User talk:Jayjg/Archive 38

Conflict of interest noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:COIN#Ebionites regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As informal mediator of the content dispute on the Ebionites article, I thought you might want to know about this. Ovadyah (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The formal mediation process has aborted due to lack of mediators. Jayjg, would you be prepared to act as mediator again, either formally or informally, if John Carter withdrew his objection? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 02:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with this suggestion. However, John Carter may first need to deal with some copyright issues. Since we have already given our initial statements, would you might stepping in as the formal mediator? Ovadyah (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani has just informed me on my talk page that he is dropping out from editing the article, at least in the near term, and will therefore not be participating in the mediation. As both of you know, I have great respect for Nishidani's scholarship, and I think we could have worked through his concerns over method. Of course, I have no objection to his joining in the the mediation process in the future if time permits. Let's move forward. Ovadyah (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to try mediating again, if John Carter agrees. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The formal mediation is now closed for lack of a mediator. I'm not sure where this leaves us. Probably nowhere until my COIN is resolved, so maybe we should just wait a bit and then regroup. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to report that my COIN has been archived with no action taken. John Carter appears to be off-Wiki for an extended period, so let's revisit the mediation discussion when he returns. Back to constructive editing. Ovadyah (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that the COIN is over, I ask again that this attack page be removed. The stated purpose of this page was for COIN, and that is ended with no action taken against me. There is no constructive reason to keep it around. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've asked him to blank it now. Let's give John a couple of days to respond. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

John Carter appears to be off-Wiki for an extended period. How much longer do you want to wait? It's dirty pool to set up an attack page against another editor, direct people to it from an article talk page, and then just disappear. Ovadyah (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding the copyright violations at User:John_Carter/Ebionites, he has been asked twice now to take care of it here and here but has so far refused here. It might be a good idea to keep an eye on that too, as Smartse is not (yet) an admin. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't copyright allow quotes? I can't see that JC's evidence page is that terrible - if he wants to keep it, let him. But he should remove any libellous stuff. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 14:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You can copy excerpts from an article as quotes, but you can't copy an entire encyclopedic article and say that the entire article is a quote. The problem is compounded by leaving links on the article talk page, and individual editor's talk pages, that direct other editors to that page. This is a policy not a guideline, so copyright is either respected here or is isn't, here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Ovadyah (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The page has been deloeted. Noting that the request for formal mediation has been rejected, and that I see clear problems with the behavior of editors who have engaged in a significant degree of policy and guideline violations, I am having to consider whether the only way this matter could ever be really resolved would be through arbitration, in part based on the obvious POV of some of the editors involved and their refusal to get to the point. In all honesty, although I have no particular objections to the informal mediation proposed, I don't see how it is necessarily likely to make the article more clearly adhere to the encyclopedic standards required as per the first pillar of wikipedia as per WP:PILLARS. And, of course, it should be noted that Ovadyah has been maintaining his own attack page for some time, but apparently had no objections to that. ;) John Carter (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

O.K., the issue of the page appears to be resolved. I'm happy to try informal mediation again, if all parties agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree to mediation, whether formal or informal. It should be noted that formal mediation was accepted, and it was only archived for lack of a mediator. The root of this dispute is over content, and the matter should be resolved there if possible. Ovadyah (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael has already assented to mediation (see above), so let's re-initiate formal mediation with Jayjg as the mediator. We have already made our opening statements there. Jayjg can you notify AGK, or do you want one of us to do it? Ovadyah (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree that the root of the discussion is about content. So far as I can see from the article talk page, there has been no support for Eisenman or Tabor being included in the article by any parties other than Michael and Ovadyah for some time now. Given that lack of support, I have to say that there is a fundamental behavior question regarding ]WP:IDHT on the part of both of those individuals. Honestly, I have seen nothing which would indicate to me that either of those parties has any intention of ever acknowledging that the fringe theories they support, including those of Keith Akers (which may be related to Eisenman) should receive much, if any, weight in the article. On that basis, I am still very much thinking that arbitration may be the only way to address the matter, although I suppose there might be some reason to give mediation a chance, if the problematic behavior mentioned above does not continue. I would specifically think that following content guidelines, which I do not believe has been done, would be a necessity. I do not know that any independent reliable sources which specifically support the theories of either Eisenman or Tabor since they have been published have yet been produced. In fact, I believe the issue has been avoided. I would believe the best way to indicate that mediation would be useful would be for that matter to be addressed quickly, and no longer basically ignored as it has been for some time now. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. If you believe this dispute is not about content, why did you initiate formal mediation? Ovadyah (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

One, the dispute is only partially about content, as I think all recent input from other than you and Michael have indicated the sources fail {{WP:FT]]. Thus, while content is involved in the discussion, the larger conduct issue of WP:IDHT is also relevant. And, of course, it would be good to try all options before taking the final step of arbitration, at least in part to ensure that the problematic conduct is still ongoing. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case, are you prepared to resume formal mediation? Ovadyah (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, John Carter has not yet assented to mediation. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind dropping a note on his talk page asking him if he does or does not intend to resume mediation? Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm certain he's watching this conversation. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right. In that case, I'll resume constructive editing on the article, and I'll see you in the next round (whatever that is). Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Since our efforts toward resuming mediation are at a standstill, I am attempting to work out some of the outstanding issues one-on-one with Nishidani on my talk page. I hope this will eventually provide some impetus to the larger group of editors to resolve our differences over content. Ovadyah (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

John Carter filed for Arbitration today on the Ebionites article, so I guess that means "no" to mediation. Imo, that is a mistake. We have been making good progress on the article. Ovadyah (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the arbcoms is suggesting that mediation should be resumed (see the arbcom entry). If you both could comment on this, that would be helpful. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The formal mediation page and formal mediation talk page have been deleted, so the discussion of further attempts at mediation is now moot. Ovadyah (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on Nishidani's talk page asking him to clarify his status to Newyorkbrad and the arbitration committee. If he is an involved party, I'm pretty sure Brad wants him to either accept or decline mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If I am understanding Nishidani's explanation correctly on the arbitration page, he is in effect recusing himself from mediation by reclassifying his status to that of an uninvolved party. (I apologize if I have this wrong.) That's an important distinction because a recusal is not a rejection, and therefore the mediation process continues. We are back to waiting on John Carter in what is now a three person mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I really don't know what to do there, but I suppose it can indeed be taken as an effective recusal. The precedent was that, given our prior difficulties, I thought I should recuse from the earlier meditation becaue my presence there, due to my own oversight, might have complicated things, and Jayjg concurred. I have, throughout this, I think, tried to maintain a certain neutrality with regard to the 3 historic parties, and focused just on the text. I am effectively uninvolved because for the forseeable future I won't be dedicating any concentrated effort on the article, and haven't in the past.

