This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 |
An editor has asked for a deletion reviewofIsaac 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 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. 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 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:MUSICorWP: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)
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)
An editor has asked for a deletion reviewofAbdur 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)
Just to let you know that I have asked the checkuser MuZemike (see here) to have a look at the edits of 131.123.123.124 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)
An editor has asked for a deletion reviewofRichie 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)
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)
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)
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 74.90.111.170 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi,
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.
Cheers
Egg Centric 02:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t|c 04:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
did you mean to move this template to Template:Template:Editnotices/Page/1929 Safed pogrom? seems like one too many templates. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 NasranitoSaint 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)
Hello,
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.
Regards,
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'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)
Hi,
There have been some recent discussions on the Elazar Shach discussion page:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elazar_Shach)
"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 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your input, if possible,
Thanks,
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi,
There have been some recent discussions on the Elazar Shach discussion page:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elazar_Shach)
"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,
Thanks,
Hi,
Check out the contributions of 76.66.210.60 here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.66.210.60
I think his language has gone overboard. What do you think? Should he be banned from Wikipedia?
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: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_raimondo
Is there anything I need to do so that this action can be taken?
Jones (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
AtTalk: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)
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, 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 wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi t|c 17:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Having previously been involved in a discussion about Ancestry.com 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)
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)
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.
In this issue:
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
--The Olive Branch 19:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
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?
I have mentioned you at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians Ottawahitech (talk) 21:13, 7 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)
Hi. Any chance you might be considering it again? : ) - jc37 17:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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;
Where as the Oxford English Dictionary states, this is a definition of Slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.131.85 (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
Good to see you editing; hope things are going well for you. Tom Harrison Talk 11:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes
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
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 Wikipedia.org's specifications for organizations.
Jchiappisi (talk • contribs) 15:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
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) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&action=history
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)
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:
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.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)
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)
Is a rangeblock practical here? I just semiprotected Bible Believers. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
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 109.148.234.201 (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Back as 77.53.83.172 (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)
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)
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Happy Holidays! | |
From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC) |
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)
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! |
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)
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)
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)
Hello Jayjg. Have you seen my comments at Talk:List of Jewish American entertainers?Hirschjoshua (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Congregations
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)
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)
(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. 98.210.60.236 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
|
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)
Hi,
Your input would be appreciated here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elazar_Shach#Works
Yonoson3 (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
Dear Wikipedia Team,
I am Sindu writing to you from Bodhtree (www.bodhtree.com ), 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
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'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)
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)
And so it continues unabated...diff Ignocrates (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)