User talk:Jayjg/Archive 8



Old talk archived at /Archive 1/, /Archive 2/, /Archive 3/, /Archive 4/, /Archive 5/, /Archive 6/, /Archive 7/

Geonim
Sorry about the tardiness in response; will look at article during my tomorrow :) Fintor 21:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC) talk

Category:Hebrew Bible verses
Hello Jay: See the verses in Category:Hebrew Bible verses with the two samples so far: Genesis 1:1, and Genesis 1:2. Is this the way the Torah verses should be "presented"? (Compare with the verses in Category:New Testament verses.) At what point should the classical teachings of famous meforshim be inserted, and in what way and how much? The time to decide on this is now, because at this stage the "project" is still being "formed" by User:Neutrality alone. Thank you. IZAK 02:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

RFAr against User:KaintheScion and associated socks
Since KaintheScion has not changed his abusive behavior and has created another sockpuppet (User:Enviroknot), I have now requested arbitration against him. Firebug 16:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not a sockpuppet. Not that Firebug, Mel Etitis, or his sockpuppet Yuber bothered to so much as send me a message before making wild accusations and vandalizing my user page repeatedly.Enviroknot 20:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Zivinbudas
I've now officially requested an Arbitration against Zivinbudas. As one of the people who were involved in previous attempts at compromise with him, you might be interested in the case. Also, feel free to list yourself as one of the parties involved here. Halibutt 04:05, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Cedar Revolution/Yuber
Hi Jayig! Thank you for drawing my attention to Yuber's activities. I fully agree with your stand on Yuber's edits, laced as they are with none-too-subtle POV. I have reverted his edit to your last version. Now that you've alerted me, I'll check this article for vandalism every time I log on. Yuber seems to have an understanding of NPOV that is very different from the one with which most of us are familiar. David Cannon 00:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber POVing in Al Qunaytirah
I think its time to get rid of this useless editor. I am going to request arbitration. But now, I need help in the article.

I've petitioned for arbitration against Yuber


Jayjg, so can I count on a statement about Yuber's style of editing?

Guy Montag 21:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, like I said before I am new at this. how does the email work? I send you an email on wikipedia and it goes to your email outside wikipedia? Also, you said you sent me an email, I don't know if that one is active. Check the email I sent you for a new address. Hope to hear from you soon,

Guy Montag 02:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza
Hi, I received this request: "Banu Qurayza I'd be interested in your thoughts, and if you have time, your help in editing.Briangotts 02:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)" Are you able to take a look at it, it's also being "disputed". Thanks. IZAK 03:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
should be blocked quickly. He's on a vandalism spree. -Anonymous 21:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

your revert on Talk:Karaite_Judaism
I noticed the anon's deletion of that section yesterday, and didn't bother to revert it because I figured out what was going on by looking at his/her other edits. It apparently is the same person who wrote the original text, and who wrote the Qaryanism and Qaryanic stuff (read "rubbish"), who later admitted that it had all been essentially his/her own flight of fancy. Personally, I don't see that the talk page is hurt by its deletion, nor do I see that its staying there helps anything, especially not without an accompanying explanation of why my having put it there elicited no response (there), nor any discussion of why it wasn't reincorporated into the article. Kol tov. Tomer TALK 02:12, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Nicolas Sarkozy
You may remember that I cautioned you against concluding that Nicolas Sarkozy's mother (and, him, therefore) was a Jew on the basis that she was of "Greek-Jewish origins"? It turns out that his mother's father was a Greek Jew converted to Catholicism, and her mother was a Catholic. It follows that, according to Jewish law, N.S. is not a Jew.

Just to let you know about that and invite you to exerce caution. David.Monniaux 20:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually no, that is not me on the mailing list. Would you like to apologize? What exactly is your problem with me, anyway? Everyking 05:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apartheid article
Sorry for the late reply, I was away. I've left a message to counter Anon's latest claims, but I doubt it will do much good. None of those like him can ever really see the logical flaws in their arguments. Impi 17:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, Impi cannot see the logical flaws in his arguments and deletions. Somehow he seems to believe that the S. African Jewish community is "the same" as the European Christian communities. They are not the same, and never were, and still are not today. The communities are distinct, and the inclusion is therefore accurate.69.209.236.29 21:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You have new mail. Tomer TALK July 4, 2005 17:59 (UTC)

Gaza Strip, et al
You main objection to anon's posting of his pictures appears to be "self-promotion". I think linking the pics adds as much to the Gaza article as any of the other external links. What if *I* add the links? Would it then still be self-promotion? I ask this with a grin, of course, as the situation there has become rediculous. I'm somewhat tempted to wait until anon's been gone several months and renew the discussion without him, as he's not helping the situation. --Chiacomo 20:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, when visiting his collection of photographs, I can't find an option to actually buy anything. His email address is there, of course... His POV in the article edits is evident, but the photographs themselves, the captions, and the commentary accompanying them don't appear to have blatant POV problems – or at least no more than other similar links. I too have doubts whether ANY photographs should be linked from the article, but if there will be links to photos, his collection is just as valid as the others. --Chiacomo 20:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

user:68.10.35.153
May I direct your attention to ? Here are two specific diffs and. The editor has also created a number of articles about related people and groups, and made substantial changes to existing articles. Some RC patrollers and I have been cleaning up parts of these edits, but there's a lot to review. I strongly suspect that he is Bill White and that he is using original research to write about himself, his friends and his enemies. While it's fascinating to read about the dating history of a white supremacist moll, it really isn't encyclopedic material. Any idea for a general way to proceed with this editor? I'll leave a note on his page reminding him of some relevant policies. -Willmcw 18:57, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm still interested in getting additional input on William White (agitator), in particular, if you have any interest or time. Thanks, -Willmcw 17:46, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC) [Thanks, no rush. -W.]

Request for Assistance: ADMINISTRATOR ABUSE: Administrator Mustafaa is a Wiki Terrorist
Asking for assistance regarding Administrator Mustafaa and editor Yuber:

Regarding the page and edits to Islamic Terrorism, Administrator Mustafaa acts as the police to this page to ensure that his biased POV is inserted. He was called in by Yuber to revert my edit, which was balanced, an improvement, and entirely without a POV (as are all my edits). They worked to team up to ensure that only their biased POV is inserted. Mustafaa then blocked me, in the process breaking many Wiki policies. Basically Mustafaa ‘s reactionary vandalism and his act of blocking me was an act of Wiki terrorisim.

Yuber has been cited before for violating 3RR policies, now the editor teams up with Mustafaa to continue violating 3RR policies.

Administrator Mustafaa broke many of Wiki policies:

1.	Abuse of Administratorship: Most important is that Mustafaa has an obvious POV and abuses his Administratorship to ensure that his POV is inserted into his favorite articles.

2.	Edit Abuse: Mustafaa (and Yuber) made a reactionary rv revert of the entire article instead of simply making one simple correction, the only correction that they disagreed with.

3.	Edit Abuse: Unlike what they stated, there has been no previous discussion of this issue. The only previous discussion concerned their own sensitivity to the term. The term “Islamic Terrorism” is the term used by the West and it is the term being described. I provided a source (and there would be tens of thousands of sources, because this is the proper term in the West. I accurately described the dispute that some Muslims have over a term used in the West.

4.	Violating blocking Policy: Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute, and self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited. Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict.

5.	Violating blocking Policy: logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reasoning for the block should not be blocked.

6.	Violating blocking Policy: the 3RR policy is not to be used to deal with vandalism as mine was of Mustafaa and Yuber vandalism.

7.	Violating blocking Policy: Mustafaa made no warnings, he just wanted to protect his POV.

I believe that I have made significant contributions to Wiki and I very greatly object to 2 people teaming up to block me out of the system so that they can insert their POV.

