User talk:Jayjg/Archive 13

 Thanks for visiting my Talk: page. If you are considering posting something to me, please:  *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. *Use headlines when starting new talk topics. *Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here. *Do not make personal attacks. Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting.

Old talk archived at /Archive 1/, /Archive 2/, /Archive 3/, /Archive 4/, /Archive 5/, /Archive 6/, /Archive 7/, /Archive 8/, /Archive 9/, /Archive 10/, /Archive 11/, /Archive 12/

Beyond White wash, full blown censorship
Hi Jay, I need help with the demostrably bad faith censorship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies#Censorship Also, it would be great to get your comment on this version as the white washing continues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews#Intro_Three Thanks.Doright 04:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Also StanZegel is stalking me and reverting my edits. Is there an anti-stalking rule on Wiki? Can you help?Doright 08:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

StanZegel is continuing to stalk me and revert my edits. Here is yet another case. Please note that his only contribution to the page is the reversion of my edit. []This is obvious bad behavior. How can such misconduct be controlled?Doright 07:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Again StanZegel reverting my contributions to the "Martin Luther and the Jews" article without comment or explanation. I believe that this particular scholarly reference is very relevant to the article. Your comment would be appreciated. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews&diff=33919690&oldid=33912377, Regards,Doright 22:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism (People) has been proposed for deletion
[] and will be deleted unless interested editors vote.Doright 03:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Check user request
(copied from Woohookitty's talk page)

I hate to bother you with this, but I came across what may be a case of a knowledgeable Wikipedia user who has been creating multiple user accounts for the purpose of getting pages deleted. The two accounts that I know of are User:DisposableAccount and User:Paulcardan. Paulcardan was involved in an editing dispute at Democracy & Nature and managed to involve several administrators including User:SarekOfVulcan with the dispute, eventually leading to a vote for deletion. User:DisposableAccount was created as a puppet with the account's first edit being a comment added to the Democracy & Nature article's vote for deletion. After that effort to delete Democracy & Nature failed, DisposableAccount initiated a vote for deletion against a related article. The bickering then progressed to here: Deletion review/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. What bothers me about this is that Paulcardan/DisposableAccount seems to be efficiently manipulating the article deletion system in order to settle a content dispute. Most of the administrators who have become involved in this dispute do not seem to notice or care that this is happening. I think these two user names themselves are both violations of Wikipedia policy, one being a statement (see the comments at User:DisposableAccount) and the other being a pen name of a real person. Could you look at the current deletion review? I'm worried that these user accounts may be for a single Wikipedia user who may be in the habit of making many such accounts in order to get Wikipedia articles deleted. --JWSchmidt 19:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you do a checkuser for me on those 2 accounts to see if they are the same person? I suspect they are. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * User:Llbb may be another account for User:Paulcardan, created only to continue the effort to keep The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy deleted. --JWSchmidt 13:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * User:Marx marvelous is another account created just for a vote on one of the articles in this group of related articles that have been subject to deletion votes. --JWSchmidt 22:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to check on this. --JWSchmidt 00:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Thanks Jayjg! Much appreciated. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (sigh) Why do people in this discussion keep insisting I'm an admin?--SarekOfVulcan 02:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

question about arbitration
i see youre on arbritrator (or however you spell it). my question is, does accepting an arbitration mean you agree with the prosecuting party or the defense? thx, --Urthogie 09:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

AFD
Please note Articles for deletion/List of terrorists. JFW | T@lk  15:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

2006
Hello, I wish you and your family a prosperous and happy New Year 2006! We shall surely remain actively involved in the Project Wikipedia. --Bhadani 17:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

On The Jews and Their Lies
Now they are trying to delete the article entirely. Can you help? [] Where do I report a repeated pattern of misconduct? Doright 19:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you look at something for me?
User:Benjamin Gatti has posted several "comments on above" on his Arbcom evidence page. I thought that comments like that weren't allowed on the evidence pages. As proof that it's ok, Ben points to the Deeceevoice case, where it wasn't questioned. Could you clarify this for me? I'm also putting this on the main arbcom talk page. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Never mind. Taken care of. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Aaron-Zalman Conflict and Satmar
Hi, I have been asked to advise concerning problems at the Satmar article, see User talk:IZAK. Thanks. IZAK 05:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

new noticeboard
I've created Islam and Judaism controversies noticeboard, I thought you might be interested. --Victim of signature fascism 19:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets / Personal attacks and the 3RR
Hi Jayjg. I'd like to ask you to have a look at Islamist terrorism. I've already blocked 3 users breacking the Three revert rule. There is a range of IP's playing the game there and I'd prefer not to use the range block. Could you please have a look or perform an IP check? Cheers -- Szvest 00:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late thanks Jay. I appreciate it. Cheers -- Szvest 03:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Periodical Jewish Affairs
The following citation appears on the On the Jews and Their Lies talk page: Jewish Affairs 39, 1 (Jan 1984) 19-23. I'm having difficulty locating it in a library. I hope to get a copy of the article for verification sake. Do you have an idea where I might get a copy? --CTSWyneken 00:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Conservadox
I just expanded (a little) the Conservadox Judaism stub. Would you mind taking a look at it and let me know what you think? Benami 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Inclusive Democracy
I would suggest that before you start making all these accusations you first get your facts straight! (I am referring to Sockpuppeting - DisposableAccount ,Paulcardan, Llbb, Bbll)

a) First of all, I don't see ANY contributions by Bbll.

b) Secondly, Llbb appeared only once and that was in a COMMENT to somebody else's COMMENT in a deletion review. There was not an issue of VOTING, nor an issue of IMPERSONATING someone to appear to have greater support of a cause, nor an attempt to CIRCUMVENT POLICY. It was simply the case that these people involved know me in real life (AND I AM REFERRING to "Wikipedians" who have NOT contributed a single edit on articles that are unrelated to their political propaganda) AND I decided that signing as Paulcardan would let them continue their dirty game of referring to who I am, not to the actual essence of the arguments that I am putting forth (as they did with User:Freakofnurture who, I think, is an administrator).

c) See above. EXACTLY THE SAME arguments hold. The only difference is an AfD that was initiated from the User:DisposableAccount account, but NONE of the other usernames you mention voted (or even took sides) in this AfD. Why don't you first read the actual dialogues and then decide whether or not to publicize your slander????????????

FINALLY AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, I find it DESPICABLE that you claim that "the technical evidence indicates" that I am sockpuppet (see above) BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO OUTRIGHT POLICY VIOLATIONS LIKE User:Marx marvelous WHO SWEARS AND ATTACKS ALL OPPOSING VIEWS then you have the NERVE to say "the technical evidence tying it to the others isn't strong". WELL THEN MAKE THE TECHNICAL EVIDENCE UN-TYING STRONG BY FINDING OUT WHO THE HELL IT WAS!!!!!!!

Congratulations, you've probably just made a relatively new editor (see User:Paulcardan on my edits) with good intentions abandon Wikipedia for good.

Paulcardan 05:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this article appropriate for Wikipedia?
A theological student named FDuffy has just created a new article called A wife confused for a sister which is totally based on bible criticism. Would you kindly look at the discussion page which I started on that article and add your comments? Thanks, Yoninah 09:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Why PaulCardan should be banned
Congratulation for reavealing PaulCardan and his sockpuppets. His anger above shows that he really is in a desperate position. I think that blocking the User:Paulcardan account from editing would serve the very useful purpose of preventing him from starting again similar campaigns against the Inclusive Democracy entries. It was shown without any doubt that the sole purpose of this guy in opening the PaulCardan account (and subsequently the sockpuppets accounts) was exactly to carry on his vendetta against Inclusive Democracy. Check the history of the ‘articles he has worked on’: ALL OF THEM (apart from a minor edit on Castoriadis) were published AFTER he was denounced as using sockpuppets to delete our entries, i.e. after Dec. 26 —although his PaulCardan account was created at the end of October! It is obvious that his edits are also a cheap cover for his real aim in creating the PaulCardan account-- to use him for attacking Inclusive Democracy-- and this is why this accout has to be banned permanently.

