User talk:Jayjg/Archive 25

article help
Hi. i hope you;'re still watching the talk page at Israeli settlement? just wanted to suggest that you continue to watch it. i appreciate your help with this. feel free to provide any input. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

New rabbi categories sprouting like mushrooms
Hi, I'm not a bucky in category creation, but Java7837 is busily creating new categories of rabbis that seem quite superfluous. He/she just made up "Russian Orthodox rabbis" for one person, Michel Dorfman, who was not even a rabbi! Now he/she just put Hanoch Teller under "Austrian Orthodox rabbis," which is absolutely ridiculous. Teller was born in Austria but moved with his family to America when he was very young; he didn't become a rabbi until later in life, and he is totally American. Can you do something about all these new categories? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I thought you had something to do with the launch of the discussion page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, but now you say you were away! If you'd like to weigh in, please see there. Kol tuv, Yoninah (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=prev&oldid=194120993 --Zeq (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Massive deleting on Battle of Baghdad (1258)
I was recommended to you by a friend at Phayul. http://forums.phayul.com/index.php?showtopic=1895

Could you prevent massive deleting by blocking that, encourage that talk be carried out instead ?

Thanks.

Geir Smith (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * see WP:FTN for context. dab (𒁳) 11:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahrimanius
, who you blocked in May 2006 as a sleeper, requests to be unblocked. I would like to know why you think he's a sleeper, due to his request. I see, based on the block log, that you seem to think that Mathisfun12 is an other sleeper of the same person. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you check an unblock requestr
User talk:Ahrimanius is requesting an unblock. He has zero edits, and you blocked him in May 2006 as a sleep account, but you never indicated WHICH banned user he was a sleeper account of. Could you respond on his talk page with further evidence so I can act intelligently on his request? Thanks! --Jayron32. talk . contribs 17:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jayjg
I'm largely retired (temporarily?) as an active contributor, and I was getting some spam from my userpage. Everything is OK, thanks for caring. :) Masterhomer 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on edits, not editors
This comment adds nothing to the discussion on how to improve the article and erodes the prospects for collegial and collaborative editing. Please comment on edits, not editors. Focus on how to improve the article in question by discussing content, rather than making bad faith assumptions that amount to very thinly veiled personal attacks. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 11:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hertzel
Did Hertzel really supported transfer ? I have seenwriting in which he offered cooperation with residents already in palestine. I don't know the english version but the Hebrew version of "medinat ha-Yehudom" has this part of his plan. is this ref true ? could Herzel change his mind few times ? In any case what relance is there between someone who died in 1904 to evenst in 1948 that were caused mostly because what the Mufti sis in 1929 1937 and 1948 ? Zeq (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head
all I see is bits and peices here and there. I did not know what is wrong but I know it is wrong. Now I know what it is: A gross violation of NPOV and UNDUE. The ME conflict is so comlex and full of contradicting facts (over time) that all it takes is to take partial facts present them without the other mitigating facts and voila we have a whole new history. This is the systematic bias I saw in Wikipedia but until now could not articulate it as well as you did. Now we have it formulated. Zeq (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:David Paterson
Hi, Jay. A very belated welcome back. I've not been around much so hadn't noticed you'd returned. Pleased to see it.

If you have a moment, do you have an opinion to offer on this? I'm not sure why I participated, as doing so tends to lend credibility to the mistaken idea that such matters are decided by voting, but anyhow. Cheers, --Rrburke(talk) 13:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Binding of Isaac article name change
Thanks for your comments and contributions at Binding of Isaac. About 3 weeks ago, I proposed to change the name of the article to "Sacrifice of Isaac" at Talk:Binding of Isaac, but so far haven't seen any response. I plan to go ahead and rename the article on March 20, 2008 unless there are objections. I invite you to visit the article and submit any comments you have on the matter. Thanks! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Five editors have responded to the proposal described above. Four oppose and one is neutral. The consensus is opposed to the name change. I'll therfore leave the article as currently named ("Binding of Isaac") and consider the matter closed. Thanks for your participation! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

fyi
http://www.justiceforjews.com/ --Zeq (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ouze Merham
An editor has nominated Ouze Merham, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please comment
Hi, Suppose I remove the Category:Antisemitism from Iran_Holocaust_Cartoons_Contest stating that it isn't inherently antisemitic, but created in response to the Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy, what would you do? thestick (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have reworded it, what would be your argument to include the category. The editor who added the cat is no longer active. thestick (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. thestick (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Speculation?
What, was I wrong? Relata refero (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did I ABF? Relata refero (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and are you seriously telling me that my description of the likely response was wrong?
 * By the way, you might want to look at my suggestion about Category:Anti-Islam sentiment at Talk:Faith Freedom International. Relata refero (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jay, I notice you didn't say that that would not happen. I note also that you don't need to assume bad faith to have that happen. Think about it - its exactly what happens when someone removes a cat against consensus. I understand your sensitivity on the point, but the way to get over that is not to try and see insult when there is none.
 * Note further that "speculation" is exactly what Talk: pages are sometimes for. It is difficult to plan anything without attempting to predict what other individuals in the same project will react.
 * ..half your comments to me to make insulting statements...:sorry, Jay, if you think they're insulting. But next time, mention how they're insulting - and also how they're wrong. Don't just say patently false, say patently false how. People will predict your behaviour based on your past, people working with you on a project will feel the need to discuss your probable choices and reactions if your editing schedule does not match theirs; you can't ban the latter, which is more than permissible, and changing the former will take more than a couple of messages ordering people around on talkpages.
 * I treat you with extraordinary civility, I treat you with as much good faith as I or any rational being could muster, and I don't see how stating a very likely response to a stated intent is not within the bounds of "Talkpage policy". I note that you have decided not to mention that what I was trying to do was determine whether you were being trolled or not, with a view to taking action if required. That determination is usually also conducted on talkpages.
 * And if you do indeed support my "well-known and extremely useful 'lobby argument'", then use it to support me when I object to people inserting obvious original research into articles, rather than for sniping at me about comments I haven't made and content I haven't authored. Jay, the whole point is that if your argument is valid, it need not always be used in your support. On the occasion I used it, it could effectively be used against material which you were defending passionately. (Even though you hadn't written it.) What I hoped to demonstrate to you was the inconsistency that some see in your behaviour, something which, without exception, all your fellow-editors here would probably like to see changed.
 * Thank you for your time, and do try and think about some of what I say.
 * Relata refero (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ...I would not have reverted it. I will take you at your word, and congratulate you successfully conquering that instinct.
 * - no. You shouldn't be using Talk: pages to comment about me, period. So you claim is that although I was not uncivil, your objection was that I referred to you on a talkpage? I see nothing in WP:TALK to supports that view that mentioning other editors in perfectly normal contexts is outlawed on talkpages? If that's your interpretation, perhaps you should cut down on some of your  edits.
 * you never use it in my support, but instead only use it to castigate me for comments I haven't made and content I haven't authored. The material I added .. Secondary sources. You cannot demonstrate "inconsistencies" that do not exist. Except I used it in response to the statement "I count 17 references at the bottom of the article, but the number does keep changing, not long ago it was 19", which constrained me to point out the number of those excluded by the Lobby Argument.
 * Jay, I suggest you admit to yourself, if not to me, that inconsistency is a bad thing, and that someone merely mentioning someone else (on-wiki) in neutral terms and not as an irrelevancy can hardly be a giant violation of our guidelines.
 * I am also interested to see that you think that reversion of the sort I thought it would be probable that you would perform is something you claim you would not do. Good, its a start. Relata refero (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism mediation
Heya Jayjg.

