User talk:Jayjg/Archive 37

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.

Here is an article that I thought might be helpful to you in your editting: [1]. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Um excuse me, but you have no right to Delete my Personal Page User:Kygora/Falling In Reverse for it was made under4 my personal pages with the tag saying this is a Users Project/Creation and is not part of the mainspace. Restore it immediately please. thank you.--Kygora 18:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that the same article that has now been deleted 17 times? The one that just went through DRV two weeks ago, in which it was not restored? That almost identical article that you then proposed be returned to article space? Enough games, please. And, by the way, didn't you say you were a band member? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No i did not say i was a band member. Where in this world did you get that idea from? and No it is not the same article you deleted 17 times BECAUSE it is not in the MAINSPACE, it is in the USERSPACE. So it is not subject to the Articles for deletion for the MAINSPACE article which you Deleted 17 times. RESTORE it. you had no right to delete it by any means even if you are an admin of Wikipedia for you had no grounds to delete it on.--Kygora 07:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that must have been a different editor. Anyway, 1) I certainly didn't delete it 17 times. 2) You created a copy of the article in your userspace, made a couple of minor changes that did not address the concerns of the original AfD or DRV, and then immediately proposed putting in back into mainspace. This is disruptive: see

WP:BAND. Rather than recreating the Wikipedia article 18 more times, why don't you and the rest of the band's fans create a really great Myspace or Facebook page instead? Or just beef up this one? Jayjg ^(talk)

18:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

According to

WP:UP makes my Userpage for the band completely allowable. --Kygora

21:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"Usually acceptable", but not always, and especially not for an article that has been recreated almost 20 times after AfD, particularly when you attempted to do an end-run around a DRV of just two weeks ago, by making a couple of minor changes that did not address the concerns of the original AfD and DRV, and then immediately proposed putting in back into mainspace. You're aware that another version of this article exists, hosted by another user; feel free to edit that one, but if you attempt to sneak it into mainspace without addressing the issues raised at AfD and DRV, please be aware I'll delete that one too. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, this is now at DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 30. JohnCD (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you deleted my personal page, please do me the favor of sending me a copy of the code so i can work on it offline. --Kygora 23:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought you planned to work on it on Wikipedia with GroundZ3R0. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

i do plan on doing that, and would like a copy of the one i had so i can use that information along with his article.--Kygora 19:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you deleted the article for XSitePro website design software. Can you please explain why this was done? I'm new to Wikipedia and want to make sure that any articles I submit are in good standing.

What can I do if even though I have put in as many references as possible, and everything in the article is factually correct, if someone else jumps in and puts a load of wrong edits (such as Intellimon coming from Australia, which was obviously wrong, as the company is based in the Leeds/Bradford area of the UK)?

I want the article to be the best it can be, so I'd appreciate the advice, and the reinstatement of the article to my user area so that I can edit it and ensure that it is error free (once again) before putting it live.

What is the same thing happens again when I move my article from my user area to the live page? I do hope that the article is not blundered just because it is new and on some 'new articles to delete' watchlist...

I'd appreciate the advice, and thank you for your help.

Martinjohnsonuk (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the article because that was the consensus at this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XSitePro. The editors there felt it failed to meet the requirements of WP:Notability, and was written like an advertisement. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jayjg, I uploaded a logo as a fair-use image for the article, "Faith and Politics Institute." Twice the article has been edited to rename the image file, replacing the "and" with an ampersand. This is NOT vandalism, just ignorance, I think -- but when the image file name is changed like that it (of course) disappears from the article, and a bot marks the image for deletion as an unused orphan non-free image. Is there any way to communicate with an IP user who does not use a unique screen name? This is frustrating. Not a case for blocking because I think it is a case of someone just doing something innocently -- but it is frustrating. NearTheZoo (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried commenting on the IPs user page? If it is a dynamic IP, the article could also be semi-protected. Please let me know what kind of assistance you need. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! It is an IP identifying a computer (or IP) shared by a number of users, so I couldn't figure out how to leave a msg on that page. I did leave a msg on the article's discussion page, but I'm not sure if the IP user will read that. Let me see if it happens a third time (which would be an edit war, I guess) and at that point maybe we could protect the page? By the way, on a separate issue, the article I once mentioned to you -- Religious symbolism in the United States military -- is probably more than double in size and scope than when you checked it out. I'm proud of it -- :) -- and recommend you take another look. Again, thanks for your reply. I'll let you know if the change happens for a third time. NearTheZoo (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know, and very good work on that article! Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Fancy helping out on the News International phone hacking scandal page.86.24.14.164 (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is no doubt getting a huge amount of attention, and I generally try to stay away from "current events" articles. Does it need any help in particular? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a straw poll here for a discussion that you previously expressed an opinion in. --Taivo (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to this comment by Slrubenstein on Orangemarlin's Talk Page and my response on Slrubenstein's Talk Page. I hope I have represented your opinions accurately. I'm open to an RFC to bring in more informed editors.

