User talk:Jayjg/Archive 15

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

Old talk archived at /Archive 1/, /Archive 2/, /Archive 3/, /Archive 4/, /Archive 5/, /Archive 6/, /Archive 7/, /Archive 8/, /Archive 9/, /Archive 10/, /Archive 11/, /Archive 12/, /Archive 13/, /Archive 14/

Piła
Maybe it is time to unprotect it. It's been locked for about 3 weeks. Balcer 01:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for an almost instantaneous response. Balcer 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it appears that Wik is back. The page might need to be locked up again (though the changes being introduced are relatively harmless). Balcer 20:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * He must be using some kind of bot. His reverts are just way too quick. He must have created dozens of sockpuppet accounts by now.  Balcer 19:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You might also want to protect Template:Polishcity. It is an obscure, little-used template, but it does seem to be a favourite of Wik. Balcer 16:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Jews
Hey jay, after you reverted the article another anon- user-203.199.106.24 (who I assume it a sock puppet because this is his first edit and he is already reverting and quoting wikipedia policy) has reverted the article once again knowing that I cannot rv his edits because I have already rv the previous editor 3 times.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot
Thanks. Will sort. Rich  Farmbrough 10:10 28  March 2006 (UTC).

Can you block the vandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tylercar

Thanks, Zeq 19:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:PP
Hey! Please try not to overlook adding a page you protect to the list of currently protected pages at WP:PP. Thanks a bunch. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 21:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No biggie. I don't usually go through and compare against each other (Woohookitty liked to do that), but since he's quit RFP patrol I figured I'd go through it. Looks like Alireza Jafarzadeh, Henry Kissinger, Ethnic cleansing and Massoud Rajavi. I've added them all though, so no worries. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 21:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza's RfA


Hi, thank you for supporting me in my RfA which passed with a tally of (93/1/2). If you need any help or wish discuss something with me, you are always welcome to talk to me. GizzaChat  &#169; 12:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Request
Hi Jay: I have received the following request concerning Rabbi Yaakov Meidan:
 * Rav Meidan, now a Rosh Yeshiva in Yeshivat Har Etzion, recently requested that his name be spelled in English publications as "Yaaqov Medan." As you can imagine, this spelling garners much fewer Google hits than when spelled with a k. Should his article, and all mentions of him, be changed to "Yaaqov" in deference to him as a self-identifying entity, or not? I'm not familiar enough with WP:NC to know the answer. Thanks, DLand 18:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Input is welcome. IZAK 20:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your question at Talk:Yaakov Meidan. If you have no further objection I will proceed with the move. --DLand 20:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Romanians
The Romanians in Canada are around 400,000, that's the estimation, and at the 2001 Canada Census there were officially 131,000 of single or double ancestry. Please stop messing around that article and if you have a good memory, you will remember that that was put there before, so let it like that, right? NorbertArthur 29 March 2006

Look, I understand that we have to put the official figures, but we gonna put there too the estimations, right? And at Canada, please stop putting the stupids single and mixed origins numbers, because no article on wikipedia has an estimation of their population in acountry of that manner. We can just put 131,000 Romanians and after the estimationof 400,000. But please just don'tut anymore the thnig of single-multiple origins, becaue for example somebody that needs the infomation of all Romanians, that means 131,000. NorbertArthur 29 March 2006


 * Jayjg, I've responded to your query at my talk page. And Norbert, you've been around long enough to know that citations are required, and to discuss and explain your proposed changes first on the talk page. You also know that the Romanians article properly covers "ethnic Romanians" only, and not all and sundry groups who have even a tangential association or background with the country of Romania itself. --cjllw | TALK  02:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Names and Titles of Jesus
Dear Jay, the New Testament does, in fact, call Jesus God, and implies that he is God in many places. Naturally, Judaism and Islam objects to this fiercely, and is one reason, as you know, that Judaism has a hard time with the New Testament and why Islam has a hard time believing the New Testament to be a true record of Jesus.

So I think we need to keep the title "God" in the article. Now, the passages quoted do not all directly claim deity for Jesus, and I'll argue for their removal for that reason. There also are some NPOV issues, calling Jesus "Christ" without qualification, for instance, that I would support you editing.

But push comes to shove, I have to side with the anonymous user on the title itself. --CTSWyneken 22:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the verse list needs some editing, which I will get to. But there is no question that John 1:1 "and the Word was God" and others I will provide say so. If you wish, I can provide you the scholarly references that back this up. I'm even willing to point to groups I have as hard a time calling Christian as you have considering Jews for Jesus Jewish, have a different view. It does not change, however, that scholars believe the NT teaches the divinity of Jesus. --CTSWyneken 22:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

--CTSWyneken 22:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the verse list needs some editing, which I will get to. But there is no question that John 1:1 "and the Word was God" and others I will provide say so. If you wish, I can provide you the scholarly references that back this up. I'm even willing to point to groups I have as hard a time calling Christian as you have considering Jews for Jesus Jewish, have a different view. It does not change, however, that scholars believe the NT teaches the divinity of Jesus. --CTSWyneken 22:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take up what the New Testament says on this subject with you, but it doesn't make much of a difference in what should be in or out of the article. At the very least, a large number of scholars of the New Testament maintain that this passage is a point blank statement of the divinity of Jesus and that He is God. Whether this or the opposing viewpoint represents a majority on the subject is hard to say without research. We may have to resort to "some...others" language. A part from scholarship, however, the traditions that represent orthodox Christianity east and west see it that way. So it belongs in. If you wish, I'll collect references.

Let me check a few assumptions with you first. From your background, can we assume Hellenistic Judaism to be the background of the Gospel of John? If so, I'm really puzzled. I've always been told that Judaism was radically monotheistic. There is no room in it for any divinity other than the God. Am I wrong? If I'm right, how can John say καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, "and God was the Word," (1:1) and  μονογενὴς θεὸς, "the only born God," (1:18) and not be calling Jesus the God of Israel? --CTSWyneken 02:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled, of course, to your opinion. From what I know of the Book of John, I'll beg to differ. The author uses quite a bit of Jewish idiom and culture and compares in thought processes to Philo. When he refers to "the Jews," I believe him to be referring to "Judeans" -- perhaps the way a Galilean might. ;-) --CTSWyneken 19:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Most new testament scholars agree that the author of John was the only one of the four canonical evangelists who doesn't make obvious errors regarding pre-diaspora geography and customs, and therefore was the most likely to have actually lived in first century Judea. One researcher – but not a bona fide "biblical scholar" – even makes a reasonable case that Mary Magdalene may have been the author of The Gospel According to John. HowardEvans 4:26, 23 April 2006

Serious problem involving the Agapetos Arbitration
I'm sorry to spam your talk page, but this seemed serious enough to directly put on your talk page. I have evidence that AiG has actively had employees push their POV on the AiG page and possibly on related pages. I have added a new evidence section in the Agapetos arbitration to that effect, explaining the evidence. Due to the very serious nature of this accusation and its possible implications for Wikipedia, I decided to directly alert all of the ArbCom members. JoshuaZ 01:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * JoshuaZ retracted this in evidence because it was erroneous, but failed to mention it on your talk page. agapetos_angel 07:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's highly inaccurate. I qualified the evidence in question. The user wasn't an employee but was specifically asked by an employee. See my evidence section and Standon's for details, and Agapetos, please don't put words in my mouth. JoshuaZ 13:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Khomeini
I've added some stuff about Khomeini's views on non-Muslims, but people might try to take them out. Could you keep an eye on that article as well? Auca m anTalk 14:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you comment there did not exactly help since it just went ignored. They've also removed the whole section without giving any reason. Auca m anTalk 19:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Israel and domestic law
Al Haq argues:


 * In some instances Israel has claimed that the closure of land areas to their Palestinian owners and destruction of Palestinian properties in areas adjacent to settlements conforms to the local law and planning regulations. However, at the base of these practices is a breach of international law of treaties. As noted in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, "a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty." As such, Israeli reliance on local law does not justify its violations of its international legal obligations.

This took me less than five minutes to find via Google. --Uncle Ed 19:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

RE: Romanian diaspora
Ok then did u get the explications of where we get the 400,000 numbers??? If you know to read you will see that there are officially 131,000, and we don't care if they are a single or multiple origins, right??????' Stop messing there with your stupids things, how I told u, check all the wikipedia's ethnic articles, if you're not able to find, here there are some of them : Poles, Italians, Serbs, Germans, Russians, Greeks, Hungarians... tell me where do you see such a tHing that you wrote there. I council you to find an another article and write your stupidities. I will contact all the other Romanian user that participated to the agreement we made to let the Canada figures like that and we gonna see what we can do with you. NorbertArthur 30 March 2006

User:Herschelkrustofsky
Jay, would you mind doing a user check on and ? The IP addresses that came to light during a previous user check for LaRouche 2 (confirmed by a developer) were 64.30.208.48 and two AOL ranges, 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255 and 172.192.0.0 - 172.216.255.255. See WP:AN/I for his latest activities. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Arab transference from Israel
Please take a look at Talk:Israeli Arab transference from Israel (and the article itself), basically Lokiloki, the article's author, asserts that Avigdor Liberman's current political agenda is to forcibly transfer Israeli Arabs from Acre, Sakhnin, etc. to the Palestinian Authority. Now, we all know Liberman doesn't love Arabs, but with all fairness, he has abandoned that campaign for a more moderate approach a long time ago. The 5 or 6 sources used to support this claim are also questionable, as they are all opinion pieces, and there was even an article written by Uri Avneri (the archrival of Arutz 7, so to say). By the way, I'm asking several users to look at that page, so please don't feel I'm insencere because I C&Ped the paragraph ;) -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 10:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Without going into long debate please
Jay,

this is simply wrong

Liberman does not advocate transfer. I t can be that 100 comnatators describe his agenda this way but the truth is that he does not. What he advocate is redrawing of israel borders so that many israeli arbs would find them self on the Palestinian side of the new border. This is not the same as "transfer" (also known as population exchange) this is a proposal for land swap between israel and Palestinians: Israel get few % of west bank land and Palestine get few % of Israeli land. Zeq 19:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jay,

Yes it is much better. The LOndon Tims is not 100% accurate on this here is a better source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/693768.html.

He is asking them to pledge loyalty to the State as a homeland of the Jewish people. Still, pretty fasict idea if you ask me.

On the other hand I have no doubt that many have their only loylaty to their own people, the Palestinian people and there is nothing wrong with that. Zeq 04:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Check user
User:Rabainutamtam and User:Truthinchabad based on similiar disrtuptive edits minutes apart to Rabbinical College of America and Mendy Herson --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  21:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

More check user

 * User:24.7.102.19 and User:Aminz. Both have edited the article Criticism of Islam and have done wholesale reverts on Dhimmi. Aminz may be using an anonymous IP address to avoid being blocked again for 3RR violation on Dhimmi. Pecher Talk 14:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Jahnn may be a sockpuppet of User:SouthernComfort establsihed to circumvent the 3RR on Ruhollah Khomeini. User:Jahnn's only edit was a revert on Ruhollah Khomeini. Pecher Talk 15:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ben Dunkelman
Yes, I´m sorry about that: it was quite inaccurate of me; I should not only have said "Ben Dunkelman", have should have said "Ben Dunkelman and related articles", in view of this. And I really did not think that anyone would feel that it was a violation of  WP:CIVIL by referring to you and SV as "our twins" (in apostrophe in the original). But I will certainly note your opinion and take that into the account in the future.

