User talk:Jayjg/Archive 18

Could you protect Tay-Sachs Disease?
Jay. Sorry to miss out on the Jewish History discussion. I was away for several weeks. I was wondering, is there some way that you as an admin can protect a page so that only a person with a wikipedia log-in can edit it. I have worked a lot on the page on Tay-Sachs disease. The page keeps attracting vandals. It is sad, but anything that is remotely associated with "Jewish" seems to get vandalized. But that concerns me less than another kind of edit/review problem.

Somebody, who is probably very well meaning, keeps adding a sentence stating that the disease has been cured by new research at Duke University. I looked into the mater, and there is indeed research underway, but the successful treatments reported were for another disease, and the person who makes this modification is not reading the Duke University press releases correctly. Misinformation about a disease is a terrible thing. Could you make the Tay-Sachs Disease page only editable with a log-in. Maybe then I can at least figure out who this editor is and get them to understand the importance of the peer review process in science. --Metzenberg 06:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Circumcision
Hi Jay, Curious as to why you removed the discussion on Harvey Kellog as the person who spurred the American tradition of circumcision. Do you have sources that say something different? Best regards, bunix 09:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Jay, it is well-known in the field that Kellog was influential in the "circumcision drive" in the US. I have gone and read various sources, now that you have bought it up, and found that you are right though. Because it seems there was already anti-masturbation hysteria in the US and doctors that promoted circumscision that predated Kellog; so I am now unsure how much Kellog's book contributed. So I now have to find a proper source that discusses how intsrumental Kellog actually was, so I can re-word my statement to be more accurate. He certainly was influential....but to what extent I can't say right now until I check more sources. This may take me sometime to dig up, as I am pretty busy. I have heard claims that Kellog used a lot of his cornflakes empire money to campaign for circumcision, but I am still looking for a reference for that one....but if true, kinda puts me off eating cornflakes :-) Best regards, bunix 21:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC filed "against" you
You may not be aware of this, as the author did not bother informing you, but a Requests for comment/SlimJay was filed "against" you and SlimVirgin, which I have deleted and delisted as gross misuse of the RfC process. All the best, El_C 14:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

test --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Civility
Regarding : It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. Paul Cyr 19:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yikes! Someone's taking themselves just a wee bit too seriously. Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that, despite having been warned that using newbie templates on experienced users is generally perceived as an insult, he continues to do so. Presumably the insult in intentional then.  Guettarda 20:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

David Ben-Gurion
Please add your support to David Ben-Gurion on the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Respectfully, Republitarian 16:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Stark
is Zephram. See This edit, and Terrorism edits. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote for me!
Vote for me! I will be a kid administor! Forfilling duties, watching reverting, and blocking, communicating and cooporating! Vote here!. Lindsay1980 23:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte
Hey Jayjg,

Bonny has been pretty active lately, the most recent socks are Georgianis, Economistul, and Latinitas. Could you look into each recent IP used by these accounts and see if they're open proxies? Also, perhaps this would lead you to find more socks? (I'm referring to what you did that other time) Anyways, he's been a bit of a nuisance lately, it would be great if you could help out. &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also note his recent activity here and here. &mdash; Khoikhoi 07:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I might add that one of the proxies could have also been used by User:BookwormUK or another user. See the history of ShivLing of Makkeshwar. &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom case
Jay, can you take a look at Proposed principles ArbCom case: Editing your guru's article
 * Editing an article concerning a guru you are a disciple of is governed by the principles in Autobiography. Briefly, such editing is discouraged due to inherent bias. If you do edit, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research remain in full effect.

Are you aware of the implications of this proposed principle?
 * Tibetan Buddhists could be discouraged from editing the Dalai_lama and Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama articles
 * Sikhs could be discouraged from editing Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Guru Gobind Singh
 * Ravidasis could be discouraged from editing Raidas
 * Followers of Vedānta, yoga, tantra and bhakti schools could be discouraged from editing articles about their teachers
 * and so on

All this when there are no discouragement or limitations for
 * Roman Catholics from editing the Pope_Benedict_XVI or Jesus articles
 * Orthodox Jews from editing articles about their rabbis (e.g. Habbadniks editing Menachem Mendel Schneerson)
 * Sufis from editing articles about Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi
 * and so on

Don't you think that this could be construed as a dangerous precendent of discriminating against followers of Eastern faiths? What do you think Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhist and others will feel about Wikipedia when they learn about this..?

I have raised concerns with ArbCom members about this, but somehow I feel my concerns are not being addressed. Fred is of the opinion that the ArbCom can make value judgements about the "quality of the relationship" between a dispicle of a certain faith and its teacher and differentiate it from others. One can call that discrimination. What is your opinion on this?

Another concern is that this interpretation of WP:AUTO may be in contradiction with existing WP policies, such as WP:AGF and WP:NPA, the latter that reads "[a personal attack is when someone is] Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. Please note that I am not arguing that for a disciple of a "guru" it may not be challenging to edit neutrally. It would be a good advice to pay attention to bias. But to make a distinction betwen faiths in this respect may not be appropriate. Also note that apostates of faiths/gurus will have as much as a challenge in this regard, but there is no mention of that conflict in the proposed princple. Look forward to your comments after you revise the evidence. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request for Resolution 242 article
Hi Jayjg. Here's the request:

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/United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vjam (talk • contribs) 15:24, August 20, 2006.

Hello Jayjg. As well as being one of the parties involved in the content dispute and invited for mediation, I have also been following the recent discussion regarding OR. I agree entirely with what you have posted on the topic to date and appreciate your patient efforts to try to work this out directly. While engaged in a formal dispute resolution process I obviously would present my own understanding of any substantive issues, I intend to follow your lead wrt issues of policy and procedure and therefore am waiting to see if you accept mediation before responding to the invitation. Hopefully my service provider will not change my IP address during this process, although I am thinking of registering at this point and will continue to give the issue due consideration. If I do register or if my IP address changes (as it has in the past from time to time), is there a way for me to continue with this process if I choose to?201.53.27.33 22:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. What on earth is going on with the un sc res 242 article? I come back a month or so later and it seems entirely re-written in a very biased pov way. How can I help? affinity292@yahoo.com

