User talk:Jayjg/Archive 12

Generally, I don't rv non-anons without commenting to them so I thought I'd note I reverted your revert on Holocaust. The initial insertion about Eichmann may have been from a supporter—trial was rendered in quotes as if it were illegitimate and Eichmann was described as "mastermind"—however, myself and another use paused over and changed the sentence. As it stands, it doesn't imply any support for Eichmann. Noting that he was kidnapped in Argentina is quite interesting and deserves a mention—it made me pause to read his page re-fresh my knowledge. Marskell 00:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely watch the page so I will leave it. However, reverting over not one but three users is poor form. Marskell 09:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To qualify an overly-brusque response: it doesn't make sense to revert based on an initial change without considering two subsequent emendations. You don't like the scare quotes--I had removed them. "Mastermind" was POV--the word was changed by STR. The sentence as it stood was factual and NPOV and precisely the sort of interesting point that makes readers stop to follow a link. As for 70k, the change was a total of six words; if it does not dis-improve do not remove. Marskell 11:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, can you help me to undo a page move? I'm having a lot of problems with Academic degree and Double degree, which were merged and then moved, and now the edit history for Double degree has disappeared. I had this once before and you fixed it. Can you look again, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay, I dropped you an e-mail via your "e-mail this user" tab...did you get it? Regards, Babajobu 06:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay, I'll drop you another e-mail on Monday, but I think we can address concerns around privacy. Babajobu 11:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Lisa, User:RachelBrown's flatmate. Can you please see the history of List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society. All I've been doing is protecting my edit against vandals. - 81.153.41.72 16:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - seems very unfair, but I won't revert again. Is the 3RR a serious threat? I don't want to annoy Rachel. - 81.153.41.72 17:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you believe this guy. I would be in awe of the fact that he can seemingly edit an infinite number of articles simultaeneously, except for the fact that in every one he is pushing a ridiculous point of view. Anyways I reverted back to your version (I'm sure he will revert back in about 30 seconds). Can you believe they actually compared Guy to him?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting me for adminship. The RfA passed today. I look forward to working with you to make Wikipedia a better place. --Nlu 05:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask you to take a (thorough) look at Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab lands#Dubious link? I still think this is a very problematic link, and that our captioning does not give a clue. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt, Vb is using the recent discussion at History of Jews in Poland, specifically mentioning your edits, as the reason for his opposition. I thought you may want to comment there on your view of this event.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay. User:Nandesuka has also reviewed circumcision advocacy, and has come to the same conclusion regarding WP:NOR. I therefore think that it should be listed for deletion.

Unfortunately, the article is currently protected, so I'm unable to nominate it myself (or at least unable to add the tag to the article). It either needs unprotecting or an admin needs to nominate. My preference is for the latter, since the reason for protection still exists. I asked Nandesuka, but he didn't want to use admin privileges on a circumcision-related page. I respect his decision, but I can't see that adding a notification message is in any way abusing privileges. I wondered whether you would be willing to do so? Jakew 12:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to add any comments at the Talk:Nazarene page? Budo 03:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the new Judaism Wikiportal. Check it out. Neutrality^talk 03:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay: Kindly place a freeze on the page of Mordecai David Unger based on my last edits until the vandalism stops. Thanks. IZAK 04:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, please freeze the page at Ben Zion Halberstam (The Second) until vandalism ceases. Thanks a lot. IZAK 04:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've left messages on the talk pages of both Bobov articles with a warning that they will be protected if they don't behave. JFW | T@lk 08:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

can you please help me with this? i have asked other people for help including equitor and slimvirgin, but nobody does anything, and slimVirgin is taking his side. John McW 15:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for looking into it. John McW 16:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jay. Sorry I haven't been able to add anything to the discussion about Luther and the Jewish people. I know very little about Luther's attitude towards Jews, and knew even less before reading the article about him and the one on Martin Luther and Antisemitism! I did have a look after getting your message, and I looked at the edit history of Luther article, too. But it was complicated, as I hadn't been there at the time. The dispute seems to have died down now, anyway. I made a few changes (to clarify Catholic teaching) which were reverted/modified, but I tried again, making them clearer, and they seem to have been accepted.

I want to thank you also for your support on my RfA. It's very flattering that people who don't agree with me on article content still voted to support me. I expect to continue to feel the way I do about article edits, but I do promise never to abuse my administrator's tools in order to get my own way in a content dispute.

By the way, just so that you'll recognize me next time we meet on Wikipedia, please see here. Thanks again. Cheers. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 18:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help! [1] and [2]; cf. [3]

I think that entire passage needs to go. It smacks of "oh well, yeah Luther hated Jews, but he hated everyone... what a rascally old curmudgeon". I don't like the notion that this is "a part of the times" because I regard that as a very simplistic, unencyclopedic statement. As I point out, Philip Melencthon and others during the same period had relatively enlightened views towards the Jews. So the "Luther was no more antisemitic than anyone else" motif is a total cop-out. --Briangotts 21:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay. Could you please comment on the attempts to remove a sourced short quote in Talk:Martin Luther#Martin Luther and the Jews - the summary needs rework. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Some time ago you took part in the discussion on Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Rising_anti-Semitism_-_kosher_slaughter and stated that the anti-kosher laws were in fact modelled after Nazi laws. I finally had some time to adress your concerns there and quote the sources which, IMO, prove your arguments wrong.

BTW, there's my RfA going on and I thought you might be interested in it, especially that one of the users opposed my candidacy because I did not start a revert war against your edits to that article (yup!). Halibutt 01:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay: I have recently come across the article Ethnic Jew composed by User:Zestauferov once upon a time because he felt "This page is created in response to the lack of NPOV on the Jew page...11 May 2004". After all this time, the article is basically redundant because all the "base lines" are indeed discussed and covered in the main Jew article (as well as in the Judaism article). I have therefore inserted a merge template on the Ethnic Jew page. Can you please look into this. Thanks. IZAK 02:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian_exodus to make it NPOV. Thanks for your help. Zeq 17:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay: Are you aware of this abomination: Neofascism and religion#Judaism? What's your opinion? I have tried to add some "rational info" for whatever it's worth. Take a look. Maybe the whole article should be nominated for deletion? IZAK 11:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I would be grateful for your assistance in countering the systematic vandalism of a admin on the List of Dictators page. An administrator is blanking the page every few hours, without any AfD or anything. Yours,

jucifer 23:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4/Proposed_decision#Enforcement_by_block after you voted. Fred Bauder 02:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay: I have nominated the outlandich category of Category:Kabbalah followers for deletion, see the reasoning and please vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 24. Thanks IZAK 10:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a stand against hate on WP. [4]BrandonYusufToropov 12:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply over here. Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 01:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, could I ask for your help with something? As you may know, there has been a complaint about possibly defamatory material [5] in The eXile. It was added or defended mostly by Dsol (talk · contribs) and Clarence Thomas (talk · contribs), now editing as Ryan Utt (talk · contribs). I removed the disputed section, but 81.195.29.88 (talk · contribs) added it again yesterday, then when it was reverted, Dsol restored it. I left a warning on Dsol's talk page, [6] but he responded by saying he'll reinsert it if he wants to. [7] Would you mind putting the page on your watchlist, as an uninvolved admin? I believe that Dsol and Clarence Thomas are both involved with The eXile, though Dsol denies this. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay: Kindly take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 25#Sub-Categories of Jewish people. This area needs some cut-backs again. IZAK 03:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. As I wrote, I was looking forward to feedback from the community, and I would like to let you know that you should please feel free to leave any further feedback for me you may have for me in the future at my Talk page. Thanks again. Jkelly 09:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm another new admin here to say thanks for the support. I appreciate the kind comments and the time you took to check my edits. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. Steve block talk 10:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please vote here Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Sub-Categories_of_Jewish_people. Arniep 13:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, something you might want to look at. There's a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#References_title_misread_as_non-web_External_links to change the References header to "Sources", and External links to "Further reading". So far, the proposal has been accepted by all the editors on the page, but because Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy page, I'm putting it out for further discussion before changing it.

The reason for the proposal is that using "References" and "External links" is confusing. Sources are supposed to be listed under References, and any further reading is listed under Further reading or External links. But many editors think that any external links, whether used as sources or not, should go under External links, so then they list any material that isn't online, like books, under References, even if not used as a source. To cut through all this confusion, the proposal is to change the headers to Sources and Further reading, which are self-explanatory, and don't make the online/offline distinction. Comments would be welcomed. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was asked by zen-master to investigate your block on him. With the many reverts he's made, I don't see a problem with blocking him. However, I have not yet seen any of what I would consider personal attacks. Are you talking about the "I urge the POV bot gang to stop playing games" typo comments? I find that quite rude and incivil, but not a personal attack.

Additionally, I strongly feel that admins should never use their power in disputes they are directly involved in. Being involved gives a person bias, and will often be very controversial. If there is a good basis for a block, then it really doesn't take much effort or time to ask an uninvolved admin to consider blocking. My feelings are even stronger when the dispute is a revert war.

Also, revert wars with absolutely no discussion are quite silly, and they do absolutely no good. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmm chicken)} 01:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Phro on 2 and 3, 2 being from personal experience, but I don't have much respect the clarity of WP:NPA as it is, so i'll stay away from that. However, I talked to zen-master on IRC today as well today(as well as hearing from him several times via e-mail after I blocked him on that 3RR a few days ago), and I think he's lost perspective for sure, but ultimately he's more frustrated than malicious it seems. Maybe a Mediation initiated by you as a good faith thing might help here. I dunno, just a thought. karmafist 04:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The reason nobody objected to the blocks was probably simply because he needed it. I understood the reason you blocked him, but I just wanted to let you know that I agreed with the block, but for a different reason then you placed it. :) --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmm chicken)} 03:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(I had imagined, perhaps foolishly, that you would be among the people who would stand up against hate speech here, Jay.)

