User talk:Jayjg/Archive 11

Thanks for visiting my Talk: page.

If you are considering posting something to me, please:

*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Use headlines when starting new talk topics.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Do not make personal attacks.

Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted.

Thanks again for visiting.

Old talk archived at Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10

Territories controlled by Israel

Thanks for your message, I've looked it over briefly and will examine it more closely as soon as I get a chance. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of it - it seems to be in the middle of an edit war and last I checked, the West Bank & Gaza were gone!! I've tried to follow the talk page but got lost. Anyway, I haven't forgotten, just wanted to let you know that it's frustrating.. Ramallite ^(talk) 06:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

File:Archives of the Indies.jpg

You did it! :) El_C

Arbitration note

Jayjg, raul mentioned to me about some sort of mentorship, I like the idea. I am not intentionaly screwing up ;) --Cool Cat ^Talk 19:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Archive award!

Dear Jay, for finally archiving your talk page, I am pleased to award you the following shiny image macro! Enjoy! Best regards, El_C 23:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please talk to Zora about this? :) --Viriditas | Talk 14:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War move

thanks for pointing me to additional info on the naming debate for the palestinian territories. i think i did in fact use that example in the right context. i was not current in the minutae but i feel the example did make sense (especially now that i read more on the topic). uri budnik 07:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

List of Vegs

Thanks, I think it was helpful. Wyss 14:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluidtime

May I invite you to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluidtime? - Tεxτurε 17:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

MEChA

Jayjg:

On your edit of the MEChA page: the campaign of developer Steve Soboroff did not participate in the criticism of Los Angeles Mayor (then-candidate) Villaraigosa for his past affiliations with the group MEChA during the 2001 campaign. A background fact-check will confirm this.

Best regards,

Inspectasobies

FuelWagon

I don't know what page in particular FuelWagon showed up at for the first time to revert a SlimVirgin edit. Please let me know. I assume it was not the RfC page, which had been a matter of existing contention. Since you say that the evidence is there, can you please provide me with at least a link? (I don't need a diff if I can check the history.)

As to your suggestion that I try to advise FuelWagon to change his behavior, I have tried, in particular on the RfAr talk page about his rant against Ed Poor. He essentially told me to butt out.

I can't tell him to quit stalking SlimVirgin unless I see that he is stalking her. Robert McClenon 21:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Saxet

Jay, I think you might want to go easier on User:Dervish Tsaddik. He seems to be doing his best in good faith as a new user, even if he has been supportive of contentious techniques. I have been doing my best to try to mediate, though I am not sure how successful that will ultimately be. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

A note

Jay, just a note to say I am not ignoring your request. I have things to say on the terminology and nuances but am too exhausted right now to say them and cite them properly. Not feeling 100% well for a week. Thanks for asking me. Maybe tomorrow or sunday. I want to dig up links which I haven't looked at in years; hope I can find them. Keep up the good work, and don't let people's nonsense get to you- hard to tell the real (semi)newbies from the new sockpuppets - and by the way, could you split some of your ill-gotten gains with everybody else?John Z 08:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I meant what Marsden or Dervish said, all the money you are getting, as confirmed by the two high-level admins, no? Doesn't that Jumbo Whales character demand a cut, too? :-)John Z 13:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Moab

I recently made extensive additions and revisions to Moab. Since you helped improve Edom after I did a similar overhaul on that article I thought you might want to know. --Briangotts (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

efoze??

Take a look at this guy's contribs; I assume it's spam, but I'm curious what. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a lost & found notice board; remove as spam, of course. El_C 09:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

English-language sources

Jay, there's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability about whether sources need to be in English whenever possible. Would you mind taking a look? Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Cool Cat, Davenbelle etc arbitration votes

I think you've voted twice on the third proposed finding of fact. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hanukkah bush

I'm not too happy about the faulty mechanics Jordain used to re-nominate this article. He did not create a new discussion. As a result, it appears to be a closed discussion, with a template saying not to edit it. I think this was a simple mistake on his part—I've struggled myself trying to figure out the proper procedure for a second AfD.

