User talk:Jayjg/Archive 40

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41


Deletion review for Isaac Jin Solstein

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Isaac Jin Solstein. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Hasdi Bravo • 14:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Jayjg. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


Right now, I am still busy getting together the JSTOR reviews of encyclopedias/dictionaries, and in transferring other citations to my list in development of religion references. Personally, I figure I will probably be more or less busy for at least the rest of the month. However, given the recent developments, I would be willing to offer my assistance in copyediting if there were any sort of effort to improve an article that he found significant up to GA, FA, or whatever, as a memorial to him. I'm not sure who would be in charge of such an effort, if it ever is begun, but I figure you might be keeping up with that a bit better than me. John Carter (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help too...and I suggest you inform SlimVirgin directly as well as she may wish to participate.--MONGO 01:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Richie Branson page

I probably should have contacted you first before placing my version of the page "Richie Branson" up, as you were the deleting admin from its previous incarnation. The version I placed was significantly different from the previous work and provided proofs that the subject meets WP:COMPOSER. Also, as a nerdcore hip-hop artist, he has achieved significantly more press and recognition that most other nerdcore artists who have standing wikipedia pages (compare their article sources to the ones I provided in today's version of Branson's). In fact, none of the other nerdcore hip hop artists have composed, written, or co-written anything that would allow them to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:COMPOSER. They must have met the notability guidelines because they have achieved recognition in the nerdcore sub-genre of music. Given the fact that Branson has achieved just as much recognition in that subgenre, would that not make him notable as a nerdcore artist? Please advise. ZachBrenner (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on the new article's talk page didn't indicate he met WP:COMPOSER - he wasn't even credited for the songs he was being cited for. Why do you think he does? Please note as well that the AfD was plagued with WP:SPA editors who made claims about this individual that could not be substantiated by reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Here's the logic I used: He is verified on BMI, (short for Broadcast Music, Inc. a de-facto source of imformation as to who has ownership rights in a particular musical work) as a composer/songwriter on the record. BMI's official repertoire not only verifies Marcus Brown II as a composer on the work titled Homegurl (He Gotta), it also verifies Bone as the performing artist. Also, Bone is on record by a reliable news source, San Antonio Express-News, himself stating Branson's involvement as a composer on the song. The BMI source is satisfactory to me, and Bone's confirmation on record with a notable newspaper gives me no reason to doubt Branson's role as a composer in that song. Looking at the previous AfD discussion (which I agree was full of sockpuppet responses), editors cast doubt on the fact that the song charted because no page was cited directly from Billboard showing the song ever charted. The author provided a paywall restricted page from, which only further created doubt. In this incarnation, I provided a direct source from Billboard's official site shows the song charted. It clearly shows Homegurl (He Gotta) holding position 22 on the chart. One of the editors claimed as the de-facto source of information as to whether a song charted or not. I agree with him, and thus I presented evidence from the de-facto source and not a paywall site. Based on that, I'd argue that Branson meets criteria number 1 in WP:COMPOSER, because there is a de-facto source showing he as a composer on a song that another de-facto source verifies as having charted on a national level. Since the composition charted, I believe it to be notable. I feel even stronger about the subject's meeting criteria number 3 in WP:COMPOSER. His composition was used as a basis for future recordings by three highly recognized grammy-award winning artists: Bun-B, The-Dream, and Rick Ross. I provided a source for that as well. That fact also wasn't present in the previous AfD discussion. I also believe the things he's accomplished in the nerdcore genre (none of which had occured prior to the previous article) further suggest notability. His work as an artist, completely unrelated to the billboard-charting song he produced, has been featured on a variety of notable web publications and shows, I have included all those as sources in this article as well. Comparing my sources to those presented in long-standing wikipedia articles of other nerdcore artists, I'd confidently argue that Branson is no less notable than most other artists in the genre. ZachBrenner (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
What is the reliable source backing up the claim that he meets criteria 1 and 3 of WP:COMPOSER? Regarding "Comparing my sources to those presented in long-standing wikipedia articles of other nerdcore artists", please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Jayjg (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is the track with Bun B, Rick Ross, and The-Dream listed directly on Bone's official profile on the official site of The Island Def Jam Group -
While I'm satisfied by the tracklist as it is directly on Def Jam's website, I listened to the song for confirmation here as well:,+Rick+Ross,+And+The-Dream)
I have no doubt that the previous article was deleted due to a combination amateur source gathering and the author + SPA's immature handling of questions from other editors. Hopefully some consideration can be taken to the fact that what I've constructed this time around has more substance than the previous article. Regards, ZachBrenner (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The source you brought is not WP:SECONDARY, and doesn't mention Branson. Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps. However, Island Def Jam's official site confirms the existense of three grammy award winning artists participating on a 'remix' (a term univerally used to describe a derivative of an original musical composition) of a song Branson is known to have composed. It is worth mentioning that this 'remix' can be heard on a variety of media projects, and audibly the composed music is identical to that of the original 'Homegurl (He Gotta)', confirming it is based on the original song Branson was involved in. I'm curious to know how that factors into this. As for WP:OTHERSTUFF I'm arguing that not for the sake of letting the article stand, but for the fact that it suggests that my article shouldn't have been a candidate for speedy deletion. That is totally acceptable per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Thank you for taking the time to engage in this discussion by the way. The article I've provided is substantially different from the one that was removed via AfD previously, therefore I don't see cause for speedy deletion. I can understand it going through a new AfD discussion at the most, but I strongly believe this article has a better leg to stand on that it's previous version. ZachBrenner (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
"Perhaps"? The source you brought is not WP:SECONDARY, and doesn't mention Branson. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


Can you elaborate what needs to be done on for this page not to be deleted? I'm assuming "find more sources for notability" would be a good start, given the deletion discussion. cmn ( ❝❞ / ) 20:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WP:GNG would be a good start. Jayjg (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Abdur Raheem Green

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Abdur Raheem Green. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Your block on

Just to let you know that I have asked the checkuser MuZemike (see here) to have a look at the edits of and see if there is a case for a block on the later and/or a range block. He has been dealing with the MMA socks. Mtking (edits) 20:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Richie Branson

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Richie Branson. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ZachBrenner (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Requesting response to request for administrator review

I note that you have not yet responded to the request for review above. As the individual under discussion, I would request that you indicate your response, one way or another. John Carter (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg is obviously aware of the proceedings. I believe you already have a response. Ignocrates (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg was the individual you specifically asked to supply the review. I believe it is reasonable to request that he offer some form of indication as to whether or not he believes action should be taken. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
That's one way to look at it, but silence is also considered an acceptable response to a demand for a yes or no answer in many cultures. Ignocrates (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, do you think you could give Jayjg a chance to respond himself, before chiming in with another comment of your own? He was the one being asked to respond, by both of us, you know. John Carter (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been away. I'm not clear on what needs to be reviewed at this point. Can someone explain briefly? Jayjg (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I will explain it briefly on my talk page, since I'm the one that raised the complaint. Ignocrates (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the best way to review it is the second section to the above, "Request for administrative review." In that section, Ignocrates requested that you review my recent actions to see if they rise to the level of me perhaps surrendering my adminship. As I have said since I became an admin, I am open to recall. So, I believe reviewing that section is probably the best way to determine whether you believe I should surrender adminship, which I believe was the reason Ignocrates requested the review. If you were to look at Ignocrates' page, I believe you should also see his recent comments elsewhere, like at User talk:Dougweller. Also, I note that there seem to be more misstatments of fact in Ignocrates' presentation on his user talk page. Misrepresentation of fact seems to be an ongoing problem in the case of that individual. That, coupled with other allegations made by him in the recent past, and on that page, which have rather ambiguous objective foundation, leads me to believe that, dependent on the nature of your decision, there are sufficient grounds in my opinion to start a thread at AN/I regarding his conduct perhaps in terms of WP:COMPETENCE, WP:POV, WP:HARASS, and perhaps others as well. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
John Carter has said he is open to recall, and therefore must have a process by which this can be achieved if warranted. I would not consider a medical condition leading to possible seizures as grounds for an administrative review. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I have a process by which de-sysop'ing is to be done in place, on my user page at User:John Carter#Adminship. Baasially, if anyone I respect tells me that I should de-sysop' myself, I will. You have my respect. So, if you think the circumstances warrant it, and indicate as much, I will de-sysop myself. Am I to understand that you do not see such grounds based on the oomment above? John Carter (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see such grounds. Jayjg (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Why delete

Hi, why did you delete my article "Abdur Raheem Green"?

