I had to edit your user page. Stop being a modest bum and at least include a line about your creation in your User Page. I mean, it's something that deserves recognition! Infested-jerk 23:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... If the other appearance wasn't noteworthy, than this one certainly won't be. Unless Nexus War somehow gets a full article in a gaming magazine somewhere in the next two weeks, I don't think the article can be saved at all. I may just have to save the current content and re-install it when the game receives more coverage. -- Kirby1024 15:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The basic information is at WP:LOGOS. Most people are unwilling to license the use of their logo under GFDL, although I am not sure of the exact interaction with trademark law. The use therefore must qualify as Fair Use by our standards, which requires the formulas given at that page to be followed exactly (and the use of a low resolution image). You cannot give permission for use in Wikipedia alone--it's meaningless, because our content is as a whole licensed under GFDL and anyone can copy it. If this isn't enough information, the best way to deal with difficulties is to simply go to the talk page for WP:Copyright and ask. All the experts and would-be experts hang out there. DGG ( talk) 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jorm, re: this, thanks for the information. I find this very interesting, so instead of filling up the article talk page, I thought I'd come by here. I'm just turning this over in my head and have several questions. What is going to be done with the information received from this tool? Is there a list somewhere that shows all the articles that are using the tool, with their current ratings? I can see several possibilities with this. If this were rolled out throughout Wikipedia, we could have a list of "highest rated articles". Sort of like a Featured Article from the Reader's point of view. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Featured Articles, but the process in it's current form relies on what editors think of the writing, following all the Manual of Styles and quality of sources and such. There are a lot of hoops to jump through to get an article featured and perhaps what our editors think makes "Wikipedia's best articles" is completely different than what our readers believe makes the best articles. What are your views on this? Tex ( talk) 14:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I've built some Wiktionary scripts recently for improving the usability and editability of the English Wiktionary (which will hopefully be enabled by default at some point), switching the layout to a "tabbed" interface with each language section being placed in a separate tab, and adding expanding side boxes with editing options next to definitions. (Enable-able here, source here and here (alternative version of the second script here)). Maybe you could take a look at the scripts and give some suggestions about how they could be improved? Since no one in the Wiktionary community (afaik) knows much about usability, tools designed entirely with the input of Wiktionary regulars will probably end up not very usable for newbies, so it would be really great if as much of the designing as possible was actually put in by a real designer... -- Yair rand ( talk) 00:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I have entered some derisive discussion about the AFT tool (it's true I hate it), and seeing as you have also worked on WikiLove (it's true I love it), I feel compelled to give you a cheeseburger. This cheeseburger lasts indefinitely and can be consumed at anytime. If you are a vegetarian, I will gladly eat this for you. TimL ( talk) 08:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC) |
Shalom, in case you do not see it over there. Ciao Catfisheye ( talk) 16:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
For being a fantastic driving force behind our efforts to recruit, teach, and keep new editors, and being willing to hit the occasional oldie with a (nerf!) brick if they're biting too hard, I hereby award you this barnstar. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 20:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
I left a note for you on your WMF userpage. -- Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jorm
this is
Nipas (aged 49) from
Monza (
Milan,
Italy). Please, I need your help to solve this pdf print problem:
2 or 3 column aligned on pdf prints. None had been able to solve the following problem: output pdf prints containing fixtures' tables for soccer championships (older ones in this
sandbox) (new ones in my
new fixtures' tables) are always displayed on 1 single column despite normal (2 or 3 horizontally aligned) on printers' outputs. New tables had been a successful resolution of main problem (3 columns calendars are wider than the normal
A4 paper sheet so that larger team's names are devided into two lines) but when I saw other users linking several championships in a single book I noticed prints were impossible by a saved pdf file because a 15 days calendar was printed on 6 pages (5x3 + 1 = 3 days per page). Is there a way for fixing it or I have to change the first line instructions of each table ?. Even a third part help will be very much appreciated. Thanks a lot in advance, Nick.
Nipas (
talk) 22:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2.33.168.157 (
talk)
I was at your user talk page, and the banner with your letter came up at the same time! :)
File:Sametimesameperson.png
Eta
-
theta 00:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Before being repeatedly eaten alive by you in UD I think I sold you my soul, and used to follow your journal on gaijin when I was a kid.(BTW your fucking old) Anyway thanks for replacing Jimbo's creepy dead-eyed staredown banner, all the best. 174.52.155.125 ( talk) 00:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
|
The Surreal Barnstar | |
For attracting so much attention to the fundraising campaign that we've been slashdotted. PhnomPencil talk contribs 10:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC) |
Bringing so many people to a website's fundraising page that it collapses under the weight? If that's not deserving of a barnstar, nothing is. PhnomPencil talk contribs 10:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jorm,
You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.
Thank you.
Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon! Who should come? You should. Really. | |
---|---|
We look forward to seeing you there! |
Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah ( talk) 16:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey Jarm. As you probably know, lots of people are distressed by the images on the Muhammad article. In the upcoming RFC, we propose allowing a functional hatnote that, upon clicking, would hide all images on the page.
There's a very basic script I wrote to do this, User:HectorMoffet/OfferToHideImages.js which works okay for me, but reportedly isn't working for the one other person who tried it out. I've created demo screenshots, but it's not like the real thing.
1-- is there a 'simple fix' that would allow most RFC responders to be able it out for themselves?
2-- more broadly, can you just reassure us at the RFC that this functionality IS feasible and that it could be easily implemented if a consensus for it forms? -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 04:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xhGoS-_ltU&feature=related Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.159.177 ( talk) 18:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. -- Sarah ( talk) 21:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
You are... WPPBH (WikiPedia Programmer Brandon Harris)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AndrewN talk 08:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks for your comments on IRC. Sorry if I seemed ungrateful. I'm not at my best at the end of a long day when I'm still dealing with problems. I appreciate that you were being helpful. Pine ✉ 20:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC) |
Hi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!
Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah ( talk) 16:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. SarahStierch ( talk) 08:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot ( talk) 00:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Ironholds said that you might want to see this photo. The FPC nomination just finished. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Endeavour_silhouette Pine ✉ 07:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
When you hover above a page title a tooltip should appear with the message: "Click here to rename the page". If you click it the title should turn into a textbox, so you can enter whatever text you want to enter, press enter or click on "Rename" and the page is renamed. To confirm you see the "postedit" confirmation message with the text "Page renamed".
Another option is to display a new combobox (for the namespace) and textbox (for the pagetitle) at the top the &action=edit pages if the user has permission to rename the page.
A checkbox with the option to move the associated talkpage as well is probably a good idea. They ( talk) 23:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
It's a good talkpage. Demonstrative, simple, straight-forward... this should do nicely. -— Isarra ༆ 19:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:
Thanks again! Ocaasi 02:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
great coding Jared Zimmerman ( talk) 21:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC) |
WP:FLOW and File:Wikimania - 2012 - Athena Project.pdf. This is clearly an attempt to turn wiki into another Facebook. If I wanted to play on Facebook I'd go get a Facebook account. This will go over even worse than Visual Editor; it's got disaster written all over it. PumpkinSky talk 20:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Think outside in. Please consider how things work in the "real world" rather than making iterative changes on the current Wiki model. There are a lot of screwy things on Wiki (people editing each other's talk, no avatars, ability of anyone to edit a user's wall, etc.) Every other site (linked in, forums, facebook, diet sites, etc.) has the opposite. And that is BS to act like we're all serious and not social.
Making changes to the Wiki layout and code and such is really the one "lever" that the WMF can use for making change. You can't reorganize the moderation structure, change article formats, even the damned MOS. But you have control over the software. Think of the new users and be open to the huge real world.
Also think of the functionality. Why should a user page or a talk page have the same structure as a collaboratively edited article?
Or look at how poorly talk pages are used for reader feedback (they work OK for article development by hard core users...but some ability to chat back and forth with the real "customers" is not really there. For some reason, no one clicks on there...they just don't. Maybe if you had another window (old "article talk" became "article construction talk" and have a new one for "reader feedback" (and make it easy to edit, like a forum). Yeah, there would be some overlap, but right now...there's just NOTHING. Maybe getting direct feedback and discussion with real readers (not been here since 2004 regulars) would make people who write articles feel more energized, or affect how they write to improve it (e.g. cleaning up the mess of math project people), or even by engagement...leading to some readers (hopefully the better ones) deciding to get involved. But this para is just idle ideas.
TCO ( talk) 19:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
P.s. It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Just change stuff and act apologetic when the regulars scream. (Yeah, be open to real usability issues and learning from bugs and all that. But some of the static is just the same crap you hear whenever someone changes the background color on a message board. Risker crying about the edit button moving without consultation was a hoot). Oh...and I'm trolling, but I mean it too.
Another test, yo.-- Jorm (WMF) ( talk) 22:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Jorm, please do not keep undoing these changes. I find your censorship politically motivated and against Wikipedia rules. If you disagree with the changes,, follow Wikipedia rules and open a discussion. If I am wrong and am violating Wikipedia rules, let me know, but here is nothing defamatory in the statements I added. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerappelle ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I do know that Assange is not a US citizen, please stop the harassment(or the sarcasm). Maybe it is you who needs to get the facts straight, and stop the politically motivated censorship. A US dissident means a dissident from the US governemnt. Please point out the citations on the other dissdents, and I will provide many similar citations on the people added. Three different, unrelated users have made those chnages (I am the third one and do not know the other two). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerappelle ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I opened a request to look over this issue, since I strongly believe it is about censorship, not Wikipedia policies. This is the Wikipedia page where i put my complaint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Jorm Jerappelle ( talk) 15:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Jerappelle ( talk · contribs) opened an ANI thread about you, evidently without notifying you. I'm doing so here. CtP ( t • c) 15:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
ANI thread Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding abuse, censorship. Thank you. — Jerappelle ( talk) 16:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Page curation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you think it's premature to semiprotect SantaCon? The IP user has returned. His/her last edit was vandalism, though I marked the revert as "good faith." I expect this is not over. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Filed an administrator complaint that Coretheapple has violated these rules: 3 reverts in 24 hours, citing non neutral sources, vandalism by deleting neutral content, rewriting the entire article as slanted negative commentary based on opinions. Coretheapple repeatedly deleted charity section and referecnes to santacons outside of new york city. Jorm reverted the article to the staus stated above which violated numerous terms of service of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C07A:25C0:CC23:3F82:60AC:138D ( talk) 00:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Best wishes | |
for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC) |
<--- here it is | |
for you
EdSaperia ( talk) 16:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
Dynamic speaker | |
Had me in tears of laughter at Wikimania, which is a good thing! NoPolyMath ( talk) 12:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC) |
Hello there. We met at Wikimania 2012 and I just saw you said you left WMF on that talk page. I hope you have a good transition. When you get a chance, maybe you could comment about when Wikipedia might get a quasi-permanent facelift (if ever). I've been hoping that Wikipedia would get a facelift like mw:Athena at some point soon. I remember seeing an article in the mainstream press that demonstrated a very professional looking design that reminded me of Athena. Best wishes with your new direction. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Jorm: You have vandalized the Santacon page. This is a warning that you've been reported to Wikipedia moderators. Please refrain from vandalism and non neutral edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C07A:25C0:958:FF54:A330:3A5F ( talk)
Dumb and dumber think alike. Jimmy Wale's lapdog, hipster long haired, scowling poster boy Jorm graces an ad begging for money to keep Wikipedia afloat. Its hardly public TV or radio. Jorm, NeilN and a tiny group of thought police moderators censor Wikipedia article content with impunity. Its not what you write, its who you know that determines if an edit is immediately censored. Moderators are free to totally ignore every Wikipedia rule. Independent thinkers, editors and dissenters to Wikipedia's cult like sheep thinking are banned and blocked. Wikipedia and its moderators/administrators have zero integrity, reliability, accuracy or respect. The moderator censors are a joke.
It was hatted, then unhatted. This argument just then became dumb. Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 22:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
We've got trouble. With a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for Pool! Hipocrite ( talk) 20:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
An arbitration enforcement request has been filed about you here. Galestar ( talk) 22:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Why have you accused me of vandalism for inserting a bit of information along with the citation? Jrmypatt ( talk) 07:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Eric_M._Esquivel
this writer's page was written by his girlfriend, please mark it for deletion as well. It is less notable than Ulises Farinas — Preceding unsigned comment added by UlisesFarinasGirlfriendofCartoonist ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jorm - thank you for reaching out! Could you please give me feedback on the parts that seem promotional? I will edit myself but any better criticism/insight would be great. Thanks! Drakeballew ( talk) 22:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You said that my article is inappropriate. I ask you: why? I will bring it back for variety of reasons, the first is that you didn't say why you want it to be deleted. Krull The Eternal ( talk) 00:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Something Rotten! , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion on Talk:Something Rotten! about merging it with Something Rotten! (musical) has since been finished. I'm unsure on how to add the archive tags on it so if possible, could you do it? --☣ Anar chyte☣ 07:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
You may find this useful. I figured he may delete his harassing post after the heat got turned on at ANI and had that site archive the page. 208.76.111.246 ( talk) 01:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.You don't edit the Gamergate controversy article much but I heard you felt left out so here is your notice! Liz Read! Talk! 18:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Jorm, my apologies for being snippy with you at AE. Obviously we have different views on what should happen with that particular request, but I'm confident that we both want a resolution that is best for the encyclopedia. I'll be striking a portion of my comment shortly. Sorry again, and I hope to be a better model of collegiality next time our paths cross. -Starke Hathaway ( talk) 17:17, 30 June 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) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Jorm,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Someone saying "Wikipedia has an official opinion on Gamergate: hatemovement" complete with mocking tells me a few things. 1- the treatment of Gamergate is clearly biased and uneven. 2- the person who made an edit to my account after you is the one who needs to be blocked. 3- the current rules around Gamergate make insigtful and balanced edits to the article almost impossible. The net result of all of this is an article that is biased and incorrect and repeats a one sided coverage of the whole issue. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jorm, I happened to see your Undo of this edit where you caution the editor not to removed sourced information. However, it looks like the information was not actually sourced, and in fact had a Citation Needed tag. I'm not going to revert at this time, but BLP pretty clearly states that unsourced information that is challenged (which is was, by the editor you Undid) or likely to be challenged should be removed until consensus to include is reached. Perhaps you have a different perspective? The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
But yeah, that admin probably should not be acting as an admin on that page. Sigh. [2] Artw ( talk) 23:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Artw ( talk) 22:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Rhoark has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{ subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{ subst:Kittynap}}
I appreciate your concern that the GG article not exacerbate harm; no one's trying to do that. Keep your cool and we can reach a revision that satisfies everyone.
Hello, I'm using a mobile device and I would like to use the Athena skin. Is it possible ? Thank you. — Sincerely Issimo 15 12:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Jorm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Jorm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
You are partially correct about "Software Engineer" ... There are various fields of study to lead there. Journalism and political science are not those. And a person cannot just say they are a software engineer with nothing to back it up other than a tweet about taking computer science classes at age 13 and "It's true!" ... Quite frankly, that's absurd. -- SVTCobra ( talk) 22:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, -- SVTCobra ( talk) 23:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-11-26/Op-ed. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Unbeknownst
to you, discretionary sanctions were lifted per
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Amendments. Somehow, it was a quiet news; search it at
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. --
George Ho (
talk) 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
My fault. I apologize for ignoring the DS notice. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Declining something is not the same as not doing something -- Distelfinck ( talk) 17:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
− Please refrain from making personal attacks as you did at the Gamergate Controversy article. Comment on content, not contributors. +
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.33.194.74 ( talk) 05:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
INFOWARS DOT COM — Preceding unsigned comment added by H. Abedin ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry - What's not neutral about this edit? Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 03:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey buddy, why did you delete the new section I made, on top of making an arrangement so that no ones can see it in its history? Filmman3000 ( talk) 06:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
This edit pretty much proves my point, thanks.— Chowbok ☠ 06:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Chowbok ☠ 06:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC) |
Hello Jorm. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as
patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the
New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at
New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various
deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at
page reviewer talk.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Jorm,
You are correct to point out I've made too many edits on this page today; I hope you can forgive a newb to Wikipedia editing.
As far as I can tell what I originally edited on this page was legit -- I cited existing information already present further below on the same page to justify my edit. As I understand, when you are deleting information on this page you are supposed to cite your reason for this. I didn't see you do this so I have nothing constructive to work with in the editing process.
Tomorrow once I can edit this page again I'm happy to take your editing justifications into consideration and add more detailed analysis and facts from the public record. Joeparsec ( talk) 19:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
This is typical of the crap that you simply must stop writing. It isn't helpful, it subliminally enforces your obvious POV, and it is incredibly irritating, as plenty of other people have already told you. Why not go write some stuff outside the general Gamergate topic area for a while and reacquaint yourself with the wider workings of Wikipedia? It isn't as if you made a good job of it while you were actually working for the WMF but now that you are unshackled from the happy-clappy crowd there is no need to persist in it. - Sitush ( talk) 23:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, you were quite right to make this edit to the article, but leaving an edit summary which just reads 'no' , makes it confusing to see what you've done when it appears on a watch list. I know it can be tempting to leave a tongue in cheek summary, (as I'm probably guilty of also), but I'm going to try to remember that the summaries are for all the editors involved in contributing to that page, and not a comment to the person who made the edit.
Your recent editing history at Patriot Prayer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Darkness Shines ( talk) 05:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Do your worst buddy.... I see you are some sort of director with wiki Delete my account..... There are no pages to save..... But don't threaten me either intellectually for embarrassment or physically..... Your courage tattoo does not impress me.