I have tried to solicit the involvement of some of the editors from the Jews and money AFD but, so far, only you, Mathsci, Orangemarlin and Slrubenstein have provided feedback. I would have wished for feedback to improve the article but most of the comments seem to have been along the lines of suggesting that the article should not exist. Despite these comments, I remain unconvinced of that. Our recent discussion about the results of the Google Books search for "economic antisemitism" vs. other forms of antisemitism does make me think twice but I am not yet convinced that those results are enough to decide the question.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You recently removed Green Zionism from the template of different types of Zionism, saying that the movement was "new, minor, and fairly obscure." While you personally may not be familiar with the movement, and while the current organizations that practice Green Zionism are relatively new, the movement itself is quite old (it is biblical in origins), it is far from minor (its main practioners hold seats at the World Zionist Congress and have run in elections for the Knesset, Israel's parliament); nor is it fairly obscure (it has been written about in many mainstream Jewish publications, including The Forward and The Jerusalem Post). While the page for Green Zionism itself could use some more content, that does not subtract from the movement's strength or its relevance. For example, at the World Zionist Congress, the major Green Zionism party from the United States has just about the same number of seats as the major Labor Zionism party from the United States, and after the next Israeli elections the main Israeli Green Zionism political party will have just about as many Knesset seats as the Israeli Labor Zionism party, if not more. In short, the movement is already quite relevant and only gaining in relevance. Correspondingly, please kindly return Green Zionism to the list of Zionism organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.34.61 (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's get more accurate here: The movement is not "biblical in origins", it was founded in 2001. Please don't make unsupportable claims for the group, even if it takes its inspiration from the Bible. In addition, while it may have "run in elections for the Knesset", it has apparently never won any seats, which is in itself quite telling, as one needs only around 70,000 votes to win a seat. What you imagine will happen "after the next Israeli elections" is not particularly relevant; see

WP:CRYSTAL. And it certainly has little impact in the U.S. Green Zionism is already linked from several templates, including the Zionism one. If the movement ever becomes more generally significant, it can then be added to others. Jayjg ^(talk)

20:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not the movement that was founded in 2001, just a specific organization. The Israeli Green Zionism -- the Green Movement -- party received more than 70,000 votes in the last Knesset elections; it only didn't receive seats because there was a two-seat minimum, and it received the most votes of any party that didn't win seats. The party has been written about at least eight times in the last month (http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=%22green+movement%22+israel+%22alon+tal%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=86d3017a6f760f47&biw=1280&bih=865) in the English language (in Haartez and the Jerusalem Post). The American practioner of Green Zionism, the Green Zionist Alliance, is one of the few Zionist organizations to be receiving more votes for the World Zionist Congress from election year to election year, and it already has passed seven pieces of legislation at the World Zionist Congress, the legislative body for Israel's national parks service and its immigration department, among other responsibilities. I apologize if I personally offended either you or any Wiki protocol, however that should not take away from the relevance of the movement, and its absence from the template is a disservice to Wiki's readers and the general public. (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC).

In the most recent (2009) election, the Green Movement–Meimad got 27,737 votes. The Greens got 12,378, which was actually significantly down from the previous election. Where are you getting your numbers from? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I know that the Green Movement received more than enough votes for one seat, but there was a multiple-seat minimum so they didn't receive representation. So by saying "more than 70,000" I was going off the number that you presented as the amount for one seat. However, after more research, it seems that we were both wrong in terms of numbers. The number of votes needed for one seat was 27,246, with a 67,470-vote minimum threshold that effectively was a two-seat minimum (Source: http://www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_mimshal_res18.htm ). In any case, even though the Green Movement did not win representation, it holds that the Green Movement received more than enough votes for one seat at the Knesset. In the past year the Green Movement has been very active on the Israeli political scene, leading to the successful blocking of the appointment of an Israeli military general ( http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0202/1224288773033.html ), and an expected successful protection of the Samar sand dunes in a campaign organized with the Green Zionist Alliance ( http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=226392 ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.34.61 (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I was completely correct. The threshold for winning a seat in the Knesset in the last election was approximately 70,000 seats, as I said. And the Green Movement–Meimad got 27,737 votes - less than half the required amount, so it didn't even win enough for one seat, if there were no minimum 2% limit. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

About 70,000 wasn't the amount for a seat -- it was about the amount for two seats. The amount for one seat was 27,246. ... 27,737 is greater than 27,246 -- that's more than enough votes for one seat. It was only the effective two-seat minimum which led to the lack of representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.34.61 (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for a party to be seated in the Knesset was approximately 70,000. It's not clear to me what it would have taken to win each additional seat, but you could be right about that. In any event, it didn't win enough votes to be seated in parliament - in fact, it didn't even get 28,000 votes. In any event,

unduly present. And finally, if you do post again, please sign your comments with four tilde signs ~~~~ like the bot is telling you to do on your Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk)

22:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Green Movement–Meimad didn't need 28,000 votes for a seat -- one seat was 27,246 votes, according to the Knesset: http://www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_mimshal_res18.htm . Sorry about not "signing" -- still figuring out how that works. 66.192.34.61 (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Green Movement–Meimad needed 67,470 votes to be seated in the Knesset - in fact, it didn't even get 28,000 votes. I think we're done here. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

left|150px u should know that the guy was born around 1880, so the pic must have been taken before 1923 (he looks like a youngster, doesn't look like a more than 40 yo guy)

revert your changes before it gets deleted Dzlinker (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The picture may or may not have been taken before 1923 (it's certainly not clear), and we have no idea when it was first published. Please don't insert false licensing claims on images again, you've already had quite a few images deleted from the Commons. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

By motion of the Arbitration Committee voted on at

The editing restrictions placed on Nishidani (talk · contribs) in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Nishidani is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Nice article! And I like the other ones too. I've made some changes to them. I would recommend moving

Knesseth Israel (Toronto) to Congregation Knesseth Israel (Toronto), as that is its real name according to its website. Jayjg ^(talk)

06:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've created an article for the Beach Hebrew Institute and am going to see about expanding the pre-existing article on the Kiever Synagogue. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with the infobox for Beach Hebrew Institute, a number of the entries don't show up. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

