User talk:Jayjg/Archive 24

Holocaust dispute diff

 * I have finished scanning the disputed diff and placed the significant edits on the Sandbox page. – Dreadstar †  01:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka page
Couple of editors are suspected to be sockpuppets, initially checkuser said it was a sock puppet, then the case was bailed out. Supposedly these accounst are not supposed to edit the same page beacuse of it but they do all the time to overcome 3RR not jsut in this page but number of pages. This is the. If you need more on this let me know. 13:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC) -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taprobanus (talk • contribs)

Deletion vs. moving
If you look at my original comment here I never said I'd stop opposing deleting articles, I said I'd stop arbitrarily moving articles around if you agreed not to do that either. There is no consensus to move or merge urban apartheid into Allegations of apartheid. If you're insisting on consensus before an article like "Allegations of Brazilian apartheid" can be moved you can't turn around and say it's okay to merge Urban apartheid or Social apartheid unilaterally. Please be consistent and please agree that urban apartheid and social apartheid should be individual articles until there is a consensus to do otherwise. Lothar of the Hill People 19:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As a courtesy
I thought I would let you know that I posted a notice at WP:ANI regarding our impasse at Palestinian people.  T i a m a t  19:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In the future please do not selectively quote policy. The rest of that paragraph goes on to state: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question" Which it was. The section deals with unsourced material. --SevenOfDiamonds 03:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reading the posts at ANI, I was quite troubled by the aggressive and insulting tone of your comments. As an administrator you should set an example for other editors to follow, rather than engaging in personal attacks. Tim Vickers 21:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

RFAR
You have been named as a party in an RFAR at Requests for arbitration. --Ideogram 06:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of old material
You just restored an old version of the DNA section at the Palestinian people after GH and myself worked on it to make it better. Please explain this action at the talk.  T i a m a t  13:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your edit restored exactly the same DNA text that Tewfik had added some time ago. You also restored a section that I deleted because it was not very relevant to the discussion of Palestinian ancestry. So you kept one sentence at the top. Big deal. It's another wholesale revert. Along with the ancestry section. Compare this diff which includes you edit to the DNA section with the edit Tewfik made a while ago: . Now tell me what you changed. Nothing. Here is the diff where you make this wholesale reversion of the DNA section (and the ancestry section) . What did you keep? A set of brackets? Wow.  T i a m a t  14:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nationalism and children's paintings
1) as mentioned in cat_talk:pal_nationalism, I've put Category:Ethnic nationalism for cfd. 2) regarding edits in sderot, we do keep on bumping in to each other in so many articles, that at times its difficult to keep track of which one is which. --Soman 15:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

RFAR Comment
Darn it. If I try to be balanced, I get called a troll. If I "take a side", I am not being fair. Lose-Lose.

In any case, If you raise that point I will also second it, as it is undoubtedly true.

I will admit I had little time to organize myself before I commented, but my main point was that there where serious allegations all over the place that needed Arbcom's attention, even if the result is "editing dispute - got back to talk". Thanks!--Cerejota 04:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Complaint lodged against you.
Dear Jayjg. I believe you have made a mistake (failed to link correctly to a reference), fixed it after I pointed it out, then claimed that my report is false and either shockingly careless or (possibly?) malicious. See here. This happened at the AfD page for "Allegations of Chinese apartheid", but I have lodged the complaint at the ArbComm page, where various behaviour on the AfD page is under scrutiny. If I were to be mistaken in this allegation against you, be sure that I would retract and apologise. I know how very keen you are on references being correctly linked, and how serious you consider any mistakes made in this regard. However, I did not go to complaint first, I assumed the initial error to be in good faith and treated it as such - though I cannot be sure whether you approve of AGF in these cases. Please leave this notification in place for a reasonable time for people to see it. PalestineRemembered 08:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, as I explained to you quite clearly at the time, "Actually, it pointed to an article in the Economist. There's no requirement that specific quotes from the citation be provided, beyond what is listed in the article itself. Nevertheless, I have provided one anyway." And that is exactly the case; the reference was always perfectly good, pointing to an article called "Country cousins" in the Economist, and giving the exact date of publication, April 8, 2000. "Country Cousins", The Economist, April 8, 2000. is a fine reference, fully complaint with all Wikipedia requirements, and that's what it said. There's no requirement that a lengthy quote from the article be provided, and most citations on Wikipedia don't bother doing so. As a courtesy to you I actually went and got that quotation anyway. To have you now claim that this courtesy was somehow deceptive is strange at best. Jayjg (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made a (nearly) unreserved apology to you at the ArbCom page - but I'm posting the chain of events here in order to avoid cluttering up that page.
 * I first made a mild complaint at, whereupon you made the fix, and messaged me that you'd done so (I'm almost uninvolved and not taking part in the edit of that article, hence I don't think I saw your note). Meanwhile, I'd complained more vociferously at and your response this time came across to me as denial and as an accusation of bungling against me. I trust you will similarly withdraw any false allegations you have outstanding against me. PalestineRemembered 14:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You've accused me (quite falsely) of getting my references from Holocaust Deniers. You've accused me (when the evidence was strongly in the opposite direction) of getting my views from Holocaust Deniers. You've allowed these accusations to be picked up and thrown around with utter abandon and apparent malice, long after you must have known they were (at a minimum) utterly unfounded. Have you forgotten so soon? When the apartheid regime falls in Israel (which is clearly getting closer), I shall wear your accusations with pride. But in the meantime, since I've withdrawn a mistaken allegation against you, the least you could do is grant me the same courtesy. PalestineRemembered 15:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As an outsider to this conversation, I find your message above perplexing. It sounds as if you're essentially stating that you _do_ subscribe to holocaust denialism, but because of the current political climate, you'd like to be on record as NOT subscribing to it, at least until the "apartheid regime in isreal" falls.  Some pretty loaded language that seems to assert some real dishonesty on your part.  I'm not familiar with the original argument you had w/ Jayjg, but what I see on this page is troubling. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 15:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been chided already for making "political" statements, so I won't. Suffice it to say I've preached against bigotry in here, one of those statements led to a month-long block (supposedly, a protest against ethnic-labelling is an accusation against unnamed editors of racism). PalestineRemembered 16:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Jay -> That's amazingly grudging - after 3 months you finally admit that "it's likely" that I didn't get my references from the Holocaust Deniers. Whereas I provably did *not* get my references from the Holocaust Deniers. The information I presented was relatively well known (having caused a stir in Parliament). And it was part of a pattern, not "surprising" in any way. It came out of a book I had to hand enabling me to find the reference within minutes of me discovering what I'd been accused of. We're supposed to be editing an encyclopaedia, I'd have expected respect for accuracy might be a prequisite, but then I'm not the expert on WP that you are. What do you think? PS - I was planning to ask a clerk to remove my accusation/retraction entry in the ArbCom after 24 hours. PalestineRemembered 16:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Canaanite civilization material
Hi. As you may have noticed, Tiamut is taking a break. Did you think the discussion was moving in a useful direction? Presumably, you all want to keep improve the article in her absence. If so, I'm wondering if you might consider stepping in and "writing for the enemy" as they say. You've listened to her quite thoroughly and have a keen grasp of the POVs she tries to articulate. Maybe you could comment on the talk page on how to proceed, voicing Their POVs. Do you think this would help us move forward in editing, while avoiding troubles down the road? Thanks. HG | Talk 17:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sock
Can you do something administrative about this? Arrow740 21:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

