User talk:Jayjg/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldebaran in fiction

I'd like a rationale for this close. At the very least it was a contentious debate, and I personally don't think a single good argument was given to keep. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Meh, fair enough. Even if I do think that "there was too much cruft so we split it: if we merge it back it'll get unmanageable again" is a circular argument, I suppose it can be argued that enough people believe in it. Of course every one of these will be back at AfD for the same reason in another couple of years. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Iranium - again

Jayjg - Awhile ago you protected the article Iranium because of edit wars linked to heated accusations from various editors about other editors. I note that two editors (one named, and one with an IP address) are involved in a reversion war: 3 identical edits have been reverted and reverted again. In this case it's just about a category (Anti-Iranium sentiments) but it's on the way of getting out of control again, I think. Could you take another look? Thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

AFD Closure

Hello, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Louisiana History, but the AFD was for two articles and you closed only one. Thus, you didn't leave a decision on the publisher of the journal: North Louisiana Historical Association. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The AfD was on the journal, not the association that publishes it. If you want an AfD on the Association, you'll have to start a new one. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

American and Universal

Just double check that American and Universal encyclopedia are the same one, they must be. Also double check that The American Hebrew and "American Hebrew magazine" are the same. I am sure but its always best to have a second pair of eyes match synonyms for redirection. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the American Hebrews are both the same. I'm not as sure about the encyclopedias - one may have been a predecessor to the other. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion by redirect

Hi, Jayjg. Do you think that our Palestinian Jews article should be reduced to a redirect? If so, is Arab Jews the proper target of this? I bring it up because I reverted another user who did it without any effort to form or follow consensus, and after I explained my reasons for keeping the article (on the talk page), he made a dismissive argument and implied he would just go ahead and redirect the article to Arab Jews "soon".

I value your opinion, so please chime in. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I'm really not sure what should be done with that article. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No Original Research

Did you not read my comments in the David Icke Discussion Page? That my addition to David Icke was from the "Who Really Rules The World?" educational documentary about conspiracy theories? Lung salad (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

When you get the time, please read my comment in the David Icke Discussion Page Lung salad (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

TW revert

i am confused as to your revert on the malkitzedek page:

Jayjg (talk | contribs) (34,848 bytes) (Reverted to revision 426285251 by 96.57.76.230; revert earlier vandalism. (TW)) (undo).

I am am confused since i do not see vanadalism..pls explain--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted this vandalism. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

At a quick glance, it doesn't look like vandalism to me. It looks like a good-faith edit. However, I've been wrong about such things on this user talk page before. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? An edit that cuts sentences in the middle leaving them making no sense, deletes sources, and deleted whole sections, with no intelligible edit summary? That's fairly classic vandalism as far as I can see. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. I didn't notice sentences cut in the middle. Sorry. Apparently I'm out of practice reading diffs. However, the edit summary is intelligible to me: "wordy rem": it seems to mean removing (deleting) stuff that's too wordy. The editor apparently removed two paragraphs about tzadik and replaced them with a two-word mention of tzadik, with wikilink. Maybe it was a good-faith purposeful edit with a mistake about the cut sentence. I lost Internet just as I clicked "save" on my comment above; maybe it would have been better if my comment hadn't gone in after all. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Elazar Shach edits.

May I request that, considering the history of edit-wars and controversy on/in the Elazar Shach page, you seek consensus before blanket removal of information? My interest is simply in maintaining as objective and neutral article as possible, and have started a discussion on the article talk page for this purpose. Thanks in advance, Winchester2313 (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I request that you seek consensus rather than reflexively reverting and inserting policy-violating material. I have no qualms about getting policy enforced here. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack Moline

Jayjg, I just created the article Jack Moline from a stub, and thought you might be interested in it. Moline is a Conservative rabbi whose achievements include helping to write President Clinton's famous "Shalom, Haver" eulogy for Yitzhak Rabin. Best wishes -- NearTheZoo (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting article, thanks. You might want to work on the formatting of and information in the footnotes. Cheers! Jayjg ^(talk) 01:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Two questions re Ebionite mediation

Hi Jayjg, I've left a question for you which you may not have seen. Plus, I have a new source (Butz); should I just go ahead and create a new section in the mediation file? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, which specific question? Regarding Butz, what is the source (book, page number) and relevant quote (s)? It might be less contentious if I added it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The question is:

What does "not a strong source" mean here? Does it mean that you feel the source does not support the cited statement (i.e. is being misread), or does it mean that the source, whilst supporting the statement, is not sufficiently reliable?

The Butz stuff is here:

Jeffrey Butz, The Secret Legacy of Jesus, ISBN 978-159477307-5, "What is most revealing here is that Peter bowed to James's wishes, another piece of evidence that James, rather than Peter, was the highest authority in the Jerusalem Chuch", pg 100; "... after Jesus's crucifixion, with James succeeding to the leadership of the community...", pg 101; "...it is beyond question that the succession of the leadership of the Nazarene community stayed with Jesus's family, perhaps even into the mid-second century...", pg 120; "In fact, the Ebionites and the Nazarenes are one and the same." pg 124; "Following the devastation of the Jewish War, the Nazarenes took refuge in Pella, a community in exile, where they lay in anxious wait with their fellow Jews. From this point on it is preferable to call them the Ebionites. There was no clear demarcation or formal transition from Nazarene to Ebionite; there was no sudden change of theology or Christology.", pg 137; "While the writings of later church fathers speak of Nazarenes and Ebionites as if they were different Jewish Christian groups, they are mistaken in that assessment. The Nazarenes and the Ebionites were one and the same group, but for clarity we will refer to the pre-70 group in Jerusalem as Nazarenes, and the post-70 group in Pella and elsewhere as Ebionites.", pg 137

-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Keith Augustus Burton (2007). The Blessings of Africa: The Bible and African Christianity. Intervarsity Press. pp. 116–117. ISBN 978-0-8308-2762-6.

Some Jewish Christians also revered the surviving relatives of Jesus who collectively were known as the desposyni ("belonging to the master"). For the Ebionites, the desposyni included the relatives of Mary and Joseph, and the descendants of Jesus' sisters and brothers. Those who accepted Jesus as the actual Son of God only included the relatives of Mary and his siblings, whom they considered his half brothers and sisters. As a result of the elevation of the desposyni, the Ebionites reckoned the apostolic succession through James as opposed to Peter, support for which they gleaned from Galations 2:9 and Acts 15:13-21. Each patriarch in the early communities was a desposynos who always bore the name of one of Jesus' brothers.

— Chapter 8, The Development of Christianity in Palestine, pp.116,117

We also might want to consider adding Burton from the James vs. Paul section of the article. Burton was a reference we used to discuss the link between James and the Desposyini to the Ebionites in the first mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, before you archive Bernheim, please include a text box in the comments that summarizes how Bernheim should be used as a source. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC draft: Restoring to merge after deletion at AfD

I have started a draft at User:Flatscan/RfC draft: Restoring to merge after deletion at AfD. You are receiving this notification because you were involved with a past instance. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but I don't think I understand it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The RfC is intended to be a follow-up to User talk:Jayjg/Archive 35#G.I. Joe vehicles and WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 21#Conquest X-30. Since the DRV had little discussion of the general case, I started thinking about an WT:Articles for deletion discussion. There was another occurrence before I started writing. The draft is written generally to avoid getting stuck in the details of either specific instance. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You may be able to help

I notice your warnings posted at User talk:Ardeshirshojaei. This account and another account User talk:Moslehian appear to be involved in some weird editing and / or weird page creation. Both (new) accounts appear to have created pages that are currently copyright violations, and others which merit sppedy deletion. The sccounts cross paths on at least one article entitled "Annals of Functional Analysis". Yes, you may have noticed the quotation marks. This appears to be an attempt to distinguish it from this article - Annals of Functional Analysis. These are actually both the same journal, and the second article is currently tagged as a copy vio. It now appears to be also some sort of unintentional content fork. Anyway, maybe you can untangle this mess. Also, I suspect that these two accounts have been set up by the same person, based on a peliminary look at this mess. I am thinking that since you are an admin you may able to do something about this. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The accounts don't seem to have edited since about the time you posted here; is this still an issue? Regarding them being one account, it seems clear they are related at least - have you requested a check at WP:RFCU? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at each of their user contriubtions pages[1], [2] I can infer that these may become active again in the future. This is because they have been editing since 2008 and the end of 2010, respectively. So, I suppose these accounts may still a possible issue. It may be the best way to handle this situation is to begin with WP:RFCU (which I have not tried yet). If these are related somehow, there may be other accounts involved. Thanks for your response. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

For some reason the sock puppet investigations page is currently protected [3] and can only be edited by administrators. Is there another page to open a sockpuppet investigation? I am not going to request checkuser at this time. I am only intending to notify of possible sock puppets or meat puppets. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I will try WP:ANI. I will explain the problem of the sockpuppet investigations page along with the possible sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Good edit today

You did a good job in the cleanup of the Martin Moishe Rosen paragraph on Jewish views on missionaries and counter-missionaries. Succinct without leaving out relevant information.--DeknMike (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Please don't re-insert the original research at the Brickner article - the sources must all actually refer to him, rather than being arguments developed about him by Wikipedia editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

what?--DeknMike (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Smack (library)

would you kindly userfy this deleted page for me? I have discovered some sources that I think would push it over the edge to satisfying notability guidelines for inclusion. Thanks, riffic (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have access to any of those sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No, but I would contact holders of access to these sources and ask for their contributions. riffic (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't have access, then you have no way knowing if the sources do indeed make the topic notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is about you

AdvertAdam does know that talk page histories are visible to everyone, right? Maybe not... Ian.thomson (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Slur?

