User talk:Jayjg/Archive 28

Rachel Corrie
I may have missed something, but where is the image of her tearing up the American flag gone? Beit Or 20:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Beth Shalom
It would probably be useful to disambigulate Beth Shalom Holocaust Center Beth Shalom Temple (Havana, Cuba) Valley Beth Shalom (Encino, California) Beth Sholom Congregation (Elkins Park, Pennsylvania) Beth Shalom Synagogue (Athens, Greece) and all the other houses of peace. In your spare time, of course. The lovers of peace probably deserve disambigulating as well Temple Oheb Shalom, (Baltimore, Maryland) Congregation Oheb Sholom (Goldsboro, North Carolina).Historicist (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. I do not think antiquated spelling should disqualify anyone from Category:lovers.Historicist (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sure there are more of both houses and lovers of peace still to be added, going forward.Historicist (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note
. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Riots
As I have edited that page quite some time ago, I do believe I will be returning to it in the future...and I always use a lot of references....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to worry about NPOV as I do that as a matter of course...unlike some sections in the wiki community who believe that CAMERA and JVL are reliable neutral sources....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, from what I've seen you probably meant to say that you "don't worry about NPOV"; you probably should, though. Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

irgun
can u have a look on irgun? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.70 (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For this revert. I'd already used up my 1RR. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Read and enjoyed First Roumanian-American congregation. (Did some edits and left comments on article talk page.) Let me know when you have other FA candidates. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you have an idle moment I thought you might possibly be interested in and/or amused by and/or incited to post a rebuttal by this comment of mine at Talk:Jimmy Wales about whether Wikipedia edits can be cited. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You've been mentioned at User talk:Coppertwig, where there is speculation as to what you did or did not mean. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, when you were asking for sources that said "not a modern toponym", "not understood outside Israel", or "Samaria and the West Bank... different-epoch names for the same area", were you insisting that the source had to use the exact same words? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, of course not. The sources would have to explicitly express the same concepts, but the words didn't have to be identical. For example, if a source said "Samaria was a term commonly used in the 19th century, but has not been used since then", that would explicitly express the same concept as "Samaria is not a modern toponym". Jayjg (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When for instance Virginia Q. Tilley talks about "regions once known as Judea and Samaria", or Scot F. Stine calls the same regions "known today as the West Bank" , or when Zionism and Israel - Encyclopedic Dictionary calls Samaria a "historic term [that] is used by the Israeli government, Zionists and Israelis, to refer to the modern region, but it is no longer used by others" , or when Paul Charles Merkley adds "In the second century of the Common Era, following the Bar Kokhba revolt, the names "Judaea" and "Samaria" were abolished by the Romans", would you say that the concept "Samaria is not a modern toponym" is adequately and explicitly expressed? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I commented on the above at User talk:MeteorMaker. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. However, as I mentioned there, Jayjg is in a better position to reply, having read all of the relevant talk pages and thoroughly understood the core issues (like for instance that nobody has questioned the fact that the terms J&S are widely used in Israel). MeteorMaker (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Syria
thank you for playing such a construcive role in the irgun article. there doesn't seem to be any objection to the move so perhaps it should already be done. if u have time please one day have a look in Syria. It seems like a major WP:OWN and WP:POV article. I'm particularly concerned by the lead that talks about "occupation of the golan" and region involvement but doesn't mention Syria's occupation of Lebanon nor its support for terrorism. the Golan heights section is not neutral as the golan heights article and there's a user called Al ammeer who's removing tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.3.65 (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryder discussion
I'm informing you in your role as editor, not as an admin who threatens to use the tools without discussion, about a discussion at Talk:Winona Ryder if you care to comment. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Michele Renouf
Hello, please could you have a prolonged look into the contributions of. He has linked several times to the website aaaargh.codo.info, to which access is legally prohibited from France and other European countries. Since i must assume good faith, i'd like to know what you think about the matter. Thank you very much, RCS (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

FAC
Hi, Jayjg ... I was hoping to entice you to review some other articles at WP:FAC. It takes something like twelve other editors reviewing a FAC to get it passed, and FAC is really backlogged because of a lack of reviewers, so it's helpful if frequent nominators can pitch in and review several other articles. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, maybe you can muster some friends to help, as well? Here's a helpful Dispatch:  Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Temple Beth Israel Jackson Michigan
re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Beth_Israel_(Jackson,_Michigan) I am in the process of moving content over to the new domain (from tbijacksonmi.org to tbijackson.org). I can assure you the synagogue owns that content. Our rabbi asked me to post the information to wikipedia because our article is definitely lacking in substance. I will also be creating a article for him that will be taken from his bio on our site as well. I really would like to get this straightened out, as he is expecting it to be done this weekend. Thanks for your diligence. Lanemontgomery (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Temple Beth Israel (cont)
Yes, I put a note at the bottom of the page to put it under the GFDL at the new site (tbijackson.org/index). It will be replacing the old site just as soon as I finish a few things up. Lanemontgomery (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

National Jewish Democratic Council
I included many Jewish organizations and related topics to the NJDC on the "see also" part of the article. I only included relevant topics/people, however I understand that several are references in the article. Maybe we can compromise by only including those subjects not already mentioned in the article. I'll adjust accordingly. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.225.39 (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Do not continue to vandalize the Eldridge Street Synagogue Site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlefacts (talk • contribs) 14:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Wassermann is back
Just a heads up fwiw. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tsk, tsk Tom and Jay - please review...GANG STALK HOUNDING...and then stop doing that to me. Stalking, hounding, and ganging up on poor lil' me for improving this encyclopedia by adding categories to articles you do not OWN is a bit CABALish and only reinforces certain negative stereotypes, don't you think? --Wassermann (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know who this little wasserman was until a minute ago, but his comment is a disgusting threat. --Shuki (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic/national origin categories
To achieve some desperately-needed consistency, I plan to systematically go through categories involving national/ethnic origin combined with "American" (e.g., Greek-Americans, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Japanese-Americans, etc.) and remove the phrases "and their descendants" and "or who self-identify as _____-American" from the category descriptions. Then I will systematically remove the category from bio pages in which immigration to the United States or "______-American" is not well-sourced. My assumption, based on your inflexible argument regarding Russian-American, is that this does not require consensus since it is a BLP issue. Thus, my edit summary will be similar to "removed/changed per WP:BLP". If I manage to accomplish this, I have no doubt that it will generate a tremendous amount of protest from editors who have a personal interest in these groups of people. Given your strong feelings about this serious BLP issue, I hope you will agree that I will be doing Wikipedia and its readers a tremendous service in attempting this monumental project. May I assume that you will defend such changes with the same zeal as you did on the Ryder page? Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't continue bothering you with this issue because I certainly don't want to be a troll. I assume, however, that if you never respond to my request for support, that you have decided to selectively support taking care of this serious BLP issue only on a few pages, which leads me to wonder: If categories and articles that contain them are such a serious violation of BLP and pose such a tremendous threat to Wikipedia, why would you, an administrator of all people, choose not to agree with correcting such egregious damage to Wikipedia? Again, not desiring to troll, this is my last message to you in this regard unless you decide to respond. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * RE: Winona Ryder, this is an argument solely caused by the name of the category and nothing else. Why not recreate and lets be done with this. It's a much more appropriate name anyway. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevant category would be . Jayjg (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed that would be the relevant category. Care to create and add that category to the article? You seem to be more involved in this than I am. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for compromise
So… I had an idea (or rather, cribbed an idea from Nishidani). What if, instead of topic-banning some of the most useful, articulate, and involved editors in the IP area (on both sides) for a year, you all got together and worked on Judea, Samaria, and Judea and Samaria with the goal of promoting them into GA status in two months’ time? That way (and given the relatively public nature of the arb case), there would hopefully be wide-ranging and neutral community input – sort of an RfC on steroids. If you all did not succeed, it would be back to the arb case (which would be placed on hiatus pending the outcome). The arbs (some of them anyway) seem to be saying you all can’t work together. I don’t think that’s true, and I also think that to the extent it is true, the possibility of avoiding more unpleasantness in this arb case might lead to extra flexibility and reasonableness. In the interest of full disclosure: I don’t particularly care at all how the ultimate content issue falls out -- Judea, Samaria, West Bank, Elbonia, whatever: I’d just like to avoid a mass-banning that would have a seriously deleterious effect on IP articles. What say? (If you wish to reply, you may do so here) IronDuke  02:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Beth Shalom Holocaust Centre
The page currently at Beth Shalom Holocaust Center needs to be moved to Beth Shalom Holocaust Centre in accordance with WP:ENGVAR.