synagogues
I see articles for some of the synagogues you've been adding have been PROD'ed. I think they forgot to notify you, so I'm letting you know. I didn't want to remove the prods myself without any references to add. DGG (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

B'nai Avraham Synagogue
A template has been added to the article B'nai Avraham Synagogue, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. DLand TALK 22:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the above. 86.147.69.12 20:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are more native Arabic-speaking than there are Frech and Russian speaking jews. Iarq had a population of 250,000-500,000 and Morocco 300,000 and im not mention other countries too. they did'nt die out they live in Israel. Nochi 07:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

palestineremembered.com
You claim on Naji al-Ali that palestineremembered.com is an "extremist site, non-reliable source". What is the basis for this? --DieWeisseRose 09:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful with the word "vandalism" in edit summaries
See the discussion of your edit at Talk:Circumcision. --Coppertwig 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka
Some users are removing RS citations and information. Can you please have a look thanks Watchdogb 01:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 18:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User
Hi there, do you know what happened to goodoldpolonius2?. I'm curious because I deleted my former account and I was considering in creating a new one. She was one of contacts and helped me with many holocaust related articles. Please respond, I'm gonna check for any answer in a few days. 190.173.214.63 07:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC) (sorry for the signature, but I'm not sure of creating an account since I realized that many good people left).

We could use some help
Loremaster has been driven off the featured Ebionites article by a disruptive editor, Michael C. Price. I'm about to leave myself. Michael has a unique perspective on the application of undue weight (that there isn't any), and insists that all POVs must be represented in the article, no matter how fringe. This argument is being used to push an extreme POV that is a synthesis, namely that prominent individuals (Jesus, John the Baptist, James the Just, all the apostles except Paul) in the early Church were all Ebionites, and that the early Christian Church in general and the Essenes that preceeded them were all Ebionites. These claims are then used to deny the historicity of orthodox Christianity (and implicity "prove" it is a false religion). My specific objection is that the secondary sources used to support these "claims" don't make these sweeping assertions. Opinions of various sources are woven together in a synthesis which is then put into the mouths of the sources. Even after a detailed examination of the sources reveals they don't say what is claimed, this editor refuses to retract his statements or allow them to be modified. I feel personally that this rises to the level of fraud. We are weary of tracking down every source (some of them are obscure) to verify that what is being stated is accurate. Further, calling the accuracy of any of the claims into question leads to raging edit wars on the talk page. I requested comments from Ft/N, but they have been ignored. I requested an RFC, but there has been no response after two weeks. I also recently posted a request for input on the discussion board at WikiProject Jewish History. Can you recommend a further course of action? Ovadyah 14:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% with Ovadyah. --Loremaster 15:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And so do I. And I would add the tendency to ignore a more mainstream view, restricting "secondary sources" to a few authors that are quoted (not always accurately, see above) ad nauseum and in a way that often endorses them. And a tendency to misread other editors' comments. Str1977 (smile back) 19:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a synthesis: see James Tabor. --Michael C. Price talk 16:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that Michael recently made major revisions to the Tabor article, so it would not be surprising to find that Tabor's reported "views" seem to be convergent. Ovadyah 17:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Easy enough to check out his book in that case. --Michael C. Price talk 18:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

All the editors that helped to make the Ebionites article FA quality have been run off. Therefore, I am applying an "expert-verify" tag to the article. I will notify AN/I and contact some academics in the field to help. Ovadyah 13:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Notification of discussion: Guideline/policy governing lists
Given your extensive Wikipedia experience, I'd appreciate your input on the following:

User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic. Sidatio 00:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI
Hey there Jayjg, I just wanted to give you a heads up that I referenced our discussion over at the Holocaust Denial page in my RFA. Since I referenced it (but not you by name) I figured that I should drop you a line as somebody may or may not ask you about the exchange.Balloonman 15:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

George Soros ready for unlocking
Jayjg,

It's been a long and pointless(?) discussion, but it appears that the editors at George Soros (those who haven't left from boredom with the discussion) can agree (5 to 1) on the following:

"Bill O'Reilly has been a strident critic of Soros [9], but the accuracy of his criticism has been questioned." The first cite is a Washington Monthly Book Review (of O'Reilly's book) and the second is the origninal of the LA Times article where the IU researchers deny O'Reilly's producer's comments (per Bellowed).