These people are doing a real disservice to Wiki, and I can think of no worse vandalism than they have done:

I think Administrators like Mustafaa are dangerous for Wiki, especially when they are so willing to violate Wiki policy to insert their POV.

So, I would appreciate any information and assistance you can provide to Noitall. Thank you.

--Noitall 04:48, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Referring to someone called Mustafaa as a "terrorist", while amusingly hyperbolic, seems rather Islamophobic. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:44, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hyperbolic, abusive, and possibly offensive it is, but why is it Islamophobic? Because of some presumption that Mustafaa is Muslim?  A) I don't know that he is; B) there are Moslems who are terrorists, but that doesn't make Islam a terrorist religion (by any stretch)?  --Leifern 14:41, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Point was, I believe, that when someone groundlessly calls a user a "terrorist," and that user's name is identical to the title of respect historically accorded to the Prophet of Islam, this suggests an irrational fear or hatred of Islam. I could be wrong, but I believe this is what Irishpunktom was getting at, and I agree. BrandonYusufToropov 15:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brandon, that is what I meant. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:12, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * The issue was what Mustaffa did, which I provided extensive write-up, which is truly "abusive and offensive." My 64 word edit, however, was entirely balanced and not offensive to anyone, it was an improvement.  The fact was that I was blocked in violation of many Wiki policies because of a 1 word disagreement (of my 64 word edit).  As for the title of my complaint, as Irishpunktom noted, it was meant to be "amusingly  hyperbolic" while at the same time I provided an extensive rationale as to why it was appropriate.

--Noitall 16:11, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

No - Mustafaa serves as a valuable counterbalance for the bullying attitude I have seen exhibited by those who disagrtee with his views. I value his contribution as serving as a vital force for neutral POV.


 * No, he doesn't. Have you see his little bit about 'how not to NPOV an article'? His idea is that rather than putting 'someone alleges something', you merely say it as established fact, even if it's heavily disputed. The guy is biased as all hell.


 * That's not at all what he suggests. Read his "How to NPOV an Article" section again--as far as I can tell, he suggests not using vague statements like "some people claim that..." or "supposedly...", but rather saying things like "several prominent anthropologists, among them Dr. John Smith, state that...". This is very different from suggesting that opinions are reported as facts. You shouldn't misrepresent someone's views. --Whimemsz 21:02, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems I must provide evidence of him removing the 'allegedness' of a statement and instead of qualifiying the issue, simply establishing a heavily disputed statement as fact. I can pick an example right out of his 'how not to npov an article'. He replaced - "Kfar Kassem Massacre, carried out by the Israeli border police in 1956. The Arab side alleges that 49 Israeli Arab people claimed to have been civilians were killed. They claim it included 11 children." - with - "Kafr Qasim massacre, carried out by the Israeli border police in 1956. 49 Israeli Arabs were killed, including 15 women and 11 children." - Is THAT the way to NPOV an article? To remove all argument and establish fact where the issue is heaving disputed? I think not.

Mustafaa is a good editor and responsible administrator who carefully follows Wikipedia policy; the accusations here are unwarranted and misplaced. If you have any issues with his edits, please raise them in a non-confrontational way on the Talk: pages of the articles in question. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've actually found places where you yourself have construed his actions as POV pushing.


 * I didn't say a perfect editor, I said a good editor. He certainly doesn't deserve the abuse that is being hurled at him here.  While Mustafaa and I don't always agree, he is intelligent, knowledgeable, and quite reasonable if you're willing to follow policy and work with him. I suggest you start doing so. Jayjg (talk)  22:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your scummy back handed personal attacks on User:Mustafaa as being a good but not perfect editor are really funny. As if you are perfect. You are one of the biggest biased Zionist assholes on Wikipedia.


 * I'm not a perfect editor either, Alberuni, and I've never claimed to be. I don't think anyone is.  However, I don't see how saying someone is "a good editor and responsible administrator" and "intelligent, knowledgeable, and quite reasonable" could possibly be construed as a "scummy back handed personal attack" by anyone except, well, you. Jayjg (talk)  22:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jay?
Did you seriously block me?! I can't log in! 68.190.162.144 03:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

nm. it appears to have been a rather widespread prollem affecting others besides just me... Tomer TALK 11:44, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

DanP's latest edits
How utterly extraordinary. I guess it's some kind of strategy - complain in just about every forum imaginable, whether appropriate or not, in hopes of getting a wider audience. Thanks for making me aware of them. I needed a laugh. - Jakew 21:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And he's still at it:. Not sure I really have the patience for a revert war. It's blatant POV-pushing, barely relevant, and merely mentioning it makes the article unbalanced, in my view (shouldn't we discuss every conceivable surgery that some fringe radical considers vivisection, in order not to give excessive weight to this bunch?).

The question is, what to do? RfAr? What do you think? - Jakew 13:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad you liked it. Don't overlook the above. - Jakew 14:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'''The persecution of User:Yuber is just another gang rape by Wikipedia’s Jews. They do this to everyone whom they disagree with. The Wikipedia Jews suck shit even more than the average Jew.'''--Jewshit 00:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Goodness, we at Wikipedia have experts on everything, don't we? I would never have expected to find an expert on relative faecal-sucking abilities of followers of Judaism, however. Remarkable. ;-) - Jakew 13:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On homoerotic Hebrew verse
Hi, I am surprised that you are surprised. Here are a handful of references, and the topic is mentioned by other researchers in the field, though a major monograph has not yet appeared in print.


 * Roth, N. (1982) "Deal gently with the young man": love of boys in medieval Hebrew poetry of Spain, Speculum 57:20-51
 * Roth, N. (1984) "My Beloved is Like a Gazelle", imagery of the beloved boy in Hebrew Religious Poetry, Hebrew Ann Rev 8:143-65
 * Roth, N. (1989) The care and feeding of Gazelles: Medieval Arabic and Hebrew Love poetry, in Lazar, M. & Lacy, N. J. (Eds.) Poetics of Love in the Middle Ages. Fairfax, Va.: G. Mason University Press, p95-118
 * Roth, N. (1991) "Fawn of my delights": boy-love in Hebrew and Arabic verse, in Salisbury, J. (Ed.) Sex in the Middle Ages: A Book of Essays. New York: Garland, p157-72

To address some of your other questions, the topic bears mention because leaving it out would create the false impression that things have always been one way and one way only with the Jews. The amount of space dedicated to this in the main article will be much greater than the brief mention in the synopsis, but I am sure I don't have to reiterate why a synopsis needs to point to all major parts of the main work - though not all who seek the synopsis will go on to the more detailed treatment. What it has to do with homosexuality and Judaism is analogous - if not homologous - to what Sufi contemplation of the beardless has with those two topics, and that facet of Islam certainly has been widely explored in that context. Not that it needs that comparison to be germane to the discussion on its own terms.

I am again surprised that the evolution of the article in this direction seems to give you indigestion. Why not let matters evolve and then restore balance if it should need restoration? Regards, Haiduc 01:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You have raised many good points, the most compelling of which is that the summary should follow the exposition (which will answer your other questions). I'll write it in that order and keep you posted. Regards, Haiduc 01:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

S and S edits
Of course you're right, it's a bad idea. I was just being lazy, as they were minor, uncontroversial and a bit tentative. Will try not to be a repeat offender.--John Z 16:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Neutrality's "bold moves"
As you can see at, I asked User:Neutrality to justify the following moves, and s/he has yet to respond either to me personally, or to provide justification for the moves on any of the various talk pages. I can't rv moves since it requires overwriting entries in the db, so what's the next step?