I would first like to apologise on behalf of the Mediation Committee for the delay in this case being dealt with, which is due to a shortage of available mediators. I have expressed interest in taking this case to help with the backlog and to assess my nomination to join the committee. As i am not currently a member it is common practice to for the involved parties to consent to mediation of an RfM from a non-committee member. To give your consent for me to act as mediator for this case please sign as you have for the acceptance of the case on the case page. I look forward to working with you and finding a solution to the dispute.

Seddon69 (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this the way you interact with adults?
I don't know anything about you, and I don't recall ever interacting with you before, so I find your vitriol not just unpleasant, but odd. If you have a complaint with me personally, please lay it out explicitly. If you have a disagreement, state it civilly. If you can't communicate like an adult, don't communicate with me. Noroton (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Vitriol? Did you post the wrong diff by mistake?  I don't see any vitriol there.  I see a sense of humour. You might want to review No angry mastodons. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as I just pointed out to Noroton, that was intended as humorous. I'll try to be more serious in the future. Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing mastodon-like in my comment. Nothing merely humorous in these parts of the discussion. Jayjg, your level of maturity is your choice. Conversation over. Noroton (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was in no way intending to imply that there was anything mastodon-like in your comment, Noroton. That is not  the point of the WP:No angry mastodons essay.
 * I see nothing wrong with making serious statements and also making humourous statements in the same conversation. I also see nothing wrong with statements which make a point while also being humourous.  Humourous is not synonymous with "merely humourous".
 * As I said to someone on Majorly's talk page recently, "Getting along with others is an integral part of the wiki process. Having and using a sense of humour is an integral part of getting along with others. Therefore, having and using a sense of humour is an integral part of the wiki process. :-)" I hope you won't eschew a sense of humour too much, Jayjg. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Change to WP:Harassment
Per your advice, I posted my proposed change to the talk page of the policy and discovered that someone else had already made a similar proposal without significant objections being raised. If you'd like to take part in the discussion other than just reverting the policy edit, please come join in the discussion. As of now, it appears that there isn't any real objection to the proposed wording addition. Thanks! Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, there's no "real objection", as long as you ignore all the people who object. In any event, please get a real consensus for this significant policy change before attempting to modify policy. Jayjg (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the (notice, I said "the" not "your") "real" consensus? How many people?  What percentage of project participants?  Only established editors?  If so, what's an established editor?  Only admins?  Please, tell me where it says what "the real" consensus is.  I think the policy will be changed, because right now there is a discrepancy between Harassment and COI. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Check out the COI noticeboard where several threads currently out other editors, apparently without censure. If the harassment and block policies really trumped COI, then this wouldn't be going on on the COI noticeboard.  By not doing anything about it, you and other admins have already set the precedent that outing for COI reasons is ok, whether it says so or not in the rest of the policies. Cla68 (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which specific threads are you referring to? Jayjg (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are a couple . Cla68 (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In the first example, the userid appears to include a name. Regardless, it may be that some of the postings on the COI noticeboard are inappropriate. If so, that's an issue with the COI noticeboard, not WP:BLOCK, WP:OVERSIGHT, and WP:HARASSMENT. Jayjg (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll collect more diffs/links if necessary, but it appears that we've been outing COI editors since the project was started. The policies need to be updated to reflect what's already, rightfully going on to maintain the integrity and credibility of our NPOV encyclopedia. Cla68 (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there's no particular need to modify the existing policies, which are what maintain a reasonable working environment for our volunteer editors. Moreover, as explained, it's not our COI policy that "maintain[s] the integrity and credibility of our NPOV encyclopedia", it's the quality of the articles and the sources used, strict adherence to the core content policies, and a welcoming environment for editors. Indeed, if all editors adhered strictly to the core content policies then COI would be irrelevant. WP:COI is a guideline intended to help editors recognize when they might have difficulties adhering to the core content policies, not a manual for others to out editors they suspect have a conflict of interest. Your puffing up the COI guideline as the savior of Wikipedia's "integrity and credibility" seems to me to be a case of exaggerating the guideline's impact and intent, and devaluing far more important policies. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You honestly feel that I'm exaggerating the importance of the COI guideline? Have you been paying attention to Wikipedia-related news lately?  One of the major reasons the Jimbo/Marsden/Merkey story was so noticed was because of the allegations that Jimbo might have violated COI by influencing the bio article of his girlfriend and the bio of Merkey for money for the Foundation.  I would think that you would be very concerned about allegations of COI by our editors, because, if true, it could call into question the credibility of large numbers of articles in our project and the good faith of some of our most active editors.  In fact, after our conversations here and at WP:AN and the COI Noticeboard, I'm now fairly sure that the COI guideline needs to be upgraded to policy status, because, our credibility does depend to a great deal on investigations of and resolving COI allegations. Cla68 (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason those stories were so noticed was that Jimbo is an important guy, not because the articles allegedly edited under such circumstances were particularly important articles. If someone less important than Jimbo wrongly edits an article, it's not news:  it's accepted as a common occurrence the way the occurrence of minor crimes and automobile collisions is accepted.  We all know that not all the information in all Wikipedia articles is true.  The various guidelines and policies balance each other.  Putting current practice into words is sometimes a mistake, because the words are then interpreted to apply even more widely than originally intended. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true that we need to be careful about how we word our policies, but this discrepancy between our COI and other policies needs to be resolved. Another example of how COI generates bad press even if a famous person insn't involved was the recent Register article about Jossi editing the Prem Rawat articles even though he is a follower and paid employee of Rawat, the extent of which he had tried to keep hidden. Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Emails
Ok, but is there a reason to move the discussion from AN? I see WordBomb's comment on WikBack was here, where he says he recalls Humus sapiens and you quoting the email at some point. If my reading of the situation is correct, he probably sent any email through Wikipedia rather than from his email (he's said this is how he first contacted SV). I have no way of verifying this, but unless IPFrehley posted something where SV would have seen it, it seems consistent with his statements that this is how she came to block that account. Mackan79 (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio
I got as far as I could, but all of History of the Jews in Venezuela is a copyvio. I've reached my limit for the day, and my prose stinks; can you go in and reword that section? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was a move from another article, where it was added by an IP. If you have time to fix it, it's only that one section.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Zionism tag
Hi Jayjg, I don't understand why you are losing your time with that guy. He doens't answer questions and just asks his ones and claims for answers. Just ignore him. The pov tag can stay one year. It doens't matter. Ceedjee (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is, it's his pointy way of disfiguring the article; he's basically saying that the article will remain tagged ad infinitum, until everyone agrees with him. This is an abuse of the tagging system, which is intended to alert readers to current and real issues, not the same rhetorical questions repeated again and again, regardless of the number of times they have been answered. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. But why would it matter ?
 * If we stop interacting with him, he will stop.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jay
Would you please replace the POV tag at Zionism? There are six outstanding issues I feel we still have yet to resolve. Many thanks, BYT (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Offline contact
Hi Jay, is there anyway to contact you offline (or at least via e-mail)? Oboler (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment to SandyGeorgia
I'm not sure if you're aware, but I've been researching for an RfC that I'm drafting. During my research, I noticed this comment by you to SandyGeorgia after a discussion about merging policies here at WP:ATT. In your post, you ask SandyGeorgia to "to retract your statement". I've read the thread in question, and I don't see anything wrong with what SandyGeorgia said. She was providing a legitimate concern with how the initiative was proceeding at the ATT page. So, I was just wondering, do you stand by that statement? Do you still think SandyGeorgia needs to withdraw her statement and that it was "insult enough" merely for stating her opinion? Cla68 (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation?
A new user named Wikibiki613 posted a very professional picture of Rabbi Eliezer Shlomo Schik on the Breslov (Hasidic dynasty) page, which was lifted off the Rabbi's website. (I moved it to the Rabbi Schik page, but Wikibiki613 insisted it should also go on the Breslov page.) I left Wikibiki613 a note on his/her discussion page asking if he/she took the picture or scanned it off the website, but have not yet received any answer. It seems that Wikibiki613 started contributing on March 30 and stopped contributing on March 31. Please advise what to do about that picture. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the link: mohorosh.org. Yoninah (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the picture closely. On the website the book in Mohorosh's hand is at the very bottom of the picture. In the picture on wikipedia there is a large space under the book. While it is possible to take the picture on wikipedia and crop it to look like the picture on the website, it is impossible to take the picture on the website and somehow create that space under the book. It is also impossible to take a small picture, like the one on the website, and increase the size and quality so that it looks like the "very professional picture " on wikipedia. It should be obvious that the picture was not "lifted off the Rabbi's website". (Wikibiki613 (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Sorry, I don't understand this reasoning. The pictures are identical; only the upper half of the picture is used on the webpage. Since Wikibiki613 just started plugging the inclusion of Rabbi Eliezer Shlomo Schik on the Breslov page, I have the feeling he's an insider in Rabbi Schik's organization and has access to the picture. The only question is whether he himself took this professional, studio portrait? Yoninah (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The reasoning is really quite simple. You claimed that the picture was "lifted off the webpage". I proved to you that it wasn't. What is there not to understand? (Wikibiki613 (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Did you take the picture yourself? Please answer yes or no? Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No - I have permission to use it. (Wikibiki613 (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC))
 * From whom? Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

