![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 43 |
You've recently adjusted Mizabot archive settings at Simple Network Management Protocol. What's the reason for this? 90 days is the default but I've found 1 year is more appropriate for most technical articles. -- Kvng ( talk) 19:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping you could remove the block on creating a new page for Shamrock Rovers footballer Karl Sheppard. I feel he is without question notable enough, especially given the club's recent success and subsequent exposure in the media. Cheers.-- IrishTennis ( talk) 22:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Its time to end this farce. Sheppard is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovers Forever ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
On August 14, I made a second request for information about two sources that you used to publish some information in Haredi Judaism. As you have spoken in a reasonable manner, I am trying to meet you more than halfway, and do things your way, while myself I would have preferred some sort of arbitration. However, I cannot proceed even with your request until I have the information requested. If you no longer have the articles, or used google or something to get excerpts, just let me know. But this seems a reasonable request. (You can reply here or on the talk page; no need to go back and forth between user pages. I will wait a few days for a reply before resuming editing.) Mzk1 ( talk) 21:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jay: Your experience in building up and referencing articles in Orthodox Judaism over the years would make your input greatly appreciated at User talk:CapMan07008#Your deletionism and demands against Orthodox Jews and Judaism articles for User CapMan07008 ( talk · contribs) aka "The Terminator" who has admitted he's new and would welcome guidance [1]. Thanks a lot, IZAK ( talk) 06:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Please don't template experienced users. It's insulting. Just talk to them. [2] Rklawton ( talk) 01:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems you and I, sir, are in complete agreement on something.-- Cerejota If you reply, please place a {{ talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 03:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I thank you once more for your assistance. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Greetings,
My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.
I would like to include your Wikipedia user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Wikipedia present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?
With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.
I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.
Thank-you,
John-Paul Mcvea
University of Alberta
jmcvea@ualberta.ca
Johnpaulmcvea ( talk) 22:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The idiot user guid123 on Talk:David_Irving needed to be restrained. well done. thank you. bloody holocaust deniers. Cramyourspam ( talk) 07:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Falafel [ [3]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Veritycheck ( talk) 01:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Heya,
So I just started the article on the new Jewish international news network, Jewish News One. I thought you might like to check it out, see if improvements could be made, maybe add it to your watchlist, eh? :p Thanks.
And now, the Falafel Song. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Ktiva vehatima tova for 5772! A gut gebensht yor! Debresser ( talk) 21:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
You recently deleted PunBB for the second time, apparently because WP:Speedy deletion#G4 says you can due to the result of WP:Articles for deletion/PunBB. Considering that the current FluxBB article mentions PunBB, do you think redirecting “PunBB” to “FluxBB” should be acceptable, at least while “FluxBB” is an article? (“FluxBB” was discussed at WP:Articles for deletion/FluxBB but never deleted.) If redirecting is acceptable, how do we do it without having the redirect deleted again?
Since the initial deletion I created the redirect. Very recently I think someone turned it into an article. I would like to re-create the redirect, and if necessary put a note somewhere or modify your deletion criteria so that it does not get deleted again without a bit of warning. I would also undo your unlinking at Comparison of web hosting control panels: I don’t see the benefit in this. Vadmium ( talk, contribs) 02:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC).
Jayjg, can you give me any comment on creating and keeping the redirect, or should I find somewhere else to discuss this? Are you saying you’re against it because FluxBB doesn’t seem to have much in the way of secondary sources, or was that just about re-creating it as an article? Vadmium ( talk, contribs) 04:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC).
Hi,
I made a request to SlimVirgin more than a week ago regarding a problem I created in one of the pages associated with WT:V. It seems that she is not currently active, and you helped out recently at WP:V, so I'd appreciate it if you would take a look at this problem. What I need specifically is to have Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Polls moved back to Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Archive_1 without a redirect, such that I can start the talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Polls. Thanks, Unscintillating ( talk) 18:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey. Just thought it would interest you to know that The Drug in Me Is You, the album by Falling In Reverse, has reached GA status in less than two months after it was created and deleted like 40 times lol It's really a good article now, thought you'd enjoy seeing that. Cheers, Ground Z3R0 002 05:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I was correcting false information. With your last edit, it is still there. "Pardos" and "blacks" do not constitute the "great majority" of poorer Brazilians since (the way it sounds is like as if 90% or more of the poorest Brazilians were either "pardo" or "black"). According to the official data I posted, which you removed, "whites" comprise about 36% of the poorest (that's why I posted it there), which is roughly 40%. "Pardos" and "blacks" comprise the "majority" of the poorest but not the "great majority". It was plain wrong to say that "blacks" comprise the majority, but this information has been already corrected.
As for Michael Löwy, it is deplorable that he uses such an expression as "half caste". I've never seen it used in Brazil, and it certainly is not. Not even census categories like "pardo" are used, they are rather imposed by the government. Much less a deplorable expression as "half caste". And still we have to accept the way he describes a large portion of the Brazilian population, don't we? Grenzer22 ( talk) 14:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok! Grenzer22 ( talk) 15:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg - some time ago you closed this AfD, and I was unsure of what the process would be if I thought the article should be re-created. I don't think you closed incorrectly, so I'm not sure DRV would be the venue, but a re-created page would be liable to G4. The issue is that it's literally the only West Wing episode we don't have an article on and the lack of attempts to delete the others suggests consensus to have them - and that the AfD commenters didn't indicate whether they believed this should be precedent to go after the other articles. What needs to be done here? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
An discussion is ongoing here [4]. Your opinion about the matter would be appreciated. Thanks. Swift&silent ( talk) 07:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
And what exactly has everyone else been doing on that page? Looks like i'm about to have to delete some discussions, if that's the case. Show me where I was wrong, if you may. Posting things that come out the talmud is not appropriate for a page dealing with the talmud? Hmmm..
-- HolyandClean ( talk) 04:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)HolyandClean
Hi there Jayjg,
I'm sure you are nice person, but would like to know the reason for the deletion of
Tinchy Stryder's song "
Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)", which was the first single from his debut studio album
Star in the Hood was deleted by you?. Yes I know the article was previously created and deleted in 2009 due to lack of the songs notability to Tinchy Stryder. I have collected this
Twitter status from Tinchy Stryder from 18 October 2011, confirming that "
Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)" is a notable song to Tinchy Stryder. Here is the Twitter status of the song confirmation, just click on this link ---->
http://twitter.com/#!/TinchyStryder/status/126257795321430016, so if you can now please un-delete the "
Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)" Wikipedia article that I have recently re-created. Thank you
Jayjg.