 * Judæo-Arabic languages
 * Judæo-Berber languages
 * Judæo-Hamedani
 * Judæo-Latin
 * Judæo-Malayalam
 * Judæo-Portuguese
 * Judæo-Romance languages

As well as corresponding TALK pages and spelling changes at Template:Jewish languages, which s/he apparently used as a list to go off for the victims of his moving agenda (since he missed languages not listed there). Tomer TALK 05:37, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Jay, we had a discussion about it at [] several months ago, in which "Neutrality" did not participate. I would be happy to give him/her the benefit of the doubt given what I said in that discussion, except that it's clear that "Neutrality" used Template:Jewish languages as his/her guide for going through and deciding which articles to move, rather than the text at Jewish languages (and likely, as of this writing, still is unaware of what I said on TALK there).  I don't object to the moving per se, nearly as much as to the utterly slipshod and bli-consensus manner in which it was done.  At this point, it would be much easier to go through and rv these 7 articles to their -æ- spelling ,than to go through and properly change the whole assemblage of articles, text and links (none of which was done by "Neutrality", except in the template itself).  Tomer TALK  15:44, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * The "Æ|æ" grapheme is difficult to type; as our own article notes, it is "falling into disuse." This can be demonstrated through a few simple searches on Google:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Name
 * æ hits
 * Non-æ hits
 * "Judæo-Arabic"/"Judeo-Arabic"
 * 12,200
 * 13,500
 * "Judæo-Berber"/"Judeo-Berber"
 * 30
 * 531
 * "Judæo-Hamedani"/"Judeo-Hamedani"
 * 2
 * 18
 * "Judæo-Latin"/"Judeo-Latin"
 * 3
 * 68
 * "Judæo-Malayalam"/"Judeo-Malayalam"
 * 6
 * 12
 * "Judæo-Portuguese"/"Judeo-Portuguese"
 * 8
 * 101
 * "Judæo-Romance"/"Judeo-Romance"
 * 15
 * 187
 * }
 * To Tomer: I don't think using the most clear and easily readable rendering is "anti-scholarly," not do I think that it violates any of Wikipedia's policies. On a side note I find your outrage rather disproportionate to the situation. Hopefully we can work this out together. Keep in touch. Warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 19:09, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC) (copied to Jayjg's user talk page)
 * 8
 * 101
 * "Judæo-Romance"/"Judeo-Romance"
 * 15
 * 187
 * }
 * To Tomer: I don't think using the most clear and easily readable rendering is "anti-scholarly," not do I think that it violates any of Wikipedia's policies. On a side note I find your outrage rather disproportionate to the situation. Hopefully we can work this out together. Keep in touch. Warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 19:09, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC) (copied to Jayjg's user talk page)
 * To Tomer: I don't think using the most clear and easily readable rendering is "anti-scholarly," not do I think that it violates any of Wikipedia's policies. On a side note I find your outrage rather disproportionate to the situation. Hopefully we can work this out together. Keep in touch. Warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 19:09, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC) (copied to Jayjg's user talk page)

Israel or Palestine for the region?
Hi, please see the heated discussion at Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah over revisionist attempts to eradicate mention of (ancient!) "Israel" and "Judah" entirely in favor of "Palestine". Please add your views. Thank you. IZAK 11:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neoconservatism
I recently posted a slight revision to the Neoconservatism entry that was reverted. While I see there was some discussion in the past on neoconservative support for domestic policy, I don't see any actual references to neoconservative behavior. And I am not familiar with any. Going back four decades, neoconservatives have railed against the Great Society, as well as some progressive racial policy. For me it is not enough to say that some neoconservatives used to be leftists, and then to assume from that position that they supported various left-liberal policies. I need to see examples of neoconservatives supporting these policies after they actually became neoconservatives. Any help you can give me here would be appreciated. --Lester Spence 16:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian Exodus
Grateful if you could please explain why my contribution is irrelevant. It is a point that is frequently raised when this issue is discussed. I suppose it could be the starting point of a new article; if so, would you object to a cross-reference to it in the Palestinian Exodus article? RachelBrown 19:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Relations between Catholicism and Judaism
Hi - thanks for your support on this page. It's a pretty clear-cut vanity case; the repeated VfD's on related articles show a strong consensus on that, so a couple of sockpuppets shouldn't be a huge issue as long as there are a couple of editors watching this page, Pope John Paul II, and related.. Have a good one. CDC  (talk)  21:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nehru
I am surprised that you choose the side of Islamofascist and Marxist propaganda regarding Jawaharlal Nehru. If you had bothered to look at the talk page, you would have seen that tonnes of evidence came only from one side. You have chosen to take the side of Communists and Islamists who didn't post a single shred of evidence to back up their fantasies.

Here is a lot of evidence for you that India was indeed socialist in nature and Nehru was inspired by the Soviet model.


 * http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/lsdeb/ls10/ses1/1430079107.htm Nehru was deeply impressed with the Chinese economic advance. Nehru was told that the Chinese Plan was based on the Russian Plan which was based on Feldman model. On his return to India, Mr. Nehru called his Economic Adviser Mr. Mahalanobis and asked him to prepare the Second Five Year Plan on the lines of the Soviet model and the Chinese model.


 * http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ufd_indiaplanning_full.html#meghnaddesai P. CHIDAMBARAM: The government of the day was greatly influenced by Soviet central planning. It appeared to be an alternative model. We were fascinated by the idea that everybody can share in the prosperity and wealth, and that poverty would be abolished, and that the state can provide virtually everything to all the people.


 * http://www.ccsindia.org/gdas/reviews_india_unbound.htm - NEW YORK TIMES, MARCH 25 ... In one of the more eloquent expressions of this sentiment, he tells of a meeting at which the industrialist Rahul Bajaj is threatened with imprisonment for producing more scooters than permitted by his quota.


 * http://pd.cpim.org/2004/0815/08152004_surjeet.htm The spate of plans prepared in the late 1930s and early 1940s, including the official Congress plan prepared by a committee under Nehru, were directly influenced by the roaring success of the Soviet planning process.


 * http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2005031700120800.htm&date=2005/03/17/&prd=bl& The emphasis on the state occupying the `commanding heights' of the economy in the Second Plan reflected Nehru's fascination for the great economic strides that the Soviet Union had made under planning. Nehru, it seems from my own interaction in late 1964 with Dr B. B. Mishra, the author of the famous book on the Indian middle-classes, was influenced in this regard by the communications that he had received from M. N. Roy, who was then in the Soviet Union and was reportedly in close contact with Lenin and Trotsky.


 * http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1526/15261180.htm Non-alignment became viable only because of Nehru's distrust of free-market capitalism, a certain commitment to equality, an admiration for state planning, and, globally, the existence of the Soviet Union as a countervailing force to the Western bloc.


 * http://www.forbes.com/columnists/free_forbes/2004/0621/041.html Under the socialist regime of Jawaharlal Nehru and his family successors the state was intolerant, restrictive and grotesquely bureaucratic. That has largely changed (though much bureaucracy remains), and the natural tolerance of the Hindu mind-set has replaced quasi-Marxist rigidity.


 * http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~drodrik/Growth%20volume/DeLong-India.pdf - "This puts a bound on the growth-retarding effects of the "license raj" generated by prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru's attraction to Fabian socialism and central planning."


 * http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/NEUDC03/shahe.pdf - After decades of lackluster performance under the all pervasive interventionist policy regime espoused after independence (the so-called ‘License Raj’), India embarked on a major economic liberalization program in 1991, triggered by a severe balance of payments crisis.


 * http://www.cid.harvard.edu/hiid/662.pdf - The pre-independence experience was combined with a very clear inspiration from the experience of the socialist countries, in particular the Soviet Union, which was reflected in the speeches of the Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and in the now famous Mahalonobis model which had many similarities to the work of Feldman for the first Soviet Five year plan (see Domar (1957))11.


