User talk:Jayjg/Archive 27

A good egg told me to pass this on. Now, DRINK! DRINK!!! (On second thought, don't.)--G-Dett (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Per this now archived discussion, do you think we should do an RfC regarding whether to change the "established experts" clause in WP:SPS? I made an edit, reverted here, in which I attempted to improve that part and generally make the section clearer and easier to follow. I don't think I really changed the effective meaning. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A banned editor involved? I didn't notice that at all. Royal Lineage could edit fine, could you - from the top of your head - remember the name of the banned editor so I can compare their edits? Even if one source is a school essay, it seems a bit overkill to nuke all the sources at once. (The edit summary didn't mention any banning.) - Mgm|^(talk) 19:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Go ahead and revert back if you haven't already. You say he's currently blocked? According to the block log I'm looking at no block ever occurred. Also, why do sockpuppet templates not link the checkuser request page the findings were published on? Quite often a checkuser is requested on the page of another username making such things incredibly hard to find. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Could you comment on this request? What block is he evading? Thanks,  Sandstein  15:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this paragraph Deccan Mujahideen#False_flag acceptable? The cited source is an op/ed that seems to rant on about antisemitic conspiracies of "Jewish power" and what not. And Infowars? Is that reliable? Could you also take a look at Talk:Deccan_Mujahideen#Anti-Semitism_link? Thanks.Neverfake (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

On 3 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Congregation Beth Israel (Scottsdale, Arizona), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you have been involved in previous WP:SYNTH discussions at Wikipedia talk:No original research. Would you care to comment on the section Wikipedia talk:No original research#Insidious OR? Thank you. --Thermoproteus (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're editing articles like this on old synagogues and want a little written on the architecture of their old buildings, drop me a note.Historicist (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Added a little info to an old synagogue stub today, your name was there, as usual. I do admire the work you do.Historicist (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

• Just between you and me, there's a lot of ignorance about architeture in sources on synagogues. I've looked at Beth Israel pretty closely. It's not Mission revival. I saw the source you used. but, not everything covered with stucco is Mission revival. Beth Israel is a very simple Rundbogenstil building with the round arch doorway and the telltale inverted crenellation just below the roofline. Stuccoed Rundbogenstil, whit a gabel end to the street. Eclectic if you like, but undeniably more Rundbogenstil than anything else. There are no mission touches. Only stucco.Historicist (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Hi Jayjg. Well done on your recent FA's. Your hard work has paid off! Can you remind me how to find a user's email address? Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If I enable my email, how private is it. I ask because I know that administrators can discover a user's IP address. I assume that email adresses are equally non-secret, if an administrator wants one. Historicist (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

I invite your attention to this guy's article and what the times of India has to say about him.[10]70.112.79.217 (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Your actions are being discussed at an AN/I report. The user who filed this report did not see fit to inform you of this. NoCal100 (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)i

At this diff User:Jayjg created a REDIRECT of David Abrahams (Labour party donor) to 2007 Labour party donation scandal noting (per WP:BLP1E and WP:OTRS ticket 2008030910010087 . Take both seriously) I have a big problem with this for a number of reasons:

• David Abrahams has been the subject of hundreds of articles because of his involvement in 2007 Labour party donation scandal but he also is a wealthy business man with others stories past and future about him. There were at least six stories about him found through NEWS.GOOGLE just today (12/11/08) (and several hundred that may have mentioned him linked below one of them). One is about an ongoing investigation of him which may result in prosecution. So WP:BLP1E hardly applies.
• What could the OTRS be? He's threatening to sue wikipedia because that's the "only" notable incident in his life?
• A quick look at the article's history also shows little editing activity, so I doubt libelous vandalism is a problem and if it was, this is not a solution. (Note: problematic material removed per request.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Carol? This is such an assumption of bad faith that it violates user behavior policy. Please refactor your complaint/concern in a manner that does not constitute a personal attack. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would echo GWH, and also quote from the page you link to "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban." There can be no doubt that this is what you are doing. Would it take a block or ban to make you stop? IronDuke 22:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Carol Moore is a long-time very problematic editor and I think some sort of forum should be initiated regarding her editing habits and interaction with other editors. The problems start with her userpage, whose apparent purpose is to get visitors to her website and maybe buy some of her stuff and to propagate her anti-Israel views and conspiracy theories. Indeed, her userpage violates numbers 1-10 of Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page?.

But userpage violations and a general interest in propagating extremist POV's would not be that problematic if not for her way of interacting with other editors. See for example Talk:Rahm Emanuel in which she repeatedly accuses everyone who disagrees with her of working for either Rahm Emanuel, the American government, or the Israeli government. This is an encyclopedia built by the collaborative effort of volunteers. If there's one editor that's antithetical to what we are trying to do here it's the one that goes around accusing everyone who disagrees with her of having COI's.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To quote the first three sentences of the paragraph IronDuke quoted on How to handle conflicts of interest: "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia."