MarkMysoe (
talk)
10:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a
deletion review of
Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
MarkMysoe (
talk)
22:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It looks like Marleeeden ( talk · contribs) is at least trying this time to include sources for some of his new material at Yom Kippur. I'm not fully satisfied yet, but I think it's a start. What do you think? Richwales ( talk) 03:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Remember him? Here's the SSI archive. User:Stopkid seems to bear many of the same characteristics - though in fairness he seems to be conforming his edit summaries to his actual edits now. I am not certain enough at this point to write up a sockpuppet report, and may never be; I'm also not sure you're still interested in the fellow, but in case you are, well - here! JohnInDC ( talk) 12:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
How's it going Jayjg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zad68 ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Where can i find the guidelines for making a Video Game article meet any notability guidelines for the mainspace?-- Kygora 18:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of PunBB. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dimkalinux ( talk) 17:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Jayjg, You've helped me before when I had questions. Could you take a look at the article, Levi Shemtov? Awhile ago, I uploaded a photo and added some referenced info. Now I see that the article is out of hand (in my opinion). A user named "Jewishlubavitch" has added a large amount of unsourced positive non-NPOV material, and before that some others added unsourced negative non-NPOV material. I don't know how to undo multiple edits but that's probably necessary, and someone should probably look at other edits Jewishlubavitch is adding to articles almost as an advertisement. Anyway, please see what you think, if you have a chance. NearTheZoo ( talk) 02:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
My attention was drawn to this article by an edit that you made removing significant portions of unsourced text. While I wasn't fully in agreement with your removal of the text, I couldn't find a good reason to contest it so I let it go. However, my interest in the film was piqued and so I started researching it with the result being a major expansion and transformation of the article. Please take a look and see what you think. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 04:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Is the discussion regarding HIV occurring?-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg, can we move the page for Andy Scott Harris back into the main encyclopedia so we can open the discussion and edit it? Thank you. Susanahornil ( talk) 16:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Since you're an administrator can you perform this task. Jab7842 ( talk) 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg, rather than continuing a discussion of Joshua Goldberg under the discussion about Levi Shemtov, I'm starting this new section. After putting up a WP:PROD note, Masterknighted deleted it. He made some very civil comments on my talk page, and I answered on his, and then I (at least for now) reinstated the WP:PROD note. However, I w</ref>ould feel better if you took a look, given your experience. My gut feeling is that the majority of pages begun by Masterknighted, including Joshua Goldberg might not pass the notoriety test. Best, NearTheZoo ( talk) 17:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Good evening all, Firstly it is not notoriety it is notability, second my objection is to the parliamentary moves employed in proposing for deletion and the reposting of the prod so that the article could just be brought down without any debate when it could have been rather easily nominated, listed and debated via the keep/delete format. if you look you will see that other editors contributed to this article as well, peace. Masterknighted ( talk) 05:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I saw his work in London and it was very great. The show was also supported by Japanese Embassy and other London authority. Maybe the person who started his Wiki did not know know any protocol or how to write the wiki article. I think you need this person give it a try and his work was also mentioned in several news paper and the most famous Japanese Tanka Monthly Publication in Japan. I think some of the comment made on him was a bit on the hash side and please give this guy some time. I think Ron L. Zheng is worth enough to keep in wiki. Jut whoever started his article needs to learn proper way of adding information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funhumankid ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
hello. First of all, I'm very well aware of "3RR", and secondly, you should be aware that I did NOT reach "3RR" or violate anything. Thirdly, it would be nice (for consistency's sake, but since I see favoritism and politics at work here) that you would give that same lecture to Malik. Since he was reverting like crazy and getting close to uh "3RR". Of course you didn't, per your bias in favor of him, for some reason (a problem on Wikipedia that happens with Admins and other users...), and sided with his nonsense that somehow "ICGC" was somehow "not notable". Never mind that they've been all over tv talk shows for years, guests on interviews, and in the radio, and even in the news. Never mind that they've been around for decades. And have internet sites for years. And even Malik found a couple of sources for them, he admitted. So not sure what the big problem is here. This is discouraging and aggravating. You'll knee-jerkly take Malik's side on this, because after all, he's "Malik Shabaz". A bully on Wikipedia who is revert happy, and for some reason you favor. I do NOT appreciate your remarks to me on his talk page. I did not violate anything. NOTHING. But Malik was arguably violating "I don't like" and "no own". You'll deny that, because after all, he's Malik. And for whatever reason, whatever he does or says, you (admin or not), seem to knee-jerkly side with. So now that Malik has obvious back-up for his bullying and ownership violations (back-up from an imperfect Admin who is arguably a bully too doesn't bode well for me, does it) it's hard for me to do anything. Yes, I'm angry. Your remarks were obtuse and unnecessary. I violated nothing. Malik seems to think he owns a bunch of articles, as is seen from his history and pattern. Yet you wink at it, or deny that, because, well, he's "Malik". Good day. Hashem sfarim ( talk) 00:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg, given you've had some experience with featured articles, what is the process for a FA making it to the main page? I have looked over the FA criteria and understand how FA articles are reviewed against such criteria. But once an article achieves FA status, is it thrown into some queue of new FAs to await its turn on the main page? Can an article only appear on the main page once in its lifetime?
Also, I wonder if some articles are topically disadvantaged? On one hand I suspect that such isn't the case (because I've seen articles featured on the main page that I thought were particularly boring or highly technical), but on the other I can't help but wonder that some might be. For example, at some point in the future I hope to get Interest rate parity up to GA status and eventually FA status, but it's not exactly the same kind of read that Governor of Kentucky or Tulip mania is. Then again United Kingdom corporation tax, a formidable read even for us financial-savvy editors, made it to FA status. I guess I'm just wondering what (if any) subjective element is involved in selecting an article to be featured on the mainpage. John Shandy` • talk 18:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Jay, do you think it's worth making a request for CheckUser re 12.72.149.104 and EditTalk? They're behaving very much like Joe Circus — I'm just unsure whether that's enough evidence by itself. Jakew ( talk) 09:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
An IP is removing sourced information at Hamza Yusuf. Can you protect the article please? Pass a Method talk 10:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Has this user broken 3rr?
