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism mediation

Heya Jayjg.

I would first like to apologise on behalf of the Mediation Committee for the delay in this case being dealt with, which is due to a shortage of available mediators. I have expressed interest in taking this case to help with the backlog and to assess my nomination to join the committee. As i am not currently a member it is common practice to for the involved parties to consent to mediation of an RfM from a non-committee member. To give your consent for me to act as mediator for this case please sign as you have for the acceptance of the case on the case page. I look forward to working with you and finding a solution to the dispute.

Seddon69 (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this the way you interact with adults?

I don't know anything about you, and I don't recall ever interacting with you before, so I find your vitriol not just unpleasant, but odd. If you have a complaint with me personally, please lay it out explicitly. If you have a disagreement, state it civilly. If you can't communicate like an adult, don't communicate with me. Noroton (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Vitriol? Did you post the wrong diff by mistake? I don't see any vitriol there. I see a sense of humour. You might want to review Misplaced Pages:No angry mastodons. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, as I just pointed out to Noroton, that was intended as humorous. I'll try to be more serious in the future. Jayjg 01:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Nothing mastodon-like in my comment. Nothing merely humorous in these parts of the discussion. Jayjg, your level of maturity is your choice. Conversation over. Noroton (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I was in no way intending to imply that there was anything mastodon-like in your comment, Noroton. That is not the point of the WP:No angry mastodons essay.
I see nothing wrong with making serious statements and also making humourous statements in the same conversation. I also see nothing wrong with statements which make a point while also being humourous. Humourous is not synonymous with "merely humourous".
As I said to someone on Majorly's talk page recently, "Getting along with others is an integral part of the wiki process. Having and using a sense of humour is an integral part of getting along with others. Therefore, having and using a sense of humour is an integral part of the wiki process. :-)" I hope you won't eschew a sense of humour too much, Jayjg. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Change to WP:Harassment

Per your advice, I posted my proposed change to the talk page of the policy and discovered that someone else had already made a similar proposal without significant objections being raised. If you'd like to take part in the discussion other than just reverting the policy edit, please come join in the discussion. As of now, it appears that there isn't any real objection to the proposed wording addition. Thanks! Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, there's no "real objection", as long as you ignore all the people who object. In any event, please get a real consensus for this significant policy change before attempting to modify policy. Jayjg 01:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
What is the (notice, I said "the" not "your") "real" consensus? How many people? What percentage of project participants? Only established editors? If so, what's an established editor? Only admins? Please, tell me where it says what "the real" consensus is. I think the policy will be changed, because right now there is a discrepancy between Harassment and COI. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Check out the COI noticeboard where several threads currently out other editors, apparently without censure. If the harassment and block policies really trumped COI, then this wouldn't be going on on the COI noticeboard. By not doing anything about it, you and other admins have already set the precedent that outing for COI reasons is ok, whether it says so or not in the rest of the policies. Cla68 (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Which specific threads are you referring to? Jayjg 02:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Here are a couple . Cla68 (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
In the first example, the userid appears to include a name. Regardless, it may be that some of the postings on the COI noticeboard are inappropriate. If so, that's an issue with the COI noticeboard, not WP:BLOCK, WP:OVERSIGHT, and WP:HARASSMENT. Jayjg 02:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll collect more diffs/links if necessary, but it appears that we've been outing COI editors since the project was started. The policies need to be updated to reflect what's already, rightfully going on to maintain the integrity and credibility of our NPOV encyclopedia. Cla68 (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
No, there's no particular need to modify the existing policies, which are what maintain a reasonable working environment for our volunteer editors. Moreover, as explained, it's not our COI policy that "maintain the integrity and credibility of our NPOV encyclopedia", it's the quality of the articles and the sources used, strict adherence to the core content policies, and a welcoming environment for editors. Indeed, if all editors adhered strictly to the core content policies then COI would be irrelevant. WP:COI is a guideline intended to help editors recognize when they might have difficulties adhering to the core content policies, not a manual for others to out editors they suspect have a conflict of interest. Your puffing up the COI guideline as the savior of Misplaced Pages's "integrity and credibility" seems to me to be a case of exaggerating the guideline's impact and intent, and devaluing far more important policies. Jayjg 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You honestly feel that I'm exaggerating the importance of the COI guideline? Have you been paying attention to Misplaced Pages-related news lately? One of the major reasons the Jimbo/Marsden/Merkey story was so noticed was because of the allegations that Jimbo might have violated COI by influencing the bio article of his girlfriend and the bio of Merkey for money for the Foundation. I would think that you would be very concerned about allegations of COI by our editors, because, if true, it could call into question the credibility of large numbers of articles in our project and the good faith of some of our most active editors. In fact, after our conversations here and at WP:AN and the COI Noticeboard, I'm now fairly sure that the COI guideline needs to be upgraded to policy status, because, our credibility does depend to a great deal on investigations of and resolving COI allegations. Cla68 (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason those stories were so noticed was that Jimbo is an important guy, not because the articles allegedly edited under such circumstances were particularly important articles. If someone less important than Jimbo wrongly edits an article, it's not news: it's accepted as a common occurrence the way the occurrence of minor crimes and automobile collisions is accepted. We all know that not all the information in all Misplaced Pages articles is true. The various guidelines and policies balance each other. Putting current practice into words is sometimes a mistake, because the words are then interpreted to apply even more widely than originally intended. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
That's true that we need to be careful about how we word our policies, but this discrepancy between our COI and other policies needs to be resolved. Another example of how COI generates bad press even if a famous person insn't involved was the recent Register article about Jossi editing the Prem Rawat articles even though he is a follower and paid employee of Rawat, the extent of which he had tried to keep hidden. Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Emails

Ok, but is there a reason to move the discussion from AN? I see WordBomb's comment on WikBack was here, where he says he recalls Humus sapiens and you quoting the email at some point. If my reading of the situation is correct, he probably sent any email through Misplaced Pages rather than from his email (he's said this is how he first contacted SV). I have no way of verifying this, but unless IPFrehley posted something where SV would have seen it, it seems consistent with his statements that this is how she came to block that account. Mackan79 (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

I got as far as I could, but all of History of the Jews in Venezuela#17th to 19th centuries is a copyvio. I've reached my limit for the day, and my prose stinks; can you go in and reword that section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was a move from another article, where it was added by an IP. If you have time to fix it, it's only that one section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Zionism tag

