Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 38.114.81.204 (talk) at 21:32, 10 April 2012 (→Jewish: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Help getting to good article status

Can you help or advise how to get this to good article status: Invasion of Banu Qurayza, i was thinking you may have some knowledge in this area, and is it possible to get that featured on front page like DYK articles?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

To get it on the front page now, you'd have to get it to WP:FA status, which is quite difficult to do - and even then there's a long waiting list for FA articles to get onto the front page. Jayjg 02:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over factual accuracy tag

Can you please take a look at this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Invasion_of_Banu_Nadir , do you see any problems with it? If so how to fix it. 1 user added a tag 8 months ago, didnt make reason why article is "factually inaccurate" clear--Misconceptions2 (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I've commented there. Jayjg 02:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for an administrative review

I would like to request an administrative review of John Carter's fitness to be an administrator. If he considers himself to be too cognitively impaired to participate in an arbitration process he demanded, he shouldn't be performing other administrative duties either. Ignocrates (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I welcome the review, actually, as the request seems to itself clearly violate WP:HARASS. You will know yourself that he has already been warned regarding this harassment on this page. This repeated harrasment, and I believe clearly demonstrable stalking, while at the same time completely refusing to address issues of substance regarding reliability of sources, seems to me to be clear evidence of the misconduct of Ignocrates himself. If you find the complaints groundless, as I do, I believe it would be reasonable to raise concerns regarding this harassment at WP:ANI. Please conduct the review as quickly as reasonably possible. Please also note that the link provided by the above editor in no way supports his own comments. In other words, Jayjg, the request here is based on what I believe is a clear and willful lie, by Ignocrates. Willful misrepresentation of fact is a very serious example of misconduct, is it not? John Carter (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The link provided seems germane and portrayed accurately. How does that justify accusations of lying, John? -- cheers, Michael C. Price 06:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well for a start the linked to text does not imply that he is too cognitively impaired to participate in an arbitration process. Characterising his description as cognitive impairment looks provocative as well as inaccurate. --BozMo talk 07:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Still doesn't justify accusations of lying. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 08:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Look. John Carter has stated in several forums and on editor talk pages that he has difficulty controlling his emotions in conflict situations. He attributes that to lingering effects of his being mugged. Imo, he also has great difficulty organizing his thoughts. Much more so than the person I remember before 2010. That is why he is asking for someone to do the work for him in arbitration. It's really a shame this happened, but I think it affects his work here. Ignocrates (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And yet, you yourself have not provided the evidence here or elsewhere. I do acknowledge, given that you, who first requested input regarding Michael and his completely irrational devotion to the fringe theories of Robert Eisenman, and actually brought and won an arbitration case against him on that basis, have now made an about face because having reviewed the available reference material, I have found that the content of the Ebionites article does not even remotely meet basic quality standards. The only reason I can see for that is that the independent reference sources, basically, do not in any way substantially support your own preferred version, which, so far as I can tell, probably is a mirror of the content of the fringe theories of the non-notable Ebionite Jewish Community, and of its leader and apparent "prophet", Shemayah Phillips. And, in all honesty, Ovadyah/Ignocrates, I find it ridiculously amusing that you of all people make accusations of irrational conduct of others. I make user page comments to James Tabor on his user talk page, and you instantly accuse me of stalking you despite the fact that my comments were basically to him, not you. Not to mention your frankly laughably stupid attempt to get me banned as a scokpuppet of User:John because I had the temerity to point out that what has been basically your driving purpose in your life as an editor here, from the first edit of your user page as Ovadyah, has been to promote the "James was Jewish" perspective, which they seem to support, and which has never had substantial academic support. So, yes, after a serious head injury, and after rather visible attempts on your part to basically ignore wikipedia standards to provide a soapbox for the non-notable Ebionite Jewish Community, as I have said earlier, my disgust for your hypocrisy and inability to act in an even remotely acceptable way has proven to be detrimental. It's really a shame that your own behavior has, so far as I can tell, never really met the basic standards of acceptable behavior in wikiipedia, but there is no question that it is the driving force of your own actions here. And, I once again notice that you provide only your own assessment of the situation. Your own rather obvious inability to abide by, or perhaps even grasp, behavior guidelines is itself I believe even more obvious in your history.