• (Examples -- Blowjob, Zionazi -- proving you are being utterly inconsistent with this)

• "Gee, fascinating point, but, um, neocons really need to stand unchallenged in this particular case, but anyway thanks for raising this, and, er, what if you go fix those articles yourself?"

• It is not my point (as though you didn't know) that Blowjob and Zionazi -- and Kike and Gun nut and Judeofascism -- "need work." My point is rather that a systemic bias exists preventing those harsh, controversial terms from meriting separate articles (and the perceived legitimacy such an article implies), and b) that this systemic bias has, at the same time, no problem whatsoever with harsh, controversial terms like Islamofascism or Feminazi or Raghead. (If I may quote from that article: "Sikhs (who wear turbans) are particularly offended at being lumped together with Islamic 'ragheads.' -- Can you picture a sentence like that in Kike? Oh wait, never mind that article doesn't exist, so it's a moot @#$%^&* point.)

• Could you please do me a favor and read the above paragraph again, carefully?

• What I have perhaps grown slightly weary of hearing:

• "Gee, if you want to try pushing Zionazi, you can, but I don't think you'll get it up the hill..." THIS IS PRECISELY MY POINT, TA BU.

• What I have perhaps grown equally weary of hearing:

• "Inconsistent? Who's being inconsistent? Tell you what, why don't you go spend some time on Blowjob? And, while you're at it, uh, stop bothering me?" That's what the neocons say when they want me to go away, Ta bu, and frankly I imagine that's your objective too. BrandonYusufToropov 12:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, would you consider doing a check user, please, for Chaosfeary (talk · contribs) and CltFn (talk · contribs)? Some editors on the Islam-related pages are wondering if they're the same person (I don't agree with them, but they insist there are similiarities in style.) There has been a lot of reverting and some personal attacks from both, particularly the former. There's also a suspicion that Chaosfeary is User:Enviroknot, which I find more plausible. I believe 209.123.8.125 (talk · contribs) is also involved, probably an open proxy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jay, that's very helpful. I'll pass it on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand your position.

Is "kike" encyclopedic, in your view? BrandonYusufToropov 12:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jayjg. After talking to zen-master on IRC and e-mail, it seems that he's more frustrated than malicious, but that's just from brief exposure to him(I skimmed over the rfar), i'm sure you and others have a different perspective. Anyway, I gave him my two cents on how to avoid issues like this in the future, and IMO, I think it'd be huge if you could just go over there and say "Hey, zen-master, i'll respect you if you respect me, ok?" You might have done this in the past, I don't know, but the sense i'm getting is that he feels that the world's against him right now, and realizing that it's not might shatter that pereception, which I believe is fueling his behavior. It might not work, but it's worth a shot. Despite everything, he's still far more congenial that Pigsonthewing, an editor i've had to deal with lately who's out to discredit pretty much anybody who disagrees with him to the point that they leave Wikipedia. Knowing him, even this edit here will probably soon be followed by something like "Please desist with this fallacious unfounded personal attacks" or some other templatized tripe.karmafist 14:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing, an editor i've (sic) had to deal with lately who's out to discredit pretty much anybody who disagrees with him to the point that they leave Wikipedia Another unfounded allegation, for which I challenge you to provide evidence, knowing full well that you cannot do so.

Knowing him, even this edit here will probably soon be followed by something like "Please desist with this fallacious unfounded personal attacks" or some other templatized tripe If you didn't keep posting fallacious unfounded personal attacks, I wouldn't be able to keep pointing out that you were doing so. Andy Mabbett 12:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another unfounded allegation, for which I challenge you to provide evidence, knowing full well that you cannot do so.: And so it seems... Andy Mabbett

We seem to have a problem with the set of articles on Reform Judaism. Did you know that Reform Jews accept Jewish law and tradition as binding and normative, much like Orthodox Jews do? Neither did I, probably because such a claim is patently false. Did you know that Halakha is not Jewish law, and the customs of other groups, like the Samaritans and Karaites is "Jewish law", and that the practice of Reform Jews is also "Jewish law"? Therefore - by this linguistic trick - one is forced to claim that Reform Jews are observant of Jewish law! This kind of linguistic trickery is propaganda, and not worthy of an encyclopedia entry which tries to openly and honestly describe what people believe and practice.

I am afraid that a couple of otherwise well-meaning contributors have fallen for this misleading wordplay. In fact, most Reform rabbis throghly agree with me. Most Reform rabbis that I have spoken to explicitly admit that Reform teaches that Jewish law and tradition (i.e. halakha) is not normative (to be taken upon yourself as binding) - and most admit that Reform Judaism actively discourages certain elements of halakha.

For some time it has been a settled useage on Wikipedia that (a) halakha is often usefully translated as "Jewish law and tradition", or something like that, (b) the practice of Karaites and Samaritans is not usefully or accurately described as "Jewish law"; they are quite different groups! and (c) Reform Judaism does not accept that halakha is normative. Yet in the last few weeks two Reform apologists have begun rewriting these basic facts to make Reform look as traditional as Orthodox, which is both a diservice to actual Reform Judaism and to Orthodox Judaism. It also will confuse and mislead the vast majority of people who read our articles. Please take a look at the discussion. 00:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts on what to do here? I'm running out of ideas. Cheers. Jakew 16:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UserBrandonToropov has been harassing me, User:Ta bu shi da yu and User:Klonimus keeps making personal attacks in edit histories to make them not easily viewable except by people he doesn't like the edits of.

See:

• edit on Talk:Jihad
• Removal of move requests by me and more "evil"/"damien"-like insults
• Islamofascism (term) edit history
• User_talk:Ta bu shi da yu
• User_talk:HappyCamper

(+) edit *personal attack left on Talk:Islamofascism (term) about Klonimus

He says sorry in the edit history of Islamofascism (term) but that only appeared after I made a complaint about him on this page which is also mentioned on User:Francs2000's talk page - He obviously saw it and is worried that he might actually get in trouble for it at last.

I have been blocked once for making *one* personal attack on him already (see User_talk:Chaosfeary#Block) by User:SlimVirgin (I called him an "ugly little anal-troll" in an edit history, the previous edit by him had in the edit history "don't listen to chaosfeary enviroknot sockpuppet" or some crap like that

It seems there's one rule for everyone else yet he is allowed to insult people all he wants... --Chaosfeary 15:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC) --Chaosfeary 15:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He removed User:CambridgeBayWeather's warning on User_talk:BrandonYusufToropov, much as he tends to remove any comments he doesn't like..

So, how come when I attack him, I get blocked (by User:SlimVirgin), but he is free to do what he wants and continue to insult multiple people violating WP:NPA? I only made *one* insult against him and I was immediately blocked.

See the links above, those are just some of the examples.. I would not be surprised if he in fact was a sockpuppet of User:Yuber (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber, he has used sockpuppets before) since he was the one to start calling me "enviroknot" (an old enemy of his apparently) then quieted down and then BrandonYusuf starts in his place.. Suspicious... --Chaosfeary 16:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the contributions of Kevhorn (talk · contribs). JFW | T@lk 22:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Noachian Law and its AFD. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 00:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, I need a hand on Talk:Noahide Laws. JFW | T@lk 10:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been blocked for violating the 3 edit rule. I have no intention of starting an edit war, but the deletions of my edits was malicious, especially considering that I made retifications to the edits once notified of my POV violations. The violations were inadvertant, but clearly the page has in many cases been edited for dubious reasons. If Israel Shamir is described as an 'anti-Zionist' writer, then surely it is expected that his writings will contain anti-Israel material? To delete it because one quote is anti-Israel seems to me to be way over the top. Anyhow, how long does the block last? - Joh Domingo

Jay, I've put up a RfPP for the above because FuelWagon has started up again. Would you mind taking a look, please? See Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Animal_rights? Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see POTW almost the same way, he's consistently gotten into pointless revert wars, usually over a word or two that several people check him on. If I could, I would wave a magic wand and help him learn how to play nice with others, but I can't, and I don't think he wants to from what i've seen of him so far.

Zen-Master genuinely seems to, at least from his talking to me on IRC the other day, but can't for fear that he's part of this vast conspiracy against himself or something. You more likely than I know if it's "The Chicken or the Egg" (whether he started this because of something else, or this started because of solely him)

I don't know if you've ever tried working with him before(I assume so, but irregardless), but if he could have something that would chip away at that "Everybody's out to get me" perspective, that might solve things, I don't know. All I know is that this rfar is eating away at my beliefs, i'm becoming like POTW to protect others from POTW, and at least trying to help give zen-master some hope that there isn't some vast conspiracy where he has to mass revert everything at least slightly cathartic to me. karmafist 22:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i'm becoming like POTW. Please don't try to smear me by claiming that your recent abhorrent behaviour is anything you've learned from me. Andy Mabbett 09:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in regards to here and here, it looks like I was mistaken in making any progress. Oh well, it was worth a shot. At least something came of it, this gave me a better perspective on my current woes. Please let me know what I can do to resolve the Pigsonthewing situation in the arbcom, and i'll do it as long as Pigsonthewing stops his constant edit warring. That was my goal in the beginning, and i've lost track of that. karmafist 02:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is not Jewish at all. Just a web rumour. "“I am part Italian, I’m not all Italian. I’m part Dutch, I’m part French, I’m part German, I’m part Irish. But my name is Italian,” he said. “And I probably identify more with my Italian side than with my other parts...Italy is such a great, wonderful country. I’m very proud and honored to be asked to be a citizen.”" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5982475/ We DO cite sources. I think you underestimate me, Arniep, and everyone who works on these ethnicity-American categories. Wikipedia now has the most correct information on most actors out of any website on the internet, and definitely a lot more correct than crap websites like the IMDB, which still claims DeNiro is 3/4 Irish, that his mother was born an Irish Catholic! (she was Prebyterian) and that she became Jewish (I highly doubt that).Vulturell 03:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yuber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back to his old games of removing links to things he doesn't approve of. In this case, David Duke's solidarity visit to Syria. Reverting without first talking about it etc.Klonimus 02:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated, mostly, but Yuber and BrandonYusufToropov continue to refer to me in a WP:NPA-violating and slanderous way as "enviroknot", they have been warned already but vandalise/delete the warnings from their talk pages and continue ignoring the admins... --Chaosfeary 10:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually only removed a repetition of the link. Please check it again before threatening me with a block. Yuber^(talk) 22:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, Brandon has requested on my talk page that I ask for a user check to confirm that Brandon is not Yuber, as is being suggested by Chaosfeary. Would you mind doing this if you have time? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I do see what you mean.

