User talk:Jayjg/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I find useful

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 16:38, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

By the way, Sam, I didn't thank you for doing this when I joined Wikipedia because I didn't know how, or know who you were. Let me rectify that; thanks for welcoming me and posting this. Jayjg 02:52, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You've got me wrong[edit]

If only you knew me you would see how silly it was for you to accuse me of intejecting my own personal bias. I am merely trying to state the case for the reasonable anti-zionist and set that apart from the anti-semitic anti-zionist. But, please, stop the name calling and inuendo and the false conclusions. MShonle 04:53, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Really, Mshonle, you're one to talk. Read over your comments to me; see how full they are of accusations and innuendo that I have an "agenda" to equate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, that I am somehow threatened by your insertions, etc. Then look over my comments for even one case of "name calling"; you won't find any. Jayjg 17:01, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

Jayjg, I trust you might actually want to make some additions to the project than just kicking up dust on talk pages. I'm convinced your intentions are noble, but some double-checking (the type that would have prevented your comment on Talk:Ultra-Orthodox Judaism) might help. Also be reminded that refraining from personal attacks is important Wikipedia policy. JFW | T@lk 08:04, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jfdwolff, I was highly insulted by your post to me in talk:ultra-Orthodox Judaism, in which you insinuated that I had not even read the article about which I was commenting. I'm also insulted by your implication that I have made any personal attacks here on Wikipedia, and would like you to point out any. I'm having a hard time getting beyond these issues with you. Jayjg 17:19, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
O.K., you apologized for the talk:ultra-Orthodox Judaism thing, thank you. Jayjg 15:15, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm having difficulty recollecting what prompted my above message. Having been around here a little while I've developed a (perhaps unhealthy) weariness of a particular type of discussion, and sometimes jump the gun in responding. Please accept my apologies again; may we work on many articles together in a constructive fashion. JFW | T@lk 21:08, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Demographics & Russian Poland[edit]

Hi Jayjg, Please see Jewish diaspora for the latest numbers I picked up from Jpost. In regards to Ru. Poland, I am familiar with the area, but this is the 1st time I meet this term. AFAIK, it is called either Ukraine, Byelorussia or Lithuania. Post-1795 and post-Napoleon those parts of Poland belonged to Russian Empire. Next division was in 1939 which is beyond the scope. Humus sapiensTalk 18:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Humus. Russian Poland is not the Ukraine, ByeloRussia, or Lithuania, but the Polish speaking territories controlled by Russia, which Russia lost after World War I. Jayjg 19:14, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Our country is called Belarus, афэлак. --rydel 19:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I suspect you're talking about Congress Poland. I suggest we either use this familiar term (at least to my ears) or create a new entry or a redir for R.P. What do you think? Humus sapiensTalk 19:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Congress Poland seems reasonable to me, though I don't think it's a commonly known term. It should probably have parentheses after it such as:
Congress Poland (the Russian controlled Polish territories).
To be honest, the phrase "Russian controlled Polish territories" is probably better that Russian Poland or Congress Poland. Jayjg 20:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. I created a redir. IMHO these details should be reflected elsewhere. There is enough controversies with Z. already. Humus sapiensTalk 20:27, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I see someone has fixed this awkward phrase. Since the territory in question was formally under Imperial Russia's control at the time and the pogroms of 1881-84, 1903-05, 1915-21 are also associated with Russia, IMO it's cleaner this way. Humus sapiensTalk 22:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Who are the “Karaim” Jews? To adequately answer this question, a brief history about their origin is appropriate. They are a little-known Jewish group, a branch of Judaism, who existed as far back as the days of the second temple in Jerusalem. They were scholars, many of simple backgrounds, who taught among the people and strongly believed that the Torah was subject to individual interpretations—after rigorous study—and therefore was open to discussions and analysis. Their name was established from the word “Kara” in Hebrew, meaning to read, and hence they were the readers of the Holy Scriptures. The first recorded historical documentation of their existence was tied to the ancient Essenes during the period of the second temple. Like their Essenes counterpart, the Karaim split from the ruling priesthood in Jerusalem, for they considered it to be tainted, hence they chose to seclude among themselves near the Qumran Mountains. However, the Karaim shared few ways of life with the Essenes, other than the plain fact that their religious beliefs dominated their lives without hindering their daily cultivation of the land, and their resilient and ardent patriotism. The Karaim subsequent chronological citation was well established with the discovery of the Qumran caves and the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls provided the modern era with the oldest known preservation of the Hebrew Bible. It was also believed that the Karaim fled the mountains during the brutal Roman massacres of the Jews in Judea and their relentless pursuit of the Essenes afterwards. With the sudden weakening position of the Essenes, and the continual increasing influence of the Pharisees, the Karaim embraced comparatively more liberal attitudes regarding their daily life, while strongly abiding to the four important principles of worship, repentance, charity, and study. Subsequently, the Karaim flourished in the eight century in the current era through the expansive literary work of David Ben Anan. Their mission advocated the three pillars of Judaic faith: The written law, the inference of the Text, and the yoke of inheritance.

Henry Mourad

Hi Jayjg,

On the Karaite Judaism portion of the Jew page, you added the word 'later' and specified "Al-Kirkisani lived after Anan" - what's the point? IMO, the addition of the word 'later' is redundant, but that's just me.

