User talk:Jayjg/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Help needed

with an insane vandal posing as an edit warrior, with a myriad of IP addresses, all from Japan. Disrupting Mara Galassi article that I've been trying to improve.--Galassi (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I've temporarily semi-protected. There does seem to be duplicate text in the article and in the website link posted - which came first? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! The article here, methinks. Not much of a duplicate, just a list of 3-4 items.--Galassi (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you also keep an eye on Jewish Cossacks? I'm under a topic ban (Ukraine), and there has been some nonsense inserted by an IP there.--Galassi (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of WP:AN discussion

Hello Jayjg, this is notification of a WP:AN discussion regarding an editor you have dealt with. The thread is: WP:AN#Community ban for BLP-violating, sock-hopping conspiracy theorist from Hyogo, Japan. Appreciate your input, thanks! Zad68 18:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Quote from book "Israel and the Politics of Jewish Identity: The Secular-Religious Impasse" regarding Rabbi Elazar Shach

Hi,

Just wanted to know if you have anything to add/respond to the discussion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Quote_from_book_.22Israel_and_the_Politics_of_Jewish_Identity:_The_Secular-Religious_Impasse.22_regarding_Rabbi_Elazar_Shach

Yonoson3 (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A few instances of antisemitic POV

Would you care to weigh in on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksei_Losev#Controversies and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Gumilev#Accusations_of_anti-Semitism ? See relevant discussions...--Galassi (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Jayjg, this is Blastikus. In spite of supposed differences, I would like to express my gratitude to you. I love you.

Thank you for having been an integral part of my evolution.Pottinger's cats (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

My views on topics of dispute are given here: http://bensteigmann.blogspot.com/2013/04/disclaimer.html

In case you are interested, though it is based on primary sources, substantiation of many themes from secondary sources is given in the 4th embedded link.Pottinger's cats (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Finally, I would like to give you the following: http://www.gurdjieff.org/salzmann3.htmPottinger's cats (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Tobias Hecht for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tobias Hecht is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobias Hecht until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. LFaraone 02:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ashkenazi picturebox

Hi Jayjg, can you help arbitrate over this discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ashkenazi_Jews#Ones_and_for_all.2C_should_Sholem_Aleichem_and_Mikhail_Botvinnik_be_in_the_collage

Thanks Avaya1 (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Ashkenazi Jews". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 07:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Jewish Cossacks

There is a weird set of IP edits. Could you semi-protect it, please?--Lute88 (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The vandal keeps changing the IP, so semiprotection is definitely in order. Thanks!--Lute88 (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away, but it looks like someone semi-protected it anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Shell Article

Hi, I've recently seen that you deleted the Matthew Shell article, and the reason given was G4. I accept your point that this was previously deleted, but his career has changed a lot since May 2010, and this is why a new article was created by me. Most of the content is from 2010 onwards, so in my opinion couldn't really be classed as a G4 from my understanding. I see you are incredibly busy on Wikipedia, so I'm hoping this might have been a mistake due to the previous deletion. This is also the first article I've created in a long time, so I apologise if I didn't follow the correct procedure.

Paulie43 (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right that the article wasn't identical, but the new article didn't address the issues raised in the original AfD. As far as I can tell there weren't any significant reliable secondary sources in the new article, which is what would be required to overcome the original AfD concerns that there was no indication of notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

SS vandal

Edits like this complicate the journey of understanding secondary sources. User_talk:204.98.2.16 appears to be making a lot of unconstructive edits, I would wager to call them vandalism. Can something be done? Makes me wonder if there could be some kinda 'report' button for certain edits or a way to tag a userpage for oversight of contributions. Ranze (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it's nothing but vandalism. He/she edits infrequently, so I've blocked for 3 months. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It was Mentioned In The Book That Luther's Anti-Semitism Likely Started in 1528

Read a cited snippet of it for yourself.[1] I am a staunch Lutheran myself and it personally offends me if any portion of the article is written in manner that is meant to slander Luther for false accusations. It needs to be accurate and in compliance with the NPOV Policy.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The "snippet" is self-published internet material, which refers to a different book, and isn't reliable in any event. See the Luther and antisemitism Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Turn of the 20th century

Hi, why are you making dozenshundreds of edits like this? It was decided some months ago that "turn of the 20th century" is ambiguous, as to some people it could mean the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that a very small number of editors decided to remove from Wikipedia all traces of this common English phrase, which currently gets 57 million ghits, and 3.3 million google book hits. You may, in fact, recall this conversation on the subject. Apparently tens of millions of English speakers have been using the phrase for decades without having any idea of what they mean. Regardless, there was also general agreement that - in the unlikely event that a substitute was indeed needed - the infelicitous and almost unknown phrase "turn of the 19th to 20th century" (670 google book hits) was not an acceptable substitute, and that a much wider consensus would have to be sought for any such change. It's been 7 months since objections were first raised to replacing common English terminology with Wikipenglish, yet despite this, the change was apparently implemented. Again, this kind of change would require a much wider consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It's best to avoid ambiguity, but it's not necessary to use an uncommon phrase in order to do so, since a careful choice of words will allow both to be satisfied. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to avoid theoretical ambiguity; that is, a phrase that in reality is in no way ambiguous, but which some individuals believe might be misunderstood regardless. Everyone knows what the phrase means, which is why it is so commonly used. And without doubt replacing a very common phrase with an uncommon (and ugly) one is a far more serious concern for Wikipedia. The inappropriate changes were made many months ago by someone (hmains?), and have not since been rectified. I've now fixed the real problem. If you think this common and unambiguous phrase can be replaced by an even better one, then have at it, but please, let's have no more of the "turn of the 19th to 20th century" abomination. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not true that "everyone knows what the phrase means", and that was the point of the two discussions (the one that I linked and the one that you linked). If you check those, you'll see that I never favoured "turn of the 19th to 20th century". Redrose64 (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

