User talk:Jayjg/Archive 8 - Wikipedia


Article Images

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Old talk archived at Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5

I just wanted you to know that I've thought about it and I'm confident in your abilities as an admin. By that I mean were you not an admin, and were nominated for adminship today, I would support you. I've noted such at User:Blankfaze/admin, where I record all of my RFA votes. I want to again apologise for harsh things I have said in the past. Best of luck.

BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My edit at Simon bar Kokhba was just to show you what your behaviour is like. When I read your talkpage, I see several people complaining about your revert their edits all of them. It's quite annoying when someone follows you to undo all your edits, so please stop that. I'm a normal Wikipedian, not a vandal. Jcbos 23:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When you first encountered resistance from several editors to your unilateral changes, you should have stopped and reconsidered, and tried to build consensus; that is the Wiki way. Instead you went ahead and re-did your edits, and continued making changes and reverting to them on many other articles, in the face of spontaneous opposition from at least 5 editors [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], while referring to other editors edits as "vandalism".[6] This was not long after you joined Wikipedia, and after you had made only 15 other edits. Furthermore, when people brought dictionary definitions showing your understanding of the usage of the word Bible in English was incorrect,[7] you said it was "patent nonsense",[8] and when they mentioned other usages of the word "Bible", you said those changes "NEED" to be reverted because they were "pure lies".[9] You also used deceptive edit summaries,[10] and admitted to reverting my edits just to annoy me.[11] You may not be a vandal, but there was no way of telling that from your edits and behaviour. Jayjg (talk) 15:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I will be working on the article, but need to find time to study your articles and others first. Also, I'm hoping to pull in some real lawyers, not just people like me who play one on wikipedia. :-) --Leifern 19:44, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Jayjg, I can assure you that there is no consensus of administrators, nor is the issue whether or not there are other administrators willing to ban that Troll. Administrators carry out community made policy. Whether an administrator, or all the administrators, want to ban that troll is not the point, the point is, has the community given them the authority to do that. They have clearly not in this case. Please, follow policy. Mark Richards 21:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. You listed in the block explanation that you thought that the user was a previously banned user. If you are using that piece of policy to justify the block, then the procedure is clear, and you did not follow it. If you are now claiming that the block is justified under some other piece of policy, please make it clear which one. It is not clear to me that any harrassment is going on, and several other admins are also concerned. I think, given that there is no urgent need to block this user at all, that you would be better using a RFC or some other method, since there is clearly not consensus behind your behavior. Appreciate your work though, Mark Richards 21:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What "behaviour" are you talking about? Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Continuing to block this user. Appologies if it was not you that actually blocked him/her, I may have mis-spoken there. Mark Richards 00:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) Actually, I think it was you that blocked him. That's the behavior I'm talking about. Mark Richards 00:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Recycling Troll, I've never blocked him. Why do you think I have? Jayjg (talk) 14:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In that case I owe you my sincere appologies, I misread the block logs and thought that you had blocked that user. Mark Richards 17:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Greetings. I usually stay clear of the minefield of Israeli-Palestinian articles, but I just added an article on the American Palestine Public Affairs Forum. Since you're interested in this sort of thing, I thought you might want to look it over for accuracy and possible bias. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:45, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful note in the Votes for Deletion page for Boethusians. I went through the history of the person who initiated the vfd and she has made numerous inappropriate vfd recommends (see Pan-Turkism, for instance). Anyway I have adjusted the article to reflect the Jewish Encyc template. --Briangotts 21:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in. I was in the middle of searching for and relinking stuff in a bunch of articles to the new name when my boss suggested I actually do some work. The nerve!--Cberlet 22:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but ask Wesley too, maybe Danny too -- I am sure they know more than I do about the origins and history of the term. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I need to do a little research, I hope I can get to it tomorrow, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Heh. I was expected to see something about the "Church of the Nazarene". I'm tracking down that prophecy reference in Matthew, btw. And no, there is no generally accepted resolution at this time. Give it twenty to fifty years, though. NathanZook 06:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jay, I've put the rewrite up. I've let James know too, as I saw he'd commented on the talk page. There are still a few things I'd like to add to it; details at Talk:Night (book). Feel free to revert or edit as you see fit. SlimVirgin 02:39, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jay... it means a lot to hear that from you :) But, I've got to leave. I can't let my Christianity slide any longer. I'm sure you understand. If you need to get in contact with me, I'll be updating my Wikipedia email address so just fire off an email through there... in about 3 weeks time I'll not be contactable through the old email address. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why should Christianity conflict with Wikipedia? Stay, TBSDY, do us all a favour. We need your antipodean clear-mindedness against all that madness on the project! JFW | T@lk 21:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote on my adminship nomination. Your support vote, and confidence in me, is very much appreciated. Best regards, — mark ✎ 22:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanx for redirecting to Talk:Bible to find the lengthy discussion initiated by User:Jcbos in his crusade to remove Christian before Bible in some contexts in some articles on Wikipedia. A poll was held on the Dutch Wikipedia yesterday. He got the upperhand. He started a poll here - and it looks like he won't get the upperhand here. Gebruiker:Dedalus 09:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg...Thanks for the heads up on the Christian\Bible debate...I've got it open in another window and will check it out as soon as I'm done with this note...I just wanted to inquire as to why Jewish ethnocentrism still exists as an (albeit content=_NULL) article, when the votes have been cast and tallied, and no comment has been logged on its TALK page in about a month. Kol tov. -t TShilo12 07:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Jayjg. I'd like to speak with you about a ban to an IP I sometimes post from. To make a long story short, it's a school IP and I know the vandal (not me). I'd rather not discuss it in front of everyone though. Could you either tell me your email or mail me, at Allerian486 at gmail dot com? I'm sure we'll be able to work something out. Thanks in advance for your time. --BDD 04:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Ustashe page blocks edit because of a spam filter. Could you do something about this?