Hi Jayjg,
I don't understand why you are losing your time with that guy. He doens't answer questions and just asks his ones and claims for answers. Just ignore him. The pov tag can stay one year. It doens't matter. Ceedjee (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, it's his pointy way of disfiguring the article; he's basically saying that the article will remain tagged ad infinitum, until everyone agrees with him. This is an abuse of the tagging system, which is intended to alert readers to current and real issues, not the same rhetorical questions repeated again and again, regardless of the number of times they have been answered. Jayjg 22:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course. But why would it matter ?
If we stop interacting with him, he will stop.
Ceedjee (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jay

Would you please replace the POV tag at Zionism? There are six outstanding issues I feel we still have yet to resolve. Many thanks, BYT (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Offline contact

Hi Jay, is there anyway to contact you offline (or at least via e-mail)? Oboler (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment to SandyGeorgia

I'm not sure if you're aware, but I've been researching for an RfC that I'm drafting. During my research, I noticed this comment by you to SandyGeorgia after a discussion about merging policies here at WP:ATT. In your post, you ask SandyGeorgia to "to retract your statement". I've read the thread in question, and I don't see anything wrong with what SandyGeorgia said. She was providing a legitimate concern with how the initiative was proceeding at the ATT page. So, I was just wondering, do you stand by that statement? Do you still think SandyGeorgia needs to withdraw her statement and that it was "insult enough" merely for stating her opinion? Cla68 (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

A new user named Wikibiki613 posted a very professional picture of Rabbi Eliezer Shlomo Schik on the Breslov (Hasidic dynasty) page, which was lifted off the Rabbi's website. (I moved it to the Rabbi Schik page, but Wikibiki613 insisted it should also go on the Breslov page.) I left Wikibiki613 a note on his/her discussion page asking if he/she took the picture or scanned it off the website, but have not yet received any answer. It seems that Wikibiki613 started contributing on March 30 and stopped contributing on March 31. Please advise what to do about that picture. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link: mohorosh.org. Yoninah (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the picture closely. On the website the book in Mohorosh's hand is at the very bottom of the picture. In the picture on wikipedia there is a large space under the book. While it is possible to take the picture on wikipedia and crop it to look like the picture on the website, it is impossible to take the picture on the website and somehow create that space under the book. It is also impossible to take a small picture, like the one on the website, and increase the size and quality so that it looks like the "very professional picture " on wikipedia. It should be obvious that the picture was not "lifted off the Rabbi's website". (Wikibiki613 (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

Sorry, I don't understand this reasoning. The pictures are identical; only the upper half of the picture is used on the webpage. Since Wikibiki613 just started plugging the inclusion of Rabbi Eliezer Shlomo Schik on the Breslov page, I have the feeling he's an insider in Rabbi Schik's organization and has access to the picture. The only question is whether he himself took this professional, studio portrait? Yoninah (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The reasoning is really quite simple. You claimed that the picture was "lifted off the webpage". I proved to you that it wasn't. What is there not to understand? (Wikibiki613 (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

Did you take the picture yourself? Please answer yes or no? Jayjg 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No - I have permission to use it. (Wikibiki613 (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

From whom? Jayjg 01:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

From Mesivta Heichal HaKodesh. (Wikibiki613 (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

Okay, please now tell me what we should do about the free-license declaration which Wikibiki613 put on the photo of Rabbi Eliezer Shlomo Schik. Should the declaration be altered? Should some kind of note be put on the image on the pages on which it appears (Eliezer Shlomo Schik and Breslov (Hasidic dynasty)? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Update

Just to let you all know, the case has been started. I have created a little navbox for you to navigate between pages and will be expanded as the case goes on so that its easier for you to navigate. The first page you need to visit in this case is here so you can give youre opening statement. There i have left a few questions for you all to answer. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.

I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes IRC channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to WP:IRC. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page or both to make sure. You can also leave a message on my talk page which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can. Seddon69 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. I wanted to make sure this case was as smooth as possible :) It means its esier for me to go back and forth between pages as well. If you have any suggestions feel free to say. Seddon69 (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

External link to antisemitic litterature

Hi, I don't know how this problematic is managed on wp:en and I am involved on wp:fr on the same issue. Could you please take care of this here ? Thank you... The first website that is given in the external links section of this article Oswald Mosley gives access to 2 books (among many) in free download :

  • "Our Financial Masters" - By A.Raven Thompson : Reprint of the British Union publication showing how Jewish financers had control of the money supply and thereby the British Government Economic Policy in the 1930's.
  • "The Holy Land: Arab or Jew - Capt R. Gordon-Canning M.C." Published in 1938 this book exposed the disproportionate influence of Zionism, and Jewish finance, on the British Government, British politicians, and the media over the question of Palestine. Capt Gordon-Canning, exposes the lies and propaganda used by Zionists in their efforts to seize a Palestinian homeland irrespective of the cost to the indigenous population
with the following excerpts : "(...) the genius of the Jewish race apparently lies in its power to put over specious arguments and to build up a case based upon a false premise" et "(...) the money power of British Jewry (...) permits this racial minority (...) to censor truth and to mirror falsehood. Or, in other words, this power, when exerted, is able to prevent publication of facts inimical to Jewry, (...)".

Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the links to those sources; can you point them out please? Jayjg 23:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg,
Here is the link to both books : http://www.oswaldmosley.com/downloads/free_ebooks.htm (they are on the third and sixth rows).
Ceedjee (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg,
In the following webpage, there are books in free download : http://www.oswaldmosley.com/downloads/free_ebooks.htm
Among these books, 2 are antisemitic litterature.
The first one is : "Our Financial Masters" (this is the 6th one in the left column on my screen).
The second one is : "The Holy Land: Arab or Jew" (this the 3th one in the left column on my screen).
If you download the second one ("The Holy Land: Arab or Jew"), you can read inside this :
"(...) the genius of the Jewish race apparently lies in its power to put over specious arguments and to build up a case based upon a false premise" et "(...) the money power of British Jewry (...) permits this racial minority (...) to censor truth and to mirror falsehood. Or, in other words, this power, when exerted, is able to prevent publication of facts inimical to Jewry, (...)"
Ceedjee (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jayjg,
Ok. That is also my opinion concerning wp:en policy.
On wp:fr, I argue it must be deleted because laws in France forbids "incitement to racial hate".
Concerning wp:en, having in mind there is a policy that protects against copyright violation (a crime...), another that protects the biographies of living person (a bad thing), do you think that there could be one that prevents links to antisemitic litterature ? (how to describe this... Isn't this a crime worse than darkening a living person ?)...
(Note here, on wp:fr, some argue that this is more "historical litterature" than "antisemitc litterature").
What do you think concerning both these questions ? Ceedjee (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Haskalah

