User talk:Jayjg/Archive 20

Suspected sockpuppet account of banned user BhaiSaab
I suspect that user is a sockpuppet account of banned user He seems to have taken over the edits of this page in the same style as BhaiSaab as you can see by looking at the page history.--CltFn 04:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, he could be. Baka man  04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * BhaiSaab still block evading as seen here and here--CltFn 04:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Israeli Art Students controversy
Are you sure the deletion Israeli Art Students controversy of makes sense? I looked at the google cache here and it's not entirely clear it's the same article discussed at Articles for deletion/Israeli art students. The original DEA report can be found here (scroll down). -- Kendrick7talk 10:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, did you know there's a big yellow box at the top of your talk page?

-- Kendrick7talk 04:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Panairjdde
If he had been playing nice then I wouldn't have known about him. However, it turns out he has been up to his old tricks. Aside from the edit-warring, often on the same subjects, he's promised not to use sockpuppets any more, much less several of them. I hadn't heard of this editor before last week, but it is clear that he was given a second chance and abused our trust. Wikipedia is not a reformatory or social experiment in rehabilitating difficult editors, and I think we've been more than fair with him. Jayjg (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, how exactly did you discover him and all his "sins"? I've known him for well over a year, and we've never exchanged so much as a harsh word. Wikipedia is not a gulag either, it is run on the quality and dedication of its volunteers. Pan has devoted a great deal of his time and effort over the years to helping build this encyclopedia. That those who are too busy trolling, stalking and persecuting him, fail to appreciate this fact, only makes this the project poorer.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I sent you an email, but you ignored me. May I kindly ask you where/when I promised not to use Sockpuppets? Have you ever tought to just ask me if I had any sockpuppet?--##Panairjdde## 21:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a funny feeling that his...er...spirit of contribution may be alive and well at an IP address near you. Dppowell 20:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's not me, this is me. If it was on you, you would send people to death penalty based on your opinion.--##Panairjdde## 21:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

80.195.226.94
Hi there! Glancing briefly at my watchlist, I encountered 80.195.226.94 (talk • contribs). The anon' is vigoursly presenting a POV and I believe his/her contributions to Wikipedia need to be monitored. I'm unable to commit myself to that, so I decided to refer to a user who I believe has dilligently endured others who have exhibited similar editing patterns. Well, at least I think you have....? Apologies for the imposition. ;-) SoLando (Talk) 13:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting Pco Blocked
Thanks for lying to people about what I did to get me blocked. What is your problem? Pco 20:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And whoever posted this on the history of your talk page, was not me:
 * 1) (cur) (last) 04:42, 17 December 2006 Pco (Talk | contribs) (→Suspected sockpuppet account of banned user BhaiSaab - zionism)

because I never posted anything to your user talk page. Pco 20:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Another possible sock of BhaiSaab and . Baka  man  02:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * likewise, possible socks of User:Hkelkar:, , . ITAQALLAH   18:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Zionism
If you had responded on the Zionism talk page before reverting my edit, then I wouldn't have needed to comment here. In any case, I just responded to your comment over there. Would you please respond, rather than waiting till the next time I make the change and simply reverting it? As I said over there, I would also be extremely appreciative if you could actually explain yourself, rather than simply writing curt and combative comments which make your specific objections entirely unclear. Or am I being unreasonable now? Mackan79 04:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

AFD:NeshAir - more problems with User:FrummerThanThou
Hi Jay: Latest chutzpah at Articles for deletion/NeshAir. Thank you, IZAK 13:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sound familiar?
Who's this guy? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's this one . Check this for confirmation . Not 100% certain, but "I recognize that tune." Antandrus (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what I was guessing (the "cosmotheism" stuff), but I'd not been involved in that scene. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

POV?
On the Jesus article, you removed a piece of information that was stated in the Bible. It's not point of view. --Yancyfry 04:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, embarrassing. I didn't read it right. Sorry. -Yancyfry 04:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to the Bible, He is. It aslo says He is the Son of God, the Son of Man, Emmanuel, and a whole bunch of other stuff. -Yancyfry


 * Ok. I get what you mean. Sorry to bother you. =) -Yancyfry

Category:Palestinian rabbis
What does one make of the new Category:Palestinian rabbis and Category:Talmud rabbis in Palestine, should they be renamed to something like Category:Rabbis of ancient Palestine? so that it does not connect, and become confused with, the way the word "Palestinian" is used today (meaning the very unJewish modern Arab Palestinians, who have nothing to do with these rabbis!) Thanks. IZAK 09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi: I have created a solution: See Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel and Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel. Thank you. IZAK 14:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis to avoid confusion
Note: Many articles about the rabbis of the Talmud and Mishnah are derived from the archaic Jewish Encyclopedia, published between 1901-1906, over one hundred years ago (when the Middle East was still under the thumb of the Ottoman Turks) and which used the archaic expressions "Palestine" when referring to the Land of Israel, and to the Jews living in the areas of the historical Land of Israel as "Palestinians." This is a big mistake that requires constant attention and correction, especially when copying and editing articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia or from similarly archaic sources such as Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897). At this time, no-one uses the term/s "Palestinian/s" (in relation to anything associated with Jews or the land they lived in and which they regarded as their homeland) nor by any type of conventional Jewish scholarship, particularly at the present time when the label "Palestinian" is almost entirely identified with the Palestinian Arabs who are mostly Muslims. Finally, kindly take note that the name Palestinian Talmud is also not used and it redirects to the conventional term Jerusalem Talmud used in Jewish scholarship. Thank you. IZAK 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis
Makes sense, I'll try to remember. However, there was a period when everyone referred to the land of Israel as Palestine. Therefore, to say something like "in 1940 Shlomo Pines emigrated to Israel" would appear to be an anachronism. Don't we have to use the term "Palestine" during a certain period for historical accuracy? What is this period? From Roman conquest until 1948? Thanks. Dfass 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Dfass: Note: The term "Land of Israel" is an old one of Biblical origin, whereas the name "Palestine" is considered offensive by many Jews because it was coined by the Romans after they crushed the Jews of Judea-- and needless to say today it refers exclusively to the Arab Palestinians and never to Jews. Note also that the "Land of Israel" article is not the same as the "Israel" article because the latter refers to the modern post-1948 Jewish state. My main concern was about rabbis from the Mishnaic and Talmudic eras, up until about a hundred years ago being called "Palestinians" on Wikipedia as a follow-through from the many articles that have been copied and pasted from the old Jewish Encyclopedia and which collectively create the wrong impression. Such are the hazards of relying on dated information, long-discarded terminology, and unsuitable writing and communication styles. Wikipedia as a modern encyclopedia should not be relying on archaic terms such as "Palestinian rabbis" that could potentially cause grave misunderstanding. I think that from the time of the British Mandate of Palestine, also shortened to "the British Mandate" and sometimes "Palestine," that Jews were associated with those terms from 1923 until 1948 when the modern State of Israel was declared. I hope that you have noted that I am most definitely NOT saying that whenever the Jewish Encyclopedia uses the term "Palestine" that the single word "Israel" should be used -- obviously I do not mean that because when Israel is used alone on Wikipedia it refers to the MODERN State of Israel only. On the other hand, what I am saying is that when the word "Palestine" is used in archaic sources that predate modern Israel, and when writing about Judaic topics that relate to the Middle Ages, Talmudic, or Biblical times, then the better, more accurate, less controversial term for Wikipedia to use is "Land of Israel" which is historically what the Jewish people, and everyone else in academic life, have and do still call it. Hope I have clarified myself, and thanks for caring. IZAK 12:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I get the drift. I will pay attention to it in the future. (Don't be so down on the Jewish Encyclopedia though! It's an incredible work, written by some tremendous scholars. I think these articles significantly raise the quality of Wikipedia, whether their English is somewhat archaic or not. If you compare a JE-borrowed Wikipedia article to one written by "the masses," you can't but be struck by the difference in quality and scholarship. The typical Jewish Wikipedian (myself included) is not capable of producing articles of anything like that caliber. Most Wikipedians cannot even be bothered to cite the sources for the couple of factoids they manage to dredge up from their memory of 10th grade.) Thanks again for the clarification. Dfass 15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Dfass: I am not down on the old Jewish Encyclopedia at all, and I fully agree with you that it is a more than masterly work of scholarship. But is was written in the context of the culture of over a hundred years ago as a product of the nineteenth century! My specific concern at this stage was only about how the meaning and application of the word/s "Palestine" and "Palestinian" are getting "lost in the cut-and-paste process" because one hundred years ago, "Palestinian" was used as an academic adjective as for example, together with "rabbis" ("Palestinian rabbi/s") or the Talmud ("Palestinian Talmud"). Up until 1948 the words "Palestine" and "Palestinians" still had application/s to Jews because of the existaence of the British Mandate of Palestine until 1948 in the territories of historically Jewish Land of Israel. Since then, the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has shed any connection to Jews and the modern Jewish State of Israel which was set up in contradistinction to an Arab Palestine. Particularly since the rise of the PLO (the Palestine Liberation Organization), following the 1967 Six-Day War, the term and notion of "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has become thoroughly and exclusively connected with the Arab Palestinians to the point that no-one (not in politics, academics, the media, religion, etc) associates the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" with the Jews or Judaism, so that it can safely be said that the notion of a "Palestinian Jew" is an archaic anachronistic discarded notion. So when cutting and pasting articles from the one hundred year old Jewish Encyclopedia, one should not fall into a "time warp trap" by blindly pasting articles from it without some sensible updates, and not to inadvertantly recreate and foster terminology for Jews and Jewish Israelis that neither they nor the world accepts or recognizes. One needs to be conscious that the term "Land of Israel" is a well-established name that has survived for a long time and is still the preferred term of choice when speaking in modern terms, so that Jews not be confused with Arabs and vice versa. By speaking of the Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel, meaning rabbis (or any Jews) associated with a historic geographic area, one also avoids problems such as calling pre-1948 rabbis or people "Israelites" -- used only for people in the Biblical era or "Israelis" -- which refers to citizens of the modern State of Israel. Thanks for your input. IZAK 07:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Judaism's view of Jesus
Hi Jay: I received the following message, perhaps you can assist. Thanks. IZAK 10:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Izak,


