User talk:GregJackP/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Native American name controversy

I'm sorry I was wrong, and I've also apologized on the article talk page. I would like to point out that it is extraordinarily difficult to discern from Native American name controversy exactly what the preferred term is, and I hope you can point experts there to clarify that article further. Josh Joaquin (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologize to me, as I explained on your talk page. I know you were trying to do the right thing. GregJackP Boomer! 05:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Precious

justice for indigenous peoples
Thank you for quality articles for projects Indigenous peoples of North America and Law, such as Ex parte Crow Dog and United States v. Lara, and for getting to the point of working together, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to see you're gone

Your work was much appreciated. Hope we'll see you back from retirement someday. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews January–March 2013

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2013, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Baby Girl

So glad to see you back, hope you had a good wikibreak! I wasn't thrilled with the last set of substantive edits since my last edit on that article, but haven't had time to review it in detail; they inserted POV but also made some useful changes in style and flow, so a revert isn't the best solution. Thus, the time-consuming thing of reviewing and editing is needed. I've been pretty bold about just taking charge of the article and proceeding. Haven't had too much trouble with POV-pushers but that's probably because I've just sort of put on my "B--ch" hat and they aren't messing with me. LOL. But if you want to look at that last set of edits and tweak, I'd be glad to back you. Montanabw^(talk) 16:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I reverted them already (yesterday). They had removed a good deal of sourced material and replaced it with unsourced material, so it was easier to revert on that basis. I saw where you've been keeping an eye on it - and I agree with everything that you've done. I don't know how much time I'll be able to spend on wiki, but I'll dabble here and there. GregJackP Boomer! 17:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm mentally tagging your work as the main "clean" edit. Wonder how long until a decision? I'm not optimistic; somewhere I read that both Roberts and one other justice (Thomas maybe?) have adopted kids. They also got all hung up on the race issue during oral argument, and the supporters - such as they were - of the position of the tribe didn't get it about the sovereignty issue; political status-versus-race either. Surprised the attorneys didn't do a better job, but maybe the briefing covered it. Montanabw^(talk) 19:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

See Resp. Br. of Birth Father & Cherokee Nation at 23-24, where it briefs the tribal membership & sovereignty issues, although not as well as I would like. See also Amicus Br. of United States at 28-31, much better brief. I'm sure the other amici briefed much the same thing, so I'm sure the tribal citizenship vs. racial classification was covered. The Chief Justice is a lost vote - he never votes for the tribes and and he is an adoptive parent. Justice Thomas adopted his grand-nephew, so he is a possibility, but I would say remote (since he never votes for Indians either). Justices Scalia, Kagen, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg seem to be on the right side of this, so you have to look at Justices Alito (doubtful), Breyer, and Kennedy (doubtful). It really depends on where Breyer goes, but I anticipate another 5-4 decision. GregJackP Boomer! 00:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Breyer has been oddly unpredictable lately. Any rumors of when a decision might be handed down? Looks like they are starting to crank them out... Montanabw^(talk) 17:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Reasons not to delete Wilt L. Idema

Since the suggested deletion of Wilt L. Idema does not offer any specific suggestions other than "Non-notable academic," it's hard to respond in detail except to say that any scholar with a publication record that long must be notable!

Wikipedia needs more articles in the area of Chinese Literature, and articles on the scholars are important to let readers judge which scholarship is a Reliable Source by linking with the author's page.

The Wilt L. Idema page is part of my slow but (I hope) sure creation or expansion of a network of articles about the study of China (and to some extent Asia). My userpage lists some of them. To be sure, the Wilt Idema article is just a start, but it is not an orphan.

Besides (not logically conclusive, but strongly suggestive), this article is at the same level of development as a number of articles in the Category:Sinologists category.

Thanks for your consideration. ch (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree. There are no sources that I found that showed he met WP:ACADEMIC. GregJackP Boomer! 23:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience! I have edited the article to include membership in the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Also put a list on the Talk Page.