He's also ignoring my concerns on the talk page Pass a Method talk 16:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi - Get a better jew for the infobox - he has an Irish catholic father and is a self declared atheist. - You should at least get full jews for the infobox. Are there no famous practicing Jews with two jewish parents you can add to the infobox? Off2riorob ( talk) 00:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask you for a more detailed explanation of why you semi-protected this page? Per your edit summary it was due to "Persistent sock puppetry" - but as far as I can tell there was only one edit by a sockpuppet, which you reverted in minutes, and before that the last posting on the talk page was some productive discussion we had a month back in October. WP:SEMI says that such protection should be used only sparingly on talk pages and "when they have been subject to persistent disruption". I am sure you had good reason for the protection, but it was not obvious to me why semi-protection was necessary for the page so I was hoping you could fill me in on the background? Ajbpearce ( talk) 19:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Off2riorob_reported_by_Nomoskedasticity_.28talk.29_.28Result:_.29 here] - Off2riorob ( talk) 20:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Long-term disruption is I believe sufficient grounds for requesting review of user conduct and/or administrative review, isn't it? I grant that you might question my own objectivity on the matter, but I don't doubt that you probably know the polices and guidelines better than I do. Having said that, I can't see any particular reason to go ahead with some sort of action, should you be so inclined. John Carter ( talk) 22:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? [9]. Mustihussain claims it isn't Pass a Method talk 10:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, i saw this move made by you, whilst in the talk there is consensus against the move. Could you please explain? Thanks 23x2 ( talk) 13:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see the four main editors opposing the move proposal have shown up. Well, I've read the discussion there, and since none of you actually addressed the only relevant guideline, WP:COMMONNAME, my previous statement still stands. To repeat, "calling it a "pogrom" simply because three or four Wikipedia editors believe it meets their definition of a pogrom does not match with any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and, in fact, violates WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOR". Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
You deleted this article was improperly. I am not the same "banned or blocked" user who created the initial page. There should be no prejudice against creating this page for this subject. I'm sorry I forgot to add this page to my watchlist. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Jay, I am the author of "An Introduction to the History of Khazaria" which has resided at http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-history.html since March 13, 1997 and before that at http://acad.bryant.edu/~kbrook/khazar-history.html as documented by http://web.archive.org/web/19970110040312/http://acad.bryant.edu/~kbrook/khazar-history.html Six (6) sentences have been plagiarized word-for-word from my essay by Wikipedia editor(s) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars as of December 6, 2011 read:
"Sabirs and Bulgars came under Khazar jurisdiction during the 7th century. The Khazars forced some of the Bulgars (led by Asparukh) to move to modern-day Bulgaria, while other Bulgars fled to the upper Volga River region where the independent state of Volga Bulgaria was founded. In addition to their role in indirectly bringing about the creation of the modern Balkan nation of Bulgaria, the Khazars played an even more significant role in European affairs. By acting as a buffer state between the Muslim world and the Christian world, Khazaria prevented Islam from significantly spreading north of the Caucasus Mountains and Eastern Europe. This was accomplished through a series of wars known as the Khazar–Arab Wars, which took place in the late 7th and early 8th centuries.[10] The wars established the Caucasus and the city of Derbent as the boundary between the Khazars and the Arabs."
http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-history.html reads:
"Other Turkic groups such as the Sabirs and Bulgars came under Khazar jurisdiction during the 7th century. The Khazars forced some of the Bulgars (led by Asparukh) to move to modern-day Bulgaria, while other Bulgars fled to the upper Volga River region where the independent state of Volga Bulgharia was founded. [...] In addition to their role in indirectly bringing about the creation of the modern Balkan nation of Bulgaria, the Khazars played an even more significant role in European affairs. By acting as a buffer state between the Islamic world and the Christian world, Khazaria prevented Islam from significantly spreading north of the Caucasus Mountains. This was accomplished thru a series of wars known as the Arab-Khazar Wars, which took place in the late 7th and early 8th centuries. The wars established the Caucasus and the city of Derbent as the boundary between the Khazars and the Arabs."
I have tried to remove Wikipedia's copyright violation but other editors keep reverting back the plagiarism. I require that editor(s) form their own original sentences to replace the plagiarism. Signed, Kevin Brook, the original author. P.S. I am using a shared IP address and the edits made using this IP address prior to today's date are not mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.55.67.200 ( talk) 09:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I got the same reason of revertion again, what is this? maybe i'm editing it wrong while being out of a user. 84.108.213.8 ( talk) 08:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Why did you close the thread? I did not find the IP's edits unconstructive and Leifern should not be throwing "ashamed" and "holocaust revisionist" about when he gets pissed off that this page is being edited in a way he doesn't see fit.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 08:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to move the page Age of consent to 'Legal age for sexual activities'. Cam you make the page move please? Pass a Method talk 16:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I want to remove my page move request because i no longer agree with it. However, a certain IP keeps reverting me. I believe this is the same IP from yesterday who made personal atacks (calling me a pedophile), and i have suspicions that this IP may be User:Herostratus. Herostratus seems to be collaborating with an IP in many places. From re-arranging my talk-page, calling me a pedo, re-arranging my talk-page sub-sections and stalking me over several articles reverting me and general borderline harrassment over over the past 2 days. So i have 3 favours from you;
Thank you. Pass a Method talk 17:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not any of these IPs, I have only ever edited under this account (and very occasionally my own static IP when I forget to log in). (If I ever did want to play the cats-paw game, which I think silly and boring, I'd save it for something important and be a lot more clever, I suppose.) I am sorry that this editor was called a bad name, and I remonstrated with the IP who did it fairly strictly, but all that's been oversighted now. I commented at the thread at the 3RR noticeboard. Herostratus ( talk) 02:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm making a last ditch attempt to reason with User:In ictu oculi before dispute resolution becomes necessary. Would you mind going to his talk page and contributing to the discussion? Thanks. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 00:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation and thank you for removing the AIPAC category from the friendship category. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 01:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if you're active on Commons, but the disruptive user you recently blocked here [22] moved his activities over there now, and is going around creating strange categories, posting weird statements to image pages, removing notifications and nominations for discussion, and ... basically similarly disruptive kind of stuff. For example [23] (if you click on his contribution history there you can see the rest).
I don't orient myself well on Commons though I tried to bring it to somebody's attention (which he also removed). But since you blocked him here, I thought I'd give you a heads up. Volunteer Marek 17:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I see you blocked this IP for a day recently over disruptive behaviour - in view of its continuing (and recent edit summaries make the agenda even more clear), would you consider blocking them for a longer time?-- Kotniski ( talk) 14:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Buster Seven Talk 15:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
Since you are a long-term user of en.wikipedia.org, could you tell me why Jewish conspiracy and Jewish conspiracy theory are currently both redirect, and not a real article? Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 22:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg. There's something of a WP:COI situation on the Mocky article that I'd appreciate your advice on and/or help with if possible. The details can be found here, but basically, a user has more or less outed himself as being intimately connected with the subject of the bio. He has alluded to the 'wishes' of the artist in question vis-a-vis the latter's Wikipedia entry (c.f. [24]), and otherwise appears to be speaking on behalf of/acting as an intermediary for the musician (viz. "Is there a way for Mocky to contact you? He'd be happy to tell you so himself" [25]). I'm disturbed by this obvious conflict of interest, but am unsure as to the common procedure under such circumstances. The user has been very aggressive in his edit summaries (call-outs, personal attacks, etc.), is knee-jerk reverting, replacing reliable sources with a blog link/SPS, and has intransigently refused to engage in discussion. Please advise. Kind regards, Middayexpress ( talk) 15:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Notice that this disruptive user has sandboxed these articles in a sock's sandbox so they can be recreated anyway. I'm applying to AN/I to have user indef blocked for continuing disruption.