O.K., I'll come help. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed all the infoboxes, and done some work on the articles. I've also nominated two (

WP:DYK, so they'll appear on the front page. I'll nominate some more articles tomorrow - the process is a bit laborious, because you have to also review other DYKs. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a nomination but a slight correction to the Anshei Mink blurb, it should be "offered to pay" instead of "partly paid". The write up on the Ontario Jewish Archives website is ambiguous on the matter but when listening to the interview with Michelle Landsberg it turns out that her grandfather actually turned down the membership offer. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Shaarei Tzedek wasn't long enough to qualify for DYK, and neither First Narayever Congregation nor Holy Blossom Temple had been expanded enough (5x) to qualify for DYK. Beach Hebrew Institute qualified, so I nominated it. You should nominate some of your other articles, like Sydney Harris (judge) and Dorothy Reitman. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I almost missed Kiever Synagogue. I've edited it some more, and nominated. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. I know you have experience with doing citations long-hand, and I've run into a bit of a problem, and I was hoping you could help.

The Augmentative and alternative communication article has a whole lot of sources, and I'm trying to get everything ready so that we can submit it to FAC without too many glaring errors remaining. One of the most-used sources in the article is Beukelman & Mirenda's "Augmentative & alternative communication: supporting children & adults with complex communication needs" from 2005. Beukelman & Mirenda are the editors, and also the authors for most of the book. However, different authors wrote chapters 13 and 15-18.

I have split "Notes" and "References", the way I've seen you do it in many of your good and featured articles. But I'm not sure how to deal with these. For a chapter written by Beukelman & Mirenda, the note simply says "Beukelman & Mirenda, pp. 113-115." or something like that. When the info comes from a separately-written chapter, such chapter 16 by Garrett and Lasker, I used "Garret & Lasker, pp. 475-481." Does that seem right?

Then, in the reference section, it seems like I have to list the book several times: once under Beukelman and once under each chapter author used. And both would have the publisher, isbn, etc. This seems like a lot of duplicated information. Do you know what the best way to deal with this would be? Thanks for any help, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Quadell. I would do exactly what you're doing/have done. It looks good, and is very helpful for the reader when trying to track down sources etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice you left over at the article talk page. Consensus achieved. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, I'm pretty sure Template talk:Did you know/Kiever Synagogue is the first nomination anyone has posted using the new system; everything looks correct, so I'm glad it seems to have worked and you were able to notice the message about the new system! Did you find anything confusing or difficult about nominating this way? rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag. I didn't realize I was a pioneer in this. I did find it a bit confusing - in particular, the old edit had list of explanations about how to do it (nominate or review) in page notice, which you've now removed. Also, I couldn't really understand how to review any more; was I supposed to just review an article, or put it in the prep area too, or both? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. As for the instructions about how to nominate (I assume you mean the example {{

NewDYKnom

}} codes), I figured that wouldn't be necessary anymore since the whole template is not preloaded for you; some of the other various instructions (e.g., "Do wikilink words in the hook") are still there, they're just now in the editnotice for the subpage you create rather than the editnotice for T:TDYK itself (since that's where one would actually need to see them).

As for reviewing, that hasn't changed; the "quid pro quo" requirement is still just to review another nomination by saying it's ok or not, not to move it into the prep area. I'll try to make this clearer in the instructions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

When you reviewed nominations, as I recall, the edit notice helpfully provided (for example) all the different icons you could use to accept/question/reject etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I just restored that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm really sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, but please check what I said about J. Maier, P. Meier and Theissen. They are simply saying (in contrast to Klausner) that there is no trace of the historical Jesus in the Talmud. They are not saying that the Jesus-passages in some late texts of the B.Tal don't relate to the Jesus of medieval Christianity. At the moment that article represents a glaring POV with no single academic source in the article refs supporting the stance of the lede that the name may refer to another "individual" called Jesus. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There is clearly a POV-fork between

talk

) 15:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A number of thinkers throughout history have clearly stated that Yeshu and Jesus are not the same. Wikipedia cannot presuppose they are, but it can (and should) describe the various views on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that we do not usually use Primary Sources of ancient or medieval texts as the basis for article content, certainly not article lede. It's appropriate to mention those ancient/medieval views in the article with secondary sourcing to show the historical content but Encyclopedic content should be modern scholarly content. (btw in case you missed it, Meier is following Maier's reading of "later rabbinical writing" to include what Maier believed were later interpolations to the Talmud, it doesn't mean that Meier disagrees with Maier and thinks that the Yeshu passages are original. See Theissen's description of Maier's belief than Sanh43a was a medieval gloss. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm referring to both medieval and modern scholars. In any event, it's best to continue this discussion of article content on the article Talk: page, where everyone can contribute. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg. If you don't mind I would like to make 2 final comments here. 1 because the volume of noise from Slrubenstein and the level of religious/sectarian invective in his posts makes communication very difficult. The above evidences that you and I are not effectively communicating under the barrage.

1. As for medieval scholars I personally do not believe that Wikipedia

WP:source

policy allows presentation of medieval views as the sole basis for the lede, but that such views should be confined to historical content in the main text.

2. No modern scholar holds the view of the lede. I have assembled a brief but clear set of refs under a new article

Johann Maier (Talmudic scholar) which was written primarily for yourself, so that you may see Maier's view - that the name Jesus was "added later in the Middle ages" for yourself without the background noise. Having taken the trouble to assemble those sources I hope that you will read the article and then come back to Yeshu and note how the Yeshu article misrepresents him. In ictu oculi (talk

) 06:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

I'm somewhat disappointed, I see you went to the Maier article but evidently did not read the footnotes, other than to change Maier's wording "Jesus" to "Yeshu" on the basis that "this is what the Talmud uses". Well Maier doesn't use it, Maier uses the standard German word for Jesus when discussing the Jesus references in the Talmud. At the very least I would hope that you now have seen that Maier does not support Yechiel of Paris' "theory of two Jesuses."