Please take a look at this user name: SimonBenmohel (talk · contribs). Is this an antisemitic slur?

Not a slur exactly, but no doubt a name chosen for deceptive/disruptive purposes. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Rabbis categories for renaming

Please help me. I know you already know about the discussion underway regarding Rabbis categories for renaming. IZAK wants your valued opinion. Much obliged, as always. Chesdovi (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Tannaim/Mishna rabbis category discussion? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry did not link. Chesdovi (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the category name should be. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Military Chaplain insignia

Jagjg - I'd like to ask for your opinion on something. I'm ready to move an article from draft to published status: United States Military Chaplain insignia. There are a few facts I've marked "citations needed," but think others might have info to fill in the references before I can find them, even though I'll keep looking. The question, though, is whether I can do something similar with photos. As you'll see I've left room for some photos with notes that they are missing - again, hoping that others might have them and can quickly fill them in, even though I'll keep searching. When you see how I've done this, can you tell me if this would be allowed? I haven't seen it done before on wikipedia articles. The alternative is just to publish the article without the "missing" photo spaces - and others can still figure out what is missing. I would like to publish it as is - but again, want to know what you think. (I do think the article has some very interesting info -- and some that is relatively unknown.) Thanks, as always, for your help! NearTheZoo (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Published the article, United States military chaplain symbols.NearTheZoo (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice article. Sorry I was away for so long. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayjg! I spoke to the Director of the Army Chaplain Museum, who is going to scan and send me missing Army Chaplain images. I also self-nominated a DYK: Did you know that the first Jewish Chaplain in the U.S. Navy wore a cross? Thanks again! NearTheZoo (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Rudolf Vrba

Hi Jayjg,

I had originally left a comment for you here, but I moved it to the discussion page of the Rudolf Vrba article. Would you mind taking a look at it there? I would appreciate your input. Thank you! Armadillopteryx (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The issue appears to be settled, and welcome to Wikipedia! Jayjg ^(talk) 05:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, everything has been settled by now. I'm glad you saw the message on the discussion page, because I didn't want it to seem as though I wanted to make changes behind your back. Thanks for the welcome! I'm starting to like Wikipedia very much. I hope your work on the site goes well today : ) Armadillopteryx (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Save Our Souls

Hello Jayjg,

please have a look on my new version of Save Our Souls (see: User:Goroth/Save Our Souls) and tell me, if the band would reach notability now. I looked up for some more searches like the opening band for Iron Maiden (see: Flyer), the Rock am Ring band contest (see: The final results), their album Hard to Be Human is available as download in German Amazon (see: Hard to Be Human), their appearance at 2010s Sunset Strip Music Festival (see: Sale list), the concert with Dave Lombardo of Slayer (see: SoM Webzine), the concert with Crossfade (see: Red carped charity event Las Vegas) and their appearance on SuicideGirls DVD Guide to Living (see: Review Guide to Living).

Please let me know if the article would pass notability now. Please answer on my Discussion page.

Greetings Goroth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goroth (talk • contribs) 16:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:FFD & WP:NFR

Hi Jayjg. There has been a rash of Somali-related fair-use images that have been put up for deletion at WP:FFD. The excuses supplied for these proposed deletions seem to me flimsy at best. For example, an historical image of Sultan Mohamoud Ali Shire of the Warsangali Sultanate receiving a medal from Queen Elizabeth II is both apparently not of historical importance and irrelevant to his article (!). These same sorts of weak excuses have been put forth to justify the proposed deletion of images of the Sultanate of Hobyo's cavalry and fort [4] as well as the Warsangali Sultanate's troops [5], which were used on the relevant Sultanate of Hobyo and Warsangali Sultanate articles, respectively. The attempted deletions also include a one-of-a-kind History Today magazine cover featuring Sultan Shire -- that too is "under review" (c.f. [6]). Basically, I feel that I and the Somali-related pics are not getting a fair shake here, so I would be very grateful if (when you have the time) you could keep an eye on things or, at the very least, weigh in with your opinion at the relevant WP:FFD and WP:NFR sections; viz. [7], [8], [9], [10]. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I will try to take a look - but I'm pressed for time, and this is compounded by Wikipedia's poor performance/failure to load pages in the past week. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand; and thanks for at least giving it consideration. Middayexpress (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that another admin actually closed one of those preposterous deletion attempts linked to above based on the fact that the image in question is an "obvious keep". But sure enough, the user then nominated the file for deletion at WP:FFD, yet never even bothered alerting me to the deletion discussion as that board's "Instructions for listing files for deletion" step #3 instructs (Give due notice). Another user who has also weighed in on two of the discussions linked to above subsequently tagged another related fair-use file for speedy deletion (same Sultanate), claiming that it "illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information, or which could be adequately covered with text alone" [11]. This is almost insultingly baseless, as the file is an historical map of the Warsangali Sultanate's dominion circa 1857; no free alternatives therefore obviously exist due to the map's one-of-a-kind historical nature. Worse, the map was taken from the Warsangali Sultanate's own official website (c.f. [12]). Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

RM alert

The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new one. Please lodge your support for a proposal, or make one of your own. Night w2 (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

borrow the keys, dad?

You claim I am misrepresenting sources on Messianic Judaism by correcting the phrase "some groups attempted to create congregations and societies" to "some groups created congregations and societies" claiming that I have "again ignored and misrepresented the sources". Yet in the very reference to that line [13], the Ariel says "recruiting more Jews to form congregations of Jewish Christians" and "Jewish converts established their own organization in Great Britain as early as 1860." In other words, my minor edit corrected the misrepresentation that the early groups had only tried, when the existing source shows they established congregations, though short-lived--DeknMike (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC).

Let's see, the source and citation in the article say "In the nineteenth century many attempts were made in the United States to create Hebrew Christian Brotherhoods...". Yet, despite this, you remove the word "attempted", and fail to quote it here in your comment to me. This is exactly why no edit you make can be trusted. Now, don't touch the history again without getting prior consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI and SPI thingy

Thanks for getting involved. That seemed to be going nowhere.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure, though it doesn't seem to be going anywhere so far, despite the persistence of the meatpuppeting. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

19 Kislev

Thanks for the notice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts?

What are your thoughts on this fellow trying to expose our obvious evil Commie Zionist agenda? =p I might send that little essay of his (I did look up screed and will use it in the future) to a prof of mine as it shows a nice twisting around of info to try to support a ridiculuous hypothesis. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the world is full of conspiracists, and even worse, the internet gives them an easy way of finding like-minded crazies and publishing their nonsense to wide audiences. Which, of course, is why we need to discourage them from using Wikipedia as a venue for doing that. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This fellow looks like he'll probably fall under the mighty banhammer soon. It's weird that you don't usually meet these people IRL. Now that is fun. =p So long as you throw policy at them though, it will mean their bile stays off the Wiki. I'm afraid that arguing with them (as you could see in the AngloPyramid thread) is pointless as their beliefs are often set in stone and there is no chisel that can change them (the main reason I avoid political debates on the net). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the inconveniences I have caused you

I will attempt to attempt to come back in a few months with more modern secondary sources in order to make my point, although the sources I have given certainly are reliable, and I have included secondary sources. I am not really "synthesizing" information, because each of the items I have posted stands alone. Furthermore, the the conclusions I have drawn from them are entirely supported by them. I am utterly convinced that the article being debated is in error. But if you wish to remove my contribution to the talk page because you feel it is disruptive, I don't really mind.Blastikus (talk)

Thank you for your apology. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Omar2788

So... is it time for AN/I? Keeps simply doing what he wants with the images. And from his most recent talk page comments, doesn't seem he cares. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not quite yet - he seems to have slowed down for now. AN/I is always an option if he starts again. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. BTW, I'm gone from June 13th through July 1st (Star Trek Phase 2 shoot), and I doubt I will be online much if at all. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: June 2011

Thankyou for your message I was cleaning up this article as you may no the article lacked references the article has now been cleaned up with relevent references that have been cited.

