User talk:Jayjg/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 → Archive 43

Archiving adjustments

You've recently adjusted Mizabot archive settings at Simple Network Management Protocol. What's the reason for this? 90 days is the default but I've found 1 year is more appropriate for most technical articles. --Kvng (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure how it would make any practical difference for this article - can you explain? Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Editors don't visit the talk pages frequently for pages such as this. Archiving everything after 90 days of inactivity potentially removes open discussion items prematurely. While there may not be any such discussion at present, there may be in the future. Now, can you explain why you made the changes. Your edit summary says what you did but doesn't indicate why you did it. --Kvng (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Those settings don't "archive everything after 90 days of inactivity" - rather, they leave at least 4 threads on the page no matter how old they are. If the page is inactive, the threads stay forever. If the page is active, then the dead threads are archived, and the new threads stay for months. It looks like a win-win scenario to me. Jayjg (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand how the bot works. The previous setting left a minimum of 5 threads everything else newer than 1 year. How are the new settings (4 threads, 90 days) an improvement? --Kvng (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Regarding setting it to a minimum of 4 threads, I do that because these relatively slow moving pages inevitably fill up with undated threads over time - thus minimum 4 becomes minimum 5, minimum 6, etc. I'm fine with changing it back to 5 though. Regarding the other setting, it's an improvement because it means that dead threads don't clutter up the Talk: page, wasting the time of readers who have to wade through them, or even worse, respond to an issue that has already been long resolved, is no longer relevant, or whose participants have moved on and aren't even watching (or perhaps even editing). I don't think you would seriously suggest that a conversation might ensue in which the participants responded to each other every 364 days. Jayjg (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Issues can stay open for a year. A reader makes a suggestion or asks a question and then it takes many months for an editor to drop by and address it. I'm going to change the timeframe back to 365d. --Kvng (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Karl Sheppard

I was hoping you could remove the block on creating a new page for Shamrock Rovers footballer Karl Sheppard. I feel he is without question notable enough, especially given the club's recent success and subsequent exposure in the media. Cheers.--IrishTennis (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What indicates to you that he meets the requirements of WP:NSPORTS? Jayjg (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Now that Shamrock Rovers have qualified for the group stages of the Europa League - the second-highest level of competition in European football- and Karl Sheppard played a major part in that qualification I feel he is notable. He has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, such as this http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/oddballs/873619-shamrock-rovers-star-karl-sheppard-twitter-hack-sparks-diving-storm. While I accept that he does not play in a fully professional league, I don't feel this rules against his notability as shown by the countless other League of Ireland players who are worthy of Wikipedia articles. --IrishTennis (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, to be more specific, why do you think he meets the requirements of WP:NFOOTBALL? Not why you personally feel he is notable, or believe he is as notable as the subjects of other Wikipedia articles. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Its time to end this farce. Sheppard is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovers Forever (talk • contribs) 18:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

He is? where is your proof?--Kygora 18:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
If he goes on to win the Europa League with Shamrock Rovers, would you consider him notable (assuming he didn't get international caps and bearing in mind that he would still play in a semi-professional league)?--IrishTennis (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
So, if we consider him winning the Europa League making him notable, than wouldn't we have to consider the entire team notable and make a Wiki page for all of them? --Kygora 17:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: For Notability it is not about what they do it is about what coverage they get as an individual. I could go do this grand feat and get absolutely no coverage, and the feat itself does not make me notable enough to have a wikipedia page. if you want him to be notable for a page, Find us some coverage that meets WP:NOTABILITY, WP:ATH and the page will be allowed.--Kygora 17:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-answer to request for information about article

On August 14, I made a second request for information about two sources that you used to publish some information in Haredi Judaism. As you have spoken in a reasonable manner, I am trying to meet you more than halfway, and do things your way, while myself I would have preferred some sort of arbitration. However, I cannot proceed even with your request until I have the information requested. If you no longer have the articles, or used google or something to get excerpts, just let me know. But this seems a reasonable request. (You can reply here or on the talk page; no need to go back and forth between user pages. I will wait a few days for a reply before resuming editing.)Mzk1 (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, your comment was in an odd location, so I didn't notice it. I've responded on the article Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you again for your good manners. I'll look tomorrow.Mzk1 (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship and guidance for a zealous deletionist

Hi Jay: Your experience in building up and referencing articles in Orthodox Judaism over the years would make your input greatly appreciated at User talk:CapMan07008#Your deletionism and demands against Orthodox Jews and Judaism articles for User CapMan07008 (talk · contribs) aka "The Terminator" who has admitted he's new and would welcome guidance [1]. Thanks a lot, IZAK (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Kauffner

Please don't template experienced users. It's insulting. Just talk to them. [2] Rklawton (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Is Kauffner an experienced user? I only come across him on one article, and there he gives no indication of being experienced. Jayjg (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability

It seems you and I, sir, are in complete agreement on something.--Cerejota If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 03:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently so. Jayjg (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

correcting my errors

I thank you once more for your assistance. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, for all the good work you do on Wikipedia! Jayjg (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Research into the user pages of Wikipedians: Invitation to participate

Greetings,

My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.

I would like to include your Wikipedia user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Wikipedia present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?

With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.

I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.

Thank-you,

John-Paul Mcvea
University of Alberta
jmcvea@ualberta.ca

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

The idiot user guid123 on Talk:David_Irving needed to be restrained. well done. thank you. bloody holocaust deniers. Cramyourspam (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps of interest to you

An article that you have been involved in editing, Falafel [[3]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Veritycheck (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I've made any significant edits to that article in years. Anyway, the fact that you dispute the accuracy of one source used for one sentence does not mean the Good Article status will be removed from the article. Jayjg (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Also of interest to you

Heya,

So I just started the article on the new Jewish international news network, Jewish News One. I thought you might like to check it out, see if improvements could be made, maybe add it to your watchlist, eh? :p Thanks.

And now, the Falafel Song. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice article, interesting topic! Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Why thank you, but I am unfortunately dealing with someone from JN1 who refuses to respond to my messages to him as well as my reverts of his material. If the third time (three of those messages including the welcome template are from the second time) talking to him is ignored that will be enough for COI right? I think that's reasonable. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 29 Elul 5771 00:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
It's frustrating. I'll try to keep an eye on the article. Jayjg (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

On a personal note

Ktiva vehatima tova for 5772! A gut gebensht yor! Debresser (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

PunBB deletion

You recently deleted PunBB for the second time, apparently because WP:Speedy deletion#G4 says you can due to the result of WP:Articles for deletion/PunBB. Considering that the current FluxBB article mentions PunBB, do you think redirecting “PunBB” to “FluxBB” should be acceptable, at least while “FluxBB” is an article? (“FluxBB” was discussed at WP:Articles for deletion/FluxBB but never deleted.) If redirecting is acceptable, how do we do it without having the redirect deleted again?

Since the initial deletion I created the redirect. Very recently I think someone turned it into an article. I would like to re-create the redirect, and if necessary put a note somewhere or modify your deletion criteria so that it does not get deleted again without a bit of warning. I would also undo your unlinking at Comparison of web hosting control panels: I don’t see the benefit in this. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 02:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC).

In my turn, I would like to contest the deletion of the latest version of PunBB article itself. Here are the reasons for it: 1) the software is used by millions of people and thousands of sites around the world, hence deeming it popular; 2) Google search returns a lot of websites when you search “Powered by PunBB” - discussion boards and sites with extensions developed for PunBB. If it wasn't a significant project, then Google would not return as many results; 3) Facebook Developers were using PunBB engine for a long time, therefore it aided in creation and advancement of Facebook as we know it, pretty significant; 4) There is still an article on FluxBB on Wiki that wasn't deleted after a deletion discussion, hence it is only logical that the project that was foundation of FluxBB should be described as well; 5) there are many books in Google Books about PunBB, nearly 119 items are returned, with at least 6 solid books that can be quoted and referenced.
Thank you for your attention, and I hope you will accept the facts named above as sufficient for letting the article about PunBB be in its place, or at least for continuing the deletion discussion, which initially took place as long ago as in February and hence is obviously based on outdated information.
VoiceWithoutFace (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC).
I didn't see reliable secondary references in the "new" article - can you point them out? Jayjg (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
As I understand, this discussion addresses two different issues: 1) if the project is significant enough to be featured on Wikipedia; and 2) if there are any reliable sources at hand. I hope you would agree that in case of the first issue, the project is worth being featured on Wikipedia (without any redirects) as it is used by many in the world. Concerning the second issue, we must admit that all articles on Wikipedia undergo constant improvement; however, PunBB article does not have a chance to be improved as it is getting deleted for the second time already. If there were an article to improve, I would be more than willing to include references to the published books I've found about PunBB and other discussion boards. Here is an example of at least two printed books:
Potts, Kevin. Web Design and Marketing Solutions for Business Websites. New York: Apress, 2007. Print. pp. 232-233
Bradburne, Alan. Practical Rails Social Networking Sites. Berkeley, CA: Apress, 2007. Print. pp. 117
I would highly appreciate your guidance and any input on how to make the article better, but I believe the decision to delete the article should be reconsidered.
VoiceWithoutFace (talk), 8:03, 04 October 2011 (UTC).
OK, that's a good start. Do they say anything significant about PunBB, or do they just mention it in passing? Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, can you give me any comment on creating and keeping the redirect, or should I find somewhere else to discuss this? Are you saying you’re against it because FluxBB doesn’t seem to have much in the way of secondary sources, or was that just about re-creating it as an article? Vadmium (talk, contribs) 04:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC).

