Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:53, 4 January 2012

This is Jayjg's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

concern

Hi, could you kindly have a look at the article for Khalid Yasin, as one person keeps changing the article in breach of wp:synth, wp:rs, wp:claim and agf. I have tried to explain the reason for reverting them, but they are not interested in these policies and continue to restore to a version clearly not in line with basic BLP policies. Nimom0 (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Are you concerned that the article is becoming to pro-Yasin or too anti-Yasin? Jayjg 19:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, well I am just concerned about the edits removing reliably sourced content, calling views "claimed" and adding OR and self interpretation without RS. If you view the edit I linked. Nimom0 (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me some specific examples? Say, the top two most obvious problems? Jayjg 19:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well the diff is pretty clear with all violations. But alright, 1) he removed reliably sourced content (articles sourcing the views, see: Homosexuality (adding the word bestiality), Family life, Education 2) he interprets the view stating "This statement seems wrong and taken out of context", which is WP:SYNTH 3) and adds primary source OR (youtube) to source his edit 4) 5) ignores WP:CLAIM renaming the 'View' section 'Claimed views' and then further inserting "Yasin is claimed to" 3 times. Clearly not how we edit BLP's. Nimom0 (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've left a number of comments on his Talk: page. Jayjg 16:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thanks and certainly appreciated. I have just viewed the 30+ edits he has since made to KY. Again he removed most of the quotes , , rewriting significantly from the previously quoted content and added counterviews but sourcing is mainly a video interview and I'm unsure that the video link is an RSS. The websites are both in Dutch, where the former looks like a blog while the latter I am unsure about. Also unsure about this. Not sure we need to specify that "yasin has been quoted". Though foreign RSS are admissable, I noticed 3 Danish news articles, which look fine for RSS though they certainly offer more information that what is selectively cited. And the videos, still, may fall under OR. Nimom0 (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, can you have a look at the above in terms of the 2 video links being RS? The vidoe link(s) are used extensively to "counter" views of YK in a BLP which requires strict RS. Nimom0 (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If they're the ones I think you mean, they're in Dutch, so it's hard for me to assess. Can you confirm the specific links you mean, here on my page? Also, I think you are correct, "he was quoted" adds verbiage and a sense of doubt that is not warranted. Jayjg 22:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, been away, so just logged on and found your message. Hope you are well. The links are these: http://tegenlicht.vpro.nl/afleveringen/2010-2011/aanval-op-europa/de-vreemdeling.html and http://player.omroep.nl/?aflid=9617163 (originally hosted by a Dutch Muslim org NMO - now dissolved). Though Dutch, it still may fall under OR. If this was an article it would be easier to cite. But finding interviews (in english as KY is english speaking so only the background commentator are foreign languaged) and select statements (according to ones own subjective understanding) and then insert as "opposing view" is a concern. This interview is now sourcing everything that the other user deems "incorrect information", "inaccurate cherry-picked claims", "obviously mis-quoted or false views" and "a heavily biased, outdated and locally (Australia) dominant version". He actually held these preconcieved POVs prior to even having found "opposing" primary sources. In terms of objectivity, not a constructive approach for editing or good faith towards editors such as myself. We only report what reliable secondary sources say, as you know. Here we take an interview (OR) and pick statements we find will oppose the existing version. This is a BLP afterall, whether sources are Dutch are not. Even if this interview was on BBC online, we'd be careful, when citing views or controversy. In my previous search for sources I also found this . You see the problem? And the only heavily edited article to his credit is KY. Nimom0 (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