Be Well--Josiah 00:14, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Yoshiah. There are different views of the origins of the Karaites. The vast majority of scholars consider them to be descendants wholly, or in part, of the Ananites. Some Karaites, however, present a very different view, preferring to see themselves as descendants of the Sadducees, and often repudiating any relationship with the Ananites. I say "some" Karaites, of course, because other Karaites do not repudiate this connection at all. The scholarly view (which sees al-Kirkisani and Anan ben David as part of a continuum), and the views of some Karaites, cannot be entirely ignored in favour of your view, which would like to excise Anan from Karaite history. The fact that al-Kirkisani criticised Anan is neither here nor there; Rabbinic Judaism is filled with later Rabbis criticising the views of earlier Rabbis, yet they are all part of Rabbinic Judaism. In fact, you've inspired me to add the views of other Karaites to the articles referring to them. Jayjg 00:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. If you wouldn't mind, would you post links to the articles you plan to ammend in my User_Talk:Yoshiah_ap? --Josiah 04:55, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re; Hebrew language vs. "Canaanite languages"[edit]

Hi , please see:

Request for assistance in a conflict between users regarding Canaanite and Hebrew linguistics articles

Your interest and input would be appreciated. Thank you. IZAK 10:24, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Update: The above discussion was moved to Talk:Hebrew languages. Your input would be appreciated. IZAK 06:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Revert wars and Ultra-Orthodox[edit]

Revert wars can only really be stopped if some common grounds can be found between the reverting parties on the talk page. Otherwise, the normal rules for conflict resolution apply (e.g. first mediation, then arbitration). Someone who reverts the same article for 3 times without engaging in meaningful debate can be banned, see Wikipedia:Three strikes you're out policy (still tentative). It seems you've already initiated some steps against Simonides; if he does not respond to mediation attempts, then arbitration may be required.

As for Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, I'll have a look at the talk page, and make the move on the basis of that discussion. JFW | T@lk 22:14, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be covered under the Judaism Wikiproject, also?--Josiah 04:35, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Saw your note, thanks. I was away, will take a look. Pls do smth with your home page, it's a joke to leave it like this. Humus sapiensTalk 10:03, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Humus. I don't know much about home pages, though I see you helped fix mine up at one point. What would you suggest? Jayjg 14:51, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
humus_sapiens-{AT}-yahoo-{DOT}-com Humus sapiensTalk 18:33, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

About Simonides and straw-man arguments against Jews[edit]

I am becoming very concerned about the behaviour of Simonides; he has already declared himself an enemy of "Zionist" contributions to Wikipedia, (although he has little idea of what this word really means; he uses this word as slur word.) Simonides's distortion of the content of the anti-Zionism article (and others), and his distortion of the views of Jewish groups, are straw-man attacks. As you know, no mainstream Jewish denomination, organization or group has ever claimed that a criticism of an Israeli policy or government is anti-Semitism; no on here on Wikipedia here is saying that either. Simonides' repeated claims to the contrary are Jew-baiting strawman attacks. They are not only factually false (and thus have no place in an encyclopedia), but will only serve to encourage open anti-Semitism. This isn't about a disagreement on how to phrase facts; this is about his manufactoring of false "facts" in order to hurt others whom he disagrees with. This behaviour is out of line, and if he continues, we may need to bring this up on the Wiki-En list. RK 13:37, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hi RK. I don't know much about Wikipedia arbitrarion procedures (yet), nor am I familiar with Simonides aside from our interactions on the anti-Semitism page. I'm a little dismayed by his persistent personal attacks in the Talk: page, but I still intend to work through the changes to the anti-Semitism page, and hope he can come on board in terms of making some positive contributions, rather than just censoring views that he disagrees with. Once anti-Semitism is cleaned up, I may be able to look at other pages for POV and non-neutrality. Jayjg 14:55, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I'm not sure what you mean about this word being offensive. What isn't offensive? Gypsy can be offensive in some contexts, refering to itenerant people of any ethnicity. Where I used to live people said "gyp" to refer to an unfair deal, as in "Three dollars??? Thats a gyp". Where I live now the word "Jew" is used in the same way "I was gonna charge you for that refill, but I decided not to jew ya". Retard is a clinical term. I suppose I could have said "mental retards" or maybe "those suffering from mental retardation" but I'm not P.C. Maybe you'd prefer I'd have said "differently abled", something so impossibly vague as to refer to anyone or anything? No way, no newspeak for me ;) Sam [Spade] 21:19, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sam. I didn't see "retard" used as a clinical term on that page.
re·tard (rtärd)
n. Offensive Slang
1. Used as a disparaging term for a mentally retarded person.
2. A person considered to be foolish or socially inept.
[Short for retarded.]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Jayjg 21:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It was short for retarded. :) Sam [Spade] 21:59, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Hello. Simonides has requested mediation concerning, amongst others, the following articles, some of which you may have been involved with: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Modern anti-Semitism, PLO, Hamas, and Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Would you agree to discuss these issues with Simonides with the help of a mediator? If so, please respond at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation or on my talk page. If there are any mediators you would rather not handle this case, please say so. There is a list of them at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee.

Angela, member of the Mediation Committee, 05:53, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Seperation Barrier[edit]

I'm impressed with your geniality on the seperation barrier page. Got any ideas on where to find more photographs? A brief Google search leads to to pictures that are probably more represenative of the majority of the wall. The only thing I could easily find that might be open license, or permission easily obtainable, was this image at


Stargoat 18:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliment, Stargoat. So far using Google and Yahoo I found these pictures:

Most of them seem too small to show anything clearly; the last two are larger, and might work, but I don't know how you can tell if something is open license etc.