Thanks,

06:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here you go. This is the exact message I got.

Spam protection filter From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to an external site.

See m:Spam blacklist for a full list of blocked sites. If you believe that the spam filter is mistakenly blocking the edit, then please contact an m:Administrator. The following is the section of the page that triggered the filter:

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: "http://www.ustasa.xs3...com"

Return to Main Page.

I put 2 more dots because it keeps putting a filter up.

Guy Montag 06:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Thanks, I can edit now.


Guy Montag 06:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nicolas Sarkozy

A couple of posters are having a debate with me at whether having a Jewish mother makes Nicolas Sarkozy Halachicly Jewish. I of course, said that it does, but we are having a friendly disagreement. Yet the poster is adamant at putting in some relativistic mumbo jumbo which has nothing to do with Jewish religious law. Sarkozy was born Jewish but he was raised in and embraced Catholism. I wrote that exactly, but their attempt to whitewash information on his Jewish origins is troubling.

Could you come in and arbitrate or post your opinion? Thanks

Guy Montag 11:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that the above is a gross misrepresentation.
First, Mr Sarkozy presents himself as a Roman Catholic. Thus, he cannot be "Jewish" if one defines "Jewish" as "somebody who embraces the Judaic religion".
Second, there's the question of being Jewish according to Jewish religion laws. The above poster first wrote that Sarkozy was Jewish without any kind of precision. I myself had to add that this characterization was made according to Jewish religious law. This is important, because there exist many characterizations of who is a Jew and who isn't. The Nazis had one, for instance. I am told that several branches of Judaism have differing interpretations on this. David.Monniaux 18:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This has as much to do with ethnicity as it does religion. A person born to a Jewish mother becomes ethnically, though not always religiously Jewish. I was merely noting his status as on a religio-ethnic basis, as Jews are a religio-nation. As for the addition, it was a good compromise and I added the note to arbitrate before I read your correction. Nontheless, your statetement that different streams have different definitions is wrong. The Reform movement definition of who is Jewish, through mumbolegalism called "patralineal descent" is an adaption from the Halachic tradition of a mother being Jewish. Even the liberal streams accept this, they are just trying to adopt that any member who is Jewish in the family can be regarded as Jewish, mother or father. I merely stated the long held legal tradition. As for their definition, it is merely an adaption on their part to fix the cognitive dissonance of the fact that they are assimilating.


22:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) Guy Montag 22:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag 22:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I very much appreciate your confidence in me. Please let me know if you see something I should (or shouldn't) be doing as an admin. Regards, Patrick. Carbonite | Talk 13:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding GRider's 'Socratic' VfD nominations and the ensuing reactions by voters, please read and comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GRider2. Thanks. Radiant_* 12:23, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hey. With respect to the source: I was a bit distracted earlier, I should note that I mistranslated it somewhat in haste (also I ran out of edit summary space, I could not fit 'people' in it). The title reads literally: (Korot Am Yisrael-- קורות עם ישראל), but by 'Israel' they actually meant 'Jewish,' that should have been very clear to me, but still manged to overlook it. The reference, then, in English reads:

Shamir, Illana and Shlomo Shavit (General Editors), Encyclopedia of Jewish History: Events and Eras of the Jewish People (Massada Publishers, 1986, Israel) ISBN 0816012202.

For our immediate purpose, what is cited entails a relatively cursory discussion (revolving first sround modern Antisemitism, and second, a history of the Kibbutz Movement), often very instructive in what it dosen't say rather than what it does. I can find more far direct and specialized sources for this/these issue/s, but I didn't feel what I said was that controversial (not that I’m implying that Slim thought it was, I do consider her request to be perfectly legitimate; rather, I mean, in terms of my addition comapared to what it supplanted and supplemented). *** Marx notes (crucially, with the aforementioned mixture of the comedic, tragic, satiric, ironic, et cetera, etc.) and goes on to depict and provide an analysis for the unique economic legacy of the European Jews and relating that to what he felt was the distinction between political and human emancipation. He does mention the Sabbath-Worldly distinction, arguably, precisely in order to avoid certain mischaracterizations. And, after this, he never returns to the topic of 'Jews' ever again. Not to mention that no testimony from people who knew Marx (including those hostile to his views) reveal an antisemitic flavour to anything he said or has written on. Unlike other (more and less questionable) socialists, Marx, in fact, had no need to further revisit the Jewish Question, it (as a particularity) simply is not pertinent for his attempt to study capitalism as a mode of production, a process, etc. Had it not been for that specific discourse with Bauer, it is (counter-factual, yes, but nonetheless) reasonable to postulate that he would not have mentioned it at all. But I digress, as always. Thanks for bearing through my ramblings. El_C 01:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If I could, then, continue my polemic above, and relate it to myself. This is one of the issues I take with additional revisits of the Jewish Question (even if from a certain vantage point may seem politically-progressive). People should read a correct summary of Marx's TJQ, and move on; address it as such when needed, and move on to more universal realms (many things have happned since, yes, above all, the Holocaust; but that can still be explained within such a framework –and– appraoch). And those who are truly progressive (from my standpoint) know this and their actions reflect this understanding very clearly. *** It should not be the emphasis, then, with Jews being singled-out (yet again) to personify a system (and, of course, inherently rather arbitrarily and inaccurately: Marx, Einstein, and others would beg differ, I'm sure), as an excuse to avoid challenging that system; an imeasurably more dangarous aim that requiers much greater forms of sacrifice and struggle, and brings to the fore immense challenges. *** For the racists all of that is inconsequential, since they are so immoral, filled with hatered and devoid of reason. And no matter what you or myself might say on these issues (undoubtedly very different positions and things), they would see it all just the same as a plan for Jewish NWO, etc. They have no need to study history critically, though, no use to tread in waters deep; theirs is the drive for the instant gratification and base convictions of beasts. El_C 10:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This (TJQ), however, perhaps I should clarify, has to do with the political-economic explanation. Positive cultural qualities should be cherished, that is a part of the universalism I strive toward, as enhancing particular experiences of a people which are worth cherishing. For example, I read Y.D. Berkovitz Pirkey Yaldut (in the source) recently and was so utterly capitvated, I wrote his bio article the very next day (which is, granted, not a very good article; I had little pertinent info, plus I can't write about literature well, anyway), which I think is illustrative of my approach towards this. Hmm, why am I subjecting you to this. I'm not exactly certain, though I have my suspicions(!). At any rate, once again, I offer you my apologies for rambling at such length. I'll try to hold off for a little while till the next incomprehensible, abrupt piece! El_C 11:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey Jay, this is to say thank you for supporting me in my adminship nomination, and for the kind comments and the moral support beforehand when I was hesitating. I really do appreciate it very much. Now, suddenly all these new buttons have appeared. I'm worried I click on something by accident and cause chaos. ;-) Best, SlimVirgin 04:14, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Can you please reconsider your desicion. The mans life mostly revolved around the organisation. His life basicaly is a very short summary of PKK Activity. His pre organisation life is not significant from any average person. These two articles are also subject to vandalism every here and there it would simplify my workload enforcing a non vandal world if these articles were merged. Thanks --Cool Cat My Talk 17:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, the discussion is avalible at: Talk:Abdullah Öcalan. --Cool Cat My Talk 17:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mostly, I hate the "and/or" construct. It's ugly and vague. Let's try to find (a) some real numbers, or (b) a better way to express it otherwise. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Also -- the numbers I've seen show, around the time of the Balfour Declaration, a population of 700,000, of whom 575,000 were Moslems, 75,000 Christians, and 55,000 Jews. That's pretty "overwhelming". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Banning IP: 156.63.190.132