 * http://www.ndu.edu/library/n4/n035604L.pdf - Remnants of Nehru’s command economy haunt virtually every aspect of India’s reform program. Even after twelve years of progress, more than 40% of the country’s capital base remains in government hands.10


 * Excerpts from Britannica -
 * From the sub section titled "political apprenticeship" under Jawaharlal Nehru
 * Though vaguely inclined toward Socialism, Nehru's radicalism had set in no definite mold. The watershed in his political and economic thinking was his tour of Europe and the Soviet Union during 1926–27. Nehru's real interest in Marxism and his Socialist pattern of thought stem from that tour, even though it did not appreciably increase his knowledge of Communist theory and practice. His subsequent sojourns in prison enabled him to study Marxism in more depth. Interested in its ideas, but repelled by some of its methods, he could never bring himself to accept Karl Marx's writings as revealed scripture. Yet from then on, the yardstick of his economic thinking remained Marxist, adjusted, where necessary, to Indian conditions.
 * From the section The Nehru era, 1947–64 (sub section Economic planning and development)
 * As a Fabian Socialist, Nehru had great faith in economic planning and personally chaired his government's Planning Commission. India's first five-year plan was launched in 1951,...


 * From the section on PV Narasimha Rao
 * After Rajiv Gandhi's assassination in May 1991, the Congress (I) Party chose Rao as its leader, and he became India's ninth prime minister after the general elections in June. Rao almost immediately began efforts to restructure India's economy by converting the inefficient quasi-socialist structure left by Jawaharlal Nehru and the Gandhis into a free-market system. His program involved cutting government regulations and red tape, abandoning subsidies and fixed prices, and privatizing state-run industries. These efforts to liberalize the economy spurred industrial growth and foreign investment,...


 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_economy/322479.stm - Since the early 1990s India has been liberalising its former state-controlled economy and is now seen as a potentially lucrative emerging market.


 * http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501031208-552153,00.html - But, as Tharoor points out, even during Nehru's own lifetime, his halo began to fade. His concentration on industrialization, rather than reforming the primitive agricultural sector, led to food shortages by the late 1950s. The state-controlled economy bred corruption and stagnation. ... A good part of Nehru's India, Tharoor notes, is gone already. Socialism is being slowly dismantled. The result has been a rapid acceleration in growth and prosperity—ammunition for those who would like to dismiss Nehru's legacy altogether.

Zoroastrianism
You're going to love this one, Jay. It says:


 * Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC.

I have a user on the talk page telling me that this is not POV writing, but standard scholarly opinion. Your contribution to this conversation would be most appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have just removed:
 * Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC. Judaism does not appear to become strictly monotheistic until after the Jewish people is freed from Babylon by Cyrus the Great (c539 BC). Even the first commandment is not unambiguously monotheistic. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" seems implictly to accept the existance of other gods.
 * Just thought you might want to know! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DanP's latest edits, continued
Jay, I wrote the following comment further up, but it seemed to escape your attention: And he's still at it: [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vivisection&curid=400772&diff=0&oldid=0) [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vivisection_and_experimentation_debate&curid=1024605&diff=0&oldid=0). Not sure I really have the patience for a revert war. It's blatant POV-pushing, barely relevant, and merely mentioning it makes the article unbalanced, in my view (shouldn't we discuss every conceivable surgery that some fringe radical considers vivisection, in order not to give excessive weight to this bunch?).

The question is, what to do? RfAr? What do you think? - Jakew 13:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback on DanP's edits, Jayjg. I was wondering WTH was going on... G.hartig 06:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism
Ouch... just heard the worst rendition of "Advance Australia Fair" I've ever heard. Anyway, back to the point... I think it's better, but until references are added to fixup those weasel words then it's still got a long way to go! One request: could you check to see if I was out of line in anything I said on the talk page? I need an objective POV on this. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. you might want to History of Christianity to see the Zoastrianism bit. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

History is flawed :p
Hi Jayjg, something strange has just happened and I don't know why. Maybe as an admin you have a better idea? I noticed just now in my watch list that User:BrandonYusufToropov had reverted Terrorism to Grace Note's version. I then reverted it to yours. When I checked the history afterwards though, BYT's edit had dissapeared. I can see it in his user contributions though. I'm perplexed. Please let me know if this ever happens at all. Thanks, -- Silversmith Hewwo 15:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can see the edit by BYT on my boyfriend's computer, but still not on mine. So perhaps it will show up on yours. -- Silversmith  Hewwo 16:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Now I've cleared the cache it's back. Never seen that before. Thanks anyway, -- Silversmith  Hewwo 16:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Council of Jerusalem
I skimmed through the (convoluted) talk page... it looks like you're on the right side of fact. I'll tell you what I know, then feel free to tell me if/where that would be useful in resolving the debate:
 * 1) Acts and the authentic Pauline corpus have some major factual divergence about dates/times/events. Scholars give Paul precedence when describing events he was personally involved in. The L Junius Gallo inscription provides basis for the most accurate timeline of Paul's travels and writing.
 * 2) Paul's major contention (best phrased in Romans) is salvation through faithfulness alone (the faithfullness of Christ in following the Lord's will) not through Mosaic Law (works). He sets up the example of Abraham as a pre-law righteous individual (saved through suspended eschatology). Thus, strict adherence to Mosaic laws is not necessary.

My primary source is L. Michael White, bio at bottom of page offical UT bio Feco 17:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VfD - Zionist Terrorism
Jayjg, I assume you're occupied with Shavous now, but afterwards, please vote at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Zionist_terrorism Mikeage 18:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) May peace last on earth but No War!!!

I wish all of us live today and living on mother earth today should be all united under one leadership and let there be no terriorism nor war and let all the ruler just have one same kindness and heart. Bhutan is peaceful even though we went to civil war in 17th century but but the country is under the rule of His Majesty Jigme Singye Wangchuk which the heridiatory Monarchy started from december 17th 1907 and he is the head of the state and people who live here are happy about him, no doubt. My message to all of you who read this, no matter either Politician nor students or civil servants, lets be united and no more war.

User:Rabbis vs. real Rabbis
Dear Jay, I know that you are familiar with some of this: There is a new user who has chosen the controversial user name of of User:Rabbis for himself. I have just sent him a lengthy message with my concerns and a request that he change this name to avoid confusion with real Rabbis, see User talk:Rabbis. Perhaps you could help him choose another more appropriate name. This user's few entries have revolved around a vote in support of keeping a controverssial article (about some Jewish clergy meeting with the last Pope) that was eventually deleted downloading a newspaper article (because it mentions a cantor who later met with the Pope, singing at a concert) that is nominated for deletion  votes to keep a vanity article at  then votes to "undelete" article about anon cantor  then threatens "I've discussed the matter with my colleagues, and we are getting the Anti-Defamation League involved now" at Talk:Relations between Catholicism and Judaism, then inserts stuff into Relations between Catholicism and Judaism and is reverted twice  and  Please look into this. Thank you. IZAK 23:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Cantors vs. real Cantors
Hi again Jay: This seems clearly related to the above User:Rabbis only this time my objections have been lodged against User:Cantors for similar reasons, see User talk:Cantors. This user may be a sockpuppet for User:Rabbis because of a corresposnding pattern and a fixated interest in "Eliezer Kepecs" almost exclusively. User:Cantors' first edit is on 17 May '05, and User:Rabbis was on 5 May '05. From the start, User:Cantors is focused on only one thing "Cantor Kepecs" (himself?), lists the article about himself (?) for "undeletion" and votes to "keep"  and  two vanity articles that are deleted, inserts and is reverted for interfering with undeletion policy discussions , and after placing six (!) "categories" on his user page has them removed  by an admin. This needs some serious correction. Thanks for your help. IZAK 02:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VfD of User:Cantors
Under these extradordinarily confusing circumstances, I have now nominated the User:Cantors page for deletion of contents and also renaming. See Votes for deletion/Cantors. Thank you. IZAK 03:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other user names with the same "Cantor" content
On User:Merlinzor and User talk:Merlinzor there is the same stuff repeated as on User:Cantors. Is this guy meshugge or what? IZAK 05:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * And again at User talk:Professor Kaufman, mostly the same as above. This is some nut. IZAK 03:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Circumcision
Hi Jay