Hi -

User:Dshsfca seems to me be inserting incomprehensible essay-like elements into Haskalah and ranting inscrutably on its talk page. I'd be interested whether you agree. Zargulon (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


Osli73

I made the following posting on the Administrators Noticeboard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Osli73_violating_parole.2C_repeat_violator

Fairview360 (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


User Osli73 http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Osli73 has a history of willfully violating probations including the use of sockpuppets on articles related to the former Yugoslavia.

One can see at the bottom of this arbitration webpage that he has been blocked repeatedly for willfully violating sanctions placed against his edit warring and sockpuppetry: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Involved_parties

For example:

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) 3 months per 1 month tthis AE post. Please note this is Osli's fourth block. --wL<speak·check> 07:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for 2 weeks for breaking the revert limit on Srebrenica massacre; also banned from editing Srebrenica massacre for 3 months. Thatcher131 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for two weeks for directly violating his probation and revert parole at Srebrenica massacre. --Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for one week for directly violating his probation and revert parole by using a sockpuppet to edit war at Srebrenica massacre. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked KarlXII (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Osli73 (talk · contribs) proven by checkuser. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On March 19, 2008, Osli73 received the following probation from administrator Thatcher explicitly forbidding Osli73 from more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen article http://en.wikipedia.org/Bosnian_Mujahadin , http://en.wikipedia.org/Mujahideen

Your topic ban is lifted and replaced with a revert parole. You may edit Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen but for one month (from 17 March) you are limited to one revert per article per week. Obvious vandalism is excepted from the revert limit, but you should take care in distinguishing true vandalism from content disputes. You are permitted to revert the edits of banned users such as Grandy Grandy/The Dragon of Bosnia but you should be extremely careful in doing so, because if it turns out the editor you are reverting is not a sockpuppet of the banned user you will have violated the revert limit. It would be better to report suspected sockpuppets to WP:AE or WP:RFCU. Thatcher 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

see user Osli73 talk page for the above probation notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Osli73

Despite the explicit probation against more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles, user Osli73 has again engaged in edit warring, reverting the Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen articles repeatedly, for example Osli made the following 8 reverts to the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles from April 8 to April 14: diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205563168

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205562519

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205439461

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205437228

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205144618

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204899529

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204888935

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204184557

From his statements, Osli73 has shown that he fully understands the restrictions placed upon him. From his actions, he has shown that he is not willing to abide by those restrictions.

I am notifying the administrators that have sanctioned Osli73 in the past as well as notifying Osli73 of this posting. Especially with articles involving the former Yugoslavia, it is imperative that users respect the limits placed upon their editing. If the more vitriolic editors involved in former Yugoslavia articles see that Osli73 is not held accountable for his his transgressions, then there is greater likelihood of out-of-control edit warring as there has been in the past. Fairview360 (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

violations of WP:TALK restoration at Climate change denial

Can you tell me exactly what the restoration of this is good for? As far as i can see they have no content that in any way can or will improve the article. (per WP:TALK) or are pure soapboxing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

New Anitsemitism Mediation

Heya. I noticed that you hadn't left your statement here regarding the New Antisemitism case. Its important for the success of this mediation that you stay involved in this otherwise i cannot guarantee that your views will be taken into consensus agreed upon by the parties. I hope that you will be able to participate soon. Seddon69 (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Unbalance tag on circumcision

Hi Jayjg,

I was surprised you removed the unbalanced tag from circumcision. I have kept away from the article because there are strong WP:OWN issues and I haven't got the energy to deal with one of the most persistant WP:SPA editors on WP but I would have thought it was one of the least balanced articles in WP. There are a broad range of notable opinions on the issue varying from "it should be universal" to "it should be illegal except for medical reasons" with a strong trend toward the latter in the last two decades but the article has a high degree of selection and emphasis. e.g. WHO has highlighted the risk of circumcision itself as a route for HIV transmission and there are a bucket full of serious medical organisations who object to it buried in the article or excluded completely but only the possible benefit is highlighted in the intro. Fine, WP has articles where few people have the energy to fight like Homeopathy and this one but you are an Arbcom member and I would have thought papering over the cracks was a bit beneath you? Chasing everyone off happens but then protending there is no issue? C'mon. --BozMo talk 06:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Short term history of the tag I have no idea, as I say I don't follow it. I was reviewing it because unbalanced tag removal happened just after it was proposed for the Schools Misplaced Pages Selection and I am rather busy going through 10,000 articles. However if you accept Raul654's law "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie." I have no doubt that the circumcision article is not neutral. Perhaps the law doesn't work: I am sure I would think you speak with an accent whereas I speak unaccented English and vice versa. I guess we can disagree about Jakew: I don't track his edits day to day and the bits and pieces turned up by this were a long time ago. He looked like a civil POV pusher to me, perhaps he has moved on. I daresay both you and I have an imperfect past too and if you say he deserves such praise then fine. --BozMo talk 08:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA

Seeing no-one else has bothered to contact you heres a thread that might interest you as you are mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WikiLobbying_campaign_organized_offsite_by_ethnic_pressure_group 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested in your comments as well. It seems that CAMERA describes you as "an effective and independent pro-Israel advocate." . As an experienced administrator, do you feel that a topic, or even community ban for Zeq is in order? I think your input would be helpful in the discussion, because I remember in the past seeing you proposing many topic and community bans for POV-pushers that you caught. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are the relavant quotes from the article:

A veteran Misplaced Pages editor, known as "Zeq," who according to the emails is colluding with CAMERA, also provided advice to CAMERA volunteers on how they could disguise their agenda. In a 20 March email often in misspelled English, Zeq writes, "You don't want to be precived as a 'CAMERA' defender' on wikipedia that is for sure." One strategy to avoid that is to "edit articles at random, make friends not enemies -- we will need them later on. This is a marathon not a sprint."