We're going to have to disagree on the first point, because yeah, everyone does - again, (to misquote an old song), 57 million ghits can't be wrong. And I realize that you never favored "turn of the 19th to 20th century", but when it was inserted into hundreds of articles instead of normal English, no-one seemed to have any interest in doing anything about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Ten Commandments

What I meant to say to Steve Kap was that even if the history is as he says it is, that still does not justify modifying the article in the way he proposes. That is, even if the RD is the origin of the ED, it is not a form of it and not what the article is about. I do not propose to modify the talk page, as the proper subject of the talk page is how to modify the article and not what are the religious opinions of any given editor. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Reopen arbitration

J-C is back and at it again. I worked too hard on this feature article to have him get off on demolishing it. Please ask Brad to reopen Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Ebionites 2 and let's put an end to this. Ignocrates (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The archived case file is here. Ignocrates (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History#Guidelines desperately needed. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Policymic

Will you please take a look at the following thread and offer your opinion.[2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hasting Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics

Hi. I am in the early stages of trying to prepare some articles from the old Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics for inclusion in WikiSource, particularly those articles which in wikipedia are at a rather poor state of development, like, you guessed it, Ebionites. The article on "Ebionism" there uses a lot of Hebrew characters, and I was wondering whether you might, when I finish the general preparation, be interested in maybe checking to see if I am using the correct Hebrew characters, if you are familiar with Hebrew characters, which I am assuming you are. I am also going to try to add several other articles from that source, including about 36 (!) which have been called "classic" texts about Buddhism, and any which don't have articles here yet. Unfortunately, the Ebionism article itself is about 12 pages long on Word, so it might be a while before I get to many, if any, of them. Also, there seems to be some real possibility that ArbCom will review the conduct regarding Ebionites in the near future. If they do, I believe everyone would welcome any input you might be ethically capable of presenting.

I hope to finish the Ebionism article, and the Jainism article, for use in the current FAC Jainism article, and maybe a few others, in the next week. If you think you would have any ability, or interest, in helping in such matters, or if there are any other articles from that source you think would be particularly useful here, let me know. Thanks again. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

P. S. I recently went through the topical index of the online World Book Encyclopedia and the last, 2010, print version of the encyclopedia. The results can be found at User:John Carter/World Book articles. Don't ask me how the article on the RCC got so long in comparison to everything else, please, I dunno. But I do think that it might be useful as maybe a sort of starting point for the Simple English wikipedia to ensure that many or most of the topics in the WB are included, to some degree in the SE wikipedia as well. I am also going through the recent Lindsay Jones 2nd edition of the Encyclopedia of Religion, listing out both the comparative lengths of the articles, and the names and lengths of subarticles, in that work as well, and also checking it against the Mircea Eliade first edition, trying to ensure that the full content of both are included in the final, ultimate, outline. I expect that to take a month or so, actually. But, when that is done as well, I think we might have at least a good starting point for ensuring that are coverage of any number of topics related to religion is at least reasonably close to being really encyclopedic. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Userification request

Hi Jayjg :) I've been looking through some archives at deleted articles, and I believe Glynn Geddie, which you deleted after an AfD discussion, is now notable enough for an article. As a result, could you restore the article into my user area? That way, we keep together the page history, and I (possibly) have to spend less time redoing the article. Thanks in advance :) (I appreciate you're busy in real life at the moment, but there's no rush) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Request to take part in a survey

Hi there. I would very much appreciate it if you could spend ~2 minutes and take a short survey - a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. I sent you an email with details, if you did not get it please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. I would very much appreciate your cooperation, as you are among the most active Wikipedia editors who show a pattern of reduced activity, and thus your response would be extremely valuable. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Jayjg. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) by country is at AFD

I am contacting everyone who did any significant amount of work on Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) by country to inform them the article is now at deletion discussion at [3]. Dream Focus 16:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) by country is at AFD

I am contacting everyone who did any significant amount of work on Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) by country to inform them the article is now at deletion discussion at [4]. Dream Focus 16:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've PROD'd Antisemitism in early Christianity

As a professional courtesy, I'm letting you know since you edited Antisemitism in early Christianity only last year. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Antisemitism in early Christianity

The article Antisemitism in early Christianity has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Initially a WP:CFORK from Christianity and antisemitism[5] and has been tagged since its very first edit (?) as WP:OR. After removing all un-sourced content, it fails to prove its thesis in any way, and its content is already covered by the original article as well as the article on Anti-Judaism.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Archive search box

Y'know, you have a lot of archives to look through. If you could use an archives template which allows a search of the archives by word, that might help a lot. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Requesting input on Landmark/est

Hiya. Wondering whether you think that User:Jasonfward, who has recently shown an interest in Talk:Landmark Worldwide, might be the same Jason F Ward who is an attorney with a page here which indicates that perhaps there might be some sort of COI question involved. I myself don't do this sort of checking up on others much myself, so I'm hoping that maybe you have a bit more experience with such things. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Abraham Pinter page

Hi, you once minor edited the Abraham Pinter page which has yesterday all but been blanked by an editor. I do not wish to get involved in an edit war and so I have not reverted, but the page could do some input from a third party with some experience. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shackwelllane (talk • contribs) 10:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit I made there was years ago, and just housekeeping - I don't actually know anything about the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Your edit to Antisemitism

Hey there - it looks like you mistakenly undid a whole slew of other edits in the course of removing the part you find problematic. May I recommend restoring the previous version and then simply removing the part you wish to remove? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Done! Jayjg ^(talk) 05:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks for fixing that. I figured it was a mistake :) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Back?