I believe the pattern of disruption is so egregious the user warrants a very long term block. BusterD ( talk) 21:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
ping!-- Doug Coldwell talk 15:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, I think you should review the deletion for several reasons. First of all, the way your phrased it implies to me that you found it to be notable but since most people found it not notable you went with delete. But it's not a vote and that seems to be treating it as such. Secondly it was part of a mass nomination of articles related to the Richmond City Council that editors have been scrambling to rescue, and every other one looks like it will be successfully saved. Now having said that it doesn't necessarily bare weight if other things are kept but the point is that more time was needed. Also most of the delete votes were based on the articles previous state before the sourcing and copyediting was done by rescue. The sources for this woman are numerous and based on them she is generally notable and if anything she it notable for merger into the Richmond City Council or city of Richmond, California article. I would like you to reconsider your approach here and suggest the article be kept. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 01:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Please comment about Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes. Thanks, Unscintillating ( talk) 10:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of María Viramontes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciferwildcat ( talk • contribs) 10:59, 25 December 2011
Is there anyway I can have the content from the article to add to the city council entry? LuciferWildCat ( talk) 03:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you speedily deleted Joseph Henle as per G4. I had thought about requesting speedy deletion for that reason, but instead re-nominated it as an AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henle (3rd nomination)). Assuming there isn't a bot to do it automatically, could you close out or delete the AfD discussion on this article? Thanks for your help. -- TreyGeek ( talk) 16:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some help concerning recent attempts to whitewash Slavic Neopaganism. Thanks.-- Galassi ( talk) 17:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jay. I took your lead and edited out the Hebrew & Yiddish at Orthodox Judaism, for consistency between the denominations. Cheers, A Sniper ( talk) 04:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Due to the holidays, I didn't reply, and now this discussion has been archived. Just noting that I appreciate your comments and alerting me to the problem on the Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar, which I am now proposing to merge (see above). Furthermore, while I understand your comment about how WP:BLP policies apply to all of Wikipedia, I don't see how your comment really addressed my proposal in any meaningful fashion. It seems to me that it falls entirely outside of the guidelines that I proposed. The rules of logic are very clear, and the examples I proposed (Jodie Foster and Sarah Palin) are written in the manner that is clearly not an Association fallacy, and that this is a model for such incidents. All I am attempting to do is to insert such basic logic back into the guidelines. Jemiljan ( talk) 23:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could you kindly have a look at the article for Khalid Yasin, as one person keeps changing the article in breach of wp:synth, wp:rs, wp:claim and agf. I have tried to explain the reason for reverting them, but they are not interested in these policies and continue to restore to a version clearly not in line with basic BLP policies. Nimom0 ( talk) 17:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on including Charles Lane's religion in his biography here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Lane_(journalist)
If you have any objections to inserting his religion, please let me know. -- Cincinatis2 ( talk) 09:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
You seem to know about this... Alarbus ( talk) 07:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I am in the process of obtaining the book Who on Earth was Jesus by interlibrary loan which, if I remember correctly, says rather explicitly that Eisenman's theories regarding the above named subject are rejected by the academic community. I expect to file an RfC regarding that opinion, and that of others, like James VanderKam and Lawrence Schiffman, which seem to me to rather clearly demonstrate those theories of Eisenman are rather clearly fringe as per WP:FT. Also, I guess, I feel that I might well express concern regarding the editor above who sought to change his name. As I recall, that editor rather clearly stated to you that he was "too close" to the subject of the Ebionites to be impartial, which I take as a rather clear indication of the relevance of WP:POV. Granted, that editor has been rather generally inactive of late, but I would have to wonder whether he might have similar POV problems regarding other topics from that era, like perhaps Gospel of the Ebionites. And, yes, much as I am less active recently, I am in the process of trying to get together broader lists of encyclopediae and other sources which, I think, tend to be among the most acceptable indicators of current academic opinion, provided the sources themselves are current of course. Anyway, with luck, maybe within a few weeks or so, I should be able to provide at least basic "bibliography" articles for most major faith traditions, and possibly at least a few on more focused topics, with articles on the individual books where notability is established. I don't know whether the topics of interest to you might benefit from such separate articles, but I can try to add and develop them as well. Anyway, thanks again for all your efforts in what is an often thankless and contentions subject. John Carter ( talk) 23:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at Business Plot? I'm in a dispute over whether it is accurate to change "Spivak argued that the plot was part of a fascist conspiracy of financiers to take over the U.S. government." to "Spivak argued that the plot was part of a fascist conspiracy of financiers and Jews to take over the U.S. government." Spivak was a crusader against fascism and anti-Semitism and I believe the insertion of "and Jews" does violence to his position and distorts his argument (he seems to believe that some Jewish financiers such as Lehman Brothers were in on the alleged plot but that's quite different from the generalized statement that "financiers and Jews" were trying to overthrow the US government which, to me, invokes a Jewish conspiracy theory. Vale of Glamorgan ( talk) 16:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Jayjg, I don't think there's anything wrong with neutrally letting people know that a discussion is going on which they might be interested in. [34] And I don't think that being a member of WikiProject Islam is necessarily going to pre-determine your stance on how honor killing articles should be titled. Perhaps I'm being naive in this case and have no idea what I'm talking about, but I didn't see anything wrong with Carol's notice. If there's something I'm missing, let me know. Cheers! Kaldari ( talk) 01:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 31 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Congregation Beth Israel (Asheville, North Carolina), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in the 1950s Congregation Beth Israel of Asheville, North Carolina, shortened and moved its Shabbat service two hours earlier, so members could open their stores following prayers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Congregation Beth Israel (Asheville, North Carolina).You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 05:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see this. Bless sins ( talk) 01:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
ref [35] the IP was directly quoting from the source [36], verbatim, so probably didn't deserve being accused of "OR". -- BozMo talk 11:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I commented further directly under you, but provided no more actual evidence, just opinion. I find it deeply ironic that I've taken this position between you two. You are on my personal list of Top 10 Wiki-Admins and I have great respect for both your work and your opinions. On the other hand, I've always regarded BS as an "honorable opponent"; often frustrating, but always acting appropriately in the context of policy and project goals. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond on BS's talkpage and notify me. Happy editing, Doc Tropics 15:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Happy new year, my best wishes of health and happiness for year 2012. Je vous offre mes meilleurs vœux de santé et de bonheur pour l'année 2012, ושל אושר לשנה 2012. -- Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève ( talk) 10:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Would this be considered canvassing? I don't see anyone else being notified. Also, the notice appears to be worded in a decidedly non-neutral manner. Best. Ignocrates ( talk) 22:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the notice could have been worded more neutrally, but the Jesus Seminar is part of Wikiproject:Christianity, so that's an appropriate project to notify. Is there a specific piece of text or article section there that is currently a source of contention? Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 43 |
You've recently adjusted Mizabot archive settings at Simple Network Management Protocol. What's the reason for this? 90 days is the default but I've found 1 year is more appropriate for most technical articles. -- Kvng ( talk) 19:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping you could remove the block on creating a new page for Shamrock Rovers footballer Karl Sheppard. I feel he is without question notable enough, especially given the club's recent success and subsequent exposure in the media. Cheers.-- IrishTennis ( talk) 22:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Its time to end this farce. Sheppard is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovers Forever ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
On August 14, I made a second request for information about two sources that you used to publish some information in Haredi Judaism. As you have spoken in a reasonable manner, I am trying to meet you more than halfway, and do things your way, while myself I would have preferred some sort of arbitration. However, I cannot proceed even with your request until I have the information requested. If you no longer have the articles, or used google or something to get excerpts, just let me know. But this seems a reasonable request. (You can reply here or on the talk page; no need to go back and forth between user pages. I will wait a few days for a reply before resuming editing.) Mzk1 ( talk) 21:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jay: Your experience in building up and referencing articles in Orthodox Judaism over the years would make your input greatly appreciated at User talk:CapMan07008#Your deletionism and demands against Orthodox Jews and Judaism articles for User CapMan07008 ( talk · contribs) aka "The Terminator" who has admitted he's new and would welcome guidance [1]. Thanks a lot, IZAK ( talk) 06:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Please don't template experienced users. It's insulting. Just talk to them. [2] Rklawton ( talk) 01:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems you and I, sir, are in complete agreement on something.-- Cerejota If you reply, please place a {{ talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 03:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I thank you once more for your assistance. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Greetings,
My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.