On the other hand: I was very suprised to find on my talk-page the message: "As for Ben Dunkelman, [], we're not allowed to simply plagiarize phrases from the internet". I hadn´t (and still have´t) even searched the internet for Dunkelman! Much less added anything from the net to his article. Everything I had added to his article was from a book (="Blaming the victims"), which I had cited. I was very suprised, and my first thought was that somebody else previously had uploaded quotes to the internet using the same source as I had used. But this was not so.

Instead, there apparently have been things in the Dunkelman article which were indeed plagiarized from the web (""deeply attached to his Jewish roots"). That had been in the article when I started editing it, I hadn´t thought of checking the article for possible old plagiarism before I started adding new material.

If somebody had made a mistake, (say; having mixed up my edits with some previous edits) and accepted it (it´s a very easy mistake to make, IMO), well, that would have been the end of the story.

Instead: I was accused of "plagiarism", something I take as a very serious charge. The only "proof" that was offered is one edit on the 4. october 2005, where I copied 3 words ("thinly disguised sketch") from NYT..and only referred to the NYT -article on the talk-page. I have been told "That's called plagiarism and it isn't the only time I've seen you do it." As I said; I take charges of plagiarism very seriously. I asked for any other examples (since it was said:" it isn't the only time I've seen you do it."), but got only personal attacs in return ("you're involved in deliberate time-wasting").

As a conclusion I hope that you can agree with me on this: If you make any charges against your fellow editors, you should at least be prepared to back them up (wih diffs.) If you cannot, or will not, back them up, then A: do not make the charges, or B: apologise. Regards, Huldra 16:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Rudolf Vrba
Jay, would you mind taking a look at Rudolf Vrba and a rewrite I'm doing of it at Rudolf Vrba/draft? I started to edit the former last night, which looked like this when I started. I managed to get some edits in, but then had trouble from a new user, User:Polyphem, who kept removing sourced material because he disagrees with it or doesn't like the source, (helped to some extent by Zero0000), and who has indicated on the talk page that he intends to continue doing it. I've tried explaining about V and NOR, but it makes no difference. Would you mind looking at the draft version and letting me know what you think? Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Of course, please feel free to edit as you see fit. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually most of it is quite good. There are a few errors that need fixing, including one or two in critical places. --Zerotalk 07:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jay, thanks for all the work you put into it. It's looking really good now. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA vote
Hi Jayjg. Thanks for voting on my RfA. I was hoping to get a bit more guidance from you, if at all possible. I have responded to your vote on the nomination page, but I'm not sure whether you will be watching or re-checking that page. Cheers TigerShark 07:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

one million romanians in Italy
Do you have better sources than the Prime Minister of Italy?

An October 2005 report estimates that 1,061,400 Romanians are living in Italy, constituting 37.2% of 2.8 million immigrants in that country. If someone eventually puts together a good citation apparatus for this article, that's
 * Mitrica, Mihai Un milion de romani s-au mutat in Italia ("One million Romanians have moved to Italy"). Evenimentul Zilei, 31 October 2005. Retrieved 31 October 2005.


 * The Prime Minister S. Berlusconi visiting in 12.10.2005 Romania said that there are at least 600.000 (http://www.guv.ro/presa/afis-doc.php?idpresa=42228&idrubricapresa=&idrubricaprimm=&idtema=&tip=&pag=1&dr=). So I think is correct.


 * What yoou do is called vandalism. You discredit an official source presented to you. Ask Prime Minister of Italy again if you don't believe me.


 * Dear anonymous user, Regardless of what the facts turn out to be, please note: An official census is by default a legitimate source for population estimates. A quote from a politician (whether (s)he be Berlusconi, Blair, Bush Jr., Saddam Hussein, or anyone else) is not (it may be true, but it may also not be true). Respectfully, Olve 18:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg
Just so you know, Bernard Lewis doesn't mention Khomeini in The Jews of Islam, Princeton, 1984, p.34., there are different school of thoughts on what "ritual purity" means in Islam among these Mullahs. Different clerics have different perceptions and issue different religious decrees or what they call "Fatwas". Regards. --ManiF 19:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've checked the book on Google Book. Bernard Lewis never mentions Khomeini but he makes a general assertion about the Shia clerics. But as I said earlier, different clerics have decrees on the issue of "ritual purity".  Fazel Lankarani or Sistani for example, who are the two highest ranking Mullahs in the world now, specifically state that "ritual purity" doesn't apply to the people of book such as Jews and Christians. . Regards. --ManiF 19:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, let me look it up again. --ManiF 19:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My bad, Lewis apparently does cite Khomeini saying "unbelievers" on page 34 but not "non-Muslims" as Aucaman asserts. If you read Fazel Lankarani's religious decree or Fatwa which I provided earlier, he defines "Kafir" or "unbeliever" as "Murtad (apostate, either Melli or Fetri: these expressions will be explained later) is Najis; but the people of the Book such as Jews and Christians are Pak". --ManiF 19:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Because the information is misrepresented and misleading. Khoemini doesn't refer to "non-Muslims", he talks about "unbelievers". As I said earlier, different clerics have different decrees on the issue of "ritual purity" and its meanings and implications. Sistani and Lankarani' clarifications of what "unbeliever" means are significant, because they are the two most important Marjas in the world, just as Pope's opinion would be significant to interpretation of a law in Catholicism. --ManiF 19:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Bernard Lewis' views and assertions about the implications and meanings of "ritual purity" are by no means a universal opinion among the scholars of Islam. --ManiF 19:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The term "non-Muslim" is misleading in such context and I believe there is an ongoing meditation case regarding "ritual purity in Islam" and its meanings and implications  and you were a part of it. My main concern is that regardless of what Bernard Lewis' own views are, Khomeini never uses the term "non-Muslims" even in the quote cited by Bernard Lewis. --ManiF 20:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Khomeini
Could you comment on what I'm doing here? Am I doing this correctly? Auca m anTalk 06:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew ?
Hi Jay. Do you speak Hebrew? someone made a change to 1948 war that absolutly is wrong.

Komemeiut is rebuilding, resurection or see this: Best,

Zeq 17:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I can not edit 1948 war.

Do you have Even-Shoshan which is THE authority in Hebrew dictionary ?

It says:

"1. With head lift up high i.e. with pride, without fear 2. In the political sense: Tkuma (renewal, restoration, rejuvenation) Independence, sovereignty

Example: 'the people under occupation have finally gain political independence in form of statehood'  "

In the entry for Tkuma: "Restoration of the state of Israel after years of destruction. Rebuilding the state that was once destroyed"

Jay can you change it. This is wrong as it now is. Thanks. Zeq 15:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 20:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Have I offended you in some way?
We're cool. I have nothing personal against you. We may disagree in terms of admin details, but what would Wikipedia be without a good argument once in a while? It was a fair point that I thought you might have considered, and you have done a good job in elaborating on my concern. -- Jay  (Reply)  21:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Stark...
Did you notice this? --JW1805 (Talk) 21:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Check-user request
Jay, if you have any time, would you mind looking at User:Bob, just Bob, User:Mistress Selina Kyle, and User:195.194.75.204? I've just blocked Bob on suspicion of being an account MSK used for block evasion, and I believe that IP is one the person operating the account has used. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jay. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Short mediation
Hello. Before it goes to far (which is not the case yet), could you give us your mind (at the condition it is as wise as usual). Thanks in advance. Ian removed 2 POV flags (in the article since much time). I put one back and we now discuss of the pertinence of the POV flag -> User:ChrisC 19:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Chametz
Hello, Jay. Would you be able to move Chometz to Chametz over the current redirect? I've posted this over at Requested moves, but it doesn't seem to be getting much attention there. Thanks, DLand 20:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Arabs NPOV issue
Hi Jayjg, I was wondering if you would be gratious enough to weigh in on the debate between myself and Zeq about the last paragraph of the demographics section of the Israeli Arabs article. I don't see why an otherwise straightforward and mundane explanation of the demographics of Israeli Arabs needs to be peppered with provocative quotes and political posturing. I'm not trying to censor the article, I just don't think it's appropriate there. It also doesn't seem very NPOV to represent the issue with extremist viewpoints, however much they may "balance each other out". Kaldari 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you share your thoughts?


Cheers, Jakew 21:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Chametz
Hey, just wanted to say thanks for moving the Chametz article. DLand said it was you, and it did get done quickly. Thanks! Avraham 01:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete rather than respond?
Would you be kind enough to respond to this, my inquiry, concerning your deleting my comments here and at Criticism of Wikipedia? Why did you do that? 209.6.189.247 02:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Banned editors are not allowed to edit. Jayjg (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. You thought I was a banned editor. How may I establish to your satisfaction that I'm not? 209.6.189.247 00:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, your edits got caught up in the edits of the banned editor Zordrac. They happened at the same time, and the IPs are somewhat similar. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 203.122.209.179 must be Zadork. He picked up on my post after about an hour - couldn't let it go. You replaced both contributions with your opinion that certain critics should not be noticed and haven't changed that. 209.6.189.247 19:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Perusing ANI indicated to me that Zradork is Mistress Selina Kyle. I know it's not funny when you're dealing with it, but it's funny from the outside. I accept your apology. If you came to the point of deciding to go out in flame, you could delete Criticism of Wikipedia. 209.6.189.247 08:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus
Jay, I don't know about you, but I think it's probably time to do something about Alienus. Could you take a look at a draft RFC and add anything that you feel is important? Thanks. Jakew 15:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, who shall bring me the head of Alienus? I'm so, so glad that there is no cabal. Alienus 05:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Cabals are secret. Public requests for someone to look at a public RfC are the exact opposite. Perhaps the issue here is that you aren't really familiar with the meaning of the word cabal. And, of course, if you had abided by policy, instead of continually flaunting it, there would be no reason for an RfC in the first place, would there? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy
Why do you object to the insertion of Ilana Freedman's quote? Pecher Talk 21:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Philo and Jesus
I did a search of the Greek corpus and found a reference to Joshua as Iesus, sometime a few months ago, I think. I'll rerun the search when I get back from vacation. The citation will be useful here and on the Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament pages. --CTSWyneken 16:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! Away from my characters sets at work, I used English. Philo referred to Ἰησοῦς,persumably יְהוֹשֻׁעַ Since I don't know of a Hebrew text of Philo, I can't be absolutely certain, though. --CTSWyneken 17:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

New Vandal
An anonymous user with IP number 65.122.24.2 has been vandalizing the Passover page for the past few days, as well as the Wolf spider page. Can he/she be blocked? Thanks, Yoninah 20:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

RFM
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Medical analysis of circumcision, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Alienus 02:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Latest nonsense
Hi, could you check this out for me? I assume is another Zephram sockpuppet. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism ad nauseum
Gee, does this edit comment sound familiar? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Check user again
Jay, will you check whether User:Eastern section of the nation is a sockpuppet of the blocked User:MuslimsofUmreka? Editors have accused him of being a sockpuppet based on the same pattern of editing. Thanks a lot. Pecher Talk 14:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister
Thanks for bringing it to my attention ;)   Proto    ||    type    16:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Because
Because the references to the dispute cropped up a few times on my list. Kindly do not tell me what to do. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * With respect, your help appears to be an arrogant smugness, so perhaps you could either be more polite or refrain from what appears to be, telling me what to do --Irishpunktom\talk 16:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That is how it appears, perhaps not what was intended, and the statement was issued with respect, perhaps unwisely --Irishpunktom\talk 16:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