When what to my wondering watchlist should appear but Jayjg! Man, I hope you're back and this isn't just a driveby. Wikipedia has been a little bit poorer without you. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, it's so nice of you to say that! I plan to edit more regularly going forward. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw your name show up as making an edit on one of my watchlist pages as well, finally. Good to see you back. FWIW, if it might be at all useful to you, I've been uploading quite a few reference books to wikimedia commons, most of which are included in one or more of the subcats here including the old PD Jewish Encyclopedia, here lately. If anyone wanted to go through that book, or any of the others, to see articles of significant length in them which we don't have here yet, that would I think maybe go a long way to helping ensure the really "encyclopedic" coverage of our content. I can say from experience that takes a while, but the results might be useful. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Advice regarding WP:PLACE

Hello! You are one of the contributors who edited the text of this policy, so I'd like to ask your opinion about the way of application of WP:PLACE guideline. More exactly, I tried to apply the general guideline no.2 for at least 3 alternative names, but some editors (all of them being Hungarians who support the keeping in the first phrase of the alternative Hungarian name) are claiming that this is not "a widely accepted approach". Please submit a comment at Talk:Alba Iulia to help us to settle the dispute. Thanks in advance! 79.117.183.29 (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"centred" edits

Hello, three of your AWB edits just came through on my watchlist. Just wanted to advise that the edits are adding an extra space in front of "centred". Thought you might like to know for future semi-automated edits of a similar nature. I've removed the extra spaces from the three pages I saw. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ebionites3: Revenge of the Ebionites

Nice to see you back! Please participate in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3 if you are so inclined. The case is at Workshop stage but given what I've read about the history of this dispute, you might have some special insight to offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It's unfortunate there's a case on this. I'll take a look. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Jayjg , I'm an uninvolved observer but I dug into ARBCOM's Ebionites1 (Request only) and Ebionites2 and can see that this debate has been going on, on and off, for six years now. Although it appears to be a content dispute about reliable sources, I think it's become a personality conflict. But since you have some knowledge of the dispute (many participants of early proceedings are no longer active), your perspective would be valuable.

I think the deadline for commenting on the Workshop proposals is tomorrow, Oct. 8th, and it will be on to Proposed Decisions. Thanks for being open to participating. Hopefully some permanent resolution will be found. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back Jayjg. Sorry to butt in, but the Workshop has been extended to Oct. 13th, so there is plenty of time to comment. Fyi, this is not Ebionites 2 revisited. None of the parties to that dispute have touched the Ebionites article in over two years except John Carter. The scope was restricted to two involved parties: myself and John Carter, and only for the previous 12 months (September 2012). This will hopefully result in a cleaner outcome and less collateral damage to other parties. You are one of the few uninvolved editors still actively editing (Nishidani is the other) who has been a witness to most of this ordeal. I'm sure your unique perspective in Workshop would be much appreciated. Ignocrates (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Liz, I love this title. :0) Ignocrates (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Ignocrates, it was either that or Ebionites3: Electric Boogaloo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The Workshop phase has now been extended to October 19th if you wanted to comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

And now, it is all over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

AWB edit

Hello, I notice that you appear to be engaged in a large-scale cleanup project with AWB. However, I'm not convinced that this change is grammatically correct. If you disagree, by all means do let me know. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you're right, that one slipped by me. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

synagogue porn

that you will probably appreciate: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/03/50-synagogues-temples-photos_n_4195093.html --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Whatever is happening

at the Crime section of American Jews probably should be discussed on the talk page. I started a discussion, please consider getting into it rather than just deleting stuff. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

PS. "Obvious" (you used in your revert) is one of the 27 words and phrases I've identified as meaning "in my opinion." It is rarely enough, so please state to obvious. Carptrash (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

He's only editing there because List of American Jews was already semi-protected against his edits; apparently this is some sort of "tit for tat" retaliation against some list of Muslims that has criminals in it - see this comment, this edit summary, and these comments. That alone is reason enough to reject the edits; the edit-warring with multiple IPs and dubious usernames ("JewishRabbiInNY") add to it, and the histrionic edit summaries are the icing on the cake. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Did I violate any rules, or did I falsify history by mentioning Jewish American criminals? Why was it deleted, its not as if I participated in the bashing of Jews, all I did was list criminals who are Jews with American nationality(only 5 of them, although I could've filled it up with a hundred or more, backed by authentic sources), consequently the crime section was deleted with the reason of "As per the Zionist lobby", when I asked why? the response I got was "orders, are orders" which was followed by a ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.101.174 (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Jahia Page Talk

Thanks for coming to me Puda. I looked at the links provided, and they appeared to mostly be press releases or non-notable. I think you're going to need a lot more. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I found other references that should comply with Wikipedia's notability and sources reliability guidelines.