In all honesty, I have to think that the most relevant principle here is WP:COMPETENT, related to the behavior of Ignocrates/Ovadyah. I believe someone whose history indicates an extremely zealous, possibly at least to the point of pathological, devotion to the absolute truth of theories which have received rather little support in academia raises very serious questions regarding his own ability to contribute to an encyclopedia.

Also, anyone interested is free to contact User:Dougweller. I recently asked him for assistance in developing an Arbitration Committee case regarding this matter, because my disgust for the conduct of the others involved has become as pronounced as it is. I also indicated my willingness to revoke my own adminship if he thought such indicated. Please feel free to contact him directly regarding his response. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think this response just about says it all. It has gotten to the point where all I feel about this situation is sadness and pity. Ignocrates (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

These three user conduct warnings are also relevant: first warning second warning third warning. Ignocrates (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Despite the name change, as far as I can tell all these warnings are from you, right? So WP:HARASS does seem to be an issue here? --BozMo talk 08:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Your joking right? The talk page warnings are an attempt to ask John Carter to behave in a more civil manner and stop harassing me. This attack page is just one example of what I have had to endure here. He was asked by another admin to take it down. Then he put it back up a few weeks later when no one was watching. Please get your facts right before you make any sweeping judgements. Ignocrates (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Try to deal with some of the facts, Ignocraes. The facts were that you violated WP:AGF by literally questioning whether I was rreproducing material accurately. I recused myself from editing and produced the material in full, to eliminate such concern. And how did you and Michael react. So far as I can tell, by completely ignoring the information. The evidence of your own misconduct is, so far as I can see, stronger than any evidence of misconduct by others you have yet to produce. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