In short, would you consider unlocking the Soros article. Thanks.

Smallbones 14:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Favor
When you have a chance, could you look at White people, especially the lengthy discussion (you ought to read the whole thing, although the most salient points are toward the end)here? I am especially concerned with Fourdee. The underlying issue is whether races (in this case, obviously, the white race) are biologically real or social constructions. I feel very confident in my grasp of both the sociological and genetic research and know that Fourdee is wrong, but I have tried very hard not to engage him on this. Instead, I have tried, consistently, to make the discussion about compliance with our core policies. Fourdee has been (in my opinion) consistently courteous. But I believe he is a racist, and it seems obvious to me (and my question is, will it be obvious to you too as you read through the discussion, and slowly see slight changes in his position/rationale) tht he is nothing more than a POV pusher who wishes to use Wikipedia articles as his own soap-box. I do not know if the situation is appropriate for an RfC. But I would (1) like to know whether you think my reading of him is right, or whether I am over-reacting, and (2) if you do think I am right, I would appreciate whatever support you consider appropriate. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Advise needed
Please take a look at and. I would like some advise on how to deal with the situation. I warned User Isarig from being uncivil (he threatened a user). Today he made a personal attack on that same user (Isarig called him a 'liar'). Could you remind Isarig of WP:NPA and WP:CIV? --Agha Nader 01:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Israel and racism
This article is one big POV fork.Full of hoax quotes.Could you propose it to get speedy deleted.--Shrike 16:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites FAR
Ebionites has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Avi 18:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Time to lock Scott Thomas Beauchamp?
A rather nasty edit war is breaking out on Scott Thomas Beauchamp, and a few of the accounts are newly-created SPAs. There's been a lot of POV pushing in terms of adding "see also" links to admitted liars (which Beauchamp is not), as well as several attempts to scrub the article of any sources critical of the U.S. Army. Your locking the George Soros page was valuable; I wonder if you'd consider locking the Beauchamp page so this can all be hashed out on the Talk page. Thanks. --Eleemosynary 22:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

conflicts of interest
Am I crazy, or does the recent revert war at Pubic hair raise WP:COI issues? I'd value your input on this. Nandesuka 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

European peoples
I gotten into a minor argument on Talk:European people about whether Ashkenazim are an European ethnic group. The claim (which I have challenged) is that because Jews come from the Middle East and seldom intermarry with "native" Europeans, we can speak of "European Jews" but not say that Jews are a European ethnic group. This sounds like a matter of semantics; I personally do not have such a strong investment in the view, but I do know some hold the view and for me it is a matter of NPOV to acknowledge it. However, in the context of other debates on this page and other articles, I think what is at stake is a highly racialized notion of ethnicity that has been used to justify viewing Jews as permanent outsiders in Europe - a view that in light of the twentieth century cannot be innocent. Please consider commenting (look at the bottom) Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Arab WikiProject?
Some editors are proposing the creation of an "Arab" WikiProject when there are dozens of country-based Arab Wikiprojects that already cover the Arab world, and the related cultural/linguistic topics. I think the motive behind the project is pan-Arabisim, and the idea of a race-based WikiProject is an absurd one, as we don't have Hispanic or Latino WikiProjects. Can you please share your thoughts on this issue? I am also suspicious that many of the editors who have signed up for this proposed project, are the same individual using multiple accounts to stack the votes. AhvaziKaka —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AhvaziKaka (talk • contribs).

Where are you?
What happened? :( 81.153.125.209 23:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Gone ?
AlHusayniHitler2.jpg Zeq 12:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He is handling personal issues; he's around (at least as of last week [[Image:Face-smile.svg|25px]] -- Avi 14:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change of name from War on Islam to War Against Islam
This seems less ambiguous and more widely used. Any objections? --BoogaLouie 18:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

policy concern
Should this be the object of an RFC? I am going to poll other editors I really respect, but thought you should know. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Zionism and anti-Zionism (resources)
A template has been added to the article Zionism and anti-Zionism (resources), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. Oli Filth 00:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC
I have requested community comment on Requests_for_comment/Italiavivi. I know you have contacted Italiavivi previously in attempts to resolve issues, your input is appreciated. This is just a friendly notice. --Hu12 19:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Article help
Hi Jayjg. Could you please add Battle of Jenin to your watchlist? A debate is currently occurring over coverage of this event. And please feel to free to take a look at the talk page at some point. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

favor
Hey, Since others are taking stabs at rewriting this policy, I have decided to try my own. Before I share it with a wider group, could you go over it and make such edits as you see fit? Thanks Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

unprotection of Norman Finkelstein
Hi Jayjg -- I requested unprotection of Norman Finkelstein because it seems things have calmed down on the talk page since you protected it back in June. Sdedeo (tips) 14:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Shraga Hager
Hi, there is currently a discussion about the notability of Rabbi Shraga Hager your insight on this would greatly be appreciated. Have a beautiful day--יודל 13:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You are missed
Jay, I'm worried by your prolonged absence from Wikipedia. I understand that the project has become an inhospitable place for some of the best editors, but only our perseverance will prevent Wikipedia from fading into the gloom. Hope to see you back, nice and refreshed. Best wishes, Ghirla-трёп- 20:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto. We all need a break sometimes.  M. (er) 03:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be travelling for a while and taking a break myself, so I'd better say "ditto" now too!John Z 06:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