CMS Wire, and here. A study from KSU, study from IDC, study from 451, from Ars Logica and an article from CNET. An article from W3 Reports for the CMS Expo. Company overview from BusinessWeek. JAVA CMS roundup from a blog.

Vulnerability report from Secunia.

Let me know. Also, if you find these articles are not notable, could you please explain why ?

Thx Puda (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey,

Still around? :-)

Puda (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Afranet

May I ask why the Afranet page has been deleted? We had long (very long) discussion about it and it has been decided to stay live. Please advise. ChazzI73 (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jahia

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jahia. 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. Puda (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review of List of Spanish words of English origin

Hi, I have very little experience of DRV. In 2009 you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish words of English origin as "delete". Subsequent to that, a full structure of such lists has been made in Category:Lists of loanwords to listify Category:Loanwords, following various CfD decisions, chiefly Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 17#Category:Loanwords. I therefore think it would be appropriate to recreate the deleted page. Please advise whether you would support undeletion, and what process would be required. – Fayenatic London 15:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted page recreated

FYI Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Gray (Entertainer) / Daniel Gray (entertainer). In ictu oculi (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year Jayjg!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Jayjg: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Category:Separation barriers

Category:Separation barriers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

Congregations
Thank you for quality articles on US congregations with a history, such as First Roumanian-American congregation (Gates of Heaven), and on Rudolf Vrba who escaped Auschwitz, for handling more than 100 arbcom cases, for being a Mensch - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (31 January 2009, 11 December 2010), it's your day, Jay!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 382nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of Spanish words of English origin

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Spanish words of English origin. 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. – Fayenatic London 22:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Open Classroom Charter School of Salt Lake City

The article Open Classroom Charter School of Salt Lake City has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable elementary school.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

1517 pogroms

Hi,

You participated to a discussion on that article. A short mind would be welcome here. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Merger of 1517 Hebron pogrom and 1517 Safed pogrom articles

Following your remark at the talk:1834 Safed pogrom#page title, you are welcome to participate in merger procedure of 1517 Hebron pogrom and 1517 Safed pogrom articles into Jewish communities during the 1517 Ottoman-Mamluk war. Discuss it at talk:1517 Safed pogrom#Rename.GreyShark (dibra) 22:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Definitions of pogrom for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Definitions of pogrom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions_of_pogrom_(2nd_nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Nomination of List of events named pogrom for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of events named pogrom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of events named pogrom until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to Consensus for a unified approach to bias categories at Category:Antisemitism

Due to your involvement in the 2011 CFD that decided on a unified approach to bias categories, you may be interested in a current proposal to change that approach with regard to the Category:Antisemitism. Dlv999 (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Beth Israel Congregation (Salisbury, Maryland)

The article Beth Israel Congregation (Salisbury, Maryland) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No claims to notability or independent sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TM 02:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Congregation Beth Israel (Malden, Massachusetts)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Congregation Beth Israel (Malden, Massachusetts) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. TM 11:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Congregation Beth Israel (Malden, Massachusetts)

The article Congregation Beth Israel (Malden, Massachusetts) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article lacks independent reliable sources covering the topic in-depth. I was unable to find significant sources online.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TM 15:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Congregation Beth Israel (Malden, Massachusetts) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Congregation Beth Israel (Malden, Massachusetts) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Beth Israel (Malden, Massachusetts) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TM 21:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

David Friesenhausen

if you were around you would appreciate this article I wrote. You would tell me it was horribly written, but you would appreciate the subject. hope to see you again here. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

as one of the more interested editors of Abrahamic religions article in the past ...

I wonder if you'd care to ponder my concerns at Talk:Abrahamic_religions#placement_and_undue. --Smkolins (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Good to see you back Shrike (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 18:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY!

--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Way. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you back

place isn't the same without you. Which some people probably appreciate, but tough on them. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate your saying that! Jayjg ^(talk) 17:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

CppDepend deletion

Hello Jayjg, some months ago CppDepend page was deleted due to leak of external resources talking about it, currently many known references talk about it. Could you please what you wait for exactly to not remove this page again and again :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.157.39.1 (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Which references do you mean? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

References included in the deleted page, like infoq, pcworld, and others, if they are not relevant I'm very interested to know please which kind of references are relevant.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.157.39.1 (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There were no references on the deleted page. There were some external links; only one of them was to PCWorld, the rest appears to be blogs and other WP:SPS. Were you suggesting that the entire article should be based on that one PCWorld review from 2010, or did you have other reliable sources you wanted to use as sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

References like these ones are not reliable? http://www.codeguru.com/daily_news/looking-for-to-improve-code-quality-cppdepend-version-5-available.html http://www.infoq.com/news/2014/10/CppDepend-5 http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/codergears-cppdepend-50-arrives/240169164 http://www.heise.de/developer/meldung/Sourcecode-Analyse-fuer-C-C-CppDepend-5-ist-erschienen-2412201.html

if not which kind of references are reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.217.72.19 (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if those sources are reliable. A good rule of thumb, though, is to ask "does the source have a Wikipedia article, and if so, what does it say"? By that measure, Dr. Dobb's Journal is likely reliable, but www.infoq.com, www.codeguru.com and www.heise.de are not. This is all hypothetical, though, because the article you keep reposting doesn't use any of those sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's possible to create again the CppDepend page with more references? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.157.33.199 (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You could try. Why don't you login with one of the accounts you've created? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, however I can't recreate it, the creation is blocked, could you please give us the permission create it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.157.33.199 (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you start by logging in with one of the accounts you've created - e.g. User:Guruwoman, User:JohnTerry21, User:David wild2, User:Rodifive, User:Cpparchitect, or User:Issam lahlali. Once you have, you can create a version of the article in your sandbox; then we'll have something concrete to discuss. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Modiano - List of Jewish Nobel Laureates

