User talk:Jayjg

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.

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 Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 17:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, it might be interesting for you to note that in my experience I have found the exact opposite. I'm sure you'll find that hard to believe, just as I found your post quite startling. I suspect, each in our own way, we are all fighting for pro-NPOV (or anti-propaganda). We just happen to edit one of the world's most difficult subjects where a real NPOV can be so elusive. Having said that, I do feel that with each major discussion on a topic, we help to bring history's double helixes closer together. With regards, Oncenawhile (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You've found the exact opposite? Which long-term editors edit edit solely for the purpose of anti-Palestinian political point-making? Name them. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that would be appropriate. Please don't encourage that kind of thing.

But back to the point - suffice to say that those on all sides of the debate are much more similar than our intuition might suggest.

On a separate subject, in our other discussion I was pleased to note that you have a sense of humour.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't name them because they don't exist. My point is proved. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

For such an experienced editor, vacuous phrases like "my point is proved" are surprising. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that I make accurate statements should not surprise you. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

When you do, it does. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps because you are generally unfamiliar with the concept of accuracy. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You are generally a good editor but sometimes you post the most unbelievable crap. His is changing "Southern Levant" to "Palestine" classify one into an "anti-Israel" editor "who edit solely for the purpose of anti-Israel political point-making" exactly? And there are plenty of "long-term editors edit edit solely for the purpose of anti-Palestinian political point-making". There was a whole CAMERA incident with some of them where your name incidently came up. Poyani (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Poyani, if there are "plenty" of long-term anti-Palestinian contributors such as you describe, it isn't helpful to the Project to leave vague comments about the phenomenon at one editor's Talk page. Put your money where your mouth is, identify who those editors are, and file complaints against them. Otherwise, kindly follow User:Oncenawhile's example and withdraw before things become truly embarrassing.—Biosketch (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Template:Editnotices/Page/1929 Safed pogrom

did you mean to move this template to Template:Template:Editnotices/Page/1929 Safed pogrom? seems like one too many templates. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will fix. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review of Afranet

I have nominated Afranet for deletion review. It can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 18. I have no problem whatsoever with your closure; however, when trying to request unprotection to make way for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Afranet I was told that a request must be made at deletion review. The author of the article was told of this and he requested that a deletion review be started. While the article isn't perfect, I do personally believe that the subject has more coverage than it had in 2009 (due to the initial public offering) and should be in the article space. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Jayjg, you deleted Afranet, which now is at DRV. If you haven't already, please add your thought to the DRV discussion here. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Josef Joffe.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Josef Joffe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Request review for deleted article 'remobo'

Hi I think you were the admin who deleted the Remobo page [1] I think since 2009 it has become more popular - the Mac Security Bible (a reputable book) lists it before Hamachi (software). [2] What would I need to do to have the Remobo page restored/expanded? Thanks peterl (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Month

Where can i find a list the most visited articles for the month April 2012? Pass a Method talk 08:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

Hi, I am new user in Wikipedia. I was created account today in here. Because I dont know policy of wikipedia. But i knew about IP address. But I dont wanna use fake ip address. what can i do for unblock my userpage? AshikSaha (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Need help on page Saint Thomas Christians and Dispute resolution noticeboard

Dear User:Jayjg, I am robin klein. There is a lot of Vandalism and POV deletion of the mention of anything Jewish regarding the Syrian Malabar Nasranis / Saint Thomas Christians on the page Saint Thomas Christians. The Saint Thomas Christians have a claim of being of Jewish origin that is corroborated by Scholars from various universities including Prof Shalva Weil from Hebrew University Jerusalem and Prof Katz from Florida International University. But a group of 4-5 editors with casteist agenda are deleting any mention of Jewish origin of the said people (Saint Thomas Christians). The problem is that some of these editors are administrators and one of them has threatened to get me banned from editing the article. He keeps on deleting anything got to do with Jewish heritage of the Nasranis/Saint Thomas Christians and does not state any reason for doing so. To put things in a nutshell: There is a concerted deletion of mention of claims to Jewish origin by the ancient christians (Nasranis/Saint Thomas Christians) from Kerala, India. The said community is called as Malabar Nasrani a.k.a Nasrani Mappila. Nasrani is the Hebrew word for Jewish Christianity. It was the Portuguese invaders of Kerala who started calling the Nasranis as Saint Thomas Christians because they hated any Jewish reference to the a supposed christian community. The editors changed the name of the page from Syrian Malabar Nasrani to Saint Thomas Christians. Anyway, the naming is a minor dispute within the larger dispute of the deletion of any cited mention of claims to Jewish descent of the Nasranis a.k.a Malabala Mappila a.k.a Saint Thomas Christians. I had put up quotes from Scholars from Hebrew University Jerusalem and also cited from research work of Prof Katz from Florida International University. Prof Shalva Weil from Hebrew University Jerusalem mentions in her papers that the Northists ( a sub group of the Nasranis) have claims of Jewish origins. She also quotes in her paper about the claim that Saint Thomas the apostle converted members of the Jewish diaspora settled in the Malabar Coast (Kerala). I have given all these quotes with page numbers from the peer reviewed academic papers at the talk page of the article. Now editors are constantly deleting text that mentions the claim of the community to Jewish descent. Why or how would one justify deletion of text when I have given citation or page numbers from the academic research papers. The editors state that I do not know english and that I am misinterpreting the quote. To this I told the editor that since he/she knows better english than me then please help the collaborative wikipedia editing by rewording the text so that the misinterpretation is removed. But the requested rewording did not happen. I have given references and quotes. Why would the editor keep on deleting the text and not allow rewording. Clearly the research authors have mentioned about the claims of jewish origins of the Nasranis Christians (a.k.a Nasrani Mappila a.k.a. Malabar Nasranis a.k.a Saint Thomas Christians). With proper citations given, it is definitely legitimate to mention about the claims of jewish descent of the Nasrani people. How could the editors keep on deleting mention of the claim of jewish origin of the people when proper citation with page numbers have been provided. Does that mean that no mention of claims of Jewish origin should be made even though scholars have stated so, just because the editors have an agenda. The editors who are reverting have administrative powers. I think they are misusing their administrative powers. A lot of discussion regarding the deltion has already happened on the talk page of the article Saint Thomas Christians under the sub heading Jewish descent and at WP:DRN. Now an editor User:Sitush is threatening me that I would be banned from the article. This is using threat. Please help, thanks Robin klein (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Berber people

Hello,

I want to inform you that the user Dzlinker has started (again) to edit the template images on the article Berber people, pretending (again) that there is a consensus on the talk page (but I don't see any consensus, of course!).

I reverted his last edit [3] but I think that further action should be a report to the ANI, which could be more useful than reverting this user each time he edits the template.

Regards,
Omar-Toons (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice regarding personal attacks against Jakew

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