 * I've been involved in a discussion with a christian editor at Judaism's view of Jesus who is holding to the fairly common christian interpretation that Judaism and christianity are pretty much the same thing and therefore the article should reflect christian views as well. I'm enjoying the conversation, since the editor (Just nigel) is more restrained than some, but I'll be away for a few days between now and the weekend. If you're interested, the discussion is at the bottom of the talk page. Dbratton 10:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC) (crossposted to Jon513)

Thank you
Dear Jayjg, thank you for giving me your support at my rfa.--Berig 11:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

request for arbitration
I've filed a request for arbitration regarding your use of checkuser privilege.

Justforasecond 22:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Travbar
Jay, if you still have a view on the antisemitism template travbar, would you mind posting a comment? I feel that these things are vandalism magnets. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

172.163.57.130
Well, User:172.163.57.130, who is also obviously User:172.137.17.81, User:172.128.26.209, User:172.129.88.160, and so on, appears to be trying to re-create the deleted category "Jewish-American businesspeople" as a list. Factually speaking, there are some obvious mistakes in their edits (there's Milton S. Hershey, who is obviously not Jewish, which his article even states ["As a young adult, his Reformed Mennonite mother's family financed ..."], or William Cohen, who is not particularly Jewish according to most sources). They've done stuff like. So yeah, I'd guess it to be a case of an A.W.A. - an Anon With an Agenda. Mad Jack 05:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Frummer creates User:Jesus
Hi Jay: Unfortunately, User:FrummerThanThou has crossed the lines of acceptable editing. He has now created a provocative new "user" User:Jesus. See User talk:Jesus. I do believe that admin intervention is overdue. Thanks. IZAK 08:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion
Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion FYI: Hi Tomer! A WikiProject Religion has asserted itself in the Korban article. The project indicates that it is an umbrella project for all of religion and that the current religion projects are subprojects of it, yet its member directory lists only six members. Where is the project coming from? Is it a broadbased project, a very small group with a very big reach, or what? If you know some background or some of its people, would be much appreciated. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Shira: I noticed this comment. Their assertion is outrageous and false and should be rejected and disputed to the full. There is no "supreme council of religion" on Wikipedia and there never will be. Each religion has its experts and contributors on Wikipedia and none of them will ever tolerate interference from outside busy-bodies. Judging by their user pages, the members of this "religion" project are obviously coming from a Christian POV and seems they now wish to "double dip," pretty funny actually. See my notice on that page, below. Thanks, and may the Lights of Chanukah dispel all ignorance and darkness. IZAK 10:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism
Hi: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Thanks, IZAK 10:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE and OBJECTIONS:


 * 1) No-one has the right to take upon themselves to be the controlling "project" for every religion on Earth!
 * 2) WikiProject Judaism has been, and shall remain an independent project and will not accept interference in its work based on the assertion that editors not familiar with Judaism's traditions have a self-appointed "right" to interfere with Judaism-related articles by mere dint of being members of a "religion" project.
 * 3) So far, as of 12/21/06 the mere six members of this project, are mostly Christian, (as self-described on their user pages) and raises the question, why don't they do their work in WikiProject Christianity (81 members as of 12/21/06)? How can a project with six members "pass judgment" on other projects with one hundred and twenty four members?
 * 4) What will members of other projects, such as WikiProject Islam (64 members as of 12/21/06) think and react when "religion project" editors will advise what's best for Islam-related articles or not?
 * 5) Note: WikiProject Judaism adheres to WP:NPOV and is one of the oldest Wikipedia projects with over one hundred and twenty members (as of 12/21/06), a number of whom are respected sysops as well, highly knowledgeable about many matters relating to Category:Jews and Judaism.
 * 6) It would not be advisable for anyone to interfere with Judaism-related articles or Hebrew Bible-related topics that ignores the broad based consensus and general agreement that exists between Jewishly-oriented editors of Judaic articles, many of which touch upon Jews because being Jewish includes being both a part of Judaism as well as being part of an ethnicity, and a project on "religion" alone cannot and does not have the scope to touch upon issues that effects not just Jews and Judaism, but also Israel and Jewish history, see WikiProject Jewish history (with 33 members as of 12/21/06) and a broad range of related issues and projects, see WikiProject Jewish culture (19 members as of 12/21/06) and WikiProject Israel (23 members as of 12/21/06).
 * 7) Finally, Wikipedia is not the forum to create a de facto neo-"ecumenical project" which is only bound to cause confusion and resentment and will result in confusion and chaos and inevitabley violate No original research; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; and Avoid neologisms.

Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to NOTICE and OBJECTIONS to WikiProject Religion vs. Judaism
Hi Jay: It is very important that you see the points and the response from User:Badbilltucker about his aims at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism ASAP. Have a Happy Chanukah! IZAK 15:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Hi Jayjg,

An RfC case involving you has been opened here. --Aminz 14:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jay
What do you make of an edit like this? This is the kind of thing I would have reverted in the past and asked the user to provide a better source and then move it down in the article under early life/family background whatever. I would really like to continue being an editor on this project and do not want to run into any trouble with any of my edits. Thanks.--Tom 21:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation: Religious significance of Jerusalem
User:Alithien suggested you may do a better job mediating.

Please help mediate on this page. We require your assistance. My argument is that user is adding much one-sided information and too much text to evoke emotions. Other material has almost nothing to do with the actual subject at hand. I am trying to maintain a fair and factual article. Your help is greatly appreciated. I would just like you to see my comments and arguments to his reasons. Also, please take a look at my version in comparison with his (as protected by Husond). He has added redundant info. He gave the rest of the quotation, unneeded but okay. The problem is that the second one is accompanied by the original text in Arabic. The Arabic text we have does not continue with the rest of the sentence, that is why his longer translation is not needed, especially not twice. He has also added POV. He uses his own sources while oblivious to others. That is why I try to leave it balanced, with all views represented.

As for the "Controversial claim" section, I am going to propose it be combined with the similar article section Al-Aqsa Mosque and possibly have its own page. If you have any suggestions or objections for me, I am glad to hear. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamir1 (talk • contribs)

Question
Hi Jayjg. Nearly Headless Nick posted some stats about the creation of AN and AN/I, and I noticed that they say you started AN/I a while before AN. Just out of curiosity, how did that happen? I certainly would've expected subpages to come after their parent page. Or is it just a mistake in the stats? Picaroon 00:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Block of Gnetwerker
Hello. Just reviewing an unblock request by User:Gnetwerker, I was wondering which page was the attack page referred to in your block summary?

