This user previously edited as User:JakeInJoisey (usurped). |
An NPOV Disaster - Swift Vets and POWs for Truth
Deleted Article - John Kerry VVAW Controversy
AfD Archive - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kerry VVAW controversy
"Swiftboating" Archive - Talk:Swiftboating/Archive 2
Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Continuing to blanket revert with the edit summary NICW "Controversial Topic" - Please discuss before editing - see discuss will lead to a block for disruptive behavior. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Jake - There has been a flurry of editing over at the Swiftboating article, with all sorts of opinion and wrong information thrown in. You are good about checking in on these articles, so I thought you'd want to know about that one too. I've tried to return it to its "original" version, but am pretty sure there will be plenty more edits made. Maybe there should be some sort of editing lock put on the page for awhile, 'till things settle down... ? -- EECEE ( talk) 08:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Jake - I am aware of the potentially controversial nature of the article, but I think that my edit did not insert any controversial information. I just added the link to "swiftboating" as a term into the article header because I noticed that it was only mentioned 5 pages into the article... Since my edit is neither substantial nor particularly partisan (in my opinion), I decided to be bold and forego an exhaustive discussion pre-edit. If you think that this is wrong, please say so. - Marcika ( talk) 12:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I like your username haha. A8 UDI 18:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Because I was unsuccessful in soliciting advice on this subject from individual users, I've raised the issue at the External Links Noticeboard. Since you've got all the details, I suggest you explain the whole issue there.
Full link to the discussion A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 04:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Figuring out some of the behind the scenes stuff like templates can take a while. Happy editing! Coemgenus 14:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#BLP_vios_now_in_retaliation_on_the_World_Net_Dailying You are summoned there. Jon Osterman ( talk) 14:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It is generally advisable to utilize the following Wikipedia recommended language in an AN/I alert to a fellow editor...
"Summoned" presents a rather pugilistic tone that is discouraged in the Wikipedia process...and the more appropriate word is "alleged".
Though you're probably already aware, I have reported your recent disruptive behavior to WP:ANI. I also take offense that you made an accusation against me at ANI without giving notice. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind letting me know when it is safe to edit the WorldNetDaily article, I don't mind waiting until your discussion is through. I only chanced upon the article today and knew little about them - only that a lot of the article content was obviously original research and without sources. Cheers. Weakopedia ( talk) 21:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Congrats and good job Weaponbb7 ( talk) 03:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Just letting you know I haven't forgotten our discussions. Been a bit preoccupied very recently, but it is still very high on my list and I expect to be giving it more of my attention very soon. Regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 22:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an admin. I'm just trying to keep the talk page readable. Thanks for giving the table a better title. -- TS 23:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Take a break from your arguments about WND at WP:RSN. Let the current thread about WND fade into the archives naturally. By pushing this as you are, you run the risk of turning away editors who might actually support you.
Come back to RSN when you have a question about a specific citation supporting a specific statement in a specific article (ie "Is X from WND reliable for saying Y in article Z (include a link to dif so people can see exactly what you are talking about). Blueboar ( talk) 23:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
If you remove Blaxthos' opinion from your chart again ( [1], [2]) I will seek to have you restricted from further editing of RSN or it's accompanied talk page. Only warning. Hipocrite ( talk) 01:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Note: For any interested observer: AN/I Petition JakeInJoisey ( talk) 20:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this and the spurious report you made to the edit-warring noticeboard, please take this as notice that if you continue to act in a non-collegial and disruptive manner on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise restricted from editing this page. Black Kite 13:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Jake, why are you so concerned about this one source? The Internet contains dozens/hundreds of reliable sources (BBC News, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, etc.). Why not just find another one?
BTW, I suggest you drop this soon. You're starting to piss off the regulars at WP:RSN. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
How about you stop being disruptive and whiny? All of these problems have stemmed from your behavior. It must be easy pointing the finger at someone else for all of your problems. Also, you have no right to edit his post. Sound familiar? It's the dead horse you beat the hell out of yet yelled at others for doing the same. – Turian (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought the polite request above to stop disrupting the RS/N talkpage was fairly clear - so I'm not entirely sure why you thought this and some of the other edits you made to the page today would be a good idea. Removing a personal attack? Fine. Refactoring other people's comments yet again? Disruptive. Thus...
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Black Kite 14:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Just so you know... I have archived both the discussions about WND on the main RSN board and the disruptive talk page discussions. I left the "archive summary" in your version (this means you can say you "won" the debate about that and you have no reason to de-archive it). I hope you will consider the matter closed when you return from your block. Blueboar ( talk) 18:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Now, please post an unblock request if you wish to be unblocked. Thanks.
I am not soliciting either suggestions, gratuitous presumptions from you as to my rationale for requesting clarification, gratuitous characterizations of my request itself nor a rehash of your perceptions of what transpired prior to issuance of this block. What I am soliciting, as is my understanding of Wikipedia policy regarding the imposition of "blocks",...
...is the clarification of your stated rationale.
This is what you offered in that regard...
Your reference to "...some of the other edits you made to the page today would be a good idea" is nebulous and non-specific.
