User talk:Jayjg/Archive 38

What the Hell?

I spent ages working on those lists of Epic films by decade who the hell do you think you are! What gives you the right to delete me pages! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voynaimir (talk • contribs) 19:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

They're not really "your" pages, actually, please review WP:OWN. I'm sorry all that hard work of yours was deleted, but the consensus at this discussion was that they should be deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want copies of the deleted pages, you can ask an administrator to email them to you. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Converted to Islam

The Hollywood actor and actresses are Anne Hathaway, Sam Worthington, Scarlett Johansson and Gwyneth Paltrow has converted to Islam that I saw on the magazine and newspaper, Administrator. --Videogamer13(talk). August 22, 2010 (UTC).

There's no evidence that's the case, and you need to comply with WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Israel Shamir

The Israel Shamir´s biography was totally rewritten by a couple of wackos (probably Shamir himself):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shamir

It's highly unlikely it was Shamir himself who re-wrote it. And while I think the article now completely misses just about everything that Shamir is notable for, User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and User:Off2riorob are not "wackos". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Jacob Epstein

If you have some thoughts I'd appreciate your input here [1], thanks...Modernist (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I'm pleased that you weighed in, that editor has been seriously upsetting several articles including this one...Modernist (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. It all boils down to reliable sources in the end. What other problems have you seen? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

He is currently trolling and edit warring on the talk pages with editors working on William Butler Yeats, Ezra Pound (not my favorite character), James Joyce, and H.D., adding infoboxes where they are not wanted, and he and I got into it two days ago at Marcel Duchamp and he acts as though he owns the place spouting policy like he wrote it...Modernist (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sarona Snuka

I just made that page yesterday, why did you delete it, i put lots of references, and everything, she is at the top of her sport right now, millions and millions of people around the world watch her every week on WWE Raw, so she deserves a wiki page, and if you had a problem with it, couldnt you have helped to make it better, instead of deleting that, i find that very rude :( and it hurt my feelings —Preceding unsigned comment added by OVW Divas (talk • contribs) 20:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you're not just another sockpuppet of User:Melissadu, the article was deleted because that was the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarona Snuka. If you think the deletion was in error, you may contest it at WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which has been closed as successful. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure, and congratulations! Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ebionites RfC

FYI. John Carter has initiated an Ebionites RfC and is back to deleting sources he doesn't like. Since you are the mediator for content disputes, I thought you should know. It would be helpful if you (and Slim) could weigh in with an opinion. Ovadyah (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Update. John Carter had the article locked, after making all his edits. Things are out of hand. Please advise. Ovadyah (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I can do at this point; John Carter has abandoned the mediation. Perhaps you could get a wider audience to assess Tabor's reliability in this context? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to John Carter's comments on your Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. Ovadyah (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Tabor on Ebionites

If you read the "Misrepresentation of Tabor" section of the talk page, you will find that the material which was deleted completely fails to meet even minimum verifiability standards, as determined by a reading of the book by both myself and uninvolved administrator Llwyrch. Restoring unverifiable material representing a living person, in this case misrepresenting his words, is I believe a fairly clear violation of WP:V and possibly WP:BLP, and I believe that the irrational restoration of such material without making any effort to see to it that it does actually reflect anything like what the author actually said in such regards is sufficient basis for a final warning. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Correction. All references to Tabor were removed from the recently restored John The Baptist section, even though I explicitly provided page numbers and direct quotes from Tabor's book the Jesus Dynasty on the talk page in support of the content. diff diff This is a transparent attempt to suppress any citations by Tabor of primary sources that contradict a conservative Catholic POV. Ovadyah (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And those "quotes", although I don't see any verbatim quotations, were generally not relevant to the deleted citations, and are as such, I believe, irrelevant to the citations deleted. I had wondered on the article talk page whether Ovadyah would directly respond to the point about the material not being verifiable, or whether he would do other things to circumvent them. I guess I got my answer. I can't help but get the impression someone is getting desperater and desperater. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, it appears that laying out material on the talk page, along with sources, page numbers, and quotations, will never be accepted. Therefore, I will copy the John The Baptist section of the article to the mediation page where we can detail the sources supporting or arguing against inclusion, just as we did with the James vs. Paul section. Ovadyah (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose that proposal. However much certain parties are trying desperately to distract people from the fact that several sources they have added are according to others completely unverifiable, and others refusing to acknowledge that there is now a source specifically stating that Eisenman's theory has been rejected by the academic community (the full quote, if the book is available tomorrow, will be added then), someone seems to think that the matters of policy raised by these facts should be ignored. I would as an individual much more favor having the discussion out in the open, where other editors can contribute as well. Mediation is not, and should not be, an attempt to try to avoid dealing with matters of policy and guidelines. The non-verifiable quotes clearly violated policy, and I don't think mediation is relevant in such matters. Due weight concerns regarding a theory which has no been explicitly stated to have been rejected by the academic community are also matters which can also be handled in the normal manner. I will continue to request input from other editors regarding this substantive matters on the article talk page in any event, because I believe there is no reason to limit the discussion to only a few regarding these serious matters regarding policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

John, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "unverifiable" - do you mean the source cannot be found, or the material/quote cannot be found in the source? That's what "unverifiable" is. Or do you mean the material is not relevant in that article/context? If so, that's not "unverifiable", it's original research or even "irrelevant". Can you clarify? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As per the section "Misrepresentation of Tabor" on the article talk page, both Llwyrch and I went through the book, particularly reviewing the page citations indicated, and found that none of them supported the claims made. The Ebionites are (as far as I can remember today) only mentioned twice in the entire book. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"none of them supported the claims made" in what sense? In the sense that the material on the page said completely different things than what was in the article, or in the sense that the material on the page was not about Ebionites, but about, say, early Christians? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It varies. Some of the pages cited to support the Ebionites being related to James talked about nothing other than the crucifixion, mentioning neither the Ebionites, James, or really anything else even remotely related to the article. And he also, at the end of the book, again, so far as I can remember at this point, indicates that the Ebionites appeared substantially later (I think around 150 CE, I don't have the book here today), and on that basis such statements as "James was the leader of the early Jerusalem church", and there is something to that effect on page 4, aren't really applicable to the Ebionites who didn't show up as a distinct group until several years after his death. Tabor regularly refers to the Nazarenes as being the early Jerusalem church, and there are about four or five lines of reference citations in the index to that group, but they are not considered by Tabor to be the same of the Ebionites. Does that help, or are you asking me for verbatim quotations from the book? If so, wouldn't it make more sense to ask the people seeking to include the information to do that? John Carter (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that's what I was looking for. So, some of the material didn't support the statements is was claimed to support, and other material referred to different groups (e.g. Nazarenes, not Ebionites), or simply did not refer to the Ebionites. Is that correct? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of the pages had nothing whatsoever to do with the article text they were being used to support, and some of it, while dealing with the subject being discussed in a broad way, neither mentioned the Ebionites directly or mentioned the subject in such a way that it would be reasonable to conclude the statements applied to the Ebionites. Overlong, I know, but the answer is, basically, "yes". John Carter (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, the page numbers don't match the claims made for the trivial reason that the hard cover and paperback editions don't have the same page numbers. Michael Price added page numbers based on the paperback edition while John Carter and Llwyrch have the hard cover edition. I also have the hard cover edition, and with a small amount of effort, I was able to track down the relevant pages. diff diff John Carter is well aware of this discrepancy and his claims that the material doesn't support the statements made is basically fraudulent. They don't support the statements made in his edition. I recommended on the talk page that we re-number the pages to agree with the hard cover edition. diff That is not a good reason to delete all the references to Tabor, especially when he could have easily fixed the page numbers himself. Ovadyah (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ovadyah, your claim that someone else has to do your work so you can keep your material shows to me just how weak your connection to anything remotely resembling reality is. And this constant prattling about the Slavonic Josephus wasn't, so far as I can tell, even mentioned in the article. These were the changes made, and Josephus didn't figure in any of them, although direct reference to the "Ebionites" in the article text often is. At this point, I am finding myself forced to wonder whether (1) Ovadyah actually knows what he is talking about regarding this in any way, or (2) whether he is continuing to hammer away on a completely unrelated point for the purposes of distraction. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken as usual. This is the disputed content that I moved to the talk page. diff As you can see, Slavonic Josephus was mentioned in the article, and the source was previously discussed at length on the talk page before it was added. Tabor references Slavonic Josephus in the footnotes of his book. diff Ovadyah (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And you have avoided directly dealing with your own failure to act according to policy, as per usual. In your world, it is everyone else's responsibility to do Ovadyah's work for him. If you could stop the endless commentary and actually do what is required of you for the material to be included instead, the problem would be over. Instead, you continue in this useless commentary. Every time you indulge in these little asides of yours as opposed to doing what is required, which I think in this case now would reasonably be providing exact verbatim quotations of the source material used, only further contributes to the impression that you are unable to do so. John Carter (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You overlook the fact that I didn't add any of the Tabor material to the article. It is as much your responsibility to fix page numbers when you encounter a problem as it is mine or any other editor. However, your preferred method of editing, like Marcion, seems to be deletion of content you don't like. Ovadyah (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ovadyah, what I did was remove content which cannot meet policy requirements. If the material cannot be verified, it should be removed. It is not my obligation to do the work of including unverifiable information because others want it in. Apparently, you find it impossible to grasp that fairly simple point. Yes I don't like content that can't be verified. You, on the other hand, seem to have the arrogance to insist that material be kept in despite you yourself being completely unwilling to do what is required to keep it in. If you insist on acting like a child, can you really object to having people treat you like one? Both myself and one other administrator went through the book and could not verify the content. That is all we were required to do. No one has any obligation to ensure that material which cannot be verified by them be kept in because someone too lazy to provide the verification says it can be. You still are refusing to do the only thing which I think anyone with even a slight degree of sense would do in this situation, and prove me wrong by exact quotations from the source. I cannot for the life of me imagine a single good reason why anyone would do that. And, no, despite your implicit understanding, it is not anyone else's work to do things for you because you can't be bothered to do it.