I assume it has been deleted, which makes it hard for me to track down. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Kidman edit
That's the kind of stuff I'd immediately revert; that wasn't the kind of stuff you were removing, though. Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it was. You should really go back and take a better look. You were 110% wrong about myself and my comments about the Shipman article and it would big of you to admitt so. This is what I objected to and and tried to say so here. You are involved with so many POV warriors that I got swept up into that net, imho. Anyways,--Tom 02:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If I've misjudged you then I apologize. Jayjg (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Jay, I really appreciate that. Like I said, I see you battling people who want to insert their POV into many articles you edit. If somebody wasn't doing it, these articles would be trashed, imho. Anyways, I want to be a help to this project and not a detractor so any advice or comment is always welcome. Have a great New Years and 2007! --Tom 14:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for administrative help
Jayjg, I've encountered you on a number of pages and been impressed with your mediative skills and willingness to help. Would you please take a look at the recent disputes on Pioneer Courthouse Square and its talk page, which involve me (and one or two others) versus an IP address in a NPOV debate? If you can't, could you please direct me to somewhere I can request some sort of formal or informal mediation of this dispute? The relevant help pages seem to be tangles of indecipherable and sometimes contradictory information. Thank you. --Makaristos 06:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your intervention. Would you please sprotect the page? Thank you. --Makaristos 07:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jay, I'm at my wits' end. I have no idea how to get through to this guy, and I don't know what to do. The help pages about content and NPOV disputes are incomprehensible. Please, please tell me where I can get help or what I can do. Thank you. --Makaristos

The editor that you blocked indefinitely has returned under a sockpuppet account, adding the same non-encyclopedic tripe to the Pioneer Courthouse Square article. --Walor 15:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade's RfA
Thank you for your suggestions in my recent RfA, which failed. Any further advice you could offer would be much appreciated! Seraphimblade 15:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review
Ebionites article passed GA. We are having a 2nd round of peer review to get it ready for FA nomination. Your perspective on changes needed to make it FA quality would be appreciated. Ovadyah 16:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of David Irving:
You recently protected this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 19:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also: WP:AN/I. Khoikhoi 21:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to protect a lot of pages from socks, note that you can have pages watched for edits particularly by shared IPs, hosting (ports open) IPs, and "suspicious" new users here. Pages tagged with sprotect-banned-user are already watched.  Voice -of-  All  22:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you deal with this?
This sounds rather serious. Would you be able to take a look at it and decide what needs doing? I've posted to the talk pages of some of the arbitrators and one of the clerks as well, but not any further. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Technajunky
Thanks for the heads-up. BTW, I have a possible solution to Kgeza67. Check your email... Khoikhoi 20:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring at Chabad-Lubavitch and...
Hi Jayjg, would you be able to take a look at Chabad-Lubavitch, Menachem Mendel Shneerson and Yechi, Theres a relativly new editor who's been making some major edits and deletions to these articles. He has been asked a number of times by numerous editor to use the talk pages before changing the articles. But he keeps on reverting back to his own version. This is causing an edit war. would you be able to take a look? Things look a bit calm for the moment, but perhaps you can keep your eyes on the watch and weigh in when needed? thanks allot for your help. Shlomke 20:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems OK right now. The edits are being discussed on talk. Thanks. Shlomke 03:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fighting Sockpuppetry
Thanks for taking the time to help bust User:Kgeza67 as sockpuppet. You deserve a barnstar or something for your tireless efforts.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Technajunky
Hi, Jayjg. I've been having trouble with User:68.5.96.201 too, and I see that you've left a block notice on this editor's page. But I look at the block log and I don't see anything. I'm confused. What's up? &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 01:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I didn't know that blocking an account applied automatically to the IP as well. Thanks for the info. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 01:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Table Fellowship
I'm searching for a single word in Hebrew that describes the table-fellowship Ebionites practiced that kept them separated from Gentiles. The closest I have come so far is Kashrut, but Kashrut puts more emphasis on the food than the fellowship. The Greek word koinonia comes close, but doesn't specifically refer to fellowship at table. Any thoughts? Ovadyah 00:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Blind reverts
I misread the diff. My mistake. Please accept my sincere apologies. Abu ali 09:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

checkuser
Hi, can you add such detail as is appropriate to Requests for checkuser/Case/Oleh Petriv Buck  ets  ofg 04:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of Israeli Apartheid
I've reverted your (3rd?) addition of the argument that Jews and Arabs are not separate races. While well-sourced, it does not counter a positive argument.

My previous edit summary pointed to the article's talk page, where I've left a similar comment. Please respond (if nec'y) there. I've only come here since you must have missed the edit summary. Jd2718 04:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish you had put the 3RR stuff on my user page, and not a public talk page. I ask you to move it, or remove it. In the meantime, I've reported the violation here Jd2718 05:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Thank you. I appreciate that you removed it. Jd2718 23:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is clear you are a strange editor
You have again removed the Israel section because it has in but there is no sources on Malay and yet you have re entered it. how many rules are you contradicting? Which rule is it, citation needed or citation not needed?--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

U and Israel
You will find it better to add Israel, I have no agenda other than balance i am sure in all your sense you can understand what i am saying. The fact that NOthing is mentioned about Israel is extreamly wrong, have you seen the news for the last 50 yrs? and i am sure you know this. I would like you to then add something or stop removing what i add because of an unbelivable threshold. the entire site we are edit is rubbbish, no sources and a mess, so why pick one thing to be so sensitive about? Please if you show balance you will find i will not push these points. I have allowed critism of my own country, race and history y cant u?--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there
Hi JayG (and everyone). i am very impressed by your talk page. However, i'm kind of new here. Sorry to bother you with this, but could you (or anyone else) please tell me what some of these controversial Israel-related articles which everyone is dicussing are? I would like to help represent the pro-Israel concerns (with fairness, of course), but I'm not sure which articles are these points of contention. The few articles which I've looked at are historical, and don't seem to get much attention. Sorry to bother you with this basic question. Appreciate your help. Thanks. --Sm8900 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just realized I can look at people's "contribs" list to find out what they've ben looking at. However, if anyone would like to provide just a fw tips to point me the right way, it would be much appreciated. thanks for your help. --Sm8900 23:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Jayjg. Thanks for the reply. Like I said, I am impressed with your overall approach. If you want, feel free to look at some of my work at History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (much text after 1987) and Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (much of section on major issues between two sides). Look forward to talking more sometime. thanks for your help. see you. --Sm8900 20:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not following
Jayjg, may I ask you not to remove tags from the articles in which you are not involved. You apparently haven't ever seen the talk page recently. Here we do have other sources but even without that your approach in removal of the tags is not at least universally accepted --Aminz 00:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The article was extensively re-written, the tags are for current issues, and the reasons for adding them must be both credible and listed specifically on the Talk: page. You had not added any new comments in days, certainly not since the extensive re-write, and for weeks now you have been disruptively tagging articles which are factually correct and NPOV, but whose contents you simply dislike. You didn't even give a reason in the edit summary. I don't know what the content of that article is, nor do I need to; I can tell a pattern of tag abuse when I see it. My actions were administrative, not editorial. Jayjg (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, there is much discussion on the talk page (e.g. ). Do you expect an edit warring for the tag to remain? For the editors involved the disputes are clear. The Proabivouac's removal of the tag was nothing more than his support of the current version of the article. --Aminz 00:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole
Thanks for pointing that out. Sloppy reading on my part - I thought Cole's point was entirely gone. I will revert myself. Jd2718 18:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR
You are right; I was following a version of 3RR that was in my head, rather than the one that is written down. I apologise. I have reverted myself back to an earlier version. Catchpole 20:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Homey is back
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.48.71.15 Zeq 08:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

mediation
well, you were supposed to mediate this article but maybe you can start with preventing the OR in it ?

