User talk:Jayjg/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

CppDepend deletion

Hi Jayjg, one year ago the CppDepend article was been deleted, because there are no enough reliable sources talking about it, and i wonder if it's possible now to recreate the CppDepend page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnmike (talk • contribs) 20:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Has anything changed since the AfD? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, one year ago was the beginning of CppDepend, now CppDepend is used by many companies, and referenced in many websites and blogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnmike (talk • contribs) 21:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Which of those would be considered significant coverage in reliable sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

CppDepend was referenced in these online magazines : PCWorld,Programmez,Online Architecture Journal

And also some known C++ bloggers talked about it: Kate(MVP C++),Martin(MVP C++), RasterGrid,Jijo Raj

and it's a VSIP Microsoft partner, and it's proposed by codeproject web site for monthly winner competition for the best C++ article.

CppDepend is also recommended for many questions in stackoverflow web site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnmike (talk • contribs) 22:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Only the very first link you've brought would constituted significant coverage in a reliable source. Please review the WP:RS article to understand what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Shiply

You deleted this article (I marked it as patrolled and further edited yesterday) on the grounds that it is a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. I read the Afd and the description of the article deleted at that time does not match at all the version I saw yesterday. G4 criterion mentions clearly that its rationale can be applied only to "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies." Gatyonrew (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Substantially identical" and "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies" are different criteria. You are correct that the article has changed, but do the reasons for deletion no longer apply? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The article was obviously well beyond the minimal requirements of WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT and it was not created by a WP:SPA. Gatyonrew (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It was not created by a WP:SPA, but why do you think the first three have changed? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The company has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The references are far from the description available in the Afd: "Has a few links but they seem to be self linked, puff pieces, press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as articles. Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article."

I can't help noticing a surreal touch in this discussion, I guess we both know that this particular article needs restoring, covering a notable topic with plenty of references and acknowledgments in mainstream media. G4 mentions "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion" and then the negative provisions that exclude this criterion. An admin should look first for "identical and unimproved copies". Keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia, I consider normal for an admin to take a look at a recreated page, give an assessment and then decide whether it needs deletion according to G4 or it should stay. It is expected to have good quality material among recreated pages, it makes no reason to have all of them deleted. Gatyonrew (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you've guessed wrong on that; it's not clear to me whether the sources are more about the company or the founder himself. In any event, I've reviewed the sources in the article, and restored it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Lvivskie

Hi, I have seen You had warned Lvivskie about edit wars. He did it again and again, despite this texts are well-referenced.--77.254.221.37 (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed troubling. What is the current status? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ezra Pound

If you have time over the next few days or weeks (no rush), would you mind taking a look at this? It was up for FAC on this version, but it had problems with the writing and narrative flow, which are your strong points, so I'm hoping you might be willing to glance at it. I've left an example on talk here of the kind of thing I mean. It's a difficult article to get right, because he was a complicated man, so imposing a strong narrative structure is even more important than usual. But we also need to watch the length to keep it readable. Any suggestions would be very helpful. But if you have no time or inclination, feel free to ignore. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd be happy to try to help get this article up to FA status. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Seventeen September Days

Can you look at the discussion on WP:RSN and suggest if this book is reliable??Thanks--UplinkAnsh (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hard to Be Human

...qualifies as WP:CSD#A9. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've already nominated it though; I don't think there's much that can be done now, is there? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy and AFD can overlap if it clearly fits the speedy criterion. In this case, the AFD can be speedy-closed and the article deleted via A9. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll get no argument from me. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 20:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rekonq

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rekonq. 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations (2nd nomination)

Would you please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations (2nd nomination)? Thanks. ----

Infobox Jews

Hi Jayjg. The perennial debate concerning the images in the infobox has begun once again. I'd appreciate if you would comment at Template talk:Infobox Jews#Image. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will check it out. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

O.K., I'm hoping my latest post will put the issue to bed, so to speak. :-D Jayjg ^(talk) 07:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently not, but perhaps this one will do it. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Miriam Shapira-Luria

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your automated bot notice. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps semi-automated notice. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Website question

Hi. You deleted some family-tree websites that I added to Miriam Shapira-Luria as not meeting WP:RS. I was just wondering if this website should also be removed (I'm reviewing Robert L. Bobbitt for DYK that relies on it heavily). Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't delete any sources you added to that article, but that website you've linked to here certainly would not be considered a reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

So what do I about it? Most of the article is based on that source. Should I just erase it from the page? Yoninah (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I would replace the source with a {{fact}} tag wherever it's used, and ask the author if he has reliable sourcing for the material. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Save Our Souls

Here is a search for the band Save Our Souls. They played together with Iron Maiden. Why it was deleted? Goroth 17:20, 15 October 2010 (CEST)

You know why, you participated in this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Save Our Souls. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for input at edit-warring on Ebionites

For some years now, I believe, there has been a section of the above article based on the Catholic Encyclopedia. There is currently a disagreement there about whether material relevant to the Elcesaites is necessarily relevant. There is at present no clear consensus to the material, partially because of the question about whether the Elceasites are Ebionites. I acknowledge that I have not myself reviewed the matter as thoroughly as I would like, the disagreement basically escalating today. I do however intend to check the relevant encyclopediac sources tomorrow. However, there are currently two involved editors, including myself, who question the relevance of the material, and two who support it. I believe that the material is more directly relevant to the Elcesaites article, and have said as much. Michael, who has been sanctioned for edit warring in the past on this article, has restored it. I think input from an independent outsider would be welcome, if you would be so inclined, unfortunately, possibly, considering page protection for edit warring as well. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that the use of ancient primary sources for this claim (e.g. Hippolytus, Philosophumena, IX, 14-17, Epiphanius, Panarion, 19, 1; 53, 1.) is problematic. That said, the dispute hasn't gotten severe enough for protection yet. If you can find reliable, modern, secondary sources and bring them that would be very helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Today, I can't, other than the sources included in the talk page, like Encyclopedia Britannica, which do not mention any sort of direct connection of the Elcesaites to the Ebionites. Like I said on the article talk page, the other sources, like specialist encyclopediae, are where I won't be able to access them until tomorrow. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't look like an emergency yet; I think it can wait until tomorrow. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As I explained on the talk page. Wetman added this material to the article over 5 years ago, and the source was the Catholic Encyclopedia. I requested a reference check to track this down in an older version of the article. I agree with Nishidani that the primary sources have no standing and should only be there if they were mentioned in the encyclopedia. This is the second time, btw, that John Carter has run to an admin requesting a lock on this article after deleting content he doesn't like, the first time being the deletion of the Tabor references that had page numbers for the UK rather than the US version. Ovadyah (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Oh, for what little it might be worth, and much as I hate to say this, Hippolytus and Epiphanius and the like are, really, the only generally relied-upon sources for the Ebionites. There is, I think, one synagogue somewhere in Jordan (I think?) which might be related to them, according to I think one source, but, except for that, we have no reliable sources on them outside of the Church Fathers, whose primary interest was in criticizing them. This includes the very selective quotes from the Gospel of the Ebionites by Epiphanius, rightly called the "doctor confusus" for his remarkable ability to confuse material and his readers. It sucks, but that's more or less the situation we're in. regarding Ovadyah's unfounded allegations that I was necessarily requesting a lock on the edition I prefer, this seems to be yet another of his jumps to unsubstantiated conclusions about the motivations of others, about which the less said the better. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Asra Nomani