Jayjg 20:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Write and ask if you can use it? Stargoat 00:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jesus article[edit]

Um, it's not that I'm criticizing you or anything, but what was your rationale for removing my edits on the Jesus page? I think I understand your POV, but I still think some of those things belong on an article about Jesus... for example, the bit about Saul was to clarify why Jesus is regarded as the "central figure" of Christianity and not its founder. And I thought the piece on the life and teachings of Jesus could use a LOT of material, considering how much is in the Scriptures, and I thought the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount were good places to start. Sorry about the delay -- I didn't notice the change until today! Brutannica 01:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The article on Jesus is already twice the recommended maximum Wikipedia length; what it needs is less material, not more. Most of what you included was personal opinion, and the rest might be better in a separate article (e.g. an article on the Golden Rule, listing its use in various cultures). And while I agree that Paul was the founder of Christianity, that is a highly controversial opinion that I suspect few devout Christians would agree with. Jayjg 02:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm... Well:
1. I believe the primary focus of the article should be a biography of Jesus and how his ideas influenced Christianity and subsequently, much of the world. I found this rather lacking. Around half of it focused on historical debate on Jesus; which is fine, and very interesting in my opinion, but I think that would be a better candidate for moving to a separate article (or at least part of it). And even if you don't agree, then I'm not sure a separate article on Jesus's teachings exists, unless you count the mini-articles on separate teachings.
2. I wasn't saying Saul was the founder of Christianity, I was expressing why I assumed Jesus was referred to as "the central figure" and not the founder. I think I implied that the religion had two founders. Even so, would explaining the differences between Jesus and Saul briefly in the opening section still be a bad idea?
Apology for the opinions... I didn't expect them to be controversial, and I thought they shed some light on things (ex., why Jesus gained a following). Brutannica 00:32, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
One of the goals of Wikipedia is to avoid POV declarations, at least not if they're unbalanced. But if you feel these changes are warranted you're free to go to the Talk:Jesus page and get other opinions on them. Jayjg 14:25, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Doesn't seem as if anyone has other opinions at the time. Should I keep waiting until the whole naming argument winds down? Brutannica 21:24, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think people are distracted by that. Actually, the whole Talk: page there should be cleaned up, most of the discussions there are no longer relevant, and people may not even see your questions. Jayjg 21:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, today is my deadline. Since no one's said anything, should I "clean up" the Talk page? If so, how would I do that? If not, then should I start reorganizing the article anyway? I know I'm probably not supposed to post this question here, but you're probably more knowledgeable about Wikipedia than I am and besides, you answer my posts.
P.S.: I think Roscoe x might also be interested in expanding the "life and teaching" section based on his sub-headings and "Miracles of Jesus" red link. Brutannica 02:20, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Brutannica; I think you would be doing everyone a favour if you cleaned some old discussions out of the Talk: page, and then propose your own changes. If no-one objects to them after a day or two, then you can assume you have a green light. The only other thing I might recommend is "hiving off" some of the larger sections into their own articles, which is often done when Wikipedia articles get too large. Jayjg 02:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, the problem is, I don't know how to do that. Could you explain, or is a tutorial more appropriate?
P.S.: I know this isn't your problem, but I asked at the Constantine I page and no one responded. HOW DO YOU SWITCH AROUND PARAGRAPHS? I never read about a Cut/Paste-type option. Brutannica 06:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
P.P.S.: I'm going to be gone 'til Friday at the earliest, so you won't hear from me immediately.

Hi Brutannica; I've archived some older Talk: and moved newer stuff to the bottom. I hope this helps. Jayjg 20:19, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Brutannica 20:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

what next[edit]

I hope that you understand that my concern is with policy and precedent. When looking down the road from the standpoint of the changes you propose, I see a great deal of trouble on the horizon which I think is avoidable. But I caused you to be offended, I think, so that now I can't seem to put distance between the cause of my concern, and you personally. Not much hope of progress, if that kind of detachment can't be achieved; but I'm looking for a way out of the impasse. Mkmcconn 20:35, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your writing me. Maybe you can explain what kind of trouble is on the horizon, so I'll better understand your position. Jayjg 20:57, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'll give it some thought, and see if I can say something helpful this time. Let me try the following approach, with three additional points that you might want to respond to.
Editorial policy should be neutral in the sense that, the policy itself should not create win/lose scenarios between competing perspectives but should rather mediate the conflict in order to enhance the informative content of the articles.
1. I say "enhance" rather than "balance".
2. Your comment, "what does this add?", is therefore apropos.
3. But neutrality is not an uber-perspective that trumps all others.
So, in short, I want to avoid reversion wars based on a "determinist" view of neutrality: where the content is decided on one side as though it were a matter of policy, and on the other side is perceived as the promotion of a particular (hostile) point of view. Mkmcconn 17:21, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You make some good points. Neutrality is certainly not the only goal in an article, and enhancing the content is important. That said, there are certain kinds of changes which should be done as a matter of policy. If a usage is preferred, by whatever measure, then Wikipedia should strive to be consistent in that usage. And some usages certainly are preferred, for good reason, since other usages may be derogatory, or reflect various biased POVs. Let me give an example; let's say a number of Wikipedia articles, drawing on sources from the early 20th century, consistently referred to American Blacks as "Negros". I personally would have no difficulty with someone going through all articles using the word "Negro" (unless it were in a direct quotation), and changing it to a more preferred term. Jayjg 17:40, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
When sensitivity to context is considered, it tempers my concern. I reacted to your edit notes and comments in talk, rather than the edits themselves. The fault for the battle that followed lies with me, in that case. Mkmcconn 18:00, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Thanks, I always relish being appreciated, it helps make up for a great deal of complaint (of which I have plenty ;). Keep up your good work here on the wiki, it is likewise appreciated :) Sam [Spade] 21:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Jayjg, thank you for restoring my comment on the project talk page. It is something that I could not have done myself. 12:24, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My pleasure. Why don't you get a User login? Jayjg 14:24, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed your most recent comment on the Wikiproject:Judaism and the Conservative bias inserted in some articles. All I can say is Thank you! Danny 00:05, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

judaism introduction[edit]

I am sorry -- I thought you had changed only the title. I have no excuse, other than that I am very tired. Slrubenstein

Ah, it wasn't such a big deal after all. I was tired and crabby too. Jayjg 20:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I am on aol. my name there is daniwo59. Danny 21:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Israel's "belligerent" neighbours[edit]

Hi Jayjg, I may be showing my ignorance of wiki's here by typing in an archive or something. I am the person who questioned the use of the word "belligerent" in referring to a country's (in this case Israel's)neighbours. You are quite correct in your legal definition of the word (websters new international) and hence its use to all states/parties/peoples involved in conflict. I feel a problem exists, as the term used in this sense must also apply to Israel (and for that matter Tibet). This term is not used in the main pages of it's neighbours while describing relations with Israel. It may thus be percieved as, at worst biased and at best, superfluous. Your comments on this would be appreciated. I realise this discussion may be seen as petty, however unbiased information is hard to come across and the perception of bias is just as damaging as bias itself

If it is bad form to type discussions here please inform me. I am a new user to the wikipedia and in no way wish to offend.