I have no issue with creating and keeping the redirect. The only problem was that people kept turning it into an article again. Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Please help

Hi,

I made a request to SlimVirgin more than a week ago regarding a problem I created in one of the pages associated with WT:V.  It seems that she is not currently active, and you helped out recently at WP:V, so I'd appreciate it if you would take a look at this problem.  What I need specifically is to have Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Polls moved back to Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Archive_1 without a redirect, such that I can start the talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Polls.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I will try to take a look in the next couple of days. Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I just checked, and a search shows:
Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Polls (redirect from Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Archive 1)
Can you take a look at this?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Done. Jayjg (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Whew, thanks!  Unscintillating (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The Drug in Me Is You

Hey. Just thought it would interest you to know that The Drug in Me Is You, the album by Falling In Reverse, has reached GA status in less than two months after it was created and deleted like 40 times lol It's really a good article now, thought you'd enjoy seeing that. Cheers, GroundZ3R0 002 05:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct information

I was correcting false information. With your last edit, it is still there. "Pardos" and "blacks" do not constitute the "great majority" of poorer Brazilians since (the way it sounds is like as if 90% or more of the poorest Brazilians were either "pardo" or "black"). According to the official data I posted, which you removed, "whites" comprise about 36% of the poorest (that's why I posted it there), which is roughly 40%. "Pardos" and "blacks" comprise the "majority" of the poorest but not the "great majority". It was plain wrong to say that "blacks" comprise the majority, but this information has been already corrected.

As for Michael Löwy, it is deplorable that he uses such an expression as "half caste". I've never seen it used in Brazil, and it certainly is not. Not even census categories like "pardo" are used, they are rather imposed by the government. Much less a deplorable expression as "half caste". And still we have to accept the way he describes a large portion of the Brazilian population, don't we?Grenzer22 (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Genzer22, I appreciate that you're trying to put what you believe to be true or correct into articles, but have you reviewed WP:NOR? It says that you can't invent your own arguments to counter what reliable sources have said - that includes even material that is sourced, if the sources themselves aren't on the topic of the article. Jayjg (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok!Grenzer22 (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drought Conditions

Hi Jayjg - some time ago you closed this AfD, and I was unsure of what the process would be if I thought the article should be re-created. I don't think you closed incorrectly, so I'm not sure DRV would be the venue, but a re-created page would be liable to G4. The issue is that it's literally the only West Wing episode we don't have an article on and the lack of attempts to delete the others suggests consensus to have them - and that the AfD commenters didn't indicate whether they believed this should be precedent to go after the other articles. What needs to be done here? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You can certainly go to DRV with this argument. If the reviewers there find it compelling (which they well may), then the article can be recreated. Your argument will be more compelling if you provide some reliable secondary sources that discuss this episode. Jayjg (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is welcomed

An discussion is ongoing here [4]. Your opinion about the matter would be appreciated. Thanks. Swift&silent (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Uhmmm

And what exactly has everyone else been doing on that page? Looks like i'm about to have to delete some discussions, if that's the case. Show me where I was wrong, if you may. Posting things that come out the talmud is not appropriate for a page dealing with the talmud? Hmmm..

--HolyandClean (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)HolyandClean

Article Talk: pages are for discussing proposed changes to article content. Do you have any changes you are proposing to that article, keeping in mind that all article edits should be based on reliable secondary sources? Also, regarding your statement that you are "about to have to delete some discussions", please review WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Reason of Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song) deletion

Hi there Jayjg,

I'm sure you are nice person, but would like to know the reason for the deletion of Tinchy Stryder's song "Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)", which was the first single from his debut studio album Star in the Hood was deleted by you?. Yes I know the article was previously created and deleted in 2009 due to lack of the songs notability to Tinchy Stryder. I have collected this Twitter status from Tinchy Stryder from 18 October 2011, confirming that "Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)" is a notable song to Tinchy Stryder. Here is the Twitter status of the song confirmation, just click on this link ----> http://twitter.com/#!/TinchyStryder/status/126257795321430016, so if you can now please un-delete the "Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)" Wikipedia article that I have recently re-created. Thank you Jayjg.
MarkMysoe (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Twitter feeds are not relevant to article notability. Anyway, you've submitted it to DRV, which is perfectly within your rights, so that's where the discussion will occur now. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
MarkMysoe (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yom Kippur

Hi. It looks like Marleeeden (talk · contribs) is at least trying this time to include sources for some of his new material at Yom Kippur. I'm not fully satisfied yet, but I think it's a start. What do you think? Richwales (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's a start, but it would need work to comply with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Jayjg (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Robotpotato sock?

Remember him? Here's the SSI archive. User:Stopkid seems to bear many of the same characteristics - though in fairness he seems to be conforming his edit summaries to his actual edits now. I am not certain enough at this point to write up a sockpuppet report, and may never be; I'm also not sure you're still interested in the fellow, but in case you are, well - here! JohnInDC (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I barely remember him. This new account does seem similar, though possibly not identical. I wouldn't be able to make a 100% identification. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I'll keep an eye on it and if it ever becomes more definitive, will file an SSI report. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Still here

How's it going Jayjg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zad68 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey nice to see you again! Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Video Game Articles

Where can i find the guidelines for making a Video Game article meet any notability guidelines for the mainspace?--Kygora 18:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything specific for video games, just the general Wikipedia:Notability. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for PunBB

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PunBB. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dimkalinux (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Levi Shemtov

Dear Jayjg, You've helped me before when I had questions. Could you take a look at the article, Levi Shemtov? Awhile ago, I uploaded a photo and added some referenced info. Now I see that the article is out of hand (in my opinion). A user named "Jewishlubavitch" has added a large amount of unsourced positive non-NPOV material, and before that some others added unsourced negative non-NPOV material. I don't know how to undo multiple edits but that's probably necessary, and someone should probably look at other edits Jewishlubavitch is adding to articles almost as an advertisement. Anyway, please see what you think, if you have a chance. NearTheZoo (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see that Jewishlubavitch has just deleted almost all of the unsourced "advertising" he/she posted, and I just deleted 2 unsourced negative statements. Guess the article is back on track, although it still needs a lot of additional refs. NearTheZoo (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
It does seem to have calmed down, but more fundamentally, I don't see how it meets the requirements of WP:BIO. I've proposed it be deleted, let's see what happens. Jayjg (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Jayjg. By the way, I recently created "Joshua L. Goldberg," which is a page you might find interesting. I think Joshua L. Goldberg was very notable. However, when I created it I found there was already a page for "Joshua Goldberg," and I wonder if that page passes the WP:BIO threshold? Best, NearTheZoo (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Your article looks great - you should probably include a bit about Joshua L. Goldberg in the Astoria Center of Israel article. Regarding the other Joshua Goldberg, he does seem marginal - do you think a WP:PROD or AFD is in order? Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Jayjg! I was able to contact the historian for the Navy Chaplain Corps, who agreed to mail me (on loan) the oral history interview transcript for Goldberg. (On line, I found the official intro, but not the actual transcript.) I have also contacted the current rabbi of the Astoria Center, who is going to see if he can come up with some additional published info on Goldberg's synagogue achievements. With this new info, I will add to the bio article, and definitely follow your suggestion of adding to the Astoria Center article, as well. Meanwhile, I do think the "other" Joshua Goldberg would fail the notoriety test Seems like the lead is that he was an unsuccessful political nominee, and his list of jobs starts with tour guide.... I do think a WP:PROD might be indicated. Thanks again -- NearTheZoo (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
That's very industrious of you, I'm impressed! Why don't you PROD the other? Jayjg (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
OK-just did it. Also added just a little to Astoria Center of Israel. Thanks - NearTheZoo (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Quick PS-Left a note on the talk page for User:Masterknighted, the article's creator, to ensure he could argue against deletion if he thinks it should be retained. (I also looked at the list of articles listed there as his creations. I think half of them might fail the notoriety test....) NearTheZoo (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Jud Süß (1940 film)

