User talk:Jayjg/Archive 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32


deleted article Ukrainian Internet Exchange Network


Is it possible to get a copy of that recreated article dumped into my sandbox ?

There was talk of merging it with Ukrainian Internet Association and if there is any information contained in there of use I would certainly like to attempt a merge.

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it and moved it to User:Chaosdruid/Ukrainian Internet Exchange Network. Good luck! Jayjg (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks ever so much for that :¬)
I managed to get Ukrainian Exchange up to a reasonable level so hopefully we can rescue somtehing out of this one
cheers for the prompt reply Chaosdruid (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
My pleasure. Jayjg (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:Judaism

I moved the discussion "Should every BIO of a Jew be part of Wikiproject Judaism" to the talk page of WP Judaism's MOS. I think this is an important subject and needs to be incorporated into the MOS once we reach a consensus. -shirulashem(talk) 18:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

deleted article "Drought Conditions"

Hi! I'd like to know what makes this West Wing-episode so particularly un-noteworthy that it is the only one not to receive an article. Thanks in advance.--DVD-junkie | talk | 04:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drought Conditions. The slightly longer answer is: Have you considered the opposite possibility? That none of them are particularly noteworthy, but this is just the only one (so far) brought to AfD? Jayjg (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ukrainian Internet Exchange Network

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Ukrainian Internet Exchange Network, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

I've put a RFc on the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, probably will be redirected, since I haven't a clue on these technial issues of where one requests what for outside comment.:)Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)

RlevseTalk 06:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, helpful bot masquerading as Rlevse. Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Augustine of Hippo

Hi, could you check Augustine of Hippo as it seems user Cgarbarino is permanently deleting sourced material and is trying to impose his non Neutral point of view. Jpm1706 (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Kent, Ohio religion

Thanks for your comments and suggestions for the FAC on Kent, Ohio. I am looking for information on religious adherents in Kent as you requested and was wondering your opinion on Sperling's as a reliable source. I didn't see anything in the archives of WP:RSN about it specifically and noticed you had made comments about, a similar site. Here is the specific link: Just click on "Religion" and a chart showing percentages of various religions shows up. I'm personally not sold on this as a reliable source since nothing on the page shows where it came from, though Sperling's does state in a paragraph where their data comes from for the entire site here. My problem is that I cannot find this data in any other location, at least online. Appreciate your thoughts and thanks for your time! --JonRidinger (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wouldn't consider this a reliable source. However, there are sources on religion in Ohio. Here is a book that discusses Islam in Kent, including population estimates, and gives information about various other religions too. This pdf has an estimate of the Akron-Kent Jewish population in 2006 (see page 187). I'm not sure if you'll be able to find everything you need, but I think it's at least worth a look. Jayjg (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't think it would pass reliable source either since it lacks a date for the data in addition to the source, so I'm glad to hear it from someone else. The lack of available data is probably why I've never bothered to put anything together as I didn't think a section just listing the various churches in Kent was that informative or needed. I will check out the links you provided and appreciate your efforts. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Berber people

I admire your tenacity and persistence! Thanks! Etan J. Tal 16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal (talkcontribs)

Thanks! Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes, ~~~~ Jayjg (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I always do that, but alas - somehow it never results in the desired outcome. for example - when typing the four tildes signature: Etan J. Tal 21:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC) the preview shows my user name, but the final saved version will probably be marked "—Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal (talk • contribs)". Let's try: Etan J. Tal 21:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal (talkcontribs)

Leo Frank

Machn, as he continues his quest to insert any negative info (real or imagined) he can get his hands on into the article, has now used a reference whose full title is The celebrated case of the State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank ; The official record in the case of Leo Frank, a Jew pervert. See [1]. Might also have violated 3rr, haven't checked specifically. I don't know if a block or topic ban is in order, but something to stop this would be good. Thanks. IronDuke 02:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Jayg and IronDuke, I've posted a mea maxima culpa for you to contend with at Machn's Talk page. I understand now that I was wrong to accuse him of this -- he's not guilty. I await your decision as to "what now" with sincerest apologies. LaNaranja (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
As I explained there, the main issue raised relates to a general pattern of editing and inappropriate and almost certainly false Talk: page comments. He wasn't blocked just because of the title of that work. Jayjg (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Nine Days

Hi Jay: Since this is now the time, would it be possible for you to review and add or in any way improve The Nine Days article. Please find more sources as well. Thanks in advance. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look. Jayjg (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Memory hole

Jay: There is no violation of WP:3RR-- by me. You ought to give him the same advice. You apparently have overlooked the fact that he gutted the article. And you also conveniently Memory hole the fact that there was an earlier attempt to Speedily Delete this very article for lack of content, which you now want to replicate. I am sure that these are inadvertent oversights on your part. WP:AGF. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Stan

You can't fix a "lack of content" problem by adding OR and stuff from blogs. Jayjg (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Communiqué "Geochange"

I want to restore Communiqué "Geochange" please give time for editing the article.--Ismail Valiyev (talk) 05:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communiqué "Geochange"

Almost immediately after you closed this AfD as delete, User:Ismail Valiyev has restored the article in mainspace. It was tagged CSD G4 by an IP, and User:Ismail Valiyev proceeded to remove the tag[2]. I have restored the tag, but I think that perhaps some admin action is needed here, given the disruption that occurred during the AfD itself. Nsk92 (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Truth in Numbers

Hi Jayjg. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Truth_in_Numbers. The film has been shown at Wikimania 2010, so WP:CRYSTAL does not apply anymore. Thanks, --Church of emacs (Talk) 16:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Which reliable sources discuss this film? Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, as usual there's imdb. Then, mostly as part of Wikimania's press coverage, the film gets mentioned a lot, with pieces of information that suffice for an article. E.g. [3][4][5], even every Wikipedian's favorite news site theregister (Yes, I'm joking) has an article.
If you feel uncomfortable restoring the article in the main namespace, please restore it in my userspace, where I will edit and update it until it meets Wikipedia's quality standards. Regards, --Church of emacs (Talk) 21:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I've restored it to User:Church of emacs/Truth in Numbers. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks --Church of emacs (Talk) 07:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album)

I went ahead and restored the redirect that had been there and protected it this time. It's obvious that some kind of salt is needed, and it's a likely enough search term to warrant a redirect.—Kww(talk) 13:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Good thinking. Jayjg (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


I'd like to request that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force Blues, an AfD which you closed, instead be relisted to generate further consensus. Contrary to Claritas' initial comments, one of the article's sources was unequivocally independent by any standard. The fate of the article ultimately rested upon the other two sources, both of which were certainly debatable within the intended scope of notability policy, but there was insufficient discussion with respect to the details surrounding them.   — C M B J   06:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi CMBJ. The place to dispute AfD closures is at WP:DRV. Please feel free to take this article to that board for review. Jayjg (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to run the request by you first, as WP:DRV instructs users to "courteously invite the admin to take a second look".   — C M B J   06:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate your courteously inviting me to do so. :-) Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice on Moses

Since you commented on earlier discussions of this subject, you can hopefully add some input to this ANI on Moses. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toran training camp.

I'd appreciate userification to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/Toran training camp please.

In your closure you wrote: "Insufficient reliable secondary sources to confirm general notability."

I wonder whether you have time for some questions about your closure?

Can I ask for an explanation of your use of "reliable", in the context of the wikipedia's policy on verifiability? Can I ask whether you read my proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?? WP:VER says we should aim for "verifiability, not truth". Critics have expressed general doubts about the reliability of the allegations used to justify the continued detention of Guantanamo captives. But I don't believe any critics have cast specific doubts about the reliability of the specific allegations that named this camp. Forgive me, it seems to me that, even if critics had expressed doubts about the reliability of this allegation, that would not erode the verifiability of the assertion -- that the USA justified the contrinued detention of captive(s), at least in part, due to allegations they were associated with this camp.

The contributor who nominated this article for deletion has asserted on many occasions, that the memos prepared to justify the continued detention of the Guantanamo captives were "primary sources". I have asked this contributor to explain this characterization -- again, on many occasions. I addressed this concern, in detail, in the proposal I mentioned above.

The nominator's justification for calling the memos "primary sources", IIRC, were merely that the memos were written by the US military, and that critics had challenged their credibility. But it is my understanding of our policies that we consider official government sources to be WP:RS for official government positions they contain. So, it seems to me that these memos should be considered verifiable, reliable WP:RS that the DoD asserted this camp existed, and that an association with it justified continued detention.

I realize that {{afd}} is WP:NOTAVOTE, and that the fact that "delete" was a minority opinion wouldn't matter, if you had valid reasons to discount the "merge" opinions. Is there some other place I should have looked to find out why you discounted the "merge" opinions?