If, as you seem to be rather incoherently implying, all the material that was deleted was somehow references to footnotes which refer to the Slavonic Josephus, why on earth could you never say so in the first place? Are you so incapable of coherent writing that you cannot make it clear to anyone what it is you are talking about? In any event, if you bothered to familiarize yourself with wikipedia guidelines and policies regarding things like footnotes, you probably would have noted that saying something which Tabor said was from Slavonic Josephus came from Tabor himself is not acceptable. Or is it also my fault that I am unable to read your apparently less-than-clear thoughts, and thus not be able to understand something you never bothered to say clearly in the first place? John Carter (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, this should go to AN/I. John Carter was aware of why there was a discrepancy in the page numbers, he deleted the references anyway, and then locked the article so that no one else could fix them either. He abused his power as an admin in doing so, and he should have his admin privileges revoked. Ovadyah (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Still refusing to face reality, huh? No, Ovadyah, despite your now seeming to claim mind-reading abilities for yourself, after having apparently demanded others read your own, I was not and still am not aware of it, because there has been no direct proof of it. All of this could be avoided if little Ovadyah could be bothered to say something, almost anything, actually useful, instead of this endless hissy-fit of yours. If, as you say, the material can be found, then just produce exact quotations to that effect, and if they can be verified, there will be no problem. This is all you would have had to do from the beginning. Instead, you seem to belief that simply because you, in what I can only describe as delusional arrogance, have only to say "it is so" and others are then obligated to do things for you. I still maintain my original point. The material could not be verified, and on that basis was removed. I still honestly am not sure it can be verified, nor am I obligated to do the verification because you are unwilling to do so. If what you say is true, and I still am not convinced it is, all you would have had to do at any point was provide quotations, which, despite all your childish accusations, you still have not done. The fact that is apparent is that you are unwilling to do what is required as per WP:V to verify that information you want to see included in the article, and I think that if anything your blatant and ongoing refusal to do anything productive, and continue to indulge in these childish accusations, may well result in disciplinary actions against you. John Carter (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Bring it. We'll see who is subject to disciplinary action. Ovadyah (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So the real issue here with "unverifiable" material was that the citations were to a paperback version of the book, which had different page numbers than the hardcover version? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Jay, there are two issues as I understand it. One is the page numbers. For example, John Carter deleted the Tabor reference from the John The Baptist section that I just restored to the article. The reference is to the Gospel of the Ebionites, so it is obviously about the Ebionites. Michael originally had the page numbers for the paperback (or a PDF) version, and I have just changed it so that the pages match the hard cover version used by myself, Llwyrch, and John Carter. The second objection is more complicated. John Carter is arguing that unless a secondary source explicitly mentions the Ebionites then it is not about the Ebionites, even if the source is obviously talking about Jewish-Christianity. I think this is what John is saying is a violation of WP:V. For example, in the James vs. Paul section that we reviewed in mediation, Tabor mentions three early primary sources that say James was the Overseer of the Jerusalem Church. One is an early Church Father, Clement of Alexandria, and the other two are Jewish-Christian sources, the Clementine Recognitions and quotations by Eusebius of an early Church Father, the Jewish-Christian Hegesippus, that are probably based on the Gospel of the Hebrews. There is nothing internal to these texts that identifies them as specifically Ebionite, so their provenance is disputed. Bart Ehrman explicitly identifies the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies as Ebionite, but some other scholars prefer the more general term Jewish-Christian. However, Tabor's point in citing these various sources was to show that it was generally acknowledged by Orthodox as well as Jewish-Christians that James was the undisputed leader of the Jerusalem Church. So, the question of whether this violates WP:V is a very nuanced one. I won't get into the other Tabor references because I didn't work on them. Hope this helps. Ovadyah (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. The first issue, then, was differing editions of the Tabor book, which is really just a citation issue more than anything else. The rest is not a WP:V issue at all, but really a WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH issue, as I suggested above. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. SlimVirgin came to the same conclusion. diff That's why I moved some of this disputed material to the talk page in the first place. Str1977 and I thought the James vs. Paul section was close enough to fix it in place. As long as we are clear about who said what on the talk page or on the mediation page there should be no problems. Yet, we continue to have intractable problems because John Carter regards all of Tabor's book to be a violation of WP:V, and not just The Jesus Dynasty, but all of Tabor's work. There was more than one Tabor source in the article. That's why he deleted all the Tabor references in the article without bothering to check them. Ovadyah (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, Michael just informed me that there is a difference in page numbers in the UK hardcover version he is using. I am correcting the record about why the page numbers are different. I mistakenly thought he had a paperback version. Ovadyah (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the book. First, there are no footnotes in the book at all. There are endnotes from pp. 321 to 344. There are a total of two references to the Ebionites in the body of the text. The first is on page 303, in which it indicates that the diaspora of Jewish Christians after the Bar Kochba revolt "were subsequently known as Ebionites." On page 316, he says "The prophet Muhammad was in contact with Christian groups in Arabia, and there is evidence that they were closer to the Ebionites in their beliefs than to the Western church." Regarding endnotes, the word appears in only three. The first in note number 9 for part three, indicating the material is derived from the Gospel of the Ebionites. The second in note 24 of part 3, which indicates that Schoeps' book is a good source for material on the Ebionites. The two mentions in the main article space are linked to two endnotes. The first is note 23 of part three, indicating the material linked to is derived from Eusebius. The second is note 24 already mentioned above.