María Viramontes

Hey there, I think you should review the deletion for several reasons. First of all, the way your phrased it implies to me that you found it to be notable but since most people found it not notable you went with delete. But it's not a vote and that seems to be treating it as such. Secondly it was part of a mass nomination of articles related to the Richmond City Council that editors have been scrambling to rescue, and every other one looks like it will be successfully saved. Now having said that it doesn't necessarily bare weight if other things are kept but the point is that more time was needed. Also most of the delete votes were based on the articles previous state before the sourcing and copyediting was done by rescue. The sources for this woman are numerous and based on them she is generally notable and if anything she it notable for merger into the Richmond City Council or city of Richmond, California article. I would like you to reconsider your approach here and suggest the article be kept.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My comment wasn't that she met Misplaced Pages's notability requirements, I just assessed the arguments on the AfD page. Jayjg 16:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure biut my point is that I would like you to review this deletion and to reverse your decision on the matter. I believe the result was actually no consensus. Will you reverse the decision?LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like some review also.  And please comment about Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the discussion of a deletion review this article (which IMO, is clearly unwarranted; the article fails POLITICIAN and ANYBIO in spades) be discussed in a public forum so that people other than Lucifer may comment? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my close, but anyone is free to take any deletion to deletion review, if they wish. Jayjg 06:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I really would rather not bother them with all that, as I think the content could easily be salvaged into the city council article. Is that something your willing to do? And for the record asking the closing admin on his ramtalkpage is a procedural prerequisite for a deletion review as outlined on the deletion review steps, this is nothing but a man to man request and no public comment is warranted here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean by "the closing admin on his rampage"? Are you referring to me? Jayjg 09:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please accept my apology that was meant to be "talkpage" but I must have had a Freudian slip that was directed at the nominator not at you. I think the mass nominations were a bit of a rampage but I hadn't even noticed I used that here and it seemed like an odd question and I had to reread.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for explaining. Jayjg 17:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes

Please comment about Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge

Is there anyway I can have the content from the article to add to the city council entry?LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for María Viramontes

An editor has asked for a deletion review of María Viramontes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciferwildcat (talk • contribs) 10:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Abraham Lincoln's patent

ping!--Doug Coldwell 15:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

fyi

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/CIS

You seem to know about this... Alarbus (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked and tagged, apparently. Jayjg 17:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And now back as http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/2.216.232.181 Jayjg 16:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Joseph Henle

I noticed you speedily deleted Joseph Henle as per G4. I had thought about requesting speedy deletion for that reason, but instead re-nominated it as an AfD (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henle (3rd nomination)). Assuming there isn't a bot to do it automatically, could you close out or delete the AfD discussion on this article? Thanks for your help. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done so. Jayjg 16:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit War/Content dispute

I'd appreciate some help concerning recent attempts to whitewash Slavic Neopaganism. Thanks.--Galassi (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Jayjg 21:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It has moved to AN/I? Or has been there for a while now? Jayjg 04:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Reform Judaism

Hey Jay. I took your lead and edited out the Hebrew & Yiddish at Orthodox Judaism, for consistency between the denominations. Cheers, A Sniper (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care, but this isn't some tit-for-tat game where if one movement has no Hebrew name in the lede, then the others can't either. Reform Judaism is primarily an American phenomenon, with some strength elsewhere, and relatively little support in Israel. On the other other, Israel is the center of Orthodox Judaism in the world, with at least three times the Orthodox Jewish population and infrastructure (schools, synagogues, etc.) as the United States. Having a Hebrew name makes far more sense for Orthodox Judaism than for Reform Judaism. Jayjg 04:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar

Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar has been nominated for merging with Template:Criticism of religion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Clarification of Guilt by Association in WP:BLP

Due to the holidays, I didn't reply, and now this discussion has been archived. Just noting that I appreciate your comments and alerting me to the problem on the Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar, which I am now proposing to merge (see above). Furthermore, while I understand your comment about how WP:BLP policies apply to all of Misplaced Pages, I don't see how your comment really addressed my proposal in any meaningful fashion. It seems to me that it falls entirely outside of the guidelines that I proposed. The rules of logic are very clear, and the examples I proposed (Jodie Foster and Sarah Palin) are written in the manner that is clearly not an Association fallacy, and that this is a model for such incidents. All I am attempting to do is to insert such basic logic back into the guidelines.Jemiljan (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Racism in Germany