Thanks, in advance, for the userification. Geo Swan (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've userfied it for you. Feel free to merge any relevant material from reliable, secondary sources. However, a transcript from a hearing is undoubtedly a primary source. Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the userification.
I agree that a transcript from a hearing, any kind of hearing, is a primary source. It is my understanding of our policies that a memo, like the OARDEC memos, where authors have to understand and interpret other reports, are secondary sources.
I figure if you disagreed with me about the memos being secondary sources, and wanted to take the time to explain why you disagreed, you would have already done so. So I won't ask you to take the time to explain why you disagree, if you do disagree. But, for the record, could you clarify as to whether you are disagreeing that the memos should be considered secondary sources?
Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
What specific source are you referring to here; the source in the article? Jayjg (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread

Hey, I went ahead and moved the archive bottom tag to cover the whole thread. If this was not your intention feel free to revert me. It looked like the whole thread was pretty much done, not just the first section. Mauler90 talk 02:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that should be fine. I'm sure Epeefleche won't object. Jayjg (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Franz Vohwinkel

Hi Jayjg, In general if something is relisted and then a !vote goes toward keep, it's pretty hard to argue that there isn't at least a lack of consensus. As there are sources and the discussion clearly leaned toward keeping it I'd say it was a pretty clear keep, though NC wouldn't be unreasonable. Ah well, I realize you likely won't be changing your mind, but I'm required to come here before a DrV. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hobit,
As you know, an AfD is a discussion, not a vote. I think my closing statement was pretty clear; I deleted based on the weight of the arguments, not based on a raw head count. But if you feel my assessment was in error, please feel free to bring it to WP:DRV. Jayjg (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Nope, I understand entirely. I think that having such a large (and it is massive) body of work is a strong claim of notability and I felt the discussion clearly reflected that opinion. No, it doesn't meet WP:N, that's clear. But it's a really strong case for IAR. Again, I don't know if you understand but he's probably got art in 10% of US households and probably a larger % of German house holds. I'm a fairly avid gamer though not extreme and I own 50+ bits of his work and at least 3 things he was the art director for. So last time (as my last request wasn't very clear as I was grouchy at the time), I think the discussion clearly showed that folks feel he is notable and I think there are facts that justify that opinion even though he doesn't meet WP:N. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that was certainly an argument that you made on the AfD page, and I respect it; I even cited it positively in my close. However, I felt (and still feel) that the weight of the arguments went the other way. Jayjg (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll head off to DrV with it later... Hobit (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, finally got around to the DrV... Hobit (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Style guide#References

Now I see why all the articles for buildings listed in the NRHP use the unacceptable citation... the project's Style guide tells editors to use it, and even has a cut and paste for them to use. Unfortuantely, what they tell them violates both WP:V and (in info boxes generated by Elkman's tool) WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. We need to correct what they tell their editors to do (or at least point out that what they tell them to do is inappropriate). I would do so, but any comment by me would be seen as an extension of my dispute from List of Masonic buildings and would simply be reverted as being "disruptive". Would you be willing to try?

I expect that they will resist, as it is going to mean that hundreds of citations have to be redone. Yes, It would have been nice if someone had caught this error sooner, before we had hundreds of poor citations... but I don't think the fact that there are hundreds of citations over turns the fact that all of them point to an unreliable web page.

From my understanding of WP:RS, they can still cite the NRIS documents for each building that are contained in the database ... but they must obtain it in hard copy and then cite that hard copy. If I am correct, then this should be noted as well. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"What a revoltin' development this is!" Even if they print it out, how will that help? What do they cite, <ref>User:Doncram's printed out copy of the NRIS listing, printed on July 18, 2010. If you want to see it, it's on the third shelf of the bookcase in his living room, second pile from the left.</ref> Don't laugh, the last citation I saw was almost as bad as that. WP:SOURCEACCESS insists sources must be accessible; while a copy in a public or university library qualifies, a personal copy on someone's shelf, or a download of a copy of the database on someone's hard drive, definitely doesn't. However, they don't seem to understand that. Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, forget the idea of using the database itself. The point is... there is a problem with how the project cites its material... and the problem is only going to grow unless someone corrects it. So how do we do this? Can a project simply ignore something like WP:V by consensus... a mass, project wide invocation of WP:IAR?... I don't think so. But that is essentially what is happening. How do we fix the problem? Blueboar (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

HUH... as an experiment, I drafted a stub article in my user space see:User:Blueboar/drafts - NRHP... following the instructions stated at the project's style guideline. I picked a building at random from one of the Wikipedia NRHP list articles (it is one of redlinks at National Register of Historic Places listings in Bonner County, Idaho... I knew absolutely nothing about the building before I started.
What bothers me most is that I was able to create this stub without actually consulting a single reliable source about the building ... Everything on the page (including automatically generated citation) comes purely from using User:Elkman's infobox generating tool (pointed to at the style guide). Yet, I suspect that if I moved it to Article Space, the NRHP project would defend it as being perfectly proper.
Given how my stub is identical to the vast majority of the stub articles generated by the NRHP Project, I strongly suspect that they were created the same way. This is NOT how Wikipedia should work. Blueboar (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in, but, Blueboar, not everyone creates NRHP articles as a stub similar to your experimental one. Wherever, and whenever, possible I will even expand stubs like that (see Hawthorne School (Canonsburg, Pennsylvania)). I don't like those "sub-stubs" anymore than you do (I even had asked Doncram, back when he needed to create a stub to support a disambig page, to let me know if he had done so for ones in Pennsylvania so that I go back and make it a more respectable article). By the way, I don't use the Elkman infobox generator, either (mostly because the output is not formatted the way I like). Again, sorry to Jayjg for jumping into the conversation. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 00:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Niagara, of course not all NRHP articles are created like that, but many are, and some editors are insisting that non-verifiable citations are permitted (and even preferred). What are your thoughts on that (which is the main issue being raise d here)? Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
From what I've gather this "non-verifible citation" is just the NRIS website, right. I prefer to use the newer "NPS Focus" site (which, I know, doesn't allow for a direct link to the listing, but Dudemanfellabra did come up with a workaround that makes a somewhat more direct link). However, I never use any NRHP database to cite anything other the NRHP reference number and, maybe, the listing date. Ideally, I would love if no one created anymore stubs using only data from the infobox generator and take a little more time in writing an article (maybe with a goal of a DYK). I wouldn't say "non-verifible citations" are preferred, if you look at the new articles on WP:NRHP none of those are the 1–2 sentence stubs that are the problem. You really should see who, exactly, is creating them (I know there was a lot were created a long time ago by a [misguided?] NrhpBot). Maybe it's only a handful of editors doing this; the style guide can also be changed (a lot of stuff in the wikiproject is need of updating, one of the more recent that was updated/cleaned-up was the help for editors, which points where exactly to find more info on a NRHP site).
I may have got sidetracked somwhere along the way and started rambling on about other things, but I think I answered your question and, hopefully, provided insight on the issues. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Niagara, I appologize for any offense I have caused. I did not mean to denigrate all NRHP articles or all NRHP Project members. I was simply noting that far too many NRHP articles seem to fit a pattern, and that pattern raises a red flag for me. Blueboar (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
No offense taken, I usually don't get involved in this part of Wikipedia and am content to just write articles (maybe that's why things aren't being resolved). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Frightening stuff. I'm not sure what to do next, though; they're of the "any citation, even an unverifiable one, is better than no citation" school. It's not true, of course, but they care more about the TRUTH™ than WP:V, and the consensus at WP:RS/N didn't make any impact. Jayjg (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you think this is something that will eventually have to go to arbcom to resolve? Should we raise it at the Pump? Blueboar (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It hardly seems like an Arbcom case, and I don't think the Pump is the place for it either. There's definitely some board where this needs a broader discussion, but I'm not sure what it is. Jayjg (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
As Niagara has hinted, the two of you have stumbled upon a long-standing issue. Jayjg and Blueboar will not resolve it by discussion on Jayjg's user talk page, and it definitely will not promote a solution if you choose to start off by attaching defamatory labels to the NRHP Wikiproject participants. Some observations:
  • NRIS is a stable and verifiable information source that is "published' in the form of a computer-searchable dataset, much like the U.S. Census. Suggestions that is unreliable are largely based on its having an unpretty online user interface. A problem has arisen in that the U.S. government agency that maintains this database has had longstanding website problems, and lately has decided to abandon its old web interface for a new interface that has new problems. Wikipedia content that is based on information extracted from NRIS is still going to be based on information extracted from NRIS -- we just need to figure out how to cite it.
  • There are a few prolific contributors who have created a large amount of content -- including list-articles, infoboxes, and a large number of minimal stub articles -- based solely on the NRIS database. This is included nonsensical citations to an unhelpful homepage. Those of us who have been critical of the practices of this group have gotten beaten up pretty hard by members of that small group of prolific contributors. As Niagara points out, there are other folks who contribute articles about National Register properties without relying solely on NRIS, but do need to cite NRIS for details like listing dates and property identification numbers. Those contributors have, in many cases, refrained from getting into discussions of other people's practices, the NRHP Wikiproject guidelines, etc., because the contributors would rather write articles than get embroiled in aggravating talk page battles. I've observed that quiet acquiescence in the face intransigent opposition is pretty common at Wikipedia -- at least when dealing with inherently uncontroversial topics like relatively anonymous old buildings.
  • The current discussions have led to a result that many observers would have said was impossible: Doncram and I agree on something. (This actually is not the first time we have agreed, but it's a rare event.) I think we will be able to hammer out a sensible approach to citing NRIS that resolves both the longstanding problem of the uninformative boilerplate references AND the new problems that result from the restructuring of the National Park Service website.
If you want to contribute to improving the practices of the NRHP Wikiproject, I think the best place to start is "from within." Get acquainted with past discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (a prolific talk page) before you dive in. Try not to point fingers at people, suggest arbcom involvement, or otherwise over-react. --Orlady (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
No one is over reacting, Orlady... a couple of editors discussing something they have identified as a problem, and how tht problem might be fixed, is not an over reaction. I have yet to make up my mind on any of this. So please relax. No one is attacking anyone. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point

