Hello, SAJordan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --
JHunterJ
12:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the link to Google Groups for the published obituary, based on WP:C#Linking to copyrighted works. It appears the obituary is copyrighted, and so was posted to Usenet inappropriately. -- JHunterJ 12:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It's bad form to label the good faith edits of others as "vandalism". [1] The Wikipedia usage of the term is defined in Wikipedia:Vandalism. - Will Beback 04:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's what he's done and is persisting in continued attacks. This guy complained immediately without saying anything. Sure I flubbed the link removal twice but that's a mistake. I'm not taking lectures from self-intesested POV editors. We've been down this road before. He just made the additions and left a proclamation as to why they should stay. He's done original research and a listserv isn't a valid source. Moreover, he's the latest to shill for a participant TNH in the story all along as were other editors including Karen here. Sure they'll deny it but all it takes is a visit to the blog in question to quell that claim. This is defamatory and I doth protest. Marky48 01:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
"His referring to me as "dead" or "back from the dead""
It's metaphorical for someone reviving the same old stuff yet again. Apparently you're a literalist as well as overly excitable. Marky48 01:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
"accompanied by personal accusations against the deleted texts' authors."
All of which were and are true. Bias from friends of the article's focus as the Chief Disemvowler of the Internet. Hostile deletions? I find this same thing goes on all over Wikipedia. People lord over their edits and fight anyone who comes along with a change ouraged that anyone dare contest their judgment. It amazes me how quickly the response to an insult gets top billing and the original infraction is swept under the cyber rug, but this happens in the world often. If blogs and forums can be used as sources after all this fuss, then the battle of the last few months on this article was a bigger waste of time than it felt like. Apparently the rules of content bend under group advocacy pressure. Nothing new about that either. Marky48 17:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh thanks for clarifying that. Still, it is a little unintuitive, though, right? Normally if I'm looking for the categories that an article is in, I look at the bottom of the page. If you look at Wikipedia:Categories#Guidelines, the first objective of categories is given as "Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles." If articles are in categories via redirects, there really wouldn't be any way to tell, right? I dunno if there's any wikipedia precedence for this kind of redirect categorization, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. -- DDG 21:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if you look carefully, you'll see I changed "Paramount owns the copyright" to "Paramount Pictures own the copyright". The former is straightforward. The latter made me think for a good 30 seconds, after which I opted for "own", which sounded better. I am, in my defense, a non-native speaker. I generally aim for American English, which means I got this one wrong.
The relevant policy is found at [Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English]], further elucidated at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). The relevant guideline is "[a]rticles should use the same dialect throughout" — hence, if indeed (and I'm willing to take your word for it) "owns" is the correct American English form, and seeing as the article is written throughout in American English ("Klingon text can be left-justified, center-justified, or right-justified"), the correct thing to do would be to replace "own" with "owns", as per your suggestion.
Which, to make a long story somewhat longer, I did.
Anyway, thanks for pointing this out. Welcome to Wikipedia (I see you've been here for more than a month – be careful, Wikipedia is highly addictive). If you have further policy-related questions, I'd be glad to help. — Itai ( talk) 21:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Dont forget! Your vote will also apply to List of converts to Islam [2]. So be careful what you ask for "brother". -- Matt57 20:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The page was moved after I made the change. However since it's misspelled it doesn't serve a useful purpose so I've now deleted it. - Will Beback 00:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, something along those lines would be of help to establish an editor's character. -^ demon [yell at me] 19:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the accusations of incivility are reaching the breaking point and really are just a sideshow for disguising group bias. This is akin to stalking and witchhunting not to mention colusion. Your group tactics are exposed on that page for all to see since you followed me there. My standing is to stand up for my edits. This so-called mediator has resigned. I suggest you do too. This is not about me, it's about guerrilla editing by tag teams with a bias. The bias is demonstrable and I have done so. Enjoy the temple of disemvoweling because it is of no interest to me as are any of you. Please stay away from me in the future. Marky48 19:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Pushaw. It's nothing of the sort. The bias is by members of a particular blog community and for that the evidence is clear. You accused me of vandalism and I responded. If you continue to talk about others in a defamatory way they will respond, as I see