On my request for specificity, rather than identifying "other edits you made to the page today" (April 6), you, instead, offer a rehash of edits made PRIOR to "today" (April 4th to be exact), which, as you also noted, had already been the subject of prior "warnings" resulting from my previously submitted AN/I. Do you now wish to amend or clarify your original blocking rationale? In fact, wasn't this "block" triggered solely by the only 2 edits you specified? -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 13:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
JakeInJoisey ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
2 edits were offered by the imposing admin to warrant blocking... *1. The RS/N "Archival summary" edit cited [5] marked the start of my edit and was NOT "disruptive". The end product still resides, as I submitted it [6] (and, in fact, supported by another editor) in the now-archived RS/N. In addition, I created a "Talk" section to support discussion of this edit. Is this an example of "disruptive" editing for which I should have been blocked? If the submission of an accurate and apparently credible "archive summary" is "disruptive", then a "block" is small price to pay for the accurate summation of the fruit of almost one month's worth of RS/N discussion. *2. An editor created a "section" on the RS/N "Talk" page entitled "Disruptive Behavior" (original edit now inaccessible in archive). In that section my contributions were attacked as "disruptive" and I was labeled a "troll". I removed that section as inappropriate content for the "Talk" environment as there are much more appropriate Wikipedia processes designed specifically to entertain and consider such allegations. The "block" imposing admin upheld my deletion of the "troll" content but found my deletion of the remainder to be "disruptive". Are allegations of "disruption" any less offensive or appropriate than "troll" epithets or any less "disruptive" to a consensus building process within a talk environment? If it is considered acceptable conduct under Wikipedia guidelines that editors can, at their discretion, launch accusations of "disruptive editing" within a sectioned "Talk Page" environment, then my deletion of that section was unwarranted and the imposition of a temporary "block" on my further editing was justifiable. I would suggest, however, that it is NOT acceptable content for a "Talk" page environment and urge any reviewing authority to consider the implications before deeming it to be so.
Decline reason:
This edit alone would be sufficient for a preventative block - refactoring a summary comment for a closure with completely different wording and meaning is beyond acceptable. I have taken a lot of time to review every single one of your contributions since that - no matter how minor. Although you have wide latitude on your own talkpage, you moved, renamed, and cherry-picked (ie kept some, deleted others) posts from another user - changing the title to "fan mail" when it clearly was nothing of the sort. These actions completely modified the intended meaning of the message. The rather intensive wikilawyering since, and the WP:BATTLE attitude prior shows that this is a good block: surprisingly short, but valid. I do hope that you return to editing in a more collegial manner, and worry less about the WP:TRUTH. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This edit alone would be sufficient for a preventative block - refactoring a summary comment for a closure with completely different wording and meaning is beyond acceptable.
Interesting observation, given that the original "summary content" had ALREADY been edited (and, I'd suggest, rightfully so), but NOT by ME. In fact, the "synopsis" as written was not even based on the editor's OWN synopsis, but upon the opinion of another editor's prior attempt to archivewhich was criticized by the majority of editors who chose to comment within the "Talk" discussion on the issue.
An archival header offering a "summation" of an RS/N is hardly the bailiwick for the unilateral imposition of a SINGLE editor's PERSONAL synopsis of content. Nor is the Wikipedia propriety of even PRESUMING to unilaterally and manually "close" an ongoing RS/N settled, to say NOTHING of incorporating and imposing a single editor's PERSONAL synopsis within that "archival summary" as "gospel".
This RS/N has opened a veritable "Pandora's Box" of issues not the least of which is the degree of Wikipedia editorial protection that should be afforded to any editor's "contributions". I hope to explore them in more depth within an appropriate Wikipedia venue. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 16:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The article is a Good Article nominee. Please see the box at the top of Talk:DeSmogBlog. It might also be nice if you moved your comment out of review - it's cluttered enough as is. Thanks. Guettarda ( talk) 19:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I have commented here. Hope I helped! -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 18:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I wanted follow up on one comment you made about the Frontline episode. You called it a "hatchet job". Of course everyone should draw their own conclusions but I was curious about how your developed yours.
After you watched the episode, did you also read any of the other press reports around this issue to see whether Frontline is indeed an outlier? Here are a few: USA Today, MSNBC, The Wall Street Journal, LA Times, The Associate Press (picked up by several papers), The New York Times, Fox News. There are more from a variety of sources at different times since the accident.
Finally, given that the FAA is opening up a special summit on the issue of airline safety following Colgan [7], suggests that there are systemic issues and Frontline is not the only entity questioning this.
Anyway, let me know. Mattnad ( talk) 13:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I didn't actually notice your change to the header... thanks for changing it back though. ++ Lar: t/ c 13:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Please try to not make comments like this "I'll anxiously await the debut of your sequel, "'The Gore Effect' Effect". Hurry before "Scrappleface" gets hold of this. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)" [8] and question a users language skills as you do here. Ask in a polite way that you don't understand what he/she says. Secondly, it's not illegal to edit Wikipedia if you're not an native speaker… Nsaa ( talk) 23:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
This [9] is a rather blatant failure in assumption of good faith. Perhaps you should try to address issues not editors? -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 23:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll look into it further. If I've misinterpreted something else, please feel free to tell me. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
[10] Where is the ongoing discussion about "sometimes"? Active Banana ( talk) 14:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I am under a restriction currently which prohibits my inserting new references into any climate change related article. If you have time would you look over the refs used in this article to ensure they all meet wp standards, thanks mark nutley ( talk) 15:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I have another response to your comment there. Thanks. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 14:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
If you care, I know. Ask William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello there. You recently participated in a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the systematic removal of Media Matters for America as a reliable source. I've started an RfC regarding MMfA, MRC, FAIR, Newsbusters etc. Please participate on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 12:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I accidentally reverted your deletion of some info in the article. I was giving my revert second thoughts when I hit Save instead of Show. Can I revert my own stupid mistake or does it have to be done by someone else? I want to avoid the 3RR abyss. Susanne2009NYC ( talk) 21:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Your ten insertions in my shortish post have of course rendered that post unreadable. Would you like to rescue it by removing your wit? Bishonen | talk 15:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC).
