User talk:Jayjg/Archive 43

MOS:CREDENTIALS and Jewish Clergy
Hi, I noticed that at MOS:CREDENTIALS there is a link to Naming_conventions_(clergy) but Judaism is not there and there is a link to Hebrew naming convention, but that doesn't mention clergy. I am thinking of putting together a guideline page. Do you have any thoughts? My thinking is to make it simple. (And FTR, even MOS:CREDENTIAL says if the person is known by the credential, to use the credential, so we do have to take that into account.) I would propose using "Rabbi" or similar, the first time the person is mentioned in an article, and then the last name from then on out, unless the person is exclusively known by "Rabbi" in which case MOS:CREDENTIAL and other policies state to use "Rabbi" as part of the name. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it makes sense to have a specific guideline, but I have some concerns:
 * What would happen in the first line of the lede of an article? MOS:CREDENTIAL indicates that they should be something like "Ehrliche Yid was an Orthodox rabbi in pre-World War II Poland", but editors often try (out of respect) to change it to "Rabbi Ehrliche Yid was an Orthodox rabbi..." or similar. Aside from the fact that it's bad writing ("Rabbi X was a rabbi"), how would you indicate that the very first word in the article should not be "Rabbi", even though it's the first use of the name?
 * Which rabbis are "exclusively known by Rabbi", and how would one decide? Can you give any examples of Rabbis who would fall into this category?
 * What would you suggest regarding the many rabbis who are known in the Jewish world by one description, but in the non-Jewish world by another? Is it "the Chafetz Chaim" or "Kagan"? "The Rambam" or "Maimonides"? "The Rebbe Reb Elimelech" or "Elimelech"?
 * Right now we have a guideline that covers Jewish clergy, which is MOS:CREDENTIAL. Some Jewish editors find it extremely difficult to write anything but "Rabbi X" or "Rav X" or "R. X". Trying to create a guideline for Jewish clergy that doesn't follow common Orthodox practice could be opening a can of worms. Interested in your thoughts. Jayjg (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I actually think your points strengthen why we need a separate Jewish guideline to refer to. Right now, you point to MOS:CREDENTIAL, but because it doesn't take into account every Jewish issue, one can argue that in the case of people who are exclusively called "Reb X," MOS:CREDENTIAL says that you use "Reb X" or "Rabbi X" in the article. As for the first line, it can be what we currently have in the Moshe Feinstein article. If we have our own guideline, we can figure out all these stuff and be able to point people to it, and let people know that we don't use "rabbi" throughout the article. Also, when I said we use "rabbi" the first time, I was also referring to another rabbi's name in an article, not necessarily the subject of the article. So we introduce the person into the article as a rabbi, and then in the future we skip the prefix. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you make my point; the first line in the Moshe Feinstein was a recently inserted violation of MOS:CREDENTIAL. I suspect that rather than clarifying MOS:CREDENTIAL, a specifically Jewish guideline would be an attempt to undermine it. I'm still extremely interested in knowing who you think was "exclusively known by Rabbi" or "exclusively called Reb X". Can you provide some specific examples? That will help us understand better any proposal. Jayjg (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , How about Moshe Feinstein he was called, R' Moshe, so perhaps according to MOS, we should put R' before his name. And as you mentioned, we have the Chafetz Chaim or the Rambam, where people are more famously referred to by the books they wrote. So it would still be beneficial to have a Jewish guideline, even if it is 100% in accordance to the guideline of MOS. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Moshe Feinstein is a good example. You suggest "R' Moshe", and no doubt there are sources that write of him that way. Those who followed his rulings or admired them/were sympathetic to his views also write of him as "Rav Moshe". Many other Jews write of him "Rabbi Feinstein". or "Reb Moshe" or "Rabbi Moshe Feinstein". Academic sources (in this case Jewish academics) write of him as "Moshe Feinstein" or "Feinstein", as do other Jewish sources. So, how should we describe him? What about Joseph Soloveitchik – "The Rav"? What about Menachem Mendel Schneerson – "The Rebbe, Melech Hamoshiach"? Jayjg (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Isn't that a perfect reason why we should have some sort of guideline? Sir Joseph (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , we already have a guideline, MOS:CREDENTIAL, and it says we describe them as "Feinstein", "Soloveitchik", and "Schneerson". A special Jewish guideline would only be an opportunity for admirers or opponents of various rabbis to engage in special pleading. Jayjg (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Firstly, I'm not sure why you have a big problem with creating a Jewish guideline. As MOS:CREDENTIAL says, " should be used in a Wikipedia article only when the subject is widely known" and "R' Moshe" was widely known as "R' Moshe." Also, one can argue that clergy isn't the same thing as CREDENTIAL, which is why there is a separate category for CLERGY. As I said, at the very least, the first time we introduce someone, it should have the title, and then perhaps further mentions we can skip the rabbinical title, but as you see here,there is still plenty to put into a guideline, or just mention. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