Unfortunately I cannot do this myself, as the target page is a redirect to the Beth Shalom dab page. Could you do this, please, and modify the dab page accordingly. Thanks, NSH001 (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

List of sovereign states and Occupied territories
Hi Jayjg, my edit wasn't really bizarre. To clarify, my intention was to include a wide spectrum of sources with various views/statements/terminology (which I regard as necessary in this case) while maintaining the position that the Gaza Strip is generally recognised internationally as still being occupied in some form or another.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem assessment
Hi, I've been assessing some WikiProject Judaism articles and I'm not quite sure what to do with the Jerusalem article. I'm inclined to give it a B class. It was delisted as an FA, it never went through GA, and I don't think it really went through the steps (i.e., review resulting in consensus to make it an A) to be listed as an A. I see that you classed it as an A, so that's why I'm coming to you for input. Thanks!  shirulashem     (talk)   12:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Blogs as sources
The same editor is pushing Cole's opinions, sourced to his blog, on multiple articles. You may want to have a look at Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties, for example. NoCal100 (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way I am not trying to push Coles viewpoints on every article. I was restoring them after another editor deleted cole from a series of articles. What reason would you have to report me for this, I haven't broken the 3rr on any of these articles.


 * You know what I honestly don't care anymore. It's obvious that neither of us are going to budge on this particular article so fine I give up. I will continue to defend his inclusion on other articles, but on this one I'll relent.


 * I guess Coles particular expertise doesn't applie to MEMRI, even though he gives examples where he felt they distorted evidence. I just don't have the strength to argue this particular article any longer so congratulations you beat me down again.


 * I still can't believe I had to argue for including a tenured professors opinion and the yet hacks at the National review are allowed to have there opinion in the article. annoynmous 04:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Beta Israel
Shalom,

I plan to improve the English article about Beta Israel over the next week. Avshalom Elitzur lent me a copy of Corinaldi's book, with which I'll improve the Rabbinical and scholarly sections. The genetic section will be improved using the genetic section of the respective Hebrew article. Once I'm done, the entire article will still be less comprehensive and accurate than we reached in Hebrew, but I hope it will reflect the existing knowledge more clearly.

I'll be glad if you could watch my edits and improve them as you see fit. Chag sameah! ליאור (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need a bunch of FAs on congregations?
Surely there are many worthy articles on famous people, works of art, historical events or scientific things that are much more deserving of the effort to bring to FA status. I would even argue versus the notability of individual congregations...but heck...let you have that. But FA? When there are so many parts of the project that are more deserving than individual congregations. P.s. I hope you don't take this as a harrassment...and I only know one way to tee up issues. But it's a serious question, so appreciate a good reply. 72.82.52.106 (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As volunteers, Wikipedia's editors often work on articles they are familiar with; as such, we tend to have featured articles on rather obscure, yet still encyclopedic, subjects. Hope this helps. Regards, – Juliancolton  | Talk 18:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I get that. Anyone can do whatever floats their boat.  Still, there are so many more worthy things to go after...and no one is bothering bringing them up to FA.  It just seems off.  I mean, I prefer science to music.  But if someone took the article on Scarlatti and brought it up to FA, that would still be quite worthy.  If instead they brought the article on their high school up to date, I mean, who cares.  There are a lot of high schools.  There are a lot of congregations.  Surely there are general areas of religion or the like that need FA help still, more?  72.82.52.106 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know this is going to end bad for me but I can't help myself. I just checked your FAs (of which there are a lot).  On this site:

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


 * and I looked at what articles you had and then randomly checked another user. You have individual hurricanes (and we're not talking Rita or Andrew, but more obscure ones)...that leaves me a bit "meh", and then you have some state roads in NY.  On the other hand Serindipous (in all honesty first dude other than you I clicked on) has "the asteroid belt" and other major astronomical features.  I mean...not putting anything between meteorology and astronomy as subjects, but Asteroid Belt and random hurricane are way different in notability and importance.  And in terms of road...ology, if it's not the Appian Way, it's not in the same class as the Asteroid Belt.  Mea culpa if this annoys you or feels personal.  I am just trying to explore an issue on the net, by discussion.  72.82.52.106 (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean if Judaism is JG's thing, cool. Judaism is fascinating, even to gentiles.  But surely there are more important gaps to be filled than inidividual congregations?  How about Masada, Disraili, Golda Meier, Moshe Dyan, Suez crisis, Operation Jonathon, Kabala, Chaim Potok, etc.  (I am just spewing the little I know, but way more interesting than an individual synagogue.  I mean the synagogue articles almost seem like advertising.  Or maybe like "grinding" (when the South Parkers kill boars in the forest to advance levels in World of Warcraft.)  72.82.52.106 (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I respect your opinion. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.  Them From  Space  20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude - you kidding? He has no edits since the 8th!  He appears to be engaged in Passover vacation.  You appear to be kidding. -- Y not? 14:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
Hi Jayjg,

in the ongoing J&S ArbCom case, Coppertwig has made this comment: "I think what has happened has been misunderstandings, not deliberate stonewalling." It would be helpful if you could clarify your position:

1) Have you indeed been misunderstood? If so: 2) In the light of new information that has been presented in the discussion, have you in any case amended your original position? I earlier asked you a more specific question that you may have missed: When for instance Virginia Q. Tilley talks about "regions once known as Judea and Samaria", or Scot F. Stine calls the same regions "known today as the West Bank" , or when Zionism and Israel - Encyclopedic Dictionary calls Samaria a "historic term [that] is used by the Israeli government, Zionists and Israelis, to refer to the modern region, but it is no longer used by others" , or when Paul Charles Merkley adds "In the second century of the Common Era, following the Bar Kokhba revolt, the names "Judaea" and "Samaria" were abolished by the Romans", would you say that the concept "Samaria is not considered a modern toponym except in Israel" is adequately and explicitly expressed? Thanks in advance for your replies. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * By whom?
 * What was your actual position?
 * How was it misrepresented?
 * I don't think it's that simple. I said I thought there were misunderstandings; I didn't say who had misunderstood whom.  You seem to me to be jumping to the conclusion that I must have meant that Jayjg was the one who was misunderstood, and that Jayjg knows how he was misunderstood.  I'm not claiming that, necessarily: I'm saying I think there are misunderstandings. Some misunderstandings have been cleared up;   others apparently have not yet been straightened out (such as what you, MeteorMaker, mean by the phrase "outside Israel"  or whether you mean that "Samaria" and "West Bank" refer to the same land areas, or not . It's clear to me that there's some misunderstanding there; it's not clear what exactly it is, or who is misunderstanding whom.  The misunderstanding might be somewhere other than where everybody is looking for it.  It's like finding a bug in a computer program: you have to be open-minded about where it might be. (Sometimes it really does turn out to be a problem in the compiler or operating system; or, orders of magnitude more often, one turns out to have been wrong about something one was sure one was right about.) If we knew what was being misunderstood by whom, we would probably have straightened it out by now. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the exact reason why I'm asking Jayjg directly and not yours or anybody else's opinion about whether he has been misunderstood and how. Kindly step back and let Jayjg answer for himself. If your comment wasn't specifically about Jayjg, I suggest you remove it from Jayjg's section and put it in a place where it cannot be misunderstood who it applies to. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, I encourage you to answer both of MeteorMaker's questions yourself; I think that would be helpful.
 * MeteorMaker, there's plenty of room here (Wikipedia is not paper); by providing my answers I am in no way impeding Jayjg from also replying. Re the question you've repeated to Jayjg: I encourage Jayjg to answer it himself; however I'd just like to point out that I've already answered the question here. Based on one of your subsequent replies, I have the impression that you didn't understand my answer.  I had been intending to straighten this out; I've just done so on your talk page.
 * Re misunderstanding: My comment on the workshop talk page is specifically about Jayjg.  It means that I think that either Jayjg was misunderstood by at least one person; or that Jayjg misunderstood at least one person; or both, and it is in no way intended as a claim that Jayjg would know who misunderstood what.  As I explained above, the very nature of misunderstandings is that people don't know what's going on. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet you state that you think these hypothetical misunderstandings have indeed happened? I have asked Jayjg for his opinion, while we're waiting for him to reply maybe you could state specifically (as opposed to hypothetically) why you think that is the case.
 * I did notice your stand-in reply to the above question that I posed to him two weeks ago. As I said in my subsequent reply to it, it shows that your understanding of the questions we are debating in the ArbCom case was incomplete — it has now improved substantially but your recent post on my talk page indicates to me that my original impression still largely holds true re this specific question). MeteorMaker (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I replied on your talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, though you ignored gave a circular answer to my question. Now let Jayjg reply, OK? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You asked a yes-or-no question above. My answer is "no", because, for example, Israelis are not always in Israel. I hope that doesn't sound circular. Jayjg is still invited to answer. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked you for evidence of the hypothetical misunderstandings you say you think have happened, you posted links (on my talk page) to diffs where you simply state they have or may have happened. One was to a post in this very thread, another to where you state that you yourself had failed to understand something.  In no case has an actual misunderstanding in the pre-Arbcom case discussion been detected yet, that's why I'm asking Jayjg if he can corroborate your feeling that he has been misunderstood. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied on your talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK from ruwiki
You're gonna love this: "Танкодесантный корабль «Альталена» (на илл.), под огнём вермахта участвовавший в высадке союзников в Нормандии, был потоплен несколькими выстрелами бывшего офицера Красной Армии." Translating: "DYK that the warship Altalena (pictured), which participated in the Allied landing at Normandy under Wehrmacht fire, was sunk by a few shots of a former Red Army officer?"