I would like to include your Wikipedia user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Wikipedia present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?
With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.
I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.
Thank-you,
John-Paul Mcvea
University of Alberta
jmcvea@ualberta.ca
Johnpaulmcvea ( talk) 22:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The idiot user guid123 on Talk:David_Irving needed to be restrained. well done. thank you. bloody holocaust deniers. Cramyourspam ( talk) 07:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Falafel [ [3]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Veritycheck ( talk) 01:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Heya,
So I just started the article on the new Jewish international news network, Jewish News One. I thought you might like to check it out, see if improvements could be made, maybe add it to your watchlist, eh? :p Thanks.
And now, the Falafel Song. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Ktiva vehatima tova for 5772! A gut gebensht yor! Debresser ( talk) 21:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
You recently deleted PunBB for the second time, apparently because WP:Speedy deletion#G4 says you can due to the result of WP:Articles for deletion/PunBB. Considering that the current FluxBB article mentions PunBB, do you think redirecting “PunBB” to “FluxBB” should be acceptable, at least while “FluxBB” is an article? (“FluxBB” was discussed at WP:Articles for deletion/FluxBB but never deleted.) If redirecting is acceptable, how do we do it without having the redirect deleted again?
Since the initial deletion I created the redirect. Very recently I think someone turned it into an article. I would like to re-create the redirect, and if necessary put a note somewhere or modify your deletion criteria so that it does not get deleted again without a bit of warning. I would also undo your unlinking at Comparison of web hosting control panels: I don’t see the benefit in this. Vadmium ( talk, contribs) 02:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC).
Jayjg, can you give me any comment on creating and keeping the redirect, or should I find somewhere else to discuss this? Are you saying you’re against it because FluxBB doesn’t seem to have much in the way of secondary sources, or was that just about re-creating it as an article? Vadmium ( talk, contribs) 04:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC).
Hi,
I made a request to SlimVirgin more than a week ago regarding a problem I created in one of the pages associated with WT:V. It seems that she is not currently active, and you helped out recently at WP:V, so I'd appreciate it if you would take a look at this problem. What I need specifically is to have Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Polls moved back to Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Archive_1 without a redirect, such that I can start the talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Polls. Thanks, Unscintillating ( talk) 18:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey. Just thought it would interest you to know that The Drug in Me Is You, the album by Falling In Reverse, has reached GA status in less than two months after it was created and deleted like 40 times lol It's really a good article now, thought you'd enjoy seeing that. Cheers, Ground Z3R0 002 05:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I was correcting false information. With your last edit, it is still there. "Pardos" and "blacks" do not constitute the "great majority" of poorer Brazilians since (the way it sounds is like as if 90% or more of the poorest Brazilians were either "pardo" or "black"). According to the official data I posted, which you removed, "whites" comprise about 36% of the poorest (that's why I posted it there), which is roughly 40%. "Pardos" and "blacks" comprise the "majority" of the poorest but not the "great majority". It was plain wrong to say that "blacks" comprise the majority, but this information has been already corrected.
As for Michael Löwy, it is deplorable that he uses such an expression as "half caste". I've never seen it used in Brazil, and it certainly is not. Not even census categories like "pardo" are used, they are rather imposed by the government. Much less a deplorable expression as "half caste". And still we have to accept the way he describes a large portion of the Brazilian population, don't we? Grenzer22 ( talk) 14:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok! Grenzer22 ( talk) 15:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg - some time ago you closed this AfD, and I was unsure of what the process would be if I thought the article should be re-created. I don't think you closed incorrectly, so I'm not sure DRV would be the venue, but a re-created page would be liable to G4. The issue is that it's literally the only West Wing episode we don't have an article on and the lack of attempts to delete the others suggests consensus to have them - and that the AfD commenters didn't indicate whether they believed this should be precedent to go after the other articles. What needs to be done here? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
An discussion is ongoing here [4]. Your opinion about the matter would be appreciated. Thanks. Swift&silent ( talk) 07:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
And what exactly has everyone else been doing on that page? Looks like i'm about to have to delete some discussions, if that's the case. Show me where I was wrong, if you may. Posting things that come out the talmud is not appropriate for a page dealing with the talmud? Hmmm..
-- HolyandClean ( talk) 04:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)HolyandClean
Hi there Jayjg,
I'm sure you are nice person, but would like to know the reason for the deletion of
Tinchy Stryder's song "
Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)", which was the first single from his debut studio album
Star in the Hood was deleted by you?. Yes I know the article was previously created and deleted in 2009 due to lack of the songs notability to Tinchy Stryder. I have collected this
Twitter status from Tinchy Stryder from 18 October 2011, confirming that "
Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)" is a notable song to Tinchy Stryder. Here is the Twitter status of the song confirmation, just click on this link ---->
http://twitter.com/#!/TinchyStryder/status/126257795321430016, so if you can now please un-delete the "
Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)" Wikipedia article that I have recently re-created. Thank you
Jayjg.