Hey, you may want to keep an eye on this page as I see you protected it previously. I have just undone some vandalism FYI just so you are aware. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've given the IP editor a final warning, and will block it or protect the page again if necessary. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Cool. Hopefully this will work. Thanks. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Alas, the vandalism continues. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 72 hours; we'll see what happens now. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok appreciate your assistance. I can tell from history and talk, it's been an issue for some time. But hopefully it will cease now. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Morocco

Referring to your reinstating the copied material in History of the Jews in Morocco -- how do you know there's no copyright?--84.108.213.97 (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the website considered Derivative work?--84.108.213.97 (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia was published in the United States from 1901 to 1906, long before 1923. Therefore it is in the public domain. If that weren't enough, the website's own home page says The Jewish Encyclopedia, which recently became part of the public domain, contains over 15,000 articles and illustrations. Simply copying a public domain source to the internet does not turn it into a copyrighted work, much less a derivative work. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey John Lang

The article is substantially more complete than the one deleted in the AfD./ Please restore it, and, if you care to, do a second AfD. (perhaps you did not notice that I previously declined a speedy on it.) DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't notice that, but I also didn't see anything in the new article that addressed the issues in the original AfD. Please take it to WP:DRV if you feel it should be undeleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And just to be clear, the sources used in the article were:

• A link to an Amazon.Com page of a book he wrote
• His faculty listing at the University of Kansas
• His name listed at a "Mathematics Genealogy Project" webpage
• An interview at a website called "The Deen Show"
• A website selling DVDs, CDs, and iTunes downloads of two of his lectures
• A Wikipedia mirror

Now which of these sources do you think overcomes the original deletion concerns that the article fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

S-Preme

Awhile ago you deleted S-Preme's wiki page for not covering at least one of the criteria on the WP:BAND list. Recently we have gotten a placement on WWE for Ted Dibiase jr for writing his new theme song, which covers a few of the mentioned criteria. Is that sufficient enough to bring the page back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhymestyle (talk • contribs) 02:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you mean, but it doesn't sound like it. Could you explain further? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see you actually re-created it too. No, I'm not seeing that the issues in the AfD were addressed. The fact that one of his songs is apparently now one of the "Entrance themes" for a wrestler doesn't help much. Have you reviewed WP:BAND? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I did review the WP:BAND and we cover at least one of the criteria listed. S-Preme was part of a major national tour in April with Lupe Fiasco and B.o.B, which may or may not cover #4. We definitely cover #10 on the list for the theme song that was already aired twice in a two week span. That song is Ted Dibiase Jr's new theme song, not just an entrance, so that song will not only be on a WWE soundtrack, but also featured in videogames, etc.Rhymestyle (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.178.142 (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If S-Preme actually meets criteria #4, then where is the "non-trivial coverage in a reliable source" of it? And which of "a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album" is Ted Dibiase Jr or a videogame? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

WWE Raw is the TV show, (which consistently tops the list of highest-rated cable TV shows every week) and a song that is played counts as a performance. The compilation album is the WWE Soundtrack that is released by the corporation every year (which hasn't been released yet, but is on its way). As far as 4, there wasn't much coverage, which is why I was unsure about it, but we definitely meet #10 on the list. (Rhymestyle (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC))

That doesn't meet the requirements of #10 as far as I can tell - what makes the WWE Soundtrack a "notable compilation album"? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if you say so, I won't waste your time then, we'll probably speak again in about a year. Thanks. (Rhymestyle (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC))

Berber people

What a silly person you are. Why are you being so stubborn? EVERY page dedicated to an ethnic group has drawings, statues, or whatever up there. Look up the page for Persians, or Jews, or Arabs. They all have drawings up there. There is no reason for you to be so childish. One person up there is an Arab, Dris Jettou. And few people know who Massinissa Guermah or Ferhat Mehenni is. Stop being so **** annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 13:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any pictures of coins or statues in the Jews infobox. I also don't see any in, for example, the African American infobox. Also, Jettou is in the "Berber people" category on the Commons; please explain why you think he isn't Berber? As for the others, they all have English Wikipedia articles, so they're famous enough. Regardless, please use the article Talk: page to defend your edits, rather than the blindly edit-warring. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

PROD

Except that WP:PROD says "not been and is not being discussed at AfD." It doesn't matter if the AFD was keep, delete, merge or nothing - if it was discussed there at all (which it was, there is an AFD page with discussion on it) it is not eligible for deletion through prod. Please remove the tag. Dana boomer (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

PROD is a good guideline; it applies in most cases, but not in an extremely unusual case like this, where the AfD was forgotten and never concluded. Wikipedia isn't only about the rules, it's also about common sense. Do you think the PROD should be removed for any reason other than a dubious technical one? If you can honestly say that your would have removed the PROD regardless of the AfD, then feel free to remove it. If you can't honestly say that, then please leave it. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 00:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that it doesn't matter if the AFD was not concluded; even if it had been closed as keep this would not have been allowed to be deleted through a prod. Just the fact that it was discussed there in any form makes it not eligible for prod. I'm not understanding why this article is special regarding this rule (any discussion at AFD rules out prod), perhaps you could explain more? Per my reading, prods cannot be applied to previously afd'd articles, regardless of outcome. Dana boomer (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The AfD discussion started six years ago, never concluded, and was promptly forgotten. For all intents and purposes, it never occurred. What makes this article so special? Show me an example of another article that had an AfD discussion 6 years ago that was never closed. I think that makes it pretty "special". Now, if you think the article shouldn't be deleted for content-based reasons, feel free to remove the PROD. But if your only concern is that some process wasn't followed in the specific way you feel appropriate, then I think you need to re-read WP:IAR. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

RationalPlan deletion

Hi! I noticed that you have deleted the article that I have written about RationalPlan. Before writing it I asked Nihiltres (talk) if I can write it and how to proceed. I understood that as long as I give notable references I can do it. I do not know what was written previously and I created the page from scratch. So why did you deleted by invoking G4? Dragmas (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RationalPlan, you would notice that many of the sources you used were the exact same ones that were dismissed in the AfD. The fact that several of them were blogs should have been the first clue. Which sources do you think actually met the requirements of WP:RS? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As much as I understand those requirement and taking into account that RationalPlan is a project management product these ones are for sure:

• A news organization
• Review made by CNET which is a well know source of quality reviews
• A review from a project management related company that focuses on the evaluation and selection of PM software
• A review based on an interview with a real user
• A review based on an interview with a real user
• A review from a project manager
• A review from a project management blog

There are other sources too but I do not know if I am the right person to decide if they are notable. Now which of the above sources do you think overcomes the original deletion problems? Dragmas (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you review the previous AfD? Did you notice that, for example, www.constructionsoftwarereview.com was dismissed in it? Also, why are you still bringing blogs and various other WP:SPS as sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read the AfD but for me reviews done based on actual users interviews like the ones from www.constructionsoftwarereview.com are very important. Also blog posts do not make the source less significant if it is coming from a credible person.