Wikipedia is supposed to be an impartial secular resource. It is not in line with Wikipedia policies to have an article as a POVfork with a lede predicated to a view from a 13th Century disputation, and as an admin you should not be supporting medieval primary sources over modern scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't "supported medieval sources", the Talmud refers to "Yeshu", and an article started in March 2004 cannot be a POVfork of an article started in September 2010 (and mostly copied from it). Let's continue these content discussions on the relevant article pages please. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg As it stands, the Yeshu article is a non-scholarly POV presentation with distorted quotes of sources to allow a medieval view. And parts may have been copied but the medieval POV has been removed and scholarly content added. As it stands it is now the Yeshu article which is a dicdef and povfork. As far as discussing - it's up to you. I'd prefer to do it here, because you at least are reasonable, the problem with Slrubenstein's noise and inability/unwillingness to read sources. Any way in case it gets drowned out I'll duplicate here what I've posted for you to consider to the Talk page: Question i: How do you understand the word "redaction" in the following:

the identification of the condemned man as Jesus has nothing to do with that context, and should probably be ascribed, in Maier's view, to post-Talmudic redaction; Jews and Christians p105 William Horbury 2006

Question ii: How do you understand the words "were added later in the Middle Ages" in the following:

Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient p108 - 2000 "While Herford was somewhat critical of their accuracy, he seems almost never to have met a possible reference to Jesus that he did not like!70 On the other end of the spectrum, Johann Maier in his Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung has concluded that no genuine Tannaitic or Amoraic references are present, even in the Talmuds when first issued, but were added later in the Middle Ages. 71 Most scholarly opinion falls between these two extremes."

In ictu oculi (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you mind telling me the difference between these deletios please?

• CSD - speedy deletion
• PROD - propose deletion
• XFD - Nominate deletion

Thanks

A CSD is an article that meets any one of a number of criteria for being speedy deleted (see

WP:CSD), and can be deleted immediately if it meets the criteria. A PROD is an article that is proposed for deletion, and if no-one objects in a week, it an be deleted. A XfD is a formal deletion process, where one proposes deletion, giving policy-based reasons, the proposal goes on a page filled with other such proposals for that day, it is discussed for a week, and then an administrator decides whether or not the discussion supports deletion. Jayjg ^(talk)

05:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason you cannot do this yourself? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, i've never made a copy-paste redirect before, but i'll try follow the procedure.

talk

09:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope i did it correctly.

talk

09:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The actors are still Israeli are they not? Just because they live in the US and might have US citizenship doesn't change where they were born or mean that they gave up their citizenship in most cases. Maybe it should be Israeli-born instead? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If they're Israeli, then they're Israeli. If not, then they're not. Many of the people in the list had Israeli parents, or one Israeli parent, or lived in Israel at some point, or who knows what? I don't see other lists like this having similar sections. Someone can start a List of actors with Israeli parents page if they like, but I doubt it would survive AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