Yours Amateur

heads up[edit]

[1] [2]. If you don't subscribe to the mailing list, you might want to sign up and present your side of the story—though it's really nothing you should worry about :). —No-One Jones 19:31, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I wasn't aware of that. Jayjg 20:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Understood - now unprotected. If the situation arises again ask a sysop to protect it. -SV 23:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hebrew languages[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hebrew languages. Please join Wikipedia:WikiProject Hebrew languages Your input will be crucial.

Ad Hominem[edit]

Hi Jayig! Thank you for inviting me to review the Ad Hominem section of the Nazarene Judaism talk page. I'll write a more complete review tomorrow, when I expect to have more time, but for now, I'll make just a couple of brief comments (both here and on the article talk page). First, I think Zestauferov is a good storyteller - but I'm having considerable difficulty in finding anything solid in his rather lengthy discourses. Attacking the validity of your facts on the basis of the beliefs he thinks you hold is not only very unfair, in my opinion, but also fallacious - yes, I would call them ad hominem arguments. Also, he has based a lot of his arguments on the "absence" of evidence to the contrary. I know of no court of law where such reasoning would stand up. From the start, I thought I could see through his longwinded stories, but it would be inappropriate for me to speak as an administrator without being even-handed, which is why I addressed both of you and requested that you both provide sources. I am satisfied with the level of evidence you have provided for your claims; I am still waiting, however, for Zestauferov to come up with something more solid than his circular arguments. I'll make a brief comment on the article talk page now, and probably something more substantial tomorrow (more than likely, by the time I get back, there'll be another long story from Zestauferov to digest before I can reply). Anyway, it's good hearing from you! David Cannon 11:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Joseph Soloveitchik[edit]

Hi Jayjg, unfortunately I know very little about Rabbi Soloveitchik and cannot really comment on RK's edits. I'll review them more thoroughly later today (when I'm not at work). Nevertheless, RK has (e.g. on Samson Raphael Hirsch) maintained that Hirsch and Soloveitchik are two sides of the same coin, something I take strong issue with. Again, I'll see what I can do. Please email me if things get out of control. JFW | T@lk 08:40, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that Samson Rapahel Hirsch and Joseph Soloveitchik are identical, or would have agreed on every issue. However, I want to make clear that the points I added to the articles on these rabbis are not original ideas from me; they are based on numerous articles and letters to the editors in Orthodox Jewish journals (e.g. the articles currently referenced in the article.) I have no problem with noting that a controversy over their views and impact exist, and I do not expect or desire that only one person's POV be represented. RK 18:59, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Kabbalah Center[edit]

See the new article on the Kabbalah Center, the pseudo-yeshiva being led by former insurance agent Feivel Gruberger, who now claims to be "Rabbi Philip Berg". RK 18:59, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

There is a lengthy and carefully referenced article about him and his work called The Truth about the Kabbalah Centre which I got a photocopy of. It was published by the Task Force on Cults and Missionaries, Los Angeles, CA in 1995. A few years ago I wrote an article for a local newspaper on this issue, and tried to get permission to print the article. Despite letters and phone calls, I was unable to track down anyone who held copyright to it; the people who sent me the article from LA told me that I was free to publish the entire article, or parts therein, and that they could not provide me with copyright information or the name of the author. They allow others to post the entire article on their website, notably Rick Ross, an anti-cult educator. I suspect that the author or authors of this article want to avoid being sued, and wish that this material be widely distributed, and are deliberately letting this article pass into the public domain. RK 19:07, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I've made some minor edits to the article, mostly facts and links. Jayjg 00:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Chabad vandals[edit]

Hi JayJG. Thanks for your help on Talk:Chabad Lubavitch. Sadly, these clowns don't actually read talk pages. They just leave their stuff and go away (various metaphors come to mind). I've found no other way to respond to them apart from reverting everything they say as partisan edits... JFW | T@lk 22:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As everything I've seen from them so far consists solely of partisan edits, your policy seems wise. Luckily it's only the meshichists who feel the need to spam the pages with their stuff. Jayjg 00:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

They're the only ones with POV-axes to grind. I've caught a few, both with and without username: User:Chabad, User:Jew, User:Hisbonenus and some anons. Today, the article Jew was linkspammed with meshichist sites. Let's keep an eye out! JFW | T@lk 00:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:Chabad linkspammed the Jew article again today! Jayjg 14:21, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Holocaust denier[edit]