Some time ago I needed a PM tool and searched Wikipedia. The solution that I chose was not the best fit for my needs. Later on I found out about RationalPlan and if I would have found it before in Wikipedia it would have been great. This is the reason why I would like to create this page. If I am not doing it right then please help me! I do not have to much experience with Wikipedia and its rules. Dragmas (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Dragmas, I understand your concern, and empathize with you. There are lots of great things that don't have Wikipedia articles - great products, great companies, great people, great buildings, etc. Wikipedia has some reasonably strict rules about what kinds of sources can be used in articles, and they all have to comply with WP:RS. If these great things don't have reliable sources describing them, then Wikipedia can't have an article on the topic. Blogs, or personal reviews, simply don't qualify. If the product does get significant coverage in reliable sources, then Wikipedia would be happy to have the article. Until then, though, I don't think Wikipedia can have an article on RationalPlan. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ezra

Comment on the talk. This entrapment of coure, but I dare you. Ceoil (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure on what you wish me to comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of MigdalOr

I have contested the proposed deletion of MigdalOr on the grounds that defunct status is not valid grounds for deletion; in general, once notable, always notable. If you disagree, or if you believe this organization was never notable, feel free to list at AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

kohen sources

kohen.co.uk

http://torahmusings.com/2010/10/kohanic-lineage.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventura488 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you believe these sources satisfy the requirements of WP:RS? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Societism

Jayjg – Please consider restoring the Societism Article and make your edits. Obviously I am NOT the person to be writing about history or of particular words (which did make the article innocently although astonishingly inaccurate), but on this one I think a grave error has been made by deleting its historical significance. In 1896 a clear and precise speech (and later published) called, "Individualism and Societism", in detail explained Societism as “…not striving with one another for supremacy, but as progressive stages in the development of an ideal social condition”. It mentioned its historical roots with the Manchester School (laissez faire doctrine), religious applications and other related political, economic and social movements that originated from the Corn Laws and the Anti-Corn Law League. It also addressed that this words very existence was being challenged. For example, that same year as the commencement speech (and later published) to the students of Vassar College, under the same title, "Individualism and "Societism", referred to Societism as Socialism. Unfortunaly, this soon caused the true meaning of this word to become extinct, and in many ways, took the valuable philosophy of Societism with it.

It seems like every fifty or so years the non-socialist meaning resurfaces. As for the tea party movement, that was an example that I thought followed this line of thinking but once it was deleted I didn’t undo it and left it alone. Nor am I nuts about any particular party. Obviously many in the deletion discussion spotted misuses as POV and OR but did little to corrected any of it in the article. I think had it stayed, these editors would have just chopped away, like Jimbo Wales promised to do – and personally, that’s is what it desperately needed help with and I made that clear in nearly every response for over a year! Again, this Societism is not just another word and its true meaning and philosophy is a valuable section of history that must be preserved.Freedom2choose (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Freedom2choose. I understand that you feel passionately about the subject, but the basic arguments you raise here were also raised at the article's AfD, and the consensus there was that it should be deleted. I don't have any personal opinions on the subject of the article, and therefore have no edits I wish to make on the topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT LOL. I think they had their own unending agenda that didn't match the crime. Please, how would you proceed should someone want to rewrite the article? Other than my recommendation that it not be me? Freedom2choose (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the first step would be to find reliable secondary sources on the exact subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Religion of Ancient Israel

I hope this won't be seen as any kind of canvassing or solicitation of support, but I think the post I just made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism‎ could benefit from your attention. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Robotpotato

Very likely one of the more recent in a series of sockpuppets by a notorious and persistent puppetmaster. It wouldn't hurt to go back over several of his edits over the next few days. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AlexLevyOne. JohnInDC (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, great minds - we even share a timestamp! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how we did that? Hah! Well - Checkuser from the above shows Robotpotato to be unrelated to AlexLevyOne. This is probably the first time I've been wrong about identifying him in, I dunno, 70 or so instances. He is still, however, a disruptive editor and at the very least bears close watching. JohnInDC (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

An article he created was just deleted as a hoax, and I've asked him on his Talk: page to explain its creation. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

WT:VER

Re "no more comments about SlimVirgin"- What comments were you referring to? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Compliment

Good catch Debresser (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Alex Biega

I request that you restore the article Alex Biega that you deleted without discussion. The subject meets the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY because he achieved preeminent honours by being selected as a member of the 2007 ECAC All-Rookie Team. Dolovis (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The AfD on the article on him was conducted years after he was selected for that team, and its conclusion was that he failed WP:NHOCKEY. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

G4 does not apply because the page you deleted was not "substantially identical to the deleted version" and further, "the reason for the deletion no longer applies" because the article now shows that the subject meets the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

G4 applied because the six editors who commented on the AfD in December 2009 unanimously agreed that he failed WP:ATHLETE and WP:NHOCKEY, and because he has done nothing since then which would make him meet the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY. Therefore, the reason for the deletion still applies. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not the policy for G4. It has been a year since the AfD, and since that time things have changed as the subject is now playing professionally. Additionally, it was never brought up that the subject was a member of the All-Rookie Team, and if it was brought up the result would have likely been different. And finally, it is improper for you to be both the nominator and executioner of a Speedy Delete. Since I have objected to the speedy delete the article should be restored and then referred to a 2nd Afd. Dolovis (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only thing that's changed in his status since the AfD is that he has played 1 game in the American Hockey League. WP:NHOCKEY specifies that to qualify the person must have "Played at least 100 games in fully professional minor leagues such as the American Hockey League". In addition, I didn't "nominate" the article, I just speedy-deleted it, as a G4 violation. If you think the deletion was in error, please take it to WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see here

I believe this means that the article in question certainly isn't a SPS((the red text is just part of my statement as I didn't knew how to links this without adding other person's comments)) [1] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppet at Leo Frank??

You previously ordered a 24 hour block on editor Machn (see User talk:Machn#July 2010). Machn's last edit on Wikipedia was August 23, 2010. User:Potzeey made his first edit on August 27 and he has concentrated almost exclusively on the Frank article. His editing pattern was very similar to Machn's (i.e. numerous small edits relying on primary sources that tended to slant the article in an anti-rank direction).

I started questioning the editing recently. Potzeey's responses became more and more like Machn's. Today's edits removed all doubt in my mind. Once again, he is defending Tom Watson [2], alluding to the influence of Jews [3], and using the discussion page to argue Frank's guilt. Three editors have told him to stop using primary sources (for example [4]) yet his most recent edit to the article [5] is once again strictly from primary sources.

Whatever you choose to do (or not do) is appreciated. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, the evidence is compelling. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Judaism

I see you have recently been more active in revising the Judaism article, where the question of "the history of Judaism" is really at issue.

I do not question any of your edits, but i do think in general the article - like most WP articles - sufers from people adding what they know and then providing a source for it, as opposed to asking in a very neutral way what do the sources say and proceeding from there. This is an approach that appeals to me but is very time consuming. Would you have any interest in helping out? The objective would be to rewrite the history section of the article, to keep the focus on the history of "Judaism" (whatever that means - if "religion," then so be it) as opposed to the history of the jewish people. I am working on going through major sources but would rather someone else do the actual editing. Would you like to work with me on this? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help, but if you have the sources, then why would someone else do the editing? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Potzeey

Hi. I wanted to let you know this user has requested unblocking. I was reviewing the request and when I checked, it looks like this person is on a different continent than User:Machn. I would like to unblock them, but wanted your input first. Cheers! TNXMan 14:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume this is based on CU checking. As we used to say, CU is not magic pixie dust; if someone moves, it provides only false negatives. However, based on the editing, it's almost certainly the same individual. They both edit the Leo Frank article almost exclusively, and with the sole intent of proving that Frank was guilty (and a pervert). They both go on about Jewish conspiracies to exonerate Frank. They both engage in extensive Original Research based on the trial transcripts, and in particular on the work of antisemite and prominent Ku Klux Klan reviver Thomas E. Watson, who was a prominent campaigner against Frank, and agitated for his lynching. Potzeey started editing 3 days after Machn stopped editing. The behavioral evidence is too strong to overturn based on the fact that Machn has moved. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

In addition to all of the above, there is the use in their editing of a very specific document referred to as the Brief of Evidence. Machn with this edit [6] explains that it can be purchased for $135.00 from the Georgia Archives. Potzeey also uses this rather expensive and unique source in his editing.