Is on a 1RR restriction, self revert Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jorm reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: ). Thank you. Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Again, you break the restriction on the page, you last reverted about 9 hours ago, self revert. Darkness Shines ( talk) 03:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Jorm. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Tornado chaser. I noticed that you made a comment here [3] that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tornado chaser ( talk) 16:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy Holidays | |
Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
Hi Jorm. No fancy template, but just wishing you happy holidays and all the best for 2018. BTW, the solid bronze barnstar you gave me in London is on the top of our Xmas tree! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jorm reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: ). Thank you. Darkness Shines ( talk) 02:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised to find that you readded a source that clearly doesn't support the text. Saying that it is "consensus" doesn't make it right. Disappointing. FloridaArmy ( talk) 02:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans // 05:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Jorm ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
How does this even make sense? At the end of the sequence, the result was the same as if I had just reverted the one edit I wanted to. This is a bad block, and Darkness Shines escalated immediately to the Edit Warring mode rather than talk to me or assume good faith. Jorm ( talk) 05:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Thank you for a very clear and logical explanation of your edits, Jorm. I encourage Coffee to reconsider the block. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, and I know that editing Sarkeesian's article and other GamerGate stuff can be frustrating because of the high number of trolls and vandals and SPAs and whatnot that they attract, but comments like "Go away, little troll." are really unhelpful. They're not going to deter a legit troll, but they might just turn away a good faith editor. I'm sure you're familiar with CIVIL and AGF, so I'm not going to link them. But I don't think it's too hard to fight trolls while also staying in policy. Cheers, -- irn ( talk) 15:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Just left a comment on her talk page. Would like to hear from you over there. Film Atom ( talk) 23:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Texas_Light_Foot_Militia <---- Can this page be deleted due to inclusion of inaccurate and false information? (I am the regiment commander and founder of the TLFM.) Ericrahnh ( talk) 05:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)ericrahnh
I indeed looked up "miniscule" and "minuscule" in a number of references before embarking on making changes to articles.
There are in fact articles in Wikipedia that address the spelling. I'm confident that, as merriam-webster.com asserts, "The adjective minuscule is etymologically related to minus, but associations with mini- have produced the spelling variant miniscule. This variant dates to the end of the 19th century, and it now occurs commonly in published writing, but it continues to be widely regarded as an error."
Despite its age, I view this spelling as an error, and I believe it is still widely regarded as an error. Since Wikipedia is so frequently quoted in print, I felt it was an improvement to the body of content to remove instances of a spelling that is widely regarded as an error.
I checked each article I modified, and in fact added /sic/ as a clarification on those instances where a review or source material showed that it was accurately quoted.
However, since you are concerned enough to reverse these edits, I will correct other errors that are less prone to debate.
Trvth ( talk) 22:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
When editors make non-vandal or seemingly constructive edits, I believe they deserve the decency of having a reason given for reversion, rather than single word interjections such as "no". For example here you deleted The Times as a source. And here you inserted a highly questionable claim into the article without as much as an edit summary. 92.13.136.69 ( talk) 02:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Please undo your reverts at Involuntary celibacy. You are way beyond 3RR. -- 2600:8800:1300:16E:6882:46D1:1667:450A ( talk) 21:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Care to address the issues raised or just blindly reverting based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT [6]? Miacek (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
And you have no reason to delete my attempt to correct an article which is clearly biased. Delete it again and I’ll find the appropriate moderators to resolve this. TheTBirdusThoracis ( talk) 19:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
While I believe Chloe Dykstra’s account, we can not write as if the story is true until reliable sources say it is true. Please read WP:PUBLICFIGURE where it specifically addresses the requirement to use wording like “Allegedly”. Samboy ( talk) 16:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
"In total, forty-five people have been killed in five events since 2014 by people who may be considered incels."
You reverted my edit, in which I removed this vague unexplained calculation from the Incel article.. I was under the impression that unreferenced bits of information should not be included in Wikipedia. Can you point me to the rule that says otherwise? Amin (Talk) 23:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I have requested additional attention @ WP:ANI due to your recent edit here. -- Sleyece ( talk) 23:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Friendly notice that you are implicitly using your credentials here to avoid communication, bully people around, and edit war without going to the talk page. Willwill0415 ( talk) 17:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I can't edit the actual article; I'm not above the blue lock yet. So, do you mean that I should stop asking questions about it in the talk page? IMO that's a little bit backwards but I'll heed your warning. Thanks for telling me about it. -- Linkfan321 ( talk) 00:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Having never interacted with you, I am at a loss to understand how you reached this conclusion [7]. Do you really think that AfDimg a game using taunting language, because an editor uses it in discussion, is civil behaviour? I don't understand how you could form the impression you did by looking at actual diffs. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Can you explain why my citation needed tag was removed from the Controversial Reddit communities page? A citation was needed there. Do you disagree with that sentiment? If you fail to provide a reason by 01:15 I will have to restore the citation needed tag. RussianAfroMan ( talk) 00:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jorm. Regarding the dispute: I am assuming that you're unfamiliar with the standards required of biographical information: that high-quality sources are required, that content must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies, that poorly sourced or otherwise contentious material should be removed from an article while it is under dispute, and that the burden of proof rests on those seeking inclusion. Also, you must have overlooked the discussion I started on the article talk page. Please join the discussion. Thanks. -- Ronz ( talk) 05:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey Jorm. I might be new to this but I'm pretty sure Joey is now divorced (willing to find out more later)and that without proper citation on Haley Gibson it is very easy to confuse the two with Haley Adams who is frequently seen with Mr.Gibson at his rallies. -- Moredps ( talk) 03:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Moredps
I think at the very minimum you should put a citation needed on that part of the page, given that again those are two different people, nobody knows who Haley Gibson is because she is not a public person, Haley Adams is more renown in the public eye especially given her recent launch of the #himtoo movement,If you think it would be more appropriate to put this kind of page in the patriot prayer section of the wiki or the proud boys section I'm willing to do that. (there are at least 2-3 prominent and public figures in patriot prayer that have not been written yet) -- Moredps ( talk) 00:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I think you found the case soon after I made it myself, but here is a link to it, i need to link it for a diff for the case, thanks! Willwill0415 ( talk) 17:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jorm, the recent arbitration case request has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
grievance? Aspersions against editors? What are you even talking about? 93.36.191.161 ( talk) 15:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
On September 29th, 2018, I removed a section of this page. My reasoning was that the sources listed were politically motivated and biased in themselves. These types of sources should not be allowed, especially when listing "controversial" items. The sole reason the section I removed was listed is purely a political reason; otherwise other Subreddits would be listed for identical reasons. -- Derbyt ( talk) 20:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jorm,
are you reading your emails? I have written you twice in the last couple days, with no response!
--
Distelfinck (
talk) 11:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Jorm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Ridiceo ( talk) 23:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I have removed material from Gab that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.
Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written pursuant to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges. D.Creish ( talk) 22:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 22:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år! |
What about that?
I'd rather not. People started harassing me there last time.
The aftermath section is way longer than anything else in Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.
Jorm, happy New Year! Make brave edits, and every day in 2019 is a good day accomplish so! Cheers. Tsumikiria ( T/ C) 00:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
i know how to do a signature now AndInFirstPlace 02:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC) in the future, though, please be mindful of WP:BITE — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace ( talk • contribs) 02:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
subst:
An3-notice}}
I've started a (very) brief description of Flow's early days at mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Discussion tools in the past. I'd be happy if you or User:Isarra or anyone else involved in its inception could tell me what I got wrong. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 17:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I still love the project. I honestly feel that it could have become something great, and I'd work on it again in a heartbeat. Sadly, I do not believe that the WMF has the sand to actually do anything to improve the projects at all, ever, so we are where we are.
Hope this helps. I can talk/rant in much greater depth if you want, but I cannot guarantee that everything I have to say makes the WMF look good.-- Jorm ( talk) 18:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I still haven't gotten that page updated yet, but now I have a new question. It works like this:
So my question for you: How did they decide how many threads to load, before I get the click-here-to-load-some-more button? Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 20:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm reading some comments about communication tools, and I thought that this one might interest you:
Flow: lorsque l'on veut contacter d'autres contributeurs, c'est très rapide et c'est facile de répondre. Par contre dès qu'il y a plusieurs personnes qui interagissent, je n'arrive pas à voir au premier coup d'oeil quelle personne répond à une autre. L'autre soucis que j'ai avec Flow, c'est comme son nom l'indique qu'il est conçu pour afficher un flux de discussion, lorsqu'on cherche un ancien sujet en se disant "Ah, ça me rappelle quelque chose dont on avait parlé il y a quelques temps", c'est usant de scroller jusqu'à arriver à la discussion voulue. Pour résumer mon avis sur Flow, c'est un bon outil pour des questions/réponses, et on a besoin de ce genre d'outil pour certaines pages comme le forum des nouveaux et qui mériterait d'évoluer pour s'adapter aux cas d'usage de WP:Questions juridiques, WP:Atelier graphique, et d'autres ; mais pour des débats ou discussions il est contre-productif. (from Yodaspirine at frwiki)
You can add this to your collection of what people think the name means. :-D
Whatamidoing (WMF) (
talk) 19:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
All I have to confirm this is a screenshot of a conversation I had with Max this morning. His name is not John Maxwell Landis. I asked him to confirm, and he told me his name is not even Maxwell. Where or how do I submit this, rather than just having you sigh and revert the changes. I've never had an error like this in submitting a Wikipedia change in the past.
Seriously I used to work in website development and I'm looking at this "Gab Dissenter" feature and going there's only two ways this works: 1) the comments are ONLY visible to people who have installed the plugin (which is still super problematic but it's at least legal) or 2) A massive, grossly illegal, hacking scheme. I'd be willing to also consider 3) It's a total con-job and none of this will work outside their sandbox. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jorm, I'm trying unsuccessfully to update the Climax Blues Band website that reflects where they are today but the content keeps getting rejected.
As a comparison I looked at Eric Clapton's Wikipedia page: In August 2018, Clapton announced that he had recorded his twenty-fourth studio album, Happy Xmas, which consists of blues-tinged interpretations of Christmas songs, with the album released on 12 October.[123]
Eric Clapton also has a recent photo from May 2015 but again we seem to have a problem changing the photo from 1974 to 2019.
Please tell me what's wrong with the text and changing a photo that represents who the band are for the last 6 years? Rob Musicmatters2 ( talk) 17:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Before reverting a fellow editor, kindly open up a discussion to cordially discuss the merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estarski ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Please don’t just arbitrarily remove a npov check tag and proclaim”drive-bye” that is not wp:agf and my claim of not assuming good faith can be supported by no entry on the talk. Also the talk page is rather lengthy and there is a perception any edits whether cited and encyclopedic are being reverted or removed is they show the subjects military service as related to Vietnam claims in an unfavorable light. This article is a great candidate for npov at this juncture. Already has been talked at great length. Thanks! 0pen$0urce ( talk) 02:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Contentious tone. Please comment content. I don’t need permission from a small group of individuals to make edits. Where’s all this consensus? Where was consensus to remove my earlier edits? Just wow. Yeah we don’t want that POV tag, because may invite others into the discussion.-- 0pen$0urce ( talk) 03:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm 0pen$0urce. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. 0pen$0urce ( talk) 05:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi I got a strongly worded message because I asked why the incel article is so dehumanizing. If this doesn't stop I will report a hate crime (England & eu) . And we well see how long you keep your account and freedom.
Thanks :7) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mraids ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi I'm massageing you as I reserved a strongly worded message because I asked why the incel article is so dehumanizing. This will stop right new or my next action will be to report a hate crime under
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003
Thanks ;7) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mraids ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Saying that the talk page is not a forum begs the definition of a forum!!!
The purpose of my post was to state that the information on the page is improperly organized. In particular, prejudicial information appears in the part of the article most presented to readers, especially when the article is displayed out of line to the hit list by a search engine.
I called for the information from the SPLC to appear further into the article, under the heading "relations with other groups", and be removed from the initial paragraph.
How the heck can people discuss anything about the article's structure or contents, given your "not a forum" comment!!!
HiTechHiTouch (
talk) 19:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit to Controversial Reddit communities? Invalid OS ( talk) 19:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
MrClog ( talk) 16:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
How is an edit removing a false claim "Not constructive" ? MGTOW is NOT on the list of "hate groups" from SPLC https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map/by-ideology
He who controls information controls the masses
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk 01:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Know Me Movement. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. SharabSalam ( talk) 23:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Do not call editors Nazis like you also did here. wumbolo ^^^ 14:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I see you recently locked a discussion about Gab. My question is why does this article include a particularily inflammatory phrasing on the first line of it. You have locked the discussion with "If the OP wants to challenge the legitimacy of the New York Times, they can do so elsewhere," with no ability to respond. If you read the thread again, I hope you will notice this part, which is the summary of my complaint: "I'm not making a claim that they are not reliable; I'm saying that for extremely inflammatory claims to be put on the first line of an article, it should probably have more than one source, and if it for some reason absolutely must be there, we should probably not be using an organizations real or imagined enemies. This conversation can grow to be fairly long, but I suppose I would ask, why is the onus on me to prove why an inflammatory statement based on one source shouldn't be in the first line of an article about a website? Isn't that backwards?" As I now have no way to find the answer to this because you locked the discussion, I will bring the question to you, more clearly emphasized. Put clearly, even if the NYT is the most authoritative and trustworthy source in the galaxy, why does the article for Gab have a highly inflammatory clause about what it's been described as in the first line of it? Is there precedence for this? Can you show me a well-thought-of article which has a similar tone in the lead? I haven't found anything like this in the area I normally focus on - Chinese history. I did check Hitler's, which didn't. If this is normal I'd like to start adding this kind of stuff to leads. Thanks Diaozhadelaowai ( talk) 15:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
You have closed my discussion about word choice on the Gab article. The summary was that extremist is not a slur and that the discussion is ridiculous. I find this odd when Wikipedia itself clearly identifies extremist as a contentious word that is usually used as a prejorative. For reference, Wikipedia calls the word extremist a prejorative. The article for prejorative lists slur as synonym. Extremist is listed under WP:WORDS in the style guide. I don't believe the closure was justified. 2606:6000:6004:2C00:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 19:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
could you please let me know the reason of revert? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=David_Cornstein
What the reverted text has to do with Mr. Cornstein?
I am sorry, but I am fairly new to all this wiki stuff (long time listener first editor). I tried to explain in the edit's comment, what I thought is relevant and I even tried to include WP references to support my original edit, but the contributor just kept undo my work. 3 days later (today) s/he undone it again. Now you undone it too. Sure, I have comments on the talk page too, sorry I didn't know I should not contact you here.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/regime) Does it actually justify calling the Hungarian gvt: "Orban regime"? At any rate, what does it have to do with Mr. Cornstein?
Please let me know if WP become a "my way or a highway" org and no others can contribute just the few chosen, then I wont waste my time. I believe, I've only edited 1-2 articles, ever, so I can live without any further involvement in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.44.110 ( talk)
This was my response, and it was my 2nd. Decided account preservation was more important than telling the truth, so I'm dropping this here instead of in the Talk Page on Gab. The real response starts with "Even If". Even IF a person thinks they are accomplishing something by pushing the POV of the Article to one particular direction, it is having the exact opposite effect on the interested and aware Reader, as it confirms a very long list of continuously stated and openly discussed beliefs on places like Gab (and not Twitter, Facebook, etc...). We do this all day long and every day. What we don't do is structure our discussions to fit within the rules of Wikipedia, which I am aware exist for a long list of very good reasons. Not an anarchist, or a "down with the Establishment" revolutionary. There is a long history of "unintended consequences" as well as a long history of institutional blindness on the part of the ideologically possessed. "You're doing it wrong", is the meme. Once I realized this, the temptation was to actually GO with it, and from the strategic perspective help push the Article even further. Decided not to do that, for two reasons. One, I personally trust Wikipedia for the most part, and I would be pissing in my own well, and two I'd be pissing in everyone else's well. So, the result of that little "thought experiment" was to take solace in the fact that you're all doing it wrong, and it's having the unintended consequences of exemplifying exactly what we're not allowed to talk about, and make the decision to remain committed to the fundamental ideals and "pillars" of Wikipedia, to learn them, to exemplify them through my actions and maybe teach them to someone else. This is, with regard to Wikipedia, who I am. Whatever that standard is, whatever those standards are, I intend to exemplify and implement it, and there's little to nothing any detractors can do about it. It's safe. In the short term, it means being willing to back down, to lose, to perceive flagrant violations of Wikipedia Policy occurring on a regular basis, to remain grounded, not "fly off the handle", to be careful of what I choose to make mention of, and what I choose to ignore, to pay attention, to learn what knowledge is there, particularly that which is placed right in front of me, to remain as "collegial" and "professional" as possible and to remain focused on one of my core ideals, which is that Leadership is by Example. FWIW and IMO, you should constructively engage with me. You might discover there's a lot more "there" there than you even suspect. They made the 1st Amendment for a reason, and this is it.
Tym Whittier (
talk) 19:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Jorm, deleting another user's Talk page comment about the problems with an article violates WP:Talk_page_guidelines. Please review those guidelines.
Additionally, deleting all the "official websites" from the external links for an article about an organization is vandalism. Please do not do it again. NCdave ( talk) 07:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Jorm: Saying "Let me be very fucking clear with you" to Tym and saying "What a stupid thing to say, Wumbolo. Just asinine. You can go away, too" to Wumbolo are very clear violations of WP:CIVIL. Please be respectful towards other editors. X-Editor ( talk) 22:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I know the rules, this was constructive edit to bring the article in line with Wikipedia policies. Do not revert my changes or include un-sourced statements unless you get concensus. You cannot just add whatever you want to an article and tell ME to get consensus. You must get it before the unsourced inflammatory statements are added. Galestar ( talk) 22:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not very good at pinging people inline, find it doesn't work well so wanted to poke you here. I mentioned you on [10]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galestar ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
When are we doing our tussle in Golden Gate Park? Do you think your boss at the video poker place will make accommodations for this event? Cool story, bro-mate! ( talk) 15:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
It is considered rude to template regulars. Thought you should know, kid. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Men Going Their Own Way shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please review the text below that you deleted from Gab's "Talk" page, and provide some justification for your remarks that the below is a "conspiracy theory", when it's obvious that my point is that the assertion that the human quality of "hate" can be measured by counting certain words is a "conspiracy theory", which I explicitly state in the text below. You've made a regular practice of deleting my text in the "Talk" pages, with weak, little or no explanation and the only explanation I can come up with is that you are "tendatious" in your editing by trying to force the Article on Gab to reflect a single ideological perspective, or narrative. Further, your manner is abrasive, unnecessarily conflict oriented and you seem to put little to know effort in helping "newcomers". Nor do I see much effort on your part to actual improve the Article on Gab. Rather, you seem to function as an idealogical "gatekeeper" or "enforcer". I wish this were not the case. I have made several overtures to you in order that we may be "collegial" and work together on this Article, however you seem to prefer to remain heavy-handed with your tendency to suppress any kind of open conversation and unwilling to allow other viewpoints to be enunciated. But that's not the primary purpose of this note. It's just "background" in case there is some kind of Administrative review. My primary objection here is that asserting the existance of the "conspiracy theory" that "hate speech" can be measured by "hate words" is junk, pseudoscience, and rather than respond to this assertion directly, you've "mirrored" the accusation and turned it into a "conspiracy theory" in a thinly veiled effort to enforce an ideaological narrative. I'm willing to go to "ArComm" over this, so I advise caution in your response.