I would also like to point out that the band is very notible and that there label has confirmed this you will find this cited next to the text on the right hand side bar in label. It would be greatful if would be willing to chnage any errors or point these out. The article has been placed into the incubator this means the article is not yet ready for deletion. Pleas make this article the official article for Falling In Reverse as a notible band.

Thankyou DerbyEdu (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

They may be a wonderful band, but unfortunately they do not appear to meet the requirements of WP:BAND. The fact that their fans have recreated their article 13 times now despite this will tend to make it even less likely for them to have an article. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand you very well it's very disapointing that such a notible band I do believe it does meet the requirements of WP:BAND it does cite refereces from there label Epitaph and other media sources where it talks about there release of an album which has been cited on there page aswell as many other links. I cannot understand how they cannot be notible. As many wiki contributors and myself have requested for the article to be locked from guest edits because previous article that where created were magnets for BLP vandalism as well as this article will also be a magnet for BLP vandalism. I have put the article for rescue and see if we can cite anymore infomation I do ask if a reconsideration and that the article is keept into its incubation. DerbyEdu (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem during the STP

I just noticed your messages to other editors involved in the previous discussion. Since you are a very experienced editor, I assume that your messaging only those editors on your side of the argument was an oversight. Please could you kindly message Coin945 as well?

Either way, I hope this does not become a drawn out debate. I put in the hard work to create a better situation for the readers - the navboxes work really well IMHO. I respect where your allegiances lie, and that you do your best to be WP:NPOV. Even though you disagree with me on the overall point, you must at least admit that the use of "STP" as a period of Jerusalem's history is at the very least in a "grey area" of neutrality. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to notify Coin945 too, but he certainly wasn't on "your side of the argument" in the last discussion; please make more accurate statements. Please do not comment about "where [my] allegiances lie", unless it is to affirm that they lie with Wikipedia and its policies, as they do. Regarding the rest, please continue this discussion on the article's Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it alright if I add a colon to scooch your comment over a bit? As you said btw, it's not just a Jewish term, it's the common name for the time period used in archaeology and history (unless you're from the Copenhagen School of what is still mostly called biblical archaeology who mostly have an agenda). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Re your misquotation at Talk:Ed Miliband

I ask that you either find a diff as requested here [14] (you won't), or apologise for misquoting me. If you do neither, I may pursue this further - the debate has become heated enough, and such unfounded personal attacks do nobody any good. For now, I am prepared to assume good faith, and, accept that you mistook your rephrasing of my comments for what I actually wrote, but if you choose not to apologise and retract your accusation (which looks like an insinuation of antisemitism), I will have no choice but to defend myself. Such comments should have no place in discussions over article content, regardless of how personally involved a contributor feels. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Moderator: Smikeyy

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

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Request

Would you mind putting New College of the Humanities on your watchlist? There's a Richard Dawkins connection, so inevitably User:NBeale (who if you recall strongly dislikes Dawkins) has arrived, and is editing poorly then engaging in wholesale reverting. In addition, unrelated to Beale, there has been an off-wiki campaign to cause a problem at the article because some people don't like the existence of the college for other reasons. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've put it on my watchlist. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Lack of love shown to toward Temple Emanu-El (the most important one)

How come you haven't gotten around to our lovely בית כנסת here? Congregation Emanu-El of New York - Look, it's just sitting there all sad, being a Start-Class article apparently. Reform synagogues need love too you know, especially when they are in my neighbourhood. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've already given love to Reform synagogues - see Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee), Temple Sinai (Oakland, California). Even in New York City - Congregation Beth Elohim (Brooklyn, New York), though admittedly it's not in Manhattan. I have written this, though: Temple Israel of the City of New York. It would be more complete if I could find more sources. Anyway, Emanu-El definitely deserves a proper article, but I've actually had much less time than I'd like to do research and to really write. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the Second Jerusalem should indeed get more coverage. =p Oh yeah, I know that one, I used to walk by it as a kid and still do from time to time when coming back from the D'agastino. I could go snap some photos of it for the article, just give me the angle (though it sadly only has one). I warn you though, it's not much of a looker especially with that big gate. Downright ugly imo. There's another one on 79th and......... Third or Second. It's called Sha'air Tfilah, or something similar. There was definitely a shin and an a'ayin in it. I can also get some photos of Emanu-El. Another one is also in the seventies that they built while I was a wee lad iirc. Oh, and you can't forget the one on 84th or 85th or so, and that one on 67th or 68th between Park and Lex (that isn't all btw). I can snap photos of all of them. However, I'm off to our homeland for two months on Wednesday. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, photos do make it more tempting, I'm not much of a photographer. Anyway, enjoy your trip! :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 06:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well you could be the best photographer in the world and it wouldn't be much help if you're not a local of the UES (too much walking). =p I'll look into taking them other photos when I get back. Thanks! I most definitely will.

S-Preme

You're probably getting tired of seeing my name pop up here by now, haha! Just a quick question, we recently received coverage from another pretty credible source, The Huffington Post, here is the link to that: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-bazer/video-rapper-spreme-on-interview-show_b_869411.html

Now do we have enough sources to bring the page back? Not sure if you remember last time, but we've had the MTV coverage, the WWE song for Ted Dibiase Jr, and now the The Huffington Post. Would that be good enough? (Rhymestyle (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC))

That's not how I recall it. What are the other two links? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, here are the links: WWE song: http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/wwe-i-come-from-money-ted/id408064742 (figured I just send you the straight song iTunes link, we've been over this enough times now). As far as the MTV Interview, looks like the post got deleted with the new MTV Hive update, but here's a tweet that shows you it existed: http://twitter.com/#!/mtvnews/status/4692707054194688. Let me know if you need anything else and if these are enough to bring the page back!

Thank you! (Rhymestyle (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC))

You know neither of these satisifed WP:BAND. Why do you keep acting as if they do? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

So you're telling me coverage from The Huffington Post and MTV isn't good enough? (Rhymestyle (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC))

What's the Huffington Post link? The "MTV Interview" doesn't exist, so there's no way of evaluating it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have short term memory loss? You realize I've shown you these articles numerous times before now. Honestly, I'm getting tired of it. Also how are you going to ask me for the huffington post link? Why don't you look 5 lines up? When MTV updated their site from blog.mtv to clutch.mtv, it seems that many articles were deleted. Are you just going to keep providing excuses everytime I send you something credible? If this helps, here's a follow up article MTV's partner posted: http://www.ourstage.com/blog/2010/11/19/needle-in-the-haystack-follow-up-s-preme. I just contacted MTV about the possibility of bringing the article back, so I will give you that if they can help me out. (Rhymestyle (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

The Huffington Post Chicago source was a brief interview, under 3 minutes of talking and two minutes of singing. It was done on a local (Chicago) monthly interview "show" posted on the internet, "The Interview Show", which is held at a local bar, The Hideout. The MTV thing can't be evaluated, and is not likely to indicate notability either. So, in answer to your question, first bring me "something credible", then we'll talk. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Interview Show was actually longer, the video was just a summary. As far as the MTV article, it just shows me that you failed to review it the last two times we spoke. Even if you won't accept the Huffington post as a credible source, I'm still offended at the fact that you clearly didn't review the MTV article last time. I will do my best to retrieve that article from MTV and get back to you asap. (Rhymestyle (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC))

I reviewed the MTV article, but it was a while ago, and it didn't make a strong impression. S-Preme is not the center of my existence. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Falling in Reverse

Falling in revers has Met the criteria needed, You guys keep deleting it, when it has met Criteria, like i stated in its "Discusion" page all the criteria needed was their, and everything was properly cited, Please restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kygora (talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND. If you want it undeleted, take it to WP:DRV. Fifteen recreations is much more than enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe it does very well meet WP:BAND for the following reason the article was assesed by a wikipedia administrator and the article did meet the criteria despite the article being created 15 times and being deleted by you and the name Falling In Reverse locked. I can also asure you non administrative members did not move this article into the wikipedia but a Wikipedia Administrator did also Falling In Reverse (Band) was moved to Falling In Reverse hence the name of the band was not being used. Your deletion was very uneccesary I will be opening s deiscussion about your attempts to delete this article that had passed the WP:BAND critera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikeyy (talk • contribs) 14:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have posted in the WP:DRV explaining why it is to be Restored. I also have come to a personal Conclusion that you have some Vendetta of Some sort against this Band, which is why you are blinded to this Band meeting the criteria, as i do believe all others who oppose its creation are blinded in the same matter. Kygora 18:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Registered Historic former synagogues

Delted. Chesdovi (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, they should have told me when they put it up for CfD. Anyway, I probably named it poorly. It should have been something "Former synagogues on the NRHP". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dershowitz

Hi, I see you semi-protected this last night, and I'm wondering if you meant to add full protection. The anon is adding sourced material; it's just not particularly good (though I've only skimmed it) and it belongs in the article about the dispute, rather than in the summary in the bio. So the page could probably be left unprotected, and someone could explain summary-style to him. But if protection is added, full would be more appropriate. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see I semi-protected. Anyway things seem calmer now, so I've unprotected the article again. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

mediation request

Hi Jayjg. In view of what I find to be

- your unecessary aggressive and bullying tone,

- that double case of what I took as subtle abuse,

- what I see as your refusal to properly engage and answer my valid points regarding application of wiki policy,

- your avoidance and failure to respond to the examples that you requested (examples which took some time to compile and submit, and then amend as requested, plus then add further detail to on your further request),

- and now your recent threats of banning if I continue to discuss my isses with you or anyone else,

I have therefore reluctantly submitted a mediation request.