By the way Jayjg, just by coincidence, I noted that 'Daiches' is registered on a wiki page as a Scottish name. I can't ascertain precisely its etymology but it is associated with a distingushed line of Lithuanian rabbis, as you must know. Perhaps you'd like to check it, and, if I'm correct in my surmise, correct it (Lithuanian? Hebrew? Lithuanian-Hebrew?) Nishidani (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually know its etymology, but it is associated with a long line of Lithuanian rabbis, and we do have articles on two of the scions of that family, David Daiches and Jenni Calder. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, at the risk of confusing even myself, let me try to put this in terms of a risk/benefit analysis. If you are planning on participating in arbitration as an involved party beyond the opening statements - that means once the pages are opened, contributing to the Evidence page and findings of fact on the Workshop page just like last time - the doors to the cabin are closed and you are along for the ride. Two consequences result from taking that position (and it's fine with me by the way). 1. Mediation is rejected by one of the involved parties. In that case, there is nothing to be gained by waiting, and we should tell Nyb to move immediately to arbitration. 2. The behavior of all participants is evaluated in arbitration. While I personally feel that the risk to you is very small, it isn't zero either. Ovadyah (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediation proposal

Perhaps we made a mistake in the previous mediation round by starting with the most contentious issues, relating to relationship of James to Jesus and the Jerusalem church. Perhaps we could restart mediation if we tackled some of the other issues first; I suggest we start with the relationship of the Ebionites to John the Baptist and/or their possible Essene origins? Ovadyah, IIRC, indicated that there have been developments in this area in the last few years, and JC's position is closer to mine (I think) on this than other topics. Perhaps if we could get going on this it might be easier to tackle the other stuff later? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I'm open to any reasonable proposal to resolve even part of this dispute through mediation. That's what I tried to do with Nishidani on my talk page. However, arbitration has been accepted, and it is temporarily being held in abeyance. Nishidani can't recuse himself from mediation, arguing that his involvement was too tangential, and then have at it (that is to say have at you) in arbitration. As I tried to explain above, he is either in or out. If he is in, he has already rejected mediation and it's over. We move on to arbitration. If he is out (by changing his status to an uninvolved party), he has recused himself from mediation and the entire arbitration process. If that's the case, we can keep mediation going with three parties. That's what we need to know from him before we can move forward. He is either all in or all out. Ovadyah (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the risk/benefit analysis. If there were a risk I would be in like Flynn, for the sheer thrll of running a gauntlet. There is no 'risk' to me there. There is no benefit, either, since whatever happens, what it means is rather boring. I know the article and the subject fairly well. It is irremediably blocked, and turns on a number's game basically. I prefer to keep the status I've always had there, i.e., of someone quite happy to chip in if help is asked for. Nishidani (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to let this go. I realize now that I have been arguing my points based on an unwarranted assumption - that it is hypocritical to spend no time actually contributing content to an article, or working through content-related issues in mediation, but it is perfectly fine to lecture and bully other editors as to what they should and shouldn't be doing on the article talk page, and even to the point of arbitration. Clearly, there are other editors who see this as perfectly acceptable behavior. Therefore, as I said, I'm letting this go. We can spend the next four weeks twiddling our thumbs and then go to arbitration. Ovadyah (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope you are not implying that I bully and lecture people on the talk page, and show an hypocritical attitude in refraining from actually editing that mess. I've said for years that Primary Sources should not be directly accessed. You and John agree with me, but they remain there. I have only, on request, explained on talk pages what is wrong with the text, and, (read my last comments there) got trouted, only then to find that the lead, which was a mess, was altered along the lines I suggested. I thought it a courtesy not to edit directly to the page, and also a way of avoiding the probable edit war were I to do so. I still think mediation is pointless because this has boiled down, independently of what individual editors want, to a stalemated numbers game, and I am not interest in getting involved in politicking. Were there a dozen people active on the page, this would be simple. With 3, the temptation to seek alliances, rather than simply edit towards the best RS, is difficult to ignore. There lies my insistance that the rules be tightened for articles like this, so that all editors are constrained to propose content only if it meets with the best quality academic sources. Nishidani (talk)

"There lies my insistance that the rules be tightened for articles like this". Thus you admit that the article is in conformance with existing rules? If you wish to change the rules then go to the policy talk pages. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't implying anything about you. I was saying that the fault is mine, for not stepping back and realizing that not everyone sees the world, or this dispute, in the same way. Ovadyah (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Ovadyah. I was addressing trying to get JC to resume mediation - whether N wants to join is up to him. I take your points above, with the priviso that N can change his mind, of course. But the main sticking point is JC; he still hasn't responded to SirFozzie's request with an explicit response. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 01:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

We can't compel John Carter to cooperate. It's up to him. However, I don't intend to wait around for 4 weeks watching John Carter run out the clock by doing nothing. I'm going to ask Brad to give him (all involved parties) a reasonable time limit to respond. If he still doesn't respond, it's up to the arbitration committee to decide whether that is a demonstration of bad faith toward the committee. With respect to N, he will have the same time-line as everyone else to respond, and also to change his mind. Ovadyah (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on Newyorkbrad's talk page. I don't see anything more to be done here. Nyb either sets a time limit to keep the process moving or he doesn't. John Carter either shows up or he doesn't. Ovadyah (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I continue to be appalled by the tone of some of the other editors here. I have repeatedly raised information from the most reliable of independent sources, and have produced verbatim quotations from them. What has happened? It has been completely ignored by Ovadyah and Michael, who continue in their arguments about other sources, while ignoring them. As opposed to both Michael and Ovadyah, when Ovadyah challenged the veracity of the reproductions, I unilaterally stated that I would refrain from editing on that basis, on the possibly mistaken belief that those two editors would act in good faith and address them. I also note the numerous times Ovadyah and Michael have both indulged in completely irrelevant commentary as opposed to directly responding to the material introduced. I cannot believe that any independent outsider would consider this total refusal to deal with material which has been available for a substantial period of time to be acceptable.

Ovadyah has commented elsewhere about the number of edits to the article itself, and how both he and Michael have more. I believe my comments above directly address that point. I am however still very curious why the both of them seem to substantially ignore the material I have produced in good faith. Ovadyah has apparently come to the conclusion that these sources are somehow less important than the views of Tabor and others, which seem to agree with the opinions of the Ebionite Jewish Community. The sources there are I belive very easily available, and could be verified by others, even if Ovadyah and Michael find themselves unable (or perhaps unwilling?) to address matters of those opinions.