This IP address has been cited for vandalism in the Jew article for editing this in:

"Being the world's most hated andf gay assed religion is a tough job, but the Jews pull it off very well. They first earned their reputation being cheap in the year 112 b.c. Then killed Jesus Christ. Nowadays Jewish bastards are everywhere, mostly living in caves and sewer systems where they feed on crocodile heads and muskrat penises." 

Could you initiate a vote to ban user?

Thanks,

Guy Montag 05:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey wanted to let you know i'm up for Adminship if you want to go vote. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alkivar  ALKIVAR™ 05:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

no it wasn't for you, but you are free to add if you want. Please don't refer to any edit you disaprove of as Vandalism. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:23, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

No, The First edit is a revert to a verifiably NPOV statement. It included a piece of Vandalism I didn't notice, but which I Cleared with that Second Edit. Please refrain from you disingenuous statements and lies. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:42, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Greetings. :-) Thanks for taking the time to respond and for dropping me a note about the appropriate format requesting action. Jeeze. Rather involved -- isn't it? I'm dealing with some hardware/peripherals issues w/regard to my computer at the moment, that I have to take care of in order to meet a couple of deadlines. But I'll be on it as soon as I can find the time. Peace 2 u. And, again, thanks for taking a few moments to help make Wikipedia a better website, a better community. I despise this place sometimes, but it's a great idea with great potential -- and some truly marvelous articles.  :-) deeceevoice 23:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, I tried to move it, but bcz Ladino_language is already a redirect to Ladino, it won't let anyone but admins make the move. I'm changing the wikilinks that point to Ladino but should point to Ladino_language so that they point to the new page, and hopefully you can take care of moving Ladino to Ladino_language before someone overzealously undoes my changes as double-redirects. Tomer TALK 04:50, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to fix the links, but the going is incredibly slow. As happens far too often, my db transactions aren't going through more than about 10% of the time. Tomer TALK 05:36, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