,I'm a bit baffled now. I've very clearly explained and demonstrated in our discussion above why I "have a big problem with creating a Jewish guideline". Not only that, you have suddenly started claiming that Feinstein was "widely known as R' Moshe", when I've just shown that he was "widely known" as "Rav Moshe", "Rabbi Moshe Feinstein", "Rabbi Feinstein", "Reb Moshe", "Moshe Feinstein", and "Feinstein". In fact, the most reliable (i.e. scholarly) sources generally refer to him by the last two. As for "rabbi" not being a "credential", it is a designation awarded after a somewhat lengthy and sometimes difficult period of formal study; it's certainly not an honorary or hierarchical designation such as "bishop". As for your final suggestion, "the first time we introduce someone, it should have the title, and then perhaps further mentions we can skip the rabbinical title", isn't that what MOS:CREDENTIAL already says? Jayjg (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
, thank you! Jayjg (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Marek Edelman
Apologies for my late follow-up. I've been trying to find a sense in what we put into infoboxes and only after I made the edit have I realized that military infoboxes do not conform to the same standards as regular ones (e.g. the lack of 'nationality' field). I think at some point we should attempt aligning these, but I don't have the bandwidth to pilot a larger discussion on the topic at the moment. Pundit | utter 09:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Respond to Comment
@jayjg You sent me this comment: @Odelphi:, I noticed that you been changing the words in a number of quotations (e.g [1][2][3]). Are you looking at the sources, and finding they have been transcribed incorrectly? Or are you merely improving on the grammar of a quotation, regardless of what the author writes? Or something else? Jayjg (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC) @Odelphi:, you continue to change quotations (e.g [4]). Can you explain what your source is for the change? Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The articles you reference were "rough" translations into English. One from Italian, one from Spanish. All I did was try to improve the translation. I did not change the quote from the original, I sought to improve the translation of the quote. As you know, anytime a language is translated you lose something in the translation. Even real-time translation (ie. the U.N) you lose a little bit of the original meaning/context in the original language. I tried to keep as much of the context of the original quotes as possible. I referenced the original article in the original language to make my translation improvements. The original translation had very bad grammar and English word usage. It was obvious, it was translated by someone without a full understanding of English grammar and word usage. I hope I did a good job with the understanding that all translations lose a little bit of the original meaning/context. Odelphi (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Swissotel Chicago
I believe Wikipedia can be used to attract people to certain places. There is certainly more information available so that it can become notable. There certainly have been cases somewhere where a Wikipedia article on a location has made it more famous and there certainly will be in the future if there aren't any already. This building is well established, and has had a renovation as well as an elevator modernization. The triangle shape is also probably helping. I believe there are articles on Wikipedia that are of subjects that by itself aren't notable but with grouping can be. There are also red links that should turn blue. I believe that red links should be eliminated when possible. Overall, I think Wikipedia should start reevaluating article deletions after it's been long enough. How long will be subject to a lot of debate. For me, 2 or 3 years would work. User:QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
I have a little new year's song on the Main page, happy 2021! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?
Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article. For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done. I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project. Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas I'm researching Wikipedia Questions? 15:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Reviving a page
Good morning, Jayjg. I'd like to review a previously deleted article, Alpha Pi Sigma, about a Latina sorority whose article had been removed on a mixed vote over notability or a "lack of secondary sources" back in 2011 and 2012. You were one of two admins to delete the page, which occurred twice. (The other admin is no longer active in that role.)

