User talk:Jayjg/Archive 25

Thanks for visiting my Talk: page.

If you are considering posting something to me, please:

*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Use headlines when starting new talk topics.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment.

Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted.

Thanks again for visiting.

Talk archives

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

Ebionites nominated for FA

The Ebionites article has been nominated for Featured Article. You are invited to show your support or suggest further improvements to the article. Ovadyah 07:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Redirect

Hey jay, I was wondering if you could fix it so that teleosts redirects to Teleostei instead of Actinopterygii (which is the current situation). It is a pretty minor thing but it is kinda annoying. Thank you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I kinda thought that you needed admin privledges to change a redirect. Sorry.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Maybe not worth blocking, but Panairjdde popped in earlier today on 81.211.195.151. Dppowell 15:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure User:Anriz is him; I filed the RFCU. Dppowell 16:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC re Cohn's review

Since we've become hopelessly entangled in an edit-war, i've requested comment from the community. Itayb 19:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

What did you do here? Voretus 15:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with sockpupettry

Hi Jayig, I need your help. REDVERS, one of the Administrators that is working with the Fellowship of Friends page, left me the following message:

Hi, Mario. On the talk page of Fellowship of Friends, I offered Wikipedia's best way for how to resolve these disputes (basically WP:RS); sadly, this was basically ignored and very obvious sockpuppetry was resorted to instead, by people who held the high ground in the dispute.

I wrote to REDVERS but he didn't reply to me. Do you know how can I find out who the sock pupeteers are based on this and this? Thanks a lot! Mario Fantoni 18:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jay

I've been around, just kinda incommunicado. Since I'm here, have you seen this? Interesting timing, I think, on the nomination, and the rationales being put into supporting it are, I think, rather poorly-considered. Your thoughts would be welcome, I'm sure. There are probably multiple threads about the nomination on wikirev wikiwatch and whatever עמלק's forum site is... Cheers, Tomer ^talk 03:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

I would appreciate if in the future when you revert you not use the edit summary "tidying." A new user might forget to assume good faith and accuse of being deceptive. We would not want that. KazakhPol 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we have ourselves a deal. On another note, I would appreciate it if you would not refer to me as a non-native speaker of English as I am 1. A native speaker, and 2. Have a better command of its finer points. KazakhPol 05:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's all right for you to say you're "tidying," it's surely okay for others too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks you missed the point. KazakhPol 05:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your last post. Are you referring to the comment immediately above this? That was directed to SlimVirgin. I am fixing the formatting to make that clear in this edit. Please, if she missed that, point it out to her. I want an inane response about how I should not insult Mrs. Amal. KazakhPol 05:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I want one from SlimVirgin. Have I somehow not made that clear? How much complaining do I have to do? Do I need to insult Amal's honor? That can be arranged. >:( KazakhPol 05:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. I wish Wikipedia had more kind souls. It would be so much more entertaining. KazakhPol 05:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article edits

Hi Jayjg. The entry entitled "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is currently locked due to various edit conflicts and issues. I would like to invite you to add your comments to my comments on the article's talk page, to indicate our overall disagreement with this article's distorted outlook, and its use of such a loaded word to misrepresent Israel's position and actions. Thanks. --Sm8900 18:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP block 12.75.40.0/24

Did you mean for the 12.75.40.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) block to not be AO? We have an unblock-en-L complaint from what appears to be a collateral damage editor who wants to know what's going on. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 01:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that AO isn't working against Jon specifically, or ? Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert 01:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Thermopylae

When you locked the battle of Thermopylae page it was after referenced material that the Persian army was over 300,000 was deleted. Could you please remove the protection or at least allox a restoration of the referenced material? Ikokki 09:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're in the middle of improving the article, I don't think that when you locked it there was a rv-war going on. Sure there's editors with nationalist motives who will always be causing trouble. On the other hand there are also editors like Ikokki, myself and Jagged who are making contributions to the article in a serious level, and we preferred that it remains unlocked. Miskin 12:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there was such a thing as an edit war at the time it was Miskin and Jagged85 that were involved. They tended to edit out each other's edits. Mine usually were not edited out. Ikokki 07:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus to write "estimates vary" at the warbox and have the different estimates discussed in the appropriate section. If there was a way to protect the warbox only it would be great... Ikokki 07:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Toaff

Hi, Jay. I'm concerned by one (if not more) of the external links in the Ariel Toaff article, in particular the one entitled "Jews Still Use Christian Blood to Bake Passover Matzos". The interview is repellent in the extreme, and I'm inclined to delete it without a second thought, but in light of episodes like the continuing Katz debacle at Palestinian refugee, Palestinian exodus and UNRWA, I'm really at sea with the question of what's includible -- or, more importantly, what's deletable: whatever the guidelines say, the threshold for inclusion seems to have fallen so low that demonstrating that some rubbish was actually published in a verifiable source is deemed sufficient to justify putting it in an article -- the rest is treated as a content dispute: I've got my sources, you've got yours: see you in (wiki)court. It's rather dispiriting, I have to say. At any rate, what to do about the link in question? --Rrburke^(talk) 13:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the interview again, and it's really putrid. I pulled it, but would still appreciate guidance on the threshold for inclusion of sources. --Rrburke^(talk) 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yigal Amir external link

Hi again, Jay. I think I recall you saying that you speak/read Hebrew. If that's the case and you have a moment, could you have a quick look at the Hebrew-only site yigal-amir.com, which links from the Yigal Amir article, to assess whether it's an appropriate external link for WP? --Rrburke^(talk) 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]