User talk:Jayjg/Archive 25

Thanks for visiting my Talk: page. If you are considering posting something to me, please: *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. *Use headlines when starting new talk topics. *Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here. *Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment. Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting.

Talk archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hi. i hope you;'re still watching the talk page at Israeli settlement? just wanted to suggest that you continue to watch it. i appreciate your help with this. feel free to provide any input. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not a bucky in category creation, but Java7837 is busily creating new categories of rabbis that seem quite superfluous. He/she just made up "Russian Orthodox rabbis" for one person, Michel Dorfman, who was not even a rabbi! Now he/she just put Hanoch Teller under "Austrian Orthodox rabbis," which is absolutely ridiculous. Teller was born in Austria but moved with his family to America when he was very young; he didn't become a rabbi until later in life, and he is totally American. Can you do something about all these new categories? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I thought you had something to do with the launch of the discussion page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Orthodox rabbis, but now you say you were away! If you'd like to weigh in, please see there. Kol tuv, Yoninah (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=prev&oldid=194120993 --Zeq (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was recommended to you by a friend at Phayul. http://forums.phayul.com/index.php?showtopic=1895

Could you prevent massive deleting by blocking that, encourage that talk be carried out instead ?

Thanks.

Geir Smith (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:FTN for context. dab (���) 11:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahrimanius, who you blocked in May 2006 as a sleeper, requests to be unblocked. I would like to know why you think he's a sleeper, due to his request. I see, based on the block log, that you seem to think that Mathisfun12 is an other sleeper of the same person. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ahrimanius is requesting an unblock. He has zero edits, and you blocked him in May 2006 as a sleep account, but you never indicated WHICH banned user he was a sleeper account of. Could you respond on his talk page with further evidence so I can act intelligently on his request? Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm largely retired (temporarily?) as an active contributor, and I was getting some spam from my userpage. Everything is OK, thanks for caring. :) Masterhomer 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment adds nothing to the discussion on how to improve the article and erodes the prospects for collegial and collaborative editing. Please comment on edits, not editors. Focus on how to improve the article in question by discussing content, rather than making bad faith assumptions that amount to very thinly veiled personal attacks. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 11:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did Hertzel really supported transfer ? [1] I have seenwriting in which he offered cooperation with residents already in palestine. I don't know the english version but the Hebrew version of "medinat ha-Yehudom" has this part of his plan. is this ref true ? could Herzel change his mind few times ? In any case what relance is there between someone who died in 1904 to evenst in 1948 that were caused mostly because what the Mufti sis in 1929 1937 and 1948 ? Zeq (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

all I see is bits and peices here and there. I did not know what is wrong but I know it is wrong. Now I know what it is: A gross violation of NPOV and UNDUE. The ME conflict is so comlex and full of contradicting facts (over time) that all it takes is to take partial facts present them without the other mitigating facts and voila we have a whole new history. This is the systematic bias I saw in Wikipedia but until now could not articulate it as well as you did. Now we have it formulated. Zeq (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jay. A very belated welcome back. I've not been around much so hadn't noticed you'd returned. Pleased to see it.

If you have a moment, do you have an opinion to offer on this? I'm not sure why I participated, as doing so tends to lend credibility to the mistaken idea that such matters are decided by voting, but anyhow. Cheers, --Rrburke^(talk) 13:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and contributions at Binding of Isaac. About 3 weeks ago, I proposed to change the name of the article to "Sacrifice of Isaac" at Talk:Binding of Isaac#Name of this article, but so far haven't seen any response. I plan to go ahead and rename the article on March 20, 2008 unless there are objections. I invite you to visit the article and submit any comments you have on the matter. Thanks! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five editors have responded to the proposal described above. Four oppose and one is neutral. The consensus is opposed to the name change. I'll therfore leave the article as currently named ("Binding of Isaac") and consider the matter closed. Thanks for your participation! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayjg! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1). I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being an admin to the high standard that the community deserves. Seraphim♥ Whipp 17:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.justiceforjews.com/ --Zeq (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	Thanks!
So, yeah, you know how these work... »»»» Thank you very much for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with a final tally of (75/1/0). Your trust in me is greatly appreciated, and I can assure you it has not been misplaced. I shall use these tools to the best of my ability, and will do my best not to let you down. Thank you once again, and happy editing as always! Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Ouze Merham, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ouze Merham and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Suppose I remove the Category:Antisemitism from Iran_Holocaust_Cartoons_Contest stating that it isn't inherently antisemitic, but created in response to the Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy, what would you do? thestick (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have reworded it, what would be your argument to include the category. The editor who added the cat is no longer active. thestick (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. thestick (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, was I wrong? Relata refero (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I ABF? Relata refero (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and are you seriously telling me that my description of the likely response was wrong?