There were already at least one of the criteria on the page, and only one is needed, the least of which is editing a major journal in the field -- he edited two, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies and T'oung Pao. Also Full Professor in a country where named professorships are not usual. ch (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

PS Although I did not agree with you on this particular decision, I still want to thank you for taking the time and care to patrol the new articles. My next new article will be more carefully drawn in order to spare you going through all this trouble again! ch (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.

Delivered at 12:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

Talk:Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation

I rated this article as class C, Low importance, for Law. So I did not make any changes. If you disagree, get back to me by July 1, 2013. Otherwise, I will erase your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Major edit tag

Honestly, no, I didn't see it. Given that the article had several obvious issues, I attempted to help out with what surely will be a high traffic article today. My bad.

Further, I don't think anything I did would have trumped anything you added subsequently. You didn't have a major edit in the works, because you added bits and pieces here and there - the major edit template is intended to prevent edit conflicts where lots and lots of work could be lost, and that's now what happened with this article. On top of that, some of the fixes I put in place did not have anything to do with bits that you were editing, and remain unfixed (since you reverted wholesale). I don't believe your revert was fully justified, and - in a less experienced editor - it would give the appearance of article ownership. I'm not going to go back in and re-do those fixes - I'm not going to touch this article again. You're welcome to it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to indicate ownership, I was just trying to get a series of edits done to bring the article up to date. I have restored your first two edits, on the third I believe that my edit went into more detail and left it. I'm more than willing to discuss it though, and I apologize if I offended you. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 22:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No real objections with the what, but the how - the article is better now for your edits, clearly, and you had more time to put into it than I did yesterday. It's not often I get reverted wholesale - perhaps I overreacted a bit. Still done with the article, but thank you. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your work on Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: 3A Tutors Ltd

Hello GregJackP. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 3A Tutors Ltd, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Blue Baker

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Blue Baker, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! ModelUN (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

United States v. Solon

I don't think this case is notable. Maybe you agree, with me and if so, could you nominate it for deletion? I've done many AFDs but none involved legal cases. So I'm not sure of what is and isn't notable....William 16:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Judith Krug/GA1

• Talk:Judith Krug/GA1

I responded to the review, at Talk:Judith Krug/GA1.

Thanks very much for doing the GA Review on this person related to freedom of speech! — Cirt (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

GA bot

Just curious, how did you prime GA Bot like that to deliver messages to me? That's really convenient. — Cirt (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a clue. I just used a substituted template for the GA review - it did it all. GregJackP Boomer! 17:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Which template? — Cirt (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it was GATable. GregJackP Boomer! 17:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks! — Cirt (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Winterwell

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Winterwell, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Fbryce (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Question on unblock decline

What I meant was that, while your reasons were all good ones to deny the unblock, the name was the most significant and you hadn't mentioned that (don't feel bad about it; outside of us regular enforcers of the username policy most people don't always pick up on the nuances of it). Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 12:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability

Thanks for this helpful distinction. I have expanded on the reasoning a bit. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

User:B9lq97z6

Thanks for message anyway, ironic that he was nailed by another random-letters-and-numbers account Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Death of Keith Blakelock

Hi Greg, just a note to thank you again for your GA review. Your time is much appreciated. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. I enjoyed reading and reviewing the article. GregJackP Boomer! 16:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

sorry

Hi Greg,

Sorry for taking so long to elaborate. re: the SA thing. I was trying to read, copy things to a text file, evaluate, and find a "consensus". What happened there is that I was looking over your own evaluation and how you tally things up .. and then I didn't include your own views in it. I am sorry about that. I wouldn't be surprised if I mis-read some of the other things too ... but I think the general consensus was to unblock. I honestly didn't mean to leave you out, make you feel uncounted or anything - so I am sorry for that. — Ched :  ?  04:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No prob. SA and I have a negative history, and I'm just a little sensitive about him. I wasn't meaning to imply that you read the consensus wrong, unfortunately I believe the community agreed to unblock him. I just hope that it doesn't hurt the project. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 10:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Heads up

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hoax_Debanjan_Deb Tito☸Dutta 17:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 23:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Avinanda786 Tito☸Dutta 07:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

R.C.M.

