This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, JC. You may be interested in this section, which I have just posted on WP:AN. Bishonen | talk 23:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC).
I have tried to figure out exactly why some people seem so horrendously aggrieved by Jclemens' asides - and can not see an ounce of value thereto. It appears Jclemens takes the "Five Pillars" more seriously than some others appear to do - but berating him for that stance seems curiously unimportant.
Frankly, if the "Five Pillars" are "optional" then likely the entire project should be made aware of their obsolescence. Otherwise, we should be forbearing of Jclemens' belief that they are still fundamental.
He may well be wrong in his application of the concept for any particular editor - but it is equally wrong to berate him for it. We, in fact, need more who will be willing to assert the bases of Wikipedia, rather than people who will assert that some people need not follow them. Once we make such "special cases" in Wikipedia, we might as well simply cross out the "pillars" entirely. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 04:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I find it unusual that the defenders who time and time again been "this is the way my subculture acts" are then stating that other ways that cultures interact (ie Shunning) are inappropriate within the community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Seen some of the flak you've been taken for the way you've tried to uphold civility. Cant blame MFs friends as I was just as bad when you indeffed one of my own fave editors. But trying to be objective I don't think you at all deserved my attack, nor do you deserve the recent ones. In the case of MF and the other 3 individuals Ive seen you take a hard line on, Ive strongly disagreed with your decision, and I hope no one persists in trying to enact harsh sanctions on MF. But in the general case I fully support your stance on the matter. If admins and arbs don't act to restrain aggressive editors, they'll drive out the more peaceful and collegial types, making the project a much less pleasant and productive place to work. Thanks for having the courage to take a stand against aggressive editing, Im still glad I voted for you as an arb, and if you stand again will support without hesitation. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 12:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Just tell all of them to talk to the paw, Jclemens. Silver seren C 17:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
"If admins and arbs don't act to restrain aggressive editors, they'll drive out the more peaceful and collegial types, making the project a much less pleasant and productive place to work." Unless this is a reference to the recent disgraceful actions by some of the admins and arbs, this is utter hogwash. I've only been angry enough to consider leaving this place twice, and both times it was related to the unreasonable decisions made by admins and arbs. They changed forever the way I view Wikipedia but I was gradually able to let go of my resentments--except for the contempt that I continue to hold for Jclemens. We all make mistakes, but mean spiritness hangs in the air for a long, long time. Gandydancer ( talk) 19:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
You are definitely a defender of Wikipedia as far as I am concerned. MONGO 00:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC) |
I am not in a position where I will be able to correspond extensively on this matter over the next ~30 hours or so, but I thought I owed it to everyone to try and put together a few general responses.
I'm off to bed, so last comment for tonight :) To be clear about the "unperson" thing: I myself was not intending to suggest you deliberately were making Malleus "not of the body". However, that was the result of your comment. I was trying to highlight (see above my discussion with Bwilkins) the trouble with such an approach). I also raised questions about the entire case - is it really about fixing civility when we have many editors running around being rude to each other every day (i.e. is Malleus an example to hoist, and if so does Arbcom have a plan to make that example stick??). But those are all asides to the key issue, which you haven't addressed, which is that in a !vote on banning Malleus you poked at him with the "not a Wikipedian" stick, an uncivil comment in a paragraph you criticised him for civility issues. Can you at least see why, as an arb and therefore held to the very highest of standards, that was a major mistake? -- Errant ( chat!) 22:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
There is historical revisionism about 5 Pillars going on here. 5P was (properly) labelled a user essay until about a year ago, when it somehow morphed without much discussion into some kind of holy writ. At least one of the 5 pillars (not the civility one, and not one relevant to this Malleus issue) was grounded in misrepresentation of then-existing policy and (IMHO) was in serious conflict with what I see as the project's interests and goals. If you're going to pick some fundamental principles to start from, try
m:founding principles or
wp:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (which has been policy since the beginning). The "5 pillars" are just platitudes and should be restored to their status as an essay. (Update: I just now notice that someone has recently fixed the pillar that I didn't like, so the new version is much better. I'm relieved, but still, if the pillars change so easily then they're not really "pillars". So the overall view stands).
67.119.3.105 (
talk) 20:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
"One must conform to all five pillars to be a Wikipedian; that is the social conract.". Sorry, but none of us, aside from foundation members of course, are "under contract" on wikipedia, much less under "social contract". We're volunteers who contribute to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has never been about social interaction as it is on facebook and Twitter. Much of the website in fact is designed in a way which is antisocial and causes unnecessary drama. I don't believe in 5 pillars or any of the wiki philosophical stuff. We're an amateur encyclopedia, a content hosting website, that's it. Yes, we should build it with minimal drama and fuss with a good sense of purpose and try to be nice to fellow editors but it doesn't always work out like that..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
User Colin XX has been vandalizing several Wrestling-related articles by removing all links and content relating to the Fingerpoke of Doom. All of this user's edits have so far been the removing of content. 99.158.249.195 ( talk) 20:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not "unconstructive", because it's not relevant in the context of say Georgia Dome or 1999 in American television. By the way, a similar editor by the name of User:Jayemd made similar edits to the IP. He was confirmed as a sockpuppeteer, along with his sock User:Modern Warfare Dude. Shortly after he/they was blocked, the IP appeared, making the same edits. Colin XX ( talk) 12:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
In case you don't see my comment at the current Arb discussion [2], I am asking you to recuse yourself from the Clarification Request and all Motions regarding Malleus, as you have demonstrated an inability to be objective in the case. While I appreciate you striking your offensive remarks about a fellow editor, the bias obviously exists. I have no objection to you moving your comments to the above sections, as Brad had done originally. I've also made note of this at the larger discusion taking place. It isn't personal, it is about equity and process and I sincerely hope you understand that this the proper thing to do, not just for fairness to Malleus, but as to ensure the community that no Arbitrator will continue to vote in a banning process after demonstrating a clear lack of objectivity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I demur. "Recusal" is intended for clear conflicts of interest or prejudice, which have not been shown here. What we have is politicking to remove one voice from a committee which is not a court, but a collaborative system aimed at gaining a broad consensus on issues brought before it. And as such, "recusals" ought to be extraordinarily rare. Having opinions which are not congruent with those of people politicking against you is not grounds for "recusal." One might as well ask any editor to remove himself from any discussions at all on the same basis, for gosh sake! What has been shown is that you are human and have opinions in general about what Wikipedia is - and that you happen to be in a minority that still believes the "Five Pillars" actually mean something. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm not hiding, not on Wikibreak, nothing of the sort. I have been at work, at one job or another, for 34 of the last 36 hours, and don't always get a chance to participate in Wikipedia in these turns of my schedule. What you will see from me sometime here are reactions to the above statements, pro and con, as well as some anonymized excerpts from emails that have been sent to me privately about this situation. You'll forgive me if I take time to choose my words particularly carefully, I trust. Jclemens ( talk) 02:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
All these were emailed to me privately. It's not my intent to identify the editors, since they each are perfectly capable of saying things on-wiki should they desire to do so. I'm presenting these as a representative sample of the input that is informing my later responses. All emphasis in originals, all elipses mine:
[I have redacted your excerpts per WP:EMAILABUSE as you did not indicate you had permission to post them. If you do have such permission, you may restore. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)]
What self-aggrandizing tripe. Many editors have expressed serious concerns about your behavior, and you respond with anonymous and dubious testimonials - a tactic straight out of cheap late-night infomercials. Resign immediately. Skinwalker ( talk) 02:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
(od) No. If Jclemens had been more forthright in dispelling any misconception that the community has, we wouldn't be in this mess. Even if he took some time now to draft a statement, sent it to someone else to review it, and posted it, and it didn't confirm the worst that the community believes about him, it would go a long way. But with the limited evidence we have that all points to the accusations that have been made, that is what we have to believe. AGF is not a suicide pact. -- Rs chen 7754 19:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Oddly, there are thousands of editors on Wikipedia. I'm not sure why a few think they can bully an arb into not running. And oddly, many comments on this page are offensive, bullying and uncivil. Its one thing to make a point and to disagree with another editor even an arb, another to continue to hammer with one's opinion. I will probably regret commenting here but this page and the whole issue is beyond the pale.( olive ( talk) 03:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC))
In a much more public place, ANI, it was recently concluded that there is no email privacy on Wikipedia. [6] As with all other "policy" on Wikipedia, it's really just the whim of the participants. WP:EMAILABUSE is not a policy page. Attempts to pass such a policy actually failed, as indicated in the ANI discussion. Tijfo098 ( talk) 05:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and our esteemed FA writers should be familiar with fair use. Brief quotes are permitted. And, yes, fair use applies to email as well [7] For example, Diebold tried to sue people for disclosing emails from them, and failed. The court accepted fair use as a defense: [8] [9] "because there was no commercial harm and no diminishment of value of the works." We even have an article on OPG v. Diebold. Tijfo098 ( talk) 05:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
My 2cents: You surely brought identity politics to a whole new level on Wikipedia. That in itself deserved a block for WP:DE. I expect WP:Who is a Wikipedian? to follow shortly (hint: Who is a Jew?) Or perhaps it should be a question to be asked of all ArbCom candidates in elections from now on; perhaps even at WP:RfA from time to time, for a good laughter. Tijfo098 ( talk) 10:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The closest precedent that comes to my mind is when ArbCom (through User:Kirill, IIRC) narrowly defined "professional" to mean "civil", and consequently called people who where not always civil "unprofessional" (or perhaps his logic was reversed, I don't recall exactly); I vaguely recall that someone quit Wikipedia over that "unprofessional" label handed down from ArbCom, but I don't remember exactly who it was. Anyway, with your contribution we now have the equation: "civil Wikipedian" = "professional Wikipedian" = "Wikipedian" and its complement class "uncivil dude[tte]" = "unprofessional dude[tte]" = "non-Wikipedian". It would have been wiser, linguistically at least, for you to use "un-wikipedian" as an adjective. Tijfo098 ( talk) 11:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to start a thread, I simply wanted to apologise and clarify that
[10] contains a mistype. I intended to write "JClemens stupid ... remark" but, in an unintentional hypallage, I got the order wrong and called you stupid. Maybe not much consultation, but apologies anyway. I don't really want to redact, since the close is under close scrutiny now.--
Scott Mac 17:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Even as a scoffer at the so-called "community", I thought the "Malleus is not a community member" comment was completely ill-advised; but since you've stricken it, I'm reasonably satisfied and I don't see more hassle about it as worthwhile. The post about the emails you've received is pretty lame though. It's familiar enough that there is a song about it. 67.119.3.105 ( talk) 01:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
FYI, a more pragmatic definition I found [11]: "being a Wikipedian = winning at Internet posting". Tijfo098 ( talk) 12:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
So this image reflects your opinion of the encyclopedia? And you insult people as non-Wikipedians who contribute the useful stuff, of which there is actually far more than your own negative perception of Wikipedia implies? Just wow. You're never going to be re-elected, you know that, right? Never gonna happen. Might as well spare yourself the ordeal. Just pointing out the obvious. -- 78.35.243.237 ( talk) 17:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I thought you should know of this as well. And note: I'm taking this very seriously, and am looking over what my next options should be. - jc37 23:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer to tell you this by email, but I have never created an account so I do not have the email-user function. I think your strong principled stand on the matter of civility/professionalism/kindness is important and necessary for maintaining a humane environment. I do not know whether most people who edit this encyclopedia will agree with you, but I can say that most people in general society would surely agree. This is obviously not life/death or good/evil matter, but keeping things nice and pleasant is important. Thank you for standing up for what is right. I have now created an account and am inserting my name. Jeff Kilmar 04:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Was surprised to see 113.21.40.134 being blocked pop up on my watchlist.
