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.

Old talk archived at Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12, Archive 13, Archive 14, Archive 15, Archive 16 Archive 17

Could you protect Tay-Sachs Disease?

Jay. Sorry to miss out on the Jewish History discussion. I was away for several weeks. I was wondering, is there some way that you as an admin can protect a page so that only a person with a wikipedia log-in can edit it. I have worked a lot on the page on Tay-Sachs disease. The page keeps attracting vandals. It is sad, but anything that is remotely associated with "Jewish" seems to get vandalized. But that concerns me less than another kind of edit/review problem.

Somebody, who is probably very well meaning, keeps adding a sentence stating that the disease has been cured by new research at Duke University. I looked into the mater, and there is indeed research underway, but the successful treatments reported were for another disease, and the person who makes this modification is not reading the Duke University press releases correctly. Misinformation about a disease is a terrible thing. Could you make the Tay-Sachs Disease page only editable with a log-in. Maybe then I can at least figure out who this editor is and get them to understand the importance of the peer review process in science. --Metzenberg 06:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Circumcision

Hi Jay, Curious as to why you removed the discussion on Harvey Kellog as the person who spurred the American tradition of circumcision. Do you have sources that say something different? Best regards, bunix 09:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jay, it is well-known in the field that Kellog was influential in the "circumcision drive" in the US. I have gone and read various sources, now that you have bought it up, and found that you are right though. Because it seems there was already anti-masturbation hysteria in the US and doctors that promoted circumscision that predated Kellog; so I am now unsure how much Kellog's book contributed. So I now have to find a proper source that discusses how intsrumental Kellog actually was, so I can re-word my statement to be more accurate. He certainly was influential....but to what extent I can't say right now until I check more sources. This may take me sometime to dig up, as I am pretty busy. I have heard claims that Kellog used a lot of his cornflakes empire money to campaign for circumcision, but I am still looking for a reference for that one....but if true, kinda puts me off eating cornflakes :-) Best regards, bunix 21:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC filed "against" you

You may not be aware of this, as the author did not bother informing you, but a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlimJay was filed "against" you and SlimVirgin, which I have deleted and delisted as gross misuse of the RfC process. All the best, El_C 14:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

test --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Regarding [1]: Template:Civil3 Paul Cyr 19:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! Someone's taking themselves just a wee bit too seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that, despite having been warned that using newbie templates on experienced users is generally perceived as an insult, he continues to do so. Presumably the insult in intentional then. Guettarda 20:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

David Ben-Gurion

Please add your support to David Ben-Gurion on the Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Respectfully, Republitarian 16:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Stark

Carla Pehlke (talk · contribs) is Zephram. See This edit, and Terrorism edits. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote for me!

Vote for me! I will be a kid administor! Forfilling duties, watching reverting, and blocking, communicating and cooporating! Vote here!. Lindsay1980 23:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte

Hey Jayjg,

Bonny has been pretty active lately, the most recent socks are Georgianis, Economistul, and Latinitas. Could you look into each recent IP used by these accounts and see if they're open proxies? Also, perhaps this would lead you to find more socks? (I'm referring to what you did that other time) Anyways, he's been a bit of a nuisance lately, it would be great if you could help out. —Khoikhoi 04:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Also note his recent activity here and here. —Khoikhoi 07:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I might add that one of the proxies could have also been used by User:BookwormUK or another user. See the history of ShivLing of Makkeshwar. —Khoikhoi 04:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom case

Jay, can you take a look at Proposed principles ArbCom case: Editing your guru's article

Editing an article concerning a guru you are a disciple of is governed by the principles in Wikipedia:Autobiography. Briefly, such editing is discouraged due to inherent bias. If you do edit, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research remain in full effect.

Are you aware of the implications of this proposed principle?

• Tibetan Buddhists could be discouraged from editing the Dalai_lama and Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama articles
• Sikhs could be discouraged from editing Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Guru Gobind Singh
• Ravidasis could be discouraged from editing Raidas
• Followers of Vedānta, yoga, tantra and bhakti schools could be discouraged from editing articles about their teachers
• and so on

All this when there are no discouragement or limitations for

• Roman Catholics from editing the Pope_Benedict_XVI or Jesus articles
• Orthodox Jews from editing articles about their rabbis (e.g. Habbadniks editing Menachem Mendel Schneerson)
• Sufis from editing articles about Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi
• and so on

Don't you think that this could be construed as a dangerous precendent of discriminating against followers of Eastern faiths? What do you think Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhist and others will feel about Wikipedia when they learn about this..?