This grates me so much... I hate ruwiki... -- Y not? 14:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator questions on Requests for arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Workshop
Kirill has asked some questions here. You are invited to respond. --Tznkai (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for a page to be locked from editing(after a disputed section has been removed by the blocker) without any reasons being cited?
[] was blocked from editing by [] after a controversial section had been removed. It was removed by this editor, who then promptly began spouting in the talk page about "rabid zionists" and "militant zionists." I'm wondering if it is acceptable on Wiipedia for an article to be locked in this way, and for an administrator to behave in this way as well? Drsmoo (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind if I reply here. I think you're talking about the article . Here, JzG removed a section saying "This whole section is seriosuly problematic, taking to Talk for RFC. Please do not restore, discuss and wordsmith instead." However, JzG was not the one who protected the article. If you look in the article history or the protection log, it was Bjweeks who protected it. So, there doesn't seem to be a problem.  JzG edited after the article was protected, but it was a minor change and he says "per talk" in the edit summary, suggesting that the change had consensus. I suggest discussing the controversial section on the talk page, trying to reach consensus together with other editors, and requesting page unprotection at WP:RFPP or by asking Bjweeks if consensus is reached. Meanwhile, any changes that have consensus can be requested with the editprotected template. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it may be a little more complicated than that; and my guess is that Bjweeks locked the article at the request of Guy, who is the administrator who is overseeing the RfC, and who probably did not want to lock the article himself after getting into revert war with me. Moreover, if you read Guys comments on the material in the removed section, you will see that he has stated objections to ever single source that expresses a negative view of Atzmon (including David Aaronovitch the London Times and David Hirsh from the Guardian), which makes it difficult to see how a balanced section can be written that will satisfy Guy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ujpest Synagogue
Hello Mr. Jayjg,

I once came across a synagogue article that you worked on and was amazed by how well written it was. If you have time and interest, please take a look at the article I just created. I would be most interested in your constructive criticism. The article is in its infant stages at this time. I have to leave now for a while but I plan on getting back to it. Thank you, --Anewpester (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Too many links in evidence presentation
The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 1000 words and 100 diffs. Your presentation has 263 diffs. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. For the Arbitration Committee,  hmwith  τ   10:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Workshop participation
Hi Jay, I would like to see you participate in the Workshop of the West Bank case, or some indication of why you are unable to do so, privately if need be. There are some proposals that affect you, and your lack of participation, without an explanation that I am aware of, is very unusual to say the least. You were in the thick of this West Bank mess when it happened; now we are trying to sort this out in what should be a collaborative process, and your absence would be unfortunate. It is good that you have submitted evidence, but it is also important to share your views on how you receive the evidence submitted by others, and the resulting proposals. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you care for an online interview?
Please excuse my abruptness. I am a student at Seoul National University, and this semester I am doing a research on Wikipedia. The focus is on the process controversies are settled and the attitudes of the involved Wikipedians.

As can be easily seen, the work would be quite superficial if voices of actual Wikipedians were not included. Understanding a process requires far more than just observing what is visible on the surface; I need to dig deeper. Live accounts are crucial. And I thought you could give me some help.

Would it be possible for you to spare some time for an online interview? It could be via e-mail or internt messenger, or anything else that suits you. Time and date is also up to you. If you are interested, I would be grateful to receive a message on the User Talk within May 9th. Thanks a lot.

Little Sheepherd (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy FYI
As a courtesy, you are notified of this, with which you may be involved. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom
Hi Jayjg, I have just discovered that the current Arbcom has decided to make you resign from different functions. This decision is unfair and unjustified. These people don't have any idea of the situation in all these articles. Good continuation. Sorry for our disagreements and thank for your support. Ceedjee (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that Jayjg has not been here for a month. Considering the treatment he has gotten, that is no surprise. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

RFAR/West Bank - Judea and Samaria
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. ,, , , , , and are prohibited from editing any Arab-Israeli conflict-related article/talk page or discussing on the dispute anywhere else on the project. is also prohibited from editing in the area of conflict, and he is stripped of his status as a functionary and any and all associated privileged access, including the CheckUser and Oversight tools and the checkuser-l, oversight-l, and functionaries-en mailing lists. Jayjg is also thanked for his years of service.

After six months, these editors may individually ask the Arbitration Committee to lift their editing restrictions after demonstrating commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and ability to work constructively with other editors. However, restrictions may be temporarily suspended for the exclusive purpose of participating in the discussion of draft guidelines for this area.

In the meantime, the community is strongly urged to pursue current discussions to come to a definitive consensus on the preferred current and historical names of the region that is the source of conflict in this case. Note that this must be consistent with current Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, a neutral point of view, and naming conventions. This decision will be appended onto this case within two months from the close of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee,  hmwith  τ   17:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Checkuser and Oversight access
Dear user, I've removed your Checkuser and Oversight access as per signed request and ArbCom ruling. I hope that you will accept my "thank you" for your efforts in those areas and my best wishes for your continuing collaboration on any Wikimedia project.
 * Ciao, M/ (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well-wishes
Jayjg has not been around in over a month. I hope he does not return any time to soon, just to see how he has been unfairly treated by the Arbitration Committee. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about all this unpleasantness, Jayjg. I hope you return; until then, you are missed. Sic transit gloria wiki. – Quadell (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jayjg. Unlike other editors, I do not think the arbitration committee’s decision is much of a tragedy for you. According to my impression, your main purpose in editing the wikipedia has always been to write good and professional articles and not to promote some ideology. This is evident from your extensive high quality contributions over the years. Please continue to contribute and thank you for all the hard work you have put into this encyclopedia. Best Tkalisky (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Jay. I wrote what I thought of the decision on Nishidani's talk page. BTW, when you return I hope you'll take a look at the nice things he said about you there.John Z (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hard to know what to say. I'm sorry things worked out the way they did. I hope to see you around the wiki. All the best. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg is one of the finest, most respectful, and most objective editors on Wikipedia. This was an unfair decision.Historicist (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Damn straight it was. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I check from time to time to see if you are editing again. I do hope that you will. It is a great pity that bullying and injustice chases reliable editors away from Wikipedia.Historicist (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The rain it raineth on the just And also on the unjust fella; But chiefly on the just, because The unjust steals the just's umbrella.' - Lord BowenHistoricist (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge
I've just proposed merging Unification Church and antisemitism (which you worked on) into Divine Principle. Please join in the discussion, if you like. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