P.S. Your WP:PA in the title of this section is objectionable. Please change it. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 17:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I started an ANI regarding SemDem. His comments on the talkpage and the Daily Kos comments are too close to dismiss. At the minimum he is working closely with the Daily Kos poster. Arzel ( talk) 15:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe not your intent, but I thought that was funny. =P Akerans ( talk) 18:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 12:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Jake, I take strong exception to your recent request for sources. It is absolutely and totally dilatory and counterproductive. A few days ago, when I posted sources, you replied " WP:V for the "criticism" is uncontested and irrelevant to the RfC." Now you are claiming those sources (split between news articles and editorials) either were not in evidence or from unreliable sources. Every one of them is a mainstream media source. I would request you consider your position and state it succinctly; I have little patience for moving goalposts. -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 01:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Back to your list of demands. You wrote "You offer Olbermann, Burns, Ed Schultz and Daschle as non-partisan sources?" What is it you're objecting to? I give you national commentators leveling their objections; if you're not rejecting these folks because you think they're biased, why? -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 07:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Something like (i) calling it a controversy in (ii) the context of a discussion of the impact on FOX News? That is sufficient? -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 20:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
This is in reference to the Linda McMahon articles.
Please take a moment to review the TPG guidelines. And please *don't* make spurious deletions William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have to say this, but we really need to discourage the kind of drama, battleground, and ruleslawyering which you added to the CC case (which had enough of those features already) with these inappropriate accusations of "ad hominems" and "personal attacks". If you file another frivolous action on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement, or again poke William M. Conolley with a stick, you will be banned from the Requests for enforcement page, or from interacting with or discussing WMC, whichever your behaviour makes more appropriate. Please edit constructively. Bishonen | talk 01:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC).
And WMC's numerous filing of far more frivolous complaints is, of course, ignored as usual? Fell Gleaming talk 01:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
JakeInJoisey ( talk) 05:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, I will keep an eye out for it. Most of the time, things like WP:NPA only weed out the most severe personal attacks. It is often wise to simply ignore personal attacks and address substance. Cheers, -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 17:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Back in May 2010, in this edit, you placed a {{ Multiple issues}} tag for perceived WP:DISPUTED and WP:NPOV problems. The tag is still in place, but I see no active discussion of these issues on the talk page of the article. If there is an active discussion, I'd appreciate a pointer to it. If there is no active discussion, please either open one or remove the tag. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I've closed this section. I would have thought that after I ended up blocking you for your antics at RSN last time you brought this up, you would've refrained from doing it again. I see you are unable to do that, and have wasted many editors' time having to point out to you yet again the huge weight of previous consensus on this issue. I would strongly suggest that you do not bring this issue up again at RS/N - I have no doubt other editors not familiar with the history may do so, but I think you have been shown enough times that this is an argument you are not going to "win". Black Kite (t) (c) 07:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I had to modify your last edit. As I explained on the talk page, the Slate article also calls it rebranding, and does not use as cautious language as Gallup. As a result, I kept the plural and added a citation, while otherwise restoring the original text, with the exception of those scare quotes, which I left out. Dylan Flaherty 06:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
This is something which may interest you. Lionel ( talk) 00:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Before I take this to 3RR, I will give you a chance to undo your own edit. You don't get to add material on a contentious article without consensus. Three editors have questioned your edit and made it clear they want the differences between polls inserted, yet you kept removing them. So until there is consensus wording, per
WP:BRD, you cannot keep adding the material.
Dave Dial (
talk) 05:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the courtesy notification. 24.177.120.138 ( talk) 00:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, all I did in making that edit was ... edit the page as I've been doing for the 8 years I've been editing Wikipedia, by clicking the "edit" tab and typing. Did not mean to erase your comment but I'm not sure what happened and how I could have been more careful. Shouldn't one of us have gotten an error message if there was an edit conflict? -- Jfruh ( talk) 18:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all your work at trying to get the RfC to list properly on the boards. I can't figure out why the RfC bot is having so much trouble listing it as it should. Drrll ( talk) 00:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
All I did was correct the grammar of the sentence, I did not add that line to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.234.97 ( talk) 01:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph you disputed in the Conspiracy theory article has been removed from the oarticle so further discussion on the Talk:Conspiracy theory page is pointless. I've therefore archived that discussion but feel free to start a new one if you feel it's necessary. -- Loremaster ( talk) 21:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Please note that every month is a new month, as a big picture. "Normal" users get a new chance every month, most of the time. Wikipedia assumes good faith. But every system operator handles it a lil bit different. -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 09:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
That particular bit has been discussed to death. "Vulgar" is a well-cited word that people of all stripes and involvement feel is an acceptable designation for that word, including Dan Savage himself. Why is there is a fuss still? -- Avanu ( talk) 19:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in the McMahon page. I appreciate you reading the source, but there is much, much more to this. Please see an ongoing discussion here, and yes, you can join in to talk about it too. :->
[ [13]]-- Screwball23 talk 02:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, JakeInJoisey. Just letting you know that I listed this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Citations vs. attributions because you seem to be having the same issue that I am with interpretation of the guideline and you are likely to get more help there. The guideline obviously needs to be tweaked. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
for the note on my talk page. – Lionel ( talk) 23:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer, I deleted the material on the talk page, but do you really think it was that big a deal? Do you have some experience with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZHurlihee ( talk • contribs) 14:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Enjoy, I have looking over your contributions and think you deserve it. ZHurlihee ( talk) 20:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC) |
I saw your "Anatomy of an NPOV Disaster" and have to agree on what an utterly botched abortion that article is and kudos to you for documenting it in such a fine fashion. Fortunately, the nice thing about topics like this is they tend to be flash in the pan events. Topics like this tend to attract a great deal of attention and little to no follow up once the significance of their relevance, the 15 minutes of fame, are over. I say you have another crack at it, fewer people care about it now, as it has little significance to current events, and correcting the more blatant issues should be easy peasy japanesey. FWIW. ZHurlihee ( talk) 20:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the diffs, I got confused and thought it was the lead. BE——Critical__ Talk 04:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Care to weigh in? [14] ZHurlihee ( talk) 20:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Its clearly no consensus - why don't you close it yourself? Why do you think no admin has answered your request is from JakeInJoisey (talk) 4:27 am, 30 September 2011, Friday (15 days ago) (UTC+1) ? Why don't you ask at the WP:AN for someone to close it? Off2riorob ( talk) 00:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
On its face your comment (on my talk page) is reasonable, and a fair point. (And for what it is worth, I hve indeed been on the receiving end). But over the past few days I have seen people with fraid feelings keep escalating conflicts that only distract us from what I consider more serious issues that we would be able to manage better if we could put feelings aside. My intention was to stop another escalation, and not to challenge a person's right to feel whatever they feel.