The rule states "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion.[3]". The article I created was clearly not an identical copy, as I had no access to the originally deleted article. Also, since the deletion of the first article, the person has become much more notable. So how can it possibly be "sufficiently identical/unimproved", if circumstances have changed?

Also, why was my dispute ignored?

Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the previous article was that the person did not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Your comments did not include any material to indicate that had changed, and the article had only one reliable source, and that one only mentioned him briefly. Jayjg (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
In every way. to name a few
Have you even tried googling his name? To determine this highly important figure as un-notable is absolutely preposterous Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
As I noted, only one of these sources ( conforms with WP:SECONDARY and WP:RS, and that one only mentions him briefly. Please read WP:RS and WP:BASIC. Jayjg (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Sir, with all due respect, this is absolutely preposterous. He is a hugely influential figure in the Muslim community, famous around the world for his speeches, he is a famous presenter on Islam Channel and Peace TV, he founded an important Islamic Academy, he is a frequent guest speaker on shows such as The Deen show, he is a key lecturer in the education academy he founded, and he is simply a renowned public speaker, one only needs to do a quick search on YouTube for his hundreds of talks and speeches which are given in front of audiences of thousands and are also televised. Googling his name in speech marks (so you get pages that list his exact full name) and you get 1m+ hits. Type his name into the google box and the first two predictive suggestions you get are "Abdur Raheem Green wiki" and "Abdur Raheem Green wikipedia". And you are telling me he cannot have a Wikipedia article? Simply bewildering. Obviously if we cannot agree a consensus I'll be making a deletion review. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources. Again, please review WP:BASIC - if you can't prove Green meets its requirements, a deletion review is unlikely to be successful. Jayjg (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Relax. If this person is notable, the article will be recreated. I recommend you reading up on WP:N and WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I won't relax. I think it's damn well obvious that this man would have an article if he was a Christian or a Jew. The fact that such an influential figure does not even have a Wikipedia page is a slap in the face to all Muslims. I'll not only be making a post in deletion review, but also a personal appeal/complaint to Jimbo about the abundance of anti-Islamic agendas operating behind the scenes and what the hell he can do about it. Thanks Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Fine. If my help isn't appreciated, I'm done. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
LGW, The article was deleted because in its existing state it failed WP:BIO. That's the only reason. Do not again impugn any Wikipedia editors by stating or implying anything different. Jayjg (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg, that you would say the Daily Mail article only mentions him briefly is bizarre. The last four paragraphs of the article are exclusively about the man. Looking over it myself, this guy is so obviously notable from a cursory Google News search that the article's repeated deletion completely boggles my mind. If it will help here is some of the stuff I uncovered with a very basic search: [1] [2] [3] [4].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Four paragraphs in one news article about a different person is nowhere near enough to satisfy WP:BIO. If only those other sources had also been used in the article, or even presented as possible sources. Jayjg (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Funny how, instead of doing a simple search and making sure the person wasn't notable, you simply hit the "delete" button.Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Funny how, instead of actually finding reliable secondary sources for your article, you instead berate other editors with false claims. Don't do it again. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The Menachem Mendel Schneerson page?

Hi. I noticed you keep restoring an unsourced sentence (and one which also makes no sense), to the Menachem Mendel Schneerson page. I'm new here, but have read the guidelines carefully and they seem pretty clear that only reliably sourced information should be added. What am I missing? Jake — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue is with User:Deah zoger/User:Kibush/User:Lubavicher/User: and you, who keep inserting WP:MOS violations into the article. Please encourage him to review WP:CREDENTIAL and WP:HONORIFIC. Wikipedia articles do not insert "Rabbi" before all instances of a rabbi's name, nor do they insert transliterations like "moshiach" beside English words like "messiah", nor do they subscribe to the notion that Menachem Mendel Schneerson is still alive - as, for example, you did with this edit. If you continue, both you and the other editor will inevitably be blocked. Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon

I really try to leave the talk pages of others alone, but I removed a personal attack from your page earlier. There are simply some things I cannot let stand. I apologize for this intrusion and will certainly abide by any instruction from you not to butt in on any future threads. Please believe I had the best of intentions. See ya 'round Tiderolls 00:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually didn't notice the comment when it happened, or even your response to it, but I really appreciate your doing this. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Re Citroën C3 Picasso RPP

I reviewed the edits by the IP. While the IP has a desire for shorter paragraphs than I think is warranted, none of the edits struck me as vandalism, and many were improvements. Is it really true that "UK" is preferred over "United Kingdom"? Even if true, this is where Jenova20 should be using the talk page to explain her position. If the IP continues to make changes without engaging in discussion,then I would be more sympathetic to protection.

Is it really true that we think "presented to the press on September 10th 2008" is preferable to "presented to the press on September 10 2008"? Even if it is true, it is a good faith edit, and deserves a more substantial edit summary, and ideally a talk page explanation.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. The edits appear to be a mix of helpful and unhelpful. I've changed the protection to 3 days, in the hopes these issues can be worked out in that time. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "1929 Palestine riots". Thank you. Oncenawhile (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


You may be interested to know that User:AnAimlessRoad is the subject of an Arbitration Enforcement case here[5].—Zujine|talk 21:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henle (2nd nomination)

Hello, my friend. I believe you erred in closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henle (2nd nomination) with "...The result was delete.. Fails WP:MMANOT..."

WP:MMANOT is an essay.

Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Holy time machine, Batman. That AfD is from December 2010! A Quest For Knowledge (talk)
Yes, definitely a delayed reaction. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


I commented on ANI on your block of someone on the circumcision article about six months back when you appeared to be involved. I shouldn't have done that and apologise. Your attempts to resist OR at Messianic Judaism are in the main good. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for saying so. Jayjg (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts please - a most unusual request


I kind of want this guy to own his words, and in all honestly I would like anti-circ stuff on my user talk page. On the other hand, they're not even crap... they ASPIRE to be crap... they're just rants - and they may be offensive too, I don't see them as such (i.e. offensive) but I really feel it's for you to judge - and the language used especially uses terms I'm not familiar with which I could totally see as anti-semitic or whatever... I have no reason to say that other than the novelty of the wording to me, but I would prefer to er on the sde of caution So before I restore them, I'm asking for your input.


Egg Centric 02:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

They're posts by banned editor User:Joe Circus. The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement by reverting: "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content." You're free to revert the administrator who reverted those edits, but the second you do, you take full responsibility for what they say, as if you made them yourself - and at that point the relevant policies would be WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I just saw your reply here, thanks for clarification. I'll leave the current rubbish up as I think my explanation of Jewish part of the pro-circ argument was actually quite a helpful response to the more "frothy" anti-circs. I'd actually quite like your input on it as to whether I'm on the mark or not. In future, I'll remove these incoherent messages.
Egg Centric 18:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Wait, apart from those edits, there's an IP spammer making weird circumcision comments too. Is that the same guy? Egg Centric 18:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, he uses many proxy IPs, which helps us find and block the proxies. I can't help you with the input, as I have no idea how or why Jews would support a "pro-circ argument", if they indeed do so. Jayjg (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please review 3 RR

JJ. Can you pease review this rule. On my talk page you have referred to me breaking this rule. I do not believe this is correct, and I have checked the history. If I am correct, then please remove the ref to 3RR, and just leave the ref to edit warring. Thank you.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read that standard template message, which does not state you have broken the rule. Jayjg (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Holocaust denial material

On the talk page at Holocaust denial, you added this nasty little insinuation, 'and you've used material from (and linked to) the Holocaust denial website Association des anciens amateurs de récits de guerre et d'holocauste. What next?' Jayjg (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC) This claim, which you did not bother to substantiate is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. Why did you not name the material that you claim is from AAARGH? If you wanted to suggest that any link to any site that I gave should be removed for offensive material then why did you not say that? Of course websites refuting denial of the Nazi Holocaust can be expected to give examples of what they refute. I suggest that you read up on the different approaches to refuting Holocaust denial, and also remove these unwarranted commentsDalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In this Talk: page edit you linked to the Holocaust denial website Association des anciens amateurs de récits de guerre et d'holocauste and used material from it. My next comment was in that same section, beneath it. It was obviously relevant to the conversation, and I have no idea what you are going on about. Jayjg (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution for Circumcision

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Circumcision". Thank you. --Rip-Saw (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

POV pushing at Messianic Judaism

At this point, I believe that some sort of request for definite outside involvement is called for. The question to me is, basically, whether this should go to AN/I or ArbCom. You have been much more involved in this matter than I have, and I believe that your judgment would probably be more well-informed.