Does it seem inconsistent for the similarly meager Raghead to merit an article of its own, do you think? BrandonYusufToropov 16:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For doing the research refuting Chaosfeary's accusation that I was using sockpuppets. BrandonYusufToropov 17:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, another check would be appreciated if you have time (if not, no worries). I'm about to block Chaosfeary for 3RR but want to make sure no one else violated it on the same page. Reverting against Chaos were User:Peter McConaughey and User:84.92.40.169, and Chaos is alleging it's the same person. The IP resolves to London. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to say where. It was on Image:Illpublish.png. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, you protected Animal rights a couple of days ago. A new intro has been suggested and agreed upon between Babajobu, Scales, Jdwolff, Willmcw, and myself, so I think it can be safely unprotected now, and I've placed a request for that at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Animal_rights. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just received your message.

Clearly the entries under both subjects are controversial. I became aware only recently that individuals involved with "honestreporting.com" are deliberately changing these entries to fit their own political biases

Hi Jay, I'd like to get your opinion on the actions of Brandon, who's been rather aggressive towards me over the American terrorism/Terrorism by United States of America article. In a nutshell:

• I proposed American terrorism for deletion. It was basically created to prove a point (and a WP:POINT) by User:Striver.
• A majority of editors voted to delete, but there wasn't consensus, thus it was kept. However, there was strong agreement that the article as it stood was pretty terrible.
• In an effort to start a rebuilding the article, I took it down to a neutral stub. [8]
• User:Chaosfeary moved the article to a new title of Terrorism by United States of America [9]
• At the original location (now a redirect), User:Peter McConaughey repeatedly attempted to restore a cut-and-paste version of the old article [10]. I reverted once and explained on Peter's talk page that the article had been moved, not deleted. He was rather disagreeable and less than civil, basically blaming everythign from the move to a phantom deletion on me. Later, I realized that he actually posted these exact messages elsewhere and wasn't really singling me out.
• Brandon later shows up on Peter's talk page, agreeing with him and using the edit summary "It's feeling very manipulative here, Carbonite"

[11]

• I explained yet again on the article talk page that the article was moved, not deleted. I suggested waiting until more discussion had taken place to move the article any more.
• After a several hours, I log on to Wikipedia to notice that Brandon has requested mediation with me, telling the mediator (User:Improv) "...User:Carbonite took actions that suggest to me a serious abuse of admin powers." [12]
• Looking at my full user log [13], I've only made one admin action in the past week (a completely unrelated username block).

At this point, I'm rather offended and bewildered at Brandon's actions. I must admit that it's hard to assume good faith when being accused of (ab)using powers that were never used. I know you've dealt with Brandon and I was hoping you could give me some advice on how to proceed. I'm not going to enter in mediation over a few hours of a title dispute, but I am pretty angered at having false accusations presented to a meditator. Thanks for listening and I'm open to any advice you might have. Carbonite | Talk 00:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POTW is trying to rile me up again. Can you or one of the other arbitrators do something about this? Like I said time and time again at the rfar, he'll keep on going with this trolling(of me or something else)until he's forcibly stopped, and i'm trying to stay out of this. karmafist 00:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cease making personal attacks. With regard to the above; if you're not prepared or able to back up your allegations with evidence, don't make them, either. Andy Mabbett 00:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean? He doesn't respect the arbcom enough to see the rfar(where the evidence is), but he's more than happy to hound me. Please, something has to be done here, and I do not want to be the one who has to do it, but if someone does not, I will. This cannot continue. karmafist 03:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

if someone does not, I will.: Are you making threats, again? Andy Mabbett 15:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a question of game theory: He brought the AfD, he lost it, and he has since been directing traffic there in support of this blatantly vandalous redirect [[14]] by guess who. There is absolutely no consensus for this bogus article name, and Carbonite knows it. Sometimes losing an AfD means "this article stays." In this case, though, not so much. So we've got an admin who couldn't get his way on the AfD browbeating people who are trying in good faith to implement its results, and basically daring them to move the page back where it belongs. Rather than take the dare, I asked for mediation, as the dispute resolution page suggested. BrandonYusufToropov 01:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've never dared anyone to move the article back. The fact that no editor has moved it back to American terrorism is a rather good sign that there isn't consensus for it to exist there. I did ask User:Peter McConaughey to stop making a cut-and-paste restore due to GFDL issues.

As has been explained several times, by several editors, if an AfD discussion has no consensus, that doesn't endorse the version or mean that it should be kept at a specific title. In fact, the large percentage of outright delete votes indicated that some major changes were necessary. Again, nothing was deleted. I've used zero admin tools and done nothing that any other editor (including yourself) couldn't reverse. For you to make false accusations against me in an attempt to get your way is deplorable behavior. Carbonite | Talk 01:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "that doesn't endorse the version or mean that it should be kept at a specific title" -- Nor does it dictate that it should be redirected out of existence, without the slightest wisp of consensus, to a neologism minted expressly for the purpose. The point is that there should be discussion before major action, and you didn't want to do that, as even a cursory glance at the talk page for this article will demonstrate.

Re: "The fact that no editor has moved it back is a rather good sign that there isn't consensus for it to exist there." I'm not entirely sure whether you're aware of this or not, but User:Chaosfeary very recently violated 3RR and, if you will consult his history, you will note that he sometimes brings a (what's the word) zealous approach to partisan pages like this one. It was this redirect that caused the problem -- [notice the absurd quibbling on geography]. Do you think it's possible he likes to draw people into edit wars over things like article titles and redirects? Things would be considerably calmer if you shifted the contents of the page back to American terrorism. That was the status quo ante before the article got hijacked, and that, in my view, is where the discussion should begin. BrandonYusufToropov 12:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I've ... done nothing that any other editor (including yourself) couldn't reverse" -- odd then, is it not, that it's proving to be so very difficult getting it back to American terrorism? What you write may be technically true, but it is also true that the article in question has been maneuvered into limbo by some strange force. Care to comment? Or, as a good faith gesture, move the page to American terrorism, with a small "t", where we can begin the process of talking about this article's development? BrandonYusufToropov 17:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of this whole title dispute. It's gotten far too nasty and uncivil. As I said I have done nothing that any other editor can't reverse. To show my good faith I should move an article over a protected redirect when there's still no consensus where there article should exist? I'm going to decline that offer. There's 600 other admins who can take a look at the situation. In fact, I already placed a comment on WP:AN/I asking other admins to review the page moves.

What I would like from you is to be left out of this dispute. This isn't a conflict between the two of us and it never was. I've already asked you to stop framing it as such. You've mentioned my name in section headers, edit summaries and talk pages in reference to things I've never done. You've attempted mediation of abuse that never occurred. In short, knock it off! Carbonite | Talk 17:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit [15] there is a segment added about: "biblical homeland" "Jewish traditions and culture" and more. can you explain why you think this whole section is relevant to the subject ? Could it be that the "Nakba" would take place even if Jewish trdaition was more secular Jews would be of a need to have a homeland without any conection to ""biblical" ? surly you know that Zionism is a secular idology. Thanks. Zeq 07:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since looking at that section another question comes to mind - how is this section relevant in all it's part to the issue of nakba:

"The most important means to achieve a demographic shift was through aliyah, Jewish immigration to the land of Israel. However, the Palestinian Arab population had a much higher birthrate than the Jewish counterpart, as well as some immigration [16]. Even with Jewish immigration, the Arab population greatly outnumbered the Jewish one. It was therefore clear that it would not be possible to bring about a Jewish majority in any part of Palestine, with the exceptions of the Haifa area, Jerusalem, and some northern districts. Furthermore, Jewish immigration was restricted by both the Ottoman Empire and theBritish"

Specifically, the idea in 1947 was to divide the country between areas of Jewish majority and areas of Arab majority. In a similar way in 1922 the mandate was indeed divided in a way that created Jordan as a country with an Arab majority of 100%) and the peel comission suggested population swap (called transfer). So I am not sure how this whole sections (or parts of such as "Jewish immigration was restricted by both the Ottoman Empire and theBritish" are relevant to the subject of the article: The Palestinian exodus that took place during the 1948 war.

PS If there is a claim that the exodus was part of plan to create a jewish majority - does it not need to be spelled out (and both POV claiming it and denying it) be brought from their respective sources ?