If Michael and Ovadyah can force themselves at some point to actually deal in a reasonable way with material which disagrees with their own opinions on this matter, then there will be some basis for reasonable discussion. If they continue to ignore that material, as they have for some time now, then I believe that behavior is sufficient basis for a call for arbitration. The ball is, basically, in their court. John Carter (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on what you have just said, Are you prepared to resume formal mediation?, or Are you willing to stipulate to the arbitration committee that you reject any further attempts at mediation? Take a position and stick to it. Ovadyah (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Btw, and for the record, your statement that you were compelled to refrain from editing the article because the veracity of your sources was challenged is a complete crock. Ovadyah (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ovadyah, your own attempt to rephrase my comments with the quotation "compelled", which is nowhere included or indicated in the comments I made, make it clear that the "complete crock" in this instance is your own comments, which seem to be a continuation of your ongoing attempts to engage in insults and personal derogation rather than dealing with matters of substance. Is there any particularly good reason you continue in this manner? Could it be, possibly, that our article is, so far as I can seen, the only independent site which gives any credence to the beliefs of the EJC, that the EJC itself has noted this fact and pointed toward our article for validation of their beliefs (this includes a statement revised some time ago to the effect that we "supported" his claims - that claim was revised in I think December 2009, although I didn't keep a copy of the earlier version), and it (the EJC) would very much resist having the only independent quasi-reliable source it has pointed to as supporting it be revised to indicate the more accurate opinions which do not directly support their contentions? John Carter (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Who wrote the section of the article that mentions neo-Ebionites, and specifically the EJC? Oh wait, that was you. Ovadyah (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Ovadyah, you're right. You, who have been "interested" in the EJC since your first edit to your user page, had somehow refrained from actually including any references to it in the article. And I had indicated on both of your talk pages some time ago that if I did find any independent reliable sources on the subject, I would add them. In fact, when Michael proposed a separate article on the neo-Ebionite groups, I agreed to it, provided sufficient independent reliable sources could be found. It was you who objected to that proposal, wasn't it? Could that possibly be because the EJC website has indicated that the EJC would not want a separate article, because that article might include mention of other neo-Ebionite groups? I believe it is verifiable that such statements are on its website. Tell me, Ovadyah, why did you, who elsewhere were so insistent on people "having heard of" Shemayah Phillips, so averse to any explicit mention of the group in the article? Could it be because you were acting on Philipps' statements, or might it simply be that you prefer having the entire article be reflective of the EJC, and, basically, ignoring or otherwise minimizing the majority of the independent reliable sources which don't agree with it? John Carter (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this last bit of insight. It will make great reading in arbitration. Ovadyah (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you intend to participate in formal mediation or not? Ovadyah (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, Newyorkbrad left a response to my note on his talk page. He wants you to make the call as the mediator on when enough is enough for the arbitration committee. Ovadyah (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

John, you are effectively saying: "I have problems with these editors, therefore I will not enter mediation with them." This is nonsense; the problems are to be addressed by entering mediation; they are not an excuse for refusing mediation. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael, please refrain from making unfounded assertions as the one above. I was saying nothing of the kind. It would be very useful if the two of you could refrain from the prejudicial rephrasing you have both indulged in in this section and confine your comments to the matter at hand. It would probably adhere better to policies and guidelines as well. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Paraphrasing coeditors is not making "unfounded assertions". -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Who is in?

As far as I'm concerned, the mediation must include John Carter, Ovadyah, and Michael Price to succeed. Please indicate below your willingness to participate in the mediation. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Will participate

• Accept. Ovadyah (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Changing my vote to reject. Ovadyah (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept - on the condition we do this through resuming formal mediation, which was opened and only archived for lack of a mediator. Ovadyah (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept - provided the material included below is addressed. In effect, Jayjg, while I applaud you for your ongoing efforts in trying to bring this matter to resolution, I also believe that you are, according to what has been said elsewhere, also basically acting in the position of an ArbCom appointee. It is on that basis that I believe that the matters introduced by me below were raised. I do not envy you the tasks, if you choose to take them, but I believe that a review of the recent history of the article, including the article talk page and the relevant talk pages of involved editors, indicates that such would be called for. And, yes, I do believe that there is good reason to believe that the involvement of other senior editors who have a greater knowledge of RS, FT, and such would be welcome and actually called for. John Carter (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Will not participate

• Reject - After two days of putting up with John Carter's sarcastic diatribes on the article talk page, I realize he has no intention of attempting to reach a resolution to the problems in good faith. Therefore, this last attempt at mediation is pointless. Let's go to arbitration. Ovadyah (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Conditional