For the record, I suppose I should also state that I personally have no particular objections personally to any of DeknMike's changes, other than that they are not apparently supported clearly by any independent reliable sources. I have made an effort in the past to find such sources, but most of the sources I found relating to the MJs are from sources like Christianity Today, which I don't think necessarily objective, and those sources tend to offer very little, if any, material on the history of the MJs. For all I know, the independent academic world might agree with DeknMike if and when they actually substantively address the issue, but they seem not to have done that in any sources I have found. Anyway, your call. John Carter (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, as a bit of a PS. There is now a proposed manual of style for religion in general at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. I have added some material, most of which is taken from the existing Judaism and NRM MOS's, but I think any input from other long-term experienced editors, like yourself, would be useful as well. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up regarding the MOS. Regarding DeknMike's changes, it's not really an Arbcom issue, and the problem is, I think, one we've discussed before; he makes the changes, people object, then he goes away for a month or two, before doing it again. In between it's fairly quiet, so people hope he's finally going to stop. Jayjg (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
But he seemingly never does. Am I to gather that you think AN/I might be the better option here? I think the evidence is sufficient to bring it there. Alternatively, I suppose, maybe we should wait until and unless a real MOS for topics like this, which seems more Christian than Jewish, is in place. Your opinion? John Carter (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
By the way, for purposes of clarification, I acknowledge up front that the recent rulings by Jewish bodies regarding MJs being other-than-Jewish exist, and never meant to imply otherwise. Also, I myself think the matter could reasonably be submitted at AN/I, and probably should be, although I am less familiar with its regular activity than you. If you were to say that you thought my view reasonable, I would obviously consider raising the matter myself. I think there might be a question, possibly one to be addressed in the MOS, about how much weight and where to give such statements by other groups in the same basic field. This would also probably relate to the nature of such sources. So, for instance, when the Dalai Lama and Catholic Pope make clearly doctrinal statements which they say are the final word on the subject, at least within their groups, those statements have more or less the force of law. They can also, presumably, make an official proclamation to the effect "it has always been true that this group believes..." and that statement would be accepted by the followers. I am not so sure the same can be said for other groups. Personally, I think one of the most valuable things that could be included in the MOS would be how to phrase information relating to internal official statements of belief, particularly when there are differences of opinion, sometimes even within the broad "faith" itself, as well as religious opinions of external groups and even philosophically biased opinions which are presented as science, such as Richard Dawkins and some others make. If you have any input on how to deal with such matters there, I am sure we would all be very interested in seeing it.
Also, on a at best marginally related matter, there seems to be a problem of a long-term POV pusher over at Christ myth theory, which bares remarkable similarities to this one. If you were to want to look over the history there, it might be useful to have an involved opinion on that matter. John Carter (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Holocaust denial". Thank you. --Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

  • Account activation codes have been emailed.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to
  • The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 04:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

sock Q

Hi - as I was looking at contributions I saw your name here and I though you might be able to see comparable contributions with this user? - Youreallycan 21:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt these are the same people. Sorry. Jayjg (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem - thanks for looking - if you have time would you please cast your npov experienced eyes over this article and the talkpage please - War_criminals_in_Canada - and perhaps pass a comment regarding the current content and the best way to progress - thanks Youreallycan 20:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Time to go to WP:AN about the MJs

I can't see any good reason not to take the current problem on the MJs to WP:AN any more, can you? Note that there is another similar proposed restrition on User:BruceGrubb which seems to be passing, and it deals with similar problematic behavior. I'm not sure which archive page you listed the 23 problems on, but if you link to that and add the subsequent problems I tend to think it would be as likely to pass. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. You're right, but it takes so much effort and wastes so much time. My free time is limited, and is already being wasted by other editors. Jayjg (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:AN. I added a relevant section there myself. I probably didn't phrase it particularly well, I'm afraid, but you have personally had to spend enough of your time dealing with this matter, I thought I could try to do something useful here. John Carter (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Let's hope it does some good. Jayjg (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I just don't see it being a personal attack

I'm not going to revert it if you see it as such but I just can't see how you do. Exasperation, which is what I read it as, is not the same as defamation. Could you spell out for me, like I'm a 2 year old, what your problem with it is? I durn geddit Egg Centric 01:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that article's Talk: page is one of the longest on Wikipedia, and that the archiving was obviously for purely practical reasons, a claim that it was done to gain some imaginary "tactical" advantage is obviously just a personal attack - a false claim regarding motive. This is trivially obvious. Jayjg (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Shaliach (Chabad)

Hi, I wonder if you could help me here. The latest additions seem to me POV and libel, but I don't want to get into a revert war with an IP and a new user (who are probably one and the same). Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree they're problematic. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Donald Tsang

You are the admin who protected the article, citing WP:BLP violation. I, myself, have yet to be pointed to the exact wording that prohibits the inclusion of postnominals of a validly conferred and accepted title - remembering that it has never been repudiated or rejected. In the ongoing discussion, the "we keep it out of his bio because he doesn't want to use it" argument has been shown to be manifestly false, even if it were relevant. And it isn't. I am sure that you didn't use the BLP violation rationale just because you saw Nick use it, so I would be grateful if you would indulge me with an explanation. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Credible claims of a BLP-concern regarding this issue have been raised in several threads on the WP:BLP/N board. When BLP is raised as an issue, "random" IPs should not be showing up and edit-warring on behalf of one or another side in a dispute. Jayjg (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Template:Editnotices/Page/1929 Safed pogrom

did you mean to move this template to Template:Template:Editnotices/Page/1929 Safed pogrom? seems like one too many templates. (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will fix. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Josef Joffe.jpg


Thanks for uploading File:Josef Joffe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review of Afranet

I have nominated Afranet for deletion review. It can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 18. I have no problem whatsoever with your closure; however, when trying to request unprotection to make way for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Afranet I was told that a request must be made at deletion review. The author of the article was told of this and he requested that a deletion review be started. While the article isn't perfect, I do personally believe that the subject has more coverage than it had in 2009 (due to the initial public offering) and should be in the article space. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Jayjg, you deleted Afranet, which now is at DRV. If you haven't already, please add your thought to the DRV discussion here. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Request review for deleted article 'remobo'

Hi I think you were the admin who deleted the Remobo page [6] I think since 2009 it has become more popular - the Mac Security Bible (a reputable book) lists it before Hamachi (software). [7] What would I need to do to have the Remobo page restored/expanded? Thanks peterl (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


Where can i find a list the most visited articles for the month April 2012? Pass a Method talk 08:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Southern Levant/Israel/Palestine/Holy Land/ etc

I just recently reverted an undiscussed move by User:Oncenawhile in which he edited the body and moved the title of Nonferrous Archaeometallurgy in the Southern Levant to Nonferrous Archaeometallurgy in Palestine. Rather than having constant edit wars, is Wikipedia going to determine a singular name for this subject or not? These names all refer to slightly different things, however this fact hasn't had much effect on anyone's editing practices. Drsmoo (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that would be possible. As long as there are those who edit solely for the purpose of anti-Israel political point-making, I don't think any sort of sensible resolution is possible. And I use the phrase "edit solely for the purpose of anti-Israel political political point-making" quite deliberately. I've seen editors make pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian edits, but I've never seen any (long-term editors at least) who edit edit solely for the purpose of anti-Palestinian political point-making. By contrast, I've seen many longer-term editors who edit solely for the purpose of anti-Israel political point-making. Note also that "anti-Israel" and "pro-Palestinian" are not the same; almost none of these editors edit in a "pro-Palestinian" way (e.g. highlighting Palestinian culture, achievements, etc.) Rather, they are clearly and only interested in making anti-Israel edits. Jayjg (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg, it might be interesting for you to note that in my experience I have found the exact opposite. I'm sure you'll find that hard to believe, just as I found your post quite startling. I suspect, each in our own way, we are all fighting for pro-NPOV (or anti-propaganda). We just happen to edit one of the world's most difficult subjects where a real NPOV can be so elusive. Having said that, I do feel that with each major discussion on a topic, we help to bring history's double helixes closer together. With regards, Oncenawhile (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
You've found the exact opposite? Which long-term editors edit edit solely for the purpose of anti-Palestinian political point-making? Name them. Jayjg (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that would be appropriate. Please don't encourage that kind of thing.
But back to the point - suffice to say that those on all sides of the debate are much more similar than our intuition might suggest.
On a separate subject, in our other discussion I was pleased to note that you have a sense of humour.
Oncenawhile (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
You can't name them because they don't exist. My point is proved. Jayjg (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
For such an experienced editor, vacuous phrases like "my point is proved" are surprising. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The fact that I make accurate statements should not surprise you. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
When you do, it does. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps because you are generally unfamiliar with the concept of accuracy. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
You are generally a good editor but sometimes you post the most unbelievable crap. His is changing "Southern Levant" to "Palestine" classify one into an "anti-Israel" editor "who edit solely for the purpose of anti-Israel political point-making" exactly? And there are plenty of "long-term editors edit edit solely for the purpose of anti-Palestinian political point-making". There was a whole CAMERA incident with some of them where your name incidently came up. Poyani (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
User:Poyani, if there are "plenty" of long-term anti-Palestinian contributors such as you describe, it isn't helpful to the Project to leave vague comments about the phenomenon at one editor's Talk page. Put your money where your mouth is, identify who those editors are, and file complaints against them. Otherwise, kindly follow User:Oncenawhile's example and withdraw before things become truly embarrassing.—Biosketch (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I am new user in Wikipedia. I was created account today in here. Because I dont know policy of wikipedia. But i knew about IP address. But I dont wanna use fake ip address. what can i do for unblock my userpage? AshikSaha (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Need help on page Saint Thomas Christians and Dispute resolution noticeboard