Thank You. Zeq 08:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In chabad the statement "However, Chabad continued to be controversial in all of its generations." which I replaced with "However, controversies continued throughout the generations." was reverted. I don't know why it was reverted, because you believed that the original version was more NPOV, or whether because you were reverting a bunch of edits and this got caught up with the rest. I switched it because the word "controversial" according to http://www.answers.com/controversial&r=67 has a definition of "Of, producing, or marked by controversy". which has an anti-chabad slant in this context that chabad is causing the controversies as opposed to the ones that have a problem with chabad. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this. Mildly. Tomer^TALK 21:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting editors applies NPOV and NOR standards rigidly for their input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators, where a consensus has yet to be established. I think this AfD is particularly important because it has been bringing to light some fundamental differences in interpretations of content policies among editors. If you have time, please take a look at the page and add your input. Best regards. 172 07:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, I see (from Yuber's talk page) you have had a look at this article. After a brief read through I noticed some incongruous material ("at the date this report went to press") and suspected a copyvio. In fact most of the material was copied from a US State Dept report from 2003, which appears from its copyright notice to be public domain. I have added a note to the article to mention this, but perhaps if you have the time you could take a look at my edit and see if it is an appropriate way of dealing with it. Thanks. Palmiro | Talk 13:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Palmiro | Talk 00:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am being harassed by User Eliezer, who keeps making personal attacks on me, is accusing other Wikipeida contributors of attempting to "shock" and deceive readers of our articles, is making outrageous lies about my editing, and is unilaterally reverting a consensus version of an article to one which pushes his own religious belief system. For almost a year I have tried to work with him, along with JayJg and JFW, but Eliezer shows no sign of stopping his messianic religious tirade.

Eliezer is trying to ban me from Wikipedia by making dishinest accusations, such as (a) I am writing under sockpuppets, and (b) that I am making more than three reversions in a single day. In point of fact (a) I use no sock puppets, and I proudly sign the discussion page of each article, and (b) two reverts on one day is not more than three. Eliezer's latest violations of Wikipedia policy are thus:

• Doing multiple reverts of an article that had a stable consensus state, and then flat out denies that he had done so, even though the edit history clearly shows this.

• Making false accusations that I am editing Wikipedia under some kind of "sockpuppet", a bizarre lie. In fact, despite using multiple computers, I take pains to sign in and use my username, RK.

• "Outing" Wikipedia members who edit under anonymous usernames by broadcasting their real names in the article Discussion pages. This is a gross breach of Wikipedia protocol.

• Lying about the status of an important researcher in the field of the disputed subject. (Eliezer keeps retitling Rabbi Professor David Beger as Mr. Berger, which is not only misleading, but also considered a gross and deliberate insult in the Jewish community.)

• Inserting personal attacks towards academic and Orthodox Jewish authorities whose view of Chabad theology differs from his own. When discussing the new forms of theology developing within Chabad, Eliezer refuses to allow various POVs to be shown in accord with our NPOV policy. Rather, his edit censors multiple academic and Orthodox voices. His non-consensus version censors the quotes of many prominent authorities in the field, and replaces all of their POvs with his sarcastic aside. "While the term received little attention at the time, it was later used to shock those who have no exposure to these sources." Please see the article to see the full context. Eliezer is stating that academic and Orthodox Jews who disagree with messianic Chabad beliefs are deceiving their readers by shocking them, and not letting them know that such beliefs are (in Eliezer's view) standard theology. Of course, how could anyone know, since his edits cut out many quotes and sources....all with an array of POVs that Eliezer apparently does not want our readers to be exposed to. RK

For example, Eliezer write "I would like to make a note here about the use of sockpuppets by RK to circumvent his restrictions in editing Judaism related articles. He is 66.155.200.129. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

Well, that's just bizarre. Please see the page in question, Chabad, which I sign with my username all the time. In fact, my name is all over that page, explaining my edits. There is simply no way that Eliezer can claim that I am trying to hide my User ID identity. He's just out of control. RK 20:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circumcision advocacy Jakew 10:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings.

I have recently nominated an Israeli-related article for deletion due to its problematic verifiability status. I discuss the problems in-depth on the AfD page, but the short version is: It describes a person who allegedly perpetrated a notable political/criminal event in Israeli history, but I cannot verify that fact via any sources available to me.

I know that you are active in editing Jewish related pages, and generally seem to be knowledgeable of Jewish/Israeli history, so I'm hoping you'll see fit to look at the AfD discussion and possibly help clear up the matter. Or, alternately, that you might know someone who would be able to do so.

The AfD discussion in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Dwek.

Thanks for your time.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 14:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay: Please see the Vote for Deletion (vfd) for Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 4#Category:Cities with significant Arab Israeli populations. Thank you. IZAK 12:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But this is typical of Yuber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his allies.

Proof's of a conspiracy

Tell me what you think.

Klonimus 17:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay: Please see, and cast your vote at [17] concerning Category:Jewish history-related stubs. Thanks. IZAK 10:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Yetzia bish'eila, maybe you could add a word or two. Thanks. IZAK 11:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shloam,

Please check out the page, it have been renamed without following the proper channels, and rewritten by what seems to be a jewish individual, trying to swing a mormon POV. The talk page is almost longer than the article, and this is all happened in the last few days. Many contributers are "UP IN ARMS" and I'm afraid the article could loose is NPOV standing with Wikipedia.

HELP

User:Vchapman an LDS(Mormon) contributer to Wikipedia.

If you have a minute, please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International law. We're getting things off the ground, hoping to eventually build a community of contributors interested in international law. Yeu Ninje 04:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of this Sepharad little jumble? IZAK 11:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton for your support on my rfa, the final tally was 50-0-0; I'll try and live up to the expectations of others and do my best in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. You cast vote #50 and made my day, 'coz 50 is such a nice, round number--Gurubrahma 14:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." It is just a stub of a section. When you have time, would you go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation on the Jewish conception/its meaning and importance for Judaism you think necessary, and to the best of your knowledge fix up what I said about Christianity? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jay. BYT 17:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look over the discussion on Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost?

I have reason to believe that a small number of people have been attempting to use Wikipedia for narrow partisan ends, writing glowing articles on figures from Britain's far-right.

Thank you, CJCurrie 18:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A user has repeatedly added this quote: [18]

Following the the war (and most notably during and after the trial of Adolf Eichmann) the mufti's role and the extent of his influence with the Nazis were inflated in what historian Idith Zertal describes as "a landmark in the process of the organized, explicit mobilization of the Holocaust in the service of Israeli politics and state policy, especially in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict". Zertal continues: "The transference of the Holocaust situation on to the Middle East reality, which harsh and hostile to Israel as it was, was of a totally different kind, not only created a false sense of the imminent danger of mass destruction. It also immensely distorted the image of the Holocaust, dwarfing the magnitude of the atrocities committed by the Nazis, trivializing the unique agony of the victims and the survivors, and utterly demonizing the Arabs and their leaders."

• I pointed out to him that this is predicated on three unverified premises:
  • a) The Mufti's Nazi-ties were exaggerated after the war.
  • b) This was done by Jews/Zionists to further their malign aims, by gaining sympathy.
  • c) There is a campaign to "explicitly mobilize the Holocaust in the service of Israeli politics and state policy."
• I put it to him that before he can add such a POV quote to the article he must provide the writers answers to how, where and when this was done and not just the why (to gain sympathy by abusing the memory of the holocaust). jucifer 00:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, thanks for your support on my RfA. The final count was 46/0/0. I hope I'll live up to your faith in me in my use of the mop and bucket. It's great to recieve support from such important members of the wiki as yourself. Please accept this wikithanks as a token of my gratitude ;) --bainer (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you consider adding this template to your userpage? It is very helpful in case translators are needed and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look.

Thank you. Be warned that it's rather messy. CJCurrie 19:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, thank you for your note. I have addressed some of Jucifer's concerns here. --Ian Pitchford 23:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support the creation of a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question? - Ted Wilkes 18:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would appreciate if you could take a look at this, the same user responsible for nominating and renominating List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society, then requesting it's deletion review has also voted multiple (up to 6 times each) using multiple accounts and ip addresses on mainly Jewish and Catholic lists for deletion amongst numerous other WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations. Thanks Arniep 02:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give me your opinion on this concern raised and seconded by Anonymous Editor and myself, respectively? Who, exactly, is supposed to (or can) wrap this up, and how long is it supposed to go? Many thanks, BYT 16:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's been way over a week. About 5 days over I think. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well clearly there is no consusus reached to move. So no move. Works just like any other vote on wikipedia. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on my talk page, Jay. I hear what you are saying about the RFC, and if you think that's the way to go, I will certainly support it, though it wouldn't be my first choice. Would it be possible for someone who is not a partisan to bring the RFC, do you think? If you decide this is how we should proceed, could you drop a hint to an admin of your choosing? BYT 18:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes an RFC might work but however in that particular vote, the consensus is no, so we need an admin to close it.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay -- any further insights on how we should proceed here? BYT 16:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay -- here's what I see:

• Islamofascism (term) survived an attempt to delete.
• Chaosfeary -- he of the "redirect Christianity to Nazism" school of diplomacy -- began a vote to move the article to Islamofascism.
• That vote appears to show that the community is split. I could be wrong, but I don't think "support" has 60%.
• Unbeknownst to me, articles with [term]] in the title are quite rare or nonexistent, which is a problem.
• You write, "The issue I see here is that the article was originally at Islamofascism, and was apparently moved to Islamofascism (term) without consensus.... as there was no consensus to move it to Islamofascism (term) in the first place, it probably should be restored to its original name." Well, this was precisely the argument I made when American terrorism morphed without consensus to Terrorism by United States of America. What I got in response then was advice to simply work on the article!
• Is there an RFC on this? Or are we trying to work it out on the talk page? Can you please help us bring this to closure? Or talk someone else into helping us to bring it to closure?BYT 12:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In two recent page protection you have allowed a revert just prior to the protection. In oncve caswe the issues have actually been startdc to be addressed on talk. The other there is a proposal in talk for a compromise.