Additional good sources pertaining to this group have cropped up, and I'd like to see what had previously been written in order to perhaps use some of the content. I'm circling through the NALFO organizations to clean up those with existing pages, and repair/improve those that had been deleted, where I can. Thank you. Jax MN (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Jax MN the version I deleted has no real sources other than the sorority's website. There's a rejected draft of the article here: Draft:Alpha_Pi_Sigma. I would recommend starting fresh from reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
You might be the creator of WP:ANI, I can recognize you for that, Just like how Kaldari was the creator of The Wikipedia Teahouse. LooneyTraceYT ( Where it never goes out of style  •  contribs ) 23:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:LooneyTraceYT, but I didn't create AN/I - those records have a bad time/date stamp. User:Ta bu shi da yu created WP:AN/I. Jayjg (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back!
...you have been sorely missed. Chesdovi (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Jayjg (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Great to have you back, Jayjg! El_C 23:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, always a pleasure to see your posts. Jayjg (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Good to see your name on my watchlist! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gerda, and thanks for your awards! Jayjg (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, more today: memories in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Max Lewkowicz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Holocaust museum.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Modern at Safed
Perhaps you are correct, stricto sensu, so no objections. I wrote 'modern' thinking of the source's frequent use of 'new' (and also of the slightly later European debate of the 'ancients versus the moderns') Schama more broadly is describing a distinct revolution that involved a new metaphysics, an innovative client-city state model, with industrializing energies in textiles etc., that took place with the strengthening of Safed's kabbalistic culture. That sounded to me quite modernizing within that part of the world. Still, as the copyeditors write, stet.Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I agree that Cordoveran (and the subsequent Lurianic) Kabbalah were innovative in Judaism, I just don't think "modern" accurately captures that. Jayjg (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This IP won’t stop.
Now they are retaliating in anti-Croat edits. Removing a Pogrom linked to an article that defines it as a Pogrom. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pogrom&action=history OyMosby (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * vandalism is removing giant text with sources and about the holocaust, like you did. I was just honest, i did not vandalize. If 400 Serbs killed in masses in a Nazi campaign of genocide against Serbs by ustashe in glina "is not porgrom" for you biased ustasha pov, much less Krnjeuša massacre is. Your anti-serb (like the removal of notable nazi campaing of genocide against serbs as pogrom), anti-semite, ustasha and nazi bias are not welcome on wikipedia
 * Stalking me and spamming the same false claims doesn’t work. I didn’t remove any genocide but that specific massacre which is not defined as a pogrom. Pogrom is not based on victim amount. The other massacre you keep removing is literally referenced as a Pogrom in its article lead. How can you just claim it is “biased” just because? Calling me a “Ustashe” while whitewashing Chetnik crimes is very ironic. JohnGotten. Revisionism and ultranationalist stances such as your are not welcomed. It is why you keep getting banned. Enough already. OyMosby (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * funny word gaming. You literally doesnt read the description of glina pogrom in pogrom article (wich is sourced). Literally was a mass attack, church was burned and destroyed, terror was stablished, serbs do mass migration because of ustasha terror, sinister massacres occurred for genocide campaing, and you says its not a pogrom? funny. I did not whitewashing chetnik crimes, i just added ustasha, and you removed ustasha, whitewashing ustasha crimes. So I just removed chetnik(like removed ustasha crimes) for your "logic" stance. You are clearly a socker and i dont know who is "JohnGotten"
 * Stop copy and pasting what I say against me. If you think I am a sock, report me. I encourage you. Yes it was genocidal but it HAS TO BE DEFINED AS A POGROM IN THE SOURCE. You are gaming the words by defining your own words. I literally help promoted a Did You Know about an Ustashe who collected Serbian victim’s ears as a necklace and the Ustashe Youth article. Try some more attacks. I insist. And enough revenge edits. You admit removing sourced content out of spite. Not very moral is it? By your link it is obvious you have been on Wikipedia long time who knows me. You messed up their socker. Also note that in that investigation, it was overturned as I was not using my accounts to hype op each other. I had to seperate them because of stalkers like you undoing my edits everywhere I went. It was difficult to manage what I was logged in as. Keep em coming. Embarrassing yourself. Haha. I agree that Glina is more likely, one would think, to be a Pogrom than the other, BUT, the source has to LITERALLY CALL IT A POGROM. That is how Wikipedia works. Not what we think it should be defined as or what may seem like common sense to us. You have been on here longer than me it seems. Given you stalked me since years ago. So you should know better. This is my final response to you, John. OyMosby (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I added sources that confirms glina massacre as pogrom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.17.84.155 (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Mandaeism connection
Hi Jayjg, I noticed you reverted some of the See Also links I posted. Mandaeans have a strong connection to Second Temple Judaism and have many things in common such as ethics, angelogy etc. Most scholars believe Mandaeans are of Judean origin including the Mandaeans themselves according to their scripture. Cheers, Mcvti (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I added brief descriptions to the 'See also' edits I made to clarify them. If you still feel the relevance is unclear, please feel free to revert or remove them. thanks Mcvti (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Franz Boas
You left me a message saying: “Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Franz Boas has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did.”