I'd say that asking Jayjg if he has a conflict of interest would be "direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline." No? Tiamut^talk 23:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, following Brew's point above, and the shouty, aggressive approach Carol is taking, and her general pattern of editing, and her userpage... she's correct in bringing a problematic editor to light, just not the right one. IronDuke 23:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow... I just now read this (haven't been following Rahm Emmanuel). While Carol demands that editors who disgaree with her reveal their secret jobs working for "the state of Israel, Rahm Emanuel, the Obama campaign, transition or administration, or their cohorts, lobbyists, or assigns," she goes on to say "If you are an Israeli citizen it might be good to reveal that too...." That's extraordinarily offensive... does anyone have thoughts about how to proceed? IronDuke 23:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget about my complaining at that diff about JIDF having a page to attack wiki editors and the whole well known history of outside influence here. You'll have to forgive the dozens of editors who sometimes lose it on this issue.

On that talk page I did strike other comments that others didn't like. Or maybe it was those. Will have to check.

Jayjg and I do have a long history, including times I asked him to delete WP:attack and he didn't. The important thing is trying to correct errors.

Hey, I even read and cleaned up a couple things on my user page. And I am realizing it's dumb to publicize things that don't really sell on CarolMoore.net when I could throw in some photos or videos. Hmmm, is it illegal to list wiki articles I've worked on NOT currently subject to debate? Thanks for your helpful comments. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I won't actually have to forgive them. Being upset by JIDF doesn't give you leave to make what could easily be construed as bigoted remarks. There's no excuse for what you did; can you promise to never do any such thing again? IronDuke 00:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Such a promise is the only thing I can foresee that will keep this from heading to ANI - this was slap-your-mama unacceptable and serious. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I can promise not to break wikipedia policies, to the best of my ability to figure out what they are, including with help of people trying to be helpful. But if policies allow one to deal with issues I will try to figure out how to do them properly. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just explained to you how what you did -- asking editors to disclose Israeli nationality in order to comment on a talk page -- was wrong. Can you agree that that was wrong, and that you won't do it or anything like it again? I'm not looking for "If I did something wrong then I..." kind of statements. That's generic and meaningless. I'm looking for you to acknowledge what you did, admit it was wrong, and promise not to do it again. Can you do that? I won't ask again. IronDuke 01:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't sure specifically what you were talking about since I didn't research who said what above. Obviously, it is against wikipedia policies to say "it would be good" if people revealed their nationalities - not to mention to demand they do - on an article talk page. I won't do that again! How's that! CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's good, and I take you at your word. It would be also be good if you would strike that through on the Rahm Emmanuel page as well. IronDuke 02:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Fyi I did with edit note: "strike per request since COI questions belong on individual talk pages or WP:COIN" And re-reading COI again, see you have to be careful when doing those that it isn't tied to a conflict dispute in a way to gain upper hand, i.e. esp. by tying question to a dispute post in progress as I did. (And actual employment is the main COI I worry about in articles on several topic areas I work on.) But I do remain confused about how much you can question an editor's patterns of editing for POV. Quess I'll have to read that article separately!! Geez, can I get a law degree out of this?  :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

backdent<----:::::By the way, I posted this whole thing because I thought Jayjg was the editor who originated WP:OTRS ticket 2008030910010087 (per his edit summary) and he was just being coy by not admitting it was him when he mentioned I should contact that person on David Abrahams (Labour party donor) talk page. Wikipedia:OTRS doesn't make it clear where to link ticket numbers and volunteers, so I'm going to ask the Volunteer Coordinator a second time. Unless Jayjg wants to tell me who it is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Benjamin M. Emanuel. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Suntag ☼ 19:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to this. I think rather than inflame this editor, it may be better to see what (if anything) she does, and then go for large if it is out of order..... what do you think? Best regards --Smerus (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

see also her comment on your comment on my talk-page .....--Smerus (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jayjg, I am having an edit war with a new user named Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun, whose very first edit was to dump all kinds of POV information into the above article. Nothing was written in an encyclopedic style and all of it sounded extremely partial to the camp of Rabbi Yisroel Ber Odesser (a controversial figure in Breslov) and the "Na Na Nachies" (who are not accepted by mainstream Breslov Hasidut). I have the feeling that this user is connected to nanach.net, a pro-Odesser website. If you would like to see his edits, please look in the history under Nachman of Breslov, 16 December, from 14:57 to 17:46.

In response to his edits, I posted a courteous "welcome" on his talk page, followed by an explanation of why his POV edits were more appropriate for the talk page than the article. I also moved all his edits to the talk pages of Nachman of Breslov and Yisroel Ber Odesser. Today, however, this user undid all my revisions and sent me the following note on my talk page:

Dear Yoninah: You have categorically deleted and removed all my input from the page Nachman of Breslov, the reason you gave does not pertain to all the damage you did. It is true that I am new to the Wikipedia, so please explain to me if your removal of my clear, basic, and critical corrections is terminal or are they being processed and I will see the required corrections in the near future? If you are not prepared to make the necessary and obvious corrections (to anyone who saw the original hebrew source and was not drawing from some unreliable translation) please remove the original entry - it is disrespectful to Rabbi Nachman!

Please reinstate the reference I supplied to Na Nach Nachma Nachman Meuman - which is a page in the wikipedia itself pertaining to how Rabbi Nachman is understood today!