New page about Israel and the UN
Hello Jayjg, you recently edited the page Israel and the United Nations. I invite you to have a look at my rewrite of this subject, Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. I intend to replace the first with the second. Let me know what you think.Emmanuelm 13:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Verifying source (Yad Vashem)
Hello Jayjg. Would you be able to confirm me the veracity of this link, which an user is attempting to use in order to claim that a National Front member was a former Resistant? In particular, is it really from Yad Vashem? Thanks, Tazmaniacs 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I answered this at User talk:Coppertwig. --Coppertwig 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg
Hi Jayjg, I hope you don't mind that I put the not here tag at the top of the page, just to let folks know that you might not respond back right away. Hope all is well with you and see you when you return. Cheers! --Tom 15:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Bolshevism and The Jewish Bolshevism
Hello. Would appreciate your input to the above active & lively dispute. Thanks. --Ludvikus 23:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize
Between December 14, 2005 and June 7, 2007, I vandalized Wikipedia under my previous username (YechielMan) and under various IP addresses and alternate accounts.

I recently reviewed the contribution logs of all the accounts and IP addresses that I can recall having used. My goal was to identify all of the intentionally harmful edits I caused, and to apologize to the individual users who reverted those edits, or warned me, or blocked me.

Hence, I apologize to you and to all of the following users:


 * Adam Bishop, Amarkov, Antandrus, AntiVandalBot, Bdj (Badlydrawnjeff), Conk 9, CanbekEsen, DLand, Downwards, Eagle 101, Ericbronder, Gogo Dodo, High on a tree, Hut 8.5, Interiot, Jayjg, Jrwallac, Kingboyk, Kuru, Noclip, Patrick Berry, PFHLai, PhantomS, Pollinator, Rachack, Ranma9617, Rx StrangeLove, SlimVirgin, Tfrogner, TommyBoy, Vary, Woohookitty, Zzuuzz, and some anonymous IPs. (I also reverted one edit myself after it went unnoticed for three weeks.)

Thank you for maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia against everyone who has attacked it, including my old self.

If you wish to respond, please do so at my talk page.

Best regards, Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tri-City Skins and the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team Nominated for Deletion
I've know that you have an interest in the Canadian far right. Perhaps you would want to provide your input on whether these two articles should be kept as they are, modified, or deleted as per the nomination? AnnieHall 05:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid
The Arbitration Committee has adopted a motion in the above arbitration case, providing: "As the Committee has been unable to determine which actions in this matter, if any, were undertaken in bad faith, and as the community appears to be satisfactorily dealing with the underlying content dispute, the case is dismissed with no further action being taken." This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 19:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Pyroterrorism
In view of your many contributions to the terrorism article, would you please consider commenting at Pyroterrorism DRV. Thanks. -- Jreferee    t / c  00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Drive By Reversions
Jay, I see that you haven't stopped your habit of doing drive by reversions. You revert edits without taking the time to read the article to see if something is actually sourced or not. How do I know? You've reverted completely uncontroversial changes I've made, and checking your edit log, you didn't even spend a minute on the article since your revert previous to that. It looks to me like you're just hunting for increasing your edit count. Please don't do it. It's bad for business, and tends to piss of people like me that are genuinely trying to improve wikipedia with good edits and then get their edits reverted out of hand. If you're not going to spend the time necessary to see if an edit is good or not, you should NOT be deleting them from wikipedia. That is not what wikipedia is about, and it definitely bites the hands that feed it. It's a bad habit, and should be stopped. Wkerney 03:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Account has not edited Wikipedia since August 4, 2007. --John Nagle 04:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Privacy concerns
Hi, Jayjg. I recently edited User talk:Jayjg/Archive 10 to remove my real name from the page. I have reason to be concerned about my online privacy lately, and this page listed my real name in a format that is easily found with a simple Google search. I apologize for editing your user space directly, but I hope you can forgive the intrusion. Thanks, — Amcaja ( talk ) 02:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute on FGC
Hi. I am having a dispute with a user on FGC. I noticed your previous contribution and hoped you might provide some third-party commentary on a dispute at Blackworm’s objections. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thank You. Phyesalis (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Jayjg has not edited Wikipedia since Aug. 4, 2007. Also note: Be careful where your acronyms redirect to.  I think you may mean FGC and Blackworm’s objections.  I think "Blackworm's objections" is a sub-sub-section, to which I don't think you can link directly (though your other links go to completely different pages). --Coppertwig 22:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to inquire. Yes, I think the issue has resolved itself. Phyesalis (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