Zeq also identifies, in a 25 March email, another Misplaced Pages editor, "Jayjg," whom he views as an effective and independent pro-Israel advocate. Zeq instructs CAMERA operatives to work with and learn from Jayjg, but not to reveal the existence of their group even to him fearing "it would place him in a bind" since "e is very loyal to the wikipedia system" and might object to CAMERA's underhanded tactics.

Kaldari (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem to let you know, to be honest could you do a sanity check on what i'm saying as i've been accused of participating in a holocaust of jewish editors on wikipedia so many times durring the last 48 hours that it might help my mental state just to check. 00:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the sanity check, i disagree with some points you made (such as taking EI views as fact, i read every email and made my own mind up) but you made them one rational human being to another, thank you very much. After thinking about what you said i'm going to change my vote on the template. As for the tag teaming of IvP articles i'm certain it happens and the articles should be looked into, i'd expect a big push of Pro-palistinian POV soon. I also don't agree with "the group didn't actually do very much, aside from sending around various e-mails" as just because this became public early on it does not change the intention i read in those emails but hey we all have our POV don't we. Lets see what arb com says about this sorry mess. 01:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RSN commentary

May I suggest that those who don't believe reasoned discussion based on factual evidence about the reliability of sources "is worth paying attention to," have lost their way when they find themselves at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay unfortunately I don't think I'm aware of a point that you made which I could have addressed, unless you mean the one that I and half of the editors at the RSN have now addressed repeatedly. I left the quote below for your educational benefit, in another naive hope that you might follow some educated leads. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Clearly I meant to "break your signature," or the RS/N page. You caught me. Feel free to add that to your list of grievances. BTW you are aware of the fact that an outside group whose apparent aim it was to game Misplaced Pages policy in order to gain advantage in pushing their POV, named you as an example to follow in doing so. Unlike this group I find that someone who diverts "issues to policy," is quite simply being disruptive, not to mention disingenuous. Feel free to add this to your list of horrible policy violations directed towards you, but someone has to say it as it is. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Exonerate you from what? No one has suggested you have any ties with this group whatsoever, or that you shared their "tactics." Do you see any such suggestion in what I wrote? No Jay, what I wrote, is that they apparently were impressed by yours.PelleSmith (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Marx

Jay, this is from the first paragraph of the introduction to the Marx-Engels Reader, written by Robert C. Tucker:

  • "A knowledge of the writings of Marx and Engels is virtually indispensable to an educated person in our time, whatever his political position or social philosophy. For classical Marxism, as the thought of Marx and Engels may be called, has profoundly affected ideas about history, society, economics, ideology, culture, and politics ... Not to be well grounded in the writings of Marx and Engels is to be insufficiently attuned to modern thought, and self-excluded to a degree from the continuing debate by which most contemporary societies live insofar as their members are free and able to discuss the vital issues."

I hope that helps. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this comment in passing and wanted to second what Pelle says. I studied Marxist historiography years ago, and although I wouldn't touch Marxist political theory with a bargepole I can confirm that other aspects of Marxist thought are still highly regarded as academic tools. Many Marxist historians actually prefer to use the term "marxian" (with a small "m") to distinguish them from the political side of things. Nobody would dream of excluding Marxist historians such as Christopher Hill or Eric Hobsbawm from consideration merely because they use Marxist analyses. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Notification of review

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign for the conclusions of an administrative review concerning the recent controversy over a mailing list run by CAMERA, in which your editing was discussed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

An idea worth trying?

Hi, here's a thought that might do some good. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.

Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Misplaced Pages editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, Durova 06:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough is enough

Either you stop reverting and start NEW, rational, fact-based discussion of your endless reverts and patrolling of the article, or I will take this to an arbitration. Your name has already surfaced as a part of a pro-Israel Misplaced Pages lobby , and I shall not tolerate your incessant efforts to erase controversies regarding said country. You HAVE to accept there is controversy regarding Israeli settlements (which, in fact, are in violation of international law), otherwise I'll have to expose your morally questionable techniques of neutralising statements that are compromising to your particular point of view of a political issue. Thanks. Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 18:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the section, with reliable sources and appropriate wording. --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 05:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA lobbying

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on CAMERA's lobbying. Raul654 (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical Revisionism vs. Historical revisionism

I'm not creating a new article - I'm trying to DAB what we've got. Help me out please. Check out what I'm trying to do, and please advise according. I recognize your name. I'll listen very carefully to your advice. But I think you misunderstand. Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

See also: Historical revisionism (negationism) --Ludvikus (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical revisionism (negationism) → Historical Revisionism

I would appreciate your assistance. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Asking a big favor

My and my fellow students are creating questions to ask a Holocaust survivor who will come to our school in the near future. Seeing as you're a big Holocaust contributor (or so I've been told), do you have any recommendations for questions to ask? Thanks. Haris145 (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

user talk page/article talk page

Sorry, due to me lacking patience I didn't read your notice on the top of the page. My mistake. Also, I tend to put messages on article talk pages, when I want a general opinion. In this case, I was looking more for a one to one discussion. But whatever, it's not a big deal. The reverts are still going on, on that article, but sooner or later there will be a version that everyone will agree on. (feel free to delete this message, when read) Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

New AS mediation

The mediation im getting rolling as its been a long time waiting so i think its best to get moving. Most of the mediation will be on the talk (discussion) page. so make sure its in your watchlist. Seddon69 (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayjg

You might want to purge a couple of edits there, and tweak the protection. Cheers! -- lucasbfr 10:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[[On that horrible WP:PA

To me it means your a good guy - you now get some points towards a WP:Barnstar!!! Don't let it upset you! --Ludvikus (talk) Weasel words on AIPAC

Hi Jayjig. I would like you to weigh in on the discussion topic of "Weasel Words" on the talk page for AIPAC (talk: American Israel Public Affairs Committee). A user keeps inserting the word "controversial" in the opening paragraph, providing no sources that describe AIPAC as "controversial," only fringe sources that criticize AIPAC. I would appreciate your input when you get a chance. Many thanks. Stanley011 (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

New Antisemitism Mediation

I think thats its time we got moving. A couple of the points have been raised before and felt they were the foundations to the dispute:

  • Firstly whether the picture can be confirmed to have been taken in the rally in San Fransisco.
  • Secondly to come to an agreement on what new antisemitism is and then to decide what the image is depicting and whether it purely illustrates New Antisemitism or whether it also addresses other issues which could be confused with new antisemitism by new readers.
  • If we cant confirm the those then we need to find a viable alternative.