Talk:Palestinian_exodus. Thanks. Zeq 10:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mala Zimetbaum
Hi Jay: How notable is this person Mala Zimetbaum, and does she deserve an article of her own? There were millions of Holocaust so should they all get their own articles now? Doesn't that trivialize the event? Seems that if someone gets to write a book or gets mentioned somewhere, they then "automatically" become notable. What do you think? IZAK 16:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Jay and IZAK:

The entry, on casual read, does seem to lack a demonstration of the significance of this individual, who deserves a more encyclopedic rewrite with better sourcing. A bit of Googling comes up with some useful information on her. In particular, the two articles about her at the Ideas Journal are worthwhile ( and ); the second one (including companion photographs) is by the German author of 1995's Mala, A Life and Love in Auschwitz (ISBN 3-924444-89-7). A new biography in French by Gérard Huber was published in April of this year (see: .)

In particular, the testimony about Mala (given by Raya Kagan) during the Adolph Eichmann trial, available at the Nizkor Project, seems to indicate her "legendary" status and international renown.

Further indications of notability:
 * The Simon Wiesenthal Center lists her as the "first woman to escape from Auschwitz"
 * Greek musical written about her
 * A British play about her and Edek performed earlier this year
 * The Auschwitz Museum has her among only a handful of biographies for its 60th Commemoration.
 * The B'Nai Brith Lodge of Antwerp is named for her.

Hope that helps establish whether she's worthwhile as an article subject. -- LeflymanTalk 01:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year
May the new year bring you peace, happiness, love, and hope for all things you wish for. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack and Editors doing an dis-service to Wiki
Personal attacks should not be tolerated, but the should have to occur before you get a warning. You have people become wikizealots or wikinazis. I used the term wikinazi and asshole in a conversation with another user. The terms were not directed at that user or anyone, just a generic 3rd person. They were also on a users talk page. Please check my records as a wiki contributor, you will see I do not vandilize. Gwernol gave me a warning for personal attacks when none occured. He had to read a communication between two other users to find it, and then did not comprehend what he read. There must me some leaway between users to speak their opinion, with fear of an uninvolved 3rd party butting in. If someone has a complaint, then they have a right to get involved but not before. That being said, I would like your opinion, and you can give your honest opinion, I like a straight shooter.

Also, on the idea of Wikinazis, and wikizealots. I honestly believe this is becoming a problem and damaging wiki. There is a lack of fairness that is occuring regularly, and bad judgement calls by editors. This damages wiki, people don't want to donate to a cause that does not treat people fairly. Red links for one in a story, these are not all bad. The encourage readers to contribute. Many times when I edit an article I put real words or names in a link, then I go back in fill it in after I finish working on the main article. Also other people read it an know about real words or names, and they click and write the article. Originally there was a Template:West Virginia State Highways it was listed as tfd and it failed to be deleted because a group of West Virginians fought for it. It stayed, then as soon as it was finished we moved on somebody nominated it again, and since it was finshed none of us saw it, now it is replaced with the Category:West Virginia State Highways. I'm sure somebody said "per norm." Problem is per norm doesn't always exist. We have a group of WVer's that know our state better than somebody in California, yet we constantly try to get pidgeon holed when our state works differently. If you correct the bad information, even sighting example. Somebody always comes in and changes it back. Then the people that know best, get warned don't revert it back. WTF? So guy in the UK is editing something in our back yard and gets the priority of being right. It should revert to the last edit, not the new bad information that was posted. Many of these editors do not know how to be objective, nor do they care too.

Somehow wiki needs to police the police. Like Gwernol when no complaint exist, he creates one to feel powerful? Some of these editors get off on creating contriversey where none exist. This doesn't help wiki, it just angers those that try to actually help. I just noticed User talk:Francs2000 left and it appears he got tired of the BS. Wiki can't afford to loose people just because you end up with a few bad editors and users (users in Francs2000's case). Somebody has to use common sense. Thanks for your time. --71Demon 22:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people
Hi Jay: Have you ever had a close look at this strange article: Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people? It's full of red links for the supposed Jews he had contact with (do they deserve articles just because they were Hitler's alleged dentist/shoe-shine-boy/chimney-sweep/whatnots etc?) It's weirdly prurient. The heading stinks. Do all the Jews killed in the Holocaust get to be in it? How about all the theories about Hitler having a Jewish ancestor, does that also count as him having "contact" with Jewish people? I doubt that the originators of this article and those who worked on it have rational objectives. It should be merged with something else involving Adolf Hitler or even deleted for its stupidity. (If not, how about Adolf Hitler's contacts with gypsies, Adolf Hitler's contacts with Italian people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with Russian people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with retarded people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with murderers this can go on forever, and then we can even create Category:Adolf Hitler's contacts with people. IZAK 02:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Renaming Zionism and racism
Hi Jay: Shouldn't the Zionism and racism article be renamed to Allegations of Zionism and racism as with Allegations of Israeli apartheid? What are your thoughts? IZAK 02:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Happy New Year, Jay. Best wishes for a great year! El_C 04:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Maimonides
Hi Jay: Ever heard of this? See List of Muslim converts: "Maimonides - Jewish philosopher, theologian, and physician forced to convert to Islam under pain of death during the Cordoba massacre of 1148. Reverted to Judaism when his life was no longer under threat. " I don't see which book by "Lewis" is even cited here, and does "Lewis" even say that? (I assume this refers to the Arabist Bernard Lewis.) I had once heard that the Rambam did issue a heter for this kind of procedure (it must be written somewhere) but I had never heard that it had also happened to himself personally. I read an article in the English Yated a couple of years ago that the Mashhadi Jews in Iran relied on such a ruling from the Rambam, and that it was controversial, yet acceptable according to Halachah. Can you help with verifying this, especially if it happened to the Rambam? Thanks. IZAK 18:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew
Can you help in translting 3 words from Hebrew ? משטרת הישובים העבריים

see http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D

Tnx. Zeq 19:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please check a dictionary
for Yishuv. It is comunity. see morfix.co.il

Settlement is התנחלות

Zeq 19:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeshuv kehilati (in current Hebrew) is exactly what Yeshuv was in the 1920/30: A group of people who know each other and share / have in common more than just the same address: I.e. a community.

On the other hand Hitnahalout (settlement) is today such an overloaded term that the use of it where it is not in a settlment (across the green-line) is totaly misleading to any average reader. Zeq 20:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeshuv Khilati = Community with bylaws governing who can join that community. Zeq 20:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeshuv is Kehila and Khilati is "by the community" and refer to the fact that Yeshuv Khilati (in oppose to yeshuv lo Khilati) there are those by-laws that govern who can join. Yet Yeshuv Khilati is not a Kibuz or a Moshav.

Kibuz is also calld "Yeshuv Kibutzi" (a co-opertive comunity), A town is also called "yeshuv Ironi" (an Urban comunity). An garicultural comunity is "Yeshuv Haklai". all together Yeshuv is comunity in many diffreent uses in the Hebrew languge and you still did not address the simple issue that settlement is Hintahalout - a word with very specific meaning that refers to the green-line (which did not even sxited prior to 1949) Zeq 20:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No. There is a translation it is comunity. Translations is not based on rules which can be transfered from one lang to another. If you take a root which can become both a verb and a noun it can become a totaly diffrenet words when translated. example: Yeshuv = Community, Yeshiva = "a yeshiva" or " a meeting" or the act of sitting down. In the same way Kehila is comunity and Khilaty is "by the comunity". the sufix "י" in many case in Hebrew creates somthing that takes more than one word in english to translate. sometimes it mans the superlative (of the same root without the "י". Please explain where in "משטרת הישובים העבריים You have found the green-line and settlments ? Zeq 21:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Are we now going o adopt views of the Israeli govrement as guidelines for Wikipedia ? the world settlment has a specific meaning in the world and it has to do with the green-line and the occupaied Palstinian territories - do you deny that ? Zeq 21:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Happy New Year Jay. I made a New Year's resolution to be less of a shrew, if you can believe that. Off to a bad start it seems. --G-Dett 20:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line
Jay,

I fail to see what Yeshuv Khilaty has to do with משטרת הישוביים העבריים

can we go back to trnalting it correctly.

see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlements http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Settlement&redirect=no

"settlements are communities built by Israelis in territory captured in the 1967 Six-Day War. "

clearly the משטרת הישוביים העבריים is before 1967. Zeq 21:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/526/808.html