1920 Palestine riots
Hi. I was working on the good article sweeps and I noticed that this page has been fully protected, but I couldn't figure out why. I was wondering if you explain the situation to me, either here on the article article's talk page? Thanks and Cheers, CP 01:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent events
Good evening. You currently occupy positions of elevated trust, including the oversight and checkuser functions which rely upon extreme levels of community trust, as well as access to the Arbitration Committee's private mailing lists as an ex-member. On multiple occasions there have been credible questions raised over various actions undertaken by you. For example, you've recently returned after a lengthy hiatus, which you began during an open ArbCom case in which you were a party. In addition, your accidental e-mail sent through the public mailing list just a few days ago has proven to be quite controversial. In view of this, I would like to confirm you still retain the exceptional trust the aforementioned accesses require, which was determined some years ago. Would you be willing to stand for reconfirmation of community trust for these positions? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered
At you added a comment:
 *  Stwalkerster   - many people will have undoubtedly assumed that Jaakobou is here in good faith - a close look at his actual editing would quickly persuade you otherwise. This TalkPage, starting at this section is one place to start. Whatever the rights and wrongs of our treatment of this main-stream Israeli journalist, it must be clear that Jaakobou's antics are not going to improve this article, they can only harm it.
 * As you can see in that example, on top of the bullying, Jaakobou operates in a totally un-encyclopedic fashion to use/abuse sources. Not only does this damage articles, it has a profoundly discouraging effect on real scholars attempting to edit. In at least three cases I can think of, Jaakobou appears to have driven such people away in double frustration, both as regards the material itself and the absurdly tendentious way it is defended. A ripple effect of bad vibes is spreading about the whole project amongst all who value accuracy. PRtalk 15:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A more perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black would be hard to come by. Jayjg (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you really men to claim that I acted in "in a totally un-encyclopedic fashion to use/abuse sources"? Or am/was ever guilty of any of the practises listed there? PRtalk 17:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy note
FYI, some diffs involving you were mentioned at an extension request that I filed at Requests for arbitration, specifically, my extended report at User:Elonka/DreamGuy report. No action is required on your part, I just wanted to let you know. --Elonka 03:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboard/incidents
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at regarding.

ArbCom case
Jayjg, you've been named as a party in a current ArbCom case request. Please respond as appropriate. If you're still on the ArbCom mailing list, I also formally request that you remove yourself, at least as long as this case is open. Thanks! Cla68 (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back
I'm pleased to see you editing again, Jayjg.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And a welcome back from me too! I wasn't sure if we'd see you back or not. (You're anything but predictable!) I hope you stick around for a bit. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome back!!! Very happy to see you editing again! I tried to reply to some of the people posting here while you were gone, mostly just telling them you hadn't edited for a period of time. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back from me as well - it's good to have you editing again. :) Daniel C/T+ 14:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome back Jayjg! I hope you've enjoyed your break and I really hope you decide to stay around a bit - you've been missed.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  21:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wlecome back Jayjg! I'm one of those people who didn't know you had been back for a while now, until I happened to see a recent edit of yours. good to have you back. please feel free to write. I'm sure we'll be in touch in many various places. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That explains a lot!
I was kind of surprised that you didn't say anything (one way or another) now I know why! Anyway, welcome back.Balloonman (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay
Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been busy elsewhere. Do you still need assistance at the Ebionites article? Jayjg (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! No, the Ebionites issue is closed.  The article was demoted in FAR, and the editor that caused the problems was given editing restrictions for one year by ArbCom.  I'm disappointed that ArbCom declined to address the larger issue of misleading and fraudulent content, but they chose the easier path of sanctioning sustained edit-warring.  Loremaster and I have permanently left the Ebionites article, so it's up to some new editors to pick up the pieces. Ovadyah (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hi Jayjg. Nice to see you back. Question: How did you make 15 edits to 15 distinct talk pages at 03:12 on 13 December 2007? It's amazing! An average of 4 seconds per edit! How do you do it?  T i a m u t  01:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's why the ladies call him Magic Fingers. :-D – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Long as they don't call him late for dinner. ;)  IronDuke  02:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just saw your name appear in my watchlist. Yes, welcome back. Acalamari 04:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome back Jayjg; I really missed you. Itzse (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What, you don't write you don't call??


 * Holy sh--, it's like seeing a ghost! A tanned, fit, well-rested ghost, to be sure, editing like a...like a..., well, like a ...bot?  What the heck is this – thirty-one edits in two minutes from 3:12 to 3:14 on the 13th, then a 24-hour pause to resume at 3:15 on the 14th?  This is some spooky sh--.  You better not be some robo-droid that's body-snatched my #1 heartthrob or I swear I'll be goin' all bladerunner on your ass.   Don't think I won't be able to tell.  If you take a consistent position on WP:NOR for three consecutive edits for example I'm'a suspect you're a replicant.


 * Big smooch – see you in the ring – grrrr – welcome back Jay!--G-Dett (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We missed ya ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto. George is ok now. Smallbones (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Blade Runner quoting Blake! You have been bodysnatched! Much as I miss my old friend I could grow to like this new Jaybot...--G-Dett (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: the email
Hi Jayjg, This is why: 3RR is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence cheers, nat.utoronto 02:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

David Irving is British (not that I want to claim him)
I noticed your recent edit to David Irving objecting to previous edits which you saw as switching from American to British English. Can I point out that WP:ENGVAR indicates that articles should use the variety of English appropriate to their subject. However, the an h-word construction is pedantic even on this side of the Atlantic.