You recently closed an AFD on an article I created with the summary "While this is quite obviously WP:POINT, the main AfD based reason for deleting, as articulated by many of the editors commenting here, is that it is WP:SYNTH." This means you have semi-officially declared that the article creator was violating Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, under the rubric (presumably) "do not create an article on what you consider to be a similarly unsuitable topic just to get it listed for deletion and have others make the same arguments you are making." As I argued repeatedly, I most certainly did not create the article with a view to getting it AFD'd; indeed I complained about that AFD-after-4-hours repeatedly. Furthermore I didn't vote Delete on the parallel topic that inspired it. My argument was that the parallel topic should be handled differently; but that if there was a general view that it should be handled in this way (as there certainly seemed to be), then the parallel topics should have their own articles (since clearly no-one's claiming that all mass killings have Communist motivations, those parallel topics do exist to be covered). Now unless you want to point blank claim that I'm lying about my beliefs and motivations, then in these circumstances, creating the parallel topic article is certainly not POINTy, as I kept saying - it is constructive. Furthermore, in considering whether it is constructive you must take into account that I vehemently dispute the accusation of WP:SYNTH - the core topic is certainly valid: there are theories about links between mass killings and various forms of capitalism/colonialism/free markets/laissez-faire etc, for which "capitalism" seemed a valid enough titular short-hand whilst the article was being developed. Finally, whilst you found time to unnecessarily accuse me of disruption, you didn't find time to address the fact that the AFD nominator had mucked around with the page title, with the apparent effect of strengthening the Delete camp.

Now, I don't want this to go any further, I'm tired of the whole thing, and although a proper article on that topic (whatever an agreeable title might be) would be interesting to read, I have no interest in writing it. But I would ask you to delete the entirely unnecessary remark about WP:POINT. Otherwise, I will be forced to go to DRV, because I'm not having a POINTyness-by-creating-an-article recorded for history against me. So, would you please do this? Rd232 talk 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you state you did not create this as a WP:POINT, I've struck that part of the closing statement. Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Rd232 talk 07:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Josh Palmer wiki page , i would the deletion reviewed...

On january you deleted Josh Palmer wiki page and i believe you have made an error in judgement and that research wasn't done. It was said one reason was he never released an album. This is quite untrue, in 2007 he was awarded the Rawlco Radio 10k20 grant and release an his solo album Independently, receiving a significant amount of Radio play on Rawlco radio stations, C95 and Rock102. In 2007 he formed the band, The Rebellion and has released 2 albums with that group, the 1st Independently, and the second through Thorny Bleeder Records / Universal Music, Another reason he was deleted was he wasn't notable, well here is the list of publications that was written about Josh Palmer and his band The Rebellion... -- JamJar, The Bakersfield, Californian 2/10, Chris West, Skope Mag . Com, Feb 2010, Rock and Roll Guru Blog spot, April 2010, Raised On Indie .com , December 2009, — Craig Silliphant, Planet S Magazine, April 2008, Verb News, Febuary 2010, Star Phoenix , March 2010, , Music Industry News, January 2010, Van music .com , December 2009. His band, The Rebellion, is getting press and gaining exposure. Another reason was a google search revealed, no notable articles. Untrue for the reason's stated above. And also, when you google, The Rebellion, his band comes up to the top of the search. So please review the information and please reinstate his wiki page. He has a strong talent and is gaining momentum with his band, The Rebellion and are signed to Thorny Bleeder Records. thank you , MB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganbelon (talkcontribs) 16:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking me to submit your statement to WP:DRV? Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


Greetings there.

I was wondering why you decided to go along and delete the page? I was wondering if you could restore it if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it because that was the consensus of this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheGreatHatsby (2nd nomination). If you think the deletion was done in error, you can ask for it to be reviewed at WP:DRV. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Alrighty, thanks for the quick response good sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to your question (#7) at my RfA

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jayjg. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Joe_Decker.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for your question. Please let me know if I can followup with any questions or concerns you have with my answer. Cheers! --je deckertalk 08:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel Shamir

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Israel Shamir there is a COI of Roland Rance, or RolandR. Your input would be welcome. RolandR (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the restrictions you are under may preclude you from commenting on the content of this. Would you be permitted to comment on the history of the article, and the process? Are you allowed to comment on your own or my talk page? Thanks. RolandR (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It's hard to say, there seem to be widely varying interpretations of exactly what is or isn't covered. Regarding User talk pages, on the one hand, they are undoubtedly exempt from any such restrictions. On the other hand, there's this. Jayjg (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

World of Warcraft

Since you re-upped the protection back to semi, maybe it would be a good idea to remove WP:PC? --Izno (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure; I think there are non auto-confirmed editors who can still edit now, aren't there? Jayjg (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
[edit=autoconfirmed]... so, probably not. :P --Izno (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You're right, I've turned it off. Jayjg (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)



You deleted the above article following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizens for the Constructive Review of Public Policy - it has now been re-created, can you have a check and see if it is an improvement on the last one and addresses the AfD issues or is it WP:CSD#G4. Codf1977 (talk) 10:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The original concerns were that it was at best not notable, at worst a hoax. Since the new article contained no sources whatsoever, it wasn't possible for the new article to address those concerns. Jayjg (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Codf1977 (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Machn again

Hi Jay. Machn has written on the Leo Frank talk page of my supposed "religious POV bias" [6]. He took it out five minutes later, don't know what the right thing to do is here -- block, ban, or warning. Thanks. IronDuke 23:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As he removed it 5 minutes later, I don't think anything should be done for now. Jayjg (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, trust your judgment. IronDuke 01:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Admins who know how WikiProject Judaism works

Hi Jayjg: In the present ANI discussions about the correct names for the three Jewish Temples at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#All talk pages, and more, were notified about the discussions and proposed moves an admin (Fram) involved in the ANI discussions but not familiar with the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism has raised some questions about how the Judaism WikiProject functions, such as "Whether that is standard practive [sic] at the Project, or only your standard practice, I don't know, but it has to change in either case. Subjects related to Jews or Judaism will not be named or treated in accordance with the Torah, but in acordance [sic] with reliable independent sources (and for the naming in accordance with English language reliable independent sources)." I have suggested that experienced admins familiar with the WikiProject be called in to answer those allegations. As an admin and participant in the project over a number of years your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi IZAK. I'm not actually a member of that WikiProject, and haven't really participated that much in discussions there, so I don't think I'm the best person to comment. Jayjg (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Straight Edge Society

I was wondering, since others put a lot of work into making the article for a while, would it be possible to find the old versions of The Straight Edge Society and host them on userspace somewhere where a cooperative effort can be undergone to find sources explaining their notability? All 4 current members have their own articles which have sustained over time and usually groups which last a while and draw a lot of attention get recognized as a wrestling stable. Nym (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Which established editor wants to host the article in his/her userspace? Jayjg (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I've just noticed this conversation and I wouldn't mind volunteering to host the article if that's okay with you. I'll let the others at WP:PW know about this so we can help get this revived. -- Θak5ter  08:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I've restored it to User:Oakster/The Straight Edge Society. Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Θak5ter  18:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've finished sourcing the article now. Is it okay with you for me to move it back into article space? -- Θak5ter  11:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's hard for me to assess if the article has overcome the issues present in the previous iterations. I don't object to your restoring it, but I can't vouch for its contents if it comes to AfD again. Jayjg (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've just moved it back now. As a final favour, is there any chance Straight Edge Society can be unsalted so a redirect can be created there. Again, thanks for all your help. -- Θak5ter  12:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Done. Jayjg (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

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. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 03:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Resolved, you were in the right. Sorry about any confusion this message caused. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 03:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the notification. Jayjg (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks to your helpful comments and support, Shimer College is now a Featured Article!
-Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC) --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the article to FA status, and congratulations! Jayjg (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Hi, why the link "see also" has to be at the top of the article when all the other "see also's" links are at the end of the articles? Is that the editors are very worried that the people watch it? -- (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure what you mean by "the editors are very worried that the people watch it". Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I wonder why the link has to be at the top? All the other links are at the end. Why this is at the top and the others not? I'm just presuming that if you put it at the top you want the people watch it, or I'm wrong? -- (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It's the See also of most relevance to Holocaust denial. The rest are actually either covered in the article, or are not directly related. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but show me another article where the see also is at the top. To me that looks like if the poeple that made the article would like that the watchers don't forget read it. That's what I feel. If there would no interest, why dont put it at the end like all the others? -- (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
See also: Promise (computing).--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
See also: Contract bridge. Jayjg (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Leo Frank and IronDuke

Jayjg, I come to you because I don't know who else to talk to about this problem. I come before you with sadness about the Leo Frank article. IronDuke is being antagonistic and manipulative, turning the Leo Frank article lead sentence into Anti-Semitic victim and persecution propaganda. He is blaming the lynching of [Leo Frank] on Anti-Semitism and not the real reason which is that Leo Frank arguably raped and was convicted of strangling a little girl (and the law partner of the Leo Frank defense team got the death sentence commuted to life in prison). Here is an example.