John, I did no such thing. I asked you several times to produce a diff or point me to where I said that. You either ignored my request or said you were too busy. I invited you many times on the talk page to add the material you found to the article and you refused. You had no reason to recuse yourself from editing other than your own preference. If my opinions on the article matter so little to you, why would this be any different? This is just like the other incident where you were running around claiming that I said "I hate you" on the talk page. I did no such thing that time either. We went through an AN/I to prove it and you couldn't come up with anything. Please try to not confuse my actual record on the talk page with your own thoughts. Ignocrates (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ignocrates, I realize you have no intention of dealing with verifiable reality, but I think the record will indicate that after your challenge to my accuracy of reproduction, I recused myself from editing. Regarding the "I hate you" comments, I believe it is possible for an editor to delete a page, and then restore only part of the history, removing the objectionable material. I believe the editor in question who may have done that was Jayjg here. So, yes, you asked me to basically break my word. Also, please provide a diff yourself to support your comments. The evidence of User talk:Jdtabor, I believe, makes it quite clear that the person who has displayed the most recent inability to separate his own thoughts from reality is you. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll say it one more time. There is no way you can hide content on the web servers from the IT guys who have administrative level permissions. They looked during AN/I and there is no such content. There is no way I can prove that something doesn't exist. Most people would just accept that and move on. I'm sorry you can't do that. With regard to the incident on Tabor's talk page, even if you were directing some of your comments to Tabor, that doesn't change the fact that you interjected yourself into a discussion I was having with him. And the only way you could have known about that discussion was by trolling my edit logs. Ignocrates (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is a way one can hide content on the web servers from admins, but it is more complicated than a straight content delete and requires a higher level of permissions than humble admins. More to the point, if you are questioning John C's role as admin can you provide any evidence of abuse of tools? If not this is a waste of time. --BozMo talk 16:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This blanking of an entire section of sourced article content and two of the sources diff followed immediately by locking the article is an example. However, there is more to being an admin than using tools. They are supposed to set a positive example for the rest of us. Jayjg is intimately familiar with the details of this dispute, so I will leave it to him to make the call. Ignocrates (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find any trace of the article being locked immediately afterwards: . In fact you editted it yourself a couple of hours later. And it was two years ago. All of which tends to give the impression that your complaints are unjustified, and being made for other reasons. --BozMo talk 06:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this request. I'll try to find the diff and leave it on my talk page later as I am done here to avoid the threat of a block. Ignocrates (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a question here. Was it I who locked the article, or someone else? I honestly don't remember. And, in all honesty, does it make even the slightest degree of sense to raise such complaints at this late date, or could it perhaps be seen as simply trying to provide some sort of excuse for what would otherwise rather clearly perhaps be seen as perhaps unjustifiable harassment? Requesting that someone else lock an article, after it had been vandalized, is another matter completely. And, actually, Ignocrates, when I was asked to delete the User:John Carter/Ebionites page by Smartse, I was given very specific instructions as to how to blank pages in such a way. You seem to perhaps once again be making assertions which cannot be verified in any reasonable way. Do I see a pattern here, I wonder? And, out of curiosity, didn't you make a comment to Michael here about my request that Dougweller review the history here, which specifically included a review of my own behavior to see if I merited de-sysoping? And, considering your apparently remarkable memory of other older material, how on earth can you so quickly have apparently forgotten that much more recent event? Out of curiosity, have you made any effort to see how Doug responded, or, as it appears to be, is this whole request simply another form of misdirection and harassment? John Carter (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You failed to point out that you didn't delete the page User:John Carter/Ebionites as you were asked to do, in violation of copyright, and Smartse was forced to return and do it for you diff. I also notice you are now providing evidence of trolling Michael Price's edit logs in addition to my own, so it seems by remark to him was on point. Ignocrates (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And you completely failed to respond to the question. By the way, as Jayjg also knows, that page was created as it was after your completely baseless allegation of my misrepresenting the sources either in or before mediation. I reproduced them in full, recused myself from editing on the basis of , and found that both you and Michael decided to ignore them thereafter. The record will bear out my statement above. You will also find I left a note with Smartse saying I had only done the reproduction to copy it into my e-mail. Now, Ignocrates, do you think there is any reasonable possibility that you will directly respond to the point regarding your apparent refusal to ask Dougweller, which you clearly knew about, or should I take this as yet another instance of your simply wishing to engage in extremely dubious conduct yourself? John Carter (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how Dougweller responded. Why don't you enlighten us? Ignocrates (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I note that you still seem to refuse to address the question as to why you have not already done so yourself. Basically, in this situation, I don't think I should speak for Doug, so I won't. You obviously knew about it. Also, if you would notice my own user page, you will note that I have set up my own criteria for recall. But, then, you apparently never did notice. 'Can you explain why you seem to refused to take what just about any person would have considered the most reasonable immediate action, given the recent nature of the contact, as just about any person of normal intelligence would have probably instantly done? I believe your having failed to do so raises very serious question regarding your motivations and, yes, competence.John Carter (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Presumably there was a private email exchange between Dougweller and yourself. If so, that's your issue with Doug. It has nothing to do with me. I don't sneak around sending private emails. Ignocrates (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That's actually an attack on me, Ignocrates, and I don't appreciate it. John Carter didn't email me, I emailed him as some of the discussion was, to my mind, personal. I did tell him I saw no reason for him to give up his tools. Because I've been out of this area for some time I did not feel able to give him any practical help with an ArbCom case or the articles. However, if you are going to continue these personal attacks I may feel it necessary to get more involved. Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

My statement was in no way intended to be a personal attack on you. Since you and BozMo are threatening me with a block in response (on my talk page), I've said all I intend to say here. Ignocrates (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I would only add that his earlier statement about not "sneaking around sending private e-mails" is one which I can prove false with the e-mails exchanged before the first Ebionites arbitration. Considering the above editor seems to have made such a self-serving lie as the one above, I think once again there are serious issues regarding his basic competence to edit. Also, Jay, I would appreciate some sort of response from you, as you apparently haven't made one yet. Like I have said from the time I became an admin, I am very open to withdrawing adminship if there is found to be just cause. John Carter (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Isaac Jin Solstein

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Isaac Jin Solstein. 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. — Hasdi Bravo • 14:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Requesting response to request for administrator review