Please un[protect the pages, allow those who requested the protect to suggest a compromise version. I am sure the colaborative process can work, what we need is for someone to propose a compromise. Zeq 18:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also I want to note that several request to mediators or other editors (such as yourself) to try and workout issues with editors such as Ian were remained unanswered. I am quite sure that a mediation, in which we end up presebting both POV to make the articles NPOV is the right way to go. It may not be easy but it is the right way to go. I doubt that issues about the different narritive of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be resolved without an honest mediator taking the time to merge the two conflicting narratives into the same article. Zeq 18:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I refed to the fact that people revert just before asking for page protection. Does thast seem good faith to you ?

Now about the time to resolve: Wikipedia has turned into a major anti-israel propeganda vehicle. I noticed your effort to make things more balance (I don't agree with all of them but I can see that you are at trying to reach NPOV). A simple method would be to acknowlege that are completly two conflicting narrative: What is the "war of Independence" to one is the "nakba" to other and we can write exactly that. what is "Ethnic cleansing" after a "master plan" for one is the result of war and taking adavtage of the Arab leaders mistakes by Israel (which eventually became part of a greater population exchange between Israel and surrounding Arab countries) It takes a determined mediator to work with both sides to include both naratives in the relevant articles. As it is now, much of the info is excluded or reverted back and forth. Look at the Nakbe article 3 years ago it was Pro-israel and now it is totaly pro-Palestinian. There must be a better way to make it NPOV. Some people have took ownership of that article and prevented alomst any othr contribution. When that method did not work on other articles they did the "revert and ask for protection". How long would it take for another NYT article showing how wikipdia can not be relied upon for historical issues because it does not fiollow it's opwn policy of presenting both POVs ? Zeq 18:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, I don't know if you noticed, but Ian has violated the 3RR in his edit before you protected the page. I submitted it to the 3RR noticeboard shortly before you protected the page. Aren't you supposed to revert his edits and slap him on the fingers or something? --Heptor 19:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stongly suggest you look at Talk:1948_Arab-Israeli_War. The offer for compromise was never answered. Ian Continued in revert war (4 reverts) and then got you to protect. In a fac you had given him what he wanted: The page is now as he reverted it too. No incentive for compromise. Please un-protect and help work out a compromise. (same for 1929 riots) Zeq 19:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, I tried to ask you to take the time and you answer that you took a "brief look". So look deeper. What you have done so far is gave your help (un-intentialy, I don't doubt that you are busy and operating in good faith) to people who disrupted the editing process by breaking the 3RR rule (and WP:POINT.

There are suggestion for compromise on the talk pages. This suggestion wer never answered. In any case they made specific argument For example: lthe role of the British in evcuating Hebron jews - I made this change on the page [19] .

I made and will do any needed good faith effort to make sure both sourced POV are on any article I worked on . but this can not be said on the other side which now you helped:

They broke the 3RR Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Zero0000, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Ian_Pitchford and then you frooze it the way they want the article to be - So what incentive did you gave them to work for a compromise.

As I noted, the problem is bigger than these two articles: Wikipdia has systematic anti_israel bias. You can not correct it by working on Old_Testament Circumcision Messianic_Judaism. If you want to be involved: take the time to work out a NPOV compromise on 1948 war, Nakba , etc...but if you can not take the heat: get out of the kitchen. Zeq 05:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS How come this is a "term":

Talk:Islamofascism_(term) which the pro Islamic gang prevent it from moving to a heading without a a "term"

but this is not a "term": Zionist_Occupation_Government and no one notice (although you have been editing in that page)

This is in a nut shall the problem in Wikipedia: You apply the rules (and ventually ban) the NPOV editors but never apply them (except for one day) to the anti-israel editors. Wkipedia is broke and it is about time someone "take the time" to fix it. (cause it is a great idea, as long as the rules are followed and apply to both sides equally) Zeq 05:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please ex[plain the use of the term complex reverts and simple treverts as in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=31019228&oldid=31004962

Thanks, Zeq 06:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay: I just received this request, and I think the page needs to be frozen for a while (choose a good version tho')...similar problem to the Bobover succession: "There seems to be some issues at present involving people continuously changing and reverting the article on Aaron Teitelbaum. I've reverted the page and tried to incorporate some of the other contributors' changes, but if it keeps up, maybe you could step in. Thanks. ShalomShlomo 09:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)" Thanks a lot, IZAK 10:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Jay, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etymology of the word Jew. Thanks. IZAK 10:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, your input would be welcome. Current editing is quite immature. Scoo 16:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked him for 48 hours instead of the usual 24 since he had a history of edit warring and disruptive behavior is prohibited by the findings of his arbcom case. Let me know if he causes any more trouble, the blocks will become continually longer until he learns how to get along with others or he leaves Wikipedia all together. I'm pulling for the former. karmafist 17:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I was wondering in return if you could look at my ideas at my arbcom candidacy page and get your opinion on Pigsonthewing, he's harrassing me there again. karmafist 19:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jay,

I appariciate your effort and understand your situation. We all have to balance our time.

There is a systematic problem in this area. IMHO clear Wikipedia policies such as NPOV are not followed and also editors such as zero0000 use "complex reverts" to argue that their imature revert war are "edits" and not "reverts". Someone (who ?) is letting them get away with it. (see repeat violation of him on the 3RR notice board)

Anyhow, the 3RR is not the main concern, the syetematic bias is. Different yardstick is applied to any wdit which seems "pro-israel" and that is the cause for the revert war, Ian, Zero "disqulaify" sources that does not fit their POV while such sources are used all over wikipedia. The problem extend tio other articles in which there is almost "ownership" by pro-Palestinians editors. I am sure they see it exactly the other way and think that my edits are anti-Palestinian.

The point is that colboration had failed. It had failed systematicly. Pro israel editors have been systematiclly banned. When you freeze apage you froze it in the ro Palestinian version. All together while I look for compromise (and where able to work out few with Ramallite and few others) The other side mostly look for conflict, for ArbCom and for revert wars. Wikipedia must allocate the time to mediate this complex subject. The bias is clear all over and usual policies have failed. Zeq 19:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay: User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg is moving Hebrew articles around and it only creates more confusion. He recently moved Hakham to Chakham (but the article still starts off with: "Hakham or Chacham") and if he would have bothered to look at it he would see that if he is going to change the "H" to a "Ch" he should also change the "kh" to a "ch" as well because it's the same sound. At any rate, could you please turn around his revert and, re-revert the article to Hakham. Thanks for your help. IZAK _Hakham" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">19:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He changed the well-worn title of Halizah by moving the article to Chalitzah (he means well, but these kind of random changes could open up a hornets nest of chaos, with everyone changing to "their nusach".) The basic rule of thumb has been: We leave things as they are if they fit into an accepted convention, unless there is a glaring problem. He is trying to work on changing them back, but I would appreciate it if you could look into these. Thanks a lot. IZAK 20:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay, see my reply at User talk:IZAK#Het and Khaf, thanks. IZAK 14:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my best knowledge, don't you have access to check what users are blocked? In any case, I don't think it is necessary to actually block him, but he needs to be told that this was indeed a violation, and that he should not do it again. Also, for the sake of fairness, the protected version should not be the one he put up by violating the 3RR. --Heptor 18:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right. Maybe all these vagabonds coming onto my candidate page and hassling me is making me look like a more than just a darkhorse candidate. One thing's for sure, i'll vote for you if you vote for me. karmafist 23:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he just got blocked yet again. He might be a valuable campaign tool. karmafist 07:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay: Please see and vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 12#Category:Hebrew Bible where it is beeing suggested that the word "Tanakh" is "not neutral", and I am trying to explain to them that it is in keeping with NPOV to convey the way Judaism uses certain terms to describe the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh. Thanks. IZAK 15:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay. I've been asked to informally mediate the dispute at Talk:1948 Arab-Israeli War. Obviously, you protected the page, and you offered to help out Ian Pitchford. Basically, I was wondering, if you had time. to look over the talk page and ensure that I'm not screwing things up. Thanks.--Sean|Black 00:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! I'll let you know if I have any problems, and whatever appens regarding unprotection. Again, thanks!--Sean|Black 20:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jayjg, can you assist in changing the name of the article Mormon views about Mormonism and Judaism to Mormonism and Judaism, per consensus on the talk page? Regards, gidonb 06:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, technically speaking, it would be reversing a "move" that was recently made because the article once did have that name. IZAK 11:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Izak, that is really history by now. Your action was a protest action, indicative of the contents of the article at that time. Some progress towards neutralizing has been made and the name should also reflect this. I hope that you will keep your eyes open for small incremental changes. Please give a signal when things turn bad again. gidonb 12:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jay: Could you please correct the headline item now on the Wikipedia Main Page. The headliner about the Iranian president's comments, specifically the word "denial" in the headliner, should be linked to Holocaust denial. Also the word Holocaust that is used in the headliner is actually a redirect. The correct link should be the Holocaust (to avoid confusion with other "Holocausts" (listed on the Holocaust (disambiguation) page), so if you can correct this it would make things technically smoother. These corrections will avoid the impression that this important headline on the main page was set up by someone who is not familiar with these subjects on Wikipedia. Thanks. IZAK 11:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jayjg - I was wondering if you could provide an opinion on the issue I raised on the page linked above. Thanks - eykanal, Wed, 9:11 AM EST, 12/14/05

Can you restore to the version BEFORE the 3RR vuiolation by Ian.