Regarding Ovadyah's insistence that the Slavonic Josephus be mentioned, I read the material available in the various editions I found and there is nothing in that translation to indicate that the word "Ebionites" or anything similar was in use in the original, and there is nothing which explicitly refers to Christian groups in ways which are indicative of a joining.

My ultimate cause for concern, particularly regarding Ovadyah's behavior in particular, is how the person who first involved me in this discussion, requesting my input in dealing with Michael's insistence on Eisenman's material, is also the person who raised the ArbCom case against Michael on that basis. Now, that same person, Ovadyah, is defending the inclusion of material derived from Eisenman, in a total about-face from his previous behavior. This is even after we have found a reliable source saying explicitly that Eisenman's central theory has been rejected by the academic community, and with no additional support of the Eisenman than only one really non-negative review, that by Robert Price, who is coincidentally the only member of the Jesus Seminar who has explicitly stated that he thinks Jesus never existed. When I try to think of reasons for this remarkable literal turnaround, the only reason I can think of is that there might have been an agreement of some sort between the two that they would work together to ensure that no one else would be able to adjust material that they wanted included, whether by content guidelines the material belonged or not. A review of Ovadyah's recent history, including his statement that he was upset Tabor would not be included in the lead, can be seen by someone so inclined as providing support for that premise. That total and complete turnaround about a source he previously condemned with apparent cause, and now supports for inclusion despite clear quoted evidence that the subject has been rejected by the academic community, cannot help but raise eyebrows.