":::::I have a problem using that source for anything in the Article. First, where did the funding come from, and why the funding? For all we know, Twitter hired a bunch of international nobodies to do a "hit piece", which is supported by my second objection, which is the entire concept of "hate words" somehow magically contain an intrinsic quality of "hate" (junk science assertion #1), and that somehow, the number of hate words, or the ratio of hate words, or the comparison of the numbers and ratio of hate words can somehow be used as a reliable metric for this junk science pseudoterm "hate" (junk science assertion #2). As if you can boil-down human emotions to their basic molecules and separate them out and count them. Do we have "love words"? "Fear words"? "Angry words"? Who makes the determination of what words are "hate words" and what words are not? How do they arrive at this determination? Are there any double-blind studies? Can they replicate their results? Have they tested their theories on laboratory rats? What did they use as a control for their studies? Who would even pay for such a study, anyways? It almost certainly has a political and/or economic agenda, unless you believe there's an invisible magic money tree that just mysteriously grows cash to pay for such a (stupid) study for no particular reason. Has anyone ever studied rap music for it's "hate content". and compared the number of hate words in that musical form to, say for example, country music? Is rap more hateful than country music? How do either of those compare to Classical Music? What was Bach's "Hate Index", and should his music be censored for being "hateful"? They say the tritone is "the devil's interval". Maybe the next step is to start censoring music with too many tritones, as being "satanic". I can say a whole lot of really "hateful" things, and not use a single hate word, and so can everybody else. Further, with all the virulent "anti-conspiracy" watchdogs around this Article, this is absolutely the very definition of a conspiracy theory. Let's see some learned and academic research supporting the idea that measuring the "hate word content" gives any kind of meaningful information LONG before including this stupidity in an encyclopedia. Tym Whittier ( talk) 22:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)"
Tym Whittier ( talk) 20:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Autocorrect has become my worst enema. 😊 Atsme Talk 📧 00:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You're now up to 4 reverts in a day. ModerateMikayla555 ( talk)
Eventually, my assumption of good faith on behalf of Wikipedia-kind will pay off. Today is not that day. Cheers! Dumuzid ( talk) 03:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
Amazing work on Center for Immigration Studies Britishfinance ( talk) 09:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC) |
I am not an expert contributor by any means, but you are, and seem to be professional and reasonable, so I am wondering if you wouldn't mind giving me advice.
I posted a comment in the Proud Boys talk section regarding citations used to justify the term "neo-nazi" on the wiki page. The articles used to cite it, excluding the opinion pieces from politically charged sources, are being used incorrectly.
E.G. citation [11] a Washington Post article that claims the FBI considers the Proud Boys a hate group. This was later followed up on by the FBI and they confirmed the FBI does not consider the Proud Boys to be a hate group. The follow up article correcting the citation is left out and never corrected on Wikipedia. I started the talk section, to see if this could be corrected and I was going to follow up as per your instructions with the proper citations, but now I wonder if it's even worth it because because SummerPhD and a couple other contributors are more invested in leaving that label on there and silencing anyone who wishes to present opposing evidence.
My question is, should I even bother? Is the article currently hijacked to the point where anything conflicting with their political opinions rejected? It seems to me if I gave them an FBI report invalidating these claims they would be able to reject it by misusing Wikipedia Rules that were created for the exact opposite purpose.
I also want to add, I am not a member of, nor am I affiliated with the group in either way. I am just an avid reader of Wikipedia, and I hate to see all of these articles on politics turning into dumpster fires.
Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoohunglow ( talk • contribs) 12:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately the majority of RS do not refer to them as fascist or neo fascist (you may want to address the point on the neo fascist talk page about the word having little to no academic standing.) WP is supposed to
accurately represent the majority of RS opinion. Furthermore, the experts on labeling hate groups- SLPC and ADL whom frequently throw around the fascist label do not use it to the describe this group. The reason may have something to do with Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, and the proud boys being neither authoritarian or interested in dictatorial power. Not all right wing hate groups are fascist and unlike the other objectors or proponents-my proposal to use the SLPC description is a harsher way of describing them but unlike fascist is not factually inaccurate. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:46:C801:B1F0:B86B:1C9F:5778:9BFF (
talk) 22:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
and interestingly when punched into a search engine-
groups that are ideologically bent on the extermination of other groups,
first hit nazis
second hit islamists
third hit communists
It undermines your credibility when you dismiss expert RS material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:B86B:1C9F:5778:9BFF ( talk) 22:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Fresno State rescinds job offer after candidate lies about Black, Cuban heritage
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/education-lab/article245836520.html
Nice source bro
and Hosang says that they approach fascist, not that they are fascist.
Nice misquote bro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2461:5DFD:6A2C:87C5 ( talk) 09:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
While I don't condone Michael's actions in the last 24 hours, removing his picture from the article in retaliation is rather disruptive to the article itself and I'd suggest against doing it again. I've now reverted it (although I kept the other edit taking out the bladesmith claim intact since I'm not sure that's covered by any source). -- letcreate123 ( talk) 05:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jorm, I added a section to the talk page here. Please weigh in: /info/en/?search=Talk:Gab_(social_network)#Neutrality_issues
Thanks!
Alexgleason ( talk) 21:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jorm, can you please take another look at the talk page and address my comments? I wrongly assumed you were conceding the point since it has been 2 days since your last response.
I would also like to point out that we did not form consensus for the inclusion of this newly added line. Consensus works both ways and I am putting in an active and timely effort trying to form consensus with you. I ask you to please do the same for me.
I'm not advocating that we say Gab is a beautiful place with rainbows and flowers, just that we remove an excessive subjective statement by a third-party. It's just one sentence that I think is in excess. My goal here is to preserve the encyclopediatic tone which I think is not well served by the inclusion of that statement.
To give an example, imagine on the page for Coca-Cola we include a statement from Pepsi saying "Coca-Cola has been accused of murdering union organizers. Also, Pepsi is more flavorful and better in every way." The point has already been made with the first sentence, while the second sentence is a self-promotion.
I'm not trying to twist the article into conveying Gab falsely. We all know what Gab really is. I just do not think we should be shamelessly promoting a competing product on the page. It's not relevant to the point, and the point is strong without it.
Thanks! Alexgleason ( talk) 23:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
As a former WMF employee, are you sure it's appropriate for you to participate in high-stake community discussions declaring what a user can or cannot do with WMF actions? If you are sure, don't you think it would be better to add some kind of disclosure to that purpose? Nemo 10:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to apologize for my comment in Floq's RfA that I "for once" agreed with you. That was unnecessary to include. My only interaction with you that I can recall was to post a message on your talk page asking you not to be so dismissive of editors with different points of view, a comment with which you disagreed. I guess I wanted to indicate in the RfA that I agreed with you on the point you were making even though we were not like-minded editors. But, as I said, it was unnecessary to say and I did not intend it to be a slight of you. I hope you will accept my apology. Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Could you perhaps help me start finding concensus for a rewritten lede? I believe my attempt, if not good enough to pass outright, should be an OK starting point for the discussion. Are you inclined to agree or do you think my changed version is inherently flawed?
In any case, I'm really not sure what to do from this point as I'm rather clueless on how the process works. I'd appreciate your help!
P. S. I accidentally clicked on the "thanks" button for the undo. Just wanted to clarify it's not me being passive aggressive. HoboDyerProjection ( talk) 00:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
To be completely frank, you're giving me the impression that you have reverted my changes without actually taking a look at it.
Criticisms aside, thanks for the advice about finding concensus. I will do that soon. HoboDyerProjection ( talk)
I thought you were just some strange kinda spelling bee dude - didn't know you were famous! Not sure how I ended up on your UP, but I can easily visualize that tattooed arm holding the handle bars of a Harley. Oh, and I pinged you at a discussion at The SignPost as it is about a topic for which you appear to be well-versed. ~ Biker chic 13:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Does the no response mean you (1) don't have time, (2) are not interested, (3) my text is too small for you to see without special glasses, or (4) you forgot what this discussion was all about? Atsme Talk 📧 22:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
(also i refuse to archive my talk page as a protest for how talk pages are shitty technology)-- Jorm ( talk) 05:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I had simply removed one low-quality source - We still have many higher quality sources affirming the connection between Gab and the alt-right!!!! People keep restoring this poor study (and it's included redlink to an organization I never heard of) back into the page when we clearly have better studies already referenced on the page!!! I don't want to edit the article again since this would cause an war
Mfernflower ( talk) 16:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, you have supported my ban however would we be able to discuss your reasonings and both sides on here so we can see each other’s sides in a civil way thanks.
Wiki Facts fixer ( talk) 20:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Is "nah" really enough of a reason to revert something? MaximumIdeas ( talk) 22:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
And are you sure that "protest" encompasses violence? Would you put the same on a violent right-wing organization's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumIdeas ( talk • contribs)
Nice to meet you ~ | |
~ Thanks ~ Very nice to meet you ~ ~mitch~ ( talk) 01:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC) |
Eg [11]. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd missed the note on the talk page. -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
...had to self-revert. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jorm
Thank you for calling my attention.
I will be more careful moving forward.
LOBOSKYJOJO ( talk) 05:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I think of you from time to time. I hope that you're doing well. ↠Pine (✉) 05:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC) |
I am doing well! Or as well as one can be in our Times of Early Trials. My family and friends are mostly well; I am fairly at peace. I'm trying to do my part for the Mission still.-- Jorm ( talk) 05:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Nor did I even imply that, because the idea of murder is ridiculous. It probably was a suicide; all I said was that the Winnipeg Police haven't issued a ruling yet, which will no doubt be suicide based upon his sister's public comments.
Thank you. - Phone Charger ( talk) 23:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Just to say I will not be accepting any silencing or bullying from the likes of you on here. I removed bias from an article, I got a reversion from an obviously corrupt editor with an agenda (had male feminist in his about page, reverted an edit re that so should have been keeping his fingers off since it's clearly a subject he can't be impartial on) and now I see you polluting my talk page with your intimidation. you can go straight to hell, it doesn't matter how passive-aggressively you phrase it, I know cult-like behaviour, bullying and outright intimidation when I see it and I'm seeing it right now. I've been on here since the start, and I will not bow to anyone pushing an ideological agenda who has been climbing the greasy pole. Hideki ( talk) 15:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Jorm. I responded to your reply
here. I'm still not sure what is happening here. There's a chance I'll end up with egg on my face for not realizing something silly but at the moment I'm still stumped and I'm thinking it's not a problem on my end. The offending HTML appears to be a DIV inserted after the page footer, which is highly irregular. I'll tinker with it for a while by using another browser and update in the thread with whatever I learn.
Jason Quinn (
talk) 14:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
<div class="fbc-badge js-fbc-UID_1 fbc-badge-small fbc-badge-share fbc-badge-prompt-align-top" style="z-index: 202; left: -12px; top: -5px;"><div class="fbc-badge-fence"></div><div class="fbc-badge-tooltip">Facebook Container has disabled this button and blocked Facebook from tracking your visit to this page.</div><div class="fbc-badge-prompt"></div></div>
that it thinks is a tracker (this was the code I thought was suspicious but I now believe it is inserted by the plugin). I still don't know why the code is inserted by the plugin and the badge doens't seemed to be attached to any element so it ends up rendering in the upper left of the page. Maybe it's a bug in Facebook container itself. I'll let you know if it turns out to be more than that. Jason Quinn ( talk) 14:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
wikipedia made me write something here. -- FariedNawaz ( talk) 18:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC) |
Why did you blank Talk:List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019? Removing all active discussions at once seems excessive. Dimadick ( talk) 17:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Jorm, that link is dead--that whole thing seems to have folded. Not worth edit-warring over. Drmies ( talk) 17:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
How come you chose to engage Katfactz after their second unblock request? The threats made and behavior done were a clear indef block... I am just curious is all as I don't think anything good came out of it. In any case its over, I was just sorry to see the attempted outing. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Requesting block review: Katfactz". Thank you. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 00:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
We do not categorise list articles by all the issues dealt with in the list. Categorisation works on the defining features of the article. Please do not start an edit war. Discuss this in the talk page. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Who do you think you are? Alex Devens ( talk) 16:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jorm! All the warmest wishes for this seasonal occasion, whichever you celebrate - or don't, while I swelter at 27℃ (80.6℉), and peace and prosperity for 2020. Hoping that you'll join me for a cool beer in Bangkok in August when it will be even hotter! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC) |
I do not understand what you mean by citation, can you give an example of another article, I added the reference, who is the person who says this, to which organization he belongs, what else do you want. I put this into what this organization really thinks, that MGTOW is the male feminist is something almost irrelevant to them, mainly they criticize it for being a group of "most virgins going their own way", "repellent losers" that encourage to others to join them, that's what the Pick-up artist community does not talk of them of feminism separatism that practically doesn't mention it either on their websites or in their interviews. We are going to put what this community thinks of them in their respective section, and not change it just because some people do not like it-- BrugesFR ( talk) 18:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
After seeing this, I figured this would give you a chuckle. Maybe wenyan‑lang will become a blue link someday. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 20:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
For your invaluable help with WP:UPSD. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC) |
The Half Barnstar | |
For the excellent User:Headbomb/unreliable. Harrias talk 19:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC) |
A very minor note about this edit, which you may already know (if so, please ignore): technically it's a CSS selector rather than a regular expression. Good work on the script! isaacl ( talk) 00:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Who are you, or anyone, to lock down a site so that no one else can edit incorrect statements?
Just because you don't think Intelligent Design is science does not change the fact that it uses the same scientific processes that Darwinian Evolution does.
Correct it or open the page on Philip Johnson and any other like pages that have been secured in order for those of your belief cannot independently influence readers.
I thought Wikipedia was supposed to help people find truth, not agendas. Starvger ( talk) 22:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jorm, I opened an ANI at WP:ANI#User:Givingbacktosociety repeatedly opened the same discussions. Your comment there is welcome.―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 02:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I just thought i'd let you know that antifa is labelled as "left wing" on their own wikipedia page too. So it's not incorrect to use the label "left wing" in the Andy Ngo article. There is already a consensus that Antifa is a left wing group. I'll undo your revisions because you haven't given a reason as to why Antifa should not be labelled as "left wing" but to avoid this turning into an edit war, please let me know again if you're not seeing eye to eye with me and we can then discuss - Cement4802 ( talk) 03:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi ^_^, I didn't know it was not a reliable source, anyway, you could always explain yourself a little bit further on what is reliable and what is not. "Not a reliable source" is not that helpful and makes of Wikipedia a waste of time ^_^ Cheers. -- CoryGlee ( talk) 22:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this, no worries regarding the collateral damage. I don't see a BLP issue in the content you removed, though. VQuakr ( talk) 18:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi there Jorm. Hope you're doing well. I'm writing to you about your revert on my addition. I just wanted more information rather than just a "Nah." I came here because I didn't want a immature edit war. Your help will be appreciated. Thank you. Modern Major General I quote the fights historical 19:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I like the idea. I want to give it some time to see how it goes, but if it looks like it's going south, I would have some backup ideas to see if we can get consensus for something. One idea I had was to change the logo from white to black. Here's hoping we can get something larger and more impactful than that though. — Wug· a·po·des 06:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
She is his partner on his wiki. They're partners @ Wikidata. They are together since 2016. Why did you remove it?
The Building the Wikimythology Award | |
The Topic Ban Fairy (with a side order of NOTHERE) is a valuable addition to Wikipedia's mythology. SummerPhD v2.0 17:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
Hi Jorm, you just reinstated a lot of text that is sourced to an unpublished book, that I had reverted: [12]. You didn't leave an edit summary. Is there an explanation that I don't see? Per WP:PUBLISHED, it doesn't meet WP:V. I'm also concerned that this IP editor, 2A02:C7D:BB2:1C00:E161:529:F80D:F6C9/64 ( talk), may be engaging in promtion and WP:CITESPAM for the (upcoming in 2021) book, and some of the text appears to be copypasted, see their history. Let me know, thanks. -- IamNotU ( talk) 00:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Dear Jorm,
Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.
xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
(Redacted) Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, IMDb thinks Ocean's Thirteen is set on the 4th of July according to the keywords, so...
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Epa101 ( talk) 21:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
It is not permissible to engage in WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior [13] on Wikipedia, especially over socio-political viewpoints, and most especially over ones covered by discretionary sanctions, as is human sexuality and gender, broadly construed. Injecting such material into discussions which don't even relate to the matter you're going off about is especially ill-advised. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Can you explain to me why determining a template is placed incorrectly is "not a reason to remove the template"? [14] OrgoneBox ( talk) 19:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, could you help me understand why you felt it necessary to remove the recent comments on the Black Lives Matter talk page? I don't think they should have been removed, as I don't believe they violated any of the talk page guidelines - WP:TPO - and it's my understanding that talk page comments should not be removed unless they clearly violate one of those guidelines.