By the way, you might want to look at my suggestion about Category:Anti-Islam sentiment at Talk:Faith Freedom International. Relata refero (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, I notice you didn't say that that would not happen. I note also that you don't need to assume bad faith to have that happen. Think about it - its exactly what happens when someone removes a cat against consensus. I understand your sensitivity on the point, but the way to get over that is not to try and see insult when there is none.

Note further that "speculation" is exactly what Talk: pages are sometimes for. It is difficult to plan anything without attempting to predict what other individuals in the same project will react.

..half your comments to me to make insulting statements...:sorry, Jay, if you think they're insulting. But next time, mention how they're insulting - and also how they're wrong. Don't just say patently false, say patently false how. People will predict your behaviour based on your past, people working with you on a project will feel the need to discuss your probable choices and reactions if your editing schedule does not match theirs; you can't ban the latter, which is more than permissible, and changing the former will take more than a couple of messages ordering people around on talkpages.

I treat you with extraordinary civility, I treat you with as much good faith as I or any rational being could muster, and I don't see how stating a very likely response to a stated intent is not within the bounds of "Talkpage policy". I note that you have decided not to mention that what I was trying to do was determine whether you were being trolled or not, with a view to taking action if required. That determination is usually also conducted on talkpages.

And if you do indeed support my "well-known and extremely useful 'lobby argument'", then use it to support me when I object to people inserting obvious original research into articles, rather than for sniping at me about comments I haven't made and content I haven't authored. Jay, the whole point is that if your argument is valid, it need not always be used in your support. On the occasion I used it, it could effectively be used against material which you were defending passionately. (Even though you hadn't written it.) What I hoped to demonstrate to you was the inconsistency that some see in your behaviour, something which, without exception, all your fellow-editors here would probably like to see changed.

Thank you for your time, and do try and think about some of what I say.

Relata refero (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...I would not have reverted it. I will take you at your word, and congratulate you successfully conquering that instinct.

- no. You shouldn't be using Talk: pages to comment about me, period. So you claim is that although I was not uncivil, your objection was that I referred to you on a talkpage? I see nothing in WP:TALK to supports that view that mentioning other editors in perfectly normal contexts is outlawed on talkpages? If that's your interpretation, perhaps you should cut down on some of your edits.

you never use it in my support, but instead only use it to castigate me for comments I haven't made and content I haven't authored. The material I added .. Secondary sources. You cannot demonstrate "inconsistencies" that do not exist. Except I used it in response to the statement "I count 17 references at the bottom of the article, but the number does keep changing, not long ago it was 19", which constrained me to point out the number of those excluded by the Lobby Argument.

Jay, I suggest you admit to yourself, if not to me, that inconsistency is a bad thing, and that someone merely mentioning someone else (on-wiki) in neutral terms and not as an irrelevancy can hardly be a giant violation of our guidelines.

I am also interested to see that you think that reversion of the sort I thought it would be probable that you would perform is something you claim you would not do. Good, its a start. Relata refero (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Jayjg.

I would first like to apologise on behalf of the Mediation Committee for the delay in this case being dealt with, which is due to a shortage of available mediators. I have expressed interest in taking this case to help with the backlog and to assess my nomination to join the committee. As i am not currently a member it is common practice to for the involved parties to consent to mediation of an RfM from a non-committee member. To give your consent for me to act as mediator for this case please sign as you have for the acceptance of the case on the case page. I look forward to working with you and finding a solution to the dispute.