Hello Jayjg. This is "IP 201.53.27.33" again. As Murphy would have it my dynamic IP address changed again sometime late last night or early this morning, and I am no longer "201.53.27.33". I do not know how this affects the mediation request, but I suspect it becomes moot because I will be unable to respond with the invited IP address. On a positive note, I did indeed register with Wikipedia (I had no idea it was so painless, but I suppose I should have suspected as much) and will not be "lost" again. For what it's worth (I suspect not much due to verifiability issues and other matters of protocol, but I'll toss it out there anyhow) I unequivocally and irrevocably claim authorship of and responsibility for every edit and comment made by IP address 201.53.27.33 to the Wikipedia site(s) since making my edit to the UN SCR 242 article at 02:26, 17 August 2006 until, and including, my edit to the Talk page of the same article at  23:25, 20 August 2006. I will post an alert to Vjam to let him know so he can decide what he wants to do about his mediation request, although I do still hope we will all be able to forge an agreement without having to further tax the formal dispute resolution resources.Dasondas 20:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW...
Could you do a check on User:AdoniCtistai too? &mdash; Khoikhoi 23:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, Wik is being disruptive again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oruj &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * I just replied on unblock-en-l, but have no fear of me unblocking anyone without discussion, A) I'm not an administrator yet, which renders it sort of moot, and B) I wouldn't do anything without making multiple efforts to communicate and find out what the admins story is/was, if I were to be one.
 * Looking forwards to your followup on unblock-en-l. Georgewilliamherbert 19:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

What has this got to do with original research?
I wrote: "Some academics, researchers and other individuals are working to identify instances of it and are attempting to formulate a precise description of the alledged phenomenon." You wrote: Because it is a new concept, academics and other researchers are working to identify instances of it and are attempting to formulate a precise description.

...claiming your revert had to do with "no original research". Quite obviously your revert was grounded in the following: Your POV. .... that is, unless you have a better explanation. pertn 07:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see now that your reverted something else as well, so maybe it was a mistake. I reinserted my changes. If you want to remove them, please explain. pertn 11:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Mistaken case of harassment
Hi, you removed some comments made by User:Deuterium, claiming that they were harassment. As far as I can see Deuterium was making an attempt at engaging you in civil dialogue. Removing these kinds of comments serves little purpose other than further enflaming the dialogue. Wikipedia is fantastic because it is possible to enter into a dialogue with those with whom you have a disagreement. Please make more of an effort to do so. jaco ♫ plane 22:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, apoligies if my comment was a little condescending regarding "what wikipedia is good for" :) Anyway, I still feel that you should restrain yourself from handing out accusations of harassment. I never doubted your credibility on Wikipedia, thanks for pointing out those fascinating statistics though. I remain convinced that no matter what kind of headers you might place on your talk page removing civil comments and accusing users of harassment is not appropriate. So you are a member of the ArbCom, don't let it get to your head. jaco ♫ plane  23:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

MathStatWoman 16:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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


 * You're not editing in accordance with NPOV. You're trying to add a POV. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the top of this page, which says Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here. I've responded to your issues at length on the relevant article Talk: page. It baffles me why people cannot read the top of this page, or feel they need to discuss the exact same article content in two three different places, only one of which (the article Talk: page) is appropriate. Jayjg (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy discussions
Are you open to policy discussions here? I notice your stipulations only mention articles. (→ Netscott ) 16:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Article content disputes disguised as "policy discussions" should be discussed on the relevant article Talk: pages. If you want to have a real policy discussion, you should do that on the relevant policy Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. (→ Netscott ) 16:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Also see the Bucharest and Romania articles. &mdash; Khoikhoi 20:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


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

Crazy Security Problem
Whenever I sign my name with "~ ~ ~ ~" my password is revealed as part of my name. !!!!!!!!!!!! User:Juicifer  00:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wau! El_C 08:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Surplus having been dumped: now time to revive the MTHEL
... Try to look surprised. El_C 08:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon
You asked ''What on earth would Lebanon have to do with this? '' Umm , ...  I realise the poster image being discussed dates from 2003, however, aren't there similar protests over current events? Why is there no discussion about current events and reactions to them. If the answer is because neither I nor any other editor has added it, that's fine - I fully understand the concept of "sofixit". If it is because the current events in Lebanon do not affect semetic and anti-semetic perspectives, I find that surprising. I suspect Lebanon will have something to do with anti-Semetic feeling at present - however, not an area I care particularly to research or comment on. So, why do you think Lebanon has nothing to do with an article on anti-semetism?--Arktos talk 09:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I stated, I fully understand the concept of "sofixit". You replied "It's an article on New anti-Semitism. It quotes reliable sources on the subject. Which reliable sources have discussed New anti-Semitism in the context of Lebanon?".  Google has 43,600 hits for "New anti-Semitism" lebanon - probably includes the odd reliable source.  There is say this one from Finkelstein (who in fact gets hs own section on the article - so I assume he is of interest and his web site could be a source).  He references this .    There are also under current news items: article  in the NY Sun by Foxman, writer of the book "The New Anti-Semetism" plus this article in the Jewish press, this editorial from Albuquerque. Why is the topic ignored?  There are plenty of potential reliable sources out there.--Arktos talk 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Venezuela relations
Thanks for fixing that: I couldn't understand why you were re-introducing the topic in a second section. Did you have a look at the controversy on the talk page ? Sandy 17:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, SuperFlanker and JRSP do that regularly on all the Chavez articles. They never have a valid reason, other than they refuse to accept negative content about Chavez anywhere.  I'm kind of all alone in dealing with that, and there are only so many hours in a day.  Sandy 20:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You mentioned on talk or in edit summaries, that the spurious deletes &mdash; using BLP as the reason &mdash; bordered on vandalism. I deal with this 24/7 on all the Chavez articles. You can see from the I-V article that I source content well, but it is repeatedly deleted with a BLP claim, and similar claims to what you see on the I-V article.  I submitted an RfC, and another editor also pointed out to them that they were wrong. I raised the question at Talk-BLP, they were again told they were wrong.  They still do it.  There are three of them, and one of me, and they claim BLP on any content not favorable to Chavez.  Any suggestions?  Sandy 22:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've decided MedCab is somewhat unreliable, as it depends on volunteers and the luck of the draw.  I've seen brand new editors to Wiki take a case, significantly worsen the situation, then disappear.  I don't hold out much hope there.  Sandy 22:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * oh, my, 'ya learn something new every day! Thanks, Sandy 22:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (and Sandy), do you see the tactic of guilt-by-association used in the material Flanker quotes? If guilt-by-association is being employed, is this a "valid reason" for a delete? I honestly want to know.
 * Yeah that is funny that not only it is plainly evident but policy even shields me from the 3RRR rule due to the severity of an article violating WP:BLP I await the mediation process but refuse to jump a spot the Mediation Cabal is the first step in the conflict's resolution and it should be taken.Flanker 03:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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