A point i would like to raise is that at some point a lead image might need to be found if this article got to FA. The image in question is not free and couldn't be put on the main page with this article as todays FA. Although not an immediate point a long term solution might wish to be found so that this article could feature on the main page with a viable alternative.

Does anyone have access to Lexis Nexis? It might help as a search on the network could uncover something not readily available on the internet. Reliable sources that use the image would be helpful. Do you reckon that there would anyway of finding third party images that might possibly contain the poster/placard? Also i would be grateful if images of other placards at that rally could be found to find whether this was a small minority at this rally or perhaps a larger group.

Whilst that is being done i wanted to find out on what the consensus view is on what New Antisemitism is? I have read the article and the previous discussion and attempted to get a proper understanding but i wanted to ensure that this was current.

PS any sources you find can you please post in the section at the top of the mediation talk page. Seddon69 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Jayjg, I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 23:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Cooperation"

I thought you might be intrigued/amused by this article by Israel Shamir, which describes us as cooperating to maintain the Zionist orientation of Misplaced Pages. Chip Berlet and Electronic Intifada are apparently our co-conspirators! RolandR (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Following discussion at the mediation talk page, i would like to bring up a suggestion that until the end of the mediation to remove both images from the article. There is currently no real consensus on the images so in the interests of fairness it seems best to simply have no images. If you have any suggestions or comments then please come to the mediation talk page to be discussed. The discussion will be open for around 5 days if there are no problems. But the discussion will go on if there is ongoing discussion. ŠξÞÞøΛ 00:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Could I get your views on this?

Hi Jayjg,

Could you please take a look at this I'd appreciate your thoughts on it given the discussion there (given you edit in the area so have some idea about how notable something must be for it to be notable).

Oboler (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Deuteronomy issue rereloadedJews chosing their own hangman

Hello, maybe you are interested in this issue. Your input is welcome. Cheers, Str1977 20:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you also state this on the article talk page, thereby preventing a feigned consensus? Str1977 00:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Note

So that you know i have given an indirect response into an issue i wish to look further into. ŠξÞÞøΛ 00:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please join talk

I asked you politely to join the discussion on this issue(). As I see you haven't - although you reverted my edits - I'm asking you again: please join the talk page.Bless sins (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Baseless warnings

Dear Jay, I am writing to you as an administrator. BS, who has also posted above, posted this on my talk page. I think it disingenous in the light of his taking his recent RfC, which he knows to be only part of the views on the matter, to feign a consensus here. Also, I don't think he has the authority to issue such warnings. Could you please clarify the position? Cheers, Str1977 08:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Massacres

Please take notice of my comment here. Imad marie (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To second Imad Marie's comment, the renaming of Passover massacre to Passover Suicide Bombing was the consequence of an extensive discussion of the use of the word massacre in politically sensitive articles, specifically those concerning Israelis and Palestinians. Were you aware of this discussion when you effectively reverted that action? --Ravpapa (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Extensive discussion, but clearly no support for his unilateral action, which managed to rename a dozen massacres of Israelis, but none of the dozen or so listed massacres of Arabs. Jayjg 00:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

German Nazi/German Camps

Hi Jayjg, Word "German" is nessesarry when we read about Nazi and Nazi Death Camps. - The political correctness should not prevent the presentation of historic truth. And the truth is that the labor camps, the concentration camps and the centers of annihilation were established by the German authorities, they were erected and maintained out of the German state budget, they were exploited by German companies, and at the end of the war it was the Germans who ordered their destruction. Germans were the perpetrators - unfortunately this knowledge is not universal, especially to the young .- I hope you recognize the seriousness of this. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvc42 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC) --Cvc42 (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Beth elohim sanctuary exterior.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Beth elohim sanctuary exterior.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Beth elohim sanctuary interior.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Beth elohim sanctuary interior.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Beth elohim temple house exterior.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Beth elohim temple house exterior.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Zionism On The Web

Dear Jayjg,

You were kind enough to add your thoughts here:

Since then CJCurrie has made a false accusation against me and someone else for being the same person.

He also started systematically removing all links to Zionism On The Web. Despite policy of citing things were you see them, and despite the discussion which suggested Zionism On The Web was perhaps notable enough to have its own page. At Zionism On The Web we also host a collection of primary source material related to Zionism (these are historic, out of copyright and sometimes not available online else where). These links too are gone. I'm absolutely shocked he would do this, specially after discussion which should have convinced him it was not a good idea. The academic boycotts in the UK (which he have the leading archive on) has also been ignored and articles have been significantly trashed by the removal of content (e.g. the statement by AJ6, the movement representing Jewish high school students above to enter university... a significant statement and one we had permission to host).

What do I do about this? I've feeling very harassed personally and feel that Misplaced Pages has been trashed in support of his personal agenda. (Oh he's stalking me as well, so he'll probably see this).

If this sort of thing is allowed it speaks very purely for Misplaced Pages as a whole, surely someone on Misplaced Pages cares about that?

Oboler (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've detailed specific damaging edits to Israel / Jewish topics in my evidence page, the main section for this is at:
Not sure if these should be rolled back before they are (possibly) considered by the ArbCom or if that needs to wait. In either case I am unwilling to get into an edit war over links to my site, most of which were not placed there by me. Two exceptions are documented here Oboler (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg, just to updated you.. ArbCom doesn't seem to have looked at it. I spoke to one of the members... initially got a reply saying he at least hasn't noticed it / considered it. I asked where I should send it so it gets considered and so far (some days later) I've got no reply. See . Any ideas welcome. Oboler (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cvc42 and Jacurek

What is your evidence that cvc42 is Jacurek's sock? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Just as established, well meaning editors can make mistakes that need to be reverted occasionally, so can problematic editors make useful edits that should not be reverted simply because they were made by such editors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 09:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

advice?