others here have. Keep it up and a cease and desist will be requested. Stop butting in to other peoples affairs, because it has the appearance of stalking. Arbcom can follow it easily. Marky48 16:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You need to remove your entry to the arbcom because I've withdrawn, since my edits have stood the test od time. I see you following people and butting in, then posting neverending arguments. Nice debating dodge. In case your feigned newbie status here is at the root of this talk pages are for communicating with users. Had you not charged me falsely with vandalism all of this could have been avoided. I suspect that's what you think anytime someone challenges your edits. So-called personal attacks are another nice diversion. Anyone can claim them. Cross out your post on the arbcom because I'm no longer a part of it. Marky48 03:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering why you want to be so involved with my case involving Moby Dick and Karl Meier. It is a ~2 year old dispute. -- Cat out 03:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for making your comments here and on commons. -- Moby
I didn't block you. Bastiq▼e demandez 14:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk FloNight 01:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You were fast to delete. You should have added. Please be kind enough to nominate the page that was redirected and explain to that user why you don't think that information can be good enough for Wikipedia, or restore that linked page. I was just taking care of a merge which you never commented on. Thanks. No need to add to my talk page, just make the edits as you see fit. -- Walter Görlitz 07:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I just looked at it the other day and was like "Wow, I really don't like it anymore." But I couldn't think of anything better to put, so I just blanked except for my PD notice. If you have any good suggestions for how to redo it nicely, lemmie know. :) ^ demon [omg plz] 05:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I know you meant well, but it would be better if you didn't alter statements on the Arbitation pages - even the discussion pages. This is really up to the users themselves to handle and for the arbitrators. When someone makes a statement, it should stand just the way they produced it. Changing it is kinda like changing a legal document. Thanks! Pete K 02:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes,'tis a puzzlement. Bob Gale mentions the high school in one of the commentaries, and some fan site or other mentions the school in connection with the film, and the fire in the gym. (The Whittier article also mentions the fire.) But I haven't found anything to reliably nail down the specifics. (What is the status of BTTF.com, anyway?) Ah, well. At least the article no longer makes a claim I now know to be incorrect! I just dug out an old Starlog with a Zemeckis interview for Part 2. I'm a page or two into it, and so far there's nothing in it worth citing. Regards and thanks! ---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mavarin ( talk • contribs) 23:09-23:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit, I'd never heard of The X-Factor...but that wouldn't have changed my involvement with the article. It seems to have been a mixture of some of the information available at The X Factor UK and Ireland series 3 plus some nonsense about being an arson and leg shaving if I remember correctly now. It made no mention of the subject being a finalist in the contest, or that the contest was any type of current event. If the editor had placed a {hangon} tag and explained themselves...there likely would be an article dedicated to Ms. Lewis now. Instead, they continued to make threats and ignore procedures. -- Onorem 16:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: On December 16, 2006, Leona Lewis won the competition, and her page is no longer a redirect but a full (and legitimate) article; Leona Louise Lewis redirects to it. – SAJordan talk contribs 21:17, 17 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Given recent events, do you think that a Bastique RFC might be in order? Moreschi 10:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
{From Elaragirl's talkpage) That's interesting evidence; to be honest I looked at it rather superficially. I would, however, ask you (Jordan) not to initiate an RfC yourself, as your previous biases (perfectly understandable, obviously) may be called into question. riana_dzasta 12:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You've made three edits in two days that relate to Cool Cat in one way or another. This is in direct violation of your Arbcom ruling. I have blocked you for one week from editing. Bastiq▼e demandez 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
"For making threats against Cool Cat and others"? What threats? – SAJordan talk contribs 02:20, 14 Nov 2006 (UTC).
Your incessant trolling of Cool Cat, myself, and this entire situation will get you blocked. I will not be the one to do it, however you are walking a very thin line. You persist in making non-credible accusations against me, leading people to believe things that are unfounded. You completely lack good faith. And you are causing more and more people to spend valuable time, embroiled in a destructive path on your fantasies that area completely without merit.
Moby Dick's single edit to Cool Cat's talk page constituted harrassment. I'm sorry if you disagree, but it was completely within the bounds of the arbcom ruling. I consulted other admins before I blocked him. He has not requested unblock.
You evidently have some kind of vendetta going against Cool Cat. And now you're directing it at me because I had the balls to tell you to stop trolling Cool Cat.