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish American who was lynched by a mob of prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia, in 1915; the antisemitic episode led to the founding of the Anti-Defamation League in the United States.

I do not know what to do anymore and I am asking for your help. Machn (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Historys Docs comment

you got inaccurate information from the complaining party -- but thanks for the hello. Historys Docs (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Direct quote please

Please could you provide the exact quote from Schweitzer & Perry (2002), pp. 27, 35. to support the claim that (each one of) the New Testament authors categorically only blamed Jews for the death of Jesus, to the complete exclusion of blame of Romans or Diety (rather than, in the text you have refused, principally blamed Jews). I am forced to demand it because your talk page comments imply you may not have understood the actual meaning of the (presumably paraphrase) you have written. I have read this entire reference on Google books and it presents a coherent argument to make a point, but does not seek to be a balanced review and even so only says broadly that the Gospel writers sought to lay the blame on Jews and appease the Romans (which is fine, everyone knows that). It makes a distinction between John's more complete whitewashing than the synoptics, implying at the very least that the synoptic gospels did not completely exonerate the Romans. Assuming good faith, use of this reference to support that sentence as it is written looks pretty careless. --BozMo talk 07:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please review the Big Yellow Box at the top of this page; discussions of article content go on article content pages. How would you word the thesis of the authors? Jayjg (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
To be true to what the source said something like "The authors of the gospel accounts sought to place responsibility for the Crucifixion of Jesus and his death on Jews, rather than the Roman emperor or Pontius Pilate". The source is primarily about their motivation and that is a fair summary of it. Other sources is a different matter (and a content matter, unlike this one which is about misrepresenting sources and serious enough to chase you here). --BozMo talk 12:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any significant difference between what you suggest is "true to what the source said" and what is already there. Is it the addition of the words "sought to"? That's the only difference I can see. I've now added them, though this minor difference in wording is hardly "serious", and certainly not "misrepresenting sources". Jayjg (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
One cannot judge the extent of the difference in meaning from the number of words involved in a change. --BozMo talk 12:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your input required @ 4th attempt at closing Temple discussions

Hi Jayjg: There is now a 4th round of discussions at ANI (actually 5th, counting the original debate). Since you have previously commented in this discussion and for the sake of giving all sides their chance to voice their reasoning at the admin level, please add your views at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Restatement of what the issue originally raised is - please focus on this. Thank you for attending to this as soon as possible before the discussions are closed off. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Congregation Beth Elohim

Dear Jayjg: The material that was put into the congregation beth elohim wikopedia site is absolutely true. I should know. I am Rabbi Gerald I. Weider and was there during the entire events of 1978-2006. You have got your facts wrong on several items: 1. The day school did exist for 3 years 2. You have omitted all the programs I started and why 3. You have not listed me in the position of Rabbi Emeritus on the clergy list and the other matters that I posted are actually what happened. If you are trying to find sources for all of these items you can check the synagogues newletters from 1978-2006. All of these items are to be found there as a public record. Please replace what I wrote because that is what actually happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Weider, it's a pleasure to hear from you. I'm sure the material you added is true, and I'd love to be able to include it, but all material on Wikipedia must conform with our Verifiability, No Original Research, and Reliable Sourcing policies/guidelines. Let's work together to try to find reliable sourcing for it, so that we can put it in the article. Is there an e-mail address at which I can contact you? Jayjg (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
O.K., I've e-mailed you, I hope you'll respond. Jayjg (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


Hello Jayjg. Seeing as how you have written a number of featured articles on houses of worship I was wondering if you had any suggestions for improvements to al-Azhar Mosque. I think the article is pretty close to being comprehensive, I just need to get to one of the few libraries that has a specific source to fill out the architecture section, but besides not having alt text is there anything else that would bar it from becoming a FA? I understand if you dont have the time or inclination to look this over, it is very long article. Thanks, nableezy - 18:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look in the next couple of days. Jayjg (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
O.K., I've given it a quick read. It looks good, but I think I can help it become a FA. I'll get into the article in more detail on the weekend. Jayjg (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I know it needs alt text for the images, but more importantly I need to get Creswell's The Muslim Architecture of Egypt to finish the architecture section. I dont think it would be a FA without that as a source and that book is only available in 6 libraries within a 200 mile radius of me. nableezy - 21:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
O.K., I've done alt text for each of the images, because I know how difficult it can be to describe familiar images, and in my experience it's always a nuisance to have this hanging over one's head. I'll start to go carefully through the text next. Jayjg (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Pictures and paper

Good job on getting permissions for the pictures added to Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee). It definitely improves the value of that article. From doing the review of it, I got interested in the history of The American Israelite. There is now an article on that; if you happen to know any more, feel free to add to it. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that's a great new article, very interesting and well-written. Thank you for writing it! And thank you also regarding the pictures; I'm just waiting now for OTRS to confirm the information I sent them, they seem to be taking forever! Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


You are mentioned (in a nice way). Keep up the good work. RIPGC (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

My compliments

Good job on undoing the edits of i.p. (also known as "ventura488") to the Kohen page! (if you have a peek at my talk page you can see how i had no idea how to handle his prior "edits")--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind...?

Hi Jay, I know you're fairly familiar with MiszaBot configs — would you mind checking this edit of mine to make sure I've set it up correctly? It would be greatly appreciated. Jakew (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I would have used 100k instead of 70k, but I suppose the talk page doesn't grow very quickly. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Jakew (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Gearslutz at RSN

Hi. Thank you so much for weighing in at that thread. I'm attempting to summarize viewpoints there, since at this stage numbers seem somewhat divided, and I have included your view in my summary. Please read it over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Summarizing; more feedback welcome, since opinions seem divided and speak up if I've misunderstood you or if your opinion has changed. Under the circumstances, I think we need to nail this down, one way or another. :) Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done so. Jayjg (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

FLC nomination

Jayjg, since you contributed to the article List of awards and nominations received by Up in the Air which is a child article to Up in the Air (film), I thought that you would like to know that JuneGloom07 Talk? , Courcelles (talk) and I nominated the article for FLC, cf Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Up in the Air/archive1. I would appreciate your considered comments on the nomination. --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Need some advice

Following a simple request for page numbers[7] and quotes[8] concerning references of rather contentious material. User:Yalens has made two racist remarks concerning my ethnicity(or lack thereof);

  • " are not even Armenian and have absolutely nothing to do with it."[9]
  • "What is funny is that people like you and User:David Roman, who don't even seem to be from the Caucasus (your profile says you are a German-Scottish-English-French-somethingelse American; his name certainly sounds Western to me as well), get far more emotional.."[10]

Can you advise me where to report these racist remarks? Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've cautioned him for now. I don't think there's a need to do anything else unless he continues making these kinds of remarks. Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
... I seriously fail to see how they are racist (and I don't think calling them such is very productive either). I won't make them if its such a big deal, but its not "racist" (for noting that people who actually have a stronger sense of a connection to the issue that I've talked to get less openly emotional when debating about it? How is that generalizing people negatively by race exactly?). I have never wanted a confrontation here, as you can see if you read the discussion. I feel that he is overly emotional about it, and he previously called me "impudent" (see the talk page, I can grab edit summary I suppose later), claimed that I was trying to rationalize a genocide (which is completely untrue, as I have noted numerous times), among other things... I do not feel like I (the "impudent" person who supposedly is trying to "mitigate" and to "rationalize the genocide") am the one trying to be insulting here... I would much rather simply be able to work stuff out, and am completely willing. --Yalens (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's the key: Comment on content, not on the contributor. It's the second line of the policy, and it's pretty straightforward. If you stick strictly to that you'll be fine. Jayjg (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 and incivility