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


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

Dmcdevit
Hi. I find Dmcdevit continues to make unfair speculations about my efforts to keep a semblence of reason with Zeq and ME articles, and when I protest this, he continues with further speulations (while denying he is doing so):  Can you have a word with him? I feel he treating me disrespectfuly and that I am unable to reach him. Best, El_C 06:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now he is becoming outright abusive, removing my comment with an edit summary reading "I'm serious. Stop with your baseless accusations. My own talk page isn't the place to get your kicks in". Please speak to him. He might be under the mistaken imperssion that as an arbitrator he is not expected to adhere to civility standrads with these continued insinuations. El_C 08:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Nonsense? Why is it you complain to Jayjg everytime other editors don't agree with your POV? You expect him to intervene when people don't agree with you or your "refutation" isn't as successful as intended? I am going to make an assumption that the two of you are friends or aquantances of some kind, and I amalso assuming Jayjg is a moderator since you are expecting him to intervene on your behalf. That strikes me as rather disturbing due to the fact that your primary complaint is I disagree with you and you disagree with what I have posted on various talk pages. Under those circumstances who is to stop Wikipedia editors from conspiring with moderators to control the content on certain articles? --Nazrac 20:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly Nazrac is barking up a tree or pissing up a rope. Doesn't he know it's not WHAT you know, it's WHO you know in this world, and that includes Wikipedia and all its bias. Proskauer 02:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


 * Can you explain what you mean in this sentence "It's an article about a single article - the rest of its contents are original research on your part" when you are referring to "the rest of its contents are original research on your part." That article is so closely sourced right now that I don't know what you are talking about.
 * Also, I am not saying that the article describes what the anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists are talking about any more than the linked word to Israel just before it is saying there is truth to that shit about Israel. But those conspiracies are extreme and hateful distortions of a real lobby though, just like conspiracies about Israel are extreme and hateful distortions of a real country.  This perspective is why I linked it.  --Ben Houston 05:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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


 * Thanks a bunch. &mdash; Khoikhoi 23:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


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


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

CheckUser backlog
Hi there,

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

WP:RFPP
Hi Jayjg: just letting you know that when you protect/unprotect a page listed at WP:RFPP, don't remove it from the page, just add a comment (like this) saying what you did, and then VoABot will move it automatically to the bottom of the page, and later remove it. — Mets 501 (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

1929 Palestine riots
Administrator needed to move page back to that title. 'Incident' is quite a strange term for what happened here. I cannot revert to 1929 Palestine riots myself. Note that Deir Yassin massacre was not renamed into Deir Yassin incident. If that would also happen, I would agree... --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm just cutting it back some (well, more than some). Maybe in a while I'll become more active again. It was just taking over my life... Good sign to take a little wikibreak. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Bonaparte sock?
Special:Contributions/Djavakhi. Compare this guy to Georgianis. &mdash; Khoikhoi 18:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


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


 * I knew it! :-) &mdash; Khoikhoi 23:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, did you ever do a check on ? &mdash; Khoikhoi 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:V not passed on ruwiki

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

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

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

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

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

Bonny Boy
Could you do a check on please? &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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

juicifer 10:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Concern addressed at J4J?
I am wondering if I have addressed your concern here and, if so, whether I can re-insert that statement without being in violation of 3RR. - Abscissa 01:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this Bonny?
Check the edit histories of the Bač and Árpád dynasty articles. ,, , and seem to be sockpuppets/meatpuppets, I don't think the IPs are him, however. If one or more of these users are him, then the articles should probably be semi-protected to prevent further disruption - look what happened on the Slovakization article the second it got unprotected. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 123uiop may also be Juro. &mdash; Khoikhoi 05:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Your IP address is 64.233.172.34.'''

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

Kitoba External Links
Hi Jayjg,

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

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

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

Kitoba 14:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid
This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

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

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

This is really weird
Today it seems that created the accounts  and, but based on this comment it looks like Bonaparte. See also the edit history of Avram Iancu, Alba. Can you do a check on these three? Thanks again. &mdash; Khoikhoi 23:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


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

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

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


 * Also &mdash; Khoikhoi 21:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Is this Bonny? (again)
Hey Jayjg. I was wondering if you could let me know if is Bonny or Constantzeanu (or perhaps neither). Thanks. &mdash; Khoikhoi 23:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Protocols of the wise men of Zion

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


 * I propose changing the title of this WP article.
 * The above proposed title is the one used by the Library of Congress.
 * It is also the earliest title of this text.
 * The title currently used by WP
 * is a dignified subsequent English language translation
 * of the 1905 title of the appendix of Sergei Nilus' book,

whose romanized English language title reads:

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


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

Protocoly sobran??ii S?ionskikh mudretsov


 * The roots of the immediately above four (4) Russian words
 * translate/transliterate, successively to:

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


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


 * On the other hand, the Library of Congress owns an undated text,
 * which is 64 pages in length
 * --apparently a pamphlet
 * --and bears the romanized Russian language title:

Protokoly sionskikh mudret?s?ov


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

Protocols of the Elders of Zion


 * Accordingly, it appears that the longer title
 * derives from the longer Sergei Nilus version of the text
 * while the shorter title comes from the G. Butmi version.


 * So do you have any objections to my proposed title change?
 * Yours truly, Ludvikus 01:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

CIVIL
Don't talk to me about unbased and unfounded personal attacks that you don't intend your recipient to see. Bastique ▼ parler voir 18:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It was not an attack, and I don't care whether you think you deserve an apology. Don't leave messages for me on my talk page.  I don't like you and any further commentary from you is going to be completely ignored, because I think you are dead wrong, and an incredible bully.  Bastique ▼ parler voir 19:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * After stepping back, and VoiceofAll's words, I will offer an apology. Idiotic was not intended as an attack.  It was a personal opinion of your collective behaviour.  I'm sorry about that choice of words and if it hurt yours or SV's feelings in anyway.  It was not my intent, and as I've explained before, my message was meant for BHouston and not you.  As I'm certain SV will be reading this page, that apology extends to her.  Bastique ▼ parler voir 19:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Changes to Wikipedia talk:No original research
Re: DuncHarris and Slrubenstein. Please seem my comments on Wikipedia talk:No original research. I am not attempting to disrupt or troll. Far from it-- I have merely been defending the existing guideline concerning self-citation by "experts" from what seems an underhanded and concerted attempt to change it. At the very least, I am trying to get everyone to follow the proper guidelines when they make such a change.