Stop trolling me. Now. Bastiq▼e demandez 23:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
"Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom." WP:NPA#Examples_of_personal_attacks
"Do not call newcomers disparaging names"... "Even if you're 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, internet troll,a vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they're not." WP:BITE#Please_DO_NOT_bite_the_newcomers
..."characterising someone as a troll who simply disagrees with you can cause disputes which can be very damaging to Wikipedia." WP:TROLL#Misuse_of_process
Bad faith — from What is a troll
Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia. Ignorance is not trolling. Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling. By themselves, misguided nominations, votes, and proposed policy are not trolling. They are only trolling when they are motivated by a program of malice rather than ignorance or bias. This requires a judgment of the personal motivation for another's action. Such a judgment can never be made with anything approaching certainty. This fact should always be kept in mind when one is tempted to label someone a troll.
When you try to decide if someone is a troll, strive to assume they are not. Explain errors politely and reasonably; point them towards policies, the manual of style and relevant past discussions. Don't conclude they are a troll until they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others. Even in that case, it is likely better to remain silent and let others conclude the obvious instead of calling someone a troll and creating even more mayhem. It is better to humor a troll for too long than to drive away a sincere but misguided user. Remember and apply the principles laid out at Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers.
This is probably the best course of action. Cool Cat has now been blocked for a week and subjected to considerable censure for violations of WP:POINT. If he comes back and continues to edit disruptively, I recommmend that you ignore it, edit some articles, and let me sweep up the mess. Recusal in controversy when you have become heavily involved is usually a good idea. Moreschi 22:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You made very good points in both places that contribute an important element to the discussion. I actually think the block may have been in error, but I'm not going to unblock the user in question for two reasons: on principle, I don't want to revert another admin's actions (wheel warring concerns) without clear community consensus; and there's no point in unblocking if the user isn't back and requesting unblocking.-- Kchase T 20:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Your comments on Starblindy's name, and the comments you left on my Talk page, are nonsense. User:Zoe| (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the collective noun fit the group characteristics, e.g. "sockpuppet drawer"? – SAJordan talk contribs 23:20, 20 Dec 2006 (UTC).
I've filed an RfC over the YouTube link issue. Argyriou (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I hope for more in the metaphoric sense, because the one i have is a little borderline, since it's talking about media, the sort of media in which it also can appear literally. If you see any, pls add them. And, I am informed by those in the proper age group to know, that although it past generations it meant any really provocative behavior (with the implication, sufficiently provocative to induce an erection) it is now limited to someone deliberately interrupting sex. DGG 03:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
looks much better, as ive now noted on the afd page. cheers. Jackk 07:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the apparently closed debates at RfC:Name. If you get a chance to look over the last revision and disagree with anything, feel free to restore or drop me a line. Cheers, Deizio talk 03:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
This might be deleted soon. Daakshayani 10:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I have come to you to apologize for my actions. I have realized that what I was doing was wrong and I wish to make up for it. No longer do I wish to cause trouble. I would like to put the past behind me. I want to contribute positively. If you find it in your heart to forgive me for my actions, then I will assure you that I will become a positive contributor to Wikipedia and never vandalize again. Will you forgive me? -- Insineratehymn 02:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Courtesy notice: [6]. Also please feel free to correct any formatting errors. Cindery 22:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Courtesy notice of discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmcdevit#Nick_RfC Cindery 23:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I've replied to your comments on my talk page. Shimeru 06:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Not to be a complete pedant, but did you really mean pendanticism? I guess you could have been leaving it hanging out there on purpose... Jd2718 17:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
– SAJordan talk contribs 00:06, 1 Jan 2007 (UTC).