You'll find that Ludwigs2 has cultivated a reactionary "eye for an eye" attitude towards civility. [11],[12]. Any perceived slight is used as an excuse to behave in an incivil manner. He does seem particularly fond of commenting on the relative placement of editors heads [13]. aprock (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen some of that amazingly combative approach myself.[14] Feel free to add what you'd like to the section on the board. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Gallery transwikis

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Durham University as transwiki to commons, but it's still here. A few other similar articles also closed as transwiki to commons are also still here, it seems there's a gap in our systems. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Old NAC AfD never transwikied. Fences&Windows 14:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Jayjg (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi there. I want to ask for a bit of explanation. Why did you delete ImpressPages article again? I do understand the first time. The software was too young. The article was rewritten from first to last word, only facts were used. What was the problem now? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It was originally deleted because it did not have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The "new" article did not appear to differ in this regard. If you wish to contest the article's deletion, please feel free to do so at WP:DRV. Jayjg (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Shamir again

Please look at this thread. I would appreciate your comments; by email if you are not allowed to post them on Wikipedia. Thanks. RolandR (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I can say that I've read the OTRS ticket-based accusations raised against you in that thread, and they appear run the gamut from unbelievable to laughable, consisting of the same kinds of non-factual conspiratorial inventions that are often advanced by the subject of the article. Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised? Anything I should worry about? RolandR (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, or in real life? Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
How had you read the OTRS ticket, out of interest? You do not have OTRS access. Daniel (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I read the OTRS ticket-based accusations raised in that thread. Jayjg (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, you should probably make that clear - because, for all you know, the contents of the ticket could be completely different to what was postulated publicly in that thread. Daniel (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I was only discussing this with Roland, and I'm sure he understood. In any event, I believe it's now quite clear. Jayjg (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Kohen Genetic Testing

I have moved this to the talk page and request arbitration from an unbiased party. I sourced the material and there is no reason for you to remove it. If you remove it again without stating why, I will report you for vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, during my original edits I did not see many of the messages you and another person wrote to me which caused me to think you were simply ignoring me. Anyway, I apologize for that; though I do think you are too edit-happy. The site (the first page) should provide you with more information regarding this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventura488 (talkcontribs) 04:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology, but in your latest edits you cited unreliable websites and studies on non-related topics. Please see article's talk page. Jayjg (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark Wallace

Administrator, I was trying to move the article of Mark Wallace around to a different page. I royally screwed it up, so I would appreciate it if you would look at my talk page history as well as contribution history and please fix. Much appreciated. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it all, if I've understood what you were attempting. Please let me know. Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What the Hell?

I spent ages working on those lists of Epic films by decade who the hell do you think you are! What gives you the right to delete me pages! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voynaimir (talkcontribs) 19:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

They're not really "your" pages, actually, please review WP:OWN. I'm sorry all that hard work of yours was deleted, but the consensus at this discussion was that they should be deleted. Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want copies of the deleted pages, you can ask an administrator to email them to you. Coppertwig (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Converted to Islam

The Hollywood actor and actresses are Anne Hathaway, Sam Worthington, Scarlett Johansson and Gwyneth Paltrow has converted to Islam that I saw on the magazine and newspaper, Administrator. --Videogamer13(talk). August 22, 2010 (UTC).

There's no evidence that's the case, and you need to comply with WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Jacob Epstein

If you have some thoughts I'd appreciate your input here [15], thanks...Modernist (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded. Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks I'm pleased that you weighed in, that editor has been seriously upsetting several articles including this one...Modernist (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
It was my pleasure. It all boils down to reliable sources in the end. What other problems have you seen? Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
He is currently trolling and edit warring on the talk pages with editors working on William Butler Yeats, Ezra Pound (not my favorite character), James Joyce, and H.D., adding infoboxes where they are not wanted, and he and I got into it two days ago at Marcel Duchamp and he acts as though he owns the place spouting policy like he wrote it...Modernist (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sarona Snuka

I just made that page yesterday, why did you delete it, i put lots of references, and everything, she is at the top of her sport right now, millions and millions of people around the world watch her every week on WWE Raw, so she deserves a wiki page, and if you had a problem with it, couldnt you have helped to make it better, instead of deleting that, i find that very rude :( and it hurt my feelings —Preceding unsigned comment added by OVW Divas (talkcontribs) 20:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you're not just another sockpuppet of User:Melissadu, the article was deleted because that was the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarona Snuka. If you think the deletion was in error, you may contest it at WP:DRV. Jayjg (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which has been closed as successful. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure, and congratulations! Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ebionites RfC

FYI. John Carter has initiated an Ebionites RfC and is back to deleting sources he doesn't like. Since you are the mediator for content disputes, I thought you should know. It would be helpful if you (and Slim) could weigh in with an opinion. Ovadyah (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Update. John Carter had the article locked, after making all his edits. Things are out of hand. Please advise. Ovadyah (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I can do at this point; John Carter has abandoned the mediation. Perhaps you could get a wider audience to assess Tabor's reliability in this context? Jayjg (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I've responded to John Carter's comments on your Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. Ovadyah (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Tabor on Ebionites