I am sure restoring the info would increase his wilingness to negotiate. The article is frozen over 1948 in exactly the stare Ian wanted it. He got a prize" for his 3RR violation. Zeq 16:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, last time Ian wrote anything at all on the talk page, was on 09:20, 9 December 2005. Then he threatened that he would refer the conflict to the Arbitration Committee. -- Heptor 17:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well Jay, it seems that when mediation is presued Ian disapears. Please restore the page. Thanks. Zeq 06:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you do me the favor of reviewing 129.7.35.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) recent edits to Islamist terrorism, Talk:Islamist terrorism, and my user page. I feel this user is continuing personal attacks and needs to be blocked but I would like another administrator to be involved. Thanks. - Tεxτurε 21:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Racist censorship isn't "vandalism", but racism is racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.213 (talk • contribs)

I can't be sure but I think this user believes I'm a muslim because I feel his attacks and bias are inappropriate. - Tεxτurε 21:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would like to know who this editor is Jayjg [20]. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I know it's him. I and others who have followed the user know this. Same thing happened last time. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is still evading a simple 3rr block though. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jay. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Jay. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that this user is a sock puppet of RedWolf, can you block ASAP, please? I noticed him/her as I welcomed people. Thanks!--ViolinGirl^♪ 22:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was thinking along those lines. Appreciate you taking care of it quickly for me. Thanks again. --ViolinGirl^♪ 22:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jayjg, your vote just ensured I'll never be back. You clearly didn't research it. The person who brought the RfAr already asked to withdraw it, and has apologized to me for ever including me in it. I thought you were more careful than that. I guess I was wrong. Wyss 23:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayjg,

I would like to hear your opinion on my proposal on the Talk:Israel Shamir page. JohD 02:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article that was started (not by me!) in relation to Criticism of Christianity. When you have an opportunity, please take a look at it and give your take on the article talk page or make edits. I had redirected it to the "Criticism" page, but the original author didn't seem to care for that option. Any help would be great...thanks...KHM03 13:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see the previously deleted text to Right to exist. If the new version is a copy of a previously deleted version, I'll give you a big, wet apology. Mirror Vax 14:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror Vax, I think you're missing the point here. The topic of both articles is the same, even if the wording is different, and the exact same objections apply to both. It may well be that the creator of the new article wasn't aware of the previous one, but unless he/she was using the same term to write about something quite different, there should be no need for yet another vote. Otherwise, we'll be in a situation when someone doesn't like the outcome of a vote, he/she will just ask for another vote, ad infinitum. --Leifern 15:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion:

Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is in userspace, or undeleted per the undeletion policy. Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject. In case of a speedily deleted page, they must also determine that it did meet a criterion for speedy deletion in the first place.

Mirror Vax 18:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you fixed this situation ? or do some wikipedia rules apply only in one type of articles. Zeq 17:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am eager hear where you think this should go and how we should move forward. BYT 17:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just unblocked 129.7.35.0/24, due to collateral damage (and it was almost expired anyway). Anyway, in the future could you give more reason then "blocked means blocked" on range blocks? It made no sense when read out of context, or by an innocent user that happens to be on the same range as an evader. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 19:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...I forgot to ask, why did you block that? --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 19:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

129.7.35.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is back. See [21] and other attacks in article edit history. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still going on Jayjg [22], [23], [24]. Please re-block. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked because I got a request by someone from this range on IRC. The person requesting was completely sane and polite...the opposite of the people who everyone claims are Enviroknot. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 21:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reblocking Jayjg. Phroziac this guy is far from the opposite of insane :-) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I said "thank you for reblocking Jayjg". --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If he's far from "the opposite of insane", maybe it's because he's a *DIFFERENT PERSON*. Range blocks affect more then one user, you know. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 22:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay what I should have said that he is far from sane. Maybe that is clearer. Maybe the university should be told so that good editors don't face this. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have realized that. Thanks. Also, I shortened the block slightly, becuase I'd rather we keep these range blocks as short as possible. Thanks again!--Sean|Black 22:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put this article up for featured status. Your input would be most welcome. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion and vote page are here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Radhanite Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do so many people want this article deleted? I admit that the stub I wrote needs a lot of work, but cleaning up an article and deleting it are two different things. The concept is extremely well known, and one of the central issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict is whether or not the Arab states accept Israel's right to exist. If there are statements in the article that are insufficiently sourced, let me know and I will try to expand sourcing for them. If the article violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, let me know what violates it and I will fix it. If the phrase "right to exist" refers to other conflicts as well, then we can disambiguate it. But I do not see what criteria on Wikipedia:Deletion policy is violated by this article. I am also confused by all the references to a "previous" AfD. What was in the article before, and why are people using that as a criterion to judge the one I wrote? Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 22:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a political concept this prominent can be considered unencyclopedic. Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 22:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great job defending Wikipedia articles from that wicked page-move vandal. Don't worry about him anymore: a Bot got rid of him. Whoever he is, let us hope he does not come back. Roy Al Blue 22:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayjg,

You protected the article calculator but there is now a healthy discussion on the issue you protected it over and the article seems like it could use some improvement elsewhere. In the Wiki-spirit could you please now unprotect the article, so it can return to being improved.

Cheers,

Cedars 01:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jay, could you point me to where I might find a discussion, if there is any, on what summaries of sub-articles are supposed to do? It would be helpful for me to be aware of the nuances of this subject before we start back up on the main Luther article after the beginning of the year. Thanks! Bob Smith A.K.A. --CTSWyneken 02:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason you get involved in other things.

They say that if you can not take the heat get out of the kitchen. This is something that need to be solved and you are aware of it. Zeq 04:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of suffixes, BTW, see Fascist (epithet) and Perfection (concept). Suffixes are not alien to our world, though (term) here appears to be limited to only two articles at the moment. Maybe we could have a dialogue about the proper use of suffixes, and apply the standards impartially to all relevant articles. BYT 13:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BYT. The whole reason to have policy is to aplly it in a uniform way. IF Wikipedia policies can not be fiollowed maybe we should have less articles. Zeq 17:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder not to forget to list pages on WP:PP if you protect them. I've been going through protected pages just now and it looks like you didn't list 1948 Arab-Israeli War or calculator. Listing them on WP:PP is important to make sure we don't forget about it! Those ones are fixed, but just thought I'd leave you a note as well. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 05:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You claim to have no time, yet you get invloved for few minutes, not botherying to understand in details, not bothering to deal with the whole bredth of the issue (or similar issues) You see one of the biggest problems in Wikipedia latly is that the Israeli POV is subjected to a much higher yardstick than the Palestinian POV. So this is perfect, you just claim that you are "applying policy" on "subjects you choose" (or have time).

It does not work this way Jay. You are either in or out.

If you want to be involved, bother to learn the subject and apply yardsticks in an equal way accross the board - you see this is the essence of why we have "policies" - to make sure things acroos the board conform to the same yardsticks .

If you can't do it, don't do it at all but don't insult our collective intelegence by saying "that I choose where to get invloved" and only apply "your involvment" against one side. Cherrypicking is POV Zeq 17:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogance Jay is not the issue. Someone should tell you that, so I did it (just being bold that is all).

You, from all people can understand that policy is not meant to be applied in a non uniformed way. You have the record in editing wikipedia so you can (if you want) to focus on a subject and apply policy in a uniformed way. Not doing so (in the lame excuse that I do not have time, or that I chose where to get involve) is just making sure some View points suffer (while other benefit) from this non uniform aplication of "policy". (at that my Friend is POV and someone needs to let you know about it)

Don't confuse telling the truth in a bold way with arrogance. I am not braging on anything about myself here. I am talking about how you apply your "power". (I don't know enough but maybe there is a lot of arrogance in the way many people in Wikipedia apply their "power") Zeq 17:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in your views, if any, as to the appropriateness of the NPOV warning currently gracing Palestinian exodus (as and from this edit). To my mind it sets a very undesirable precedent, and raises the unappealing prospect of disputes over the contents of NPOV-warning templates.

In fact, I'd be almost inclined to suggest deletion of the template. I don't think its potential uses ouweigh its potential to cause problems, and the evidence of its current use seems to show as much unhelpful as helpful use.

I'd quite like to hear your opinion on this, if you feel so inclined.Palmiro | Talk 17:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. Palmiro | Talk 19:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An example to the level of "page ownership" the pro Arabs forces in wikipedia apply to this article. Even starting an edit war on "tags". The tag explain the problem in this page which is demonstrtaed by the fact that they even reverted the tag. Zeq 19:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq, when you first assigned ownership of this article to me I had edited it twice, once only to wikilink Naji al-Ali. This is silly. Palmiro | Talk 21:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Jayjg, Im Moe Epsilon. I am informing all the users with the checkuser ability under "advice" given by Celestianpower to run a CheckUser on Mcfly85. This user "claims" to have NEVER once opened an IP address to vandalize; list of IP addresses that vandalized my user page are suspects. I also suspect he created/opened accounts to vandalize too. (ex. Rock09, 4benson3, Capnoh, Oneandon, Sigma995, Sven66 and Pwner.) A few days ago I was running for adminship and he got on there and edited. Mcfly85, Rock09 and Sigma995 all voted oppose when well noted administrators and others voted support. I suspect Mcfly has vandalized my user page 9 times. You can see conflicts there at my talk page, my RFA. I posted these accusations at the Administrators' noticeboard and nothing was done because of lack of evidence. Well, today Banes noticed something interesting. He posted:

You may want to look at the history of Frank Beard. And, less interestingly, the history of Wayne Newton. I just thought this might interest you.

It was where Mcfly85 and Rock09 edited the same articles simultaneously. Rock09 vandalized the articles and Mcfly85 does clean-up. Suspicious that an article like Frank Beard, an article with 11 edits has edits by Rock09 and Mcfly85 simultaneously. Can you please run a CheckUser on him? — Moe ε 18:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since when an editor needs authorization ? Is this new policy that is apllied only to Pro Palestinian articles ? Zeq 19:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down. I didn't create American terrorism, and I only moved it after a) the attempt to delete it failed and b) clear (read:unanimous) consensus on the talk page emerged for doing so. That wasn't WP:Point, that was working collaboratively with other editors, and I am quite proud of the outcome thus far.