Thanks for your intervention. Would you like to do more? Which weaknesses do you see in the article or how can it be improoved? Best Wishes --fluss (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I was really only correcting the inappropriate edits of a problematic editor, I don't know anything about the topic or article contents. Jayjg 00:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ebionites and Ignocrates and general comments

I am in the process of obtaining the book Who on Earth was Jesus by interlibrary loan which, if I remember correctly, says rather explicitly that Eisenman's theories regarding the above named subject are rejected by the academic community. I expect to file an RfC regarding that opinion, and that of others, like James VanderKam and Lawrence Schiffman, which seem to me to rather clearly demonstrate those theories of Eisenman are rather clearly fringe as per WP:FT. Also, I guess, I feel that I might well express concern regarding the editor above who sought to change his name. As I recall, that editor rather clearly stated to you that he was "too close" to the subject of the Ebionites to be impartial, which I take as a rather clear indication of the relevance of WP:POV. Granted, that editor has been rather generally inactive of late, but I would have to wonder whether he might have similar POV problems regarding other topics from that era, like perhaps Gospel of the Ebionites. And, yes, much as I am less active recently, I am in the process of trying to get together broader lists of encyclopediae and other sources which, I think, tend to be among the most acceptable indicators of current academic opinion, provided the sources themselves are current of course. Anyway, with luck, maybe within a few weeks or so, I should be able to provide at least basic "bibliography" articles for most major faith traditions, and possibly at least a few on more focused topics, with articles on the individual books where notability is established. I don't know whether the topics of interest to you might benefit from such separate articles, but I can try to add and develop them as well. Anyway, thanks again for all your efforts in what is an often thankless and contentions subject. John Carter (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The statement "that editor rather clearly stated to you that he was "too close" to the subject of the Ebionites to be impartial" is, of course, a complete lie. And I changed my name because of the religious bigotry I endured from the same editor doing all the complaining. I just want to leave the Ebionites article behind permanently and move on, as I indicated on my user page. Ignocrates (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And one more thing, this preemptive accusation of POV-pushing applied to an entire class of articles is an expression of pure malice. It is not consistent with the privilege of being an admin on Misplaced Pages. Ignocrates (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ovadyah, I believe your own editing history up until that time under your earlier name, including your almost single-minded attempts to promote the non-notable Ebionite Jewish Community and the "despronyi" belief which may well be tied to them, as well as the Tabor book, which the EJC community page indicated was one of the few "reliable" sources which apparently supported its own claims, despite any evidence in any sources I ever found regarding any academic opinion at all for the latter and only one source, insufficient to meet WP:N, on the former, makes the "accusation" far from preemptive. However, if you honestly are now trying to act reasonably and in accord with WP:POV and other policies and guidelines, I can't see any reason for you to be mentioned in the coming dispute at all. And the claim of my own "religious bigotry" in the above comment is itself a complete lie, and not at all supported by the facts, and actually clearly unfounded based on the facts. I produced reference sources, which are widely recognized by academia, while your own input seemed to be related to the non-notable "despronyi" theory and, possibly by extension, the equally non-notable Ebionite Jewish Community. Having said that, I remember how I was e-mailed by someone information on how another editor indulged in personal attacks as an attempt at distraction, and am willing to forward them to whomever might request them. The accusation of "pure malice" is as unreasonable and unsupported as the "religious bigotry" allegation, and I believe the evidence clearly indicates as much. Such lies are not consistent with basic conduct guidelines, Ovadyah. If you want to bring the matter to arbitration, by all means do so. I would very much welcome a thorough, independent review of your own conduct, as well as that of Michael. It would probably include producing the e-mails you sent me regarding Michael's conduct early on, which I still I think have, and how those tactics may well have been taken up by others.