I don't even recall when I added it.
But in a quick look over the contribs, guessing it's asgardian? - jc37 03:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Go Phightins ! 00:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you find this offensive, or otherwise undesirable? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Jclemens. 122.248.156.9 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi there,
I just took a look at the candidates page for the upcoming ArbCom elections, and was disappointed to see you're not on it. Am I right in thinking you're standing down and not running again for ArbCom? That seems to be the case with most of the current arbitrators - if I read the page correctly, only Newyorkbrad and David Fuchs are running again. And I can understand why, given what a stressful position it must be, and all the hatred you receive as a result. But your departure strikes me as particularly regrettable, given the circumstances and that you've only been there one year - it looks like you've been hounded out by the mob. For what it's worth, I hope you know that there are many of us who think you're one of the best guys on the Committee, and that ArbCom needs more like you. I believe if you ran again, you would be re-elected. Nominations close on the 20th, so there's still time to reconsider. Thanks for reading, and if you won't reconsider, thanks for your service to the community. Robofish ( talk) 23:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pilot (Eureka), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Eureka (TV series), Savant and Henry Deacon ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Underpants and the Preposterous Plight of the Purple Potty People you might want to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Captain Underpants. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 01:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I realize that you probably will decline to answer this question, and if that is the case I completely understand. However, I figure it can't hurt to ask. I notice several remarks you made, such as:
I feel that to some degree the community has a right to know what is going on with the Committee. Can you give any details on what the problems are, or who supports a certain position? The details of how the members reacted to recent events may be important in choosing who to elect. Thanks for your time. Jeff Kilmar 22:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no intended follow-up question to this, I'm just curious from "reading between the lines" - Is this the "irony" you were referring to when discussing Risker's question on your questions page? - jc37 07:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
As is always so inconvenient, I find myself occupied for the next 48 hours with sleep, work, volunteer firefighting (which may or may not involve any sleep), more work, and a previous social engagement, so it will possibly be close to 48 hours before I am able to guarantee any responses. If it's a quiet night at the fire station, I will be able to respond in 18 hours or so. Jclemens ( talk) 07:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
This is to notify you that you have been named in a statement issued by the arbitrators not running for re-election, regarding the recent leaks from arbcom-l. If you have comments regarding the statement, please post them to the Arbitration Committee's Noticeboard talk page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Statement regarding recent leaks from arbcom-l. For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 05:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
(context--both preceding and following--is not provided, as I don't have permission to share it.)
Obviously, what I said I intended to do in that email hasn't happened to date, entirely because I've been giving the committee time to work on the mailing list leak for the past two weeks or so.
Your message seems ok to me, I guess the question is if you should have used the Arbcom mailing list to send it. I think you should have used personal email. Cla68 ( talk) 07:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, as it turns out, the one that appears to have been "actively campaigning" is the one that sent private internal emails to unauthorized external recipients. MONGO 09:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Jclemens, please resign from the ArbCom and your adminship, effectively immediate. 24.61.9.111 ( talk) 07:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
In regards to the above comment, as a guide writer I publicly state that at no time did I receive any leaked confidential material, directly or indirectly, from Elen of the Roads. -- Rs chen 7754 08:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
It got there because before you moved it to the correct spot, I tried to do the same, but instead moved it to an even worse spot and the edit conflict resolution ended up duplicating it, thanks for correct it, I was about to but you were faster :) Snowolf How can I help? 02:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Diff - just to clarify that I didn't receive any emails or parts of emails either through email or through any other on or off wiki means. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Jclemens, I'm wondering whether you considered the contents of that email to actually be confidential, in the sense that if someone before the leak/brouhaha had asked your permission to post or summarize it on wiki, whether you would have given permission. If not, I'm wondering if there had been no leak, and you had gone ahead with your plan to campaign against certain arbs over their Malleus votes, whether you would have been explicit in this campaigning about the reason for it. Thanks, 67.119.3.105 ( talk) 07:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Jclemens for caring enough about List of starships in Stargate to go to the lengths that you have, I'd pretty much given up hope that this one could be saved. Increasingly it seems that the cruft haters are winning in their fight to elevate Wikipedia by getting rid of unworthy topics. KTo288 ( talk) 17:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC) |
Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite Hello Jclemens. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten 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. You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) ( talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC) |
Both Goldmoon and Raistlin Majere were properly tagged for merge a week before the actual merge was performed. As Neelix said, there was a proper discussion with consensus to merge. BOZ's unilateral decision to unmerge, whatever his beliefs, was thus inappropriate. As I don't see why we should be strict with procedures for merging and not for unmerging, I'm immediately re-merging the articles, and I support Neelix's comment about a split discussion. In any case, I don't see any consensus to split, so at this point there's no reason whatsoever for stand-alone articles to exist. Folken de Fanel ( talk) 21:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
You are being discussed at WP:AN (not by me). Reaper Eternal ( talk) 22:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Several months ago, you commented on an AFD that was closed as no consensus. It has been renominated, and you may wish to comment again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of defensive gun use incidents (2nd nomination) Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, as you were a contributor to a previous DRV on the Freemasons category there is another deletion discussion on this. JASpencer ( talk) 16:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Sooo. In looking over the guides (and not counting the ArbCom Reform party candidates), it looks like you and I are at the bottom : )
Such an honour! : )
So anyway, I thought, out of fun, and somewhat in the spirit of the bounty board, I thought a friendly wager might be fun to pass the time : )
(and no, no money, if you please : )
I think there are 4 places we could treat this as a "horse race" of sorts. Who gets the most supports; the most neutrals; the most opposes; and the highest support percentage.
The winner (the one with the most/highest number) of each "category", has to close one discussion listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. (We'll leave it to the winner's discretion so that we don't accidentally ask the other to close an INVOLVED discussion or any other possible issues.)
What do you think? Interested? If nothing else, Wikipedia wins by getting (at least) 4 community discussions closed : ) - jc37 21:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to offer my condolences. While another of the non-admins was at the bottom as well, it did turn out that you, Kww, and I were at the bottom of the pack.
But yet, take consolation that there were still those who did not choose to oppose.
And all the work you won't have to be involved with : )
And don't worry about the "wager" above. I'll see if there are 4 discussions I can close there.
The election's over (finally) so now we can all get back to doing what else we typically do to help out the project.
Happy editing, and I sincerely hope you have a great day : ) - jc37 21:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for giving two hard years to the shittiest job on Wikipedia, Jclemens. Regardless of what may have happened, I sincerely thank you for having stepped forward and slogged through what I know is ungrateful hell. Enjoy your new freedom, I know I did. :-) — Coren (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
J, we might disagree on some things, but I would guess we agree on many more, and we both share the goal of making enwp a better place. That, and we share the intuitive understanding that Atlantis (Stargate) is obviously notable. ;-) However you spend your time here at enwp, I hope you find joy in your work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe you attempted to move Wikipedia towards a more tolerant place, tolerant because you refused to allow bias, bigotry and other forms of incivility. Thanks for all the work you did. I feel disappointment you were not reelected and see it as a backward step for this community. ( olive ( talk) 22:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC))
I supported your reelection and have no qualms about publicly stating that I did. Should you decide to run again in the future, you will have my support.-- MONGO 00:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
As the only one with a voter guide supporting you, of course I am disappointed - but your showing was far higher than "voter guides" would have ever suggested. You have a good reservoir of support on Wikipedia. Collect ( talk) 00:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
First Romney, now Jclemens. It's been a bad year for elections; the good guys don't always win, but I'm proud to have voted for them anyway. As Collect points out, you do have a lot of support here. Thanks for your ArbCom work and for taking a "hard line" on the civility issue. Congratulations on your RL promotion, too (be careful!). -- 108.45.72.196 ( talk) 17:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Just letting you know that Pool of Radiance (novel) has now been nominated for deletion. As you previously removed the deletion proposal, I felt this might be of interest to you. Regards. Doniago ( talk) 15:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't really want to get too involved in the details of the PoR AFD...honestly I only came here to note it since Jclemens had removed the deletion proposal I put in originally, so I figured they might want to be aware of the AFD. Put another way, I didn't come here to stir the pot. If the target of the merge is also a candidate for deletion, then I agree that a merge may be a waste of time. But if the nominator has a history of making questionable choices with regards to the articles they choose to nominate, that's also an issue that should be considered and addressed. I think that's all I want to say about this, and I hope I'm coming across as sufficiently impartial.
J - Thanks for saying I'm not in the same category. Some of the dialogue that's come up in the RFC I'm involved with has been what I would consider less than civil, not to mention unproductive. Unfortunately, the editors invoking such wording also seem disinclined to take the actions that would cut the issue off at the source. I acknowledge my failure to fully evaluate the alternatives to deleting the article, though I would note that as I look at it I don't see a whole lot that seems worth merging other than the mere existence of the novel; the article consists largely of plot summary. I think I favor a redirect at this point. Doniago ( talk) 15:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
In response to Claritas' last comment, the merge target I proposed is a good article. — Torchiest talk edits 15:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Please stop hounding my AFD nominations. I do not appreciate it, especially when you resort to making ad hominem attacks and do not deal with the concerns I have raised. This is behaviour unbecoming of an administrator. -- Claritas § 12:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Holiday Cheer | ||
Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. |
Happy Festivus! | ||
Here's wishing you a happy
Festivus! May you emerge victorious from the Feats of Strength, may your list of Grievances be short, and may your days be filled with Festivus Miracles. — Torchiest talk edits 14:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC) |
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Jclemens! -- 108.45.72.196 ( talk) 17:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
TheGeneralUser
(talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello Jclemens! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Some Christmas traditions are very difficult to explain. Kind of like Wikipedia policies.