If you now think that article shouldn't exist, that would be your prerogative, but frankly it would be a surprise to me if you felt that way, given the enormous amount of work that's taken place there, and the current quality of the article. And I would strongly disagree with you. Anyway, the question is moot, as the deletion vote indicates.

My question: When we were discussing Islamofascism (term), you said that the principle to follow was to move the page back to the title that existed before it was moved without consensus. Did you really mean that, or does that principle just apply to articles Zeq approves of? BYT 20:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To make a long story short, a couple of us were suspecting that some users that suddenly appeared out of nowhere making trouble and backing each other up were sockpuppets, and, it turns out, they more or less incriminated themselves. Read all about the festivities at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Dispute tags for Positive and Critical Links Sections, something one of them started in support of the other (sorry that there's a lot of unrelated stuff there), and the initial suspicions at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#"Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". But now that these first two basically incriminated themselves, we need to check on a few other users that also aroused suspicion before going around slapping sockpuppet tags on pages. I simply request a yes or no answer to a simple question: are these people from Denver (or the surrounding area in Colorado) too? Of course, if you do find some kind of smoking gun, that would be of utmost interest. Following is the list:

Retcon
Missionary
Netministrator
Cairoi
bUcKaRoO
Duffer1
Kool8
DannyMuse
IP law girl
Cobaltbluetony
Elgoodo
Steven Wingerter
Lucille S

I would personally doubt that every single one of those is actually a sockpuppet, but I only seek the yes or no answer to that one question (barring a smoking gun(s) of some kind), nothing that is especially useful to anybody for anything other than confirming or quelling suspicions of sockpuppetry. Thanks.Tommstein 10:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind checking if ApeAndPig (talk · contribs) is using an IP address in a certain large Texan city (or perhaps a Tor proxy)? His edit summaries have an uncannily familiar ring. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He was trolling on IRC earlier with a Houston IP, attempting to force an admin to unblock him. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 02:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and also the first page that he went to was the Islamist terrorism one. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However he is still editing and needs to be blocked. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation of a conflict which involved Xed has resulted in a proposed remedy which affects you, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2/Proposed_decision#Viriditas_and_Jayjg_reminded_regarding_NPOV. Fred Bauder 00:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My accused party has just responded to my Statement by inter-mixing his reponses with mine. While I expect a response to my comments in due course, is it acceptable to inter-mix comments in an opening statement in this way? This makes my statement look unduly long and rambling. It would be pretty difficult to read if I then counter-replied to his. ----Iantresman 15:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayjg — I'm just letting you know that I unblocked L'Omnivore_Sobriquet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Fred Bauder found no evidence of sock-puppetry, and I personally didn't see how someone could be blocked permanently after two edits. I'm slightly confused because I don't see the initial block in the block log, however. Was it an IP block?

Anyway, I'll stay out of this from now,
— Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the SIEEG MFD there were four consecutive votes by brand new users. The first of the four, Fgleb (talk · contribs), just engaged in a little spate of page moves, which makes me suspicious that the other four are also sleeper accounts. I was wondering if you could do an IP check on these three, and see if they are the same as Fgleb. Thanks.

• Femglow (talk · contribs)
• Shlemnik (talk · contribs)
• Hoboman (talk · contribs)

Guettarda 18:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more vandal from the University of Houston. Cheers -- Svest 20:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]

And another few who resemble blocked user Chaosfeary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) including editing styles. Please check Fones (talk · contribs) and Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs) who are both likely Chaosfeary. Created recently to revert war or work on articles that the blocked user Chaosfeary edited. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to echo anonym's sock request on Selina Kyle/Fones. I strongly suspect they are the same people, and both have been rather disruptive of late. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 22:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Guettarda 00:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too. However, fones is entirely likely to be a sock of Mistress Selina Kyle because he/she was used as soon as Mistress was blocked for 3rr and on same articles too. And he doesn't edit like a new editor either. Also shouldn't Mistress Selina Kyle be blocked since chaosfeary is evading a block by using her?--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 12:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[Note: The following wildly-out-of-context quotes are from a lying, convicted, and subsequently confessed sockpuppeteer whose sole purpose in life appears to be to instigate trouble. See User:Tommstein/Retcon-Missionary Sockpuppet Evidence for more.]Tommstein 08:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack Violations for User Tommstein contrib relating to three areas of No Personal Attacks Policy

• Negative personal comments & "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."

“stop giving pubescent 15-year olds administrative powers”

"half a day has been pissed away because of administrator laziness"

“punk”

“revert ignorance”

“demonstrating him to be full of crap”

"you're just flinging crap all over the walls"

“Cairoi's dumbass threat”

"Just for asking that dumbass ad hominem question"

“Stupidity is not a defense”

"idiotic, factless, rambling"

• Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult.

“Watchtower Society has told them they are to think is just some stupid dumbass”

“refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as 'ignorant numbnuts'”

"part of your religious shunning bullcrap"

"Go find some old lady to preach to that you can try to abuse into submission like a good Jehovah's Witness, or kick your dog, or beat your wife or kids or something"

• Profanity directed against another contributor

“bastard”

”numbnut”

More examples available upon request

I became aware of this user after he left a somewhat aggressive message on Doc glasgow's talk page; I immediately noticed that the user may be engaged in other overly aggressive behavior, anti-Semitism, and vandalism. I'm not asking for any action, but I might suggest this user be watched a bit. Thanks...KHM03 12:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what you're referring to now. Most recent question I posed probably had something to do with Islamofascism (term), re: which you recently argued that, since the page had been moved to the (term) thing-- (not by me, by way!) -- without consensus, it should, in your view, go back to the name that had survived the deletion vote.

Questions would then be:

• Why, when this exact same situation arose at American terrorism, and the exact same arguments were put forward, were the non-consensus page moves left in place?

• There is, as near as I can make out, no clear consensus for a page move at Islamofascism (term) to Islamofascism. We've had a vote open now for about a month. Do you think this vote should remain open indefinitely? At what point is someone going to be justified in taking down the header advising that a vote is in process?

• If you don't want to give us guidance on this, can you please say that that's the case and point us toward someone who will? BYT 14:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this helps. I moved the page from Islamofascism to Islamofascism (term). As I recall, I did that because one group of people wanted the page to exist as a rediret, and another group wanted it to exist as an article. Once it was restored as an article, I moved it to Islamofascism (term) as a compromise, hoping it would make things easier for the first group, and because it's more accurate as a reflection of the page's contents. As I recall, there were no objections to that, but I'd have to go back and check. Certainly, no one tried to move it back, or ask that it be listed on requests for page move, or whatever it's called, so I interpreted that as a consensus to keep it at Islamofascism (term).

The AfD or deletion unreview, or whatever it went through (I'm writing all this using my almost non-existent memory), voted to decide on whether to keep the title that was presented to it. That was Islamofascism (term). People are allowed to say what they prefer when they vote, and the future editors on the page may, or may not, pay attention to comments, but the vote is to decide whether to keep or delete the title or topic, and in this case, people voted to keep the title (Islamofascism (term)).

After the vote, it's up to the editors on the page to decide what kind of article to have there, or whether to have a redirect, or whether to change the title. All these decisions require the consensus of the editors on the page. It seems to me that there is no consensus to change the title. To hark back to whether there was consensus in the first place to change it strikes me as an attempt to muddy the waters. The pertinent facts are: (1) people recently voted to keep the topic Islamofascism (term); and (2) there is no current consensus among the editors on the page to change the title.

Just my opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Slim for setting this straight -- that is the sequence I remember too. So how do you feel about my suggestion to remove the vote-to-move header on the talk page? BYT 19:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that, but that's just my opinion as an editor who voted against the move. I don't know whether we should leave it to an uninvolved admin to handle. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be far better if an admin who had no connection with the disputes on this page removed the vote-to-move header. BYT 19:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my comment above, if Jay is the admin handling it, I wouldn't want to look for another admin instead just because we disagree with his decision, though we can of course try to persuade him otherwise. But I don't like hopping from one admin to another. I also don't know whether Jay is dealing with it or not, so perhaps we should wait to hear from him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't like hopping from one admin to the other, and have been hoping Jay would take some kind of action here. On the other hand, if Jay doesn't want to take action (which I certainly respect) I don't think the article should be in a permanent voting-to-move status as a result of that. The guidelines for that kind of vote, if I recall correctly, state that the timeframe is two weeks. We have significantly exceeded that. BYT 19:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to now withdraw your unwarranted personal attack on me from the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Radhanite page. I thought you had given up on your campaign of Personal Abuse. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, this is out of line, Tom. (Assuming you're referring to Jayjg's dismissal of your objection as "spurious.") That's not personal abuse, that's saying he disagrees with your objection.

Personal abuse would be him saying something about you as an individual, not about the validity of the objections you made to the article's factuality. BYT 17:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would agree with you, but given Jayjgs history I have come to know better. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you were involved in the edit disputes on this article. Please can you comment in the request for mediation. Thank you. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayjg. From what I've seen, you seem to be an experienced admin (and were very peripherally involved in a minor edit conflict that seems to relate to the following). Maybe I can ask for your advice. This User:Zordrac, who wrote the above note to you about the ancient RfM mentioned has somehow got it into his/her head to start saying nasty things about me on all kinds of user talk pages (mostly of editors I've never heard of before). I've never heard of Zordac before today, and as far as I know, we've never edited the same page.