Likewise, presenting concrete evidence that an alleged "concensus" is no such thing under concensus is legitimate, at least if the rules and guidelines have any meaning. Sorry if this requires confrontational language, but I do not see any alternative,  having tried most of them. As I noted, Duncharris has recently been formally cited for "shenanegans" {Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture}. This does not seem to have slowed his activities in the slightest. Pproctor 05:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Gesher tov
You ever hear of Gesher tov? It's a concept I've not encountered before, and there doesn't seem to be much if anything on the web about it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben's "big three issues" with NAS article.
I have tried to summarize my content concerns regarding NAS as simply as possible. If we can tackle these, then my concerns over balance will be addressed. Here they are: What do you think? --Ben Houston 21:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutering critics
 * Confusing evidence with NAS's interpretation
 * Article is about modern NAS theory, not term

"History of the "Protocols of Zion"
Dear Jay,
 * I'm a novice--having become a Wikipedia (I even know the acronym [WP]) on August 31, 2006--and I love it!!! It's a great and incredible phenomena!!!
 * I've learned by trial and error--did not even read any of your rules.
 * The reason is I wanted to become an ENCYCLOPEDIST immediately.
 * You comment was very useful. Now I check Google to see how many hits I get.
 * However, maybe tomorrow I buy Wikipedia for DUMMIES--if such a title exists.
 * I had been printing (hardcopy) versions of WP perhaps even before you became an Administror.
 * Anyway, I imagine your quite bussy.
 * So to the point.
 * I'd like to make the hit on the Protocols...
 * I just figure it out--I'll do it sloppily--and someone will cleanup after me--OK?

---
 * One more thing--a WPdeian put a MERGE notice on that article I'm writing--but didn't give any argument!!! How can I defend if WP does not tell me WHY or HOW to MERGE?
 * So I just wiped--out his notice--did I do OK? Or violate a rule?
 * And do you make any allowence based on the QUALITY of a WP's WORK/PRODUCT/ARTICLE:

--- Please find the time to answer me. Thanks. And here's my partial resume so far--thus far:
 * Sultan Catto
 * Victor E. Marsden
 * Cesare G. De Michelis
 * and more. --- Ludvikus 03:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

RyanGerbil10 agian
Given your concern the last time this admin abused his tools, I thought you might want to know that today, on this same page, he removed the protection, made a series of edits, and reprotected the page. I've filed a new WP:ANI report about this behavior here. Isarig 04:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Rudolf Vrba
Looks like we simultaneously edited Rudolf Vrba and I undid your last edit, while undoing some vandalism just before you editted. I'm not quite sure what you were up to, but you might want to fix. Nfitz 22:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I checked when I saw you'd cleaned out some vandalism, but somehow both of our edits stuck. :-) Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Odd that ... I thought I'd noticed that happening recently. Some kind of Wikimagic ... Nfitz 22:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Guess who (might be) back?
I know you're probably busy these days, but could you please do a check on ? Thanks... &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks anyways. &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

CfD
Dear Jayjg,

could you please take a look at the CfD nomination for "Mathematicians by religion"? Also - see the talk pages referenced therein, as well as the remark I have just left in SlimVirgin's page. Your advice will be appreciated. Bellbird 16:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

IDF and Military of Israel
Hi Jay: Please take a look at the vote at Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 10. Your expertise is required. Thanks a lot. IZAK 12:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish vs. Judeo renaming
Hi Jay: Your learned input would be greatly appreciated at User talk:ThuranX. See my comments there please. Thanks. IZAK 14:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

More Conspiracy Theory Afd's
At User:GabrielF/911TMCruft if you are interested. Morton devonshire 18:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

over 5 million in holocaust
I see that it's confusing for people - perhaps I suggust repharsing it, so it'll be clear that the 6 million number is not being censored. Amoruso 17:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you, Jayjg, for voting on my RFA, which passed 95 to 1. Now that I have the mop, I hope I can live up to the standard, and be a good administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. —   21:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Maintenance notice
(spurious warnings removed)


 * I believe that the above two template warnings were unwarranted, and should not be considered an accurate reflection of Jayjg's behaviour. Future viewers of the page should disregard them. --tjstrf 00:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Personally, I'd say you could even remove or strike through those template after the incident in question is finished. --tjstrf 02:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because you're an established user does not exempt you from Wikipedia policies. Also, I find it highly out of order for you to threaten me with banning without cause and without authority. Deleting warning messages is also against Wikipedia policy. SighSighSigh 02:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make you exempt from policy, but it does mean that you can treat them civily and give them an actual reasoning why you object to their behaviour rather than an insulting "read teh ruels" template notice. Further, deleting warning notices is only against policy if they are warranted, and I say they aren't. --tjstrf 02:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I hadn't actually considered removing them until I got your latest post. Now they're gone. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Gentle Rottweiller
Jay, thanks for letting me know, and you're right, I'm not surprised. In a way it's kind of sad as Awbrey is rather bright and could be a good contributer, if he'd stop tripping over his ego. Jim 62 sch 17:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeez, most people have fewer pairs of socks than he had sock puppets. Unreal.  Jim 62 sch  17:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Nazrac is at it again
...on Talk:Einsatzgruppen and again trolling my Talk page. Not expecting an intervention, but again just advice about how this can best be handled: the talk page for the article is now pretty much nothing but denial and counters to it. Thanks. Ergative rlt 18:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to address me in your talk page as you have done each time you post a response to my comment, you are inviting an additional reponse. Once again you're also complaining about the content on the talk page and your disagreement with it. What gives your opinion more weight over mine on the article talk page? Why would Jayjg intervene simply because you disagree with the content on an article discussion page? --Nazrac 20:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Licence
Hello Jayjg. I wonder what licence has this image : from the wp:he. Can you help me ? Thank you :-) ceedjee

Protocols of Zion
of that infamous plagiarism and forgery.
 * Greetings Jayjg. The above is the briefest title


 * I've noticed your work on it and I note that you only describe it as [[fraudulent]. That's probably 'cause your so busy.


 * I about this disambiguation "article" carefully, and have come to the conclusion that it should mere br a "REDIRECT" "page." What do you think? What should we single this title out? Notice the following (incomplete) list:


 * The Protocols
 * The Protocols of Zion
 * The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
 * The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
 * The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion
 * The Protocols of the Sages of Zion
 * The Jewish Peril
 * The Cause of World Unrest
 * The International Jew
 * etc.

Belated thanks
Thank you for participating in my RfA. Consensus to promote was reached, and I am now an administrator. I'll be using the tools cautiously at first, and everyone should feel welcome to peer over my shoulder and make sure I'm not doing anything foolish. --RobthTalk 04:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