Happy Holidays! | |
From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC) |
Hi there, I noticed that you removed PRODs from three aticles that Neelix had proposed for deletion. Judging from that user's contributions, he is likely to AFD any article from which a PROD is removed, so I suggested a merge destination for two of them. However, I don't think a merge is reasable for the artifact list, because I believe we would want to keep it and there is no reasonable merge; some of those artifacts are probably not notable, but some (like the Dragonlance itself) likely are. Do you know of any sources that can be added to improve these articles? 24.12.74.21 ( talk) 17:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, as I promised, now that I'm departing the Arbitration Committee, I've gotten off my butt and finished User:Jclemens/Midas. All talk page stalkers are welcome to review and provide feedback! Jclemens ( talk) 07:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Please consider WP:userfying the page you deleted due to expired prod C. McNair Wilson. This page was in the main space for over a year if I recall correctly, and it entered PROD while I was on a wikibreak. I believe it can be corrected in the userspace and be properly reintroduced into the mainspace. Thanks. Tiggerjay ( talk) 08:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
| ||||
|
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 14:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding User:Jclemens/Midas, I would suggest that you get feedback from the WP:ARS because they are the project that would most naturally be affiliated with this idea.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 06:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi I apologize in advance if I am writing in the wrong place, I am very New to wiki. you recently restored ( I believe) a page which was deleted and I placed for review "Mobileye" Deletion review/Log/2013 January 6 Thank you for your assistance, I do have a few questions :
Thank you very much for your assistance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.97.128 ( talk • contribs)
I see. Thank you for your swift reply. in the earlier version thier were a few magazines listed mentioning Mobileye, I can add many more as well, If I get to one of those versions can I restore them is that ok? or should I copy paste the info into the corrent version which you restored? this is the version I would like to be shown: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mobileye&oldid=525128041 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.97.128 ( talk) 05:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I do work for the company (new employee) I was asked to make small revisions, as the data was incorrect such as managers who no longer work for the company. but I also added some links to YouTube videos on titles ,not understanding that it is not appropriate, will not do so again. the original article was not done by me. I just edited the pagein order to upadte the mistaken info,is taht ok, or should i not edit at all as I am an employee? would it be too much of me to ask you to review the page and let me know if there is anything on it that should be removed (conflicting),or if I need to addd more articles I want to make sure it won't be deleted again. The only info I want to change is factual.
Thank you very much, you have been very helpful and understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.123.22 ( talk) 06:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, that seems fair, as you can see , I am not trying to hide who I am , I even tried to post my personal e-mail at first but received a notification that it was not a good idea. The current version is the one before I touched it, therefore even if I am found to be of conflict and asked not to edit, would the page as it is still remain ? if I am not allowed to edit, I wont. Just want to make sure the article itself is not removed because of my editing attempts.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.97.128 ( talk) 06:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I just opened one, my user name is "danielroseit" Thanks again for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielroseit ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
One last question: I now see on the page that it says " A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" I assume that's the discussion you opened, but on the talk page is an old correspondence, should I edit that response and explain myself their ? because I am not a major contributor at all, I only edited a few links and those are no longer in the article, its back to what it was before I touched it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielroseit ( talk • contribs) 07:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but on the Current Mobileye talk page is what I originally wrote, but dosent not make much sense now, is it Ok for me to remove that ? thank you and good night, I will go play with the sandbox ( : — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielroseit ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. When you restored Mobileye as a contested WP:PROD, you also restored the April 2009 revisions speedy deleted as G11, G12 by User:Bearian. Was this intentional? Flatscan ( talk) 05:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
We don't usually revdel copyright violations, unless there's a particular reason to. It's not the normal practice for a copyright cleanup. If an article history doesn't contain any nonviolating version then we do delete the entire history and start over sometimes with non-violating material taken from the violating article, assuming that doesn't create a new attribution problem (generally one author who can be attributed in an edit summary). Gigs ( talk) 14:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi I took your advice and created a user so I can sign my name (danielroseit) I also wrote on the Mobileye Talk page that I won't make any edits and started looking in to the Sand Box option you suggested for making amendment suggestions, but now my User has been blocked ,so I can't really do anything on Wiki. I am fine with that if its absolutely necessary, but I would like the ability to make suggestions on the talk page. Thanks , Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.97.128 ( talk) 11:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's take a pretty standard example. Someone takes the entire contents of "Color blindness" and pastes it under the title "colour insensitivity", manually installing a redirect at "Color blindness". Screws up the history royally, on top of any naming concerns. I'll typically undo the manual redirect and delete the unattributed pasted contents with G12. G6 could apply, but I normally use G12 because it addresses my specific concern. It's quite possible to violate Wikipedia's copyright terms, and it's possible for our own editors to do so.— Kww( talk) 15:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Could you look at this deleted article Kourosh Ziabari, and see if it was properly deleted? This writer works for Iran's presstv, which is Iran's official government news agency, but it looks like he was deleted primarily because his articles only appear on media outlets which carry Iran's viewpoints which tend to be mostly conspiracy oriented sites like Veterans today which reprints Press TV content, and so people who don't like his pro-Iran viewpoint say he's not notable because he is not quoted in the western press, although it shows up all over arab and muslim leaning news sources. PressTV may not be a reliable news source, but it is certainly notable, and it seems that anybody that writes for PressTV or Russia Today which are supported by governments should be notable by definition, even if they are ignored by western media. Could you userfy it for me in case I can fix it? I also disagree with Ziabari's viewpoint, but that's the reason why it would be valuable to have his viewpoint documented by WP. Redhanker ( talk) 05:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Jclemens. You participated at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Wildlife Refuges at risk from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill discussion. The result of that discussion was to merge the List of National Wildlife Refuges at risk from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill into Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The list was merged. However, there is a related discussion if the Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was split correctly from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and if it should be merged back there. Relevant sections for this discussion are this and this. Your comments are appreciated. Thank you. Beagel ( talk) 21:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Jclemens. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC) |
WIKIPEDIA EDIT-ATHON! You're invited to the upcoming Wikipedia edit-athon, scheduled for Saturday, February 9 from 2–5pm in Old Town. Sponsored by Wiki Strategies and Prichard Communications, the event will begin with an introduction to Wikipedia, followed by an edit-a-thon focused on Portland's food scene, all things that " Keep Portland Weird", and local startup businesses. Details and signup here! |
---|
Hope to see you there! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Ironiridis 13:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Could you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habilian Association?? This is an organization that is heavily promoted by every Iranian news organization, and heavily attacked by the major dissident groups under attack by the HA, with thousands of internet hits by dozens of authors and websites, mostly in favor of HA. Yet it is claimed it is not notable because it has been largely ignored by western media, and no Iranian news agency can be used as a WP:RS even for organizations in Iran because it is not WP:RS. If this is the case, there cannot be any WP:RS in Iran since all news agencies there are heavily government controlled. Press TV and Mehr are like CNN and BBC in the west. Does this make sense to you? Redhanker ( talk) 16:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Why was the Value Stream page deleted? It said it appears it is an idea specific to one author. Perhaps someone chose to cite their own work because that was easy, but if you look at almost any book on Lean Six Sigma you will see the value stream discussed. It can be argued, however, that it and the value stream mapping page do overlap. I would put them both under value stream since that is the more general concept. Thanks, Sarah, Lean Six Sigma Black Belt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleitner ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Yesterday, I was looking at the Warm Bodies (film) article and saw that it reported "mixed to positive" for its reviews section. This stood out to me because 78% or 79%, which is what Rotten Tomatoes has given the film, is not "mixed" and I think Rotten Tomatoes is a stronger indicator of a film's popularity than Metacritic is. So I looked at the article's edit history to see why the article didn't use the "generally positive" wording, like most other articles on Wikipedia do in instances like this, and I saw that Jak Fisher has been repeatedly adding "mixed to" in front of the word "positive." These edits are inappropriate, in my opinion. The addition is a form of WP:SYNTH. Look at these diffs, which also show that he inappropriately warned or accused editors of vandalism during all of this: [16] [17] [18] [19]. I then looked on his talk page and saw that he has been warned about inappropriately editing the reception sections of film articles, including a warning from you. Since you are someone of authority at this site, I opted to contact you about it. Should I bring this issue up at WP:FILM? Halo Jerk1 ( talk) 00:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Saturday, March 9 -
Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon at the University of Oregon - You are invited! | |
---|---|
Come celebrate
Women's History Month at the
University of Oregon in Eugene, Oregon, on March 9! This event, facilitated by WikiWoman
Sarah Stierch, is hosted by the
Fembot, in collaboration with
ASOU Women's Center, the
Center for the Study of Women in Society, the
School of Journalism and Communication, and the
UO Libraries.
Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history! The event is March 9, from 1-4 PM, at the University of Oregon Library. You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch ( talk) 20:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC) |
" failures to avoid"? Was that what you meant? Carcharoth ( talk) 23:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm contacting you because you have recently contributed as a reviewing administrator to WP:AE. I've made a suggestion relating to the management of that page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Structural improvements to AE threads, and would appreciate your input. Thanks, Sandstein 22:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like recreate the Ghulam Mustafa Khar page as stub. Delljvc ( talk) 16:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Why can't Ziopedia be created? It has been noted as an anti-semitic page, but has been deleted several times for non-notability. Has it been set so that no one can re-create the page? Could you restore some of the older versions because it has been noted by media a lot since then. Redhanker ( talk) 03:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, could you take a look at User:Timotheus Canens/GS draft and leave comments on the talk page? Thanks a lot. T. Canens ( talk) 09:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
FYI, you voted twice p b p 20:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jclemens. I've just created Bryony Afferson and noticed "00:13, December 25, 2009 Jclemens (talk | contribs) deleted page Bryony Afferson (Expired PROD, concern was: Actor who fails all criteria at WP:ENT, and media mentions are too trivial to pass WP:GNG)". I didn't see the original article. I think the new one is OK on WP:ENT point 1 and all points in WP:GNG but if you have a moment please comment on how likely it is to end up back at WP:Afd. Thanks -- Northernhenge ( talk) 00:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't really see any other way to close it, to be honest, given that the majority of the information already exists in the main article. The redirect deletion was very IAR, though, given the subject's wishes. I won't complain if someone decides it's necessary to restore that, though I really don't see the point for such a non-notable person (it was getting 30-60 hits a month, and I'm betting pretty much all of those were off the link in the main article). Black Kite ( talk) 03:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
You mentioned POV warriors attacking ArbCom here: [20]. Can you please indicate what you meant given the particular context. IRWolfie- ( talk) 16:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you by chance recall the post I'm thinking of here: User_talk:Will_Beback#A_reply_to_AGK PumpkinSky talk 23:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
In the interests of transparency and courtesy I am noting the following:
Perhaps you already have that watchlisted, and I haven't read through your talk page or contribs, but I thought it proper to inform you. —
Ched :
? 00:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. Yep, I don't see anything there that needs current comment. As Will Beback said, it's now pretty much about how appeals are handled. I don't see a need to rehash what I said there, but will be happy to answer any specific questions I can, within the bounds of good taste and the confidentiality still deserved by all the participants. If you can't tell, I think I pretty much said all I was allowed to before, but if someone thinks of something new to ask, I'm happy to comment if I can. Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 04:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Jclemens. I am defending User:RatSoup. I believe that both you and User:Dungbootle have inappropriately responded to this editor's complaints.