I have raised concerns with ArbCom members about this, but somehow I feel my concerns are not being addressed. Fred is of the opinion that the ArbCom can make value judgements about the "quality of the relationship" between a dispicle of a certain faith and its teacher and differentiate it from others. One can call that discrimination. What is your opinion on this?

Another concern is that this interpretation of WP:AUTO may be in contradiction with existing WP policies, such as WP:AGF and WP:NPA, the latter that reads "[a personal attack is when someone is] Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Please note that I am not arguing that for a disciple of a "guru" it may not be challenging to edit neutrally. It would be a good advice to pay attention to bias. But to make a distinction betwen faiths in this respect may not be appropriate. Also note that apostates of faiths/gurus will have as much as a challenge in this regard, but there is no mention of that conflict in the proposed princple. Look forward to your comments after you revise the evidence. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request for Resolution 242 article

Hi Jayjg. Here's the request:

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vjam (talk • contribs) 15:24, August 20, 2006.

Hello Jayjg. As well as being one of the parties involved in the content dispute and invited for mediation, I have also been following the recent discussion regarding OR. I agree entirely with what you have posted on the topic to date and appreciate your patient efforts to try to work this out directly. While engaged in a formal dispute resolution process I obviously would present my own understanding of any substantive issues, I intend to follow your lead wrt issues of policy and procedure and therefore am waiting to see if you accept mediation before responding to the invitation. Hopefully my service provider will not change my IP address during this process, although I am thinking of registering at this point and will continue to give the issue due consideration. If I do register or if my IP address changes (as it has in the past from time to time), is there a way for me to continue with this process if I choose to?201.53.27.33 22:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. What on earth is going on with the un sc res 242 article? I come back a month or so later and it seems entirely re-written in a very biased pov way. How can I help? affinity292@yahoo.com

Hello Jayjg. This is "IP 201.53.27.33" again. As Murphy would have it my dynamic IP address changed again sometime late last night or early this morning, and I am no longer "201.53.27.33". I do not know how this affects the mediation request, but I suspect it becomes moot because I will be unable to respond with the invited IP address. On a positive note, I did indeed register with Wikipedia (I had no idea it was so painless, but I suppose I should have suspected as much) and will not be "lost" again. For what it's worth (I suspect not much due to verifiability issues and other matters of protocol, but I'll toss it out there anyhow) I unequivocally and irrevocably claim authorship of and responsibility for every edit and comment made by IP address 201.53.27.33 to the Wikipedia site(s) since making my edit to the UN SCR 242 article at 02:26, 17 August 2006 until, and including, my edit to the Talk page of the same article at 23:25, 20 August 2006. I will post an alert to Vjam to let him know so he can decide what he wants to do about his mediation request, although I do still hope we will all be able to forge an agreement without having to further tax the formal dispute resolution resources.Dasondas 20:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW...

Could you do a check on User:AdoniCtistai too? —Khoikhoi 23:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Wik is being disruptive again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oruj —Khoikhoi 01:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

God

I like the way you played up crisp meaningful sentence. It almost makes me hungry! bikeable (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Jethro B Cornhusk

This user has appealed to unblock-en-l, among other things complaining that sending you copies of their ID is setting them up for identity theft crimes. Though I suspect you are an honorable person, their concern is justified as a matter of policy...

What are your specific suspicions regarding their edit patterns which make you think they're a Stark sock?

Would you be happy with someone at OFFICE reviewing their identity information, perhaps?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 03:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anything in the contributions of Jethro that make me suspect he may be Zephram Stark. He sent me an e-mail as well, so I am considering unblocking him and simply monitoring him if you don't mind. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 18:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I just replied on unblock-en-l, but have no fear of me unblocking anyone without discussion, A) I'm not an administrator yet, which renders it sort of moot, and B) I wouldn't do anything without making multiple efforts to communicate and find out what the admins story is/was, if I were to be one.