--TheVel 18:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Louis Epstein
Hi Jay, I have left a note for arbcom on the talk page of the Louis Epstein RfAr here. Louis has left Wikipedia so my Louis Epstein punctuation patrol will stop. I don't know where to post in order to notify all members of arbcom, so if you could to that I'd be much obliged. Thanks. Babajobu 20:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Go To Discussion Pages of D&N
Jayjg,to go to the discussion pages of D&N to find our ‘what is going on’ and not seeking the truth from P.C.’s own lies, which were replied there one by one  by members of  the ENTIRE Editorial Board which condemned him. Clearly, there is no point in attempting to “fixing the dispute” through any sort of discussions with him and we do not have any intention to spare more of our scarce time on this guy who proved all this time that his sole activity is to plot against all our WP entries. We wonder whether History on the Inclusive Democracy project according to WP is determined on the basis of the views of a single biased user in his twenties (who carries out a personal vendetta against Takis Fotopoulos and the Inclusive Democracy project in general long ago before the WP entries were created) and not on the basis of the views of the entire Editorial Board, as well as of the founder of the ID project--in fact immediately after he left the D&N journal,  when he began a clearly opportunistic campaign against us, despite the fact that all his articles in D&N  were a celebration of the Inclusive Democracy project which he now classifies as a confused byproduct of Castoriadis and Bookchin’s thought. We understand that he may start a new account and begin again his campaign but at least his banning would have given a moral lesson against the sort of methods he uses to pass his point, exploiting the WP regulations (one wonders why he does not dare to support his views in any printed medium but he prefers the anonymity of WP in order to defame the ID entry!). john sargis 15:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Pornographic Perpetrator
We think that what happened for that hour in the Inclusive Democracy copyvio page was horrible, and we don't want it to simply pass by. TheVel did some research and found the exact photo that was placed in ID's page that day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Circpn_reduced.jpg. Is it possible for you to not only find out who retrieved this photo that day, 27 December, and put it in Inclusive Democracy's entry, but also who deleted it? Your technical research and assistance in this matter is appreciated. john sargis 20:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Need for your guidance
Dear Jayjg, I would guess that the person who is making the latest edits to the Martin Luther article is a senior Wikipedian, Slim Virgin. He/she is within his/her rights to make these changes and the quotations are accurate. The only problem is that this runs roughshod over the painstaking work of coming up with a compromise. I have put up the red neutrality flag because the balance that you had proposed for this paragraph has been skewed. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at the article and make any emendations as you see fit. I appreciate the help you have provided. If I have been overhasty or obtrusive anywhere, I offer you my apology. drboisclair 09:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, you should be made aware that the matter of Doright will be coming to the ArbCom in connection with his actions in these pages.

--StanZegel  (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I let the cat out of the bag by putting up the red neutrality flag on the Martin Luther article, but I would ask that it be removed because the version that is there now was the one you helped to arbitrate and is NPOV. Could the flag be removed? drboisclair 17:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, regarding SlimVirgin's edits you may want to take a look at this []. Regarding StanZegel's stalking and slander of this wikipedian, I'm not sure what to do at this point. Regards,Doright 22:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, Can you add your thoughts on the Luther talk page to my suggested edit of SlimVirgin's section?  [] Regarding this, SlimVirgin says "Hi Doright, I'm fine with your addition, though others may not be. " Regards,Doright 22:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sock check, if possible
Hi Jay, I'd like to bring two accounts to your attention. User:Flavius Aetius and User:Brian Brockmeyer. They edit many of the same articles, and I haev seen them on more than one occasion coming to one another's defense in editing conflicts (particularly regarding 3RR). Beyond the tag-teaming (at University of Miami and Ken Mehlman in particular), their timing is also suspect. Thanks in advance. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 16:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, to avoid duplication of effort, I just noticed that a similar request has been posted to User talk:Fred Bauder by another user. Thanks. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 18:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

24.186.219.3 = 66.254.232.219 = Brian Brockmeyer = Almeidaisgod = Flavius Aetius Fred Bauder 18:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

possible request for comment
I am inclined to let it slide because I think I am dealing with a nut-case. But do you consider this (the last sentence) an anti-Semitic threat? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your support of my RfA, and for your generous comments. I appreciate your confidence. Best wishes for a happy new year, Tom Harrison Talk 13:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for rejecting the "userbox" RFAR request
Hi, Jayjg, could I ask you to expand upon your reasoning for rejecting this arbitration request? I'm just interested in knowing your reasoning. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 23:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it possible for you to do this? Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 18:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request / result of a personal threat
User:Bumpusmills1 is a new user whom I have worked with in an attempt to teach him Wikipedia guidelines, manners, and so on. To his credit he is trying to learn. Unfortunately, he was a bit abrasive at first and stirred up some vandals and such, especially anonymous editors User:68.45.146.191, User:199.216.98.66 and User:216.13.219.229 who placed User:Bumpusmills1's personal contact info on User:Bumpusmills1's user page and threatened him. (Examples of these threats are and, although there are more examples in the history.) It appears these anonymous users are sock puppets of one user. To cut to the chase, I was told to check with the people on the arbitration committee to see if one of you could do a checkuser on these ISPs and see if this is a Wikipedia editor making threats. Thanks for any help you can give.--Alabamaboy 23:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request
User:Goodandevil and User:136.215.251.179. Posts to Abortion and Kwanzaa. May be Nothwithstanding on Freerepublic. See User talk:136.215.251.179 and contribs. I will be happy to post more info and diffs if you want/need. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Rollback
Please do not use rollback in content disputes. --Phroziac. o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 18:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Another motion to move Yom Kippur War
I just wanted to notify some of the people who voted in the previous poll a few weeks ago that another motion to move Yom Kippur War has been made. See Talk:Yom_Kippur_War - Raul654 23:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul654, I expect that Jayjg would have participated without your message to express his opposition to moving the article; his POV is well known, and while different than mine, I welcome his participation.


 * Your behavior here, soliciting sympathetic opinions, is distasteful and improper. I once thought I could expect better from Wikipedia's administrators, arbitrators and bureaucrats, but obviously I'm incorrect.   Un  focused  17:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, I posted my reply to your protest. However, I will clean up the area under my vote. Thanks again, Spaceriqui 07:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I did remove some comments under my vote, and summarized the three most important points of my argument. It may be a bit wordy, but please respect my words.  Overall it is much shorter.  Spaceriqui 08:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship
Hey man, thanks for voting in my RfA, I got it! :) If you need anything, just give me a shout. - FrancisTyers 00:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Illnesses of Ariel Sharon
Hi Jayjg: I have nominated Illnesses of Ariel Sharon for speedy deletion because it's sheer bunk. Anything of value is already in the main Ariel Sharon article. IZAK 05:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Xenaphon's block
Hi Jayjg! I'd like to know why you blocked User:Xenaphon indefinitely. I know the reason was for sockpuppeting, according to the block log. What particular user was Xenaphon a sockpuppet of? The reason I'm writing to you is that I think the blocking of Xenaphon is quite a harsh measure considering that there isn't reasonable grounds for belief that he/she was a sockpuppet, or at least it isn't listed anywhere who he/she is a sockpuppet of. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 05:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move of Yom Kippur War
I've noted on Raul654's page that I did not start this new vote, so the onus of informing previous voters is not on me. Had I not spent so much time on this today when I should be working, I would do so now. Perhaps you can complete the task of informing of previous participants? Un focused  18:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ali Sina
Hi Jay! Could you please take a look at the mess going on in this Afd? It's been open for a week now and nobody cared to close it or even bother to stop the excesive trolling and giving a bad example for other would-be respected Rfa! I haven't voted yet (only commented) and I didn't want to sprotec it to avoid controversy. Cheers -- Szvest 19:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * Thanks for your reply. I appreciate that. Cheers -- Szvest 04:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

Robert I
Re: Requests for arbitration/Robert I as Robert I has resumed editing I'd like to request an injunction. Homey 19:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Baruch Goldstein
Please note the changes Conch Shell has attempted to make to the article. Aiden 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Iraq
I saw this diff and I noticed that you reintroduced some mistakes into the text (like you changed "referred" to "refered"). I don't want to change things since you're in a debate (and I'm not sure if they The or Teh is correct since it's in a citation) but... I think there are things that should be fixed. gren グレン 21:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of Xenaphon
Hi again! I was interested in the block since User:Larix contacted me concerned that Xenaphon had been blocked unfairly, for 24 hours for personal attacks. Looking at the block logs, I found out he had been blocked for sockpuppeting? So, was Xenaphon alleged to be a sockpuppet of Xenophon of Ephesus? Don't take this badly, but I do think that when a user is blocked for sockpuppeting, a notice should be put on this page in the style of "This user has been banned for sockpuppeting User:XYZ" (this template exists at Template:Sockpuppet). Thanks, Ronline ✉ 23:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. I understand now. Cheers, [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 07:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet IP-Check
Hi Jay, I'm wondering whether Articles_for_deletion/Aladin involved sockpuppets to reach its result of "keep". Could you run those entries through a quick check and tell me if there were some IP-Adresses that appeared more than once, and if an unusual big number of people came from the same location (probably London)? (IP Adress locator). Thanks a million. Peter S. 02:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Peter, do you have specific userids you suspect are sockpuppets? Jayjg (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Jay, thank you for your reply. The userids in question are quite numerous. They are:
 * Group 1 (suspected aliased used to edit the article and simulate broad interest): Magicsucks, Selfpublicitysucks, Thegirlinwhite, Themeat, Waikiwai, Shazzamm, Peterssensigur, Tiksustoo, Lynrdandersen, Aboutoxfordstudent.
 * Group 2 (involved in the vote): Tiksustoo, Pamri, Grroin, Nihonjoe, Bonaparte, Aloodum, Gurubrahma.
 * Group 3 (somewhat involved in the vote): Snakes, Englishrose, Zora, Ragib, Autumnleaf.
 * Could you please do a IP-Address check (same IPs?), and a Location check (same internet provider / same city?) for all of them? GeoBytes is pretty good for location info, but maybe you already know that. Many thanks for your help! :-) Peter S. 03:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter. Sorry, I just noticed your update - I've been away for a couple of days, and my Talk: page is always very busy.  That's a complicated request, I'll try to get to it on Monday if possible. Jayjg (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking forward to it, thanks! :-) Peter S. 22:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter. Well, it appears, based on the technical evidence, that Tiksustoo, Autumnleaf, Robsmommy, Grroin, Aloodum, and Aboutoxfordstudent are all sockpuppets.  The list may not be entirely complete.  Regarding the others, either there's no information about them, or (for the regular Wikipedia contributors) they're obviously not sockpuppets. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Jay, fantastic work, you have helped a lot, thanks a million! Peter S. 23:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI
Articles for deletion/Circumcision fetish (second nomination) Jakew 14:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Check your email
Hello, please check your email. Sent information re: WebEX and Min Zhu case. --FloNight 18:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Trying To Determine Your Reasoning Behind This
Well then, can you offer me any legal reasoning behind your statements? And I mean real laws, not "wiki-laws", which can be changed by anyone at a moment's notice and are apparently ignored despite that anyway if people claim they have the slightest justification(at this point, my goal is to try and prevent Kelly Martin and her cabal or those like them from creating too much more disruption with their whims.)