NOR
I don't know what else to do - I did press "protect" and when I go to the page, my commands only allow me to "unprotect" it now sugesting it is protected. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Okay, I see what happened now. Anyway, it is protected. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp PR
Hello there! I remember seeing you contribute to various Holocaust-related articles. I have recently expanded the article on Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp and asked for a peer review. I thought you might want to take a look at the article and perhaps improve it or tell me what's missing.  // Halibutt 00:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Faith
On WP:OR, you wrote:


 * Moreover, you are not trying to launch a discussion; rather, you (like many other new editors) have discovered that Wikipedia policy forbids you from making certain edits you'd like to make, so you keep insisting that policy doesn't say what it says. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't imagine you'll be able to take my comments as offered in good faith -- that's a tough skill that takes lots of practice and effort -- but could you please refrain from outright accusations of bad faith? Thanks! Ragout 02:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. Violation of Assume Good Faith.  That'll get you blocked.--1010011010 05:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Stark?
Hi, I don't want to "bite the newcomers"...but could you check if is a Stark sockpuppet? --JW1805 (Talk) 04:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

OR
OR? If you're referring to alternate uses of the term "New anti-Semitism" I have provided four sources, CJCurrie provides a fifth on the talk page (one Daniel Pipes). Homey 03:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've found additional sources: Times of London, Jerusalem Report and Kol Israel's UK correspondent. Are you sure you didn't remove the alternate definition because you just dislike it or are offended by the anti-Muslim sentiment being equated with anti-Jewish sentiment? I think there's a lot of similarity between the Islamophobia and "new Anti-Semitism" debates, both of which, critics contend, being terms used to silence or delegitimise critics. Maybe we should merge the two articles? Homey 04:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge
I was joking - however, I think there are definite similarities. Homey 01:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Piła
Based on his previous behavior, it's pretty obvious that Wik is just going to revert again. What should we do? &mdash;Khoikhoi 04:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I honestly haven't ever seen him get tired. :p However, it sounds like a good method. &mdash;Khoikhoi 05:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. &mdash;Khoikhoi 05:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Is breaking the 3RR acceptable in this case? &mdash;Khoikhoi 05:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sweet! This includes personal attacks, right? Just kiddin'. &mdash;Khoikhoi 05:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocking 1010011010
I see that you've blocked editor 1010011010, and that my warning to him to avoid incivility came too late. In my view, you are abusing your power by blocking in a case where you have a conflict of interest. WP:BLOCK states that "sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute," and you are clearly engaged in a content dispute with 1010011010.

Also, although I do think 1010011010 has been uncivil, I think your own rudeness contributed to his incivility. For example, you mocked him with comments such as "Hmm, let's see. A new editor with 7 edits claims that he understands policy better than the person who helped draft it. ROTFL!" Again, I don't see how you can be objective in this matter, and I hope you will recuse yourself and refer it to another admin.Ragout 08:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wik / NoPuzzleStranger / Kelmor / Darkman201
The next one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Country_subdivisions/Naming&action=history

...:-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

one more: Fey aldrich - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Country_subdivisions/Naming&action=history Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * do you log the IPs? Maybe he can be sued in court? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

one more: User:Chubbch -- Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Another puppet?
I believe User:Reformado is another User:Zephram Stark puppet. Your thoughts? bd2412 T 21:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Judah haNasi vs. Judah haNasi
Hi Jay: Hope you had a good Yom Tov! Please see User talk:Judah haNasi and add your comments. Thank you. IZAK 05:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My Admin Request
Dear Jay:

Thanks for the kind words in my RfA. I'm at a loss as to why everyone says I need broader experience. Isn't the point supposed to be that we can trust admins to deal with problems and help users to get along well?

Since I already sink hours into the wiki, I don't know that I can spare the time just to be able to do reverts, semi-block pages and have the added umph to help people play nice. --CTSWyneken 09:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Turtles
You seem to be more knowledgeable about the situation than I, so I thought I'd let you know this message was left on my talk. I think the "bot" claim warrants a block as well- I don't know what the reference to turtle means, if it's a computer term or what, but my guess would be it's a reference to a joke on my user page. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 14:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Stark
. --JW1805 (Talk) 17:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Vincent Cannistraro
Jay, if you have any time, could I ask you to look in on the above? A newish editor is adding his own opinions and not using the sources correctly. Any input would be appreciated. Cheers, SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Primitive Yahwism

 * I nominated this article for AfD. I chose not to use speedy because of the obvious sensitive nature of the topic, though I think you're right that the total lack of its mention anywhere probably means this guy made it up. pm_shef 20:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Doright's comments on my RfA
Since you know the history of my interactions with user Doright and since I'm still ignoring him, would you reply to his comments?

Thanks! --CTSWyneken 15:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision
Could you have a look at the latest changes, please? TipPt made a number of dubious changes, which I criticised in the talk page, with no serious responses. I reverted these. Alienus reverted and has now taken to reverting using popups (eg here). In my view these changes make the article considerably worse. Jakew 18:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And by "worse", Jake means "not as biased towards pro-circumcision activism". I reverted using a popup because there was no need for further explanation.  Jake's stated reasons are not acceptable. However, feel free to drop warnings on my page and otherwise reveal your partisanship, just in time for the RfM. Alienus 18:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, by "worse", Jake means precisely what he says, for reasons already stated in Talk:Circumcision, which nobody has yet addressed. If you think these are unacceptable, Jake suggests that you address them at the appropriate page. This page is for communication with Jayjg. Jakew 20:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was under impression that this page was where you turned on the |Bat Signal that summons your patron pro-circ admin. Alienus 20:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the article needs a few snips ... ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs)

Zephram Stark?
Is a Stark sockpuppet? --JW1805 (Talk) 00:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I can assure you that I am not a sockpuppet, JW1805. Do you even know the definition of a sockpuppet? --Vista Delay 01:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther (Again)
Please take a look at the talk page. We're on the verge of an edit war. Am I crazy here? --CTSWyneken 02:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Could an administrator contact me by email?
I request that an administrator contact me by email through the listed email address in my preferences to help me on an important matter. drboisclair 15:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I request that user page User:drboisclair and its talk page be protected from editing, as I wish that user to be retired. drboisclair 16:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please disregard this request. I do not wish to retire: I would lose my edit count, which admittedly is not very high. Drbois 20:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Request
Hi Jayjg,

Would you be able to block someone for violation of the 3RR for me? Thanks. &mdash;Khoikhoi 04:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, another use took care of it. Thanks anyways, &mdash;Khoikhoi 19:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Banned editors
"Reverting a banned editor is never considered vandalism, regardless of the alleged quality of the edit." That's just sick. By reverting to the worse version you just descend to the level of the "banned editor", becoming a vandal yourself. Our goal here is to build the encyclopedia, not punish some people. Doing harmful reverts cannot be justified. It is vandalism, plain and simple.  Grue  09:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Various Items
Dear Jay: Thanks for taking care to reply. I'm not overly worried about all of this at the RfA. I'm just trying to understand what people are expecting that I'm not doing. I thought I was ready for this or I never would have allowed my name to stand.

No rush on the Luther pages right now, except to take a look at the vote on the Martin Luther page. --CTSWyneken 10:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Advice Requested
Dear Jayjg, I am Chai Walla. I am involved in editing and interested in discussing on a few pages mostly related to Eastern Esoterica=Nath, Tantra and a few teachers. I was just informed by another editor that I am a confirmed sockpuppet. This is not true. I did while travelling edit behind the same router as Baba Louis. We are not the same person and never have been. The problem is that another editor does not want to discuss in good faith, as he is convinced that the sockpuppets are "ganging up". While I had poked around Wikipedia for some time prior to my first edits, I was unaware of the concept of a sockpuppet when I edited behind the same router. I feel I have the capacity and knowledge for worthwhile contributions in a few areas. The page where my "sockpuppet" status was revealed to me as an issue is atYogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, at the bottom of the page. Please advise as I do not know how to resolve this issue so that other editors will discuss in good faith and without paranoid suspicion. Thanks in advance-Chai Walla 07:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Editing my comment to let you know that I've decided to file an RfC against the problem user: Requests for comment/Israelbeach Thanks for your attention, you'd be surprised how much that simple comment on my talk page meant to me. --Woggly 11:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jay, thanks for your offer of help. I've come across an extremely unpleasant user whom I honestly don't know how to deal with. He's been playing Wikipedia in a way that needs to stop. I turned to the other administrators at the point when I no longer trusted my own motives - would blocking him be necessary damage control or just sheer vindictiveness?

The user,, has stated that he is Joel Leyden (see Articles for deletion/Joel Leyden). I ran a search on the name Joel Leyden in Hebrew (ג'ואל ליידן) on Google Israel and discovered that about 10 months ago he issued a press release for the Public Relations firm that he owns, about how he can optimise use of the internet as a PR tool, and how he can guarantee his customers that their product will show up in high places on internet search motors. I suspect that Leyden is attempting to use Wikipedia as a tool for his PR firm. I find this absolutely despicable.

As I see it, Israelbeach has committed the following "offenses":
 * Started a slew of vanity articles about himself, his business and his friends, of questionable noteability. He gives as evidence of notability references to his own news agency. (examples: Israel News Agency, Charley Levine, Sara Silber, Chaim Emmett and Archie Granot).
 * Created a host of sockpuppets to support himself, to defend his articles on AfD, and to circumvent 3RR (see: Requests for CheckUser)
 * Has deleted (via one of his sockpuppets) comments of another user who opposed him on a talk page
 * Is attempting to use the article Ra'anana to promote a cause with which he is personally involved, a lobby for divorced fathers' rights. For this end he has inserted a questionable paragraph to the end of the article, which has been discussed on the talk page and removed several times by various editors including myself, only to be reverted time and again by him and his sockpuppets. He takes care to circumvent 3RR by use of sockpuppets. He and his sockpuppets have by now reverted the page at least 11 times in the past three days (it is currently protected to prevent this recurring).
 * Constantly accuses anyone who engages in discussion with him of "personal attacks", "vandalism", "slander"; threatens all sorts of actions including legal action against his opposers; is generally extremely unpleasant.

Asides from just bugging the heck out of me, I truly believe this is a dangerous user, in that he is working out ways to manipulate Wikipedia for his personal gain. I realise this is a severe accusation, which is why I would like to get more Wikipedia administrators involved in dealing with this person. If I just go ahead and block him and his sockpuppets, he'll simply lodge a complaint against me and invent some story about this being my personal vendetta or something. And he's bound to pop up again under some different guise. His articles will continue surviving AfD because they're written well enough to seem plausibly noteable, and most of the voters don't know enough about Israel to judge notability in Israel -not to mention the sockpuppet votes he uses just in case.

