User talk:Jayjg/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Sara Hurwitz

As per your previous contributions on this topic, I thought you might be interested in contributing to this article.Joe407 (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think in the past I've only really done some basic copyediting on Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, and that was many months ago. It, and the related articles, all need a lot of work still. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thermal Exchanging Composite Materials

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thermal Exchanging Composite Materials which you have closed is a multiple deletion nominations. You have deleted only one page. Sole Soul (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed now. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Telephone video

Hey, sorry if this seems kinda of random, but seeing as though your a master editor, I was wondering if you could delete the page Telephone (music video). A majority of the people saying yes to the separation from the song and video were Lady GaGa fans (I checked the users edit history) and while the discussion is/was still going on a user went about on they're own and created the article. Similar to what happened with me with on the article "The Only Exception" page (it was under debate to be created but I accidently made it without approval), could you delete the article until the separation gets complete support? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 12:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Crystal Clear. Both articles are fairly substantial; at this point I think you'd have to use an RFC or AfD process to delete (or redirect) the music video article. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. I had a feeling I'd have to do one of those things. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 15:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Squeeky Kleen

Hello! You deleted this article, although said, "with no prejudice towards merging to parent article, if anything worth merging can be found". Could you please undelete and redirect so that anyone interested in doing a merge will be able to do so? Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll move the article to your user space, if you like. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note User:A Nobody/Farewell. As others argued to keep and merge in the discussion, it would probably be best to redirect with undeleted edit history to allow them to merge what they can. I figure one of my final "acts" on Wikipedia should be to request something on behalf of and that will be helpful for others. Thank you for help and goodbye. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to read about the issues you and your dog have faced. If anyone else indicates an interest in merging the material to a relevant article, I'll restore it to their user space. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Move it to mine, then, please. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you take care of this problem?

It appears that our first sockpuppet/meatpuppet has joined the party to start changing Constantinople to Istanbul, including this reference where the quote explicitly states "Constantinople".[1] Now said sockpuppet has decided to frequent my talk page with his/her opinion of my statement of his/her actions as vandalism, and has decided to add paranoia, my age, and other statements to describe me.[2] Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a different editor, and he says on your Talk: page that he's not going to edit-war any more. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Belated barnstar thanks

Sorry it took a while to get to it, but I do mean to say thanks for the Barnstar of David for the Catskill synagogues (there will eventually be more, too, but not for a while). How often does that one get given to a goy? (Sorry, I love that alliteration). Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It was well deserved. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 05:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarona Snuka

Hi, I think you forgot to delete the article.--PinkBull 20:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did delete it, but it was recreated today by a user who was apparently unhappy with the deletion. It has since been speedy deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, should have figured as much. I didn't see the deletion in your contribution history, but didn't realize that I wouldn't see it anyway. --PinkBull 01:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Na Na Na Na

The article deleted per discussion in November (about some weird Japanese thing) has nothing to do with the 112 single of the same name which was created yesterday. Would you consider restoring the recent edits? Orderinchaos 01:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I made the article and tagged with "expand" template - my apologies. I shouldve used the "underconstruction" template. I was working on expanding it within the next couple of days.Bodrules (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize it was a different topic. I've restored it now. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries - thanks. Orderinchaos 04:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Zheng, but also "Poetography"

Your closure of AfD/Ron L. Zheng comes as a bit of a surprise to me as I guessed it would instead be recycled for further discussion. (Not that I'm objecting or anything.) Anyway, my nominating statement was so long that I suppose you dozed off while reading it and didn't reach the bit toward the end where I pointed out that I was also nominating "Poetography". -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

My oversight, thanks for noting it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Article: Samuel Schwartz (talent agent)

Hi -

This is regarding a deletion of a month ago. Here are the relevant pages:

Samuel Schwartz (talent agent)
Articles_for_deletion: Samuel Schwartz
Requests_for_undeletion: Samuel Schwartz

I wanted to follow up on the discussion on the above-referenced Requests for Undeletion page. I have several more links to articles mentioning Schwartz with regard to his authority and distinction as a premiere film music agent. Additionally, Schwartz is a notable Los Angeles-area art collector, so I have links regarding that as well.

Who's who when it comes to tunes for TV, film, mobile, Web ("Variety," Jan. 7, 2010)

Sam Schwartz IMDB Entry

Art Collector Sam Schwartz Interview at the VIP Preview of House of Campari (video)

Michael Asher’s exhibition at the Santa Monica Museum of Art
... "some notable local collectors (Benedikt Taschen, Sam Schwartz, Shirley Morales, and Stavros Merjos) made the trek"

Renowned Indian musician A.R. Rahman recognized Schwartz repeatedly following the massive success of Slumdog Millionnaire:
I’ve never dreamt of winning these awards: Rahman
AR Rahman Gets Two Grammy Awards for Slumdog Millionaire
Oscar Winner AR Rahman On Slumdog Millionaire Part-1

Schwartz has also been instrumental in the career of Academy Award winning composer Michael Giacchino (Up)
"... Mr. Giacchino and his agents Sam Schwartz and Michael Gorfaine (who has been responsible for John Williams, amongst others), saw a great opportunity to "legitimize" Mr. Giacchino as more than just a "hummer" ...

Television composer Mike Post (NYPD Blue, Murder One, LA. Law, Hill Street Blues), references his agent Schwartz as well in this interview

I believe there are sufficient references that make the case for notability and inclusion in Wikipedia. I would like the article undeleted so that I can add these relevant links to make it more complete.

Thanks,

Christine

These are all just trivial mentions, directories that list his name, or individuals who mention his name in passing, often as part of a long list of names. These in no way satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Please read that guideline carefully, it will explain why these sources have no impact on the outcome. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Winona Ryder

I didn't add the "Groupies" category. It was already there. That just goes to show you don't do your research and are a lousy editor. Americus55 (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you did add the "Groupies" category, in this edit. Click on the link and you will see yourself adding it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. If you look at the differences between my first edit and the one prior to that, seen here, you'll see that the "Groupies" category is in both. Americus55 (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, you're wrong. It doesn't matter if you didn't originally add it. It was removed and you added it back. Click on the link and see. You're responsible for the contents of your edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Hi, Jayjg. May I suggest that your comment here could be improved by striking out the phrase "Out of idle curiosity"?^{(22:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC))} All the best, ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

My curiosity was indeed idle, since the photograph doesn't belong even if it weren't a copyright violation. It wouldn't be right to give Frank the impression that, if he were only to produce permission from the Post, that would mean that the photograph was going into the article. Nevertheless, I've made my comment "milder". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry: my comment may have been out of order. Your explanation makes sense; in that way, my suggestion might not have been an improvement. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Passover vs Passover (Christian holiday)

See discussion at Talk:Passover (Christian holiday)#Merge with Passover. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Historylover and misrepresenting sources

Historylover has twice[3][4] added opinion to the Devşirme article, misrepresenting both the bbc and this link[5], stating, "The opposite point of view states that in the context of that time the devsirme system was relatively harmless and provided opportunities for young men to rise to elite positions in the Ottoman Empire (including in the Palace)." Nothing in the bbc or The state and the tributary mode of production, by Haldon, states this viewpoint. I posted a warning about misrepresenting a source on Talk:Devşirme [6], which was ignored. After this editor's second addition, I posted a warning on their talkpage[7]. Could you take a look into this situation? Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right, the material didn't match what the sources actually said. I've put a cautionary note on his page. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Historylover's response on Talk:Devşirme is extremely unacceptable. I have issued a final warning over this sentence, "Please the Devsirme was just so "evil" according to you and your far right racist "sources"..".[8] This was his response to me showing that his own BBC source states the same thing as Bostom and Trifkovic, whom he calls pseudo-scholars.[9] I believe further interaction with this individual would be futile. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have left this sentence out of the quote he took from the BBC source: "Their status remained restricted, and their children were not permitted to inherit their wealth or follow in their footsteps." Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial

Hi, I see you are the top contributor to the Holocaust Denial article. Just curious, the page appears to be at its apex as far as thorough referenced content. Do you have any plans to nominate it for FA status? I think its a subject of noteworthy material. Yertuy (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't really thought about getting it to FA status until now. I don't think it's ready now, it's probably too long, and suffers from the issue of too many authors, each writing about one tiny part, without considering the whole. It's an important article to get to FA status, though, but that would take a lot of work, so I'll have to think about it carefully. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do. Everyone is aware of the Holocaust, but Holocaust Revisionism is not a topic that comes to mind for the average person. Its an interesting topic that has not gotten coverage on the same level as say, Nazi Germany or Hitler. If it makes FA status sometime in the future, it will put the spotlight on a subject that many haven't given consideration to before. Yertuy (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of term

Jay, do I recall correctly that there was some kind of referendum on "Antisemitism" versus "Anti-Semitism?" If so, could you point me to it? Thanks. IronDuke 22:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There were a couple of referenda on the name of the Wikipedia article, as I recall, which concluded that it should be at "Antisemitism" not "anti-Semitism" (I don't have the links handy). Once the Wikipedia article uses that name, then all Wikipedia usage should follow it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. IronDuke 18:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral canvassing

Hi Jaygj, could you please give me a link to any Wikipedia policy that says neutral canvassing is not allowed. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking, can you explain further? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Please review loaded question. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In which case, I fail to see how Maurreen's canvassing carried any loaded questions. I was actually hoping that you could point me to some official Wiki policy on canvassing. Loaded Question is a Wkipedia article and is neither policy nor a guideline. Maurreen's message seemed neutral to me, and I would certainly have, and do, carry out such canvassing to (re)stimulate interest in a topic without suggesting why people should be interested (other than having previously contributed to it), opr suggesting how they should vote. Knowing Maureen, I think it highly unlikely that her message carried any agenda. Whether she gets things right or wrong, IMO, she genuinely tries to be as helpful as possible.--Kudpung (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a guideline: WP:CANVASS; but in my experience it seems to be taken very seriously, like a policy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As you're well aware, Kudpung, it was your question that was loaded. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Christian Yom Kippur discussion

Hi Jayjg: Regarding serious Christian content in the Yom Kippur article, please see Talk:Yom Kippur#Theological significance and Talk:Yom Kippur#Poll: Yom Kippur and Christianity. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Temple Sinai (Oakland, California)

Congrats on making the front page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed!! That's quite an accomplishment!! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you also. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP source

You decided a source was not reliable enough to be used to mention negatives things about a living person at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Investigation_show_reliable_and_notable without even giving a reason.--Sinistrial (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel E. Witte

Hi, you handled this AfD about a month ago. Recently an IP has been editing out some of the negative information in the debate. After reading over the debate I can see why: the page as a whole could be damaging to the lawyer's reputation... could you consider courtesy blanking it? ThemFromSpace 06:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and courtesy blanked the page. Feel free to revert me if this was out of order. ThemFromSpace 18:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that was fine. I lost track of your post here. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

RSN

You raised an interesting point at RSN a couple of days ago. I've replied to your comment here. --JN466 09:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism and Christian terrorism included in AfD.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Conversations with Arbitrarily0

Timeline of the War on Terrorism

Hi again Jay! Hope you are well! Last time we talked, we left of with me starting a new draft of Timeline of the War on Terrorism. Well, I finally got around to starting it (at User:Arbitrarily0/Timeline of the War on Terrorism). Judging by the parts of done so far, do you think that it is ready for inclusion? Obviously it could be greatly expanded, but the goal is to get a mainspace-adequate version out there for further improvements. Let me know what you think, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly better than the previous, but my concern here is the WP:OR aspect of it all. How does one determine which items should be included in the Timeline and which should not? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a very righteous concern indeed - I'll try to explain how I've handled it. For each item in the list, there needs to be a reliable secondary source that relates the event to the War on Terror. For example, the sources regarding the September 11 attacks are not for identifying the event's date, but for citing how it's related to the war on terror. Likewise, events where such a relationship is not citeable are not included (this is the problem the precious article had). A good idea might be to add a commented notice in the article that describes what I tried to explain above (to prevent the article from regressing into what it was before). Does that make some sense? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There are two potential issues I see with this. First, if the criteria is simply that a reliable source has related it to the War on Terror, then the list could potentially have hundreds of items on it. The second, related issue, is that just about any source could relate an item to the War or Terror - a journalist in a random newspaper or website might make a reference, for example, and that would be enough. In the article you've used Brian Whitmore, David Josar, Kurtis Wheeler, and Alex Callinicos, among others, as sources for these items. Why would we care about their opinions on this matter? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me interrupt this conversation to say happy Easter Jay! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, most lists could have up to hundreds of items on them. In the event that the page becomes too large (which I am skeptical would happen), the more insignificant events can be trimmed. As for your second concern, that's something that I also believed from the start - that any event could be related to the War on Terror. Through my research however, I thankfully found that this was not the case. Sources either never connected an event with the war on terror, or if they did, the connection could be found in multiple sources. Since each item in the list is sourced with such a connection, the original research factor becomes no more of a factor than it is in other articles. Happy Easter again, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy Easter to you too! Regarding the second concern, I'd still very much like to see high quality, multiple sources used, rather than a fairly random set of sources. Would it be possible to do that? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that would be very possible, Jay ... especially with the involvement of the whole community. Events that the community fails to find adequate sources for should be removed. So do you think it is ready, or is there some specific thing you think should be improved? I suppose worst-case scenario is a second AfD discussion. Hope the Easter Bunny is good to you, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrarily0, I'm saying it's not ready, and is still a candidate for speedy deletion, since, while improved it hasn't overcome the primary issues that led to its deletion. I've listed specific sources, among others, which I think are inappropriate. You haven't responded to my question above; why would we care about their opinions on this matter? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Original research is any "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." Citing the authors you named above helps shows that the ideas in the article aren't 'original', no? Oh, good news, I found some more sources covering the Georgia Train and Equip Program/War on Terror. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is putting together a bunch of things into a thesis. If random writer A says "x is part of the War on Terror", and random writer B says "y is part of the War on Terror", and then you go and put those two items into a "Timeline of the War on Terror", you are synthesizing material. This is particularly so if the authors themselves aren't experts on the topic, or particularly notable for their views - then it's more of a "Google search for anyone who mentions it, and throw them into a list". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but I also think that some of these authors are experts on the topic, and some are also notable for their views, no? I also think that the sheer number of references that can be found in each correlation helps prevent synthesis, no? Looking forward to your thoughts, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

O.K., which authors do you consider to be experts? I concur that if you found several experts agreeing on items in the list, then the correlation would help prevent synthesis. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, how about we try to make a case-study out of it. Picky any event that's currently on the list, and then I'll investigate it to make sure it qualifies with what you said above. Let me know, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if we're going to do a "case-study", I mentioned four names/sources above; could you answer the question I raised at that time? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure!