Since nobody seemed to listen, or for that matter even participate in Requests for comment/Democrat userbox, yet they seemed very quick to ignore it and the legal opinion of BD2412 at Template talk:User US democrat, i'm following through with what I said on AN/I this weekend, and if things go well, not even Talrias(i've put this on hold since I respect his opinion enough to do so) is going to dissaude me, and certainly not the cabal of fear you seem to a part of.karmafist 20:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC) P.S- The main reason why 3/4ths of my edits are not in regards to articles is because as of right now i've welcomed 902 people, i'm a part of 11 Wikiprojects to one extent or another, started 43 articles to date and i'm a frequent contributor on other Metapedian issues. You can tell that to the trolls over there if you'd like. Normally I don't care what they say over in the cabal, but Talrias brought it up, so I figured i'd respond. karmafist 21:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Klausner
Apart from being poor in sources I'm not exactly sure why you think this page is POV. For one thing, the long quote from a doctoral dissertation is unlikely to be of any relevance. A dissertation is fine as a source but not for verbatims (unless the author is more famous than the subject, quod non). JFW | T@lk  20:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Nathan of Nemirov
A suggestion has been made by two editors (I'm the second) to change the name of this page from Nathan of Nemirov to Nathan of Breslov. There is a lot of historical ratification for the latter name, as Nathan moved to the town of Breslov right after Rebbe Nachman's death in 1810 and built up the Breslov movement, the shul, and other disciples from there. He is also buried in Breslov. Thank you, Yoninah 21:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment on the talk page. Do I have to rally up a number of supports, or can I go ahead and make the redirect? Yoninah 11:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

3 reverts
I only counted 3 reverts. In order to violate 3RR I'd have to do more than 3 reverts, afaik. Dabljuh 15:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't count that revert, you are right, because that was a completely different matter, and you would have reverted it yourself as well I am certain. If I reverted this again now, I'd have 5 reverts according to you and would certainly violate 3RR. I will abstain from reverting anything in circumcision for a while now. Dabljuh 16:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Mosque of Abraham massacre
Jayjg, you could please take a look at the Mosque of Abraham massacre talk page for discussion on its NPOV tag. Zero0000 is disputing the neutrality of the article because the Aftermath section includes "arab bashing." He is not challenging, as far as I know, whether or not these events happened, but simply that they are listed in the article. I fail to see how providing a list of events in the aftermath of the massacre "bashes" one group or another. If he claims the accounts are false, he should challenge the factual accuracy of the article. Aiden 17:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision discussion
Jayjg, would you please take a look at the Edit summaries section of the Talk:Circumcision discussion? This all seems highly weird to me. Benami 01:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm less confused now, but still taken aback by the Hitler pic. Benami 02:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom candidate userbox
Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.
 * User arbcom nom

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My vote on you in the ArbCom elections
Maybe you're wondering whether I voted against you in the ArbCom elections after a careful examination of your career and platform or if it was simply a knee-jerk reaction based on your vote against my RFA back in the day and our disagreements before that.

Well, at any rate, I've been wondering about that. I've decided I'm not really in a good position to sensibly evaluate your candidacy so I'm withdrawing my vote. Good luck. - Haukur 11:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Please view the history of articles before speedy deleting them. You deleted Peterhead and John Skelton. Leithp (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's probably time...
Feel free to contribute here as you see fit. Tom e rtalk 13:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just so you know. Tom e rtalk  22:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Palestine Page
I would appreciate you would not remove the Palestinian and Arab view of UN partition plan of 1948 without discussing the issue. I have reverted your changes. You must discuss the issue in Palestinian discussion page. Siddiqui 19:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of the problems on this page stem from a move that Zero0000 effected a few weeks ago. I've tried to find the discussion or vote on this move but have been unsuccessful. I have asked Zero to refer me to the relevant pages. If there was no discussion or vote, I think we should revert it back to the way it was. The problem is that many users - such as Siddiqui above - type in "Palestine" and have certain preconceptions what they should find there - taking them straight to the disambiguation page as used to be may have been clunky but it avoided a lot of conflict. --Leifern 18:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have heard back from Zero, and it appears he concedes that he did the moves without getting input. My view is that we need to invert the various moves to avoid the kind of ambiguity the articles are suffering under now. It should look like this: Palestine -moved to-> Palestine (region), and Palestine (disambiguation) -moved to-> Palestine. It appears we need admin help to do this. --Leifern 00:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There was some discussion that I was not involved in. You might want to ask User:Dissident where it is.  Meanwhile I think the case for changing the name back is about the same as that for moving Israel (disambiguation) to Israel; i.e., no case.  "Palestine" is not a word with multiple principle meanings and Palestine (disambiguation) is mostly a list of Palestine-related topics rather than a disambiguation page.  --Zero 00:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please check your email
(no text) Jakew 19:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Introduction Discussion
Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#Lead_section and the Jesus edit history. There are several users who feel that no information about Jesus according to Christianity should be mentioned in the Intro, even when prefaced with "According to mainstream Christianity." Yet in countless other articles relating to religious figures (some of which I provided in the discussion, such as Muhammad), the religious figure is ALWAYS mentioned in the context of his or her religion. This flagrant vandalism, as I see it, has even been perpetuated by a Wikipedia administrator, who not surprisingly overlooks this double-standard in the case of Muhammed. Please take a look at this issue so that it can be resolved peacefully. Aiden 22:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This issue has been resolved finally. Aiden 04:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, Jay. Thanks for taking the time to repond. Aiden 04:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions about your ArbCom candidacy
Well, it's easily explained; you've posted many of your answers on January 8, whereas I've looked at your page earlier. By the way, you still haven't answered to the questions below (the last three ones have been posted after my vote, however):
 * "Question by -Ril- about official rulings concerning Jayjg"
 * "Concerns over personal attack templates"
 * "Form questions from Simetrical"
 * "Punishment (a question from AndriyK)"

Anyhow, soon, I will surely read your answers and the comments of who already voted about your candidacy, then I could decide in favour of a possible change of my vote. Good luck. --Angelo 22:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks from rogerd
Hi Jayjg- Thanks for your support on my RfA. I appreciate the kind words that you used in your comments. If I can be of any service please leave me a message --rogerd 01:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting at 9/11 conspiracy theories
Hi. I've been watching the pages at 9/11 conspiracy theories for some time now, and I suspect that some sockpuppetry is going on there. I see that you frequent that page as well. I've noticed that comments from SkeenaR, Ombudsman, Blackcats, Bov, WAS 4.250, and Zen master (and Dschor, Jmabel on similar subjects) often appear remarkably similar, and occasionally when you make a remark about Sockpuppet 1, Sockpuppet 2 will forget that you were talking about Sockpuppet 1, and respond to your comment. Is there a way to tell if this is all the same person? Morton devonshire 01:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I assure you that none of these others are me, nor do I use any sockpuppets. I don't even know how most of these people are. I've crossed paths with Dschor, and while it is true that he and I agree more often than not, I think that even a cursory examination of our user pages and contributions would dispel any imagination that we are the same person. Zen-master (assuming I understand who is meant), has now been banned, which I fully support. If he and I share any opinions, it is sheer coincidence: certainly we do not share a general worldview. How anyone could imagine that he and I are the same person is more of a commentary on the person making the accusation than on me. - Jmabel | Talk 18:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Age
Hi Jay: Please take a look at Messianic Age. It seems sorta orphaned. IZAK 06:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