What do I do? How do I deal with this creep? Thanks. --Woggly 06:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, I've just read [www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediagoogleisraelleyden5580110.html this article] which was linked to from Articles for deletion/Joel Leyden, and learned a new term: Search Engine Optimizer. Wouldn't you say this is signing his own confession? --Woggly 07:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jay, I don't have access to the maillists, so, yes, I would appreciate your bringing the matter to the attention of other wikipedians. Thanks. --Woggly 18:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jay - first, objectively find out who I am and read what I have done in and out of Wiki before you start shooting. Thanks IsraelBeach 01:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Chabad issues
Jay, I am concerned about User:Meshulam's recent meshichist edits over at Chabad-Lubavitch, but I'm not sure exactly how to deal with them. Maybe you could check it out and comment/revert. See the talk page also. Thanks, DLand<sup style="color:green;"> TALK 04:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

Please have my account permanently deleted
I did ask for this account to be permently deleted at the beginning of April and was told that it would be by user: Musical Linguist. It seems she didn't do this as was requested.

It now seems that someone else has been editing using the account because the edits on April 20th and April 23rd are not by me and I am amazed that user: Deskana would want my talk page unprotected - why could that be? he said so he can contact me, but, over 24 hours later, he hasn't.

Now, could someone now PLEASE permanently delete it. Robsteadman 19:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Jay. Regarding this request, please see here. Cheers. AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please look at User:Robertsteadman. This is why I didn't want the User:Robsteadman pages deleted. His contributions include Lady Manners School where the other contributors include Robsteadman and Matlock Mercury which is very close to Robsteadman's home world. What should happen now? Is this another Sock ?

Thank you!!
Thank you so much for confirming the socks of Bonaparte. Would you be able to block them now, as one of them (Andrei George) has been very disruptive? Thanks again, &mdash;Khoikhoi 23:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. &mdash;Khoikhoi 23:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you check User:BaNaTeaN as well? &mdash;Khoikhoi 00:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As a possible sock of Bonny. &mdash;Khoikhoi 00:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess not. &mdash;Khoikhoi 05:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk page technical issue
I'm not quite sure how this happened but on my talk page when you click on a section edit it shows the previous discussion instead of the next one. Maybe this sounds kinda confusing, but if you try you'll see what I mean. Do you think you could point me in a direction to someone that knows how to fix stuff like this? Thanks- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

wik sock Chubbch

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Country_subdivisions/Naming&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias Conradi (talk • contribs)

Sockpuppet of himself?
Just out of curiosity, why did you put the warning on Wik's old user page stating that Wik is a suspected sockpuppet of Wik? Isn't that a little redundant? Brian Schlosser42 16:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. It just seemed a little redundant at first...Brian Schlosser42 17:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

ZS check
Hi, can you check to see if is a Zephram sockpuppet? He modified two of my images (Image:Apalachicolabay.jpg and Image:Apalachicola River.jpg), and is uploading photos that look doctored. He is also strangely anti-Wikipedia Commons for a new user (most of Zephram's images have been nominated for deletion there). Just wanted to call this to your attention. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I could be wrong about this one...but he does seem to be fixated on photos that I've uploaded. And for a Russian Orthodox priest (who doesn't seem to be able to write in Russian), he sure knows his way around Photoshop. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you following this? User talk:Kaspersky Trust --JW1805 (Talk) 21:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Jayjg! I am willing to take full responsibility for this user. So far it looks like he became a victim of cascading autoblock following you brief blocking/unblocking him on April 25. From what I've seen he is a newcomer we bit pretty hard. Could you please contact him and explain what exactly happened? Thanks!&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 01:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be interested to see the proof, please. Thanks.&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 21:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, at least give the guy credit. That was bloody funny. Especially the bit about singing irish songs and throwing peanut shells on the floor. when are you guys going to lighten up some? ElectricRay 21:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Woggly
I would like to bring to your attention that a request for comment on User:Woggly's conduct has been filed. Bonnieisrael 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Check out my post and tell me if I am right or wrong
Hello I made a post here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse

Number 7.18 ,Kurt Leyman, and I would be forever thankfull if someone, could be you could be anyone who has delt with long time vandalism, told me if I am right or wrong. (Deng 18:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC))


 * I got your message but I dont see it as desputes I see it as vandalism over a long period of time. A content despute is if you have a source A that says something and I have a source B that says something else.


 * But changeing numbers and systematically minimizing axis losses and maximizing allied losses and the removal of key paragraphs and sentances must be vandalism. That is why I posted 55 seperate articles to show a patern, that it cant be a content despute but acts of vandalism. And Some acts of vandalism are easy to spot as he rounds up numbers or down to the closest thousand 10 thousand or even 100 thousand So do you still consider after reading this reply that I should post it on a content despute page and not on the long term vandalism page? (Deng 18:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC))


 * This is clearly a long-term content dispute, spread over several articles, between these two. Each is pushing a POV; each reverts the other; Deng includes numerous personal attacks with his reverts. Charging user Kurt leyman with vandalism is an abuse of the process IMO. User Deng was blocked for personal attacks a few weeks ago; within minutes of the block lift he was attacking user Kurt leyman again. DMorpheus 20:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's clearly a dispute over the content of several articles and general inability of the two of them to work together. Plainly an issue for WP:RFC or WP:RFAr. Deng has been told this several times by no fewer than three people, including two administrators (myself and Woohookitty), and now Jayjg, an arbitrator. The essential problem is that Deng can't accept that it really is not considered vandalism, and instead keeps shopping around for someone to say it is. Which isn't going to happen. Hope springs eternal that he'll try dispute resolution instead. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 20:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * DMorpheus withholds information here because I only revert changes back to the origianl version which had stated and refered numbers. DMorpheus him self has reverted the vandal many times and DMorpheus, Katefan0 and Woohookitty have axes to grind with me. So what they have to say is given and they are more then willing to jump in when the possibility appears. That is why someone neutral needs to look at the acts of vandalism and see for them selves without the influence of anyone what is going on. To see the whole and complete picture, that is what someone needs to do.


 * One only needs to look here at his ip comment and one will see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:213.243.185.219


 * You have editted a number of pages, changing numbers, deleting text, adding other text/numbers, without providing any references for your information, please do not do this, also, do not delete text from talk pages.


 * I think that togheter with my post proves my case


 * (Deng 20:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC))


 * Absolutely ludicrous. I've never edited a single article in common with you, how could I have an axe to grind? Does Jayjg also have an axe to grind with you?  Listen, you're just plain wrong.  You can continue to post to venues like AIV and continue to have your posts removed if you want.  But WP:RFC or WP:RFAr is where you need to go from here.  &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 21:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You said I hade called someone an idiot, I said no you said yes, I said no, then you changed your version and said well calling someones statement idiotic is just an advanced way of calling someone an idiot. And when I got blocked (and later unblocked) a few weeks back you were quick to gloat on my talk page. And that is just a small part of the story and the only thing ludicrous is that you are trying to cover up the past. And I didnt say this user has a an axe to grind with me. Who did I say has an axe to grind with me ? I am wrong am I? Then if I am so wrong then why couldnt you explain on your talk page how my reasoning was wrong and if I am wrong then why was I told to post on the AIV page, read more here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2006/04 And If I am wrong then why couldnt you explain it on your own talk page why couldnt you respond to my reasoning there and you still havent respond. Just because you say something dosent make it right. So just saying you are wrong dosent make that true. You actually have to debate and bring arguments and not just say you are wrong. But you have no intrest in a debate now do you.(Deng 22:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC))
 * I (and other users) have already explained why this is a dispute between you and Kurt, you've just chosen not to listen because it's contrary to your own opinion. That's all I have to say here. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 23:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That is the thing, you havent explained shit you just ignored me ignoreing and explaing are not the same thing. Just as you ignored my reasoning on your page and refused to respond to any of it. You do nothing but discredit me, the issue at hand you totally ignore. I have explained everything in such detail on the long termn vandal page but you ignore allof that respond to nothing of it and just say you are wrong. And you prevent me from inquiring from others why I am wrong you not only discredit me but you also prevent me from makeing any progress in any direction what so ever.(Deng 23:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
Wondering if you wouldn't mind eyeballing this for me. I have the feeling that it's a vanity page and fairly strong evidence that some (though not all) of the "Keep" votes are from a group of friends of his. It just feels like they're trying to wikilawyer their way into keeping the page. Is there any strong argument I'm forgetting? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 23:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the look. You should also look at the edit history for Publisher dude, who is doing the main arguing with me and whose edit history is pretty much just the afd and the page. Should that also be noted? Another question - what exactly can I do aside from RfC to get more neutral experienced editors in the conversation? Seems that a group is trying to slide the nom, and it'd at least be nice to have a clear majority of experienced members of the community, even if they disagree with me. Thanks again! Girolamo Savonarola 02:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your post
Dear Jayjg, I have respected your impartiality, and I appreciate your admonition to follow the Three Revert Rule not only according to the "letter of the law" but according to the "spirit of the law". I do want to know what recourse I may have when I encounter an administrator, who engages in biased (POV) conduct, as I have encountered. Sometimes when an editor feels that there is POV activity on the other side, he or she feels compelled to revert. Please respond, Drboisclair 14:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Doright and Luther Talk Page
Dear Jay:

Is it really necessary to have the whole contents of archived talk dumped back into the talk page? --CTSWyneken 18:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Thank you! --CTSWyneken 19:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Userpage
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Garion96 (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Really Small Question
Did you really become an Admin in 3 months? Or is it a typo? :)

Cheers

-Sangil 22:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte again
Ok, here's a new possible sock of Bonny -. I'm pretty positive that it's him because this edit and this one are characteristic of him. &mdash;Khoikhoi 00:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Would you also be able to check as a possible sock of Bonaparte? This edit, this one, and this one makes me suspicious. &mdash;Khoikhoi 08:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Another is - check out his Bonapartian activity on Aromanians and his amazing knowledge about 3RR for a newcomer. &mdash;Khoikhoi 18:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And yet another! &mdash;Khoikhoi 18:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You have no proof. Now stop this. --Steaua 18:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How about this edit? Bonaparte & Node ue had gotten into a lot of conflicts back in December. &mdash;Khoikhoi 18:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Very simple, Node was the only promoter on Moldovan language of Moldovenism even where it doesn't exists. was just reverted today there by romanian Admin Bogdan. And you are the first victim of this paranoia.--Steaua 18:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. What about Greier? Here's my proof - this edit if very similar to that of Bonaparte's beliefs, and he has previously edit wared on that article as Andrei George. &mdash;Khoikhoi 22:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Coren
I'm a bit puzzled. The first edit by this editor was back in 2003. Not a particularly active user until very recently, but not a newbie either. I wonder what's going on there? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User: Darkred
Everyday for almost a week this user has reverted a previous edit on the Richard Nelson Frye article that was agreed on with consensus, his edit summary always consists of a fallacious accusation of vandalism and is usually marked as minor. This is becoming increasingly irritating. I do not understand his motivation for doing this since it was not just me that agreed upon the wording. I've tried to reason with him on the talk page but this seems to spur him on to make more increasingly odd accusations.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg is the one constantly vandalizing the iran-related articles, he even times my reverts of his vandalism so he can revert 3 times without violating 3RR. He has reported me for 3RR i did not know about being new to wiki, some days ago. Currently he is reverting the constantly, stating that they reached an agreement to call him distinguished instead of eminent! Which they did not, you can see the talk page for yourself and see that he is clearly lying! I have not reported him for his constant reverting of iran-related pages until this moment. Thank you --Darkred 22:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

i dont understand!
you again reverted without reason, and in spite of source, then you said (as per talk)? I clearly explained everything to you in talk section, please refrain from reverting again, next time i will have to report you for vandalism, you being an administrator or not will not change anything. Thank you for you cooperation. --Darkred 01:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

alburini ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=65.81.21.167

This New Guy
Dear Jay:

Would you run check on this hasdubal? It feels funny to me that he would delete the same material that an IP editor just did. Thanks! Bob --CTSWyneken 18:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the below, no need. I don't think he intended anything by it. Bob --CTSWyneken 19:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi
I seem to have stepped into an edit war; I shall refrain from further involvement in it. I do not doubt that the paragraph quoted above, in German, is genuine. It is simply that I thought it clear that a more careful wording of our interpretation was in order. Since you believe that this opinion, being mine, is irrelevant, I suppose it is useless to contribute any further comments on this matter. Hasdrubal 18:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, as for "the IP editor": that was myself - I forgot to log in before doing a change. Sorry about that. Hasdrubal 18:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jayjg: as I said, I am staying out of this. Still: the original text itself is clear and legible (in German), and available in the talk page. Surely this is a different situation from, say, that in an article about a battle, where doing the footwork to gather witness reports would constitute original research? Hasdrubal 20:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I must say that I am mildly amused when my use of the idiomatic expression "in my opinion" (or some such thing) is seen as making my comments on a situation irrelevant. Perhaps I should try to be ruder in the future. Hasdrubal 20:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that you are in a position to define what is source-based research as opposed to original research, as far as this encyclopaedia is concerned. Hasdrubal 20:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

alburini again ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=50661265

A favor please
Hello friend, do you remember me? In the month of September 2005, your vote had made me an administrator. we all know that the life here is exciting and full of challenges. I would request you to please spare fem moments for me, and favor me with your comments and suggestions (here please) on my performance as a wikipedian. Let us continue to build the Better than the Best global encyclopedia. Thank you and regards. --Bhadani 10:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Arb Case Mistake
Hi, im confused about something said in a report on the Arbirition case against me.

In this report, it states that i had warred on Gothic Metal, and been placed on Probation. It also says i violated WP:CITE. I want to know how this came about, when both myself and User:Parasti provided diffs to me citing sources. It also says this as a 'finding of fact'. In which case, here is the speficic sections which falsly accuse me of not providing sources, and the evidence that supported this, and the accompnying diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Leyasu#Failure_to_cite_sources_and_original_research

Finding Of Fact Contrary To Provided Diffs

Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, taken from Parasti's Evidence. Diff from Evidence, taken from [|Leys Evidence] Diff from Evidence, taken from Leys Evidence. Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence taken from Leys Evidence Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, taken from Leys Evidence

I even went as far as to quoting and explaining the sources on the talk page,.

I got all these diffs from the archive of the Arbirition case, Here.

I just want to know why all eight claimed i provided no sources, even though another involved party provided diffs of me providing sources, and i repeatedly gave diffs of me supplying sources. Im not having a go, im just confused how 8 Arbirrators managed to claim a 'finding of fact' despite over 10 diffs from two different users =\ Ley Shade 15:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: xenu.net
Please take a look at the information that several editors (myself included) have offered about the contents and "personal" nature of xenu.net on this talk page (part of Terryeo's RfA). Thank you. BTfromLA 15:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Your quick addition of sourcing for a claim on Circumcision is another example of how much you've helped the article. Good work. :) Kasreyn 07:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Beisnj
You blocked this editor, and they have been requesting an unblock. Could you please take a look at their talk page and see if you need to review the block at all. Cheers, Petros471 18:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert of Recent Luther and the Jews Line
Dear Jay: Paul McCain cited the McKim book for this info. Are you saying that you checked the page in McKim and it isn't there? --CTSWyneken 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Well, I can pull McKim and check it, if he restores the statement. Or ask him to do it... --CTSWyneken 16:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I know him in real life. He is a scholar in his own right and has done fine work, when he's inclined to do it. Not that I'm suggesting kid gloves with him, but it is a mistake to simply write him off. He also is inclined to argue and is not known for NPOV.


 * On the substance of the quote, there are scholars that do maintain that Luther was a child of his time and that anti-semitism (or anti-Judaism, depending on the scholar) was the attitude of almost all Christians of the time. The difference, in their opinion, was not the substance of Luther's rhetoric, but that he wrote only too well. In my view, it makes little different, by the way. Luther ought to have known better, considering his earlier disposition especially. He rightly deserves to be condemned for the attitude and the words expressed in these horrid works.


 * But my view or yours or McCain's or others do not matter here. What have the scholars said? That's what makes a difference.


 * By the way, do you know where I can get an article out of Jewish Affairs ? I'm having trouble tracking down a library that owns it. I'm trying to verify the citation. --CTSWyneken 17:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The former is a popular editon of the Book of Concord, the latter one of his scholarly. Most of his scholarly work is in journal article form, essays and chapters in books and as an editor and some work ghost writing. His current position is the Interim President of Concordia Publishing House. For example, Sasse, Hermann, Christ and his church : essays. eds. Ronald R. Feuerhahn, Matthew C. Harrison, Paul T. McCain. St. Louis, Mo. : Office of the President, Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, c1997-; Church and ministry : the collected papers of the 150th Anniversary Theological Convocation of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, eds. Jerald C. Joerz and Paul T. McCain. St. Louis, Mo. : Office of the President, The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, c1998; Mysteria Dei : essays in honor of Kurt Marquart eds Paul T. McCain and John R. Stephenson. Fort Wayne, Ind. : Concordia Theological Seminary Press, c1999. If you'd like, I can locate some of his articles for you. --CTSWyneken 19:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wik
Hi, can you please block User:Correction. as an obvious sockpuppet of Wik? Thanks a lot. &mdash;Khoikhoi 19:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Flag
The problem is, Wik is tag-teaming. One sock makes his desired edit, another then blanks (seconds later). Rollback then reverts to what is in fact his desired edit. I'm not sure that manually closing open proxies one at a time is doing the job, there seem to be a whole lot of them out there. Well, go ahead and unprotect in any case. -- Curps 21:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jesus, this fool Wik is ridiculously smart. Any idea of what he does for a living? &mdash;Khoikhoi 01:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

For replacing the original research debunking the claims about Jews and Israel on 9/11 conspiracy theories with valid secondary sources
--DCAnderson 20:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The Fungi to be with
... So isn't it time everyone just let bygones be bygones? I mean, what is it really achieving, this shoot on sight policy - other than providing a great deal of amusement to car-crash onlookers like me? It isn't stopping him, and it's wasting a whole lot time and effort that could be more productively used - and he has actually contributed some quite useful information (which has been reverted on principle by JW1805). If he was simply ignored for, say a month, he'd be back in under a new identity, and no-one would need to be any the wiser. ElectricRay 22:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... the suggestion JW hasn't been looking for him is a bit of a stretch, but no matter: as you quite rightly say, he does seem to like it, so you may as well buckle yourself in for a long ride. Happy Travels! ElectricRay 22:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

your comments
I think your comments were very unfair, and the term misapplied. However, I have already said, I won't be talking to FeleniousMonk further, I will avoid articles we had conflict over, and I will avoid the "dominionism" topic area in general at this point. I don't see what more can be done than that. I prefer to start a clean slate with a clean talk page (while keeping the archive). --Rob 23:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Aucaman arbcom
Dear Jayjg, I saw that you proposed SouthernComfort and ManiF for topical bans..just wanted to give you heads up that they are two of the most prominent contributers to Iran-related articles. I hope you have considered this fact first.

Also wanted to say that Aucaman earlier today spammed about 20-30 users talk pages (Special:Contributions/Aucaman), although he is warned about reverting, but perhaps other decisions might be useful too. Much thanks, -- - K a s h  Talk 23:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman arbcom case and your involvement
Please recuse yourself from this case, due to your past activities and involvements in articles such as Persian people, and Khomeini, in which you had the opposite POV of the same editors whom you are now making propositions against in the arbitration case. As such, your involvement in this case may be highly inappropriate.

If you cannot recuse yourself, I would have to bring this to the attention of Jimbo. Please give me a reply by no later than this time tomorrow. Thank you kindlyZmmz 00:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

When I first read some of your comments in those articles I thought you are another user whose POV sympathizes with that of Aucaman`s. I was surprised that; nevertheless, you were an ArbCom member who had gone head-to-head with some the same editors whom you are now making proposals against? Whether or not you see it yourself, you certainly are not 100 percent neutral here (there is a conflict of interest), and you should have done the honourable thing and recused yourself, like Domini did with the case of Zora. There is no excuse for this, as the diffs showing your tilted comments are self explanatory. In fact, as another ArbCom member just indicated via vote, some of your proposals are “ overkill”. Indeed, I am looking at your admin request page right now, and upon a review, one can see that even back then many voted against your adminship on the grounds of your one-sided edits. And, despite evidence showing for the past year, user Zora had extensively lobbied outside of Wiki to recruit editors against the so called Nazi Iranians, here you failed to submit a vote on the proposals against her?

In regards to the situation, there is just a geo-political climate around that can easily be seen in Wiki as well, in that certain ethnic groups are trying to dismember a country like Iran, and all these editors came in to try to defend the accuracy of their heritage. Many average Joes like Zora are being manipulated into falsehoods by paid authors and/or native political activists on Wiki for example, that are sympathizers with terrorist groups like Al-Ahwaz that are fighting to detach an ancient Persian province from Iran due to its rich petroleum productivity. Under the name of human rights, even people like Zora are tricked into believing the province belongs to Arabs (which was Zora`s first dispute a year ago in the Ahvaz article; i.e. she was disputing the etymology by saying it is Arabic, while she had no idea it is historically inaccurate; yet, she realized it herself later: the whole thing was suggest to her by a now gone/banned user named…yes, Ahwaz). In the mean time these Persian editors are labeled fascists, nationalists etc….which really isn` t true, specially, in the case of users like Southerncomfort. Incidentally, the geo-political issues are not limited to a volatile country like Iran; indeed, Greeks too are finding themselves defending against the de-Hellenisation of her proud past (Former Yugoslav Republic, now renamed for some reason Macedonia, is claiming Alexander was not Greek?). These are all brainchild products of Petroleum Politics my dear sir.