This is the chronology for what happened:
Here, a violation of Wikipedia Policy occurred. Wikipedia: Vandalism: Abuse of tags explains this for you. Please do read it. It states, "Bad-faith placing of ... tags on pages that do not meet such criteria" is considered to be Vandalism.
Established User:Kelvin Case faithfully corrected the error. And reinserting a template after its merits had been adequately addressed by an established user is definitely a "bad-faith" placement.
Therefore...
CONCLUSION number 1:
You typed on RatSoup's talk page,"Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia ... without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary."
Why did you tell this to User:RatSoup? User:Kelvin Case removed the template, not RatSoup. But then, thinking about your defense, I noticed the following.
So perhaps this is what you were referring to when you made that comment to RatSoup. However, regardless, Ratsoup did exactly what Kelvin Case did. Ratsoup further edited the Wikipedia page, removed the template, and appropriately typed into the edit summary the reasons for the actions taken.
Okay, so RatSoup did use some strange language in the edit summary: "Some *@$%&! keeps claiming this is advertising.... The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt WILL BE AWESOME!!!!"
Nevertheless, RatSoup did fully explain the edit: "EVERY sentence has a legitimate reference! I read this entirely. There is NO ADVERTISING HERE!!!!"
Therefore...
CONCLUSION number2:
Wikipedia editors are still subject to the same laws that we all must abide by, Mr. Jclemens. Do you revel in false accusations, Mr. Jclemens? Because you then went on to commit another. Your subsequent communication with RatSoup was as follows, "You appear to be engaged in an edit war."
Mr. Jclemens, Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77 committed Vandalism on Wikipedia (see Conclusion number 1 above). RatSoup was not engaged in an edit war. RatSoup was dutifully eliminating vandalism, as per the following Wikipedia Policy:
RatSoup eliminated the vandalism. RatSoup dutifully logged what and why in the edit summary.
Next, Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77 does something that I cannot understand:
Here Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77 reinserts the "Advert" template ... plus 2 more with similar meaning.
Why would Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77 suddenly go from 1 to 3 templates? All 3 carry similar meaning: "Please edit this web page from a neutral point of view."
Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77, I believe, was obviously growing furious and used those 2 edits in the way of venting some of that frustration. In other words, a prior act of vandalism was now getting out of hand. RatSoup responded with another edit:
Personally, I agree. Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77 had in fact responded in a way that could be construed as Harassment. Albeit RatSoup did respond inappropriately by stating, "THIS IS A WARNING," at this point I believe RatSoup was beginning to feel frustrated as well.
This is where someone of the complaintants e-mailed you, requesting, "Please can you stop" the vandalism. But your response was, "...it is not vandalism. I encourage you to use the talk page for the article to discuss the matter."
And so an edit war was then perpetrated by User:Dungbootle who then decided to reinsert the 3 templates.
RatSoup is not the problem here, Mr. Jclemens.
How do you intend to resolve this problem?
Thank you, RatSoup Defender ( talk) 05:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
We need someone who knows about wikipedia to help.
"So if the person is in two notable bands, where are they going to be covered? Just in each band's article? That gives no context to the topic of that individual. Consider Ricky Phillips as an example of someone who might be denied an article if the criteria were removed. Does it really hurt anything to have an article on someone like him? Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)"
You wrote that in 2010, it applies to me. There is a dispute at the page Dennis Donaghy. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R039j0f ( talk • contribs) 12:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I basically left Wikipedia after Arbcom proceedings in which I was sanctioned. I've made some edits as an IP occasionally, and also helped with a candidate article last November that I could not edit as an IP.
I have no desire to unretire. I have no desire to try to get the sanctions removed or altered. I have no desire to deal with Arbcom again as long as I live.
However, even after the passage of considerable time, I am still deeply concerned that there remains an official and unanimous Arbcom statement basically calling me a malicious liar. I have no desire to jump through whatever hoops might be available to get that statement changed; given my past experience at Wikipedia, I believe such an effort would very likely be futile. At the same time, I want something done. That statement is basically a sword hanging over my head, because many Wikipedians know my real name, and could use this against me in real life.
JClemens, you were at least nominally in charge of my case, although you said that much of the work was delegated to someone else. No one on Arbcom paid any attention to my repeated timely objections that the evidence against me was improperly submitted in excess of word limits, and that I could not reply without exceeding those word limits. The analysis of the evidence against me was similarly flawed, and the accusations were false. I did not lie about anything.
What I want is this: I'm asking you simply in your capacity as a Wikipedia editor if you would please hear me out as to why the charges were false. I could present what evidence I can at my user talk page. Then you could simply reply at my talk page. That's it.
I strongly believe that my case was a politically motivated witchhunt, basically in order to censor Wikipedia content by attacking me. I don't believe that was your motivation, but I do believe it was the predominant motivation. The Wikipedia findings grossly distorted what actually happened. The evidence on my behalf was never presented, so please let me know if you'd be willing to read it at my talk page and reply to it at my talk page. That's all I'm asking for. If you're willing, then it would probably take me awhile to put it together. I would not use anything you say at my talk page to change anything Arbcom has said or decided, which I believe would be futile in any event. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Allright, I'm on to other things, and will now leave you alone for a few years. Feel free to delete this sad little discussion if you like. You do better work than most, or I wouldn't have bothered coming here. Unlike other admins I could name, you do not appear to be a flying monkey. Assuming that I've described the two incidents accurately, I don't see that I manipulated anything, and so will add them to the list of alleged transgressions that I will never apologize for. Cheers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Under Covers (NCIS) post. Can you please tell me if the G:6 move should be conducted before or after creating the new article? And if before, will having a redirect page with the same name disrupt the new article's creation process? -- 1ST7 ( talk) 05:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
This diff contains a quote mark after the first diff. I believe that the quote mark should be in front of the diff, after the "actually." Thanks, Unscintillating ( talk) 02:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I note you are following it and, I trust, the ArbCom discussions as well. You might note at User:Collect/ACE2012 that I suggest an added query for the 2013 election based on what one impartial arbitrator said was his philosophy. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
| ||||
|
A '
Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found
here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can)
here.
At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support. If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread. Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal. |
Hi, you mentioned there were plenty of secondary sources for this article. Please can you tell me what are so I can include them, thank-you. Marasmusine ( talk) 07:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I understand why you changed the visibility of my revision, which violated BLP policy, but I was wondering why you deleted the comment by P&W:
12:41, 11 May 2013 Phoenix and Winslow (+225) . . (→Mother Jones Magazine and Dale Robertson)
which basically simply warned me that the Talk pages were also subject the BLP policy. I didn't see any violation in that, did I miss something? Thanks.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this one. This looks like it may be a good hit in Google books, but I am having a hard time getting any of the text to show in my browser; are you able to view that? BOZ ( talk) 14:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
You say here that "attempting to extend a statement after it's been edited [I assume you meant "endorsed"] is disruptive editing", however, after looking at WP:DISRUPT, WP:RFC, WP:RFCC and even the instructions on the actual RfC page, I can't find anything that confirms it. Only that "Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page", yet I don't see how this could apply to the extension of my response. No mention either of a "post-endorsement ban on extension".
It seems logical that the RfCed user should be able to extend his reponse as the Rfc goes on, since the aim of a reponse is to respond to RfC statement, evidence and outside views. Since those obviously won't all come at the same time, what would be the point of not letting the RfCed user extend his reponse ?
Could you provide the page that specifically prevents participants to extend a response after it's been endorsed ? Folken de Fanel ( talk) 16:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Your comment at Wikipedia:AN/RFC#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FFolken_de_Fanel was inappropriate. WP:AN/RFC "is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia", not for continuing to argue the RfC or for making accusations against another user without evidence. My comments were moved to the RfC discussion, that should have been the end of it; that you are making a fuss about it at WP:AN/RFC, is, however, "inappropriate soapboxing". If you have complains to make against me, then you should go to WP:ANI. Please remove your comment from WP:AN/RFC. Folken de Fanel ( talk) 17:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Please notice the reasons for a username change here. A simple name change was done here --Enkyo2 15:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.-- Dom497 ( talk) This message was sent out by -- EdwardsBot ( talk) 01:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC) |
Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of
WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).
So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.-- Dom497 ( talk) This message was sent out by -- EdwardsBot ( talk) 15:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |
A few more voices experienced in NPOV editing would be useful at the Tea Party movement moderated discussion. I appreciate it's a big ask, and no worries if you find you haven't the time or inclination, but your opinions are respected and valued, so input from you would be helpful. The article has made great progress over the past month, and is heading in the right direction - though there is still some work to do, and there is an ArbCom case ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement) held in suspension over this article. The Committee will be reconvening at the end of the month to decide what to do. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
OK. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
In case you're not watching, this discussion has developed slightly since you commented- the species is neither as rare as was made out, nor as isolated, nor as poorly studied. Further, it simply wasn't the case that the photo in question was the only one of the species on the Internet. It's also practically identical, morphologically, to another species for which we do have a free image. I quote Miller, who first described the species: "Except for its greater size, Natalus major so closely resembles specimens of N. stramineus from Dominica as to require no further explanation." J Milburn ( talk) 02:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
How is it that you've blocked UnrepentantTaco and that user is making fresh AfD nominations? I'm confused. Crtew ( talk) 15:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
ok, I saw the wrong date and all is good. Crtew ( talk) 15:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Could you make it clear (on their userpage) whom this editor has been blocked as a sock of, it would make it a lot easier for future admins looking at this? Thanks, Black Kite ( talk) 21:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Would you be willing to have an email discussion? It is wiki related, but not pertaining (at least directly) to any of your own posts or actions. Rather I'm looking for some uninvolved input from an admin. and former Arb who is neither a "wiki friend" nor a "wiki enemy". While I have strongly disagreed with you in the past, I'd like to think that I've never been disrespectful to you personally in any of my posts. If you would prefer not to, that's perfectly understandable and acceptable, but I thought I'd ask. — Ched : ? 07:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
With this edit, in my opinion you may possibly have stretched the limits of neutrality that can be expected from an administrator. I won't comment on your participation in that RFC/U, and I've decided to stay away from closing it lest I voice my opinion on some of the opinions that have been expressed there. That said, as as courtesy, I'm letting you know that you have been mentioned here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
SilkTork is withdrawing as the moderator at Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion. If you have a few hours, I think you would do well as a shepherd there (I hope you are a natural speed reader), as with ArbCom moving at "full speed", the case is likely to take longer than it would take to whip up a WP:CONSENSUS on the current moderated discussion page :). I have tried to be a moderating and neutral influence there, but it appears that some wish for "unanimous instantaneous perfection", which tends to be a tad difficult. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
In case you were not aware of it, please see WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History#Casting aspersions. Discussion and proposed alternate Principle are at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Proposed decision#Casting aspersions. Flatscan ( talk) 04:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, JC. You may be interested in this section, which I have just posted on WP:AN. Bishonen | talk 23:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC).