shamir
good to see someone is checking the revisionist bias they're trying to sneak into the israel shamir page. keep up the good job. Arre 22:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * sorry, not much more than what's in the article. i'm from sweden, so i've run into supporters of him a couple of times, and read the Expo articles. he's a complete pariah here, though, and not the respected scholar he tries to come across as. about Expo (the magazine that revealed he's really Jöran Jermas), i noticed that there were complaints about it being biased etc on the talk page. well, it is biased against racism, that's true. but it is a really respected paper here, and there's no serious critique of them. they are the main group monitoring right wing extremism in all of scandinavia, and the only attacks against them has come from the people they monitor - neo-nazis and the like, who depict Expo as part of a vast communist/jewish/etc conspiracy. as would be expected. Arre 23:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * okay, i'll see what i can do. not tonight though. peace, Arre 00:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision fetish deletion review
You may want to see the deletion review discussion for circumcision fetish, if you haven't already. --Phroziac. o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 17:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
I don't have a fancy layout like other new admins, but I just want to thank you for your support at my RfA. It passed 47/3/1, so I have officially been promoted. I hope I won't let you down. If I'm not doing something properly, please tell me. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 21:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Help request
I realize you've got a great many things on your plate, but I was wondering if you'd be so kind as to check this over and add to it as much as you're willing and able to, and as quickly as possible, as I'd like to submit it to the community Monday morning. Thanks for your time. Tom e rtalk 09:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA thanks
Thanks for supporting me in my RFA. --TimPope 14:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your welcome, Jossi. I have edited already under a pseudonym but don't feel that I want to continue that. As you once said, it detracts somewhat from credibility. Errol Vieth 04:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are welcome, Errol. Happy editing. Jossi 05:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? What are you talking about, and why am I on parole?
JayJg, Jossie wrote a bizarre message to me a few days ago.


 * You have been blocked for 48 hrs and the 12 month period reset for breaking your parole as stated by the Arbcom. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RK_2#Remedies, as it pertains to personal attacks parole, and revert limitations. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

All I can say is "Huh?" What is he talking about? As far as I knew, there has been no process going on in regards to me, none at all. (Or, if there is, this has been kept an absolute secret from me.) In truth, I have not even been on Wikipedia, except in the most minor fashion, for months. For instance, today I made a handful of edits, and that's been the total extent of my contributions for a month! Is someone else using my account? Frankly, I have absolutely no idea of what Arbcom is talking about!

It deeply concerns me that the Arbcom is making cases against people in secret, without letting them even know that a process is going on. That itself is a violation of Arbcom policy, and could lead to proceedings against those people who violated the Arbcom rules!

It is especially puzzling that I was banned and put on parole without being given any reason, without being notified, and with all the reasons and discussions kept secret, and during a time when I essentially had almost zero editing on Wikipedia. I have never seen such a thing. JayJG, have you heard anything about this? Has someone been in my account? 20:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive58#User_RK --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  20:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He was aware of them see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RK&diff=prev&oldid=12148085 --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  23:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Question about proposal resubmittal
Hello Jayjg,

Yesterday, 3 months after it was created and 7 months after the original proposal vote closed, version 2.0 of my "conspiracy theory" title proposal at Title Neutrality was unjustly speedy deleted (I have requested undeletion). Voting on the updated proposal had in fact just started when it was speedy deleted. I just noticed your old addition of a section for "New proposal" back at the original proposal location (version 1.0) here, but back at that time I did not want to work on version 2.0 of the proposal under the guise of the rejected tag and and I intepreted you as wanting to preserve the original proposal without allowing changes so that is why I created Title Neutrality. Anyway, my question is: how should someone go about resubmitting the same core yet substantially different/updated proposal for renewed debate, discussion, and voting? How can I preserve historical accuracy that Conspiracy theory was originally rejected yet add into the "new proposal" section and signify there is a new proposal? I would prefer to continue with version 2.0 of the proposal back at Title Neutrality but I am open to suggestions. If you are interested, the contents of the updated proposal can be found here for now. In my interpretation Wikipedia's existing neutral point of view and other policies should disallow the ambiguous and potentially biasing phrase "conspiracy theory" from article titles (when used to describe another subject). The proposal is only trying to affirm that, not create new policy or precedent. zen master T 00:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:AN. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 22:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you make of this?
Seems a bit strange when a new user appears and the very first thing he does is revert an article. Combine that with the fact that Dabljuh's at 3 reverts, and it makes you wonder about sockpuppetry. Jakew 12:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

And now another new user appears to endorse Dabljuh's response to his RFC! Jakew 12:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you do a sockcheck on Zimzum and Dabljuh and JonathanSykes, based on ZimZum's edits and timing of arrival it looks very suspicious. --Eliezer |  £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  20:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamofascism redirect again
Hey... I don’t know if you have any interest in this subject anymore, but there is yet another attempt to bury the Islamofascism page elsewhere. If you’re interested, the debate is here: [] IronDuke 19:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

islamist terrorism
We could really use your help in discussing the move of islamist terrorism to islamic terrorism. Really, really, could.--Urthogie 11:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Jakew 21:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I was perusing the ArbCom votes and came across part of your answer to Questions:

I try to keep the words of Epictetus in mind: "If you hear that someone is speaking ill of you, instead of trying to defend yourself you should say: 'He obviously does not know me very well, since there are so many other faults he could have mentioned"

It gave me a much needed laugh and a reminder about keeping persepective when others aren't. Thanks for the dose of sanity :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet check request
Hi Jayjg,

thanks again in your recent help with sockpuppet checks. Could you do me and the whole wikipedia another favor and monitor the users behind Articles for deletion/Aladin (magician) daily for the next 6 days? It seems to me that the guy in question just registered with a new batch of sockpuppets, and it would be very unfortunate if those irregular votes wouldn't be properly labeled before the voting is over. Thank you very much. Peter S. 21:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm 100% behind you checking but I would also like to examine some of those voting delete as a few users have suspisions that both sides may be involved in sockpuppetry...it's a mess, full of accusations and counter accusations. Thanks. Englishrose 22:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Río de la Plata
Jay, Apparently the first vote wasn't quite valid according to some admins. Care to vote again?

Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move of Qana
Hi Jayjg. I have proposed moving Qana to Shelling of Qana. I am notifying people who were engaged in the earlier talk page discussion. Palmiro | Talk 21:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

1948 Arab-Israeli War
Your views on the ongoing deletion of good sourced content, references and footnotes and the addition of dubious material and original research to this article would be much appreciated if you have time. --Ian Pitchford 22:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Israeli-occupied territories
Please note El C's reverts of the Gaza strip image. He insists on using an image of a smiling IDF soldier removing a baby from Gaza while such scenes were clearly not the norm; it simply does not reflect reality. However, my image of a woman in tears being evacuated with her child DOES. It isn't POV, it's simply fact; yet he continues to revert. Aiden 04:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom support
Hi! I really need to swing by the election pages more often. SlimVirgin just filled me in and I've given you my full support. Good luck!! - Lucky 6.9 17:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * My condolences Congratulations on your reelection to the Arbcom! May it be as thrilling and fulfilling as you'd imagined. I sure am glad you made it to this esteemed position - better you than me! :) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Congrats from me as well, and you'll be sure to hear from your local Signpost reporter soon... ;-) Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. KHM03 22:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, Jay, on a well-deserved victory. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support ;) - Guettarda 22:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear. --Leifern 00:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I echo Michael Snow's... Wait, let me start over! El_C 02:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Congrats Jay. I almost missed voting, but still got it. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 03:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yay! I'm glad you will be continuing in the post.  You're certainly the man for the job. -- M P er el ( talk 03:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Congrats and good luck. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 05:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  20:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Aye Aye! :) Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! --Mrfixter 20:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As per above! --LeFlyman 05:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Mazel Tov! Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet check request
Could you please check whether User:Doright is the same person as the previously-banned User:RK, now on good-conduct parole? --StanZegel  (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism (People) has been proposed for deletion
Category:Antisemitism (People) has been proposed for deletion [] and will be deleted unless interested editors vote.Doright 04:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks
Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision in the Bible & Brit milah
Hello Jay: I am wondering how to combine/reconcile these two articles: Circumcision in the Bible and Brit milah. What are your thoughts on the subject and do you have any suggestions? Feel free to commence some merging. Best wishes, IZAK 05:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Pending case
Yes, of course. That's quite appropriate. --Ian Pitchford 08:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Israeli criminals
I've set a kind of a litmus test on the suitability of using the word criminal at Category talk:Israeli criminals. See what you think.