Dear User:Jayjg, I am robin klein. There is a lot of Vandalism and POV deletion of the mention of anything Jewish regarding the Syrian Malabar Nasranis / Saint Thomas Christians on the page Saint Thomas Christians. The Saint Thomas Christians have a claim of being of Jewish origin that is corroborated by Scholars from various universities including Prof Shalva Weil from Hebrew University Jerusalem and Prof Katz from Florida International University. But a group of 4-5 editors with casteist agenda are deleting any mention of Jewish origin of the said people (Saint Thomas Christians). The problem is that some of these editors are administrators and one of them has threatened to get me banned from editing the article. He keeps on deleting anything got to do with Jewish heritage of the Nasranis/Saint Thomas Christians and does not state any reason for doing so. To put things in a nutshell: There is a concerted deletion of mention of claims to Jewish origin by the ancient christians (Nasranis/Saint Thomas Christians) from Kerala, India. The said community is called as Malabar Nasrani a.k.a Nasrani Mappila. Nasrani is the Hebrew word for Jewish Christianity. It was the Portuguese invaders of Kerala who started calling the Nasranis as Saint Thomas Christians because they hated any Jewish reference to the a supposed christian community. The editors changed the name of the page from Syrian Malabar Nasrani to Saint Thomas Christians. Anyway, the naming is a minor dispute within the larger dispute of the deletion of any cited mention of claims to Jewish descent of the Nasranis a.k.a Malabala Mappila a.k.a Saint Thomas Christians. I had put up quotes from Scholars from Hebrew University Jerusalem and also cited from research work of Prof Katz from Florida International University. Prof Shalva Weil from Hebrew University Jerusalem mentions in her papers that the Northists ( a sub group of the Nasranis) have claims of Jewish origins. She also quotes in her paper about the claim that Saint Thomas the apostle converted members of the Jewish diaspora settled in the Malabar Coast (Kerala). I have given all these quotes with page numbers from the peer reviewed academic papers at the talk page of the article. Now editors are constantly deleting text that mentions the claim of the community to Jewish descent. Why or how would one justify deletion of text when I have given citation or page numbers from the academic research papers. The editors state that I do not know english and that I am misinterpreting the quote. To this I told the editor that since he/she knows better english than me then please help the collaborative wikipedia editing by rewording the text so that the misinterpretation is removed. But the requested rewording did not happen. I have given references and quotes. Why would the editor keep on deleting the text and not allow rewording. Clearly the research authors have mentioned about the claims of jewish origins of the Nasranis Christians (a.k.a Nasrani Mappila a.k.a. Malabar Nasranis a.k.a Saint Thomas Christians). With proper citations given, it is definitely legitimate to mention about the claims of jewish descent of the Nasrani people. How could the editors keep on deleting mention of the claim of jewish origin of the people when proper citation with page numbers have been provided. Does that mean that no mention of claims of Jewish origin should be made even though scholars have stated so, just because the editors have an agenda. The editors who are reverting have administrative powers. I think they are misusing their administrative powers. A lot of discussion regarding the deltion has already happened on the talk page of the article Saint Thomas Christians under the sub heading Jewish descent and at WP:DRN. Now an editor User:Sitush is threatening me that I would be banned from the article. This is using threat. Please help, thanks Robin klein (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Berber people


I want to inform you that the user Dzlinker has started (again) to edit the template images on the article Berber people, pretending (again) that there is a consensus on the talk page (but I don't see any consensus, of course!).

I reverted his last edit [8] but I think that further action should be a report to the ANI, which could be more useful than reverting this user each time he edits the template.

Omar-Toons (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


I don't know if you noticed, but PhGustaf (talk · contribs) has not edited in nearly 6 months.[9] That might explain why I haven't heard from him lately. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I just notified everyone who was involved in the previous discussions/edit-wars, I didn't look at their recent edit histories. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

AN notice

I've received your AN notice RE BruceGrubb and the Cosnpiracy theory edits. Unfortunately, I have not contributed to the article nor tangled with him in any way. I first thought this notice concerned another anon editor who ran afoul of me in the past couple of days and decided to go crying to some admins about my work. Thank you for the notice. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I notified you because you were involved in this discussion earlier this month. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent Discussions on Elazar Shach Discussion Page


There have been some recent discussions on the Elazar Shach discussion page:(

"Links to Speeches and Letters of Shach"

"Continued - Quote from R' Moshe Grylak"

"Adin Steinsaltz"

"Relationship with R' Chaim Ozer Grodzinski" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonoson3 (talkcontribs) 06:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your input, if possible,


Yonoson3 (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Requesting input and possible review

Hello. There is a rather contentious discussion restarting at Talk:Bob Dylan. One of the editors involved has a rather clear history of problematic editing to related topics, as can be seen here. I would very much appreciate it if someone responsible, such as yourself, who perhaps is both newer to the situation and perhaps shares some of that editor's opinions might involve himself in the discussion. Also, yes, unfortunately, I think if, worst comes to worst, as I think it potentially could in this situation, someone new to the situation might be seen as less driven by prior circumstances in perhaps dealing with the editor directly and might be seen as perhaps less prejudiced by previous actions if some form of intervention is required. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: email and unblock request

As a few hours have passed with no further response or action from you, I've asked for help on ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock help please (been waiting four hours already). DuncanHill (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

Hi Jayjg, you'll remember I reviewed my initial impressions on your gatekeeping on that article. I had a brief look at it again today (then it vanished, for technical reasons my firewall stumbles on the page most times). It seems that the Trinity material has been further diluted with "some" "many", something which first happened with the removal of the Hebrew terms for God the Son God the Holy Spirit which were cited from Israeli Hebrew-speaking Christian sources. I have no objection at all if there are non-Trinitarian MJs in existence, either in US or Israel, though the actual materials in English and Hebrew (and 3rd Party) I've seen are very much Trinitarian, in fact more so than Gentile Anglicans, underneath sometimes cosmetic MJ attempts to hide the fact. Would it be possible for you to run a quick check and see that the Trinity changes, Evan2008 I think, are in line with what is and isn't in sources. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Chaim Yehoshua Halberstam

Hi, a new user (User:Ebuxbaum221) keeps disrupting this page, either with Hebrew substitutions for English or with removing the "citation needed" tags. Could you post some kind of a notice on his talk page? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Christian Sentiment

Hi Jayjg, we'd all welcome your input on a (already rather complicated) RFC on the Anti-Christian Sentiment article. Talk:Anti-Christian_sentiment Thanks Avaya1 (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent Discussions on Elazar Shach Discussion Page


There have been some recent discussions on the Elazar Shach discussion page:(

"Links to Speeches and Letters of Shach"

"Continued - Quote from R' Moshe Grylak"

"Adin Steinsaltz"

"Relationship with R' Chaim Ozer Grodzinski"

I'd appreciate your input, if possible,


Yonoson3 (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC) on Elazar Shach discussion page


Check out the contributions of here:

I think his language has gone overboard. What do you think? Should he be banned from Wikipedia?

Yonoson3 (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Move

I have been working on a page for Gina Raimondo (User:Jones7224/Gina Raimondo). It was previously 'userfied' on February 3, 2012. I am requesting that the page be moved to:

Is there anything I need to do so that this action can be taken?