If you read the "Misrepresentation of Tabor" section of the talk page, you will find that the material which was deleted completely fails to meet even minimum verifiability standards, as determined by a reading of the book by both myself and uninvolved administrator Llwyrch. Restoring unverifiable material representing a living person, in this case misrepresenting his words, is I believe a fairly clear violation of WP:V and possibly WP:BLP, and I believe that the irrational restoration of such material without making any effort to see to it that it does actually reflect anything like what the author actually said in such regards is sufficient basis for a final warning. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Correction. All references to Tabor were removed from the recently restored John The Baptist section, even though I explicitly provided page numbers and direct quotes from Tabor's book the Jesus Dynasty on the talk page in support of the content. diff diff This is a transparent attempt to suppress any citations by Tabor of primary sources that contradict a conservative Catholic POV. Ovadyah (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
And those "quotes", although I don't see any verbatim quotations, were generally not relevant to the deleted citations, and are as such, I believe, irrelevant to the citations deleted. I had wondered on the article talk page whether Ovadyah would directly respond to the point about the material not being verifiable, or whether he would do other things to circumvent them. I guess I got my answer. I can't help but get the impression someone is getting desperater and desperater. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, it appears that laying out material on the talk page, along with sources, page numbers, and quotations, will never be accepted. Therefore, I will copy the John The Baptist section of the article to the mediation page where we can detail the sources supporting or arguing against inclusion, just as we did with the James vs. Paul section. Ovadyah (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose that proposal. However much certain parties are trying desperately to distract people from the fact that several sources they have added are according to others completely unverifiable, and others refusing to acknowledge that there is now a source specifically stating that Eisenman's theory has been rejected by the academic community (the full quote, if the book is available tomorrow, will be added then), someone seems to think that the matters of policy raised by these facts should be ignored. I would as an individual much more favor having the discussion out in the open, where other editors can contribute as well. Mediation is not, and should not be, an attempt to try to avoid dealing with matters of policy and guidelines. The non-verifiable quotes clearly violated policy, and I don't think mediation is relevant in such matters. Due weight concerns regarding a theory which has no been explicitly stated to have been rejected by the academic community are also matters which can also be handled in the normal manner. I will continue to request input from other editors regarding this substantive matters on the article talk page in any event, because I believe there is no reason to limit the discussion to only a few regarding these serious matters regarding policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
John, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "unverifiable" - do you mean the source cannot be found, or the material/quote cannot be found in the source? That's what "unverifiable" is. Or do you mean the material is not relevant in that article/context? If so, that's not "unverifiable", it's original research or even "irrelevant". Can you clarify? Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
As per the section "Misrepresentation of Tabor" on the article talk page, both Llwyrch and I went through the book, particularly reviewing the page citations indicated, and found that none of them supported the claims made. The Ebionites are (as far as I can remember today) only mentioned twice in the entire book. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
"none of them supported the claims made" in what sense? In the sense that the material on the page said completely different things than what was in the article, or in the sense that the material on the page was not about Ebionites, but about, say, early Christians? Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
It varies. Some of the pages cited to support the Ebionites being related to James talked about nothing other than the crucifixion, mentioning neither the Ebionites, James, or really anything else even remotely related to the article. And he also, at the end of the book, again, so far as I can remember at this point, indicates that the Ebionites appeared substantially later (I think around 150 CE, I don't have the book here today), and on that basis such statements as "James was the leader of the early Jerusalem church", and there is something to that effect on page 4, aren't really applicable to the Ebionites who didn't show up as a distinct group until several years after his death. Tabor regularly refers to the Nazarenes as being the early Jerusalem church, and there are about four or five lines of reference citations in the index to that group, but they are not considered by Tabor to be the same of the Ebionites. Does that help, or are you asking me for verbatim quotations from the book? If so, wouldn't it make more sense to ask the people seeking to include the information to do that? John Carter (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
No, that's what I was looking for. So, some of the material didn't support the statements is was claimed to support, and other material referred to different groups (e.g. Nazarenes, not Ebionites), or simply did not refer to the Ebionites. Is that correct? Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Some of the pages had nothing whatsoever to do with the article text they were being used to support, and some of it, while dealing with the subject being discussed in a broad way, neither mentioned the Ebionites directly or mentioned the subject in such a way that it would be reasonable to conclude the statements applied to the Ebionites. Overlong, I know, but the answer is, basically, "yes". John Carter (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Jayjg, the page numbers don't match the claims made for the trivial reason that the hard cover and paperback editions don't have the same page numbers. Michael Price added page numbers based on the paperback edition while John Carter and Llwyrch have the hard cover edition. I also have the hard cover edition, and with a small amount of effort, I was able to track down the relevant pages. diff diff John Carter is well aware of this discrepancy and his claims that the material doesn't support the statements made is basically fraudulent. They don't support the statements made in his edition. I recommended on the talk page that we re-number the pages to agree with the hard cover edition. diff That is not a good reason to delete all the references to Tabor, especially when he could have easily fixed the page numbers himself. Ovadyah (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Ovadyah, your claim that someone else has to do your work so you can keep your material shows to me just how weak your connection to anything remotely resembling reality is. And this constant prattling about the Slavonic Josephus wasn't, so far as I can tell, even mentioned in the article. These were the changes made, and Josephus didn't figure in any of them, although direct reference to the "Ebionites" in the article text often is. At this point, I am finding myself forced to wonder whether (1) Ovadyah actually knows what he is talking about regarding this in any way, or (2) whether he is continuing to hammer away on a completely unrelated point for the purposes of distraction. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
You are mistaken as usual. This is the disputed content that I moved to the talk page. diff As you can see, Slavonic Josephus was mentioned in the article, and the source was previously discussed at length on the talk page before it was added. Tabor references Slavonic Josephus in the footnotes of his book. diff Ovadyah (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
And you have avoided directly dealing with your own failure to act according to policy, as per usual. In your world, it is everyone else's responsibility to do Ovadyah's work for him. If you could stop the endless commentary and actually do what is required of you for the material to be included instead, the problem would be over. Instead, you continue in this useless commentary. Every time you indulge in these little asides of yours as opposed to doing what is required, which I think in this case now would reasonably be providing exact verbatim quotations of the source material used, only further contributes to the impression that you are unable to do so. John Carter (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
You overlook the fact that I didn't add any of the Tabor material to the article. It is as much your responsibility to fix page numbers when you encounter a problem as it is mine or any other editor. However, your preferred method of editing, like Marcion, seems to be deletion of content you don't like. Ovadyah (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Ovadyah, what I did was remove content which cannot meet policy requirements. If the material cannot be verified, it should be removed. It is not my obligation to do the work of including unverifiable information because others want it in. Apparently, you find it impossible to grasp that fairly simple point. Yes I don't like content that can't be verified. You, on the other hand, seem to have the arrogance to insist that material be kept in despite you yourself being completely unwilling to do what is required to keep it in. If you insist on acting like a child, can you really object to having people treat you like one? Both myself and one other administrator went through the book and could not verify the content. That is all we were required to do. No one has any obligation to ensure that material which cannot be verified by them be kept in because someone too lazy to provide the verification says it can be. You still are refusing to do the only thing which I think anyone with even a slight degree of sense would do in this situation, and prove me wrong by exact quotations from the source. I cannot for the life of me imagine a single good reason why anyone would do that. And, no, despite your implicit understanding, it is not anyone else's work to do things for you because you can't be bothered to do it.
If, as you seem to be rather incoherently implying, all the material that was deleted was somehow references to footnotes which refer to the Slavonic Josephus, why on earth could you never say so in the first place? Are you so incapable of coherent writing that you cannot make it clear to anyone what it is you are talking about? In any event, if you bothered to familiarize yourself with wikipedia guidelines and policies regarding things like footnotes, you probably would have noted that saying something which Tabor said was from Slavonic Josephus came from Tabor himself is not acceptable. Or is it also my fault that I am unable to read your apparently less-than-clear thoughts, and thus not be able to understand something you never bothered to say clearly in the first place? John Carter (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, this should go to AN/I. John Carter was aware of why there was a discrepancy in the page numbers, he deleted the references anyway, and then locked the article so that no one else could fix them either. He abused his power as an admin in doing so, and he should have his admin privileges revoked. Ovadyah (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Still refusing to face reality, huh? No, Ovadyah, despite your now seeming to claim mind-reading abilities for yourself, after having apparently demanded others read your own, I was not and still am not aware of it, because there has been no direct proof of it. All of this could be avoided if little Ovadyah could be bothered to say something, almost anything, actually useful, instead of this endless hissy-fit of yours. If, as you say, the material can be found, then just produce exact quotations to that effect, and if they can be verified, there will be no problem. This is all you would have had to do from the beginning. Instead, you seem to belief that simply because you, in what I can only describe as delusional arrogance, have only to say "it is so" and others are then obligated to do things for you. I still maintain my original point. The material could not be verified, and on that basis was removed. I still honestly am not sure it can be verified, nor am I obligated to do the verification because you are unwilling to do so. If what you say is true, and I still am not convinced it is, all you would have had to do at any point was provide quotations, which, despite all your childish accusations, you still have not done. The fact that is apparent is that you are unwilling to do what is required as per WP:V to verify that information you want to see included in the article, and I think that if anything your blatant and ongoing refusal to do anything productive, and continue to indulge in these childish accusations, may well result in disciplinary actions against you. John Carter (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Bring it. We'll see who is subject to disciplinary action. Ovadyah (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
So the real issue here with "unverifiable" material was that the citations were to a paperback version of the book, which had different page numbers than the hardcover version? Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Jay, there are two issues as I understand it. One is the page numbers. For example, John Carter deleted the Tabor reference from the John The Baptist section that I just restored to the article. The reference is to the Gospel of the Ebionites, so it is obviously about the Ebionites. Michael originally had the page numbers for the paperback (or a PDF) version, and I have just changed it so that the pages match the hard cover version used by myself, Llwyrch, and John Carter. The second objection is more complicated. John Carter is arguing that unless a secondary source explicitly mentions the Ebionites then it is not about the Ebionites, even if the source is obviously talking about Jewish-Christianity. I think this is what John is saying is a violation of WP:V. For example, in the James vs. Paul section that we reviewed in mediation, Tabor mentions three early primary sources that say James was the Overseer of the Jerusalem Church. One is an early Church Father, Clement of Alexandria, and the other two are Jewish-Christian sources, the Clementine Recognitions and quotations by Eusebius of an early Church Father, the Jewish-Christian Hegesippus, that are probably based on the Gospel of the Hebrews. There is nothing internal to these texts that identifies them as specifically Ebionite, so their provenance is disputed. Bart Ehrman explicitly identifies the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies as Ebionite, but some other scholars prefer the more general term Jewish-Christian. However, Tabor's point in citing these various sources was to show that it was generally acknowledged by Orthodox as well as Jewish-Christians that James was the undisputed leader of the Jerusalem Church. So, the question of whether this violates WP:V is a very nuanced one. I won't get into the other Tabor references because I didn't work on them. Hope this helps. Ovadyah (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I see. The first issue, then, was differing editions of the Tabor book, which is really just a citation issue more than anything else. The rest is not a WP:V issue at all, but really a WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH issue, as I suggested above. Jayjg (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. SlimVirgin came to the same conclusion. diff That's why I moved some of this disputed material to the talk page in the first place. Str1977 and I thought the James vs. Paul section was close enough to fix it in place. As long as we are clear about who said what on the talk page or on the mediation page there should be no problems. Yet, we continue to have intractable problems because John Carter regards all of Tabor's book to be a violation of WP:V, and not just The Jesus Dynasty, but all of Tabor's work. There was more than one Tabor source in the article. That's why he deleted all the Tabor references in the article without bothering to check them. Ovadyah (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Jayjg, Michael just informed me that there is a difference in page numbers in the UK hardcover version he is using. I am correcting the record about why the page numbers are different. I mistakenly thought he had a paperback version. Ovadyah (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I just checked the book. First, there are no footnotes in the book at all. There are endnotes from pp. 321 to 344. There are a total of two references to the Ebionites in the body of the text. The first is on page 303, in which it indicates that the diaspora of Jewish Christians after the Bar Kochba revolt "were subsequently known as Ebionites." On page 316, he says "The prophet Muhammad was in contact with Christian groups in Arabia, and there is evidence that they were closer to the Ebionites in their beliefs than to the Western church." Regarding endnotes, the word appears in only three. The first in note number 9 for part three, indicating the material is derived from the Gospel of the Ebionites. The second in note 24 of part 3, which indicates that Schoeps' book is a good source for material on the Ebionites. The two mentions in the main article space are linked to two endnotes. The first is note 23 of part three, indicating the material linked to is derived from Eusebius. The second is note 24 already mentioned above.
Regarding Ovadyah's insistence that the Slavonic Josephus be mentioned, I read the material available in the various editions I found and there is nothing in that translation to indicate that the word "Ebionites" or anything similar was in use in the original, and there is nothing which explicitly refers to Christian groups in ways which are indicative of a joining.
My ultimate cause for concern, particularly regarding Ovadyah's behavior in particular, is how the person who first involved me in this discussion, requesting my input in dealing with Michael's insistence on Eisenman's material, is also the person who raised the ArbCom case against Michael on that basis. Now, that same person, Ovadyah, is defending the inclusion of material derived from Eisenman, in a total about-face from his previous behavior. This is even after we have found a reliable source saying explicitly that Eisenman's central theory has been rejected by the academic community, and with no additional support of the Eisenman than only one really non-negative review, that by Robert Price, who is coincidentally the only member of the Jesus Seminar who has explicitly stated that he thinks Jesus never existed. When I try to think of reasons for this remarkable literal turnaround, the only reason I can think of is that there might have been an agreement of some sort between the two that they would work together to ensure that no one else would be able to adjust material that they wanted included, whether by content guidelines the material belonged or not. A review of Ovadyah's recent history, including his statement that he was upset Tabor would not be included in the lead, can be seen by someone so inclined as providing support for that premise. That total and complete turnaround about a source he previously condemned with apparent cause, and now supports for inclusion despite clear quoted evidence that the subject has been rejected by the academic community, cannot help but raise eyebrows.
And this comment from Ovadyah, who has just lectured me on my talk page regarding behavior, "Yet, we continue to have intractable problems because John Carter regards all of Tabor's book to be a violation of WP:V, and not just The Jesus Dynasty, but all of Tabor's work," is itself both an unsusbtantiated accusation and an explicit violation of the conduct guidelines he himself believes he can arrogantly lecture others about. It is completely and utterly incorrect, and obviously intended to be prejudicial, and thus itself a violation of the guidelines he, who insists on saying "I hate you" on article pages, has the unimaginable gall to lecture others about. This is to my eyes further indication that my hypothesis is right and he is, in fact, trying to ensure that anyone who would raise questions about dubiously relevant material he favors is either harassed of the page or otherwise kept from noting that his favored material, which is not adequately sourced or clearly relevant, be included in the page. Again, his remarkable turnaround in now defending Eisenman when he previously wanted help removing that material is very, very strange. John Carter (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. I have said very little about Robert Eisenman since 2007. There is an ongoing RfC that includes an evaluation of Eisenman as a source, but I have not participated in it, so far. My recent thoughts on Eisenman's books on James The Just are contained in this diff where I said, Eisenman's first book is useless. "James The Brother of Jesus" has a lot of controversial things to say about James The Just, but practically nothing about the Ebionites, that is unless you are into the conspiracy theory that Essenes = Nazarenes = Ebionites. We hashed this out on the article talk page long ago. Does that sound like I am "defending the inclusion of material derived from Eisenman"? Please stop misstating my words. Ovadyah (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Jay, I have nothing to say about the "I hate you" stuff, except that I thought I had seen it all on Wikipedia, but you learn something new every day. Ovadyah (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
While you insist on doing the very same thing yourself? And, despite your assertion on the talk page that the Gospel of the Ebionites is clearly linked to the Ebionites, there is a source quoted in that same section of the talk page saying it isn't. Please conduct yourself in an acceptable manner, if it is even possible for someone who insists on having hissy fits and ignoring sources already present on the same page to do so. And, just out of curiosity, considering you never edit anything but Ebionites, where else do you see such clearly unaceptable comments not only made on article talk pages, but even restored by the editors who make them after they are removed? Clearly, a few things you don't see "every day", or apparently ever looked at, is behavior guidelines. Would it be asking too much of you to maybe hope you could learn to behave at some point? John Carter (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The so-called Gospel of the Ebionites (modern name) is associated with the Ebionites because Epiphanius states in his Panarion that it is the gospel the Ebionites used. Some scholars have speculated, Zahn, Klijn, and others, that this may be a reference to the lost Gospel of The Twelve mentioned by Origen. Is there a point to all this? Ovadyah (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I am stunned Ovadyah actually responded directly, although he still cannot comment without insults. A review of the sources indicate Epiphanius is counted as unreliable in general, particularly about a subject which some scholars think he made up material on, and there is already another article on the [[Gospel of the Ebionites[]] which it is a better fit for. Granted, neo-Ebionites, who cite Epiphanius as their source for their being vegetarians consider this extremely important, and that may well be a motivation here, but is there any reason to give this one comparatively minor point a disproportionate and WP:UNDUE whole section while at the same all but ignoring so much material which modern scholarship, which is supposed to be the basis of content, raises? I would be stunned to get two direct responses in a row, given the history of the above editor, but hope springs eternal. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This discussion should be taken to the article Talk page, as it is about article content rather than process. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please revert this yourself