Ahh, to have an excuse to be very rude to someone... Look here for some stuff. I've threatened this pesky character with a ban - he suddenly started making neutral edits! JFW | T@lk 23:55, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg--Yes, I think you are right, it may be best to ignore the deniers rather than debate them. I just lost my temper a little there. I know too many people who have suffered. Peace, Antandrus 02:24, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've banned the holocaust denier troll for 24h for completely ignoring my call to restrain himself (and rather throwing in more garbage). He's a Neo-Nazi, plain and simple (his edit history shows enough). JFW | T@lk 14:11, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, we will be spared that nonsense, if only for a day. Jayjg 14:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Dear Jayjg, as long promised, I have written a completely new Holocaust article. I am showing the draft to you, RK, Danny and John Kenney, since you are all both knowledgeable and (usually) sensible. I will not attempt to replace the present illiterate mess with my new version until I get comments and some degree of support from all of you. If and when you all approve of it, I also want a commitment from all of you to protect it when I install it. Hope this finds you well, Adam 12:37, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've glanced at it, and it looks quite promising; I'll try to read it thoroughly over the next couple of days. Just so I understand the context better, what major flaws in the current article do you see your article addressing? Also, how do you want people to communicated concerns, copyedits, etc. to you? Jayjg 14:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The present article is very badly written and full of tendentious statements. Its main fault is that it tries to fit everything that happened in WW2 under the "holocaust" heading, which I disagree with. (Please reply to my messages on my Talk page - I only found your reply by accident.) Adam 05:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Edit conflict. I tried to make it come out right. Thanks for fixing it. I'd be disappointed to see sections dropped out merely because they don't fit the agenda which now combines ancient Nazarenes and modern revivals. Users in the habit of reverting always have a covert agenda. Haven't you found that too? Wetman 04:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Admin nomination[edit]

Hi Jayjg, I have nominated you for administratorship. Please accept your nomination and have a good look at the Administrator's reading list. I trust you will make a splendid administrator. JFW | T@lk 07:26, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stalking behavior[edit]

Please stop stalking me. I find it disturbing.--Xed 10:30, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please rest assured, I am not "stalking you". But thanks for your amusing comment, one gets few enough laughs on Wikipedia. Jayjg 14:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As well as stalking me, you accused me of making up a quote. You have yet to apologise.--Xed 18:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You have yet to apologize for accusing me of stalking you. By the way, isn't it an amazing coincidence that you just happened to show up on the USS Liberty incident article after I had been involved in a heated series of edits and discussions there? Jayjg 23:42, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Your conspiracy theories are fascinating. Did I make changes to your words on the Liberty page? Retract your lie about the quote immediately.--Xed 23:56, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Gee, you're quite, hmm, forceful in your demands. I've clarified on the page in question. Regarding your question about the Liberty page, please review the Non sequitur article. Jayjg 00:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That's a start. I have yet to see your apology--Xed 00:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I find your statement difficult to comprehend. Did you read my response on the page? Jayjg 00:14, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes I read it. You say 'Sorry if I misinformed anyone by seconding the statement that it was a false quote.' In other words you apologise to people who overheard a lie, but not to the person you lied about. Astonishing--Xed 00:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstand, Xed. The articles on Wikipedia are not "owned" by anyone, but are a collective effort. In fact, feelings of ownership quite frequently contribute to edit wars, and are strongly disapproved of. The articles here are the collective effort of everyone; thus if I state that something in an article is false, it is a criticism of the article, not of any particular individual (such as yourself). People enter false information into Wikipedia articles all the time, often with no intention of doing so; rather, people are often simply misinformed about many things. For example, the other day I removed a false quote about Ariel Sharon from a Wikipedia article. I'm sure the person who entered it there thought it was true, as it has been repeated on hundreds of websites; nevertheless, the quote itself was still false. In a similar way I thought the quote given for Nixon was false, as a quick search of the web found literally dozens of websites quoting it, but none giving attribution of any sort; just the kind of thing that makes me suspicious that a quote is false, or perhaps apocryphal. However, a subsequent search eventually turned up a credible attribution, which I then brought to the attention of the page. Jayjg 00:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Where is your apology? So your way of researching is that is a quote is on a lot of websites then it's not true (presumably if it has none then it's true…)--Xed 01:14, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I strongly recommend re-reading my statement, which should answer your questions. As a bit of assistance, persistently unattributed quotes are questionable; attributed quotes are more believable. I also recommend reading the article on Straw man arguments. Hope this is helpful. Jayjg 01:32, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Are you now claiming he Nixon quote was unattributed? Instead of giving me reading advice, you could spend more time on your research.--Xed 01:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
By the way, have you insisted on apologies from Geogre as well, who first made the claim? I've looked in all the places you insisted on apologies from me (including his Talk:) page, and have yet to find any similar demands. This is confusing.
I'm sorry you have become confused, it must be the result of your stalking. Geogre wasn't being voted on for adminship--Xed 01:14, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
So you only demand apologies from people who are being voted on for adminship? By the way, you still haven't apologized for your continued "stalking" accusations. I believe stalking is a criminal offense in most Western jurisdictions, regardless of whether or not one is being voted on for adminship; I would think an accusation of criminal activity would be more deserving of apology than a statement that a quote was false. Jayjg 01:32, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I can't apologise for your stalking, you will have to do that yourself. I found it extraordinary that someone with your poor scholarly skills would be put up for adminship. It seems to have taken you a whole day to do a Google search--Xed 01:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Do you imagine I spend my whole day on the internet doing Google searches? If so, let me disabuse you of this notion; my time today was put to much better use. Jayjg 01:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Clearly you spend very little of your time doing simple google searches, and prefer to waste your and other peoples time due to this lack of research.--Xed 08:02, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and as a bit of advice, I strongly recommend bringing the rationale for your edits (as well as any attribution of quotes, etc.) to Talk: pages; this also helps head off any edit wars. I've left some comments for you on the Druze page which I hope you'll be able to address. Jayjg 00:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
So much advice, so little research. Do the latter before indulging in the former--Xed 01:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I find that your persistent rudeness makes it difficult to conduct any meaningful dialogue. Perhaps we should just stick to discussing articles instead; the Talk:Druze page, for example, which awaits your responses. Jayjg 01:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A vote against[edit]