I would participate, however, I would add a few conditions which I believe pretty much, given the 2-1 attitude which has prevailed on the page for some time, even if the apparent support for the so called 'majority' opinion is at best dubious, that there would be a virtual necessity for the involvement of other parties, who may not share the clear biases that both Michael and Ovadyah clearly have in my eyes, as well as their own assertions of my bias, which they have used to apparently ignore any and all evidence I have produced. Also, I believe that there is a necessity that someone, possibly Jayjg, ensure that conduct guidelines are adhered to, and that any further attempts on the parts of Michael and Ovadyah to ignore or other try to minimize what seems to me the majority of evidence which contradicts their assertions be directly commented upon, and that, should the matter be forced to return to arbitration on that basis or any other, that material regarding such misconduct be presented to the ArbCom. And, yes, I would welcome the involvement of any other editors. I believe the ones I named on the Request for Arbitration would all be good ones, as would Ret. Prof. LLwyrich, and Vassayana, and maybe a few others. I would very much welcome if you, Jayjg, in the capacity as mediator, would request the input of such people in the discussion. And, finally, I would very much welcome you as an individual reviewing the entirety of the talk page history, unpleasant and daunting a task as I know it would be. By saying this, I am not saying that I would necessarily reject without such matters, but I would be much more inclined to accept if there were a bit clearer potential for an even, unbiased playing field than exists today. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have asked Ret. Prof, in whom all parties have expressed confidence, to join the mediation. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be pleased to give some imput. Michael suggested "we could restart mediation if we tackled some of the other issues first; I suggest we start with the relationship of the Ebionites to John the Baptist and/or their possible Essene origins?" I have read John's concerns above and would like to know what kind of agenda he would suggest? Hoping to be of help. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this would be an excellent place to start. Welcome aboard. Ovadyah (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would sugges that the place to start would rather be an area that to date an area that has been, basically, all but ignored about the group. The thing that strikes me as most lacking about the Ebionites is information from what are, in fact, the only contemporary sources available, the comments of the Church Fathers. When I mentioned earlier on the talk page how the beliefs attributed to the Ebionites by the Church Fathers were significant to the article, and provided a quote from an independent source which was in list format summarizing those beliefs, Ovadyah attempted to avoid the issue by "seeking outside input" on the basis of a less than rational argument that "lists are discouraged." At no time did I seem to demand that the material be presented in list format. Alternately, as I also suggested earlier, as can be seen from the article talk page, I indicated that, in general, encyclopedic sources are among the most reliable. I have provided any number of verbatim quotes from academic publishers and others, which can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites. Given that we are first and foremost an encyclopedia, and most of those sources are also generally "encyclopedic" in some form or other, and are, generally, recent, we would be well served by ensuring that the majority of the information from other encyclopedias be included as well. (I myself have reservations about inclusion of some information, such as the emphasis on the Biblical quotes in the reference work by evangelicals. In that instance, I believe that the source is primarily following the tendencies of its intended audience, and that they are not generally followed elsewhere.) But certainly making more thorough reference to the available information from roughly contemporary (if clearly biased) sources, particularly considering that information is itself primarily the cornerstone upon which all the later speculation of Tabor and otehrs, is based, seems to me in any event to be of basically primary importance. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Good. Now how do you respond to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources which states that Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion? - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had already responded to that several times, particularly on the article talk page. There is a difference between using such sources in the early construction of an article, particularly in the development stage, and using them in a final draft. My contention has been in several of these discussions that we could construct the "first draft" of the article using these sources, which are also, generally, more reliable in a sense than individual works of individuals who are, more often than not, presenting their own new beliefs. We could also use those sources as an indication as to which are the most reliable of the secondary sources, based on the number of times those sources are included in the bibliographies of those tertiary sources (though incomplete, that information can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites#Sources), and then improving the reference citations from the encyclopediac sources to use those of the secondary sources which are both most reliable and which most directly deal with that particular subtopic. There are several articles with {{refimprove}} tags as is, which haven't gotten that improvement, but, after a bit of discussion of the "first draft", it would be neither lenghty nor onerous to improve the citations bases on the sources indicated in the encyclopediae. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

John, thanks for taking the time. I am going to reflect what you have said over the next couple of days. You had probably already responded . . . but because of "concerns" editors have raised about their fellow editors, such nuggets often get buried or obscured. Thanks for focusing on the issue at hand, rather than the weaknesses of others. If we follow your good example we will be able to produce a well referenced article from a NPOV and make our mediator's job a bit easier. Thanks again - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on Newyorkbrad's talk page indicating that I am ready to go to arbitration. Ovadyah (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reconsidered my position. I am willing to participate on the condition that we do it through formal mediation, so that what is said there remains confidential and discussions over content can't be subverted just to score points for arbitration. If all the participants are willing to go to formal mediation (where we were headed anyway), I am in again. Ovadyah (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What do we do next? - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I imagine we wait for Jayjg to open a mediation page. It's a bit of a pain that the previous mediation was deleted, so we have to start afresh, but at least it lead to the generation of quite a few new sources that got incorporated into the article - so it wasn't wasted effort. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 00:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm reasonably certain that AGK has the admin tools to restore the previous mediation pages. I agree it wasn't a wasted effort. Ovadyah (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all agreeing to mediation. I'll create new mediation pages in the next couple of days; I'm not sure yet whether I should undelete the previous mediation pages; I think I'd like to start fresh. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is no rule against it, I would like to recover my opening statement from the previous mediation, even if we do start fresh with a new group of editors. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am neutral - Ret.Prof (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I favour restoration. It would be a shame to keep reinventing the wheel. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It was never deleted; it can be found at Talk:Ebionites/Mediation. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael is asking about the opening statements and talk page of formal mediation. We are requesting access to those pages. I want to think about the opening statements there while I am formulating my opening statement for the current mediation. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

recreated "Jeremy Soul" article

hi, I just created this article and noticed it had been previously created (by someone else) and deleted. The discussion cites insufficient independent references. Hopefully I've included enough in my article to justify keeping it. thanks! Gil carv (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately, your article didn't overcome the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Soul. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

ok. I included several independent references about the subject of the article, I thought this was the critical issue (?). If I increase the number of references (which I can easily do), will it be satisfactory then? thanks! Gil carv (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC) just wanted to add that, unlike the previous article, ALL my references are in English and heavily reference the subject (in fact most are articles ABOUT him or his work). it is likely that most of these references were not available when the first article was written, so surely this version is much more reliable/relevant? anyway, I welcome any suggestions on how to make it kosher. thanks. Gil carv (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it didn't solve the issues with the previous article. By the way, are you related to User:Bossanueva? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

And, unsurprisingly, the answer is yes. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bossanueva Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

S-Preme

Hello sir! I'm messaging you to see if we can bring back that S-Preme wiki page? We had coverage from MTV back in November. I was going to wait for another source, but figured I hit you up and see if this is sufficient enough to bring it back? (Rhymestyle (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC))

What do you mean by "coverage from MTV"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

MTV did a full interview with him and did a week of promo (Starting with monday, and ending on Friday) which consisted of a write up, a phone interview, and featured music on their site. Is that sufficient enough info to keep the page up? (98.223.177.254 (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC))

Is there any sort of link to that interview, or other sources about it? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes sir! Here's the MTV write up and interview: http://blog.mtvmusic.com/2010/11/16/needle-in-the-haystack-presents-s-preme/, the follow up phone interview: http://www.ourstage.com/blog/2010/11/19/needle-in-the-haystack-follow-up-s-preme, They also did a tweet-and-A on their twitter. Then the other part of the week of promo was featured music on their site. (Rhymestyle (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC))

WP:BAND requires "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." Do you have other such sources besides this one? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but others are mostly from top hip hop sites such as DJBooth.net and the NMC. Overall his accolades include the MTV coverage, the WWE placement (he recorded an entrance theme song for Ted Dibiase Jr which is played every week on live tv, and he toured with Lupe Fiasco. This is basically what last year consisted of. Also just a heads up, in case you don't know what the NMC consist of, these are sites that are part of the Complex Media Network, aka Complex_(magazine). When it comes to NMC, we've had countless coverage from these sites. (Rhymestyle (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC))