MarkMysoe (
talk)
10:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a
deletion review of
Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
MarkMysoe (
talk)
22:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It looks like Marleeeden ( talk · contribs) is at least trying this time to include sources for some of his new material at Yom Kippur. I'm not fully satisfied yet, but I think it's a start. What do you think? Richwales ( talk) 03:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Remember him? Here's the SSI archive. User:Stopkid seems to bear many of the same characteristics - though in fairness he seems to be conforming his edit summaries to his actual edits now. I am not certain enough at this point to write up a sockpuppet report, and may never be; I'm also not sure you're still interested in the fellow, but in case you are, well - here! JohnInDC ( talk) 12:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
How's it going Jayjg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zad68 ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Where can i find the guidelines for making a Video Game article meet any notability guidelines for the mainspace?-- Kygora 18:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of PunBB. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dimkalinux ( talk) 17:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Jayjg, You've helped me before when I had questions. Could you take a look at the article, Levi Shemtov? Awhile ago, I uploaded a photo and added some referenced info. Now I see that the article is out of hand (in my opinion). A user named "Jewishlubavitch" has added a large amount of unsourced positive non-NPOV material, and before that some others added unsourced negative non-NPOV material. I don't know how to undo multiple edits but that's probably necessary, and someone should probably look at other edits Jewishlubavitch is adding to articles almost as an advertisement. Anyway, please see what you think, if you have a chance. NearTheZoo ( talk) 02:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
My attention was drawn to this article by an edit that you made removing significant portions of unsourced text. While I wasn't fully in agreement with your removal of the text, I couldn't find a good reason to contest it so I let it go. However, my interest in the film was piqued and so I started researching it with the result being a major expansion and transformation of the article. Please take a look and see what you think. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 04:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Is the discussion regarding HIV occurring?-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg, can we move the page for Andy Scott Harris back into the main encyclopedia so we can open the discussion and edit it? Thank you. Susanahornil ( talk) 16:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Since you're an administrator can you perform this task. Jab7842 ( talk) 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg, rather than continuing a discussion of Joshua Goldberg under the discussion about Levi Shemtov, I'm starting this new section. After putting up a WP:PROD note, Masterknighted deleted it. He made some very civil comments on my talk page, and I answered on his, and then I (at least for now) reinstated the WP:PROD note. However, I w</ref>ould feel better if you took a look, given your experience. My gut feeling is that the majority of pages begun by Masterknighted, including Joshua Goldberg might not pass the notoriety test. Best, NearTheZoo ( talk) 17:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Good evening all, Firstly it is not notoriety it is notability, second my objection is to the parliamentary moves employed in proposing for deletion and the reposting of the prod so that the article could just be brought down without any debate when it could have been rather easily nominated, listed and debated via the keep/delete format. if you look you will see that other editors contributed to this article as well, peace. Masterknighted ( talk) 05:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I saw his work in London and it was very great. The show was also supported by Japanese Embassy and other London authority. Maybe the person who started his Wiki did not know know any protocol or how to write the wiki article. I think you need this person give it a try and his work was also mentioned in several news paper and the most famous Japanese Tanka Monthly Publication in Japan. I think some of the comment made on him was a bit on the hash side and please give this guy some time. I think Ron L. Zheng is worth enough to keep in wiki. Jut whoever started his article needs to learn proper way of adding information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funhumankid ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
hello. First of all, I'm very well aware of "3RR", and secondly, you should be aware that I did NOT reach "3RR" or violate anything. Thirdly, it would be nice (for consistency's sake, but since I see favoritism and politics at work here) that you would give that same lecture to Malik. Since he was reverting like crazy and getting close to uh "3RR". Of course you didn't, per your bias in favor of him, for some reason (a problem on Wikipedia that happens with Admins and other users...), and sided with his nonsense that somehow "ICGC" was somehow "not notable". Never mind that they've been all over tv talk shows for years, guests on interviews, and in the radio, and even in the news. Never mind that they've been around for decades. And have internet sites for years. And even Malik found a couple of sources for them, he admitted. So not sure what the big problem is here. This is discouraging and aggravating. You'll knee-jerkly take Malik's side on this, because after all, he's "Malik Shabaz". A bully on Wikipedia who is revert happy, and for some reason you favor. I do NOT appreciate your remarks to me on his talk page. I did not violate anything. NOTHING. But Malik was arguably violating "I don't like" and "no own". You'll deny that, because after all, he's Malik. And for whatever reason, whatever he does or says, you (admin or not), seem to knee-jerkly side with. So now that Malik has obvious back-up for his bullying and ownership violations (back-up from an imperfect Admin who is arguably a bully too doesn't bode well for me, does it) it's hard for me to do anything. Yes, I'm angry. Your remarks were obtuse and unnecessary. I violated nothing. Malik seems to think he owns a bunch of articles, as is seen from his history and pattern. Yet you wink at it, or deny that, because, well, he's "Malik". Good day. Hashem sfarim ( talk) 00:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg, given you've had some experience with featured articles, what is the process for a FA making it to the main page? I have looked over the FA criteria and understand how FA articles are reviewed against such criteria. But once an article achieves FA status, is it thrown into some queue of new FAs to await its turn on the main page? Can an article only appear on the main page once in its lifetime?
Also, I wonder if some articles are topically disadvantaged? On one hand I suspect that such isn't the case (because I've seen articles featured on the main page that I thought were particularly boring or highly technical), but on the other I can't help but wonder that some might be. For example, at some point in the future I hope to get Interest rate parity up to GA status and eventually FA status, but it's not exactly the same kind of read that Governor of Kentucky or Tulip mania is. Then again United Kingdom corporation tax, a formidable read even for us financial-savvy editors, made it to FA status. I guess I'm just wondering what (if any) subjective element is involved in selecting an article to be featured on the mainpage. John Shandy` • talk 18:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Jay, do you think it's worth making a request for CheckUser re 12.72.149.104 and EditTalk? They're behaving very much like Joe Circus — I'm just unsure whether that's enough evidence by itself. Jakew ( talk) 09:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
An IP is removing sourced information at Hamza Yusuf. Can you protect the article please? Pass a Method talk 10:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Has this user broken 3rr?