• Brian Whitmore - Senior Correspondent in RFE/RL's Central Newsroom and formerly "worked for eight years for the Boston Globe, first in the Globe's Moscow bureau and later as Central and Eastern European correspondent based in Prague" [10]
• David Josar - current Detroit News reporter [11]
• Kurtis Wheeler - Field Historian, Marine Corps History Division [12]
• Alex Callinicos - Director of the Centre for European Studies at King's College London (see works) [13]

Indeed, one might consider all of these people experts in their field. The point, however, is that no event is covered by only a single journalist - all are covered by multiple and reliable publications that we can trust, no? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, reporters are generally reliable, but not really experts on history, terror, etc. I'm not sure what official role a "Field Historian" is, but Wheeler is a high school history teacher. Callinicios is a historian and activist, but his expertise is in "Marxism, social theory, political philosophy, political economy, and race and racism". So, the sources seem a bit problematic to to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I still feel like if a reliable reporter refers to an event as part of the War on Terror, then we can take his/her word for it. But even if you ignored these mentioned reporters, when you combine all of the other sources (including the experts cited in the books), it still seems to be void of any synthesis. Is there a particular item on the draft's current version that you think is a subject of original research? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel we have circled back to my comment of 01:39, 8 April 2010. Do you have any reliable sources that actually give Timelines for the War on Terror? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing! Unfortunately I think some of the best War on Terror timelines are in the book sources (namely Cindy Comb's "Encyclopedia of Terrorism" (pp. 417-424) and Paul Thompson's "The Terror Timeline"), but here's some half-decent online sources for you to check out: Homeland Security War on Terror Timeline, Mother Jones War on Terror Timeline, University of Texas at Arlington's Timeline of the War on Terror (compiled by Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.), and Timelines.com's War on Terrorism, to name a few. More specific timelines, such as Afghanistan and the War on Terror Timeline, for example, do exist as well. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would http://www.iwar.org.uk or https://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Timeline%20of%20the%20War%20on%20Terror.pdf or http://timelines.com/ be considered reliable sources on this? Or Mother Jones, for that matter? Were you planning to use those books as sources for the entries in the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've only referenced the most reliable timelines in the draft as of now (that being, the "Encyclopedia of Terrorism", "The Terror Timeline" and the Homeland Security War on Terror Timeline). Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean; the draft is still full of the problematic references too. Have you considered creating a draft based solely on the reliable timelines? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! I think it has already been done though (I've adjusted the headers in the draft to exemplify this). The sources under "references" cite the timeline as a whole, while the sources under "notes" are used to further cite each individual event. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we're looking at different articles. I see many sources used in the Notes that have nothing to do with the timeline sources, and appear quite dubious. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to remove any sources in the notes that you feel are dubious (although I personally think they are helpful in reinforcement) - that would still leave all the encompassing sources in the reference section, no? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've already explained why several sources are unreliable, and in general why this way of building the article is inappropriate, and why you should rely solely on reliable sources presenting timelines. The fact that you've left in sources such as the high school history teacher seems almost to make a mockery of our previous discussion. Please remove any sources that aren't reliable timelines. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems very possible you might know more about proper sourcing than I do! For that reason I'd be overjoyed to have you help. I'm going to say let's just agree to disagree; let's let the community work on this project rather than a single editor in a userspace. I've moved the draft to the mainspace because I sincerely believe that it is no longer "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of the deleted version. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it to your user space, because it still does not deal with the objections raised in the AfD, nor on this page. Anyone can work on it in your user space, it's certainly not restricted to your input. Please remove the inappropriate sources, source it only to the reliable Timeline sources please. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I was passing by and then I saw the lights on and thought I could drop by and say hi. While the article has improved, I still don't think that it's worth having in WP. For example this:

January 3 to April 12 - anti-war groups across the world organized public protests against war with Iraq. About 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests.

How is this part of the WoT? There's no need to try and find sources for that, just use common sense. Or the anthrax attack. And is the Georgia Train and Equip Program really that important a part of WoT? If I were to make such an article, I would just include the war in Afghanistan, the other operations and the war in Iraq. That hardly requires an article of its own. I really don't think this article is needed... --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Jay (and Joker), I've brought this topic over to deletion review (see here) under the rationale that it at least deserves a second deletion discussion. By the way, thanks for dropping by Joker :D To shed light on your specific concern on the Iraq War protests, I was just including what has been cited by published sources. I tend to agree with that, however, since President Bush said "Iraq is now the central front in the War on Terror" [14] in 2003. I suppose no article is actually needed, but it seems to be a timeline that has been recreated by multiple reliable sources, no? Best regards to both of you, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Xlear Nasal Spray

On an unrelated note (sorry), do you think you could further clarify your rationale of the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xlear Nasal Spray? It appeared to pass the general notability guideline through my searches, but I could be wrong on this. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what sources your searches showed, but, as the AfD discussion pointed out, the ones in the article didn't demonstrate notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my last comment was sleepy. What I meant was, a numbers of users in the discussion said that numerous notability-establishing sources existed - and I'm just wondering why these sources and comments seemed to be discounted in the closure. I'm sure there's some reason for it - hope all is still well with you, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Some !voters did assert that there were notability-establishing sources, but Reyk's analyses of those sources showed otherwise. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Reyk seemed to be discussing the article's external links, but the discussion pertained to the product's notability itself. I never like taking things to deletion review, but would I have your permission to do so here? :( There's not a huge likeliness that it would be overturned, but I'd still like to get some more consensus on the issue. Regrets and regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I discussed all the sources, inline citations as well as the external links, and found that they either didn't talk about the subject at all, or were advertising or otherwise promoting the product. I'm not sure why you think this does not pertain to the notability of the topic; surely demonstrating that there are no reliable independent sources that discuss the subject is highly pertinent to its notability. Reyk _YO! 09:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Reyk! Nice of you to drop by! What I meant was, some of the editors in the discussion were referring to sources not yet included in the article. Reyk made a good analysis to be sure, but still some of the !voters disagreed with it. I suggested deletion review in hopes of ensuring that discounting these particular !voters was correct (it may very very very well have been). Best regards to both of you, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The editors alluded to sources not included in the article, but did not produce them, thus considerably weakening their arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to bring up some of the sources here; that will make it a bit easier to determine if they are adequate to assert notability. I'll report back soon, sir :) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, no need to be formal. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry sir Jay ;) Here are three sources covering the product that I found in the periodical called "Chain Drug Review":

• "Compact sizes". Chain Drug Review. 30 (9). Racher Press: 59. 5-19-2008. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Nasal spray promoted". Chain Drug Review. 31 (18). Racher Press: 67. 11-23-2009. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Kid's Xlear". Chain Drug Review. 31 (20). Racher Press: 47. 11-23-2009. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

I am just still confused of why WP:PRODUCT was mentioned in the closing statement, when WP:PRODUCT says that "information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless ... the product or service is notable." Doesn't this mean that the content should at least have been merged and redirected to Xlear, Inc., not deleted? Hope you are well, and sorry for the delay, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What is Chain Drug Review? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Chain Drug Review is a periodical journal - from their webpage: "Chain Drug Review, published by Racher Press, Inc. is the industry's only bi-weekly news publication written and edited exclusively for the chain drug store industry." [15] Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't see what the references say. Was your intent to use these sources to include information about the product in the Xlear, Inc. article? I note that the product is already mentioned there. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish they would, but unfortunately they do a poor job of publishing online. Would you mind then if I restored the article to do a proper history merge (redirect) to Xlear, Inc., to expand Xlear, Inc. to give more than a passing mention? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no need or reason to restore and do a merge, since this would misrepresent the history of the articles, and in any event there was no consensus for a merge. Also, you haven't explained what is in those sources that might indicate notability, and therefore warrant more than a passing mention. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Jay, sorry for the delayed reply. The articles above simply demonstrate reliable coverage of the subject (although not as in depth (as I originally thought) enough to build a independent article of any quality size). I'll probably straighten up a section on the product on the Xlear, Inc. page, and then redirect Xlear Nasal Spray (to the section). Does that sound okay? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable thing to do. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Posek