Seddon69 (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about you, and I don't recall ever interacting with you before, so I find your vitriol not just unpleasant, but odd. If you have a complaint with me personally, please lay it out explicitly. If you have a disagreement, state it civilly. If you can't communicate like an adult, don't communicate with me. Noroton (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vitriol? Did you post the wrong diff by mistake? I don't see any vitriol there. I see a sense of humour. You might want to review Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as I just pointed out to Noroton, that was intended as humorous. I'll try to be more serious in the future. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing mastodon-like in my comment. Nothing merely humorous in these parts of the discussion. Jayjg, your level of maturity is your choice. Conversation over. Noroton (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was in no way intending to imply that there was anything mastodon-like in your comment, Noroton. That is not the point of the WP:No angry mastodons essay.

I see nothing wrong with making serious statements and also making humourous statements in the same conversation. I also see nothing wrong with statements which make a point while also being humourous. Humourous is not synonymous with "merely humourous".

As I said to someone on Majorly's talk page recently, "Getting along with others is an integral part of the wiki process. Having and using a sense of humour is an integral part of getting along with others. Therefore, having and using a sense of humour is an integral part of the wiki process. :-)" I hope you won't eschew a sense of humour too much, Jayjg. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your advice, I posted my proposed change to the talk page of the policy [2] and discovered that someone else had already made a similar proposal without significant objections being raised. If you'd like to take part in the discussion other than just reverting the policy edit, please come join in the discussion. As of now, it appears that there isn't any real objection to the proposed wording addition. Thanks! Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there's no "real objection", as long as you ignore all the people who object. In any event, please get a real consensus for this significant policy change before attempting to modify policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the (notice, I said "the" not "your") "real" consensus? How many people? What percentage of project participants? Only established editors? If so, what's an established editor? Only admins? Please, tell me where it says what "the real" consensus is. I think the policy will be changed, because right now there is a discrepancy between Harassment and COI. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the COI noticeboard where several threads currently out other editors, apparently without censure. If the harassment and block policies really trumped COI, then this wouldn't be going on on the COI noticeboard. By not doing anything about it, you and other admins have already set the precedent that outing for COI reasons is ok, whether it says so or not in the rest of the policies. Cla68 (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific threads are you referring to? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple [3] [4]. Cla68 (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the first example, the userid appears to include a name. Regardless, it may be that some of the postings on the COI noticeboard are inappropriate. If so, that's an issue with the COI noticeboard, not WP:BLOCK, WP:OVERSIGHT, and WP:HARASSMENT. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll collect more diffs/links if necessary, but it appears that we've been outing COI editors since the project was started. The policies need to be updated to reflect what's already, rightfully going on to maintain the integrity and credibility of our NPOV encyclopedia. Cla68 (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no particular need to modify the existing policies, which are what maintain a reasonable working environment for our volunteer editors. Moreover, as explained, it's not our COI policy that "maintain[s] the integrity and credibility of our NPOV encyclopedia", it's the quality of the articles and the sources used, strict adherence to the core content policies, and a welcoming environment for editors. Indeed, if all editors adhered strictly to the core content policies then COI would be irrelevant. WP:COI is a guideline intended to help editors recognize when they might have difficulties adhering to the core content policies, not a manual for others to out editors they suspect have a conflict of interest. Your puffing up the COI guideline as the savior of Wikipedia's "integrity and credibility" seems to me to be a case of exaggerating the guideline's impact and intent, and devaluing far more important policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You honestly feel that I'm exaggerating the importance of the COI guideline? Have you been paying attention to Wikipedia-related news lately? One of the major reasons the Jimbo/Marsden/Merkey story was so noticed was because of the allegations that Jimbo might have violated COI by influencing the bio article of his girlfriend and the bio of Merkey for money for the Foundation. I would think that you would be very concerned about allegations of COI by our editors, because, if true, it could call into question the credibility of large numbers of articles in our project and the good faith of some of our most active editors. In fact, after our conversations here and at WP:AN and the COI Noticeboard, I'm now fairly sure that the COI guideline needs to be upgraded to policy status, because, our credibility does depend to a great deal on investigations of and resolving COI allegations. Cla68 (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason those stories were so noticed was that Jimbo is an important guy, not because the articles allegedly edited under such circumstances were particularly important articles. If someone less important than Jimbo wrongly edits an article, it's not news: it's accepted as a common occurrence the way the occurrence of minor crimes and automobile collisions is accepted. We all know that not all the information in all Wikipedia articles is true. The various guidelines and policies balance each other. Putting current practice into words is sometimes a mistake, because the words are then interpreted to apply even more widely than originally intended. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true that we need to be careful about how we word our policies, but this discrepancy between our COI and other policies needs to be resolved. Another example of how COI generates bad press even if a famous person insn't involved was the recent Register article about Jossi editing the Prem Rawat articles even though he is a follower and paid employee of Rawat, the extent of which he had tried to keep hidden. Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but is there a reason to move the discussion from AN? I see WordBomb's comment on WikBack was here, where he says he recalls Humus sapiens and you quoting the email at some point. If my reading of the situation is correct, he probably sent any email through Wikipedia rather than from his email (he's said this is how he first contacted SV). I have no way of verifying this, but unless IPFrehley posted something where SV would have seen it, it seems consistent with his statements that this is how she came to block that account. Mackan79 (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got as far as I could, but all of History of the Jews in Venezuela#17th to 19th centuries is a copyvio. I've reached my limit for the day, and my prose stinks; can you go in and reword that section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was a move from another article, where it was added by an IP. If you have time to fix it, it's only that one section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayjg,
I don't understand why you are losing your time with that guy. He doens't answer questions and just asks his ones and claims for answers. Just ignore him. The pov tag can stay one year. It doens't matter. Ceedjee (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, it's his pointy way of disfiguring the article; he's basically saying that the article will remain tagged ad infinitum, until everyone agrees with him. This is an abuse of the tagging system, which is intended to alert readers to current and real issues, not the same rhetorical questions repeated again and again, regardless of the number of times they have been answered. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But why would it matter ?