So what about them התנחלויות from before 67 ? Zeq 13:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Holohackers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&diff=97736646&oldid=97732048 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=97706933 Gzuckier 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing Maimonides from the list
See my responses at Talk:List of Muslim converts. Thanks, IZAK 04:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Ramsquire wrote me on my talk page to suggest I might have a reportable incident against you regarding your deletion of my comments on your page. I will not report this, but will simply ask that you please show greater respect for my and others' attempts to discuss these issues with you. There is a great deal wrong with the JfJ page, as I believe you must know. It should not be a mystery why I and several others keep objecting to the language on the page. I do not mean this as an insult, but simply as a request that we discuss these matters in good faith, as I believe we are capable.Mackan79 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Editors are free to remove harassment from their User talk: pages; if you don't want me to remove your posts here, then don't post harassing messages. Feel free to take it to WP:AN/I if you wish; I strongly doubt the outcome will be what you and Ramsquire imagine. Jayjg (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My statement wasn't harassment, but I already said I wasn't reporting it. I simply thought you should know I'm not the only person who finds your style objectionable. I think if you consider the difference between the way you deal with me and the way you deal with someone you consider an ally, you will see why I don't find your manner civil, and why I have appealed here for you to be so. In any case, I think we'd all appreciate your response on whether you'd agree to mediation. It doesn't look like the problems are going away. Would you agree to this? Thanks, Mackan79 01:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I clearly felt it was harassment; and if someone feels that comments on their user page are harassment, then posting them a second time after they were removed would quite obviously be harassment. I generally respond more positively to edits I consider to be high quality, or Talk: page comments I consider to be well reasoned. Regarding mediation, I'd already responded before you posted here. Jayjg (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/CantStandYa
Is it ✅ that CantStandYa = Shran = Listed accounts, or simply CantStandYa = Listed accounts? I'm guessing the latter, but just wanted to make sure given the link provided to LTA. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Saw your note. Thanks for that. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request notification
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/Jews for Jesus 2, 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.


 * Just a reminder, we've got 6/7. Thanks, Mackan79 15:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Zionism
Hi Jayjg, In your comments posted here you indicated that you have "discovered the original Talk: page on which you started going off about this". I find your remarks to be slightly insensitive, as I do not feel that I "go off" about anything. I do raise concerns which are legitimate and try to work with other involved editors to resolve the situation amicably. If you would like to reply, I will monitor your talk page. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 05:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration
Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 12:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny Swastika
Hi Jay: Take a look at these templates: with the displayed prominently. Honestly, of all of Hinduism's symbols' did this one have to get "headline" billing on these templates? Alternatives are aplenty if one were to look around on articles listed on Hindu Deities and Texts where there are dozens of less offensive symbols that could be chosen for the same purpose. While the swastika may be ok with some Hindus, it should not be flashed around "in all innocence" because for the rest of the world that was caught up in World War II it was the symbol of literal EVIL, DEATH and DESTRUCTION emanating from the Nazis. It was Hitler's personal diabolical "symbol of choice" and for that reason it is VERY far from neutral, no matter in what context it is used. It violates Civility to have it displayed in such an "in your face" fashion on these Hindu templates, giving it a dubious "place of pride" it does not deserve. Need one say more? IZAK 22:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hindu Links (top left)
 * Hinduism small (bottom)
 * HinduFestivals (top right)
 * Hindu Deities and Texts (top right)
 * User WikiProject Hindu mythology (left)
 * I would echo the concern that the prevalence of the swastika on Hinduism-related templates does not exactly reflect the prevalence of the symbol in Hindu culture in general. It seems 'odd' and unencyclopedic to use it so ubiquitously. In the interests of both encyclopedic accuracy and sensitivity to our users, I recommend we use the symbol 'Aum', which is far more prevalent:
 * [[Image:Aum.svg]] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: i have replaced the swastika with the Aum on three of the above six templates, for the above reason. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: User:DaGizza has reverted all my replacements. I would like to avoid a revert war, so I've asked him to undo his reverts and discuss it out. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Another note: User:DaGizza stated that red is more auspicious of a color than black to Hindus, so I have created a variant of aum.svg in the exact red of the Hindu swastika image:
 * [[Image:Aum-Red.svg]]
 * Discussion of this issue is happening here, at Talk:WikiProject_Hinduism. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Ryan - I have a totally unrelated question about this symbol. I took a class in Sanskrit and we learned Devanagari; I don't remember much of it but I remember being struck by the fact that this symbol is actually "oom" and that the symbol for "aum" would be a bit different (two verticle lines after the part that looks like a "3"). Do you know of any explanation of that, given that this symbol is so prominent? csloat 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not personally, I'd only be speculating. But I'll do some research and see if I can find an authoritative source that discusses the dichotomy. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The correct glyph for Devanagari OM is: ॐ, and as far as the Aum article, Aum, om, ohm, is all one and the same. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi: NOTE: Talk about this is now centralized at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism. Thanks. IZAK 02:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The swastika was a political party's symbol. The fact that it offends people is irrelevant. If you don't enjoy being offended, there's always Adblock plus. It's not that I support putting it back in (since the new symbol seems more relevant), but the fact that a symbol of an Eastern religion offends westerners is irrelevant. It is not an encyclopedia's job to use perjorative terms such as "evil" - instead, we should present the facts in a clear and coherent manner, and allow people to draw their own conclusions.

The dancing-Israeli-art-student-conspiracy troll
Thanks for taking care of her. I just gave up, and was pretty damned certain that that `tangerine' was a sock-puppet, but didn't want to make any wild accusations lest I draw further wrath upon myself. Power to your elbows. Rosenkreuz 15:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

continuing harassment
Jay, the negative comment solicitation by User:Abu ali, which you had described on WP/ANI as harassment, has an interesting twist: Abu Ali also posted the same comment solicitation on the Talk page of an article I had been editing - Talk:Oliver Kamm. As this is clearly inappropriate material for an article's Talk page, I removed it. Now, one of the editors there is continuing the harassment by re-inserting the solicitation over and over into the Talk page. I was hoping some explanation from an experienced admin about why that action is harassment as well might help him stop his actions. Isarig 16:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It appears to have stopped, for now. Isarig 03:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation/Jews for Jesus 2
''This message delivered:, Monday July 29 2024 (UTC)

Religious significance of Jerusalem
Can we resume mediating? Thanks. --Shamir1 01:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba arbcom case 2: banning of Andries for one year
I was very surprized that supported 's motion to have me banned from the Sathya Sai Baba related articles for one year. I thought that I had received a complete amnesty for my possibly bad edits in Sathya Sai Baba and related articles in the first arbitration case. Banned for what? I would be surprized if anybody can find just one single edit that seriously violated Wikipedia policies after the first arbitration case. And I would very surprized if somebody was able to find that I repeatedly seriously violated Wikipedia policies after the first abritration case. Andries 01:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

More Panarjedde socks
User:DisposableAccount2. He made an edit to Diocletian, and the provocative user name prompted me to investigate further. I see you previously blocked #1. Dppowell 19:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq
hello Jayjg. i came across the page Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq recently and noticed that it looked rather POV to me. evidently user Timeshifter has been strongly POV-pushing. a fair chunk of this consists of inserting large amounts of direct quotes from the Lancet surveys themselves or from articles that the Lancet people wrote to justify their extremely high death figures. this allows him to say that all his material is sourced and restore any deletions using the justification "do not delete sourced material", but in practice it projects a strong POV since the material overwhelms any attempt to construct an objective article. i tried to delete a particularly obvious case of this, but it was immediately reverted. Timeshifter shows a willingness to wikilawyer and has a whole lot more energy than me to devote to this. i'm wondering if you'd be interested in looking at this; i'm not sure if your interest runs in this area but it would help to have someone who is willing to take him on. this request to you was motivated by a request to me from another user on my talk page to help npov the article in question and combat Timeshifter, which i don't feel i have the ability to do. Benwing 00:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * see my response to your comments on my talk page. i don't know the proper protocol for these discussions; whose page does it take place on, or does it ping-pong back and forth? Benwing 03:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

RfM/Jews for Jesus 2
Your case for Mediation from the Mediation Committee has been accepted. Your re-agreement is required at the case page under Request for Mediation; prompt action on your behalf would be appreciated in order to commence the mediation as soon as possible.