nominate ) 04:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC) DYK for Beach Hebrew Institute On 27 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beach Hebrew Institute, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the name of the Beach Hebrew Institute was chosen to avoid attracting the attention of the Canadian German Party? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 21:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Special:Undelete/Valeria Solovieva She is notable now by winning at least a 25K ITF event. Thank you! (http://www.itftennis.com/womens/tournaments/printabledrawsheet.asp?tournament=1100024055&event=1100137534 Source here for a 50K in fact!) (Gabinho >:) 18:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)) OK, would you like to create a new article on her? Jayjg (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC) I was hoping for a restoration of the deleted one (Gabinho>:) 09:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)) Unfortunately, none of it was sourced. I can undelete it and put it in your user space, if you promise not to put it in main space before you cite everything in it - see WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Do it. I'll source it. Thanks. (Gabinho>:) 08:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)) Done. You'll find it at User:Gabinho/Valeria Solovieva. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC) And yet, you moved it back into mainspace without sourcing everything in it. In fact, almost nothing in it was sourced. That was disappointing. Please don't move it back into mainspace before you cite everything in it - see WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Gabinho, I restored this article to your userspace on the condition that you would cite everything in it, to which you enthusiastically agreed. This is the second time now that you've attempted to move the article to mainspace without citing anything in it. If I don't see you citing all information in it in the next couple of days, I'll delete it again. Jayjg (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Daily mail is the daily mail a reliable source? talk 07:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC) This has been discussed many time at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. It's a tabloid, but it's not complete rubbish. May be used with caution for uncontroversial material. Jayjg (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Valeria Solovieva Just so you know, this AFD was materially deficient. WP:NTENNIS says "junior players are presumed to be notable if they have won at least a junior Grand slam title," which she did at the 2009 U.S. Open. Maybe the article that existed was poor, but there was no reason to remove all the links, as the player herself is perfectly notable, something the AFD seems to have missed entirely. Courcelles 03:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Please see WP:BLP, so it's only going into mainspace once it's fully cited. Jayjg (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Okay, but removing every incoming link was severe overkill. Courcelles 00:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC) It's a standard automated Twinkle tab for deleted articles - I use it for all articles I delete at AfD. Jayjg (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC) DLDD I'm becoming increasingly suspicious that DLDD=Noleander. What say you? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC) I see a User:Noleander but no User:DLDD. --Kygora 03:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC) He means Dalai lama ding dong (talk · contribs). @ Jewish religious terrorism was a banned user. I tried to trace the article back to its original creator, but the name used to be different and I couldn't figure out who the creator of the original article was. Was it Noleander (talk · contribs)? I'm wondering if Rakim the Goat (talk · contribs) isn't also involved in all this. That he's a sockpuppet of someone is undeniable, but having made only one meaningful edit in his nine-minute career as a contributor, it's impossible to form a behavioral profile of him and cross-reference his edits with any other users.—Biosketch (s/talk ) 05:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC) I don't recall commenting that Jewish religious terrorism was created by a banned user, but if I did, I likely meant Siddiqui (talk · contribs). Rakim the Goat (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of a notorious editor who was banned years ago, and who has since created and used dozens of sockpuppets, pretending to leave then returning, and getting his friend to hide any traces of his previous sockpuppets by deleting the user pages and associated sockpuppet categories. When he creates a one-off sockpuppet like this, it typically means he's gone to some city or town he doesn't live in for the day, and has used facilities there to do his edits, so they can't be traced back to his main sockpuppet account. Jayjg (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Solovieva article Minor suggestion, ignore if you choose. You may find other editors more amenable if you don't start comments with phrases like "Are you kidding?". I don't know the whole history of that page nor your dealings with that user, but that comment sounds hostile, not collaborative. Cliff (talk ) 04:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC) I'm a bit peeved that the editor in question abused my trust, getting me to do things for him by making promises with (apparently) no intent of actually carrying them out. I was quite polite to him when I first started helping him. See #Special:Undelete/Valeria Solovieva above. Jayjg (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC) I see what you're saying, that sounds frustrating. Take a breath. Cliff (talk ) 05:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Daniel Pipes Boy, that yellow badge thing got me mad. I mean, the first time you did it, I was mad, but I just did some breathing exercises, :O). Hey I hope you understand that you maybe hit a little nerve for me there, and that I'm not pretending to be glad to work with you on that page, I'm actually glad to work with you. That doesn't mean I think you're right, and maybe I'm still a little bit ill thinking about yellow badges being reduced to Wiki rhetoric, but boy I wish I could tell you how powerfully I object to that without alienating you or being inarticulate. I think we'll do good on our elephant-in-the-room hunt together, whether the elephant is anti-Zionist or Zionist. Cheers, sincerely! DBaba (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Well, I hope that you realize that I wasn't referring to you with that, I specifically directed it at the IP editor. I've seen dozens of similar editors on Wikipedia over the last 7 years, people who think it's very important to label people they disagree with or think are guilty of something as Jews, so I'm a bit impatient with them. I look forward to working with you too. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You are distinctly the man, Jayjg. DBaba (talk ) 01:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I've got another little bone I want to pick with you, away from the talk page. You seem to have a long record of blanking Pipes' identity as Jewish, and I think that's problematic. This is a discrete point from what you once said about 'ethnicity', which means nothing and is understandably absent from reliable sources. This is something that, in Pipes' case, is included in many reliable sources (including his characterizations of his own opinions), and that's reason enough to keep it in. But I am worried that you hold a view that is suspicious of why that is significant, to any of these social scientists and reporters, and I'd like to engage you on that. In all nationalist conflicts, the nationalist axis is politicized. Some people become obsessed with what they perceive to be their national orientation, and spend all kinds of time arguing if it's the Sea of Japan or the East Sea, the Persian Gulf or the Arab Gulf. Every little thing is assessed on the "Is-this-good-for-the-brand-name" axis. Some of the X's always decide to say nasty stuff about the Y's, because their loss is our gain. So if some dude is warning of the impending horrors of the Muslim invasion and the Islamist world takeover, it makes sense to note if he is Jewish, because he would seem to