I forget the policy - is this the kind of joke people are welcome to make on their userpages, or is this the kind of thing that gets reported to AN/I or Jimbo? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What to do? I do not have check user privileges and haven't followed racist trolls enough to be sure who he might be. let me know if you have any ideas, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

i am grateful that you put the time into cracking these cases. But is this something I can do myself? Do you have any suggestions for me about steps i should take to investigate these things? I don't want always to have to impose on you. But, thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Prince Paul of Yugoslavia

Requesting unblock and claiming he's not a CTD sock. You put the sock tag with a checkuser link on his page. What's the specific case? There is nothing at CTD suggesting checkuser was used. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so he's definitely a sock, whether a case was opened or not. Just wanted to know. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I declined and cited your comment. It's just easier, when reviewing unblock requests where checkuser was used, to have something to look at or a blocking admin to talk to. Perhaps we should amend the template a bit to reflect this? Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was, if the template said something like "blocked indefinitely after a checkuser done by ADMIN", then you'd know right away who to go to without looking it up. It's possible that a greener admin, seeing no case, might have thought it a mistaken block and lifted it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Palestine vs. West Bank and Gaza Strip

Replacing Category:Crime in Palestine with Category:Crime in the West Bank and Gaza Strip may or may not be a good idea, but rather than changing the parent of Category:Palestinian criminals, Category:Palestinian crime victims and Category:Palestinian prisoners and detainees from one to the other, as you did here, here, here, it might be better to propose a formal rename using WP:CFD. Otherwise, it looks like you are attempting to simply change the name of the category without gaining a consensus for it. Alternatively, the WBGS category could be a subcategory of the pre-existing "Crime in Palestine" category. Since you are an admin, I expect you do already know this, or at least should. I thought I should explain to you why I reverted these edits. Thanks. Good Ol’factory 04:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't get any approval when you unilaterally created those categories, did you? "Palestine" is not a country. It was a territory controlled by the British until 1948, and became Israel and other things after that. That's why I'm reverting your reversions. If you must unilaterally create categories in the future, please create accurate ones. Jayjg 04:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
"Approval" to create a category? I'm not aware of any approval that is required. There are many categories that use "Palestine" as the name of the place, but I'm not terribly interested in discussing it here, nor is this the place to have that debate, anyway. The place would be at a WP:CFD. (Just one potential problem that could be discussed in a CFD: What if there was a Palestinian criminal who committed crimes pre-1948 in the territory that is now Israel? Why is he in a subcategory of "Crime in the WB & GS" when he committed the crime in not one of those places?) Even categories that you think are misnamed cannot simply be changed at will by you. Please go through the process of proposing a proper CFD. Good Ol’factory 04:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
What, because you created a category a few hours before me, now you get the right to control what goes in both your categories and mine? I didn't delete your categories, I just created more accurate ones, and populated them. "Palestine" is not a country. It may well be, one day, but it's not one now. Please stop creating inaccurately named categories. Thanks. Jayjg 04:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Please, I'm not trying to start a fight with you and I don't feel that I'm being mean or unreasonable. It's obvious you care deeply about the issue, but my quibble is not with whatever you may believe about it. For all you know, I agree with your position. My problem with your behaviour concerns process. When you take categories and change the parent category for all of them to something similar but different, you are essentially attempting to change the name. See my comments above for potential problems with such a name change; these issues should be discussed in CFD. I could understand adding the new category as a parent as well as keeping the old one, but to delete the first parent in favour of the second acts essentially as a unilateral name change. For now, I've included both parents. I'd welcome a CFD on the matter, though. PS --hope it's OK to move the conversation here; I'd prefer to keep the discussion all together for future reference or whatever. Good Ol’factory 04:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
And I don't want a fight with you, so let's avoid one. I'm not trying to delete your categories, I'm just trying to ensure that they are accurately populated - and one does not need any sort of approval to do that. Your categorization scheme does not really make sense - are the "Palestine" categories also the "parents" of the "Israel" categories? If not, why not? As for discussions, I prefer to have them the normal way, you comment on my page, I comment on yours. If you prefer to replicate my comments on my page, I won't object, but please don't undo my additions to your page as well. Jayjg 04:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
See, the questions you raise are exactly the type of thing that should be discussed and sorted out by multiple editors during a CFD. It's not "my" categorization scheme. The "Palestine" could be kept as a geographical descriptor, in which case, yes, Israel could be a subcategory; or it could be used as a political entity category, encompassing either pre-1948 Palestine or post-1967 WB&GS, or both. This is not an either/or black and white accurate—not accurate issue, so I would appreciate keeping both sets of parents for now if you are not going to formally go through the process of nominating these for discussion, as I will at a later time. Good Ol’factory 04:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, as you might have noted, I didn't delete your pre-1948 "Palestine" categories, nor did I delete it as a parent when sub-categories included pre-1948 events. But if you start opening up categories to things other than existing countries, then you've opened up a can of worms. Do we have "Yugoslavia" categories, and include all Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian etc. categories in them? How about Holy Roman Empire categories? What about a Category:Terrorism in Judea category, and include the items you have listed in Category:Terrorism in Palestine? After all, it's just a geographic region. Jayjg 04:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Perfect argument for a CFD. I recognize you didn't destroy the category as you might have, but you did remove "Palestinian" categories as subcategories of it even though there are some pre-1948 Palestinians in the categories. As I said, it's not "my" categorization scheme, but my original intent was to have the "Palestine" signify a geographical area, not the current WB/GS. If you think that's impractical, that's what CFDs are for. So yes, Israel should in theory be a subcategory, but the sole reason I did not add it was because I feared the outrage and wrath that would pour upon me from editors that get very touchy about these types of things without stopping and asking if there is some sort of underlying rationale. Sometimes it just doesn't hurt to ask and not assume that someone else (1) has malicious intent or (2) doesn't know what he is talking about. Good Ol’factory 04:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't assume you had malicious intent, I just thought you had made an error/errors. Let's use another example. Today, as you noticed, I created the category Category:Synagogues in Istanbul. Now, let's say instead I had created the category Category:Synagogues in Constantinople. Do you think that people might have strongly considered that to be an error? And, perhaps, might have re-categorized all relevant articles to Category:Synagogues in Istanbul? As for your argument that the category was intended to signify a geographical area, can you provide examples of similar categories, used in the same way, that refer to a geographical area? Jayjg 05:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned that I'm not terribly interested in this debate in this forum, but... I don't really think your Constantinople is apposite. There are currently no categories that I can find that use "Constantinople". However, there are many that use "Palestine", and the temporal and/or geographical scope of these categories is not always clear. (See, e.g., Category:Religion in Palestine, Category:Deaths by firearm in Palestine.) Usually "Palestinian territories" is used when referring to WB+GS and "Palestine" when the geographical area is referred to Category:Geography of Palestine, but this general principle is inconsistent and not always clear. Some categories seem to use "Palestine" as a synonym for what you would call WB+GS. It's inconsistent, which is why some CFD to clean it all up could help, rather than people unilaterally assuming they know what it should be. For similar types of categories, see the quite large Category:Disputed territories, where you'll find plenty of examples. Category:Kashmir and Category:Korea and their subcategories readily spring to mind. Good Ol’factory 05:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
And since we are disagreeing about the categories and their scope, can you please leave both parents on the "Palestinians" categories? Why is this too much to ask? Good Ol’factory 05:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated the 3 categories for discussion and proposed a renaming and structuring system. I trust we can at least let the categories rest with both sets of parents until it is closed. I still believe with issues like this where there are disagreements between two editors it's best to hear what others think in an attempt to gain some degree of consensus. Good Ol’factory 06:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Terrorism deaths in the West Bank