And this comment from Ovadyah, who has just lectured me on my talk page regarding behavior, "Yet, we continue to have intractable problems because John Carter regards all of Tabor's book to be a violation of WP:V, and not just The Jesus Dynasty, but all of Tabor's work," is itself both an unsusbtantiated accusation and an explicit violation of the conduct guidelines he himself believes he can arrogantly lecture others about. It is completely and utterly incorrect, and obviously intended to be prejudicial, and thus itself a violation of the guidelines he, who insists on saying "I hate you" on article pages, has the unimaginable gall to lecture others about. This is to my eyes further indication that my hypothesis is right and he is, in fact, trying to ensure that anyone who would raise questions about dubiously relevant material he favors is either harassed of the page or otherwise kept from noting that his favored material, which is not adequately sourced or clearly relevant, be included in the page. Again, his remarkable turnaround in now defending Eisenman when he previously wanted help removing that material is very, very strange. John Carter (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I have said very little about Robert Eisenman since 2007. There is an ongoing RfC that includes an evaluation of Eisenman as a source, but I have not participated in it, so far. My recent thoughts on Eisenman's books on James The Just are contained in this diff where I said, Eisenman's first book is useless. "James The Brother of Jesus" has a lot of controversial things to say about James The Just, but practically nothing about the Ebionites, that is unless you are into the conspiracy theory that Essenes = Nazarenes = Ebionites. We hashed this out on the article talk page long ago. Does that sound like I am "defending the inclusion of material derived from Eisenman"? Please stop misstating my words. Ovadyah (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Jay, I have nothing to say about the "I hate you" stuff, except that I thought I had seen it all on Wikipedia, but you learn something new every day. Ovadyah (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

While you insist on doing the very same thing yourself? And, despite your assertion on the talk page that the Gospel of the Ebionites is clearly linked to the Ebionites, there is a source quoted in that same section of the talk page saying it isn't. Please conduct yourself in an acceptable manner, if it is even possible for someone who insists on having hissy fits and ignoring sources already present on the same page to do so. And, just out of curiosity, considering you never edit anything but Ebionites, where else do you see such clearly unaceptable comments not only made on article talk pages, but even restored by the editors who make them after they are removed? Clearly, a few things you don't see "every day", or apparently ever looked at, is behavior guidelines. Would it be asking too much of you to maybe hope you could learn to behave at some point? John Carter (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The so-called Gospel of the Ebionites (modern name) is associated with the Ebionites because Epiphanius states in his Panarion that it is the gospel the Ebionites used. Some scholars have speculated, Zahn, Klijn, and others, that this may be a reference to the lost Gospel of The Twelve mentioned by Origen. Is there a point to all this? Ovadyah (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am stunned Ovadyah actually responded directly, although he still cannot comment without insults. A review of the sources indicate Epiphanius is counted as unreliable in general, particularly about a subject which some scholars think he made up material on, and there is already another article on the [[Gospel of the Ebionites[]] which it is a better fit for. Granted, neo-Ebionites, who cite Epiphanius as their source for their being vegetarians consider this extremely important, and that may well be a motivation here, but is there any reason to give this one comparatively minor point a disproportionate and WP:UNDUE whole section while at the same all but ignoring so much material which modern scholarship, which is supposed to be the basis of content, raises? I would be stunned to get two direct responses in a row, given the history of the above editor, but hope springs eternal. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion should be taken to the article Talk page, as it is about article content rather than process. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please revert this yourself