I'd like to make sure that potentially interested people are aware that the discussion is open, as I'd like to see a high level of participation. But for the life of me I can't figure out the technical means for doing this. I don't seem to see where the template indicating that it is closed exists. Any ideas? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. I figured it out. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Systemwars.com

Hi. Can I get your opinion of Tony's latest recreation and relisting of a valid VfD deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systemwars.com (second version). Thanks. - Tεxτurε 15:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Defense League

I'm really not sure what to say here, or even *if* i should post here; i have been attempting to bring the JDL entry more into line with reality -- by referencing FBI and State Department opinions, introducing factual reviews of past incidents, and that sort of thing -- but you seem to have frozen the page. I'm just curious if you've reviewed the history of the changes i've made? The page as it currently stands omits virtually the entire substance of all controversy surrounding the JDL, and any attempt that i've made to introduce information that provokes consideration of the JDL as a terrorist organization has been summarily removed. Stone put to sky 17:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Stone put to sky

ArbCom elections

Hello, Jayjg/Archive 11. In case you haven't noticed, I'm writing a special series on the upcoming 2005 ArbCom elections for The Wikipedia Signpost. In the October 17 issue, we will be profiling the current ArbCom members. Note that this should not be a platform for re-election; rather, it should serve as an insight into what you feel about the ArbCom, and your opinions of it are. Thus, I hope you don't mind answering a few questions. Many thanks!

1. Are up for re-election this year?
2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election?
3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom?
4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?
5. Weaknesses?
6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?
8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain.
10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently?
11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?
12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?

I hope you didn't mind me bombarding with you with questions; by no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of them. Thanks for serving Wikipedia, and for taking your time to help a Signpost reporter! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War

I only just saw your comment on Slim's talkpage. To "refute" something, you actually have to answer it in kind. You ignore, to your convenience, what the actual point was. It was that the title of the page reflects the POV of your faction and not that of the other side in the war in question.

Yes, the Arabs attacked on the Jewish holiday. But for whatever reason they still do not call the conflict "the Yom Kippur War" though. Your faction does. Please try answering that, Jay.

The point under discussion is not whether it is accurate to describe the war as "the Yom Kippur War". I am not interested in your and Slim's original research into whether it is accurate to describe the territories Israel is occupying as the "Occupied Territories". Accuracy has nothing to do with it, as I pointed out on that talkpage, because we are not here to judge POVs. We do not criticise them, Jay. We simply report them.

The point under discussion is, plain and simple, whether we use the common names for things as titles, or whether we should use an NPOV title. Which policy wins, Jay? And if we use a different policy for different pages, what is your standard for doing so? Are you seriously suggesting that a POV title is acceptable so long as it is accurate by your lights?

Jay, this is, I think, the point where you claim to have already refuted everything and that you're not going to bother to answer. You know you will win any dispute that comes down to numbers, because your faction is overrepresented in Wikipedia. But I am at least willing to give you the chance to discuss your view, a privilege you rarely extend to those you oppose. Grace Note 03:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

"The point under discussion is, plain and simple, whether we use the common names for things as titles, or whether we should use an NPOV title." - you seem to be operating under the impression that, in teh case of the Yom Kippur War article, these things are mutually exclusive. You are, of course, wrong. →Raul654 03:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Khazars

Shana Tova!

If it's not someone insisting that the Khazars are ancestors of all Ashkenazim, it's someone insisting against all evidence that no Khazars were ever Jewish. I could use your help dealing with this fellow. See [1] and [2]. --Briangotts (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm at a loss how to reply to his latest on the talk page. So I won't. Thanks for helping out with the vandalism patrol on this article. --Briangotts (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Holy drive by revert, Batman!

Have a look at [3]. Try giving me a minute next time XD I'm currently making fun of the situation @ Talk:David_Hilbert. All in good fun, of course... Sam Spade 22:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You Need to Stop Immediately

You need to immediately cease reverting my edits, or I will inform an administrator and have you banned. Jordain 20:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

CoC

Here is a proposed framework for an improved article; feel free to add to it and/or edit in the days ahead. Eventually - hopefully - it can replace the POV monstrosity that currently exists. Thanks...KHM03 23:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Persian/Farsi

Could I ask you to address my question at Talk:Jewish_American#Persian.2FFarsi since you seem to be one of the people who reverted? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

"Apartheid Wall"

In response to your comment on the issue I raised about renaming the "Apartheid Wall" article: I understand what you are saying and I appreciate the role you have played in trying to make sure that these types of articles steer a reasonable and moderate course -- and the grief you have received for doing so... but, I also think that what you have said justifies a slightly different name for the article in question. If as I believe you said, the article presents "arguments" (which I distinguish from being an article about the object in question) then shouldn't the title be something like "Apartheid wall" controversy? Or "Apartheid wall" debate? Or "Apartheid Wall" argument? Anything but just Apartheid Wall. If you say no, I will defer to your judgment and experience. 6SJ7 05:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Religion in Israel