E-mail
Hi, I've sent you an e-mail. --Telex 21:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I sent it again. Hopefully, it worked this time. --Telex 15:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Allegations in Cuba
Hi Jayjg, I've replied on both my own and on the talk page. I personally could do with the POV issue being resolved because I've been using your Cuba article as the best example I have found of how to address a difficult subject in a neutral fashion! Beardo's POV tag does compromise my arguments elsewhere somewhat! Perhaps a deadline for counter POV is necessary? Apologies for the splintered messages. --Zleitzen 18:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hagiographer
Jay, I noticed you just blocked Hagiographer as a sockpuppet of MJGR. Does that mean MJGR was also behind the Zapatero/Zapatancas accounts, and should the personal attack probation at Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas be applied to MJGR? (Should MJGR in fact be blocked under that decision for the Hagiographer attacks?). Thanks.Thatcher131 19:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Tony Sidaway extended the arbitration remedies to Hagiographer based on consensus at WP:AN.  Do you think it would be sufficient to take that route again or would you prefer listing at WP:RFAR#Requests for clarifications?  Thanks. Thatcher131 20:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC
I want to file an RfC request for the Yellow badge article. I am not still sure if I should include the Rubinstein's quote issue in the RfC I'm going to file. So, would you please let know if you think there are still problems with adding that quote (either in the intro or in a possibly new section which is specifically dealing with Yellow badge and toleration in Muslim lands). Thanks --Aminz 23:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront
Greetings, Jay. If you get a chance, could you have a look at the entry above? I provisionally denazified it today after noticing it had tens of stromfront and sympathizers links as refs, and other forms of not-so-subtle hate sites promotion (see some diffs here). Thanks. All the best, El_C 10:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Jay-- in a related matter, would you care to comment on an on-going debate we're having about whether it's ever appropriate to reference a hate site, or whether the reference should be left as a hidden comment so as to avoid inadvertantly promoting the hate site by linking to it.   Is it ever appropriate to use a hate site as a reference?


 * Obviously, hate sites have huge reliability problems, so I wouldn't want to trust them on anything controversial. Similarly, before El_C fixed the article, there were 40+ links to the hate site, which seems quite excessive to me, so I'm glad that got cut back.  But, is it really against Wikipedia policy to reference a hate site at all, as in this case, for example, when we want to reference how many registered users they claim to have.


 * --Alecmconroy 02:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Your view?
Hi Jay - can you have a look at User:87.78.184.150 aka User:87.78.178.102? Numerous personal attacks, disagrees with WP:NPOV. The user has also indicated a willingness to evade blocks. Based on location and these characteristics, I'm also wondering if he might be a possible sock of User:Dabljuh. I was wondering if you might have a word with him and/or if you had any suggestions. Thanks. Jakew 20:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks - hopefully that'll solve the problem. As for him being Dab, it's really just a gut feeling, though Dab did login from both Switzerland and Germany, as I recall. This new user seems to be remarkably familiar with Wikipedia, though... Jakew 09:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Well, I'm sorry for all the fuzz I caused, running in a blind rage. There is no good reason for my behaviour, I just went on a rant. This said I just wanted to give you my word on two things: 1. Although I am German, I am not the person that used the banned user account Dabljuh. 2. I am not especially familiar with Wikipedia. Prior to my bad crushing in on the ongoing dispute on articles associated with circumcision, my contributions to Wikipedia were confined without exception to minor spelling and grammar corrections, adding Wikipedia-internal links to articles and two or three times asking questions on article talk pages. That's where my familiarity with Wikipedia comes from. I am not familiar enough with it, though, to effectively search through Arbitration Committee decisions. User:Nandesuka commented a deletion of a comment to user:Lordkazan on user_talk:lordkazan "(rm edit from user banned by order of the arbitration committee)". He since has explained on that talk page that, despite my protests, I am the sockpuppet of a banned user (Dabljuh). I seriously don't know what to do now, especially since the ban enforcement imposed on me by Nandesuka has taken place in a moment, when I already had apologized for my initial very bad behaviour and went on to partake in civil discussion on article talks and refrained from any further stupid vandalism. Now, it seems, Nandesuka won't reply to anything I say, he just deleted comments on his own talk page and also in all articles and on other users home pages stating that a banned user may not edit. I understand that user:Dabljuh has been banned indefinitely. So my only way out of this seems to be giving valid proof or sufficient assertion that I am not him. Hmmm... out of words... I am not him, have never talked to him in Wikipedia or in person. I'm just not Dabljuh. What else could I do? Do you have any suggestions? yours sincerely, Adrian 87.78.158.150 14:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Step 1: stop evading your block.
 * There really is no step 2. Nandesuka 15:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel you are treating me unfairly. I had already stopped misbehaving and entered civilized discussion when you imposed that block. But this is really Jayjg's talk page and I'd like to hear his opinion. 87.78.186.67 16:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro
I'm running into trouble with this editor who seems intent to blank out any material he doesn't like even when compltely sourced, reliable and verfiable, simply because he doesn't like it, on false pretexts such as "well poisoning". See here : ], Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command, Rashid Khalidi, Ghassan Kanafani and more. Amoruso 23:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See development on MA issue (not related to Palmiro...) : Amoruso 01:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD of interest
Hi. An editor's put the article on Iman Darweesh Al Hams up for deletion. I thought you would like to know. It's an unpleasant incident, but the article as it stands is pretty NPOV, thanks it seems in large part to your editing, and there seems to be some doubt among the noms that this particular case was notable at all, and some belief that the article was created purely as a POV-fork. It would be interesting if you weighed in briefly on the deletion page. (Full disclosure: I argued in favour of keeping it.) Hornplease 09:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thrown out
Looking at the hilarity (in the history) of Requests for checkuser/Case/Tyrenius, I wanted to let you know there's also Thrown out shown as that I made after a purely silly request that mackensen wished he had a   It'd have been useful for the Tyrenius case. --Kevin_b_er 15:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Image license
Hello Jayjg. Thank you for the translation. For your information : I discovered that copyright license for photographs is limited to 50 years after the moment it was developed for the first time ! That is very interesting for the illustration of historical articles... Alithien 17:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet another Bonaparte comment
Hi Jayjg, would you mind deleting the edits made by to MariusM's talk page? Also this edit by. Thanks again. &mdash; Khoikhoi 23:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, he's been pretty active on Economy of Romania and Moldova lately... &mdash; Khoikhoi 23:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox
Jay, you hate me more than most. Can you have a swing over to Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox. A User with a small edit history has reverted the information I have added away from the article four times over the past 19 days with such charming summaries as "Delete false information", "REVERT LIES!!", "Revert Lies! - Reprobate Sources, as previously decided in arbitration" (it was never an Arb-Com case - as you no doubt know, *I* was an arb-com case and am on Revert patrol) "Revert Libel, Reprobate sources". The problem is, I don't see the Libel. Everything I have stated is sourced, and the source is explained. Further, shes quite proud of her work in Israel, I don't see how it can be libelous. As such, your thoughts and opinions on the matter are requested. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Faurisson
Messrs. jayjg, Jpgordon et al have taken to further censorship activities and have deleted and blocked a perfectly legitimate article on a Holocaust denier because of his "non-noteworthiness". Another administrator deleted an article about another Holocaust denier because of my own witless copyright violation of an ADL website. The following exchange ensued on the Robert Faurisson talk page:

''69.109.166.52 22:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC) '':User:Proskauer, your original research and copyright violations from Holocaust denial sites are always fascinating. Please login. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

''Oddly enough, my "copyright violation" accusation stemmed from an article I lifted from an ANTI-Holocaust-denial website written in a negative vein regarding Mark Weber, a well known Holocaust denier. I went back to the website and saw no claims of copyrighted material, so I guess the standard is they have to make an active release of copyright status in order to qualify for Wikipedia.