Please do get back to me, I am waiting to hear from you. Especially you should provide me with sufficient reason to deny the mention of Rabbi Israel Dov Odesser in an article about Rabbi Nachman. Rabbi Israel Dov Odesser OB"M was undisputed as one of the most reliabe, if not the most reliable, bearer of the traditions and ways of Rabbi Nachman, and Rabbi Israel Dov Odesser said: I Am Rabbi Nachman (obviously this needs explanation, but also obvious is that it deserves mention), and created a whole group of chasidim loyal to Rabbi Nachman - is that not relevant to Rabbi Nachman - thousands of followers that claim to have a unique understanding of Rabbi Nachman and who almost exclusively publish all Rabbi Nachman's teachings?!!!!!! Please note that today, 20 Kislev, is the birthday of Rabbi Israel Dov Odesser! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun (talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your assistance. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jay. I know that you have some history with a couple of the editors on the I-P pages, and I try to stay out of back and forth discussions, as long as things stay relatively civil and focused more on the article than the other editors. A certain amount of vigorous debate is great. :) However, in my opinion, some of your comments are starting to get a bit too personally focused, and you also seem to be to the point of just copy/pasting more or less the same comment on multiple pages.[11][12][13] There's really no need to reply to everything that others say, is there? Also, telling someone that their opinion is "irrelevant", is not a good way to de-escalate disputes.[14] Please, if you disagree with something, and it's not related to the article, just let it go, or go through another step in WP:DR?--Elonka 16:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Jay, in the poll you said you preferred option #1 but I believe it was an error since your argument seems opposite your 'vote'. The other "side" is claiming that you are "voting" with them. Would you please check it and see if it was what you intended? Thanks, Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I am at a loss to figure out what to do about this new editor, Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun, who is busy putting his two cents into every discussion point on the Nachman of Breslov talk page, and who today (22 Dec 2008) made some horrendous edits to the Breslov (Hasidic dynasty) page, including deleting the picture of a well-known Breslov rabbi (Elazar Mordechai Koenig), saying he has "no claim to leadership of Breslov." I believe this editor is running the nanach.net website, as I found his posts [15] and [16] telling his friends how he has infiltrated Wikipedia to fight against "biased" editors who keep taking the Na Nach philosophy off the Breslov pages (and — read the comments — to get more publicity for their website). Everything he contributes violates WP:SOAP, as he insists that the Na Nachs are the only true interpreters of Rebbe Nachman's teachings. In fact, "Na Nach" was and still is considered a very fringe element in Breslov circles, and one should be very wary of any of their interpretations of Rebbe Nachman’s teachings. All the leading Breslovers of the previous generation totally rejected the "Na Nach" chant and presentation of Breslov teachings. The Na Nach movement came into being only in the early 1980s, when the “Saba” was in his 90s, speaking Hebrew and Yiddish and was taken out of an old-age home to be cared for by English- and French-speaking baalei teshuvah, most of whom were well-versed with the then-drug scene and were seeking a guru to teach them Rebbe Nachman. Today they dance on cars and block traffic in downtown Jerusalem, among other places; certainly not what Rebbe Nachman had in mind with his deep and erudite teachings.