My attention was drawn to this article by an edit that you made removing significant portions of unsourced text. While I wasn't fully in agreement with your removal of the text, I couldn't find a good reason to contest it so I let it go. However, my interest in the film was piqued and so I started researching it with the result being a major expansion and transformation of the article. Please take a look and see what you think. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been watching the changes as you've been making them, and they seem good to me. Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Under what heading

Is the discussion regarding HIV occurring?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy Scott Harris - Deletion Debate

Jayjg, can we move the page for Andy Scott Harris back into the main encyclopedia so we can open the discussion and edit it? Thank you. Susanahornil (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted as the result of this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Scott Harris. What discussion do you want to open? Jayjg (talk)

Portal events

Since you're an administrator can you perform this task. Jab7842 (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what would you like me to do and why would you like it done? I am not familiar with those portal pages. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Did you read this page? Jab7842 (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but I still don't understand what it is or why you want it done, and I don't know anything about portals and other pages like that. Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
You can simply change my user rights to account creator, so that I can perform these changes, because edit notices guide/warn users when they edit pages. Jab7842 (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
But I still don't understand what it is you want done or why, so I'm very reluctant to do it. Jayjg (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I promise that if I am granted the account creator right, I will edit edinotices in an appropriate manner. Jab7842 (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand why you need it, and I don't feel comfortable doing this. Jayjg (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Joshua Goldberg

Jayjg, rather than continuing a discussion of Joshua Goldberg under the discussion about Levi Shemtov, I'm starting this new section. After putting up a WP:PROD note, Masterknighted deleted it. He made some very civil comments on my talk page, and I answered on his, and then I (at least for now) reinstated the WP:PROD note. However, I w</ref>ould feel better if you took a look, given your experience. My gut feeling is that the majority of pages begun by Masterknighted, including Joshua Goldberg might not pass the notoriety test. Best, NearTheZoo (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, Could you help me learn how to move the discussion about this deletion from the talk page of the article to the appropriate place? Found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Goldberg. (I'm still learning!) The article's creator, User:Masterknighted, has objected to the deletion, and I would like you (or another administrator) to become involved, if possible. Thanks again! NearTheZoo (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Good evening all, Firstly it is not notoriety it is notability, second my objection is to the parliamentary moves employed in proposing for deletion and the reposting of the prod so that the article could just be brought down without any debate when it could have been rather easily nominated, listed and debated via the keep/delete format. if you look you will see that other editors contributed to this article as well, peace.Masterknighted (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's now at AfD, which, one hopes, will sort all this out. Jayjg (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ron L Zheng - Deletion Debate

I saw his work in London and it was very great. The show was also supported by Japanese Embassy and other London authority. Maybe the person who started his Wiki did not know know any protocol or how to write the wiki article. I think you need this person give it a try and his work was also mentioned in several news paper and the most famous Japanese Tanka Monthly Publication in Japan. I think some of the comment made on him was a bit on the hash side and please give this guy some time. I think Ron L. Zheng is worth enough to keep in wiki. Jut whoever started his article needs to learn proper way of adding information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funhumankid (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

He may be a great artist (I don't know), but those commenting at his AfD didn't think he met Wikipedia's WP:BIO requirements. Jayjg (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted remarks

hello. First of all, I'm very well aware of "3RR", and secondly, you should be aware that I did NOT reach "3RR" or violate anything. Thirdly, it would be nice (for consistency's sake, but since I see favoritism and politics at work here) that you would give that same lecture to Malik. Since he was reverting like crazy and getting close to uh "3RR". Of course you didn't, per your bias in favor of him, for some reason (a problem on Wikipedia that happens with Admins and other users...), and sided with his nonsense that somehow "ICGC" was somehow "not notable". Never mind that they've been all over tv talk shows for years, guests on interviews, and in the radio, and even in the news. Never mind that they've been around for decades. And have internet sites for years. And even Malik found a couple of sources for them, he admitted. So not sure what the big problem is here. This is discouraging and aggravating. You'll knee-jerkly take Malik's side on this, because after all, he's "Malik Shabaz". A bully on Wikipedia who is revert happy, and for some reason you favor. I do NOT appreciate your remarks to me on his talk page. I did not violate anything. NOTHING. But Malik was arguably violating "I don't like" and "no own". You'll deny that, because after all, he's Malik. And for whatever reason, whatever he does or says, you (admin or not), seem to knee-jerkly side with. So now that Malik has obvious back-up for his bullying and ownership violations (back-up from an imperfect Admin who is arguably a bully too doesn't bode well for me, does it) it's hard for me to do anything. Yes, I'm angry. Your remarks were obtuse and unnecessary. I violated nothing. Malik seems to think he owns a bunch of articles, as is seen from his history and pattern. Yet you wink at it, or deny that, because, well, he's "Malik". Good day. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. However, I think this problem is fairly easy to solve: In order to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, a topic generally needs coverage in reliable secondary sources. Do you have any such sources? Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Feature articles

Jayjg, given you've had some experience with featured articles, what is the process for a FA making it to the main page? I have looked over the FA criteria and understand how FA articles are reviewed against such criteria. But once an article achieves FA status, is it thrown into some queue of new FAs to await its turn on the main page? Can an article only appear on the main page once in its lifetime?

Also, I wonder if some articles are topically disadvantaged? On one hand I suspect that such isn't the case (because I've seen articles featured on the main page that I thought were particularly boring or highly technical), but on the other I can't help but wonder that some might be. For example, at some point in the future I hope to get Interest rate parity up to GA status and eventually FA status, but it's not exactly the same kind of read that Governor of Kentucky or Tulip mania is. Then again United Kingdom corporation tax, a formidable read even for us financial-savvy editors, made it to FA status. I guess I'm just wondering what (if any) subjective element is involved in selecting an article to be featured on the mainpage. John Shandy` • talk 18:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi John. How many FA articles make it to the main page has always been a bit of a mystery to me, but there is a nomination process, with points given for various factors - you can find it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Regarding being topically disadvantaged, I think it helps if an article is on a topic that hasn't been or is rarely on the Main Page, and hurts if there are many other FAs on the same or related topics; other than that, as far as I can tell pretty much anything goes. Jayjg (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know that only some featured articles make it to the main page; I actually thought that the "featured" descriptor was in reference to an article having been featured on the main page, but it sounds like that isn't the case. That's interesting though, and good to know. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 07:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
You are correct, "Featured" merely means "has been through a review process that indicates it Wikipedia's highest standards", not that it has ever actually been "featured" on the Main Page. I've never actually understood how my Featured Articles made it onto the Main Page; it's almost alway been a surprise to me when they show up there, though last time they notified me in advance. Jayjg (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

RfCU

Jay, do you think it's worth making a request for CheckUser re 12.72.149.104 and EditTalk? They're behaving very much like Joe Circus — I'm just unsure whether that's enough evidence by itself. Jakew (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, it's considered "likely" that some sockpuppetry is taking place. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joe Circus‎. Jakew (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

An IP

An IP is removing sourced information at Hamza Yusuf. Can you protect the article please? Pass a Method talk 10:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've protected for 3 days. Please work out the content dispute on the article's Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

3rr

Has this user broken 3rr?