From Mesivta Heichal HaKodesh. (Wikibiki613 (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Okay, please now tell me what we should do about the free-license declaration which Wikibiki613 put on the photo of Rabbi Eliezer Shlomo Schik. Should the declaration be altered? Should some kind of note be put on the image on the pages on which it appears (Eliezer Shlomo Schik and Breslov (Hasidic dynasty)? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Update
Just to let you all know, the case has been started. I have created a little navbox for you to navigate between pages and will be expanded as the case goes on so that its easier for you to navigate. The first page you need to visit in this case is here so you can give youre opening statement. There i have left a few questions for you all to answer. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.

I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes IRC channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to WP:IRC. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page or both to make sure. You can also leave a message on my talk page which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can. Seddon69 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. I wanted to make sure this case was as smooth as possible :) It means its esier for me to go back and forth between pages as well. If you have any suggestions feel free to say. Seddon69 (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

External link to antisemitic litterature
Hi, I don't know how this problematic is managed on wp:en and I am involved on wp:fr on the same issue. Could you please take care of this here ? Thank you... The first website that is given in the external links section of this article Oswald Mosley gives access to 2 books (among many) in free download :
 * "Our Financial Masters" - By A.Raven Thompson : Reprint of the British Union publication showing how Jewish financers had control of the money supply and thereby the British Government Economic Policy in the 1930's.
 * "The Holy Land: Arab or Jew - Capt R. Gordon-Canning M.C." Published in 1938 this book exposed the disproportionate influence of Zionism, and Jewish finance, on the British Government, British politicians, and the media over the question of Palestine. Capt Gordon-Canning, exposes the lies and propaganda used by Zionists in their efforts to seize a Palestinian homeland irrespective of the cost to the indigenous population
 * with the following excerpts : "(...) the genius of the Jewish race apparently lies in its power to put over specious arguments and to build up a case based upon a false premise" et "(...) the money power of British Jewry (...) permits this racial minority (...) to censor truth and to mirror falsehood. Or, in other words, this power, when exerted, is able to prevent publication of facts inimical to Jewry, (...)".

Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the links to those sources; can you point them out please? Jayjg (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jayjg,
 * Here is the link to both books : http://www.oswaldmosley.com/downloads/free_ebooks.htm (they are on the third and sixth rows).
 * Ceedjee (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jayjg,
 * In the following webpage, there are books in free download : http://www.oswaldmosley.com/downloads/free_ebooks.htm
 * Among these books, 2 are antisemitic litterature.
 * The first one is : "Our Financial Masters" (this is the 6th one in the left column on my screen).
 * The second one is : "The Holy Land: Arab or Jew" (this the 3th one in the left column on my screen).
 * If you download the second one ("The Holy Land: Arab or Jew"), you can read inside this :
 * "(...) the genius of the Jewish race apparently lies in its power to put over specious arguments and to build up a case based upon a false premise" et "(...) the money power of British Jewry (...) permits this racial minority (...) to censor truth and to mirror falsehood. Or, in other words, this power, when exerted, is able to prevent publication of facts inimical to Jewry, (...)"
 * Ceedjee (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jayjg, Ok. That is also my opinion concerning wp:en policy. On wp:fr, I argue it must be deleted because laws in France forbids "incitement to racial hate". Concerning wp:en, having in mind there is a policy that protects against copyright violation (a crime...), another that protects the biographies of living person (a bad thing), do you think that there could be one that prevents links to antisemitic litterature ? (how to describe this... Isn't this a crime worse than darkening a living person ?)... (Note here, on wp:fr, some argue that this is more "historical litterature" than "antisemitc litterature"). What do you think concerning both these questions ? Ceedjee (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Haskalah
Hi -

User:Dshsfca seems to me be inserting incomprehensible essay-like elements into Haskalah and ranting inscrutably on its talk page. I'd be interested whether you agree. Zargulon (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Osli73
I made the following posting on the Administrators Noticeboard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Osli73_violating_parole.2C_repeat_violator

Fairview360 (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User Osli73 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osli73 has a history of willfully violating probations including the use of sockpuppets on articles related to the former Yugoslavia.