I think someone needs to order this editor to cite references rather than opinions. However, if he chooses to cite his own writings on his website, I assure you that that site carries absolutely no weight with true Breslov scholars. I feel that we're looking at months of arguing and page-ruining unless we put a stop to it now. Thank you for everything you can do. Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this an article that most admins won't touch with a barge pole? Justin talk 21:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Jay, hi, it's me again.  :) I know I've talked to you about what appears to be some frustration on your part at the Israeli settlement article (and others).[17] I'm glad that you're trying an RfC at Talk:Israeli settlement now, but there's one other thing I wanted to make you aware of. I was looking through your edits on the Israeli settlement article, and of your edits since early November, nearly every single one of your changes (18 out of 19) has been to re-insert the same thing, the word Samaria into the lead of the article.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] And your 19th edit was Samaria-related as well.[36] You are not making any other changes to the article, and you do not appear to be making any attempt to find compromise wording, you just keep reverting and reinserting the same thing, over and over. Please, can you stop reverting, and just continue to engage in discussion at the talkpage? I've looked through the discussions thus far, and though there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus either way, the general feeling seems to be leaning towards not including the word in the lead. So until there is a clear consensus for the change, please stop with the reverts on this one thing? You are still welcome to make other changes to the article, and to continue to engage at the talkpage of course. Hopefully with additional opinions from uninvolved editors, we'll be able to find a proper consensus, and ensure long-lasting changes to the article. Thanks, --Elonka 19:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I note your concern, but the issue has really been User:MeteorMaker's campaign to remove the word "Samaria" from all Wikipedia articles, or, failing that, deprecate its use, against consensus. My restoration of the word was initially in response to MeteorMaker's removal of it from the article, one of 16 such edits he made on November 4th alone.[37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]. The reference to the four settlements in northern Samaria had existed quite peacefully in the lede since January 12, 2007, when an editor noted that these settlements had been removed as well. Meteormaker has also been assisted in his efforts by User:Pedrito, who reverted for almost two weeks before even deigning to comment on the Talk: page at all, and has since continued to revert while rarely commenting further - 10 times in all.[53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] And of course, the latest reverter is Nishidani, who has managed to revert the article today without bothering to comment on Talk: either - an amazing revert really, the first article edit he has made since November 22, when he claimed he was no longer editing Wikipedia articles. In contrast, I have been quite involved in the article Talk: page, have been adding sources (e.g. [63] [64] [65]), unlike the blind reverters, who have basically just deleted, regardless of sourcing. There is no consensus to make this change to the lede, which has used this wording for almost two years. I'm hoping the RFC I started will achieve some sort of consensus around this, but that does not mean these non-consensual changes must stand pending a new consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, does this article restriction cover the entire article, or just the lede? Would have any objection to me moving it into the body of the article for now, so that the references aren't lost? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, and acknowledge that the word "Samaria" was indeed in the lead from January 2007 to November 2008. I also agree that the concerns are not just with your editing, but also with other editors. It takes two to edit-war, and I do indeed see the edits of MeteorMaker (talk · contribs), Nishidani (talk · contribs), Pedrito (talk · contribs), and others. I've been having a word with some of them as well. As for reverting the article to the pre-November version, no, I think discussions on the talkpage have proceeded past that point. Consensus can change, so the best way to proceed at this point, is to put a freeze on further reverts to the lead, and instead try to both continue with discussions at the talkpage, and to also look towards finding compromise wording. To answer your most recent question, the 0RR restriction covers only Samaria-related reverts to the lead section of the article. You are still free to make Samaria-related changes to the rest of the article, and you are also allowed to try different Samaria-related wording in the lead, that is not a revert, but is instead a bonafide attempt to find a compromise. --Elonka 21:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Vaya pues. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you have enough to do without de-vandalizing your talk page as well. As for the big yellow box, it provides such an easy way to remove trolling without getting dragged into justifications that I couldn't pass it up. ;) Daniel^C/_T+ 14:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we were both only partly right. The discussion needs to stay sequential, and his response was not timestamped to show that it occurred later. But WP:TP specified that I was wrong in indenting his response, because as you said it made it look like he was responding to me. Thank you for helping me learn more about Wikiquette. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop deleting a quote from the book...The book is RS. The quote comes from Yahiam archives...who he is is of no import it is an observation on the poverty caused through Israeli policies...Israel had the policy that the Palestinian citizens of Israel were under martial law and that all produce was to be sold at a set price to Israel...previous RS citations within the article have that in...I will be putting a whole string of citations up to back that...If you want to develop the article fine but it is under construction and stop deleting, add by all means .... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The quote may indeed be from the book, but, as explained, the quote doesn't back up the claims, and the source is non-notable. To begin with, the first sentence is entirely unsourced. Next, why do you quote Rafi Rubenstein: can you tell me more about him? Third, even if his opinions were worth noting, where does he say that "Israeli policies" caused "poverty... to the Palestinian citizens of Israel"? He just says that the Israeli farms were lush, and Arabs were not - he doesn't talk about "Israeli policies" at all. Finally, where does he discuss "why the Syrian had fought for the Palestinians cause"? He just says he understands why they took shots at Israelis. Shooting at Israeli farmers is not "fighting for the Palestinians cause". Please respond meaningfully to these questions. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Write the article yourself. And then I'll delete all that does not directly fit...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a better idea. Why don't you a) Make sure the claims you make in articles are actually backed up by the citations you use. b) Make sure that you cite notable individuals, and c) When a couple of sentences in an article are brought to the Talk: page for discussion, respond meaningfully, rather than filling the Talk: page with comments which don't answer the questions asked, and which I can't even understand, and then blanking the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your disruption of article development is typical of Israelophile stupidity...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Bringing one unsourced sentence, and one sentence that is unsupported by its citation, to a Talk: page is not "disruption of article development". If you think your article is not ready for Wikipedia, then develop it in your user space. As for the rest, please review WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that you are not ready for wiki...I think that the article does need development and I also think most of the development could have been done on Banias until it was ready for a split but the deletionist israelophile propagandists are not able to seek any form of consensus and only want full compliance in reproducing of the minority global POV and an wiki as an Israeli mouth-piece...I think that fair words are not a substitute for obscene actions...please review WP:CIVIL you use disruption to hinder development with WP:Tend. May I suggest that you go away and develop your own articles leaving those who do wish write to get on with it instead of practising disruption....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow Jayjg you make out as though you have never even heard of the actions of Israel in the DMZs...you almost make out as though you're incredulity is real, but since you are not new to IP conflict your protestations are, to put it in the least inoffensive manner, bizarre...and in 60 days I will be placing lots of citations to back up the claims...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Great. Make sure they all also refer to Water politics in the Jordan River basin, which is the subject of the article. Otherwise I'll have to remove them as WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dispenser. Is PDFbot still active? I've always found it very useful, and was hoping it would go through some articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, PDFbot is still active. It's just that I haven't finished coding in new features in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PDFbot 3 (mostly the common fixes) so it hasn't done a run of the full wiki yet. — Dispenser 17:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I was aware, I reverted four words in a problematic statement added by an IP user. Was there something else? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I had missed that completely. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User User:DonaldDuck deletes all mentions of any antisemitic activities by Russian historical figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lute88 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

User:DonaldDuck is still on the edit-war path.Galassi (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

On 30 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Temple House of Israel (Staunton, Virginia), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hope 2009 is a great year for you!--MONGO 15:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jayjg,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you've made some edits on this one in the not too distant past (of the reverting vandalism variety). I'm strongly leaning towards nominating this thing for deletion since I can find no reliable sources for it and it seems to mostly be fly paper for people who love/hate this non-notable, vaguely christianish org in central PA. If you've given this any thought, particularly if you think deletion is a bad idea for some reason that's not apparent to me immediately, let me know. Happy new year.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to get your opinion on this, if posible. THanks! Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Precedent_for_inclusion_of_nicknames 24.21.105.252 (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on there not being any RS. I actually did a very thorough search for sources, because this would have been a keeper if there where sources. Like say, "Comical Ali". Not that I agree with the sentiments, but gallows humors holds my heart...