We already have too much to fight over: should "not truth" stay in the first line or not ... and, do comments after Oct. 29 count or not ... and, is this a straight up/down vote, or is it a request for comments which editors must discuss once the RfC has closed, as they continue to work towards a consensues ... and, do we need a consensus to change the policy or just a majority? To me, these are the serious issues, and again, I am just wary of inflaming any other conflicts. I am concerned it will difuse attention from the major issues into multiple smaller side issues. I am also concerned that it will encourage people to personalize the arguments rather than settle them with policy.
So I won't tell you how to feel, or how to act on you feelings and I do not think I would have made that comment had you replied to BB rather than a third party. 'Nuf said. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.
I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard ( talk) 03:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
See MOS:SERIAL. Happy editing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I thought I would register continuing interest in the subject, rather than ignoring the proposal completely. I cannot understand why anyone would want to push for a change for 14 months without reviewing whether it was still valid. The outcome that 3 uninvolved Admins would simply dive for cover under a no consensus decision was inevitable and it will take far better organisation than is being demonstrated to get this beyond the drawing board. I just don't see the fundamental problem having been clearly set out. All the Best. Leaky Caldron 14:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Kindly be more rigorous in reverting. There was no malice only clarification intended in my edit. Retaliation is unwarranted, and slipshod editing is unwelcome. 70.15.11.44 ( talk) 13:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Respectfully, I have already modified that comment, to give it context. Please see if the new version is acceptable. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 21:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. Be——Critical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
That's three reverts by you today on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism. In case you had lost count. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 23:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, the way I check if I am logged on is to change the colour of the edit box to a pale apricot colour in my style sheet. Then if I edit anonymously it comes out white and looks peculiar.
I use this
textarea { width: 100%; padding: .1em; background: #fff0d0; }
in vector.css and monobook.css subpage. You can set this up yourself or ask me to do it for you. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 20:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I will be offline for a few days and thought I would let you know since you trying to fix the RfC problem. Best of luck trying to get it to work. Arzel ( talk) 04:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
L Faraone 03:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be——Critical 22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
You wrote, WP:BAIT - 3RR: Don't take it. A resolution to the clear violation of WP:YESPOV in the Swiftboating article resides in this RfC. What the article currently contains or does not contain is irrelevant and will ultimately be predicated upon the interpretation and application of WP:POLICY. Utilizing the ongoing process for that determination is the way forward, not ad hoc edit-warring or tit-for-tat goaded ventures into ad hominem. Just my .02 JakeInJoisey ( talk) 13:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
User:JakeInJoisey/John_Kerry_VVAW_controversy -- Xavexgoem ( talk) 05:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 05:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, maybe there is no place for humor when it comes to santorum on wikipedia. Fair enough.-- Milowent • has spoken 19:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Given how widely we are separated in ideologies and opinions about the nature of objective reality, I am amused (and touched) to see you agreeing with my opinion on at least one aspect of this discussion. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear JakeInJoisey: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.
The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.
If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot ( talk) 15:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Just FYI - you warned an IP for vandalism [15] but it appears that person was actually reverting someone else's vandalism. [16] Kelly hi! 21:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Could you show the source for this on the article's talk page - can't find it in the talk archives. Thanks [ [17]] 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 01:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on
User:JakeInJoisey/John Kerry VVAW controversy requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a
repost of material that was previously deleted following a
deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit
the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use
deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you.
Bearian (
talk) 16:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
@MfD now Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Took care of it. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Do you know if material on Ancestry.com is generated by paid employees? I ask, because you were previously involved in a discussion about Ancestry.com on RSN, in which you said that there was considerable editorial oversight over the material there, but did not elaborate on how you knew this when another editor asked you. If you can elaborate on this, could you join a discussion here to offer your opinion? A user is saying that some of the material on that site is not from users, but paid employees, and WP:BLPPRIMARY is also an issue. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 09:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
please add {{ userdraft}} to John Kerry VVAW Controversy NE Ent 01:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
User talk:JakeInJoisey/Anatomy of an NPOV Disaster - Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:JakeInJoisey/Anatomy of an NPOV Disaster - Swift Vets and POWs for Truth and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:JakeInJoisey/Anatomy of an NPOV Disaster - Swift Vets and POWs for Truth during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Time to invoke BLPSE?. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry to inform you, but the discussion at WP:ANI has shown that there is consensus for a topic ban of yours. From now on, you are indefinitely prohibited from editing pages concerning John Kerry, broadly construed, which includes related topics such as swiftboating and discussions about John Kerry anywhere on Wikipedia. De728631 ( talk) 17:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Jake. For several years I've lurked the Talk pages of many political articles you frequent as an editor. Quality writing is nothing if not the expression of quality thought. When folks struggle to express something, it's usually because the underlying thought remains inchoate. As an English enthusiast, I can no longer resist offering you the following suggestions as sort of a stylistic anti-diarrheal for your writing:
Let’s apply these principles to some examples from your talk page:
68.98.133.194 ( talk) 01:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Another doozy I can't help but untangle (then I'm done):
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) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (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) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
This user previously edited as User:JakeInJoisey (usurped). |
An NPOV Disaster - Swift Vets and POWs for Truth
Deleted Article - John Kerry VVAW Controversy
AfD Archive - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kerry VVAW controversy
"Swiftboating" Archive - Talk:Swiftboating/Archive 2
Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Continuing to blanket revert with the edit summary NICW "Controversial Topic" - Please discuss before editing - see discuss will lead to a block for disruptive behavior. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Jake - There has been a flurry of editing over at the Swiftboating article, with all sorts of opinion and wrong information thrown in. You are good about checking in on these articles, so I thought you'd want to know about that one too. I've tried to return it to its "original" version, but am pretty sure there will be plenty more edits made. Maybe there should be some sort of editing lock put on the page for awhile, 'till things settle down... ? -- EECEE ( talk) 08:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Jake - I am aware of the potentially controversial nature of the article, but I think that my edit did not insert any controversial information. I just added the link to "swiftboating" as a term into the article header because I noticed that it was only mentioned 5 pages into the article... Since my edit is neither substantial nor particularly partisan (in my opinion), I decided to be bold and forego an exhaustive discussion pre-edit. If you think that this is wrong, please say so. - Marcika ( talk) 12:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I like your username haha. A8 UDI 18:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Because I was unsuccessful in soliciting advice on this subject from individual users, I've raised the issue at the External Links Noticeboard. Since you've got all the details, I suggest you explain the whole issue there.