''Also, it is impossible to violate strictures against "original research" and to violate copyrights at the same time, if you think about it. Copyright violation would mean using somebody else's original research, at best. Proskauer 17:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

'':Your edits consist of one or the other; sorry if my first comment wasn't clear enough about that. Your copyright violations almost always come from Holocaust denial sources; you only used the ADL source to test to see if that would be tagged as well. Jayjg (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

''Folks, he's a mind-reader as well! Guilty as charged. Actually I figured that bad press is better than no press at all, and for all that it was deleted by NawlinWiki who does not contest its noteworthiness. What do you think, jayjg, should I re-write the "Mark Weber" article without violating copyright issues? (It's not clear to me thet WP's policies are strictly law-based so much as cautious. But I'm not a licensed attorney...) Will you or Jpgordon delete and block a Mark Weber article on the basis of non-noteworthiness, despite the fact that he is clearly a major player in the H-denier field? Please see NawlinWiki's talk page under Mark Weber heading.

''As for violating the copyrights of Holocaust denial websites, I suspect you know as well as I do that they want to be violated, I mean yearn for it, because the abuser and the abused are often tough to distinguish between. Proskauer 01:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)''

So I'm curious if I start an article on Mark Weber, will you delete it, jayjg? Will you support others who delete and block it? Proskauer 02:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Barry Gurary article
Hi Jay: Could you please take a look at the discussion concerning Conceptual backround: Hasidic dynastic disputes in the Barry Gurary article. See Talk:Barry Gurary. Thanks. IZAK 03:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Xosa = Zephram Stark?
It appears that the Zephram Stark case needs to be revisited. has been alleged to be ZS, and since you were most involved in checking him, I'm forwarding this request (from someone else) directly to you. Please check this, if possible, and post the result on this page. Scobell302 15:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Cretanpride
Hey, Jayjg. Thanks for performing the latest checkuser on Cretanpride. I hope you were aware of his stunt last weekend. Did you look into the possibility of a range block as well? I have some information about Cretanpride's real-world identity that I'd rather not release publicly on the wiki, but which might help blocking efforts. Email me if you're interested. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
Hello Jayjig

I hope I am doing this right. I would like to request arbitration and report gross abuses by the user/ adminstrator "Gwenol" who conducted a 1 WEEK block for an editor who made a good faith attempt to improve the "Jodie Foster" by adding just 3 words. Furthermore Gwenol proceeded to use page protection to gag the user from using his or her own talk page! Gwenol (or his allies) then took the extraordinary, unethical and unusual step of changing the history page record of the Jodie Foster article to erase even the hisotry of the attempt at improving the page and his revisions. Gwenol then threatened this user/editor, who was acting in good faith, with an lifetime ban! (Which I do not believe that he has the authority to do).

I hope the Committee will look into this along with the sarcastic, belittling and needling comments Gwendol puts about edits he does not like with the comment (to many good faith edits). "Thank you for experimenting with the page Jodie Foster on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed" He should know perfectly well these edits are not "experiments" but the hard work of peopkle trying to improve articles.

I believe Gwendol has abused his power as administrator to punish editors for content he does not like regardless of its relevance and truthfulness. I ask that Gwendol's SYSOPS and administrative powers be revoked or at the very least be suspended for 6 months. I also belive Mr. Gwendol owes me an apology for the intentionaional infliction of severe emotional distress he has caused me. Please consider my request for the betterment of the Wikicommunity and Wikipedia. Thank you very much. 71.111.117.99

SPA tag
I tagged a user as a suspected spa on the grounds of the proportion of the number of his contributions to a very narrow range of interrelated articles as compared to the total number of his contributions. Do you not consider this user to be conceiveable as an spa to at least some extent? Or did your revert it because you felt that I tagged a comment by that user in an inappropriate place? I'd understand that but would still appreciate your comment. Thank you. Tit for tat 14:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a comment on User_talk:Lordkazan. Thank you. Tit for tat 15:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeshu
There is a lot of unsourced material here. i trust it, but don't want anyone to fault the article for violating NOR. I commented here,. If you can address any of my concerns I'd be grateful, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Tit for tat
Your threat to block him is extremely out of line until you can PROVE he is a sockpuppet, or until he actually has committed harassment of User:Jakew - simply putting the SPA tag on an account does not constitute harassment. You are out of line. Lordkazan 15:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_Jayg_Inappropriate_ban_of_User:Tit_for_tat

You banned me for no reason at all. I am hereby formally requesting IMMEDIATE unblocking of my account! 87.78.182.130 13:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Threats
You said yourself that I’m new here, so the least I would expect from you would have been for you to make me aware of the rule before threatening me with it. Moreover, leading me in a 3RR, besides not being nice, doesn’t account much for WP:AGF, does it? It would have been much nicer and in the spirit of Wikipedia if you had paid attention to the “first sentence” discussion point in the talk page. But, for you the subject had not even been discussed and you didn’t even give me time to tell you the subject had been discussed… You do as you wish, but wikipedia is also about assuming good faith and discussing the matters, I guess. DavidMarciano 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's make a date, mate
Looking at this diff, I can see what you are trying to do. The question in my mind is why. My understanding is that the limits on format changing have been set, as per the Manual of Style here and here. More discussion may be found on the talk page here.

I'm happy to accept guidance, but I'm getting contrary instructions from many senior editors, and it would be great if you all could confer amongst yourselves before coming out with something that flatly and rudely contradicts what the previous person has told me. --Jumbo 00:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (copied over from User talk:SuperJumbo): As has been explained to you quite clearly, you should not be going around changing date formats to your own preferences. No "senior editors" have told you any different including Raul654. I've cleaned up some of your mess, and if I see you doing it again, you will quickly find yourself blocked a 4th time for making arbitrary date format changes. I hope that is absolutely crystal clear. Jayjg (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Put simply, my preferences are that articles on American subjects use month-day-year American Dating, and articles on British subjects use day-month-year International Dating. Without presuming to be rude, may I ask you to please point out precisely where in the discussion to which you refer, the reverse is explained "quite clearly"? I would also like your interpretation on Raul's comments here, where he says:
 * My interpretation (and, I think, the Arbcom's interpretation as well) of the Manual of style and Sortan ruling is as follows: for a British or British commonwealth related article, the British style is the preferred style and it's OK to change American to British style; for an American related article, the American style is the preferred style and it's OK to change British to American.
 * Again I make the point that it is difficult and frustrating to be told contrary things by senior editors, and to be threatened with blocks if I follow the opinion of one over the other. If you do not agree with Raul, then I hope you will not take it amiss if I ask you to to look back over the years-long process of gaining consensus on date formats, concur with your fellows, sort out a consistency of opinion, and let me (and the rest of the community of editors) know what it might be. If you concur with Raul's interpretation, then may I request that you kindly undo your reverts of my careful work (my "mess", as you put it). --Jumbo 20:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