Lapsed Pacifist 13:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding weather the WP:CITE's dagger conflicts
Thank you for attending the situation. The dagger notes a rare book or a historical document, but such cites are often available in some form on the internet. Not always, at least not yet, but not infrequently either. For an editor or a reader to "check" such a citation to the original document might be difficult. On the other hand, to check the information in "The Declaration of Independence" would be easy. I don't argue that all citited information be available with a mouseclick, but that we follow WP:V which states: "When adding information; The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit." And later adds: "Dubious sources; For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable." I am not sure how to rewrite the guideline. The editor who is adding the dagger is doing so with a particular citation in mind. The discussion is here. And the citation he is adding based on his dagger addition to the guideline is a source which only he and the Church of Scientology has. While the Church keeps its copy(s) under lock and key and confidentiality, ChrisO feels he can use his copy as a citation. I'm fairly new on Wikipedia. The 3 policies and guidelines make sense to me and it confuses me when they don't make sense to others. Terryeo 00:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser assistance needed
Could you please look at the request regarding KJVTruth on WP:RFCU? I don't have a coldfile on Lightbringer. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

OpenInfo
Hi, Jayjg. You seem to know a little something about (according to the block log). I'd appreciate any feedback you have on WP:AN. Thanks. --Deathphoenix 20:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks like it's been worked out for now, though the messages both users have been leaving on my talk page suggests that this dispute will probably be on the back burner for a while. Thanks, Deathphoenix 22:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Johnski
I have indefinitely blocked User:Johnski for continuing to edit war on Dominion of Melchizedek. I'm justifying this on the proposed arbcom decision, so I may be exceeding my authority or interferring with arbcom's work. If the block is inappropriate, feel free to undo it, or let me know and I will. Tom Harrison Talk 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting
Keep an eye out...Special:Contributions/69.235.196.161 and Special:Contributions/69.200.83.252 Tom e rtalk 22:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost interview
Hello,. I hope you don't mind taking a few minutes out of your busy Arbitration schedule to answer a few questions for the Wikipedia Signpost.


 * 1) How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
 * 2) What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
 * 3) What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
 * 4) What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
 * 5) What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint yourself, Fred Bauder, and Jayjg? What would you say to those who opposed this decision?
 * 6) After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
 * 7) What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
 * 8) If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
 * 9) What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
 * 10) Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
 * 11) If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?
 * 12) Is there anything else you would like to mention?

Congrats on your recent selection. By no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of the questions; though we'd appreciate it if you did. An article featuring your responses will be published on Monday. Thanks a lot, and don't hesistate to ask me if you have any questions at all! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If some of the questions look familiar, feel free to skip them; I reused some questions from last time. Thanks!

Terrorists category
Did you know that Wikipedia has a Terrorists category? Could you tell me if it's existence is a breach of Wikipedia policy and if so whether it should be removed? If not I assume it's acceptable to put people in it if they fit the criteria? Thanks. Conch Shell 14:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Bible verses and chapters on Wikipedia
Hi Jay: Shavua Tov ! It is important that you see the following proposed Wikipedia policy pages and their discussion pages at Centralized discussion/Verses of 1 Kings 4 and 5 AND Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text. Thanks for giving this matter your serious attention before discussion is closed and the "policy" is set. IZAK 09:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

redesigned template.
Please review Template talk:Jewish language. Thanks for your time. Tom e rtalk 17:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Radhanite is today's featured article
Huzzah!!! --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Number of Christians
Dear Jayjg, I for my part changed it because it was added by the same IP that added the "declining" vandalism. I don't have numbers at hand and it might have been illustrating a point. Str1977 17:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I had no thoughts at all about this. I just saw the vandalism and that the same IP made the preceding edit as well, so I reverted them both. I didn't bother to follow any links. Str1977 21:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A friendly reminder
Hello,. Just a friendly reminder that I would appreciate it if you would answer some of the interview questions above; I would love to have complete responses from all of you for Monday's issue of The Wikipedia Signpost. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply! And regarding number 5 - probably a careless copy and paste error. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Early Christianity
I wonder if I might interest you in an accuracy dispute: Talk:Early_Christianity. Thank you for your time and consideration. 209.78.16.243 23:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please contribute
Jay, I have begun a discussion about a potentially contentious series of edits I am proposing for the Hamas article. Your input would be appreciated. --AladdinSE 07:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Independent Opinion on Robert I's Arbitration
I am a 61 year old retired English solicitor. I know both Robert Isherwood and Gregory Lauder-Frost. I can confirm that they are friends and that they live not far from one another (60 miles apart).

I was asked by Robert to examine what has happened to him and to give my opinion. My view is that he has been treated unfairly.

Robert made several attempts at complaints and also requested arbitration before other users. These were ignored. It may be that (like me) he is unable to properly find his way around the very confusing Wikipedia pages and headings.

User C.J.Curry however, made a request for arbitration which was immediately taken up. He appears to be the main protaganist in this dispute although he called in support from at least two other users, home on the range and ground zero, all of whom appear to know each other, and, indeed, praise each other. All three would appear to have the same political ideas.

Robert has one computer at his flat. He and his son use it. Gregory Lauder-Frost lives in Berwickshire and having remarried in 1998 has a young family. He has a very old computer which he and his wife both use. Gregory is not IT literate. He regards the internet as a dangerous source of disinformation.

It has been suggested that occasionally the same computer or computers with similar ISP number have been used, purportedly by one person using aliases. Without proof this would not stand up in our courts.

It has been suggested that several posters use similar language terms, phraseology, etc., and therefore it has to be the same individual making the postings. This would be thrown out of our courts. The majority of those attending a good public school, especially boarders, leave school with the same English language and linguistic attributes.

Robert has been banned for "aggressive editing". However, it was Robert's articles which were aggressively edited and often deleted, not visa-versa.

On several occasions "sources" were absolutely demanded and even when given were still ignored on the most specious grounds, such as assertions that a speaker/writer was being "sarcastic" or that the source had then to be checked. On several occasions sources were given in the references or publications and they were still ignored and the comment in the article deleted.

Robert's articles have been stated by Mr C J Curry to be "right-wing propaganda" which he a some sort of duty to eliminate. Having examined the original articles it may be contended that by quoting the organisation's won opinions and objectives may appear biased. But nor more biased than deleting them and relacing them instead with the detrimental opinions of a few journalists. In British courts a quote from a journalist is inadmissable without the journalist being present with the evidence used for the article concerned.

One of Robert's detractors has stated that Gregory Lauder-Frost's article was "vanity" and that Lauder-Frost was "on the fringe of the fringe". These statements were absolute opinion. The evidence does not stand up.

It may be that an article has not been written in a particular Wikipedia manner, but that should not make it inadmissable. Gregory was, in his time, a prominent figure. His activities in the various pressure groups, and indeed within the Conservative Party, made him, shall we say, a fascinating figure. He was a friend with Alec Douglas Home and numerous MPs. He was on a restricted guest list for a House of Commons Dinner on 4th October 1990 for John Major following his becoming Prime Minister (that is not on your article page) and he sat in front of Margaret Thatcher in a reserved seat for McWhirter's memorial service (deleted from the article). These things demonstrate that he was far from persona non grata, and definitely not on the fringe.

I have not the time to list here the seemingly endless lists of the manner in which Robert's comments and articles have been attacked. But it is unjust that these attackers are now confirmed as being wholly in the right and Robert wholly in the wrong. Articles on individuals and groups on the British Right should be fair and balanced and give some good idea of their opinions and views, of what they believe they stand for, and also the juxtaposed comments of others. Comments designed to place them in an unfair and bad light should at the very least be supported by evidence.

It has been suggested that the term "European" is meaningless. The Oxxford English Dictionary is cited with definitions. Some wors have numerous definitions. It is not possible to accept them all. most people would settle upon one. Robert has done this and been unjustly attacked as denying the "authority" of a dictionary which today carries words and definitions which would never have been acceptable to pre-1950 editors, and which are, at the end of the day, the opinions of the editors. Its all a matter of opinion.

The most appalling aspect of Robert's treatment appears to be that he has been treated as though he had made shocking or pornographic statements, that he had abused others in a dreadful manner etc. My reading is that he was very often provoked into robust responses by seemingly quite arrogant, even pompous, comments made by his detractors.

None of these points appear to have been noted by the arbitrators at all.

The arbitrators appear to have commenced their arbitration from an automatic position that Robert was absolutely wrong, and that he had committed some fantastic crime on Wikipedia. My own opinion is that he has obviously spent hours on end researching and submitting articles and information to Wikipedia, articles which previously were not there, and which filled a vital information gap. These were then attacked by ideological enemies under the guise of "neutrality" etc. In fact, what was criticised as opinion, was usually replaced by opinion.

Phrases such as "hard-right", "far-right", "extreme-right", "holocaust denier", "White-minority government" etc., are all loaded with political inuendo. They weould not be permitted when giving evidence in a British court as the court would be making the decision, not the witness.

His detractors' arguments, I submit, would not have the gravity of evidence in our courts for the drastic treatment/decision made by you on Robert Isherwood.

Michael.