I understand that race is a heated topic, and I believe it's important to discuss these issues in a respectful, civil manner. In that light, I worry that your labeling of opposing arguments as "white supremacist" is unfair and unproductive. I hope maybe you'll reconsider and restore the previously deleted comments. Thanks Stonkaments ( talk) 01:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stonkaments ( talk) 03:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I’m just wondering what prompted you to put some sort of sanction on User Mikerrr. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 04:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I wasn’t sure, but I appreciate the warning. That user has been uncivil and not getting the point. I hope this stops now. Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 20:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 20:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Jorm, just to respond to your final comment, you call me "ill informed", yet you close your eyes and boast that you won't see the video. This is not a clip of someone talking for 60 min in a long winded manner, but actual 3 min video from the Church which was vandalized — you might not agree or care for that matter, but just so you are not "ill-informed" about the situation that's out there, or live in a bubble. -- E-960 ( talk) 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I think this was just a tweak to make the grammar consistent, not a change to the meaning. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The way that the article appears without the word some is inaccurate and misleading. It is written in such a way as to omit the information that the Center for Immigration Reform are also scholars. That there are some scholars that disagree with the CIS does not give authority to their opposition.
RichardBond ( talk) 19:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
[redact link to fascist website] read what the core values of the Proud Boys are Chrisburke123 ( talk) 20:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I, too, am a bit suspicious of DotWhateverWiki's edits, as well as those by IndieQueenPDX, which seem to be almost entirely related to Logan Lynn. I've asked about their identity on their user talk page, and considered going to WP:COIN. A lot of the LL-related articles are way too detailed and promotional. I invite you to take a look and/or trim promotional content as you see fit, if you're interested and willing. Happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
By the way, thanks for your work on the Proud Boys talk page. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Since you closed the discussion I can't very well add it there, but I came up with a different idea on how to search for a source on the subject. This looks a lot like what I saw. Anyway, when I looked more carefully I saw that they were discussing already whether to include such information.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I have created a category in the talk page for consensus on the far-right characterization: /info/en/?search=Talk:Three_Percenters#New_Consensus_Attempt_to_change_Three_Percenters_characterization_from_'far-right'_to_'anti-government'_in_lede TheEpicGhosty ( talk) 02:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
What I posted was on topic for the talk page and an attempt to help a fellow editor. If its wrong to express personal disappointment about a topic then it certainly isn't commonly enforced. I hope you understand this. Although looking at your history you seem to have an issue with professionalism and appear to create or at least thrive in wallowing among the very problems wikipedia supposedly is against so I am not too optimistic. Which is strange for someone who puts themselves forth as an enforcer of this site. Go ahead and censor if you wish. I barely edit anymore anyway.
@
Jorm:
In his edit summary
Nfitz asks a valid question: why are we closing this while still editing?
I only began reading
Talk:Proud Boys yesterday, but I already have the impression that
you are closing requests too quickly, and in some cases prematurely. Please restrain yourself in this regard and give other editors a chance to comment on answered requests.
NedFausa (
talk) 16:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Lol cool story courageous warrior. -- Renegade78 ( talk) 22:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
As a Briton, I had no idea what a Harvard SAT score would be and had to read the entirerty of the attached ref to make sense of it. I assume other non-Americans would have this experience and perhaps too would Americans who haven't attended college/elite colleges. Further, it was cited. The existing ref which I left in place (the Insider) had the info. In any event, you have spent more time on the article and I will defer. Lord Law Law ( talk) 16:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Challenge their conspiracy theories and misconduct and you get threatened by their followers. Yeesh. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 ( talk) 21:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jorm. -- Pudeo ( talk) 23:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Jorm, I just want to say that I think you are doing a great job here on Wikipedia and I think admins at AE are not seeing the forest for the trees. People seem so wrapped up in a false sense of 'civility' that they forget what real incivility is like. I'm just a nobody and I know I don't have much clout around here but just know not everyone sees how you act as anything but defensible and appropriate. Valeince ( talk) 16:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Jorm. Pursuant to the report at AE, you are formally warned against continued incivility, personal attacks or aspersions in the WP:ARBGG topic area. As a reminder, this extends to making any edit, or editing any page within the purview of ARBGG. This should be interpreted as a "final warning"; in other words, you are being issued a warning in lieu of any sanctions, with the understanding that continued violations may be met with sanctions without further warning. Virtually everyone seems to sympathize with you telling bigoted trolls to "fuck off", and this is not blind civility enforcement. Legitimate points were raised against simply giving you a pass, most notably the fact that your attacks were not strictly constrained to bigoted trolls and vandals, and that attacking said trolls and vandals is actually counterproductive because it rewards their trolling with the intended response and makes them feel like they succeeded by getting a rise out of someone. No one is asking you to lose your passion for combating hate on Wikipedia. You're simply being asked to self-correct the incivility, which has gone a bit too far beyond the line. Don't think of this as you getting screwed over, think of it as you being given a break because we get it. That certainly is the intent behind this warning. Let me know if you have any questions. Best, ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Jorm has chosen to patrol some controversial articles...and hence thought a broader range of topics were involved.The description of diffs and the comments there do not mention things that seem particularly egregious to me, especially not in the context of GG or the kinds of things transphobes say in gender-related articles; so I'm having difficulty accepting that the community's hand was inexorably forced into placing Jorm into “final warning” precarity here. (I'm sure you as the closer have done your job properly in carrying out consensus, though.) But I haven't read through every diff and link, I don't have an admin's perspective on enforcement of conduct rules, and I'm not trying to re-litigate the AE discussion here: I'm just expressing solidarity with Jorm. -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 03:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
My first barnstar ever, in fourteen years! Yeah, I guess I'm normally kind of a loner. And I should probably link to my talk page in my signature. Thank you so much! -- ▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 02:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Why was Kyle Rittenhouse removed? He has been charged with the shootings. It was specifically mentioned in the articles cited. I am not going to engage in a constant edit war, but his name should be specifically mentioned.
Per your recent summary, I believe The Forward is generally considered to be a reliable source. It's used in the Parler article and I've certainly used them elsewhere. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jorm, by my count you reverted four times at NumbersUSA, and the reverts in question don't appear to fall under any 3RR exemptions. I'm guessing you lost count of reverts there, and since multiple other editors were reverting the IP as well I'm just going to leave you this note and call this "done" from an administrative standpoint. Please be careful not to cross the 3RR line in the future. Best, GeneralNotability ( talk) 20:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
You !voted a delete in an AFD you opened, I don’t understand, isn’t opening an AFD in itself a crystal clear indication that you want the article deleted? or am I missing something? Or is there a ruling to this effect that allows editors !vote in AFD's they themselves opened? Celestina007 ( talk) 20:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Each "Signpost" notice has about 5-15 "expensive parser function" calls. The limit per page is 500. You have 4 dozen or so Signpost messages, maybe more. That may be why you are "over the limit." Consider archiving older messages. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted my edits, and I can understand why. I was manually reverting 2 edits made months ago which did not seem to improve the article. By undoing those edits, I was taking the article towards a NPOV with my first edit. The second was more a matter of the previous editor not understanding how nationality works. The original edits are [18] and [19], made by an editor who has made many useless edits, said preposterous things on talk pages and has been warned many times that "fixed grammar" is not an all-purpose edit summary. I'm in the process of reviewing hundreds of their edits while I wait for them to make one further edit and get blocked.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 03:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I think you reverted the following [ [20]] without responding on the talk page. Before making the edit, I opened the discussion on the talk page.
Not a single person has questioned whether or not it belong in the lede, and several strongly pointing out it must be included. That's consensus as far as I can see. Feel free to disagree but perhaps in the talk page before you start revert warring. I'll assume you made a mistake and let you revert yourself02:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D ( talk)
Is the Afro-Cuban-American descriptor objected to? I understand that there's an objection to removing the description of Enrique Tarrio as an FBI informant from the opening paragraph, but I wanted to check in before I open up any additional discussions regarding how we should describe his ethnicity. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Came across Tonytwoshoes' talk page and it genuinely confused me. The user has made one edit, which was to revert new content in Brendan Eich that had never been reverted before. In response you gave Tonytwoshoes an edit warring notice and three DS alerts. I'm guessing that the edit warring notice was a mistake? -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 07:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is " Wikipedia:No_Nazis".The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:No Nazis.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
-- 73.159.229.5 ( talk) 11:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Jorm, you revereted my edits on Victor Salva article without telling me a reason. I added information on that article and improved wording. could you get back to me please.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Paul Gosar, you may be blocked from editing. Grayinator ( talk) 04:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about going "full flamethrower" in that signature discussion. It's no excuse but it had been the end of a bad day IRL. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
For Special:Diff/1025475059 and your other comments on that page. While my experience might bias me a bit, that is the single best comment I've read on Wikipedia. Or at least it's in the top three. Thank you for sharing your knowledge, and I look forward to focusing on the area of talk pages more in the future. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC) |
Re Special:Diff/1025854835: My edit uses the exact same number of slurs as the previous version, both still redacted as in the original tweet. How am I "inject[ing] slurs into the minds of readers"? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
How does one appeal? I'm just a lowly Wiki reader who makes the occasional edit. Seems mighty unfair to have these sanctions (whatever they are) imposed for bringing up an extremely valid point. So, how would I appeal these sanctions which have, in my opinion, been applied with a heavy and unaccountable hand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongoletsi ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the idea at Special:Diff/1026726084. Although, would it be possible to perhaps use a different example for a custom signature, like [[User:Jorm|Custom signature]]? I appreciate the sentiment conveyed, but as it's the first comment, it'll sort of sets the tone for the rest of it. And I figure the RfC's going to be a massive uphill battle anyway. Enterprisey ( talk!) 00:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
"Not done for obvious reasons, being that this request assumes that words no longer have meanings." Good one. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 18:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Do you have any connection to Brendan Eich, or anything that could be classed as a COI under the WP:COI policy, or any strong feelings about the subject, or anything else that could be covered under WP:BLPCOI? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. You undid my sourced edit just because was tagged minor edit. Let's be honest, it was such a nice excuse. Many of users doubt you are independent editor. You should respect to other users and read WP:CENSOR and WP:NOTBURO one more time. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.-- Yaser0017 ( talk) 15:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Your response to my request that the Wikipedia BLM pages add mention of the co-founders' "Black Lives Matter Manifesto" is below...
Jorm: "Patricmcm please read the many, many, many archives where folk have come asking this (or a similar) question and are educated that the right-wing media "Marxist" claim is, in fact, not true, and is nearly always questioned and espoused by individuals who do not fully understand what Black Lives Matter is, what Marxism is, or both! Ke Akua Pū.--Jorm (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)BLM PAGE, May 22, 2021
You responded with the above to my request that Wikipedia address an apparent oversight on its "Black Lives Matter" page by the inclusion of the organization's founding document, "The Black Lives Matter Manifesto" of 2014. The Manifesto was authored and presented by BLM co-founders Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi, who within the document espoused the beneficial applications of Marxist training in the struggle against "systemic racism." One need not be expert on either BLM or Marxism to perceive that any public descriptor of the organization, such as a Wikipedia page, with no mention of its founding document would benefit by its addition, much as discussions of the American Revolution benefit from inclusion of the Declaration of Independence. As to the co-founders appreciation of Marxism as a defining philosophy, one need only glance at the co-founders' originating cry, "Black! Queer! Marxist!" The above is simply illustrative, factual information, and has been referred to forthrightly on numerous occasions by the co-founders themselves. Some may view Marxist theory through a darkened lens, but its tenets have proven valuable for more than a century in regards to the ignition and growth of revolutionary ideals. Patricmcm ( talk) 21:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.-- Filmomusico ( talk) 21:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Why do you feel the need to be a backseat enforcer for administrators? They are perfectly able to do their jobs without your input. Your rude comments on my page are not helpful nor appreciated. Mind your own business if you aren't going to be polite about it. No one wants your rude, unsolicited input on their talk pages. Uchiha Itachi 25 ( talk) 01:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I am ok with consensus. But, why remove the fact tag? I have been reading and see many online forums that are black MGTOW members. BlackAmerican ( talk) 20:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I saw you deleted the source of incel that I had. If you look in the history section there is a whole paragraph that is dedicated to it. [22]. Also why did you delete the gaycel? There is several published articles concerning gay incels. Thank you BlackAmerican ( talk) 07:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, the purpose of an Edit summary is to summarize the edit, not to engage in conversation with another editor. (But I'm sure you know that.) Best, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 18:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
instead of just ripping up my hours of hard work... I'm really sorry if I made a mistake.
But I will log off from Wiki until I hear back from someone with more experience with this website...
- OsagePizza72 ( talk) 03:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
You should consider removing yourself from the Zoe Quinn article. You seem overly invested in it, and you've been squatting on it for so many years that you're likely not capable of overseeing it anymore. AWildAppeared ( talk) 11:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, may I ask why my revision is being deleted? If their is a dispute with that line where can we resolve it. Thank you
Please provide a link or a way I can access the talk page.
Hi! Reply-link has officially been superseded by mw:DiscussionTools, which you can install using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. DiscussionTools, developed by the WMF's Editing Team, is faster and has more features than reply-link, and it wouldn't make sense for me to keep developing reply-link. I think the Editing Team is doing amazing work, and look forward to what they can do in the future. Thank you for using reply-link over the years! Enterprisey ( talk!) 06:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, You rollbacked my revision on the ground that I used what you call « scare quotes » (here I go again) for the expression « systemic racism. » In this instance, the quotation marks were meant to indicate that the expression quoted appears as in in the text under discussion (the E.O.). That is a proper use of quotation marks. They can also be used for a number of other purposes, for instance to express doubts over the appropriateness of a term or the validity of a concept. These secondary and less formal uses should not displace the primary meaning of quotation marks, which is… to indicate that the delineated expression is a quote. In addition, your rollback did not just remove these scary scare quotes, but also the rest of my edits, which I believe added clarity (and better grammar) to the article. I would appreciate your providing a reasoned explanation for this action, based on your reading of the Executive Order. Thank you. Overpop ( talk) 06:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I am admittedly new at this and welcome constructive criticism. Also, I am indeed not a native English speaker and I am aware that my style can at times be somewhat laborious. On the other hand, I hold a J.D. from a T14 law school and I have every reason to believe that I understand nuances in written texts better than most native speakers. 1.What do you mean by « it doesn’t appear to be a quote? It *is* a quote! From section 1 of the order: « Our country faces converging economic, health, and climate crises that have exposed and exacerbated inequities, while a historic movement for justice has highlighted the unbearable human costs of systemic racism. » The point of using quotation marks is precisely to show the reader that the expression does not come out of a hat but is used in the original document, which matters in this case because, like it or not, « systemic racism » is a loaded expression. This is why the use of the term in the order is significant. The summary would be lacking if it did not convey that information to the reader. 2. « You are writing in the lede. » Is that so? Wouldn’t the lede in this instance be the introductory paragraph? The sentence we are discussing is in the body of the article. In any case, why should there not be a short quote in the lede? 3. If you honestly believe that most reasonable readers would conclude that the quotation marks are meant to make fun of the words « systemic racism, » then I guess they should be removed. 4. In any case, there is no reason to roll back the rest of my edit. The current version is a poorly written attempt at paraphrasing the order, the author having seemingly been under the impression that they needed to change words here and there to avoid plagiarism. But the order is a legal text and plagiarism issues don’t apply. On the contrary, the original text can and should be quoted liberally.
Overpop ( talk) 16:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
« A quotation is a sentence that is attributed to a human being, not cut and paste words from dry text. » Is that so? I suggest you consult a dictionary: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/quotation https://www.dictionary.com/browse/quotation https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quotation And to think that you have broad editing privileges… Wow. Unbelievable. Overpop ( talk) 23:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Your reverts on Antifeminism are unconstructive, border on edit warring and contain aggressive summaries. Please take note of WP:DRIVEBY, which states that my edits are perfectly constructive and should not be reverted. Consensus on the talk page is not required for pointing out unsourced claims as per WP:CITENEED. Furthermore, note that these are not drive by tags, as this article is a current project of mine to improve on (including finding sources for the tagged claims). See my previous edits and the talk page archive.
I have reviewed your contributions to this article, and came to the conclusion that you have quite a history of unconstructive edits, unpleasant summaries and show WP:OWN behaviour. I will once again add the tags you that you reverted twice, and I expect you to not engage in edit warring. If you want to remove the tags, find reliable sources for the claims.