You restored Musar literature and Musar movement to the double "s" spelling, in disregard of the talk page discussion and the move made by an admin (Wikipedia:Administrators#Wheel_war). Please revert yourself. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware of that discussion, and in any event moving the article did not require any admin tools. Even if it did, reverting one admin action is not a "wheel war"; please review carefully the material at the link you provided above. It would only become a "wheel war" if you actually undid my actions in turn - something I'm sure you would never do. In any event, it's not relevant because, as I said before, I didn't use any admin tools to restore the article to its original name. If you want to move an article to a new name that contradicts WP:COMMONNAME, you should probably have a larger discussion than just you and a new WP:SPA. I suggest an WP:RFC. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If you could add to the conversation at talk page discussion, though, that would be helpful. I'm not sure it's obvious which spelling is best, but I offered some thoughts for why I thought that Musar with one "s" was a better spelling. Your response there would be appreciated. Moreh405 (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with your suggestion to start an WP:RFC. However, since, as you admit, you made this move while being unaware of that talk page discussion, I still think it would be the correct thing to do if you would first undo your move. Debresser (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you do not reply, I made the move back. A shame you weren't around to dothat yourself. Debresser (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Blood Libel

Would you take a look at recent history at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blood_libel&curid=4941&diff=381675453&oldid=381673825 ? I find the goodfaith clause nearly exhausted.--Galassi (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite tied up this week, but hope to be back to more regular editing next week, and will take a look then. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Kent, Ohio FAC

Hello- Thanks again for your comments on the FAC for Kent, Ohio. As I mentioned there, I wrote a religion section, but wasn't too excited about it because it is mostly a very brief history of religion in the city and then seems more like a list of the churches, which I'm not sure is that encyclopedic (which is why I have hesitated to add it into the article). If you could give it a look and let me know what you think of it, I would very much appreciate it. The section is located at User:JonRidinger/sandbox#Religion and might seem a bit jumbled as far as the picture goes because of other things in my sandbox (depending on your browser and window size). --JonRidinger (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a more detailed look at it soon. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion for the wrong reason: just a remark

I am not going to make too much of because the passage you have removed from E1b1b and E1b1b1a had other issues (as will be seen from E1b1b archives), but I do want to remind you that a source's profession or University degree is not relevant at all to any comment they make in an editorial about what the media says. I could imagine an amateur source being questioned on a technical matter (questioned, not deleted automatically, one of the most cited authors in this field, Stephen Oppenheimer, is not a geneticist for example) but reporting what the media writes is not such a technical point. To repeat though, the meaning, relevance and notability of the passage were a source of much debate anyway. I wanted to contact you and explain what I think partly because I noticed that you deleted the comment from E1b1ba not long after you were involved in an RS debate using very similar words to the ones you used in your edit summary. During that discussion, although you did not like it I think, I did show how the JOGG as a journal has a verifiable reputation for fact checking in the relevant scientific community. (Just for your interest, whether you like it or not, it has in fact become standard practice for "real" population geneticists to cite sources who are "hobbyists" in this field, most obviously the ISOGG website. This trend progressed further this month with the publication of a major breakthrough paper which openly states that their starting point was information supplied by the genetic genealogy community. Myres, Natalie (2010), "A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene effect in Central and Western Europe", European Journal of Human Genetics)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The jogg website is not The New York Times orThe Washington Post. It's not a media outlet, it's an amateur website run by non-professionals. It fails WP:RS. As a contributor to that website, you have a natural interest in protesting that fact. Are you claiming to be a professional geneticist? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I know this is getting old, but I thought you should be aware of this request for assistance with an SPA here. diff What should I do, if anything, to prepare for this? Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

AN/I: False accusations of vandalism

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Ovadyah forgot to sign the above. He has acknowledged the comment in passing on this page above, so I have to wonder how it is now that is that he has forgotten it. I cannot at present find the comment on the article talk page, but I am in the process of checking it. I should have enclosed the links of course, because it has become rather obvious that the comment has been removed from the history. I specifically remember that there was an edit summary to the effect, "No, John Carter, you don't get to do that," when I saw that he had restored the comments I had removed, and now I find that edit summary to be missing. I find this frankly bizarre. The fact that he seems to have acknowledged it above, however, would seem to be important as an indicator of his having knew of it before, in any event. Given that I am certain, and regarding this I am certain, that the comments existed, even if they have now somehow seem not to exist, I wonder how the situation arose. The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that, somehow, contacting Cirt and mentioned that I would make full copies of all the encyclopedia articles, which if presented on the article talk page, would force a substantive change in the content of the article, I guess might have caused sufficient fright in the part of someone to somehow alter history. Although I have never done so myself, it occurs to me that somehow the edits involved may have been deleted from the history, and I would welcome someone looking into that. John Carter (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)