I have nominated Category:Terrorism deaths in the West Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Damiens.rf 17:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hoping you have an opinion

User:Slrubenstein suggested I drop you a note about this. Am I crazy, or is this a subtle acceptance of racist POV? OrangeMarlin 22:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, OM, don't know if we've met, but I just read your note. Can you tell me what specifically he said on his blog? I'm inclined to agree with you, but would like specifics first. (You can email me, if you prefer.) Thanks. IronDuke 23:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for unblock: User talk:Tom Ketchum

I'm bringing this request for unblock to your attention, as you have indicated in your block notice that there is a RTV issue involved, and the user has addressed comments directly to you. Unless I hear from you otherwise, I will leave this request in your capable hands, and simply note on the user's talk page that you have been informed of his request. Thanks, Risker (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, based on my own review of this, I have serious doubts that Tom Ketchum is one in the same with the banned user. Please see User_talk:Jpgordon#Tom_Ketchum.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 for my comments. Would you either (a) consent to him being unblocked or (b) point out any errors in my analysis or further reason to believe that he is, in fact, the banned user? Thanks. --B (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


UNRWA

Dear Jayg,

I noticed you reverted some changes made on the page for UNRWA. These changes were legitimate, sourced, and were aimed at restoring a balance in the article. Could you please let me know the reasons for your revert? Thanks you, Trouvaille —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trouvaille (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for notification

Jayjg, I am sure you are aware of the recent ArbCom case about Palestine-Israel articles that resulted in the enactment of broad editing restrictions. The case established a formal procedure under which editors must be first made aware of the case, as a prerequisite to possible follow-on warnings and sanctions. I have recently been involved in an edit dispute with another editor, who is also an administrator, at Muhammad al-Durrah. This editor recently posted the required notification on the pages of a couple of new editors, as well as on my own page (despite the fact that I have already been notified of its existence months ago). For some reason, this editor chose not to post a similar notice on the pages of the editors who share his POV in that dispute – User:CJCurrie, User:Tarc, and User:Nickhh. I was wondering if you, as an administrator, might place that notice on their pages as well, so we do not have such a one-sided application, which appears to some as intimidation. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have also made a similar note directly to ChrisO on the article's Talk page, making sure he (and everyone else) understands that as a heavily involved administrator he may not use any of his admin tools on the article or the participants in the dispute. Your point re: Tit-for-tat is taken. I won't press that issue. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Jay, please assume good faith in future. I've already explained on the article talk page why I notified those three new users of the arbitration restrictions. See Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#All of Us who Differ in our opinions from Chris O get a Warning?. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification

You said that an involved administrator cannot personally sanction someone for disagreeing with him. I did read that in the notice, though to my way of thinking, logging my name at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log_of_notifications is a form of sanction in itself. Furthermore, at at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard he characterises me and others and asks for uninvolved admins. Admin Moreschi has answered the call. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there some way I can have that logging reviewed? He refers to me (and Julia1987) "single-purpose account editing," claims we are both promoting personal views, and indulging in "original research". Is there some Misplaced Pages measure that permits review of such a log? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso

You may be interested in the analysis I posted to his talk page. Thatcher 15:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Al-Durrah article, FYI

I have used your name and a diff here . The use of the word "reported" in relation to the death of Mohammed al-Durrah is being discussed as unacceptably POV, conspiracy -theory and may be a bannable/blockable offense at this point or in the near future.Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Harper's

Hi, Jay. I presume you've seen the July Harper's? --Rrburke 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy post-Shavuot

Jayjg, I think it is now time for you to comment on {http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=218841835&oldid=218834128 this] thread - you should look at some of the preceeding talk but I do not think you need to read the entire section. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Conduct

I'm concerned by the lack of good faith and ongoing personal attacks between you and csloat . This mediation has gone far and it would be a pity to spoil it at the last hurdle. I ask you just to think about your responses and to not react so defensively. I understand this is a delicate topic so lets just take some extra care in what we say. Seddσn 22:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

London Times

Thanks for catching that. I must have been asleep at the wheel. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg

Please have a look at this. Peace, BYT (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for warning me.
I have given my mind on the talk page.
Ceedjee (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your block on a newbie