It is quite straightforward that Modiano is Jewish and as such should be included in the List Of Jewish Nobel Laureates. His work has been widely influenced by his Jewish background and his father's origins are mentioned everywhere in the press. We don't care that his mother is not Jewish. If both parents need to be Jews, you can certainly remove half of all these laureates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.122.160 (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2014‎

Wikipedia doesn't care if his mother is Jewish either; it just cares if reliable sources state that he is Jewish. Please review WP:BLPSOURCES. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources, such as LA Times, NYT, Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post... and basically any mainstream newspaper that stated that Modiano is born from a Jewish father. Unless Modiano himself said that he does not consider himself Jewish, there is no good reason not to include him on this list, as plenty of these laureates have only one parent that is Jewish. Being Jewish first comes from one's parents and unless you strictly follow "halakah", one parent out of two is certainly enough and this is the rule that is commonly used with regards to this list of Jewish Nobel Laureates. Besides, what about this article implying the author himself is Jewish ? Is the Jewish Daily Forward not a reliable source ? http://forward.com/articles/207102/patrick-modiano-french-sephardic-novelist-wins-nob/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.122.160 (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

So the best you can provide is one source "implying" Modianio is Jewish? Do you have any reliable sources that explicitly state it? Does Modiano himself say he's Jewish? That would be good enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The title clearly states that he's Jewish. A multitude of reliables sources states that he's born from a Jewish father. If you are looking for an interview in which he states "I am Jewish", then you can remove most of the people on this page. If you would have read his writings, you would understand that he has definitely been influenced by his Jewish background. Modiano is Jewish from his father, it's clear and sourced. It's been read and heard in every mainstream media (and I'm from France: I can tell you that his story has been widely covered and is very well-known). He definitely has his place on this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.7.112 (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What Wikipedia needs is a reliable source unambiguously saying he's Jewish. Look at the sources in the article itself for other Nobel prize winners: "NY Jewish doctor wins Nobel Prize in Chemistry", "French-Jewish physicist wins Nobel Prize along with American colleague", etc. There doesn't seem to be anything like that for Modiano, though. Do you have any reliable French sources unambiguously stating he's Jewish? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this sufficient for you ? Or is he Sephardic without being Jewish ? "Patrick Modiano, French Sephardic Novelist, Wins Nobel for Literature" http://forward.com/articles/207102/patrick-modiano-french-sephardic-novelist-wins-nob/#ixzz3H9YNtjOQ I don't know whether you understand French but this article (definitely a reliable source) also relates to his background. Quote "L’auteur, lui-même est juif et, par le biais de l’histoire de Dora, il rappelle l’histoire de tous les Juifs pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale", meaning "The author is Jewish himself, and through the story of Dora, recalls the history of all the Jews during World War II" http://salon-litteraire.com/fr/dossiers/content/1803246-patrick-modiano-ou-la-solitude-memorielle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.123.180 (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting question if one can be Sephardic without being Jewish, and I don't think one that's easy to answer definitively. As for the new source, it's good as far as it goes, but why did you not then include it when you re-added the material? In any event, the literature I read on Modiano is much more equivocal; aside from the one source you've found, pretty much everything else I see mentions that his father was Jewish, not Patrick himself. This is in contrast to sources discussing other Nobel laureates. In fact, most sources mention the different or "dual" identity as a result of both his father's and mother's ethnicities. A relevant article would be this one from La Croix, and in particular this paragraph:

Ces questions dont parle Queneau sont celles de la guerre et de l’Occupation, à travers l’histoire d’un homme né juste après, « absolument ravagé par l’idée d’être et de n’être pas Juif », que Modiano raconte, mêlant sa propre histoire à celle de son narrateur, sur un mode surréaliste, entre souvenirs et rêveries.

Does that indicate to you someone who is simply "Jewish"? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

First, in my opinion and according to my knowledge (I may be wrong though), being Sephardic or Ashkenazi without being Jewish is the same as being Sunnite without being Muslim... A non-Jewish Sephardi sounds like an oxymoron to me. Second, I have also read many sources that refer most often to his Jewish father (and Dutch mother, I guess Catholic). If P. Modiano is not to be considered as Jewish, what would he be ? Catholic ? Dutch ? That sounds wrong to me. From many elements such as his writings, his nature and own sensitivity, the letter he wrote to Serge Klarsfeld,... it is fair to say that he is absolutely marked by his Jewish identity and what happened during the War due to his father's origins. (By the way, as we've discussed previously, it is quite obvious that many Laureates on this page have only one Jewish parent). Third, the paragraph you are referring to from La Croix is very interesting. According to me it should be interpreted as follows: the "non-Jewish" part of his identity is symbolic in the sense that in a way, he cannot consider himself Jewish due to the fact that his family's fate during the war has been very different from the ones of most European Jewry... I do fathom that Modiano's identity building is complex but having known him long before he got the Nobel Prize, I definitely believe that he deserves to be included in Jewish literature as a Jew deeply affected by Jewish cultural determinants. If you agree, I'll add him with these two sources I've found. Otherwise, please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.2.31 (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