Hi, there is an edit war going on at Posek, mainly about the Wikipedia-correct English transliteration of "pesak din" and "posekim" between User:Debresser against me and another user. I don't know what the correct procedure is. Would you kindly care to comment or advise..? Thanks. Zargulon (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Zargulon (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Red-links of Geddie

I don't think it is necessary to remove the red link off articles with Geddie's name in it. It looks much neater to have all drivers linked than to have one on its own with no link. It simply looks silly and I don't understand the harm in having a deleted page red-linked, when other as-yet uncreated links are left red around it. You cannot say that the Geddie page will never be recreated, he could become a multiple champion of his series and start racing at higher levels and become notable enough to warrant an article anyway, therefore the link would have to be put back. It is standard across motorsport to keep uncreated driver pages red-linked, such is the work that has to be done if new driver pages are created and every potential link has to be found from all the seasons pages of countless race series. It is better for a visitor to the page to see an uncreated red-link than to come across a name with no link but that does have a page created: the visitor does not know there is a page to access and it may take a long time until a chance visit by Wiki motorsport editor to realise there should be a link. Unless you give me a undisputable reason not to return the Geddie links then they must go back due to the ridiculous nature of the inconsistencies created on some articles as a result. I hope you understand. Officially Mr X (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's necessary to remove the redlinks to articles deleted by AfD, because otherwise people will continually recreate them. That is why Twinkle has a special function built-in for removing backlinks like this. "Looks silly" is not a reason to restore them. If, one day, Geddie becomes notable, create the article first, then link to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Padrino Framework

I see just now that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Padrino_Framework could you help me? That's crazy that in deletion discussion talk about "false positive" when here http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=padrino+framework we have 21,000 results! DAddYE (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You could take the article to WP:DRV, if you think the deletion was in error. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Woodstocker Hasidim??

Hi, A new user named Woodstockergabei is adding the name of a Hasidut I have never heard of and cannot find on Google to the List of Hasidic dynasties. I reverted his page changes and put a note on the talk page; today, he put his Hasidut back on the list. (I also notice that he just started a page, Woodstocker (Hasidic dynasty), using only a blog as a reference.) What should I do next? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a hoax or serious misunderstanding on this editor's part, but in any event this "Hasidic dynasty" appears to consist of a not-very-articulate blog with 5 entries. I've removed the material from the List, and you've done the right thing by Prodding the article. Cheers! Jayjg ^(talk) 04:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian Internet Exchange Network article

What is your reasoning behind deleting this article. You indicate that it is merged into Ukrainian Internet Association, but when I check it's article there's really no information about UA-IX there. So you basically delete this article, saying that it is merged with Ukrainian Internet Association, but in fact it is not. I don't understand your logic --Rkononenko (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted as a result of the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian Internet Exchange. If you wish to contest its deletion, you must do so at WP:DRV. If you persist in recreating the article, you may be blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

All right, I will use WP:DRV, although I don't know how it's used, but whatever. I will see what it's all about once I read about it. --Rkononenko (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of Judaism

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Judaism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Requesting the source of the old Dinky Bomb page

I noticed today that the Dinky Bomb article has been deleted. As one of the former administrators of the game, I was hoping you could give me the source code for that article so that I can preserve it somewhere on my own website. I often talk to old players of the game, and when they ask me what happened to it, I used to direct them to the Wikipedia article. Since I can't do that any more, I'd at least like to save the information it contained.

For what it's worth, I think the decision to delete it was a bit rash. It was, at one time, a pay-to-play game, had over 50,000 user accounts, and was promoted by "reputable sources" such as the Penny Arcade blog. I thought that met the Wikipedia guidelines for relevance, but I am no expert. Either way, I would really appreciate having this information so that I can preserve it elsewhere.

Can you please e-mail it to me at sgware@gmail.com? I tried to find it myself, but short of making small edits to a few articles, I am not familiar with the inner working of Wikipedia. Thanks!

Update: Got your email. Thanks for your help!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgware (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Help on Rabbi Elazar Shach page

I see that recently you've been working out some issues on the "Rabbi Elazar Shach's critique" section on the "Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies" page. I see you've been erasing a lot of the POV and OR there. Can you check out the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elazar_Shach page, specifically Political Life/Opposition to the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and fix it up a bit there also? [Check out the "Footnotes" section on the talk page there, where we've been arguing back and forth with a lot of the same issues]Yonoson3 (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is a small but determined group of followers of Schneerson who make very difficult any attempts at bringing such articles into compliance with policy. A recent RFAR case against them was eventually dismissed, mostly, I think, because the person bringing the case and those opposing him wrote far too much for the arbitrators to properly read and understand. We may, unfortunately, get to that point again, though I hope instead the followers of Schneerson will value fidelity to Wikipedia's policies over their personal religious beliefs. It is difficult, however, to place too much reliance on this, when one cannot, for example even convince some of them (long time editors, I might add), that on Wikipedia one writes "God", not "G-d". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Since you expressed your opinion about this subject, please see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Hebrew)#Rabbi. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Another synagogue article from rural upstate NY

It's not in the Catskills (indeed, it's on the other side of the Hudson, actually in the Housatonic watershed and almost in Connecticut) but you might want to look at Beth David Synagogue (Amenia, New York). Mitchazenia started it a while back and I recently updated it, adding a photo and some more sources.

Interestingly, it's the only synagogue on the Register in New York east of the Hudson north of New York City. Unfortunately the expansion was not enough to make that a potential DYK fact. Daniel Case (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Lovely article! I particularly admire your discussion of the architectural features, something I'm weak at. Thank you for showing it to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually have learned a lot of that architectural writing from the lengthy descriptions that are included in the NRHP noms. Eventually I realized I had to join WP:WPARCH. Daniel Case (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Swissôtel Chicago AfD close

As director of WP:CHICAGO, I found the decision to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swissôtel Chicago to be very curious.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

How so? Of those arguing "keep", one said that there were "plenty of potential sources" - that he hadn't actually bothered to look through to see if "any of them are reliable and non-trivial". The other merely said "all major luxury hotels are notable", which is not a policy-based argument (and indeed, not really even an argument). Those arguing "delete", on the other hand, actually made policy-based arguments about a paucity of independent reliable secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that most tall buildings are considered notable. I have never seen a building on any of theses: Template:US tallest buildings lists deleted for example. The article was deleted, so I can not see how tall it was, but I assume it was pretty tall.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Real estate

In case you every move to Bloomington, this [16] is now a private home. Kinda makes you want to violate the 10th commandment. Moses Montefiore Congregation cheers.OldShul (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Upkeep must be pretty expensive. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

Saw that you were recently active on ANI and thought I'd ask someone as a sanity-check before I posted there. What do you make of this user's edits? I posted a welcome and suggestion on their talk page to use summaries. Though I'm not seeing vandalism, it does seem like nothing more than adding a lot of pointless revisions unless I'm missing something....at the rate they are progressing, I'm wondering if it could be a bot. Your thoughts? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me the editor is removing excess blank spaces and blank lines. It's not entirely pointless, but it is a bit odd. It also looks fairly automated, but it's only 1 or 2 edits a minute - a bot doing something this simple would probably do it faster, unless on a slow internet link. A determined editor could do that by hand, if strongly motivated. It is strange. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Zendesk