If we stop interacting with him, he will stop.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please replace the POV tag at Zionism? There are six outstanding issues I feel we still have yet to resolve. Many thanks, BYT (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay, is there anyway to contact you offline (or at least via e-mail)? Oboler (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're aware, but I've been researching for an RfC that I'm drafting. During my research, I noticed this comment [5] by you to SandyGeorgia after a discussion about merging policies here at WP:ATT. In your post, you ask SandyGeorgia to "to retract your statement". I've read the thread in question, and I don't see anything wrong with what SandyGeorgia said. She was providing a legitimate concern with how the initiative was proceeding at the ATT page. So, I was just wondering, do you stand by that statement? Do you still think SandyGeorgia needs to withdraw her statement and that it was "insult enough" merely for stating her opinion? Cla68 (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new user named Wikibiki613 posted a very professional picture of Rabbi Eliezer Shlomo Schik on the Breslov (Hasidic dynasty) page, which was lifted off the Rabbi's website. (I moved it to the Rabbi Schik page, but Wikibiki613 insisted it should also go on the Breslov page.) I left Wikibiki613 a note on his/her discussion page asking if he/she took the picture or scanned it off the website, but have not yet received any answer. It seems that Wikibiki613 started contributing on March 30 and stopped contributing on March 31. Please advise what to do about that picture. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link: mohorosh.org. Yoninah (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the picture closely. On the website the book in Mohorosh's hand is at the very bottom of the picture. In the picture on wikipedia there is a large space under the book. While it is possible to take the picture on wikipedia and crop it to look like the picture on the website, it is impossible to take the picture on the website and somehow create that space under the book. It is also impossible to take a small picture, like the one on the website, and increase the size and quality so that it looks like the "very professional picture " on wikipedia. It should be obvious that the picture was not "lifted off the Rabbi's website". (Wikibiki613 (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand this reasoning. The pictures are identical; only the upper half of the picture is used on the webpage. Since Wikibiki613 just started plugging the inclusion of Rabbi Eliezer Shlomo Schik on the Breslov page, I have the feeling he's an insider in Rabbi Schik's organization and has access to the picture. The only question is whether he himself took this professional, studio portrait? Yoninah (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning is really quite simple. You claimed that the picture was "lifted off the webpage". I proved to you that it wasn't. What is there not to understand? (Wikibiki613 (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Did you take the picture yourself? Please answer yes or no? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you all know, the case has been started. I have created a little navbox for you to navigate between pages and will be expanded as the case goes on so that its easier for you to navigate. The first page you need to visit in this case is here so you can give youre opening statement. There i have left a few questions for you all to answer. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.