Saw your post, I will add a reply shortly. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Saw you responded again, so I left a reply with greater detail this time. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the wiki-beer

Thank you! (Recommend anything? I'm still trying to find a beer I like, ha ha.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I prefer dark German beers myself - American beers are crap and are served way too cold... I guess I was corrupted while I was in Germany (hehehe). Hmmm. If you get a chance, try Erdinger Weissbier, a dark wheat beer. Spaten Optimator is likely more common in the states (doppelbock style beer). For an American beer, try Shiner Bock or Fat Tire. In any case, unfrosted mug or beer glass, at about 55 degrees. :) And if you go to Germany, the most important phrase is "Eine dunkeles bier, bitte." Cheers, GregJackP Boomer! 02:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Churchill-Mann sillsness

"She has known Professor Churchill for over 20 years (although she wasn’t quite clear on the timeline) and asked him to write the foreword for one of her books when he was “more famous” than she at the time. She was—even through a male voice—an authoritative, confident witness. (...) In response to Plaintiff counsel’s questions, Dr. Mann unequivocally said that—contradicting the Investigation Committee’s Report—there was indeed a “reasonable basis” for Churchill’s claim that the smallpox epidemic was a result of blankets taken from an infirmary in St. Louis, and the claim that army doctors at Fort Clark told the infected Indians to scatter. Dr. Mann is a repository of minute detail about those events. Consequently, she completely backed up all of Churchill’s claims and refuted the findings of the investigative committee." And so on. --Niemti (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And, needless to say, Churchill's (and Mann's) claim is not true. --Niemti (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

They were also promoting each other for a long time:

• Review "Barbara Mann has done it again. Abundantly documented, lucidly written and, best of all, utterly unequivocal in its conclusions, this is quite simply the best book ever written on the topic" Ward Churchill, author of A Little Matter of Genocide

One of many examples, it's really not hard to find. --Niemti (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. GregJackP Boomer! 09:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Really" "Just" Amazon? It's printed on the back cover of her book (along with a circlejerk review by David Stannard, "According to Guenter Lewy, Stannard's perspective has been joined by scholars Kirkpatrick Sale, Ben Kiernan, Lenore A. Stiffarm, Phil Lane, Jr., and Ward Churchill.[2]" -Wikipedia). And now try to explain "for Ward Churchill" (page 6 of the book actually in question, that is The Tainted Gift). Tell me how, for example, a recent book WWII dedicated "for David Irving" by a vocal Irving defender and known close associate, which would contain some alleged previously unknown revelations, would be considered a mainstream work on WII? --Niemti (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

So? How does that support your attack on her academic credentials and research? We don't do guilt by association here. Also, pick a place to have this discussion, instead of splitting it up between two pages. GregJackP Boomer! 11:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"So" would you support sudden Irving-style revelations by an Irving defender and associate as "mainstream"? --Niemti (talk) 11:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Either provide sources or not. I'm not going to go down rabbit trails, and I'm not going to waste time arguing something that you clearly don't understand. GregJackP Boomer! 11:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Source: Barbara Mann, The Tainted Gift, p6. So, would a WWII themed book "for David Irving", with irving style content, be cosidered "mainstream" on Wikipedia or not? Y/N, it's a very simple qustion. --Niemti (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm done. If you get a real source that states she is unreliable, let me know. I will not entertain your guilt by association argument, nor will others here. I've already told you I'm not going down rabbit trails like Irving. I will reiterate that unless you can come up with a source that backs up the negative information you posted earlier, you are not to reinsert it. BLP still applies. GregJackP Boomer! 11:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you answer Y/N? It's not hard. It's not a trick question. (My answer would be N.) Some positions are mainstream, and some are fringe. --Niemti (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Fred newman