Full link to the discussion A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 04:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Figuring out some of the behind the scenes stuff like templates can take a while. Happy editing! Coemgenus 14:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#BLP_vios_now_in_retaliation_on_the_World_Net_Dailying You are summoned there. Jon Osterman ( talk) 14:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It is generally advisable to utilize the following Wikipedia recommended language in an AN/I alert to a fellow editor...
"Summoned" presents a rather pugilistic tone that is discouraged in the Wikipedia process...and the more appropriate word is "alleged".
Though you're probably already aware, I have reported your recent disruptive behavior to WP:ANI. I also take offense that you made an accusation against me at ANI without giving notice. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind letting me know when it is safe to edit the WorldNetDaily article, I don't mind waiting until your discussion is through. I only chanced upon the article today and knew little about them - only that a lot of the article content was obviously original research and without sources. Cheers. Weakopedia ( talk) 21:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Congrats and good job Weaponbb7 ( talk) 03:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Just letting you know I haven't forgotten our discussions. Been a bit preoccupied very recently, but it is still very high on my list and I expect to be giving it more of my attention very soon. Regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 22:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an admin. I'm just trying to keep the talk page readable. Thanks for giving the table a better title. -- TS 23:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Take a break from your arguments about WND at WP:RSN. Let the current thread about WND fade into the archives naturally. By pushing this as you are, you run the risk of turning away editors who might actually support you.
Come back to RSN when you have a question about a specific citation supporting a specific statement in a specific article (ie "Is X from WND reliable for saying Y in article Z (include a link to dif so people can see exactly what you are talking about). Blueboar ( talk) 23:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
If you remove Blaxthos' opinion from your chart again ( [1], [2]) I will seek to have you restricted from further editing of RSN or it's accompanied talk page. Only warning. Hipocrite ( talk) 01:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Note: For any interested observer: AN/I Petition JakeInJoisey ( talk) 20:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this and the spurious report you made to the edit-warring noticeboard, please take this as notice that if you continue to act in a non-collegial and disruptive manner on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise restricted from editing this page. Black Kite 13:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Jake, why are you so concerned about this one source? The Internet contains dozens/hundreds of reliable sources (BBC News, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, etc.). Why not just find another one?
BTW, I suggest you drop this soon. You're starting to piss off the regulars at WP:RSN. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
How about you stop being disruptive and whiny? All of these problems have stemmed from your behavior. It must be easy pointing the finger at someone else for all of your problems. Also, you have no right to edit his post. Sound familiar? It's the dead horse you beat the hell out of yet yelled at others for doing the same. – Turian (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought the polite request above to stop disrupting the RS/N talkpage was fairly clear - so I'm not entirely sure why you thought this and some of the other edits you made to the page today would be a good idea. Removing a personal attack? Fine. Refactoring other people's comments yet again? Disruptive. Thus...
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Black Kite 14:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Just so you know... I have archived both the discussions about WND on the main RSN board and the disruptive talk page discussions. I left the "archive summary" in your version (this means you can say you "won" the debate about that and you have no reason to de-archive it). I hope you will consider the matter closed when you return from your block. Blueboar ( talk) 18:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Now, please post an unblock request if you wish to be unblocked. Thanks.
I am not soliciting either suggestions, gratuitous presumptions from you as to my rationale for requesting clarification, gratuitous characterizations of my request itself nor a rehash of your perceptions of what transpired prior to issuance of this block. What I am soliciting, as is my understanding of Wikipedia policy regarding the imposition of "blocks",...
...is the clarification of your stated rationale.
This is what you offered in that regard...
Your reference to "...some of the other edits you made to the page today would be a good idea" is nebulous and non-specific.