Dhimmi
Hi, there is a heated discussion going on on the Dhimmi article, and they page has just been protected. I would appreciate it if you could mediate. Thanks.--Pecher 15:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievible - Major personal attack aganist you
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Addressing_Anti-Jewish_Bias there is a huge attack aganist you. Ems2 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That was from 2005!!!! Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 23:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly the first, or last, or even the worst. User:TheUnforgiven, a sockpuppet of User:ScapegoatVandal, had rather strong views about all things he assumed to be Jewish. Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know; that was kind of my point, but I think I was making it in a bit of a sarcastic way, so I've struck through the comment. Still working on learning to keep my mouth shut.
 * Actually I think you and I were once on a list of the Jewish cabal leaders behind Wikipedia, which I found very entertaining, since I'm not Jewish. (But I do tend to say "oy vey" a lot when I see certain editors...) Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 23:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, that list is [ http://www.stormfront.org /forum/showthread.php?t=225536 here] (on Stormfront.org, a Nazi site) and on the wikipedia-en mailing list. I can't tell you how honored I am to have made the list myself. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should create a user template that says "part of your imaginary Jewish cabal." --Leifern 00:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

names and titles of jesus
see my latest comment on the talk page, then, my changes to the article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Look at my Archiving Efforts
Dear Jay:

I've taken the time to archive the talk on the Luther pages. Would you take a look and see if I've done it right? Thanks! --CTSWyneken 03:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny 'Sockpuppet'
Hi Jay, I was wondering if you could please let me know if there is any indication that user:Morton devonshire and user:MortonsSockpuppet are related accounts. If they are it's funny and if it's not it's funny too. Well, it's funny up to a point anyway. I would appreciate it if you could check that out. Thanks. SkeenaR 03:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That is some weirdo. Ems2 16:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Morton_devonshire and MortonsSockpuppet are the same person, and I make no bones about it. Look at the talk page for MortonsSockpuppet if you have any doubts.  It's for comic relief.  Morton devonshire 05:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I edit with Morton_devonshire and MortonsSockpuppet. My girlfriend also has a Wikipedia account, if that's what you're referring to.  Morton devonshire 17:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Unblock me, Please!
I noticed you blocked IP address 205.188.117.5 from editing, thats an AOL one... so could you please unblock it... thanks-- IAMTHEEGGMAN  ( talk ) 23:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Help with User Doright
Please take a look at Talk:Whitewashing If I speak to him again, it will be in an RfC. Note that he once again claims that Robert Michael said something he did not. When he first put this quote from a database abstract online (I can document from talk pages) he quoted Michael, referring to an article by Michael. I looked up the article and discovered the words nowhere to be found in it. In fact, as is his practice, Dr. Michael did not at all insult Luther scholars in the way the abstract suggests. He lays out his case for what he sees as wishful thinking on the part of Luther scholars, vigorously presents what he sees as evidence for a darker Luther and judges some editions of Luther's antisemitic/antijudaic works as leaving out some of the worst material.

I thought that Doright was going to play by the rules, but he appears to wish to insult people who do not agree with him (Including humus and slrubenstein) Would you like to approach him, or is it time for me to initiate action? --CTSWyneken 02:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Here's a chronology of Doright's mishandling of material he attributes to Robert Michael. Please note that this is just one example of his mishandling of source material. I'm hoping someone can help him to correct this behavior. I do not like having to invoke formal procedures. However, having spend hours tracking down his sources and correcting them, I'm finding it difficult to tolerate. I hoping he might hear someone he respects, which is why I've asked you to look at it.

The text he inserted as it first appeared is at:

It reads:

"Dr. Robert Michael argues that Luther scholars who defend, censor, or try to tone down his views on the Jews, ignore the murderous implications of Luther's antisemitism. Like the Nazis, Luther mythologized the Jews as completely evil: they should not be treated as humans and should be cast out of Germany. They could be saved if they converted to Christianity, but their demonic hostility to Christian society makes this inconceivable. There was a strong parallel between Luther's ideas and feelings about Jews and Judaism and the essentially anti-Jewish Weltanschauung of most German Lutherans throughout the Holocaust."

He cited it as:

"Michael, Robert. Luther, Luther Scholars and the Jews 1985 Encounter. Indianapolis, IN: Christian Theological Seminary 46, 4 (Fall 1985) 339-356. Dr. Robert Michael is a 1997 recipient of the American Historical Association's James Harvey Robinson Prize for the 'most outstanding contribution to the teaching and learning of history,' Dr. Michael is Professor Emeritus of European History at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, where he has taught the Holocaust for nearly thirty years. He has published more than 50 articles and eleven books on the Holocaust and the History of Antisemitism."

I located a copy of the cited article and discoved that none of these words appear in the article at all. They very loosely represent the arguments Dr. Michael makes there. I made the assumption that Doright had done his own summary and placed it here.

StanZegel had deleted the paragraph. Feeling that excessive, I adjusted what I thought to be a summary to match Michael's article and inserted words to make clear it was Dr. Michael's view. This version is at: 

and is as follows:

"Dr. Robert Michael argues that Luther scholars ignore the murderous implications of Luther's antisemitism. Michael believes that, like the Nazis, Luther mythologized the Jews as completely evil, They should not be treated as humans and should be cast out of Germany. They could be saved if they converted to Christianity, but their demonic hostility to Christian society makes this inconceivable. He believes that a strong parallel between Luther's ideas and feelings about Jews and Judaism and the essentially anti-Jewish Weltanschauung of most German Lutherans throughout the Holocaust."

Doright reverted the text, saying in the edit summary: "Michaels is talking about Nazi's/Holocaust. It belongs in that section. Please do not insert your POV for Michaels, these are not my words, nor should they be yours"

The exchange on the talk page which follows is at:



Here I explained what I had done and why. SlimVirgin entered the discussion, and I gave her a full summary of the argument. Doright then gave a link to the true source of the words, although in incomplete form: []

I looked it up, discovered that the text comes from a short summary in a database, corrected the citation and the text to reflect this. It is at:

Doright reverted this change, saying in the edit summary. "corrected odd alteration"

We rereverted, and I thought the issue solved, until Doright again put the text on a page, this time in article Whitewashing, again asserting it to be the words of Dr. Michael.

Sorry for the blow-by-blow, but I thought it necessary to bring you up to speed. --CTSWyneken 02:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Wikipedian Chazanim
Hi Jay: Can you believe this: Category:Wikipedian Chazanim ? I have thus nominated it for deletion, see Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 5. Thanks. IZAK 20:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation accusation
I have not violated 3RR. I have done 2 reverts. Other mods have been changes to try to reach compromise wording.---Light current 00:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

About 'race'
I saw your comments saying that Jews are not a race, you are right, but neither are blacks, white asians, because there is only one human race... Maybe you should read the articles about race...

Please comment on this block
I stepped out of process the other night to block Darwiner111, immediately after I saw that he had at least one other account blocked for sockpuppetry abuse. This was related to the "poll" he started about era notation on Talk:Jesus. I also tried to remove the poll entirely, but it came back.

I'd appreciate your review of this; was I out of line? Nobody seems to have noticed. Usually I can count on all kinds of screaming from the person I blocked or from people trying to make sure admins don't overstep their bounds. I assume that's a good sign this time around, but I thought I'd get a second opinion. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 19:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. It helps me to get some perspective and make sure I'm not stepping out of line. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Dhummy
User 's only contributions are reverts and edit warring at Bat Ye'or. Previously, we had, whose only edits were reverts at Bat Ye'or and whom you blocked permanently for being a sockpuppet created for circumvention of WP:3RR rule at Bat Ye'or. Will you check whether is indeed a sockpuppet of the same impersonator? Thanks. PecherTalk 17:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

RFA
Hi, just wanted to thank you for voting on my RFA, which went through with a count of (58/0/1), far better than I'd expected. I intend to take things slowly and start using the extra abilities gradually, but if there's anything I can do just leave a message. Cheers, CTOAGN (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Difference between block and ban
Hi, Jayjg. I'm just wondering in connection with User:EffK &mdash; when someone is banned for a year by the arbitration committee, is he still allowed to edit his own talk page? I know that if you're blocked for, say, 3RR violation, you can still edit your talk page during the block, and it can be a useful way of communicating with people that you know will be watching that page. But I wondered was it different for editors who have been banned? Thanks. AnnH (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Dhommo
Now we have at Bat Ye'or. Looks like that person is not especially richly endowed with fantasy. Pecher Talk 08:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Duplicates of: Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Hi Jay: The following four articles (lists actually) have duplicate articles that need to be merged into them. See the "merged into" notices on:


 * 1) Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2000 (has three duplicates);
 * 2) Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2001 (has one duplicate);
 * 3) Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2002 (has two duplicates);
 * 4) Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2003 (has two duplicates).