My edit summary was very much to the point. The lede to the Boas article was hopelessly repetitious, and sounded like a fan boy page. You restored the repetitiousness, while making what sounded like a veiled threat. Then again, you make an open threat on your talk page, in order to intimidate people out of disagreeing with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:B23E:3056:C884:B510:DE1E:181F (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to that edit back in November? Yeah, your edit summary was inadequate; if you meant to remove repetitiousness then your edit summary should have said so, rather than the inaccurate and near-meaningless word "style". The very politely worded note on your talk page is a standard "canned" response, I didn't invent it, and there was no threat in it, veiled or otherwise. Jayjg (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

 * Thank you! Jayjg (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Menetrez
If you are going to reply to an archive, Ill reply here. Menetrez's column is not an article in CounterPunch. What is cited is in a book published by University of California Press. That is what David removed. The idea that Menetrez's critique of the situation isnt notable is a, irrelevant (it only matters if it has weight, not if it is notable), and incorrect. Menetrez's analysis itself is covered in other sources, it is itself a reliable source, and being a red linked biography doesnt really change that. I dont really understand how people, including you, are just blithely ignoring that sources that are not deprecated are being tossed aside because of the careless editing, or that there very clearly is edit-warring occurring (and no, nobody claimed a BLP exception). Anywho, hope you enjoyed your holidays, and if youd like to be informed when a case is filed on this as an interested party Id be happy to do so.  nableezy  - 23:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * {{u|Nableezy}: Yeah, I was writing the response and doing a bunch of other things, and when I finally hit "Publish changes", the section had been closed. Anyway, Menetrez's critique was originally published on CounterPunch; that's what Dershowitz was responding to. If the subsequent publication in the UC Press is not identical to that original article, then we don't have Dershowitz's response at all, which is one of the arguments being made for keeping the "Dershowitz" CounterPunch article. If the UC Press source is identical to the CounterPunch article, then we are still faced with what I described as "neither of them being notable", which, in policy terms, translates to them being WP:UNDUE; I should have been more clear in terms of Wikipedia terminology. I haven't seen much evidence of "careless editing" so far as regards these removals; most of them were good edits, removing sources that did not add value to the articles in question, which was almost inevitable given the nature of the websites publishing them. These kinds of highly partisan sites provide little of value for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, though I'm sure they provide interesting reading for those whose biases align with them.
 * In general, highly political articles attract bad article sourcing. By this I mean, rather than looking for the highest quality sources on the topic, instead editors with one POV/bias look for sources that support their POV, then editors with the opposite POV/bias look for sources to counter them, and we end up with a dog's breakfast filled with "he said, she said" political point-scoring. That appears to have happened when this part of the Dershowitz article was written, and efforts to rescue the deprecated source or undo this depreciation miss a very important point: the main purpose of deprecation is so that Wikipedians stop fighting to include specific unreliable sources.
 * In this sense deprecation is analogous to banning users. A certain kind of banned editor likes to come back to Wikipedia using a sockpuppet to make "good" edits, then fulminate when their "good" edits are reverted. "See", they say, "there was no reason to revert this edit, that was stupid", when they point they're actually trying to make is "See, there was no reason to ban me, those who did so are stupid". Defenders of the individual or the edits then get upset that "good" edits are being removed, while those removing the edits say "but this editor is banned!". WP:BMB was made policy to stop people from fighting about this; Wikipedia has decided this editor should not be on Wikipedia regardless of the quality of their edits, and Wikipedians removing those edits should not have to waste time defending their removals. Deprecated source ≅ banned editor.