As far as them being on different continents, Machn writes this, "Great News! One no longer needs to go to the Georgia state archives in person to get the Crown Jewels of the Leo Frank Trial known as the *elusive* brief of evidence." This implies he has been there, especially since with this edit [7] he shows he was using the source (obviouslyfrom there physical location at the archives) before he found he could send away for it. Potzeey also was physically there in Atlanta with this edit [8] when he says, when discussing the approach to the crimes scene in Atlanta, "The police at the time said it was not more than 3 minutes, so 4 minutes is too much time. I personally walked it myself and it took about 1 to 2 minutes." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, his near exclusive reliance on essentially two sources, the expensive and "elusive" Brief of Evidence, and the works of Thomas E. Watson, is pretty conclusive. The only other source the two userids used was The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean, Phagan's great-niece. They eschewed the works of all historians in favor of a two primary sources (one hard to get access to, the other highly racist), and a near-polemic written by a relative of the murder victim. This is the nail in the coffin. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you for taking the time to review it. I just wanted to give you a heads up about the situation. Cheers. TNXMan 02:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Congregation Or Chadash

Yes, it was an error. Sorry. Thanks for your understanding. Brendan (TalK|ContriB) 02:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I figured it must have been. No harm done. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your patience. Brendan (TalK|ContriB) 03:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Temple Israel of the City of New York

Courcelles 18:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Courcelles. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Brussels Journal

Hi. I am finding edits [9] [10] made to this article problematic, especially comparing to edits made to other articles by same editor. My concern is neutrality and that we shouldn't have to explain/define everything. Rather, we leave that to the reader. I don't see this applied to other articles [11] by editor so the application of argument appears selective and I am genuinely concerned for the articles and the loss of information (removing unsourced information from non-BLP articles when these could be tagged or a new source sought by others allowing time). I don't wish to assume anything, so I'd appreciate it, if you could look into this. Songofsirens (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The edits are somewhat problematic, but to be honest, the whole article is. It's almost completely original research. You both should be using reliable secondary sources to describe the content, rather than picking and choosing various postings on the blog. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting. I see the original research, which I find a common trend when describing organizations or groups/blogs: [12]. I never contributed to the articles making, but I'd say the blog posts (currently sourcing the article) simply convey main views on multi-culturalism (which have spurred controversy also covered). In that respect they seem important. However, the article could also benefit from secondary sources certainly which I'm looking into. But I don't think we should define various phrases used but leave it for the reader to interpret. Also thanks for the welcome! Songofsirens (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't actually revert anything, or even edit the articles in question, but I'm happy to have helped in some way. Again, I would recommend avoiding sourcing things directly to any of the blog posts - if something is a "main view" or has "spurred controversy also covered", then reliable secondary sources will discuss it. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Australian place name conventions (again)

Please see Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Australian place name conventions (again) before reverting back. This issue is clearly not solved as of yet. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 05:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please delete User talk:Kevios

Please delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kevios page. --Somerwind (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it meets CSD G3. It might meet CSD G2, or perhaps WP:NOTBLOG. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Block length

Yesterday you (thankfully) blocked User:Robotpotato for 12 hours. Essentially he was adding unsourced Jewish religion categories to a large swath of biography articles. It has now come to light that he also created a hoax article, Sining Mouse, back in March 2010. There a number of giveaways that the article is a hoax, not the least of which is the sentence "On January 1, 2010 BF Powers died after a slipping and falling in the shower on a bar of soap there was no funeral. It was announced that Ettore Ovazza has joined the band as a musician and his instrument is the tambourine." Ettore Ovazza was a Jewish member of Mussolini's government. So points to Robotpotato for originality, but given that his hoax article remained unchallenged in article space for over 7 month, perhaps an indef block would be more appropriate? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what happens to the article first. It certainly looks like a hoax. If it is a hoax, it might make more sense to take the indefinite block request to AN/I. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted as a hoax, and I've asked him on his talk page to explain its creation. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a strange case. The first article was a hoax, but I went through many of his other article creations and they are valid, a little weak on the notability side, but certainly verifiable. He seems to be at least trying to include sources when editing the Jewish categories/articles now (although sometimes he is using wikimirrors as a source). I can AGF that he can turn around and become a valuable editor, but I think his edits warrant some monitoring for a while to keep him on the right path. It will be interesting to see what explanation he gives for the hoax article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to tell exactly. His edits aren't malicious so much as a bit misdirected or clumsy. But I do agree he's going to need minding. A hoax article, misleading edit summaries (including inappropriate use of the 'minor' flag), obstinancy when questioned or challenged - it's a handful. I'd be more optimistic if he had ever once responded to any question or comment on his Talk page. I guess we'll see -- JohnInDC (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The not responding is an issue. I've told him that if he doesn't respond, I'll block him. Someone needs to get his attention somehow. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, at some point the unwillingness to communicate becomes a problem in itself. I have a funny feeling he'll take the block rather than talk - but as you say, AGF. Who knows what might happen. JohnInDC (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, he seems to have resumed editing. JohnInDC (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Congregation Or Chadash

Hi Birdie, I updated the hooks (including the hook you proposed) at Template talk:Did you know with the updated information.[13] You may want to further tweak the hooks. Love, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at the latest developments too, it appears it may have been a misunderstanding or misinformation. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories for Jewish congregations

Please add any categories to those articles that would be appropriate. How about creating categories like "Religion in X County, Pennsylvania", and then the congregations can go there, along with churches and other religious organizations. Jllm06 (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a really good idea! Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles Judaism and Mosaic Law

Would you mind taking a look at these articles, please? There is a user called User:Greyshark09 who is intent on turning "Mosaic Law" into a full fledged religion distinct from Judaism, and changing the Judaism article to claim that Judaism is based on this Mosaic Law. Thanks. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Template Edit I Made

Hi, Jay. Would you mind looking at a response I gave at Template_talk:Antisemitism and seeing if it carries anything with you? I still just look at that list and the work sticks out like a sore thumb to me. Regards. DannySchuster (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament

Don't know if I have a strong opinion on the proliferation of subordinate "titles", but the initial section on the name Jesus itself had a number of problems... AnonMoos (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Outline of Judaism

Hi Jayjg: Following a recent request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Outlines on religions for an Outline of Judaism for a series that already included Outline of Islam, Outline of Christianity, Outline of Buddhism, Outline of Hinduism, I then created and filled in Outline of Judaism as best I could. I looked over how some of the other "Outlines" were done, and then I took the Introduction directly from the Judaism article via cut and paste, and I then basically tried to use as many of the templates from Category:Jews and Judaism templates. It's a good start but can use improvement and polishing. Based on your knowledge and expertise could you please review it and improve it. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at it. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Alex Biega

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alex Biega. 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. Dolovis (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Closed with no consensus to undelete: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 29. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Save Our Souls

Hi, Jay. I worked on the german wikipedia article about Save Our Souls which was deleted two times by you. I get some searches which could proof the relevanche of of the band. You can find them all at the german article. Just one question: At en:WP are many bands which are lower important than SOS because some released just one or more EPs. Why are those bands more important than SOS? Greatings Goroth 22:21, 5 November 2010 (CEST)