One can see at the bottom of this arbitration webpage that he has been blocked repeatedly for willfully violating sanctions placed against his edit warring and sockpuppetry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Involved_parties

For example:

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) 3 months per 1 month tthis AE post. Please note this is Osli's fourth block. --wL 07:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for 2 weeks for breaking the revert limit on Srebrenica massacre; also banned from editing Srebrenica massacre for 3 months. Thatcher131 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for two weeks for directly violating his probation and revert parole at Srebrenica massacre. --Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for one week for directly violating his probation and revert parole by using a sockpuppet to edit war at Srebrenica massacre. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked KarlXII (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Osli73 (talk · contribs) proven by checkuser. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On March 19, 2008, Osli73 received the following probation from administrator Thatcher explicitly forbidding Osli73 from more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Mujahadin, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen


 * Your topic ban is lifted and replaced with a revert parole. You may edit Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen but for one month (from 17 March) you are limited to one revert per article per week. Obvious vandalism is excepted from the revert limit, but you should take care in distinguishing true vandalism from content disputes. You are permitted to revert the edits of banned users such as Grandy Grandy/The Dragon of Bosnia but you should be extremely careful in doing so, because if it turns out the editor you are reverting is not a sockpuppet of the banned user you will have violated the revert limit. It would be better to report suspected sockpuppets to WP:AE or WP:RFCU. Thatcher 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

see user Osli73 talk page for the above probation notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osli73

Despite the explicit probation against more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles, user Osli73 has again engaged in edit warring, reverting the Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen articles repeatedly, for example Osli made the following 8 reverts to the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles from April 8 to April 14: diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205563168

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205562519

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205439461

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205437228

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205144618

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204899529

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204888935

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204184557

From his statements, Osli73 has shown that he fully understands the restrictions placed upon him. From his actions, he has shown that he is not willing to abide by those restrictions.

I am notifying the administrators that have sanctioned Osli73 in the past as well as notifying Osli73 of this posting. Especially with articles involving the former Yugoslavia, it is imperative that users respect the limits placed upon their editing. If the more vitriolic editors involved in former Yugoslavia articles see that Osli73 is not held accountable for his his transgressions, then there is greater likelihood of out-of-control edit warring as there has been in the past. Fairview360 (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

violations of WP:TALK restoration at Climate change denial
Can you tell me exactly what the restoration of this is good for? As far as i can see they have no content that in any way can or will improve the article. (per WP:TALK) or are pure soapboxing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

New Anitsemitism Mediation
Heya. I noticed that you hadn't left your statement here regarding the New Antisemitism case. Its important for the success of this mediation that you stay involved in this otherwise i cannot guarantee that your views will be taken into consensus agreed upon by the parties. I hope that you will be able to participate soon. Seddon69 (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Unbalance tag on circumcision
Hi Jayjg,

I was surprised you removed the unbalanced tag from circumcision. I have kept away from the article because there are strong WP:OWN issues and I haven't got the energy to deal with one of the most persistant WP:SPA editors on WP but I would have thought it was one of the least balanced articles in WP. There are a broad range of notable opinions on the issue varying from "it should be universal" to "it should be illegal except for medical reasons" with a strong trend toward the latter in the last two decades but the article has a high degree of selection and emphasis. e.g. WHO has highlighted the risk of circumcision itself as a route for HIV transmission and there are a bucket full of serious medical organisations who object to it buried in the article or excluded completely but only the possible benefit is highlighted in the intro. Fine, WP has articles where few people have the energy to fight like Homeopathy and this one but you are an Arbcom member and I would have thought papering over the cracks was a bit beneath you? Chasing everyone off happens but then protending there is no issue? C'mon. --BozMo talk 06:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Short term history of the tag I have no idea, as I say I don't follow it. I was reviewing it because unbalanced tag removal happened just after it was proposed for the Schools Wikipedia Selection and I am rather busy going through 10,000 articles. However if you accept Raul654's law "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie." I have no doubt that the circumcision article is not neutral. Perhaps the law doesn't work: I am sure I would think you speak with an accent whereas I speak unaccented English and vice versa. I guess we can disagree about Jakew: I don't track his edits day to day and the bits and pieces turned up by this were a long time ago. He looked like a civil POV pusher to me, perhaps he has moved on. I daresay both you and I have an imperfect past too and if you say he deserves such praise then fine. --BozMo talk 08:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA
Seeing no-one else has bothered to contact you heres a thread that might interest you as you are mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WikiLobbying_campaign_organized_offsite_by_ethnic_pressure_group (Hypnosadist )  17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in your comments as well. It seems that CAMERA describes you as "an effective and independent pro-Israel advocate." .  As an experienced administrator, do you feel that a topic, or even community ban for Zeq is in order?  I think your input would be helpful in the discussion, because I remember in the past seeing you proposing many topic and community bans for POV-pushers that you caught. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are the relavant quotes from the article:

A veteran Wikipedia editor, known as "Zeq," who according to the emails is colluding with CAMERA, also provided advice to CAMERA volunteers on how they could disguise their agenda. In a 20 March email often in misspelled English, Zeq writes, "You don't want to be precived [sic] as a 'CAMERA' defender' on wikipedia [sic] that is for sure." One strategy to avoid that is to "edit articles at random, make friends not enemies -- we will need them later on. This is a marathon not a sprint."

Zeq also identifies, in a 25 March email, another Wikipedia editor, "Jayjg," whom he views as an effective and independent pro-Israel advocate. Zeq instructs CAMERA operatives to work with and learn from Jayjg, but not to reveal the existence of their group even to him fearing "it would place him in a bind" since "[h]e is very loyal to the wikipedia [sic] system" and might object to CAMERA's underhanded tactics.

Kaldari (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a problem to let you know, to be honest could you do a sanity check on what i'm saying as i've been accused of participating in a holocaust of jewish editors on wikipedia so many times durring the last 48 hours that it might help my mental state just to check. (Hypnosadist )  00:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sanity check, i disagree with some points you made (such as taking EI views as fact, i read every email and made my own mind up) but you made them one rational human being to another, thank you very much. After thinking about what you said i'm going to change my vote on the template. As for the tag teaming of IvP articles i'm certain it happens and the articles should be looked into, i'd expect a big push of Pro-palistinian POV soon. I also don't agree with "the group didn't actually do very much, aside from sending around various e-mails" as just because this became public early on it does not change the intention i read in those emails but hey we all have our POV don't we. Lets see what arb com says about this sorry mess. (Hypnosadist )  01:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RSN commentary
May I suggest that those who don't believe reasoned discussion based on factual evidence about the reliability of sources "is worth paying attention to," have lost their way when they find themselves at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jay unfortunately I don't think I'm aware of a point that you made which I could have addressed, unless you mean the one that I and half of the editors at the RSN have now addressed repeatedly. I left the quote below for your educational benefit, in another naive hope that you might follow some educated leads.  Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly I meant to "break your signature," or the RS/N page. You caught me.  Feel free to add that to your list of grievances.  BTW you are aware of the fact that an outside group whose apparent aim it was to game Wikipedia policy in order to gain advantage in pushing their POV, named you as an example to follow in doing so.  Unlike this group I find that someone who diverts "issues to policy," is quite simply being disruptive, not to mention disingenuous.  Feel free to add this to your list of horrible policy violations directed towards you, but someone has to say it as it is.  Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Exonerate you from what? No one has suggested you have any ties with this group whatsoever, or that you shared their "tactics."   Do you see any such suggestion in what I wrote?  No Jay, what I wrote, is that they apparently were impressed by yours.PelleSmith (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Marx
Jay, this is from the first paragraph of the introduction to the Marx-Engels Reader, written by Robert C. Tucker: I hope that helps. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "A knowledge of the writings of Marx and Engels is virtually indispensable to an educated person in our time, whatever his political position or social philosophy. For classical Marxism, as the thought of Marx and Engels may be called, has profoundly affected ideas about history, society, economics, ideology, culture, and politics ... Not to be well grounded in the writings of Marx and Engels is to be insufficiently attuned to modern thought, and self-excluded to a degree from the continuing debate by which most contemporary societies live insofar as their members are free and able to discuss the vital issues."