Anyways, I have requested the redirect page speedy deleted as an attack, because that is the only thing it is under the circumstances, even after all this years. That's what happens when there is no deadline ;) Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Barnstar | My RFA | Design by L'Aquatique

		The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar
		Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. —Mizu onna sango15Hello!

שׂ‎מ‎ח!‎ From Chesdovi

File:Sufganiyah.jpeg

seems like you're everywhere i am! care to join me on the list of ethnic slurs page and we can discuss there? ethnic slurs, according to wiki are "used as insinuations or allegations about members of a given ethnicity or to refer to them in a derogatory (critical or disrespectful), pejorative (disapproving or contemptuous), or insulting manner . . . used to insult on the basis of race, ethnicity, or nationality." the term self-hating jew seems to meet all of these qualifications - the def. implies only one is necessary. thanks so much for your patience, i'm new here and not trying to step on toes, although it seems i have already. Untwirl (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to the vote on this important and valuable topic. I am glad that the truth and neutrality has prevailed. Majority has agreed in consensus, that Syria's illegal "presence" of Lebanon was indeed, an occupation. --Eternalsleeper (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, you're nominated to be the official I-P diplomat! I know you're thrilled, but you don't have to thank me quite so effusively... ;-)
Seriously, PalestineRemembered is building up a head of steam at the Rachel Corrie page; specifically Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Tom_Gross. Could I ask you to intervene with even a few words? In my limited experience, you're the only one I've seen him listen to. My thanks in advance for your time, even if you look and decide I'm being uncivil and have to rebuke me instead. arimareiji (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, very much - I keep getting caught between the two sides, and any reduction in the volume of screaming from one side tends to have a calming effect on both. arimareiji (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hiya, regarding your recent edits to Israeli settlement, I see that you reworded a section to remove the term "biblical".[66] That particular sentence has been the subject of edit wars recently, and it's pretty clear that the "biblical" term is well sourced. I have no strong preference on whether or not it stays in the article or not, but if another editor re-adds the term, please do not remove it again unless there is a clear consensus to do so at the talkpage. Thanks, --Elonka 21:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to see you back after your absence.—Sandahl (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How is the edit for recent developments not justifiable? The article at guardian.co.uk article is a legit source. CNN has also reported this. Here is an Israeli news source confirming Israel breaking the ceasefire: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050460.html "Six months ago Israel asked and received a cease-fire from Hamas. It unilaterally violated it when it blew up a tunnel, while still asking Egypt to get the Islamic group to hold its fire." Also, the way it is currently worded in the wiki article, it claims the ceasefire collapsed when Hamas shot rockets. The truth is the ceasefire already expired by then so how can Hamas cause the ceasefire to collapse? Please remove your undo. — Illxchild (talk ·contribs) 05:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see how this conflict can be very tricky. Thank you for your fast response. — Illxchild (talk ·contribs) 05:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jayjg take a look at User:Steve3849's edit-warring on State terrorism[67] where he puts in dubious Pakistani government propaganda sources to slander India (unreliable sources) and tendentiously quotes PBS etc to slander Israel (WP:SYN).72.179.45.108 (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you lend a hand in settling an edit war in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn#Accusations_of_Antisemitism ? Galassi (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you have contributed to this page in the past, I thought you might be interested in the edits now being introduced by somebody or other from Kabul.--Gilabrand (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

-Vandalism to Talk Page- Unfortunately, the below links may not work as the Talk Page has been vandalized and evidence of a dispute removed from the article and Talk Page [[68]]Doright (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, this article links to the Main Page so I would have thought that at least one admin would have shown up by now to address the problem. Could you take a look and try to fix it or suggest how to proceed? Thanks. [2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict Remedy for documented POV violation]Doright (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope that this edit does end up resolving the first of these issues. However, in the event it does not, I believe you should be made aware of another attempt to resolve it with this Wikiquette alert. While doing research on the matters raised in that alert I discovered that even with the bot archiving idle time set to the ridiculously low value of 6 hours at some times in the past, the page size was still getting as high as 460 kilobytes. The editors who were setting the time to low values were therefore not indulging in vandalism, as claimed here and on the article's talk page. They were merely engaging in good faith attempts to keep the talk page down to a reasonable size under difficult circumstances.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, also please take a look at this Iranian content. It is located on the same talk page above the link I already provided above. It has been deleted from the article. Obviously, some editors don't like how this [WP:RS] edit disturbs the Palestinian narrative orthodoxy. [Section titled Iranian involvement] Doright (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Also see this NPOV dispute regarding another element in the same article. [another NPOV dispute]Doright (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this merit its own article? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at these articles because what happens there seems to me not very wise and a little bit not in compliance with wp:npov but rather more with wp:soap. Thx. Ceedjee (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Im very surprised to see the reverts on the zionist political violence page , considering you are an administor and in doing so removing three facts with sources and only stateing `as per talk`. The comments which were only talked about on the ``talk page`` were this edit here [69]. However the revert also include comments regarding the murder of british soldier which is FACT [70], unlike the original POV slant. BUT i further changed this to [[71]]. Also you reverted these comments here [72] & [73] (which for the later the source is still there and not the comments about the execution of the soldiers in the Intro.