A while back you deleted Zendesk after an AfD. I am not questioning your reading of the AfD, but do believe the subject is notable. (See [17]). As such, I would like to undelete and userify it in order to fix the article, but before I did I wanted to run it by you just in case you objected.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I have no objection. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Hopefully I can fix the article. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Good luck! Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Industrial Data Exchange

A while back you deleted Industrial Data Exchange (or IDX / IDXsuite for short) after an AfD. Please could you reinstate the page. IDX is a valid software product and it has existed since 1995. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce.bean (talk • contribs) 12:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it because that was the consensus at this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Industrial Data Exchange. If you think it should be restored, please feel free to bring your arguments to WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Rekonq

A few month ago you deleted Rekonq. The reason was that it was not considered notable enough at the time (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rekonq). Since then a major linux distribution, kubuntu has announced that rekonq is going to be the default browser in the next release (kubuntu 10.10 Maverick), in replacement of konqueror (See: [18] [19]). My opinion is that Rekonq is now worth an article in wikipedia. Bzhb (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you feel circumstances have materially changed, please feel free to bring the article to WP:DRV for review. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Have Spacesuit, Will Travel

I moved the discussion on this from the OR notice board to the article talk page since it's been reverted back with the request "Or discuss".I hope you're interested.--Rich Peterson24.7.28.186 (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rekonq

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rekonq. 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. Bzhb (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing advice about UK citizenship from MoS

That advice has to stay, IMO. Even application forms in the UK ask us, "Nationality: British, English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, or UK-citizen [then the other countries of the world are introduced!]" The MoS needs to make sure editors are aware of the issue. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 01:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, it's very specific to just one country, it refers to essays (which have no weight on Wikipedia), and it refers to Talk page discussions, which don't belong in any guideline. But I'll open a discussion section on this on the guideline Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Essays often have a lot of weight on WP: WP:DUCK or WP:Tendentious editing, for example. A discussion on the talkpage would be go though --Jubilee♫clipman 01:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Great, done. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Review

Please reconsider your speedy deletion of Stephen J. Press the article was NOT a recreation of the deleted article, and was in fact substantially different than the deleted article. 24.57.77.99 (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

E1b1b: repeated edits of 195.132.185.48 with apparent ethnic motivation

As I know you have also been watching this repeated activity, could I ask you to rollback, if you find it appropriate?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I had rolled back his edits before I even noticed your comment. As a slightly different IP he's been making other similar deletions over the past few months, some of which I've also fixed. Also, from his edit history it seems clear he's also Ekarfi13 (talk · contribs), who is doing much the same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for informal mediation

Greetings. There is an effort underway to bring the Ebionites article back up to FA quality Talk:Ebionites#Possibility of bringing the article back up to FA that could use some informal mediation. Progress so far has not been promising and I would like to avoid a second trip to Arbcom. If you are unable to undertake this mediation yourself, please forward this request to an impartial editor or group of editors that have some understanding of the subject matter. All the best. --Ovadyah (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I might be willing to try, but I don't think I understand the exact nature of the dispute there. Could you possibly summarize it for me here? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically, the dispute is about whether the sources for an assertion made by Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus (book) and another by James Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty, qualify as fringe, and how much, if any attention to be given the material in this article. The Eisenman source was found to be "eccentric" in discussion prior to the RfC on this article, and the Tabor book gets no support right now on the FTN at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#The Jesus Dynasty. There have also been WP:SYNTH issues related to grouping them in the article, etc. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a content dispute over reliable sources. The question boils down to whether source material from Robert Eisenman and James Tabor should be considered "fringe" and therefore removed from the article. There is no dispute regarding notability and verifiability. Tabor's book "The Jesus Dynasty" was on the best-seller list. Recent editors may not realize that Loremaster included much of the Tabor material several years ago, before "The Jesus Dynasty" was even published. I am recommending informal mediation because the editing process is broken. There has been a lot of Wiki-lawyering but no attempt to reach a consensus among the editors working on the article. Ovadyah (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the above statement is I believe a fairly clear refusal to address the real issue, the "fringe" nature of the Eisenman/Tabor sources, which has been raised by me repeatedly, citing sources (basically reviews), and basically ignored. The refusal of either Ovadyah or Michael to provide evidence that these sources might be other than fringe is a substantial concern. There are also questions, even if they have not been expressed on the article talk page, regarding several other issues regarding all three editors recently involved in the article, myself, Ovadyah, and Michael, regarding a number of conduct and other matters. The sources I have found at what J. Gordon Melton has called one of the best religion libraries in the country have been challenged by others because that library is at a Jesuit school. On that basis, I would ask that you check the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Special collections, which I created more or less based on Melton's book, to see if there are any comparatively well-respected libraries in your area which might have reference books which could provide you with information on the current state of knowledge regarding this subject. There were a few non-Christian libraries listed as well by Melton, but nowhere near as manyand, well, as one of the leaders of the Christianity project, but not the other religion projects, I felt there would be fewer objections to my creating the page for the Christianity project. I have also available a number of magazine references and reviews, which I just sent myself at the local library, which might be useful. If you would like them, and I think it might be in your best interests to have them, please drop me an e-mail and I will forward them to you. They might provide you with additional information regarding the recent state of scholarship regarding this subject and how the Eisenman/Tabor books were received. Alternately, you could get them yourself by accessing the Thompson-Gale and Proquest websites, as I did. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, I am out of it, so good luck! :0) Ovadyah (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ovadyah, if you're out of it, then is there anything to mediate any more? I'm happy to mediate if there are sides that want to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