about the All Palestine Government page:
hey I need your help on the All-Palestine Government page. Harlan, who I think you know from edit wars he has started, is going on in the talk page about the All-Palestine Government, citing one guy's opinion from the State Department, and using this to justify the overt bias on the page of the All Palestine Government, for the fact it has only one source, a "New Historian" and doesn't show that it was a puppet state. Also, there are tons of pages which could use your helpTallicfan20 (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification of arbcom discussion
Your actions have been discussed here as relevant to an ongoing arbitration case. You may wish to comment. I have linked a prior version of the page because the person who added this material reverted it and then incorporated the material by reference to the reversion, so as to make it impossible for you simply to search for your name. (Hope that's not too confusing.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at COIN
At WP:COIN your name was mentioned several times. I thought I would let you know in case you might want to comment there. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mainpage
Thought I recognized Beth Hamedrash Hagadol as your work...nice job and good to see it made it to the mainpage.--MONGO 08:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka. 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(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Ultra-Orthodox" in Haredi article (courtesy note)
You contributed to a past discussion about the term "Ultra-Orthodox" on the Haredi Judaism page. I removed the content in Haredi Judaism that claimed that "Ultra-Orthodox" is pejorative. I have explained my reasons on the talk page.  -shirulashem (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-delete of Benjamin M. Emanuel
You deleted the page for Benjamin M. Emanuel back in November 2008, citing "Repeatedly recreated: Articles for deletion/Benjamin M. Emanuel (2nd nomination)". In December 2008, someone re-created the page as a re-direct. There seems to be no justification for having Dr. Emanuel's page as a re-direct to his son Rahm, especially as his other two sons, Ezekiel and Ari also have pages on Wikipedia that contain just as much information about their father. Can you simply re-delete this page, or would we have to initiate a new deletion review? Thanks for the help. --Zach425 talk / contribs 18:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll take your advice and not pursue deletion; however, I changed the redirect to multiple soft redirects. I think this helps, assuming it's an acceptable use of the soft redirect. Thanks again! --Zach425 talk / contribs 01:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin M. Emanuel
Hi there. Firstly, welcome back! (I doubt you remember me, but we have had brief interaction in the past.) Secondly, I saw the comments about Benjamin M. Emanuel by User:Zach425 higher up on your talk page. Looking at the article, I think the problems it raises require further discussion, and have taken it back to AFD. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Benjamin M. Emanuel (3rd nomination). Thanks in advance. Robofish (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

welcome back
--Shuki (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you're back editing Jayjg. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah!--MONGO 00:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back!!! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. — Malik Shabazz 02:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Another welcome back.John Z (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

...and another! Jakew (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Unification Church antisemitism controversy
Thanks for jumping in - by coincidence, precisely one minute after I slammed back the Rudin thing and added Sonneborn's response. It'll probably take me a few days to digest all your changes. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Haredi vs "Ultra-Orthodox", again
Hi Jay: You'll probably recall the discussions about this about 5 years ago. Please see Talk:Modi'in Illit. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Photos
Hi there. You'll note I don't believe I've ever disagreed with any of your edits, and I don't dispute the issue re; living folks. What I don't concur with is that the use of the five females' photos is contentious. All five women are without dispute Ashkenazim, and their own articles either suggest this or provide nor more or less evidence than those of the living males featured. Do you want us to put references for the boxes? Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One problem with the nebulous definition of Ashkenazim is that it is almost synonymous with northern/eastern European Jewry. Therefore, there is no dispute that the Jewish populations of, say, Austria, Hungary, Poland, and Russia are Ashkenazic in the homogeneous sense, even if biographies of Jews from those countries doesn't explicitly describe them as such. Many biographies that feature Jews from these countries would infer that they are Ashkenazic, even when the word itself is never used. Weisz's folks, Bacall's folks, Bar Refaeli's folks, and Plisetskaya and Polgar themselves come from these countries. What is contentious about this? Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sephardi Jews immigrated to Hungary in the 1620s, as a simple example. Jayjg (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Romania was famous for its Sephardic community. Jayjg (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sephardi community of Vienna, Austria. Jayjg (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sephardi Jews in Poland. Jayjg (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ...making my point exactly that it is nearly impossible to state without doubt that Bernstein, Einstein or any of the other men are 100% Ashkenazic. The only thing we can do is generalize that MOST northern/eastern European Jews are Ashkenazic, unless otherwise noted. By the way: I googled the model and immediately found a modelling site that listed her ethnicity as 'Ashkenazic Jewish'. I know that living folks are held to a hire standard than the departed, but finding bona fide reference to any of the folks in the photo boxes as certainly, without doubt and unquestionably Ashkenazic is approaching impossible.  Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All of them should be cited, but particularly living people. Was that modeling site a reliable source? Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ashkenazim Photo Box
Hi, I understand that you have your queries about this photo box, and especially about the inclusion of Bar Refaeli in it. I think that the current photo box make no reasonable representation of Ashkenazi Jewery and that it omit historical Rabbanical figures that have play significant role in the history of Ashkenazim. I will not exaggerate if I tell that the Baal Shem Tov or Rashi have played much more important role in the development and history of Ashkenazi Jewery than Einstein did. There is no need, of course, to tell where they are standing in compare to Bar Refaeli. I understand that the present photo box is the result of comparison between more than 10 different users who had different views. However, may be Wikipedia rules have to be more clear and also to suggest a logical ranking of candidates for inclusion so that the winner of American Idol will not get into this kind of photo boxes one day. I think that there is a clear reason to reopen the discussion about it in Ashkenazims' talk page and also if you can do it as an admin to suggest changes in rules of inclusion so they will be more logical. I will be grateful for any help on this matter.--Gilisa (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I'm not against the democratic values of Wikipedia, but it also should have responsibility and reasonable quality standards, which it have in most cases. From what you wrote to me I understood that a photo box may theoreticaly include only living models for example. So, if now there is no guide for the mximum numebr of living or dead celebs you can have in a photo box, who have priority over who in enetring to the photo box and what is the minimum time period that the photo box should represent (the present one only include Ashkenazim that lived no further than 200 years ago while Ashkenazi history is much longer) than it will always be hard to get to an agreement and the photobox will always be significantly altered once in every short time. It will be better if we can somehow suggest standards for inclusion in one of wikipedias' boards-I don't know how to do it as I'm not that active in Wiki, but I hoped to get your support on this. As for the missing sources, we should insist that they will be provided in short time from now, but again it's only a temporary solution.--Gilisa (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Unification Church, Israel, and Judaism
Unification Church members have done a lot to combat antisemitism. Maybe these initiatives should be mentioned somewhere in the encyclopedia. For example, sponsoring Jewish-Muslim among religious scholars in 1999.  Also, the founder made a strong and prominent statement asserting the right of Israel to exist in 1976. 

Stop me, however, if it seems to you that I'm trying to promote (or refute) any particular POV. I'd rather have the status quo than a COI problem. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Greetings Jay. Some of your recent contributions are being discussed here in light of your topic ban. Heads-up, Skomorokh  15:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And here: ...Modernist (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that discussion closed quickly. See discussion of that at User_talk:Sandstein. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We've discussed this before, but in light of the recent AE/ANI discussions, I want to reiterate that I think it would be a good idea that when you are editing in areas which approach proscribed areas, even if they are not acrually proscribed themselves, to use talk pages more. There is nothing wrong with making a comment on the talk page of an article and then dropping some Canvassing. I understand that the restrictions prevent discussions on talk pages of proscribed articles, but we are talking non-proscribed articles here, which are close to the boundary, so using the talk pages and wikiproject noticeboards, while leading to less immediate results, will help everyone involved appreciate the measures that we all are taking to simultaneously minimize drama yet ensure accuracy on these issue. Feel free to ignore me [[file:face-smile.svg|25px]]. -- Avi (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that no one should have left any messages here but elsewhere? Confused. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Avi's comment was addressed to Jayjg, not to you, Carolmooredc. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * C-Twig is correct, Carol; sorry about the confusion. -- Avi (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Rename
I suggested renaming Unification Church antisemitism controversy to "Divine Principle antisemitism controversy." Please give you opinion on the talk page if you like.Steve Dufour (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

or merge
I just suggested merging Unification Church antisemitism controversy to American Jewish Committee, since that is the main subject of the article. Please comment on the AJC talk page, if you like. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

and delete
Please see Articles for deletion/Unification Church antisemitism controversy (2nd nomination).Steve Dufour (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to get involved I understand. Thanks for trying to help. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not COI, sorry, but
the banned 7 are banned from touching on articles in the I/P area, or conflict, broadly interpreted. The reason I recuse myself and suggest all others withdraw, is because that article contains the following clear references to the I/P conflict

(1)Kramer believes that contemporary antisemitism is due only partially to Israeli policies,

(2) Schweitzer and Perry argue that there are two general views of the status of Jews under Islam, the traditional "golden age" and the revisionist "persecution and pogrom" interpretations. The former was first promulgated by Jewish historians in the 19th century as a rebuke of the Christian treatment of Jews, and taken up by Arab Muslims after 1948 as "an Arab-Islamist weapon in what is primarily an ideological and political struggle against Israel".