Would you mind keeping an eye on this article. User:ScapegoatVandal appears determined to include his conspiracy theories. See:  and. I can't revert any more - actually looking at the history I've just realised I've inadvertently broken the 3RR - forgot about last night. Oops. Anyway, if you could keep an eye. Thanks. - Jakew 13:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, come to get your big bad ass Jewish friends to back you up in a mob effort to suppress media dissent? You Jews, gays and co. don't own the Wikipedia. I changed my edit each time to be more palatable and understandable. I did not violate the rules, by putting things in better context for people to recognise what the edits were about. You can feel free to push your jew/gay pro-circumcision POV propaganda all you want, just not here at the wikipedia. I will not be dominated by the likes of you. You can shove it up your ass and die! ScapegoatVandal 14:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ScapegoatVandal, anti-semitism and personal attacks are hateful and foreign to the spirit of this encyclopedia. BrandonYusufToropov 20:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats kinda funny. Is he banned yet? --Irishpunktom\talk 21:52, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Gamaliel banned him for two seperate 3RR infringements. JFW | T@lk  22:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anon IPs on suicide bombing
Hmm. It seemed like a slightly workable version of this article was being reached, but now some anonymous IPs have joined the debate. On teh one side, Yuber will revert to any version which criticises any interpretation (no matter how crazy) of Islamic teaching, on the other some random IPs (probably Enviroknot) will revert him or Tom to a much previous version. Any ideas? Have a look at my version anyway, I dont agree with excising the 72 virgins reference - it's claptrap but claptrap peddled by the PA and the Islamists. Thanks illWill 22:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not Enviroknot but I'll tell you what's wrong with your edits: you are deliberately minimizing and covering up the situation. It is not just peddled by the PA and "Islamists", it's peddled by Muslims all over the world and part of the core of the faith, just like the subjugation of women as nothing more than brood mares. (unsigned comment by anon IP)


 * Jay, sorry for responding to this on your talk page.


 * Sorry, but I don't think religious bigotry helps anybody. We were working closer to a consensus on the article, via the talk page. If you care about the debate, sign your comments, get an account. illWill 22:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are not Enviroknot, why was your first edit an edit to his page? --Irishpunktom\talk 22:49, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Jay, thanks for comment. What is the procedure when somebody uses anon IPs to repeatedly revert an article? If you look at their edit histories they are all obviously Enviroknot. Who else would A) revert Enviroknot's user page B) post statements like 'Enviroknot is a good man'. illWill 22:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've posted info regarding the anon IPs on SlimVirgin's talk - if the vandalism continues I will do as you suggest and request arbitration.illWill 23:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * My "first" edit wasn't reverting Enviroknot's page, but I got very tired of seeing Islamists vandalizing it and persecuting him. My FIRST edit was dealing with that islamist fuck Yuber's vandalism.
 * And it's not religious bigotry. I've BEEN THERE. I WAS A MUSLIM. You have no idea what Islam is like until you've been in, and left. The islamists on here will lie and lie and lie some more about the religion, because they're trying to trap people into it. Enough is enough. I'm glad people are finally standing up to them.

And round and round we go. El_C 00:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have requested the page be protected, hopefully to the last version by IrishPunktom which represents whatever could ever pass for consensus on the suicide bombing talk page. Is there any way to ensure that Enviroknot doesn't manage to get it locked to the version he's been reverting to, which I assume is his aim? illWill 00:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That made me chuckle, and was pretty useful for my non-contentious research, so thanks. Actually, the version protected is fine. The only person who doesn't seem happy with it is Guy Montag (and Enviroknot, of course).illWill 14:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Categ for deletion
Hi Jay: Please see: Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 17. Thank you and have a good Shabbes. IZAK 06:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My Rfa
Thank you for supporting me! --Kbdank71 13:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA: Thanks!
Hi Jayjg! Thanks for your support on my RFA! Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zionism
Hi Jayjg - thanks for clearing up that Zionism paragraph, I was trying to ward off the edit war between those two and know my entry wasn't well-put. Cheers :) --Firien 14:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mordechai Vanunu
I looked at your revert of 83.109.156.215's 15:06 edit on this article and thought I'd have a bit of a look around. Amnesty has been a prominent campaigner on Dr Vanunu's behalf and has described his treatment in the terms attributed to them. This is not mentioned in the text, and indeed Amnesty is listed as a "neutral organisation" on this issue, which I'm not sure is entirely correct. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well the wording of the subheadings isn't really very useful now because it seems to cast the whole world as either Pro-Vanunu or Anti-Vanunu, when it's much more complex. Amnesty isn't neutral but its public stance is motivated by concern for civil rights. The BBC is also listed under "supporters' websites", and while the BBC as a news organization tends to be very pro-civil rights and has also tended to be hostile to the activities of Israel since the late 1970s, it's not just a "pro-Vanunu" website.  Ditto the Guardian.  The impression given by casting these all into a subsection labelled "Supporters' websites" is that these are all just a bunch of activists.  The same thing happens in the "Detractors' websites" section, with a Haaretz report and a government memorandum being tucked in there where they are easily missed.
 * If I get time I'll raise this problem with a few suggestions on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deletion
Jayjg, could you be less agressive in your modifications after my changes ? Before deleting long parts, because you think that the facts is not sourced or are not relevant, you could ask me the sources, and discuss about the relevancy before deleting everything, which is not very nice for my work. Thank you. --Marcoo 19:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah
I'm sorry, but I've been to busy the last few days to do anything on Wikipedia. Perhaps the issues you had with Marcoo have been resolved by now? I think he has an unfortunate tendency to think in terms of political "positions", which doesn't correspond very well with Wikipedia policies. In any case, I've added a brief comment to the talk page concerning a particular sentence. Finally I would like to thank you for all the work you have done on Wikipedia. I've only looked at a fraction of your edits, but I really think you do an excellent job. In fact I don't quite understand how anyone could manage to do what you do.:-) --Denis Diderot 20:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CE removals
Thanks for your help in reverting 195.40.200.222's removals of CE notes. He/she has apparently done this in hundreds of articles over the course of a single day, for reasons that defy my understanding. --Briangotts 17:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * He managed to delete BCE/CE references from almost 300 articles in 3 hours or so. At one point he was hitting 4 articles a minute; I thought he was a bot. In any event, his theoretical reason for deleting was because the references were superfluous, but his actual edits show something else. These anons show up on Wikipedia from time to time; they take great offence at BCE/CE notation, and proceed to try to delete as many references to them as they can. He claims he will be back to delete AD references as well, but I find this doubtful, given the fact that he never bothered to do so on any of the articles he edited when he removed BCE/CE, and in fact added AD references to articles in place of CE. Jayjg (talk) 17:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * His typing prowess is impressive, if not his judgment. I didn't see him put AD over CE; in the articles on my watchlist, he just deleted CE. In some places this was confusing; in others it was totally insane as it left an unfamiliar reader at a total loss as to what period was being referred to. --Briangotts 17:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, he seems to have stopped. Unless he's continuing from another IP--Briangotts 16:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Eequor (2nd)
Hello! I've been strongly in favor of Eequor becoming an admin, because I think she has a better handle on wikipedia and policy than most.

If I'm mistaken, that would be really bad. Since that's basically what you're saying, I'd like to triple-check myself.

Could you point me where in her edit history you see evidence of her not understanding policy?

Kim Bruning 17:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh, since she's not a christian I don't think she meant Evangelize in that sense :-P (The 4 evangelical books are the core of the new testament, so the summary can be read to mean she's including information from that source). Else it would be a policyvio for sure. The actual content of the edit is correctly sourced information, as far as I can tell,  and thus should be NPOV?


 * Please correct me if I'm wrong!