He's also ignoring my concerns on the talk page Pass a Method talk 16:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's complicated, but it appears to me that he has broken 3RR. I've warned him. Jayjg (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning though it was never my intention to break 3RR or attempt to act in any way contrary to good practice. (After nearly 10,000 edits over 4 years, I believe this is my first 'warning'.) The first change I made was to write an article in place of a redirect that had been done by a different editor over a year and a half ago. It was not returning that editors work to the previous version and after such a length of time I did not consider my actions amounted to a 'revert' (though I can see why some may consider it to be.) The second alleged revert was me doing what the tag said - removing the tag if I objected to it (which I did) - I didn't think that would count as a revert either! You will notice that I also tried to discuss the matter on talk, and by sending a personal message to the other editor. The other two examples were then caused by me trying to improve the article to prove it merited separate existence but being prevented from doing so by having it completely reverted by an editor as I was in the middle of improving it! Fortunately, I can report that matters appear to be headed towards a good outcome as I apologised to the other editor for any offence I caused, though unintentional, and the other editor has responded positively. A compromise suggestion has been posted on talk that appears to have support. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that one could argue the second "revert" is not a revert per se, but merely following the template instructions. In any event, I'm glad you are both working it out now. Jayjg (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

British jew

Hi - Get a better jew for the infobox - he has an Irish catholic father and is a self declared atheist. - You should at least get full jews for the infobox. Are there no famous practicing Jews with two jewish parents you can add to the infobox? Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Get a better jew"? Seriously? Radcliffe isn't Jewish enough for you? Why isn't he a "full jew" - is this some sort of racial thing? Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Jayjg, my apologies if my actions at the article may have raised suspicions a-la WP:Tag team, as someone suggested. That I'm even awake at these hours is itself exceedingly unusual. I have your Talk page watchlisted, though, and that outrageous "better jew" comment was more than I could bear.—Biosketch (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about it; I'm sure Off2riorob will soon calm down and apologize. Jayjg (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection of "Talk:Human Rights"

Can I ask you for a more detailed explanation of why you semi-protected this page? Per your edit summary it was due to "Persistent sock puppetry" - but as far as I can tell there was only one edit by a sockpuppet, which you reverted in minutes, and before that the last posting on the talk page was some productive discussion we had a month back in October. WP:SEMI says that such protection should be used only sparingly on talk pages and "when they have been subject to persistent disruption". I am sure you had good reason for the protection, but it was not obvious to me why semi-protection was necessary for the page so I was hoping you could fill me in on the background? Ajbpearce (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

While this particular sockpuppet made only one edit to this particular talk page, his behavior in general is to continually create new sockpuppets, add the disruptive material again and again to the article (or talk page) until it is semi-protected - see, for example, Talk:Female genital mutilation, where he did this with six different accounts/IPs before the page was protected. If all of his target pages are protected, he'll get bored and go away. Jayjg (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks Ajbpearce (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Off2riorob_reported_by_Nomoskedasticity_.28talk.29_.28Result:_.29 here] - Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see you've now been blocked for 48 hours. I think you got off light. Jayjg (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

MJs

Long-term disruption is I believe sufficient grounds for requesting review of user conduct and/or administrative review, isn't it? I grant that you might question my own objectivity on the matter, but I don't doubt that you probably know the polices and guidelines better than I do. Having said that, I can't see any particular reason to go ahead with some sort of action, should you be so inclined. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

In theory it should be. However, the fact that he goes away for a month or two at a time, then returns for a day of disruption before leaving again, tends to make it hard for these things to stick. The problem is never "urgent" because by the time it gets to any place enforcement can happen, he's disappeared again. On top of that, he often makes bold-faced assertions that are completely at variance with reality, but said with such conviction that they confuse any reader who is unwilling to spend a lot of time digging into diffs. Add to that the fact that he now has an enabler, whose only real interest in this situation is a dislike of me, and it gets messy. Jayjg (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Your'e probably right. I have been involved with an RfC/U of an editor who regularly disappeared for months at after receiving complaints, though, and at least that single RfC seemed to have been effective. And at least one Falun Gong supporter had engaged in almost identical "disruption for a day, disappear for a month or so" activity before being recently banned from the topic indefinitely. Maybe an RfC/U might be the best way to go, if one were filed shortly after an incident of disruption? John Carter (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
If he does this again, and more specifically deletes that sentence he's deleted 22 times, despite it having 6 reliable sources, I'm just going straight to AN/I. Jayjg (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

reliable source?

Is this a reliable source? [9]. Mustihussain claims it isn't Pass a Method talk 10:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

He's right. It's a print on demand press, there's no editorial oversight, and most of its publications are actually copies of Wikipedia articles. Jayjg (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Istanbul pogrom -> riots

Hi, i saw this move made by you, whilst in the talk there is consensus against the move. Could you please explain? Thanks 23x2 (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't even notice that conversation. I just saw the article, noticed that the vast majority of reliable sources called them "riots" (not "pogrom"), and moved it, per WP:COMMONNAME. Looking throught the discussion there, it doesn't seem that any of the people opposing the move are citing relevant policy or guidelines. Calling it a "pogrom" simply because three or four Wikipedia editors believe it meets their definition of a pogrom does not match with any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and, in fact, violates WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but I'm afraind that this move isn't a constructive one and the previous discussion were ignored. A common name would be 'Anti-Greek Istambul Pogrom' (in this case the common name was only partially adopted), but per common sence this wasn't a general riot and the persent title is completely misleading. You need to read the conversation which was against the move, as well as the article itself. Cheers!Alexikoua (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, many of the opposing votes in the unsuccessful requested move do cite wikipedia policy. Not only that, but there is a clear and definite consensus against the move, i.e. the result was not "no consensus". If indeed you didn't notice the past requested move discussion, at the very least you should undo your move as a sign of good faith and initiate a new requested move in the talkpage. That way a clear consensus can emerge. Athenean (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a highly regrettable move, taken without the mover participating in the discussion in any way. High-handed and arrogant.--Damac (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see the four main editors opposing the move proposal have shown up. Well, I've read the discussion there, and since none of you actually addressed the only relevant guideline, WP:COMMONNAME, my previous statement still stands. To repeat, "calling it a "pogrom" simply because three or four Wikipedia editors believe it meets their definition of a pogrom does not match with any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and, in fact, violates WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOR". Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Istanbul riots" is the common name? How do you figure? A simple Google Books search shows "Istanbul Pogrom" returns twice as many hits among English-language publications between 1955 and 2011 1_2 195 compared to "Istanbul riots" [10]. Athenean (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Your search was flawed, because it failed to put "Istanbul pogrom" and "Istanbul riots" in quotation marks. When you search for the specific phrase "Istanbul pogrom", you get exactly 17 hits, four of which are books by "Frederic P. Miller, Agnes F. Vandome, John McBrewster" reprinting Wikipedia content. "Istanbul riots" is six times as common. Jayjg (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
My search is not flawed. None of the hits returned are false: They all refer to the event in question. On the other hand, your requirement for using quotes is far too strict as it excludes many sources that refer to the event. Athenean (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
For example, this source [11] refers to it as the "pogrom of Istanbul", yet is excluded when quotes are used. Athenean (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
None of the hits returned are false: They all refer to the event in question.??? Nonsense. There are many false positives in the first two pages of hits alone. For example:
  • "The first Odessa pogrom occurred in 1821 and grew out of events surrounding the Greek War of Independence. At the outbreak of the revolution, in part triggered by the Phanariots, the Istanbul-based Greek servitors of the Ottoman Empire". John Doyle Klier, Shlomo Lambroza. Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History, p. 17.
  • "... he also collected some printed books and manuscripts, including some that deal with the fate of the Jews in the region during the Chmielnicki pogroms. See the National Library of Ukraine, Institute for Manuscripts, FXN 7739 f." Dan Shapira. Avraham Firkowicz in Istanbul: 1830-1832. p. 75.
  • "The bond between the Jews escaping the Russian imposed pogroms and the Jews at the heart of the Sultanate Usmaniyya in Istanbul, grew stronger manifolds." Mohammed Younis. The Rise of the Crescent: The Sacred Clash. p. 61.
  • "The sense of Kuzguncuk as a Jewish neighborhood was the reason why some Jews migrating to Istanbul — from Thrace, for example, after the pogroms there in 1934 — would come to Kuzguncuk. Jewish people from other parts of Istanbul." Amy Mills. Streets of memory: landscape, tolerance, and national identity in Istanbul. p. 165.
  • "This was reinforced in February by an anti- Armenian pogrom in the Azerbaijani city of Sumgait . ... K. Karabekir, Istiklal Harbimizin Esaslan (The Essential components of our War of Independence) (Istanbul, 1951), 32, 35." Vahakn N. Dadrian. The history of the Armenian genocide: ethnic conflict from the Balkans to to Anatolia to the Caucasus. p. 372.
  • "Skinner (Istanbul) to Washington, July 27, 1934. “Turkish Government Sanctioned Thrace Pogroms Report Hints,” Article from “Jewish Telegraphic Agency,” July 24, 1934. 33 FO 371/17969/E4916." Soner Çaǧaptay. Islam, secularism, and nationalism in modern Turkey: who is a Turk?. p. 219.
When searching for a phrase, you must enclose the phrase in quotation marks, or you get many false hits, like the ones above. Please don't waste my time with more inaccurate statements. Jayjg (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