 * I noticed this comment in passing and wanted to second what Pelle says. I studied Marxist historiography years ago, and although I wouldn't touch Marxist political theory with a bargepole I can confirm that other aspects of Marxist thought are still highly regarded as academic tools. Many Marxist historians actually prefer to use the term "marxian" (with a small "m") to distinguish them from the political side of things. Nobody would dream of excluding Marxist historians such as Christopher Hill or Eric Hobsbawm from consideration merely because they use Marxist analyses. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Notification of review
Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign for the conclusions of an administrative review concerning the recent controversy over a mailing list run by CAMERA, in which your editing was discussed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

An idea worth trying?
Hi, here's a thought that might do some good. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.

Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Wikipedia editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, Durova Charge! 06:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough is enough
Either you stop reverting and start NEW, rational, fact-based discussion of your endless reverts and patrolling of the article, or I will take this to an arbitration. Your name has already surfaced as a part of a pro-Israel Wikipedia lobby, and I shall not tolerate your incessant efforts to erase controversies regarding said country. You HAVE to accept there is controversy regarding Israeli settlements (which, in fact, are in violation of international law), otherwise I'll have to expose your morally questionable techniques of neutralising statements that are compromising to your particular point of view of a political issue. Thanks. Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 18:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the section, with reliable sources and appropriate wording. -- Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 05:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA lobbying
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on CAMERA's lobbying. Raul654 (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical Revisionism vs. Historical revisionism
I'm not creating a new article - I'm trying to DAB what we've got. Help me out please. Check out what I'm trying to do, and please advise according. I recognize your name. I'll listen very carefully to your advice. But I think you misunderstand. Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See also: Historical revisionism (negationism) --Ludvikus (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical revisionism (negationism) → Historical Revisionism

 * Historical revisionism (negationism) → Historical Revisionism -- It's the common usage. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate your assistance. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Asking a big favor
My and my fellow students are creating questions to ask a Holocaust survivor who will come to our school in the near future. Seeing as you're a big Holocaust contributor (or so I've been told), do you have any recommendations for questions to ask? Thanks. Haris145 (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

user talk page/article talk page
Sorry, due to me lacking patience I didn't read your notice on the top of the page. My mistake. Also, I tend to put messages on article talk pages, when I want a general opinion. In this case, I was looking more for a one to one discussion. But whatever, it's not a big deal. The reverts are still going on, on that article, but sooner or later there will be a version that everyone will agree on. (feel free to delete this message, when read) Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

New AS mediation
The mediation im getting rolling as its been a long time waiting so i think its best to get moving. Most of the mediation will be on the talk (discussion) page. so make sure its in your watchlist. Seddon69 (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayjg
You might want to purge a couple of edits there, and tweak the protection. Cheers! -- lucasbfr  talk 10:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

On that horrible [[WP:PA
To me it means your a good guy - you now get some points towards a WP:Barnstar!!! Don't let it upset you! --Ludvikus (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words on AIPAC
Hi Jayjig. I would like you to weigh in on the discussion topic of "Weasel Words" on the talk page for AIPAC (talk: American Israel Public Affairs Committee). A user keeps inserting the word "controversial" in the opening paragraph, providing no sources that describe AIPAC as "controversial," only fringe sources that criticize AIPAC. I would appreciate your input when you get a chance. Many thanks. Stanley011 (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

New Antisemitism Mediation
I think thats its time we got moving. A couple of the points have been raised before and felt they were the foundations to the dispute:


 * Firstly whether the picture can be confirmed to have been taken in the rally in San Fransisco.
 * Secondly to come to an agreement on what new antisemitism is and then to decide what the image is depicting and whether it purely illustrates New Antisemitism or whether it also addresses other issues which could be confused with new antisemitism by new readers.
 * If we cant confirm the those then we need to find a viable alternative.

A point i would like to raise is that at some point a lead image might need to be found if this article got to FA. The image in question is not free and couldn't be put on the main page with this article as todays FA. Although not an immediate point a long term solution might wish to be found so that this article could feature on the main page with a viable alternative.

Does anyone have access to Lexis Nexis? It might help as a search on the network could uncover something not readily available on the internet. Reliable sources that use the image would be helpful. Do you reckon that there would anyway of finding third party images that might possibly contain the poster/placard? Also i would be grateful if images of other placards at that rally could be found to find whether this was a small minority at this rally or perhaps a larger group.

Whilst that is being done i wanted to find out on what the consensus view is on what New Antisemitism is? I have read the article and the previous discussion and attempted to get a proper understanding but i wanted to ensure that this was current.


 * PS any sources you find can you please post in the section at the top of the mediation talk page. Seddon69 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi Jayjg, I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk  23:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Cooperation"
I thought you might be intrigued/amused by this article by Israel Shamir, which describes us as cooperating to maintain the Zionist orientation of Wikipedia. Chip Berlet and Electronic Intifada are apparently our co-conspirators! RolandR (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation
Following discussion at the mediation talk page, i would like to bring up a suggestion that until the end of the mediation to remove both images from the article. There is currently no real consensus on the images so in the interests of fairness it seems best to simply have no images. If you have any suggestions or comments then please come to the mediation talk page to be discussed. The discussion will be open for around 5 days if there are no problems. But the discussion will go on if there is ongoing discussion. &Scaron;&xi;&THORN;&THORN;&oslash;&Lambda; talk 00:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Could I get your views on this?
Hi Jayjg,

Could you please take a look at this I'd appreciate your thoughts on it given the discussion there (given you edit in the area so have some idea about how notable something must be for it to be notable).