John Carter evaded mediation and took the dispute directly to AN/I. You might want to follow the progress of the discussion here. The content dispute is just a smokescreen. The real issue is John Carter trying to get Michael C Price and me perma-banned from the article because we are not "fit" to work on it. As far as I know, Michael intends to keep working on the article, so there will still be a need at some point for mediation. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if John Carter winds up getting himself perma-banned from the article, I may return to editing the article and work cooperatively with Michael C Price to return the article to FA quality. After a two and a half year hiatus, I think I can stand to look at it again. Ovadyah (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on John Carter's behaviour here. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Commenting", rather than actually addressing matters of policy and stubtance, is as the history of the article will show, just about all Michael Price does. In fact, Ovadyah noted that to me just about as soon as I first showed an interest in the article. And, regarding perma-banning, how should we count the clearly irrelevant arguments Ovadyah has made to insist a fringe theory be included, his hissy-fit when his insult was pointing out to be inaccurate, and the flat lies contained in the comments above. Nor have I ever suggested Ovadyah be permanently anything, other than recognized as someone who, by his own comments, indicates that he may have a very serious conflict of interests regarding anything related to Ebionites. I did and do believe Michael's behavior will eventually lead to further sanctions, and after a one-year restriction, so far as I know, with an initial penalty of that length, permanent restrictions tend to be what happens next. I have kept originals of all correspondence with Ovadyah, including his original statements to me regarding others, which, based on his own recent behavior, would I think be more than interesting. By the way, please note that the only one of late who has made any real attempts to provide sourcing and additional material to the article. What is really required is not mediation per se, but some way to keep editors who consider fringe theories more important than policies and guidelines under control. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So now John Carter is complaining that I talk rather than edit the article? I was under the impression that jaw jaw is better than war war, but perhaps John has a problem with that, if he's seeking to provoke an edit war. Ho hum. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We are not quite ready for mediation, but I expect AN/I will resolve this dispute rather quickly. Meanwhile, is it really up to John Carter to unilaterally demote articles on WikiProject Judaism and WikiProject Jewish History? I would think that would be up to the members of those groups. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, I am requesting that the article be locked temporarily until this business is sorted out, and to keep John Carter from blanking the article and replacing it with the Catholic Encyclopedia. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If a nosy passer-by can offer an outside opinion, the problem here seems to be that the content of the article Ebionites relies far too much on the two works quoted above. A bit of research -- or making nice to one's favorite librarian -- would lead one to less controversial sources like Fred Lapham, An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha; Jeffrey J. Bütz, The Brother of Jesus; Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities. As I wrote in the WP:AN/I thread on this dispute, Eisenman's work might be considered a reliable source, but it is considered controversial by the relevant scholarly community, & from what I know of it, James Tabor's work is only of use if one wants to discuss the desposyni -- & even then it may not be the best source to use. So my take on this dispute is that if the parties involved were to simply ignore the existence of these two works & look for other sources (secondary ones exist in abundance) while extending good faith to one another, both the editting environment -- & the article in question -- would rapidly improve. -- llywrch (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to mediate the dispute here, if the parties are willing to accept me as a mediator. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I am willing to accept you as a mediator anytime, but I'm probably not the best person to work on this article, given the current circumstances. There's no way I can work with John Carter after what he tried to pull on me. However, I did try to convince Llywrch to stay around and contribute. I would have enjoyed working with him. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I accept Jayjg's offer of mediation. Go for it.--Michael C. Price ^talk 05:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Anything to bring some quality to the article. Please note as well that I am in the process of starting a revised version of the article, which will be found at User:John Carter/Ebionites. Summaries of encyclopedia references, found in the SLU library reference section initially, maybe the Washington University etc. libraries later if such exist, will be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites, with listings of authors and sources referenced, where such exist. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

O.K., great, I'll start a mediation section. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

QA Wizard Pro delete

Could I get a copy sent to me of this page which was removed because not enough third-party references could be located by couple of people poking around? May consider future article once I've located better references. Spent couple hours on the article so don't want that time completely wasted. SlightlybentOR (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you locate the better references first? Let me know when you have them, and are planning to actually work on the article, then we can talk about restoring the article to a user space. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about Criticism of Judaism

Jayjg, I reread your comments, and I'm trying to understand your position. So a question I have is, of the topics on the page as it exists today, which topic do you has the greatest potential for meeting your view of policy? The reason I'm asking is it would help me understand what direction you would want this article to take (assuming it's not deleted and salted, or doesn't simply melt down). --Nuujinn (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, a proper, encyclopedic discussion of the topic would actually discuss notable critiques of Judaism, not the nonsense that's in it now. If I were you I'd start with Kant and Hegel and their critiques. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Geez, been 25 years since I worked with Kant and Hegel, but I'll give it a go. Thanks for the advice. I also think there's some potential in regarding Purim. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Kohanim

I saw your recent edit to Judaism. It leaves a somewhat unclear situation, where the word "are still mostly restricted" has no meaning. Perhaps you should remove the second sentence also. In addition I would like to ask, since you claim this is undue attention to the subject, whether the subject is treated properly in another article? Debresser (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The word "still" belongs because the last sentence explains what "still" happens today, versus in the time of the Tanakh. For future reference, please note item 3 in the Big Yellow Box at the top of this page, and now in the page edit notice too. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 00:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I hadn't payed attention to that notice. Debresser (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Leo Frank and Accusations of Jewish Bias

Jayjg,

I really want to help try making Wikipedia more neutral, so I'm sorry for coming off as selfish and rude to you and others on Wikipedia. Please forgive me I am sorry. I want to publicly apologize to you for saying that our religion was the reason why there is so much bias in the Leo Frank article. I was just concerned that because the subject was about our people that we sometimes tend to lean the articles in our favor. I promise you I will not bring up the subject of Jewish Bias in the Leo Frank article again and I'm sorry for being insensitive and disruptive. The issue I brought up was that the overwhelming majority of the sources in the Leo Frank article are from Jewish Scholars who presuppose Leo Franks innocence and therefore the whole article is slanted. I was trying to suggest that there doesnt seem to be enough sources in the article that bring neutrality and even-handedness to the article. It seems like all the facts which suggest Leo Frank might be guilty were left out. I just feel like this is a problem that is pervasive throughout Wikipedia and I don't know what to do or how to bring this up without being insensitive. I truly feel in my heart of hearts that we often take sides when it comes to topics about our Jewish community. How can I bring this subject up without pissing anyone off or getting myself deleted from here? I do not want to be deleted or cause problems, I really want to help and contribute to wikipedia. I am sorry from my heart about mentioning this and will try to do so in private, because I know it could be seen as disruptive and I want to personally from my HEART say sorry to you. Can we please talk privately about this matter? Machn (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to e-mail me; the link is on the side of this page. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to thank you for hearing me out and I hope my apology on the Leo Frank discussion forum can end the uncomfortable line of discourse. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, could you tell me specifically what I click on to contact you privately? Also, how would you recommend I make an apology in the Leo Frank discussion area to bring the edit war there to a closure? thank you. Machn (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No need for apologies, please just stop talking about Jews, or promoting conspiracy theories about Jews. If you want to e-mail, you can go to the Toolbox at the left side of this screen, and click on the "E-mail this user" tab. Alternatively, you can just click on this link. However, to do either, you must have attached your own Wikipedia account to an e-mail address. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Redaction

Done before your demand; it may genuinely be that others are ignorant of what anybody who deals with policy pages sees with regret. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarona Reiher

You deleted it because it was recreated. She is now in WWE, so her page should and needs to be put back up. Y5nthon5a (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If you feel the individual is now notable enough for an article, please feel free to make your arguments at WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Temple Sinai (Oakland, California).

Great work! LittleMountain5 01:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hey, thanks for the barnstar! Yworo (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure, it was well deserved. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jayjg. You have new messages at Template talk:Service awards.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Set Sail For The Seven Seas 329° 41' 15" NET 21:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Congregation Beth Jacob Ohev Sholom

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me! Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Competition

Only one question need be asked: "Is it good for Wikipedia"? :-) Daniel Case (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is! I'm so happy to see it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Mitch Walker

When the article Mitchell Walker was created it failed WP:Bio hence the request for deletion. The player now passes WP:Bio as he has appearred at a professional level. Also, the player is referred to as Mitch Walker by the club RM-Taylor (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it related to the ban?