Congregations
Thank you for quality articles on US congregations with a history, such as First Roumanian-American congregation (Gates of Heaven), and on Rudolf Vrba who escaped Auschwitz, for handling more than 100 arbcom cases, for being a Mensch - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (31 January 2009, 11 December 2010), it's your day, Jay!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 382nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize,

AWB centers on

Avoid replacing all occurrences of centers around with centers on using AWB. If you are using this replacement on AWB you should read the sentence to make sure it preserves meaning. Your AWB edit on Shaheed Minar, Dhaka have been reverted twice; which means, you simply do not read articles or follow your edits. It is an abuse of AWB right. Evidences suggest that, your AWB right may need review. – nafSadh did say 01:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Centres around/on

While "centres on" may often be a sensible replacement for "centres around", I'm not sure that "at centres on the world" means the same thing as "at centres around the world", so I undid your edit. Qwfp (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I responded on the article talk page, but you are correct, thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jay- While it is certainly sometimes preferable, I don't think that "center~ on" need replace every instance of "center~ around" in Wikipedia. A bit of research will show that the latter construction is widely accepted—see usage note here—and I hope you are not campaigning to eliminate it throughout the encyclopedia. Eric ^talk 02:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop replacing "centered on" in every article with "centered around" without consensus. The sole purpose of creating this account appears to replace every "centered on" with "centered around". It doesn't appear to be correct every time and this is termed as spam. If you continue to make such edits then you may be blocked from editing. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A few links providing reasoned support for center around:

• Motivated Grammar (blog)
• Stack Exchange discussion
• AHD entry for center (see usage note) (dupe of my above post's link)
• Merriam-Webster entry for center (see usage discussion) Eric ^talk 17:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion is needed

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this consensus discussion? I know you did this last month, but it wasn't a formal consensus discussion, but now it is. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Alpha Pi Sigma

You were the admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Pi Sigma in 2011, so I thought that I'd let you know that based on the fact that "Google News" has about 20 hits for Alpha Pi Sigma and they've expanded beyond California, that I'm looking to make a stub for them. (And probably for Gamma Phi Omega which is the other member of NALFO without a chapter).Naraht (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

CppDepend deletion

As you suggested, I created a new page for CppDepend in my sandbow with more relevant external links, and here's the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guruwoman/sandbox Could you please confim that everything is good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guruwoman (talk • contribs) 12:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Lindsay Ashford

I see you're the guy who deleted the article on Lindsay Ashford (the famous one, not the unknown writer). Huge mistake. The debate on pedophilia is more vivid than ever, and I see him referenced regularly. The excuse for censoring him from Wikipedia was that he is not "notable". Which is kind of ridiculous when the only reason he was nominated for deletion was exactly that a lot of people noticed him and disagreed with him. You might want to re-think that decision :). As it stands, this is emberassing for Wikipedia. 2A02:FE0:C411:9D61:8CA3:A695:B419:8E8C (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russians in Azerbaijan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ivanovka. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the The Continuing Story of Carel and Ferd page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Checking AWB edits

Hi! I see that AWB caught you out on some of the edits you made yesterday, e.g. [6] [7] [8]. Maybe there are more? Please check!  —SMALLJIM  11:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Smalljim. I didn't see any others. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

David Irving

I hope your opposition to this content is not just because it is by David Irving. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

An English court found, in a libel suit Irving himself brought, that Irving "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence". In the case, Richard J. Evans, historian and Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, was called as an expert witness. Evans' wrote a comprehensive report that was an in-depth examination of Irving's work. In it he wrote:

Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian.

So yeah, it's because it's by David Irving. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand who Irving is and what he does. Trouble is, you have removed a quote from a letter that forms an important part of the story but not any part of Irving's revisionism. Do you doubt the accuracy of the quote? Macmillan obviously thought it reliable when they published the book in 1989 and I would consider the book a RS for basic facts and quotes, if not for general interpretation of events. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

They published the book in 1989, before Irving's lack of reliability was fully known and understood. When Evans reviewed Irving's work in 1996 (after the 1989 book was published), he stated "Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about." That's pretty clear, and would include any quotes from any letters. Please find a reliable source instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

If at a loose end...

If you happen to be waiting for a bus or at a restaurant or something and have a few moments, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is a page to visit now and again as one can easily delete stuff while on one's smartphone. These pages accrue at a rate of up to 100 a day, and many are nonsense. I've been doing this a bit when out and about...they mount up....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

congregations
... you were recipient no. 382 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Skyring and Head of State dispute

If you have time, could you help me understand a complex decision made in 2005 and what sort of decision or precedent it sets? Talk:Australian_head_of_state_dispute#AfD_continued_and_ArbCom. Thanks in advance Travelmite (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not really sure what you are asking; can you be more explicit? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Un-missing Wikimedian

Hi Jayjg.
It seems your appearance at WP:Missing Wikipedians where it says, "Last edited 3 November 2014" is slightly exaggerated. 220 of ^Borg 11:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to have missed a few thousand more recent edits. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Trevor Pears

Hi. Do you think we should remove the comment on this talkpage? It looks like a BLP violation and makes Wikipedia look bad IMO. Please ping me. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zigzig. Feel free to remove the comments if you disapprove of them; in any event, they're very old and no longer relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Pled

You have twice changed "pled" to "pleaded" on the Tim Labmisis article:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Lambesis&diff=720459736&oldid=715176915
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Lambesis&diff=721601916&oldid=721505142