 * Kim Bruning 18:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Further history shows her also adding in accounts by romans on location, so she does indeed add not one but *several* sourced texts, each from a different POV afaict. Seems like solid research. Once again, I could be mistaken, if so, please enlighten me! Kim Bruning 18:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't know, I'd have to check the exact sources, but it seems like a valid interpretation of the text as written. Probably we can't get away with calling that deliberate POV pushing. But well, if you insist, perhaps the editor went out on a limb further than the sources allowed? It's a common mistake I suppose.


 * On the other hand, the editor does provide sources... which is better than most edits on wikipedia even today. heh. ^^;; Kim Bruning 20:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Images from Jewishencyclopedia.com
What's the policy on these, if you know? They are scans of pictures from the original Jewish Encyclopedia, which is PD. I uploaded a few of them to add to some articles (Samaritan, for instance). My opinion as a lawyer is that one cannot photocopy or scan a PD document or a portion thereof and then claim a copyright, but the pics are marked (c) and I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy is. Nobody has contacted me complaining of them, nor has anyone marked them as copyvio, but I want to make sure everything's kosher. --Briangotts 17:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of the same thing at one point, but the copyright may just be something added by the Jewish Encyclopedia folks as a matter of course, just like they have a copyright at the bottom of all of their pages, even though the text is explicitly not copyrighted. Maybe we should contact them? --Goodoldpolonius2 17:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IANAL, but it seems to me that the copyright expired on the whole work, including all pictures. Jayjg (talk) 18:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That jives with what my understanding of copyright law is (I am a lawyer, but that's not my area of expertise). I was more concerned that there might be a Wikipedia policy on these kinds of things.

Israeli West Bank Separation Barrier
I fail to see how I violated the NPOV by adding comments only to sections under "Palestinian opinions" and "allegations" and made sure to preface all my sentences as such. My additions were to a section that outlined "Palestinian opinions" which is supposed to list the thoughts of Palestinians "as is" on the matter. I did not touch the rest of the article but restricted my comments to the "opinions" section that I, as a Palestinian who actually lives behind the Israeli wall, saw as severly lacking (not biased, just not complete, and I think I would know better than most). I believe your reverting my few sentences is preserving a UPOV (Unneutral POV). Why was the article reverted?

Mukata'a
You are going too far with this one. 1- There is nothing against NPOV about stating that, between Jordanian and Palestinian Authority rule, there mukata was the Israeli military headquarters. I used to stand there for hours waiting for permission to travel, etc. I know. 2- The headquater office is for the president of the Palestinian Authority, which at one time was Yasir Arafat and is now Mahmoud Abbas. The building has a "Presidency" seal engraved over the entrance, not "Yasir Arafat"'s name. That's not a POV, that's a fact. 3- To Palestinians, the very people who live there, and to most Arabic-speaking people, the mukata'a was NEVER known as "Arafat's compound". Therefore, citing "western media" is appropriate, deleting it is not. 4- Since you alluded to "inflammatory" remarks in my earlier posts, the use of the word Terrorist matter-of-factedly is inflammatory, especially since the article is talking about "accused" and "alleged" terrorists and not convicted ones. 5- The Mukata'a was the military and political headquarters of the Palestinian Authority, and did have weapons given and licensed by the Israelis. The use of the phrase "illegal weapons" is quite obviously a POV, and therefore I removed it. 6- The temple mount is known to Palestinians as the Noble Sanctuary. In my version, I used both that and "Temple Mount". You deleted one, which is uncalled for. 7- "Israel defense forces" is a very inflammatory name among Palestinians. Israeli army is usually acceptable to all in Wikipedia posts.

Please preserve the NEUTRAL point of view aspect and stop letting your personal biases interfere with articles from the middle east.

Have you even read the accords? The Mukata'a was where he stayed whenever he came to Ramallah but his main headquarters were in Gaza City. Either way, his headquarters location was not stipulated per se in the Oslo accords.
 * After the accords they became Arafat's headquarters; this is completely accurate and neutral.

We speak English in the middle east as well, and we never call it that.
 * "Arafat's Compound" is how it has been described in English, not just Western media, and this is English Wikipedia.

"Dome of the Rock", as written in English, is about as common as "Temple Mount", and if Wikipedia is truly a NPOV work (which I believed it was until seeing your edits), there should be no "official" Wikipedia POV. I did not ONCE refer to them as "Israeli Occupation Forces" in this post. I resent that. I called them Israeli Army which is one usage English-speaking Wikipedia users from both sides agree on. Right - not Jayjg's standards though.
 * Temple Mount is both the common English name and the Wikipedia name for the Temple Mount.
 * Israel Defense Forces, short form IDF, is the legal, common, and Wikipedia name, not "Israel Occupation Forces" or whatever other POV names you have been inserting, in an attempt to delete their name.
 * You can call them all whatever you like in Arabic Wikipedia, but in English Wikipedia you have to follow English usage and Wikipedia standards.


 * I've continued this conversation where it belongs, on the article Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Phobic attitude?!
I'd like your opinion on this very new article by Mikkalai: Phobia (attitude). Neologism? Accurate definition of phobia? Are there sources for this concept? I looked up Phobic attitude (a redirect) on google, and the first 10 hits all discuss phobia in terms of only fear and anxiety. Very strange... -HKT 23:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 00:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for not opposing my RfA. -Willmcw 04:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Theo RFA
Thank you for taking the time to review my history before supporting my candidacy. Considered support is the most valuable.&mdash;Theo (Talk) 08:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Bet"(ter dead or alive)?
Hi Jay, please see revert history at Bet (letter). Is not the Hebrew language a vibrant living language whereas Phoenicia is a dead civilization and its language is an Extinct language? (As proof, see List of extinct languages where the Phoenician languages are in the "extinct" column.) Thanks. IZAK 09:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yiddish duplication
Gelt and mensch are also on both pages. Perhaps a Merge Request is appropriate. Grika 16:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VfD: Phobia (attitude)
It's now up for VfD here. HKT 20:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abraham article dispute
Jayjg, although you have made relatively good edits to the Abraham article in the past, I have to say I don't understand why you are eliminating all mention of the Qur'an in the disputed paragraph. I mean even if there are no Jewish/Christian accounts of Abraham independant of Genesis, there are still plenty in the Qur'an and that should be mentioned. Please give me a response message as soon as possible. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 00:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Admin Help
Jayjg, I have been stuck with an annoying name for too long. Can you use your admin powers to transform me from Goodoldpolonius2 to GoodPolonius, while still maintaining my edit history, watchlist, and Talk pages? It is still a lame name, but at least it offers some continuity and is shorter to write... Let me know, either here on on my talk pages? --Goodoldpolonius2 00:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Radhanite
I've placed the Radhanite article up for peer review. Your comments and criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Briangotts 19:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll look at it in more detail soon, but I would say on first read-thru the thing that would be most helpful for the article would be for it to have explicit footnotes for the various statements made in it, rather than general references. E.g. Bendiner, Elmer The Rise and Fall of Paradise, pp. 48-50. I can show you how to make pretty footnotes if you like. Jayjg (talk) 20:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I assume you mean setting up numbered links after the text that drop down to a list of endnotes. I would like to know how to do that, not just for this but also for the Khazars article and others. --Briangotts 20:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There are two different styles for doing it; you'll find one at Qana, and the other at Dhimmi. The style at Dhimmi numbers itself, but some people don't like the way it looks. Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the Qana version better, though it doesn't self-number. . It's a pretty big job, and likely to take a while. I'll get around to it though, and thanks for the help. --Briangotts 21:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPA blocking
Hi there! I'm attempting to revitalize Blocking policy/Personal attacks with a proposal that's far more lenient than the previous two, and requires multiple attacks and multiple opinions. The main point is that the remote threat of blocking may well discourage people from attacking. Anyway since you were involved in the previous version, I'd like your feedback on the new one. Thanks, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 17:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hezbollah
Yes! I was moving it out of the intro, but I must have forgotten to put it elsewhere. I'll do it shortly. If you disagree, feel free to revert. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:16, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Zionism
"good edits in general, but you removed this. Palestine was the goal, other ideas gained no popularity." You sure? The so called "Uganda Project" was a serious plan at the very beginning, I thought. BTW - that section might better be renamed to "Jewish Aliyah" or something, since it's more about that, rather than zionism per se. Ramallite (talk) 11:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know, up to you regarding renaming the section. My thoughts: "Modern Jewish Immigration", "Zionism and Immigration", "Zionism and Aliyah". Ramallite (talk) 15:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Do you think that Anonymous editor moving your quote to make it appear as if you wrote "exactly so" to him would be considered vandalism? I hope that it was an accident on Anonymous' part... If you want to follow this up, I'll leave it to you.HKT 17:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I didn't notice those real anonymous editors until I posted the above. HKT 17:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not Me!
As you seem to be "on duty," please release the block by Linuxbeak on 207.200.116.132. I can't help it if AOL gives me a IP address that is also used by a vandal. This has happened before (see my talk page) but I assure you I am a responsible user. And, no, I don't know why I can continue to post here but not edit elsewhere. WBardwin 20:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks anyway, but Bishonen noticed my plea on Linuxbeak's talk and released it just a few moments ago. I really don't know why I can post in some places and not others when the block comes in.  Maybe the system reads my IP address in some places and my Wiki user info on another.  But it is a common characteristic whenever this happens.  I wish the other guy on 207.200.116.132 would find something else to do.  I appreciate your attention.  WBardwin 20:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hate crime
Just out of curiousity, what is there that says a terrorist act is not also a hate crime? Me, I'd tend to think that hate crime is a subset of terrorism. Or maybe a superset, come to think of it – it's hard to conceive of terrorism without hate. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hate crime and i guess it would be very much impolite to discuss this topic in this knowledgeable website.