I note that you have not yet responded to the request for review above. As the individual under discussion, I would request that you indicate your response, one way or another. John Carter (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg is obviously aware of the proceedings. I believe you already have a response. Ignocrates (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg was the individual you specifically asked to supply the review. I believe it is reasonable to request that he offer some form of indication as to whether or not he believes action should be taken. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That's one way to look at it, but silence is also considered an acceptable response to a demand for a yes or no answer in many cultures. Ignocrates (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, do you think you could give Jayjg a chance to respond himself, before chiming in with another comment of your own? He was the one being asked to respond, by both of us, you know. John Carter (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away. I'm not clear on what needs to be reviewed at this point. Can someone explain briefly? Jayjg 17:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I will explain it briefly on my talk page, since I'm the one that raised the complaint. Ignocrates (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the best way to review it is the second section to the above, "Request for administrative review." In that section, Ignocrates requested that you review my recent actions to see if they rise to the level of me perhaps surrendering my adminship. As I have said since I became an admin, I am open to recall. So, I believe reviewing that section is probably the best way to determine whether you believe I should surrender adminship, which I believe was the reason Ignocrates requested the review. If you were to look at Ignocrates' page, I believe you should also see his recent comments elsewhere, like at User talk:Dougweller. Also, I note that there seem to be more misstatments of fact in Ignocrates' presentation on his user talk page. Misrepresentation of fact seems to be an ongoing problem in the case of that individual. That, coupled with other allegations made by him in the recent past, and on that page, which have rather ambiguous objective foundation, leads me to believe that, dependent on the nature of your decision, there are sufficient grounds in my opinion to start a thread at AN/I regarding his conduct perhaps in terms of WP:COMPETENCE, WP:POV, WP:HARASS, and perhaps others as well. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

John Carter has said he is open to recall, and therefore must have a process by which this can be achieved if warranted. I would not consider a medical condition leading to possible seizures as grounds for an administrative review. Jayjg 03:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have a process by which de-sysop'ing is to be done in place, on my user page at User:John Carter#Adminship. Baasially, if anyone I respect tells me that I should de-sysop' myself, I will. You have my respect. So, if you think the circumstances warrant it, and indicate as much, I will de-sysop myself. Am I to understand that you do not see such grounds based on the oomment above? John Carter (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Jayjg. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 22:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

slrubinstein

Right now, I am still busy getting together the JSTOR reviews of encyclopedias/dictionaries, and in transferring other citations to my list in development of religion references. Personally, I figure I will probably be more or less busy for at least the rest of the month. However, given the recent developments, I would be willing to offer my assistance in copyediting if there were any sort of effort to improve an article that he found significant up to GA, FA, or whatever, as a memorial to him. I'm not sure who would be in charge of such an effort, if it ever is begun, but I figure you might be keeping up with that a bit better than me. John Carter (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help too...and I suggest you inform SlimVirgin directly as well as she may wish to participate.--MONGO 01:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Southern Levant/Israel/Palestine/Holy Land/ etc

I just recently reverted an undiscussed move by User:Oncenawhile in which he edited the body and moved the title of Nonferrous Archaeometallurgy in the Southern Levant to Nonferrous Archaeometallurgy in Palestine. Rather than having constant edit wars, is Misplaced Pages going to determine a singular name for this subject or not? These names all refer to slightly different things, however this fact hasn't had much effect on anyone's editing practices. Drsmoo (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that would be possible. As long as there are those who edit solely for the purpose of anti-Israel political point-making, I don't think any sort of sensible resolution is possible. And I use the phrase "edit solely for the purpose of anti-Israel political political point-making" quite deliberately. I've seen editors make pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian edits, but I've never seen any (long-term editors at least) who edit edit solely for the purpose of anti-Palestinian political point-making. By contrast, I've seen many longer-term editors who edit solely for the purpose of anti-Israel political point-making. Note also that "anti-Israel" and "pro-Palestinian" are not the same; almost none of these editors edit in a "pro-Palestinian" way (e.g. highlighting Palestinian culture, achievements, etc.) Rather, they are clearly and only interested in making anti-Israel edits. Jayjg 17:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Richie Branson page