Its here: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-06-13/criticism_of_holocaust_denial --Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You want mediation with me and every other editor on that page, none of whom agree with you, and all of whom are tired of your antics there? Abide by policy, and use the Talk: page for its purpose, and we won't have any conflict. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You are the only one who is avoiding my responses, threatening me with banning, and and thereby attempting to force me to respond ONLY within very restricted parameters that you feel you can decide for me. I do not feel that allows me to have open or fair dialogue. How do we resolve that?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi both of you. Mustichumwipe, firstly, please put User tags ([[User:]]) when you file a mediation case. I've agreed to take on this case and would like to just clarify with you (Mystic). Firstly, you claim that User:DeknMike is agreeing with you. Looking at his talk page, you haven't had any communication with him save for one message of his agreeing, and he has made no comments on the page in question (Criticism of Holocaust denial). Your referencing website, zundelsite.com is up for sale. I quite frankly don't see what your problem with Jayjg is, Mystic. You blanked a huge section and then claimed a cutting mistake. You reverted 10 times over the course of 4 days, n violation of Wikipedia's 3 revert rule. You then bring Mr. Anderson. What is the issue? The consensus is saying to stop, and you refuse to do so. I am looking at this and I am honestly beginning to think you are inflating the situation. Your edits have been reverted by 4 different users, and you refuse to stop it. I agree with Jayjg when he threatens to ban you. You are not discussing an issue, from what I can tell. His tone has been quite acceptable. Mystuc, Wikipedia doesn't appoint administrators lightly. Jayjq has thousands of edits and quite a bit of experience. Please explain what he is doing incorrectly. He is being quite moderated. You might want to look over Wikipedia's Editing Guide.

User:Goswamir14 talk- www.rohangoswami.webs.com 21:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer.

1. just to clarify a misunderstanding, I didn't intend to imply that User:DeknMike is "agreeing" with me. I wrote that, quite by chance, I saw that he has made almost the exact same complaint. I only mentioned that to explain why I chose you to mediate.

2. I don't know what you mean by "up for sale"? Can you explain. The issue is about 'questionable souces as sources in themselves' and 'verifiability'. Everything needs to be sourced, doesn't it? Otherwise we have the situation that exists today in the article where an argument is presented in a misleading way without a source that is verifiable and then that incorrect version of the argument is criticised. I can give examples if you like. That is clearly in violation of wiki verifiability policy, isn't it?

3."...claimed a cutting mistake".

That would have been vandalism pure and simple if I had done that deliberately. Please assume some good faith here, or this disussion will be of little use.

4. I reverted 10 times over the course of 4 days? :-0 Huh?!!? Really!

On the article? Or are you talking about the talk page (or both together)? And if on the talk page does that include 'minor edits' of fixing spelling, etc? Plus on the thirteenth of June I had three edits due to that awful mistake with the power cut.

5. "The consensus is saying to stop, and you refuse to do so."

I really don't see it as 'the consensus'?! :-o As I see it only one person has attempted to discuss my valid point of view correctly and that is User: Singularity42. Only ONE person is saying "STOP" and that is User:Jayjg who has not discussed my issue, and has only answered in an unreasonable and bullying, threatening uncivil way (exactly the same complaint that User:DeknMike made). How many times does soemone HAVE TO PUT UP THE SAME REFERENCES AND SOURCES AS EXAMPLES before it becomes a clear case of avoidance? Does replying by saying that someone is wrong regarding wiki policy, without providing an explanation, really count as 'discussion'?

User:StevenJAnderson has not discussed my issue at all, either. He has merely undone everything I have added because he doesn't like my citation tags and two sources. No discussion of anything else I added from either of them.

6. The issue of what consitutes 'directly related to' I would still like to be adressed.

7. User:Jayjg has written "sources you use must be directly related to "Criticism" of Holocaust denial")

Yet I have provided, as requested, seven examples of sources that do not fit this requirement. There are many more. This inconsisteny has NEVER been addressed.

I am merely requesting consistent application of wiki policy. Lebob wrote: It is not because a book is not specificaly devoted to Holocaust denial... material could only be deleted if it was proved that the sources used in this article do not say what is reported in the article." --09:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC). That is also my understanding.

8. Finally, please can I also ask you to address the points I made in my mediation request There were three of them. And is it possible please that we can deal with all this there instead of here. I assumed that was the idea behind using a mediation request file. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

He is reverting your edits, as is Jayjg. Therefore I believe it is implied that they agree. I did not notice that Singularity was in agreement with you. Therefore, 2 people disagree and... well... can you deem consensus for yourself? I suppose so. It would be at a draw. This seems to be much more confusing then it really is. I'll mediate on the mediation page. However, when I see the talk page for the article in question, it appears to me that Singularity is questioning the reliability of your only source. And when I say its up for sale, I meant a .com address not a .org. In my view, it looks like this Zundelsite is a site which promotes the 'honor' of the German people. What really gets me is you claim Zundelsite is a verifiable source (without bias). Scrolling down, I see the words How Holocaust Enforcers yada yada. What is that? Really? Its as much a verifiable source for Criticism of the Holocaust as sourcing Glenn Beck on the Tea Party--clearly biased.

User:Goswamir14 talk- www.rohangoswami.webs.com 14:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that that Singularity was in agreement with me. I said he was the only one who actually discussed with me properly about what my point was in reality (i.e.correctly). E.g others did as you as you are now doing, viz. you are discussing something else than what my point actually was about Singularity's involvement. (Phewph!)

I am not claiming consensus for myself (:-o?). I am saying there was no consensus that I should "Stop"

I am not claiming the Zundel source is a verifiable source for Criticism of the Holocaust or "without bias". I am saying its a verifiable source for Holocaust denial AND I'm saying that is appropriate as it is directly related to the article, and needs to be supplied as everything needs a source for verifiability. I.e. if we are going to present arguments that are then going to be criticised, those arguments need to be sourced. Do you see? Er... I don't know what your time constraints are, and I appreciate your involvement, but are you perhaps skimming when you are reading the points of disagreement and my answers? As you have misconstrued my meaning on almost every particular in your two answers.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Zundel's site fails WP:RS, and can only be used (with caution) in the article about Zundel or his site, per WP:SELFPUB. Re: "about themselves", Zundel is not Holocaust denial, he's a person. If you have a problem with WP:SELFPUB, please take it up on that policy's Talk: page. If you want to edit the article, please explain on the Talk: page exactly what change it is you want to make and why, keeping in mind that all sources must be about the topic of the page, which is Holocaust denial. Do that, and we'll get along just fine. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Famous antisemites in history

Hi, Jayjg. I'm watching Gentleman's Agreement and heard the name of Gerald L. K. Smith as someone who promoted antisemitism. May I label his Wikipedia bio with Category:Antisemites or at least Category:Antisemitism? Or is that too "name-callingish"? (like calling someone "homophobic")? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I believe the Category:Antisemites was deleted, and it already has Category:Antisemitism on it. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Another question re: Ebionite mediation

Just out of curiosity, is there any particular reason you have chosen not to request the arbitration begin? I believe we could, reasonably, perhaps stipulate that those involved in the mediation could remain in the mediation regardless of any sanctios imposed on them through arbitration. But I do believe that there may well be significant personal behavior issues which would best be addressed in an expedited manner.