 * As for "edit-warring", let's be honest: it was on both sides - the fact that you were there to back up Nishidani's reverts, or his yours, just means that you were able to divide the edit-warring between the two of you, as opposed to, who did is on his own. Nobody came out of those disputes looking good. And to be even more honest, I don't think you would care if David wholesale or "carelessly" removed all citations to Breitbart News or VDare or most of the other deprecated sources; it's only when "your ox was gored" that you became concerned. Your issue is not with David's "careless editing", it's with CounterPunch's deprecation.
 * Anyway, time to get off the soapbox. I only edit intermittently these days, but will try to keep an eye on this issue as it develops, and I appreciate your offer to keep me informed. Thanks also for your kind wishes; I hope you too enjoyed your holidays, and have a wonderful 2022! Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it was not identical, he expanded the original CP essay in to a much longer one. I still dont understand how somebody can argue that Dershowitz is not entitled to defend himself, and Im honestly a bit stunned at how the turns tabled here with me defending Dershowitz's right to a defense here and you saying toss it. As far as deprecation and policy, I dont actually see what policy was ever approved to support this. And I do think the idea that 4 editors at RSN one time can ban a website from all articles to be absolutely insane (FPM), or 15 for that matter (CP-the Icewhiz and NoCal100 socks). Would I ever cite FPM? No, of course not. But how deprecation has turned RSN into a voting booth is absolutely bonkers to me. But Jayjg, this started, for me at least, over this article used in Edward Said. It is astonishing to me that anybody can claim it is not a reliable source. It is cited over and over by other sources, all of them giving credit to that article for uncovering the FBI surveillance of Said. And it is insane to me that people are removing what is the most authoritative source by the most qualified expert in that article. I have pretty high standards for sources, but here this is the very best source on the topic. And no, my issue is with both. I posted several diffs of David removing sources that are not deprecated. Totally ignored. David wouldnt even look before reverting. Totally ignored. Im still tempted to take this to ArbCom, will see though.  nableezy  - 19:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * May I but in here, just to state this.
 * "I don't think you would care if David wholesale or 'carelessly' removed all citations to Breitbart News or VDare or most of the other deprecated sources.'"
 * I can understand how it might look like that, but the assumption is editors read everything. They don't. I haven't even examined the deprecated list, but all of the examples given in these CP discussions, -Breitbart, Daily Mail, VDare etc - I've never read them, and have only a name familiarity with the first two. I have read CP desultorily, when, visiting it once or twice a week, I run down the articles listed, and of names I recognize usually click on just one or two, and I have done so for 15 years. While I think the deprecation judgement a farcical kangeroo court/caught result, I can live with it, as long as 'generally' in 'generally unreliable' is respected. I don't even look at David's contributions to see what he is doing re CP. I respond only when one of his edit removals affects an article I have edited and have on my watchlist. I noted the other day one article I had on my watchlist, where he removed a CP source, and, examining the source removed, agreed that the wiki article suffered no damage, and left his edit untouched.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Soros/Shelby
Hi! I’m curious if you have anymore information on Gregory James Shelby? It only says he is an artist. 64.71.174.172 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Would you be interested
in working on User:Doug Weller/Goyim Defense League? I think the network's recent activities have made it notable. Doug Weller  talk 09:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Please vote in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election
Hello hello. I hope this message finds you well.

The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election ends soon, please vote: m:Special:SecurePoll/vote/393. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Jayjg!


Happy New Year! Jayjg, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 02:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 02:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. - Happy new year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Move error
Please complete the move, you left the talk page behind at Draft talk:Move/Judaism's views on Muhammad. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"Ceremonial Clothing in Judeo-Christian Cultures" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ceremonial_Clothing_in_Judeo-Christian_Cultures&redirect=no Ceremonial Clothing in Judeo-Christian Cultures] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Category talk:Holocaust denial
I opened a new talk session. Mureungdowon (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Indefinitely full-protected redirects
In 2004 you fully-protected Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups, and in 2005 Azerbaidzhan; are these protections still necessary, or can I remove them?  jp × g 🗯️ 08:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Zionist entity for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zionist entity, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Zionist entity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Centers for the study of antisemitism has been nominated for renaming
Category:Centers for the study of antisemitism has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Longhornsg (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)