(3)Most scholars agree that antisemitism increased in the Muslim world during modern times. While Bernard Lewis and Uri Avnery date the rise of antisemitism to the establishment of Israel,

(4) Scholars point out European influence, including that of Nazis, and the establishment of Israel as the root causes for antisemitism

(5)M. Klein suggests that, unlike European antisemitism, Arab antisemitism "is not distinguished by personal animosity towards Jews, nor do publications stress Judaism as an internal threat, to the majority population. This is basically political, ideological, intellectual, and literary antisemitism that focuses on the external threat which the State of Israel represents for the Arab countries...".

(6) (See whole section). Al-Husayni secretly met the German Consul-General near the Dead Sea in 1933 and expressed his approval of the anti-Jewish boycott in Germany and asked him not to send any Jews to Palestine.

(7) Iraq initially forbade the emigration of its Jews after the 1948 war on the grounds that allowing them to go to Israel would strengthen that state, but they were allowed to emigrate again after 1950, if they agreed to forgo their assets.[101]

(8) In an editorial in The Guardian in January 2006, Khaled Meshaal, the chief of Hamas's political bureau denied antisemitism, on Hamas' part, and said that the nature of Israeli-Palestinian conflict was not religious but political. He also said that Hamas has "no problem with Jews who have not attacked us."

(9) In 2000, Muslims attacked synagogues in retaliation for damage done to their Muslim brethren in the Palestinian territories.

(10) Naveed Afzal Haq shot six women, one fatally, at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle building in the Belltown neighborhood of Seattle, Washington, United States. He shouted, "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel", before he began his shooting spree.

(11) We do not treat the Jews as our enemies just because they occupied Palestine, or because they occupied a precious part of our Arab and Islamic world. We will treat the Jews as our enemies even if they return Palestine to us, because they are infidels.

(12) They have nuclear power, but we have the power of the belief in Allah... We blow them up in Hadera, we blow them up in Tel Aviv and in Netanya

(13) Look at the bestiality they demonstrate in the destruction of the Arab, Lebanese, and Palestinian people

Well. I recuse myself. I hope you consider this carefully. Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, I've actually abandoned the article in question. Not because it comes under the Arbcom ban; it clearly doesn't. Nor because of your arguments, which have no merit; by your logic, I would also have to abandon the Featured Articles and Good Articles I have written. See, for example Congregation Beth Elohim, and the discussion of Landman and Sack's anti-Zionist activities – material I researched and wrote. For that matter, by that logic, I would also have to abandon Temple Sinai (Oakland, California), given the sentence I included in it regarding Rabbi Stern's stance on Zionism. Following that logic, in fact, if anyone added any sort of spurious sentence to an article that happened to mention Israel or Palestinians, that would immediately make the article off-limits. Thus, the rather absurd claim that I should be banned from the "Unification Church and antisemitism" article because someone has added an irrelevant paragraph to it claiming the Washington Times is "pro-Israel".


 * It's also quite obvious to me that you don't even believe your own arguments. If you did, then you would actually have recused yourself from the article, rather than extensively editing it, and filling the article Talk: page with thousands of words of argumentation. In addition, if you really believed your arguments, you would have also posted your speech (above) on G-Dett's User talk page; its absence there makes it clear that your arguments have nothing whatsoever to do with any concerns about the Arbcom ruling, and everything to do with your feelings towards me.


 * However, as I said, I've abandoned the article, primarily because my entirely correct reverting of some policy-violating IP edits at the article has
 * a) somehow given you the idea that you could follow me to the article, fill the article with OR, and fill the Talk: page with thousands of words of argumentation that completely and utterly fail to respond to my quite reasonable request that you provide sources that actually discuss the topic of the article, Islam and antisemitism. Even worse, your comments are filled with personal comments about or directed at me, comments which are completely inappropriate for article Talk: pages; and
 * b) also drawn my most persistent, obsessive, and ardent wikistalker back to Wikipedia (and to the article), for the usual purpose, opposing me.
 * I edit Wikipedia solely because I enjoy it; these inappropriate and personally directed behaviors detract from my enjoyment of Wikipedia. That is why I am abandoning the article. In the future, if you feel you must recuse from an article, please actually do so. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No personal feelings enter into it. I'm not interested in editors, only the content of articles. Only a sense that you were setting a dangerous precedent for fudging a clear-cut decision by Arbcom, and obtaining a singular entitlement to edit in an area I thought we had all collectively been told to stay away from. Nickh had been jumped on, you were treated leniently. I said from the outset you, I, and others shouldn't be there, made a few edits to fix clear and unambiguous ideological distortions of facts, argued for them when you challenged them on specious grounds, and then, on principle, recused myself, having made my point.  You will disagree, I will disagree in turn. But my intervention was motivated by a sense that the enforcement of rules, and their interpretation, must illustrate above all internal coherence. I rarely see this here.
 * I hope you continue to enjoy editing wiki, but not on pages where there are 11 references to the I/P conflict. It must be comfortable, the self-assurance that one's call on the rules is always flawless, and that those who happen to disagree with you only do so in ignorance or bad faith ( not even believing their own objections). The Pope, down the road from me, has the same confidence. I don't, since in game theory there is an inherent flaw in the idea that one can be both a neutral arbiter and a player in the game one is umpiring. In the institutional structures of democracies, the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive is fundamental, a judge cannot confuse his functions with those of a plaintiff or the defense. Etc.


 * Despite appearances, the outcomes of rule interpretation in wiki, more often that not, depend on the often arbitrary logistical distributions of attention, curiosity and partisan networks: it is this that forms too many of the results of consensus. Still, whatever your reading of the way things went, or motivations, I regard your decision as salutary, and hope others under the ban will join us in recusing themselves. Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

response
from your note on my talk page i sense your concern that i hold scholars of "prejudice" in lower esteem than those of the Qur'an. quite the strawman, there. if you'll reread, you'll see that i compared the training needed to translate and interpret the Qur'an to that needed to "simply [call] a statement antisemitic."

you claimed,: "Indeed, using your argument, one could insist that if someone is a Qur'anic expert, but not an expert on antisemitism, then he shouldn't be used for deciding if verses are antisemitic. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

an expert in one field should not be cited for novel interpretations in a completely unrelated field.

lets say Qur'anic experts agree that a phrase translates to "we hate all jews." if one of those experts said, "why, that's antisemitic!", that would be noncontroversial.

however, if you have an expert in "prejudice" interpret the Qur'an, and he comes to conclusions not drawn by actual Qur'anic experts, well, this is rightfully opposed.

tell me, do any of the sources used to support the quote farm contain experts on "prejudice" who declare those statements antisemitic? if you believe that all wikipedia entries containing statements which label people/events/'incidents' antisemitic should be sourced to experts, then please say so. the overuse of that label in contemporary debate would probably lead me to agree. untwirl (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument does, in fact, appear to be exactly that; that scholars of prejudice are just spouting opinions, while scholars of the Qur'an are of a higher order than other scholars. Experts in Qur'anic verses may be able to argue about what verses mean, but that doesn't make them qualified to decide if it constitutes prejudice or antisemitism. These are different academic disciplines, and you cannot privilege one discipline over the other when attempting to decide if and when the two intersect. Walter Laqueur, the scholar in question, is a respected academic, and his book on Antisemitism is published by the Oxford University Press, a highly respected academic publisher. This is not some editorial by a blowhard on a website. Jayjg (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

you are mistaking my argument for my observation. my argument is this: an expert in antisemitism cannot make novel interpretations of the Qur'an. just as an expert in the Qur'an cannot make a novel interpretation of what constitutes antisemitism.

now, my observation was that, in wikipedia, "if the standard for inclusion in an article on antisemitism was expert testimony, we would have far fewer "(blank) and antisemitism" or "antisemitic incidents ..." articles sourced to one-off news reports."