Congrats on filling out this page properly. I was really suprised it didn't already exist—perhaps a topic so obvious it never occurs to add it. Islam in Israel remains an interesting sub-point which will hopefully elicit contributors. Marskell 22:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, it was deficient. I thought it might start out so when I suggested it and saw it was so when I moved it (and really didn't have the on-spot to knowledge to make it not so!). But the very creation of an article, even with one sentence and 1000 words begging to be added, can be a great way to move forward in edit wars. Once it exists, you have the right name and right placeholder for the info that was being reverted on a borderline page. Obviously no one can argue that Religion in Israel shouldn't exist as a page and (to be fair to FW) it's also hard to argue that the info he wanted in "Historical Persecution by Jews:" shouldn't be included in "Religion in..." (if it can be verified). In short, a fair compromise and a good page created :). Marskell 23:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Religious hatemongering and race baiting by Wikipedian "Fenian Swine (Play Brian Moore)"

---

Is this the way a proper encyclopedia is supposed to be run?? How dare any of the Irish censors (editors/administrators) dare refer to NPOV while the allow the below-referenced to continue unabated??

Demiurge, Djegan, Jtdirl, Ali-oops, PhilipO, etc. all hover around Fenian Swine's pages to protect him like guardian angels, and he is never sanctioned for any of his twisted hatemongering and his username (which is offensive and provocative, a no-no according to Wiki rules as I read them) which shows active support for a terrorist organization (the Provisional Irish Republican Army) and/or its supporters. In fact Ali-oops dismissed it with an "Naughty you!" (see below).

               EXCERPTS FROM "FENIAN SWINE (PLAY BRIAN MOORE)"'S USERPAGE

Hey. Notice you're still editing under that name. Naughty you! - Ali-oops✍ 15:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Very insightful.--Play Brian Moore 15:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Big word Brian Tunney, no what it means tho? Avril 15:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC) you want to ask tunney then ask him not me, gobshite.--Play Brian Moore 15:42, 7 :September 2005 (UTC)

* C,mon Brian/Bobby/Fenian/Swine/Muc, we all no u are Tunney HaHaHaHa do u no what it means HaHaHaHa --Avril 16:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

here the only thing I no in relation to you is that your a thick bollocks.It means an accurate observation BTW you sad bastard.--Play Brian Moore 16:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

* Please try to improve Bobby/Brian//Fenian/Swine/Muc. Now look here Old Chap, the only thing I know in relation to you is that you're a thick bollock. BTW, that means an accurate observation IMO, you sad bastard. Avril 11:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

be original bobby/avril/glen prats/carlos prats/muc/SAD BASTARD.there all you you unionist swine.--Play Brian Moore 15:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"be original" HaHaHaHa Tunney, nice one coming from a plagiarist tit like you HaHaHaHa. No what a plagiarist is Tunney? U need 2 learn 2 spell too. Avril 09:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

you need to learn the differnce between tunney and fenian swine but i wouldnt expect anything more from a protestant.--Play Brian Moore 00:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Avril was born into a fine catholic family, but from the age of 10 chose to follow a secular, atheist and agnostic path. Do not let your republican leanings cloud your judgement, what chance is there for WikiPedia if that becomes the 'norm' HaHaHaHa. Avril 10:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

i suppose atheism is better than protestanism.--Play Brian Moore 20:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

* Have to agree with that Fenian, looks like we can call a truce now ;-) How's your pal Tunney? I declare a truce with him as well. Avril 18:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why is he allowed to use a provocative and offensive username, which Wikipedia instructions clearly direct the would be-Wikipedian NOT TO USE, which in this case clearly indicate support for or active volunteering in a terrorist organization, the IRA. Why was my former Username "Taigkiller" immediately blocked by "Jtdirl" as "derogatory", while Fenian Swine's has not ever been??

This is clearly a concerted effort to block the ugly (or uglier in some cases) truths regarding the (all deceased) Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, John Charles McQuaid (averred by the late Noel Browne to have been a pedophile), Eamon de Valera, Michael Cusack (who founded the GAA, see below), among others

All of my edits have been factual (never denied by anyone except for the boilerplate ubiquitous NPOV), and in some cases footnoted or quoted directly from the Irish Constitution (McQuaid), (excerpt from) James Joyce's Ulysses (Michael Cusack), (quotes from) Tim Pat Coogan (in his book on the IRA) re his clear pro-nationalist (if not pro-republican) biases, and, in the case of de Valera, simply facts that are readily available and which expand on the soft-soaping of his more horrific behavior (i.e. denying refugees entry in Eire during WWII, thus causing thousands, perhaps many thousands, of lives to be lost which was eventually reported by Andy Pollak many decades later in the Irish Times some years ago).