While we're working on this, can you move Ladinos to Ladino? I'm changing the relevant links that point to Ladinos so that they point to Ladino now, which will be the new disambig page. Tomer TALK 05:59, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC) PS: I tried to move it, but ran into the same colliding db entry problem as before. Tomer TALK 06:00, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Your call. I've already changed the relevant links, so when you're ready, just remember it needs doing.  :-) Shavua tov, btw. Tomer TALK 06:08, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
OK Jayjg, I've finished changing all the relevant links for both articles. the disambig at Ladinos needs to be moved to Ladino still. -t Tomer TALK 10:58, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
It looks good. I should have thought to try moving it to a (disambiguation) page myself. Oh well. And yes...I also see a whole bunch of false positives on the What Links Here:Ladino page...all of them have Template:Jew or Template:Jewish_language on them. They still showed up after I changed Ladino to Ladino_language in both templates, and even when I tried removing the wikilinks from them. I don't know if it's a structural problem w/ the way the db is set up...different machines/drives for templates or whatnot...I'm assuming it's something that will cure itself soon.  :-/ gnite Tomer TALK 11:20, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with me sir. I do not like your assumptions. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, don't mean to cross your authority, but HappyApple appears not to have violated 3RR, so I'm unblocking. Will protect the article for now. Fuzheado | Talk 01:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be working again. See here. SlimVirgin 17:06, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Jay, perhaps you can help me with this. I'd like to have a little superscripted (talk) sign after my signature but can't seem to get it to work. I've followed what seems to be the instructions but I can't be doing it right. I've also tried copying what other editors seem to have written but still nothing. In my preferences, in the section for nickname, I have just SlimVirgin (no brackets). What exactly do I need to add to get a superscripted (talk)? SlimVirgin 17:43, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I tried to follow the instructions here, which says: "Also you can add a separator, so that the signature looks something like this: — Name | Talk. The code in front of whatever you put in this box can be effectively cancelled putting at the front of your nick. Thus you can put, for example ]] — Name | [[User talk:Name|Talk. You can also check the 'raw signatures' box: in that case no automatic link will be created." When it didn't work, I tried various combinations of square brackets/no brackets. Nothing I tried work, so I've obviously not understood it. SlimVirgin 17:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
There is something weird going on. I entered your suggestion and tested it. The first time, it gave me a superscripted (talk) in black not linked, so I wrote you a note here saying it hadn't work. I previewed that note, and in fact my signature showed it had worked. So I rewrote the note to say thanks, and resigned in, previewed it again, and this time it was a weird mixture of linked and not linked words. So I have no idea. Don't worry about it, as I don't want to take up any more of your time. I'm just going to sign this without previewing, so who knows what will follow this post. ;-) [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin(talk)]] 18:34, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, now it's suddenly working, or it did the last time I signed it. Thank you! Now can you show me how to make the (talk) psychedelic? Just kidding! ;-) Thanks, SlimVirgin(talk) 18:52, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, User:Yuber seems to think that the Golan Heights should not be part of Category:Geography of Israel, take a look at his edits...Thanks. IZAK 08:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, since we have placed an RFC some time ago, do you not think it advisable to proceed with other Dispute resolution steps? This was we may arrive at an arbitration decision about the proper application of the Wikipedia Categorization guidelines. You know my position form our Talk discussions, and I would be a lot more comfortable leaving the Israel geography CAT in, or deleting both Israeli and Syrian CATs, if there were an official pronouncement that endorsed one of those positions, and clarified the disputed guideline. What is your own opinion? --AladdinSE 08:12, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits in this article! gidonb 20:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but as you say, tentatively. ;-) There have been so many sockpuppets there, I'm confused as to whether I can block them all indefinitely, or whether I should leave one as the main user account and just block it for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:49, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Jay. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:58, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

שלום ידיד! אני לא יכול לכתוב בניחותא על נצרים, המילה הזאת מעוללת כל כך באופן רע. אני מצטער מאד. אני חדש כאן, כפי שאתה כבר יודע. נא לעזור הידיד שלך. Halakhic-Jews-Only 00:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. One of the links you recommended does not work. Since you are obviously quite experiences, are you able to rephrase it in a suitable way for wikipaedia?Halakhic-Jews-Only 00:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:עצה שנה את שם המשתמש שלך .אנא קבל זאת בהבנה ,בברכה El_C 13:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So change your name already, Jayjg! ;) El_C 13:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The issue seems to have resolved itself. --Viriditas | Talk 08:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Yikes! I have not studied Shahak like I have studied Shamir. I don't know enough about Shahak to participate on a meaningful level. I also suspect that I am ambivalent. I am actually very critical of Israel's policies, I just won't tolerate antisemitism in the discussion.--Cberlet 19:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I won't touch Israel Shahak with a bargepole. Shem resha'im yirkov. JFW | T@lk 20:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RE: Viewpoint requested

Hah! It looks like I should'nt have either, but it's too late now! Not only did I not know enough about him 'to participate in a meaningful level,' I have never heard of him, ever. He certainly, to my knowledge, isn't particularly notable in Israel. Nothing on .he, got 34 results in google.co.il. I'll have a look at and report back. El_C 22:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, it's difficult to find anything authoritative, or of value for that matter.