be exhibiting that disease which disputes the nomenclature of the Persian Gulf, the reality of the Nanking Massacre, the extent of the Holocaust. I've definitely read (and misread) the usage of 'Jewish' before, in what I thought were illegitimate or political ways. And I was involved in a fascinating back-and-forth at Robert Spencer holds views comparable to Pipes, and his Melkite Greek Catholic background has exactly the same significance on that nationalist axis. I'm just about over the 'Yellow Badge' thing. Cheers, DBaba (talk ) 01:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC) In the early days I "blanked" it because there weren't actually any reliable sources that stated it and because people insisted it belonged in the lede, many (and perhaps most) for the reasons given by this editor, though few expressed it that honestly. In your most recent comment on the article Talk: page, you stated your concern about the lede being used for material of "significance"; it's still not clear to me how the fact that his parents are Jews is "significant" in any way to Pipes himself. I haven't seen Pipes himself writing about the topic at all, and I don't recall other reputable sources discussing it in any detail, or relating it to his career in any way. To be frank, I hope I've misunderstood what you're saying about "if some dude is warning of the impending horrors of the Muslim invasion and the Islamist world takeover, it makes sense to note if he is Jewish" – if you're claiming that his "Jewishness" is significant because Jews are prone to Islamophobia, then we have a much bigger issue. Perhaps you can clarify - what exactly are you saying about Jews and Muslims? Jayjg (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC) I'm telling you that an analysis on the axis of nationalist conflict is relevant to social scientists, not because they are part of a cabal of self-haters and bigots, but because it's politically relevant. It has political import that Iris Chang is Chinese American. It has political import that Spencer's family was killed and expelled. It has political import if David Irving is singing songs about 'Aryanism' to Christopher Hitchens' daughter. Helen Thomas? These are axises of nationalist conflict. And I'm trying to defend reliable sources to you here, and explain how they are according these factoids significance... The Arab-Israeli conflict is an axis of interpretation, for them; "how does such and such figure in this conflict?" I know this is a difference in our vision and that's why I went for it, J. You have actually seen Pipes writing about the topic if you have read the Wikipedia page; he describes himself politically as a Jew, and suggests that Muslim gains are Jewish losses. We know this isn't "Jewish", and frankly it's outrageous to say so. It's nationalist. It's "anti-semitic in effect if not intent". What am I saying about "Muslims and Jews"? That there's a nationalist/territorial conflict sometimes branded with those terms (in Pipes' precise words). But forget about whether it's relevant to the Pipes article, let's just see if we agree that it's not prejudiced to say that Iris Chang's parents were born in China, and that Spencer comes from an Eastern Christian family. Really this isn't about the page, it's about you and I exchanging ideas. We've got some space between us here, but I hope we're narrowing it. DBaba (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Pete Doherty Jewish ancestry Sky News reports that Pete Doherty's spokeswoman said "Peter himself is from Jewish descent...". Here is the link again: Doherty Upsets German Fans With Nazi Anthem Yes, he is "of Jewish descent". Apparently his mother's father was Jewish. That doesn't make Doherty himself Jewish. Doherty was raised Catholic. Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Jews are an ethnic group as well as a religious one. Apparently 52% of American Jews are atheists/agnostics. There's even a Wikipedia category for Jewish atheists featuring the likes of Isaac Asimov and Karl Marx.Clinton Baptiste (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC) I suspect Jayjg is already familiar with the various definitions of Judaism. Still, to state on Wikipedia that someone is definitively Jewish, there has to be a reliable source that says the person him- or herself is Jewish, rather than merely a grandparent. All the best, – Quadell (talk ) 19:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC) If Tiger Woods is African American then Pete Doherty should be considered Jewish. Given that Woods is only one-quarter African American.Clinton Baptiste (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC) You have provided a reliable source indicating that Doherty has an ancestor who was Jewish. You have not provided any reliable source stating that Doherty himself is Jewish. Please review WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC) DYK for Kiever Synagogue 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. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 03:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 18:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Nice job! – Quadell (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Evan Seinfeld is Jewish My addition, American Jews, to Evan Seinfeld's page was correct, there was no need to erase it. In an interview, he is asked why he, a Jewish male, would have tattoos. He doesn't deny being Jewish. http://www.inkedmag.com/music/q-evan-seinfeld/ Now I expect his page to have my addition added to it. Also, Seinfeld is a common Jewish name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.108.77 (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC) While he didn't deny it, he didn't confirm it, I don't know if that's a reliable source, and you didn't include it with your edit anyway. "Common Jewish name" is meaningless when it come to WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC) DYK for Anshei Minsk On 1 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anshei Minsk, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that because of the Great Depression, the members of the Anshei Minsk synagogue offered to pay the builder with a lifetime membership in lieu of full fees for his services? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Staten Island Ferry Whitehall Terminal Dear Jayjg, You have become the experienced editor I turn to with questions from time to time, and hope that is all right with you. I continue to enjoy creating some articles and editing others, and normally have good relations with other editors who improve the articles I create as well as those they and I mutually work on for improvements. My question now is about the way one editor (Beyond My Ken) has deleted a number of images in the gallery I included on the article I created, "Staten Island Ferry Whitehall Terminal." (This is an editor who admits he went through a series of screen names because of problems during the time he used earlier ones.) Anyway, he deleted them as "inappropriate," and I reinstated them (reverting his edit) asking that he explain why he thought they were inappropriate on the discussion page. His explanation was that "wikipedia is not a gallery," and asked me to check "WP:NOTGALLERY," plus "WK:OWNERSHIP." I understand ownership...and that all articles are collaborative, but when I checked "not gallery," what I read was that no wikipedia article should be a "mere gallery of photos," with just a little text thrown in. In this case, it's a solid article, which included a few photos in the article itself, but then I thought I enhanced it with additional photos. I don't want to engage in an edit war by reverting his edit again - and besides, I'm not sure who is right. If you could take a look at the article and its history, and give me your opinion, I'd accept that view as authoritative. Thanks as always! (PS - I also did an article on the architect who designed the memorial, Frederic Schwartz. You can see from the history of the articles I create that when I do one, the next one is often one that "flows" from the research I did for an earlier one. So I have done an article on a film, and then one on the director. In this case, I did on on the architect, and then on some of his works. Anyway, the same editor struck out "award-winning" from the phrase "award winning architect" in the lead...even though the article includes a list of awards that the architect won. Again, I'd appreciate your