I have tried to figure out exactly why some people seem so horrendously aggrieved by Jclemens' asides - and can not see an ounce of value thereto. It appears Jclemens takes the "Five Pillars" more seriously than some others appear to do - but berating him for that stance seems curiously unimportant.
Frankly, if the "Five Pillars" are "optional" then likely the entire project should be made aware of their obsolescence. Otherwise, we should be forbearing of Jclemens' belief that they are still fundamental.
He may well be wrong in his application of the concept for any particular editor - but it is equally wrong to berate him for it. We, in fact, need more who will be willing to assert the bases of Wikipedia, rather than people who will assert that some people need not follow them. Once we make such "special cases" in Wikipedia, we might as well simply cross out the "pillars" entirely. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 04:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I find it unusual that the defenders who time and time again been "this is the way my subculture acts" are then stating that other ways that cultures interact (ie Shunning) are inappropriate within the community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Seen some of the flak you've been taken for the way you've tried to uphold civility. Cant blame MFs friends as I was just as bad when you indeffed one of my own fave editors. But trying to be objective I don't think you at all deserved my attack, nor do you deserve the recent ones. In the case of MF and the other 3 individuals Ive seen you take a hard line on, Ive strongly disagreed with your decision, and I hope no one persists in trying to enact harsh sanctions on MF. But in the general case I fully support your stance on the matter. If admins and arbs don't act to restrain aggressive editors, they'll drive out the more peaceful and collegial types, making the project a much less pleasant and productive place to work. Thanks for having the courage to take a stand against aggressive editing, Im still glad I voted for you as an arb, and if you stand again will support without hesitation. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 12:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Just tell all of them to talk to the paw, Jclemens. Silver seren C 17:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
"If admins and arbs don't act to restrain aggressive editors, they'll drive out the more peaceful and collegial types, making the project a much less pleasant and productive place to work." Unless this is a reference to the recent disgraceful actions by some of the admins and arbs, this is utter hogwash. I've only been angry enough to consider leaving this place twice, and both times it was related to the unreasonable decisions made by admins and arbs. They changed forever the way I view Wikipedia but I was gradually able to let go of my resentments--except for the contempt that I continue to hold for Jclemens. We all make mistakes, but mean spiritness hangs in the air for a long, long time. Gandydancer ( talk) 19:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
You are definitely a defender of Wikipedia as far as I am concerned. MONGO 00:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC) |
I am not in a position where I will be able to correspond extensively on this matter over the next ~30 hours or so, but I thought I owed it to everyone to try and put together a few general responses.
I'm off to bed, so last comment for tonight :) To be clear about the "unperson" thing: I myself was not intending to suggest you deliberately were making Malleus "not of the body". However, that was the result of your comment. I was trying to highlight (see above my discussion with Bwilkins) the trouble with such an approach). I also raised questions about the entire case - is it really about fixing civility when we have many editors running around being rude to each other every day (i.e. is Malleus an example to hoist, and if so does Arbcom have a plan to make that example stick??). But those are all asides to the key issue, which you haven't addressed, which is that in a !vote on banning Malleus you poked at him with the "not a Wikipedian" stick, an uncivil comment in a paragraph you criticised him for civility issues. Can you at least see why, as an arb and therefore held to the very highest of standards, that was a major mistake? -- Errant ( chat!) 22:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
There is historical revisionism about 5 Pillars going on here. 5P was (properly) labelled a user essay until about a year ago, when it somehow morphed without much discussion into some kind of holy writ. At least one of the 5 pillars (not the civility one, and not one relevant to this Malleus issue) was grounded in misrepresentation of then-existing policy and (IMHO) was in serious conflict with what I see as the project's interests and goals. If you're going to pick some fundamental principles to start from, try
m:founding principles or
wp:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (which has been policy since the beginning). The "5 pillars" are just platitudes and should be restored to their status as an essay. (Update: I just now notice that someone has recently fixed the pillar that I didn't like, so the new version is much better. I'm relieved, but still, if the pillars change so easily then they're not really "pillars". So the overall view stands).
67.119.3.105 (
talk) 20:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
"One must conform to all five pillars to be a Wikipedian; that is the social conract.". Sorry, but none of us, aside from foundation members of course, are "under contract" on wikipedia, much less under "social contract". We're volunteers who contribute to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has never been about social interaction as it is on facebook and Twitter. Much of the website in fact is designed in a way which is antisocial and causes unnecessary drama. I don't believe in 5 pillars or any of the wiki philosophical stuff. We're an amateur encyclopedia, a content hosting website, that's it. Yes, we should build it with minimal drama and fuss with a good sense of purpose and try to be nice to fellow editors but it doesn't always work out like that..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
User Colin XX has been vandalizing several Wrestling-related articles by removing all links and content relating to the Fingerpoke of Doom. All of this user's edits have so far been the removing of content. 99.158.249.195 ( talk) 20:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not "unconstructive", because it's not relevant in the context of say Georgia Dome or 1999 in American television. By the way, a similar editor by the name of User:Jayemd made similar edits to the IP. He was confirmed as a sockpuppeteer, along with his sock User:Modern Warfare Dude. Shortly after he/they was blocked, the IP appeared, making the same edits. Colin XX ( talk) 12:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
In case you don't see my comment at the current Arb discussion [2], I am asking you to recuse yourself from the Clarification Request and all Motions regarding Malleus, as you have demonstrated an inability to be objective in the case. While I appreciate you striking your offensive remarks about a fellow editor, the bias obviously exists. I have no objection to you moving your comments to the above sections, as Brad had done originally. I've also made note of this at the larger discusion taking place. It isn't personal, it is about equity and process and I sincerely hope you understand that this the proper thing to do, not just for fairness to Malleus, but as to ensure the community that no Arbitrator will continue to vote in a banning process after demonstrating a clear lack of objectivity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I demur. "Recusal" is intended for clear conflicts of interest or prejudice, which have not been shown here. What we have is politicking to remove one voice from a committee which is not a court, but a collaborative system aimed at gaining a broad consensus on issues brought before it. And as such, "recusals" ought to be extraordinarily rare. Having opinions which are not congruent with those of people politicking against you is not grounds for "recusal." One might as well ask any editor to remove himself from any discussions at all on the same basis, for gosh sake! What has been shown is that you are human and have opinions in general about what Wikipedia is - and that you happen to be in a minority that still believes the "Five Pillars" actually mean something. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm not hiding, not on Wikibreak, nothing of the sort. I have been at work, at one job or another, for 34 of the last 36 hours, and don't always get a chance to participate in Wikipedia in these turns of my schedule. What you will see from me sometime here are reactions to the above statements, pro and con, as well as some anonymized excerpts from emails that have been sent to me privately about this situation. You'll forgive me if I take time to choose my words particularly carefully, I trust. Jclemens ( talk) 02:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
All these were emailed to me privately. It's not my intent to identify the editors, since they each are perfectly capable of saying things on-wiki should they desire to do so. I'm presenting these as a representative sample of the input that is informing my later responses. All emphasis in originals, all elipses mine:
[I have redacted your excerpts per WP:EMAILABUSE as you did not indicate you had permission to post them. If you do have such permission, you may restore. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)]
What self-aggrandizing tripe. Many editors have expressed serious concerns about your behavior, and you respond with anonymous and dubious testimonials - a tactic straight out of cheap late-night infomercials. Resign immediately. Skinwalker ( talk) 02:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
(od) No. If Jclemens had been more forthright in dispelling any misconception that the community has, we wouldn't be in this mess. Even if he took some time now to draft a statement, sent it to someone else to review it, and posted it, and it didn't confirm the worst that the community believes about him, it would go a long way. But with the limited evidence we have that all points to the accusations that have been made, that is what we have to believe. AGF is not a suicide pact. -- Rs chen 7754 19:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Oddly, there are thousands of editors on Wikipedia. I'm not sure why a few think they can bully an arb into not running. And oddly, many comments on this page are offensive, bullying and uncivil. Its one thing to make a point and to disagree with another editor even an arb, another to continue to hammer with one's opinion. I will probably regret commenting here but this page and the whole issue is beyond the pale.( olive ( talk) 03:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC))
In a much more public place, ANI, it was recently concluded that there is no email privacy on Wikipedia. [6] As with all other "policy" on Wikipedia, it's really just the whim of the participants. WP:EMAILABUSE is not a policy page. Attempts to pass such a policy actually failed, as indicated in the ANI discussion. Tijfo098 ( talk) 05:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and our esteemed FA writers should be familiar with fair use. Brief quotes are permitted. And, yes, fair use applies to email as well [7] For example, Diebold tried to sue people for disclosing emails from them, and failed. The court accepted fair use as a defense: [8] [9] "because there was no commercial harm and no diminishment of value of the works." We even have an article on OPG v. Diebold. Tijfo098 ( talk) 05:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
My 2cents: You surely brought identity politics to a whole new level on Wikipedia. That in itself deserved a block for WP:DE. I expect WP:Who is a Wikipedian? to follow shortly (hint: Who is a Jew?) Or perhaps it should be a question to be asked of all ArbCom candidates in elections from now on; perhaps even at WP:RfA from time to time, for a good laughter. Tijfo098 ( talk) 10:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The closest precedent that comes to my mind is when ArbCom (through User:Kirill, IIRC) narrowly defined "professional" to mean "civil", and consequently called people who where not always civil "unprofessional" (or perhaps his logic was reversed, I don't recall exactly); I vaguely recall that someone quit Wikipedia over that "unprofessional" label handed down from ArbCom, but I don't remember exactly who it was. Anyway, with your contribution we now have the equation: "civil Wikipedian" = "professional Wikipedian" = "Wikipedian" and its complement class "uncivil dude[tte]" = "unprofessional dude[tte]" = "non-Wikipedian". It would have been wiser, linguistically at least, for you to use "un-wikipedian" as an adjective. Tijfo098 ( talk) 11:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to start a thread, I simply wanted to apologise and clarify that
[10] contains a mistype. I intended to write "JClemens stupid ... remark" but, in an unintentional hypallage, I got the order wrong and called you stupid. Maybe not much consultation, but apologies anyway. I don't really want to redact, since the close is under close scrutiny now.--
Scott Mac 17:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Even as a scoffer at the so-called "community", I thought the "Malleus is not a community member" comment was completely ill-advised; but since you've stricken it, I'm reasonably satisfied and I don't see more hassle about it as worthwhile. The post about the emails you've received is pretty lame though. It's familiar enough that there is a song about it. 67.119.3.105 ( talk) 01:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
FYI, a more pragmatic definition I found [11]: "being a Wikipedian = winning at Internet posting". Tijfo098 ( talk) 12:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
So this image reflects your opinion of the encyclopedia? And you insult people as non-Wikipedians who contribute the useful stuff, of which there is actually far more than your own negative perception of Wikipedia implies? Just wow. You're never going to be re-elected, you know that, right? Never gonna happen. Might as well spare yourself the ordeal. Just pointing out the obvious. -- 78.35.243.237 ( talk) 17:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I thought you should know of this as well. And note: I'm taking this very seriously, and am looking over what my next options should be. - jc37 23:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer to tell you this by email, but I have never created an account so I do not have the email-user function. I think your strong principled stand on the matter of civility/professionalism/kindness is important and necessary for maintaining a humane environment. I do not know whether most people who edit this encyclopedia will agree with you, but I can say that most people in general society would surely agree. This is obviously not life/death or good/evil matter, but keeping things nice and pleasant is important. Thank you for standing up for what is right. I have now created an account and am inserting my name. Jeff Kilmar 04:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Was surprised to see 113.21.40.134 being blocked pop up on my watchlist.