Thank you and have a nice day. Pyrite Pro ( talk) 21:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Over here. Thanks! Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Thought I'd give you the option of doing the right thing. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
You recently reverted an edit I made that attempted to, and I believe did, clarify a poorly placed inline citation, asking me to go to the Talk page with it. I did that right away, explaining my reasoning. Would you please take a look at that and provide your thoughts? Cheers! Huskerdru ( talk) 02:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Specifically, I checked the citstion, which supported only the quoted material, not the subsequent two sentences. With the citation at the end of the paragraph, it appears to source all three points made, two of which have no citation (the Victor Davis Hanson comment, and the "Arguably..." sentence re: Johnston dying on Day 1 of Shiloh. Huskerdru ( talk) 03:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Ack! This is re: Lost Cause of the Confederacy, not Origins of the Civil War... My mistake, sorry for confusion. Huskerdru ( talk) 03:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
You recently reverted an edit on this page I made that attempted to, and I believe did, clarify a poorly placed inline citation, asking me to go to the Talk page with it. I did that right away, explaining my reasoning. Would you please take a look at that and provide your thoughts? Cheers! Huskerdru ( talk) 14:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Patriot Prayer, you may be blocked from editing. Sarstan ( talk) 02:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
When Teri Polo is searched, this is the page that comes up. [23] What is a reliable source that can be used to update the birthdate and age? Thank you! 161.77.227.47 ( talk) 17:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The Associated Press reported her name. Either delete the whole Jewish thing or stop deleting her name. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 17:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Jorm, I have blocked you for one month because you have contacted me asking for this block. This is not a block for misconduct. It seems that you want to take a Wikibreak. That is fine. I will unblock you anytime you ask, and any other administrator can feel free to unblock you upon request if I am inactive, or I will be happy to provide clarification on request. I wish you well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Brandon. I just wanted to express my personal heartfelt thanks to you for signing the letter. Best, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Just gonna put this here. Jorm ( talk) 19:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I had to edit your user page. Stop being a modest bum and at least include a line about your creation in your User Page. I mean, it's something that deserves recognition! Infested-jerk 23:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... If the other appearance wasn't noteworthy, than this one certainly won't be. Unless Nexus War somehow gets a full article in a gaming magazine somewhere in the next two weeks, I don't think the article can be saved at all. I may just have to save the current content and re-install it when the game receives more coverage. -- Kirby1024 15:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The basic information is at WP:LOGOS. Most people are unwilling to license the use of their logo under GFDL, although I am not sure of the exact interaction with trademark law. The use therefore must qualify as Fair Use by our standards, which requires the formulas given at that page to be followed exactly (and the use of a low resolution image). You cannot give permission for use in Wikipedia alone--it's meaningless, because our content is as a whole licensed under GFDL and anyone can copy it. If this isn't enough information, the best way to deal with difficulties is to simply go to the talk page for WP:Copyright and ask. All the experts and would-be experts hang out there. DGG ( talk) 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jorm, re: this, thanks for the information. I find this very interesting, so instead of filling up the article talk page, I thought I'd come by here. I'm just turning this over in my head and have several questions. What is going to be done with the information received from this tool? Is there a list somewhere that shows all the articles that are using the tool, with their current ratings? I can see several possibilities with this. If this were rolled out throughout Wikipedia, we could have a list of "highest rated articles". Sort of like a Featured Article from the Reader's point of view. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Featured Articles, but the process in it's current form relies on what editors think of the writing, following all the Manual of Styles and quality of sources and such. There are a lot of hoops to jump through to get an article featured and perhaps what our editors think makes "Wikipedia's best articles" is completely different than what our readers believe makes the best articles. What are your views on this? Tex ( talk) 14:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I've built some Wiktionary scripts recently for improving the usability and editability of the English Wiktionary (which will hopefully be enabled by default at some point), switching the layout to a "tabbed" interface with each language section being placed in a separate tab, and adding expanding side boxes with editing options next to definitions. (Enable-able here, source here and here (alternative version of the second script here)). Maybe you could take a look at the scripts and give some suggestions about how they could be improved? Since no one in the Wiktionary community (afaik) knows much about usability, tools designed entirely with the input of Wiktionary regulars will probably end up not very usable for newbies, so it would be really great if as much of the designing as possible was actually put in by a real designer... -- Yair rand ( talk) 00:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I have entered some derisive discussion about the AFT tool (it's true I hate it), and seeing as you have also worked on WikiLove (it's true I love it), I feel compelled to give you a cheeseburger. This cheeseburger lasts indefinitely and can be consumed at anytime. If you are a vegetarian, I will gladly eat this for you. TimL ( talk) 08:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC) |
Shalom, in case you do not see it over there. Ciao Catfisheye ( talk) 16:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
For being a fantastic driving force behind our efforts to recruit, teach, and keep new editors, and being willing to hit the occasional oldie with a (nerf!) brick if they're biting too hard, I hereby award you this barnstar. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 20:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
I left a note for you on your WMF userpage. -- Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jorm
this is
Nipas (aged 49) from
Monza (
Milan,
Italy). Please, I need your help to solve this pdf print problem:
2 or 3 column aligned on pdf prints. None had been able to solve the following problem: output pdf prints containing fixtures' tables for soccer championships (older ones in this
sandbox) (new ones in my
new fixtures' tables) are always displayed on 1 single column despite normal (2 or 3 horizontally aligned) on printers' outputs. New tables had been a successful resolution of main problem (3 columns calendars are wider than the normal
A4 paper sheet so that larger team's names are devided into two lines) but when I saw other users linking several championships in a single book I noticed prints were impossible by a saved pdf file because a 15 days calendar was printed on 6 pages (5x3 + 1 = 3 days per page). Is there a way for fixing it or I have to change the first line instructions of each table ?. Even a third part help will be very much appreciated. Thanks a lot in advance, Nick.
Nipas (
talk) 22:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2.33.168.157 (
talk)
I was at your user talk page, and the banner with your letter came up at the same time! :)
File:Sametimesameperson.png
Eta
-
theta 00:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Before being repeatedly eaten alive by you in UD I think I sold you my soul, and used to follow your journal on gaijin when I was a kid.(BTW your fucking old) Anyway thanks for replacing Jimbo's creepy dead-eyed staredown banner, all the best. 174.52.155.125 ( talk) 00:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
|
The Surreal Barnstar | |
For attracting so much attention to the fundraising campaign that we've been slashdotted. PhnomPencil talk contribs 10:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC) |
Bringing so many people to a website's fundraising page that it collapses under the weight? If that's not deserving of a barnstar, nothing is. PhnomPencil talk contribs 10:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jorm,
You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.
Thank you.
Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon! Who should come? You should. Really. | |
---|---|
We look forward to seeing you there! |
Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah ( talk) 16:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey Jarm. As you probably know, lots of people are distressed by the images on the Muhammad article. In the upcoming RFC, we propose allowing a functional hatnote that, upon clicking, would hide all images on the page.
There's a very basic script I wrote to do this, User:HectorMoffet/OfferToHideImages.js which works okay for me, but reportedly isn't working for the one other person who tried it out. I've created demo screenshots, but it's not like the real thing.
1-- is there a 'simple fix' that would allow most RFC responders to be able it out for themselves?
2-- more broadly, can you just reassure us at the RFC that this functionality IS feasible and that it could be easily implemented if a consensus for it forms? -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 04:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xhGoS-_ltU&feature=related Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.159.177 ( talk) 18:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. -- Sarah ( talk) 21:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
You are... WPPBH (WikiPedia Programmer Brandon Harris)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AndrewN talk 08:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks for your comments on IRC. Sorry if I seemed ungrateful. I'm not at my best at the end of a long day when I'm still dealing with problems. I appreciate that you were being helpful. Pine ✉ 20:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC) |
Hi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!
Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah ( talk) 16:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. SarahStierch ( talk) 08:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot ( talk) 00:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Ironholds said that you might want to see this photo. The FPC nomination just finished. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Endeavour_silhouette Pine ✉ 07:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
When you hover above a page title a tooltip should appear with the message: "Click here to rename the page". If you click it the title should turn into a textbox, so you can enter whatever text you want to enter, press enter or click on "Rename" and the page is renamed. To confirm you see the "postedit" confirmation message with the text "Page renamed".
Another option is to display a new combobox (for the namespace) and textbox (for the pagetitle) at the top the &action=edit pages if the user has permission to rename the page.
A checkbox with the option to move the associated talkpage as well is probably a good idea. They ( talk) 23:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
It's a good talkpage. Demonstrative, simple, straight-forward... this should do nicely. -— Isarra ༆ 19:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:
Thanks again! Ocaasi 02:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
great coding Jared Zimmerman ( talk) 21:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC) |
WP:FLOW and File:Wikimania - 2012 - Athena Project.pdf. This is clearly an attempt to turn wiki into another Facebook. If I wanted to play on Facebook I'd go get a Facebook account. This will go over even worse than Visual Editor; it's got disaster written all over it. PumpkinSky talk 20:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Think outside in. Please consider how things work in the "real world" rather than making iterative changes on the current Wiki model. There are a lot of screwy things on Wiki (people editing each other's talk, no avatars, ability of anyone to edit a user's wall, etc.) Every other site (linked in, forums, facebook, diet sites, etc.) has the opposite. And that is BS to act like we're all serious and not social.
Making changes to the Wiki layout and code and such is really the one "lever" that the WMF can use for making change. You can't reorganize the moderation structure, change article formats, even the damned MOS. But you have control over the software. Think of the new users and be open to the huge real world.
Also think of the functionality. Why should a user page or a talk page have the same structure as a collaboratively edited article?
Or look at how poorly talk pages are used for reader feedback (they work OK for article development by hard core users...but some ability to chat back and forth with the real "customers" is not really there. For some reason, no one clicks on there...they just don't. Maybe if you had another window (old "article talk" became "article construction talk" and have a new one for "reader feedback" (and make it easy to edit, like a forum). Yeah, there would be some overlap, but right now...there's just NOTHING. Maybe getting direct feedback and discussion with real readers (not been here since 2004 regulars) would make people who write articles feel more energized, or affect how they write to improve it (e.g. cleaning up the mess of math project people), or even by engagement...leading to some readers (hopefully the better ones) deciding to get involved. But this para is just idle ideas.
TCO ( talk) 19:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
P.s. It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Just change stuff and act apologetic when the regulars scream. (Yeah, be open to real usability issues and learning from bugs and all that. But some of the static is just the same crap you hear whenever someone changes the background color on a message board. Risker crying about the edit button moving without consultation was a hoot). Oh...and I'm trolling, but I mean it too.
Another test, yo.-- Jorm (WMF) ( talk) 22:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Jorm, please do not keep undoing these changes. I find your censorship politically motivated and against Wikipedia rules. If you disagree with the changes,, follow Wikipedia rules and open a discussion. If I am wrong and am violating Wikipedia rules, let me know, but here is nothing defamatory in the statements I added. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerappelle ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I do know that Assange is not a US citizen, please stop the harassment(or the sarcasm). Maybe it is you who needs to get the facts straight, and stop the politically motivated censorship. A US dissident means a dissident from the US governemnt. Please point out the citations on the other dissdents, and I will provide many similar citations on the people added. Three different, unrelated users have made those chnages (I am the third one and do not know the other two). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerappelle ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I opened a request to look over this issue, since I strongly believe it is about censorship, not Wikipedia policies. This is the Wikipedia page where i put my complaint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Jorm Jerappelle ( talk) 15:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Jerappelle ( talk · contribs) opened an ANI thread about you, evidently without notifying you. I'm doing so here. CtP ( t • c) 15:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
ANI thread Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding abuse, censorship. Thank you. — Jerappelle ( talk) 16:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Page curation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you think it's premature to semiprotect SantaCon? The IP user has returned. His/her last edit was vandalism, though I marked the revert as "good faith." I expect this is not over. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Filed an administrator complaint that Coretheapple has violated these rules: 3 reverts in 24 hours, citing non neutral sources, vandalism by deleting neutral content, rewriting the entire article as slanted negative commentary based on opinions. Coretheapple repeatedly deleted charity section and referecnes to santacons outside of new york city. Jorm reverted the article to the staus stated above which violated numerous terms of service of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C07A:25C0:CC23:3F82:60AC:138D ( talk) 00:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Best wishes | |
for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC) |
<--- here it is | |
for you
EdSaperia ( talk) 16:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
Dynamic speaker | |
Had me in tears of laughter at Wikimania, which is a good thing! NoPolyMath ( talk) 12:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC) |
Hello there. We met at Wikimania 2012 and I just saw you said you left WMF on that talk page. I hope you have a good transition. When you get a chance, maybe you could comment about when Wikipedia might get a quasi-permanent facelift (if ever). I've been hoping that Wikipedia would get a facelift like mw:Athena at some point soon. I remember seeing an article in the mainstream press that demonstrated a very professional looking design that reminded me of Athena. Best wishes with your new direction. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Jorm: You have vandalized the Santacon page. This is a warning that you've been reported to Wikipedia moderators. Please refrain from vandalism and non neutral edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C07A:25C0:958:FF54:A330:3A5F ( talk)
Dumb and dumber think alike. Jimmy Wale's lapdog, hipster long haired, scowling poster boy Jorm graces an ad begging for money to keep Wikipedia afloat. Its hardly public TV or radio. Jorm, NeilN and a tiny group of thought police moderators censor Wikipedia article content with impunity. Its not what you write, its who you know that determines if an edit is immediately censored. Moderators are free to totally ignore every Wikipedia rule. Independent thinkers, editors and dissenters to Wikipedia's cult like sheep thinking are banned and blocked. Wikipedia and its moderators/administrators have zero integrity, reliability, accuracy or respect. The moderator censors are a joke.
It was hatted, then unhatted. This argument just then became dumb. Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 22:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
We've got trouble. With a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for Pool! Hipocrite ( talk) 20:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
An arbitration enforcement request has been filed about you here. Galestar ( talk) 22:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Why have you accused me of vandalism for inserting a bit of information along with the citation? Jrmypatt ( talk) 07:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Eric_M._Esquivel
this writer's page was written by his girlfriend, please mark it for deletion as well. It is less notable than Ulises Farinas — Preceding unsigned comment added by UlisesFarinasGirlfriendofCartoonist ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jorm - thank you for reaching out! Could you please give me feedback on the parts that seem promotional? I will edit myself but any better criticism/insight would be great. Thanks! Drakeballew ( talk) 22:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You said that my article is inappropriate. I ask you: why? I will bring it back for variety of reasons, the first is that you didn't say why you want it to be deleted. Krull The Eternal ( talk) 00:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Something Rotten! , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion on Talk:Something Rotten! about merging it with Something Rotten! (musical) has since been finished. I'm unsure on how to add the archive tags on it so if possible, could you do it? --☣ Anar chyte☣ 07:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
You may find this useful. I figured he may delete his harassing post after the heat got turned on at ANI and had that site archive the page. 208.76.111.246 ( talk) 01:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.You don't edit the Gamergate controversy article much but I heard you felt left out so here is your notice! Liz Read! Talk! 18:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Jorm, my apologies for being snippy with you at AE. Obviously we have different views on what should happen with that particular request, but I'm confident that we both want a resolution that is best for the encyclopedia. I'll be striking a portion of my comment shortly. Sorry again, and I hope to be a better model of collegiality next time our paths cross. -Starke Hathaway ( talk) 17:17, 30 June 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) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Jorm,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Someone saying "Wikipedia has an official opinion on Gamergate: hatemovement" complete with mocking tells me a few things. 1- the treatment of Gamergate is clearly biased and uneven. 2- the person who made an edit to my account after you is the one who needs to be blocked. 3- the current rules around Gamergate make insigtful and balanced edits to the article almost impossible. The net result of all of this is an article that is biased and incorrect and repeats a one sided coverage of the whole issue. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jorm, I happened to see your Undo of this edit where you caution the editor not to removed sourced information. However, it looks like the information was not actually sourced, and in fact had a Citation Needed tag. I'm not going to revert at this time, but BLP pretty clearly states that unsourced information that is challenged (which is was, by the editor you Undid) or likely to be challenged should be removed until consensus to include is reached. Perhaps you have a different perspective? The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
But yeah, that admin probably should not be acting as an admin on that page. Sigh. [2] Artw ( talk) 23:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Artw ( talk) 22:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Rhoark has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{ subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{ subst:Kittynap}}
I appreciate your concern that the GG article not exacerbate harm; no one's trying to do that. Keep your cool and we can reach a revision that satisfies everyone.
Hello, I'm using a mobile device and I would like to use the Athena skin. Is it possible ? Thank you. — Sincerely Issimo 15 12:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Jorm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Jorm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
You are partially correct about "Software Engineer" ... There are various fields of study to lead there. Journalism and political science are not those. And a person cannot just say they are a software engineer with nothing to back it up other than a tweet about taking computer science classes at age 13 and "It's true!" ... Quite frankly, that's absurd. -- SVTCobra ( talk) 22:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, -- SVTCobra ( talk) 23:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-11-26/Op-ed. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Unbeknownst
to you, discretionary sanctions were lifted per
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Amendments. Somehow, it was a quiet news; search it at
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. --
George Ho (
talk) 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
My fault. I apologize for ignoring the DS notice. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Declining something is not the same as not doing something -- Distelfinck ( talk) 17:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
− Please refrain from making personal attacks as you did at the Gamergate Controversy article. Comment on content, not contributors. +
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.33.194.74 ( talk) 05:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
INFOWARS DOT COM — Preceding unsigned comment added by H. Abedin ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry - What's not neutral about this edit? Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 03:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey buddy, why did you delete the new section I made, on top of making an arrangement so that no ones can see it in its history? Filmman3000 ( talk) 06:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
This edit pretty much proves my point, thanks.— Chowbok ☠ 06:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Chowbok ☠ 06:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC) |
Hello Jorm. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as
patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the
New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at
New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various
deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at
page reviewer talk.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Jorm,
You are correct to point out I've made too many edits on this page today; I hope you can forgive a newb to Wikipedia editing.
As far as I can tell what I originally edited on this page was legit -- I cited existing information already present further below on the same page to justify my edit. As I understand, when you are deleting information on this page you are supposed to cite your reason for this. I didn't see you do this so I have nothing constructive to work with in the editing process.
Tomorrow once I can edit this page again I'm happy to take your editing justifications into consideration and add more detailed analysis and facts from the public record. Joeparsec ( talk) 19:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
This is typical of the crap that you simply must stop writing. It isn't helpful, it subliminally enforces your obvious POV, and it is incredibly irritating, as plenty of other people have already told you. Why not go write some stuff outside the general Gamergate topic area for a while and reacquaint yourself with the wider workings of Wikipedia? It isn't as if you made a good job of it while you were actually working for the WMF but now that you are unshackled from the happy-clappy crowd there is no need to persist in it. - Sitush ( talk) 23:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, you were quite right to make this edit to the article, but leaving an edit summary which just reads 'no' , makes it confusing to see what you've done when it appears on a watch list. I know it can be tempting to leave a tongue in cheek summary, (as I'm probably guilty of also), but I'm going to try to remember that the summaries are for all the editors involved in contributing to that page, and not a comment to the person who made the edit.
Your recent editing history at Patriot Prayer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Darkness Shines ( talk) 05:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Do your worst buddy.... I see you are some sort of director with wiki Delete my account..... There are no pages to save..... But don't threaten me either intellectually for embarrassment or physically..... Your courage tattoo does not impress me.