On my request for specificity, rather than identifying "other edits you made to the page today" (April 6), you, instead, offer a rehash of edits made PRIOR to "today" (April 4th to be exact), which, as you also noted, had already been the subject of prior "warnings" resulting from my previously submitted AN/I. Do you now wish to amend or clarify your original blocking rationale? In fact, wasn't this "block" triggered solely by the only 2 edits you specified? -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 13:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
JakeInJoisey ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
2 edits were offered by the imposing admin to warrant blocking... *1. The RS/N "Archival summary" edit cited [5] marked the start of my edit and was NOT "disruptive". The end product still resides, as I submitted it [6] (and, in fact, supported by another editor) in the now-archived RS/N. In addition, I created a "Talk" section to support discussion of this edit. Is this an example of "disruptive" editing for which I should have been blocked? If the submission of an accurate and apparently credible "archive summary" is "disruptive", then a "block" is small price to pay for the accurate summation of the fruit of almost one month's worth of RS/N discussion. *2. An editor created a "section" on the RS/N "Talk" page entitled "Disruptive Behavior" (original edit now inaccessible in archive). In that section my contributions were attacked as "disruptive" and I was labeled a "troll". I removed that section as inappropriate content for the "Talk" environment as there are much more appropriate Wikipedia processes designed specifically to entertain and consider such allegations. The "block" imposing admin upheld my deletion of the "troll" content but found my deletion of the remainder to be "disruptive". Are allegations of "disruption" any less offensive or appropriate than "troll" epithets or any less "disruptive" to a consensus building process within a talk environment? If it is considered acceptable conduct under Wikipedia guidelines that editors can, at their discretion, launch accusations of "disruptive editing" within a sectioned "Talk Page" environment, then my deletion of that section was unwarranted and the imposition of a temporary "block" on my further editing was justifiable. I would suggest, however, that it is NOT acceptable content for a "Talk" page environment and urge any reviewing authority to consider the implications before deeming it to be so.
Decline reason:
This edit alone would be sufficient for a preventative block - refactoring a summary comment for a closure with completely different wording and meaning is beyond acceptable. I have taken a lot of time to review every single one of your contributions since that - no matter how minor. Although you have wide latitude on your own talkpage, you moved, renamed, and cherry-picked (ie kept some, deleted others) posts from another user - changing the title to "fan mail" when it clearly was nothing of the sort. These actions completely modified the intended meaning of the message. The rather intensive wikilawyering since, and the WP:BATTLE attitude prior shows that this is a good block: surprisingly short, but valid. I do hope that you return to editing in a more collegial manner, and worry less about the WP:TRUTH. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This edit alone would be sufficient for a preventative block - refactoring a summary comment for a closure with completely different wording and meaning is beyond acceptable.
Interesting observation, given that the original "summary content" had ALREADY been edited (and, I'd suggest, rightfully so), but NOT by ME. In fact, the "synopsis" as written was not even based on the editor's OWN synopsis, but upon the opinion of another editor's prior attempt to archivewhich was criticized by the majority of editors who chose to comment within the "Talk" discussion on the issue.
An archival header offering a "summation" of an RS/N is hardly the bailiwick for the unilateral imposition of a SINGLE editor's PERSONAL synopsis of content. Nor is the Wikipedia propriety of even PRESUMING to unilaterally and manually "close" an ongoing RS/N settled, to say NOTHING of incorporating and imposing a single editor's PERSONAL synopsis within that "archival summary" as "gospel".
This RS/N has opened a veritable "Pandora's Box" of issues not the least of which is the degree of Wikipedia editorial protection that should be afforded to any editor's "contributions". I hope to explore them in more depth within an appropriate Wikipedia venue. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 16:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The article is a Good Article nominee. Please see the box at the top of Talk:DeSmogBlog. It might also be nice if you moved your comment out of review - it's cluttered enough as is. Thanks. Guettarda ( talk) 19:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I have commented here. Hope I helped! -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 18:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I wanted follow up on one comment you made about the Frontline episode. You called it a "hatchet job". Of course everyone should draw their own conclusions but I was curious about how your developed yours.
After you watched the episode, did you also read any of the other press reports around this issue to see whether Frontline is indeed an outlier? Here are a few: USA Today, MSNBC, The Wall Street Journal, LA Times, The Associate Press (picked up by several papers), The New York Times, Fox News. There are more from a variety of sources at different times since the accident.
Finally, given that the FAA is opening up a special summit on the issue of airline safety following Colgan [7], suggests that there are systemic issues and Frontline is not the only entity questioning this.
Anyway, let me know. Mattnad ( talk) 13:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I didn't actually notice your change to the header... thanks for changing it back though. ++ Lar: t/ c 13:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Please try to not make comments like this "I'll anxiously await the debut of your sequel, "'The Gore Effect' Effect". Hurry before "Scrappleface" gets hold of this. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)" [8] and question a users language skills as you do here. Ask in a polite way that you don't understand what he/she says. Secondly, it's not illegal to edit Wikipedia if you're not an native speaker… Nsaa ( talk) 23:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
This [9] is a rather blatant failure in assumption of good faith. Perhaps you should try to address issues not editors? -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 23:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll look into it further. If I've misinterpreted something else, please feel free to tell me. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
[10] Where is the ongoing discussion about "sometimes"? Active Banana ( talk) 14:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I am under a restriction currently which prohibits my inserting new references into any climate change related article. If you have time would you look over the refs used in this article to ensure they all meet wp standards, thanks mark nutley ( talk) 15:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I have another response to your comment there. Thanks. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 14:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
If you care, I know. Ask William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello there. You recently participated in a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the systematic removal of Media Matters for America as a reliable source. I've started an RfC regarding MMfA, MRC, FAIR, Newsbusters etc. Please participate on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 12:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I accidentally reverted your deletion of some info in the article. I was giving my revert second thoughts when I hit Save instead of Show. Can I revert my own stupid mistake or does it have to be done by someone else? I want to avoid the 3RR abyss. Susanne2009NYC ( talk) 21:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Your ten insertions in my shortish post have of course rendered that post unreadable. Would you like to rescue it by removing your wit? Bishonen | talk 15:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC).