I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes IRC channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to WP:IRC. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page or both to make sure. You can also leave a message on my talk page which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can. Seddon69 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. I wanted to make sure this case was as smooth as possible :) It means its esier for me to go back and forth between pages as well. If you have any suggestions feel free to say. Seddon69 (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know how this problematic is managed on wp:en and I am involved on wp:fr on the same issue. Could you please take care of this here ? Thank you... The first website that is given in the external links section of this article Oswald Mosley gives access to 2 books (among many) in free download :

• "Our Financial Masters" - By A.Raven Thompson : Reprint of the British Union publication showing how Jewish financers had control of the money supply and thereby the British Government Economic Policy in the 1930's.
• "The Holy Land: Arab or Jew - Capt R. Gordon-Canning M.C." Published in 1938 this book exposed the disproportionate influence of Zionism, and Jewish finance, on the British Government, British politicians, and the media over the question of Palestine. Capt Gordon-Canning, exposes the lies and propaganda used by Zionists in their efforts to seize a Palestinian homeland irrespective of the cost to the indigenous population

with the following excerpts : "(...) the genius of the Jewish race apparently lies in its power to put over specious arguments and to build up a case based upon a false premise" et "(...) the money power of British Jewry (...) permits this racial minority (...) to censor truth and to mirror falsehood. Or, in other words, this power, when exerted, is able to prevent publication of facts inimical to Jewry, (...)".

Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the links to those sources; can you point them out please? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayjg,

Here is the link to both books : http://www.oswaldmosley.com/downloads/free_ebooks.htm (they are on the third and sixth rows).

Ceedjee (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayjg,

In the following webpage, there are books in free download : http://www.oswaldmosley.com/downloads/free_ebooks.htm

Among these books, 2 are antisemitic litterature.

The first one is : "Our Financial Masters" (this is the 6th one in the left column on my screen).

The second one is : "The Holy Land: Arab or Jew" (this the 3th one in the left column on my screen).

If you download the second one ("The Holy Land: Arab or Jew"), you can read inside this :

"(...) the genius of the Jewish race apparently lies in its power to put over specious arguments and to build up a case based upon a false premise" et "(...) the money power of British Jewry (...) permits this racial minority (...) to censor truth and to mirror falsehood. Or, in other words, this power, when exerted, is able to prevent publication of facts inimical to Jewry, (...)"

Ceedjee (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jayjg,
Ok. That is also my opinion concerning wp:en policy.
On wp:fr, I argue it must be deleted because laws in France forbids "incitement to racial hate".
Concerning wp:en, having in mind there is a policy that protects against copyright violation (a crime...), another that protects the biographies of living person (a bad thing), do you think that there could be one that prevents links to antisemitic litterature ? (how to describe this... Isn't this a crime worse than darkening a living person ?)...
(Note here, on wp:fr, some argue that this is more "historical litterature" than "antisemitc litterature").
What do you think concerning both these questions ? Ceedjee (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -

User:Dshsfca seems to me be inserting incomprehensible essay-like elements into Haskalah and ranting inscrutably on its talk page. I'd be interested whether you agree. Zargulon (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the following posting on the Administrators Noticeboard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Osli73_violating_parole.2C_repeat_violator

Fairview360 (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Osli73 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osli73 has a history of willfully violating probations including the use of sockpuppets on articles related to the former Yugoslavia.

One can see at the bottom of this arbitration webpage that he has been blocked repeatedly for willfully violating sanctions placed against his edit warring and sockpuppetry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Involved_parties

For example:

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) 3 months per 1 month tthis AE post. Please note this is Osli's fourth block. --wL<speak·check> 07:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for 2 weeks for breaking the revert limit on Srebrenica massacre; also banned from editing Srebrenica massacre for 3 months. Thatcher131 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for two weeks for directly violating his probation and revert parole at Srebrenica massacre. --Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for one week for directly violating his probation and revert parole by using a sockpuppet to edit war at Srebrenica massacre. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked KarlXII (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Osli73 (talk · contribs) proven by checkuser. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On March 19, 2008, Osli73 received the following probation from administrator Thatcher explicitly forbidding Osli73 from more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Mujahadin , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen

Your topic ban is lifted and replaced with a revert parole. You may edit Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen but for one month (from 17 March) you are limited to one revert per article per week. Obvious vandalism is excepted from the revert limit, but you should take care in distinguishing true vandalism from content disputes. You are permitted to revert the edits of banned users such as Grandy Grandy/The Dragon of Bosnia but you should be extremely careful in doing so, because if it turns out the editor you are reverting is not a sockpuppet of the banned user you will have violated the revert limit. It would be better to report suspected sockpuppets to WP:AE or WP:RFCU. Thatcher 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

see user Osli73 talk page for the above probation notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osli73

Despite the explicit probation against more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles, user Osli73 has again engaged in edit warring, reverting the Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen articles repeatedly, for example Osli made the following 8 reverts to the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles from April 8 to April 14: diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205563168

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205562519

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205439461

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205437228

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205144618

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204899529

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204888935

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204184557

From his statements, Osli73 has shown that he fully understands the restrictions placed upon him. From his actions, he has shown that he is not willing to abide by those restrictions.

I am notifying the administrators that have sanctioned Osli73 in the past as well as notifying Osli73 of this posting. Especially with articles involving the former Yugoslavia, it is imperative that users respect the limits placed upon their editing. If the more vitriolic editors involved in former Yugoslavia articles see that Osli73 is not held accountable for his his transgressions, then there is greater likelihood of out-of-control edit warring as there has been in the past. Fairview360 (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me exactly what the restoration of this [6] is good for? As far as i can see they have no content that in any way can or will improve the article. (per WP:TALK) or are pure soapboxing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya. I noticed that you hadn't left your statement here regarding the New Antisemitism case. Its important for the success of this mediation that you stay involved in this otherwise i cannot guarantee that your views will be taken into consensus agreed upon by the parties. I hope that you will be able to participate soon. Seddon69 (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayjg,

I was surprised you removed the unbalanced tag from circumcision. I have kept away from the article because there are strong WP:OWN issues and I haven't got the energy to deal with one of the most persistant WP:SPA editors on WP but I would have thought it was one of the least balanced articles in WP. There are a broad range of notable opinions on the issue varying from "it should be universal" to "it should be illegal except for medical reasons" with a strong trend toward the latter in the last two decades but the article has a high degree of selection and emphasis. e.g. WHO has highlighted the risk of circumcision itself as a route for HIV transmission and there are a bucket full of serious medical organisations who object to it buried in the article or excluded completely but only the possible benefit is highlighted in the intro. Fine, WP has articles where few people have the energy to fight like Homeopathy and this one but you are an Arbcom member and I would have thought papering over the cracks was a bit beneath you? Chasing everyone off happens but then protending there is no issue? C'mon. --BozMo talk 06:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short term history of the tag I have no idea, as I say I don't follow it. I was reviewing it because unbalanced tag removal happened just after it was proposed for the Schools Wikipedia Selection and I am rather busy going through 10,000 articles. However if you accept Raul654's law "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie." I have no doubt that the circumcision article is not neutral. Perhaps the law doesn't work: I am sure I would think you speak with an accent whereas I speak unaccented English and vice versa. I guess we can disagree about Jakew: I don't track his edits day to day and the bits and pieces turned up by this were a long time ago. He looked like a civil POV pusher to me, perhaps he has moved on. I daresay both you and I have an imperfect past too and if you say he deserves such praise then fine. --BozMo talk 08:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no-one else has bothered to contact you heres a thread that might interest you as you are mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WikiLobbying_campaign_organized_offsite_by_ethnic_pressure_group ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in your comments as well. It seems that CAMERA describes you as "an effective and independent pro-Israel advocate." [7]. As an experienced administrator, do you feel that a topic, or even community ban for Zeq is in order? I think your input would be helpful in the discussion, because I remember in the past seeing you proposing many topic and community bans for POV-pushers that you caught. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the relavant quotes from the article:

A veteran Wikipedia editor, known as "Zeq," who according to the emails is colluding with CAMERA, also provided advice to CAMERA volunteers on how they could disguise their agenda. In a 20 March email often in misspelled English, Zeq writes, "You don't want to be precived [sic] as a 'CAMERA' defender' on wikipedia [sic] that is for sure." One strategy to avoid that is to "edit articles at random, make friends not enemies -- we will need them later on. This is a marathon not a sprint."