(copied over from User talk:SuperJumbo): What is actually "frustrating and difficult" is that you have deliberately misquoted Raul again, as has been pointed out to you before. You left off the part immediately after that statement, where he said ''However, it is patently not acceptable to change one acceptable style to another unless you are (a) making the article self consistent, or (b) you have a compelling reason, such as expanding the article from a 1 paragraph stub to featured article. (Simply changing the dating style for the sake of changing the dating style is not OK.'' Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a reasonable reading of that is that he is referring to articles on (say) China, where the Manual of Style says: Elsewhere, either format is acceptable.. It would not be right to go changing every article on China to a uniform American Dating or International Dating format because the MoS doesn't mention a preferred format and it would be a clear violation of JGuk and Sortan to go around changing things to a personal preference. Your personal interpretation seems to dictate a ban on any format changes, and that seems unreasonable. I'd prefer it if you contacted Raul to work out a consistency of opinion, please. I'm not trying to be provocative, and I'm sorry if you take it that way. I am trying to find what is and isn't acceptable, and as I say it is difficult and frustrating to be told different things by different people, especially when they are in positions of authority. --Jumbo 21:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

(copied over from User talk:SuperJumbo): My position is entirely consistent with that of Raul's. Stop pretending that there is a difference of opinion here through which you can slip your date changes. Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You might like to go and harangue Yossarian, who has undone one of your reverts, citing a convention. --Jumbo 21:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

(copied over from User talk:SuperJumbo): You're the one who is haranguing. Yossarian is wrong, but I'm not going to get worked up about one date change. However, if I find people systematically working their way through articles for the purpose of changing date formats to their preferred version, I certainly will block them, as per many ArbCom precedents. Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Could you cite those many precedents on date style, please? I've asked Raul for a comment, because you seem to think I'm harassing you. I think your opinion is wrong, but as I've said elsewhere, one does not argue right of way with a speeding semi-trailer, and on that point I note your continued threats to block, placing me in an impossible position. --Jumbo 21:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Lacking any further guidance from you, and having no confidence that you have checked with Raul or found any relevant ArbCom cases beyond Sortan and Jguk, I have asked for guidance here. Please don't take this personally. I feel that I have received conflicting advice from senior editors and your statements that there is no conflict merely add to the doubt in my mind. I'd like this clarified so that I know how to proceed. --Jumbo 19:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sarfatti
Thank you. In general, I'm leery of leaning on individual admins (less ammo for screams of "cabalism!"), but if necessary in future, I'll contact you directly on this page. --Calton | Talk 02:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Engage (organization)
Hi Jay: Could you please look into this at Talk:Engage (organization). Thanks. IZAK 08:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sami Al-Arian
You semi-protected the Sami Al-Arian page sometime ago, and sadly, it probably still needs it. However a newly created userID is being used to turn it back to a nearly all pro-Arian site just like was happening a few months ago before you protected it.

I'm not sure what should be done, I don't relish monitoring it and I suspect no one else cares to. Maybe it should be unprotected and let the mayhem continue or maybe protect it tighter? The new user should be checked in case its just the same one who was changing it a few months back.

Your thoughts? Thanks. Jmcnamera 16:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI
You have now violated 3RR on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please don't revert again or you will be blocked for 24 hours. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see your email. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And he ate the last twinkie too. Wjhonson 17:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Zoe, on top of the fact that reverts of banned users don't count for 3RR, I only removed the material 3 times, not 4. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, and I apologize. It's the same as the 3RR on vandalism, it doesn't apply.  User:Zoe|(talk) 20:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Need a checkuser
I know we've had disputes in the past, but I would like to set that aside. I need the services of a checkuser. can you confirm that User:JBKramer is not a sockpuppet of temporarily blocked user User:Supreme_Cmdr Lordkazan 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * didn't know how to do that.. thanks! Lordkazan 20:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Hi Jay: Shavua Tov. I am requesting that the article Lithuanian Jews be moved to History of the Jews in Lithuania (it is presently a redirect) which would make it consistent with all the other articles of "History of the Jews in ______" series as you can see for yourself in Category:Jewish history. There is indeed a Category:Lithuanian Jews, but these kind of categories do not normally have articles attached to them, they just function as "holding pens" for the articles about Jews. This used to be User:Goodoldpolonius2'd work, but he hasn't been around, and I am working on tidying-up some Jews and Judaism categories. Thanks a lot. IZAK 06:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Jay, see my response on my talk page. IZAK 11:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
You indef. blocked me and gave a reason. I disagree with the validity of that reason and would like to go to Mediation Cabal and try to sort things out. What do you say? That is, apart from blocked users are not allowed to edit, which is true, but also a tautology (you blocked me) and is one of the things I'd like address with Mediation Cabal. 87.78.147.203 12:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see my posting on User_talk:Centrx. 87.78.158.52 18:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Bonny
Hi, can you do a check on ? &mdash; Khoikhoi 17:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also please do a check on as well (the second one is more serious). &mdash; Khoikhoi 22:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks! &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Verifying a meshumad
Hi Jay: Did this "Rabbi" Isaac Lichtenstein really exist? IZAK 11:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mark Street
Dear Sir

forgive me for not being about to communicate or edit this site they way you do, just learning.