Hi Goroth. Regarding those other articles on bands, please review WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. What you need to provide are not "searches that prove the relevance", but independent reliable sources that prove the band's notability. I couldn't see any in the article; do any exist? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't know if there are much reliable sourches... I found a entry at MusicBrainz and that their EP and Debut album were sold in more than five countries... USA, Great Britain, Germany, France and Canada. 7,000 selled albums just in the US. I don't know how much of the CD's were sold in the other four countries. Their song Paradise Lost was licensed by Major League Baseball and ESPN. They played at the Sunset Strip Music Festival in August and played on concerts witeat sh many well-known artists such like The Ataris, From Autumn to Ashes, On Broken Wings, Iron Maiden and so on. The band had a appearance at Fearless Music and LA TalkRadio. I don't know if one of this shows are notable. I don't know why the label and SOS splitted up but I think for a newcomer band are this aspects a great success. I don't know a band who have reached more then them... BTW... They will play or have played a concert with Crossfade for Woundered and Homeless Veterans in Las Vegas. I don't know why some bands who released just one CD are more important than them and why at the english wikipedia are articles for every not important anime figures who doesn't have a main role at the series? Can you tell? Goroth 17:48, 7 November 2010 (CEST)

MusicBrainz appears to be an open wiki, so it wouldn't qualify as a reliable source. I don't know all the reasoning that went into each of the notability guidelines, but in general, Wikipedia relies very heavily on significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources to establish notability, not which concerts they've played, or where they've appeared. If independent, reliable, secondary sources think they're notable enough for an article, then so does Wikipedia. If they don't, then neither do we. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I know that SOS will release their third album in a few weeks or months... Can you transfer the article to User:Goroth/Save Our Souls so I can work on it? Maybe their next album will show if they are successful... I see that there is one version on my UNR... But can you transfer the last version of the article? Goroth 18:20, 7 November 2010 (CEST)

Sure, I've moved it there. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Goroth 18:55, 7 November 2010 (CEST)

Undeletion

Hi, please restore File:Andre Geim interview to Yedioth Ahronoth, Oct 15 2010, p. 25.jpg; it is a little portion of an article that I've uploaded (in Fair use) for the on-going (and apparently unceasing) discussion in Talk:Andre Geim. (I didn't find the right template to put in it in order to prevent its deletion.) Thanks, Aviados (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't undelete it. The reason you "didn't find the right template to put in it in order to prevent its deletion" is because it doesn't qualify as fair use, and therefore is a copyright violation. Please don't upload it again, or attempt to undelete it. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. Well, I naturally will not simply upload it again if it indeed does not qualify as fair use.

However, if I remember correctly, fair use is a copyright violation by definition; and the criteria for it are the lack of an equivalent free content which can serve the same purpose, and the use while reducing the copyright violation to a minimum.

Now, this interview is not available on-line; doesn't a scan of three paragraphs from the article, meant for the establishment of a fact under question, qualify as fair use? If not, what WILL qualify as fair use in that context? A one-paragraph scan? Aviados (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use can only be claimed if the material is used in an article itself; see Wikipedia:FAIRUSE#Policy 2, point 9. That excludes it from being placed on Talk: pages. And since there's no rationale for including this particular scan in an actual article, it can't be uploaded. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I once consulted with a lawyer from the Hebrew Wikipedia who serves as the local copyright law specialist regarding a similar case - and he advised we should keep the file. But since there is a written rule here which specifically forbids it, I'm not gonna argue. And as I understand, creating a subpage for this purpose is not an option. Oh well.. Thanks anyway, Aviados (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

uniPaaS Undeletion

Hey, can you please restore the uniPaaS page/ This was a speedy deletion and ignored the citations and notability which was incorporated in the article. Deletion in a matter of days for an article that has been developed over a period of years seems Wrong. The claim of the propose deletion that all references were to press releases are inaccurate. Thanks. [[[User:Magicyaniv|Magicyaniv]] (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)]

The AfD was closed after the usual 7 days, it was not a "speedy deletion", and the consensus of the discussion was to delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Congregation Or Chadash

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_Or_Chadash

You did a fine job with the artilce, for what it's worth. I initiated a discussion on the talk page and I would like to have your input. --Dontlikeitinthetuchis (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User Machnn

Not sure what's going on, seems like it's worth a look: [14]. IronDuke 03:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

So it appears that Machnn has claimed to be Potzeey. When I struck the comments the latter had made, Machnn reverted with the edit summary My windows crashed, forcing me to do a re-install and lost my wiki password, Please grow up. I have made a lot of high quality contributions to wikipedia. Previously, you will recall, as Potzeey he strongly indicated he was not Machn.

Also, in the course of his conversation with me, he alleged that I could not spell, and referred to me therefore as "Mr. Ebonics" [15] more than once. This is flat racist. There's also some stuff about me being "pathetic," "loathsome," "despicable," but that's pretty tame compared to the rest. So we have:

1. Reverting back the words of a banned sock.

2. Lying about that being his sock.

3. Antisemitic invective.

4. Racist invective.

5. Strong, self-admitted POV-pushing on a sensitive article "you endlessly try to rehabilitate a pedophile, rapist and murderer (and the criminals that defended him)."

6. Abusive personal attacks.

I don't know what sort of block length this merits, but I'd argue for a long, long break from the LF article. It's impossible to edit with this. Thanks. IronDuke 03:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

His statement is ambiguous; it could refer to his Machnn account, rather than the Potzeey account. Let's see how he responds below. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, though I think in the context of reverting back Potzeey's comments, he is offering an excuse as to why he switched accounts. I forgot to mention this IP, who supports him but who Machn seems to indicate is not him [16]. Don't know if that helps. IronDuke 03:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ed Miliband

Hey, can you please undo this? As you'll be aware, WP:BLP is a bright line here, and the onus (per BLPCAT) is on those wishing to retain or add dubious material to attain consensus for it that the ethnic label is a self-identified one (doubtful) and significant to the person's notability (highly doubtful). Thanks. --John (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, of course I can't undo it. Removing those categories is itself a WP:BLP violation - did you notice the edit summary? There's nothing whatsoever "dubious" or "doubtful" about his strong self-identification, which he's stated very clearly on many occasions, and these cats are not added merely if something "significant to the person's notability" - otherwise we'd delete 98% of them. There actually is a pretty strong consensus for these cats too, and certainly no consensus to remove them. Please make sure you read the entire discussion on the article's Talk: page, please ensure that you review the many sources in which he declares his self-identification, and please do not remove the cats in the future, per WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding of a foundation policy astounds me. Are you not familiar with WP:BURDEN, which is a part of WP:BLP? --John (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN has been more than satisfied by the many explicit statements by Miliband that he is Jewish. Now, if he was the son of, say, two Enga from Papua New Guinea, then we might says "hey wait, what exactly does he mean when he says that?" But he's the son of two Jews! His mother and two paternal grandparents are Jewish survivors of the Holocaust! WP:BLP says we must be very cautious and conservative when it comes to making statements about living people, but it nowhere gives us license to completely disregard what they plainly and non-contentiously state about themselves on multiple occasions. On the contrary, publicly disbelieving and wikilawyering around their explicit statements (not to mention common sense) is a violation of WP:BLP itself. Now, please continue any further discussion on this topic on the article's Talk: page, so all interested editors can see it and participate. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Fresh Start Jay

I apologize for the name change, my windows crashed beyond repair and I had to do a full re-install which meant my saved wiki password was lost forever with no option to retrieve. I genuinely want to contribute to Wikipedia, as I have made thousands of high quality edits and additions across Wikipedia. Is it possible to get my old account back or do I need to create a new account every time windows crashes and I lose my password, assuming I don't put a retrieval password. Machnn (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll now clarify your relationship with the User:Potzeey account. You know, the one that started editing, with your exact POV and sources, just after you "stopped" editing. And now that it's blocked, this new account has appeared to edit as Machn again. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Article