P.S. Your WP:PA in the title of this section is objectionable. Please change it. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 17:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I started an ANI regarding SemDem. His comments on the talkpage and the Daily Kos comments are too close to dismiss. At the minimum he is working closely with the Daily Kos poster. Arzel ( talk) 15:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe not your intent, but I thought that was funny. =P Akerans ( talk) 18:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 12:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Jake, I take strong exception to your recent request for sources. It is absolutely and totally dilatory and counterproductive. A few days ago, when I posted sources, you replied " WP:V for the "criticism" is uncontested and irrelevant to the RfC." Now you are claiming those sources (split between news articles and editorials) either were not in evidence or from unreliable sources. Every one of them is a mainstream media source. I would request you consider your position and state it succinctly; I have little patience for moving goalposts. -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 01:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Back to your list of demands. You wrote "You offer Olbermann, Burns, Ed Schultz and Daschle as non-partisan sources?" What is it you're objecting to? I give you national commentators leveling their objections; if you're not rejecting these folks because you think they're biased, why? -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 07:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Something like (i) calling it a controversy in (ii) the context of a discussion of the impact on FOX News? That is sufficient? -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 20:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
This is in reference to the Linda McMahon articles.
Please take a moment to review the TPG guidelines. And please *don't* make spurious deletions William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have to say this, but we really need to discourage the kind of drama, battleground, and ruleslawyering which you added to the CC case (which had enough of those features already) with these inappropriate accusations of "ad hominems" and "personal attacks". If you file another frivolous action on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement, or again poke William M. Conolley with a stick, you will be banned from the Requests for enforcement page, or from interacting with or discussing WMC, whichever your behaviour makes more appropriate. Please edit constructively. Bishonen | talk 01:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC).
And WMC's numerous filing of far more frivolous complaints is, of course, ignored as usual? Fell Gleaming talk 01:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
JakeInJoisey ( talk) 05:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, I will keep an eye out for it. Most of the time, things like WP:NPA only weed out the most severe personal attacks. It is often wise to simply ignore personal attacks and address substance. Cheers, -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 17:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Back in May 2010, in this edit, you placed a {{ Multiple issues}} tag for perceived WP:DISPUTED and WP:NPOV problems. The tag is still in place, but I see no active discussion of these issues on the talk page of the article. If there is an active discussion, I'd appreciate a pointer to it. If there is no active discussion, please either open one or remove the tag. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I've closed this section. I would have thought that after I ended up blocking you for your antics at RSN last time you brought this up, you would've refrained from doing it again. I see you are unable to do that, and have wasted many editors' time having to point out to you yet again the huge weight of previous consensus on this issue. I would strongly suggest that you do not bring this issue up again at RS/N - I have no doubt other editors not familiar with the history may do so, but I think you have been shown enough times that this is an argument you are not going to "win". Black Kite (t) (c) 07:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I had to modify your last edit. As I explained on the talk page, the Slate article also calls it rebranding, and does not use as cautious language as Gallup. As a result, I kept the plural and added a citation, while otherwise restoring the original text, with the exception of those scare quotes, which I left out. Dylan Flaherty 06:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
This is something which may interest you. Lionel ( talk) 00:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Before I take this to 3RR, I will give you a chance to undo your own edit. You don't get to add material on a contentious article without consensus. Three editors have questioned your edit and made it clear they want the differences between polls inserted, yet you kept removing them. So until there is consensus wording, per
WP:BRD, you cannot keep adding the material.
Dave Dial (
talk) 05:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the courtesy notification. 24.177.120.138 ( talk) 00:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, all I did in making that edit was ... edit the page as I've been doing for the 8 years I've been editing Wikipedia, by clicking the "edit" tab and typing. Did not mean to erase your comment but I'm not sure what happened and how I could have been more careful. Shouldn't one of us have gotten an error message if there was an edit conflict? -- Jfruh ( talk) 18:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all your work at trying to get the RfC to list properly on the boards. I can't figure out why the RfC bot is having so much trouble listing it as it should. Drrll ( talk) 00:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
All I did was correct the grammar of the sentence, I did not add that line to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.234.97 ( talk) 01:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph you disputed in the Conspiracy theory article has been removed from the oarticle so further discussion on the Talk:Conspiracy theory page is pointless. I've therefore archived that discussion but feel free to start a new one if you feel it's necessary. -- Loremaster ( talk) 21:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Please note that every month is a new month, as a big picture. "Normal" users get a new chance every month, most of the time. Wikipedia assumes good faith. But every system operator handles it a lil bit different. -- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 09:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
That particular bit has been discussed to death. "Vulgar" is a well-cited word that people of all stripes and involvement feel is an acceptable designation for that word, including Dan Savage himself. Why is there is a fuss still? -- Avanu ( talk) 19:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in the McMahon page. I appreciate you reading the source, but there is much, much more to this. Please see an ongoing discussion here, and yes, you can join in to talk about it too. :->
[ [13]]-- Screwball23 talk 02:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, JakeInJoisey. Just letting you know that I listed this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Citations vs. attributions because you seem to be having the same issue that I am with interpretation of the guideline and you are likely to get more help there. The guideline obviously needs to be tweaked. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
for the note on my talk page. – Lionel ( talk) 23:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer, I deleted the material on the talk page, but do you really think it was that big a deal? Do you have some experience with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZHurlihee ( talk • contribs) 14:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Enjoy, I have looking over your contributions and think you deserve it. ZHurlihee ( talk) 20:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC) |
I saw your "Anatomy of an NPOV Disaster" and have to agree on what an utterly botched abortion that article is and kudos to you for documenting it in such a fine fashion. Fortunately, the nice thing about topics like this is they tend to be flash in the pan events. Topics like this tend to attract a great deal of attention and little to no follow up once the significance of their relevance, the 15 minutes of fame, are over. I say you have another crack at it, fewer people care about it now, as it has little significance to current events, and correcting the more blatant issues should be easy peasy japanesey. FWIW. ZHurlihee ( talk) 20:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the diffs, I got confused and thought it was the lead. BE——Critical__ Talk 04:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Care to weigh in? [14] ZHurlihee ( talk) 20:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Its clearly no consensus - why don't you close it yourself? Why do you think no admin has answered your request is from JakeInJoisey (talk) 4:27 am, 30 September 2011, Friday (15 days ago) (UTC+1) ? Why don't you ask at the WP:AN for someone to close it? Off2riorob ( talk) 00:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
On its face your comment (on my talk page) is reasonable, and a fair point. (And for what it is worth, I hve indeed been on the receiving end). But over the past few days I have seen people with fraid feelings keep escalating conflicts that only distract us from what I consider more serious issues that we would be able to manage better if we could put feelings aside. My intention was to stop another escalation, and not to challenge a person's right to feel whatever they feel.