Also, as an individual, while I acknowledge that there is a basis for questioning the reliability of certain individual sources, I also believe that doing so could continue indefinitely, and that the process could, potentially, be abused by continuing such discussion indefinitely. In my own eyes, perhaps the most significant thing to discuss would be the format the article should take, rather than continued discussion on individual sources. Thank you for your attention and your responses. John Carter (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're asking me, the reason arbitration hasn't begun (and doesn't need to) is because the mediation is successfully sorting through the relevant sources, deciding which can are reliable and what claims they support. I expect we'll have exhausted discussion on all sources in the fairly near future, and at that point move on to what (if anything) the article should say based on those sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

For clarification then, it is your belief that the repeated violation of WP:NPA exhibited by several editors, including clear misstatements of fact in the statements of others in the page requesting mediation, are not cause for arbitration based on personal conduct issues? I believe that there are, probably, similar concerns regarding the behavior of at least one of the parties elsewhere, that those concerns would probably be raised in the arbitration, and that having such an arbitration would perhaps be the only way for those concerns to be dealt with in a reasonable manner. I believe that these legitimate conduct-based concerns in other pages as well is a clear and sufficient basis for arbitration. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all of the editors in the mediation have made unhelpful personal comments. However, I've been trying to make sure they're all removed, so the mediation is focused. In my view none of them (or even the sum of them) rise to the level where an arbitration based on them would be considered - I see considerably worse on a daily basis on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There is the matter of how broadly and repetitively they are made. Honestly, if the arbitration would result in all three of the main parties being banned from the article (myself included) based on content, I wouldn't disagree - I even proposed it myself. And there is the matter of the repeated personal attacks on other pages as well, which you have chosen not to consider relevant. I believe that the specific violations at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community (3rd nomination) are at least one example of such, as is Ovadyah's having once again gone to ANI with a complaint about something which, honestly, had no clear basis. That unfortunately was not the first such complaint to ANI for baseless concerns. Honestly, whether you have chosen to ignore those matters or not in the mediation attempt, I believe that perhaps it might be not unreasonable to perhaps ask someone currently on ArbCom whether they believe it is in the best interests of wikipedia for those concerns to be ignored. Also, at least one of the concerns I would raise is that one editor involved has an edit history indicating that s/he has edited few if any articles and probably made few if any edits to articles which do not perhaps support the claims of a group which he has expressed an interest in, even though that group and its opinions have had little discussion in independent sources. SPA POV pushers are, I think, a potentially serious problem, and often the only way to deal with them effectively, particularly if they persist in such behavior, is arbitration. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I doubt an arbitration would be accepted right now, but if it were, I suspect the sanctions would go considerably beyond being banned from just one article, and I think editors from both "sides" would be sanctioned - Arbcom often adopts an "a pox on both your houses" approach to solving longstanding conflicts. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are indicating that I believe I should be in some way sanctioned for my own conduct, please remember that I have stated from the beginning that I would withdraw my adminship if anyone gave me a good reason to do so. That now, unquestionably and specificlly, includes you. And, to more or less repeat what I said above, I am rather sick of the regular baseless insults and other forms of possible harassment I have been subjected to. Right now, my main purpose is to try to find and put together a list of encyclopedias/dictionaries for the various WikiProjects and groups I have some affiliation with. There are about 50,000 reviews of such dictionaries or encyclopedias on the Gale Infotrac website alone, which apparently deal with about 10,000 separate such works, and there are other such sites as well with additional material. I don't think I would be at a loss of things to do in any event, y'know? John Carter (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the mediation has moved along fairly reasonably (albeit a bit slowly, I apologize for that), and I'm quite optimistic about the resolution. I think we should continue with it. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You will note that I didn't say otherwise, and, in fact, specifically stipulated that I think we could ensure that all those currently in the mediation could (and probably should) be allowed to continue, even if the ArbCom were to impose sanctions on some of the editors invovled related to the articles. The question about starting, basically, a conduct review at ArbCom is I think a reasonably separate one. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

First, I note that in your own comments in the section above, Jayjg, you indicated that there might be questions about the addition of additional points of contention. Why did you do that, pray tell? Also, I note that the arbitration was accepted at the time the request for arbitration was filed - your statement that it might not be accepted is, I believe, clearly counterindicated that it was accepted. Also, reviewing the archives of the talk page, I note that you as an individual have been involved in the article, although, admittedly, less frequently in more recent times, since 2005 in Talk:Ebionites/Archive 1. So, in response to your statement that you doubt arbitration would be accepted, it has already been accepted. The fact that you have, apparently, not remembered that is itself I believe a cause for concern. Second, I believe that I have the right to question exactly what your previous involvement with the topic, and with the other editors involved, is, given your previous involvement in discussion. Third, I believe that the "stonewalling" allegation, one of the reasons for the filing of the arbitration, is related to refusal to get to the point. The fact that the progress is slow, and it clearly is very slow, is itself something that would be in favor of those who wish to delay getting to the point as long as possible, possibly even hoping that the others involved get bored or disgusted with the situation and withdraw. In fact, it seems to me that situations like this were one of the reasons the relevant policies and guidelines were probably written. Under the circumstances, your addition of these materials could be seen by some as being a continuation of efforts in that regard. Lastly, I believe that, in all honesty, addressing the serious behavioral problems, and sanctioning appropriately, is going to happen in any event, as arbitration has already been accepted, and I myself, as an individual, very seriously question what purpose is served by your attempt to delay that. It also raises questions as to why you believe arbitration is not necessary. It has been accepted, and, honestly, the content and behavioral concerns of the person who filed the request, me, are not apparently any closer to being addressed than they were when the RfA was filed.

It is my belief that the mediation would end if the parties involved, particularly including myself, chose to withdraw from mediation for the purposes of getting to the point and having the arbitration take place. I also am curious about how you apparently forgot the fact that arbitration has already been accepted. Under the circumstances, I would have thought that little point was a rather hard one to forget. Please do me the favor of specifically indicating the nature of any contacts you may have had with the parties in the accepted arbitration, on wiki and off, and how they might have influenced your opinions regarding them, their motivations, and their actions. I believe, under the circumstances, I am more than justified to ask that information. Also please indicate to me what motivated you to make the comments you made above about adding these new points and about some might object to it, prompting you to add them yourself. If your belief was that someone else, like, perhaps, me, would object to your adding additional points at this late date unilaterally, which would delay the matter of addressing the article structure and other, more general, concerns, guess what, you would be right. It can be seen as being itself an indication of your own "taking a side" in this matter, which mediators are not supposed to do. Also, I believe that, given the nature of my obvious concerns (and I want it noted that I do not necessarily believe that this is the worst-case scenario, or even close to that - just that there are grounds for questioning) I would request clarification of whehter, in fact, if I were to say that I withdrew from mediation in favor of expediting the already accepted arbitration case, would my doing so have the effect I would be seeking, particularly as participating in mediation is at least theoretically voluntary. John Carter (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

John, sorry I wasn't clear. What I was trying to say is that mediation and arbitration are generally mutually exclusive processes; thus, one could not open (or, in this case re-open) an arbitration while the mediation continued, nor would one continue mediation while an arbitration case was in progress. Regarding the Ebionites article, I did make a few edits to it six or seven years ago, generally (as I recall), to remove unsourced claims in it. I don't think I ever actually added any text to the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow your comment, actually. The second request for an arbitration was accepted. I received a note on my talk page to that effect. We were told that the arbitration would however only be started upon your word, as it were. NYB I think was the one who said that. I myself have no clear knowledge of what ArbCom precedent in this matter is, and whether there actually is clear precedent one way or another in such matters. However, I do note that, at least so far as I remember, you may have been one of the few people in the most recent RfA who suggested that mediation be continued. I do believe I have a sufficient basis to request that the arbitration, which was accepted, not be delayed, particularly as I believe virtually everyone would agree that at least one editor involved in the discussion would be counted as problematic in one sort or another, and probably sanctioned, even if there is less consensus about who that editor would be. Also, I note that you did not answer the question about whether the withdrawing of the filer of the accepted arbitration would be considered sufficient grounds for the mediation to end and the arbitration to begin. I believe I am justified in thinking that I have some sort of clear response to that question. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If you withdraw from the mediation, then the mediation would end, and the arbitration could re-commence. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

We should stick to the plan already laid out by the Arbitration Committee. We are making slow but tangible progress in Mediation, and therefore, it should be allowed to continue. This is widely recognized as a difficult subject. That's why we are in mediation. Also, I believe the Arbitration Committee was right in keeping arbitration in abeyance until we see how much progress can be made in mediation. In fact, I'm increasingly optimistic that arbitration may be unnecessary. Ovadyah (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The plan of the ArbCom was that Jayjg would determine when the mediation ends and the arbitration begins. I am simply asking that that be accelerated. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note the similarity to the insinuation of WP:CONSPIRACY against Slim Virgin here for giving a rather neutral WP:3O here. Ovadyah (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, you should be aware that the section of the article we have been discussing in mediation has been extensively reworded by In_ictu_oculi. Therefore, future discussions about WP:SYNTH should probably reflect these changes. Ovadyah (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. However, since we're merely discussing which sources are reliable, and what they say, discussions of WP:SYNTH are premature. I'm also waiting to see if John Carter decides to withdraw from the mediation. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we finish the discussion of which sources are reliable while you are waiting? At least then we will be at a logical stopping point, and if mediation continues, we can begin a discussion of how to weight them. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to continue the discussion, and complete the mediation, but John Carter has expressed persistent reservations about the process, often stating (as I understand it) a preference for resuming the arbitration. If that's what John would prefer, we can certainly go that route, but if not, I'd like him to express a commitment to continuing the mediation to its conclusion. I don't want to expend a large amount of effort on this only to have it made moot by a change of heart at the last moment. John, can you commit to completing the mediation? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, no, I cannot in all honesty make such an explicit commitment at this time, but that statement does not and should not be seen as necessarily impugning Jayjg himself. There does seem to me to be evidence that others have made an attempt to unnecessarily prolong the mediation, quite possibly as a delaying tactic. The recent "coincidental" almost simultaneous attempt to introduce new sources to be discussed is one reason for this belief. Also, honestly, I do believe that the problems might be more quickly resolved through arbitration.