One Jewish right-wing Professor (a lecturer from the U.S.) who chooses to remain anonymous speaks very negatively on him as antisemitic, devoting an a paragraph to him in his article featured on Nativ ( שנה שבע עשרה • גיליון 3-4 (98-99) • סיון תשס"ד • יוני 2004 ) entitled "Leftist radicalism in the Hebrew Academy." He says that Sachak promotes a view of Judaism as irrational Goyim hatred, as admirers of Satan. I can translate more from that if you wish. [12]

On the other side, the Institute for Educational Research (in a piece on hate sites) devotes a single sentence to him, saying that he isn't a holocaust deniar nor antisemitic, but Holocaust deniars, antisemites, etc., misquote (ציטוטים מסולפים) him to their ends. [13]

Mentionned as an aside in Haaretz article, but nothing that seems particularly pertinent for our pruposes (I can translate the excerpt if you wish; it entails criticism from the right which puts him together with Barak, Leybovitz, etc.). [14]

On Hagada.org (meaning haGada a Ma'aravit, not 'legend'), one Sarban Giyus takes an opposite position (arguing that Shachak and others being unfairly vilified), but again, Shachak is only mentioend as an aside there as well. [15]

Makor Rishon, an online newspaper I've never heard of, mentions him but in the context of a quote from a Suadi journalist who calls Shachak a "moderate," so that isn't helpful either. [16]

And that's sums up google.co.il, the rest consists of a no text, three word forum message title mirrored several times, a few links that don't work even in the google cache but seem irrelavent anyway, etc. El_C 23:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, Jay, sorry I couldn't be of more help. Perhaps I was way off with my initial assessment, I don't really know. So I'm pleading ignorance at this point. If there's anything I can do, don't hesitate. El_C 02:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about Kate's Tools on SV's talk page, yes, they changed servers, so the link changed as well. --Viriditas | Talk 22:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me, though I'm sure our resident Naziphiles will find fault with it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to thank you for your work on Radio Islam. I was the second person to edit it after seeing it on RC and was only partially successful in editing away from the POV of the anon who started it. I am impressed at the state to which you've brought it. Cheers, BanyanTree 16:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you please move the Krymchaks article to Krymchak asap? Thanks. Tomer TALK 05:18, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

After moving the article, the Krymchak (disambiguation) disambig can be deleted. Tomer TALK 05:27, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to get to redoing the many things linking to Krymchaks. I want to give the db time to update the "what links here" page first, since for some reason, it takes time for template links to articles quite a while to update (as we experienced when moving Ladino to Ladino language. Tomer TALK 06:29, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at that again, I see that there are still ghost links to Ladino, and it's now been several days since we moved that. Do you know who the dba is? This is a potentially serious logic problem that should be addressed asap. Tomer TALK 06:31, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Please explain why you just reverted my additions to the article on anti-semitism? Sirkumsize 05:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because they were, for the most part, a POV rant, and the link was to an article you created that is unrelated and likely to be deleted. Jayjg (talk) 05:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh you and my fucking articles. Okay -- I will fix it. Please respond to what I wrote on the article's talk page. Sirkumsize 05:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to join in the action on Circumcision and Anti-semitism and the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your attempt at reformatting Bene Israel is good at high resolutions, but it's really bad at 800x600, worse than what was there before. I tried a few things, couldn't find a happy solution; do you have any other ideas? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:33, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I see now why it would create a problem at lower resolutions. It was awful at higher resolutions. I'm not that knowledgeable on all these wiki-format tricks; the only thing I can think would help would be making the article much longer (i.e. more information on the Bene Israel), so everything fits. Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That may be the only solution in the long run: the tables are simply outweighing the content there. I certainly don't know enough about them to add much, though. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:53, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd say that I find some of your comments edging towards the abusive, and in any case decidedly unworthy of an admin. And can I further suggest toning down the conspiracy angle a bit until you can produce some actual evidence of bad faith editing by me or anyone else. --Gene_poole 02:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think someone's been screwing around. It no longer says "edit this page", it now says "vandalise this page" (it took me 3 tries to spell "vandalize" with an "s"...) What's going on? Tomer TALK 02:30, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

It did a minute ago, but it's gone now. Shame. LOL! SlimVirgin (talk) 02:34, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
It now reads edit, in bold, rather than edit this page, non-bold... someone is clearly playing with the code, but why? edit this page is clear, concise, and informative.