IronE Singleton

You deleted this article was improperly. I am not the same "banned or blocked" user who created the initial page. There should be no prejudice against creating this page for this subject. I'm sorry I forgot to add this page to my watchlist. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Muboshgu. When deleting it I accidentally clicked on the wrong drop-down menu reason. The actual reason is WP:CSD#G4 - recreation of a deleted article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IronE Singleton. Jayjg (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I had read the previous deletion discussion prior to creating this article. The deletion discussion seemed to occur prior to his role in The Walking Dead, when IMDb didn't include his role in The Blind Side, and existed as a promotional article written by his wife. I haven't seen that version of the article. Since I don't have any bias, and I figured enough had changed since 2009, I wrote a BLP stub from scratch. Since I didn't "recreate" the old article, I don't think CSD by G4 is appropriate in this case. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The previously deleted article doesn't need to be identical, but merely exhibit the same problems that were raised in the AfD discussion (though some will incorrectly argue otherwise). Was the role in The Blind Side significant? Did he have any lines, for example? Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I haven't seen The Blind Side, but according to the character page on IMDb, he did have lines. It seems to me that the article I created doesn't exhibit the same problems raised in the AfD, since the main issue raised in the AfD was about his credits, which IMDb apparently didn't list at the time, but currently does list. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
He also appears to have had a number of roles now. OK, I've restored it. Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Although, you also restored the revisions that were rightly deleted. That was some blatant PR by his wife. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I've fixed that now. It has a BLP sources tag on it; please fix the sourcing now, so that it doesn't get deleted again. Jayjg (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't joking; if you don't replace the sources used with reliable ones, I'll delete the article again. Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why these aren't reliable sources. The article could use more sources, which I'll look for, but this BLP should have enough to stand as a stub, in my view. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Khazars page contains copyright violation

Jay, I am the author of "An Introduction to the History of Khazaria" which has resided at http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-history.html since March 13, 1997 and before that at http://acad.bryant.edu/~kbrook/khazar-history.html as documented by http://web.archive.org/web/19970110040312/http://acad.bryant.edu/~kbrook/khazar-history.html Six (6) sentences have been plagiarized word-for-word from my essay by Wikipedia editor(s) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars as of December 6, 2011 read:

"Sabirs and Bulgars came under Khazar jurisdiction during the 7th century. The Khazars forced some of the Bulgars (led by Asparukh) to move to modern-day Bulgaria, while other Bulgars fled to the upper Volga River region where the independent state of Volga Bulgaria was founded. In addition to their role in indirectly bringing about the creation of the modern Balkan nation of Bulgaria, the Khazars played an even more significant role in European affairs. By acting as a buffer state between the Muslim world and the Christian world, Khazaria prevented Islam from significantly spreading north of the Caucasus Mountains and Eastern Europe. This was accomplished through a series of wars known as the Khazar–Arab Wars, which took place in the late 7th and early 8th centuries.[10] The wars established the Caucasus and the city of Derbent as the boundary between the Khazars and the Arabs."

http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-history.html reads:

"Other Turkic groups such as the Sabirs and Bulgars came under Khazar jurisdiction during the 7th century. The Khazars forced some of the Bulgars (led by Asparukh) to move to modern-day Bulgaria, while other Bulgars fled to the upper Volga River region where the independent state of Volga Bulgharia was founded. [...] In addition to their role in indirectly bringing about the creation of the modern Balkan nation of Bulgaria, the Khazars played an even more significant role in European affairs. By acting as a buffer state between the Islamic world and the Christian world, Khazaria prevented Islam from significantly spreading north of the Caucasus Mountains. This was accomplished thru a series of wars known as the Arab-Khazar Wars, which took place in the late 7th and early 8th centuries. The wars established the Caucasus and the city of Derbent as the boundary between the Khazars and the Arabs."

I have tried to remove Wikipedia's copyright violation but other editors keep reverting back the plagiarism. I require that editor(s) form their own original sentences to replace the plagiarism. Signed, Kevin Brook, the original author. P.S. I am using a shared IP address and the edits made using this IP address prior to today's date are not mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.55.67.200 (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The copied material has now been removed. Please feel free to bring any other issues you find to me. I would also recommend getting yourself a userid/login - it takes very little time and is free; that way your contributions will not be mistaken for those of any other editor. Jayjg (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
It was inserted into the article in May 2011 with this edit by User:Dontbesogullible. I will put a note on his user page. Jayjg (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please reply on Talk:Conversion_to_Judaism#Problems_with_Section:_Intra-Orthodox_views

I got the same reason of revertion again, what is this? maybe i'm editing it wrong while being out of a user. 84.108.213.8 (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Leifern

Why did you close the thread? I did not find the IP's edits unconstructive and Leifern should not be throwing "ashamed" and "holocaust revisionist" about when he gets pissed off that this page is being edited in a way he doesn't see fit.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A new editor was deleting large amounts of material and not communicating well about it. Other people also commented that the IPs approach was unconstructive. And, frankly, I've been called as bad or worse, and apparently it's not actionable, so it's highly unlikely any action would be taken here. It was a content dispute where an IP was deleting large amounts of material, the person who created the page got a bit heated, and the issue was subsequently resolved. You could try bringing it up at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance, though I've never found that board to be particularly sensible, but in any event there was nothing more to be done at AN/I. Jayjg (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The IP was actively contributing to the article's talk page. Leifern was just dismissing all of the IP's edits as "revisonist vandalism" when it was neither as far as I am aware.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
OK. I don't think what you've written contradicts anything I wrote in the previous post (above), which I still believe is accurate. Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Page move

I would like to move the page Age of consent to 'Legal age for sexual activities'. Cam you make the page move please? Pass a Method talk 16:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Age of consent" is a well-known phrase, and may well be the WP:COMMONNAME. Have you suggested the move on the article's Talk: page? Jayjg (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
There are 3 main issues with having "consent" in the title; (a) is that the term "consent" (or a similar name) is usually not used in non-English speaking countries. The term "age of consent" is an over-simplification since the article includes complex information.(b) the word 'consent' indicates an authority figure, which in turn implies adult-teen sex; however, the article includes content about teen-teen sex (which doesn't really involve "consent") thus possibly violating npov. (c) The term is also possibly ambiguous. Do i have point? Pass a Method talk 22:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
"Age of consent" gets 5.14 million google hits; it's a really common and well-known English phrase, and people actually understand what it means. "Legal age for sexual activities" is a phrase recently promoted by the European Union that gets 13.5 thousand ghits. Based on WP:COMMONNAME, you have a very difficult argument to win. Jayjg (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Herostratus + IP

I want to remove my page move request because i no longer agree with it. However, a certain IP keeps reverting me. I believe this is the same IP from yesterday who made personal atacks (calling me a pedophile), and i have suspicions that this IP may be User:Herostratus. Herostratus seems to be collaborating with an IP in many places. From re-arranging my talk-page, calling me a pedo, re-arranging my talk-page sub-sections and stalking me over several articles reverting me and general borderline harrassment over over the past 2 days. So i have 3 favours from you;

  1. to protect the Age of consent talk page
  2. caution/block Herostratus to stop harrassing me.
  3. caution/block Herostratus to stop him using IP's for the purpose of edit-warring

Evidence of sockpuppetry

  1. Collaboration here;
  1. collaboration here
  1. collaboration on his talk-page
  • [16]
  • Notice how the IP is very protective of Herostratus
  1. both are regulars to Jimbo wales

Thank you. Pass a Method talk 17:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I said this at Herostratus's talk page and I'll say it here. I am not Herostratus. Have I followed your contributions after disagreeing with you? Yes. Did I revert you at Talk:Age of consent because you violated Wikipedia:TALK? Yes.[19] But I am not Herostratus. People tell me all the time that I'm lucky to be fluent in so many languages, but I believe I would be better off not understanding a thing you are typing.
P.S. I doubt Herostratus ever called you a pedophile. Look at his user page; he's been called one himself. And that IP who bothered you before is not exactly "a regular" of User talk:Jimbo Wales. 193.169.145.58 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikistalking is not allowed, and you may be range-blocked for that. Either way, there is evidence to suggest you're both the same person. Why else do you both show up at the same place everywhere? Pass a Method talk 17:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Looking at your contributions and deciding to comment on a few things you have commented on is not wikistalking. And even if it is, it is a perfectly acceptable form of it. Your contributions are there for a reason. For people to look at them. You can't stop people from looking at your contributions and commenting on a few things you have commented on. Your "evidence" is bogus! It doesn't prove or suggest that I'm Herostratus or that I'm that other IP. That other IP doesn't even capitalize, by the way (except for user names), something I absolutely cannot stand! You ticked me off with the "possibly" edit to the Human article,[20] which wasn't even supported by the source that was already there. What you added was Wikipedia:Fringe and others have agreed with me.[21] If you hadn't made a section about your edit, I would have. Or I assure you that someone else would have sooner or later, since it's obvious that you would have just kept reverting every few days or so. Really, just because an IP objects to your edits, it doesn't mean that IP is a registered user editing as an IP. More than just registered users can object to your edits. You have certainly made a good case for objecting to them. Hating your edit to the Human article, I followed you. So sue me.
Oh, and you were reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Not by me either. 193.169.145.62 (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not any of these IPs, I have only ever edited under this account (and very occasionally my own static IP when I forget to log in). (If I ever did want to play the cats-paw game, which I think silly and boring, I'd save it for something important and be a lot more clever, I suppose.) I am sorry that this editor was called a bad name, and I remonstrated with the IP who did it fairly strictly, but all that's been oversighted now. I commented at the thread at the 3RR noticeboard. Herostratus (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi

I'm making a last ditch attempt to reason with User:In ictu oculi before dispute resolution becomes necessary. Would you mind going to his talk page and contributing to the discussion? Thanks. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please keep myself, MichaelCPrice, Ret.Prof, and Slrubenstein in the loop if this goes to an RfC. Ret.Prof's comments regarding WP:HOUND - following editors from article to article to disrupt their edits - are particularly relevant here. I know it's a lot of work for all concerned, but this antagonistic behavior needs to stop. Best regards. Ignocrates (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I've experienced some of that WP:HOUND myself - for a period of time if I got in a conflict with some other editor, you could rely on him to show up and insist (without any specifics) that I must somehow be to blame. Also, during the period in which I interacted with him more, he was unable to actually respond to anything I said without commenting about me personally. I had to invoke WP:NPA so many times that nowadays whenever I comment at an article he's also editing, he invariably claims that my edit is a personal attack - no doubt some "tit for tat" from that period. For example, this amusing recent example - when I point out that another editor is engaging in unsourced original research, In ictu oculi insists it's "simply a more sophisticated form of WP:personal attack". Regardless of whether it's a very bad case of WP:IDHT or an issue of WP:COMPETENCE, it does appear to have gone beyond the limits of tolerable disruption. Jayjg (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem goes even deeper than the stalking behavior and the apparent need to "win" at any cost. As I pointed out to Slrubenstein here there is a tendency to define article content and terms deriving from Greek and Latin as "mainstream" and to demote all things Jewish as "fringe", at least on articles pertaining to religious topics. Ignocrates (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

J Street

Thank you for the explanation and thank you for removing the AIPAC category from the friendship category. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure, thanks for your note. Jayjg (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Think this article belongs in the cat?—Biosketch (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. Jayjg (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive user

I don't know if you're active on Commons, but the disruptive user you recently blocked here [22] moved his activities over there now, and is going around creating strange categories, posting weird statements to image pages, removing notifications and nominations for discussion, and ... basically similarly disruptive kind of stuff. For example [23] (if you click on his contribution history there you can see the rest).

I don't orient myself well on Commons though I tried to bring it to somebody's attention (which he also removed). But since you blocked him here, I thought I'd give you a heads up. Volunteer Marek  17:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

He's been blocked on Commons now as well, but it looks like some of his contribs still need reviewed. --erachima talk 18:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User 46.174.24.10

Hi, I see you blocked this IP for a day recently over disruptive behaviour - in view of its continuing (and recent edit summaries make the agenda even more clear), would you consider blocking them for a longer time?--Kotniski (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see it's been done, but he's back as Special:Contributions/94.251.206.188.--Kotniski (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked the second IP address for the same amount of time. Jayjg (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

Buster Seven Talk 15:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It's actually more, when you include deleted edits, but it's nice to be recognized. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I use the total at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. They do not include deleted edits. If I may, on a side note (only to appease my curiosity and certainly not to stir the pot) why do we assume that User:Cincinatis is tagging Jews in the manner of yellow badges? Could it not be that he (Cincinatis) is proud of their Jewishness, as they seem to be, and is just adding pertinent information that the subject has self-expressed? We were all new at one time and entered rooms we were not ready for. Buster Seven Talk 05:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure your premises are correct. Have the subjects all "self-expressed" pride in their Jewishness? As far as I can tell, only one of them has even mentioned it, and even then in an off-hand comment. Jayjg (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

2011-12 Jewish conspiracy theory

Hello,

Since you are a long-term user of en.wikipedia.org, could you tell me why Jewish conspiracy and Jewish conspiracy theory are currently both redirect, and not a real article? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You created Jewish conspiracy theory as a redirect yourself, two years ago. Perhaps you can explain that? Jayjg (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I can. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Excellent, you have the answer yourself then. So, what is it? Jayjg (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Mocky

Hi Jayjg. There's something of a WP:COI situation on the Mocky article that I'd appreciate your advice on and/or help with if possible. The details can be found here, but basically, a user has more or less outed himself as being intimately connected with the subject of the bio. He has alluded to the 'wishes' of the artist in question vis-a-vis the latter's Wikipedia entry (c.f. [24]), and otherwise appears to be speaking on behalf of/acting as an intermediary for the musician (viz. "Is there a way for Mocky to contact you? He'd be happy to tell you so himself" [25]). I'm disturbed by this obvious conflict of interest, but am unsure as to the common procedure under such circumstances. The user has been very aggressive in his edit summaries (call-outs, personal attacks, etc.), is knee-jerk reverting, replacing reliable sources with a blog link/SPS, and has intransigently refused to engage in discussion. Please advise. Kind regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's dubious to label him as "Somali-Canadian", given that (according to the article) his mother is English, and his father was actually born in Yemen (it would be no issue if Mocky was born in Somalia and later gained Canadian citizenship). I would suggest first running this by the WP:BLP/N for their view on what description and sources are appropriate for this biography. You might also consider bringing the editor to WP:COIN. Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Mocky's father was actually an ethnic Somali born in Yemen. That's why he has a typical Somali last name, "Salole" (e.g. [26]). The artist is also often identified as Somali-Canadian in reliable sources. For instance, in this review in the The Guardian. To be honest, I think there's an even more pressing issue at hand than the ethnic designation in the lede; viz. the WP:COI situation. Thanks for the links & advice. Middayexpress (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
If you can find examples of Mocky describing himself that way, there would be no issue either. Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to bring these User:WölffReik contributions to your attention

Notice that this disruptive user has sandboxed these articles in a sock's sandbox so they can be recreated anyway. I'm applying to AN/I to have user indef blocked for continuing disruption.

I believe the pattern of disruption is so egregious the user warrants a very long term block. BusterD (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I had already brought these articles to AfD, even before your note. Were there any I missed? Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll continue to look. IMHO, the first step is shutting the user down. I have faith even if blocked we'll still be dealing with this dedicated disruptor. BusterD (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Abraham Lincoln's patent

ping!--Doug Coldwell talk 15:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

María Viramontes

Hey there, I think you should review the deletion for several reasons. First of all, the way your phrased it implies to me that you found it to be notable but since most people found it not notable you went with delete. But it's not a vote and that seems to be treating it as such. Secondly it was part of a mass nomination of articles related to the Richmond City Council that editors have been scrambling to rescue, and every other one looks like it will be successfully saved. Now having said that it doesn't necessarily bare weight if other things are kept but the point is that more time was needed. Also most of the delete votes were based on the articles previous state before the sourcing and copyediting was done by rescue. The sources for this woman are numerous and based on them she is generally notable and if anything she it notable for merger into the Richmond City Council or city of Richmond, California article. I would like you to reconsider your approach here and suggest the article be kept.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My comment wasn't that she met Wikipedia's notability requirements, I just assessed the arguments on the AfD page. Jayjg (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Sure biut my point is that I would like you to review this deletion and to reverse your decision on the matter. I believe the result was actually no consensus. Will you reverse the decision?LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like some review also.  And please comment about Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the discussion of a deletion review this article (which IMO, is clearly unwarranted; the article fails POLITICIAN and ANYBIO in spades) be discussed in a public forum so that people other than Lucifer may comment? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I stand by my close, but anyone is free to take any deletion to deletion review, if they wish. Jayjg (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I really would rather not bother them with all that, as I think the content could easily be salvaged into the city council article. Is that something your willing to do? And for the record asking the closing admin on his ramtalkpage is a procedural prerequisite for a deletion review as outlined on the deletion review steps, this is nothing but a man to man request and no public comment is warranted here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, what do you mean by "the closing admin on his rampage"? Are you referring to me? Jayjg (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Please accept my apology that was meant to be "talkpage" but I must have had a Freudian slip that was directed at the nominator not at you. I think the mass nominations were a bit of a rampage but I hadn't even noticed I used that here and it seemed like an odd question and I had to reread.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Understood, thanks for explaining. Jayjg (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes

Please comment about Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for María Viramontes