Looking forwards to your followup on unblock-en-l. Georgewilliamherbert 19:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Range blocks vs. Zephram Stark

I started a discussion regarding your range blocks vs. Zephram Stark on Charter /24 blocks and others on WP:AN/I, where you may want to participate. Thanks! Demi ^T/_C 03:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What has this got to do with original research?

I wrote: "Some academics, researchers and other individuals are working to identify instances of it and are attempting to formulate a precise description of the alledged phenomenon." You wrote: Because it is a new concept, academics and other researchers are working to identify instances of it and are attempting to formulate a precise description.

...claiming your revert had to do with "no original research". Quite obviously your revert was grounded in the following: Your POV. .... that is, unless you have a better explanation. pertn 07:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I see now that your reverted something else as well, so maybe it was a mistake. I reinserted my changes. If you want to remove them, please explain. pertn 11:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Time sensitive email

FYI, I just sent you what may be a time sensitive email (I'm not sure). JoshuaZ 14:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mistaken case of harassment

Hi, you removed some comments made by User:Deuterium, claiming that they were harassment. As far as I can see Deuterium was making an attempt at engaging you in civil dialogue. Removing these kinds of comments serves little purpose other than further enflaming the dialogue. Wikipedia is fantastic because it is possible to enter into a dialogue with those with whom you have a disagreement. Please make more of an effort to do so. jaco♫plane 22:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, apoligies if my comment was a little condescending regarding "what wikipedia is good for" :) Anyway, I still feel that you should restrain yourself from handing out accusations of harassment. I never doubted your credibility on Wikipedia, thanks for pointing out those fascinating statistics though. I remain convinced that no matter what kind of headers you might place on your talk page removing civil comments and accusing users of harassment is not appropriate. So you are a member of the ArbCom, don't let it get to your head. jaco♫plane 23:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well anyway if you'd like to have a chat I should be on IRC in the next couple of days in the channels I mention on my talk page. Perhaps that might be enlightening for both of us. jaco♫plane 23:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Rabinovich

As I explained on the talk page, the link does *not* say that Conde McGinley made up the quote. It says that Strom Thurmond said it, months before it appears in Conde's paper. Wjhonson 03:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Lutheranism

Jay, would you S-Protect Lutheranism? We have a spate more of vandalism there. Thanks! Bob--CTSWyneken^(talk) 09:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for arbitration and help

(a) I have been accused of "sockpuppetry". This is totally unjust. I am not the same as any ot the Wikipedia-editors to whom I have been linked. I seek an arbiter who will listen to reason and logic. Contributors named Bioinformaticist, M&M Peace (i think), Philly Student...they are not I, at all --I do not know who they are, I vow as if in court! (b) Why are articles (bios of living people) on Marion Cohen, Roberta Wenocur, Elaine Zanutto, Linda Zhao, and other female mathematicians being held to standards different from male mathematicians like Herbert Wilf, Dennis DeTurck, &c .? (c) What is the problem with the corp, Daniel H. Wagner Associates? (d) All right, maybe articles need improvement, but deletion? and some with prompt deletion? (e) Wikipedia should be fun, not so contentious.

Please help. I want to be nice, but it is difficult when being unjustly accused and bulliied.

I hope you are understanding, and believe me. I am not lying. This is the truth.

MathStatWoman 16:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised

As a longtime editor on Wikipedia and your status as an ArbCom member it surprises me that when an editor like myself makes a good faith effort to edit in accord with neutral point of view you don't respect it. Seriously, what is the problem with adding, "X says Y about Z"? This section of NPOV is rather clear about such issues. (→Netscott) 16:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You're not editing in accordance with NPOV. You're trying to add a POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read the top of this page, which says Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here. I've responded to your issues at length on the relevant article Talk: page. It baffles me why people cannot read the top of this page, or feel they need to discuss the exact same article content in two three different places, only one of which (the article Talk: page) is appropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy discussions

Are you open to policy discussions here? I notice your stipulations only mention articles. (→Netscott) 16:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Article content disputes disguised as "policy discussions" should be discussed on the relevant article Talk: pages. If you want to have a real policy discussion, you should do that on the relevant policy Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. (→Netscott) 16:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

new anti-semitism

While I agree with most of your recent revert there, I am confused as to why the part with http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2977086.stm as a citation constituted OR. What am I missing? JoshuaZ 19:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)