Thanks for looking into this. IZAK 13:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Full Scale Edit War on at Jesus
Would you block the page for 24 or 48 hours so we can hash things out? --CTSWyneken 15:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Since I post this, another admin put a 3RR block on one user, and, at least for now, things have settled. Sorry for bothering you. --CTSWyneken 18:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

New Template:Juddom
Hi Jay: Shavua Tov! Please see the newly-proposed Template:Juddom which strikes me as odd and redundent for now. Please add your views at Template talk:Juddom. Thanks. IZAK 14:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

New user
Please take a look at User:John1838 to see if it's all appropriate. Thanks...KHM03 18:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Jewish liberals
I know you have an interest in these matters. My immediate reaction was to nominate for deletion, but I don't know where things stand on this, if such things are spediable or if they have to go through a *fd. older ≠ wiser 21:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've posted a question on the category talk page, as no clear criteria exists for it. I still can't figure how Michael Chertoff and Henry Kissinger, to name two, belong in the category. -Will Beback 22:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed
Until they stop trolling and making defamatory comments, even in their own special "troll section", then I agree we shouldn't give them the publicity. After all, it's not in fact a "review". I'll publicly support your position soon, busy at the moment. I've said I'll support adding it back on the Wikipedia review, but have now changed my mind. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or
Hi Jayjg, I've requested unprotection for this if you want to comment on the issue. Apart from the ins and outs of it, it appears that the sockpuppeteer is undeterred, so the only inconvenience is probably to bona fide new users. Palmiro | Talk 17:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Now we have doing nothing but reverting and causing disruption at Bat Ye'or. Pecher Talk 17:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

How do we go about conducting a vote?
Hi Jayg! Can you point me to a help page on conducting a vote? I really want to bring some closure to the issue over the existence of Jesus on the Jesus page. (of course, I may be naive in thinking a vote will do that... --CTSWyneken 23:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Chabad link in Minyan Article.
Hello, Jayjg, I would appreciate your comments/opinions in the debate I am having with Eliezer here: Talk:Minyan. Thank you. -- Avi 16:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
While I am banned from the Pal exodus article I am not giving up on the quest to make this article NPOV.

I have made several offers to the "gang" that "owns" the article that they woud try "to write for the enemy" but none of them have accepted that offer.

Fred Bauder suggested your name as a mediator. It is a tough job but I hope you will accept it. This article is in need of a major overhaul. BTW, you may want to get in touch with the Hebrew wikipedia guys, this article in Hebrew is indeed NPOV (not pro Israel as might be expected, they do a good job in Hebrew Wiki) and also shorter than the English version. maybe we can use a translation of the Hebrew wiki article about Pal exodus (called Nakba in Hebrew wiki) as a base to start re-writing the article.

I am banned from directly editing the article but I hope you will help me and Wikipedia in the effort to make it represent all POVs about this issue. That is what I was always after and that has not changed even if ArbCom has not understood what I am trying to do.

Thank You. Zeq 17:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL!! Thanks, Fred, and good luck, Jay. If you need my help, please do hesitate to ask. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As someone who tried to do this at 1948 Arab-Israeli War, I'm happy to not offer my assistance as well. Good luck, and please, don't ask me for help if it's needed :).--Sean Black (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you will take on mediating this article. Do you think you can do it while the pro-Israel side is banned but the Pro-palestinian side can still edit it without restrictions ?

Zeq 04:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation(2)
I am under the impression that according to Wikipedia own dispute resultion rules, Mediation and an RfC for wider participation should come  before  an ArbCom case. There were no such WP:Dispute_resolution procedure as far as Palestinian exodus so it would actually make sense (and mandated by policy) to through the mediation first.

So in a sense we should have finishjed the mediation before the ArbCom case. Unless of course more Wikipedia policies will be broken by that article. (NPOV has long gone)

07:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User:John1838
What can be done? KHM03 23:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He's now mentioned me on his userpage. What are my options?  KHM03 00:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes!
Just knowing you're here to listen is a big help. It seems Doright has calmed down. I hope that is permenent. On the Jesus page, I'm going to try working out a comprimise with a range of people. We will document the scholarship and simply revert with polite reference to the documentation when people try to play with the consensus.

All seems to be under control at the moment. Sometimes I wonder if I should go for adminship, but do I really want the grief that goes with it? 8-) --CTSWyneken 02:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

reliability of a precise source
Hi Jayig. Could you give me your mind about the reliability of Uzi Benziman concerning the biography of Ariel Sharon ? In particular concerning the creation of unit 101 ? Thank you User:ChrisC 11:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jayig. That is what I think too. Now the challenge will be to convince people about the "lack of neutrality" of that source. User:ChrisC 19:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Note all this is on the French-WP. What would you say about the introduction of such statements in sharon's biography ?
 * Uzi Benziman reports that "he made a name in his capacity to terrorize Arabs.". Following his fellowships, his adaptability, his audace and spirit of initiave compensate his "strange" aspect. (...)


 * There is also another paragraph in which Benziman, talking about the creation of unit 101, claims that Sharon wanted to command his own company but that his hierarchy didn't agree and that he provoked incident to convince Ben Gourion to allow him to build unit 101.


 * All this is (or would be) in Benziman's book : Israeli Caesar...


 * User:ChrisC 19:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If th issue is that the case is not closed.
JayJg,

It is clear that all disputte resolution process mediation comes before ArbCom.

I am not sure why it arrived to ArbCom (about Pal Exodus) before there was mediation - it seems someone was too hasty and broke the process.

So Fred agreed to go with mediation of this article. If you can not do it because ArbCom case is still pending there are two options:

1. Close the case and then do meadition (which is the exact opposite to the process) 2. suspend the case until the nd of mediation and possibly reopen it later (since everyone is so keen on banning me although I said many times that as long as a process that would make the article NPOV is found I will ban myself)

So are yu saying that you personaly can not do it (should we look for another mediator ?) or that no one can do it as long as the case is open ?

Zeq 18:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

semiprotection policy
Given your views on the application of this policy to Bat Ye'or, would you mind taking a look at and perhaps giving a view as to whether it would qualify as well? While there isn't a banned user involved, there is constant tiresome reverting in of near-nonsense from an anon with a dynamic IP. A request for semi-protection was previously made and rejected as not covered by the policy. Palmiro | Talk 16:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it. But, ... I've left a note on the Talk page of User:Splash, the admin who fully protected it, to explain the situation to him, but I haven't explicitly asked him to change his mind. Palmiro | Talk 12:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. Well, if we can't have it semi-protected, I would prefer it to be unprotected as the crank's contributions are rarely more than three times a day at worst (and he often takes breaks of several days) and are almost always quickly reverted out, and that way genuine editors can keep working on the article. He doesn't seem like the sort of person who'll lose interest in Wikipedia if the article is protected for a few days. Palmiro | Talk 13:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Palmiro | Talk 14:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My arbitration case
Hi,

As you know, I am one of the editors in danger of getting banned from 1948 Arab-Israeli War. I ask you to take a look at the case, and hopefully vote against the ban. Especially some of the proposals at the Workshop may be of interest. I think most of those proposals suggest a better way to solve the issue, clarifying the policy about sources, rather than relying on banning people.

I know Zeq has been utterly counter-productive, at times rude during this case. I do not support his style, and tried to tell him to take it easy a couple of times per e-mail, apparently without success.

I hope that the arbitration case will get to the issue, which is (for the 1948 Arab-Israeli War) the legitimacy of the quotations of Haj Amin al-Husayni. Two quotations are disputed, you will find sources here, and  here.

With best regards, -- H eptor  talk 23:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyhow, if I left something unclear about my position, do feel free to ask me on my talk page, or per e-mail. Best regards, H eptor   talk 03:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII v. Firebug
Please consider Requests for arbitration before closing RJII v. Firebug. Firebug may not actually have left. -- Netoholic @ 23:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Article for Deletion
Greetings. You may be interested in voting on Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (image free). Thanks. --Descendall 01:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on the Jesus Page
Hey, Jay, is there any way to block just the anonymous editors for this page for a few days? We have a ton of vandalism going on, but I do not want to stop edits entirely. --CTSWyneken 19:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --CTSWyneken 19:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Halacha
Hello Jay:Gut Voch. Please see and add your views to a very serious discussion at Template talk:Infobox Halacha. Thank you. IZAK 05:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Jewish views of Jesus
I noticed you were involed with the page "Jewish views of Jesus". I have made major changes to the article and would appresiate your input. Jon513 12:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider that rejection of the ArbCom case
Jay, can I please ask you to reconsider your rejection of the Agapetos angel RFA? Posting personal information is bad, very bad, and I don't care what sort of POV-pushing the editor was doing. Please consider the chilling effects of outing someone who wishes to remain anonymous. We can deal with POV-pushers, but we must not behave badly ourselves. There are many editors who access this website and contribute because they are anonymous. That used to be me, until Daniel Brandt decided to out me. Surely we are better than him? At the very least, can we consider ruling on this issue to make a precedent? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeq is cautioned regarding removal of well sourced information
+ 4.1) Zeq is cautioned to avoid removing information backed by reliable scholarly sources.

I only removed it when quotes were cherrypicked from Morris book to proove a claim that Morris himself oppose.