You can confrim my identity at

htlp:tiraspoltimes.com/aboutus.html

Des

PP.Mark Street

User talk:Tit for tat
For observational purposes. Blocking doesn't do much anyway for this sort. —Centrx→talk • 15:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, please take a look at my current contribs on the account of user:Subversive_element and tell me I am a) harassing anyone and/or that I am a troll or a sockpuppet or whatever. I believe I gave a good reason for unblocking the user:tit_for_tat account: Any edit I'm going to make anytime in the future is in evasion of an existing block. Please do not ignore the facts that I am totally keeping out of all "hazardous" topics and that I did apologize to the harassed user. If I had known back then that placing the single purpose account can be seen as a harassment or personal attack, I would never have done it (or, I wouldn't have created an account for it - after all, that was my sole wrongdoing through that account! - see User_talk:Netsnipe for details.) However, if the block on tit_for_tat continues, you force me to stop all helping with Wikipedia (which is what I am currently doing again). And for what it's worth, once again: Nandesuka blocked me in the first place for being a sockpuppet of a banned user. That's why you banned tit_for_tat indef. at once, you never gave me any warning or any temporary block. So, what are you going to do now that I have exposed myself? Indef. block this new account, too? Well, you are the expert and you surely know what to do. But please understand that I can not go on contributing to WP with that block over my head. Subversive element 11:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please respond. Subversive element 20:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I replied on my talk page. Subversive element 07:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And again. Subversive element 20:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther
Hey Jayjg. I'm sorry about the conflict of interest bit. I didn't mean to imply that anyone is not working in good faith. To be fair, SlimVirgin brought up the same issue in the FA nomination and it has been discussed several times before on the talk page - namely the fact that everyone who has offered an opinion on the issue is either Jewish or Lutheran. Regardless, it is not a productive argument to have. I only brought it up due to the shear frustration of no one even being willing to consider ideas for improving the section. Kaldari 21:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimsurge74's unblock request
At 16:04, February 3, 2006 (UTC) you blocked Jimsurge74 (talk • contribs • [ page moves ] • block user • [ block log ]), an account with no contributions indefinitely as a "sleeper account". A sleeper account of who? He's asking to be unblocked, so I'll let you handle it. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello jayjg - I am a complete novice in terms of contributing & sending messages here, etc.. Apologies in advance if I've done something wrong by posting here - I cannot figure out how to reply to the message on my page! I have primarily used Wiki as a resource until yesterday when I was looking up the baseball manager "Lou Pinella" and there were a bunch of capital letters inserted in the middle of his name in one entry and I thought I would attempt to edit them out. Thanks for activating my account, I'll try to stay more active. Jimsurge74 19:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Laitman is back
Hi Jay: Someone has repasted the Michael Laitman article after it was voted for deletion in July '06. I have put it in WP:PROD for deletion, but in fact, the one who has now reproduced it should have first taken it to Deletion review which he did not. See the discussion at Talk:Michael Laitman. Thanks. IZAK 05:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 12:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Attribution
A proposal that NOR and V be combined, and RS ditched. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

disclaimer
Hello there.

I liked the disclaimer at the top of your talk page. Do you mind if I steal it, and use it on my talk page? Bertilvidet 13:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated text
There was an edcon when I responded to you, so when I cut my reponse out of the bottom box to paste it into the top box; I accidentally cut your passage as well and pasted in a second copy. Sorry 'bout that.

--EngineerScotty 16:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Request to discuss
Hi there Jayig. Would you mind coming over to the Talk:Israel page to explain your latest edit there? There is an ongoing discussion without consensus regarding the sentence you just restored. I also replied to one of your points on this same issue earlier without receiving a reply. It would be good if we could discuss further there before making changes to the article itself. Thanks. Tiamut

Golan Heights
Thank you for your help with the WP:3RR report. Hopefully, if there is another time, I will get it right myself. Viewfinder 01:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Category vote
Hi Jay: Please provide your view at Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 10. Good Mo'ed. Thank you. IZAK 03:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism
Hi Jayjg,

Asking for your help with an article we have been involved with in the past: Anti-Zionism. I made extensive changes to the introduction, but as far as I could tell, removed nothing of substance. The bulk of the changes were re-organizing and removing repeated information. Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg has reverted twice without any comment or explanation besides "POV". I explicitly asked for comments on the talk page. In the process of his reverts, he has also removed less significant edits in other sections. I can not revert again without violating the 3RR. I believe my changes were helpful and legitimate, and would appriciate your assisitance. Obviously I do not expect you to agree with all the changes, but blind reverts without explnation help no one. Thanks in advance. --Uncle Bungle 04:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote to delete Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty)
I have written the following to the nominator:

Meshulam: You should avoid this kind of move (the hasty nomination to delete Articles for deletion/Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty)) because it's a slippery slope and could lead to the nomination for and deletion of similar articles about smaller Hasidic dynasties - by people who are not experts and don't care - with unintended consequences. Votes to delete are open to the world and you are inviting people who have no idea what this topic is about at all to cast a vote, which is very unfair and lacking insight. It seems that you may have been better off trying to add a merge to template or considered MERGING the material at some point perhaps and WAITED (at least a month!) to do so. You should also have first started a discussion at a number of places where people who know something about this topic could have given their intelligent input, such as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and Wikipedia talk:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week. Or you could have contacted other editors who deal with topics like this to solicit their views. This action of your is extreme and I do not condone it. I urge you to withdraw this nomination. Thank you. (I am cross-posting this message on a couple of relevant places, to get people's attention.) IZAK 10:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Harrassment, talk page vandalism, and non-consensus changes to guideline"
I wish to point out that the issue specified in this arb case (the proposal Non-notability) has been resolved about a week ago through a straw poll which found 71% in opposition to the proposal. It has been marked as 'rejected' by an uninvolved party, and debate has died down and moved to some essays on the matter.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  20:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the answer for anti-semitism polemic: http://www.daatemet.org.il/daathalacha/en_gentiles2.html It is written in Jerusalem from the Jews who have studied the Halacha (Jewish Religious Law) and its relations to the Gentils (=Non-Jews)

JA?
Is User:Bayle Shanks User:Jon Awbrey?

-thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 13:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits
Please do not make your reverts in jizya article as "minor edits" as they are not espacially if they are disputed. --- ابراهيم 15:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly it is not the right answer to my request. Secondly, it amaze me that when it comes to Islam then standards get so much strick and otherwise even un-reference things are allowed to stay. --- ابراهيم 15:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously most of the Islamic articles are well-sourced because people like you makes standards "conspicuously" very tough there. --- ابراهيم 15:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It means that it is shame that I need to find reference to make a link between a thing that it too obvious. Thanks to you. --- ابراهيم 15:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have already told that what I meant from "people like you". I do not know if I have to find reference for that too? If a same standard not applied uniformly on every article and become strong in Islamic article then it is wrong. For example a law which become strick for blacks people and light for whites. For example: See the article The Quran and science each line is referenced but it has many tag on it and gone for deletion request twice. And see 100s of other articles without any reference but still no one cares about them. That is why Islamic article have to be very well-referenced all the time. --- ابراهيم 15:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not attack people unless I am talking to them directly. Why you want me to attack on other people and mention their names? What is your hidden agenda. Read the moto of Islamonline and how they described themself. Then see the website whose creation is based on hate _(jihadwatch). How can you compare two? I have now started losing good faith towards you. --- ابراهيم 16:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You have violated WP:3RR on Jizya article. Please be careful next time and honor other people opinions. --- ابراهيم 07:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

--- ابراهيم 12:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC). You are good by one hour hence cannot report this time. 02:54, 17 October 2006, 17:10, 16 October 2006, 13:33, 16 October 2006, 01:44, 16 October 2006--- ابراهيم

Delete
Hi Jay: Came across this non-article חסד which should be deleted. Thanks. IZAK 12:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)