Oboler (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Deuteronomy issue rereloaded Jews chosing their own hangman
Hello, maybe you are interested in this issue. Your input is welcome. Cheers, Str1977 (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you also state this on the article talk page, thereby preventing a feigned consensus? Str1977 (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Note
So that you know i have given an indirect response into an issue i wish to look further into. &Scaron;&xi;&THORN;&THORN;&oslash;&Lambda; talk 00:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please join talk
I asked you politely to join the discussion on this issue. As I see you haven't - although you reverted my edits - I'm asking you again: please join the talk page.Bless sins (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Baseless warnings
Dear Jay, I am writing to you as an administrator. BS, who has also posted above, posted this on my talk page. I think it disingenous in the light of his taking his recent RfC, which he knows to be only part of the views on the matter, to feign a consensus here. Also, I don't think he has the authority to issue such warnings. Could you please clarify the position? Cheers, Str1977 (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Massacres
Please take notice of my comment here. Imad marie (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To second Imad Marie's comment, the renaming of Passover massacre to Passover Suicide Bombing was the consequence of an extensive discussion of the use of the word massacre in politically sensitive articles, specifically those concerning Israelis and Palestinians. Were you aware of this discussion when you effectively reverted that action? --Ravpapa (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Extensive discussion, but clearly no support for his unilateral action, which managed to rename a dozen massacres of Israelis, but none of the dozen or so listed massacres of Arabs. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

German Nazi/German Camps
Hi Jayjg, Word "German" is nessesarry when we read about Nazi and Nazi Death Camps. - The political correctness should not prevent the presentation of historic truth. And the truth is that the labor camps, the concentration camps and the centers of annihilation were established by the German authorities, they were erected and maintained out of the German state budget, they were exploited by German companies, and at the end of the war it was the Germans who ordered their destruction. Germans were the perpetrators - unfortunately this knowledge is not universal, especially to the young .- I hope you recognize the seriousness of this. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvc42 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC) --Cvc42 (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Beth elohim sanctuary exterior.jpg}
Thank you for uploading Image:Beth elohim sanctuary exterior.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Beth elohim sanctuary interior.jpg}
Thank you for uploading Image:Beth elohim sanctuary interior.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Beth elohim temple house exterior.jpg}
Thank you for uploading Image:Beth elohim temple house exterior.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Zionism On The Web
Dear Jayjg,

You were kind enough to add your thoughts here: 

Since then CJCurrie has made a false accusation against me and someone else for being the same person.

He also started systematically removing all links to Zionism On The Web. Despite policy of citing things were you see them, and despite the discussion which suggested Zionism On The Web was perhaps notable enough to have its own page. At Zionism On The Web we also host a collection of primary source material related to Zionism (these are historic, out of copyright and sometimes not available online else where). These links too are gone. I'm absolutely shocked he would do this, specially after discussion which should have convinced him it was not a good idea. The academic boycotts in the UK (which he have the leading archive on) has also been ignored and articles have been significantly trashed by the removal of content (e.g. the statement by AJ6, the movement representing Jewish high school students above to enter university... a significant statement and one we had permission to host).

What do I do about this? I've feeling very harassed personally and feel that Wikipedia has been trashed in support of his personal agenda. (Oh he's stalking me as well, so he'll probably see this).

If this sort of thing is allowed it speaks very purely for Wikipedia as a whole, surely someone on Wikipedia cares about that?

Oboler (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've detailed specific damaging edits to Israel / Jewish topics in my evidence page, the main section for this is at:
 * Not sure if these should be rolled back before they are (possibly) considered by the ArbCom or if that needs to wait. In either case I am unwilling to get into an edit war over links to my site, most of which were not placed there by me. Two exceptions are documented here Oboler (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jayjg, just to updated you.. ArbCom doesn't seem to have looked at it. I spoke to one of the members... initially got a reply saying he at least hasn't noticed it / considered it. I asked where I should send it so it gets considered and so far (some days later) I've got no reply. See . Any ideas welcome. Oboler (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cvc42 and Jacurek
What is your evidence that cvc42 is Jacurek's sock? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (raising hand) Checkuser evidence is unambiguous here. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's fine. I just couldn't find a checkuser linking to his userpage or talk.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Most checkuser analyses happen without RFCU; RFCU is only a convenience to keep the checkuser operators from being bothered too often. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Just as established, well meaning editors can make mistakes that need to be reverted occasionally, so can problematic editors make useful edits that should not be reverted simply because they were made by such editors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

advice?
I forget the policy - is this the kind of joke people are welcome to make on their userpages, or is this the kind of thing that gets reported to AN/I or Jimbo? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What to do? I do not have check user privileges and haven't followed racist trolls enough to be sure who he might be. let me know if you have any ideas, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