Is on a 1RR restriction, self revert Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jorm reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: ). Thank you. Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Again, you break the restriction on the page, you last reverted about 9 hours ago, self revert. Darkness Shines ( talk) 03:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Jorm. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Tornado chaser. I noticed that you made a comment here [3] that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tornado chaser ( talk) 16:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy Holidays | |
Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
Hi Jorm. No fancy template, but just wishing you happy holidays and all the best for 2018. BTW, the solid bronze barnstar you gave me in London is on the top of our Xmas tree! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jorm reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: ). Thank you. Darkness Shines ( talk) 02:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised to find that you readded a source that clearly doesn't support the text. Saying that it is "consensus" doesn't make it right. Disappointing. FloridaArmy ( talk) 02:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans // 05:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Jorm ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
How does this even make sense? At the end of the sequence, the result was the same as if I had just reverted the one edit I wanted to. This is a bad block, and Darkness Shines escalated immediately to the Edit Warring mode rather than talk to me or assume good faith. Jorm ( talk) 05:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Thank you for a very clear and logical explanation of your edits, Jorm. I encourage Coffee to reconsider the block. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, and I know that editing Sarkeesian's article and other GamerGate stuff can be frustrating because of the high number of trolls and vandals and SPAs and whatnot that they attract, but comments like "Go away, little troll." are really unhelpful. They're not going to deter a legit troll, but they might just turn away a good faith editor. I'm sure you're familiar with CIVIL and AGF, so I'm not going to link them. But I don't think it's too hard to fight trolls while also staying in policy. Cheers, -- irn ( talk) 15:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Just left a comment on her talk page. Would like to hear from you over there. Film Atom ( talk) 23:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Texas_Light_Foot_Militia <---- Can this page be deleted due to inclusion of inaccurate and false information? (I am the regiment commander and founder of the TLFM.) Ericrahnh ( talk) 05:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)ericrahnh
I indeed looked up "miniscule" and "minuscule" in a number of references before embarking on making changes to articles.
There are in fact articles in Wikipedia that address the spelling. I'm confident that, as merriam-webster.com asserts, "The adjective minuscule is etymologically related to minus, but associations with mini- have produced the spelling variant miniscule. This variant dates to the end of the 19th century, and it now occurs commonly in published writing, but it continues to be widely regarded as an error."
Despite its age, I view this spelling as an error, and I believe it is still widely regarded as an error. Since Wikipedia is so frequently quoted in print, I felt it was an improvement to the body of content to remove instances of a spelling that is widely regarded as an error.
I checked each article I modified, and in fact added /sic/ as a clarification on those instances where a review or source material showed that it was accurately quoted.
However, since you are concerned enough to reverse these edits, I will correct other errors that are less prone to debate.
Trvth ( talk) 22:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
When editors make non-vandal or seemingly constructive edits, I believe they deserve the decency of having a reason given for reversion, rather than single word interjections such as "no". For example here you deleted The Times as a source. And here you inserted a highly questionable claim into the article without as much as an edit summary. 92.13.136.69 ( talk) 02:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Please undo your reverts at Involuntary celibacy. You are way beyond 3RR. -- 2600:8800:1300:16E:6882:46D1:1667:450A ( talk) 21:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Care to address the issues raised or just blindly reverting based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT [6]? Miacek (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
And you have no reason to delete my attempt to correct an article which is clearly biased. Delete it again and I’ll find the appropriate moderators to resolve this. TheTBirdusThoracis ( talk) 19:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
While I believe Chloe Dykstra’s account, we can not write as if the story is true until reliable sources say it is true. Please read WP:PUBLICFIGURE where it specifically addresses the requirement to use wording like “Allegedly”. Samboy ( talk) 16:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
"In total, forty-five people have been killed in five events since 2014 by people who may be considered incels."
You reverted my edit, in which I removed this vague unexplained calculation from the Incel article.. I was under the impression that unreferenced bits of information should not be included in Wikipedia. Can you point me to the rule that says otherwise? Amin (Talk) 23:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I have requested additional attention @ WP:ANI due to your recent edit here. -- Sleyece ( talk) 23:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Friendly notice that you are implicitly using your credentials here to avoid communication, bully people around, and edit war without going to the talk page. Willwill0415 ( talk) 17:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I can't edit the actual article; I'm not above the blue lock yet. So, do you mean that I should stop asking questions about it in the talk page? IMO that's a little bit backwards but I'll heed your warning. Thanks for telling me about it. -- Linkfan321 ( talk) 00:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Having never interacted with you, I am at a loss to understand how you reached this conclusion [7]. Do you really think that AfDimg a game using taunting language, because an editor uses it in discussion, is civil behaviour? I don't understand how you could form the impression you did by looking at actual diffs. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Can you explain why my citation needed tag was removed from the Controversial Reddit communities page? A citation was needed there. Do you disagree with that sentiment? If you fail to provide a reason by 01:15 I will have to restore the citation needed tag. RussianAfroMan ( talk) 00:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jorm. Regarding the dispute: I am assuming that you're unfamiliar with the standards required of biographical information: that high-quality sources are required, that content must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies, that poorly sourced or otherwise contentious material should be removed from an article while it is under dispute, and that the burden of proof rests on those seeking inclusion. Also, you must have overlooked the discussion I started on the article talk page. Please join the discussion. Thanks. -- Ronz ( talk) 05:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey Jorm. I might be new to this but I'm pretty sure Joey is now divorced (willing to find out more later)and that without proper citation on Haley Gibson it is very easy to confuse the two with Haley Adams who is frequently seen with Mr.Gibson at his rallies. -- Moredps ( talk) 03:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Moredps
I think at the very minimum you should put a citation needed on that part of the page, given that again those are two different people, nobody knows who Haley Gibson is because she is not a public person, Haley Adams is more renown in the public eye especially given her recent launch of the #himtoo movement,If you think it would be more appropriate to put this kind of page in the patriot prayer section of the wiki or the proud boys section I'm willing to do that. (there are at least 2-3 prominent and public figures in patriot prayer that have not been written yet) -- Moredps ( talk) 00:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I think you found the case soon after I made it myself, but here is a link to it, i need to link it for a diff for the case, thanks! Willwill0415 ( talk) 17:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jorm, the recent arbitration case request has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
grievance? Aspersions against editors? What are you even talking about? 93.36.191.161 ( talk) 15:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
On September 29th, 2018, I removed a section of this page. My reasoning was that the sources listed were politically motivated and biased in themselves. These types of sources should not be allowed, especially when listing "controversial" items. The sole reason the section I removed was listed is purely a political reason; otherwise other Subreddits would be listed for identical reasons. -- Derbyt ( talk) 20:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jorm,
are you reading your emails? I have written you twice in the last couple days, with no response!
--
Distelfinck (
talk) 11:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Jorm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Ridiceo ( talk) 23:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I have removed material from Gab that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.
Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written pursuant to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges. D.Creish ( talk) 22:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 22:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år! |
What about that?
I'd rather not. People started harassing me there last time.
The aftermath section is way longer than anything else in Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.
Jorm, happy New Year! Make brave edits, and every day in 2019 is a good day accomplish so! Cheers. Tsumikiria ( T/ C) 00:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
i know how to do a signature now AndInFirstPlace 02:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC) in the future, though, please be mindful of WP:BITE — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace ( talk • contribs) 02:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
subst:
An3-notice}}
I've started a (very) brief description of Flow's early days at mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Discussion tools in the past. I'd be happy if you or User:Isarra or anyone else involved in its inception could tell me what I got wrong. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 17:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I still love the project. I honestly feel that it could have become something great, and I'd work on it again in a heartbeat. Sadly, I do not believe that the WMF has the sand to actually do anything to improve the projects at all, ever, so we are where we are.
Hope this helps. I can talk/rant in much greater depth if you want, but I cannot guarantee that everything I have to say makes the WMF look good.-- Jorm ( talk) 18:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I still haven't gotten that page updated yet, but now I have a new question. It works like this:
So my question for you: How did they decide how many threads to load, before I get the click-here-to-load-some-more button? Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 20:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm reading some comments about communication tools, and I thought that this one might interest you:
Flow: lorsque l'on veut contacter d'autres contributeurs, c'est très rapide et c'est facile de répondre. Par contre dès qu'il y a plusieurs personnes qui interagissent, je n'arrive pas à voir au premier coup d'oeil quelle personne répond à une autre. L'autre soucis que j'ai avec Flow, c'est comme son nom l'indique qu'il est conçu pour afficher un flux de discussion, lorsqu'on cherche un ancien sujet en se disant "Ah, ça me rappelle quelque chose dont on avait parlé il y a quelques temps", c'est usant de scroller jusqu'à arriver à la discussion voulue. Pour résumer mon avis sur Flow, c'est un bon outil pour des questions/réponses, et on a besoin de ce genre d'outil pour certaines pages comme le forum des nouveaux et qui mériterait d'évoluer pour s'adapter aux cas d'usage de WP:Questions juridiques, WP:Atelier graphique, et d'autres ; mais pour des débats ou discussions il est contre-productif. (from Yodaspirine at frwiki)
You can add this to your collection of what people think the name means. :-D
Whatamidoing (WMF) (
talk) 19:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
All I have to confirm this is a screenshot of a conversation I had with Max this morning. His name is not John Maxwell Landis. I asked him to confirm, and he told me his name is not even Maxwell. Where or how do I submit this, rather than just having you sigh and revert the changes. I've never had an error like this in submitting a Wikipedia change in the past.
Seriously I used to work in website development and I'm looking at this "Gab Dissenter" feature and going there's only two ways this works: 1) the comments are ONLY visible to people who have installed the plugin (which is still super problematic but it's at least legal) or 2) A massive, grossly illegal, hacking scheme. I'd be willing to also consider 3) It's a total con-job and none of this will work outside their sandbox. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jorm, I'm trying unsuccessfully to update the Climax Blues Band website that reflects where they are today but the content keeps getting rejected.
As a comparison I looked at Eric Clapton's Wikipedia page: In August 2018, Clapton announced that he had recorded his twenty-fourth studio album, Happy Xmas, which consists of blues-tinged interpretations of Christmas songs, with the album released on 12 October.[123]
Eric Clapton also has a recent photo from May 2015 but again we seem to have a problem changing the photo from 1974 to 2019.
Please tell me what's wrong with the text and changing a photo that represents who the band are for the last 6 years? Rob Musicmatters2 ( talk) 17:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Before reverting a fellow editor, kindly open up a discussion to cordially discuss the merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estarski ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Please don’t just arbitrarily remove a npov check tag and proclaim”drive-bye” that is not wp:agf and my claim of not assuming good faith can be supported by no entry on the talk. Also the talk page is rather lengthy and there is a perception any edits whether cited and encyclopedic are being reverted or removed is they show the subjects military service as related to Vietnam claims in an unfavorable light. This article is a great candidate for npov at this juncture. Already has been talked at great length. Thanks! 0pen$0urce ( talk) 02:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Contentious tone. Please comment content. I don’t need permission from a small group of individuals to make edits. Where’s all this consensus? Where was consensus to remove my earlier edits? Just wow. Yeah we don’t want that POV tag, because may invite others into the discussion.-- 0pen$0urce ( talk) 03:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm 0pen$0urce. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. 0pen$0urce ( talk) 05:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi I got a strongly worded message because I asked why the incel article is so dehumanizing. If this doesn't stop I will report a hate crime (England & eu) . And we well see how long you keep your account and freedom.
Thanks :7) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mraids ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi I'm massageing you as I reserved a strongly worded message because I asked why the incel article is so dehumanizing. This will stop right new or my next action will be to report a hate crime under
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003
Thanks ;7) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mraids ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Saying that the talk page is not a forum begs the definition of a forum!!!
The purpose of my post was to state that the information on the page is improperly organized. In particular, prejudicial information appears in the part of the article most presented to readers, especially when the article is displayed out of line to the hit list by a search engine.
I called for the information from the SPLC to appear further into the article, under the heading "relations with other groups", and be removed from the initial paragraph.
How the heck can people discuss anything about the article's structure or contents, given your "not a forum" comment!!!
HiTechHiTouch (
talk) 19:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit to Controversial Reddit communities? Invalid OS ( talk) 19:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
MrClog ( talk) 16:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
How is an edit removing a false claim "Not constructive" ? MGTOW is NOT on the list of "hate groups" from SPLC https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map/by-ideology
He who controls information controls the masses
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk 01:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Know Me Movement. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. SharabSalam ( talk) 23:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Do not call editors Nazis like you also did here. wumbolo ^^^ 14:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I see you recently locked a discussion about Gab. My question is why does this article include a particularily inflammatory phrasing on the first line of it. You have locked the discussion with "If the OP wants to challenge the legitimacy of the New York Times, they can do so elsewhere," with no ability to respond. If you read the thread again, I hope you will notice this part, which is the summary of my complaint: "I'm not making a claim that they are not reliable; I'm saying that for extremely inflammatory claims to be put on the first line of an article, it should probably have more than one source, and if it for some reason absolutely must be there, we should probably not be using an organizations real or imagined enemies. This conversation can grow to be fairly long, but I suppose I would ask, why is the onus on me to prove why an inflammatory statement based on one source shouldn't be in the first line of an article about a website? Isn't that backwards?" As I now have no way to find the answer to this because you locked the discussion, I will bring the question to you, more clearly emphasized. Put clearly, even if the NYT is the most authoritative and trustworthy source in the galaxy, why does the article for Gab have a highly inflammatory clause about what it's been described as in the first line of it? Is there precedence for this? Can you show me a well-thought-of article which has a similar tone in the lead? I haven't found anything like this in the area I normally focus on - Chinese history. I did check Hitler's, which didn't. If this is normal I'd like to start adding this kind of stuff to leads. Thanks Diaozhadelaowai ( talk) 15:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
You have closed my discussion about word choice on the Gab article. The summary was that extremist is not a slur and that the discussion is ridiculous. I find this odd when Wikipedia itself clearly identifies extremist as a contentious word that is usually used as a prejorative. For reference, Wikipedia calls the word extremist a prejorative. The article for prejorative lists slur as synonym. Extremist is listed under WP:WORDS in the style guide. I don't believe the closure was justified. 2606:6000:6004:2C00:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 19:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
could you please let me know the reason of revert? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=David_Cornstein
What the reverted text has to do with Mr. Cornstein?
I am sorry, but I am fairly new to all this wiki stuff (long time listener first editor). I tried to explain in the edit's comment, what I thought is relevant and I even tried to include WP references to support my original edit, but the contributor just kept undo my work. 3 days later (today) s/he undone it again. Now you undone it too. Sure, I have comments on the talk page too, sorry I didn't know I should not contact you here.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/regime) Does it actually justify calling the Hungarian gvt: "Orban regime"? At any rate, what does it have to do with Mr. Cornstein?
Please let me know if WP become a "my way or a highway" org and no others can contribute just the few chosen, then I wont waste my time. I believe, I've only edited 1-2 articles, ever, so I can live without any further involvement in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.44.110 ( talk)
This was my response, and it was my 2nd. Decided account preservation was more important than telling the truth, so I'm dropping this here instead of in the Talk Page on Gab. The real response starts with "Even If". Even IF a person thinks they are accomplishing something by pushing the POV of the Article to one particular direction, it is having the exact opposite effect on the interested and aware Reader, as it confirms a very long list of continuously stated and openly discussed beliefs on places like Gab (and not Twitter, Facebook, etc...). We do this all day long and every day. What we don't do is structure our discussions to fit within the rules of Wikipedia, which I am aware exist for a long list of very good reasons. Not an anarchist, or a "down with the Establishment" revolutionary. There is a long history of "unintended consequences" as well as a long history of institutional blindness on the part of the ideologically possessed. "You're doing it wrong", is the meme. Once I realized this, the temptation was to actually GO with it, and from the strategic perspective help push the Article even further. Decided not to do that, for two reasons. One, I personally trust Wikipedia for the most part, and I would be pissing in my own well, and two I'd be pissing in everyone else's well. So, the result of that little "thought experiment" was to take solace in the fact that you're all doing it wrong, and it's having the unintended consequences of exemplifying exactly what we're not allowed to talk about, and make the decision to remain committed to the fundamental ideals and "pillars" of Wikipedia, to learn them, to exemplify them through my actions and maybe teach them to someone else. This is, with regard to Wikipedia, who I am. Whatever that standard is, whatever those standards are, I intend to exemplify and implement it, and there's little to nothing any detractors can do about it. It's safe. In the short term, it means being willing to back down, to lose, to perceive flagrant violations of Wikipedia Policy occurring on a regular basis, to remain grounded, not "fly off the handle", to be careful of what I choose to make mention of, and what I choose to ignore, to pay attention, to learn what knowledge is there, particularly that which is placed right in front of me, to remain as "collegial" and "professional" as possible and to remain focused on one of my core ideals, which is that Leadership is by Example. FWIW and IMO, you should constructively engage with me. You might discover there's a lot more "there" there than you even suspect. They made the 1st Amendment for a reason, and this is it.
Tym Whittier (
talk) 19:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Jorm, deleting another user's Talk page comment about the problems with an article violates WP:Talk_page_guidelines. Please review those guidelines.
Additionally, deleting all the "official websites" from the external links for an article about an organization is vandalism. Please do not do it again. NCdave ( talk) 07:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Jorm: Saying "Let me be very fucking clear with you" to Tym and saying "What a stupid thing to say, Wumbolo. Just asinine. You can go away, too" to Wumbolo are very clear violations of WP:CIVIL. Please be respectful towards other editors. X-Editor ( talk) 22:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I know the rules, this was constructive edit to bring the article in line with Wikipedia policies. Do not revert my changes or include un-sourced statements unless you get concensus. You cannot just add whatever you want to an article and tell ME to get consensus. You must get it before the unsourced inflammatory statements are added. Galestar ( talk) 22:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not very good at pinging people inline, find it doesn't work well so wanted to poke you here. I mentioned you on [10]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galestar ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
When are we doing our tussle in Golden Gate Park? Do you think your boss at the video poker place will make accommodations for this event? Cool story, bro-mate! ( talk) 15:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
It is considered rude to template regulars. Thought you should know, kid. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Men Going Their Own Way shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please review the text below that you deleted from Gab's "Talk" page, and provide some justification for your remarks that the below is a "conspiracy theory", when it's obvious that my point is that the assertion that the human quality of "hate" can be measured by counting certain words is a "conspiracy theory", which I explicitly state in the text below. You've made a regular practice of deleting my text in the "Talk" pages, with weak, little or no explanation and the only explanation I can come up with is that you are "tendatious" in your editing by trying to force the Article on Gab to reflect a single ideological perspective, or narrative. Further, your manner is abrasive, unnecessarily conflict oriented and you seem to put little to know effort in helping "newcomers". Nor do I see much effort on your part to actual improve the Article on Gab. Rather, you seem to function as an idealogical "gatekeeper" or "enforcer". I wish this were not the case. I have made several overtures to you in order that we may be "collegial" and work together on this Article, however you seem to prefer to remain heavy-handed with your tendency to suppress any kind of open conversation and unwilling to allow other viewpoints to be enunciated. But that's not the primary purpose of this note. It's just "background" in case there is some kind of Administrative review. My primary objection here is that asserting the existance of the "conspiracy theory" that "hate speech" can be measured by "hate words" is junk, pseudoscience, and rather than respond to this assertion directly, you've "mirrored" the accusation and turned it into a "conspiracy theory" in a thinly veiled effort to enforce an ideaological narrative. I'm willing to go to "ArComm" over this, so I advise caution in your response.