I don't even recall when I added it.
But in a quick look over the contribs, guessing it's asgardian? - jc37 03:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Go Phightins ! 00:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you find this offensive, or otherwise undesirable? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Jclemens. 122.248.156.9 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi there,
I just took a look at the candidates page for the upcoming ArbCom elections, and was disappointed to see you're not on it. Am I right in thinking you're standing down and not running again for ArbCom? That seems to be the case with most of the current arbitrators - if I read the page correctly, only Newyorkbrad and David Fuchs are running again. And I can understand why, given what a stressful position it must be, and all the hatred you receive as a result. But your departure strikes me as particularly regrettable, given the circumstances and that you've only been there one year - it looks like you've been hounded out by the mob. For what it's worth, I hope you know that there are many of us who think you're one of the best guys on the Committee, and that ArbCom needs more like you. I believe if you ran again, you would be re-elected. Nominations close on the 20th, so there's still time to reconsider. Thanks for reading, and if you won't reconsider, thanks for your service to the community. Robofish ( talk) 23:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pilot (Eureka), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Eureka (TV series), Savant and Henry Deacon ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Underpants and the Preposterous Plight of the Purple Potty People you might want to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Captain Underpants. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 01:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I realize that you probably will decline to answer this question, and if that is the case I completely understand. However, I figure it can't hurt to ask. I notice several remarks you made, such as:
I feel that to some degree the community has a right to know what is going on with the Committee. Can you give any details on what the problems are, or who supports a certain position? The details of how the members reacted to recent events may be important in choosing who to elect. Thanks for your time. Jeff Kilmar 22:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no intended follow-up question to this, I'm just curious from "reading between the lines" - Is this the "irony" you were referring to when discussing Risker's question on your questions page? - jc37 07:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
As is always so inconvenient, I find myself occupied for the next 48 hours with sleep, work, volunteer firefighting (which may or may not involve any sleep), more work, and a previous social engagement, so it will possibly be close to 48 hours before I am able to guarantee any responses. If it's a quiet night at the fire station, I will be able to respond in 18 hours or so. Jclemens ( talk) 07:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
This is to notify you that you have been named in a statement issued by the arbitrators not running for re-election, regarding the recent leaks from arbcom-l. If you have comments regarding the statement, please post them to the Arbitration Committee's Noticeboard talk page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Statement regarding recent leaks from arbcom-l. For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 05:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
(context--both preceding and following--is not provided, as I don't have permission to share it.)
Obviously, what I said I intended to do in that email hasn't happened to date, entirely because I've been giving the committee time to work on the mailing list leak for the past two weeks or so.
Your message seems ok to me, I guess the question is if you should have used the Arbcom mailing list to send it. I think you should have used personal email. Cla68 ( talk) 07:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, as it turns out, the one that appears to have been "actively campaigning" is the one that sent private internal emails to unauthorized external recipients. MONGO 09:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Jclemens, please resign from the ArbCom and your adminship, effectively immediate. 24.61.9.111 ( talk) 07:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
In regards to the above comment, as a guide writer I publicly state that at no time did I receive any leaked confidential material, directly or indirectly, from Elen of the Roads. -- Rs chen 7754 08:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
It got there because before you moved it to the correct spot, I tried to do the same, but instead moved it to an even worse spot and the edit conflict resolution ended up duplicating it, thanks for correct it, I was about to but you were faster :) Snowolf How can I help? 02:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Diff - just to clarify that I didn't receive any emails or parts of emails either through email or through any other on or off wiki means. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Jclemens, I'm wondering whether you considered the contents of that email to actually be confidential, in the sense that if someone before the leak/brouhaha had asked your permission to post or summarize it on wiki, whether you would have given permission. If not, I'm wondering if there had been no leak, and you had gone ahead with your plan to campaign against certain arbs over their Malleus votes, whether you would have been explicit in this campaigning about the reason for it. Thanks, 67.119.3.105 ( talk) 07:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Jclemens for caring enough about List of starships in Stargate to go to the lengths that you have, I'd pretty much given up hope that this one could be saved. Increasingly it seems that the cruft haters are winning in their fight to elevate Wikipedia by getting rid of unworthy topics. KTo288 ( talk) 17:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC) |
Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite Hello Jclemens. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten 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. You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) ( talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC) |
Both Goldmoon and Raistlin Majere were properly tagged for merge a week before the actual merge was performed. As Neelix said, there was a proper discussion with consensus to merge. BOZ's unilateral decision to unmerge, whatever his beliefs, was thus inappropriate. As I don't see why we should be strict with procedures for merging and not for unmerging, I'm immediately re-merging the articles, and I support Neelix's comment about a split discussion. In any case, I don't see any consensus to split, so at this point there's no reason whatsoever for stand-alone articles to exist. Folken de Fanel ( talk) 21:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
You are being discussed at WP:AN (not by me). Reaper Eternal ( talk) 22:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Several months ago, you commented on an AFD that was closed as no consensus. It has been renominated, and you may wish to comment again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of defensive gun use incidents (2nd nomination) Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, as you were a contributor to a previous DRV on the Freemasons category there is another deletion discussion on this. JASpencer ( talk) 16:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Sooo. In looking over the guides (and not counting the ArbCom Reform party candidates), it looks like you and I are at the bottom : )
Such an honour! : )
So anyway, I thought, out of fun, and somewhat in the spirit of the bounty board, I thought a friendly wager might be fun to pass the time : )
(and no, no money, if you please : )
I think there are 4 places we could treat this as a "horse race" of sorts. Who gets the most supports; the most neutrals; the most opposes; and the highest support percentage.
The winner (the one with the most/highest number) of each "category", has to close one discussion listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. (We'll leave it to the winner's discretion so that we don't accidentally ask the other to close an INVOLVED discussion or any other possible issues.)
What do you think? Interested? If nothing else, Wikipedia wins by getting (at least) 4 community discussions closed : ) - jc37 21:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to offer my condolences. While another of the non-admins was at the bottom as well, it did turn out that you, Kww, and I were at the bottom of the pack.
But yet, take consolation that there were still those who did not choose to oppose.
And all the work you won't have to be involved with : )
And don't worry about the "wager" above. I'll see if there are 4 discussions I can close there.
The election's over (finally) so now we can all get back to doing what else we typically do to help out the project.
Happy editing, and I sincerely hope you have a great day : ) - jc37 21:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for giving two hard years to the shittiest job on Wikipedia, Jclemens. Regardless of what may have happened, I sincerely thank you for having stepped forward and slogged through what I know is ungrateful hell. Enjoy your new freedom, I know I did. :-) — Coren (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
J, we might disagree on some things, but I would guess we agree on many more, and we both share the goal of making enwp a better place. That, and we share the intuitive understanding that Atlantis (Stargate) is obviously notable. ;-) However you spend your time here at enwp, I hope you find joy in your work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe you attempted to move Wikipedia towards a more tolerant place, tolerant because you refused to allow bias, bigotry and other forms of incivility. Thanks for all the work you did. I feel disappointment you were not reelected and see it as a backward step for this community. ( olive ( talk) 22:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC))
I supported your reelection and have no qualms about publicly stating that I did. Should you decide to run again in the future, you will have my support.-- MONGO 00:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
As the only one with a voter guide supporting you, of course I am disappointed - but your showing was far higher than "voter guides" would have ever suggested. You have a good reservoir of support on Wikipedia. Collect ( talk) 00:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
First Romney, now Jclemens. It's been a bad year for elections; the good guys don't always win, but I'm proud to have voted for them anyway. As Collect points out, you do have a lot of support here. Thanks for your ArbCom work and for taking a "hard line" on the civility issue. Congratulations on your RL promotion, too (be careful!). -- 108.45.72.196 ( talk) 17:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Just letting you know that Pool of Radiance (novel) has now been nominated for deletion. As you previously removed the deletion proposal, I felt this might be of interest to you. Regards. Doniago ( talk) 15:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't really want to get too involved in the details of the PoR AFD...honestly I only came here to note it since Jclemens had removed the deletion proposal I put in originally, so I figured they might want to be aware of the AFD. Put another way, I didn't come here to stir the pot. If the target of the merge is also a candidate for deletion, then I agree that a merge may be a waste of time. But if the nominator has a history of making questionable choices with regards to the articles they choose to nominate, that's also an issue that should be considered and addressed. I think that's all I want to say about this, and I hope I'm coming across as sufficiently impartial.
J - Thanks for saying I'm not in the same category. Some of the dialogue that's come up in the RFC I'm involved with has been what I would consider less than civil, not to mention unproductive. Unfortunately, the editors invoking such wording also seem disinclined to take the actions that would cut the issue off at the source. I acknowledge my failure to fully evaluate the alternatives to deleting the article, though I would note that as I look at it I don't see a whole lot that seems worth merging other than the mere existence of the novel; the article consists largely of plot summary. I think I favor a redirect at this point. Doniago ( talk) 15:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
In response to Claritas' last comment, the merge target I proposed is a good article. — Torchiest talk edits 15:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Please stop hounding my AFD nominations. I do not appreciate it, especially when you resort to making ad hominem attacks and do not deal with the concerns I have raised. This is behaviour unbecoming of an administrator. -- Claritas § 12:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Holiday Cheer | ||
Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. |
Happy Festivus! | ||
Here's wishing you a happy
Festivus! May you emerge victorious from the Feats of Strength, may your list of Grievances be short, and may your days be filled with Festivus Miracles. — Torchiest talk edits 14:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC) |
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Jclemens! -- 108.45.72.196 ( talk) 17:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
TheGeneralUser
(talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello Jclemens! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Some Christmas traditions are very difficult to explain. Kind of like Wikipedia policies.