i am grateful that you put the time into cracking these cases. But is this something I can do myself? Do you have any suggestions for me about steps i should take to investigate these things? I don't want always to have to impose on you. But, thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Prince Paul of Yugoslavia
Requesting unblock and claiming he's not a CTD sock. You put the sock tag with a checkuser link on his page. What's the specific case? There is nothing at CTD suggesting checkuser was used. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so he's definitely a sock, whether a case was opened or not. Just wanted to know. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I declined and cited your comment. It's just easier, when reviewing unblock requests where checkuser was used, to have something to look at or a blocking admin to talk to. Perhaps we should amend the template a bit to reflect this? Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was, if the template said something like "blocked indefinitely after a checkuser done by ADMIN", then you'd know right away who to go to without looking it up. It's possible that a greener admin, seeing no case, might have thought it a mistaken block and lifted it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Palestine vs. West Bank and Gaza Strip
Replacing Category:Crime in Palestine with Category:Crime in the West Bank and Gaza Strip may or may not be a good idea, but rather than changing the parent of Category:Palestinian criminals, Category:Palestinian crime victims and Category:Palestinian prisoners and detainees from one to the other, as you did here, here, here, it might be better to propose a formal rename using WP:CFD. Otherwise, it looks like you are attempting to simply change the name of the category without gaining a consensus for it. Alternatively, the WBGS category could be a subcategory of the pre-existing "Crime in Palestine" category. Since you are an admin, I expect you do already know this, or at least should. I thought I should explain to you why I reverted these edits. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't get any approval when you unilaterally created those categories, did you? "Palestine" is not a country. It was a territory controlled by the British until 1948, and became Israel and other things after that. That's why I'm reverting your reversions. If you must unilaterally create categories in the future, please create accurate ones. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Approval" to create a category? I'm not aware of any approval that is required. There are many categories that use "Palestine" as the name of the place, but I'm not terribly interested in discussing it here, nor is this the place to have that debate, anyway. The place would be at a WP:CFD. (Just one potential problem that could be discussed in a CFD: What if there was a Palestinian criminal who committed crimes pre-1948 in the territory that is now Israel? Why is he in a subcategory of "Crime in the WB & GS" when he committed the crime in not one of those places?) Even categories that you think are misnamed cannot simply be changed at will by you. Please go through the process of proposing a proper CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What, because you created a category a few hours before me, now you get the right to control what goes in both your categories and mine? I didn't delete your categories, I just created more accurate ones, and populated them. "Palestine" is not a country. It may well be, one day, but it's not one now. Please stop creating inaccurately named categories. Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, I'm not trying to start a fight with you and I don't feel that I'm being mean or unreasonable. It's obvious you care deeply about the issue, but my quibble is not with whatever you may believe about it. For all you know, I agree with your position. My problem with your behaviour concerns process. When you take categories and change the parent category for all of them to something similar but different, you are essentially attempting to change the name. See my comments above for potential problems with such a name change; these issues should be discussed in CFD. I could understand adding the new category as a parent as well as keeping the old one, but to delete the first parent in favour of the second acts essentially as a unilateral name change. For now, I've included both parents. I'd welcome a CFD on the matter, though. PS --hope it's OK to move the conversation here; I'd prefer to keep the discussion all together for future reference or whatever. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And I don't want a fight with you, so let's avoid one. I'm not trying to delete your categories, I'm just trying to ensure that they are accurately populated - and one does not need any sort of approval to do that. Your categorization scheme does not really make sense - are the "Palestine" categories also the "parents" of the "Israel" categories? If not, why not? As for discussions, I prefer to have them the normal way, you comment on my page, I comment on yours. If you prefer to replicate my comments on my page, I won't object, but please don't undo my additions to your page as well. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See, the questions you raise are exactly the type of thing that should be discussed and sorted out by multiple editors during a CFD. It's not "my" categorization scheme. The "Palestine" could be kept as a geographical descriptor, in which case, yes, Israel could be a subcategory; or it could be used as a political entity category, encompassing either pre-1948 Palestine or post-1967 WB&GS, or both. This is not an either/or black and white accurate—not accurate issue, so I would appreciate keeping both sets of parents for now if you are not going to formally go through the process of nominating these for discussion, as I will at a later time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as you might have noted, I didn't delete your pre-1948 "Palestine" categories, nor did I delete it as a parent when sub-categories included pre-1948 events. But if you start opening up categories to things other than existing countries, then you've opened up a can of worms. Do we have "Yugoslavia" categories, and include all Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian etc. categories in them? How about Holy Roman Empire categories? What about a Category:Terrorism in Judea category, and include the items you have listed in Category:Terrorism in Palestine? After all, it's just a geographic region. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perfect argument for a CFD. I recognize you didn't destroy the category as you might have, but you did remove "Palestinian" categories as subcategories of it even though there are some pre-1948 Palestinians in the categories. As I said, it's not "my" categorization scheme, but my original intent was to have the "Palestine" signify a geographical area, not the current WB/GS. If you think that's impractical, that's what CFDs are for. So yes, Israel should in theory be a subcategory, but the sole reason I did not add it was because I feared the outrage and wrath that would pour upon me from editors that get very touchy about these types of things without stopping and asking if there is some sort of underlying rationale. Sometimes it just doesn't hurt to ask and not assume that someone else (1) has malicious intent or (2) doesn't know what he is talking about. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't assume you had malicious intent, I just thought you had made an error/errors. Let's use another example. Today, as you noticed, I created the category Category:Synagogues in Istanbul. Now, let's say instead I had created the category Category:Synagogues in Constantinople. Do you think that people might have strongly considered that to be an error? And, perhaps, might have re-categorized all relevant articles to Category:Synagogues in Istanbul? As for your argument that the category was intended to signify a geographical area, can you provide examples of similar categories, used in the same way, that refer to a geographical area? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I mentioned that I'm not terribly interested in this debate in this forum, but... I don't really think your Constantinople is apposite. There are currently no categories that I can find that use "Constantinople". However, there are many that use "Palestine", and the temporal and/or geographical scope of these categories is not always clear. (See, e.g., Category:Religion in Palestine, Category:Deaths by firearm in Palestine.) Usually "Palestinian territories" is used when referring to WB+GS and "Palestine" when the geographical area is referred to Category:Geography of Palestine, but this general principle is inconsistent and not always clear. Some categories seem to use "Palestine" as a synonym for what you would call WB+GS. It's inconsistent, which is why some CFD to clean it all up could help, rather than people unilaterally assuming they know what it should be. For similar types of categories, see the quite large Category:Disputed territories, where you'll find plenty of examples. Category:Kashmir and Category:Korea and their subcategories readily spring to mind. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And since we are disagreeing about the categories and their scope, can you please leave both parents on the "Palestinians" categories? Why is this too much to ask? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've nominated the 3 categories for discussion and proposed a renaming and structuring system. I trust we can at least let the categories rest with both sets of parents until it is closed. I still believe with issues like this where there are disagreements between two editors it's best to hear what others think in an attempt to gain some degree of consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Terrorism deaths in the West Bank
I have nominated terrorism deaths in the west bank for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Damiens .rf 17:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hoping you have an opinion
User:Slrubenstein suggested I drop you a note about this. Am I crazy, or is this a subtle acceptance of racist POV? Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 22:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, OM, don't know if we've met, but I just read your note. Can you tell me what specifically he said on his blog? I'm inclined to agree with you, but would like specifics first. (You can email me, if you prefer.) Thanks. IronDuke  23:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for unblock: User talk:Tom Ketchum
I'm bringing this request for unblock to your attention, as you have indicated in your block notice that there is a RTV issue involved, and the user has addressed comments directly to you. Unless I hear from you otherwise, I will leave this request in your capable hands, and simply note on the user's talk page that you have been informed of his request. Thanks, Risker (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, based on my own review of this, I have serious doubts that Tom Ketchum is one in the same with the banned user. Please see User_talk:Jpgordon for my comments.  Would you either (a) consent to him being unblocked or (b) point out any errors in my analysis or further reason to believe that he is, in fact, the banned user? Thanks. --B (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

UNRWA
Dear Jayg,

I noticed you reverted some changes made on the page for UNRWA. These changes were legitimate, sourced, and were aimed at restoring a balance in the article. Could you please let me know the reasons for your revert? Thanks you, Trouvaille —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trouvaille (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for notification
Jayjg, I am sure you are aware of the recent ArbCom case about Palestine-Israel articles that resulted in the enactment of broad editing restrictions. The case established a formal procedure under which editors must be first made aware of the case, as a prerequisite to possible follow-on warnings and sanctions. I have recently been involved in an edit dispute with another editor, who is also an administrator, at Muhammad al-Durrah. This editor recently posted the required notification on the pages of a couple of new editors, as well as on my own page (despite the fact that I have already been notified of its existence months ago). For some reason, this editor chose not to post a similar notice on the pages of the editors who share his POV in that dispute – User:CJCurrie, User:Tarc, and User:Nickhh. I was wondering if you, as an administrator, might place that notice on their pages as well, so we do not have such a one-sided application, which appears to some as intimidation. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have also made a similar note directly to ChrisO on the article's Talk page, making sure he (and everyone else) understands that as a heavily involved administrator he may not use any of his admin tools on the article or the participants in the dispute. Your point re: Tit-for-tat is taken. I won't press that issue. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Jay, please assume good faith in future. I've already explained on the article talk page why I notified those three new users of the arbitration restrictions. See Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification
You said that an involved administrator cannot personally sanction someone for disagreeing with him. I did read that in the notice, though to my way of thinking, logging my name at Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles is a form of sanction in itself. Furthermore, at at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard he characterises me and others and asks for uninvolved admins. Admin Moreschi has answered the call. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there some way I can have that logging reviewed? He refers to me (and Julia1987) "single-purpose account editing," claims we are both promoting personal views, and indulging in "original research". Is there some Wikipedia measure that permits review of such a log? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso
You may be interested in the analysis I posted to his talk page. Thatcher 15:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Al-Durrah article, FYI
I have used your name and a diff here. The use of the word "reported" in relation to the death of Mohammed al-Durrah is being discussed as unacceptably POV, conspiracy -theory and may be a bannable/blockable offense at this point or in the near future.Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Harper's
Hi, Jay. I presume you've seen the July Harper's? --Rrburke(talk) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy post-Shavuot
Jayjg, I think it is now time for you to comment on {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=218841835&oldid=218834128 this] thread - you should look at some of the preceeding talk but I do not think you need to read the entire section. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Conduct
I'm concerned by the lack of good faith and ongoing personal attacks between you and csloat. This mediation has gone far and it would be a pity to spoil it at the last hurdle. I ask you just to think about your responses and to not react so defensively. I understand this is a delicate topic so lets just take some extra care in what we say. Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 22:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