Hi Jayjg, just voted against your nomination and I feel a bit bad about that, because my justification has more to do with Wikipedia procedures than you, and it could also be applied to me since I tend towards representing a particular POV in controversial articles too (although I do my very best to respresent other POVs too and write in a NPOV style). I think it's a serious problem that there is no "recall" procedure for admins. If I imagine being an admin, I think there is a temptation of using that to further POV sometimes, and this temptation would be much less if admins were more accountable. So just for the record, I decided (to be consistant) that in the unlikely event where anyone nominated me for admin I'd oppose my own nomination with the same reasoning I gave to oppose yours. - pir 20:23, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response, Jayjg. Just out of interest - what do you think about admin accountability and my idea of having a recall procedure? - pir 09:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
From what I have seen there is an issue of admin accountability on Wikipedia, and if there is no recall procedure there certainly needs to be one; while most admins seem to discharge their responsibilities responsibly, I've already noted a couple of admins who use their powers in highly questionable ways. Jayjg 17:56, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's good to see that there are "political" issues which we agree on ;) - pir 18:15, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, I want to change my vote. I think you're a good guy (with very bad politics IMO) and there's no reason for me to think you can't seperate the two. If you just give me some informal assurances that you'll be careful with using admin powers in areas where you hold a particularl strong POV, and against editors with opposing POVs, I'll take your word for it. - pir 22:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course I wouldn't abuse my powers, and would be careful in their application; I take Wikipedia quite seriously, and my own integrity as well. Jayjg 02:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, to reply to something you wrote on the admin nomination page (and something where we may differ philosphically, one reason why I wasn't happy to endorse your nomination initially, and which I think you didn't really address in our dispute about the WB barrier/Walls category thing) (just copying my comment from there):
one person's "NPOV edit" is another's "highly POV edit" Not necessarily. If a person is so highly biased that they distort, misrepresent or even falsify facts, it is more than just a question of opinion. To pick an uncontroversial example, holocaust denial is not a case of just one person's NPOV is another's highly POV edit. Demonstrable, proven facts must not be subject to political discourse at Wikipedia, even if they are outside of our beloved encyclopedia. Otherwise, we will be writing an Orwellian encyclopedia where we aren't allowed to state clearly that 2+2=4, but would have to say that some people think 2+2=4 whereas others believe it to be 5 and other 3. (To avoid misunderstaning, I'm just stating a general truth here, I'm not implying anything as to your edits.)
I'd be very interested in your opinion. I think it relates to the question of integrity. I also think that it is particularly a problem with people who feel a strong commitment to any nation (all nationalists) or ideology. I suspect we may have slightly different views on this, maybe because I am a scientist (molecular biologist) and strongly believe that most things (excluding of course e.g. religion or ideology) can be proven as correct or false, while you may come from a different academic culture (plaese don't take this last remark as the arrogance common among some scientists, which personally I deplore )- pir 11:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi pir, thanks for your question. I think it's possible you read a little bit more into my comments than I intended. I do think many things are amenable to reasonable proof. The problem is, some people "distort, misrepresent, and falsify facts" without even believing they are doing so. Either they are simply not well enough read in a subject to know fact from fantasy, or they are highly indoctrinated in a set of beliefs, or (for various reasons - emotional, cognitive, etc.) impervious to rational discourse. In other words, things may be reasonably proven, but many people are not reasonable. Sometimes one reaches a point in a dispute where it becomes clear that your worldview and those of the person you are debating with are so far apart that there is no way a concensus can be reached. In that case, you are left with two choices; either continuing to press your position, or withdrawing from the debate, "agreeing to disagree". Sometimes I feel strongly enough that my own view is correct that I tend towards the former, while other times I just don't think it is worthwhile pressing my case. Regarding blankfaze's views on my edits, I already pointed out in the pages that I felt he was holding me (and others) to a standard to which he didn't hold himself, and that his views differed radically from those of other editors. He clearly disagreed, and I felt the dialogue had gone as far as it could go without leading to animosity. In such a case there is obviously no point in saying "I'm being reasonable while you're not", when the other person feels the exact opposite. Thus I opted for the more neutral statement one person's "NPOV edit" is another's "highly POV edit", which didn't insist that either side was correct.
Regarding the Orwellian encyclopedia, I see traces of that in many articles, and I do attempt to improve it when I can; in fact, I believe I was the one who brought the whole concept up in our Israeli West Bank barrier debate. Your "uncontroversial example" of Holocaust denial is, in fact, highly controversial, and (to my mind horrifyingly and sadly) there are tens of millions, and perhaps hundreds of millions of people in this world who sincerely believe there was no Holocaust, or that it was engineered by Jews/Zionists. And they do regularly come to Wikipedia insisting that their view be included i.e. "some people say that around 6 million Jews were deliberately killed by the Nazis, while others say that at most a few hundred thousand Jews died, that it was not deliberate, and that the current beliefs are a plot by Jews/Zionists to create the State of Israel and hold the world to ransom." In such cases I strongly resist the "some people believe 2+2=5" views, with mixed results.
Regarding the Category:Wall question, thanks for reminding me, I couldn't remember where we had met before. I think we had an excellent debate on the topic. I don't think the categorization of whether or not the barrier is a "wall" or a "fence" or a "barrier" is nearly as cut and dried as whether or not 2+2=4. While I felt you made strong arguments, I felt (and still feel) that mine were stronger. I also thoroughly enjoyed the debate (unlike other simultaneous ones with other editors, which were much more filled with ad hominems and rancour). That said, in the end I acceeded to your viewpoint, and the article was linked to Category:Wall. Jayjg 21:05, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Threshold of adminship[edit]

It's generally been hashed out that almost everyone accepts 75% as a dead minimum, and anything 80% or over as being approval. Between 75 and 80% some bueaucrat has to take it upon him/herself to read all the stuff and try to come to a conclusion. Cheers, Cecropia | Talk 23:08, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're a sysop![edit]