Please review WP:BAND; so far you haven't explained S-Preme meets those requirements. As far as I can tell, only the MTV write-up qualifies, but you need multiple such sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What about the Complex_(magazine) Media Network sites? Also one more, the song he did for Ted Dibiase Jr was on the top 200 iTunes charts for two weeks (it went up to 121 before slowing exiting the charts). (Rhymestyle (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC))

Can you give me your two best links besides MTV? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's two links from the top Complex_(magazine) Media Sites: 2dopeboyz: http://www.djbooth.net/index/general/search/f447a1bf51f5b628889a4e5152d03fad/ and Djbooth: http://www.djbooth.net/index/general/search/f447a1bf51f5b628889a4e5152d03fad/. These links are tags too, so these will link you to all the S-Preme coverage these two sites posted. Also here is the iTunes chart info too: http://www.music-chart.info/song/571694/WWE--I-Come-From-Money-(Ted-DiBiase)-[feat--S-Preme] Does that work? (Rhymestyle (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC))

What's the word sir? (Rhymestyle (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

Sorry, I thought I had responded, but see I didn't. Neither of those links worked for me, are you sure they're right? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I sent you the wrong links, sorry! Here they are again: DJBooth - http://www.djbooth.net/index/general/search/314c74184c20a11dcf0723c29dfb3425/ and 2Dopeboyz - http://www.2dopeboyz.com/?s=s-preme. Here's the chart one again too: http://www.music-chart.info/song/571694/WWE--I-Come-From-Money-(Ted-DiBiase)-[feat--S-Preme] Let me know if these work. (Rhymestyle (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

I don't see how either site satisfies WP:RS, particularly when it comes to individuals. They both appear to be the more-or-less blogs of a couple of guys. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

But these sites are under the Complex_(magazine) Media Network, see look here: http://www.complexmedianetwork.com/publishers/sites/Music. Also what about the other guideline that said to have a song on national charts? If you click the third link I sent you, we had a song in the charts in multiple nations. (Rhymestyle (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

The Complex website has over 30 "Media Partner Sites", which appear to be more "recommended links" than anything else. There's no indication Complex has any sort of editorial control or oversight over them. The song itself wasn't performed by S-Preme, and the website with the listings is just some guy's website. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No the song is S-Preme's, Jim Johnston is the producer, but from start to end, its S-Preme's song. And those aren't "recommended links", Complex owns all of those sites, and they do have some kind of oversight over each one of them. Either way though, S-Preme still has a song that was on the charts in multiple countries.(Rhymestyle (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

Do you have any evidence that Complex exercises editorial control over those other websites/blogs? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's even a video of s-preme performing the song at a show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Xz7t7HvI0 (Rhymestyle (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

Which version hit the charts, one performed by S-Preme? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is only one version of it, its just when the WWE put the song up, they listed it as Jim Johnston (composer) feat. S-Preme, but Jim is just the producer. (Rhymestyle (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

Are there any reliable sources that indicate it charted? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I gave you the link that showed you the charts info, here it is again: http://www.music-chart.info/song/571694/WWE--I-Come-From-Money-(Ted-DiBiase)-[feat--S-Preme]. If you want the actual soundscan numbers then you'd have to me a soundscan member to see those. (Rhymestyle (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

Here is all the complex information: http://www.complexmedianetwork.com/index, what Complex_(magazine) does is, they sign these websites to their company and then make sure they stay up to par with what's acceptable in today's music. Each one of these sites listed gets around a million unique sites per month. When it comes to music, the complex sites are at the top of the chain, so they're not just "some guy's website". (Rhymestyle (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

I've already looked at the website, and seen no indication that these websites are anything more than "Recommended links". That's why I asked you "Do you have any evidence that Complex exercises editorial control over those other websites/blogs?" Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Only evidence I can provide is this: http://www.complexmedianetwork.com/publishers/sites. Here's an article that tells you about complex adding the sites to their network: http://www.mediabistro.com/webnewser/complex-media-network-adds-21-sites-to-ad-network_b9184. If this isn't "evidence" for you, then you will just have to call their offices up yourself and ask them, and they will tell you exactly what I just did, 1.917.262.3147. (Rhymestyle (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

The first is the same as before, it says nothing about editorial oversight. The second indicates that they're tied together to generate ad revenues and target specific demographics, not that they have any sort of editorial or content oversight over them. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well either way, he still has a charting song. (Rhymestyle (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

Possibly, but it's not documented by any reliable source. The source you provided is just some guy's website. He's quite clear that it's a personal effort on his part. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well those are the actual stats of the song, the only other way I can prove them is if A) you're a member of Soundscan, in which case you can look the stats up yourself or B) I have a screenshot from iTunes http://twitpic.com/3dpkyq, but this only shows the song being #146 on the top 200 chart in the US. Your only other option to confirm that those numbers are true is if you call up the WWE yourself. (Rhymestyle (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC))

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing it as overcoming the AfD objections. You can always take it to WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I just took it over to WP:DRV. Thanks for all your help. (Rhymestyle (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC))

Philip R. Alstat

Jagjg, Sorry to "bombard" you with notes, but I just wanted to share one more article with you that I created some time ago: Philip R. Alstat. If you enjoyed reading the article on Harry Halpern, I think you might enjoy this one, if you have the time. Both of these rabbis were giants from another generation, who spoke out with the courage of prophets -- but each with the character and sensitivity that truly made him a mensch... Best wishes, and thanks again for the DYK nomination! By tracking down your nomination, I learned how that is done! I enjoy learning the ropes! NearTheZoo (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting article, and it explained a lot, including your interest in the Arnold Resnicoff article. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes--and I very much appreciate your taking the time to read it! NearTheZoo (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

First-generation American

Dear Jayjg, Well...still one more note to you! Hope this is ok.

I see you changed a line in the article Arnold Resnicoff from "first-generation American" to "second-generation American," saying he is second-generation because his parents came to America. However, here is the definition from the wikipedia article, "Immigrant generations": (1) An immigrant to a country, possibly with the caveat that they must be naturalized to receive this title. (2) The children of immigrant parents, first in a family line to be born in the new country. The article adds the note: "As with most terms about human identity, it is difficult to find clear consensus on this meaning of the term. Many users do not recognize ambiguity in the term, however, due to their own disposition or an unambiguous familial or colloquial use for it."