He's also ignoring my concerns on the talk page Pass a Method talk 16:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi - Get a better jew for the infobox - he has an Irish catholic father and is a self declared atheist. - You should at least get full jews for the infobox. Are there no famous practicing Jews with two jewish parents you can add to the infobox? Off2riorob ( talk) 00:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask you for a more detailed explanation of why you semi-protected this page? Per your edit summary it was due to "Persistent sock puppetry" - but as far as I can tell there was only one edit by a sockpuppet, which you reverted in minutes, and before that the last posting on the talk page was some productive discussion we had a month back in October. WP:SEMI says that such protection should be used only sparingly on talk pages and "when they have been subject to persistent disruption". I am sure you had good reason for the protection, but it was not obvious to me why semi-protection was necessary for the page so I was hoping you could fill me in on the background? Ajbpearce ( talk) 19:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Off2riorob_reported_by_Nomoskedasticity_.28talk.29_.28Result:_.29 here] - Off2riorob ( talk) 20:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Long-term disruption is I believe sufficient grounds for requesting review of user conduct and/or administrative review, isn't it? I grant that you might question my own objectivity on the matter, but I don't doubt that you probably know the polices and guidelines better than I do. Having said that, I can't see any particular reason to go ahead with some sort of action, should you be so inclined. John Carter ( talk) 22:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? [9]. Mustihussain claims it isn't Pass a Method talk 10:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, i saw this move made by you, whilst in the talk there is consensus against the move. Could you please explain? Thanks 23x2 ( talk) 13:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see the four main editors opposing the move proposal have shown up. Well, I've read the discussion there, and since none of you actually addressed the only relevant guideline, WP:COMMONNAME, my previous statement still stands. To repeat, "calling it a "pogrom" simply because three or four Wikipedia editors believe it meets their definition of a pogrom does not match with any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and, in fact, violates WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOR". Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
You deleted this article was improperly. I am not the same "banned or blocked" user who created the initial page. There should be no prejudice against creating this page for this subject. I'm sorry I forgot to add this page to my watchlist. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Jay, I am the author of "An Introduction to the History of Khazaria" which has resided at http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-history.html since March 13, 1997 and before that at http://acad.bryant.edu/~kbrook/khazar-history.html as documented by http://web.archive.org/web/19970110040312/http://acad.bryant.edu/~kbrook/khazar-history.html Six (6) sentences have been plagiarized word-for-word from my essay by Wikipedia editor(s) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars as of December 6, 2011 read:
"Sabirs and Bulgars came under Khazar jurisdiction during the 7th century. The Khazars forced some of the Bulgars (led by Asparukh) to move to modern-day Bulgaria, while other Bulgars fled to the upper Volga River region where the independent state of Volga Bulgaria was founded. In addition to their role in indirectly bringing about the creation of the modern Balkan nation of Bulgaria, the Khazars played an even more significant role in European affairs. By acting as a buffer state between the Muslim world and the Christian world, Khazaria prevented Islam from significantly spreading north of the Caucasus Mountains and Eastern Europe. This was accomplished through a series of wars known as the Khazar–Arab Wars, which took place in the late 7th and early 8th centuries.[10] The wars established the Caucasus and the city of Derbent as the boundary between the Khazars and the Arabs."
http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-history.html reads:
"Other Turkic groups such as the Sabirs and Bulgars came under Khazar jurisdiction during the 7th century. The Khazars forced some of the Bulgars (led by Asparukh) to move to modern-day Bulgaria, while other Bulgars fled to the upper Volga River region where the independent state of Volga Bulgharia was founded. [...] In addition to their role in indirectly bringing about the creation of the modern Balkan nation of Bulgaria, the Khazars played an even more significant role in European affairs. By acting as a buffer state between the Islamic world and the Christian world, Khazaria prevented Islam from significantly spreading north of the Caucasus Mountains. This was accomplished thru a series of wars known as the Arab-Khazar Wars, which took place in the late 7th and early 8th centuries. The wars established the Caucasus and the city of Derbent as the boundary between the Khazars and the Arabs."
I have tried to remove Wikipedia's copyright violation but other editors keep reverting back the plagiarism. I require that editor(s) form their own original sentences to replace the plagiarism. Signed, Kevin Brook, the original author. P.S. I am using a shared IP address and the edits made using this IP address prior to today's date are not mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.55.67.200 ( talk) 09:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I got the same reason of revertion again, what is this? maybe i'm editing it wrong while being out of a user. 84.108.213.8 ( talk) 08:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Why did you close the thread? I did not find the IP's edits unconstructive and Leifern should not be throwing "ashamed" and "holocaust revisionist" about when he gets pissed off that this page is being edited in a way he doesn't see fit.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 08:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to move the page Age of consent to 'Legal age for sexual activities'. Cam you make the page move please? Pass a Method talk 16:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I want to remove my page move request because i no longer agree with it. However, a certain IP keeps reverting me. I believe this is the same IP from yesterday who made personal atacks (calling me a pedophile), and i have suspicions that this IP may be User:Herostratus. Herostratus seems to be collaborating with an IP in many places. From re-arranging my talk-page, calling me a pedo, re-arranging my talk-page sub-sections and stalking me over several articles reverting me and general borderline harrassment over over the past 2 days. So i have 3 favours from you;
Thank you. Pass a Method talk 17:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not any of these IPs, I have only ever edited under this account (and very occasionally my own static IP when I forget to log in). (If I ever did want to play the cats-paw game, which I think silly and boring, I'd save it for something important and be a lot more clever, I suppose.) I am sorry that this editor was called a bad name, and I remonstrated with the IP who did it fairly strictly, but all that's been oversighted now. I commented at the thread at the 3RR noticeboard. Herostratus ( talk) 02:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm making a last ditch attempt to reason with User:In ictu oculi before dispute resolution becomes necessary. Would you mind going to his talk page and contributing to the discussion? Thanks. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 00:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation and thank you for removing the AIPAC category from the friendship category. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 01:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if you're active on Commons, but the disruptive user you recently blocked here [22] moved his activities over there now, and is going around creating strange categories, posting weird statements to image pages, removing notifications and nominations for discussion, and ... basically similarly disruptive kind of stuff. For example [23] (if you click on his contribution history there you can see the rest).
I don't orient myself well on Commons though I tried to bring it to somebody's attention (which he also removed). But since you blocked him here, I thought I'd give you a heads up. Volunteer Marek 17:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I see you blocked this IP for a day recently over disruptive behaviour - in view of its continuing (and recent edit summaries make the agenda even more clear), would you consider blocking them for a longer time?-- Kotniski ( talk) 14:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Buster Seven Talk 15:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
Since you are a long-term user of en.wikipedia.org, could you tell me why Jewish conspiracy and Jewish conspiracy theory are currently both redirect, and not a real article? Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 22:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg. There's something of a WP:COI situation on the Mocky article that I'd appreciate your advice on and/or help with if possible. The details can be found here, but basically, a user has more or less outed himself as being intimately connected with the subject of the bio. He has alluded to the 'wishes' of the artist in question vis-a-vis the latter's Wikipedia entry (c.f. [24]), and otherwise appears to be speaking on behalf of/acting as an intermediary for the musician (viz. "Is there a way for Mocky to contact you? He'd be happy to tell you so himself" [25]). I'm disturbed by this obvious conflict of interest, but am unsure as to the common procedure under such circumstances. The user has been very aggressive in his edit summaries (call-outs, personal attacks, etc.), is knee-jerk reverting, replacing reliable sources with a blog link/SPS, and has intransigently refused to engage in discussion. Please advise. Kind regards, Middayexpress ( talk) 15:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Notice that this disruptive user has sandboxed these articles in a sock's sandbox so they can be recreated anyway. I'm applying to AN/I to have user indef blocked for continuing disruption.