While it may be grating, it's not incorrect. I suggest you stop making the change, or seek consensus from a wider community. Run an Internet search on "pled vs pleaded grammar". Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I have, and most reliable sources agree that "pled" although reasonably common, is incorrect. The Grammarist, the very source you use to justify your reversion, has a reasonably good summary of the issue; they conclude "But because pleaded is much more common and is unanimously recommended by English authorities and reference books (the dozen or so we checked, anyway), it is safer than pled." There would have to be an awfully good reason to deliberately revert out a word that "is unanimously recommended by English authorities and reference books"; I have yet to see it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Centres around/on, once again

Hello- I see that you have resumed your campaign to change every instance of centres around to centres on. As several of us told you in November 2014, you are out of line. Please do not continue with this obsession; it generates tedious clean-up work for your fellow editors. @Nafsadh, Qwfp, and Tamravidhir: Eric ^talk 03:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

May be you can take this to WP:ANI. --nafSadh did say 14:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Eric. I see you have pinged the people who commented negatively back in November 2014; however, getting agreement or support from the same individuals is not the same as an indication that I am "out of line", as you put it. Let's examine their objections:

• Qfp's point was simply that While "centres on" may often be a sensible replacement for "centres around", in a couple of cases I had made an actually incorrect substitution, to which I agreed, and for which I apologized. That is not the point you are arguing, nor is it the case here, so I don't think that's particularly relevant.
• Tamravidhir's argument was either that I was an WP:SPA or that I was spamming. Given my varied contributions to Wikipedia, the former is patently absurd, and the latter doesn't make much sense as far as I can tell. I don't think his arguments supports yours.
• Nafsadh's argument was that this edit didn't "preserve the meaning" of the sentence, and therefore I didn't "read [the] articles or follow [my] edits". Since the sentence before and after had, in fact, the same meaning, Nafsadh's argument was also unpersuasive - and, more to the point, not at all the argument you appear to be making.

Now let's get down to your argument, which is that while "center on" may sometimes be preferable, "center around" is an acceptable idiom. Let's look at two of your sources; the Merriam-Webster Dictionary states "Center around, a standard idiom, has often been objected to as illogical. The logic on which the objections are based is irrelevant, since center around is an idiom and idioms have their own logic. Center on is currently more common in edited prose, and revolve around and similar verbs are available if you want to avoid center around.". The American Heritage Dictionary states "71 percent of the Usage Panel accepted center around in the 1996 survey, suggesting that, logical or not, center around must be considered a standard idiom".

So it's true quite that some sources indicate that "center around" is acceptable. However, you admit that "center on" "is certainly sometimes preferable", and no reliable sources that I am aware of indicate that it is preferred. Even your source the American Heritage dictionary indicates that 29% of their panel did not accept "center around". Moreover, many other sources do not accept "center around". For example, the Oxford Dictionaries usage note:

The construction center around (as opposed to center on, or revolve around) has been denounced as incorrect and illogical since it first appeared in the mid 19th century. Although the phrase is common, it defies geometry by confusing the orbit with the fixed point: the earth revolves around (or its revolution centers on) the sun. A careful writer will use a precise expression, such as centers on, revolves around, concerns, or involves. "center", Oxford Dictionaries.

Other sources give similar advice:

"The term center around is illogical because the two words conflict with each other. (It is an oxymoron.) However, through common usage, center around has become an idiom meaning to make something a point of focus. It has probably developed from people taking elements from the terms revolve around and center on, both of which are logically sound themselves. In formal writing, it is best to avoid the term center around and use an alternative such as center on or focus on. ""Center On or Center Around?", Grammar-Monster

Other sources are even more emphatic:

Do not write center around because the verb means gather at a point. Logic calls for center on, center in, or revolve around." center, New York Times Manual of Style and Usage

Other style guides agree, as this source points out "British and American style guides generally advise against this usage on the grounds that it is illogical. The preferred prepositions to use with the verb center/centre are on and in...", and goes on to quote several style guides in support of that point. Note also, the point that this is not an issue of American vs. British English.
In summary, while some sources indicate that the term is acceptable, others are strongly against, it, particularly in "careful" or "formal" writing. An encyclopedia is not a novel or letter, but rather (one hopes) a carefully written formal document (we avoid, for example, the use of contractions, despite the fact that they are common and perfectly acceptable in informal writing). It's true that one of the many things I often do in the course of my wikignoming (what you repeatedly and rather uncharitably describe as an "obsessive campaign") is to change "center around" to "center on". The real question is, under what circumstances (aside from a very small number of actual errors), would one ever revert such a change, much less claim that it "generates tedious clean-up work for your fellow editors"? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I pinged all the users in those two discussion sections. That you see their input as negative is your view. I see it as helpful. There was no support for your campaign. As for the logic of center around, we are talking about common English figurative usage, not mathematical analyses of orbits. Eric ^talk 19:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

To summarize the salient points:

• While the other users' views may have been "helpful" in some sense, they certainly weren't helpful to your argument, since none of them made the argument you were making (and in fact, two of them weren't making any coherent argument at all).
• What you (continue to) pejoratively describe as a "campaign", is, in fact, merely wikignoming, something that is viewed quite positively on Wikipedia.
• Most critically, while some reliable sources indicate that "center around" is acceptable, none suggest that is preferred, and many reliable sources state that "center around" should not be used, particularly in careful or formal writing, exactly the kind of writing required in an encyclopedia.