If you have any questions about my contributions, personal mediation style or otherwise, please contact me at my talk page, or email me at anthony (dot) cfc (at) gmail (dot) com - all email communication is private unless stated otherwise.

Cheers and regards, Anthony  cfc  [ T &bull; C] 03:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good evening (GMT time); I appreciate that WP:NEHAMFTAY, but I must inform you that you are currently holding up the mediation committee case about Jews for Jesus. I hope everything is okay! Regards, Anthony  cfc  [ T &bull; C] 17:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom case regarding your block of User:Gnetwerker
I have filed an an ArbCom case regarding your indef block of my account. You are hereby notified. -- Gnetwerker 19:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:ArchieRand.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ArchieRand.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 00:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ivory Coast move
Since you participated in previous discussions on Ivory Coast, you might be interested in the requested move at Talk:C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivoire. —  AjaxSmack    06:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
I am very sorry that after you agreed to wait, he has not approved you now for mediation (or at least it seems). It is starting to look like the dispute has been abandoned. I asked him to get back started, but he did not answer much in the discussion. I do not know what to do from this point, however, my stance on his edits still stands. --Shamir1 06:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew Wikipedia
Hi Jay, did you open this user on he:? Otherwise, it is an imposter, so we will delete and block. Magister 16:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally Disputed
We have a raging edit war going on over at Ebionites. Please help. Ovadyah 18:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You probably know that the Ebionites article has been locked. It should stay that way until this mess is resolved. I have nominated the article for AID. We badly need to get more eyes and helping hands on the article to prevent the abuses we have been experiencing. Ovadyah 02:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila - a genocide ?
Hi Jayjg, UNO voted in 1982 a resolution that it was an "act of genocide". The information has been added in Genocides in history's article. I wonder if this fully respects NPov ? See : Alithien 07:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Panairjdde again
User:CuentaDisponible "DisposableAccount", again, this time in Italian. Dppowell 20:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Completely false nonsense?
Hi. I noticed this edit, and, while I haven't looked at the dispute I couldn't help but raise an eyebrow at your edit summary. Taking everything at face value and trying to assume good faith (like I said, I haven't looked at the dispute) I have to wonder at you characterizing someone who is requesting outside assistance for a dispute they are having with you as "completely false nonsense". Admittedly they didn't follow the instructions which are to leave a "brief, neutral statement", but still... ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 20:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. The statement was something of a personal attack and I suspected it wasn't entierly accurate all along. The one on the history and geography section is better; but the dispute seems to go more in the politics section (I hate those section things; I never know what goes where) so I copied the wording from the history section back to the politics section. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 21:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Moves
Can you move Beth midrash to Beit midrash over the redirect, please? The latter is the most common spelling.

Also, I proposed two moves recently and posted them on WP:JEW, but not enough people have joined the discussion to build consensus. I would appreciate if you could comment on their respective talk pages. They are: Aharon Leib Shteinman --> Aharon Leib Steinman and Joseph Soloveitchik --> Joseph B. Soloveitchik. Thanks, DLand TALK 05:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No Records on a Banned User?
Please see the outcome of checkuser at. I'm having trouble understanding how it is possible that WP does not have Ptmccain records if WP intended to ban the user indefinately. Please enlighten me if you can. Thanks! Keesiewonder 10:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's an archive page where you interacted with Ptmccain ... is there any way you can help me figure out what the checkuser folks apparently cannot? Keesiewonder 00:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor
Just a heads up. You had blocked this user for a week. He's spent most of the night blanking his talk page. Thought you might want to take a look. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism
In the quote you added should it be "But that is grossly leading." or "grossly misleading."? You need not reply to this, because if you do not make an edit I'll assume your version is correct. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your input is requested at Israeli-Palestinian conflict
As you have helpfully improved this article in the past, I'd like your input in the debate at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict. User:Benjiwolf claims that the following assertions should be in the main article: --GHcool 06:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The Israelis and Palestinians "share much in common." I think this is misleading since they have two completely distinct cultures.
 * 2) "The conflict has complicated ancient roots." I think the statement is misleading and suggests that there was an Israeli-Palestinian (or Jewish-Arab) conflict over land in ancient times.
 * 3) The early Zionists "expressed their desire to re-create a state for the Jewish people." I think the word "create" was more accurate.

WP:RfM/JfJ 2
Good evening (GMT time); I am just writing to you to receive clarification of your participation in the above mediation case - do you still wish to participate?

I ask you to reconsider if you are refusing participation, especially if it is because User:Stevertigo is around; also, please note that he has not participated at all in the case, and I do not forsee him doing so.

Kindest regards and hoping you are well, Anthony cfc [ T &bull; C] 20:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

IAK
Thanks for the kind words. In all honesty, I hope it did some good (well, at least editors are talking now, instead of blindly reverting each other). best regards, -- Asterion talk 21:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

AN/I
I posted a complaint on AN/I here against NazireneMystic. Maybe I'm being overly-sensitive, but I feel that being purposely referred to by the name of the Diety is blasphemy and extremely offensive. Apparently, some admins don't agree. I don't think being told to suck it up is the right answer. Also, my protest against accusations of fraud continues to be ignored. I'm used to incivility, but imho, this stuff is over the top. Ovadyah 18:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Refiling, since my complaint about the accusation of fraud was ignored and archived. Ovadyah 07:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Aminz
Please be informed that a request for comments has been started. Beit Or 20:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

ZOG Mediation
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/Zionist Occupation Government, 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..V. -- (TalkEmail)  21:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks, Jay, for your support at my RfA. I learned a lot from you, so your comment was very much appreciated. I've withdrawn on this occasion to give myself some time to contemplate all the advice I received. Thanks again. Jakew 16:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, could you check your email please? Arrow740 03:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Jewish-American mobsters
Hi Jay, I am trying to clean up headers from this list as far as ethnicity. Can you let me know if this is a problem or concern. Thanks in advance! --Tom 13:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Jay, Also a heads up. Over at the List of Jewish American businesspeople an anon IP is going wild again. I have given up trying to add to the list in an orderly fashion. I have the feeling the editor is trying to prove that every business is controled by Jewish-Americans or something. Anyways I am pooped out at this point. Best of luck.--Tom 00:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RfM/JfJ2
Good evening (GMT time); the other disputing editors have reached a conclusion at the above Mediation Committee case. However, your input is required to determine if the compromise is unanimously accepted, or if other compromises and/or DR methods require to be implemented. Ergo, I request that you post an agree/disagree statement at the above case's #Agree/Disagree: Final Compromise (2) section; comments are very welcome, but please leave them at the section that the Agree/Disagree area proceeds, entitled "Comments: Final Compromise (2)".

Kind regards, Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; C] 19:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem
Please see this, which I was writing while you made your revert, and respond on the talk page. --  tariq abjotu  04:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I responded to your latest comment on Talk:Jerusalem. Sorry if I'm bringing this to your talk page, but I'm looking forward to a comment on the idea of moving the two facts out of the first sentence. --  tariq abjotu  04:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Before you get tired of looking at Talk:Jerusalem, there is this. --  tariq abjotu  20:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you know what an enclave is? Jerusalem is clearly located in an enclave of the West Bank. --  tariq abjotu  04:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust
Help, there needs to be an concerted efort to save the Holocaust and Holocaust talk pages from being take over by JTpaladin and his alie Holocaust-diner friends! --Lilidor 05:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with a strange anon at Holocaust Memorial Day (UK) care to help..?? Zargulon 20:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

JpGordon and Jtpaladin are waring it out on the Holocaust talk page again. A bloke resently blanked the page out and put up- "This is the angary Yiddisher's revenge!", and so on. --Longend. 02:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 04:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