And welcome back.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, I think Talk:Houston Stewart Chamberlain may be the sort of discussion which would attract your interest.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * An thanks for looking in at Chamberlain. I thought it would be the sort of page that you would be interested in.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:138.39.7.3
Hey, there. Back in July, you blocked this one after they ignored several notices about WP:MOSDATE, and continued swapping date formats. I see it was a problem on several dates. There's currently an unblock request on the page, someone claiming it's a shared IP. Noticed you blocked indefinitely, which seems a bit unusual. Any comment or thoughts on the current unblock request would be appreciated. – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good, but I'm sure you're aware that IP addresses are almost never indefinitely blocked (see Blocking IP addresses if you need to refresh your memory). In this case, the IP has been blocked for over half a year. I think we can reasonably afford to unblock and see if they keep at it; easy enough to reblock if they do, in any case. – Luna Santin  (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked the IP with a caveat. The varied, very sporadic editing pattern seems consistent with a multi-user environment such as a workplace proxy (most likely the Delmarva Power and Light Company), and the user was only warned five times sporadically over the course of over a year before this block, which was also the first ever. There's no question that the IP's edits were disruptive, but indefinite block on an IP address as the very first move over a content dispute seems very excessive when preventative blocks of increasing duration would most likely do the job. If this IP becomes problematic again, feel free to re-block of course, but please keep the spirit of our blocking policy in mind. -- krimpet ✽  06:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair. I'll check back in periodically. Should hope it's clear to them that they're on thin ice. – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Arabism
Hey, so the controversy over at Talk:Anti-Arabism seems to have died down fortunately. However, I noticed you removed banned user Alberuni's comments (struckthru by IronDuke) from the talk page. In the edit summary, you mentioned that it was done as a matter of wiki policy and Widepants took issue with that and reproduced the content. Due to the "messiness" by which the content was reproduced, I reverted back to the talk page prior to your sanitization. I tried to find the policy referring to removing talk page content of banned users, but was unable to do so. If the policy is clear, it'd help keep the peace by providing a link to where it is expressly written. I recognize that you're an administrator and don't doubt that such a policy exists, I'm just looking for some clarity on the matter. Thanks a lot. - CheshireKatz (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Subsequently, I've noticed that Widepants appears to be in a cross-article edit war with IronDuke on the userpage of Amaliq, another participant in the controversial ongoing debate on Talk:Anti-Arabism. Suffice it to say this is getting complicated. Both Amaliq & Widepants accounts have been created within the past couple months, although they are both clearly well-informed of wikipedia's policies. As this is a common trait of Sockpuppetry & single-purpose accounts, I was hoping you could weigh in at Talk:Anti-Arabism, a dialogue that I'd genuinely like to see stabilized. - CheshireKatz (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I could really use some help in Talk:Anti-Arabism. Please stick your head in if you get a chance. - CheshireKatz (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely sympathize. If you know of any administrators that would be interested in the topic, let me know. Thanks. - CheshireKatz (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha, yeah, fallout from the edit war. Thanks for the heads up. I'm gettin' on it now. - CheshireKatz (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Images
Hi Jay, I've had a problem with my folders on my computer and I can no longer vouch for some of images I have uploaded, apparently some non-free images are in there. I would like to delete them but I cant. Can I give you a list of the suspect images so that you can delete them? Lobojo (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bloomfield stadium crowdpic.JPG, Image:Wolpopic.jpg, Image:Queen's parade.jpg,Image:Chabadpolitics.jpg


 * Thankyou for turning those links red for me! I will be more careful in future, this whole GFDL thing is very obscure. Lobojo (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Chamberlain - why?
Hello Jay. I am sorry I cannot give you a quick answer to your very excellent question: "why is this information being repressed?". Some clues (and the source of the absurd wording) lie somewhere in the depths of the preceding discussion. It also has something to do with curious (to my mind) interpretations of what constitutes "legitimate source", "historical consensus" and "encyclopedic content" and, as always, the unpredictable, occasionally emotional dynamics of editorial interactions. Not much help, I know, but as there remains some as-yet-unresolved controversy surrounding the page, any input or monitoring or suggestions you might provide for moving forward would be very welcome. Thanks, Eliezg (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Greetings
It is good to see you are contributing again. Could you provide me with some advice regarding this issue: ?--Agha Nader (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back
I just saw your name in the changes at Jews and Judaism in the African diaspora. I see now that you've been back for a little while, but in any event welcome back. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes Jay, welcome back, and no doubt we can also welcome back some sanity too! IZAK (talk) 11:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Saudi Arabian history
Hi Jay: Well I am still rubbing my eyes in disbelief. I hope your return presence will be a great one. I for one have missed you a lot. May H-shem grant you the strength, patience and endurance to keep on contributing to this noteworthy and important project in the history of humanity's quest for accesible knowldge with the means to access it in an easy and usable fashion. Having said that, I see that you are busy, but would you take a moment to take a look at the discussion at Category talk:Jewish Saudi Arabian history. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 11:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Wiffle Bat Award
Dear Jay: I have awarded you the Wiki Wiffle Bat award in recognition of your efforts to defend Wikipedia. You have been added to the pantheon at Other awards/Wiffle. Congratulations and keep on going strong! IZAK (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Help with double redirect
Hi Jay. Could you please help to sort out a double redirect tangle. I tried to move German occupation of France during World War II but I made a spelling mistake and moved it to Occupation of France by Nazi germany when it should be Occupation of France by Nazi Germany. The talk pages need fixing as well. Thanks for helping me out with this. IZAK (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It does still need to be fixed. The content is currently at Occupation of France by Nazi Germany, but most of the page history is at Occupation of France by Nazi germany, if I'm not mistaken.  --Coppertwig (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of leaving a request to fix this at Requested moves. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been fixed by User:Agathoclea, who merged the page histories. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jayjg, for the kind, courteous messages (1, 2) you've left for me on my talk page. This seems to have been fixed, so no worries.  --Coppertwig (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

a new anti-Semite on the block
One example: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 03:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, what she said! -- Kendrick7talk 05:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

zombietime
The material you added to that article uses the pronoun "he", but elsewhere the article says that we don't know whether Zombietime is a he or a she... AnonMoos (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

can you help?
Please respond to Bikinibomb's comments about figs and Judaism (and, at this point, about Shirahadasha and other Jewish editors active on the page) here?