Further more Ceedjee it is against wikipedia policy to rally people to your ideas/cause on wikipedia, please see WP:CANVAS--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jayjg/Archive 27 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Jayjg/Archive 27's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Jayjg/Archive 27! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems you've had contact with this hater too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lapsed_Pacifist

Please see below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandal.2Factivist.2Fanti-Semite

Yours, Bounce78 (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, Can you please look at User:MichelleSBernard contributions as far as adding categories to bios. If the bio does not mention ethnicity or religion, it seems the category should not be added. I will defer to your judgement. Thank you, --Tom 15:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is ramping up as I post. Thoughts? --Tom 18:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly encourage you to read up on this subject [[74]] before vandalizing my constructive edits. MichelleSBernard (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jayjg, I am not sure whether this is a village pump inquiry or what - if you can't answer y questions I am hoping you know where I should go. I have never uploaded any images to Wikipedia. I have images made from photocopies of pages from a book. First, I am not sure whether I legally am allowed to upload them (the book is an English translation of a French book, copyrighted 1955. The book itself has been translated into English twice, and one translation was originally published by Atheneum, now by Penguin. The images of course are always the same). Second, if I am allowed to upload them (I want to use them to illustrate a section in the Culture article that discusses the author's theories), I do not know technically how to. If you can tell me what to do or where to look I would appreciate it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fayssal,

I've brought the edit in question to the Talk page for further comment. Cheers, Jayjg ^(talk) 04:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok Jay. I'd join you there later tomorrow as it is too late here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You reverted a lot of work I had done including reference corrections (at the moment this article is poorly referenced). Your comment was addressed to "Moze of Kabul" but its my work you were reverting.

If I don't hear from you within the next 24 hours I will revert back to my introduction. I have no objection if you wat to correct my introduction but I object to it being summarily replaced with the inadequate earlier version.

Telaviv1 (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So why not delete what you don't like? I at least know hwat I'm talking about...

Telaviv1 (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will keep try to keep improving this. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to keep asking, but could you briefly weigh in on the subject of Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Tom_Gross again? IronDuke has come back, and is saying that by rebuking PR for wanting to exclude Tom Gross from the article altogether (agree), you were really arguing that Gross's Spectator article "Dead Jews Aren't News" belongs in "Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie." (disagree) My understanding was that you only meant that PR was wrong in wanting to completely exclude Gross from the article. If I'm wrong, please say so and I'll retract my mischaracterization.

(Extra context for the above: The original addition was made under the subterfuge that "telling the story of The Forgotten Rachels" would indeed belong in "Artistic Tributes" in a perverse way, but Gross barely mentions them. Once the actual source was found and this was determined, there was strong consensus for removing it from that section (4-0). IronDuke recently came back and re-added it, along with several other major reverts, and said that you were his second vote.) arimareiji (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

An article who voted on in the past concerning to delete it or not, has been recreated and nommed for deletion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignatz Lichtenstein 3rd nom --Joseph3333 (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Threeafterthree, who I noticed you worked with on a similar matter recently, has repeatedly ignored and deleted vandalism warning tags posted to his talk page without responding. On the contrary, he continues to repeat prior activities. He recently violated a WP:3RR warning notice to his page by reverting a 3rd time to Sergey Brin. There appears to be no way to communicate with this user whose activities have now become clear harassment and vandalism per Wiki's policies - what's worse he seems proud and gleeful of his display of arrogance and audacity in thumbing his nose at all guidelines. I'm hoping you can review this. This user is wasting a lot of my time and affecting numerous valuable bios.

Hope you can help. Thanks. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not really vandalism or harrassment. I have removed your notices from my talk page after reading them first. I am glad that you have gotten another editor involved and hope others can chime in as well. Basically there is a difference of opinion on how long and how much detail should be included in the lead section. I felt that the lead had gotten totally out of hand compared to other bios and reverted to the last stable version. I have proposed trying to rewrite the intro to meet in the middle and will work on that. The best place to continue this would be on the Brin talk page. Anyways. Thank you, --Tom 00:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

On February 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Congregation Beth Israel (Berkeley, California), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, Jayjg. Arguably Temple Israel isn't really a disambiguation page anymore, at least not within the strictures of WP:MOSDAB (a topic on which I've recently been lectured in stern terms by one of the DAB "specialists"). I was considering deleting the POWdis template from this page. Since you have been involved in maintaining this page, and since I have very much appreciated your efforts to develop and maintain good synagogue articles, I wanted to ask your opinion on what you think would be best here. Thanks very much.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi JayJg,
Given :