From what I can gather, User:Mindspillage recently blocked User:Poetlister for sockpuppetry. I guess this would have been discussed at ArbCom somewhere, but I have no idea how that works exactly. However, User:SlimVirgin whom I've had a number of pleasant interactions with let me know that Poetlister is supposedly claiming she should not be blocked because Poetlister has an ongoing mediation happening with me. The point about mediation is untrue, I have not participated in such a thing, and have never seen any issue to mediate. This is a mouthful, but I'm almost there. :-)

Apparently, Zordrac thinks the block against Poetlister is inappropriate. I have no opinion on that question. In the course of arguing against a block on Poetlister, Zordrac has taken to writing all over the place that I have violated all sorts of WP policies, and that there should be an RfC, or RfAr, or something against me. The whole matter leaves me utterly perplexed, and not so happy. This editor whom I've never heard of has decided to start some kind of crusade against me for some unknown actions (I asked him/her to please assume WP:FAITH about me; that may or may not have aggravated the wikistalking stuff).

Maybe the whole thing will just blow over. But I'm not thrilled by picking up some stranger as a stalker. Any thoughts on what (if anything) to do? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu, please stop writing about me in other people's talk pages (I came here to see if my message had been responded to). It is inappropriate, and can be seen by some as trolling and/or wikistalking.

I am not on any crusade against you. I have never met you before nor have I had any prior interaction with any of the parties involved, and I am a wholly neutral party.

Having seen the evidence of what happened, I concluded that you had broken the 3RR rule by continuously reverting edits made by 3 different editors on the article in question. RachelBrown may have also broken 3RR by reverting your edits, and indeed at one point you both broke 3RR at the same time. You also removed cited sources incorrectly claiming WP:V over such ludicruous notions that the Jewish Year Book was not a reliable reference because it is a published book rather than a web site, and because you seemed to think that being Judge of the Supreme Court of Israel is not a Jew.

As was explained to me by Poetlister, it seems that the Mediation was a first step in the process, and it should not have been seen as "that's it", and henceforth your refusal to participate should not be taken to mean that it is ended, rather that the process has now been escalated to a new level, which was the reason that Poetlister contacted me, so as to escalate it towards an RfC. I responded to her stating that in my opinion this was appropriate. However, the inappropriate block that was placed may have escalated this further towards an RfAr.

I am not on a crusade against you. Rather, you should have assumed good faith that the citations were valid, rather than launching your own personal attacks against new users. See WP:BITE. I have stated my opinions on the issue, and have done so to appropriate persons involved in the dispute and in official correspondence, in line with appropriate protocol. This is not a "crusade" as you put it. Rather, it is an attempt to abide by correct processes.

I am at this stage uncertain as to your intentions in your actions, and it may be that your violations of Wikipedia policies were unintentioned and that you merely didn't realise what you were doing. I ask you to please consider the evidence of what you have done, and reconsider future actions so as to resolve this dispute. I am hoping that you were not doing what it looked like you were doing, and I further hope that this ban was not done so as to cover something up, which is what it looks like. I hope that that is just a coincidence. I am awaiting evidence to be brought forward from the Arbitration Committee who are the only persons authorised to make an indefinite block (other than Jimbo Wales) and who are alleged to have approved the block. Thus far no evidence has been presented and hence the current assumption is that correct processes were not followed with regards to this block. I am waiting to be proven wrong.

And yes, I am assuming good faith. I am assuming that you were merely misguided. Assuming good faith does not equate to ignoring something that is fact. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, Jayjg, for putting a thread you're not part of on your talk page. I just want to jot down a few comments, just in case Zordrac launches a misguided RfC or RfAr, as threatened (so I might copy them over to there).

Basically, every single thing claimed by Zordrac is false. By his own description, he's acting as a meatpuppet for Poetlister, at this point, so I guess that probably speaks to motives.

• I most certainly did not, at any point, violate 3RR on List of Jewish jurists. FWIW, I don't think RachelBrown/Poetlister did either (though I suppose if they are really sockpuppets, that might do it).

• I did not remove any listed name because Jewish Year Book is not a reliable source (even though it is probably not a reliable source). I removed some names, however, because no source whatsoever was provided (within the article namespace), including Jewish Year Book. Thankfully, Jayjg eventually fixed this lacuna by adding footnotes to JYB next to some of the names; I never removed any name so cited.

• Obviously, I never claimed that a Supreme Court Justice of Israel was not Jewish. I questioned whether a figure who did not apparently merit a WP article was notable (and asked why that particular justice, but not the dozens/hundreds of others who have served on that court).

• Clearly, RachelBrown/Poetlister were not new users when they started the "add names to Jewish lists" crusade. So biting newcomers is irrelevant.

• Elsewhere, Zordrac claims that Poetlister would have written an RfC one hour later if she had not been blocked. It's certainly a peculiarly detailed insight for an uninvolved editor to have about Poetlister's alleged plans.

• Zordrac/Poetlister/RachelBrown seem to subscribe to a silly idea that I am in some cabal to orchestrate a block. I had no idea a block was discussed or placed prior to being informed of such on my user talk page.

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jayjg! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was an unanimous (45/0/0), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, or have a question, please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to wish you and your family a Happy Hanukkah and a Merry Christmas, and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 18:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User 205.188.116.5 is vandalizing 2005_New_York_City_transit_strike heavily. Since its a major current event, I was hoping you could look into it and possibly help. Thanks --Uncle Bungle 20:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, someone is at it again. Is there a way to have an admin keep an eye on this article? --Uncle Bungle 21:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I figured that a perm block would be appropriate but didn't want to do it myself without having another admin weigh in on it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayjg. You might be interested to see if the latest version at Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews is acceptable for you. The plan is to have it as the intro in that article and as a summary in ML. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should see this sub page which explains everything and puts Lulu's comments in to perspective: User:Zordrac/Poetlister. Thanks. I have advised Lulu to please cease the harassment but she seems unwilling to do so. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I pray you have a very merry Christmas and a truly blessed 2006. KHM03 19:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On December 23, Yuber (talk · contribs) (currently on probation, btw) and CltFn (talk · contribs) were both blocked for 3RR vio on Islam in the United States. Afterwords, two anons making the exact same reverts continued the edit war performing an amazing amount of reverts (check out this section of the history). Particurlaly troubling considering Yuber's arbcom decision prohibits him from using IPs. Could you check this? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 02:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CltFn has often used an IP to revert and that is exactly what he did here. And of course when he was blocked for a 3rr violation "the IP" tried to convince the admin who blocked him not to. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's interesting... Enviroknot and not CltFn, or CltFn is Enviroknot? In any case, I guess I'll go reset EK's ban. Yuber has also clearly violated his arbcom restrictions, so I think I'll take a look at some kind of block and/or probation restrictions. (Not necessarily too late for this article, since that was the cause of the aricle's protection; if Yuber is banned from it per probaion, it could be unprotected. I'll look into that.) Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 03:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this message, what do you think of it? IZAK 06:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC):[reply]

"I have rewritten the articles on all the Hebrew letters here and before I replace the pages, your input would be appreciated. Thanks! Sputnikcccp 16:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

I have revised my final statement in regards to Nobs01 and others, please have a look if you have the interest. Cheers, Sam Spade 07:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 16:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay! Thank you for your kind support on my RfA. See you around. -- Szvest 17:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]

At the suggestion of IZAK, I am writing to ask your opinion on this. Someone named Fischersc is going around adding a new [Category:Old Testament people] to all the Avos and Imahos pages (maybe more). IZAK says that the way it is being done, it looks almost like vandalism, but then again, Wikiproject:Judaism is trying to establish new categories to distinguish between Christian and Jewish interpretations of the Bible. Should we go ahead and include all these pages in a new [Category:Tanakh personalities]? Thank you for your input, Yoninah 21:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my RfA, Jayjg. I swear, I really wasn't already an admin - but now I'll do my best as an admin to help make the dream of Wikipedia into a reality! bd2412 T 22:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blackcats has proposed splitting the 9/11 conspiracy theories article into Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. If you're interested, please comment here. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 23:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fluterst and User:Z1xcvbn. One day after getting into an argument with Fluterst, Z1xcvbn comes on, accuses me of a personal attack on "users" and then after I make an innocent statement on his talk page of "Personal attacks? On whom? and I am not a new admin", I get this. The other red flag that these are the same folks is that both edited the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) and Ann Coulter articles and both are using the same tactics, especially with insisting on putting the totally disputed tag on the O'Reilly article despite consensus that it shouldn't be there. If you need anything else from me before doing the check, let me know. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and when Z1xcvbn contributes, Fluterst is not. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have User:Z2xcvbn. Oi. Here is his edit on my talk page. VERY similar language to what Fluterst uses. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okey doke. Well thanks for checking. Btw, we ended up 3, 4 and 5 before Curps and Ral and others blocked everything up to 20. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep grasping at straws--I am the one, the only, Jayjg/Archive 12 06:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton_Coochter (talk · contribs) is possibly a sock of Shran (talk · contribs).

Hi Jayjg,

I just wanted to thank you for supporting me in my RfA. To tell you the truth, I was surprised by all the support I've gotten. I never saw myself as more than an occasional Wiki-hobbyist.

My wife sends her curses, as Wikipedia will likely suck up more of my time. She jokingly (I think) said she was tempted to log on to Wikipedia just to vote Oppose and let everyone know that she didn't want her husband to be an admin.

It means a lot to get a vote from a venerable admin such as yourself. I'll make sure your trust in me is founded. --Deathphoenix 15:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha... Thanks, and I'll pass on your condolences... :-) --Deathphoenix 20:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayjg, perhaps you would like to Improve, enhance or comment on this version of intro. [[25]]

By the way, do you know why this article is no longer titled Luther and Antisemitism? Doright 20:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay: Please see my discussions with User:Fischersc at User talk:IZAK#Tanakh / Torah / Old Testament, your input would be appreciated. Thank you. IZAK 04:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]