thus, the statement which so offended, "interpreting the Qur'an requires vastly superior scholarship than simply calling a statement antisemitic." taking an accepted definition of something (hating jews=antisemitic) and using that descriptor is not the same as creating an uncorroborated interpretation (the qur'an is referring to all jews in such and such particular phrase) in order to apply the descriptor. untwirl (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC
Just a note that I certainly understand about being busy. There is no real hurry - Sandy won't be back to do a promotion/archive run until the weekend of October 3rd, so you have plenty of time. Thanks for being so cooperative, and so patient with some of my misinterpretations. Karanacs (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you as well. Jayjg (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

AS
Jayjg,

Since you keep deep reverting to your own prefered version of the AS article the only way to get the following sentence written properly would seem to be to invite you to do it, so here is your invitation, please sort out: "Despite the use of the prefix "anti," the terms Semitic and anti-Semitic are not directly opposed to each other (unlike similar-seeming terms such as anti-American). " Please could you fix, particularly the clause in parethesis which is bizarre in serving no useful purpose (a like example might be useful, an "unlike" example is completely redundant), incorrect in that anti-American is general limited to prejudice against the USA and its citizens, not all Americans and ungrammatical in the use of "similar-seeming" instead of "seemingly similar". Thanks --BozMo talk 08:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not "my own prefered version", and I don't "keep deep reverting" to it. It's the consensus version that actually reflects what reliable sources say (rather than the way people wished the English language worked), and in any event I didn't touch the sentence to which you're referring. How do you think the sentence should be written, keeping in mind that the sentence still has to reflect reality and comply with the policies? Jayjg (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I was not meaning to be provocative. Personally I think the sentence would be improved by the deletion of the strange comment in parenthesis, which may mean something to the person who wrote it but is wrong and confusing to everyone else. However when I have made odd changes of this type in the past trolls pass by and damage other things and then you revert the whole lot including my contribution. e.g. my labeling of the comments referring to AS globally into a subsection title of "Globally" you rolled into a deep revert  without commenting on why you reverted my addition of a subsection heading (which I thought was an improvement) and various other occasions. You may be impatient and fed up with people changing the article of course. --BozMo talk 16:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that when I reverted a bunch of bad changes made, over several days, by a bunch of IPs and new editors, I also removed a sub-section heading you added. Feel free to add it back, if it's still not in the article. I removed the parenthetical comment you disliked. Any other changes you'd like? Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No that's fine. Its an ok-ish article and I stress I am not at all unhappy with the way you maintain it. --BozMo talk 07:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking for official help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Florida_State_Seminoles_football#Uniform_Combinations There is debate about whether to show every possible combination of FSU uniforms or just the ones that have been used. Basically this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fsuunis.jpg versus this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ACC-Uniform-combination-FSU.PNG User Kevin W claims that he is seeking "uniformity" with other college football pages that show every possibly combination, without regard for their actual use. I disagree and so has a fellow contributor to the page. Why show combinations that have not and will not be used? I remember you being a contributor to the page and I am asking for more input and help as others are now agreeing with me but Kevin won't stop. you've helped settle disputes I've been involved in in the past, so that's why I'm looking to you. Thanks.AriGold (talk)

Admin?
Are you still an administrator? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A hypothetical situation
Brilliant! I'd been watching that exchange on Wikipedia talk:No original research and trying to come up with the right way to say what needed to be said, and had a rather feeble draft half-prepared. But you have saved me the trouble. Thanks. SNALWIBMA ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 06:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI closing
I closed the ANI discussion, having thought that you were the one who replied to me at the end. I see now that it was Avi instead. If you feel there are still practical matters to attend to, rather than debate for the sake of debate please feel free to re-open the discussion. This was my mistake and I apologize. Equazcion (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have done so. Also, please keep in mind that there were many others who raised concerns regarding Noleander, and they all need more than an hour to evaluate and respond as well. Many of them will be off-Wikipedia right now, for various reasons. Indeed, Noelander himself has not had a chance to reply. In light of the various claims of "censorship" flying, including in the very articles that Noleander created, hasty closing of this discussion would seem, at best, ironic. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, others who were involved could have more to say. So again, I apologize. Equazcion (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Cheetle
You closed the AFD as delete, but you didn't delete it. Joe Chill (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Was about to say them same.. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 13:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to ANI question
Jayjg: I posted a reply to the ANI questions here. Also, maybe you could answer a couple of question for me: (1) Is the "Jews Control Hollywood" canard less notable than the canards Kosher Tax and The Franklin Prophecy? and (2) Isnt the section Antisemitism horribly biased & OR & coatrack & SYNTH since it is just a list of examples that some editor compiled? And why havent any editors that regularly deal with the Antisemitism article/category improved that section to fix those defects? --Noleander (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

H. L. Mencken
Could you take a look at the section on Jews and the related discussion of the same name on the talk page? I'm recommending that we cut the size of the section down because it is out of proportion to the rest of his biography. This doesn't mean deleting anything right away, but rather moving some of the quotes to footnotes to cut the section down in half. Of course, if there's anything you see that could be deleted right away, could you take care of it or simply comment on the talk page? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry to butt in. Saw this message and took a whack. IronDuke  03:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Keith Kenniff
Hello, I was wondering if you could finish closing out this AfD. Thanks. Chubbles (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Human suit recreated as Human disguise
This is a notice to all who participated in the recent AfD of Human suit, here, that resulted in a consensus for delete. This article has been recreated as "Human disguise", and has been nominated for deletion: Articles for deletion/Human disguise. Thank you. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Soncino Talmud
Thanks for your note. I'll keep up the editing. -- Dauster (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Kadima
Hi Jayjg, An editor has been continuing an edit war on Kadima. I have contributed much to the lead and the body of the article and have tried to make it as clear and comprehensive as possible. I chose my words very carefully, noting that the party formed itself as of the center, etc. A New York Times article briefly but descriptively goes into detail to note the party's leftward shift. Many major news groups have been referring to Kadima as center-left, including the Washington Post, BBC, Reuters, and The Economist. So the last sentence in the lead reads: "...of the political center and center-left...", in addition to the various other descriptions it gives itself before. I have also noted that the party is (since its formation through now) is part of the left-wing bloc of parties in the Knesset. (See all sources in Talk:Kadima) Yet this user is being stubborn and disregarding this and all other sources for a mere article in The London Times that called Kadima "center-right." If you could help with the discussion article I'd appreciate it, or refer me to another admin who can. Thank you. --Shamir1 (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing scientific articles
Please take your reasoning regarding OR to the talk page, where you do not seem to have contributed. I am not totally convinced that you are correct. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  04:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

University of Reading Science & Technology Centre
At Articles for deletion/University of Reading Science & Technology Centre you wrote:

The result was merge

I have no desire to dispute this consensus, but it isn't clear from the stated decision what article this article was to be merged with/into. At least two articles were suggested during the discussion (University of Reading and Whiteknights Park) but I can see no sign in the histories of either article that any such merge has taken place.

Could you help me understand how the decision has been executed. Thanks. -- Starbois (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies; I hadn't seen your commit comment when you redirected the article. Please disregard. -- Starbois (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

?
If an author has been published on a certain website - in this case CODOH - and I wish to refer to the author's published words - then I fail to see how that website can be an unjustified source. Dr E P Lockstone (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

ESCA
You are editing the essay to mean the opposite of what it was originally suggesting. If you want to do that, write your own essay. I also do not appreciate your suggestion that I am behaving improperly, and I would kindly appreciate it if you would not write messages to me anymore.Likebox (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing AfD debate
Could you please sum up AfD discussion here? Thanks in advance, SkyBonTalk/Contributions 19:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Connick
Thanks for the compliment. I just created the article and am not quite finished with what I consider the first version of it yet. I've never submitted anything to DYK, so I'm not sure what is the appropriate process is for that. Thank you very much for the compliment though. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nomination! CrazyPaco (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

History of the Jews in ...
I note that you have moved "History of the Jews in Iraq" to "Iraqi Jews", and similarly for Morocco.