Happy Holidays! | |
From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC) |
Hi there, I noticed that you removed PRODs from three aticles that Neelix had proposed for deletion. Judging from that user's contributions, he is likely to AFD any article from which a PROD is removed, so I suggested a merge destination for two of them. However, I don't think a merge is reasable for the artifact list, because I believe we would want to keep it and there is no reasonable merge; some of those artifacts are probably not notable, but some (like the Dragonlance itself) likely are. Do you know of any sources that can be added to improve these articles? 24.12.74.21 ( talk) 17:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, as I promised, now that I'm departing the Arbitration Committee, I've gotten off my butt and finished User:Jclemens/Midas. All talk page stalkers are welcome to review and provide feedback! Jclemens ( talk) 07:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Please consider WP:userfying the page you deleted due to expired prod C. McNair Wilson. This page was in the main space for over a year if I recall correctly, and it entered PROD while I was on a wikibreak. I believe it can be corrected in the userspace and be properly reintroduced into the mainspace. Thanks. Tiggerjay ( talk) 08:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
| ||||
|
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 14:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding User:Jclemens/Midas, I would suggest that you get feedback from the WP:ARS because they are the project that would most naturally be affiliated with this idea.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 06:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi I apologize in advance if I am writing in the wrong place, I am very New to wiki. you recently restored ( I believe) a page which was deleted and I placed for review "Mobileye" Deletion review/Log/2013 January 6 Thank you for your assistance, I do have a few questions :
Thank you very much for your assistance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.97.128 ( talk • contribs)
I see. Thank you for your swift reply. in the earlier version thier were a few magazines listed mentioning Mobileye, I can add many more as well, If I get to one of those versions can I restore them is that ok? or should I copy paste the info into the corrent version which you restored? this is the version I would like to be shown: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mobileye&oldid=525128041 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.97.128 ( talk) 05:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I do work for the company (new employee) I was asked to make small revisions, as the data was incorrect such as managers who no longer work for the company. but I also added some links to YouTube videos on titles ,not understanding that it is not appropriate, will not do so again. the original article was not done by me. I just edited the pagein order to upadte the mistaken info,is taht ok, or should i not edit at all as I am an employee? would it be too much of me to ask you to review the page and let me know if there is anything on it that should be removed (conflicting),or if I need to addd more articles I want to make sure it won't be deleted again. The only info I want to change is factual.
Thank you very much, you have been very helpful and understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.123.22 ( talk) 06:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, that seems fair, as you can see , I am not trying to hide who I am , I even tried to post my personal e-mail at first but received a notification that it was not a good idea. The current version is the one before I touched it, therefore even if I am found to be of conflict and asked not to edit, would the page as it is still remain ? if I am not allowed to edit, I wont. Just want to make sure the article itself is not removed because of my editing attempts.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.97.128 ( talk) 06:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I just opened one, my user name is "danielroseit" Thanks again for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielroseit ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
One last question: I now see on the page that it says " A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" I assume that's the discussion you opened, but on the talk page is an old correspondence, should I edit that response and explain myself their ? because I am not a major contributor at all, I only edited a few links and those are no longer in the article, its back to what it was before I touched it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielroseit ( talk • contribs) 07:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but on the Current Mobileye talk page is what I originally wrote, but dosent not make much sense now, is it Ok for me to remove that ? thank you and good night, I will go play with the sandbox ( : — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielroseit ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. When you restored Mobileye as a contested WP:PROD, you also restored the April 2009 revisions speedy deleted as G11, G12 by User:Bearian. Was this intentional? Flatscan ( talk) 05:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
We don't usually revdel copyright violations, unless there's a particular reason to. It's not the normal practice for a copyright cleanup. If an article history doesn't contain any nonviolating version then we do delete the entire history and start over sometimes with non-violating material taken from the violating article, assuming that doesn't create a new attribution problem (generally one author who can be attributed in an edit summary). Gigs ( talk) 14:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi I took your advice and created a user so I can sign my name (danielroseit) I also wrote on the Mobileye Talk page that I won't make any edits and started looking in to the Sand Box option you suggested for making amendment suggestions, but now my User has been blocked ,so I can't really do anything on Wiki. I am fine with that if its absolutely necessary, but I would like the ability to make suggestions on the talk page. Thanks , Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.97.128 ( talk) 11:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's take a pretty standard example. Someone takes the entire contents of "Color blindness" and pastes it under the title "colour insensitivity", manually installing a redirect at "Color blindness". Screws up the history royally, on top of any naming concerns. I'll typically undo the manual redirect and delete the unattributed pasted contents with G12. G6 could apply, but I normally use G12 because it addresses my specific concern. It's quite possible to violate Wikipedia's copyright terms, and it's possible for our own editors to do so.— Kww( talk) 15:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Could you look at this deleted article Kourosh Ziabari, and see if it was properly deleted? This writer works for Iran's presstv, which is Iran's official government news agency, but it looks like he was deleted primarily because his articles only appear on media outlets which carry Iran's viewpoints which tend to be mostly conspiracy oriented sites like Veterans today which reprints Press TV content, and so people who don't like his pro-Iran viewpoint say he's not notable because he is not quoted in the western press, although it shows up all over arab and muslim leaning news sources. PressTV may not be a reliable news source, but it is certainly notable, and it seems that anybody that writes for PressTV or Russia Today which are supported by governments should be notable by definition, even if they are ignored by western media. Could you userfy it for me in case I can fix it? I also disagree with Ziabari's viewpoint, but that's the reason why it would be valuable to have his viewpoint documented by WP. Redhanker ( talk) 05:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Jclemens. You participated at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Wildlife Refuges at risk from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill discussion. The result of that discussion was to merge the List of National Wildlife Refuges at risk from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill into Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The list was merged. However, there is a related discussion if the Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was split correctly from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and if it should be merged back there. Relevant sections for this discussion are this and this. Your comments are appreciated. Thank you. Beagel ( talk) 21:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Jclemens. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC) |
WIKIPEDIA EDIT-ATHON! You're invited to the upcoming Wikipedia edit-athon, scheduled for Saturday, February 9 from 2–5pm in Old Town. Sponsored by Wiki Strategies and Prichard Communications, the event will begin with an introduction to Wikipedia, followed by an edit-a-thon focused on Portland's food scene, all things that " Keep Portland Weird", and local startup businesses. Details and signup here! |
---|
Hope to see you there! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Ironiridis 13:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Could you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habilian Association?? This is an organization that is heavily promoted by every Iranian news organization, and heavily attacked by the major dissident groups under attack by the HA, with thousands of internet hits by dozens of authors and websites, mostly in favor of HA. Yet it is claimed it is not notable because it has been largely ignored by western media, and no Iranian news agency can be used as a WP:RS even for organizations in Iran because it is not WP:RS. If this is the case, there cannot be any WP:RS in Iran since all news agencies there are heavily government controlled. Press TV and Mehr are like CNN and BBC in the west. Does this make sense to you? Redhanker ( talk) 16:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Why was the Value Stream page deleted? It said it appears it is an idea specific to one author. Perhaps someone chose to cite their own work because that was easy, but if you look at almost any book on Lean Six Sigma you will see the value stream discussed. It can be argued, however, that it and the value stream mapping page do overlap. I would put them both under value stream since that is the more general concept. Thanks, Sarah, Lean Six Sigma Black Belt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleitner ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Yesterday, I was looking at the Warm Bodies (film) article and saw that it reported "mixed to positive" for its reviews section. This stood out to me because 78% or 79%, which is what Rotten Tomatoes has given the film, is not "mixed" and I think Rotten Tomatoes is a stronger indicator of a film's popularity than Metacritic is. So I looked at the article's edit history to see why the article didn't use the "generally positive" wording, like most other articles on Wikipedia do in instances like this, and I saw that Jak Fisher has been repeatedly adding "mixed to" in front of the word "positive." These edits are inappropriate, in my opinion. The addition is a form of WP:SYNTH. Look at these diffs, which also show that he inappropriately warned or accused editors of vandalism during all of this: [16] [17] [18] [19]. I then looked on his talk page and saw that he has been warned about inappropriately editing the reception sections of film articles, including a warning from you. Since you are someone of authority at this site, I opted to contact you about it. Should I bring this issue up at WP:FILM? Halo Jerk1 ( talk) 00:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Saturday, March 9 -
Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon at the University of Oregon - You are invited! | |
---|---|
Come celebrate
Women's History Month at the
University of Oregon in Eugene, Oregon, on March 9! This event, facilitated by WikiWoman
Sarah Stierch, is hosted by the
Fembot, in collaboration with
ASOU Women's Center, the
Center for the Study of Women in Society, the
School of Journalism and Communication, and the
UO Libraries.
Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history! The event is March 9, from 1-4 PM, at the University of Oregon Library. You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch ( talk) 20:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC) |
" failures to avoid"? Was that what you meant? Carcharoth ( talk) 23:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm contacting you because you have recently contributed as a reviewing administrator to WP:AE. I've made a suggestion relating to the management of that page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Structural improvements to AE threads, and would appreciate your input. Thanks, Sandstein 22:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like recreate the Ghulam Mustafa Khar page as stub. Delljvc ( talk) 16:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Why can't Ziopedia be created? It has been noted as an anti-semitic page, but has been deleted several times for non-notability. Has it been set so that no one can re-create the page? Could you restore some of the older versions because it has been noted by media a lot since then. Redhanker ( talk) 03:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, could you take a look at User:Timotheus Canens/GS draft and leave comments on the talk page? Thanks a lot. T. Canens ( talk) 09:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
FYI, you voted twice p b p 20:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jclemens. I've just created Bryony Afferson and noticed "00:13, December 25, 2009 Jclemens (talk | contribs) deleted page Bryony Afferson (Expired PROD, concern was: Actor who fails all criteria at WP:ENT, and media mentions are too trivial to pass WP:GNG)". I didn't see the original article. I think the new one is OK on WP:ENT point 1 and all points in WP:GNG but if you have a moment please comment on how likely it is to end up back at WP:Afd. Thanks -- Northernhenge ( talk) 00:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't really see any other way to close it, to be honest, given that the majority of the information already exists in the main article. The redirect deletion was very IAR, though, given the subject's wishes. I won't complain if someone decides it's necessary to restore that, though I really don't see the point for such a non-notable person (it was getting 30-60 hits a month, and I'm betting pretty much all of those were off the link in the main article). Black Kite ( talk) 03:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
You mentioned POV warriors attacking ArbCom here: [20]. Can you please indicate what you meant given the particular context. IRWolfie- ( talk) 16:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you by chance recall the post I'm thinking of here: User_talk:Will_Beback#A_reply_to_AGK PumpkinSky talk 23:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
In the interests of transparency and courtesy I am noting the following:
Perhaps you already have that watchlisted, and I haven't read through your talk page or contribs, but I thought it proper to inform you. —
Ched :
? 00:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. Yep, I don't see anything there that needs current comment. As Will Beback said, it's now pretty much about how appeals are handled. I don't see a need to rehash what I said there, but will be happy to answer any specific questions I can, within the bounds of good taste and the confidentiality still deserved by all the participants. If you can't tell, I think I pretty much said all I was allowed to before, but if someone thinks of something new to ask, I'm happy to comment if I can. Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 04:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Jclemens. I am defending User:RatSoup. I believe that both you and User:Dungbootle have inappropriately responded to this editor's complaints.