RNZAF
I was a pilot in the RNZAF, I think I'm qualified to comment on the large scale demoralization that occured when the Labour Government disbanded the combat wing. Stop being a tyrant, you don't own Wikipedia. - User:ATS

Trolltalk VfD
Hi there. I just wanted to let you know how misguided I think your vote on the above VfD is. I said the following on the VfD page: "This VfD is the most disturbing thing I've yet seen on Wikipedia: a strong push to delete high-quality Wikipedia content because some Wikipedians personally dislike those who are described in the article. Even more disturbing, the "delete" crowd includes an administrator (Jayjg), who should really know better. I'm so disappointed in Wikipedia. I didn't think it was so easily compromised by prejudice and whim." That really is how I feel. You've been entrusted by the Wikipedia community with the responsibility to protect Wikipedian, and I feel that in this particular instance you are instead using that power to wound it. Please reconsider. Babajobu 21:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I guess that's true. Babajobu 04:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Controversial Israel-Palestine stub
Jay: I received the following and am posting it here FYI. Thanks IZAK 03:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi IZAK - I would welcome your input on something that I have proposed at WP:WSS/C (the stub sorting wikiproject). I am largely responsible for the split of geography stubs into separate categories. At the moment, Category:Middle East geography stubs is getting fairly large, and the most obvious split of it is to make a separate category for Israel. BUT - and here is where the problem lies - understandably, several of the stubs could be just as easily stubbed with a template for Palestine, especially if they are to remain NPOV, and especially given the volatile claims to different parts of that troubled region.

I am proposing a category called Category:Israel-Palestine geography stubs, with two separate stub templates israel-geo-stub and palestine-geo-stub both leading to it. The resulting stub category would be a subcategory of both Category:Israel and Category:Palestine. It is, quite honestly, the only way I can think of to get around this delicate problem.

If you can think of any better way of working this, I would welcome any suggestions at WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria. Thanks - Grutness...  wha?  10:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Grutness, thank you for requesting my input. I will respond soon and will circulate your request to others for further input. IZAK 21:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The more voices the better - if you know anyone willing to comment from the Palestinian viewpoint as well, it would be appreciated. Grutness...  wha?  23:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/WikiProject Addressing Anti-Jewish Bias
See my comments there. HKT 05:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, not yet. I probably won't, though under different circumstances I probably would have. The project doesn't seem to have much potential, but its VfD symbolizes how one irritable fellow can stir up a ruckus and convince many editors (who only take a superficial look at the circumstances) to follow his impulsive campaign. A bit disturbing, I think, but lots of things are disturbing. This project's deletion would not be, in and of itself, a great loss. HKT 05:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Actually, on second thought, I think that abstaining may just reinforce unacceptable behavior. I certainly see no meaningful harm in preserving the page. I may vote Keep, but I'd like to "sleep on it" before deciding. HKT 06:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for the welcome message. --MattWright (talk) 07:07, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm back
Thanks for the note, Jay, and I appreciate the invite. I've been in Toronto on business for the last three days and have had very limited access to the Internet. I'll catch up with things today, Godwilling. Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 13:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

September 11, researchers
Jay, thanks for the heads up on the 'foregone' merger. As noted previously, a merger into an article with an egregiously dubious title is at best problematic, and more to the point, inherently suspect. The fact that a suspect conspiracy theory was floated as an excuse for the preemptive war on Iraq is not generally reflected in other article titles, so there is no reason for 9/11 researchers to be marginalized with a misleading article title when articles associated with the 'official' conspiracy theory are not. Although the merger is fated to transpire, it is hoped that all due consideration is given to retitling the merged article. Ombudsman 17:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I need to vanish for a week or two to finish a major research project where I work, but after that I could see what was left to do on merging. I suspect that some of the reluctance for the page creators to help is endemic to the area of conspiracy research, where researchers tend to overvalue their POV and undervalue repeated criticism and the suggestion that their views are marginal.  Still, we need to make sure they are represented fairly in some way.--Cberlet 28 June 2005 20:27 (UTC)

Some things to see
Hi Jay: Be well. IZAK 28 June 2005 10:19 (UTC)
 * 1) See Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 28. The article Sacha Pecaric has been nominated for removal to Jewish Polish current events.
 * 2) See Requests for adminship/Susvolans

Sharon visit approval
Since the preceding paragraphs refer to Israeli/Palestinian discussions of Sharon's visit, it may be a bit unclear who approved his visit. Do you know if it was the Israeli government, the police, the Shin Bet, or all? I don't remember.

Also, the Palestinians denied that they had given tacit approval to Barak over the visit, and in fact said afterwards that they had pleaded with Barak not to let Sharon go. According to the journal Tikkun:
 * The Palestinian intifada broke out at the end of September 2001, following Ariel Sharon’s armed visit to the Temple Mount plateau. One day earlier, Erekat carried a personal request to Ross from Arafat: that the United States use its influence to stop Sharon from going to the Mount, lest a catastrophe should occur. Ross refused, saying that U.S. influence would only make matters worse: “We won’t dissuade him, but we may incite him” (728). It was a lame response: what, exactly, would U.S. action incite Sharon to do? Visit the Temple Mount?