I believe the pattern of disruption is so egregious the user warrants a very long term block. BusterD ( talk) 21:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
ping!-- Doug Coldwell talk 15:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, I think you should review the deletion for several reasons. First of all, the way your phrased it implies to me that you found it to be notable but since most people found it not notable you went with delete. But it's not a vote and that seems to be treating it as such. Secondly it was part of a mass nomination of articles related to the Richmond City Council that editors have been scrambling to rescue, and every other one looks like it will be successfully saved. Now having said that it doesn't necessarily bare weight if other things are kept but the point is that more time was needed. Also most of the delete votes were based on the articles previous state before the sourcing and copyediting was done by rescue. The sources for this woman are numerous and based on them she is generally notable and if anything she it notable for merger into the Richmond City Council or city of Richmond, California article. I would like you to reconsider your approach here and suggest the article be kept. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 01:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Please comment about Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes. Thanks, Unscintillating ( talk) 10:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of María Viramontes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciferwildcat ( talk • contribs) 10:59, 25 December 2011
Is there anyway I can have the content from the article to add to the city council entry? LuciferWildCat ( talk) 03:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you speedily deleted Joseph Henle as per G4. I had thought about requesting speedy deletion for that reason, but instead re-nominated it as an AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henle (3rd nomination)). Assuming there isn't a bot to do it automatically, could you close out or delete the AfD discussion on this article? Thanks for your help. -- TreyGeek ( talk) 16:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some help concerning recent attempts to whitewash Slavic Neopaganism. Thanks.-- Galassi ( talk) 17:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jay. I took your lead and edited out the Hebrew & Yiddish at Orthodox Judaism, for consistency between the denominations. Cheers, A Sniper ( talk) 04:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Due to the holidays, I didn't reply, and now this discussion has been archived. Just noting that I appreciate your comments and alerting me to the problem on the Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar, which I am now proposing to merge (see above). Furthermore, while I understand your comment about how WP:BLP policies apply to all of Wikipedia, I don't see how your comment really addressed my proposal in any meaningful fashion. It seems to me that it falls entirely outside of the guidelines that I proposed. The rules of logic are very clear, and the examples I proposed (Jodie Foster and Sarah Palin) are written in the manner that is clearly not an Association fallacy, and that this is a model for such incidents. All I am attempting to do is to insert such basic logic back into the guidelines. Jemiljan ( talk) 23:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could you kindly have a look at the article for Khalid Yasin, as one person keeps changing the article in breach of wp:synth, wp:rs, wp:claim and agf. I have tried to explain the reason for reverting them, but they are not interested in these policies and continue to restore to a version clearly not in line with basic BLP policies. Nimom0 ( talk) 17:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on including Charles Lane's religion in his biography here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Lane_(journalist)
If you have any objections to inserting his religion, please let me know. -- Cincinatis2 ( talk) 09:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
You seem to know about this... Alarbus ( talk) 07:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I am in the process of obtaining the book Who on Earth was Jesus by interlibrary loan which, if I remember correctly, says rather explicitly that Eisenman's theories regarding the above named subject are rejected by the academic community. I expect to file an RfC regarding that opinion, and that of others, like James VanderKam and Lawrence Schiffman, which seem to me to rather clearly demonstrate those theories of Eisenman are rather clearly fringe as per WP:FT. Also, I guess, I feel that I might well express concern regarding the editor above who sought to change his name. As I recall, that editor rather clearly stated to you that he was "too close" to the subject of the Ebionites to be impartial, which I take as a rather clear indication of the relevance of WP:POV. Granted, that editor has been rather generally inactive of late, but I would have to wonder whether he might have similar POV problems regarding other topics from that era, like perhaps Gospel of the Ebionites. And, yes, much as I am less active recently, I am in the process of trying to get together broader lists of encyclopediae and other sources which, I think, tend to be among the most acceptable indicators of current academic opinion, provided the sources themselves are current of course. Anyway, with luck, maybe within a few weeks or so, I should be able to provide at least basic "bibliography" articles for most major faith traditions, and possibly at least a few on more focused topics, with articles on the individual books where notability is established. I don't know whether the topics of interest to you might benefit from such separate articles, but I can try to add and develop them as well. Anyway, thanks again for all your efforts in what is an often thankless and contentions subject. John Carter ( talk) 23:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at Business Plot? I'm in a dispute over whether it is accurate to change "Spivak argued that the plot was part of a fascist conspiracy of financiers to take over the U.S. government." to "Spivak argued that the plot was part of a fascist conspiracy of financiers and Jews to take over the U.S. government." Spivak was a crusader against fascism and anti-Semitism and I believe the insertion of "and Jews" does violence to his position and distorts his argument (he seems to believe that some Jewish financiers such as Lehman Brothers were in on the alleged plot but that's quite different from the generalized statement that "financiers and Jews" were trying to overthrow the US government which, to me, invokes a Jewish conspiracy theory. Vale of Glamorgan ( talk) 16:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Jayjg, I don't think there's anything wrong with neutrally letting people know that a discussion is going on which they might be interested in. [34] And I don't think that being a member of WikiProject Islam is necessarily going to pre-determine your stance on how honor killing articles should be titled. Perhaps I'm being naive in this case and have no idea what I'm talking about, but I didn't see anything wrong with Carol's notice. If there's something I'm missing, let me know. Cheers! Kaldari ( talk) 01:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 31 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Congregation Beth Israel (Asheville, North Carolina), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in the 1950s Congregation Beth Israel of Asheville, North Carolina, shortened and moved its Shabbat service two hours earlier, so members could open their stores following prayers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Congregation Beth Israel (Asheville, North Carolina).You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 05:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see this. Bless sins ( talk) 01:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
ref [35] the IP was directly quoting from the source [36], verbatim, so probably didn't deserve being accused of "OR". -- BozMo talk 11:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I commented further directly under you, but provided no more actual evidence, just opinion. I find it deeply ironic that I've taken this position between you two. You are on my personal list of Top 10 Wiki-Admins and I have great respect for both your work and your opinions. On the other hand, I've always regarded BS as an "honorable opponent"; often frustrating, but always acting appropriately in the context of policy and project goals. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond on BS's talkpage and notify me. Happy editing, Doc Tropics 15:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Happy new year, my best wishes of health and happiness for year 2012. Je vous offre mes meilleurs vœux de santé et de bonheur pour l'année 2012, ושל אושר לשנה 2012. -- Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève ( talk) 10:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Would this be considered canvassing? I don't see anyone else being notified. Also, the notice appears to be worded in a decidedly non-neutral manner. Best. Ignocrates ( talk) 22:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the notice could have been worded more neutrally, but the Jesus Seminar is part of Wikiproject:Christianity, so that's an appropriate project to notify. Is there a specific piece of text or article section there that is currently a source of contention? Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)