At any rate, I have no more time to spend on Wiki, but just for your own sake, please recuse/rescind yourself from this case. This case is very close to being one that needs to be discussed with Jimbo, and you may very well be the bully-pulpit who broke the camel’s back here. Give me one last reply within two hours of getting this note. Thank you kindlyZmmz 17:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I figured you would give a response like that. OK.Zmmz 19:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Passover and Christianity
Hi Jay, I hope you had a great Pesach!: Please see the new discussions, and add your views, at Talk:Passover. Thank you. IZAK 03:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Isis (not the goddess)
The problem was that someone removed the verify template without actually verifying anything. But it reminds me I intended to translate the קהילת המודיעין הישראלית &mdash; perhaps it will serve as an impetus against such original research in the future (naturally, I'm inclined to blame you, even though I ought to have picked up on it earlier). I'm going to go ahead and do that right now. Do you have any idea what I'm talking about? All the best, El_C 04:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Uninicidentally, I just rewrote Ephraim Halevi from scratch. El_C 05:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman proposed decision
I hope you don't mind another question re the Aucaman case. The currently proposed decisions are worded all as if they are based solely on the principles of "no edit warring" and "civility". Of course, the importance of these principles is beyond question, but I have the feeling that in this case they address only the superficial symptoms of the conflict, not its deeper roots. I wonder to what degree criteria such as "collective POV pushing" or "divisiveness/factionalising behaviour" have been taken into account in the proposals so far, and if yes, whether it would be good to spell that out explicitly in the proposed decision. To my mind, that might also lead to certain readjustments in the severity of the sanctions to be handed out (among other things, I'd personally actually plead for lighter measures against SouthernComfort, but also against Aucaman.) - Would you be prepared to consider concrete proposals on the workshop page from us at this stage? Lukas (T. 15:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Lukas. Can you be more specific when you say "collective POV pushing" or "divisiveness/factionalising behaviour"?  What does it consist of, who has been doing it, etc.? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I was thinking mainly of the stuff that is in the evidence page (I know, that page is a mess, and I can't blame anybody if they should have overlooked this or that bit there): Factionalising by Zmmz/ManiF/Zereshk (Evidence); Divisive lobbying by Zereshk and ManiF inside and outside the site (Evidence); abuse of process by failing to work towards an agreement in good faith during the mediation (Evidence). Also: persistent failure by Zmmz to accept NPOV policies:
 * "It is not an encyclopedia’s job to cite all sides of an argument"
 * "No politically controversial views, no alternative views, no change of wording to make an article pro or against anything should be allowed in Wiki"
 * "it is not the job of an encyclopedia to promote all views which may be numerous into an article. It is the job of academia to search for the facts, and there can only be one version of the truth"
 * These latter ones were also somewhere in the evidence submitted by Zora . Please let me know if you want something else summarised - I know it must be terrible to have to wade through those masses of text there. If you did read these and they didn't convince you, I'd still be grateful for a short note.
 * Lukas (T. 16:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, you've now seen Zmmz in action against yourself, so you can perhaps begin to imagine what people like Aucaman and Zora have been going through. This edit, where he accuses Zora of "being manipulated into falsehoods by paid authors and/or native political activists on Wiki", and repeats the absurd lie that she has "lobbied outside of Wiki to recruit editors against the so called Nazi Iranians", is the last straw for me. Can we ask for sanctions for this kind of behaviour (abuse of process / defamation / vexatious litigation)? I'm prepared to make a formal motion on the workshop page, and/or summarise more evidence on that point if you wish. Lukas (T. 14:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Zora
This user is blanking the article on Ajith citing past cleanup issues (that are now rectified). He has begun a revert war unnecessarily. He has removed all links and whole paragraphs (created out of several weeks of research and contribution by many editors) without bothering to discuss. I tried to explain the quality of the article in vain. Please restrain him. Anwar saadat 16:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This user is also blanking the article on Vijay_%28actor%29 citing non-existent cleanup issues. He is also threatening to block me citing 3RR. He has removed links and whole paragraphs. He has no idea what is important and what is not in the world of Kollywood but continues to vandalise in the name of patrol. If you look at his log, it will be apparent that this user has not contributed much other than revert others' contributions. Please restrain him. Anwar saadat 17:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yakir Yerushalayim
Just started this article. If you have any further info on the award or any recipients, please update. Thanks! Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

More recently added articles that may interest you
And to which you may be able to contribute...


 * Malachi ben Jacob
 * Hezekiah Gaon
 * Moses ben Hanoch
 * Isaac ben Ezra
 * Menahem ben Saruq
 * Abraham Prochownik (this was the subject of a little tif between me and Ghirlandajo)
 * Abraham of Aragon
 * Bebai ben Abaye

--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Qana shelling/user page vandal
Here is the vandalism to my user page. He seems to think that I have been editing the Qana shelling page, when, in fact, I have only reverted vandalism on it over a week ago. I do not watch the page, and only stumbled across the vandalism. Please take the appropriate actions against Grozhner, who I am fairly certain is a sockpuppet. &mdash; <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkgreen; font-weight:bold">ßottesiηi  Tell me what's up 19:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

9/11 vandalism
Hi Jayjg. I'm requesting that the page protection be removed on the 9/11 page. It's been a while since that incident and we usually don't have a lot of problems there either. Thanks. SkeenaR 20:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I just figured it was most likely safe now. I doubt he would have much of a chance to create trouble there as there are about a dozen serious editors involved in the page at this point. I think it would be OK to unprotect. SkeenaR 22:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm assuming for example editors like 198.207.168.65 are unable to contribute. He should not be required to register and this article and others will suffer as a result. The protection is a hindrance and I think probably unnecessary as we can kick the troll out any old time if we need to. Perhaps you are right about leaving the protection up though, but for how long? I'm not saying it's a huge deal, but I think it would be pretty bad if stretched out. SkeenaR 03:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that the same guy who just wrote about the debris field? I'm guessing it is. SkeenaR 04:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

 * I don't know how to start a new page, so I'm entering here-your addition of S. Freud to the list of self - hating Jews is irrational, self hating is being defined as not some internal mechanism, but rather objective anti Jewish statements and/or behavior meant to be hurtful- whatever source you can claim that uses those words with respect to Freud is not using them in the same sense that the others on the list are referred to as self haters - I will be forced to remove Freud's name as many times as necessary to protect the integrity of the usage of the term.63.205.151.68 00:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Stark, probably
I think is probably Zephram as well. He, and is responding a Jimbo's talk page to his other sockpuppets. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus ban
Could you please tell me where you have logged this ban as I would like to comment. Sophia  Gilraen   of Dorthonion  16:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

where you the one that blocked the original willy on wheels-Taracka

NAS
Oh come on Jayjg, you aren't exactly helping matters by acting as SV's attack dog (or is she yours?). Can you seriously say your posts are civil? As for my "conspiratorial" view, do you really, honestly think SV's emails to me were appropriate and were not implicitly threatening? I think we all need to be a bit more objective and fair-minded towards each other. Your comments fall far short of that standard as do SVs. Homey 03:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

According to SVs comments to CJCurrie, mediation was not to begin until May 11th so what mediation is it that I'm not pariticipating in at the moment, exactly? You are castigating me for not participating in mediation that wasn't even going to begin for another three days. In future please base your rhetoric on facts.Homey 03:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Orthodox rabbis
Hi Jay: You may want to take a look at the latest developments at Category talk:Orthodox rabbis. All the best. IZAK 06:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Feminist Partnership Minyan
Hi Jay: Please look at the article itself and its edits and the talk at Talk:Partnership Minyan. Thanks. IZAK 08:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Integrity: Does Anybody Care?
Over the last few months I have worked hard to raise a red flag about extremist groups using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes. I have now brought the issue to the attention of those at the very highest levels within the Wikipedia community.

Now that I have gone through all of Wikipedia's bureaucratic hoops, what steps are being taken to correct the problem? How are policies being changed to prevent advocacy groups from using Wikipedia to disseminate propaganda?

There is widespread agreement that "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is not an impartial article written by impartial people, but nobody cares enough to fix the problem. Is leaving the same group of editors in charge of the same article supposed to produce different results somehow? How long will it be before the article claims a correlation between natural disasters and Protestantism again? Now that this has been brought to the attention of the powers that be, what mechanism has been put into place to prevent that from happening again?

Can it be that nobody in the Wikipedia community, including ArbCom and Jimbo, cares about the integrity of Wikipedia? I have suggested several approaches to help prevent this kind of misuse of Wikipedia in the future. Is Wikipedia going to adopt these approaches, or will you continue to ignore the problem and discipline whistleblowers instead?

We all know that ArbCom knows how to give users the boot - they do it all the time - but who is going to actually fix the problem?

Lou franklin 15:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the big idea?
You're not allowed to remove sourced material without discussion. Stop being a vandal. ForgetNever 16:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been told by infinity0 that this might have been a bit harsh. However, I disagree with your removal of sourced material in both cases, particularly in the one involving material from the British National Archive on the Nazis giving Palestinian groups weaponry during World War 2. Please discuss such things before removing sourced material and show a good cause for doing so if you indeed have one. ForgetNever 17:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please look at these
Hi there, I would appreciate it if you would look at my recent edits at Deputy Leader of Israel, Cabinet of Israel (and the corresponding Talk pages, especially the latter) as well as my edits to Tzipi Livni. What happened was, I started editing articles based on one source that appears to be official, then found other sources that are in conflict, and now other people are getting into the act. (I have already found my editing to Tzipi Livni on a "mirror" site, Answer.com, which is amusing because it may be incorrect.) The problem and my solution are described at Talk:Cabinet of Israel as well as my edit summary in Deputy Leader of Israel. My question to you is, have I handled this properly? Do you have any suggestions? I am not sure how to resolve a conflict among three sources that are all on the same government's web site! 6SJ7 17:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. Can you please look at Tzipi Livni, Shimon Peres and Deputy Leader of Israel (and my additional comments at Talk:Cabinet of Israel to make that what I did is consistent with what you meant?  I do realize that I probably did not do the footnotes correctly but I am not sure how they are supposed to be done; I just put in the "raw" links.  6SJ7 01:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments on my Talk page, but between my edits and your comments, Gidonb edited Deputy Leader of Israel and Shimon Peres and undid most of my work, removed my footnotes and all references to my research, and wiped out all references to the title "Acting Prime Minister" even though that title (for Tzipi Livni) appears in one of the Israeli government web pages. His edits state that the titles are "Vice Prime Minister" and "Second Vice Prime Minister" (for Peres) but he cites no sources, and no explanation on Talk pages.  I have not said anything about it either directly to him or on either of the articles' Talk pages, because I am not sure what to say.  Clearly this is NOT an instance of POV editing and maybe he is translating directly from Hebrew on the web site, which I cannot do.  Still, it does not seem to be a good way to go about doing things. Ironically, my edits to Tzipi Livni and the insertion (by someone else) of "Acting Prime Minister" into Cabinet of Israel have not been touched.  So now I not only have my research being wiped out without any explanation, but half the articles that referred to the title of Tzipi Livni are inconsistent with the other half.  6SJ7 18:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

regarding "civility"
I was disgusted, but not terribly surprised, to see that six members of the Arbitration Committee -- Dmcdevit, Fred Bauder, JamesF/James D. Forrester, Sean Barrett/The Epopt, Charles Matthews and Jayjg -- condone hate speech and hateful epithets directed at the mentally disabled, and consider condemnation of that hate speech to be unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia -- behavior, in fact, so unacceptable that they say they find it a compelling reason to punish me.

I was a bit more surprised when an earlier form of this letter (differing only in describing the status of the pending arbitration, aside from this paragraph) was banned without explantion from the Wikipedia mailing list where such topics could supposedly be discussed. But I was appalled when discussions on that list, regarding a named editor, turned to open derision of the editor's supposed emotional/mental impairments, and that one Arbitration Committee member participated in the abuse.