It applies to the article for which the link provided is the talk page, i.e. this. Someone wanted to add "fig" or "fig tree" to the glossary, claiming that it is a notable and important symbol for Christians. Someone wanted to add that it is a notable and important symbol for Jews. Perhaps you should read the discussion and draw your own conclusions.

However, if you want my summary of the discussion, here it is: When several other editors commented on the talk page that it is not an important symbol of Jews, Bikinibomb replied that (1) these Jewish editors are secular atheists and do not have the right to speak for religious Jews, (2) these Jewish editors are violating WP:NOR because they have no verifiable sources for their claims, whereas Bikinibomb has provided multiple sources - the first one on 17:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC), which is a post at the very top of this section of the talk page (3RR), but then in his 20:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC) post to the talk page, and (3) these Jewish editors are trying to embarass Judaism by making it look like Jews do not know their own religion. Bikinibomb by the way has stated that he is not Jewish. In the past 24 hours several Jewish editors have responded but he persists in his claims. My hope is that you can provide for him a more compelling argument or proof, but minimally, I think we need to show that there is a consensus among Jewish editors that his claims about Jewish beliefs are wrong. (assuming you agree with me that he is wrong, either in his specific claims about figs, or his more general claims about Jewish sources, or Judaism) (of course, even if you do not agree with me, I would welcome your comments/thoughts concerning the discussion if you have any!!) Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Input with Saudi Arabian Jewish history
Hi Jay, hope all goes well. Maybe you can help improve the History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia article. It links to smaller articles about Jewish tribes in the areas of present-day Saudi Arabia, such as Banu Awf, Banu Harith, Banu Jusham, Banu Najjar, Banu Sa'ida, Banu Shutayba and they all cited sources. Now User:Bless sins is requesting "sources" for the same information about the tribes in the History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia article, as well as making other requests for sources and whatnot. (If you like, and have a minute or two, see the discussions that have been taking place at Category talk:Jewish Saudi Arabian history.) Please help out in the History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia article. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back
Welcome.

Would appriciate your view and help on the discussion to include this Yad vashem source in the article:



best, Zeq (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-French sentiment in the United States
Hi, you fully protected this article over 4 months ago. Is it now OK to reduce or lift the protection? WjBscribe 01:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a long time for full protection. Edit warring might resume or people might have lost interest - hard to tell without giving unprotection a go. The article could always be protected again. I suspect that feelings on the subject are now less strong but I could be wrong. WjBscribe 03:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing archives?
FYI. Jay, I noticed all the archived talk pages are missing from Talk:Nazarene (sect). Was this intentional or a result of changing the article name? I also noticed that the article is notably more "Pauline" as a result of some edits by new editor who is a self-described "Nazarene". see diff Time to get out the editorial Roto-Rooter? Ovadyah (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently they were mistakenly deleted. The pages were named Talk:Nazarene Archive1 Talk: Nazarene Archive2 Talk:Nazarene Archive3.  I suggest undeleting them and then renaming them to Talk:Nazarene (sect)/Archive 1 Talk:Nazarene (sect)/Archive 2 Talk:Nazarene (sect)/Archive 3.  I think one reason they were deleted is that there was no slash "/" in the pagename.  The names I suggest are standard at Template:archive box collapsible (in case it's ever desired to use that), and I've added links to them at Talk:Nazarene (sect) in anticipation of such renaming. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for restoring the links. I've taken care of the disputed content. Ovadyah (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey
Jay, howzabout you add the best of those seven references, and then I won't re-add the fact tags. Oh, and, WP:CIVIL (one for the road, LOL).--G-Dett (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings
I hope you don't mind that I'm watching your talk page. I started watching when I posted a (misguided) complaint against you in August and was waiting for a reply. A few days later I realized my complaint was unfounded and struck it out, but for some reason never hit that "unwatch" button. I've been learning interesting things about Wikipedia here. I hope I'm not intruding when I occasionally jump into a conversation. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg has many lurker-fans. You'll find you're in good (albeit quiet) company. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Have some tea. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Decaf for me, thanks. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi man
Sup dude. I noticed that your edits for each day are all within a few seconds of each other. That's pretty impressive. How is it done? Darkroadg (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Aw, c'mon! We'd be so thankful to you to give a little help to us dumbs… Oh! And thank you too for this beautiful pic of a jay — I do love corvidae. ✓ Kanġi Oĥanko (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, really striking this caption of a blue jay, I am really impressed. And I feel compassionate for this poor one, out in the cold…
 * BTW, won't you answer about the ‘magic’ you use??? Have a nice day! ✓ Kanġi Oĥanko (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(A lurker jumps in.) Both Firefox and IE7 have a "tabbed browsing" ability. You can open several tabs at once, make changes on each of them, and then, once you're satisfied, save each in a row (within seconds of each other). I do this a lot when I make repetitive changes. I don't know whether this is what Jayjg does or not, but if you want to "replicate the magic", that's how you can do it. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation
I have proposed a mediation on the underlying issue at New antisemitism. The request is here. It's up to you whether or not you want to participate. I am asking everyone who has been extensively involved in discussions on the talk page. *** Crotalus *** 05:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Zeq (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Six Day War
Hi, I don't have time to look at the history of the article but I think some cited material might've gotten lost somewhere along the way there. Yonatan talk 13:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the collaboration on that article has been a little iffy. Paul kuiper has now been placed under 1RR probation for a month so I think everyone can resume improving that article. Yonatan talk 22:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

New antisemitism mediation
I'm holding back until I see what it's going to take shape to be, because similar processes in the past did not inspire me with great confidence. I've barely edited the actual article New antisemitism, in any case... AnonMoos (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't know that I actually care all that much whether it's absolutely the first image in the article. AnonMoos (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Stock Market Predictions at January 2008 stock market downturn
I think a respected administrator should look at the above article. I think it's horrible, and has been horrible throughout its 4 day life. It's essentially been saying that there is a stock market crash going on - but actually the market has been up over the period covered. The article is linked to the front page, under current events.