Jones (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have worked with other administrators to address this. Thank you. Jones (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Requesting input on Jewish opinions of Jesus

At Talk:Jesus#GA status yet? there is some material I found in the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion regarding the opinions of some Jews on Jesus. I am assuming the material I found is reliable, but I also believe that, so far as I know, the "standard" Jewish opinion about Jesus, that he was either a false messianic claimant or the leader of an initially Jewish group which went other ways, wasn't mentioned. I think you are probably more familiar with some of these matters, including the Karaites and Martin Buber, mentioned there, and was wondering whether you might be interested in maybe finding some more clearly admissable sources on them, particularly the apparently majority(?) opinion that he might have been one of a number of Jewish "prophets"/reformist leaders over the years. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Berber people". Thank you. --Dzlinker (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Having previously been involved in a discussion about on RSN, in which you explained or agreed that material on that site is user-generated, could you join a discussion here to offer your opinion? A user is saying that some of the material on that site is not from users, but paid employees, and WP:BLPPRIMARY is also an issue. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The Yankles

Jayjg, I wanted to mention a new (short) article I just created on the movie "The Yankles." If you are not familiar with this movie, I thought you might like to watch one or both of the trailers included in the "external links" section. I think you'll smile. Best, NearTheZoo (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC

Because of your previous participation at Monty Hall problem, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know

I have mentioned you at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians Ottawahitech (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

How did that go? Jayjg (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Closed without action. --Jethro B 02:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not surprised. Essays aren't enforceable (they're typically just personal opinions), and it turns out that Wikipedia is a wiki. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


Hi. Any chance you might be considering it again? : ) - jc37 17:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I see you asked this of a number of former members; what prompted you to do so? Jayjg (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
(And was tempted to ask it of more than I did.)
I have the impression that several of those currently on the committee won't be asking for another term. (For which I don't blame them - arbcom is one of the most ridiculously thankless tasks in all of wikipedia, and more, they're often treated horribly)
Perhaps it's nostalgia, but I was looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History. (It's fun to look at the timelines, the names remind me of past friends long gone. You see one name, and it reminds you of a dozen others.)
Anyway, while we've overall had some incredibly excellent arbitrators, I just started picking one then another at semi-random off the list. (Do I recognise this name? Were they, in my opinion, generally just this side of awesome?) Then stopped because I realised I might end up asking them all : )
As I noted above, I understand that arbcom is "an experience", and going by most people I've asked (including carcaroth, earlier), not one most prefer to repeat.
But I suppose it couldn't hurt asking (Though I did feel I owed an apology to User:jpgordon : )
Anyway, I'm sorry if I've bothered you. - jc37 05:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
No worries, you didn't bother me. Jayjg (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh ok, cool : )
Sooo, maybe? : ) - jc37 02:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Never say never. :-) Jayjg (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Uriah P. Levy

I made a bunch of additions, and I think some (e.g., order) are not in conformity with WP:MOS. Please take a look. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen () 18:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The order looked pretty good to me. I made one change. Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. It still needs content work, but it will have to wait until next week. Real life beckons. 7&6=thirteen () 01:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bible and Slavery

You seem to be making changes to this page because of your personal opinion. Please join the talk page and explain why you think the dictionary definition of slavery (Oxford English) is wrong.

You stated;

00:21, 23 October 2012‎ Jayjg(talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,325 bytes) (+2)‎ . .(Undid revision 519294803 by (talk) - doesn't appear to be slavery, exactly)

Where as the Oxford English Dictionary states, this is a definition of Slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

@Jayjg:You may disregard this comment as it an IP of banned user User:Dalai_lama_ding_dong--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know; I hadn't realized but it's obvious in hindsight. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank God you're back

You were missed. Believe me. You know things are getting difficult when fanatical hotheads like me think that things are getting desperate enough that they try getting involved in mediation. Granted, mediators might be not be any more appreciated than arbitrators very often, but good mediators like you are something that should be prized very highly. And, I know Nishidani and a few others have what they think might be good reasons to not think you might make an ideal arbitrator, but I would myself at least strongly consider voting for you were you to be willing to put yourself under the microscope again. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you John Carter, you are very kind! Jayjg (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Good to see you editing; hope things are going well for you. Tom Harrison Talk 11:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your supportive words, and I am quite well. Jayjg (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Jewish Nobel laureates + Jacqueline Susann

Please check your deletes there. I've given the sources fully. No justification for erasing my edits. עמירם פאל (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No justification aside from WP:RS and WP:OPENPARA? Jayjg (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar of David

The Jewish Barnstar.png The Barnstar of David
A barnstar for your great work on Jewish-related articles, along with your careful maintenance of BLP guidelines on these articles. Jethro B 20:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


I saw in 5 articles on my watchlist that you removed the word "religious" from "Jewish religious law". I am not sure I think that was a good edit. But for sure I object against the edit summary you used for those edits "clean up using AWB". Please be more careful when using AWB that you place fitting edit summaries. Debresser (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A couple of these deletions I saw were poor edits. Although there is a degree of tautology, in some contexts "Jewish law" sounds like it might mean Jewish statutory law, by analogy to Sharia law; it raises the question "wow is that really a law". --BozMo talk 09:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem with "Jewish religious law" is that it's a pleonasm. What other kind of Jewish law is there? Jayjg (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Still, it needs to be clarified. It is not obvious for everybody the way it is for you. Not to mention that the law of the ancient Israeli kings could be implied. Debresser (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg, I do understand why you did the edits but sometimes unneeded ephithets are useful, and the couple I put it back were places where I felt this one was. There are large number of people who do not know the difference between the country Israel and the Jewish religion just like there are a large number of people who think Britain invaded Ireland and annexed the North or who think Henry VIII founded of the Church of England. Yesterday someone commented to me they thought someone had been quietly avoiding dishes with pork in them at a function, could I think why? I send people like that to Wikipedia and they arrive here with thoughts uncluttered by knowledge. --BozMo talk 11:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia can't decide on content based on an assumption that its readers are ignorant or will make highly unlikely inferences. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
But we still have to assume that the reader isn't familiar with everything. Otherwise, why write an encyclopedia. You see here that at least two editors think this needs to be specified. Why do you find it so hard to understand, that this means that maybe they are right? Debresser (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Not "familiar with everything" is not the same as ignorant. The term itself generally links to an article which can explain further, if further explanation is required. Two editors is not a quorum, or even a significant sample. Jayjg (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I do agree that it depends on the context of the page; sometimes it is obvious from context that only a religious law might be referred to. Sometimes it does not. But yes we have to think about readers and you are not well placed to judge what is a "highly unlikely inference" about the Jewish religion since you have a very high relative level of knowledge about it. If we were not concerned about readers we might as well write the encyclopaedia in Latin and forget about people too ignorant to understand it. Equally if I was editing an article on the continuous symmetry groups of nonlinear partial differential equations (in which I have a PhD) I would not try to make it comprehensible to morons but I would listen to other editors who said what I wrote was ambiguous even if technically it was not. --BozMo talk 10:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, how about replacing it with Jewish law? It avoids the pleonasm, and if people are confused, they can click on the link. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
In the ones I looked at that works. But I think you do need to check the context when doing bot replacements. --BozMo talk 03:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
O.K. great, that's what I'll do. Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Closure of Toadsmith discussion

See the result of your complaint at ANI. I think I've blocked everything that is reasonable to block. There is a two-month rangeblock, and the user has been entered as Toadsmith in WP:List of banned users. Anything I forgot? EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for all your assistance! I think that should be good for now. Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

MJ discussion at ANI

A discussion relating to a recent topic ban from Messianic Judaism has been started at WP:ANI. You may wish to contribute. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Bernard Bernstein

Hello Jayjg. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Bernard Bernstein, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I have found other references, and I think there is enough to pass the low bar of A7. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I guess AfD would be the next step, if necessary. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Requesting input

I have started discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Goals for 2013? about what sorts of things we might like to see happen in the next year in the broad "religion" field around here, partially as a prelude to maybe trying to find some ways to maybe achieve them. So far, honestly, not much attention from anyone. I might try to get some sort of mention included in the Signpost, I don't know, but I would appreciate it if you might look over the discussion and see what, if any, specific matters which might be useful and relevant to the discussion come to mind. John Carter (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take a look. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Unjustified Deletion of Edit

You recently deleted 236 words I contributed to an entry on "Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory‎", calling it personal opinion. I see that you are an experienced Wikipedian, but I don't take kindly to such a high handed and dismissive editing of content that I've posted. Before you edit my post again, please get back to me regarding what aspects of the content I've posted constitute "personal opinion". Like British Israelism, the false doctrine that the Japanese (in particular, the royal family) is descended from Jews, more specifically, Lost Tribes of Jews, has been decisively debunked by scholars in all relevant fields. That much is certainly not opinion, and only someone with a religious bias or other emotional investment in the issue would attempt to refute the genetic and historical evidence.