As someone who has been involved for more than thirty years, professionally and nonprofessionally, in attempting to protect and to advance the rights of the mentally disabled, and as someone who for many years has served, and continues to serve as a guardian for such disabled members of my community. I find the use of such epithets grossly offensive; they are clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia's supposed commitment to civility. They form no part of civil discourse in any circumstances. They are particularly deserving of condemnation because they are directed toward, in very real terms attack, and have the greatest tendency to injure, a class of people who are less able, sometimes unable, to defend themselves, to resist the impact, or to respond on equal terms. [And, as a note to the politically correct, it is for that reason that I will not use the abominable term "mentally challenged," because it denies (sometimes grossly minimizes) the imbalances of social power that inhere in the relationships between the mentally disabled and the "unchallenged" elements of any community.]

It should be no secret, no obscure facet of social fabric, that the mentally disabled, particularly the mentally retarded, are at greater risk than almost any other segment of a society. More likely to be the victims of physical attacks. More likely to be neglected by governments, particularly when their needs are greatest. In the relatively rare instances when they have substantial assets, they are more likely to have their assets stolen, particularly at the hands of those actors on whom a government has conferred power over them. They are more likely to be degraded and exploited by industries which purport to protect them and to serve their interests. More like to be the victims of sexual assaults, particularly of organized, group sexual assaults.

The casual use of such hateful epithets does not only harm the individuals it targets. It causes pain, often great pain to many others. It regularly inflicts pain on those with brothers and sisters, with parents, with children, with friends, with acquaintances, even with clients, who are abused and dehumanized by such behavior. It regularly inflicts pain on so many of those who deal, day by day, with lesser mental and emotional impairments, whether they choose to acknowledge those impairments, publicly or privately, or not.

I am quite proud that a self-styled community which apparently condones such behavior and condemns opposition to it finds me such a danger to it and its values that it is preparing to forcibly separate me from it. Nothing I have contributed to this curious place makes me more proud, and I doubt anything else could.

Monicasdude

Not licensed, no rights released

Thanks for voting in my RfA!
Thank you for your vote in my RfA! As you seemed to do at the time, I think you mistake the motives for my actions regarding the case of Cheesedreams. Since you seem uninterested in considering this, I won't belabor the point. The nomination failed to gain consensus, but I'm very glad to have accepted it. - Amgine 17:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Nakba and nakba day
Hi Jay,

Do you read Hebrew ?

In any case I have on Nakba day and the talk page have included enough English sources to show that  in Israel  "nakba day" events are held on the exact day of Israeli Independence Day. In the world it is on May 15 (which is the day that Israel founded as the British mandate finished on the night between May 14 to may 15)

Ian in this edit have deleted this info this is a revert of my attempt to restore the article to sanity as it became a place for edit war between Ian and Pecher on the 1948 events - which IMHO belong in two other articles that you very familiar with (1948 war and Pal exodus).

What is really discouraging is that massive participation in talk page, bringing good sources to show that the way this date is "celebrated" by Palestinians in Israel - all this is meaningless. Should I bother to participate in talk?

All that matter is that Ian has, for nearly two weeks, reverted or changed every esoteric edit I did in wikipedia until in this article he was able to get an admin to ban me from that article under the terms of my probation. Even ramallite (to whom I have a lot of respect now, although we often disagree on content) thought this was a bad idea

During my arbCom, I argued that placing me under restrictions while letting Ian and Zero get without any similar restriction will not serve wikipedia right. Indeed, Ian is engaging in harassing me and Zero repeatedly makes Personal attacks such as calling most my edit rubbish.

In short, I appeal to your help in making wikipedia an even playing field for the benefit of ending up with NPOV articles to avoid the POV pushing by Zero and Ian. They turn every disagreement into edit war. Zeq 19:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Jay, Do I get a reply ?

So far I am "punished" because my bold attempt to end the editwar on nakba day - I am refering to all the reverts such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nakba_Day&diff=52155004&oldid=52090092

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nakba_Day&diff=next&oldid=52118272

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nakba_Day&diff=next&oldid=52127820

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nakba_Day&diff=next&oldid=52133770

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nakba_Day&diff=next&oldid=52144412

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nakba_Day&diff=next&oldid=52152930

and

Thanks. Zeq 12:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser
Is this violator of 3RR the same as Alberuni ?

 Zeq 04:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Rabbi Shach's fame and Chabad
Hi Jay: Could you take a look at the article and recent edits, and add your comments at Talk:Elazar Shach. Thanks. IZAK 08:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Heads up
Please see User_talk:Fred_Bauder and my response at User talk:TopRank

Hamas
Jayjg, I hope you don't take it the wrong way me saying this, but there are serious problems with the article on Hamas and User:Tazmaniacs and User:Bertilvidet have been making a real and serious effort to deal with them in a fair way. I know you are a serious editor and genuinely concerned with objectivity, and I would like to ask you to help resolve these issues in the talk page discussion. A number of editors (of various points of view) seem to be angry enough about the issues to just revert everything they see as done "by the other side"; I think we are both likely to agree that this isn't a helpful way of addressing whatever problems the page may have. I am sure that with your input to discussion, an agreed version could eventually be hammered out with full respect for NPOV, {{WP:CS]] etc. Please excuse me if you feel this remark is out of turn (or a breach of your talk page rule!). Regards, Palmiro | Talk 13:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I get your point; however, I think they were acting in good faith there as well; there was what would normally count as a ridiculous number of footnotes, but they were there for a good reason, i.e. to establish the contention, which had been disputed, that Hamas was well-known or best-known abroad for suicide bombings. Probably the best thing to have done would have been to combine all these citations into one footnote, which is unproblematic, but this doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone. I don't think Bertil or Tazmaniacs were disputing the contention that the notes were there to support, at least in its milder ("well-known" rather than "best-known") version. I have more thoughts on the broader subject, but I'm afraid I really have to go now. Thanks for the reply. Palmiro | Talk 17:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Mccready
Is this being discussed anywhere else? I know there must be more to the story, because the diff you provided here is just a normal edit, nothing remotely blockworthy. It looks like this editor has been a problem, sure, but I don't see why he's being called a stalker. Friday (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I've looked at the RFC.  I still can't say I see a good reason for this block.  If you wanted to block him for disruption for frivolous postings to AN/I after being warned, I could understand that, but stalking?  I don't see it.  I think it's possible you're viewing his behavior through the lens of past wrongdoings, rather than judging it on its own merits.  Making a reasonable edit to an article is allowed, regardless of who's edited that article previously.  If he's changed his ways, he should be allowed to edit.  If he hasn't, so be it, but I think you should wait until he does something actually wrong, and then block him for whatever he does wrong.  Friday (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * He's been a bully, but this is no reason to bully him back. We need to take the high road, and conduct ourselves better than the problem editors we're forced to deal with.  Friday (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You're being very heavy-handed here. I wish you wouldn't. Sure, he's complaining, but some of his complaints are legitimate. He trying (or pretending to try) to make useful edits. If he's reforming, I don't see how further goading will help the situation. If he's not reforming, he'll do something blockworthy soon enough and that'll be the end of it. You keep bringing up his past bad behavior- if he doesn't repeat it, why not drop it? I hope your intent is to defuse the situation, not to punish this user. Friday (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And yet you continue with the heavy-handedness. It sure looks to me like your intent is to punish the user. Why not let it go? If you block him simply for making a good edit to what you deem "the wrong article", I'll undo the block. So please don't. Friday (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Your continued accusations of dishonesty on my part are disappointing. I think a dose of AGF all around would help. The point I was trying to make was, if he's going to be viewed with such suspicion that decent edits are now grounds for a block, he has no hope- go ahead and community ban him. Frankly, in dealing with you on this matter, I can understand why Mccready feels picked on- you're being discourteous to me as well. I think reasonable editors can disagree without anyone having to be accused of dishonesty. Friday (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I think I'm done arguing. You think I'm crazy, and I think you're crazy. I'd hoped we could both see this as a simple difference of opinion, rather than seeing it as dishonesty. But, everyone has their own perspective, of course. Have a good day. Friday (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

List of synagogues
Dear good natured Zionist, please create this article. How come there is no list, as there is a List of churches and List of mosques? I think you could do much here that would impress a whole lot, even those anti-Semites who rove about on Wiki. IP Address 14:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. I found your note very pleasing. I would describe you as a "Zionist" because it grabs your attention; a "Zionist" would be interested in a List of synagogues for the display of such great architecture in our common Abrahamic tradition. Furthermore, a List of synagogues would impress those you seem to aggravate with many of your devoted efforts here as a neutral and non-partisan-yet personally-interesting dedication. I personally think Lists like that are very useful, preferring to work with wikilinks that are easier to spot-rather than categorical maintenance. If it is of any help, I have begun this list article, List of synagogues and I plan to expand it as time permits. Looking forward to your response. IP Address 04:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Forget Nakba day
But you promised to mediate nakba.

If you like writing articles here is your way of keeping your promise:

Write the article from scratch. You will do wkipedia a great service. I am sure you can do it and it is much faster than mediation.

Zeq 17:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Apology for Luther edit
My nephew made the reversion in question without my knowledge. Both of us have reviewed the appropriate WP policies. Perhaps he could set up his account on his computer at school since there is a danger of violating policy when the same computer is used. Please advise. Drboisclair 21:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ptmccain again violates 3RR
CTSWyneken's colleague User:Ptmccain is [again] in violation of WP:3RR by executing his 14th identical revert to the Martin Luther article (the last of which was his 4th within a 24 hour period). Ptmccain has not only repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with official WP policy and engaged in repeated acts of vandalism, but has demonstrated his contempt for WP policy and administration. See here, for example, where he again blanks the page after be directly told not to do so and adds, "Your "Stern Warning" is received, with no little amusement."