I think it's a good idea to have an article on the 13th tribe, as you suggest. I don't have time at the moment but in the next couple of weeks hopefully I can start one. --Briangotts 16:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg,

You deleted my addition which referred to Herzl's opinion on the Dreyfus Affair. I do not agree with your reason for doing so.

Though Zionism existed before the publication of Der Judenstaat, it is without doubt one of the most important documents in the history of the movement. Indeed, it can be argued that of this treatise was born the "modern" movement and thus the State of Israel. So why is the fact that its author's sudden volte-face in support for Zionism may have been based in substantial part on an arrogance of his own holding (and a non-acceptance that a Jew in a position of trust could possibly commit any crime, a virtue - it is implied in his words - he considers "specifically Jewish") not appropriate here?

I believe your opinion that this is peripheral underestimates the importance of Herzl in modern Zionism. I attempted to demonstrate that his own thinking on the subject may have been flawed and based in some prejudice of his own. Is this not relevant to the subject under which it was added?

Regards,

Jay K.

Is it possible to effectively block a range of IP addresses ? For several days we're struggling with an anonymous vandal who deletes other ppl's contents, refuses any discussion and attempts to offend other wikipedians. See Vilnius or Lithuania. He uses a dynamic IP allocation from 85.206.192.*, 85.206.193.*, 85.206.194.*, 85.206.195.* ranges. From what I've seen none of these addresses have been used for other purpose than this vandalism, so blocking them would do more good than harm. Obviously we could use our time in a more productive manner than reverting his changes. Any advice ? Wojsyl 08:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi there,

I've seen your and User:Calton's thread on that Centauri may well be a sockpuppet of Gene Poole; looking at their edit histories, I'd say that's probably true. (* = Centauri, # = Gene Poole). Any admin responses to this? Should this be on RFC? Radiant_* 10:31, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC) 

* 10:29, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Calton (→Alleged Double Voting)  (top)
# 08:17, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia (schools ?)
* 07:54, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Mothman (top)
* 07:34, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Calton (alleged double voting)
# 06:04, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Saklan Valley School (→Saklan Valley School)
# 04:01, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Coppell High School (→Coppell High School)
# 03:42, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Canopic jar (rewrite section on heart + brain to correct mistakes) (top)
# 03:34, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Mummy (top)
* 03:29, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies (→Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies) (top)
* 03:24, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ashley House (→Ashley House)
* 03:21, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/You Kicked My Dog (→You Kicked My Dog) 
# 03:16, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jayjg (advice)
# 03:04, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Egyptian pyramids (→Temporary removal) (top)
# 03:03, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Egyptian pyramids
# ...
# 00:32, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Seborga (→Not a neutral article) (top)
* 00:10, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Gene Poole (→You're a sockpuppet!) (top)
# 00:05, Apr 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Centauri (friday amusements) 
* 23:59, Mar 31, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Gene Poole
* 22:54, Mar 31, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Thryduulf (olchfa footbridge) (top)
* 22:51, Mar 31, 2005 (hist) (diff) User:GRider/Schoolwatch (→Listed on VfD) (top)
* 22:47, Mar 31, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Harlaw Academy (→Harlaw Academy)

User:STP has in fact been cited for vandalism by User:ElTyrant, see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#Current alerts#April 4 [17] and is suspected by both User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg of being a sock puppet of banned User:Alberuni see User talk:STP [18] and Mossad "Project"? No, it was Mossad terrorism [19]. UserSTP is also guilty of using anti-Semitic slurs, such as: "traitor Jews can't be trusted" [20] ; "Judaism is a cult but Jewish cultists, of course, deny it" and added the blood libel: ":Ethnocentric Jews killed Jesus 2000 years ago and in the past century they have killed thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordanians and other innocent victims in their quest to maintain their racist state." [21], and again repeated it "The Jews killed Jesus, among many others" [22] ! So who is this guy to "complain" when he should be booted off Wikipedia ASAP. IZAK 12:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at the following VFD: [23] TDC 13:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)