You restored Musar literature and Musar movement to the double "s" spelling, in disregard of the talk page discussion and the move made by an admin (Wikipedia:Administrators#Wheel_war). Please revert yourself. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware of that discussion, and in any event moving the article did not require any admin tools. Even if it did, reverting one admin action is not a "wheel war"; please review carefully the material at the link you provided above. It would only become a "wheel war" if you actually undid my actions in turn - something I'm sure you would never do. In any event, it's not relevant because, as I said before, I didn't use any admin tools to restore the article to its original name. If you want to move an article to a new name that contradicts WP:COMMONNAME, you should probably have a larger discussion than just you and a new WP:SPA. I suggest an WP:RFC. Jayjg (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
If you could add to the conversation at talk page discussion, though, that would be helpful. I'm not sure it's obvious which spelling is best, but I offered some thoughts for why I thought that Musar with one "s" was a better spelling. Your response there would be appreciated. Moreh405 (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with your suggestion to start an WP:RFC. However, since, as you admit, you made this move while being unaware of that talk page discussion, I still think it would be the correct thing to do if you would first undo your move. Debresser (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Since you do not reply, I made the move back. A shame you weren't around to dothat yourself. Debresser (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


I know this is getting old, but I thought you should be aware of this request for assistance with an SPA here. diff What should I do, if anything, to prepare for this? Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

AN/I: False accusations of vandalism

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. Ovadyah (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ovadyah forgot to sign the above. He has acknowledged the comment in passing on this page above, so I have to wonder how it is now that is that he has forgotten it. I cannot at present find the comment on the article talk page, but I am in the process of checking it. I should have enclosed the links of course, because it has become rather obvious that the comment has been removed from the history. I specifically remember that there was an edit summary to the effect, "No, John Carter, you don't get to do that," when I saw that he had restored the comments I had removed, and now I find that edit summary to be missing. I find this frankly bizarre. The fact that he seems to have acknowledged it above, however, would seem to be important as an indicator of his having knew of it before, in any event. Given that I am certain, and regarding this I am certain, that the comments existed, even if they have now somehow seem not to exist, I wonder how the situation arose. The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that, somehow, contacting Cirt and mentioned that I would make full copies of all the encyclopedia articles, which if presented on the article talk page, would force a substantive change in the content of the article, I guess might have caused sufficient fright in the part of someone to somehow alter history. Although I have never done so myself, it occurs to me that somehow the edits involved may have been deleted from the history, and I would welcome someone looking into that. John Carter (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Unless you are able to produce the edit(s) in question, you should probably refrain from making the accusation. If you think an administrator has inappropriately deleted edits from article history, you should take that to WP:AN/I.Jayjg (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Day the Music Died (film)

Hello, per the deletion request of the page The Day the Music Died (film), I want to include the news article from IMDb authorized film news source HeyUGuys UK:

Furthermore, included here is the IMDb Pro page that gives all info including its high movie meter it's had and news article from Access Hollywood. I now believe this is a valid Wikipedia entry.

Thanks for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irun25 (talkcontribs) 22:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia would not consider either of those to be reliable sources. If you feel the article should be undeleted or recreated, please feel free to propose it at WP:DRV. Jayjg (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Israel Shamir

The Israel Shamir´s biography was totally rewritten by a couple of wackos (probably Shamir himself):

It's highly unlikely it was Shamir himself who re-wrote it. And while I think the article now completely misses just about everything that Shamir is notable for, User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and User:Off2riorob are not "wackos". Jayjg (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Shamir is a non-Jew nazi that has lived in Israel for a short time.Evengee (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting history by noleander?