I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being determined, you are now an administrator. Congratulations!. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | Talk 07:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Congrats! I would vote for you, but I recieved your message too late. Good luck in your adminship. MathKnight 07:32, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mazel Tov ! IZAK 09:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mazel tov!! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 15:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mazel Tov, may this be a good and sweet year, Wikipediawise or otherwise.
If you wanna have some fun, watching Special:Recentchanges will help you identify vandals. Enjoy pressing the [rollback] button and watch that vandalism vanish like snow! JFW | T@lk 09:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Congratulations! I'm pleased to see you promoted, and keep up the good work. Cheers, Antandrus 15:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thank you all for your congratulations. Jayjg 21:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just got your note - boy did you mean it that "voting ends very soon"! I would have been glad for the chance to vote for you, you do wonderful work here, but regardless I'm very glad you got the nomination. Mazal Tov and Ketivah va-Hatimah Tovah (in both real life and in your virtual life here)! Dovi 02:55, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, and to you as well. Jayjg 02:17, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

Thanks for protecting Arab-Israeli conflict and Israeli-Palestinian conflict! You asked what to do next. First off, you'll need to put a protection notice – {{protected}} – on the top of each page you protect. Then wait a week or so, and then unprotect. Sometimes a "cooling off" period is all that's necessary.

Eventually it may turn out that the user is persistent and unrepentent, and there may be a need to take steps toward getting the guy banned. Fortunately or unfortunately, you can't just ban someone. It's best to leave a message for the person on his/her talk page explaining the problem, and telling him politely but unequivocably that such behavior is not welcome and will eventually get him banned. After that, I'm not quite sure. You can put up a "request for comment" page, or you can request arbitration, but I haven't figured out the exact steps that are standard. You might want to ask someone more experienced than me.

Anyway, most of the time protection and/or a warning works fine. Wikilove, Quadell (talk) 19:26, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

You also need to make an entry in Wikipedia:Protected_page saying what you protected and why. Be aware that Protection is generally against Wikipedia policy, so for simple vandalism I would only leave the protection on for a day initially. Unprotect it with a message like "unprotecting to see if vandalism resumes." If the vandalism comes back, reprotect for another day or two. If it doesn't, don't worry about it until the next time around. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, Quadell and Cecropia. Jayjg 21:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Page Protection[edit]

I'm going to unprotect both of these pages, for two reasons. 1) You shouldn't have protected them, as you were involved in the disputes, and were doing revert and protects. 2) It looks to me like this is not so much an edit conflict as a case of a POV pushing numbskull. I'll leave a note on his talk page pointing him to the NPOV policy and suggesting he try to discuss changes on talk. If he continues to revert war, or if he descends into the tiresome personal attacks that seem par for the course for most of the anti-Semitic trolls we get here, I'll block him.

Glad to see you on the lookout for conflicts and problems though. :) Snowspinner 20:23, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing - you should, if you're protecting for vandalism, use Template:vprotected instead pf Template:protected. Snowspinner 21:17, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help. I thought about vprotected, but I wasn't sure that it was 100% clearly vandalism; it wasn't like they just deleted the whole page and put "ISRAEL SHOULD DIE!!" in; they did enter content, but they deleted most of what was there, and what they entered was highly POV. Jayjg 21:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please be very conscious not to protect pages where you have been involved in the dispute. I tend to go one step further myself: I generally don't protect pages I've been involved with at all.

Even though you are now an admin, I strongly suggest that on any page where you have a stake in the matter and you think protection is needed, you should request that exactly the same way you would if you weren't an admin. Keep your editing function and your admin function separate. If you want to help out on that level, be available to respond to other people's requests like this in areas that you don't usually edit. -- Jmabel 21:59, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Excellent advice; I'll do that from now on. Thanks. Jayjg 22:13, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dealing with edit wars[edit]

You have seen (above) that these things can be tricky! Adminship is an early learning curve. I blocked myself for a week to spend less time on Wikipedia, and ended up being censured for effectively blocking all other users on my ISP from editing...

Wikipedia provides some solace during the long on-call nights in a darkened hospital :-) JFW | T@lk 03:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If only those annoying patients didn't keep bothering you, you could get so much more important Wikipedia work done. ;-) Jayjg 19:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You can't fake a cardiac arrest. PS Kesivo we-Chasimo Tovo & a Good Yomtov. JFW | T@lk 22:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, and to you as well. Jayjg 13:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


[Courtesy copy from my Talk page. -- orthogonal 19:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

Thanks for your support for my adminship. Jayjg 16:32, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course, I know you'll do us proud. -- orthogonal 19:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No problem. I didn't understand what the big fuss was about anyway. I looked at your edits, your history -- nothing seemed out of the ordinary. You handled yourself well during it all, too, which says a lot. CryptoDerk 19:49, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Historical Jesus: Recent Developments[edit]

Charlie Turek

Hi Charlie, I've moved the relevant discussion to Talk:Historicity of Jesus so everyone can discuss it in context. Jayjg 19:18, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Hi Jayig! Congratulations on your promotion. Supporting you was the least I could do for you:-) David Cannon 19:56, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for your support for my adminship, and your kind words. Jayjg 16:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My congratulations, and I assure you that my comments were entirely well-deserved. Better men have gone up against the likes of Xed and failed to keep their cool, and your level-headedness is refreshing in an era of self-styled "rogue admins." Austin Hair 09:26, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Note from Joseph[edit]

Hello Jayjg, please see: Talk:Deir Yassin massacre; I would like some feedback.

In Peace.