FYI, the topic of the "Ten Lost Tribes" itself is described in the following terms on the Wikipedia page: "This is a subject based upon written religious tradition and partially upon speculation" </ref>

That is also a doctrine that has no basis in historical or scientific fact, only some texts from a "written religious tradition".

Ubikwit (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Hmm, I see you were blocked soon after making this comment. Please review WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Unjustified Deletion pertaining to the 'Recreation of a Deleted Page'

You recently deleted what you specified as a recreation of a deleted page (Fourth Floor Interactive). This is inaccurate as the page was not a recreation of a deleted entry but was created with new content based on newly available references, which included references within a book pertaining to the industry and a new award. Furthermore, past references of the previously listed awards have additional merit as other notable organizations (also listed within Wikipedia) have also won these same awards. This detail was specified within the talk and was actually confirmed from other administrators who stated that the awards appeared to have significance.

Please reinstate this deleted page, as it did contain new content that would bring it in alignment with's specifications for organizations.

Jchiappisi (talkcontribs) 15:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that my deletion was endorsed at DRV, and the article salted. Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Photobox

Hi Jayjg, a couple of new editors have taken to swapping the Ashkenazi photobox for no apparent reason. Can you take a look? Avaya1 (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that the sockpuppets have now been blocked. Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

Yep, again. Or is it still? Anyway, I would welcome any input you might have regarding the recent comments on the talk page, particularly regarding the bit of a challenge to bring the article up to GA by the end of (I think and hope he said) next year. I cannot imagine getting up to GA in a bit over a month. LOL. But you are probably better informed on the topic than me, and I think your input would be quite welcome as well. John Carter (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Bringing the article up to GA would indeed be a challenge. There are reliable secondary sources on the subject, but the only sections that use them are the Lede. History and Responses sections. Jayjg (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Robert S. Wistrich.jpg

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Robert S. Wistrich.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Gabi Hernandez

You deleted this page that was deleted TWO years ago (and a redirect page was created). It was very inconvenient/presumptuous to delete a page with good information and that I worked very hard on without even nominating it for deletion (which it would have passed). You didn't even bother reading it, did you? You may be an extremely experienced editor, but do not delete good pages. I understand this article WAS up for deletion actually 3 years ago.... because the article was awful and the character had no notability. But, I'm not a super-fan of the character nor does the article I worked hard on hold any problems. There are multiple articles on the project which need deleting. Arre 04:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have undeleted the page as the issues brought up at the AFD are clearly no longer a problem. This is a notable character. The page was unsourced at the time of the AFD nearly three years ago but now has 25 references. If you really feel it should be deleted, go back to AFD. –anemoneprojectors– 17:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:CSD#G4 clearly states: "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies [etc]." You clearly didn't read the article, the deleted versions or the AFD. –anemoneprojectors– 17:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou so much. I was really unsure why it was deleted. Because If the article I created wasn't good enough it should have just been redirected. Thanks Arre 04:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I closed the AfD, so I clearly read it. Moreover, the current article doesn't seem to overcome the "in-universe" issues listed in the AfD, and the sources are, at best, weak. If I cared enough I would follow up, but I don't. I've done my part. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Sources from publications under companies such as The New York Times Company and Tribune Media Services are not weak. None of those sources are weak with maybe the exception of one. Ofcourse the current article overcomes the "in-universe" aspect...It explains casting thoroughly and the character's development/characterization. However for future reference if an article does have an in-universe issue (which this obviously doesn't) add a template at the top of the page addressing it. Arre 08:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Seriously?,,,, etc., are strong sources? You're wrong, but as I already explained, I don't care, I've already done my part. Please don't waste more of my time with this. Jayjg (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes they are. Maybe the CelebrityCafe isn't a strong, but the others are valid third party sources. Users who edit soap articles know that. I wasn't being rude, and you don't have to act like me explaining this to you is a waste of time. Think before you delete articles, especially ones that you "don't" care about. Arre 02:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
It appears that my previous post was not clear enough. I am, no doubt, at fault for not stating my point more forcefully. Allow me to do so now:
Your advice is based on a number of false premises, and is therefore neither helpful nor warranted. Please review WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY carefully before presuming to admonish or "explain to" others regarding subjects with which you appear to have little familiarity. You are indeed wasting my time; please do not post to me about this again. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

109 IP

Is a rangeblock practical here? I just semiprotected Bible Believers. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a rangeblock would be quite practical. This editor edits in the - range - that's just over 1,000 IP addresses. It won't stop him from using those proxies he's started using, but it will definitely slow him down. In addition, I think he's a banned editor, specifically WitsBlomstein (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
It also seems pretty obvious that he's Cara22 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I was a bit slow on this one but realised it was the same a few hours ago. I knew it was a sock but didn't make the connection until I woke up this am! Dougweller (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I've never done a range block, can you do it? Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I'll do it. Jayjg (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
He maybe connected to User:Dalai lama ding dong as he also used BT IPs but in Scotland region but maybe he moved to the south.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
WitsBlomstein uses sv:Alltele IPs that geolocate to northern Sweden. Jayjg (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bible and slavery

You have recently made a change to The Bible and slavery page. Could you explain the reasons for your changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it's for the same reason a half-dozen other editors reverted the edits made by your series of IPs, and the article was eventually semi-protected. Please review the article's Talk: page for more detail. Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


Back as (talk · contribs) - one of WitsBlomstein's ranges. Probably need another range block as he's probably editing articles not on my Watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you're right. Look at (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs) - classic WitsBlomstein. He seems fairly obsessed with Scientology too, not just Jews, "whites", and "blacks". I'll find the extent of the range he's using and do some more range blocking. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I see you caught some old stuff also. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
And earlier this month he was editing as (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
He's been doing this for over a year, as a series of userids, real IPs, and proxy IPs. Jayjg (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Working relationship

I'd be grateful for any advice you have for me to help improve our working relationship. We may not see eye to eye on many topics, but that shouldn't stop us from working collaboratively. Any ideas you have would be appreciated. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if you respected the primary content policies, particularly the WP:UNDUE part of WP:NPOV. Also, in general, I would recommend allowing the sources to lead you to their conclusions, rather than combing through sources trying to find statements that you think accord with your own beliefs. Finally, it would be extremely helpful if you didn't dismiss the views of those who disagree with you with comments that have little to do with the points they are making. The more closely you hew to Wikipedia's content policies and its mandate, the more we'll agree. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

Christmas lights - 1.jpg

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very kind. The same to you and yours! Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Evergreens covered in snow in Nebraska.jpg Happy Holidays!
From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you MONGO, and the same to you! Jayjg (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Most certainly!--MONGO 23:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Resubmitting an article you deleted 2 years ago

Im a newb here, and Ill start by saying I LOVE IT! I am still learning the ropes tho... I am contacting you because I am resubmitting an article about a band called trillbass. I believe I did a much better job than the OP. I read something that said I should contact you and notify you of my submission? Thanks for your time. Happy Holidays!Kittycolada911 (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me, and I'm glad you're enjoying it here. I appreciate the effort you put into the article, but I'm concerned about a lot of the sourcing. Articles should rely on reliable secondary sources for their content: see WP:SECONDARY. Sources like facebook,, and don't count as such. Can you find reliable secondary sources? Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
What are secondary sources when discussing musicians? I have been able to find write ups about their releases or shows on reputable music blogs. Does that count as secondary? Thanks so much for your guidance.Kittycolada911 (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
While blogs often count as secondary sources, they generally don't count as reliable - see WP:BLOG. A good (i. e. reliable, secondary) source for material about musicians is Rolling Stone. However, even general media outlets (e.g. magazines like TIME or newspapers like the Los Angeles Times) typically have music/arts/entertainment sections or columns. If I were you I'd look for sources like that. Jayjg (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I have and interview from Spinner_(website), which is run by AOL, the interview from and an article from, and some other press about some releases they did. I am going to add everything I have. I hope this is enough. Again, thanks for your guidance. Crossing my fingers!Kittycolada911 (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Spinner_(website) should be fine, and seems ok. doesn't look particularly reliable to me, though. Please keep in mind it's not the quantity of sources that matters, but rather the quality of the sources, and the amount of coverage of the band that high quality sources give. Jayjg (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

The Winter Walk at Anglesey Abbey - - 862583.jpg Best wishes for the New Year!
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!

Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.

Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and welcome back! Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Religious terrorism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Religious terrorism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious terrorism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. BigJim707 (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

American Jews

Hi Jayjg,

You may be interested in the discussion at Talk:American Jews#Religion Box concerning the "Religion" field in the infobox. Your opinion would be appreciated. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that one. I was hoping it would go away on its own. :-( Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


Hello. I have just reverted most of Slickyrider's edits which mainly consist in inserting spurious information in article text (this is a good example). I only left his/her category additions; some of them seem to be inaccurate. Could you check up on those edits? Thanks. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yep, another "tagger". Or it may well be one of the many previous ones, since blocked. I don't understand what impulse pushes these people to persistently add this kind of unverified material to articles, even after being warned and blocked. Jayjg (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

David O. Russell and Jewish Identity

Hello Jayjg. Have you seen my comments at Talk:List of Jewish American entertainers?Hirschjoshua (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for quality articles on US congregations with a history, such as First Roumanian-American congregation (Gates of Heaven), and on Rudolf Vrba who escaped Auschwitz, for handling more than 100 arbcom cases, for being a Mensch - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (31 January 2009, 11 December 2010), it's your day, Jay!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That is so nice of you, thank you! Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:African-American Jews

Hi Jayjg. I'm sorry to bother you with nonsense, but would you take a look at this category and its edit history and let me know what you think. Related to it are the categorization of Lisa Bonet, Meagan Good, and Zoë Kravitz. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It gets better (worse) at User talk:And we drown#Meagan Good. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look. Jayjg (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Jayjg

(personal attack removed, Eyesnore (pending changes) 22:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)) I added Ethnicity: Jewish to Larry Page's infobox because it was confirming information already in the article, added by other authors. First, he is listed under the category American Jews, and has been for a very long time. Second, under "Early life and education," it says "Page's mother is Jewish" (the part that he was raised without a religion is irrelevant because we're referring to ethnicity.) If you have an issue with the accuracy of that info, take it up with the original editors who inserted those. You can also use his own invention (i.e. Google) to confirm as there are countless reliable sources confirming his ethnicity.

I don't have some kind of an anti-Jewish hate agenda and it's downright insulting to assume I do. However, when something is clearly factual, there's no need to omit that information. (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't "assumed" that you have any sort of "anti-Jewish hate agenda". I have, however, pointed out that you keep adding unsourced or improperly sourced material regarding living people to various articles, and that if you don't stop, you'll be blocked. Page is listed under Category:American people of Jewish descent, which is not the same as Category:American Jews. According to this reliable source, Page "does not readily identify as a Jew". If there are "countless reliable sources" confirming an individual's ethnicity, then you yourself can easily use Google to provide them. Jayjg (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia regard Judaism as an ethnicity, or as a religion? If as an ethnicity, you would be Jewish if one or more of your ancestors are Jewish - in which case Mr. Page would qualify. If as a religion, there are plenty of people who have Jewish ancestry but do not actively practice the religion.
See Wikipedia: Judaism#Who_is_a_Jew and Who is a Jew?
According to traditional Jewish Law, a Jew is anyone born of a Jewish mother or converted to Judaism in accordance with Jewish Law.
Traditional Judaism maintains that a Jew, whether by birth or conversion, is a Jew forever. Thus a Jew who claims to be an atheist or converts to another religion is still considered by traditional Judaism to be Jewish.
I also had a look at the source you linked to. Regardless of whether Mr. Page regards himself as Jewish, the same "reliable source" says the following:
"Does any company founded by two Jews, no matter how assimilated, necessarily retain some defining Jewish characteristics? The Google masterminds’ penchant for pushing boundaries—without asking permission—might as well be called chutzpah.
Google’s first employee and a number of other early hires were Jewish and, when the initial winter holiday season rolled around, a menorah rather than a Christmas tree graced the lobby. (The next year, there was a tree wrapped in Hanukkah lights.)" (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't have opinions on these things; it relies on the views of reliable sources. Regarding Page, he's a difficult case, so I can't say for sure, but in matters like these Wikipedia also tends to place a lot of weight on how individuals view themselves. Jayjg (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Weight given to historical revisionist views

I have not found much in the way of guidelines for political/nationalistic/religious-based historical revisionism that seeks to rationalize, sanitize or idealize the past in a way that promotes a particular political/nationalistic/religious PoV. There is a current RfC at Juan Manuel de Rosas that needs more input than just the parties involved so far. Since you have dealt with similar situations in the past, and whether you agree with my take or not, I would appreciate your insight and any guidelines that would apply there and for future reference (this type of sparring occurs regularly). Thanks. • Astynax talk 20:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Jayjg (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
That's a very complex discussion. I think it requires knowledge of Argentinian historians, and schools of Argentinian historiography; unfortunately, I don't possess that knowledge. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Constant Rijkenberg

Please undelete this article. The rules for poker biographies have been changed, see wikiproject:poker. One EPT win or a win of over $1 million is now sufficient. He won an EPT for over $2 million, among other things. And he's still always in the news, since that deletion took place, including becoming a sponsored pro for Partouche Poker. DegenFarang (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've started a Deletion Review discussion for you. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 18. Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
For your level-headed focus on policy in both content and conduct, and your encouragement to others - often with carrot, sometimes with stick when necessary - to do the same, even when the discussion gets heated. Your efforts have been very much appreciated. Zad68 16:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Jayjg (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of links, etc

Jayjg, I understand and agree with removing links to the works of David Irving, but some of your removals are throwing out valid citations (e.g. to the Times and the Independent) which are merely copied onto Irving's website. I don't want in any way to defend or highlight Irving, but most of the references are to things unrelated to his Holocaust denial. Clearly, alternatives should be sought, but I am afraid they won't be if you don't leave a hint as to what was removed. Is it possible to simply tag for deprecation and cleanup? Malay Agin (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the speed at which you removed the links I would assume you did not read many of them? The ones removed seem to me to be often rather less offensive than the ones left for example on es.wikipedia see [10] --BozMo talk 13:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally how did we get quite so many links in the first place? --BozMo talk 13:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
If a source fails WP:EL, then we shouldn't be linking to it, even as a "convenience link". You may have noted that if the items had a proper source (e.g. "Story about Mr. X", The Guardian, May 23, 2007)", then I generally just removed the link. Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent discussion on Elazar Shach page


Your input would be appreciated here:

Yonoson3 (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked, but I'll assume it's the usual; Chabad followers trying to discredit Schach. I wish I had the time and energy to deal with these kinds of persistent, on-going policy violations, but unfortunately I don't. Perhaps you could try some of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution suggestions; I'm sorry, but it's the best I can do right now. Jayjg (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Limerick Pogrom

Hello, there is an RFC at Talk:Limerick Pogrom about a proposed change to reduce the amount of detail given to discussion of the term pogrom. Everyone who's been involved in this discussion is receiving this notice. Your input is appreciated, thanks. Zad68 04:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


With this edit you removed an important template for the inner workings of the WP:RPP page. It's fixed, no action required on your part, just wanted to let you know. Thanks. TimL • talk 23:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, that was a bed edit. Sorry! Jayjg (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


Dear Wikipedia Team,

I am Sindu writing to you from Bodhtree ( ), We have adhered to the guidelines of Wiki page and did not post any promotion related content on our Wiki page. Also we now and then update with very fine details keeping in view of the wii guidelines. I have updated the valid company information fulfilling the basic criteria and guidelines given by Wikipedia. I found today that our wiki page (Bodhtree) has been deleted once again. Please guide me to recreate the page,you may help me to follow your rules and any other criteria to update our company information.

I hope we will be able to see our Wiki page back at the earliest.

I will be glad to receive an early replay from you.