Many people on the talk page have said it should be deleted, but the usual deletion process would take too long on this news story. I'm starting to get angry, so I'll request that calmer eyes take a look at it.

Smallbones (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. The immediate problem is over.  The article is renamed January 2008 stock market volatility which is accurate.  Article still needs some work, but...
 * More of a concern to me is how to prevent this type of thing from happening again. The market was indeed volatile, and some nomially reliable sources used the word "crash."  Nevertheless, the Dow never closed lower than 1.6% down for the week (ended up positive).  Compare that to the 1987 crash, minus 24% in a day, or the 1929 crash, -40% in 3 months - not even close.  My concern is that WP was writing innaccurate market commentary (rather than an encyclopedia article) which might tend to panic some of our readers - and even cause them to lose a lot of money.  And ITN was linking this to the main page.  Is there a clear policy that could have stopped this right away?  Is there a place to suggest a clear policy that would stop this right away?  Thanks for any suggestions.  Smallbones (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Arab citizens of Israel
Hello, Jayjg.

I think the time has come to unprotect Arab citizens of Israel. It has been protected for more than a month. There has also been no new posting on the issue of the infobox (which, I believe was the source of controversy) for the past almost two weeks. What are your thoughts? Screen stalker (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took me so long to respond. The article appears to have been unprotected; can I help in some other way? Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think we need anymore help. Thank you. Screen stalker (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa
Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 07:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

TOR block of 84.19.182.23
Hey, I noticed that you've blocked 84.19.182.23, as a TOR node, which, it is no longer. I was wondering, if you'd consider either allowing me to unblock it, or, unblocking it yourself please. SQL Query me! 20:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for posting back. I'm planning on otherwise ignoring this anon post to my talk page but if you have any thoughts, please let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Jewish Gestapo" and "Rabbi" Abraham Gancwajch?
Hi Jay: Seems that User has just added articles about Jewish Gestapo and a "Rabbi" Abraham Gancwajch who worked with.for the Shomer HaTzair? Is this legit? Sounds very odd and the sources seem POV antisemitic. I redirected Jewish Gestapo to Group 13. See also some of the "funny" discussions at Talk:Tykocin pogrom. IZAK (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP/N
Waiting for a response. Relata refero (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Zeq (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for warning me too, Zeq (humor)
 * I think Jayjg was already aware of this.
 * If not, I will discuss with him coridally because he is a contributor for whom I have full respect and trust (even if discussions have sometiemes been hot). Ceedjee (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Clear POV fork. what is the procedure to merge ? Zeq (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Zeq, are you supposed to be editing those articles? Forgive me for asking, but I just wanted to be clear. Relata refero (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 
 * Don't forget to warn me.
 * I will start by asking you to summarize all the arguments I gave you to explain you the issue.
 * Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. There's a discussion about how to name the '47/48 war. I'd value your input on where you think such a discussion could be most productive. Should it be discussed at an article Talk page or might this be a useful role for the new WikiProject (as much as it may itself need to be improved)? Or elsewhere? Look forward to hearing from you, HG | Talk 07:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI 2
this guy has an issue. I'm not sure where to report him. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

:o)
You must be doing something right, if you have such a passionate following! Cheers, DBaba (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Problematic new Christian/Jewish template
Hi Jay: Please see the discussions at Template talk:Books of the Bible concerning the new troubled and troubling Books of the Bible template. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian POV pushing
Recently, a new User created a number of controversial articles and categories that are profoundly POV. Some attention and input, as well as some discussion, would be welcome regarding: Zionist hunter (Articles for deletion/Zionist hunter); Category:The Nakba (deletion discussion); Category:Israeli war crimes (deletion discussion); and his creation of Daniel Machover and contributions to Doron Almog; Sabra and Shatila massacre‎ and Qibya massacre‎. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks
  .: RFA thanks :.

RfC on Weiss/Bagley dispute
I'm drafting a "community" RfC on the Weiss/Bagley dispute that has taken place over the last two years in Wikipedia. The goal is to open the entire episode to discussion so that the community can learn from what happened and hopefully put the entire chapter in the past. Since you were heavily involved at one point in the issue, I'd like to invite you to participate in constructing the RfC, which I have started in draft form here. Since some oversight actions took place at certain times during the episode, your input would be especially helpful because you would be able to add the dates that oversight actions took place and who did them. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I thought that the site was the new version of the mailing list, and therefore semi-official. Second, I'm not accusing her of any bad faith. I'm honestly unaware of what behavior Cla68 has done to deserve those remarks. I rather admire Cla68 as an editor, and would be interested to know if I've been deceived. Cool Hand Luke 04:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

can you read this
http://img2.tapuz.co.il/forums/1_112841411.pdf Zeq (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI Thread in re: Khazars
A thread has been posted regarding material you removed from the article at Khazars today. The thread may be found here. FYI, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)