|See Kundan After Sundown 05:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, SAJordan, this message is being sent to inform you that, due to over two years editing inactivity, your username has been taken off of the list of Wikipedia Project Star Trek active conributers. If you have returned to active editing Wikipedia, please re add your name to the list of active contributers. Thank you, -- Alpha Quadrant ( talk) 15:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to get this article deleted, List of former atheists and agnostics, please consider entering the discussion! Ncboy2010 ( talk) 16:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Klingon language (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Klingon language (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). William Thweatt Talk Contribs 22:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Blade weapon. Since you had some involvement with the Blade weapon redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 18:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bladed weapon. Since you had some involvement with the Bladed weapon redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 18:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, SAJordan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --
JHunterJ
12:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the link to Google Groups for the published obituary, based on WP:C#Linking to copyrighted works. It appears the obituary is copyrighted, and so was posted to Usenet inappropriately. -- JHunterJ 12:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It's bad form to label the good faith edits of others as "vandalism". [1] The Wikipedia usage of the term is defined in Wikipedia:Vandalism. - Will Beback 04:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's what he's done and is persisting in continued attacks. This guy complained immediately without saying anything. Sure I flubbed the link removal twice but that's a mistake. I'm not taking lectures from self-intesested POV editors. We've been down this road before. He just made the additions and left a proclamation as to why they should stay. He's done original research and a listserv isn't a valid source. Moreover, he's the latest to shill for a participant TNH in the story all along as were other editors including Karen here. Sure they'll deny it but all it takes is a visit to the blog in question to quell that claim. This is defamatory and I doth protest. Marky48 01:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
"His referring to me as "dead" or "back from the dead""
It's metaphorical for someone reviving the same old stuff yet again. Apparently you're a literalist as well as overly excitable. Marky48 01:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
"accompanied by personal accusations against the deleted texts' authors."
All of which were and are true. Bias from friends of the article's focus as the Chief Disemvowler of the Internet. Hostile deletions? I find this same thing goes on all over Wikipedia. People lord over their edits and fight anyone who comes along with a change ouraged that anyone dare contest their judgment. It amazes me how quickly the response to an insult gets top billing and the original infraction is swept under the cyber rug, but this happens in the world often. If blogs and forums can be used as sources after all this fuss, then the battle of the last few months on this article was a bigger waste of time than it felt like. Apparently the rules of content bend under group advocacy pressure. Nothing new about that either. Marky48 17:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh thanks for clarifying that. Still, it is a little unintuitive, though, right? Normally if I'm looking for the categories that an article is in, I look at the bottom of the page. If you look at Wikipedia:Categories#Guidelines, the first objective of categories is given as "Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles." If articles are in categories via redirects, there really wouldn't be any way to tell, right? I dunno if there's any wikipedia precedence for this kind of redirect categorization, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. -- DDG 21:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if you look carefully, you'll see I changed "Paramount owns the copyright" to "Paramount Pictures own the copyright". The former is straightforward. The latter made me think for a good 30 seconds, after which I opted for "own", which sounded better. I am, in my defense, a non-native speaker. I generally aim for American English, which means I got this one wrong.
The relevant policy is found at [Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English]], further elucidated at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). The relevant guideline is "[a]rticles should use the same dialect throughout" — hence, if indeed (and I'm willing to take your word for it) "owns" is the correct American English form, and seeing as the article is written throughout in American English ("Klingon text can be left-justified, center-justified, or right-justified"), the correct thing to do would be to replace "own" with "owns", as per your suggestion.
Which, to make a long story somewhat longer, I did.
Anyway, thanks for pointing this out. Welcome to Wikipedia (I see you've been here for more than a month – be careful, Wikipedia is highly addictive). If you have further policy-related questions, I'd be glad to help. — Itai ( talk) 21:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Dont forget! Your vote will also apply to List of converts to Islam [2]. So be careful what you ask for "brother". -- Matt57 20:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The page was moved after I made the change. However since it's misspelled it doesn't serve a useful purpose so I've now deleted it. - Will Beback 00:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, something along those lines would be of help to establish an editor's character. -^ demon [yell at me] 19:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the accusations of incivility are reaching the breaking point and really are just a sideshow for disguising group bias. This is akin to stalking and witchhunting not to mention colusion. Your group tactics are exposed on that page for all to see since you followed me there. My standing is to stand up for my edits. This