Regards, Sindu

Sindu, the page you created was deleted as a result of this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. In order for an article to be kept on Wikipedia, it must meet the requirements of WP:CORP. Please read that page carefully to understand what notability criteria apply to articles on companies. Jayjg (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jayjg. You have new messages at Ignocrates's talk page.
Message added Ignocrates (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks in advance. Ignocrates (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:STALK and WP:HARASS probably apply, specifically to Ignocrates. He seems to be doing little if anything by way of constructive edits since I warned him about his habit of abusing others on the talk pages of other editors, specifically in this case Dougweller, and honestly all I see is the same sort of behavior which led me to think that he himself probably deserves to be taken to ANI, particularly considering that just about the only thing he seems to be doing lately is, basically, stalking me. John Carter (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are the one following me around and commenting on my edits. As to being "taken to ANI", I suggest you be careful what you wish for. Ignocrates (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Ignocrates, the evidence rather clearly proves you wrong. Your recent dialogue with Pass a Method, for instance, only came after I and others raised questions about that editor's basic competence, as can be seen per that editor's talk page and the history of you and I there. Also, honestly, if one were to review the recent pattern of edits, I think it is clear that since I warned you on Dougweller's talk page about your almost hysterical claims that In ictu oculi should be taken to ANI for matters which in no way merit such attention, you have, basically, been all but silent. I realize that since you have been warned about your clearly unacceptable conduct more than once on this matter, you, basically, are forced to engage in harrasment such as this, and I do think that if this matter were to be brought before ANI, the probable outcome would be that you, whose recent history has been little if anything beyond making accusations, are the one far more likely to be in some way sanctioned for misconduct. I gave you some lenience in the past, because, as I said before, you have, at least until the recent past, been at least once in a while in behavior other than harrasment, but that seems to have stopped since the Dougweller warning. I really wonder whether anyone would think that someone whose apparently sole current purpose is to basically make snarky comments about others is really here to contribute to an encyclopedia. And, FWIW, unlike you, I actually am trying to do a few other things around here lately, so I doubt I will notice if you make another basically pointless and less than productive snarky comment as the one above.
BTW, Jayjg, I am working on an article list from the one-volume Wigoder Encyclopedia of Judaism, which might be ready in a week or so. When it is finished, I will probably post a notice to it on the Judaism WikiProject talkpage, and I do think it would be useful if someone who might know the subject better reviewed the list. A lot of the shorter entries seem to be quotes from verses and other sources, and I'm probably not the one to best decide which if any extant article here most clearly and directly relates to it. John Carter (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've found that commenting about other editors is rarely helpful, even when (rightly or wrongly) I think they richly deserve it. I'm not always perfect at avoiding making such comments, but I try my best. Can I still recommend to everyone that they simply don't mention the other editor at all going forward? I think that will help ease tensions. Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

First, I am more than willing to send you the entirety of the e-mail exchange between Ignocrates and myself, which consisted of three e-mails total, the first in which I tried to be conciliatory to a degree after his retirement, the second of which involved what I did and continue to regard as frankly insane aspersions on myself by him, and the third in which I admit having lost my temper. Since then, and, specifically, since his return from retirement, during which, so far as I can tell from the reasons he gave for his return on his user talk page, he has done little if anything along the lines of the reasons he gave for his return, he has continued to engage in the sort of abusive talk page edits which were so frequent here for a time. At this point, I honestly cannot see that I have any reason to assume good faith of Ignocrates, or, for that matter, to assume even a basic grasp of policies and guidelines if they do not support his promoting his own personal opinions. Also, it is worth noting that just about every comment he has made has been on a page which shows up on my watchlist, and in general I think I have only commented regarding him when I see his name appear as the most recent edit on that list. So, in short, I have not been "stalking," but observing the often problemattic, inflammatory, and irrational conduct of what seems to me to be a committed POV pusher. That is considered acceptable by policies and guidelines. If Ignocrates were to perhaps get over his longstanding greivances against me which seem to be based almost exclusively on his having, basically, lost an argument regarding the content of what seems to have been the only article he had been significantly involved in, and perhaps refrain from the sort of bombastic, irrational, inflammatory, and well silly behavior that he seems to have adopted, particularly regarding me, since then, there wouldn't be a problem. Once in a while he has shown an interest in actually trying to build the encyclopedia in accord with policies and guidelines. Sadly, that seems to be more of the exception than the rule of late. If that were to change, then, certainly, I would have no reason to continue to feel the need to review what seem to me still to be generally problematic edits. Basically, so far as I can see, it's up to him. If he begins to predictably conduct himself according to wikipedia principles, guidelines, and policies, I would have nothing to say about him. As long as he continues to do otherwise, however, I can honestly say that I do see that my monitoring his conduct is more than acceptable as per guidelines and policies. John Carter (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
And, as a PS, the Wigoder encyclopedia contained far fewer articles and subarticles than I expected. The list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Encyclopedic articles. Like I said on its talk page, I acknowledge that I am far less than expert on that subject, so I have no doubt that there are several typos particularly regarding capitalization and other things. But it is at least a start.
P.P.S. Regarding the alleged threats, I think it worth noting that ArbCom and ANI have repeatedly indicated that editors who are, in the opinions of those speaking, not here to contribute to an encyclopedia are potentially eligible for sanctions. Rarely, except apparently when he is so warned, have I seen much if any interest on Ignocrates' part to actually make an effort to build an encyclopedia. Instead, there is, unfortunately, more regularly an attempt to, as with the Jehovah's witnesses some time ago, tell people who are often much better informed on matters than he is what he in his somewhat amusing self-aggrandisment thinks about subjects. Out of control ego coupled with little interest in actually doing anything productive are in general considered a very bad combination, and that seems to be in general an apt description of Iggy except in those instances when he is actually, well, warned. I am not sure that basically advising someone to abide by conduct standards is genrally a threat, except to those who might have never had much interest in abiding by them from the beginning. John Carter (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing I can say that illustrates the ongoing problem more clearly than these last two edits. Ignocrates (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Because a thorough review of the facts, which I welcome from Jayjg or anyone else, would reveal their accuracy. In short, you can't say anything about them because it is hard to deny the reality of your own recent edit history. I regret that you seem to believe that somehow policies and guidelines shouldn't apply to you simply because you can't admit that the great Ovadyah/Ignocrates could ever be wrong, but the evidence seems to bear out at least in my eyes that your reasons for returning to editing are, basically, vindictiveness and an unwillingness, or inability, to deal with a fairly clear and rational application of policies and guidelines. Feel free to check ArbCom and ANI rulings for the phrase "not here to build an encyclopedia" or similar, by the way, and see how often they turn up. And, if at all possible, maybe try to once in a while do something other than engaging in snarky whining? John Carter (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand that your own actions could be called into question in an arbitration case due to extreme prejudice, and as a result, your supposed findings of fact may be disregarded as fruit of the poisonous tree. I'll say it one more time - find a way to let go of a dispute that ended almost two years ago, and move on. Ignocrates (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
And you don't seem tyo understand that your own actions "notifications" of my apparent bias are in the eyes of I think just about any objective editor clear evidence of an irrational bias on your own part. I believe you have been warned before about WP:HARASS. In fact, yes, I indicated I would take you to ANI for harassment after your ridiculously irrational request to have me desysoped earlier. By your own rather clearly juvenile comments to others, you have shown absolutely no ability to "move on" yourself,. In fact, you seem to be almost irrationally obsessed with denigration. Just as a final warning, I believe I am more than justified under the circumstances that should you continue to engage in such behavior from this point forward, I will be more than justified to start an ArbCom or ANI thread or similar regarding your own conduct. Final warning. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
We already have an arbitration case open that was suspended nearly two years ago. If you insist on proceeding, I suggest you start there. But my advice is to let all of this go and move on. Ignocrates (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
And since then you have regularly engaged in disparagement of me solely on the basis of, so far as I can tell, widdle baby Iggy not having liked hearing a rational opinion of his own behavior. There is a matter of reality to deal with here, such as your regular use of this page in the interim to engage in any number of irrational attacks. If you want others to "move on," Iggy, maybe the way to start is to, finally, cease your own regular misuse of wikipedia to engage in unfounded personal attacks of others. If you want others to "move on," maybe the best way would be to show that you have matured a little in the interim, something, regrettably, few if any of your recent disparaging comments here and other indicates may have happened. John Carter (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
In the spirit of doing what's best for the encyclopedia, I'm walking away from this talk page discussion. I suggest you do so as well. Ignocrates (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
And I also suggest, in the spirit of doing what is best for the encyclopedia, you refrain from any further irrational disparagement of others on user talk pages, other than your own, which seemingly only you care about. At this point I realize that your ego is such that you cannot ever acknowledge that you have ever done anything wrong. However, I stand by my previous final warning regarding your conduct. Should it continue, I believe I have more than sufficient cause to take you to ANI for harrasment. Basically, learn how to behave, and you won't have any further problems. The question, I guess, is whether you can ever learn to do that. Final warning still stands, though. John Carter (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

And so it continues unabated...diff Ignocrates (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

And also note the edits which led to it. I am truly very sorry that Ignocrates has never been able to get over the fact that there was and is no particular support in the academic community for either the views of the completely non-notable Ebionite Jewish Community or for the views in Tabor's book, and I realize some truly delusionally self-righteous egomaniacs will never be able to acknowledge that they could ever be less than the perfect persons at least they consider themselves to be. So, I'm really not sure whether there is any chance of this sort of what might be called "hounding" of you, Jayjg, will ever have a chance of ending. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)