We already have too much to fight over: should "not truth" stay in the first line or not ... and, do comments after Oct. 29 count or not ... and, is this a straight up/down vote, or is it a request for comments which editors must discuss once the RfC has closed, as they continue to work towards a consensues ... and, do we need a consensus to change the policy or just a majority? To me, these are the serious issues, and again, I am just wary of inflaming any other conflicts. I am concerned it will difuse attention from the major issues into multiple smaller side issues. I am also concerned that it will encourage people to personalize the arguments rather than settle them with policy.
So I won't tell you how to feel, or how to act on you feelings and I do not think I would have made that comment had you replied to BB rather than a third party. 'Nuf said. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.
I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard ( talk) 03:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
See MOS:SERIAL. Happy editing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I thought I would register continuing interest in the subject, rather than ignoring the proposal completely. I cannot understand why anyone would want to push for a change for 14 months without reviewing whether it was still valid. The outcome that 3 uninvolved Admins would simply dive for cover under a no consensus decision was inevitable and it will take far better organisation than is being demonstrated to get this beyond the drawing board. I just don't see the fundamental problem having been clearly set out. All the Best. Leaky Caldron 14:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Kindly be more rigorous in reverting. There was no malice only clarification intended in my edit. Retaliation is unwarranted, and slipshod editing is unwelcome. 70.15.11.44 ( talk) 13:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Respectfully, I have already modified that comment, to give it context. Please see if the new version is acceptable. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 21:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. Be——Critical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
That's three reverts by you today on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism. In case you had lost count. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 23:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, the way I check if I am logged on is to change the colour of the edit box to a pale apricot colour in my style sheet. Then if I edit anonymously it comes out white and looks peculiar.
I use this
textarea { width: 100%; padding: .1em; background: #fff0d0; }
in vector.css and monobook.css subpage. You can set this up yourself or ask me to do it for you. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 20:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I will be offline for a few days and thought I would let you know since you trying to fix the RfC problem. Best of luck trying to get it to work. Arzel ( talk) 04:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
L Faraone 03:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be——Critical 22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
You wrote, WP:BAIT - 3RR: Don't take it. A resolution to the clear violation of WP:YESPOV in the Swiftboating article resides in this RfC. What the article currently contains or does not contain is irrelevant and will ultimately be predicated upon the interpretation and application of WP:POLICY. Utilizing the ongoing process for that determination is the way forward, not ad hoc edit-warring or tit-for-tat goaded ventures into ad hominem. Just my .02 JakeInJoisey ( talk) 13:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
User:JakeInJoisey/John_Kerry_VVAW_controversy -- Xavexgoem ( talk) 05:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 05:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, maybe there is no place for humor when it comes to santorum on wikipedia. Fair enough.-- Milowent • has spoken 19:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Given how widely we are separated in ideologies and opinions about the nature of objective reality, I am amused (and touched) to see you agreeing with my opinion on at least one aspect of this discussion. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear JakeInJoisey: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.
The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.
If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot ( talk) 15:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Just FYI - you warned an IP for vandalism [15] but it appears that person was actually reverting someone else's vandalism. [16] Kelly hi! 21:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Could you show the source for this on the article's talk page - can't find it in the talk archives. Thanks [ [17]] 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 01:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on
User:JakeInJoisey/John Kerry VVAW controversy requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a
repost of material that was previously deleted following a
deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit
the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use
deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you.
Bearian (
talk) 16:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
@MfD now Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Took care of it. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Do you know if material on Ancestry.com is generated by paid employees? I ask, because you were previously involved in a discussion about Ancestry.com on RSN, in which you said that there was considerable editorial oversight over the material there, but did not elaborate on how you knew this when another editor asked you. If you can elaborate on this, could you join a discussion here to offer your opinion? A user is saying that some of the material on that site is not from users, but paid employees, and WP:BLPPRIMARY is also an issue. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 09:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
please add {{ userdraft}} to John Kerry VVAW Controversy NE Ent 01:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
User talk:JakeInJoisey/Anatomy of an NPOV Disaster - Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:JakeInJoisey/Anatomy of an NPOV Disaster - Swift Vets and POWs for Truth and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:JakeInJoisey/Anatomy of an NPOV Disaster - Swift Vets and POWs for Truth during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Time to invoke BLPSE?. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry to inform you, but the discussion at WP:ANI has shown that there is consensus for a topic ban of yours. From now on, you are indefinitely prohibited from editing pages concerning John Kerry, broadly construed, which includes related topics such as swiftboating and discussions about John Kerry anywhere on Wikipedia. De728631 ( talk) 17:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Jake. For several years I've lurked the Talk pages of many political articles you frequent as an editor. Quality writing is nothing if not the expression of quality thought. When folks struggle to express something, it's usually because the underlying thought remains inchoate. As an English enthusiast, I can no longer resist offering you the following suggestions as sort of a stylistic anti-diarrheal for your writing:
Let’s apply these principles to some examples from your talk page:
68.98.133.194 ( talk) 01:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Another doozy I can't help but untangle (then I'm done):
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) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (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) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)