":::::I have a problem using that source for anything in the Article. First, where did the funding come from, and why the funding? For all we know, Twitter hired a bunch of international nobodies to do a "hit piece", which is supported by my second objection, which is the entire concept of "hate words" somehow magically contain an intrinsic quality of "hate" (junk science assertion #1), and that somehow, the number of hate words, or the ratio of hate words, or the comparison of the numbers and ratio of hate words can somehow be used as a reliable metric for this junk science pseudoterm "hate" (junk science assertion #2). As if you can boil-down human emotions to their basic molecules and separate them out and count them. Do we have "love words"? "Fear words"? "Angry words"? Who makes the determination of what words are "hate words" and what words are not? How do they arrive at this determination? Are there any double-blind studies? Can they replicate their results? Have they tested their theories on laboratory rats? What did they use as a control for their studies? Who would even pay for such a study, anyways? It almost certainly has a political and/or economic agenda, unless you believe there's an invisible magic money tree that just mysteriously grows cash to pay for such a (stupid) study for no particular reason. Has anyone ever studied rap music for it's "hate content". and compared the number of hate words in that musical form to, say for example, country music? Is rap more hateful than country music? How do either of those compare to Classical Music? What was Bach's "Hate Index", and should his music be censored for being "hateful"? They say the tritone is "the devil's interval". Maybe the next step is to start censoring music with too many tritones, as being "satanic". I can say a whole lot of really "hateful" things, and not use a single hate word, and so can everybody else. Further, with all the virulent "anti-conspiracy" watchdogs around this Article, this is absolutely the very definition of a conspiracy theory. Let's see some learned and academic research supporting the idea that measuring the "hate word content" gives any kind of meaningful information LONG before including this stupidity in an encyclopedia. Tym Whittier ( talk) 22:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)"
Tym Whittier ( talk) 20:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Autocorrect has become my worst enema. 😊 Atsme Talk 📧 00:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You're now up to 4 reverts in a day. ModerateMikayla555 ( talk)
Eventually, my assumption of good faith on behalf of Wikipedia-kind will pay off. Today is not that day. Cheers! Dumuzid ( talk) 03:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
Amazing work on Center for Immigration Studies Britishfinance ( talk) 09:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC) |
I am not an expert contributor by any means, but you are, and seem to be professional and reasonable, so I am wondering if you wouldn't mind giving me advice.
I posted a comment in the Proud Boys talk section regarding citations used to justify the term "neo-nazi" on the wiki page. The articles used to cite it, excluding the opinion pieces from politically charged sources, are being used incorrectly.
E.G. citation [11] a Washington Post article that claims the FBI considers the Proud Boys a hate group. This was later followed up on by the FBI and they confirmed the FBI does not consider the Proud Boys to be a hate group. The follow up article correcting the citation is left out and never corrected on Wikipedia. I started the talk section, to see if this could be corrected and I was going to follow up as per your instructions with the proper citations, but now I wonder if it's even worth it because because SummerPhD and a couple other contributors are more invested in leaving that label on there and silencing anyone who wishes to present opposing evidence.
My question is, should I even bother? Is the article currently hijacked to the point where anything conflicting with their political opinions rejected? It seems to me if I gave them an FBI report invalidating these claims they would be able to reject it by misusing Wikipedia Rules that were created for the exact opposite purpose.
I also want to add, I am not a member of, nor am I affiliated with the group in either way. I am just an avid reader of Wikipedia, and I hate to see all of these articles on politics turning into dumpster fires.
Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoohunglow ( talk • contribs) 12:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately the majority of RS do not refer to them as fascist or neo fascist (you may want to address the point on the neo fascist talk page about the word having little to no academic standing.) WP is supposed to
accurately represent the majority of RS opinion. Furthermore, the experts on labeling hate groups- SLPC and ADL whom frequently throw around the fascist label do not use it to the describe this group. The reason may have something to do with Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, and the proud boys being neither authoritarian or interested in dictatorial power. Not all right wing hate groups are fascist and unlike the other objectors or proponents-my proposal to use the SLPC description is a harsher way of describing them but unlike fascist is not factually inaccurate. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:46:C801:B1F0:B86B:1C9F:5778:9BFF (
talk) 22:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
and interestingly when punched into a search engine-
groups that are ideologically bent on the extermination of other groups,
first hit nazis
second hit islamists
third hit communists
It undermines your credibility when you dismiss expert RS material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:B86B:1C9F:5778:9BFF ( talk) 22:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Fresno State rescinds job offer after candidate lies about Black, Cuban heritage
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/education-lab/article245836520.html
Nice source bro
and Hosang says that they approach fascist, not that they are fascist.
Nice misquote bro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2461:5DFD:6A2C:87C5 ( talk) 09:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
While I don't condone Michael's actions in the last 24 hours, removing his picture from the article in retaliation is rather disruptive to the article itself and I'd suggest against doing it again. I've now reverted it (although I kept the other edit taking out the bladesmith claim intact since I'm not sure that's covered by any source). -- letcreate123 ( talk) 05:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jorm, I added a section to the talk page here. Please weigh in: /info/en/?search=Talk:Gab_(social_network)#Neutrality_issues
Thanks!
Alexgleason ( talk) 21:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jorm, can you please take another look at the talk page and address my comments? I wrongly assumed you were conceding the point since it has been 2 days since your last response.
I would also like to point out that we did not form consensus for the inclusion of this newly added line. Consensus works both ways and I am putting in an active and timely effort trying to form consensus with you. I ask you to please do the same for me.
I'm not advocating that we say Gab is a beautiful place with rainbows and flowers, just that we remove an excessive subjective statement by a third-party. It's just one sentence that I think is in excess. My goal here is to preserve the encyclopediatic tone which I think is not well served by the inclusion of that statement.
To give an example, imagine on the page for Coca-Cola we include a statement from Pepsi saying "Coca-Cola has been accused of murdering union organizers. Also, Pepsi is more flavorful and better in every way." The point has already been made with the first sentence, while the second sentence is a self-promotion.
I'm not trying to twist the article into conveying Gab falsely. We all know what Gab really is. I just do not think we should be shamelessly promoting a competing product on the page. It's not relevant to the point, and the point is strong without it.
Thanks! Alexgleason ( talk) 23:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
As a former WMF employee, are you sure it's appropriate for you to participate in high-stake community discussions declaring what a user can or cannot do with WMF actions? If you are sure, don't you think it would be better to add some kind of disclosure to that purpose? Nemo 10:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to apologize for my comment in Floq's RfA that I "for once" agreed with you. That was unnecessary to include. My only interaction with you that I can recall was to post a message on your talk page asking you not to be so dismissive of editors with different points of view, a comment with which you disagreed. I guess I wanted to indicate in the RfA that I agreed with you on the point you were making even though we were not like-minded editors. But, as I said, it was unnecessary to say and I did not intend it to be a slight of you. I hope you will accept my apology. Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Could you perhaps help me start finding concensus for a rewritten lede? I believe my attempt, if not good enough to pass outright, should be an OK starting point for the discussion. Are you inclined to agree or do you think my changed version is inherently flawed?
In any case, I'm really not sure what to do from this point as I'm rather clueless on how the process works. I'd appreciate your help!
P. S. I accidentally clicked on the "thanks" button for the undo. Just wanted to clarify it's not me being passive aggressive. HoboDyerProjection ( talk) 00:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
To be completely frank, you're giving me the impression that you have reverted my changes without actually taking a look at it.
Criticisms aside, thanks for the advice about finding concensus. I will do that soon. HoboDyerProjection ( talk)
I thought you were just some strange kinda spelling bee dude - didn't know you were famous! Not sure how I ended up on your UP, but I can easily visualize that tattooed arm holding the handle bars of a Harley. Oh, and I pinged you at a discussion at The SignPost as it is about a topic for which you appear to be well-versed. ~ Biker chic 13:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Does the no response mean you (1) don't have time, (2) are not interested, (3) my text is too small for you to see without special glasses, or (4) you forgot what this discussion was all about? Atsme Talk 📧 22:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
(also i refuse to archive my talk page as a protest for how talk pages are shitty technology)-- Jorm ( talk) 05:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I had simply removed one low-quality source - We still have many higher quality sources affirming the connection between Gab and the alt-right!!!! People keep restoring this poor study (and it's included redlink to an organization I never heard of) back into the page when we clearly have better studies already referenced on the page!!! I don't want to edit the article again since this would cause an war
Mfernflower ( talk) 16:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, you have supported my ban however would we be able to discuss your reasonings and both sides on here so we can see each other’s sides in a civil way thanks.
Wiki Facts fixer ( talk) 20:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Is "nah" really enough of a reason to revert something? MaximumIdeas ( talk) 22:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
And are you sure that "protest" encompasses violence? Would you put the same on a violent right-wing organization's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumIdeas ( talk • contribs)
Nice to meet you ~ | |
~ Thanks ~ Very nice to meet you ~ ~mitch~ ( talk) 01:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC) |
Eg [11]. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd missed the note on the talk page. -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
...had to self-revert. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jorm
Thank you for calling my attention.
I will be more careful moving forward.
LOBOSKYJOJO ( talk) 05:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I think of you from time to time. I hope that you're doing well. ↠Pine (✉) 05:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC) |
I am doing well! Or as well as one can be in our Times of Early Trials. My family and friends are mostly well; I am fairly at peace. I'm trying to do my part for the Mission still.-- Jorm ( talk) 05:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Nor did I even imply that, because the idea of murder is ridiculous. It probably was a suicide; all I said was that the Winnipeg Police haven't issued a ruling yet, which will no doubt be suicide based upon his sister's public comments.
Thank you. - Phone Charger ( talk) 23:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Just to say I will not be accepting any silencing or bullying from the likes of you on here. I removed bias from an article, I got a reversion from an obviously corrupt editor with an agenda (had male feminist in his about page, reverted an edit re that so should have been keeping his fingers off since it's clearly a subject he can't be impartial on) and now I see you polluting my talk page with your intimidation. you can go straight to hell, it doesn't matter how passive-aggressively you phrase it, I know cult-like behaviour, bullying and outright intimidation when I see it and I'm seeing it right now. I've been on here since the start, and I will not bow to anyone pushing an ideological agenda who has been climbing the greasy pole. Hideki ( talk) 15:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Jorm. I responded to your reply
here. I'm still not sure what is happening here. There's a chance I'll end up with egg on my face for not realizing something silly but at the moment I'm still stumped and I'm thinking it's not a problem on my end. The offending HTML appears to be a DIV inserted after the page footer, which is highly irregular. I'll tinker with it for a while by using another browser and update in the thread with whatever I learn.
Jason Quinn (
talk) 14:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
<div class="fbc-badge js-fbc-UID_1 fbc-badge-small fbc-badge-share fbc-badge-prompt-align-top" style="z-index: 202; left: -12px; top: -5px;"><div class="fbc-badge-fence"></div><div class="fbc-badge-tooltip">Facebook Container has disabled this button and blocked Facebook from tracking your visit to this page.</div><div class="fbc-badge-prompt"></div></div>
that it thinks is a tracker (this was the code I thought was suspicious but I now believe it is inserted by the plugin). I still don't know why the code is inserted by the plugin and the badge doens't seemed to be attached to any element so it ends up rendering in the upper left of the page. Maybe it's a bug in Facebook container itself. I'll let you know if it turns out to be more than that. Jason Quinn ( talk) 14:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
wikipedia made me write something here. -- FariedNawaz ( talk) 18:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC) |
Why did you blank Talk:List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019? Removing all active discussions at once seems excessive. Dimadick ( talk) 17:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Jorm, that link is dead--that whole thing seems to have folded. Not worth edit-warring over. Drmies ( talk) 17:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
How come you chose to engage Katfactz after their second unblock request? The threats made and behavior done were a clear indef block... I am just curious is all as I don't think anything good came out of it. In any case its over, I was just sorry to see the attempted outing. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Requesting block review: Katfactz". Thank you. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 00:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
We do not categorise list articles by all the issues dealt with in the list. Categorisation works on the defining features of the article. Please do not start an edit war. Discuss this in the talk page. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Who do you think you are? Alex Devens ( talk) 16:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jorm! All the warmest wishes for this seasonal occasion, whichever you celebrate - or don't, while I swelter at 27℃ (80.6℉), and peace and prosperity for 2020. Hoping that you'll join me for a cool beer in Bangkok in August when it will be even hotter! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC) |
I do not understand what you mean by citation, can you give an example of another article, I added the reference, who is the person who says this, to which organization he belongs, what else do you want. I put this into what this organization really thinks, that MGTOW is the male feminist is something almost irrelevant to them, mainly they criticize it for being a group of "most virgins going their own way", "repellent losers" that encourage to others to join them, that's what the Pick-up artist community does not talk of them of feminism separatism that practically doesn't mention it either on their websites or in their interviews. We are going to put what this community thinks of them in their respective section, and not change it just because some people do not like it-- BrugesFR ( talk) 18:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
After seeing this, I figured this would give you a chuckle. Maybe wenyan‑lang will become a blue link someday. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 20:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
For your invaluable help with WP:UPSD. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC) |
The Half Barnstar | |
For the excellent User:Headbomb/unreliable. Harrias talk 19:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC) |
A very minor note about this edit, which you may already know (if so, please ignore): technically it's a CSS selector rather than a regular expression. Good work on the script! isaacl ( talk) 00:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Who are you, or anyone, to lock down a site so that no one else can edit incorrect statements?
Just because you don't think Intelligent Design is science does not change the fact that it uses the same scientific processes that Darwinian Evolution does.
Correct it or open the page on Philip Johnson and any other like pages that have been secured in order for those of your belief cannot independently influence readers.
I thought Wikipedia was supposed to help people find truth, not agendas. Starvger ( talk) 22:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jorm, I opened an ANI at WP:ANI#User:Givingbacktosociety repeatedly opened the same discussions. Your comment there is welcome.―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 02:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I just thought i'd let you know that antifa is labelled as "left wing" on their own wikipedia page too. So it's not incorrect to use the label "left wing" in the Andy Ngo article. There is already a consensus that Antifa is a left wing group. I'll undo your revisions because you haven't given a reason as to why Antifa should not be labelled as "left wing" but to avoid this turning into an edit war, please let me know again if you're not seeing eye to eye with me and we can then discuss - Cement4802 ( talk) 03:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi ^_^, I didn't know it was not a reliable source, anyway, you could always explain yourself a little bit further on what is reliable and what is not. "Not a reliable source" is not that helpful and makes of Wikipedia a waste of time ^_^ Cheers. -- CoryGlee ( talk) 22:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this, no worries regarding the collateral damage. I don't see a BLP issue in the content you removed, though. VQuakr ( talk) 18:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi there Jorm. Hope you're doing well. I'm writing to you about your revert on my addition. I just wanted more information rather than just a "Nah." I came here because I didn't want a immature edit war. Your help will be appreciated. Thank you. Modern Major General I quote the fights historical 19:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I like the idea. I want to give it some time to see how it goes, but if it looks like it's going south, I would have some backup ideas to see if we can get consensus for something. One idea I had was to change the logo from white to black. Here's hoping we can get something larger and more impactful than that though. — Wug· a·po·des 06:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
She is his partner on his wiki. They're partners @ Wikidata. They are together since 2016. Why did you remove it?
The Building the Wikimythology Award | |
The Topic Ban Fairy (with a side order of NOTHERE) is a valuable addition to Wikipedia's mythology. SummerPhD v2.0 17:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
Hi Jorm, you just reinstated a lot of text that is sourced to an unpublished book, that I had reverted: [12]. You didn't leave an edit summary. Is there an explanation that I don't see? Per WP:PUBLISHED, it doesn't meet WP:V. I'm also concerned that this IP editor, 2A02:C7D:BB2:1C00:E161:529:F80D:F6C9/64 ( talk), may be engaging in promtion and WP:CITESPAM for the (upcoming in 2021) book, and some of the text appears to be copypasted, see their history. Let me know, thanks. -- IamNotU ( talk) 00:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Dear Jorm,
Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.
xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
(Redacted) Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, IMDb thinks Ocean's Thirteen is set on the 4th of July according to the keywords, so...
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Epa101 ( talk) 21:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
It is not permissible to engage in WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior [13] on Wikipedia, especially over socio-political viewpoints, and most especially over ones covered by discretionary sanctions, as is human sexuality and gender, broadly construed. Injecting such material into discussions which don't even relate to the matter you're going off about is especially ill-advised. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Can you explain to me why determining a template is placed incorrectly is "not a reason to remove the template"? [14] OrgoneBox ( talk) 19:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, could you help me understand why you felt it necessary to remove the recent comments on the Black Lives Matter talk page? I don't think they should have been removed, as I don't believe they violated any of the talk page guidelines - WP:TPO - and it's my understanding that talk page comments should not be removed unless they clearly violate one of those guidelines.