London Times
Thanks for catching that. I must have been asleep at the wheel. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg
Please have a look at this. Peace, BYT (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for warning me.
 * I have given my mind on the talk page.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your block on a newbie
Your block on User:Jordan Cardiff was manifestly excessive I think (a very bad block). I agree the first mainspace edit had major civility issues, but this doesn't mean we block newbies, that too without informing him or even counselling him, and worse, reverting an edit on the same page - that wasn't vandalism was it? It seems to be a strong assumption of bad faith. That too, a block for incivility directed at yourself. Is this a known sockmaster - if so, why is it not noted in the block logs? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of us recognize sockpuppets immediately. Some of us also don't like to encourage their behavior by rewarding it with public recognition; it's not worth the keystrokes. Counseling someone to stop being yet another sockpuppet is pretty pointless. This one is obviously JPMason/JackofTradeA/JJargons. And what made you think the obnoxious comment was directed at Jayjg? He hasn't edited that article in months, and was not involved in the recent edit war. Kinda ironic that you claim an assumption of bad faith while making an assumption of bad faith. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The incivility directed at Jayjg that Ncmvocalist refers to was this, done by a different account but obviously the same person.
 * For the record, I don't have a major problem with the block. However, I'm a bit incredulous that you are using WP:DENY to make a case that a block summary of "sock of banned user JPMason" would somehow be less desirable than "a 'bunch of angry Jews' made me do it".  heh... :D --Jaysweet (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But that comment was made after I blocked him. How could I block him for incivility directed towards me after the block? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you did. I dunno, I guess I didn't look that closely.  In my defense, I'd reiterate that I never had a big problem with the block even before it was revealed to be a sock (I don't think that someone whose first edit to Wikipedia is a rant about a Jewish conspiracy is likely to reform into a productive editor, and that's exercising my maximum capacity to AGF ;D ).  My main beef is that the block summary should have indicated it was a banned user, so that nobody had any reason to question it. --Jaysweet (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (@ jpgordon) These are outright criticisms for the record. The matter is not whether an admin recognizes a sockpuppet immediately, or after a decade - the matter is that an appropriate block summary should be noted in the log. Any reasonable person is going to check this to find the reasoning for the block (and they are entitled to review blocks in this manner or any other admin action performed for whatever reason, just as a user's edits may be reviewed) - the purpose of the block summary/log is to avoid having to go to some gypsy's crystal ball that attempts to read into your minds. It's not at all impressive (and seems to be in bad taste) that you endorse this attitude of "I'm exempt from following standard widely-accepted procedure because I think it's not worth the keystrokes or in some demented way, it's publically recognizing problematic users and giving them attention that in my opinion, they do not deserve". Your role as administrator (even checkuser or arbitrator) is not to determine this, nor is it to contravene standard policy/procedure, and you are (or should be) well aware of that by now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mcmvocalist, can you explain what you meant when you said "a block for incivility directed at yourself"? Which incivility directed at myself were you referring to? Also, regarding reverting the edits of banned editors, please review BAN. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jaysweet explained it (above) - I didn't look closely at the timing either. The point of this was: there'd be absolutely no cause for concern, nor would it seem inappropriate, if the block summary or log (clearly) stated "sockpuppet of banned user and incivil 'angry jews' comment" or something to that effect. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom enforcement
Thanks for your support. Str1977 (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Bigger and brighter is not what you want, I don't think
Hey, sorry to butt in, I was glancing at the history of your user talk page for a totally unrelated reason, and I happened to spot this. I very much sympathize! :D However, the weird thing is that I was like, "What big yellow box?", even though I had just clicked on your talk page 30 seconds earlier. I think the yellow is just so bright and obtrusive (and painful to look at! It actually hurts my eyes if I look at it for more than a few seconds) that my brain's natural spam filter screened it from my senses. Or something, that's just a theory :D heh...

I dunno, just a comment :) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and one gets tempted to go right past it as a result. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

An ArbCom case you might be interested in
I have commented on one of your recent actions here. You may wish to make a statement of your own. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You got noticed
Just an FYI, you got a mention in the July 2008 issue of Harper's with respect to the CAMERA lobbying effort: Jayjg is a key Wikipedia editor. He has edited Israel-related articles and taken a lot of heat for it. Jay is Jewish, most likely an attorney, and writes very well. Learn from the way he does things, but do not let him know about this groups, as it will place him in a bind: he is very loyal to Wikipedia and once even served a few years in the Wikipedia supreme court.
 * D -- Haemo (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Jew GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Jew and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are multiple issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have also reviewed Holocaust denial and have raised some issues on the talk page that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. I would appreciate any assistance you can provide in addressing the issues raised. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You may have missed this
Could I ask for your response here ? BYT (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not 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.

Stormfront
Can you explain how exactly how the current version contains weasel words? It attributes the claims of being a hate site and supremacism. Also, it's actually closer to NPOV - definitively calling something a "hate site" is inherently a NPOV violation. Sceptre (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce
I have been trying to reach consensus with RedSpruce at a few articles involving The Red Scare.

Here is a summary of the same deletion multiple times at G. David Schine, despite 3 editors reversing his deletions. Even when consensus was established the edit warring continued: Here Redspruce removes facts not added to the article by himself on May 01, reverted by AlanSohn and again the same deletions here back to his version on May 08. Again during an active Arbcom on this very subject. He does it again on June 02, reverted by AlanSohn and once again on the same day here, again reverted by AlanSohn; again here on June 06 reverted by me; June 15 reverted by BioPhys; and again here on June 19 and it is reverted by me. Then the war moves to a new article, now we are at William Remington, and Elizabeth Bentley. Before the Schine article it was Annie Lee Moss. Could you take a peek and help with the consensus building in either direction.

There are active RFCs at each article, and the more opinions that are voiced, the more likely consensus will be reached, no matter which direction it takes the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Here RedSpruce explains why he deletes what I add to articles: "I would agree that the use of quotes in footnotes, in any single article, is a minor, even trivial issue. As I noted in my first statement regarding this case, what makes Richard Arthur Norton's behavior non-trivial is that he is repeating this "minor dis-improvement" (as I called it) over literally thousands of articles. I wanted to convince him that this was wrong, and since he has at times been profoundly, insistently resistant to engaging in discussion, the only way to force a discussion was through edit warring (my emphasis added). If you look at this as a dispute over one or a few articles, I'd agree that this particular instance of edit-warring over a stylistic issue was lame. I looked at it as an effort to stop the dis-improvement of thousands of articles. It was with those thousands of articles in mind that I initiated this ArbCom case." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian Political Violence
Lapsed Pacifist seems to be trying to re-insert the same edits you reverted previously. Just to give you a heads up. Narson (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And there he goes again with the same edit. Narson (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Quotes in footnotes
The discussion has moved here on quotes in footnotes. Can you join it with any comments you may have. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)