You deleted my article without a discussion on the talk page. I had legitimate references (Charlotte Observer, State Paper, USA Today) and you still delete it? Why the biased hate? —Preceding Signatures comment added by Rangeroverdouble0 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Mjayjg

FYI. He hasn't done anything so far but recreate an article you deleted, but with this choice of username, this fellow seems eager to test the limits -- JohnInDC (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

List of converts to Islam

I've tried to improve List of converts to Islam article and I've added a content that verifiable for living peoples to the lists with references yesterday. So, why you remove that living peoples that I've improved from list? --Gtabigfan2010 (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you reviewed WP:V and WP:BLP? Which entry do you imagine was reliably sourced? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot review a full detail, but I have reviewed it. And I want to improve Wikipedia by adding verifiable content, reverting vandalism, and remove the unsourced content. Thanks. --Gtabigfan2010 (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

O.K., that's great. Now, do you think the citations you used met the requirements of WP:V and WP:BLP? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Miliband et al.

I'm happy to see that we've entered The Twilight Zone—for entertainment purposes: the child of 2 Holocaust survivors is now said to have a "religion" of "None" in an "Infobox," despite having never converted to another religion, and despite his own proclamations of being a Jew. Hallelujah—a new age is upon us. Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You know what? It turns out that may of the Jews who survived the Holocaust (not to mention were killed in it) had no religion at all, and some actually actively practiced religions other than Judaism. Being a Jew doesn't mean that you therefore practice Judaism, even if you have no religious practices at all. Bus stop, we're well aware of your unique views about Judaism as a religion; that when a Jew explicitly states they do not practice Judaism, it means to you that they are actually practicing it, but "non-observantly". But in the real world, when someone doesn't practice a religion, it means they actually don't practice it. Your logic leads you to the same kind (albeit opposite POV) of illogical positions (and edits) that we see coming from people like User:John, just above on this page. If you want to get anywhere here, you're going to have to recognize that no-one shares your unique views on this topic, and you will have to compromise. Now, you can stick to your guns, in which case the outcome may well be what John is pushing for, despite the fact that it violates policy. Or, you can support Topperfalkon's compromise, in which case you'll get much of what you're looking for, albeit not all of it. The question here is, have you learned to compromise yet? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(I struck out a part of my post above, as I regret being flippant in that way.) I will try to respond to your above post at a later time. Bus stop (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg—you say above that I have expressed that, "…when a Jew explicitly states they do not practice Judaism, it means ... that they are actually practicing it, but 'non-observantly'." I never said that. I was hesitant to respond to the above, but you are now repeating it elsewhere. Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Have I misunderstood you then? Do you not think that if a Jew says they practice no religion, it means they're still practicing Judaism? Or if a Jew says they don't believe in God, and were brought up with no religion, it still means they're practicing Judaism? Also, do you understand that "Jewish" is an adjective, not a religion - that "Judaism" is a religion? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Jan Schakowsky's religious affiliation

Jayjg, You've deleted my additon of Jan Schakowsky's religion as Jewish, and asked me not to add unsourced or poorly-sourced information. The fact that Ms. Schakowsky is Jewish is well-known and well-documented. In fact, the bio on her House website mentions the fact.

I don't believe it has been customary to cite references for the religious affiliation of members of Congress on Wikipedia.

FYI here are a few links that establish that Jan Schakowsky is Jewish:

http://schakowsky.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2577&Itemid=8

http://www.njdc.org/site/page/jan_schakowsky

http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/appendix.pdf

BlueMesa171 (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Those sources indicate that she's Jewish, but say nothing about her religion. "Jewish" is not a religion, "Judaism" is. Do you have any sources that talk about what religion she practices? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are spliting hairs. Those who's religion is Catholicism are known as Catholics. Is it your contention that one must be religiously observant to have their religion indicated as "Judaism"? I found this story on Jan Schakowsky's campaign web site which includes her comments about having celebrated her Bat Mitzvah at Temple Menorah.

http://www.janschakowsky.org/news/steve-sheffey-jan-trumps-pollak-kins-debate

This demonstrates that she is more than simply ethnically Jewish. BlueMesa171 (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Jews practice all sorts of religions, and none at all. It's nice she had a bat mitzvah when she was 12; do you have any sources on her religion today? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg—this edit is at variance with what sources say. You can't strip an individual of their religion because in your opinion the word used is the wrong part of speech. It doesn't matter if it is a noun or an adjective—it is the word used by the source. Jewish is an extremely common term for religious designation. It may be more common than Judaism.

It is not necessary that one establish that the individual is "religiously observant". The individual need not have had a "Bat Mitzvah". The field in the Infobox for Religion can be filled by the term Jewish if that is the term used by sources to describe the person's religion. The individual need not be "practicing." Common speech makes reference to the religion of the person being "Jewish." We are not accountable for the choice of words by sources. Our main responsibility is to abide by sources. Many words are used in many different ways. Some are nonstandard—and we wouldn't want to use them. But "Jewish" is perfectly standard. Bus stop (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

She hasn't been "stripped of her religion" or anything else. She's in Category:Jewish members of the United States House of Representatives, and I haven't said she needed to be "religiously observant" or have "had a Bat Mitzvah". For I hope the last time, "Jewish" is not a religion, nor is it a "standard" way of referring to Judaism. It's an adjective meaning "of, relating to, or characteristic of the Jews; also : being a Jew ", no more. "Judaism" is a religion, and no sources indicate she practices that. Now, until you find a reliable source indicating she practices Judaism, or at least indicating that she is, say, a member of a synagogue, please desist from further disruptive nonsense. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

An Infobox provides shorthand information, and we should be conforming to the terminology used by our sources. In this instance the term used by sources happens to be "Jewish." You say, "find a reliable source indicating she practices Judaism." That is unnecessary. The Infobox is only providing a generalized orientation as to her religious identification. "Jewish" suffices because it communicates some information to the reader, which is all an Infobox can be expected to do. The reader can utilize that information. There is no reason the reader should be deprived of that information. That is what the Infobox is for, in my understanding. It contains an abbreviated snapshot. In my opinion we need not be sticklers for what part of speech a word is, in a one-word field. It is more important that we convey information and that we conform to the words used by sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The infobox is expected to provide sourced, verifiable summary information, per WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:BLP. The category suffices to convey to the reader the information that Schakowsky is Jewish; the reader is "deprived" of nothing verifiable. In my opinion, and that of policy, we need to be "sticklers" for WP:BLP. I do say "find a reliable source indicating she practices Judaism." And it absolutely is necessary. Please don't bother to respond further here on this topic; respond, if you must, on the article's Talk: page. But don't respond with your opinions; we're all well aware of them, and they're not relevant to the discussion. Instead, bring reliable sources stating that Schakowsky practices Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

3rd November, 2010

Kumaradinath (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC) I read few of your good edits of 3rd November and find one page on which you showed your interest. I read discussion page and feel that page need some more discussion before deletion. It will be great if you consider it for review.

I'm not sure what you mean, can you explain? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Kumaradinath (talk) 09:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I want to bring your attention on page named Hishmi Jamil Husain. Please check.