This is the chronology for what happened:
Here, a violation of Wikipedia Policy occurred. Wikipedia: Vandalism: Abuse of tags explains this for you. Please do read it. It states, "Bad-faith placing of ... tags on pages that do not meet such criteria" is considered to be Vandalism.
Established User:Kelvin Case faithfully corrected the error. And reinserting a template after its merits had been adequately addressed by an established user is definitely a "bad-faith" placement.
Therefore...
CONCLUSION number 1:
You typed on RatSoup's talk page,"Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia ... without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary."
Why did you tell this to User:RatSoup? User:Kelvin Case removed the template, not RatSoup. But then, thinking about your defense, I noticed the following.
So perhaps this is what you were referring to when you made that comment to RatSoup. However, regardless, Ratsoup did exactly what Kelvin Case did. Ratsoup further edited the Wikipedia page, removed the template, and appropriately typed into the edit summary the reasons for the actions taken.
Okay, so RatSoup did use some strange language in the edit summary: "Some *@$%&! keeps claiming this is advertising.... The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt WILL BE AWESOME!!!!"
Nevertheless, RatSoup did fully explain the edit: "EVERY sentence has a legitimate reference! I read this entirely. There is NO ADVERTISING HERE!!!!"
Therefore...
CONCLUSION number2:
Wikipedia editors are still subject to the same laws that we all must abide by, Mr. Jclemens. Do you revel in false accusations, Mr. Jclemens? Because you then went on to commit another. Your subsequent communication with RatSoup was as follows, "You appear to be engaged in an edit war."
Mr. Jclemens, Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77 committed Vandalism on Wikipedia (see Conclusion number 1 above). RatSoup was not engaged in an edit war. RatSoup was dutifully eliminating vandalism, as per the following Wikipedia Policy:
RatSoup eliminated the vandalism. RatSoup dutifully logged what and why in the edit summary.
Next, Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77 does something that I cannot understand:
Here Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77 reinserts the "Advert" template ... plus 2 more with similar meaning.
Why would Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77 suddenly go from 1 to 3 templates? All 3 carry similar meaning: "Please edit this web page from a neutral point of view."
Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77, I believe, was obviously growing furious and used those 2 edits in the way of venting some of that frustration. In other words, a prior act of vandalism was now getting out of hand. RatSoup responded with another edit:
Personally, I agree. Special:Contributions/66.68.156.77 had in fact responded in a way that could be construed as Harassment. Albeit RatSoup did respond inappropriately by stating, "THIS IS A WARNING," at this point I believe RatSoup was beginning to feel frustrated as well.
This is where someone of the complaintants e-mailed you, requesting, "Please can you stop" the vandalism. But your response was, "...it is not vandalism. I encourage you to use the talk page for the article to discuss the matter."
And so an edit war was then perpetrated by User:Dungbootle who then decided to reinsert the 3 templates.
RatSoup is not the problem here, Mr. Jclemens.
How do you intend to resolve this problem?
Thank you, RatSoup Defender ( talk) 05:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
We need someone who knows about wikipedia to help.
"So if the person is in two notable bands, where are they going to be covered? Just in each band's article? That gives no context to the topic of that individual. Consider Ricky Phillips as an example of someone who might be denied an article if the criteria were removed. Does it really hurt anything to have an article on someone like him? Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)"
You wrote that in 2010, it applies to me. There is a dispute at the page Dennis Donaghy. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R039j0f ( talk • contribs) 12:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I basically left Wikipedia after Arbcom proceedings in which I was sanctioned. I've made some edits as an IP occasionally, and also helped with a candidate article last November that I could not edit as an IP.
I have no desire to unretire. I have no desire to try to get the sanctions removed or altered. I have no desire to deal with Arbcom again as long as I live.
However, even after the passage of considerable time, I am still deeply concerned that there remains an official and unanimous Arbcom statement basically calling me a malicious liar. I have no desire to jump through whatever hoops might be available to get that statement changed; given my past experience at Wikipedia, I believe such an effort would very likely be futile. At the same time, I want something done. That statement is basically a sword hanging over my head, because many Wikipedians know my real name, and could use this against me in real life.
JClemens, you were at least nominally in charge of my case, although you said that much of the work was delegated to someone else. No one on Arbcom paid any attention to my repeated timely objections that the evidence against me was improperly submitted in excess of word limits, and that I could not reply without exceeding those word limits. The analysis of the evidence against me was similarly flawed, and the accusations were false. I did not lie about anything.
What I want is this: I'm asking you simply in your capacity as a Wikipedia editor if you would please hear me out as to why the charges were false. I could present what evidence I can at my user talk page. Then you could simply reply at my talk page. That's it.
I strongly believe that my case was a politically motivated witchhunt, basically in order to censor Wikipedia content by attacking me. I don't believe that was your motivation, but I do believe it was the predominant motivation. The Wikipedia findings grossly distorted what actually happened. The evidence on my behalf was never presented, so please let me know if you'd be willing to read it at my talk page and reply to it at my talk page. That's all I'm asking for. If you're willing, then it would probably take me awhile to put it together. I would not use anything you say at my talk page to change anything Arbcom has said or decided, which I believe would be futile in any event. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Allright, I'm on to other things, and will now leave you alone for a few years. Feel free to delete this sad little discussion if you like. You do better work than most, or I wouldn't have bothered coming here. Unlike other admins I could name, you do not appear to be a flying monkey. Assuming that I've described the two incidents accurately, I don't see that I manipulated anything, and so will add them to the list of alleged transgressions that I will never apologize for. Cheers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Under Covers (NCIS) post. Can you please tell me if the G:6 move should be conducted before or after creating the new article? And if before, will having a redirect page with the same name disrupt the new article's creation process? -- 1ST7 ( talk) 05:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
This diff contains a quote mark after the first diff. I believe that the quote mark should be in front of the diff, after the "actually." Thanks, Unscintillating ( talk) 02:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I note you are following it and, I trust, the ArbCom discussions as well. You might note at User:Collect/ACE2012 that I suggest an added query for the 2013 election based on what one impartial arbitrator said was his philosophy. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
| ||||
|
A '
Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found
here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can)
here.
At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support. If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread. Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal. |
Hi, you mentioned there were plenty of secondary sources for this article. Please can you tell me what are so I can include them, thank-you. Marasmusine ( talk) 07:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I understand why you changed the visibility of my revision, which violated BLP policy, but I was wondering why you deleted the comment by P&W:
12:41, 11 May 2013 Phoenix and Winslow (+225) . . (→Mother Jones Magazine and Dale Robertson)
which basically simply warned me that the Talk pages were also subject the BLP policy. I didn't see any violation in that, did I miss something? Thanks.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this one. This looks like it may be a good hit in Google books, but I am having a hard time getting any of the text to show in my browser; are you able to view that? BOZ ( talk) 14:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
You say here that "attempting to extend a statement after it's been edited [I assume you meant "endorsed"] is disruptive editing", however, after looking at WP:DISRUPT, WP:RFC, WP:RFCC and even the instructions on the actual RfC page, I can't find anything that confirms it. Only that "Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page", yet I don't see how this could apply to the extension of my response. No mention either of a "post-endorsement ban on extension".
It seems logical that the RfCed user should be able to extend his reponse as the Rfc goes on, since the aim of a reponse is to respond to RfC statement, evidence and outside views. Since those obviously won't all come at the same time, what would be the point of not letting the RfCed user extend his reponse ?
Could you provide the page that specifically prevents participants to extend a response after it's been endorsed ? Folken de Fanel ( talk) 16:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Your comment at Wikipedia:AN/RFC#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FFolken_de_Fanel was inappropriate. WP:AN/RFC "is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia", not for continuing to argue the RfC or for making accusations against another user without evidence. My comments were moved to the RfC discussion, that should have been the end of it; that you are making a fuss about it at WP:AN/RFC, is, however, "inappropriate soapboxing". If you have complains to make against me, then you should go to WP:ANI. Please remove your comment from WP:AN/RFC. Folken de Fanel ( talk) 17:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Please notice the reasons for a username change here. A simple name change was done here --Enkyo2 15:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.-- Dom497 ( talk) This message was sent out by -- EdwardsBot ( talk) 01:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC) |
Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of
WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).
So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.-- Dom497 ( talk) This message was sent out by -- EdwardsBot ( talk) 15:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |
A few more voices experienced in NPOV editing would be useful at the Tea Party movement moderated discussion. I appreciate it's a big ask, and no worries if you find you haven't the time or inclination, but your opinions are respected and valued, so input from you would be helpful. The article has made great progress over the past month, and is heading in the right direction - though there is still some work to do, and there is an ArbCom case ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement) held in suspension over this article. The Committee will be reconvening at the end of the month to decide what to do. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
OK. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
In case you're not watching, this discussion has developed slightly since you commented- the species is neither as rare as was made out, nor as isolated, nor as poorly studied. Further, it simply wasn't the case that the photo in question was the only one of the species on the Internet. It's also practically identical, morphologically, to another species for which we do have a free image. I quote Miller, who first described the species: "Except for its greater size, Natalus major so closely resembles specimens of N. stramineus from Dominica as to require no further explanation." J Milburn ( talk) 02:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
How is it that you've blocked UnrepentantTaco and that user is making fresh AfD nominations? I'm confused. Crtew ( talk) 15:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
ok, I saw the wrong date and all is good. Crtew ( talk) 15:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Could you make it clear (on their userpage) whom this editor has been blocked as a sock of, it would make it a lot easier for future admins looking at this? Thanks, Black Kite ( talk) 21:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Would you be willing to have an email discussion? It is wiki related, but not pertaining (at least directly) to any of your own posts or actions. Rather I'm looking for some uninvolved input from an admin. and former Arb who is neither a "wiki friend" nor a "wiki enemy". While I have strongly disagreed with you in the past, I'd like to think that I've never been disrespectful to you personally in any of my posts. If you would prefer not to, that's perfectly understandable and acceptable, but I thought I'd ask. — Ched : ? 07:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
With this edit, in my opinion you may possibly have stretched the limits of neutrality that can be expected from an administrator. I won't comment on your participation in that RFC/U, and I've decided to stay away from closing it lest I voice my opinion on some of the opinions that have been expressed there. That said, as as courtesy, I'm letting you know that you have been mentioned here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
SilkTork is withdrawing as the moderator at Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion. If you have a few hours, I think you would do well as a shepherd there (I hope you are a natural speed reader), as with ArbCom moving at "full speed", the case is likely to take longer than it would take to whip up a WP:CONSENSUS on the current moderated discussion page :). I have tried to be a moderating and neutral influence there, but it appears that some wish for "unanimous instantaneous perfection", which tends to be a tad difficult. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
In case you were not aware of it, please see WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History#Casting aspersions. Discussion and proposed alternate Principle are at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Proposed decision#Casting aspersions. Flatscan ( talk) 04:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)