If you object to my editing, the onus is on you to come up with some sort of source or policy based reason. As the posts above show, so far you haven't; "stop doing this just because I object" is not actionable on my part. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Not actionable? Really?? Are we in some low-literacy business meeting? This isn't about one person objecting to your editing. Several people commented to check your campaign crusade favoring one preposition over another in a common expression that employs either preposition interchangeably. Eric ^talk 01:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

List of Saga characters

Hi. I have reverted your edit to the List of Saga characters article for the following reasons:

On Wikipedia, citations used multiple times in articles are placed at the end of the supported material in numerical order from lowest to highest. I have never seen them intentionally placed highest to lowest. (If I'm mistaken and you know of a policy/guideline/MOS that says otherwise, please link me to it.)

In his cited review of the series, Keith Silva of Comic Bulletin explicitly called Izabel the series "most unique" character, which you can read here. You changed this to "most unusual", which is not what he said.

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

9/11 controversy listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 9/11 controversy. Since you had some involvement with the 9/11 controversy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Jayjg. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Jayjg.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Precious four years!

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi!!

I do not remember what you're referring to. Please refresh my memory. Thanks. Quis separabit? 23:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I was responding to your question to me at Talk:Diana Rowden. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Jayjg. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Louis C. Mosher

Hi Jayjg! Is there a way to establish his Jewish ethnicity? I would like to add him to the List of Asian Jews.Thanks!--Jondel (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jondel. Mosher is found on List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients, where his Jewish ethnicity is sourced to Scharfstein, Sol; Gelabert, Dorcas (1997). Chronicle of Jewish History: From the Patriarchs to the 21st Century. KTAV Pub. House. ISBN 0-88125-560-2, p. 320. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Your signature is also causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> → Jayjg ^(talk)

to

[[User:Jayjg|Jayjg]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Jayjg|<span style="color: DarkGreen;">(talk)</span>]]</small></sup> → Jayjg ^(talk)

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. BIK89 (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jayjg. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Carl Bergstrøm-Nielsen

Hello jayjg... user Maunus told me there had been a page with my name, Carl Bergstrøm-Nielsen, and Wikipedia gives me the info that you deleted on the 5.May 2017 in the WP:PROD way. Could you please tell me what this article was like and what was your reason for deleting? Respectfully, yours carlbn —Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Xois

Hi. Did you notice that I contested the CSD request? Kindly reconsider. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't. Where is the discussion of the contested CSD? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Found it. I've restored the article and removed the CSD request. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beth Israel Congregation (Jackson, Mississippi), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jewish Theological Seminary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Linking disambig pages

"Holocausto (disambiguation)" is linked explicitly like this (WP:HOWTODAB), so that wikibots do not report this wikilink as needing actual disambiguation (as in your talk page just above :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, please see MOS:DABPIPE: redirects are valid entries in disambig lists. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, you are partially right; please see Talk:Holocaust (disambiguation). Staszek Lem (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Mike Lester page

Hello! I sent you an email yesterday, but I read that I should also post here in case you didn’t see the email.

I am friends with Mike Lester, who is a cartoonist for The Washington Post. He has a page that keeps getting vandalized with personal details that are not relevant to his career. He asked me if there was a way to protect his page to prevent further edits for this? I'm not an admin, but I see that you are, so I wanted to reach out to you to see what is the best way to accomplish this goal. I appreciate any help or advice you can give.

Thank you!

Paula Graves paula.k.graves@gmail.com Pgraves6690 (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Paula. What is happening on the Mike Lester page is not "vandalism" as Wikipedia defines it; Wikipedia's definition is here. Also, biographical articles typically contain "personal details that are not relevant to [the subject's] career"; Wikipedia biographies are not supposed to be a curriculum vitae or résumé. That said, last month I brought the issue to the relevant noticeboard here; please feel free to comment there if you wish. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Good to see you back Shrike (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jayjg. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

Happy 2019! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

... and precious six years, DYK? - Happy 2019! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting, but that will not help

Thanks for protecting the History of Belarus page. However, it will not help the IP to go to talk as you wrote here, because the master account Craft37by was banned for such behavior in the first place. While the master tried to go to talk but he just continued to repeat the same POV, personal synthesis and other arguments with the addition of edit warring and ignoring what was written by others. You can read more at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Craft37by. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

And this is what I had in mind. With the addition of accusations that page should be protected for a very long time, because otherwise the restoration of content will keep happening. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I've reviewed this editor's history and ban, and extended the protection to 6 months. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory lead RfC

Hi! As you are one of the top contributors to Conspiracy theory, you may be interested in joining this discussion: Talk:Conspiracy theory#Lead (RfC). Thank you for your input. Leviv ich 06:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for doing so much, for so many years. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Trefa banquet

I'm still working on that page. It isn't finished. I've put banner on it. deisenbe (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

OK. You hadn't edited it for almost a day, and did edit a number of other articles, so it appeared that you were done. It's best not to leave "under construction" banners on articles (or leave them in that state) for extended periods. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Nalin Pekgul

I reverted your edit which deleted all the extra work I had done to improve Nalin Pekgul, which you stated was due to MOS:ETHNICITY. I have removed the word 'Kurdish' from the lede in line with this policy, but am not sure why you simply did not do this, rather than removing all the extra work I had done on the article, which was useful. I believe the article now aligns with the guideline you referenced, while keeping the extra citations and facts added from the Swedish version of the article. --Jwslubbock (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that's what I actually meant to do. Thanks for doing that. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)