Your block on User:Jordan Cardiff was manifestly excessive I think (a very bad block). I agree the first mainspace edit had major civility issues, but this doesn't mean we block newbies, that too without informing him or even counselling him, and worse, reverting an edit on the same page - that wasn't vandalism was it? It seems to be a strong assumption of bad faith. That too, a block for incivility directed at yourself. Is this a known sockmaster - if so, why is it not noted in the block logs? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Some of us recognize sockpuppets immediately. Some of us also don't like to encourage their behavior by rewarding it with public recognition; it's not worth the keystrokes. Counseling someone to stop being yet another sockpuppet is pretty pointless. This one is obviously JPMason/JackofTradeA/JJargons. And what made you think the obnoxious comment was directed at Jayjg? He hasn't edited that article in months, and was not involved in the recent edit war. Kinda ironic that you claim an assumption of bad faith while making an assumption of bad faith. --jpgordon 21:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The incivility directed at Jayjg that Ncmvocalist refers to was this, done by a different account but obviously the same person.
For the record, I don't have a major problem with the block. However, I'm a bit incredulous that you are using WP:DENY to make a case that a block summary of "sock of banned user JPMason" would somehow be less desirable than "a 'bunch of angry Jews' made me do it". heh... :D --Jaysweet (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
But that comment was made after I blocked him. How could I block him for incivility directed towards me after the block? Jayjg 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so you did. I dunno, I guess I didn't look that closely. In my defense, I'd reiterate that I never had a big problem with the block even before it was revealed to be a sock (I don't think that someone whose first edit to Misplaced Pages is a rant about a Jewish conspiracy is likely to reform into a productive editor, and that's exercising my maximum capacity to AGF ;D ). My main beef is that the block summary should have indicated it was a banned user, so that nobody had any reason to question it. --Jaysweet (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
(@ jpgordon) These are outright criticisms for the record. The matter is not whether an admin recognizes a sockpuppet immediately, or after a decade - the matter is that an appropriate block summary should be noted in the log. Any reasonable person is going to check this to find the reasoning for the block (and they are entitled to review blocks in this manner or any other admin action performed for whatever reason, just as a user's edits may be reviewed) - the purpose of the block summary/log is to avoid having to go to some gypsy's crystal ball that attempts to read into your minds. It's not at all impressive (and seems to be in bad taste) that you endorse this attitude of "I'm exempt from following standard widely-accepted procedure because I think it's not worth the keystrokes or in some demented way, it's publically recognizing problematic users and giving them attention that in my opinion, they do not deserve". Your role as administrator (even checkuser or arbitrator) is not to determine this, nor is it to contravene standard policy/procedure, and you are (or should be) well aware of that by now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Mcmvocalist, can you explain what you meant when you said "a block for incivility directed at yourself"? Which incivility directed at myself were you referring to? Also, regarding reverting the edits of banned editors, please review Misplaced Pages:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits. Jayjg 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Jaysweet explained it (above) - I didn't look closely at the timing either. The point of this was: there'd be absolutely no cause for concern, nor would it seem inappropriate, if the block summary or log (clearly) stated "sockpuppet of banned user and incivil 'angry jews' comment" or something to that effect. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom enforcement

Thanks for your support. Str1977 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Bigger and brighter is not what you want, I don't think

Hey, sorry to butt in, I was glancing at the history of your user talk page for a totally unrelated reason, and I happened to spot this. I very much sympathize! :D However, the weird thing is that I was like, "What big yellow box?", even though I had just clicked on your talk page 30 seconds earlier. I think the yellow is just so bright and obtrusive (and painful to look at! It actually hurts my eyes if I look at it for more than a few seconds) that my brain's natural spam filter screened it from my senses. Or something, that's just a theory :D heh...

I dunno, just a comment :) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

joining the ranks of the admins

Thanks for your kind words in my successful RfA. Now I’m off to do some fixin'... Pinkville (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

An ArbCom case you might be interested in

I have commented on one of your recent actions here. You may wish to make a statement of your own. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You got noticed

Just an FYI, you got a mention in the July 2008 issue of Harper's with respect to the CAMERA lobbying effort:

Jayjg is a key Misplaced Pages editor. He has edited Israel-related articles and taken a lot of heat for it. Jay is Jewish, most likely an attorney, and writes very well. Learn from the way he does things, but do not let him know about this groups, as it will place him in a bind: he is very loyal to Misplaced Pages and once even served a few years in the Misplaced Pages supreme court.

D -- Haemo (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. The Rfa was successful with 64 Support and 1 Neutral. None of this would have happened without your support. I would also like to thank my nominator Wizardman and my sensei/co-nom bibliomaniac15--Lenticel 09:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Jew GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Jew and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are multiple issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also reviewed Holocaust denial and have raised some issues on the talk page that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. I would appreciate any assistance you can provide in addressing the issues raised. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You may have missed this

Could I ask for your response here ? BYT (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Zionism.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Stormfront

Can you explain how exactly how the current version contains weasel words? It attributes the claims of being a hate site and supremacism. Also, it's actually closer to NPOV - definitively calling something a "hate site" is inherently a NPOV violation. Sceptre 14:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce

I have been trying to reach consensus with RedSpruce at a few articles involving The Red Scare.

Here is a summary of the same deletion multiple times at G. David Schine, despite 3 editors reversing his deletions. Even when consensus was established the edit warring continued: Here Redspruce removes facts not added to the article by himself on May 01, reverted by AlanSohn and again the same deletions here back to his version on May 08. Again during an active Arbcom on this very subject. He does it again on June 02, reverted by AlanSohn and once again on the same day here, again reverted by AlanSohn; again here on June 06 reverted by me; June 15 reverted by BioPhys; and again here on June 19 and it is reverted by me. Then the war moves to a new article, now we are at William Remington, and Elizabeth Bentley. Before the Schine article it was Annie Lee Moss. Could you take a peek and help with the consensus building in either direction.

There are active RFCs at each article, and the more opinions that are voiced, the more likely consensus will be reached, no matter which direction it takes the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Here RedSpruce explains why he deletes what I add to articles: "I would agree that the use of quotes in footnotes, in any single article, is a minor, even trivial issue. As I noted in my first statement regarding this case, what makes Richard Arthur Norton's behavior non-trivial is that he is repeating this "minor dis-improvement" (as I called it) over literally thousands of articles. I wanted to convince him that this was wrong, and since he has at times been profoundly, insistently resistant to engaging in discussion, the only way to force a discussion was through edit warring (my emphasis added). If you look at this as a dispute over one or a few articles, I'd agree that this particular instance of edit-warring over a stylistic issue was lame. I looked at it as an effort to stop the dis-improvement of thousands of articles. It was with those thousands of articles in mind that I initiated this ArbCom case." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian Political Violence

Lapsed Pacifist seems to be trying to re-insert the same edits you reverted previously. Just to give you a heads up. Narson (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And there he goes again with the same edit. Narson (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Quotes in footnotes

The discussion has moved here on quotes in footnotes. Can you join it with any comments you may have. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Jayjg/Archive 25: Difference between revisions Add topic