Also, Jayjg, I think you might remember the statement of the editor in question better than me. If however you choose to desysop me yourself based on your personal conclusions regarding my conduct, feel free to do so at my explicit request here, or send me a message and I will do so myself, as I indicated in my RfA.

Also, I believe the Dead Sea Discoveries, particularly V12#1, indicate how this particularly subject has been covered rather extensively, and in a sensationalist manner, by several media, lending certain "fringe theories" regarding early Christianity an appearance of support they honestly do not and never have had. That journal, by the way, is available on JSTOR in full text. Honestly, we have trouble enough dealing with all the clearly "minority", and often sensationalist, opinions regarding that era, having to deal with yet another theory, which is apparently rather conclusively rejected by academia, makes the subject even harder to deal with. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The name is Ignocrates, and you will please address me by that name from now on. If you want an independent review of my conduct, you are always free to request a reopening of the arbitration that is already on file. I will use it as an opportunity to have you stripped of your adminship. Ignocrates (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Gee, so could you. What are you afraid of, I wonder? Could it be that like someone once told me about Michael, editors can make unfounded allegations as an attempt at distraction. You are the one who first raised concerns about conduct, and yet you seem to be yourself unwilling to do anything other than raise those unfounded allegations. Interesting.John Carter (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Who was it who suggested tag-teaming to provoke a 3RR on my part to produce a permaban? Why, it was John, wasn't it? Care to copy the emails into a public arena? -- cheers, Michael C. Price 21:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And who was it who went so far as to accuse User:John of being my sockpuppet, just because he seemed to have criticized you'? Gee, Michel, that was you, wasn't it? And wasn't it Ovadyah who initially supported it? Paranoid much? John Carter (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no intention of going to ArbCom. In case you haven't noticed, the rest of us have moved on. John Carter, you are the only one who can't seem to let go of this dispute. That said, it would be amusing to watch you go back to Newyorkbrad and beg him to reopen the case. Ignocrates (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I have never heard of a "despronyi". Sounds like some kind of macaroni. Is it a side dish? Ignocrates (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing?

Hey Jayjg, I don't think there's anything wrong with neutrally letting people know that a discussion is going on which they might be interested in. And I don't think that being a member of WikiProject Islam is necessarily going to pre-determine your stance on how honor killing articles should be titled. Perhaps I'm being naive in this case and have no idea what I'm talking about, but I didn't see anything wrong with Carol's notice. If there's something I'm missing, let me know. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There's been a very lengthy discussion about this. In a nutshell, she notified only that project, none other, despite the fact that the article was not part of that project, was part of many other projects, and didn't even mention that topic. Jayjg 00:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Kaldari (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Congregation Beth Israel (Asheville, North Carolina)

On 31 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Congregation Beth Israel (Asheville, North Carolina), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in the 1950s Congregation Beth Israel of Asheville, North Carolina, shortened and moved its Shabbat service two hours earlier, so members could open their stores following prayers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Congregation Beth Israel (Asheville, North Carolina).You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 05:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Charles Lane's Jewish religion

I've started a discussion on including Charles Lane's religion in his biography here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Charles_Lane_(journalist)

If you have any objections to inserting his religion, please let me know. --Cincinatis2 (talk) 09:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Business Plot

Could you please take a look at Business Plot? I'm in a dispute over whether it is accurate to change "Spivak argued that the plot was part of a fascist conspiracy of financiers to take over the U.S. government." to "Spivak argued that the plot was part of a fascist conspiracy of financiers and Jews to take over the U.S. government." Spivak was a crusader against fascism and anti-Semitism and I believe the insertion of "and Jews" does violence to his position and distorts his argument (he seems to believe that some Jewish financiers such as Lehman Brothers were in on the alleged plot but that's quite different from the generalized statement that "financiers and Jews" were trying to overthrow the US government which, to me, invokes a Jewish conspiracy theory. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to take a look. Jayjg 17:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)