This is a too general generalization. Not every "information backed by reliable scholarly sources" desrve to be on an article, especialy if in creates a strong bias to a POV without the other view given opportunity.

As I said many times, I don't care about my self but look at the rules you are setting. They extend the Verifyable sources policy to places you don't want it to be.

One more thing: Zero was also a part of the case that ArbCom decided to accept. He has done more than anyone else in the area of:
 * Edit wars,
 * removal of good material,
 * calling people names and secribing their edits as "trash",
 * disruptive editing and last but nor least...
 * POV pushing. (This is endless )

The evidence for this is in the case itself and in fact any look at articles he edited recently or few years ago show the same pattern.

I at at loss why does Heptor banned and put om probations on things  he did not do  while Zero is not handled as tough as you handle me. If you look at behaviour and behaviour patterns Zero abuse is far greater than me. Compare to him Heptor is really a gentleman in his editing style.

The whole bias in this case is very clear when Zero gets off witbh a warrning (because he is clearly an anti-Israel editor) and Heptor is banned (becasue  some but not all  of  his  edits can be understood as pro-Israel.

I am already getting several people outside Wikipedia who contacted me about this case. some from Jewish comunity and some from the Press so i am sure this case will not end when you close it. We are only at the start of a long way to get Wikipedia to implement it's own NPOV policy for articles about israel. Appliying a similar measures to Zero as you would toward me will help. Look at this edit summary:, , and many like it in this article and others. ust few days he described my edits as vandalism and another editor edits as " Trash ". This pattern of abuse goes on for years and is still going on depsite the so called "warrning". By baning only me you send him a strong message that he can continue to do as he he did to me and ArbCom will eventually those he see as obsteceles. Zeq 16:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

PS Does Wikipedia has a policy against same person editing under 2 different user names ? If so we can add this to the list.

Any answer jay or you don't care ? Surly you undrstand the importance of treating  similar  behaviour in a  similar  remedy and I am sure that you don't think different rulling based on the editor POV should cause such disparity in decisions toward different editors. Zeq 05:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

*Deep Breath* Getting Ready to Put Jesus Consensus Paragraph Up
Dear Jay:

I'm going to put the paragraph in within a few hours. Is it appropriate for several average users, as I have suggested, to revert to it up to two times a day to maintain peace? --CTSWyneken 11:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! My plan, then, is to follow the list I left on the talk page. For example, if consensus can be reached on the Saducees, Pharisees thing, I'll be happy to see it added to the version in the article. I'm so worn out on this one, I'm ready to let other folks carry the ball a little. I've still got scholars to look up! --CTSWyneken 20:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Foreskin
You were quite right. Fleiss et al did indeed claim the existence of anti-bacterial enzymes, relying upon the purported existence of apocrine glands in the inner prepuce, and as I pointed out in a letter to Sex Trans Infect, they ignored one of their own references which clearly stated the opposite. They then misrespresented the findings of Birley et al, who did not say that washing with soap is a cause of balanitis - they said instead that excessive washing was associated with it. Fuzzy thinking and activism are by no means limited to Wikipedian activists...

The aposthia claim was bizarre. Foreskins come in all lengths, some fully covering the glans, some partially. Jakew 15:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Civility
Jay,

I admit that my civility changed once I noticed how Wikipedia ArbCom treated me differently then Zero.

Prior to that, the evidence that is in front of you, is clear: He is less than "civil" than me engage in edit war and POV pushing by far more.

Soon, I will be gone. My behaviour after I saw Fred proposed resolution is not and never will be the issue.

Wikipedia will have to deal with a 3rd descision in awhich the Pro Palestinian get a slap on the wrist and the Pro Israeli (with similar issus more or less) get banned.

The content that will be left in Wikipedia (strongly biased to the Palestinia propeganda) is also the problem.

This is the big issue.

Let me ask you something that may seem odd. I indeed learned from this expiriance (for example I just filled a request for mediation - a process I never knew existed) Did it ever occured to you that a big problem of how I worked here is because I am realtivly new ? That if there was more supervision on expirianced ditors, such as Zero, things will not get that far.

Have you ever bothered to analyze how the few articles I focused on (west bank barrier, Israeli Arabs, Hamas and palestinian exodus) are now by far more NPOV than thy were without me.

Let me tell you this: It is not easy to work in Wikipedia where the rules are about "dialogue and interaction" but there are those who only want to push a POV and therefor are not intersted in real dialogue(*). I happened to do most of my interaction in Wikipedia with one such person. With other people (you, slim, ramallite and more) things ended up differently.

My request: Re-think the whole way that ArbCom handled this case. If you would impose the same level of restrictions on Zero and Me (not sure how Heptor got dragged to the whole thing) I will pledge to "behave" and will stay towork together. If you don't want me here I can understand that. All contributor of Hebrew Wikipedia have left. If you you don't trust me (but can read Hebrew) I'll send you the links. In General ever since Fred wrote his biased proposed descision I behave as "someone who has nothing to loose" so don't complain about the Situation ArbCom has drove me too. Look at the articles I worked on compare them 3 month ago and now: That is the only way to measure my infualnce. (which I think is postive). Ask ramallite what he thinks.

Zeq 17:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

(*) see how much dialogue I have tried in Talk:Palestinian_exodus including this proposal:

Take a week, two weeks. Edit this article to the best of your understanding of the NPOV policy. I will stay out of your way. (but read the talk first and the NPOV policy) after this week (or two weeks) I am sure we will have a beter article and who knows, maybe I will not have more objections. I actully think you can do it Ramallite and that it will be good for your understanding of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Zeq 17:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Which got only this answer:

"it is totally normal human behaviour for civilians to move out of an area in a war" - that is true, but it does not imply that any particular circumstance should be described in that manner. Actually we should try to describe the known facts. --Zero 11:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Jay Have you ever read this:

Talk:Palestinian_exodus

Talk:Palestinian_exodus

Talk:Palestinian_exodus

You can not blame me for being un civil in my editing (until the point I found out the bias) - I did made an honest effort in compromise. The problem was (and I think it has now been resolved) that all editors in Nakba were of one POV. This is changing (due to my ArbCom case). So over all I think have been an agent of change and that is enough for me. But it is only the begining. (if am banned I will continue the effort to make Wikipedia NPOV - but I will have to do it from the outside)

Evidence
Jay,

Thanks for your answer. I'll try to explain. give me 2 minutes.

Have you looked at the whole evidence ?

What did I removed ?

1. A quote By Hannan Ashrwaii that is pure propeganda (it talks about how the palestinian wre cast aside by history or something like that.

2. Quotes by BG and Sharet that were put in the article to "proove" the issue of "talk about transfer caused the Nakba" (an Idea that Morris, who's book the quotes came from, denies very strongly)

3. On the 48 war I agreed to the mediation result by Sean that included "all sourced info stay all non sourced claims out" (I may indavertedly removed a bit more in one of the revert wars but the mediation result would restored it so no real harm done, none of us kept cool heads during the edit war)

This is it.

So what did I do: Edit war. Yes I agree. There was no other way to get the articles moving because Ian would get them "protected" just after he made a change and at that point he and Zero refused to discuss on talk any move toward compromise. they just kept saying (mostly Ian): I will take it to ArbCom. (as some kind of magic bullet: We either accept his edits or ArbCom will take care of us)

This is the story.

Now I will be under "probation" which means it does not even take ArbCom to block me any one (or 3) admins can do it. For example some of the more Pro-Islmic ones like Anon_editor etc..

So guess how will "discussions" with Ian and Zero will look like from now on. Is that look like an "even playing field" to you ? Surly you understand that they had never intended to compromise (Zero arrogance does not let him. Not only does he hate a specific group of people but he also very very arogant and self-rioghtous, every one that disagree with hm must be editing "trash" (just quoting him look at his edits summaries) so clearly you understand that under these conditions, the not easy task of being the few people in Wikipedia who strive for NPOV description of Israeli history it will become impossible.

So this is what i say: Edit war - we all took part. All the rest (which is not much) we all took part. So fine if you think "probation" is the answer put us all under probation.

I say now what I said before this case started: There is a problem with non NPOV in Israel-palestine related articles and new mechansims need to be put in place to force editors to cooperate until NPOV is reached.

With putting uneven restrictions you are sending them a message to just continue what they did so far.

I think that Wikipedia is important enough for you to dig beyond "banning". I will make it easy: I will leave Wikipedia if a mechansim that ensure true NPOV on Nakba article is found. promise.

Zeq 22:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Roman K. Kovalev
Can you take a look at this AFD, and vote or comment as you see fit? Seems to me like deletionism run amok, esp. in light of my additions to the article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Urgent CheckUser request
Please see WP:RCU regarding User:Bowlhover. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support of my request for adminship. I'm delighted that the RfA ultimately succeeded with a final consensus of 52/1/0, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any comments regarding my editing, or I can help you at any point in the future, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Again, thank you! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 11:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)