The subject of this article is referred to in numerous referenced sources as "first-generation American," based on the widely accepted definition of "first in a family line to be born in the new country," and uses the term that way in references to himself in the sources. Going with the sources, and his self-identificaton, could I ask you to reconsider, and consider a self-reversion? Best wishes -- again! NearTheZoo (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

His father emigrated to America when he was 3, and lived essentially his whole life in the U.S. Arnold is obviously 2nd generation. That said, the descriptor adds nothing anyway, so I removed it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Good compromise! Thanks!! NearTheZoo (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Jayjg, the copyright violations may be back on John Carter's user page with links to the Ebionites article talk page here. I pointed out on the talk page that he has already been warned twice by an admin. This content should at least be checked over for possible violations. Do you want to handle this yourself or would you prefer that it be handled by ANI? Ovadyah (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to focus on the mediation here, and leave the administrative actions to others. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Moses Cordovero

The article Moses Cordovero has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Source in article does not mention person by name. I am unable to find significant coverage of this person in third party sources.

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onthegogo (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Harry Halpern

Hello! Your submission of Harry Halpern at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dravecky (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pauline Bebe

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, today a user, and IP edited archived palestinerembered's thread that you started. I am not sure editing archives is allowed that why I decided to notify you. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediation comments

In review, it looks to me like the individuals I indicated as being ones I would like to see take part as experts on FT, RS, etc., might be seen as being biased, based on their earlier comments on this matter. However, I do believe that of the individuals involved, only myself and (maybe) Nishidani have had any substantial involvement in such matters, and my own isn't necessarily something that I would describe as impressive. On that basis, I do believe it would make a great deal of sense to have at least some individuals who are respected for their ability to help determine these matters involved.

Lastly, yes, I do hope that you review the entire history of the article, including perhaps any relevant user talk page discussions. In a sense, like it or not, I get the impression that the ArbCom will regard you as being the "cop on the scene" in any proceedings which might take place, and your input would probably be the one held as having the least bias. And, yes, I do believe that the behavior, which I believe is still ongoing, is such that an ArbCom case is, even after thirty days, likely to be called for. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This may be moot, as Ovadyah is now apparently not agreeing to mediation. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reconsidered the matter after discussions with Michael and Ret.Prof on the article talk page. I accept resuming mediation on the condition that we reopen formal mediation with you acting as the mediator, and that the proceedings of the mediation be kept confidential. Four of the parties have already made their opening statements. We need to add Ret.Prof as a participant and have him make an opening statement. I would also welcome Llywrch's participation based on his prior remarks on the article talk page, two trips to ANI, and his opening statement in arbitration. Llywrch is one of those rare editors who, like Socrates, knows what he doesn't know. Of course, that's up to him. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Good to have you back into the loop, Ovadyah - not many people, unfortunately, can change their mind in public. And you're right about Llywrch - I was impressed by his statement at Arbcom.

Don't forget to unstrike out your acceptance.

-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 00:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The clock is ticking and we need to get on with mediation. We already have a proposal on the table that could bring this content dispute to a conclusion rather quickly. Ovadyah (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have contacted Llywrch about participating in formal mediation. If he agrees, that is probably enough people for a well-rounded discussion. I am also going to encourage Nishidani to reconsider and rejoin the mediation, since he has already articulated a reasonable proposal to resolve this dispute. Ovadyah (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I wish to know exactly what Ovadyah is requesting: informal mediation or formal mediation. I do not know that I have agreed to formal mediation, only informal mediation. If formal mediation is wanted, I believe that it is in the best interests of all involved that as many knowledgable parties as possible be involved. This would include not only LLwyrch, but also the editors I indicated in my previous statements above, or, at least, individuals equally familiar with application of those relevant policies and guidelines. I do not see that as having yet taken place. I am far from convinced I would take part in formal mediation without the involvement of such editors. In that event, I think that having ArbCom review the conduct of all editors involved, myself included, might be the best way to resolve the matter, particularly after they issue their rulings regarding conduct to date and the decisions they make to address them. Particularly with arbitration due to begin in a few weeks, it might even be a faster way to address the matter as well be a better way of addressing with such matters. John Carter (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting formal mediation. Since you requested formal mediation initially, it seems rather hypocritical to reject it now, unless of course you have no desire to see mediation succeed and the dispute over content resolved. Formal mediation will keep us focused on the task and keep all the posturing for the arbitration committee to a minimum. Using informal mediation as an opportunity to engage in WP:CONSPIRACY and WP:GAME only subverts the purpose of mediation, and it will get us no closer to a resolution of this dispute. I find this diff particularly telling, where I asked you, going forward, what you actually intend to do to improve this article. The answer, as I expected, is nothing constructive or substantive. Btw, I have no objection to other parties joining the mediation, as long as they are not your hand-picked acolytes. The only one who seems to be objecting to this approach is you. Ovadyah (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ovadyah, the one thing you very clearly have extreme objections to is making any comments without inserting your gratuitous bile into them. If you have allegations regarding meatpuppetry to raise, then by all means do so. Otherwise, I have to very, very much call into question why you seek to label several editors, many of whom, like Blueboar, I have had substantial disagreements with in the past, as "acolytes", as you seemingly did above. Is it currrently even physically possible for you to make comments without inserting gratuitous insults, I wonder? The recent evidence does not seem to support such a conclusion. And, regarding your allegations of hypocrisy and other matters, I am not entirely sure that you, as an individual, are the person to make such allegations, y'know? John Carter (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing against Blueboar or any other named editor. I do, however, object to your repeated habit of canvassing other editors with prejudicial statements as to the nature of the dispute and the editors involved. An example of this would be when you covertly approached Cirt, who doesn't even know me, about filing a COI against me on your behalf here and here. Also, notice the unsolicited offers to forward confidential emails and the 'I hate you' nonsense that was proven to be false in ANI. Now I have a question for you: You previously walked away from informal mediation and insisted upon opening formal mediation. Why is it that you now are rejecting the very same formal mediation you requested and you are requesting the informal mediation you previously rejected? Please explain your reasoning. Ovadyah (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Because I believe that there may be an attempt here to perhaps further delay the onset of arbitration, and because I believe that such might be counterproductive. At this point, I believe that there are numerous demonstrable behavioral issues, and that any attempt to delay the recognition of them would be counterproductive to the improvement of the article, and very likely, at least potentially, detrimental to the project as a whole. Also, I believe that there may very well be the potential to have additional, qualified, editors involved in the process in the near future, possibly as a result of arbitration, and I cannot see any reason why such should be begun before such parties are involved. I believe that there have already been instances when people have sought to disqualify others from mediation, and that there is a very good chance that such attempts might take place again, particularly if the mediation is begun perhaps prematurely. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And so having said all this, what has changed? You have already accepted mediation. What are you recommending we do here? Ovadyah (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