I'm not sure about this. For Syrian Jews, a long time ago I split the article: one called History of the Jews in Syria for all the remoter history culled from the Jewish Encyclopedia, and one called Syrian Jews for the current communities. The same is true for Italy. I proposed the same for Iraq, but haven't enough information about the current community to do it myself. And there are many articles on History of the Jews in Turkey, Tunisia and most other countries, not accompanied by articles on the current community. Can we please stick to this scheme? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Artist Vs Poet
I was just looking over the deletion of the Artist's article and noticed that Artist Vs Poet EP, which was also listed on the AFD has not been deleted. I understand if that would take a separate discussion, but the article itself still suggests that it is being reviewed for discussion and links back to the now-closed AFD. Just wanted your thoughts of the subject. Mrathel (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

FA
Congratulations on First Roumanian-American congregation!!! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Libya
Hi Jayjg,

You recently moved History of the Jews in Libya to Libyan Jews. If you have a look at some articles about the Jews of other countries you'll see that all of them are called History of the Jews in COUNTRY (some examples: History of Jews in the United States, History of the Jews in Poland, History of the Jews in China). Therefore I don't feel that moving the article about Libya is appropriate. --Carabinieri (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Carabineiri,
 * If you look more closely, you'll note that many of the articles have a main article of which "History of the Jews in... is a sub-article. Thus History of the Jews in the United States is a sub-article of American Jews, History of the Jews in Syria is a sub-article of Syrian Jews, etc. As I explained to User:Sirmylesnagopaleentheda, an article like Syrian Jews should contain everything about Syrian Jews; history, traditions and customs, genetics, communities, and anything else about Syrian Jews. The "History" article is merely a sub-article of that main article. Putting all these articles at "History of the Jews in..." artificially restricts the subject to the history of the community, and there's no real place to discuss the rest of these topics, which don't fit the title. Ideally every one of these articles should be structured that way; a main article about the group, with a sub-article about the group's history. At one point several years ago an editor decided to move almost the "X Jews" articles to "History of the Jews in X" titles. He is missed, but this change was, in retrospect, not a good one. Over the next few weeks I hope to fix this. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

article on Judaism
Please use the Talk page as there is an ongoing discussion on just this subject matter. Bus stop (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do not desist from your crusade against the term "ethnic Jew" I will ensure that you are brought to the appropriate administrative board for further action. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no "...crusade against the term ethnic Jew..." unless such exists only in your own mind. Also, please do not make threats. This is a misuse of an edit summary. As an administrator you should know better than that, and as an administrator you should not be abusing your position. There exists a section of a Talk page, here, which you have chosen to bypass. The Judaism article is not your article. Please engage in dialogue, as can easily be done at the article Talk page, and please don't utilize intimidation to get your way. Dialogue is the way, in my humble opinion. Bus stop (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For many months now you have been insisting that there is no such thing as an "ethnic Jew", despite voluminous scientific and popular literature on the topic. You appear to have some sort of faith-based belief that one can only be a "non-observant Jew", not an "ethnic Jew". Regardless, you have been shown time and again that the concept is well understood and used both in technical and popular parlance; your responses have been variations on IDONTHEARYOU. I haven't "abused my position as an administrator", but, in fact, have made it quite clear that this was the kind of behavior that got you banned for many months before, and that if you didn't stop, would get you taken to the appropriate board for administrative action, as your return to Wikipedia was predicated on your promise that you would stop behaving in the way that got you banned. For a long time, while you were under a restriction, you stuck to articles about art, and avoided trouble. Since your restrictions have been lifted, you have been reverting more and more to the behavior that got you banned. And, by the way, I did indeed comment in the section that you claimed I "bypassed". If you want to discuss this further, please continue the conversation on your own Talk: page, and I will respond there. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Marcus leach
Hi, Jayjg. Please add a closing rationale to Articles for deletion/Marcus leach. Summarizing the arguments of the debate will allow the participants to understand how you weighed the arguments. In divided discussions, it is best to provide a rationale. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Debresser has moved a dispute involving you to WP:ANI. Crafty (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Bus stop
Thanks for your note. I'd start a discussion at WP:ANI about Bus stop's behavior, but I'm leaving for vacation tomorrow and I expect to have very limited access to Wikipedia. I'll follow up on Bus stop's actions when I get back. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Jayjg
Did you not see my request at User talk:Jayjg? Cunard (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing this insightful closing rationale. Although the "delete" votes' analysis of the sources was fairly weak, I can see why you closed this as delete. Having read your arguments, my opinion about this article has changed; I agree with deleting this marginally-notable BLP that is sourced to underwhelming sources. Please append this rationale to the AfD so that the anonymous user(s) who participated in this discussion will know why you closed this as "delete". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Rationales aren't required on AfDs, but I'm happy to provide one to anyone who asks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Alison Rosen
There is presently a discussion at deletion review on your G4 deletion of this article,  [Deletion review/Log/2009 November 23 here], and you may want to comment.  DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
, where I have answered your question(s) about Jewish heritage. Debresser (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks
for that excellent find for the article on the Bethlehem Baptist Church (Minneapolis). I've added it to the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/APPA (programming language)
You neglected to close the co-nominated article EDPL (programming language). --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ophélie Bretnacher
Hello, you deleted the Ophélie Bretnacher page

But Ophélie Bretnachers's case is very important in Europe Best regards Raymondnivet (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition I would like to come back on the sentence: “One day your article might get there, that time is not now” and make additional comments: Without wiki, the only information which are provided today are via journalists without double-checking who can often report bias or wrong information : WIKI is the only universal place where the information can be challenged, crossed-checked, summarized, stabilised and updated on a reliable manner. In Hungary the main source of information on the case are tabloids like Blikk and Bors. They are totally unreliable, only interested in selling paper rather than to report facts and truth, keeping Hungarian people totally away from the truth (Hungarian newspapers launched crazy accusations on Italian students pretending to be in close relation with the Hungarian police. These crazy accusations were translated by google and spread also in France). And this is just an example of the fact that once such a bi-national case is only reported by journalists, some stabilisation (certification) has to be done somewhere reachable from everybody : WIKIPEDIA is this only place, and the current exchange between us is the proof of that. And this “authentic information safeguarding” has to be done now, not in five years. This is not a Franco-French case, but a French-Hungarian case and de facto an European case. Given the constraint of Hungarian language, the article in English language (the only single vector of communication within Europe, where French is maybe better than Hungarian but totally surpassed by English) is essential to keep quality of information at the same level in Hungary and France and reachable to the community of ERASMUS, for whom it is a notable case. It was asked to the members of European parliament to make a minute of silence when the death of Ophélie was announced. European promoters are uncomfortable with this case because it is a symbol of collateral damages of European construction : ERASMUS has been implemented to facilitate the student mobility within Europe but when a problem appears (such as Ophélie case), the former way of doing “business” in Europe is going on : no justice cooperation between countries, administrative nightmare for the victims, predominance of diplomatic agenda over the human rights and for the European new entrants of the EU, going on with communist way of doing justice and human rights. That is why this case is notable at European level, because it is collateral damage of European construction. My last point will be regarding the free encyclopaedia principle of WIKI. As seen in “1984” of Georges Ornwel or in the movie “Brazil”, you know how information control is important for countries in deficit of democracy. You know that even our own countries (USA and France) are able to use information as a tool to do borderline things in term of democracy. You know that former communist countries are still in a process of learning democracy, even those which are already part of the EU. Former communist countries are marketing themselves as safe and modern places to get the money from rich Western countries through tourism, investment and any other business. The case Ophélie is part of that, it is also notable for that reason. It is not one of the numerous disappearance case, but it is a similar case to the one in Croatia with the Australian girl Britt Lapthorne whose story was very similar and close to a diplomatic incident between Australia and Croatia (For Ophélie it was also close to the diplomatic incident and the family had to visit the Hungarian embassy in Paris on January 11, 2009 at the end of its March for Ophélie” in order to show that the actions were was not against Hungary but simply for Ophélie). Here Wikipedia is providing what democracy has been waiting for decades, a way to guaranty that information is not manipulated but simply made reachable and reliable for anybody. Regarding the figures when you compare to other cases in Anglo-Saxon countries, don’t forget that France and Hungary lag behind these countries in term of internet usage, and the case Ophélie was forecast in prime time on all the national TV in Hungary and in France during the winter 08-09. You are probably right, maybe the article need to be re-worked to emphasised better the reason why it is notable. And anyway, the exchange we had are the proof that the quality of the information will be permanently challenged on Wikipedia

Best regards Raymondnivet (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Page Laurance W. Marvin??????
Excuse me but why did you delete the Page Laurance W. Marvin.... There is no reason plausible reason for you to have done so. So who is paying you to do this. All information on the page was factually accurate. I demand an answer Now.... --Yoko-Litner (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted it because that was the consensus here: Articles for deletion/Laurance W. Marvin. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You really are a coward. You gave no factual reason in your deletion. And I have all the factual data to back up the article on Mr. Marvin on my desk. You are an abusive user and as such I demand that you remove the deletion. Your entire claim of justification is based on a lie and personal bias. there is not one single shred of proof for any of you bias or honest validity of supposed inaccuracy. Not to mention I still have not seen a professional status where by you qualify as judge an jury for anything.