NAS revert war
Jay, I wonder if you might explain your latest deletion on the talk page – preferably before deleting next time, but in this case a comment now would be welcome. The edit you've just reverted was explained at length on the talk page a full day before it was added to the article. It doesn't help that what you've reverted to contains one glaring factual error and much that is misleading besides. Thanks.--G-Dett 17:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Wik again?
Jayjg, I noticed that you had determined that User:Kgeza67 was a sockpuppet of User:Wik some time ago. There is a new user (by edit count) User:Killroy4 that is involving himself on the Michael Richards article in a manner similar to the Kgeza67 sock was previously. I'm not sure if you can do anything but it would be good to know if this person is another Wik sock. If you're inclined to respond to this message I invite you to do so here. Thanks. 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was him. I've blocked the puppets, and taken other measures. Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, thanks for your prompt assistance. There's also User:KramerCosmo whose account was created 3 days after our friend User:Killroy4 was created... KramerCosmo is obviously a sockpuppet (not necessarily a violating one mind you) but it seems awfully convienient that this user is popping up around the same time. 01:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * how am i obviously a sock puppet? i read up the definition of it and that doesn't describe me, is it just because i am a new user? i have made anonymous ip edits i just made the account recently KramerCosmo 02:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I also noticed that User:KramerCosmo's behavior and edit pattern have a lot in common with those of User:Kgeza67. Can you determine if this is the same person?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course he's a sockpuppet, but the technical evidence doesn't point to Kgeza67. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. Either it's someone with similar views, or perhaps Wik found anew place from which to edit.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, sorry to bother you again but there is one other editor that has shown a similar pattern to KramerCosmo. That editor was User:Mactabbed. Mactabbed seems a particularly good match given that User:KramerCosmo is showing the userbox and from his edits we can see he's never added himself to the WikiProject Biography members list. There is however one of User:Mactabbed's latest socks showing (as #68) User:Fistful of Questions. Mactabbed's latest sock was User:To Catch a Thief. Maybe that'll help? Thanks again for your assistance. Cheers.  01:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was him. I didn't realize the original had already been blocked, so I didn't block the socks. I've blocked KramerCosmo now, and a couple of others. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, once again your assistance is most appreciated, thanks. Be seeing you around. 03:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, sorry to bother you again but there's another username that seems like a likely match for this individual., the name alone "Clone" being equal to "sockpuppet" and the fact that this user started off by straight away adding a userbox to his user page and immediately AfDing the Rabbi Emmanuel Rabinovich article (first act is to AfD an article? total sockpuppet behaviour) then editing with focus on Michael Richards and another celebrity article makes this a very likely sock of User:Mactabbed (Mactabbed has frequently initiated his sock's user pages with user boxes and edits frequently on celebrity/film related things). That said, if you think this is fishing too much I'll understand. Cheers.  14:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah one other thing, with the creation date of the CloneGuard account being the 17th of January (note the creation date of the other socks here were the 17th and the 20th) and the first edit not occurring till the 31st, it looks like we've got a sleeper account that awoke. 14:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, User:KramerCosmo text=(lower case text... no period at the end) and CloneGuard text=(lower case text... no period at the end). 15:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If any of the IPs here check back to Toronto, Ontario please let me know... as I have a hunch that socking is occuring from there. 02:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, after conferring with User:Pschemp we both agreed that this was another sockpuppet. This is particularly evident when one compares the writing style of unblock messages on User_talk:KramerCosmo to User_talk:CloneGuard (funny even the same letter composition of user names... two capitals and no space in between). You may want to check user this person still as there are likely other sockpuppets (ie: . 04:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, sounds very similar. I was harassed by one of these users under a series of user names. If at all possible it would be good to know which individual it was (maybe it was both of them tag teaming?). Perhaps you could look at this talk on El C's talk page? Thanks again.  16:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg Kgeza67's back with the latest sockpuppet:. 00:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And appears to be a sleeper he just awoke.  engaged him in reverting POINTed talk page removals from my talk page and User:Proabivouac's talk page and subsequently indef. blocked him on my advice.  13:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the goose chase on that last one above. Kgeza67's back as  23:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He's on the warpath... next... . 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, thank you very much for your continued assistance. 00:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche
Hi Mad Jack, I am back AGAIN :) Iam getting into a little tizzy with Epee over using Jewish-American in the laed sentence on EVERY fencer he has created. He says because they are in the Jewish Hall of fame, that should sufice. I say no, lets keep Jewish-American out of the lead sentence. Anyways, I am not going to edit/revert at this point. I appreciate and respect your work as always. Cheers --Tom 14:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC) ps I will also copy Jayjg on this.

Request for advice
If someone repeatedly and blatantly lies about what I have said, using quotation marks to cite phrases I never used, even after being told that no criticism was implied and that I didn't say what he claims, and will not stop even though asked repeatedly and politely, what would you suggest as a course of action for me? After about the fifth time, it seemed that his purpose was to provoke me, and I got fed up with it and said the only even mildly aggressive thing I have said on the matter (which you found). I am a relatively inexperienced user, so I'm open to advice in this situation. I have selected "Watch this page" if you want to respond here. -Exucmember 19:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The best advice I can give is to keep your cool, no matter what, and try to involve other editors, perhaps via an RFC. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University
Dear ArbComm Member of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University;

This note is to bring to your attention two issues which are creating upheaval in the article located here and placed on probation under the premise of "Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee.". This request is based on enforcement or remedies stated in the arbitration process and failure to follow up on it.

1) An article-banned user orchestrated a come back through proxy IPs from Japan and then through an account "Some people" which has been blocked twice. The problem with this is that this user had modified the entire article in less than 12 hours on January 28 2007. This user partner, TalkAbout; acted in synchrony with 244 on that night and made some changes as well using "Some people" new version. User Andries had a minor edit of that version as well.

Request to investigate user Some people  Analysis of situation  Suspicion of sockpuppet account  Blocks to user Some people for "a reincarnation of the editor who formerly posted from the IP address 195.82.106.244"( As admin Thatcher put it) 

2) The only admin we've dealing with is Thatcher131. I would like to bring to your attention what I consider to be "lack of neutrality" and fairness from his/her part. Even though, user "Some people" was blocked by Thatcher131 under a strong suspicion of him being user 244 (banned by the ArbComm for a year) Thatcher131 supported the new version of the page which are the versions of a banned user. A request for enforcement of arbitration has been submitted long time ago before user 195.82.106.244 (aka 244) made several changes through his sockpuppet account "Some people" but the request is still sitting there.

User "Some people" transformed the article with over 30 + entries on 22:41 28 Jan 2007 and then User TalkAbout added some content and at that point, that was considered the new "good version" of the article.

I would like to request the following: 1) the article to be reverted to a state before "Some people" took over. 2) To change the "admin in charge", Thatcher131 to someone who is not emotionally involved in this issue (Thatcher131 was the clerk in the arbitration case and helped user 195.82.106.244 to file the case and presented some evidence against me but not against 244)and that could enforce normal wikipedia procedures are taking place. I appreciate your time and prompt consideration on this.

Truly Yours, avyakt7 21:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied on User talk:Fred Bauder . Thatcher131 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied on same user Talk page Thank you. avyakt7 21:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR
I have replied on my talk page, in the interest of keeping the conversation together, could you please have a look, and reply back. Thanks! (link to section —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 03:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

AN thread
Could you clarify something for me? You called my block clearly improper. I've blocked other editors before who deleted properly cited material regardless of whether a content dispute was ongoing. This is the first time that type of decision has raised a controversy on a noticeboard: it had been my understanding that this type of block was comparable to a block for reverting four times in one day - straightforward enough to separate from surrounding issues. If I've made a mistake here then I've probably erred in other circumstances and I'd appreciate a clear distinction. Please reply at my talk page. Respectfully, Durova Charge! 00:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

American Jews/Jewish American
I would appreciate it if you could help stop this move war. You yourself helped build the consensus of "American Jews" and User:Haber is not honoring this -- and it's getting frustrating to keep going back and forth with him alone. Thanks, DLand<sup style="color:green;"> TALK 14:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

...has posted several unblock requests, having failed utterly to grasp the simple instructions provided. However, one must AGF an' all... so please can you look at the block on the IP address and judge if you think this is okay to lift/soften/etc or whether this is the same person. Thank you! 〈 RED VEЯS 〉 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Username strongly suggests this is Technajunky. Beit Or 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspected so myself. I'll deny and protect the page. Cheers! 〈 RED VEЯS 〉 08:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Email
The email to that list bounced since I don't have permission to send emails to it. JoshuaZ 21:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Halaqah
I blocked him for 3RR. That said, given the nature of the other entries in the list I have trouble seeing why an Israeli entry shouldn't be there (especially given how prevalent these accusations are) and I would suggest that a compromise version be hammered out on the talk page. JoshuaZ 21:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't object to nominating it for deletion. I'll take a look at it over the next few days and see how much of it I can repair in general. If it isn't repairable I'll nominate it. JoshuaZ 21:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"revert pro-israeli edit"
i wasn't aware that pro-israeli edits were not allowed. *shrug*, if you know the information to be incorrect, you should state so and not revert with such a bias reason. Jaakobou 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:BhaiSaab=User:His excellency?
Hey Jayjg, having been left a message by one of the IP addresses you've just tagged I was wondering if there is any conclusive evidence that these two users are the same? Honestly I would be extremely surprised if that were to be true... In my experience with the two editors I found little similarities (particularly when it comes to civility). 14:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is what I was basing my response to the IP user (as BhaiSaab) upon. I don't see any advantage to User:His excellency claiming to be BhaiSaab. If they are one and the same then that individual has done a fine job of playing two separate roles. Still I'm not entirely convinced (as it appears neither are you). 14:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Netzarim
I'm trying to keep unverifiable/unnotable material off this page and I'd appreciate your help if it looks like it's going to become an edit-war. I know you've taken an interest in dealing with this problem in the past.