This has nothing to do with NPOV (which is usually subjective), it has to do with dealing with the brutal honesty that important issues require even at the cost of offending the Irish Catholic censors, apologeticists, and relentless propagandists who have kept the horrific brutalities perpetrated by Irish Catholics from the October 1, 1910 (95 years ago) bombing of the Los Angeles Times, primarily by the McNamara brothers (Jim and John) that killed 21 Americans (no public memorials to them) to the fatal WW2 refugee policies of Eamon de Valera which is soft-soaped in the only format the censors will permit to stand (and at last view was locked in) to the ethnic cleansings of Protestants and Unionists from the Irish Free State and most recently, Northern Ireland. In fact what does Fenian Swine contribute to the Wikipedia community that this should be indefinitely tolerated, and he not be expelled ignominiously from the Wikipedia community (although admittedly he could always come back under a different alias)??

1) He spews religious and racial hatred. 2) He cannot write English properly. 3) His contributions are limited to neighborhoods in or around Dublin, and to the GAA - an ultra-sectarian, ultra-nationalist, pro-IRA "Irish sports" association that bans "foreign games" (rugby, soccer, etc) from being played on its tax-exempt fields, and which is of no interest to anyone who is not an irredentist Irish nationalist.

Respectfully submitted,

Rms125a@hotmail.com 00:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Rfc

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay KHM03 12:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the response! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 19:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Israeli Arabs

Please see comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israeli_Arab. Thanks. (adn thjanks for your help on the barrier. It stopped the edit wars. Zeq 19:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Vfd

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Day of Atonement, Christian - please vote. JFW | T@lk 03:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your vote in my RfA. I'll do my best to live up to the wiki standards and be a good admin!

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

nice

Nice to see you can always find a compromise, so long as its exactly the wording that you want. I am of course referring to your blind reversion here with the quite useful and specific edit summary "restore important fact and precedent". My previous edits fixed grammatical problems with passive voice and removed subjective policy requirements. There are no "facts" that were deleted with my edit, only your personal POV on the matter. And there is no "precedence" here since SlimVirgin only put this into the instruction page after I filed the RfC against her a couple months ago, and I've been disputing her modification since. But of course, "facts" and "precedence" are really cover words for "what Jayjg wants". keep up the good work. FuelWagon 18:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Terrorism

Can you check out Talk:Terrorism? Something has been attributed to you that doesn't sound like what you'd say. - Tεxτurε 18:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Zionist terrorism

Mirv, and a coterie of sympathetic editors are engaging in a buffing campagine, could you take a look? Klonimus 01:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Categ:Jewish diaspora, vfd

Hi, Category:Jewish diaspora has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 16. IZAK 04:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Please be more careful with reverts

This does not strike me as a sound revert, nor the right wording regarding it. Please be more careful with reverts and edit summaries. Sam Spade 20:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The revert was sound, the reasoning was sound, and please do not bring up 3 month old edits on my Talk: page any more. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

If there was any basis for that revert (which you have chosen not to explain) the personal attack was of course unwarranted.

I will continue to bring attention to unfortunate misuses of the revert function, and politically motivated personal attacks in the edit summaries. If you refuse to accept or discuss your mistakes, and they continue, I will of course go forward with the next step of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. Sam Spade 12:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon RfC

Hi. I wanted to bring to your attention that an RfC has been posted concerning User:FuelWagon. Please add any comments you believe are appropriate. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 23:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Accusations?

Hello, I don't know if it's appropriate for me to be writing to you, but I really am concerned about something. I have an arbitration case brought against me, and I cannot find out what I am being accused of. The case says the case has beeen opened mainly to consider the behavior of REX. That doesn't mean anything. I asked all the arbitrators who accepted the case what I was being accused of (ie what behaviour will be considered) and none of them would (or could) tell me. It is not fair, how can they expect me to defend myself against accusations I don't know? I suspect bias in this case, because once a suggested that an arbitrator espouses double standards and then in a few hours, I have a request for arbitration against me by, that same arbitrator, with the purpose of considering the behaviour of REX, and in a few weeks, it is accepted. I think OK, what am I being accused of? and I can't find out, there isn't even an accusor. The case's whole point is to consider my behaviour. Interestingly enough, when the case was accepted, that arbitrator notified all the people who I was in dispute with and did nit notify anyone who supports my views. What should I do? (I am asking you, because you are known as the kind and reasonable arbitrator by almost everyone). I don't want to end up being banned for something as trivial as implying that an arbitrator has double standards (it may not be wrong either, a casual glance at that arbitrators talk page would reveal that his "way of doing things" has been questioned before). Please reply (even if it is to tell me to leave you alone). REX 18:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFAR/SV