John, do you want to mediate or arbitrate? If the former, then I'll put up the mediation page. If the latter, then you should just go back to the arbitration process. You have to be committed to one choice or the other. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The comments above were opposition to the "formal arbitration" Ovadyah had discussed, in addition to informal arbitration already agreed to, which struck me as counterproductive. I have to acknowledge that I have very serious questions regarding whether there is any likelihood of progress through mediation, particularly if there is an effort to disqualify potential newcomers. On that basis, I do believe that Arbitration is very likely going to be the only way that the matter will be resolved. However, it seems to me that at this point it is you, Jayjg, who have been given the authority to "call" the matter. That being the case, I guess the most reasonable way for me to go is to accept mediation. Having said that, I do hope that you do review the relevant pages, as has been requested before, and that, perhaps, when and if you see that there is likely going to be no further progress through that measure, that you refer the matter back to ArbCom. Is that sufficient response? And, for what it's worth, I do hope Ovadyah will allow you to speak for yourself in the future, as opposed to engaging in preemptory comments such as the one above. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean "formal mediation". If you are going to quote me, do it accurately. Why do you use 200 words to respond to a direct question from the mediator when you can use 3 (I accept mediation) to say the same thing? Ovadyah (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, although I find it endlessly amusing that you chastise others for misquoting you, when you have such a history of doing so yourself, and making yet another gratuitous snarky comment about the input of others, when you have, I think, recently used the article talk page to make a rather extensive comment on the Skarsaune book which has little if anything to do with the article itself, and could easily be seen by a neutral party as perhaps soapboxing? John Carter (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

From now on, let's all try to focus on policies and sources, on the mediation pages themselves, not individuals or history. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Let's move on to mediation. Waiting around is just causing this dispute to fester. Ovadyah (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I would only add that despite Ovadyah's assertion above, the "I hate you nonsense," as he put it, was never proven to be false. Ovadyah has himself repeatedly sought intervention from others on noticeboards and other pages, and all that was proven was that they were not be found on the few pages checked. Unlike Ovadyah, some of us do not confine all their efforts to a single page, and on that basis may not have the time to search their entire record of contributions as quickly and easily as he can. If he insists on making these inflammatory comments, he could at least make an effort to not overdramatize them for prejudicial purposes. And, yes, Cirt is one of the best, if not the best, editor I know of for dealing with POV pushing from religious editors, given his substantive history of dealing with the Church of Scientology. That was why I sought his input. And you will also notice that both Astynax and Cirt have a rather impressive ability at producing FAs and GAs, given their user pages. In fact, I think that they might be among the best at such in the general field of religion. That was why I named them. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

@Jayjg: Um, where be dese mediashun pajes u menshun, pleez? Me not reel shur which u meen. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to create the mediation pages tonight. Please, let's not fight about what happened in the past or discuss other individuals any more. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Waiting for somebody to tell me where to go? - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Here: Talk:Ebionites/Mediation 2. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I may need a day or two to submit my opening statement. I would like to take some time to think about it and get this right. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We are only waiting on John Carter now for an initial statement in mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Mordecai Tendler vandalism

Hi Jay, when you get a chance can you take a look at the Mordecai Tendler article, it is presently undergoing some vandalism and may need some semi-protection. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Avi dealt with it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Trying to remove an end-around of WP:EGRS that's being exploited. You've expressed interest in the past. Already 4 days into the certification poll.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Cage of Eden

Recently, I thought about creating a page concerning the manga "Cage of Eden" (Eden no Ori). Upon looking into the reasons for the previous page for "Cage of Eden", I noticed that the reasons for its deletion were that it had no sources that were verifiable and/or reliable. I have found sources to negate those reasons. However, I was wondering if you could give me some more explanation regarding its lack of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dem1995 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This was the AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cage of Eden. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust template

Hi you said that Mohammad Amin al-Husayni wasn responsible for the Holocaust. Inside the Holocaust templates there are person named who share a much lighter responsibility then him. --Santiago84 (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

While it's clear that he supported the Nazi efforts, he didn't actually have a strong hand in the actual carrying out of the genocide of the Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

He made direct suggestions to Hitler. During world war 2 he was at Hitlers Side. He was part of planing the Holocaust, and planing it is also "carrying out". He recruited Muslims to several german squads, signed contracts for a shared final solution to jews for the arab world. --Santiago84 (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's what reliable sources say on the matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

G.I. Joe vehicles

Hi there. Last October, Conquest X-30 and H.I.S.S. were two of a few different articles based on G.I. Joe vehicles that were up at AFD. Those two were the first two to be closed, and so I quickly threw together List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero vehicles, suggested to merge there on the remaining AFDs, and those all resulted in merge. On the Conquest AFD, a merge was suggested (although the list page did not exist at the time), and you closed the AFD for HISS stating "If an editor feels there is noteworthy, mergeable material, he/she can try to merge it to an appropriate article." I restored the two deleted ones and redirected them to the list page, figuring that someone may want to merge them sooner or later (I was kind of ambivalent so did not do it myself). Eventually, you decided to re-delete the two redirects, and I decided to leave them alone. A couple days ago, I noticed a new user User:Jake fuersturm was working on the list page, and merging other articles into it, so I restored the two redirects again and notified him on his talk page that he could merge them if he wanted to do so. He did the merge, but then a few hours ago you re-deleted the redirects again. Now, it's my understanding that an article's edit history should never be deleted if its content has been merged into another article. You even seemed to indicate yourself, as I pointed out above, that you would have no problem with a merge. So, if you don't mind, would you please restore the redirects once more?