The article "List of Messianic Judaism Important Figures"
Jaygj, what do you propose to do; add those names to the MJ Template? We're trying to avoid unnecessary bloat, after all, the prime example of which happens to be the Judaism template. People that want to read about the subject are going to have to see those names somewhere. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia at this point yet, so I am trying to know how to put an article (legitimately) back up; can you tell me? Thanks. I'd like to get that article back up and running in a way that is somehow compatible with the strange demands of those that voted to delete it. Noogster 16:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What is it that you mean by: "Why not try categories instead?", exactly? Mainly, I'm asking what you mean by categories, how the various personas would be organized in such "categories", and where the categories would then be places (on the template, for example?). Thanks. Noogster 21:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Two questions. One is your idea for using a category at the bottom of the page, which is a good one, but could you give me an existing example of one to save me some of the trouble? The other is your blatantly POV revert of both the articles Jewish English Bible Translations (I gave my reasons in the talk page, READ them, and tell me what's wrong), and especially Jewish Eschatology (you can't with a straight face tell me that a section that refers only to the Tanakh and Rabbinic commentaries is "Christian eschatology"). Seriously, who do you think you are to decide these things? I'm going to revert them back, unless you have any plausible reasons for the contrary. Noogster 22:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing that example of Wiki category, Jaygj. Jay, I have no intentions whatsoever of getting into an edit war with you. I've got my opinions and so do you, but this is an encyclopedia so let us leave them at the door, shall we? I have come to the following conclusions concerning the various articles you have reverted my edit from (which I consider very rude)


 * Article Jewish English Bible translations: I have read Dovi's reply and he has a point. The CJB is most assuredly a MESSIANIC Jewish translation of the Bible, not a Jewish one (and NOT a Christian one, as you stated, as Christianity no more redefines the historical Jesus than it does the historical Moses). Sorry for the inconvenience. So let me answer your #1 and your #2 in my talk page:


 * Article Jewish eschatology: Calling my edit "Christian eschatology" is blatant POV, you can't tell me with a straight face that it isn't. I will re-place the Isaiah 53 section, which needs to be there as it deals with one of the most controversial potential Messianic prophecies, and has often been used by missionaries (I'll make that more explicitly apparent this time). No matter what your Rav has told you, there have been Rabbinic commentaries on BOTH sides of the fence (some like the Talmud Bavli that say it's about the Messiah, and others like Rashi that said it was Israel). That needs to be made apparent. Tell me how that is in any way inconsistent with the purpose of the article if you plan on reverting my edit. Noogster 01:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Article Nazarenes: I'd like to make that particular article into one of the better articles on Wiki somewhere down the line, fyi, so I should make a compromise with you on the subject. Since we can't confirm the "modern movements" section, we shouldn't name it that way at the bottom. But I consider that section of websites to be highly salvageable; we shouldn't deny the reader that plethora of information, after all, since almost every other article on Wiki has a section with websites that let you learn more about the topic from the perspective of someone within the subject. I suggest putting those sites back into the article and simply putting it under a header called "Websites" (OR, putting it in the General links section). I wish to clear this decision with you, before going ahead and doing it. Thanks.


 * Article Jewish Messiah: While your own edit was about as good as mine, you did it on the basis of "remove inaccurate POV". My version of that passage was neither 1. Inaccurate, because it was 100% true, Judaism does not consider Jesus of Nazareth to be a Messiah or savior, although he is sometimes considered to have been a good teacher, and some consider him a false Messianic claimant while others consider him a non-claimant. I'm certainly not going to revert your edit because, again, it is about as good as mine, but you stated a rather peculiar opinion as a reason for doing it. Nor was my edit 2. POV. Point of view is antithetical to everything Wikipedia is about. I don't do it; I'm not so sure about you on the other hand, Jay.


 * Please do not hesitate to reply Noogster 01:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm out of time today, Jay, but tomorrow I'll post in your talk page why I feel the Isaiah 53 eschatological section in the article would not be undue weight. I'll do so in your talk page mainly because we are the only two people participating in the discussion. My regards. Noogster 03:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

JFBurton block
Was that checkuser-based? If so, can you please say so on his talk/decline his ? Cheers,  Daniel.Bryant  21:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Kick at the Can
Thank you for your comments on my submitted 3RR report. However, a closer look would have revealed that the prior instances of 3RR I pointed out in my report of Viriditas were done so to show a pattern of reverts. As well, the reverts were not "ancient" history, as they took place less three days prior to the 3RR I was reporting. These prior instances were not submitte4d as a 3RR violation, quite simply because I was relatively unfamiliar with the violation policy. I am really, really not trying to be difficult, or vindictive here; I think the policy should apply equally to everyone, and I presented an instance where an editor (who should know better) broke the 3RR twice in as many days, and yet it appeared that reports both before and after it (dealing with non-editors) were officiated both before and after my report. In fact, my report was archived without result, and I had to resubmit it again. I was not led to the impression that anyone aside from SlimVirgin actually looked at the instances, seeming to base their conclusions solely upon her notations (prior to my subsequently supplied pattern of violations). It didn't seem fair that someone who should know better should be given a pass on a 3RR violation without even a warning simply because they are an editor. If I could trouble you to look again at the instances I provided, both the initial ones listed in the complaint, as well as those listed as examples of pattern, I would appreciate it. If however you have done so, please pardon my unintended slight. Perhaps I am not interpreting the reverts correctly.Arcayne 22:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the initial report was filed on the 8th, and went unruled for days before being archived. The instances provided in the supplement were submitted as pattern (SlimVirgin, in her comments, stated that she hadn't seen a pattern to the reverts), and not as a separate report of 3RR. The initial report reported timely violations from the day before the report was submitted. The report was not finalized with a result until a cursory look would evaluate it as an "ancient" report.Arcayne 22:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there an appeal process?Arcayne 22:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did in fact say that the violation was reported in a timely manner. The 3RR board did not repond in a timely manner. Am I to understand that because no one addressed it before four days had passed that dismissing hte report based on how long it took someone to evaluate it made it "ancient?" And if you could explain why it would be inadvisable to take my appeal to WP:AN, that would be great, as I am still a relatively new user and am unaware of the read-between-the-lines rules that you seem to be referring to.
 * Also, I would prefer if you would answer here, as opposed to my tlk page, please.Arcayne 22:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I would prefer to discuss the issue here, and not on my talk page where everyone can see it. I feel bad enough reporting someone for 3RR, and I am not interested in airing my dirty laundry there. If you would prefer, we can discuss this on the 3rr report pageArcayne 22:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of that perception, and it certainly wasn't my intention, as I explained above. As I wanted the conversation to be fairly low-key, I have removed it to archive, instead. I guess I am still not understanding how a report filed in a timely manner and not acted upon in a timely manner is my fault. However, I appreciate your input, and will act on your advice accordingly.Arcayne 22:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

racism poll
please see my comments on the articles talk page. Abu ali 15:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism
Abenyosef is at it again. You might want to take a look at this. He's been told off by numerous administrators, and other editors. He persists in making edits that defy WP:V and WP:OR, and that defy the consensus that has already spoken (numerous times) on the issue. Perhaps there needs to be some administrative action here to put a leash on this guy. --Meshulam 19:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)