It seems to me that the core of the dispute is not the matter of specific individual references individual editors could bring to support possible points in the article, but the core questions which, to my eyes, are the structure of the article, the amount of weight and space to give the various subheadings, and then the amount of weight to give various subjects and authors in the (I think likely) dedicated section devoted to discussing modern opinions about the subject. To the best of my knowledge, we have yet to even begin that discussion.

The major concern I have is about the "stonewalling" and delaying tactics which have been somewhat evident to me. Those behaviors have at most peripherally involved Jayjg directly, and I am not, myself, necessarily sure that he as an individual could substantially eliminate such behavior in any event.

Also, there have been, even during the course of this mediation, acts which I believe would qualify as completely unacceptable by others on other pages. This includes in particular Ovadyah's having once again started a thread at ANI against me which was found to be baseless, which could be seen as being a part of what could be described as his harassment of me. So far as I can tell, there would be no way Jayjg as a mediator could necessarily say that he could prevent further spurious claims of this type, should Ovadyah or someone else feel like starting additional threads of that type in the future. I do not believe that it would be reasonable for me to make a clear, unconditional, statement that I would continue to take part in mediation if by doing so I would also, effectively, say that I believe I should continue to be subject to such unfounded, possibly harassing, complaints, particularly if there continues to be to my eyes some further effort on the parts of other parties to try to unnecessarily prolong the mediation process.

Having said that, if the (I think) reasonable concerns I have regarding the amount of time the mediation seems to be taking, and the conduct of involved individuals on pages away from the mediation, were to be addressed, I would not necessarily have any real reservations about continuing in mediation. If it would be possible to ensure that those concerns be addressed, then I don't think I would necessarily have any reservations about continued mediation.

Also, honestly, as a final point, I think Astynax and Nishidani, and maybe Eusebius and any others who have filed comments in the mediation, might reasonably be asked their opinions as well, as they are now, practically, involved in the mediation. I realize that this is apparently placing yet another demand on Jayjg, and apologize for that, but think that it would be reasonable to ask for any input they might have as well.

And, believe it or not, Jayjg, I would like to express my thanks to you once again for your willingness to involve yourself in this matter once again. I know it has been a significant expenditure of time on your part, and appreciate the degree of commitment to the process you have displayed. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your statement. Would you like to re-start the arbitration process instead then? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

First, my apologies for the delay in response, which is, at least in part, maybe explained to a degree below. I could see no particular objection to doing so. So far as I can tell, there would be no way for anyone to necessarily ensure that all the individuals involved actively behave acceptably, and certain recent I think transparently unsupportable allegations, like the sockpuppetry allegation, seem, to my eyes anyway, to be a continuation of the sort of passive-agressive behavior previously displayed, most frequently by Ovadyah. Also, I should acknowledge my own earlier errors here, particularly in saying that removing the fringe theories should be first priority. I can and do understand that you probably structured your own actions at least in part on that statement. I can only say that I had thought the matter might be more quickly resolved than it has been, and then we could get to the matter of structure. In retrospect, I believe that it probably would have made more sense to address the structure question first, and then the modern theories second. If we were to address the matter of structure first, though, I am not sure that would necessarily be resolved any faster. Part of this, again, is my own fault. I have just recently finished going through all the Infotrac articles about encyclopedias and dictionaries, which I have been at for some months. That, coupled with the regular workload and my unrelated involvement in trying to do what I can to assist in the recovery in Joplin, after the tornado, have I think significantly reduced my own contributions of late. If it were otherwise, I would acknowledge that, maybe, the mediation might be further along than it is.

If there could be some way to basically ensure that all individuals involved acted reasonably, and maybe got to the point in regards to the mediation faster, I would see no reason for the mediation not to continue. If it could be expected that unacceptable conduct may well continue, then I would probably favor taking on arbitration immediately. Alternately, if I could reasonably basically suspend my own involvement in mediation should the harassment continue, that might be an option as well. I have a feeling you know more about what one can expect in mediation of this sort, so I would welcome any response you might have regarding the latter points. I might be busy for the next few days again, and wish to apologize in advance if you do not receive a comment from me in response in a timely manner. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can continue to remove inappropriate comments from the mediation page, but I can't ensure they don't do those other things you have mentioned. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, I left notices on my talk page and the article talk page indicating that my involvement with editing this article has ended with the close of mediation. I will participate in arbitration, if it comes to that. Thanks for all your hard work in attempting to mediate this protracted content dispute. Ovadyah (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's 100% closed. It seems 95% closed though; John Carter has some conditions that I can't meet on my own. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Understood. However, it seems to me that a "commitment to continuing the mediation to its conclusion" is not a real commitment if it comes with demands for a laundry list of conditions and concessions on the part of everyone else. My opinion is that an absence of a clear statement of commitment constitutes a rejection, but it's your call to make. Ovadyah (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, considering that what I objected to is rather forthright violations of guidelines and policies and, generally, continuing to engage in the problematic, generally unacceptable behavior which is the reason the arbitration was filed in the first place, I think they are very relevant. My concerns are, basically, will you and Michael continue to abuse the mediation process to continue to engage in the harassment which has seemingly become one of your favored tactics. All that I requested was that, basically, Michael and Ovadyah act in accord with policies and guidelines. I find it amazing that he would take exception to that. So, yes, let me make it clear that I believe, at this time, that there is no good reason for the mediation to continue. Despite my having pointed out to Ovadyah some time ago that it is unreasonable for him, as someone with a rather transparent motivating POV, to attempt to dictate the content of the article about which he has such a clear POV, he has continued to do so. He has regularly refused to respond in a meaningful manner to points raised, making truly unfounded accusations against others. Granted, since the external link to the EJC of which he is so fond (and which he indicated an interest in from the first edit to his userpage - remarkable considering it seems to be all but unknown away from neo-Ebionte groups) was removed, he has said he would not be substantively involved in further mediation. I see no good reason not to proceed to arbitration as opposed to continuing the apparent ongoing attempt to delay getting to the point of the point, which it seems to me that the mediation has, unfortunately, become. The decision seems to be yours, Jayjg, but I think it would make sense for you to ask that the arbitration be restarted. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least your reply is definitive - no to mediation, yes to arbitration. Ovadyah (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Ovadyah, why are you so clearly following my responses to Jayjg that you make rather irrelevant comments regarding the statements of others, directed to people other than yourself, before the person the comments were made to even responds? You did know that this is primarily Jayjg's page, not your own, right? John Carter (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ask yourself that question, John. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, now that the mediation seems to be 100% closed, I'm ending my involvement with further editing on this article. I'm willing to bury the hatchet and just walk away. What happened over the past year is unfortunate, but it's also a sunk cost. There is plenty of work to do elsewhere and no need to prolong this any further. Ovadyah (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I believe that the serious violations of conduct guidelines will be likely to continue should corrective measures not be taken. I believe the conduct problems exhibited by Michael are possibly particularly requiring of attention, as I have very little reason to believe that they will not continue without such corrective measures. And Ovadyah's misconduct probably might require some sort of measures to ensure they do not repeat as well. Jayjg, please tell me whether you will notify the ArbCom of the cessation of mediation, or whether I should do so. John Carter (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have been active recently. I am still awaiting your response regarding the above question. If I do not receive a response in the near future, I may leave a note on the talk page of one of the arbitrators about the matter, but would prefer a response from you. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry John, I didn't realize you had posted here again, I must have missed it. If you wish to notify the ArbCom, please feel free to do so; I do not intend to do that. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, with all the traffic this page gets, I can very easily understand how you might miss a message or two. I can probably understand it better than the alternative of actually catching every comment, in fact. It might take a day or two to get the message to them, but, if and when it is transmitted, I have trouble seeing how there would be anything critical of you in at least my comments. You took on a very contentious topic, which tended to be discussed along lines drawn in the sand by many of the participants. Thank you for your willingness to take on this matter. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your writing that, and just wish the outcome had been more positive. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on June 20, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 20, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 04:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The First Roumanian-American congregation is an Orthodox Jewish congregation which, for over 100 years, occupied a historic building at 89–93 Rivington Street on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, New York. Those who organized the congregation in 1885 were part of a substantial wave of Romanian-Jewish immigrants, most of whom settled in the Lower East Side. The Rivington Street building had previously been a church, then a synagogue, then a church again, and had been extensively remodeled in 1889. It was transformed into a synagogue for a second time when the First Roumanian-American congregation purchased it in 1902 and again remodeled it. The synagogue became famous as the "Cantor's Carnegie Hall", because of its high ceiling, good acoustics, and seating for up to 1,800 people. The congregation's membership was in the thousands in the 1940s, but by the early 2000s had declined to around 40, as Jews moved out of the Lower East Side. Though its building was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1998, the congregation was reluctant to accept outside assistance in maintaining it. In January 2006, the synagogue's roof collapsed, and the building was demolished two months later. (more...)

