User talk:Jayjg: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:13, 1 November 2012

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.

This is Jayjg's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43: 14 days

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Pogrom

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How did that go? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed without action. --Jethro B 02:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised. Essays aren't enforceable (they're typically just personal opinions), and it turns out that Wikipedia is a wiki. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

Hi. Any chance you might be considering it again? : ) - jc37 17:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you asked this of a number of former members; what prompted you to do so? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(And was tempted to ask it of more than I did.)

I have the impression that several of those currently on the committee won't be asking for another term. (For which I don't blame them - arbcom is one of the most ridiculously thankless tasks in all of wikipedia, and more, they're often treated horribly)

Perhaps it's nostalgia, but I was looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History. (It's fun to look at the timelines, the names remind me of past friends long gone. You see one name, and it reminds you of a dozen others.)

Anyway, while we've overall had some incredibly excellent arbitrators, I just started picking one then another at semi-random off the list. (Do I recognise this name? Were they, in my opinion, generally just this side of awesome?) Then stopped because I realised I might end up asking them all : )

As I noted above, I understand that arbcom is "an experience", and going by most people I've asked (including carcaroth, earlier), not one most prefer to repeat.

But I suppose it couldn't hurt asking (Though I did feel I owed an apology to User:jpgordon : )

Anyway, I'm sorry if I've bothered you. - jc37 05:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, you didn't bother me. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, cool : )

Sooo, maybe? : ) - jc37 02:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never say never. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God you're back

You were missed. Believe me. You know things are getting difficult when fanatical hotheads like me think that things are getting desperate enough that they try getting involved in mediation. Granted, mediators might be not be any more appreciated than arbitrators very often, but good mediators like you are something that should be prized very highly. And, I know Nishidani and a few others have what they think might be good reasons to not think you might make an ideal arbitrator, but I would myself at least strongly consider voting for you were you to be willing to put yourself under the microscope again. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you John Carter, you are very kind! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you editing; hope things are going well for you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your supportive words, and I am quite well. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uriah P. Levy

I made a bunch of additions, and I think some (e.g., order) are not in conformity with WP:MOS. Please take a look. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The order looked pretty good to me. I made one change. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It still needs content work, but it will have to wait until next week. Real life beckons. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religious

I saw in 5 articles on my watchlist that you removed the word "religious" from "Jewish religious law". I am not sure I think that was a good edit. But for sure I object against the edit summary you used for those edits "clean up using AWB". Please be more careful when using AWB that you place fitting edit summaries. Debresser (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of these deletions I saw were poor edits. Although there is a degree of tautology, in some contexts "Jewish law" sounds like it might mean Jewish statutory law, by analogy to Sharia law; it raises the question "wow is that really a law". --BozMo talk 09:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "Jewish religious law" is that it's a pleonasm. What other kind of Jewish law is there? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it needs to be clarified. It is not obvious for everybody the way it is for you. Not to mention that the law of the ancient Israeli kings could be implied. Debresser (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, I do understand why you did the edits but sometimes unneeded ephithets are useful, and the couple I put it back were places where I felt this one was. There are large number of people who do not know the difference between the country Israel and the Jewish religion just like there are a large number of people who think Britain invaded Ireland and annexed the North or who think Henry VIII founded of the Church of England. Yesterday someone commented to me they thought someone had been quietly avoiding dishes with pork in them at a function, could I think why? I send people like that to Wikipedia and they arrive here with thoughts uncluttered by knowledge. --BozMo talk 11:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can't decide on content based on an assumption that its readers are ignorant or will make highly unlikely inferences. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But we still have to assume that the reader isn't familiar with everything. Otherwise, why write an encyclopedia. You see here that at least two editors think this needs to be specified. Why do you find it so hard to understand, that this means that maybe they are right? Debresser (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not "familiar with everything" is not the same as ignorant. The term itself generally links to an article which can explain further, if further explanation is required. Two editors is not a quorum, or even a significant sample. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that it depends on the context of the page; sometimes it is obvious from context that only a religious law might be referred to. Sometimes it does not. But yes we have to think about readers and you are not well placed to judge what is a "highly unlikely inference" about the Jewish religion since you have a very high relative level of knowledge about it. If we were not concerned about readers we might as well write the encyclopaedia in Latin and forget about people too ignorant to understand it. Equally if I was editing an article on the continuous symmetry groups of nonlinear partial differential equations (in which I have a PhD) I would not try to make it comprehensible to morons but I would listen to other editors who said what I wrote was ambiguous even if technically it was not. --BozMo talk 10:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about replacing it with Jewish law? It avoids the pleonasm, and if people are confused, they can click on the link. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the ones I looked at that works. But I think you do need to check the context when doing bot replacements. --BozMo talk 03:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible and Slavery

You seem to be making changes to this page because of your personal opinion. Please join the talk page and explain why you think the dictionary definition of slavery (Oxford English) is wrong.

You stated;

00:21, 23 October 2012‎ Jayjg(talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,325 bytes) (+2)‎ . .(Undid revision 519294803 by 109.150.33.143 (talk) - doesn't appear to be slavery, exactly)

Where as the Oxford English Dictionary states, this is a definition of Slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.131.85 (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayjg:You may disregard this comment as it an IP of banned user User:Dalai_lama_ding_dong--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; I hadn't realized but it's obvious in hindsight. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish Nobel laureates + Jacqueline Susann

Please check your deletes there. I've given the sources fully. No justification for erasing my edits. עמירם פאל (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No justification aside from WP:RS and WP:OPENPARA? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of David

		The Barnstar of David
		A barnstar for your great work on Jewish-related articles, along with your careful maintenance of BLP guidelines on these articles. Jethro B 20:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your message

"Undid revision 520797500 by Faulknerck2 (talk) - actually, it's not. Why don't you try discussing this?" then why don't you cut off your own penis? or perhaps you can do it on your father , brother, children or anyone because it's "not a mutilation" according to your bigotry definition.