I probably should have contacted you first before placing my version of the page "Richie Branson" up, as you were the deleting admin from its previous incarnation. The version I placed was significantly different from the previous work and provided proofs that the subject meets WP:COMPOSER. Also, as a nerdcore hip-hop artist, he has achieved significantly more press and recognition that most other nerdcore artists who have standing wikipedia pages (compare their article sources to the ones I provided in today's version of Branson's). In fact, none of the other nerdcore hip hop artists have composed, written, or co-written anything that would allow them to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:COMPOSER. They must have met the notability guidelines because they have achieved recognition in the nerdcore sub-genre of music. Given the fact that Branson has achieved just as much recognition in that subgenre, would that not make him notable as a nerdcore artist? Please advise. ZachBrenner (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on the new article's talk page didn't indicate he met WP:COMPOSER - he wasn't even credited for the songs he was being cited for. Why do you think he does? Please note as well that the AfD was plagued with WP:SPA editors who made claims about this individual that could not be substantiated by reliable sources. Jayjg 17:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Here's the logic I used: He is verified on BMI, (short for Broadcast Music, Inc. a de-facto source of imformation as to who has ownership rights in a particular musical work) as a composer/songwriter on the record. BMI's official repertoire not only verifies Marcus Brown II as a composer on the work titled Homegurl (He Gotta), it also verifies Bone as the performing artist. Also, Bone is on record by a reliable news source, San Antonio Express-News, himself stating Branson's involvement as a composer on the song. The BMI source is satisfactory to me, and Bone's confirmation on record with a notable newspaper gives me no reason to doubt Branson's role as a composer in that song. Looking at the previous AfD discussion (which I agree was full of sockpuppet responses), editors cast doubt on the fact that the song charted because no page was cited directly from Billboard showing the song ever charted. The author provided a paywall restricted page from billboard.biz, which only further created doubt. In this incarnation, I provided a direct source from Billboard's official site shows the song charted. It clearly shows Homegurl (He Gotta) holding position 22 on the chart. One of the editors claimed Billboard.com as the de-facto source of information as to whether a song charted or not. I agree with him, and thus I presented evidence from the de-facto source and not a paywall site. Based on that, I'd argue that Branson meets criteria number 1 in WP:COMPOSER, because there is a de-facto source showing he as a composer on a song that another de-facto source verifies as having charted on a national level. Since the composition charted, I believe it to be notable. I feel even stronger about the subject's meeting criteria number 3 in WP:COMPOSER. His composition was used as a basis for future recordings by three highly recognized grammy-award winning artists: Bun-B, The-Dream, and Rick Ross. I provided a source for that as well. That fact also wasn't present in the previous AfD discussion. I also believe the things he's accomplished in the nerdcore genre (none of which had occured prior to the previous article) further suggest notability. His work as an artist, completely unrelated to the billboard-charting song he produced, has been featured on a variety of notable web publications and shows, I have included all those as sources in this article as well. Comparing my sources to those presented in long-standing wikipedia articles of other nerdcore artists, I'd confidently argue that Branson is no less notable than most other artists in the genre. ZachBrenner (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the reliable source backing up the claim that he meets criteria 1 and 3 of WP:COMPOSER? Regarding "Comparing my sources to those presented in long-standing wikipedia articles of other nerdcore artists", please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Jayjg 18:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the track with Bun B, Rick Ross, and The-Dream listed directly on Bone's official profile on the official site of The Island Def Jam Group -http://www.islanddefjam.com/artist/discography_single.aspx?artistID=7410&productID=12297

While I'm satisfied by the tracklist as it is directly on Def Jam's website, I listened to the song for confirmation here as well:

http://www.last.fm/music/Bone/_/Homegurl+(Remix)+(Feat.+Bun+B,+Rick+Ross,+And+The-Dream)

I have no doubt that the previous article was deleted due to a combination amateur source gathering and the author + SPA's immature handling of questions from other editors. Hopefully some consideration can be taken to the fact that what I've constructed this time around has more substance than the previous article. Regards, ZachBrenner (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The source you brought is not WP:SECONDARY, and doesn't mention Branson. Jayjg 19:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. However, Island Def Jam's official site confirms the existense of three grammy award winning artists participating on a 'remix' (a term univerally used to describe a derivative of an original musical composition) of a song Branson is known to have composed. It is worth mentioning that this 'remix' can be heard on a variety of media projects, and audibly the composed music is identical to that of the original 'Homegurl (He Gotta)', confirming it is based on the original song Branson was involved in. I'm curious to know how that factors into this. As for WP:OTHERSTUFF I'm arguing that not for the sake of letting the article stand, but for the fact that it suggests that my article shouldn't have been a candidate for speedy deletion. That is totally acceptable per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Thank you for taking the time to engage in this discussion by the way. The article I've provided is substantially different from the one that was removed via AfD previously, therefore I don't see cause for speedy deletion. I can understand it going through a new AfD discussion at the most, but I strongly believe this article has a better leg to stand on that it's previous version. ZachBrenner (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"Perhaps"? The source you brought is not WP:SECONDARY, and doesn't mention Branson. Jayjg 21:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Why delete

Hi, why did you delete my article "Abdur Raheem Green"?