An editor has asked for a deletion review of María Viramontes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciferwildcat (talk • contribs) 10:59, 25 December 2011‎

Merge

Is there anyway I can have the content from the article to add to the city council entry?LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Joseph Henle

I noticed you speedily deleted Joseph Henle as per G4. I had thought about requesting speedy deletion for that reason, but instead re-nominated it as an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henle (3rd nomination)). Assuming there isn't a bot to do it automatically, could you close out or delete the AfD discussion on this article? Thanks for your help. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done so. Jayjg (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit War/Content dispute

I'd appreciate some help concerning recent attempts to whitewash Slavic Neopaganism. Thanks.--Galassi (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Jayjg (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
It has moved to AN/I? Or has been there for a while now? Jayjg (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Reform Judaism

Hey Jay. I took your lead and edited out the Hebrew & Yiddish at Orthodox Judaism, for consistency between the denominations. Cheers, A Sniper (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care, but this isn't some tit-for-tat game where if one movement has no Hebrew name in the lede, then the others can't either. Reform Judaism is primarily an American phenomenon, with some strength elsewhere, and relatively little support in Israel. On the other other, Israel is the center of Orthodox Judaism in the world, with at least three times the Orthodox Jewish population and infrastructure (schools, synagogues, etc.) as the United States. Having a Hebrew name makes far more sense for Orthodox Judaism than for Reform Judaism. Jayjg (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of Guilt by Association in WP:BLP

Due to the holidays, I didn't reply, and now this discussion has been archived. Just noting that I appreciate your comments and alerting me to the problem on the Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar, which I am now proposing to merge (see above). Furthermore, while I understand your comment about how WP:BLP policies apply to all of Wikipedia, I don't see how your comment really addressed my proposal in any meaningful fashion. It seems to me that it falls entirely outside of the guidelines that I proposed. The rules of logic are very clear, and the examples I proposed (Jodie Foster and Sarah Palin) are written in the manner that is clearly not an Association fallacy, and that this is a model for such incidents. All I am attempting to do is to insert such basic logic back into the guidelines.Jemiljan (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

concern

Hi, could you kindly have a look at the article for Khalid Yasin, as one person keeps changing the article in breach of wp:synth, wp:rs, wp:claim and agf. I have tried to explain the reason for reverting them, but they are not interested in these policies and continue to restore to a version clearly not in line with basic BLP policies. Nimom0 (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Are you concerned that the article is becoming to pro-Yasin or too anti-Yasin? Jayjg (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, well I am just concerned about the edits removing reliably sourced content, calling views "claimed" and adding OR and self interpretation without RS. If you view the edit I linked. Nimom0 (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you give me some specific examples? Say, the top two most obvious problems? Jayjg (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Well the diff is pretty clear with all violations. But alright, 1) he removed reliably sourced content (articles sourcing the views, see: Homosexuality (adding the word bestiality), Family life, Education 2) he interprets the view stating "This statement seems wrong and taken out of context", which is WP:SYNTH 3) and adds primary source OR (youtube) to source his edit 4) 5) ignores WP:CLAIM renaming the 'View' section 'Claimed views' and then further inserting "Yasin is claimed to" 3 times. Clearly not how we edit BLP's. Nimom0 (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I've left a number of comments on his Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, thanks and certainly appreciated. I have just viewed the 30+ edits he has since made to KY. Again he removed most of the quotes [27], [28], [29] rewriting significantly [30] from the previously quoted content and added counterviews but sourcing is mainly a video interview and I'm unsure that the video link is an RSS. The websites are both [31] [32] in Dutch, where the former looks like a blog while the latter I am unsure about. Also unsure about this. Not sure we need to specify that "yasin has been quoted". Though foreign RSS are admissable, I noticed 3 Danish news articles, which look fine for RSS though they certainly offer more information that what is selectively cited. And the videos, still, may fall under OR. Nimom0 (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi again, can you have a look at the above in terms of the 2 video links being RS? The vidoe link(s) are used extensively to "counter" views of YK in a BLP which requires strict RS. Nimom0 (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
If they're the ones I think you mean, they're in Dutch, so it's hard for me to assess. Can you confirm the specific links you mean, here on my page? Also, I think you are correct, "he was quoted" adds verbiage and a sense of doubt that is not warranted. Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg, been away, so just logged on and found your message. Hope you are well. The links are these: http://tegenlicht.vpro.nl/afleveringen/2010-2011/aanval-op-europa/de-vreemdeling.html and http://player.omroep.nl/?aflid=9617163 (originally hosted by a Dutch Muslim org NMO - now dissolved). Though Dutch, it still may fall under OR. If this was an article it would be easier to cite. But finding interviews (in english as KY is english speaking so only the background commentator are foreign languaged) and select statements (according to ones own subjective understanding) and then insert as "opposing view" is a concern. This interview is now sourcing everything that the other user deems "incorrect information", "inaccurate cherry-picked claims", "obviously mis-quoted or false views" and "a heavily biased, outdated and locally (Australia) dominant version". He actually held these preconcieved POVs prior to even having found "opposing" primary sources. In terms of objectivity, not a constructive approach for editing or good faith towards editors such as myself. We only report what reliable secondary sources say, as you know. Here we take an interview (OR) and pick statements we find will oppose the existing version. This is a BLP afterall, whether sources are Dutch are not. Even if this interview was on BBC online, we'd be careful, when citing views or controversy. In my previous search for sources I also found this [33]. You see the problem? And the only heavily edited article to his credit is KY. Nimom0 (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Charles Lane's Jewish religion

I've started a discussion on including Charles Lane's religion in his biography here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Lane_(journalist)

If you have any objections to inserting his religion, please let me know. --Cincinatis2 (talk) 09:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

fyi

You seem to know about this... Alarbus (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked and tagged, apparently. Jayjg (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
And now back as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.216.232.181 Jayjg (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ebionites and Ignocrates and general comments

I am in the process of obtaining the book Who on Earth was Jesus by interlibrary loan which, if I remember correctly, says rather explicitly that Eisenman's theories regarding the above named subject are rejected by the academic community. I expect to file an RfC regarding that opinion, and that of others, like James VanderKam and Lawrence Schiffman, which seem to me to rather clearly demonstrate those theories of Eisenman are rather clearly fringe as per WP:FT. Also, I guess, I feel that I might well express concern regarding the editor above who sought to change his name. As I recall, that editor rather clearly stated to you that he was "too close" to the subject of the Ebionites to be impartial, which I take as a rather clear indication of the relevance of WP:POV. Granted, that editor has been rather generally inactive of late, but I would have to wonder whether he might have similar POV problems regarding other topics from that era, like perhaps Gospel of the Ebionites. And, yes, much as I am less active recently, I am in the process of trying to get together broader lists of encyclopediae and other sources which, I think, tend to be among the most acceptable indicators of current academic opinion, provided the sources themselves are current of course. Anyway, with luck, maybe within a few weeks or so, I should be able to provide at least basic "bibliography" articles for most major faith traditions, and possibly at least a few on more focused topics, with articles on the individual books where notability is established. I don't know whether the topics of interest to you might benefit from such separate articles, but I can try to add and develop them as well. Anyway, thanks again for all your efforts in what is an often thankless and contentions subject. John Carter (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The statement "that editor rather clearly stated to you that he was "too close" to the subject of the Ebionites to be impartial" is, of course, a complete lie. And I changed my name because of the religious bigotry I endured from the same editor doing all the complaining. I just want to leave the Ebionites article behind permanently and move on, as I indicated on my user page. Ignocrates (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
And one more thing, this preemptive accusation of POV-pushing applied to an entire class of articles is an expression of pure malice. It is not consistent with the privilege of being an admin on Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Ovadyah, I believe your own editing history up until that time under your earlier name, including your almost single-minded attempts to promote the non-notable Ebionite Jewish Community and the "despronyi" belief which may well be tied to them, as well as the Tabor book, which the EJC community page indicated was one of the few "reliable" sources which apparently supported its own claims, despite any evidence in any sources I ever found regarding any academic opinion at all for the latter and only one source, insufficient to meet WP:N, on the former, makes the "accusation" far from preemptive. However, if you honestly are now trying to act reasonably and in accord with WP:POV and other policies and guidelines, I can't see any reason for you to be mentioned in the coming dispute at all. And the claim of my own "religious bigotry" in the above comment is itself a complete lie, and not at all supported by the facts, and actually clearly unfounded based on the facts. I produced reference sources, which are widely recognized by academia, while your own input seemed to be related to the non-notable "despronyi" theory and, possibly by extension, the equally non-notable Ebionite Jewish Community. Having said that, I remember how I was e-mailed by someone information on how another editor indulged in personal attacks as an attempt at distraction, and am willing to forward them to whomever might request them. The accusation of "pure malice" is as unreasonable and unsupported as the "religious bigotry" allegation, and I believe the evidence clearly indicates as much. Such lies are not consistent with basic conduct guidelines, Ovadyah. If you want to bring the matter to arbitration, by all means do so. I would very much welcome a thorough, independent review of your own conduct, as well as that of Michael. It would probably include producing the e-mails you sent me regarding Michael's conduct early on, which I still I think have, and how those tactics may well have been taken up by others.
Also, Jayjg, I think you might remember the statement of the editor in question better than me. If however you choose to desysop me yourself based on your personal conclusions regarding my conduct, feel free to do so at my explicit request here, or send me a message and I will do so myself, as I indicated in my RfA.
Also, I believe the Dead Sea Discoveries, particularly V12#1, indicate how this particularly subject has been covered rather extensively, and in a sensationalist manner, by several media, lending certain "fringe theories" regarding early Christianity an appearance of support they honestly do not and never have had. That journal, by the way, is available on JSTOR in full text. Honestly, we have trouble enough dealing with all the clearly "minority", and often sensationalist, opinions regarding that era, having to deal with yet another theory, which is apparently rather conclusively rejected by academia, makes the subject even harder to deal with. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The name is Ignocrates, and you will please address me by that name from now on. If you want an independent review of my conduct, you are always free to request a reopening of the arbitration that is already on file. I will use it as an opportunity to have you stripped of your adminship. Ignocrates (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Gee, so could you. What are you afraid of, I wonder? Could it be that like someone once told me about Michael, editors can make unfounded allegations as an attempt at distraction. You are the one who first raised concerns about conduct, and yet you seem to be yourself unwilling to do anything other than raise those unfounded allegations. Interesting.John Carter (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Who was it who suggested tag-teaming to provoke a 3RR on my part to produce a permaban? Why, it was John, wasn't it? Care to copy the emails into a public arena? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I have no intention of going to ArbCom. In case you haven't noticed, the rest of us have moved on. John Carter, you are the only one who can't seem to let go of this dispute. That said, it would be amusing to watch you go back to Newyorkbrad and beg him to reopen the case. Ignocrates (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Btw, I have never heard of a "despronyi". Sounds like some kind of macaroni. Is it a side dish? Ignocrates (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Business Plot