opinion!). Thanks again - NearTheZoo (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC) I will take a look. Jayjg (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Kehilla Dear Jayjg: you right about the "Kehilla", my bad. Bloger (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC) No big deal, thanks for the note. Jayjg (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC) I’m thinking of making an article on the "Kehilla", I just need a little extra time! Bloger (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Falling in reverse I thought I'd let you know that the page User:GroundZ3R0 002/The Drug In Me Is You) that Kygora has helped me create is completely notable and suitable for Wikipedia. While AltPress sources do exist, they are now a minority on both pages and are used only for information. In addition, these are all original pieces composed by AltPress correspondents, not press releases as you previously suspected. AltPress is a widely publicized magazine and so the few sources by them should be left. As for notability, the album has charted on many iTunes charts, both the singles charted in 16 and 19 countries on iTunes, the album charted at number 19 on the Billboard 200, and charted in the top 10 in 5 other billboard charts, as well as on a few UK charts, possibly other countries as well but I have a difficult time researching charts. I understand that previous renditions have been unacceptable in the past, but I encourage you to see this version as high quality and proper for Wikipedia. Thank you, GroundZ3R0 002 21:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC) To Further this, i would like to point out Falling in Reverse now Meets The Drug In Me Is You Has place at #19 on the [Billboard 200]--Kygora 22:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC) An article that was re-created in mainspace 24 separate times after deletion, and that failed a DRV a month ago, would have to go through another DRV before recreation in mainspace. Any attempt to recreate in any other way would be met with deletion and editor blocking, because of the two-year history of disruption. Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC) [Done] --Kygora 23:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Would you be kind enough to unblock the talk page for Falling In Reverse? Thanks, GroundZ3R0 002 18:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Vandalism by User:99.253.6.218 would like to report User:99.253.6.218 that IP has done nothing bu Vandalize 2 Wiki Pages.--Kygora 04:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I've warned him. If he continues, I'll block him. Jayjg (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Northeast/North East Africa Hi Jayjg. I would like your advice, if possible, on something. There's a Sudanese account that has been consistently removing mention of the territories in the Horn of Africa from various articles. Two such instances of this are on the North East Africa re-direct pages. Both pages for a long-time used to point to the Horn of Africa page, but the account unilaterally re-routed them to the North Africa article. His argument for doing so is basically that the term "Northeast Africa" or "North East Africa" only pertains to Egypt and (the former northern) Sudan [2]. I've explained to him that the territories in the Horn of Africa are often as well referred to as "Northeast Africa" (e.g. [3]), whereas most of the territories in the North Africa article that he re-directed the pages to actually lie in the Northwest (Maghreb). The discussions have reached a stalemate, as he's basically now ignoring the material that I have produced to demonstrate that the Horn of Africa is often included in the designation. The user has also been confirmed by Checkuser to have been abusing multiple accounts, and his sock accounts have been indefinitely banned (c.f. [4]). However, even this does not appear to have had much of an effect since he's still pretty much carrying on as before with his main account. I'm not sure how to proceed at this point; please advise. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk ) 19:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I've cautioned him on his Talk: page regarding edit-warring. On the Red Sea Talk: page there appears to be another editor who disagrees with you. You could always start a WP:RFC. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Much obliged (the other editor and I seem to have reached an agreement). Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC) hi, i saw your warning in my talk page !!, I think you decision to support him is wrong! ,.first of all because it was a month before he started to revret my edits without discussion! & did you notice that im the one who is using the article's talk page and comment before each edit ? ,I will stop reverting his edits from now on , but my request is to read about norttheast africa more if you support his opinion? and if you don't agree with him , please let it be an article instead of redirect , finally , why did you warn me not him at the first place !! I'm doing a very constructive edits, many users disagree Talk:Red_Sea with his opinions any way, regards --Prince jasim ali (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Actually, only one user (not "many users") expressed disagreement in the separate Red Sea article discussion; and that issue was eventually resolved without your involvement and well before your post above. You also re-routed the long-standing Northeast Africa and North East Africa re-directs to point to the North Africa article and with no prior discussion let alone consensus (as the time stamps from this month on the Northeast Africa discussion page readily show [5]). As can be seen on that same article's talk page, this and more was also already explained to you, with sources in tow (including a map you yourself posted). Lastly, "North East Africa" did used to be an article -- one that, incidentally, was largely devoted to the Horn of Africa countries in the greater region [6]. That's why it was re-directed to the main Horn of Africa article in the first place [7]. (Apologies Jayjg for the interjection, but I had to correct those inaccuracies.) Middayexpress (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Actually,4 users disagree with you ever since this edit has been posted me, bazonka ,[8] mandavi & merhawie, and you should advise him not to take wikipedia edits as a personal issue --Prince jasim ali (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Uh, that's a link to a post from four years ago... even before I joined this website, nevermind your account. Talk about grasping at straws. (Apologies again Jayjg for the interjection, but I had to correct this (latest) absurdity.) Middayexpress (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC) My RfC I never have closed this RfC I posted on myself in June 2007, in part because several of the issues involved have continued over several years. Before I consider possibly closing it (I feel I'm the one who should close it since it was a self-RfC), I was wondering if you would like to reconsider your endorsements of SlimVirgin's and FloNight's summaries. If so, please strike through your endorsements. If you still stand by them, please consider adding an additional statement at the bottom the front page of the RfC. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Barnstar of Diligence For all your thankless and stressful work dealing with vandalism, notability issues, and sourcing problems, I award you this shiny token of appreciation. Thanks for all you do! – Quadell (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you, that's so kind of you! Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Updates to Temple Beth Israel (Eugene, Oregon) Greetings. I like to keep an eye on changes to GAs I reviewed, and an issue came up regarding Temple Beth Israel (Eugene, Oregon), which you brought up to GA status last month. Since then, an anon updated the page to show the new rabbi (Boris Dolin instead of Maurice Harris). These edits look accurate, and the ref (the temple's official website) does indeed show Dolin currently. I, in turn, made a few more updates in this regard, but I have a concern: the "Temple Beth Israel website" ref has a sub-ref for Harris' personal letter. Is there still a use for this? And should there be additional information now about the new rabbi? Just thought I'd let you know. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks for letting me know, I'll take a look. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Oops! My apologies for this revert. I was reviewing my watchlist as I sipped my first cup of coffee this morning, and hit the Rollback button without meaning to. I had no intention of reverting you and corrected myself immediately. The Rollback, like other useful tools, can cause embarrassing accidents when the user isn't paying attention. Sorry about that, Doc Tropics 15:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC) No problem at all, and I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Collaboration over Beta Israel article Shavua tov Jayjg, I didn't think my tag would take a year to fix, but in a large project these things might happen. The tag I've placed on July 2007 over the Limbic system article is still pretty much there. I'm not proud of it, but it's better to tell ourselves and our readers that there's a temporary problem that should be resolved, than to hide it altogether. I suggest we put aside the argument about permanent tagging and get back to gradual improvement of Beta Israel article. We both made significant contributions to it and wish to see it clean of tags and full with credible content. I understand from Yan that he's a friend of us both and there's no reason for us to keep on arguing long after our points have been made. If it's fine with you, I'll start working on a revised version of the genetic section at a sandbox. Once we're both satisfied with it, we'll place it in to the existing article. I frankly suggest we ask others for assistance here, as genome-wide association studies are nontrivial to explain, especially in an article that is oriented for the general public. Maybe Yulia Egorova could ask one of her students to help us out here. I'm taking off to a personal vacation around September 6th, so let's agree that the revised version of the genetic section should be finished by then. Of course that was not my original workplan for the next two weeks, but I respect your intention to remove the tag as soon as possible. Best, ליאור • Lior (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC) I'm happy to work with you on fixing any problems you see with the material. Since you are the one who thinks there is a problem, and appear to know what sources you'd like to use to fix it, please feel to create the sandbox version, and I'll do what I can to help you with it. Once it's complete, we can replace the current section with the new one. Jayjg (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA) Please review and comment: Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA) Talk:Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA) JohnLloydScharf (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Links on Elazar Shach Page Hi, Can you respond to my proposal at the "Links to Speeches and Letters of Shach" section on Talk:Elazar_Shach ? Yonoson3 (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Troll It could be nothing, but this video recently uploaded to YouTube seems strangely related to the troll who left you a message here last week.—Biosketch (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC) You're probably right. There's not much that can be done about these bigots and their off-wiki falsehoods. Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Speaking of which, this video openly calls to take action against an active Wikipedia editor who previously held some admin rights as well. I have been told that this editor has been harassed since his personal address and phone number have been exposed on this video. What can be done to protect him? ליאור • Lior (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Does the editor in question mostly edit on en-wiki or he-wiki? Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC) He-wiki, as far as I know. ליאור • Lior (talk) 06:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC) It's hard for Wikipedia admins to address off-Wikipedia issues, but if it were to be addressed by anyone, it would likely have to be he-wiki admins. Jayjg (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Elazar Shach page - regarding "Al HaTorah V'al Hatemurah" Hi, Recently I started a discussion on the Elazar Shach talk page, entitled "Regarding quotes from the book "Al HaTorah V'al Ha'Temurah". Do you think Winchester2313 is correct that the book is not fit for Wikipedia? Yonoson3 (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC) I've responded there. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC) PunBB page error Hi. We (PunBB community) want to restore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PunBB page. What we need to do for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimkalinux (talk • contribs) 07:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC) The discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PunBB indicated that the topic did not have sufficient external and reliable sources to indicate notability. Has that changed? Jayjg (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Yes. changed. First reason for deletion is «I can't find significant coverage for this software on Google, Google News, and Google Books. Joe Chill», but simple search PunBB in Google give result About 26,800,000 results Second, on forum-software.org - independent site about forum software compare PunBB have 7/10 rating (http://www.forum-software.org/punbb/review) - its very good. Quotes this site - «PunBB is the most well known forum software in its own category: the search for simplicity. This research of a simple well-written and clear forum software has always been the main purpose of its developer, and people looking for such policy are never disappointed by PunBB». Third, PunBB is good open source project with more than 8 years history. Its used on many big and famous site like facebook - > 300 000 users (http://forum.developers.facebook.net/) and MacHeist > 1,124,423 users (http://macheist.com/forums/). 4. PunBB is active project. We have 1 major and 4 minor releases in last 6 month (http://punbb.informer.com/forums/forum/78/development/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.159.221.142 (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Sorry, http://www.forum-software.org/ does not appear to me to meet the requirements of WP:SECONDARY before responding. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC) I dont understand, what exactly the source you mean and what exactly this source must confirm? New York Times not write any articles about PunBB as not write it about ANY OTHER forum software. What you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.146.132.68 (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC) WP:RS outlines exactly what kinds of sources are required. Please click on the link, and read the article there. Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Can you explain why on our deleted page writed redirect to our fork and direct concurrent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.146.132.68 (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC) My question is, who is "our"? Anonymous accounts don't get too much of a say on Wiki, if you really want a page made, Make a Wikipedia account and work on a sandbox version and than get it approved for mainspace. Also it redirects to that page because they have something to do with each other that must be good enough for a redirect. Also sorry Jayjg for intruding.--Kygora 15:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Is not answer. Im just dont understand - well known at least 7 years Open Source project have page and in one day page deleted and make redirect too cool but less known forked project. In all wiki many links to deleted page and no page itself. Something wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimkalinux (talk • contribs) 19:10, 1 September 2011 Tholzel Thanks for reverting and blocking 74.104.99.112 (talk · contribs) - I agree that based on content of their posts and where they were made this is probably Tholzel attempting to evade their block again (edit: and the IP address is in the same range). It's interesting (and disgusting) that he or she is getting cruder and cruder with each new IP sockpuppet. Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks. He's even admitted he's banned with this IP. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayjg/Archive_37&oldid=1139320388"