so-called mediator has resigned. I suggest you do too. This is not about me, it's about guerrilla editing by tag teams with a bias. The bias is demonstrable and I have done so. Enjoy the temple of disemvoweling because it is of no interest to me as are any of you. Please stay away from me in the future. Marky48 19:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Pushaw. It's nothing of the sort. The bias is by members of a particular blog community and for that the evidence is clear. You accused me of vandalism and I responded. If you continue to talk about others in a defamatory way they will respond, as I see others here have. Keep it up and a cease and desist will be requested. Stop butting in to other peoples affairs, because it has the appearance of stalking. Arbcom can follow it easily. Marky48 16:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You need to remove your entry to the arbcom because I've withdrawn, since my edits have stood the test od time. I see you following people and butting in, then posting neverending arguments. Nice debating dodge. In case your feigned newbie status here is at the root of this talk pages are for communicating with users. Had you not charged me falsely with vandalism all of this could have been avoided. I suspect that's what you think anytime someone challenges your edits. So-called personal attacks are another nice diversion. Anyone can claim them. Cross out your post on the arbcom because I'm no longer a part of it. Marky48 03:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering why you want to be so involved with my case involving Moby Dick and Karl Meier. It is a ~2 year old dispute. -- Cat out 03:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for making your comments here and on commons. -- Moby
I didn't block you. Bastiq▼e demandez 14:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk FloNight 01:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You were fast to delete. You should have added. Please be kind enough to nominate the page that was redirected and explain to that user why you don't think that information can be good enough for Wikipedia, or restore that linked page. I was just taking care of a merge which you never commented on. Thanks. No need to add to my talk page, just make the edits as you see fit. -- Walter Görlitz 07:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I just looked at it the other day and was like "Wow, I really don't like it anymore." But I couldn't think of anything better to put, so I just blanked except for my PD notice. If you have any good suggestions for how to redo it nicely, lemmie know. :) ^ demon [omg plz] 05:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I know you meant well, but it would be better if you didn't alter statements on the Arbitation pages - even the discussion pages. This is really up to the users themselves to handle and for the arbitrators. When someone makes a statement, it should stand just the way they produced it. Changing it is kinda like changing a legal document. Thanks! Pete K 02:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes,'tis a puzzlement. Bob Gale mentions the high school in one of the commentaries, and some fan site or other mentions the school in connection with the film, and the fire in the gym. (The Whittier article also mentions the fire.) But I haven't found anything to reliably nail down the specifics. (What is the status of BTTF.com, anyway?) Ah, well. At least the article no longer makes a claim I now know to be incorrect! I just dug out an old Starlog with a Zemeckis interview for Part 2. I'm a page or two into it, and so far there's nothing in it worth citing. Regards and thanks! ---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mavarin ( talk • contribs) 23:09-23:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit, I'd never heard of The X-Factor...but that wouldn't have changed my involvement with the article. It seems to have been a mixture of some of the information available at The X Factor UK and Ireland series 3 plus some nonsense about being an arson and leg shaving if I remember correctly now. It made no mention of the subject being a finalist in the contest, or that the contest was any type of current event. If the editor had placed a {hangon} tag and explained themselves...there likely would be an article dedicated to Ms. Lewis now. Instead, they continued to make threats and ignore procedures. -- Onorem 16:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: On December 16, 2006, Leona Lewis won the competition, and her page is no longer a redirect but a full (and legitimate) article; Leona Louise Lewis redirects to it. – SAJordan talk contribs 21:17, 17 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Given recent events, do you think that a Bastique RFC might be in order? Moreschi 10:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
{From Elaragirl's talkpage) That's interesting evidence; to be honest I looked at it rather superficially. I would, however, ask you (Jordan) not to initiate an RfC yourself, as your previous biases (perfectly understandable, obviously) may be called into question. riana_dzasta 12:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You've made three edits in two days that relate to Cool Cat in one way or another. This is in direct violation of your Arbcom ruling. I have blocked you for one week from editing. Bastiq▼e demandez 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
"For making threats against Cool Cat and others"? What threats? – SAJordan talk contribs 02:20, 14 Nov 2006 (UTC).
Your incessant trolling of Cool Cat, myself, and this entire situation will get you blocked. I will not be the one to do it, however you are walking a very thin line. You persist in making non-credible accusations against me, leading people to believe things that are unfounded. You completely lack good faith. And you are causing more and more people to spend valuable time, embroiled in a destructive path on your fantasies that area completely without merit.
Moby Dick's single edit to Cool Cat's talk page constituted harrassment. I'm sorry if you disagree, but it was completely within the bounds of the arbcom ruling. I consulted other admins before I blocked him. He has not requested unblock.
You evidently have some kind of vendetta going against Cool Cat. And now you're directing it at me because I had the balls to tell you to stop trolling Cool Cat.