Zeq also identifies, in a 25 March email, another Wikipedia editor, "Jayjg," whom he views as an effective and independent pro-Israel advocate. Zeq instructs CAMERA operatives to work with and learn from Jayjg, but not to reveal the existence of their group even to him fearing "it would place him in a bind" since "[h]e is very loyal to the wikipedia [sic] system" and might object to CAMERA's underhanded tactics.

Kaldari (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem to let you know, to be honest could you do a sanity check on what i'm saying as i've been accused of participating in a holocaust of jewish editors on wikipedia so many times durring the last 48 hours that it might help my mental state just to check. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sanity check, i disagree with some points you made (such as taking EI views as fact, i read every email and made my own mind up) but you made them one rational human being to another, thank you very much. After thinking about what you said i'm going to change my vote on the template. As for the tag teaming of IvP articles i'm certain it happens and the articles should be looked into, i'd expect a big push of Pro-palistinian POV soon. I also don't agree with "the group didn't actually do very much, aside from sending around various e-mails" as just because this became public early on it does not change the intention i read in those emails but hey we all have our POV don't we. Lets see what arb com says about this sorry mess. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that those who don't believe reasoned discussion based on factual evidence about the reliability of sources "is worth paying attention to," have lost their way when they find themselves at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay unfortunately I don't think I'm aware of a point that you made which I could have addressed, unless you mean the one that I and half of the editors at the RSN have now addressed repeatedly. I left the quote below for your educational benefit, in another naive hope that you might follow some educated leads. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I meant to "break your signature," or the RS/N page. You caught me. Feel free to add that to your list of grievances. BTW you are aware of the fact that an outside group whose apparent aim it was to game Wikipedia policy in order to gain advantage in pushing their POV, named you as an example to follow in doing so. Unlike this group I find that someone who diverts "issues to policy," is quite simply being disruptive, not to mention disingenuous. Feel free to add this to your list of horrible policy violations directed towards you, but someone has to say it as it is. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exonerate you from what? No one has suggested you have any ties with this group whatsoever, or that you shared their "tactics." Do you see any such suggestion in what I wrote? No Jay, what I wrote, is that they apparently were impressed by yours.PelleSmith (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, this is from the first paragraph of the introduction to the Marx-Engels Reader, written by Robert C. Tucker:

• "A knowledge of the writings of Marx and Engels is virtually indispensable to an educated person in our time, whatever his political position or social philosophy. For classical Marxism, as the thought of Marx and Engels may be called, has profoundly affected ideas about history, society, economics, ideology, culture, and politics ... Not to be well grounded in the writings of Marx and Engels is to be insufficiently attuned to modern thought, and self-excluded to a degree from the continuing debate by which most contemporary societies live insofar as their members are free and able to discuss the vital issues."

I hope that helps. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this comment in passing and wanted to second what Pelle says. I studied Marxist historiography years ago, and although I wouldn't touch Marxist political theory with a bargepole I can confirm that other aspects of Marxist thought are still highly regarded as academic tools. Many Marxist historians actually prefer to use the term "marxian" (with a small "m") to distinguish them from the political side of things. Nobody would dream of excluding Marxist historians such as Christopher Hill or Eric Hobsbawm from consideration merely because they use Marxist analyses. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign for the conclusions of an administrative review concerning the recent controversy over a mailing list run by CAMERA, in which your editing was discussed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here's a thought that might do some good. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.

Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Wikipedia editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, Durova^Charge! 06:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either you stop reverting and start NEW, rational, fact-based discussion of your endless reverts and patrolling of the article, or I will take this to an arbitration. Your name has already surfaced as a part of a pro-Israel Wikipedia lobby , and I shall not tolerate your incessant efforts to erase controversies regarding said country. You HAVE to accept there is controversy regarding Israeli settlements (which, in fact, are in violation of international law), otherwise I'll have to expose your morally questionable techniques of neutralising statements that are compromising to your particular point of view of a political issue. Thanks. Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 18:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added the section, with reliable sources and appropriate wording. --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 05:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]