I deleted the article because that was the consensus of the policy and guideline-based comments here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hishmi Jamil Husain. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Kumaradinath (talk) I read comments and do not feel it is out of box of policy. Please reconsider my request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumaradinath (talk • contribs) 06:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still don't think there is any other realistic conclusion. However, if you believe the deletion was made in error, please feel free to make that argument at WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

EFF

I've replied to your comments. Buggie111 (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Kohen Update

A very respected Rabbi and Website recently published the following article. Perhaps you should update Wikipedia's Kohen article accordingly.

"With the importance and centrality of lineage in ritual matters, one is compelled to question how we can be so certain that after so many centuries in Exile the chain of lineage has been properly maintained. Can anyone who claims to be a Kohen simply be relied upon? Indeed, a number of authorities rule that the tribal designations in use today are merely “assumptions” with no halachic or scientific certainty as to their accuracy. It is actually presumedthat most Kohanim today are likely not of pure lineage.[1] In fact, already in the late Biblical era, and certainly in the Talmudic era, there was considerable doubt as to who was truly a Kohen.[2] Because we are not sure who is truly a Kohen, there are several mitzvot which are no longer performed today in their entirety such a ma’aser, teruma, and challa.[3] Similarly, a number of authorities rule that Kohanim today are not entitled to all the rights and honors that Kohanim had commanded in Biblical times.[4]"

"One who was raised in a completely assimilated or unobservant family should not necessarily conduct himself as a Kohen even if his father should tell him that he is one.[12]"

~Rabbi Ari Enkin

http://torahmusings.com/2010/10/kohanic-lineage.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.97.251 (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem likely that this source would meet the requirements of WP:RS. Please also review WP:SPS. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Christianity and violence

There is discussion on the above page regarding how much space to give antisemitism in the article, and we could probably use some input on sourcing as well. I think your input on the subject in general, and regarding antisemitism particularly, would be more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have grave concerns about articles of this type. They are generally filled with – or completely composed of – OR, and at least one of the people involved in this conflict has an unpleasant and fairly obvious agenda not in keeping with Wikipedia's goals. Arguing about how much or how little space to devote to antisemitism would seem to me to be missing the forest for the trees. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Temple Beth Israel (Plattsburgh, New York)

Gatoclass (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, person, semi-automated task, or bot. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Beth Israel

Hi again. I was doing some DYK reviewing when I saw Beth Israel Congregation of Chester County. I suggested a modified hook there, and then in looking for more sources to support the 'first rabbi' statement, I ended up making some additions to the article. But I was on autopilot with the references and didn't do them in your format. I can fix them up tonight ... Wasted Time R (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll fix up the references myself, don't worry about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to do it but you beat me to it. Anyway, I okayed the DYK. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I shortened your hook a bit, because having the word "synagogue" twice in one sentence seemed redundant. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Borodino class battlecruiser/archive1

Sorry, I hadn't noticed that you still had one outstanding issue in the above FAC. I've made your requested change. See if it is satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Ed Miliband

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Ed Miliband was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, AGK 11:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Edits

Hi! Do you know why your first edits in your contribs list are dated back in January 4, 2003? Those edits were made in March 2005. I am really convinced that this was a temporary bug in the MediaWiki software. HeyMid (contributions) 13:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there was a bug in the software for those two edits. How did you happen to notice? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I was looking in the edit history of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents when I saw that one edit was back in January 2003, weirdly. So I took a quick look at your contributions log, and saw an AFD which also had the wrong date. Are the edits still at the right clock? Is it just the date (January 4, 2003) that is wrong? For how long time was this bug in the software? And you didn't actually notice this bug when you made those two edits. HeyMid (contributions) 09:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they're at the right clock, and I don't recall noticing they were improperly time-stamped until long after I made them. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Article on Holocaust Denial

Unsourced? Do you deny that the holodomor occurred? Or that Walter Duranty covered it up? Click on the links before you delete.John Paul Parks (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Your insertion was unsourced because it had not one citation; in fact, instead it had two [citation needed] tags. Please continue any further discussion on the article Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Beth Israel Congregation of Chester County

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Materialscientist. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bagg Street Shul

Hi Jayig, the Bagg Street Shul is no longer under the leadership of Rabbi Mann and he has not been replaced. I also don't have a source that can support this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.Schwartz (talk • contribs) 03:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the article text to note that that was the situation in 2008. Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and trust. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitism in Sweden

Hi, i was wondering if you knew how i add the "Antisemitism template" to the article about antisemitism in Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalalal (talk • contribs) 23:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't, but the template can't include every single article on antisemitism, and particularly not articles on antisemitism in one country. Also, the material you added to the antisemitism article was far too long and specific. Antisemitism is supposed to be an overview of the topic, and the section you added was a very long description of a prolonged incident with one individual. Please review WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Mibeis HaGenozim - Treasures From The Chabad Library

Hi Jayjg. Sorry for not responding to your message. When I got to RSN it seemed there had already been replies and I couldn't add anything. If it still needs attention let me know and I will try to look into it. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Two old friends

Hi there, I'm currently in a state of semi-retirement on Wikipedia compared with previous activity. This isn't helped by recently when I visit the project I kept on seeing a picture of the man who doesn't like being described as a CO-founder of Wikiepdia.

Anyway what little activity I have done in the last week or two has been on articles where old friends of ours are active. Over at Talk:David Irving the man who likes to chat to Irving via email has made a reappearance and I have decided to call him on that.

In the mean time, I've been surprised not to see you at Jewish control of the media (Antisemitic canard) or whatever it gets called next which was started by another mutual acquaintance. --Peter cohen (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he's continued doing this, and he also recently created Criticism of the Talmud. However, there's little I can do about it on my own, so I've focused on more enjoyable activities, like article creation and writing. What would you suggest should be done? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Many thanks for your gracious note on my talkpage. Especially coming from an editor with whom I had an opposite view on 5 of the 6 AfDs at issue, it was highly appreciated. Your ability to disagree energetically and honestly, while abiding by core wikipedia principles and core personal principles such as honesty, is reflected in your note. It's exemplary, and the project would be the better for it if you could spread it, which you no doubt do by setting an example. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:

I'm pretty sure Mbz1 knows that article's neatness was your doing. He was trying to get me to nominate it because he thought it would spite you for having nominated so many Jewish lists recently. I can't think of any other reason why he'd leave me that message. In any case, I don't agree with random ethnicity + occupation lists but since that viewpoint isn't consensus (yet), I see no rush to dispose of them (when they are nice and sourced like that). Bulldog123 02:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that wasn't his intent, I really don't know what was, because his voting history (and general opinion) has been pretty wildly inconsistent on these topics. I know you're trying to WP:AGF but it's really, really hard to here. Also, if you actually want me to nominate the businesspeople list... I'll nominate it (even though there might be MEATPUPPET accusations flying after that). However, you'll have to give me a strong argument to put in the nomination rationale. Otherwise we won't counter all the "Keep - it's sourced and there's this one, fringey book: BLAH by BLAH" votes. I don't think "Irrelevant intersection" alone is going to sway anyone on the fence (even if we both believe in that). Bulldog123 03:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you're busy in real life right now, but you are leaving all the heavy lifting to me and a few others on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers - despite stating how strongly you want the lists to go. We've had, as expected, a little underground CANVASSing campaign explode, and pretty much all the "regulars" are showing up. Can't really engage in discussion by myself here. I suppose it doesn't matter though, as they're all likely to close "no consensus" (AKA: no progress) by this afternoon. Bulldog123 21:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just going to suggest nominating the British article. Hive mind. Hopefully you'll participate a little more in this one. Bulldog123 09:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't noticed your later notes up here in this section. Both articles were actually deleted, and I don't anticipate this new AfD will be nearly as contentious, given the precedents. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I may have spoken too soon, there's now a DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review#6 December 2010. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• As was expected. Prepare for a massive railroading to happen now and for a small group of users (working together) to push this back into no-consensus. I've been through it many times before. Bulldog123 00:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Miliband

