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.

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.

RfCU

Jay, do you think it's worth making a request for CheckUser re 12.72.149.104 and EditTalk? They're behaving very much like Joe Circus — I'm just unsure whether that's enough evidence by itself. Jakew (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, it's considered "likely" that some sockpuppetry is taking place. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joe Circus‎. Jakew (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An IP

An IP is removing sourced information at Hamza Yusuf. Can you protect the article please? Pass a Method talk 10:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected for 3 days. Please work out the content dispute on the article's Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

Has this user broken 3rr?

[1] 1st revert
[2] 2nd revert
[3] 3rd revert
[4] 4th revert

He's also ignoring my concerns on the talk page Pass a Method talk 16:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated, but it appears to me that he has broken 3RR. I've warned him. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning though it was never my intention to break 3RR or attempt to act in any way contrary to good practice. (After nearly 10,000 edits over 4 years, I believe this is my first 'warning'.) The first change I made was to write an article in place of a redirect that had been done by a different editor over a year and a half ago. It was not returning that editors work to the previous version and after such a length of time I did not consider my actions amounted to a 'revert' (though I can see why some may consider it to be.) The second alleged revert was me doing what the tag said - removing the tag if I objected to it (which I did) - I didn't think that would count as a revert either! You will notice that I also tried to discuss the matter on talk, and by sending a personal message to the other editor. The other two examples were then caused by me trying to improve the article to prove it merited separate existence but being prevented from doing so by having it completely reverted by an editor as I was in the middle of improving it! Fortunately, I can report that matters appear to be headed towards a good outcome as I apologised to the other editor for any offence I caused, though unintentional, and the other editor has responded positively. A compromise suggestion has been posted on talk that appears to have support. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that one could argue the second "revert" is not a revert per se, but merely following the template instructions. In any event, I'm glad you are both working it out now. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British jew

Hi - Get a better jew for the infobox - he has an Irish catholic father and is a self declared atheist. - You should at least get full jews for the infobox. Are there no famous practicing Jews with two jewish parents you can add to the infobox? Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Get a better jew"? Seriously? Radcliffe isn't Jewish enough for you? Why isn't he a "full jew" - is this some sort of racial thing? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jayjg, my apologies if my actions at the article may have raised suspicions a-la WP:Tag team, as someone suggested. That I'm even awake at these hours is itself exceedingly unusual. I have your Talk page watchlisted, though, and that outrageous "better jew" comment was more than I could bear.—Biosketch (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it; I'm sure Off2riorob will soon calm down and apologize. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MJs

Long-term disruption is I believe sufficient grounds for requesting review of user conduct and/or administrative review, isn't it? I grant that you might question my own objectivity on the matter, but I don't doubt that you probably know the polices and guidelines better than I do. Having said that, I can't see any particular reason to go ahead with some sort of action, should you be so inclined. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In theory it should be. However, the fact that he goes away for a month or two at a time, then returns for a day of disruption before leaving again, tends to make it hard for these things to stick. The problem is never "urgent" because by the time it gets to any place enforcement can happen, he's disappeared again. On top of that, he often makes bold-faced assertions that are completely at variance with reality, but said with such conviction that they confuse any reader who is unwilling to spend a lot of time digging into diffs. Add to that the fact that he now has an enabler, whose only real interest in this situation is a dislike of me, and it gets messy. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miliband

Hi Rob,

It's pretty clear from last week's fiasco regarding Radcliffe that you need to stay far away from any material dealing with Jewish ethnicity, particularly as it relates to British nationals. If you reflexively revert again the edits I made, which merely re-organized the material, and made no substantive changes, I will go straight to AN/I, and not even bother with the article Talk: page. If you wish to open a discussion on the article Talk: page on why you don't like the edits (although I doubt you have any specific reason), I'm willing to respond there. Think it over. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your undue focus on who is a jew is well known. You are the one that should stop pushing your who is a jew focus - Milliband is british through and through - he is married to a British person who is not a jew all his children are British non jews. That content was discussed and worded over lengthy discussion - I am in my rights to request bold revert discuss. Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]