I just noted M Price's comment that I was violating my ban. Honestly I hadn't thought of that. On reflection, an adversary might say there is a potential analogy with that Laqueur-Qur'anic issue we engaged in, which was borderline. My suggestion was that there there was a potential I/P reflex. Had I reflected on this perhaps I should not have added my note, which now only might embarrass you, though I appreciate any admin willing to act as a neutral mediator on an article, like this one, where no one appears capable of budging. I don't think, really, that a discussion of the scission and sects of early Judaism and Christianity, which is a purely historical crux, really enters into the I/P area, but if you think it best I stay out, despite the intensity of my earlier work on that article, I'll withdraw and raise no problems. John Carter did indeed ask me to look over the issue. Is that canvassing? Again, perhaps, but I really have no ideological horse in this race. To me it is like the Shakespeare Authorship Question, a matter of method vs.fringe speculation. I apologize if just wandering in there (if you are ready to believe me on this - I didn't know you were the mediator) upset any applecart, as Price's comment now seems to threaten. I don't have the time to seriously engage with the article anyway, so my presence and comments can be withdrawn without harm, if needed. Good luck with the mediation. Nishidani (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that Nishidani is in ban violation. I just said that, given his history, that this would make mediation more difficult. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Michael may not be the best person to question the involvement of others based on their histories. Having said that, he did and does seem to me to be someone who is well-informed on the subject, which is what we all need. I contacted the Judaism and Jewish history WikiProjects for input on this topic on that same basis. I would have contacted him at the same time as Ovadyah and the others involved at the time of the earlier Arbitration if the "retired" notice wasn't on the top of his user talk page. I can see how he might not have been included in the original request, and might be disqualified on that basis, but do not see how having someone who at the time of the earlier problems seemed knowledgable about the subject would necessarily be a problem. And, potentially, a more difficult mediation might possibly lead to a better article. However, it honestly is not my decision to make. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry John, but I think I have caused Jayjg some embarrassment on this, and that in respect of his function as a mediator, I think the appropriate thing for me to do is to step aside and withdraw. I don't think there is any substance to Michael Price's insinuation. Some mediation is required, he was here before I, and I think it best for the mediation process, which will be difficult, to be relieved of anything even faintly suggestive of conflict. I tend not to look around but rush in, esp. when a colleague asks me to. I didn't check, and not checking, failed to foresee the inevitable wiki complications. This is ridiculous, but objectively I did the wrong thing in not thinking before participating.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

While Nishidani's involvement was obviously not a violation of the ban, I think we have both sides of this dispute well represented at the mediation right now. Thanks, Nishidani, for gracefully offering to withdraw; I think your reasoning is sound, and will take you up on your offer. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed PSTS guideline

Jayjg, I've made a few changes to the "Quoting primary sources" section. Do these address some of your concerns? Current status here.

Yaris dropped me a note on my talk page about the proposal a couple of days ago; overall, I thought the draft looks useful. --JN466 03:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Congregation Beth Israel-Judea

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday!

Happy WikiBirthday!

Hi Jayjg! Happy WikiBirthday! It's not common that we see someone who has been on Wikipedia for 6 years. I didn't find a barnstar that specifically rewards great contributions over a very long period, so instead I present to you a cake! Cheers, —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! And I noticed on your User page that you'd completed 26 DYKs, but never gotten the award, so I've given you one. Congratulations! Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested

See here. Cheers. IronDuke 23:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've stayed strictly away from that topic area for more than a year, and I haven't been involved in any of the "each side trying to get the other banned" games. It appears that things have gotten much worse in my absence. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Temple Israel moves

Hey, you moved what i think was a valid list-article / set index article wp:SIA that was at "Temple Israel" inappropriately to "Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)". At least you should have opened a discussion before a drastic change like that. And, if accepted and implemented it should have been done in a way that moved the edit history to a reasonable place. I am going to open a multiple-pages wp:RM to fix all back to way it was, i guess. Please comment in that discussion. Please consider using the Requested Move service to gauge appropriateness of any move that might possibly be contentious, in the future. --doncram (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I am the main contributor of the article Maghrebim. So please stop always changing what I re-edit , I just want to make the article more clear thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.132.185.48 (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You've been reverted by what, 8 different editors now? And warned by just as many? That's a sign you need to stop making edits, and start using the article Talk: page to discuss your proposed changes. Please do that. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.132.185.48 (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hemant Karkare and anti-Israel Conspiracy Theories

I would like to bring attention to the article on Hemant Karkare, which is currently sufferring from a massive edit war, possibly by sock puppets (see my post here for the list) led by an anti-Israel editor named User:TwoHorned (He tried to POV-push in the India-Israel relations article before). The focus of the "edit-war" is over WP:FRINGE Conspiracy Theories concerning his death and the 2008 Mumbai attacks (in which a Chabad Lubavich center in Mumbai was destroyed by Pakistani Muslims). The edit-warriors keep inserting many bogus claims made by extremists, one of them is that Israeli-government has been fomenting religious riots in India (see this section of their version). Perhaps some intervention would prove constructive in this area. Thanks.117.194.197.61 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC).

sigh... Possibily infdef banned user Hkelkar is back again... Material is sourced and there is a discussion on the page. So please come discuss instead of blindly erasing. If you find material that contradicts the mentionned sources, bring it. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 09:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the people adding the material need to seriously review WP:FRINGE, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the added material is really fringe in India: there is one book published, articles about the subject, legal cases in preparation. Well, all of this must just be well presented, the pros and the cons. And I don't want sockpuppets or infdef banned used users to prevent any editing of the article. I'm a regular wikipedia user. Thanks. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 09:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The material is, without any doubt, conspiratorial nonsense, WP:FRINGE, WP:REDFLAG, WP:UNDUE, etc. Please review those policies carefully. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Before TwoHorned harps further on Indian media coverage, bear in mind that the Indian media is vast in size and scope (spanning a readership of hundreds of millions of people across dozens of languages), and Indian journalists and newspapers are often under extreme pressures from competitors to produce sensationalist material for ratings. Therefore, conspiratorial rubbish with mass appeal is often published in Indian newspapers without any independent fact checking or research. Citing Indian media sources is well and good, but it must be tempered by WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE.117.194.193.101 (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Before any rash decisions are made, I should point out that it was User:TwoHorned who added the part about the Israelis fomenting religious riots in India [20][21](and then edit-warring in order to keep it in). the absurd and conspiratorial language suggests bad faith editing. Furthermore, some of his sources are highly dubious, like this one, from a pro-Islamist website masquerading as a non-partisan news source (compare what they say about Zakir Naik[22], to what more reliable sources say about him [23][24]).117.194.193.101 (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, here is a sample of the extremely conspiratorial rhetoric found in TwoHorned's "Flagship source", a book by an Islamist sympathizer titled "Who Killed Karkare?" Can a book containing this type of militant rhetoric be considered a WP:RS?

“ The allegation that sections of and individual Indian Muslims indulged in “terrorism” surfaced for the first time with the ascent of the Hindutva forces in mid-1990s and became state policy with the BJP’s coming to power at the Centre. With even “secular” media joining the role as stenographers of security agencies, this became an accepted fact so much so that common Indians and even many Muslims started believing in this false propaganda. ”

“ It comes out with some startling facts and analysis, the first of its kind, to expose the real actors behind the so-called “Islamic terrorism” in India whose greatest feat was to murder the Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant Karkare who dared to expose these forces and paid with his life for his courage and commitment to truth. While unearthing the conspiracy behind the murder of Karkare, this book takes a hard look at some of the major incidents attributed to “Islamic terrorism” in India and finds them baseless. ”

[25]

“ Terror's Hindu Face: Todays's ie, 18th May 2010's Asian Age's Delhi Edition devotes a full page to the hitherto well hidden from the public gaze and long suppressed by the media, Hindu Terrorism. ”

[26]

“ A new book curiously titled Who Killed Karkare? says a nationwide network of Hindutva terror that has its tentacles spread up to Nepal and Israel is out to destroy the India most Indians have known for ages and to remould it into some kind of Afghanistan under the Taliban. ”

[27].117.194.193.101 (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, besides the usual crap and personnal attacks typical of infdef banned user Hkelkar, please note that:

• I didn't include the ref you're talking about.
• The implication of israeli intelligence in the affair is not an invention of mine, but comes from the mentionned source book.
• The controversy about the assination of 3 people, including Karkare, is something real in India.
• There is a book and sourced material on it.