I understand that race is a heated topic, and I believe it's important to discuss these issues in a respectful, civil manner. In that light, I worry that your labeling of opposing arguments as "white supremacist" is unfair and unproductive. I hope maybe you'll reconsider and restore the previously deleted comments. Thanks Stonkaments ( talk) 01:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stonkaments ( talk) 03:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I’m just wondering what prompted you to put some sort of sanction on User Mikerrr. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 04:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I wasn’t sure, but I appreciate the warning. That user has been uncivil and not getting the point. I hope this stops now. Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 20:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 20:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Jorm, just to respond to your final comment, you call me "ill informed", yet you close your eyes and boast that you won't see the video. This is not a clip of someone talking for 60 min in a long winded manner, but actual 3 min video from the Church which was vandalized — you might not agree or care for that matter, but just so you are not "ill-informed" about the situation that's out there, or live in a bubble. -- E-960 ( talk) 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I think this was just a tweak to make the grammar consistent, not a change to the meaning. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The way that the article appears without the word some is inaccurate and misleading. It is written in such a way as to omit the information that the Center for Immigration Reform are also scholars. That there are some scholars that disagree with the CIS does not give authority to their opposition.
RichardBond ( talk) 19:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
[redact link to fascist website] read what the core values of the Proud Boys are Chrisburke123 ( talk) 20:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I, too, am a bit suspicious of DotWhateverWiki's edits, as well as those by IndieQueenPDX, which seem to be almost entirely related to Logan Lynn. I've asked about their identity on their user talk page, and considered going to WP:COIN. A lot of the LL-related articles are way too detailed and promotional. I invite you to take a look and/or trim promotional content as you see fit, if you're interested and willing. Happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
By the way, thanks for your work on the Proud Boys talk page. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Since you closed the discussion I can't very well add it there, but I came up with a different idea on how to search for a source on the subject. This looks a lot like what I saw. Anyway, when I looked more carefully I saw that they were discussing already whether to include such information.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I have created a category in the talk page for consensus on the far-right characterization: /info/en/?search=Talk:Three_Percenters#New_Consensus_Attempt_to_change_Three_Percenters_characterization_from_'far-right'_to_'anti-government'_in_lede TheEpicGhosty ( talk) 02:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
What I posted was on topic for the talk page and an attempt to help a fellow editor. If its wrong to express personal disappointment about a topic then it certainly isn't commonly enforced. I hope you understand this. Although looking at your history you seem to have an issue with professionalism and appear to create or at least thrive in wallowing among the very problems wikipedia supposedly is against so I am not too optimistic. Which is strange for someone who puts themselves forth as an enforcer of this site. Go ahead and censor if you wish. I barely edit anymore anyway.
@
Jorm:
In his edit summary
Nfitz asks a valid question: why are we closing this while still editing?
I only began reading
Talk:Proud Boys yesterday, but I already have the impression that
you are closing requests too quickly, and in some cases prematurely. Please restrain yourself in this regard and give other editors a chance to comment on answered requests.
NedFausa (
talk) 16:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Lol cool story courageous warrior. -- Renegade78 ( talk) 22:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
As a Briton, I had no idea what a Harvard SAT score would be and had to read the entirerty of the attached ref to make sense of it. I assume other non-Americans would have this experience and perhaps too would Americans who haven't attended college/elite colleges. Further, it was cited. The existing ref which I left in place (the Insider) had the info. In any event, you have spent more time on the article and I will defer. Lord Law Law ( talk) 16:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Challenge their conspiracy theories and misconduct and you get threatened by their followers. Yeesh. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 ( talk) 21:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jorm. -- Pudeo ( talk) 23:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Jorm, I just want to say that I think you are doing a great job here on Wikipedia and I think admins at AE are not seeing the forest for the trees. People seem so wrapped up in a false sense of 'civility' that they forget what real incivility is like. I'm just a nobody and I know I don't have much clout around here but just know not everyone sees how you act as anything but defensible and appropriate. Valeince ( talk) 16:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Jorm. Pursuant to the report at AE, you are formally warned against continued incivility, personal attacks or aspersions in the WP:ARBGG topic area. As a reminder, this extends to making any edit, or editing any page within the purview of ARBGG. This should be interpreted as a "final warning"; in other words, you are being issued a warning in lieu of any sanctions, with the understanding that continued violations may be met with sanctions without further warning. Virtually everyone seems to sympathize with you telling bigoted trolls to "fuck off", and this is not blind civility enforcement. Legitimate points were raised against simply giving you a pass, most notably the fact that your attacks were not strictly constrained to bigoted trolls and vandals, and that attacking said trolls and vandals is actually counterproductive because it rewards their trolling with the intended response and makes them feel like they succeeded by getting a rise out of someone. No one is asking you to lose your passion for combating hate on Wikipedia. You're simply being asked to self-correct the incivility, which has gone a bit too far beyond the line. Don't think of this as you getting screwed over, think of it as you being given a break because we get it. That certainly is the intent behind this warning. Let me know if you have any questions. Best, ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Jorm has chosen to patrol some controversial articles...and hence thought a broader range of topics were involved.The description of diffs and the comments there do not mention things that seem particularly egregious to me, especially not in the context of GG or the kinds of things transphobes say in gender-related articles; so I'm having difficulty accepting that the community's hand was inexorably forced into placing Jorm into “final warning” precarity here. (I'm sure you as the closer have done your job properly in carrying out consensus, though.) But I haven't read through every diff and link, I don't have an admin's perspective on enforcement of conduct rules, and I'm not trying to re-litigate the AE discussion here: I'm just expressing solidarity with Jorm. -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 03:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
My first barnstar ever, in fourteen years! Yeah, I guess I'm normally kind of a loner. And I should probably link to my talk page in my signature. Thank you so much! -- ▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 02:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Why was Kyle Rittenhouse removed? He has been charged with the shootings. It was specifically mentioned in the articles cited. I am not going to engage in a constant edit war, but his name should be specifically mentioned.
Per your recent summary, I believe The Forward is generally considered to be a reliable source. It's used in the Parler article and I've certainly used them elsewhere. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jorm, by my count you reverted four times at NumbersUSA, and the reverts in question don't appear to fall under any 3RR exemptions. I'm guessing you lost count of reverts there, and since multiple other editors were reverting the IP as well I'm just going to leave you this note and call this "done" from an administrative standpoint. Please be careful not to cross the 3RR line in the future. Best, GeneralNotability ( talk) 20:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
You !voted a delete in an AFD you opened, I don’t understand, isn’t opening an AFD in itself a crystal clear indication that you want the article deleted? or am I missing something? Or is there a ruling to this effect that allows editors !vote in AFD's they themselves opened? Celestina007 ( talk) 20:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Each "Signpost" notice has about 5-15 "expensive parser function" calls. The limit per page is 500. You have 4 dozen or so Signpost messages, maybe more. That may be why you are "over the limit." Consider archiving older messages. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted my edits, and I can understand why. I was manually reverting 2 edits made months ago which did not seem to improve the article. By undoing those edits, I was taking the article towards a NPOV with my first edit. The second was more a matter of the previous editor not understanding how nationality works. The original edits are [18] and [19], made by an editor who has made many useless edits, said preposterous things on talk pages and has been warned many times that "fixed grammar" is not an all-purpose edit summary. I'm in the process of reviewing hundreds of their edits while I wait for them to make one further edit and get blocked.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 03:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I think you reverted the following [ [20]] without responding on the talk page. Before making the edit, I opened the discussion on the talk page.
Not a single person has questioned whether or not it belong in the lede, and several strongly pointing out it must be included. That's consensus as far as I can see. Feel free to disagree but perhaps in the talk page before you start revert warring. I'll assume you made a mistake and let you revert yourself02:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D ( talk)
Is the Afro-Cuban-American descriptor objected to? I understand that there's an objection to removing the description of Enrique Tarrio as an FBI informant from the opening paragraph, but I wanted to check in before I open up any additional discussions regarding how we should describe his ethnicity. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Came across Tonytwoshoes' talk page and it genuinely confused me. The user has made one edit, which was to revert new content in Brendan Eich that had never been reverted before. In response you gave Tonytwoshoes an edit warring notice and three DS alerts. I'm guessing that the edit warring notice was a mistake? -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 07:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is " Wikipedia:No_Nazis".The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:No Nazis.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
-- 73.159.229.5 ( talk) 11:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Jorm, you revereted my edits on Victor Salva article without telling me a reason. I added information on that article and improved wording. could you get back to me please.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Paul Gosar, you may be blocked from editing. Grayinator ( talk) 04:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about going "full flamethrower" in that signature discussion. It's no excuse but it had been the end of a bad day IRL. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
For Special:Diff/1025475059 and your other comments on that page. While my experience might bias me a bit, that is the single best comment I've read on Wikipedia. Or at least it's in the top three. Thank you for sharing your knowledge, and I look forward to focusing on the area of talk pages more in the future. Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC) |
Re Special:Diff/1025854835: My edit uses the exact same number of slurs as the previous version, both still redacted as in the original tweet. How am I "inject[ing] slurs into the minds of readers"? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
How does one appeal? I'm just a lowly Wiki reader who makes the occasional edit. Seems mighty unfair to have these sanctions (whatever they are) imposed for bringing up an extremely valid point. So, how would I appeal these sanctions which have, in my opinion, been applied with a heavy and unaccountable hand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongoletsi ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the idea at Special:Diff/1026726084. Although, would it be possible to perhaps use a different example for a custom signature, like [[User:Jorm|Custom signature]]? I appreciate the sentiment conveyed, but as it's the first comment, it'll sort of sets the tone for the rest of it. And I figure the RfC's going to be a massive uphill battle anyway. Enterprisey ( talk!) 00:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
"Not done for obvious reasons, being that this request assumes that words no longer have meanings." Good one. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 18:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Do you have any connection to Brendan Eich, or anything that could be classed as a COI under the WP:COI policy, or any strong feelings about the subject, or anything else that could be covered under WP:BLPCOI? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. You undid my sourced edit just because was tagged minor edit. Let's be honest, it was such a nice excuse. Many of users doubt you are independent editor. You should respect to other users and read WP:CENSOR and WP:NOTBURO one more time. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.-- Yaser0017 ( talk) 15:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Your response to my request that the Wikipedia BLM pages add mention of the co-founders' "Black Lives Matter Manifesto" is below...
Jorm: "Patricmcm please read the many, many, many archives where folk have come asking this (or a similar) question and are educated that the right-wing media "Marxist" claim is, in fact, not true, and is nearly always questioned and espoused by individuals who do not fully understand what Black Lives Matter is, what Marxism is, or both! Ke Akua Pū.--Jorm (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)BLM PAGE, May 22, 2021
You responded with the above to my request that Wikipedia address an apparent oversight on its "Black Lives Matter" page by the inclusion of the organization's founding document, "The Black Lives Matter Manifesto" of 2014. The Manifesto was authored and presented by BLM co-founders Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi, who within the document espoused the beneficial applications of Marxist training in the struggle against "systemic racism." One need not be expert on either BLM or Marxism to perceive that any public descriptor of the organization, such as a Wikipedia page, with no mention of its founding document would benefit by its addition, much as discussions of the American Revolution benefit from inclusion of the Declaration of Independence. As to the co-founders appreciation of Marxism as a defining philosophy, one need only glance at the co-founders' originating cry, "Black! Queer! Marxist!" The above is simply illustrative, factual information, and has been referred to forthrightly on numerous occasions by the co-founders themselves. Some may view Marxist theory through a darkened lens, but its tenets have proven valuable for more than a century in regards to the ignition and growth of revolutionary ideals. Patricmcm ( talk) 21:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.-- Filmomusico ( talk) 21:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Why do you feel the need to be a backseat enforcer for administrators? They are perfectly able to do their jobs without your input. Your rude comments on my page are not helpful nor appreciated. Mind your own business if you aren't going to be polite about it. No one wants your rude, unsolicited input on their talk pages. Uchiha Itachi 25 ( talk) 01:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I am ok with consensus. But, why remove the fact tag? I have been reading and see many online forums that are black MGTOW members. BlackAmerican ( talk) 20:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I saw you deleted the source of incel that I had. If you look in the history section there is a whole paragraph that is dedicated to it. [22]. Also why did you delete the gaycel? There is several published articles concerning gay incels. Thank you BlackAmerican ( talk) 07:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, the purpose of an Edit summary is to summarize the edit, not to engage in conversation with another editor. (But I'm sure you know that.) Best, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 18:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
instead of just ripping up my hours of hard work... I'm really sorry if I made a mistake.
But I will log off from Wiki until I hear back from someone with more experience with this website...
- OsagePizza72 ( talk) 03:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
You should consider removing yourself from the Zoe Quinn article. You seem overly invested in it, and you've been squatting on it for so many years that you're likely not capable of overseeing it anymore. AWildAppeared ( talk) 11:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, may I ask why my revision is being deleted? If their is a dispute with that line where can we resolve it. Thank you
Please provide a link or a way I can access the talk page.
Hi! Reply-link has officially been superseded by mw:DiscussionTools, which you can install using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. DiscussionTools, developed by the WMF's Editing Team, is faster and has more features than reply-link, and it wouldn't make sense for me to keep developing reply-link. I think the Editing Team is doing amazing work, and look forward to what they can do in the future. Thank you for using reply-link over the years! Enterprisey ( talk!) 06:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, You rollbacked my revision on the ground that I used what you call « scare quotes » (here I go again) for the expression « systemic racism. » In this instance, the quotation marks were meant to indicate that the expression quoted appears as in in the text under discussion (the E.O.). That is a proper use of quotation marks. They can also be used for a number of other purposes, for instance to express doubts over the appropriateness of a term or the validity of a concept. These secondary and less formal uses should not displace the primary meaning of quotation marks, which is… to indicate that the delineated expression is a quote. In addition, your rollback did not just remove these scary scare quotes, but also the rest of my edits, which I believe added clarity (and better grammar) to the article. I would appreciate your providing a reasoned explanation for this action, based on your reading of the Executive Order. Thank you. Overpop ( talk) 06:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I am admittedly new at this and welcome constructive criticism. Also, I am indeed not a native English speaker and I am aware that my style can at times be somewhat laborious. On the other hand, I hold a J.D. from a T14 law school and I have every reason to believe that I understand nuances in written texts better than most native speakers. 1.What do you mean by « it doesn’t appear to be a quote? It *is* a quote! From section 1 of the order: « Our country faces converging economic, health, and climate crises that have exposed and exacerbated inequities, while a historic movement for justice has highlighted the unbearable human costs of systemic racism. » The point of using quotation marks is precisely to show the reader that the expression does not come out of a hat but is used in the original document, which matters in this case because, like it or not, « systemic racism » is a loaded expression. This is why the use of the term in the order is significant. The summary would be lacking if it did not convey that information to the reader. 2. « You are writing in the lede. » Is that so? Wouldn’t the lede in this instance be the introductory paragraph? The sentence we are discussing is in the body of the article. In any case, why should there not be a short quote in the lede? 3. If you honestly believe that most reasonable readers would conclude that the quotation marks are meant to make fun of the words « systemic racism, » then I guess they should be removed. 4. In any case, there is no reason to roll back the rest of my edit. The current version is a poorly written attempt at paraphrasing the order, the author having seemingly been under the impression that they needed to change words here and there to avoid plagiarism. But the order is a legal text and plagiarism issues don’t apply. On the contrary, the original text can and should be quoted liberally.
Overpop ( talk) 16:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
« A quotation is a sentence that is attributed to a human being, not cut and paste words from dry text. » Is that so? I suggest you consult a dictionary: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/quotation https://www.dictionary.com/browse/quotation https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quotation And to think that you have broad editing privileges… Wow. Unbelievable. Overpop ( talk) 23:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Your reverts on Antifeminism are unconstructive, border on edit warring and contain aggressive summaries. Please take note of WP:DRIVEBY, which states that my edits are perfectly constructive and should not be reverted. Consensus on the talk page is not required for pointing out unsourced claims as per WP:CITENEED. Furthermore, note that these are not drive by tags, as this article is a current project of mine to improve on (including finding sources for the tagged claims). See my previous edits and the talk page archive.
I have reviewed your contributions to this article, and came to the conclusion that you have quite a history of unconstructive edits, unpleasant summaries and show WP:OWN behaviour. I will once again add the tags you that you reverted twice, and I expect you to not engage in edit warring. If you want to remove the tags, find reliable sources for the claims.
Thank you and have a nice day. Pyrite Pro ( talk) 21:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Over here. Thanks! Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Thought I'd give you the option of doing the right thing. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
You recently reverted an edit I made that attempted to, and I believe did, clarify a poorly placed inline citation, asking me to go to the Talk page with it. I did that right away, explaining my reasoning. Would you please take a look at that and provide your thoughts? Cheers! Huskerdru ( talk) 02:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Specifically, I checked the citstion, which supported only the quoted material, not the subsequent two sentences. With the citation at the end of the paragraph, it appears to source all three points made, two of which have no citation (the Victor Davis Hanson comment, and the "Arguably..." sentence re: Johnston dying on Day 1 of Shiloh. Huskerdru ( talk) 03:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Ack! This is re: Lost Cause of the Confederacy, not Origins of the Civil War... My mistake, sorry for confusion. Huskerdru ( talk) 03:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
You recently reverted an edit on this page I made that attempted to, and I believe did, clarify a poorly placed inline citation, asking me to go to the Talk page with it. I did that right away, explaining my reasoning. Would you please take a look at that and provide your thoughts? Cheers! Huskerdru ( talk) 14:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Patriot Prayer, you may be blocked from editing. Sarstan ( talk) 02:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
When Teri Polo is searched, this is the page that comes up. [23] What is a reliable source that can be used to update the birthdate and age? Thank you! 161.77.227.47 ( talk) 17:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The Associated Press reported her name. Either delete the whole Jewish thing or stop deleting her name. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 17:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Jorm, I have blocked you for one month because you have contacted me asking for this block. This is not a block for misconduct. It seems that you want to take a Wikibreak. That is fine. I will unblock you anytime you ask, and any other administrator can feel free to unblock you upon request if I am inactive, or I will be happy to provide clarification on request. I wish you well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Brandon. I just wanted to express my personal heartfelt thanks to you for signing the letter. Best, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Just gonna put this here. Jorm ( talk) 19:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)