Re: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Stevertigo/Proposed_decision#Ommision_of_fact

I understand that some are quite busy and may have missed recent discussion and questions regarding my Arbcom matter. Ive taken the liberty of posting here to remedy any inadvertent oversight regarding my case. Sinreg, St|eve 22:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Help with anonymous apparent obsessive

Hi. 69.193.242.60 seems to be obsessed with me, based on his behaviour on Talk:Israeli-occupied territories. What should I do about it? Thanks, Andjam 17:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Jay, that is completely false. I hold no such obsession; I felt my comments were topical, if a bit light hearted at times, but without malice. 19:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The Signpost

Hello, Jayjg! I just wanted to deliver this week's issue of The Wikipedia Signpost, which features the current ArbCom, directly to your front door. :-) Also, if you wish to read your fellow Arbitrators' full and unabridged responses, you can find them here. Thanks again for all your help! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:613 mitzvot

Please have a look and offer your comments here. JFW | T@lk 10:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources for allegations of unsolicited email from NGO monitor

Thanks for your comments regarding my edit to the NGO monitor. I agree that it's important to be accountable when making these sorts of claims. Specifically, you asked for a source for my claim that the NGO monitor sends out unsolicited email. I did a fair amount of google searches and couldn't find any specific web sources mentioning it. All I have is my personal experience of being recieving their emails unsolicited. The emails themselves contain no unsubscribe information and a search on the website brings up no hits for "unsubscribe." I've replied to their emails and requestetd to be unsubscribed but have gotten no response.

Do you have any suggestions on gathering further evidence to support my claim? I could forward you one of the emails to show that it has no information on how to be removed from the list... Let me know what would be most helpful. mennonot 18:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Ten Commandments

FDuffy (talk · contribs) has been working his magic on Ten Commandments. Please review the edit history. JFW | T@lk 12:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Ariel (City)

Palestinian/Disputed territories cruft. I sense a possible little edit war brewing. IPT insists on using the term "Palestinian" territories, since the land in question has not been given to the Arabs, it's not "palestinian" yet, it's disputed at best. Klonimus 03:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

AIDS conspiracy theories...

...was just moved to AIDS origin theories by ((User|Zen-master)). Did I miss something? --Calton | Talk 00:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

My e-mail-to-user link is enabled but won't do much good, since I can't access my e-mail until I get home from the office in the evening (about 10:00 UTC). Expect delays, forgetfulness, and -- if my overly strict e-mail filter overreacts and trashes/redirects -- even my not knowing about e-mails. --Calton | Talk 05:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you considered creating an e-mail account where people could actually reach you, say a Hotmail or Gmail account? Been there, done that, but since my workplace explicitly blocks those sites it doesn't do any good. --Calton | Talk 06:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your support. I know we've had our small differences ;). --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Renaming

Jay, can you please not rename the History of the Jews in... series? At least without discussion? --Goodoldpolonius2 05:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it has been "discussed many times" and the link that you gave me did not seem to address the history articles at all -- the only talk we had about it that I know ended with my last response, see Talk:History of the Jews in Algeria. I could agree to changing the names to Jews in ___ but not to the "Algerian Jews"-style names you were moving things to (for the reasons discussed on my move comments). Anyway, it would have been nice to keep me in the loop on these moves, given that I think I started about 20 of these articles. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see the discussion now -- but I think that ___ian Jews is not a good title: History of the Jews in Spain could become Jews in Spain, but not Spanish Jews, for obvious reasons, a similar problem would occur with Algerian Jews (as opposed to Jews in Algeria), etc. If you want to start relabelling to Jews in ___ and fixing double redirects, we could take that approach. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Email

Hi Jayig,

Are you now able to email me? Andjam 05:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor RFA

Hi Jayjg, I'm blown away that you are supporting AE for adminship. Look at some of the diffs people on the oppose side have linked to! Yes, there are a few bigoted nutters on the Oppose side, but there are more who just think this guy has spent his brief Wikipedia time as an apologist for his particular POV, for example his belief that Hamas's persecution of gay Palestinians is "irrelevant to Wikipedia". Regards, Babajobu 08:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)