The rule states "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion.". The article I created was clearly not an identical copy, as I had no access to the originally deleted article. Also, since the deletion of the first article, the person has become much more notable. So how can it possibly be "sufficiently identical/unimproved", if circumstances have changed?

Also, why was my dispute ignored?

Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the previous article was that the person did not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Your comments did not include any material to indicate that had changed, and the article had only one reliable source, and that one only mentioned him briefly. Jayjg 19:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

In every way. http://www.peacetv.in/sp-abdurraheem_green.php http://www.islamessentials.org/instructors/abdurraheem-green/ http://islamevents.com/speakers/speaker_detail.php?spid=10 http://www.iera.org.uk/speakers_arg.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239543/The-fanatic-invited-jihad-cleric-address-British-students.html?ITO=1490 http://www.islamsgreen.org/ http://www.halaltube.com/speaker/abdur-raheem-green to name a few

Have you even tried googling his name? To determine this highly important figure as un-notable is absolutely preposterous Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As I noted, only one of these sources (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239543/The-fanatic-invited-jihad-cleric-address-British-students.html?ITO=1490) conforms with WP:SECONDARY and WP:RS, and that one only mentions him briefly. Please read WP:RS and WP:BASIC. Jayjg 19:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sir, with all due respect, this is absolutely preposterous. He is a hugely influential figure in the Muslim community, famous around the world for his speeches, he is a famous presenter on Islam Channel and Peace TV, he founded an important Islamic Academy, he is a frequent guest speaker on shows such as The Deen show, he is a key lecturer in the education academy he founded, and he is simply a renowned public speaker, one only needs to do a quick search on YouTube for his hundreds of talks and speeches which are given in front of audiences of thousands and are also televised. Googling his name in speech marks (so you get pages that list his exact full name) and you get 1m+ hits. Type his name into the google box and the first two predictive suggestions you get are "Abdur Raheem Green wiki" and "Abdur Raheem Green wikipedia". And you are telling me he cannot have a Misplaced Pages article? Simply bewildering. Obviously if we cannot agree a consensus I'll be making a deletion review. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages requires reliable secondary sources. Again, please review WP:BASIC - if you can't prove Green meets its requirements, a deletion review is unlikely to be successful. Jayjg 20:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Relax. If this person is notable, the article will be recreated. I recommend you reading up on WP:N and WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I won't relax. I think it's damn well obvious that this man would have an article if he was a Christian or a Jew. The fact that such an influential figure does not even have a Misplaced Pages page is a slap in the face to all Muslims. I'll not only be making a post in deletion review, but also a personal appeal/complaint to Jimbo about the abundance of anti-Islamic agendas operating behind the scenes and what the hell he can do about it. Thanks Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine. If my help isn't appreciated, I'm done. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

LGW, The article was deleted because in its existing state it failed WP:BIO. That's the only reason. Do not again impugn any Misplaced Pages editors by stating or implying anything different. Jayjg 01:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, that you would say the Daily Mail article only mentions him briefly is bizarre. The last four paragraphs of the article are exclusively about the man. Looking over it myself, this guy is so obviously notable from a cursory Google News search that the article's repeated deletion completely boggles my mind. If it will help here is some of the stuff I uncovered with a very basic search: .--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Four paragraphs in one news article about a different person is nowhere near enough to satisfy WP:BIO. If only those other sources had also been used in the article, or even presented as possible sources. Jayjg 02:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Funny how, instead of doing a simple search and making sure the person wasn't notable, you simply hit the "delete" button.Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

NZXT

Can you elaborate what needs to be done on for this page not to be deleted? I'm assuming "find more sources for notability" would be a good start, given the deletion discussion. ☭ cmn ☭ ( ❝❞ /✍ ) 20:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WP:GNG would be a good start. Jayjg 19:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Abdur Raheem Green

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Abdur Raheem Green. 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. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Your block on 131.123.122.38

Just to let you know that I have asked the checkuser MuZemike (see here) to have a look at the edits of 131.123.123.124 and see if there is a case for a block on the later and/or a range block. He has been dealing with the MMA socks. Mtking 20:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Richie Branson

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Richie Branson. 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. ZachBrenner (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Jewish

Please dont think that jews are everyone just based on your claims. Also dont think jews are smart. if you think so, you are making a clown out of yourself..