Thank you, BOZ (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You can delete an article after its contents are merged, so long as you indicate where the contents come from. The AfDs in this case were clear, that the articles should be deleted. I have no objection to you creating a new article that is a re-direct, or even restoring the most recent deleted version (i.e. just the redirect statement), but I do object to you regularly undeleting articles deleted at AfD, and then turning them into redirects. "Turn into redirect" is a possible outcome of AfD, but not the outcome reached by consensus in these cases. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if this the way you want it, I will respect your wishes and leave them deleted. I can't say I understand, but I don't really need to understand. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please excuse this interjection. While I think that BOZ should have discussed before restoring, he is correct that the current state does not conform with Wikipedia's licensing. WP:Copying within Wikipedia is the relevant guideline. For example, this content in List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero vehicles was originally written by contributors to H.I.S.S., whose attribution (normally given in the page history) has been removed by deletion. There are alternatives to restoring and redirecting listed at WP:Merge and delete, but they have their own drawbacks. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The solution, then, is to remove the content and re-write from scratch. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing the content permanently (WP:Revision deletion) is probably not feasible, as there are more than 50 revisions since its insertion. Your latest deletion summaries mention appealing at WP:Deletion review. Would you mind if I took these two AfDs there for outside input, possibly following with a more general discussion at WT:Articles for deletion? Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Given the amount of work put into the article, I'm not really inclined to remove the content and rewrite it from scratch, especially since it will probably look 90%+ the same as what was removed. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: H.I.S.S., I believe the final decision on the AfD was: "The result was delete. If an editor feels there is noteworthy, mergeable material, he/she can try to merge it to an appropriate article. Jayjg (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H.I.S.S.. Looks like someone has indeed tried for a merge, so shouldn't the original article be resurrected and turned into a redirect? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure, actually. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you given this more thought? If you're not willing to restore, I am planning to take this to DRV. The non-restoring alternatives are technically acceptable, but I would like a wider discussion before using a non-standard solution. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this would actually be a good thing to review at WP:DRV - it would help set some precedent. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

DRV filed at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 21#Conquest X-30. Flatscan (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Harry Halpern

Materialscientist (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Monty the meerkat

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

some help with copy-editing?

Hi, when and if you have a time, could you please take a look at my 2 new articles #1 and #2? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your changes to archiving of Talk:Legal status of Western Sahara

Please take note of User:Kslotte/Auto-archiving and stop "fixing" talk pages that follow it. Thanks in advance.--Oneiros (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth would I care what was in that essay? Kslotte is entitled to his personal opinions on the matter, but that doesn't mean anyone else must (or indeed should) follow it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Because I kindly ask you to do so. Opinions different from yours are not "broken" and don't have to be "fixed".--Oneiros (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's one thing to make a request based on the fact that you have a personal opinion on a matter, and are a regular on the page. It's another thing to command one follow a third party's personal opinion. The former is reasonable, the latter is not. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for S-Preme

An editor has asked for a deletion review of S-Preme. 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. lifebaka++ 23:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for André Thomas

Greetings, Jayjg. I sent you an email discussing a possible DELREV. Let me know what you think.

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.

Thanks. -BerretSO4 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you'd need to start with reliable secondary sources first, before you were able to make a case at WP:DRV that the article should be restored. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Update #2

Hi Jayjg. Believe it or not, the dispute with that one editor over the Al-Shabaab group of militants is still going on. He has now opened an Rfc since the "Third Opinion" initiative didn't quite work out and only one pro-Somaliland account weighed in contrary to Wikipedia:Third opinion's instruction that editors who have had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response" [should] not offer a third opinion on that dispute". The timing of this Rfc is also quite interesting, as it comes literally right after I had just posted a new batch of tie allegations that were leveled against the Somaliland region which have not yet been included in the article. Given past experiences with some of these accounts, it seems not unlikely that the Rfc will attempt to be used as a way to override including mention of these new tie allegations. Indeed, the editor is still proposing we actually shorten the passage despite these new tie allegations. I would therefore be most grateful if you could monitor the Rfc to make sure that no non-neutral parties attempt to bias the discussion. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As predicted, one of the pro-Somaliland accounts has already shown up on the talk page [1]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

One of those accounts has protested that I have no proof that he is a supporter of Somaliland's independence and that he is therefore indeed a "neutral" Rfc participant. I believe this is absurd since he recently uploaded a non-free fringe map [2] depicting an independent Somaliland "country" juxtaposed by the Somalia it is internationally recognized as being an autonomous region of. The map is supposedly sourced to "MapArt Publishing", a company which has its entire catalogue online but includes no such map. The map therefore could've easily been taken from a partisan source, like a secessionist publication. The user also claims that WP:Third opinion's clear instruction that editors who have had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response" [should] not offer a third opinion on that dispute" does not apply to WP:RFC, although WP:RFC itself clearly indicates that RFC participants are offering third opinions: "Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first."

I would therefore really appreciate a neutral, authoritative opinion on this issue. Does WP:Third opinion's instruction on providing neutral opinions also apply to WP:RFC participants? Or can they be partisan editors, who have also had numerous dealings/run-ins with one of the RFC disputants? Note that this is an editor who just last month attempted (unsuccessfully) to get me blocked over a separate issue on another related article [3]. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In practice, partisans or participants in a dispute often comment at related RFCs. There doesn't seem to be any way of stopping this from happening. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Just so it's clear, this user isn't actually a participant in the dispute nor was he listed as such in both the earlier Third Opinion initiative and the current Rfc. He is just someone who wants to weigh in on the Rfc. However, he seems to have a personal animus against one of the two actual disputants (i.e. me), so I doubt he can offer a truly neutral third party opinion and observe WP:RFC's instruction that third parties should "try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions" and "mediate where possible — identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart". At any rate, perhaps we should start thinking about drafting a new clause for WP:RFC to address these concerns regarding non-neutral third party involvement. Of course, this will have to be done after the present Rfc is completed. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to identify who "non-neutral" third parties are, at least to the satisfaction of everyone. Many people insist they are neutral, despite others insisting they are not. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for input

Please understand that this is in no way an attempt to "suck up" to the mediator in a matter in which I am currently involved, and I would sincerely hope that no one describes it or sees it as such. However, as can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, I proposed some months ago that there might be some sort of regular meeting of editors who deal extensively with religion related content. I believe you are rather active in the Judaism related material, and I would welcome any input you might have, positive or negative, on the proposed conference of editors who work extensively with religion related material at User:John Carter/Religion meeting. Any input you might have, particularly as it relates to Judaism related material, would be welcome. I would also welcome any input as to whether you believe it might also be expanded to include discussion of philosophy related material. Many aspects of philosophy, particular ethics, are rather closely related to religion, and it seems to me that the amount of overlap might make it reasonable to expand the scope of the proposed meeting to include such material. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This is most definitely an attempt to suck up to the mediator. Editors should feel free to spontaneously form groups to meet and discuss anything they want, but the idea that religion-related articles should be left to an invitation-only cabal of religious "professionals" (read theologians) violates the spirit of Wikipedia. There are a number of highly-accomplished religious scholars who also happen to be atheists (Bart Ehrman, Michael Goulder, and Morton Smith, come to mind), and there is no reason why this should be any different for Wikipedia editors. Ovadyah (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

John, thanks for letting me know, I'll take a look, though my time it stretched right now. Ovadyah, let's try not to expand the scope of the conflict. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)