Thank you for letting me know, that's the first time I've ever been told in advance that one of my FAs was going to be on the Main Page. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welocme. If you have more elegible articles to the Main Page, you'll be notified when those are chosen. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 03:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Economic antisemitism

I wonder if you would take a look at a draft article that I'm working on. If this looks familiar, it is because I started by taking Noleander's Jews and money article and hacking at it, throwing out a lot of irrelevant and even dubious material but keeping stuff that was relevant to the topic. (see the edit summaries to get a sense for what I mean). The more I work with Noleander's Jews and money text, the more I stumble over problematic passages.

The thing is... the Antisemitism article doesn't really take on the issues head-on and give them adequate treatment. My proposed article will do that but I need some feedback as to whether my draft article is headed in the right direction and I would really appreciate input as to how to improve it.

I am particularly concerned about the section titled "Historical development" which I suspect may be too long and too detailed. Still, I didn't want to throw it all out without getting some input from other editors.

Any help you can give me would be much appreciated.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Perhaps the saying "a bad tree cannot bear good fruit" is familiar to you. I don't know what motivates you to continually try to save Noleander's articles, but everything about them (topics, sources, use of sources, etc.) was a "bad tree". I don't think you can produce a "good fruit" from them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO, there was a lot of good information in Noleander's original Jews and money article but it was unfortunately mixed in with a lot of really dubious stuff. IMO, the decision to delete Jews and money was based on the conclusion that it was better to just start all over. I didn't agree completely but, after working with the text for several weeks, I can see the validity of that view.

I think the first lesson I learned is that there is something encyclopedic to say about "Jews and money" and/or "Jews and banking" but it's really hard to do right and so I've put that effort on the backburner.

Instead, I've been peeling off little chunks of useful stuff, reading it several times and adding my own writing. Results of this effort have been the creation of History of investment banking in the United States, Jewish views of poverty, wealth and charity, Jewish stereotypes in literature and Port Jew. In addition, I have expanded Jewish stereotypes and Dearborn Independent.

I'd really appreciate it if you would look at User:Pseudo-Richard/Economic antisemitism. It's OK if you say "this part is good", "that part needs work" and "this last part is crap". I'd rather hear it from you now than after it goes into article mainspace or in an AFD. Please consider this a good-faith effort on my part to collaborate with other editors rather than unilaterally throwing a big chunk of unreviewed text into article mainspace (one of the complaints raised during the AFD of Jews and money). I have started leaving similar messages with some of the editors that had strong opinions during that AFD.

Thanks in advance for any assistance you can give me.

_-Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Temple Emanuel (Cherry Hill, New Jersey)

Hello, thank you for improving this page and making it more notable. As the initial creator of this page, I was having trouble finding adequate sources to establish its notability. I must say, it looks so much better and you did some excellent work. Thanks again for the help. Also, I was wondering if you could take a look at Temple Beth Sholom (Cherry Hill, New Jersey), as well as Congregation M'Kor Shalom, and possibly help with these pages as well. You can reply here if you want. Tinton5 (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it was my pleasure, and let's hope it wards off that deletion. I will try to look at the others too, but I must admit that it was the threat of imminent deletion that gave me the extra motivation to spend the time on Temple Emanuel Cherry Hill. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

First Roumanian-American congregation

Hi Jay: Congratulations on First Roumanian-American congregation reaching WP:FA status. It's taken five years [15] of hard work, patience and research that's paid off. The lesson here is that it often takes this amount of time to get such articles into peak condition. Congratulations on your tireless efforts and input. IZAK (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your ongoing efforts in improving the First Roumanian-American congregation article, and hundreds like it, that in turn improves the quality of such articles and encourages editors of all such WP articles. IZAK (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:New_College_of_the_Humanities#Mass_reverting

Sorry for the inappropriate reversion of the references but.... I think there were in this case mitigating circumstances. I acted in haste and it was wrong. But it is hard to know how to proceed properly in cases like this. I have felt bullied on issues on that page and then someone put in a lot of work tidying things up and that work was just thrown away. Anyway I will be more diligent in trying to establish consensus first in future. Can I ask you (assuming you are an impartial admin) who to go to for advice about how get an outside view on a dispute like this? (not about the references (where I acted wrongly) but about the conflict in the article in general (Msrasnw (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC))

You could ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. I don't know how much help I could be, because I really don't know anything about the topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and best wishes I'll see how things go and then perhaps if they get problematic I'll try the Third Opinion link you have suggested. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC))

Recent edits

Hello, I was just wondering why you keep re-configuring the miszabot archiver I manually set on talk pages. Monterey Bay (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Monterey Bay. I didn't realize I was specifically reconfiguring MiszaBot settings you had set. In general, which I see auto-archiving settings that have issues of any sort I try to fix them. In this case, the settings were likely so long that dead threads were being left on the page, wasting time for future readers. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed Miliband

that discussion is so dead - your dearchiving of it and then not even commenting in it seems pointy. Feel free to enjoy yourself with yet more pointless circular discussion. If there is no more discussion I will archive it again. I wish you and others involved would have as much energy in the post at the bottom to raise the article to GA status. No interest at all in that but the worthless ethnic tagging in the infobox you de-archive for yet more of the same. Off2riorob (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion on this has been well-known for a long time, and has not changed in months. That does not, however, mean the discussion is over. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Although I didn't agree with the inclusion in the infobox I had come to accept it. The issue appears resolved, do you mind if I archive it now? I would like to archive it as soon as possible as I consider such enlarged discussion about the issue on the living subjects talkpage a bit undue and what must new users think of the project seeing all that, anyways, thats just me, do you mind if I archive it? Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this. Archiving was fine, as the discussion was finished. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A redirect from 2004

Hi, thanks for your edits/admining. I suspect you were probably right to maintain this redirect. The content you removed came back, still pretty much and pretty much unsourced or primary-sourced till now. John Carter has proposed a merge/redirect, since you yourself maintained a redirect you might be interested. Or you may not, either way, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the same awful POV-fork it was before, but I'm not so sure I want to wade in there again. I can't find the merge/redirect proposal, where is it? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, that I'd understand. It is only in John Carter's text and discussion from myself and PiCo. The IP has removed John Carter's notability tag.In ictu oculi (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

We now have 2 weeks page protection to decide how to fix it. You are very welcome at Talk:Notzrim.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of tag during NPOV dispute

Is it permissible to remove a {POV} tag, before an NPOV dispute is resolved? I thought we might bat it around a bit first. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not permissible to add POV tags without a specific issue to address. So far none has been raised. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, both another user and I have raised an issue. In accordance with WP:AGF I'm going to suppose that (somehow) neither of us expressed ourselves clearly. I'll locate these remarks and get back to you. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, I found it. It was in plain sight [16], right above the place where you asked whether I had "any specific issues".
• In case you missed it (assuming AGF again), the central paragraph is specific:

  We should describe the historical or scholarly controversy over the degree Jews were involved in owning or selling slaves "fairly" but without taking sides. Rather than saying in the article that scholars demonstrated that Jews did not dominate the slave trade ("refuting that thesis"), we should say that they dismissed NOI's thesis, asserting that Jews did not dominate the slave trade.