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ptmccain


 * 14th # 12:04, 10 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Martin Luther (move text to a more appropriate location)
 * 13th # 02:50, 10 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Martin Luther (moved text to more appropriate location)
 * 12th # 17:56, 9 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Martin Luther (moved text to more appropriate location)
 * 11th # 12:13, 9 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Martin Luther (moved text to a more appropriate location)

Please note that the 14th revert was executed less than 24 hours after the 11th identical revert in violation of WP:3RR. Your assistance with this matter will be greatly appreciated by at least one and I suspect many Wikipedians. Doright 21:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Robin Hood 7000 - req for check user
Robin Hood 7000 = Robin Hood 1212 =? Alberuni ???? Zeq 07:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this edit sais it all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=50661265

Zeq 20:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How can an account be deleted from Wikipedia?
As per our concern about accounts: how can one delete an account so that it can no longer be used? Drboisclair 18:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole article
Jayjg, I woudl welcome your involvement in the current dispute over the Juan Cole article. Isarig 19:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would second that, one editor who I think was an asset to WP has been driven off the project over this. Armon 15:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Unjust Vfd of Berel Wein
Please see Articles for deletion/Berel Wein. Shabbat Shalom ! IZAK 12:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin help needed at WikiProject Judaism
Hi: Recently, User:Ems tried to archive the talk at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism by "moving" the entire page and thereby losing a few years worth of edit history in the process. I have tried to correct it but it needs the intervention of an admin to REVERT back the entire process so that the edit history will show up where it is supposed to be (namely on the history of the main talk page and not in "archive 9"). Take a look over there and see what you can do. All the best. IZAK 13:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=82.198.250.4

is a vandal of the funny type: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&diff=52820462&oldid=52794524

Zeq 14:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please consider this before ending Terryeo's RfA
Please read the discussions here and here  before finishing off Terryeo's RfA. A number of us are hoping the arbitrators will vote on banning Terryeo from Scientology-related talk pages as well. Thank you. BTfromLA 17:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Doright links to Copyright Infringing Pages on talk: Martin Luther
Dear Jay:

Please advise: Doright has linked to copyright infringing versions of On the Jews and Their Lies on Talk:Martin Luther. I've been around this before with him and have an opinion from Cecropia that he believes me to be correct. I removed the links and he has restored them. Am I within bounds continuing to remove them? If so, will you warn him, since I try not to talk to him at all? Thanks! --CTSWyneken 20:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All works originally copyrighted after 1964 had their copyrights renewed by act of Congress:

"'Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the copyright law to make renewal automatic and renewal registration optional for works originally copyrighted between January 1, 1964 and December 31, 1977.'" United States Copyright Office, Circular 15

Verso of the Title Page, Luther's Works, Vol. 47, "The Christian in Society": (c) 1971 Fortess Press, Library of Congress Number 55-9893, ISBN 0-8006-0347-8

The work remains under copyright. --CTSWyneken 20:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright in question
This particular volume of the American Edition of Luther's works was copyright in 1971. Of course, then it would have had to be renewed in 1999. Drboisclair 20:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would have to say, not that I know of. I have the "online version," and it doesn't say, "copyright renewed 1999". I wonder if CTS has more info on that. Drboisclair 20:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See above. Congress renewed it for them. --CTSWyneken 21:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Qadianism
Your redirect of Qadianism page totally unacceptable. The removal info from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad will be referenced and sourced. Siddiqui 21:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * First you redirect the Qadianism page then you remove my edits. This is censorship. Your actions are totally unacceptable.
 * Siddiqui 22:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please remove redirect from Qadianism page.
 * Siddiqui 22:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is unacceptable. I was not informed of AfD. It is controversal. Do I have to create a new page ? Add that info in Religions in Pakistan page ?
 * Siddiqui 22:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have any complaints about the current contents of Qadianism please present them. The redirect is censorship. There are hundreds of pages in Wikipedia that could fall into this broad category of redirection. This page contain the info that is not included by other pages.
 * Siddiqui 03:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

qadianism
hello sir. it was i who originally placed the delete tag, however i was told an agreement had already come to pass, and instead i started editing it to a more neutral stance. Was their still need for deletion?--AeomMai 23:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Who had decided on the redirection?--AeomMai 20:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Why?
How do you know that Zolfeqar is a sockpuppet? I found no evidence in contribs. Raichu 23:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I am quite annoyed about this nonsence to be honest. When I am unblocked I am going to make a complaint about Essjay's behaviour immediately - he clearly lied as a pretext to abuse his powers and that should mean an automatic demotion for a sysop IMHO.

Danny's behaviour is also disturbing. He deleted two articles with no stated reason given anywhere. This remains the case. This is not acceptable.

Thousands of people reading Heyden's critical article would automatically go to read the wikipedia article on him to find that it has been erased along with any history, and then simply check the google cache. This makes us look like fascists.

I really don't care what Hayden has done, legal threats, personal info whatever. That has no import on the question of his notability.

jucifer 00:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, blocked, why?
Why did you block me? I'm not a sockpuppet, whatever that may be, and I don't even know Wik. Please remove the block, Dint

Nazi extermination camp
Hello Jayjg, I'm letting you know about an RfC WP:RFC/HIST I've started on the Nazi extermination camp article, because you have contributed to that article and its talk page, and you also spoke to one of the editors in question on the Dachau talk page. I'd appreciate input if you have the time. Thanks. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  21:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's removed any trace of doubt about him from my mind. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  11:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Zolfeqar
I found all edits to be perfectly reasonable, except one, which was POV. By the way, I found out about this in the block log. Raichu 15:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

He (Zolfeqar) did not revert at all. Raichu 15:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
I was on a shared IP and it wasn't sockpuppeteering. Check my contributions and you will see I have made legitimate edits. --Sunfazer | Talk 16:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting
All of your IPs are shared? What kind of IPs are they? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I did used to use shared IPs, but I'm now using 82.42.237.114. My previous vandalism contributions were:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merseyside&diff=prev&oldid=6279670 (from 195.188.50.200)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arsenal_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=27627288 (same IP)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&diff=prev&oldid=27627024 (same IP)

and these were back in early October/November 2005. Now I am making legitimate edits, I wish to build an encyclopedia not vandalise. --Sunfazer | Talk 16:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 82.42.237.114 was shared, but isn't any longer. I have now been given this IP. --Sunfazer | Talk 16:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was given the IP last week, it was shared with a number of public terminals (which have had their IPs reassigned). --Sunfazer | Talk 16:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting. How did you manage to convince someone to give you sole ownership of an IP that you had been using on "public terminals" up until then? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It was network maintenance, Jayjg. I rarely edit from public PCs now. --Sunfazer | Talk 16:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. "Network maintenance" took an IP that had been used by public terminals and now assigned it to your private PC? What kind of "network maintenance"? I'd really like to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but I can't understand what you're telling me. Jayjg (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My friend who's a technician has been re-assigning the entire network's IPs. Also, I am no longer vandalising. --Sunfazer | Talk 16:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I stopped vandalising in November, and yes, my network admin friend will email you. --Sunfazer | Talk 16:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Redemption - and have been ever since. --Sunfazer | Talk 18:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Harvard References
Sorry, I'm not in the clear about what you meant by "I see no consensus for these changes on Talk:"

The previous version was the version "without changes", so why did you revert it to a version with "non-consensus changes"?

The version you deleted, is in its entirety on the talk page, under the header Please tell me what was wrong with my 19:36 version of the wikipedia:harvard referencing page. It has been there a few days, nobody objecting or indicating flaws regarding this version. And was then moved to the project page.

So, if you have objections to that version, please mention/discuss them at Wikipedia talk:Harvard referencing, but don't overwrite them with a version to which there were objections, without the content of these objections being handled, as far as I know of.

tx. --Francis Schonken 16:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your swift reply, but there seems to be an error at hand. The version to which you reverted has not been "there for some time" - I mean, not at any time. Where did you get that desinformation? didn't you check edit history before making that bold statement?
 * Re. your content remark on the version discussed on the talk page, I'll copy that remark there, and will reply to it there, no need to do that here I suppose, as you suggest yourself "Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here." (well, it's not exactly an article in "article namespace", but I see no reason not to proceed likewise). tx. --Francis Schonken 17:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking
Can you please take a look at and tell me what you think?

As per the arbitration hearing, Davenbelle was stalking me. I feel User:Moby Dick is also stalking me, its just that he isn't stalking me to excess just yet. I also feel User:Moby Dick may a sockpuppet of User:Davenbelle.

-- Cat out 22:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

True Torah Jews
Hi, I posted a defense of the article True Torah Jews, I would like to ask you to be so kind and read it, and than rethink your position on deletion.

Bloger 03:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Original research"
I would note that you can't push your edits with summary "original research" when what you are removing is direct citation (in this case, from Human Right Watch and Washington Post - if you think they are not enough, please ask for more sources).--Marielleh 04:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

David Berger
I am having some issues over at David Berger with User:PhatJew, whom you may recall from the ongoing Chabad-Lubavitch arguments. It has to do with Rav Ahron Soloveitchik, among other things. Please try to drop by and comment. Thanks, DLand<sup style="color:green;"> TALK 05:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism
I think you may have been trailing a contributor when you arrived at Anti-Americanism a few days ago, and I'm not sure if you watch it generally. There is a three day old revert war over this versus this, my preferred expansion of the long-standing version. This is an "in kind" rather than an "in degree" debate and I absolutely don't know what to do about it except go to 3rr every other day, which is bad editing. It's two newbies, User:Rkrichbaum and User:Christinam, with an obvious anti-American POV looking for a high-traffic page to go on about Guantanmo. I did incorporate their info under the "Modern" heading and added to "Use of the term" but I'm still getting reverted completely despite having three other editors in agreement. Marskell 06:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

An eye for an eye
Hi, Jay. Recently, I reorganized a disjointed section about "an eye for an eye" in Biblical traditions. I also comprehensively edited the section relevant to Judaism, supplying numerous citations. User:Fastifex then reverted all of my edits. I left him (assuming it's a him) a polite note on his talk page asking him to clarify. He did not respond. He then restored most of the content of my edits, but left the sections strangely organized as before. Then, he added two sentences of his take on one of the points that I had added (which, aside from a degree of inaccuracy, includes one sentence [about oaths] that seems entirely irrelevant to Lex Talionis). I'd like to understand this editor's conduct. Did I violate some editing guidelines or something? HKT 15:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I reinstated the section organization, removed the inappropriate content, and left an explanation in the edit summary. I also made some more copyedits. We'll see what happens. HKT 21:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Block of Kaspersky Trust
Hi, this user, on the behalf of Dijxtra, has filed a suspected sock puppet case (here). He states that he annoyed User:JW1805 by editing one of his pictures, which resulted in him [User:JW1805] telling you he is a sockpuppet of Zephram Stark. You then indef. blocked him for being so, but you never filled in the tag correctly,, adding in the user as User:A bird in the hand. I would like you to comment on the abuse case, kindly telling us the situation that happened and the conflict between JW1805, Kaspersky Trust and you, if you don't mind. Thanks,  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 16:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Dear Jayjg &mdash; Thank you for your support on my recent RfA. It succeeded with a final tally of 72/2/0 and I am now an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the new tools, but please let me know if there's any adminnery I can help you with in the future. &mdash;Wh o uk (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA against Messhermit
Hello there!. I think that a question to the committee that I raised in the talk page was not paid the appropriated attention that deserved; that is, my request for being treated equally. You can read it here, under the name "A question from Messhermit", and I think that it does deserves attention before leaving the case to be closed. Thanks, and please leave a comment in my talk page. Messhermit 00:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson
Hi, There is a discussion in the talk page on Jesse Jackson regarding his inclusion in the category Anti-Semitic people. You have previously contributed to the discussion on this and made edits to the article, so I thought I would ask what your view was, so we can find a consensus. Thanks! Jll 08:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, blocked, why? (2)
"Did you create a new userid using an open proxy, and then not use it?" Dint is the first and only account I made. And it was created without using a proxy. I didn't use it for quite a while tho. Dint

Thank you
Hi Jay: Thank you for your prompt response to my request for help with sorting out the recent archiving mess at Wikiproject Judaism. It is greatly appreciated! IZAK 11:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Threat from User
Dear Jay: Would you take a look at my talk page? I think I'm being threatened. --CTSWyneken 13:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Humus got to it. It's good to know you're out there, though. --CTSWyneken 20:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision
Jay, could you take a look at the most recent edits, please? We've been over this in the talk page before, and I'm inclined to think it should be reverted, since I can't find anything worth saving. I don't think that a POV description of outdated studies that apply to only one of the 195+ countries in the world belongs in the introduction, do you? I'm also perplexed by the accusation of hostility. Tip knew there was no consensus. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look. Thanks. Jakew 20:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, Nandesuka has fixed the worst problem. Still doesn't belong in the introduction, though.