• some want to have the zionist dimension of the so-called "Jewish terrorism"
• "Jewish" is not a clear word that can both refer to religion and ethnicity.
• terrorism is not neutral while political violence is (per wp:words to avoid)
• there are only examples of "Neo-Zionist political violence" in Jewish terrorism

what would you think of a move ? Ceedjee (talk) _Neo-Zionist_political_violence" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">10:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Did Meteormaker 'win' the argument? I must have missed that RFC. --Shuki (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, an ip is adding this to bios. Not sure what the deal is. I edited a few but sort of gave up. I am really tired of dealing with this "stuff" and trying to figure out what is the "right" thing to do so I will probably just defer to you in the future if you don't mind. Anyways, I give you alot of credit for dealing with this never ending nonsense. Cheers! --Tom 18:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jayjg, and thank you for your message. Threeafterthree: This is my first time editing Wikipedia; I was completely unaware of any preexisting issues with categorization and only edited in good faith- I had and still have no intention of furthering any of "this never ending nonsense." My goal was to make the pages I annotated easier to locate by adding them to "American Jews" a - category that many other pages are subsumed into. I still profoundly disagree with the idea of preferring specific categories of generals ones (isn't Alan Dershowitz both an American Jew and a Jewish-American writer? Why can't he found in both categories?) but will respect the wishes of the editors. I thank the both of you for your time. 99.175.102.100 (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, my suggestion to both of you: when you are one of the parties involved in a dispute, it's a bad time to act as judge and jury. I'm an admin, too, but when I'm involved in a dispute with anyone who has made substantive contributions - and sometimes when I am not a party to the dispute, but just find that one side really rubs me the wrong way - I avoid being the one to take action and bring it to WP:AN/I and, as dispassionately as I can, ask someone neutral to look into the situation in the rule-enforcing capacity instead of being the enforcer myself. - Jmabel | Talk 20:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jayjg, A new user named Treesheads, who just surfaced for the first time last Thursday to edit the above article, has been resisting all attempts to conform with Wikipedia policy on categorization. Three editors, including myself, have tried to explain to him/her that specific categories are preferred over general ones, but s/he has reverted all efforts to delete categories like "Jews," "Judaism," "Aliyah" and "Religion in Jerusalem" (where Noah Weinberg is the only person listed). Can you help us here? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why should the infbox people be deleted? Moshe Feinstein has one. Many people have them. I view the deletes as vandalism. Treesheads (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, wholesale deletes of a dozen categories is also vandalism. Trimming a few us one thing, but mass deleting is another. Treesheads (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

He co-founded Ohr Somayach. Why delete that category? Why don't' you warn others of vandalism?

Treesheads (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

He was a Rosh yeshiva. Why delete that category?

Is in not accurate? Does it cormorm to WP standards? If not, please explain? Is is not vandalism to remove a Rosh yeshiva from the a Rosh yeshiva catagory? Treesheads (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Look closely, he's in Category:Rosh yeshivas. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, I have been working on Wikipedia for 4 years and have never encountered a new user like Treesheads. He is reverting all my edits wholesale (see history page of Noah Weinberg), deleting a lot of extra information I've put into the article, just to enforce his idea of categorization. He doesn't understand the rules for WP:Categorization, WP:Consensus or WP:Civility. He does not seem to read or participate in the discussion on the talk page before reverting anything someone does. Obviously it's ridiculous to take someone to arbitration when he's only been editing for a week, but I think someone needs to have a serious talk with him. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jay, would you mind commenting on a content dispute at Nativity of Jesus. It concerns a table comparing the accounts of Matthew and Luke. There are concerns over the use of primary sources, OR, novel synthesis, lack of explanation/context which would be afforded by prose, and even its necessity, given the section "The nativity as myth". The table can be seen at this version of the page: [75] at section 1.3, "The narratives compared". Discussion on the issue can be found at Talk:Nativity of Jesus, in the threads "The two narratives compared", "The two narratives compared, part 2", and at "Task List (January 15, 2009)". Your input on the issue would be greatly appreciated, as very few persons have commented on it. Thank you, Jay. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So you are can just delete infobox people for no reason and it is not vandalism. This is good to know for future reference. If anyone has a problem with deleting infobox's for no reason I will refer them to you. Thanks, Treesheads (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Treesheads

Added new source to Brad Delson to verify ethnicity, even though it's painfully obvious. What I don't understand is, half the article is without sourcing, shall we delete those components as well? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a user just informed me of that. Didn't know, sorry. Anyways, he IS Jewish. It's a known fact. Anyways, since sourcing is such a huge issue I cleaned the article of all the non-sourced and relatively unimportant info like personal crap. Meh.

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{Sockpuppet category}} template.

Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards,--Stepheng3 (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jay, a fellow editor who wishes to be anonymous at wiki has asked me if he activates his email can administrators or "elites" see it? I wasn't 100% sure so I was asking... Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, I would like to get your opinion of the addition of the Antisemitism template to the Self-hating Jew article by Stevertigo. In my view, the antisemitism category is enough. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, things were still hoplessly stuck yesterday on the question of it "self-hating Jew" is an antisemitic insult, so I took the question to Wikipedia:Third opinion. First Arimareiji refactored my request, them started to participated in responding to Third Opinion requests [76][77][78][79][80][81][82]. Since all of this user's Third Opinion activity seems to have come after my Third Opinion request, you will understand if I view this as less than kosher. Any suggestions? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you care, this was the thread of the above assertion at ShJ. On a completely separate topic, please note that your recent ShJ response was to a pretty-blatant mischaracterization of my position, as I laid out in the next section. Whether you want to address that topic is entirely up to you; this was just an FYI. arimareiji (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, I appreciate your input and analysis of the problems at the Self-hating Jew article. When you look at the talk page next, you will see that Arimareiji has just kicked up a lot of dust. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I took a few pictures of the front of the temple when I was in Scottsdale last month. Unfortunately the sun was behind the building and the front of it faces a very busy street so the pictures didn't come out great. I've got two that went merged together should show most of the front but I need to find somebody with Photoshop to do it. If you would like to see them I'll email you the pictures. BJ^Talk 19:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to weigh in with your opinion. --David Shankbone 17:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Jaygh: I wanted to thank you for this sussint comment on the False Flag talk page:

This should be fairly straightforward; you should look for things that reliable sources describe as "false flag" operations. You shouldn't be trying to find examples based on your own definition of the term, and how well you think various actions fit it - that's original research.