• Do you know what I'm saying now? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, not really. Are you saying we should ignore WP:VALID and WP:FRINGE? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A subject we once discussed

This might be interesting to you. I recall me telling you that the technical terms "ancestral components" and "admixture" do not actually mean what they sound like they mean, or at least not in a simple and unqualified way. Someone actually took the time to write a bit about it, so I thought of that discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Haredi Judaism changes

I notice that you moved a large section of the Haredi Judaism page to a different place on the page. May I ask if you made changes in that section, and if, so, what sort of changes they were?Mzk1 (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to this edit, I just moved the "Practices and beliefs" section into the "Modern day" section, since it was talking about current practices and beliefs. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Article Removed, Would like to replace

I am considering submitting a well-documented article about a business in Kissimmee, Florida called Arabian Nights Dinner Attraction. You are listed as the editor who previously removed the listing and I wanted to avoid any errors previously made. I researched the Wikipedia guidelines and feel that I adhered to them in the article in terms of style, sourcing and relevancy. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audreyp2 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you feel it now meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? If so, why? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do. It is a 23 year old, family owned company that has been featured in several news articles locally and internationally as a unique attraction and business. The company is also growing in popularity online, through social media and digital media, with an active fan base that is interested in the history of the company. I do not want the Wikipedia page to be a promotion, but a factual representation of the company's history and connection to Arabian horses and theater. If there is someplace I can post a draft I would be happy to take revisions, but I am very new to Wikipedia and find it very confusing, despite all the instruction pages. Audreyp2 (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What are the 3 best reliable sources you have on it? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Orlando Sentinel- Orlando, FL., March 1,1988, pg 5, Osceola Sentinel, “Arabian Nights Dinner Theater to Open Tonight.”, ABC News, Erin Hayes, March 31, 2009. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130416&page=1 and Good Morning America (waiting on archival video link). Audreyp2 (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The last link really isn't about the Arabian Nights Dinner theater, but merely states that the prize in a reading program/contest is dinner there. Which Osceloa Sentinel is this, and what does the Orlando Sentinel article say? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The ABC News piece is used to relate the theater to the Literacy Foundation which operates out of the same building and utilizes the show for its program. The Orlando Sentinel section that reported on Osceola county news, called the Osceola Sentinel, reported on the opening of the venue in 1988 and gives an overview of the show. I also have an article from Gerencia de Viajes, a Spanish language travel magazine distributed in South America, that describes the show, as well as an Australian Arabian Horse magazine that published an article about the show and the Arabian horses featured in it. Recently, several family travel bloggers have written articles about the show and programs, including this posting http://i.seekissimmee.com/2011/06/02/arabian-nights-performer-for-a-day-program/. Arabian Nights was also just featured in Orlando Attractions Magazine's online destination show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH6sa8KBFtY.

The Theater is an $11 million annual business that serves more than 500,000 guests from all over the world, with promotions from the Orlando DMO, Visit Orlando, as well as the Kissimmee Florida CVB, but I was unsure how many of these sources wikipedia would consider credible, since many are new media. Audreyp2 (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still not seeing how it meets WP:COMPANY. The mentions in RS so far have been brief and few. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Jayjig, the Arabian Nights dinner show near Disney World in Florida is a popular local attraction and has been for quite some time. Anybody who ventures off of Disney property will have no problem seeing the large sign from I-4 or US192. All of the attraction coupon books advertise it, all of the area hotels promote it above the local Medieval Times. A simple Google search will provide more information if there really is any doubt. If the defunct "Splendid China" park, which was right by Arabian Nights, if it has an article or if NJ's defunct Action Park water park gets an article, the only logical reason for your decision is because of a personal bias. WP:COI applies in this case. You are obviously Jewish and everybody is well aware of the conflict. Therefore, a different editor without potential prejudice should be the one to make this decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.225.80 (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't speculate about me in any way, including speculating about my religion or ethnicity. Out of idle curiosity, though, if an editor actually were Jewish, what on earth could you imagine his or her "conflict" to be regarding this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm pretty sure I've never contributed in any way to either article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I certainly can't blame you for thinking that. Truth be told, I didn't actually review the nature of anyone's edits. Here's yours. Gee, I wonder how you could have forgotten that? :-) HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I think I'll keep my "contribution" to that for now. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 07:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Asian Journal of International Law

Dear Jayjg - this page had been deleted last year due to the fact that the Journal had not been published. I understood from the discussion page that the case for creating it would be considered once the Journal had been launched. This has now happened and two issues published. Given the novelty of the first regional journal on this subject (compare the regional journals in Europe, Africa, and the American Journal) and the high profile of the contributors (two judges on the International Court of Justice and leading Asian scholars from the major jurisdictions), I believe that it is noteworthy and warrants a Wikipedia article. I apologize that I didn't contact you prior to re-creating the page. I understood that the person to contact was the deleting administrator TomStar81, but his page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:TomStar81 states that he is no longer active on Wikipedia. Please advise what more information would assist in making the case to create this article? Best wishes, Tempwikisc (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it has now been published twice, so the speedy deletion criteria no longer apply in this case. I've restored it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! Tempwikisc (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Economic antisemitism

When you have time, I would appreciate it if you would take another look at my article which I have now moved into article mainspace under the title Economic antisemitism. Suggestions for improvement would be much appreciated at Talk:Economic antisemitism. Thank you. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Up by 100

It looks like you've edged past me! You got me beat by 100. Congratulations! (I'm quite an admirer of your quality work.) – Quadell ^(talk) 13:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! That list has odd numbers on it, though, this tool says the number is at least 2,000 higher. I don't think the list counts deleted edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitism and aftermath

Please justify the absurd claims you left on my talk page in the aftermath of the antisemitism debate.Averagejoedev (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page, Joe, it appears Jayjg gave you a standard request. On an article talk page, you discussed at length your opinions about whether holocaust denial is antisemitic. It's generally considered inappropriate on Wikipedia to use article talk pages as a soapbox for your own opinions. Talk pages are for making specific suggestions on how to improve an article, but they are not made for discussing the topic itself. This is standard Wikipedia policy, not an "absurd claim". All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Quadell, I believe Jayjg can speak for himself.Averagejoedev (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What Quadell said. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jayjg, perhaps I didnt make myself clear. You claim that my intention was to not improve the article, and that I was using the talk page as a soapbox for my own opinions. I would still like these claims justified; what parts of my replies on the holocaust denial talk page led you to believe I was using the article page as a soapbox for my own opinions?.. The reason I am asking is that I personally feel that I was very much making my replies with the intention of improving the article(I think I even closed my opening reply by stating this intention). And I believe my main criticism, which is that of the sources that supposedly supports the correlation between holocaust denial and anti semitism was valid.Averagejoedev (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please review Quadell's comment. Also, it's a standard template, and I think I explained myself pretty clearly with this comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Falling In Reverse

Hello. I see you were recently the administrator who deleted the band page for Falling In Reverse. I fully support your decision to delete the page as it did not meet the guidelines for wikipedia. However, the subject matter does have the notability guidelines and sufficient coverage, so I went ahead and created a proper version of the article, viewable here: User:GroundZ3R0 002/Sandbox_3. I ask that you look at this page and see if you agree that it is suitable for wikipedia. If you agree, I ask that you unlock the link Falling In Reverse and move my userpage to the mainspace. Thanks, GroundZ3R0 002 08:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Your version is no more notable than the version that was most recently deleted. and according to Jayjig sanbox versions get deleted because mine did too. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_June_30#User:Kygora.2FFalling_In_Reverseif you would like more details. i had a version that was full, but they still wont allow it for falling in reverse does not meet WP:BAND also see: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_June_13 --Kygora 15:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The first DRV was quite clear that Altpress wasn't an acceptable source; yet that is the most used source for your version. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I never saw the first DRV so that was my bad. Although, I disagree that AltPress is not acceptable. These are third party, neutral, and verifiable news pieces about the band. And I have 9 other reliable sources that are not AltPress. But regardless, Kygora and I have resolved to collaborate and create a page that will eventually be put in the mainspace once they meet WP:Band and you review the page to your satisfaction. Would this work for you? GroundZ3R0 002 22:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions

The reason I added Yasū' the last time is because I thought you were referring to "prophet in Islam". (the prior rv was an error)
I'll leave it for now, but I haven't added the name myself. The article says: "The name for Jesus in some languages including Arabic (Yasū‘ (يَسُوعَ)) and Malayalam (compare to the Hebrew "Yeshua")." So, Yasu is not the Arabic name, as It's just a name of people with a close spelling. It's not worth to add a separate dab for it, so I just added a redirect. Just for info... Thanks ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 04:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Temple Beth Israel (Eugene, Oregon)

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Temple Beth Israel (Eugene, Oregon) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. I have left a question for you on the GA Review page. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow that was quick! Thank you for reviewing, I will take a look now. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Great job on the article! Feel free to check out Beth Israel School in Portland, if interested. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take a look. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure! Quite interesting history: check out http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/78002308.pdf. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Temple Beth Israel (Eugene, Oregon) is now a good article. Well done! (In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated.) Congratulations! – Quadell ^(talk) 17:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and that's a good suggestion! Jayjg ^(talk) 19:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)