Could you please take a look at Business Plot? I'm in a dispute over whether it is accurate to change "Spivak argued that the plot was part of a fascist conspiracy of financiers to take over the U.S. government." to "Spivak argued that the plot was part of a fascist conspiracy of financiers and Jews to take over the U.S. government." Spivak was a crusader against fascism and anti-Semitism and I believe the insertion of "and Jews" does violence to his position and distorts his argument (he seems to believe that some Jewish financiers such as Lehman Brothers were in on the alleged plot but that's quite different from the generalized statement that "financiers and Jews" were trying to overthrow the US government which, to me, invokes a Jewish conspiracy theory. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to take a look. Jayjg (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing?

Hey Jayjg, I don't think there's anything wrong with neutrally letting people know that a discussion is going on which they might be interested in.[34] And I don't think that being a member of WikiProject Islam is necessarily going to pre-determine your stance on how honor killing articles should be titled. Perhaps I'm being naive in this case and have no idea what I'm talking about, but I didn't see anything wrong with Carol's notice. If there's something I'm missing, let me know. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There's been a very lengthy discussion about this. In a nutshell, she notified only that project, none other, despite the fact that the article was not part of that project, was part of many other projects, and didn't even mention that topic. Jayjg (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! Kaldari (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Congregation Beth Israel (Asheville, North Carolina)

The DYK project (nominate) 05:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This

Please see this.Bless sins (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

AGF ?

ref [35] the IP was directly quoting from the source [36], verbatim, so probably didn't deserve being accused of "OR". --BozMo talk 11:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If he was directly quoting, shouldn't he have put the words in quotations marks then? Jayjg (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the IP's was a poor edit which didn't add much which is why I didn't put it back in. But it was an IP newbie accurately quoting a source, and adding more material from the source so I think a little less bite was in order. However many people on AS are tiresome in adding OR we have to look at each new one and assume good faith. --BozMo talk 20:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Puppetry or roomies?

I commented further directly under you, but provided no more actual evidence, just opinion. I find it deeply ironic that I've taken this position between you two. You are on my personal list of Top 10 Wiki-Admins and I have great respect for both your work and your opinions. On the other hand, I've always regarded BS as an "honorable opponent"; often frustrating, but always acting appropriately in the context of policy and project goals. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond on BS's talkpage and notify me. Happy editing, Doc Tropics 15:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Shalom

Happy new year, my best wishes of health and happiness for year 2012. Je vous offre mes meilleurs vœux de santé et de bonheur pour l'année 2012, ושל אושר לשנה 2012. --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Merci Geneviève, je vous souhaite la même chose. :) Jayjg (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing?

Would this be considered canvassing? I don't see anyone else being notified. Also, the notice appears to be worded in a decidedly non-neutral manner. Best. Ignocrates (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, it wouldn't, as it was added to WP:NPOVN and WP:ECCN as well. I do however have questions whether this apparently unfounded request, much like your earlier accusing User:John of being my sockpuppet, might violate WP:HARASS and WP:STALK. Regarding neutrality of comments, I'm not sure that necessarily applies to WikiProject talk pages, and, given the spurious sockpuppetry allegation and the comments about "lies" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community (3rd nomination), which sought to limit content to only the group's own opinions, and apparently ignore what little information independent reliable sources have put out on the subject, I have no reason to believe that you of all people are necessarily in a position to be making policy and guideline judgments. John Carter (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
It certainly is not harassment to request a comment on postings to a public forum like a Wikiproject. However, the accusations of harassment and stalking are themselves quite serious and WP:PAs which are inconsistent with administrative responsibilities on Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg, please keep an eye on this article as an uninvolved administrator if you have time. I think the solicitation of editors from the Christian scholarship side may be an important clue as to what is going on here. Also, the apparent tag-spamming of the article could be interpreted as an escalation of what has been up to now a low-level disagreement over content. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the notice could have been worded more neutrally, but the Jesus Seminar is part of Wikiproject:Christianity, so that's an appropriate project to notify. Is there a specific piece of text or article section there that is currently a source of contention? Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with the notification of that project or the other two discussion forums per se. However, there are two issues that are almost guaranteed to escalate this edit conflict. 1) The tag-spamming of almost every section of the article is unnecessarily provocative. All of the content issues can and should be calmly laid out and discussed on the talk page. 2) An inference has been made that a "side" has been working on the article - an agnostic/atheist/non-Christian side - and therefore the article content is inherently biased. That is presumably supposed to be corrected by recruiting more editors from the right "side" to balance out the article. It's one thing to say that the article content is biased toward a certain POV and could be made more NPOV by adding more reliable sources. It's quite another thing to imply the people working on the article are inherently biased. After looking at all the notices and carefully considering the wording, that seems to be the case here. My concern is that a simple low-level disagreement over content is going to escalate into a sharp dispute over Wiki-policy and user conduct to discredit the editors working on improving the content of the article. Ignocrates (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The first source I found on the subject contained a full chapter on it. Also, the JS itself, according to some other independent sources, was, effectively, a way for individuals involved who have a "naturalist"/agnostic/atheistic perspective to put forward their believes, tantamount to evangelization. I can provide sources to that effect, if required, although, admittedly, I have rather a lot of articles on the subject, and finding which say that quickly migt be difficult. And, yes, those sources also claim that the JS used the word "scholars" in their documents exclusively to describe themselves. On that basis, individuals who are working on the basis of exclusively internal sources to the JS might come to the false conclusion that disagreement with them is tantamount to unintelligence. Those are serious concerns. And, by the way, you will note from the article history that there had prior to my recent addition of tags a statement hidden in the text itself that prior t my first edit, here the "Seminar Proceedings" section already had a hidden tag to the effect that the section had gone unreferenced for 3 years. And I would like to see the exact location where I indicated people are inherently biased, as Iggy seems to be implying above. Honestly, there does not appear to have been any particular interest in improving the article for some time, given the number of missing citations, so I can honestly say that there is some question as to whether there recently has been much particular interest in "improving" the article. John Carter (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Names will never hurt me Johnny-boy. I can match you name for name, so let's keep it civil. This article is now being watched by at least one admin, and I expect there will be several more. Let's see if you can edit constructively to improve the article content and are capable of playing well with others. Mission accomplished. Ignocrates (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayjg/Archive_38&oldid=1204691945"