It was so susscint and helpful, it has stuck with me ever since. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you make of this edit summary? Is this acceptable commentary? NoCal100 (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me poking my nose in, but no, that's not acceptable. Not by a long shot. IronDuke 04:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You recently banned the above user for vandalism. This has continued (there are warnings with diffs on the talk page) and we now have [abusive language]. Also worth noting this statement "No, I think I'll just break the rules till they ban me forever" on his talk page on the 17th after the ban. Any chance you could have a look? Thanks --Snowded (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I see you have edited this page before, and had dealings with the editor who is now launching a mini-edit war. If you have time, take a look.--Gilabrand (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't need krep like this. Having a disruptive editor follow me around and disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me and reverting my edits is not what I signed up for. THF (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this, you may wish to comment at the related complaint I have made here. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I have a question. Pedrito has been removing all references to Judea and Samarea from the geographical location of this settlement and all others, saying that this is according to Talk:Israeli settlement. I have looked there and it seems that there was a long argument, but I could not see any conclusions (but maybe I did not look well enough). Since you were involved in that argument, can you please tell me if there was some policy emerging from that discussion regarding the omission of these names? Thank you. Tkalisky (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's probably one of the most well-sourced facts in WP history. [83] MeteorMaker (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, however I still cannot see the bottom line. Was there any decision to remove all mention of Judea and Samarea from settlement locations? Thanks Tkalisky (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to comment on that without commenting on individual editors, but FWIW, there are tons of reliable sources for the position that "J+S" are non-compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:NCGN and WP:UNDUE, [84] and none at all for the opposing position. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion (and I respect that), however my question is was there a bottom line to the discussion? Was a policy decided upon? Thanks Tkalisky (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus either way. If there was any consensus it was that editors should not go around switching the terms, something User:Pedrito has decided to ignore. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

MeteorMaker's theories regarding the use of the term "Samaria" were conclusively disproven, and despite his incessant attempts at proof by assertion, there is no consensus to remove either term from any article. MeteorMaker was, in fact, put on restrictions against doing exactly that, and I suspect Pedrito will be as well if he continues. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick pickup! but now I have a question: since I -- a fairly well-informed and usually careful yet hasty reader as well as being an editor by vocation -- did not notice that this particular wording was that of a quoted source, how to indicate that this is the reason for the [erroneous] phrasing of the page text (and lede at that)? I'll put a note on the Talk page and will hail you for further comment there, for the record. Excellent page, outstandingly sourced... and it truly came in handy just now, when I was having my morning dose of good faith!. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind having a look at the problem of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Nazi history and swastika flag being systematically deleted/vandalized? This removes an important aspect of neutrality from the article. References from many reliable sources are provided. See its talk page. The edits are being done by users with IP addresses from very similar domains. Thanks, Histopher Critchens (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have started a Request for Arbitration regarding the use of northern/southern West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria. Since you have been involved in this debate, I have included you in the request.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 25.02.2009 09:32

Hi, A new user, Parthian Scribe, has just created this category and is busy populating it with 106 Jewish personalities to date, saying that the category is needed to distinguish between these and Jews who don't keep Judaism, like Noam Chomsky. Huh? Seems to me that the already-existing category, "Jewish Atheists," will take care of the small number of non-believing Jews compared to the large number of believing Jews, and the latter already has many sub-categories under Category:Jews. I'm not sure where to register my complaint, though, so I'm turning again to you. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much consensus for the Category, at least not where he asked:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Category:Practicing Jews Proposal. You could take it to CfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. In the meantime, someone opened a CfD. Yoninah (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that you are familiar with issues regarding the Middle East Quarterly. Can you take a look at an argument over a series of tags on the page A land without a people for a people without a land. the dispute revolves around cherrypicked and POV tags put up on the grounds that the article cites an article that appeared in MEQ. Thanks.Historicist (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Annonymous has now violated the 3RR.Historicist (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments needed to stop edit war at Talk:Khmelnytsky_Uprising#Dates. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to keep things straight, and despite what the edit summary says, it wasn’t my edit you reverted[85]. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. I just wanted to express my appreciation of the clarity of expression in this post. I particularly like 'Just because a reliable source makes an argument, it doesn't mean the "door is open" for Wikipedia editors to construct counter-arguments (or even supporting arguments) on the same topic'. I thought that this (or something very like it) would make an excellent addition to NOR itself, as this kind of problem seems to come up over and over again, and your summary of policy is so clear and quoteable. Jakew (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I second Jakew's suggestion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)