Stop trolling me. Now. Bastiq▼e demandez 23:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
"Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom." WP:NPA#Examples_of_personal_attacks
"Do not call newcomers disparaging names"... "Even if you're 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, internet troll,a vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they're not." WP:BITE#Please_DO_NOT_bite_the_newcomers
..."characterising someone as a troll who simply disagrees with you can cause disputes which can be very damaging to Wikipedia." WP:TROLL#Misuse_of_process
Bad faith — from What is a troll
Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia. Ignorance is not trolling. Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling. By themselves, misguided nominations, votes, and proposed policy are not trolling. They are only trolling when they are motivated by a program of malice rather than ignorance or bias. This requires a judgment of the personal motivation for another's action. Such a judgment can never be made with anything approaching certainty. This fact should always be kept in mind when one is tempted to label someone a troll.
When you try to decide if someone is a troll, strive to assume they are not. Explain errors politely and reasonably; point them towards policies, the manual of style and relevant past discussions. Don't conclude they are a troll until they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others. Even in that case, it is likely better to remain silent and let others conclude the obvious instead of calling someone a troll and creating even more mayhem. It is better to humor a troll for too long than to drive away a sincere but misguided user. Remember and apply the principles laid out at Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers.
This is probably the best course of action. Cool Cat has now been blocked for a week and subjected to considerable censure for violations of WP:POINT. If he comes back and continues to edit disruptively, I recommmend that you ignore it, edit some articles, and let me sweep up the mess. Recusal in controversy when you have become heavily involved is usually a good idea. Moreschi 22:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You made very good points in both places that contribute an important element to the discussion. I actually think the block may have been in error, but I'm not going to unblock the user in question for two reasons: on principle, I don't want to revert another admin's actions (wheel warring concerns) without clear community consensus; and there's no point in unblocking if the user isn't back and requesting unblocking.-- Kchase T 20:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Your comments on Starblindy's name, and the comments you left on my Talk page, are nonsense. User:Zoe| (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the collective noun fit the group characteristics, e.g. "sockpuppet drawer"? – SAJordan talk contribs 23:20, 20 Dec 2006 (UTC).
I've filed an RfC over the YouTube link issue. Argyriou (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I hope for more in the metaphoric sense, because the one i have is a little borderline, since it's talking about media, the sort of media in which it also can appear literally. If you see any, pls add them. And, I am informed by those in the proper age group to know, that although it past generations it meant any really provocative behavior (with the implication, sufficiently provocative to induce an erection) it is now limited to someone deliberately interrupting sex. DGG 03:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
looks much better, as ive now noted on the afd page. cheers. Jackk 07:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the apparently closed debates at RfC:Name. If you get a chance to look over the last revision and disagree with anything, feel free to restore or drop me a line. Cheers, Deizio talk 03:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
This might be deleted soon. Daakshayani 10:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I have come to you to apologize for my actions. I have realized that what I was doing was wrong and I wish to make up for it. No longer do I wish to cause trouble. I would like to put the past behind me. I want to contribute positively. If you find it in your heart to forgive me for my actions, then I will assure you that I will become a positive contributor to Wikipedia and never vandalize again. Will you forgive me? -- Insineratehymn 02:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Courtesy notice: [6]. Also please feel free to correct any formatting errors. Cindery 22:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Courtesy notice of discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmcdevit#Nick_RfC Cindery 23:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I've replied to your comments on my talk page. Shimeru 06:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Not to be a complete pedant, but did you really mean pendanticism? I guess you could have been leaving it hanging out there on purpose... Jd2718 17:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
– SAJordan talk contribs 00:06, 1 Jan 2007 (UTC).
|See Kundan After Sundown 05:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, SAJordan, this message is being sent to inform you that, due to over two years editing inactivity, your username has been taken off of the list of Wikipedia Project Star Trek active conributers. If you have returned to active editing Wikipedia, please re add your name to the list of active contributers. Thank you, -- Alpha Quadrant ( talk) 15:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to get this article deleted, List of former atheists and agnostics, please consider entering the discussion! Ncboy2010 ( talk) 16:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Klingon language (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Klingon language (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). William Thweatt Talk Contribs 22:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Blade weapon. Since you had some involvement with the Blade weapon redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 18:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bladed weapon. Since you had some involvement with the Bladed weapon redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 18:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)