For me, that's all about it. I do intent to reduce the size of the section, and put it in more regular form, but pretend that is "fringe conspiracy" is non-sense and pov, given the proportion that is affair has taken in India. And,btw, "pressure on journalists" is not something particular to India. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 08:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The "book" is not an RS, and the other articles cited are either from Fringe Islamist websites, or so-called "News Sources" of National Enquirer-esque notability.59.160.210.68 (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice try but: "Hermant Karkare conspiracy" google search gives more than 45 000 responses... with journal articles etc. Try something else next time. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 12:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

TwoHorned is copy-pasting the same anti-Semitic nonsense into multiple articles, like 2008 Mumbai attacks and Indo-Israeli relations[28][29][30].59.160.210.68 (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

TwoHorned also appears to have a history of promoting Neo-Nazi conspiracy theories sources to dubious websites. See [31].59.160.210.68 (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd bet the anti-semitic-neo-nazi bullshit would appear soon. Bingo, Hkelkar ! I'm surprised noone noticed the use of multiple IP to evade block and R3R, by the way. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 14:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Further progress report. User:tTwoHorned is engaging in canvassing and has found an ally, User:Paul Barlow [32], and is edit-warring the anti-Israel and antisemitic material into Attribution of the 2008 Mumbai attacks.117.194.198.217 (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, if you would contribute to the relevant discussion in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, then that would help resolve this matter swiftly and efficiently. Thanks.117.194.198.217 (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

2008 Mumbai attacks

Regarding your page protection of this related article, TwoHorned has expressed the intent to continue edit-warring once the article is unprotected[33], this even after the antisemitic Conspiracy Theory he is espousing has been debunked by the Anti-Defamation League, a highly respected source[[34]].59.160.210.68 (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

TwoHorned has started up again [35].117.194.200.64 (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's quite disappointing that he's still inserting this poorly written violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:FRINGE. This has been explained to him several times, including a very clear discussion at Wikipedia:RS/N#The Hindu pointing out that this is a silly conspiracy theory. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It gets worse. There is an admin backing him now[36][37], although he has done a reasonable thing here.59.160.210.68 (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Jayig, apologies for bursting in here (I'd greatly prefer this entire discussion to be taking place at 2008 Mumbai attacks. However, the IP has linked to this thread on my talk page, I have asked them to explain a comment that they made here, and they have intimated that they would prefer to answer here. I've repeated the question below for the benefit of the IP. TFOWR 10:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

IP, would you also please explain the comment you made here: It gets worse. There is an admin backing him now[38][39]? Quite apart from the fact that you link to a diff that appears to contradict what you say, do you really feel that what you said is (a) accurate, (b) honest, (c) likely to help your cause in anyway? Repeat this crap again and I'll open up an WP:WQA. TFOWR 10:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Quote of your post to my talk page:" I note with concern that the edit warring at 2008 Mumbai attacks has resumed, and that you are - once again - a major contributor (but not TwoHorned). Before I block you for removing cited information (incorrect, citations misrepresented and fringe, undue etc.) and for continued disruption (actually, TwoHorned is the disruptor), could you show me where this "consensus" you allege exists actually is? (read the goddamned discussion)"

Quote of your post to TwoHorned's talk page:"I have just warned the IP editor that I am extremely close to blocking them (but not TwoHorned) for edit warring and disruptive editing. I note, however, that you have also resumed reverting instead of discussing. Stop now. If you continue I will block you, rather than protect the article again. "

I interpret the difference in tone and delivery to mean that TFOW supports TwoHorned. If he disagrees, then we can agree to disagree. Jayjg can arrive his own conclusions regarding the posts.59.160.210.68 (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

They're not quotes - you added "(but not TwoHorned)" to both of them. For the record, I warned you that if you continued to WP:EW I would block you. I warned TwoHorned that if they continued to WP:EW I would block them. I support neither of you: I think you're both worthy of a block, to prevent further disruption at 2008 Mumbai attacks. I'm amazed that you would (a) interpret warnings to two editors as an admin favouring one editor, and (b) that you would have the audacity to make that claim and attempt to justify it. Do not repeat it again. TFOWR 10:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Blogs vs. websites

This is a blog: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/

This is a website: http://vho.org/

The latter is allowed under WP rules, the former is not.

Which of the two contains fact-based information, and which contains ideologically motivated propaganda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortagravatas (talk • contribs) 13:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You're correct about the quality of information in each source, but Wikipedia doesn't consider either to be reliable. I see I brought this up with on your Talk page almost two years ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This user posted the same message on my talk page. See my response there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Berber people

Considering the repeated vandalism by 195.132.185.48 - can something be done to block this user? Thanks - Etan J. Tal 05:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal (talk • contribs)

Well, you could take them to AN/I. They're doing this on several articles, not just Berber people. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please help me - the novice - What's AN/I? Etan J. Tal 08:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal (talk • contribs)

WP:AN/I is where one raises the issue of disruptive editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Although no explanation was provided, I now understand that some editor(s) claim the photos "are not representative". Since I have no idea whether that is right, I can't defend the inclusion of these photos anymore - let an expert decide about the validity of this claim. After all I'm just the photographer and know practically nothing about the matter. Thanks for your cooperation! Etan J. Tal 22:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal (talk • contribs)

The editor in question seems to have a thing about "sub-Saharan Africans". Apparently he rejects any photographs he thinks look too "African". That doesn't seem to me to be a valid reason to delete the pictures; does it to you? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel the same, but I do not have the sources to contradict his statements. In case he is right, the photos are not relevant, but first he has to prove his deletions in a proper detailed explanation. I am sorry I did not have the wit to ask the guys there whether they consider themselves Berbers... BTW, Googleing "Black Berber" I found sites which contain photos of similar "facial character", so I'm not the only one who thinks the photos ARE relevant... Etan J. Tal 07:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal (talk • contribs)

Why would you need sources to contradict his statements, when he has no sources to support them in the first place? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right - for that reason I restored my edits several times, asking for explanation (which never came). If you know this editor has a proven bad reputation it might be easier to block him/her and stop wasting our time.... Etan J. Tal 22:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal (talk • contribs)

DYK for Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee)

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This is sort of a bot and a reply is not expected. You're just too nice, Jayjg.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for saying so. The signature looked normal, so I didn't realize it was a bot. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Temple Israel

Hey congratulations i guess about your getting a DYK for the Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma) article. I still don't understand why your edits towards creating that had to be done on top of the existing Temple Israel list-article. And, I am sorry you misunderstood my intent with the Requested Move; you seemed to think i wanted to delete some Tulsa info when what i suggested was specifically to save every bit you had added. Anyhow, i have reconstituted the list-article now at Temple Israel again. Would you please indicate at its Talk page if you oppose the existence of that for any reason? I never understood your having any specific objection. But if you are unfamiliar with how set-index-articles can substitute for a disambiguation page, please see wp:SIA. I would like to have it be stable before re-requesting administrative help to restore the edit history of that list-article. --doncram (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doncram. Temple Israel is a disambiguation page, not a "set list". As I've explained, there is no such type of synagogue as a "Temple Israel" synagogue. A set list is a group of article that share a common, fundamental characteristic. These synagogues, on the other hand, merely share a fairly random name, and have no other relationship to each other besides that. I've restored the disambiguation page, and I've opened up a discussion regarding this on the article's talk page. Please contribute your thoughts there. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

O.K., I've made a bunch of changes, restorations, moves, etc. that I think will resolve this in a way that works for you. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)