I don't get the point of those (2) pages (Jews and slavery) by noleander, it an 1) attempt to minimize the main Arab Islamic part in the slave trade by finding baseless (on infampous Jew-hater L Farakhan's NOI and some unkown writer) isolated jews among the Arabs? 2 There was no organized Jewish slavery, which is why the entire page is null and void.Evengee (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


I have left a message on the Kohen discussion page. Additionally, you claim that only English sources are accepted. Yet there are many accepted pages where old Hebrew sources are accepted even though Wikipedia is "not a yeshiva". For example see the Wiki Kashrut page which has the following sources. It has the Igerot Moshe, Yoreh De'ah and the philisophical opinion about Kashrut from Maimonides in the Guide for the Perplexed. Yet, when I try to quote the exact same sources on the Kohen Wiki page they are removed.

^ Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 83 and 84 ^ Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 85 ^ Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 87 et seq ^ Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 1–65 ^ Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah 66–78 ^ Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 318:1 ^ Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 431–452 ^ Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 114 ^ Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 113 ^ a b Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 115 ^ Many rely on lenient rulings by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in Teshuvot Igrot Moshe. Yoreh De'ah 1:47 and other 20th century rabbinic authorities who rule that strict government supervision prevents the admixture of non-kosher milk, making supervision unnecessary. See also Rabbi Chaim Jachter. "Chalav Yisrael – Part I: Rav Soloveitchik's View". Retrieved 2007-12-02. ^ Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 112, Orach Chayim 603 The Torah does not state reasons for most kashrut laws. Many varied reasons have been suggested, including philosophical, practical and hygienic. The Guide for the Perplexed, by Maimonides addresses this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventura488 (talkcontribs) 21:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't claimed that only English sources are accepted, I've said that one cannot use ancient primary sources. Other articles that use them probably shouldn't be doing so. Jayjg (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Rivadavia class battleship

The article was just promoted. At the talk page, I've asked Ed for help with dealing with your comments. Thanks for your excellent comments. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and congratulations. I've made a few example edits regarding inflation which I think will be helpful. Jayjg (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
That works, and I found the template I was looking for, {{CURRENTYEARYY}}, feel free to tweak it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I just use "today" for brevity, but your way is good too. :-) Jayjg (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Kent, Ohio FAC

Hello- Thanks again for your comments on the FAC for Kent, Ohio. As I mentioned there, I wrote a religion section, but wasn't too excited about it because it is mostly a very brief history of religion in the city and then seems more like a list of the churches, which I'm not sure is that encyclopedic (which is why I have hesitated to add it into the article). If you could give it a look and let me know what you think of it, I would very much appreciate it. The section is located at User:JonRidinger/sandbox#Religion and might seem a bit jumbled as far as the picture goes because of other things in my sandbox (depending on your browser and window size). --JonRidinger (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a more detailed look at it soon. Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
That is a very nice section, I think you should add it! Jayjg (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I guess I will go ahead and do that... --JonRidinger (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks good! Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Congregation Beth Jacob Ohev Sholom

Hello, I've reviewed the above article and it's now on hold. Thanks, Aiken Drum 18:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've responded at the review page. Jayjg (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
And thank you for promoting it to GA! Jayjg (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC comments

Hi Jayjg, the FAC was archived before I got a chance to address your comments, so if it's alright with you, I'll try to address the remainder here.


  • which paid for a massive 1904 $31,250,000 - "massive" is usually used for something physical, and appears colloquial here. Another word would likely be better.
    • NocturneNoir got this one. (Thanks!) - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • came as an abrupt shock to the Argentine and Chilean navies - they weren't really a shock to the navies themselves, were they? And what is meant by "abrupt shock"? This should be re-worded to indicate more clearly that the strength of these ships vastly exceeded those in the Argentinian and Chilean navies, or perhaps that their strength shocked the navy commands or hierarchies - or both.
    • I've reworded this along the strength factor, because most of the Argentine and Chilean ships had been built in the 1800s. I know that it's 1906, but the advances in armament and armor (in terms of caliber and placement on the ships) from 1900ish and continuing until 1918 gave the dreadnoughts ridiculously more powerful than the older ships. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The cabinet was in favor - Which cabinet? The government at the time should be described here in a couple of words.
    • Ed, wasn't the new Argentine government more socialist than the previous one? Jay, is that what you want us to include? - Dank (push to talk) 21:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
      • No, I meant which specific government/party was in power and in cabinet, and who was the leader? Jayjg (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Using Wikipedia, the National Autonomist Party was in power. Not having a specific date, I'm not sure what president was in power. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
          • It was either Roca or Quintana, but I think what you've done is good enough. Jayjg (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "the most up-to-date practice[s]", "a general machinery overhaul" - these quotations should probably be paraphrased, or cited if the sources are significant.
  • While both Schenia and Livermore explicitly state that the commission threw out all the bids twice,[14][20] neither makes it clear when this occurred. Livermore only goes into detail about one of these occasions, of which it is not clear if it is the second or third round.[19] - this kind of detail is valuable, it is essentially editorial comment by the article author, and is much better suited to a footnote than to the main article text. The main article should avoid discussing differences between the sources editors have chosen to use, particularly if this dispute is not itself discussed in reliable sources.
        • NocturneNoir got this one. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
          • NoctureNoir only put part of the paragraph in a footnote, I really think all of it should be there. Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • prompt American diplomacy granting various assurances regarding recent events between the United States and Brazil - the specifics of those "assurances" and "events" would be helpful in a footnote.
  • After Brazil sold Rio de Janeiro to the Ottoman Empire, Argentina began to actively seek a buyer for their two ships - you might want to give a bit more context here - e.g. why did Brazil sell the ship - and discuss the Argentine view that their own dreadnoughts were therefore no longer required.
    • Added. The Brazilians had no money left, and so the Argentines only needed to counter Minas Geraes and Sao Paulo. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • destroyers had to be sent from Argentina to escort them home, as the Second World War had broken out during their stay. - this is unclear, why would destroyers have to be sent to escort them home? They were powerful dreadnoughts in their own right.
    • Changed to "were sent". A single lucky plane or torpedo could take out a battleship, then and now, so ships tended to travel in packs in wartime. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In general, have you considered using Wikipedia's inflation function to provides values in today's dollars?
    • SHIPS people generally don't, but I don't know why. I'll leave a note on User:Protonk's talk page asking about the relative merit of the figures used, he's an economist. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    • {{Inflation}} would give accurate conversions for this year, as the US has especially good price data (or good extrapolations) ranging pretty far back. Other countries (Russia & Italy come to mind) would not be conducive to a smooth conversion from an arbitrary point in the past to the present day and SHIPS articles outside US/UK/DE would have to convert using alternate sources. My guess is that SHIPS uses in order to standardize references and presentation across their articles. On the subject of, the website is supported by the Economic History Association, a serious scholarly association with a strong governing board, a few conferences, and a good (though not great) journal. I happen to be a member of the association (though not one of any consequence). They don't provide too many calculators outside of the US and the UK (China, Japan and exchange rates are included). One advantage measuringworth provides is a transparent conversion scheme. All (almost all) of their conversion pages have a short paper explaining the methodology and data sources--helpful background for a curious or adversarial reader/editor. Protonk (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
      • As all prices are given in (then-current) $US, wouldn't the inflation function work for all of them? Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks Protonk. I don't have a preference, Jay; if we use a static figure, we could always run a bot to update the figures in future years. I have some reservations about using a template that works for some countries but not others, but I'll use it if there's consensus. - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, in this case it will work for all countries, since all prices are stated in one currency. You should use the function, which updates itself annually. Jayjg (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
        • For the US (and especially the UK, as the inflation template simply pulls figures from measuringworth) the two are identical, with the only difference being auto-updating. Since the updating is yearly, I am inclined to view the choice between the two as a matter of preference and presentation. Since I suspect that SHIPS (like MILHIST) places a premium on standard presentation, my guess would be that a source used by the majority of their articles would be preferred, but I don't know for certain in this case. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't mind using {{inflation}}, but I'm not a template guy; how do I get the current year to show up automatically in the text? (I wouldn't want to say "in current dollars", because the reader would logically assume that was "current" when I wrote it, not when they're reading it.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
            • I added the templates to show you how it's done. Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
          • I certainly don't mind either; I didn't even know it existed (I think). I don't think there is a standardized conversion for ship articles. In the WP:OMT articles I'm aware of, British articles use pounds, German use marks, and American use dollars. This was an interesting case because it involved so many countries. I used only dollars and pounds because the sources I consulted used one or the other; I could have used all five (dollars, pounds, marks, francs, and lira), but I thought this would be overly convoluted and complicated.
          • I like your additions with the "in 2010 dollars, $__ million," but should those be in the relevant footnotes? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
            • Typically the "today's $" are kept in the main body of the text, while more complex calculations are put in footnotes. Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've made some of the more minor copyedits myself. Overall, a well-written and referenced article, and an interesting read. I'd like to see the issues above addressed. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your in-depth comments. It's reviews like these that make me want to come back to FAC. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for saying so, that's very kind of you! Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)