User talk:Jayjg

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 or use the page for harassment. Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting.

RfC: Weight given to historical revisionist views

I have not found much in the way of guidelines for political/nationalistic/religious-based historical revisionism that seeks to rationalize, sanitize or idealize the past in a way that promotes a particular political/nationalistic/religious PoV. There is a current RfC at Juan Manuel de Rosas that needs more input than just the parties involved so far. Since you have dealt with similar situations in the past, and whether you agree with my take or not, I would appreciate your insight and any guidelines that would apply there and for future reference (this type of sparring occurs regularly). Thanks. • Astynax ^talk 20:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a very complex discussion. I think it requires knowledge of Argentinian historians, and schools of Argentinian historiography; unfortunately, I don't possess that knowledge. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Constant Rijkenberg

Please undelete this article. The rules for poker biographies have been changed, see wikiproject:poker. One EPT win or a win of over $1 million is now sufficient. He won an EPT for over $2 million, among other things. And he's still always in the news, since that deletion took place, including becoming a sponsored pro for Partouche Poker. DegenFarang (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've started a Deletion Review discussion for you. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 18. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your level-headed focus on policy in both content and conduct, and your encouragement to others - often with carrot, sometimes with stick when necessary - to do the same, even when the discussion gets heated. Your efforts have been very much appreciated. Zad68 16:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of fpp.co.uk links, etc

Jayjg, I understand and agree with removing links to the works of David Irving, but some of your removals are throwing out valid citations (e.g. to the Times and the Independent) which are merely copied onto Irving's website. I don't want in any way to defend or highlight Irving, but most of the references are to things unrelated to his Holocaust denial. Clearly, alternatives should be sought, but I am afraid they won't be if you don't leave a hint as to what was removed. Is it possible to simply tag for deprecation and cleanup? Malay Agin (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the speed at which you removed the links I would assume you did not read many of them? The ones removed seem to me to be often rather less offensive than the ones left for example on es.wikipedia see [1] --BozMo talk 13:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally how did we get quite so many links in the first place? --BozMo talk 13:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If a source fails WP:EL, then we shouldn't be linking to it, even as a "convenience link". You may have noted that if the items had a proper source (e.g. "Story about Mr. X", The Guardian, May 23, 2007)", then I generally just removed the link. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jayjg. You have new messages at Ignocrates's talk page.
Message added Ignocrates (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks in advance. Ignocrates (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:STALK and WP:HARASS probably apply, specifically to Ignocrates. He seems to be doing little if anything by way of constructive edits since I warned him about his habit of abusing others on the talk pages of other editors, specifically in this case Dougweller, and honestly all I see is the same sort of behavior which led me to think that he himself probably deserves to be taken to ANI, particularly considering that just about the only thing he seems to be doing lately is, basically, stalking me. John Carter (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are the one following me around and commenting on my edits. As to being "taken to ANI", I suggest you be careful what you wish for. Ignocrates (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Ignocrates, the evidence rather clearly proves you wrong. Your recent dialogue with Pass a Method, for instance, only came after I and others raised questions about that editor's basic competence, as can be seen per that editor's talk page and the history of you and I there. Also, honestly, if one were to review the recent pattern of edits, I think it is clear that since I warned you on Dougweller's talk page about your almost hysterical claims that In ictu oculi should be taken to ANI for matters which in no way merit such attention, you have, basically, been all but silent. I realize that since you have been warned about your clearly unacceptable conduct more than once on this matter, you, basically, are forced to engage in harrasment such as this, and I do think that if this matter were to be brought before ANI, the probable outcome would be that you, whose recent history has been little if anything beyond making accusations, are the one far more likely to be in some way sanctioned for misconduct. I gave you some lenience in the past, because, as I said before, you have, at least until the recent past, been at least once in a while in behavior other than harrasment, but that seems to have stopped since the Dougweller warning. I really wonder whether anyone would think that someone whose apparently sole current purpose is to basically make snarky comments about others is really here to contribute to an encyclopedia. And, FWIW, unlike you, I actually am trying to do a few other things around here lately, so I doubt I will notice if you make another basically pointless and less than productive snarky comment as the one above.

BTW, Jayjg, I am working on an article list from the one-volume Wigoder Encyclopedia of Judaism, which might be ready in a week or so. When it is finished, I will probably post a notice to it on the Judaism WikiProject talkpage, and I do think it would be useful if someone who might know the subject better reviewed the list. A lot of the shorter entries seem to be quotes from verses and other sources, and I'm probably not the one to best decide which if any extant article here most clearly and directly relates to it. John Carter (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've found that commenting about other editors is rarely helpful, even when (rightly or wrongly) I think they richly deserve it. I'm not always perfect at avoiding making such comments, but I try my best. Can I still recommend to everyone that they simply don't mention the other editor at all going forward? I think that will help ease tensions. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

First, I am more than willing to send you the entirety of the e-mail exchange between Ignocrates and myself, which consisted of three e-mails total, the first in which I tried to be conciliatory to a degree after his retirement, the second of which involved what I did and continue to regard as frankly insane aspersions on myself by him, and the third in which I admit having lost my temper. Since then, and, specifically, since his return from retirement, during which, so far as I can tell from the reasons he gave for his return on his user talk page, he has done little if anything along the lines of the reasons he gave for his return, he has continued to engage in the sort of abusive talk page edits which were so frequent here for a time. At this point, I honestly cannot see that I have any reason to assume good faith of Ignocrates, or, for that matter, to assume even a basic grasp of policies and guidelines if they do not support his promoting his own personal opinions. Also, it is worth noting that just about every comment he has made has been on a page which shows up on my watchlist, and in general I think I have only commented regarding him when I see his name appear as the most recent edit on that list. So, in short, I have not been "stalking," but observing the often problemattic, inflammatory, and irrational conduct of what seems to me to be a committed POV pusher. That is considered acceptable by policies and guidelines. If Ignocrates were to perhaps get over his longstanding greivances against me which seem to be based almost exclusively on his having, basically, lost an argument regarding the content of what seems to have been the only article he had been significantly involved in, and perhaps refrain from the sort of bombastic, irrational, inflammatory, and well silly behavior that he seems to have adopted, particularly regarding me, since then, there wouldn't be a problem. Once in a while he has shown an interest in actually trying to build the encyclopedia in accord with policies and guidelines. Sadly, that seems to be more of the exception than the rule of late. If that were to change, then, certainly, I would have no reason to continue to feel the need to review what seem to me still to be generally problematic edits. Basically, so far as I can see, it's up to him. If he begins to predictably conduct himself according to wikipedia principles, guidelines, and policies, I would have nothing to say about him. As long as he continues to do otherwise, however, I can honestly say that I do see that my monitoring his conduct is more than acceptable as per guidelines and policies. John Carter (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent discussion on Elazar Shach page

Hi,

Your input would be appreciated here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elazar_Shach#Works

Yonoson3 (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked, but I'll assume it's the usual; Chabad followers trying to discredit Schach. I wish I had the time and energy to deal with these kinds of persistent, on-going policy violations, but unfortunately I don't. Perhaps you could try some of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution suggestions; I'm sorry, but it's the best I can do right now. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)