Based on a NY Times article, Arafat apparently asked Barak at his residence not to let Sharon up on the mount, Barak refused. Barak later denied the discussion had ever taken place. A copy of that article is here, you may already be familiar with all this. Don't you think it should be mentioned? On the other hand, I hate to elongate articles with continuous views/counterviews... Ramallite (talk) 28 June 2005 18:31 (UTC)

Lost Ten Tribes
Please stop deleting the link to Paul Phelps article. I don't see any reason to delete it and your repeated deletions are annoying. If you have anything to say about it, use the discussion page for that article. --Ryz05 28 June 2005 22:57 (UTC)

Alex groos/212.179.228.238
Thanks for the reverts to this guy putting links everywhere. He tracked down my home email from somewhere and asked me why I was deleting his links. His signature actually had the site he linking to. He's had few IPs and logged in as Alex groos for the last few days. Jgritz 29 June 2005 20:35 (UTC)


 * Got this lovely message, from our linking friend where he actually admits it's his link where he's selling stuff. I getting bored of it now, but I really don't think this guy should be rewarded with getting his own way for this behaviour. And it doesn't look like he's going to back down. Any ideas? Jgritz

on intifadas
I feel like the first Intifada article needs a little context near the beginning, ya know what I mean? like, if one knew nothing about the conflict, it'd be a murky way to start the article, ya know? I'll be in touch about this probly. word? later. Kzzl 29 June 2005 20:43 (UTC)

Israel
This section of the Israel article is misleading:
 * "Promising to annihilate the new Jewish state (though their actual motivation was more complex), the armies of six Arab nations attacked the fledgling state."

Can you explain a source for the assertion that the "actual motivation" of the attacking Arab nations was more than just the defeat of the State of Israel? I've done extensive research on this subject, and I see no such other motivation.

While I understand the removal of the "drive the Jews into the sea" remark, particularly as it wasn't made by Abdul Nasser until 1957 (my mistake!), I think this "actual motivation" parenthetical is misleading. I do not believe there was any motivation beyond the defeat and destruction of Israel, plain and simple.

Israel

 * I think one other motivation cited was simply a "land grab". Jayjg (talk) 29 June 2005 21:55 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate, then, to cite other motivations, instead of using the blanket "actual motivations were more complex" tag. But maybe that's just me. Erzeszut 29 June 2005 22:02 (UTC)

Jayjg's blocks
jayjg, why did you block/censor 69.222.252.120 moments after you were asked not to? 69.217.201.176 29 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)
 * You've been blocked for 3RR violation; accept your block and wait out the 24 hours, rather than continually using new IPs. Each time you use a new IP to edit, you violate Wikipedia policy, which extends the block. Jayjg (talk)  29 June 2005 22:36 (UTC)

Lustiger
See the talk page. The distinction is not pedantic in cases like this. Hasdrubal 29 June 2005 23:45 (UTC)

hr problem on taxoboxes
Do you know whom to contact regarding the fact that the horizontal rules created by == bleh == section headings are running through the images and text in taxonomy boxes (as well as in other places I just haven't noticed yet)? Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK July 1, 2005 02:54 (UTC)

Suicide bombing
Oy. It just goes on and on. --Briangotts 1 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

Heya Jay
You know, you were one of the first people I encountered when I started editing Wikipedia :-) I appreciate your vote! How've things been? Still battling the trolls and POV-pushers? - Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 05:13 (UTC)

User:155.232.250.19
I'm very troubled by some of the changes coming out of this account recently, e.g. Khazars, Israelites, and Holocaust denial. I've already reverted the changes to the Khazar article; some of the others I'm not quite sure merit reversion under WP rules. Would you take a look when you get a chance?

Thanks
Thank you for casting the final supportive vote on my RfA. It was greatly appreciated. I do promise never to abuse or misuse my new "powers". Gratefully, Bratsche talk  5 pillars July 1, 2005 19:45 (UTC)

Zionist Terrorism
Uniquely Lehi etc...

No - other people called it terrorist at the time. So this is simply factually inaccurate. 62.253.64.15 1 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

Arbitration committee decision
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in Requests for arbitration/KaintheScion et al. &rarr;Raul654 July 2, 2005 02:29 (UTC)

thanks!
Thanks Jayjg for your support of my RfA. I'm encouraged that you find me a responsible editor, and I hope to continue helping the project with my new admin powers. --Spangineer (háblame)  July 4, 2005 03:59 (UTC)

Help!
We seem to have a new template that is really screwing with the sites formatting. See Template:TOCright. I have listed it on WP:TFD. To see how it is causing problems, see Daniel Pipes. - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 08:05 (UTC)

Suicide Bombing
If you haven't already noticed it, you might want to look at the extensive editing made by the anonymous editor to the suicide bombing page (a few edits back), some of it has been changed since, some of it hasn't. S/he has gone through teh article and changed all the references to 'civilians' to 'alleged civilians' - and various other additions. I don't think it needs total reversion, just extensive re-editing in parts. I don't have time to do it myself, I'm afraid.illWill 4 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)

Mishnah stuff
See Keilim Danny 4 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)

Timbouctou
I've read it in a number of places, but this one comes immediately to mind. Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK July 4, 2005 17:43 (UTC)

I know you're busy, but ...
Could you please take a look at the ongoing dispute at Sahaba? Many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 4 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

Zionist Terrorism
You are in breach of the three reverts rule. Please roll back your cahnges of I will contact an administrator 62.253.64.15 4 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I've reverted the page only once. Contact whomever you please. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  4 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)

For Meritorious Service
Awarded for Spirited Defense of the Mysterious Cabal which Rules Wikipedia, the Media, International Finance, and the Garment District, this 27th of Sivan, 5765. Gzuckier 5 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)

secret coded message
I know, I've been mulling it over for a month but decided the situation is reminiscent of the joke, whose punch line is Hitler pledging to return for a fourth Reich, "and this time, no more Mr. Nice Guy". Gzuckier 5 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)

IFD
I was just sitting down to the task of nominating Image:KyleChapman.jpg for deletion and found that you already had done so. Thanks! If we need a description, then "beady-eyed, fair-haired, pudgy, white guy with a goatee" might be sufficient. ;) (Glad that he's retiring and maybe we'll never hear of him again. ) Cheers, -Willmcw July 5, 2005 09:51 (UTC)

Who owns wikipedia
I know you're just an admin, but who owns wikipedia? Who's the starter of this one?

Who owns wikipedia
I know you're just an admin, but who owns wikipedia? Who's the starter of this one?

Disclaimer
Just so you know that this anon is viewed my me and other Poles as a troll and vandal as well. Please don't think we support his attacks and accusations in anyway whatsoever. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 5 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It's touching to know that I'm noticed! HKT 6 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)

Protocols of the Elders of Zion
I don't think it is fair that you edited out my intro to the section regarding contemporary use. Unfortunately, too many people are under the impression that there is a long history of anti-semitism in the Muslim. This idea is quite to the contrary, anti-semitism reared its ugly little head in the Arab world only after the advent of the state of Israel. Prior to that time there definitely was not the sort of anti-Semitism in the Arab world that was made prevalent and popular by europeans...I think that should definitely be noted, you were wrong to remove it from that article!

Jewish Polish history issues
Hello Jay: Would you care to take a look at the discussions (involving mainly User:Piotrus) at Talk:History of the Jews in Poland. The article was approaching 90k, and I created a template (JewishPolishHistory) into which I subdivided and placed all the original contents of the main article leaving it as a lead article for a longer series on Jewish-Polish history. Piotrus' objective was to have only one loooong article and to primarily make it into a "FA" (Featured Article), and I disagree with that focus (...how can you squeeze over 1000 years of history into one "FA" article?) His way would also leave the article as an appendix of Polish history mainly, rather than presenting the topic for what it is as the vast subject of Jewish-Polish history connected to the continuum of Jewish history as well. We have been reverting each others versions. Your sage counsel is needed. IZAK 6 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)

Christian opposition to anti-Semitism
Care to copy edit Christian opposition to anti-Semitism? IZAK 6 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)

The IP
I've informed the latest IP address used that, due to his block evasion, I'm extending the block another day. Let me know when he switches IPs so I can start watching different ones. Snowspinner July 6, 2005 15:17 (UTC)

Thank you
I couldn’t figure out how to post a new topic so please forgive (I just discovered this site) I just wanted to say thank you to jayjg. You showed me how serious this website is with your careful editing of my edits that were just thrown in without too much thought. I appreciate the effort it must take

THANK YOU AND ALL THE EDITORS (even the ones I (already!!!) believe should not be editors) for your participation in this wonderful site