So the first thing you need to do to even try and have an honest have an honest complaint is deliver hard proof of any inaccuracy. You still have never answered my question related to your professional standing in relation to this industry. And you can not. You are busy trying to hide behind an ambiguous identity. I guess what we have to do is have a higher authority put an block on all future interactions by you in the Wikipedia world. Since ignorance and bias are your only major skills. --Yoko-Litner (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why didn't you participate in the AFD, then? MuZemike 02:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Laurance W. Marvin
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Laurance W. Marvin. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Response from Bill the Cat 7
Personal opinion phrase ("nut job") has been removed from the Talk page. However, the other edits have been restored since they are well sourced. If you want to discuss this issue, then I'm ok with that. But don't delete again without discussing; it's starting to border on vandalism if not harrassment, since you are removing well sourced edits. Pause...well it looks like you did it again. It seems we need to get arbitration here. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood. When WP:BLP violations are involved, they are removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The bold type is right in the policy. I've notified both WP:BLP/N and WP:AN/I of your behavior. If you persist you will be blocked. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How is using the words "leftist" and "fringe" a violation? I mean, rather than "fringe", do you have a problem with "non-traditional"?  If not, then what's the difference?  If so, why?  Also, instead of "leftist", what word do you suggest that would describe her theological/political persuasion?


 * Also, are you willing to have a moderator get involved? Since having a moderator requires the consent of both parties, there is no point in making the request to Wiki admins unless we both agree, and I for one am very willing.


 * By the way, I just responded to your accusations on the admin's noticeboard. I'm getting ready to go out for the evening, but I'll check back later and, if you so desire, we can continue there too, although it would probably better if we can keep our disagreements and discussions in a central location.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To begin with, none of the sources you used actually described the person in question as "fringe, leftist". In addition, I have no interest in mediation, since I'm not editing the article, I'm taking administrative action. I'll continue discussion on the AN/I board, where it belongs. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

&
I have no idea what went wrong for you; I just clicked the 'delete page' link, filled in the rationale with 'as per AfD', and clicked "Delete page" to confirm. That's all. DS (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Browser: Firefox. Skin: Classic, 'cause Monobook is ugly. DS (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Fulchester United FC
Please advise why you deleted a page that I have had up for around 5 years or so. This is the page for a prominent local soccer club in Saskatoon, Canada and I see no reason why it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.95.44 (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted it because that was the consensus in this discussion: Articles for deletion/Fulchester United FC. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax  05:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

McDonald's rap
You deleted my article on McDonald's rap. I'd like to save a copy of the article in my sandbox in case I can find more sources to establish its notability. Do you know where I can find a copy of this article just prior to its deletion? I assume that Wikipedia has a copy of it somewhere, but I'm not sure how to find it. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can find it here: User:A Quest For Knowledge/McDonald's rap Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tang Soo Do Kyohoe Kwan‎
Hi Jayjg! You recently closed Articles for deletion/Tang Soo Do Kyohoe Kwan‎ with the result of delete, and accordingly deleted Tang Soo Do Kyohoe Kwan‎. I just wanted to check in on the status of Bill Church (Tang Soo Do), which was a second article that was added to the AfD discussion... Singularity42 (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

War of Legends
So, consensus for deletion of an article such as War of Legends is the consensus of two people, both on the same day, and for you to stumble upon it 7 days later? Honestly, Jagex is notable, and it is on there official website that this game is marked for release early 2010. It should have been redirected to the Jagex page. I don't agree with it having its own article (yet), but also not with complete deletion. 74.214.250.169 (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Heartstring Symphony
Hello Jayjg. You recently closed Articles for deletion/The Heartstring Symphony with the result of delete, and accordingly deleted The Heartstring Symphony. I just wanted to check in on the status of Heather Porcaro, which was a second article that was added to the AfD discussion. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Kerry Bolton
Speaking of Holocaust denial, Kerry Bolton is the owner of Renaissance Press, a publisher of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and similar documents. The subject has appeared again and is whitewashing the biography.  Will Beback   talk    05:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Congregation Beth Israel (Bellingham, Washington)


The article Congregation Beth Israel (Bellingham, Washington) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not notable, Advertisement

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. iBendiscuss 05:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to the bot that sent this boilerplate message, User:Jayjg is a long-time, valued and productive editor of our project. It is inappropriate to post such boilerplate messages or to attempt to immediately delete articles s/he has written. Please go through the normal channels, using AFD rather than this very rude "PROD" nomination. Badagnani (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bill Church (Tang Soo Do)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bill Church (Tang Soo Do). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Singularity42 (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

requested amendment of WB/JS arbitration case
I have filed a request to amend the West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case. See here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why was UPWA deleted?
I was wondering why the UPWA page was deleted. It is notable on the East Coast and I dont think a few complainers should control what is put up. DonnieB657701 (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was deleted because of this discussion: Articles for deletion/UPWA Pro Wrestling Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So four people control all of wikipedia?? What is this Communist Russia?DonnieB657701 (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.104.99 (talk)
 * Five people discussed the article, and agreed that it didn't meet Wikipedia's standards for article topics, specifically Notability (organizations and companies). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats so adult. You state your piece and then block me? Also how does the UPWA page get deleted but a no name school called June Buchanan school is approved and kept because a moderator created it. More people know the UPWA then they do that school. The UPWA page should be reinstated and catorgized in the Wikiproject North Carolina section. DonnieB657701 (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't block that last account, someone else did. But I've blocked this one. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Gemach
Hi, I wonder if you could help me with this. An anonymous IP user made a ton of small edits to this page. Some edits are good, but most are unreferenced and a few are plain wrong. Since there's no one to talk to about these edits, should I just rollback everything and wait to hear from someone? I'm asking you what to do since I really don't relish the idea of combing through all these edits to pick out the good ones. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. Yoninah (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD
I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

ANAT technology page
Please userify the deleted ANAT technology page. I will make more sources and have others do so as well, then itll be back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 07:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've userfied it at User:Canadiansteve/ANAT technology. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 07:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 07:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Chabad 12 year old user
Hi Jay: Something to be concerned about: Please take a look at this User:Hayesgenius, a twelve year old Chabad-Lubavitch child editor on Wikipedia, in his edit history he leaves information about who he is and what he's doing in violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE aka WP:NOTFACEBOOKfor a start. Looks like a troubling development. In your professional opinion and as a Wikipedian do you think it's safe and correct and SANE for kids to get involved like this, even post their personal pics? Will Chabad now send even 12 year olds to the Wikipedia "front lines" because many of them are online so much? This needs some guidance and guidelines. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism for a discussion, or feel free to blank the kid's page and block him. Thanks a lot, IZAK (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Still up, why?
Just took a look at the page again User:Hayesgenius and it's still up. His pics are now deleted, but why are some editors helping this 11 or 12 year old child still keep an account here? IZAK (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * IZAK, Wikipedia has no rule prohibiting 12-year-olds from registering and setting up User pages. If you're concerned for his safety, why don't you send him an e-mail message? If you think his User page should be deleted, why don't you bring it to MfD? His personal information has been deleted. Please call off the hounds. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi IZAK, as Malik said, Wikipedia has no rule against 12-year-olds setting up accounts here, so I don't think there's much else that can be done. He doesn't appear to have edited in two months, so perhaps this isn't a pressing issue. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was worried for a second, I thought I would be banned.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't tempt me. ;-) Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The way you act at times leads to some suspicions about your age as well, so its best that you not get involved in this discussion.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd respond, but my mom is yelling at me that I have to take out the garbage now. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)