Joseph 16:36, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

protecting pages[edit]

From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine: "...After the page was briefly protected (by me)..." Jayjg 20:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Again, I ask you to please not protect pages when you are one of the parties to the dispute. -- Jmabel 01:05, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
Hi Jmabel, you've misunderstood my comment. I haven't protected any pages since that first time which we talked about. That, in fact, is the protection I was talking about. Jayjg 03:32, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe that's still not clear. I'll try again. I've never protected the Occupation of Palestine article, nor am I involved in any disputes there. All I've done is put it on the VfD page, and put the notice on the article itself so interested parties can have their say. The only protections I've ever done were several days ago to the two articles you already know about. Jayjg 06:24, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Occupation of Palestine[edit]

Please see my question at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Occupation_of_Palestine#Tally: Rephrasing the question -- Jmabel 01:20, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Nobody Cares[edit]

Hi Jay, I am not surprised by the talk silence, but I am disappointed. Isn't anybody curious or willing to take a chance on exploring unfamiliar territory. There are such wonderful things to learn. That's it? Anyway, thanks a lot,Jay. Maybe someday. It has been difficult to accept what my clergy friends told me. " Charlie, if other people wanted to know the things we've taught you they would have asked for our help like you did. These things can destroy one's faith. You have great faith". At the time (too long ago) I just didn't get it.

Charlie Turek, magician  17 Sept 2004


No, I voted just after seeing your note. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 06:01, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Ooops. :-) Jayjg 06:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Did you drop me a note because of the Israeli flag on my userpage? ;) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 06:03, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
No, I was more looking for names that I recalled had been involved in previous discussions/edits on the topic of Israel etc. I figured they would have an informed opinion. Jayjg 06:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I really haven't done much on Israeli too much - it's a brave soul that edits those articles! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 06:07, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
You're right, I probably noticed that you were the last editor on the Zionism article. No harm done, I hope. Jayjg 06:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I did a minor edit. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 06:11, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Offensive "(Wiki)Nazi" "logo"[edit]

Please review the offensive File:Wikinazi.png created by User:Guanabot. Thank you for looking into this as it casts Wikipedia in a terrible light. IZAK 11:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


please see Talk:Refusal_to_serve_in_the_Israeli_military under the heading NPOV. Thank you. Lance6Wins 18:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


On Sep 20, 2004, anonymous user created an article named Jewish World Conspiracy. This is most likely the same anonymous user as who edited the Neo-nazism page and added a piped link to Jewish Conspiracy the very next day. The page merely summarized The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article, so I took the liberty to create a redirect. I'm wondering what you think the status of the article Jewish World Conspiracy should be, beyond that of a redirect. Should it be put up for VfD? FYI, both of these anonymous users have no prior histories aside from those two edits. Thanks in advance. --Viriditas 01:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Constantin Brunner and Jewish views of Jesus[edit]

Why do you think it important to delete the reference to Constantin Brunner in the article Jewish view of Jesus? Barrett Pashak Sep. 22, 15:09:53 UTC

I'm adding this question to the relevant Talk: page. Jayjg 15:40, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Apparently your user page is no longer on VfD, so that's resolved.

If Irate is consistently vandalizing you can ask he be blocked for 24 hours as a start. Otherwise the first step would be to tell him nicely on his talk page his behavior you object to, and ask him to stop. If he refuses (or simply continues the behavior) you would need to document what he is doing wrong and the applicable Wikipedia policies (e.g., "No Personal Attacks," etc.) Then you can proceed to file at WP:RFC. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:52, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the Vfd listing and the header on your userpage. I have also expressed my concerns on Irate's talk page. JFW | T@lk 23:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thank you JFW and Cecropia. Jayjg 02:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Would you mind taking a look at Judaizers when you have a chance? Perhaps you could ask others as well. I already found one minor problem and corrected it, and I have doubts about the accuracy. Thanks. --Viriditas 09:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment from Chris Mahan[edit]

I did not refer to any past behavior. I strictly requested something for the future. I understand how the misunderstanding happened, and I will endeavor to be clearer. Christopher Mahan 18:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

views and compromises[edit]

Hi Jayjg, I wonder what your take is on Gadykozma's compromise attempt for a new article, and the guidelines I suggested at Talk:Occupation of Palestine#Another_compromise_attempt. - pir 13:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Council of Jerusalem[edit]

Truthbomber and (probably the same user) continue to add circumcision nonsense to Council of Jerusalem after multiple reverts. has now moved on Breastfeeding. I don't think either of them will be happy until every page in the 'pedia contains a reference to circumcision. Is there anything we can do besides reverting every 48 hours? Let me know. --Viriditas 02:44, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If they continue to do so, various remedies can be proposed, perhaps starting with Request for Comment. Jayjg 02:45, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Territorial dispute"[edit]

I deleted the entry of indonesia in occupied territories at 0031 UTC, 26 September on the basis that what I saw in Territorial dispute was the entry of what User:Zigger edited ~2 days ago. His version did not mention Indonesia there.

You edited Territorial dispute 3 hours later at 0333 by adding entry on the dispute on Papua. After that, you re-added Indonesia in Occupied territories at 0338 with the comment "look again".

What did you mean? It is as if you were trying to say that I've been fooled by my own eyes. Please be mindful of the phrase you used. I am an Indonesian; I understand there are disputes on Aceh and Papua. --*drew 05:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You removed to inclusion of Indonesia on the list based on the fact that the Territorial dispute article didn't list the dispute in Indonesia. Since there are indeed Indonesian territorial disputes, it might have made sense to simply add the information instead, as I went ahead and did. Jayjg 05:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I understand what your intention was. But I did not agree with the comment that you posted. Sorry, somehow that comment has a negative connotation in my perspective. Maybe you could add an entry on Aceh (GAM) too :) --*drew 06:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the comment seemed negative; I was simply asking you to look again because I had changed the article to address the problem you raised. Jayjg 06:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's alright. Let's bury the hatchet. It's just a misunderstanding. Take care :)--*drew 06:58, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A revert is not a minor edit[edit]

Ŭalabio 05:06, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

That's the way Wikipedia classifies it; there's nothing I can do about that. Jayjg 05:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)