You've probably seen this. I'd revert it as a violation of WP:CONSENSUS, but I would then worry about being blocked -- without justification, but even so. Any thoughts on how to proceed would be appreciated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a real problem; editors are ignoring policy and/or inventing new policy on the fly. It's unclear why they're so adamant about doing so in the specific article, when hundreds of similar ones actually violate the policies they cite. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Can you please unsalt Sing Like Me? It has become notable since the deletion discussion; you may want to see my userspace draft. Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :D Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

AFD

How is 4 vs. 3 consensus? A second vote isn't allowed, no matter what. There is zero point in allowing it to stay. IP votes do not count either, to my understanding. Without them, it is 3 vs. 3, i.e. no consensus. Please restore the page now. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, it doesn't fail WP:MMANOT. 3 apps for notable promotions = pass. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Afd is not a vote; the closing admin takes into account the strength of the arguments of all those who comment. In this case, the "delete" arguments were significantly stronger than the "keep". If you disagree with my analysis of the discussion, please feel free to take your objections to WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

So you took into account, arguments like "he trains at a small gym"? The fact is this, he got many page views, significant coverage of him in the media, passes MMANOT and is well-written. If they're not reasons to keep, I don't know what are. There was no consensus and I'm baffled. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The consensus of other editors was that he wasn't notable because he had no top tier fights. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wichita Massacre

Could you take a look at this edit[17]. It appears to be quite POV. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks pretty dubious, but the IP was subsequently blocked. Please let me know if there are any further issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (apologies this is a somewhat late notification) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears to have been closed before I was aware of it, but thank you for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Robeson

Dear Jay, there are currently problems with another editor about POV, insulting other editors and claiming OWNership of the article at Paul Robeson. Maybe you could chime in and help towards sorting this out. Thanks, Str1977 ^(talk) 09:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The editor appears to have violated 3RR, I'll drop a note on her page. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Str1977 is close to violating it than myself, insulting, backing up user Radh in his usage of the slur Uncle Tom and is lying that I have claimed ownership so please take him to task as well. Simply because he shows up and demands you confront me is not fair play if you do not know the back story! I do not feel Str1977 did a competent and factual enough rewrite for me to work within and I have explained why. He wants it written with his version as a template and I am working on another version with a better chronological structure. The editor Foetusized has stated that he also feels it is a "botched edit" as well. There is no rule saying that his edit has to stand and mine does not. Thanks.Catherine Huebscher ^(talk) 23:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Catherine, I see that several editors have objected to your edits on the article Talk page, and these have included some rather lengthy and detailed lists of issues. You've also been warned about your editing on this article by still other editors, over a period of months, on your own Talk: page. I also have to say that when you accuse The New York Times of "right wing racist povs", you are not likely to be seen as credible. Catherine, it's clear that you're passionate about Robeson; indeed, over 90% of your edits to Wikipedia are to articles about him or the related talk pages - in fact, most to the one article Paul Robeson. However, this singular focus may not have given you a broader view of how Wikipedia articles should be written. Please stop reverting so much, and start working with other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, Str1977 is pushing povs, ("Due to his Soviet sympathies Robeson opposed the Mundt-Nixon Bill...") which is false and leading when a direct quote as to WHY he opposed it and what he said to the committee says nothing of the sort. That lead in is Conservapedia style writing. many other povs of which I have pointed out exist as well as false history like Robeson having deep religious beliefs and practice. And sadly the New York times was very unfair and openly nasty to Robeson and his family. If you want examples I can provide dozens. The NYT changed with the times because it had to. When Robeson received his star posthumously in Hollywood, they wrote that "no one would have deserved this honor less had the star been for his political beliefs..." No mention of John Wayne's " I believe in white supremacy" and other far right racist views mentioned by the NYT when his star was unveiled. His own family has accused the NYT of quoting Robeson falsely with a right wing slant. So I was just stating the paper's very clear, right wing views of PR.

The article had non stop editing wars before I found it abandoned and in disrepair. And yes, I have taken the advice of other editors and I am editing to make the article more concise and chronological as we speak.Catherine Huebscher ^(talk) 6:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Contribution Team

Hi there! This is a message sent to all members of the Contribution Team. We're letting you know that there has been a rather major update - you can read more about it at Wikipedia talk:Contribution Team#Backlog Drive Update And Other News. Kind regards, Panyd and Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Temple Beth Israel (Sharon, Pennsylvania)

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Now it's apparently a bot that tells you? Well, thank you, automated process. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Jayjg's Day!

Jayjg has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Jayjg's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, Jayjg! Signed, Neutralhomer A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The above is given on behalf of User:La comadreja. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Neutralhomer and La comadreja. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You're Welcome! :) Keep up the great work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, why are you not defending your nominations?

You put out this long, passionate speech about seizing the opportunity to finally do something about the horrible state of these ethnicity-occupation lists. Yet now, when the opportunity has presented itself, and you have people on your side... you are no where to be found. I'm already getting accusations slung at me suggesting I'm the only one nominating these lists, and under some agenda to "wipe out Jewry" from Wikipedia. All I'm saying is with a little support, there could have been significant precedent here... but looks like it's back to drawing board. Bulldog123 09:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've been misrepresented in this way. Regarding my own continued presence at the AfDs, I think the arguments I've made are clear and accurate, and I'm not sure disputing the arguments of others really has much effect on the outcomes of these discussions. At some point everything that can be said has already been said. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but you really didn't say much of anything here, and it certainly seems like a 360-degree turn from your contributions to the List of Jewish Nobel laureates AfD where people were quite literally !voting "Keep per Jayjg" ...even though you didn't even lay down a !vote. So... obviously... your presence has influence. Bulldog123 10:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco is now a Featured article! Jayjg, thank you very much for taking your time to review the article and for your helpful and constructive participation. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure, and congratulations! Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

For You

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For your excellent work in creating and rescuing synagogue articles—and articles are what Wikipedia is all about. Even though we haven't interacted very much onsite, I love to read your work. I think your work is a very good example of how well-written and interesting pages in mainspace can pique people's curiosity about a topic. Plus, you're so active here! I've been meaning to give you an award for a while, so enjoy this one. --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! That's very kind of you, and much appreciated. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Re Goyim

The body of the goyim article completely ignores the colliqial usage of that term; instead pretending it is a neutral term for non-Jews. Rather than bicker about what each person on this planet believes the word means, let the context and usage of this word provide the definition. I've reviewed the WP:EL ("Links normally to be avoided" / "9. Links to any search results pages") and don't believe posting this realtime link is a violation because this rule doesn't forbid such links, but only advises against their regular use. The WP:EL guidelines are just guidelines, not rules to be brandished despotically. In this context, the use of a Google Realtime link is justified because: (1) it is on topic (2) is not copyrighted material (3) it provides a neutral definition of the term sourced from the public that uses the term, i.e., is not one-sided propaganda (4) The contrast between the article and the realtime/colliquial usage of this term warrants its inclusion. If the article wasn't so helplessly misleading, I wouldn't insist the inclusion of this link. 98.112.131.155 (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As explained to you by several editors, the links are an obvious violation of WP:EL. And frankly, it's hard to take very seriously the views of someone who repeats the antisemitic canard that the word means "cattle; to be put into service and culled". Also, please post any further responses on the Talk: page of the relevant article. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)