Looks like he's on the prowl again. I came into the action late, but it looks like an admin has salted the main Nicholas Alahverdian article, the Nick Alahverdian one, and the one on the lawsuit. Hopefully this will dampen the behavior down a bit, though the non-protected articles will still have to be monitored for additions and such. Anyway, thanks for your help with all of this. It's been years since I was involved in Wikipedia (so long that I can't remember my password and have a different email and all now), but it appears that this little bit of ridiculousness has sucked me right back in. Thanks, though! NewAccount4Me (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. The admins were talking about creating an edit filter to catch it if he continues doing it. GregJackP Boomer! 23:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops!

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mike6125

How do I go about undoing that? Should I redirect my SPI to the one you created? Thanks! Ignatzmice•talk 05:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I've merged everything together into one case page. Legoktm (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Ignatzmice•talk 05:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey GregJackP. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

DelRev

Yes, of course I knew you meant it to be humorous, and I think it was. The person who calls me that the most frequently is my longterm Wikifriend OrangeMike, I hope I didn't inject an unduly serious tone into the proceedings. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you were good. GregJackP Boomer! 11:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Valiant Return Triple Crown

Your Valiant Majesty. It gives me great pleasure to recognize GregJackP as a recipient of the Valiant Return Triple Crown, for earning all the elements of a Triple Crown after a legitimate return from ArbCom. Thank you for rewarding the good hopes that people had in you – you're an inspiration to others. — ΛΧΣ21 07:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute

Dear GregJackP.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 23:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh, I really don't care about the Muhammad images case. I assume that you are speaking of the Manning name change case. If so, my sole intent was to request that ArbCom take the case in order to address the general issues I pointed out. I don't see a need to be involved further, but if there is a specific question of me that the committee would like answered, I am at their service. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 23:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and another request for an opinion

Thank you for your analysis of the photo on the Jerusalem talk page. If you have a moment could you look at the second (new) picture? Padres Hana (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Ramsey (1926)

GregJackP, it's been about two weeks since you said you'd deal with the issues raised in the DYK review. Please stop by the next time you're editing to give an update; progress needs to be made here soon. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GregJackP. You have new messages at Roscelese's talk page.
Message added 17:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW

Our article on Buckley already has a "Later cases" section, so if you think the sourcing on VSHL v FEC exists, that might be a good place for it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 14:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for United States v. Ramsey (1926)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Texas Master Peace Officer badge.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Texas Master Peace Officer badge.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Menominee Tribe v. United States

Thank you very much. Your edits greatly improved the article. GregJackP Boomer! 00:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Inserting comments

My apologies for inserting comments into your comment. It was not meant to irritate you or make you look bad.

--Ben Culture (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I WP:AGF and thought you probably just did not know it was frowned upon. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 00:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hi GregJackP,

I've removed your notice for speedy deletion on the Amfisound article as I felt it was unjustified. I've added 3rd party references to the article now and I believe that the article is as relevant as any guitar-manufacturing company out there. There are a couple of well-known artists listed on the article page that makes it relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneArchetype (talk • contribs) 12:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, we'll do an AfD on it. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 12:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneArchetype (talk • contribs) 13:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

A question

Hey Greg. I see that you applied for the Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown, but I have a doubt. Counting your Valiant Return, Standard Crown and current submission, you have registered a total of 3 DYK, 4 GA and 2 FC pieces. However, the Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown is for 5 to 14 pieces of content. My mind says that, given that you are asking for an upgrade, you might have meant the Imperial Triple Crown Jewels? Otherwise, you'd need a further GA and three more FCs to apply for the Napoleonic one ;) Let me know which one is the one you want. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a typo - it is for whichever one that 2 sets of content earn. I probably should stop posting stuff after the second scotch, but what can I say? :p It is easier to blame that than admit that I made an error... LOL GregJackP Boomer! 05:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Heh, thank you for correcting it. I can now safely award you without giving you the Genghis Khan one by mistake :p — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Triple Crown

It is my pleasure to award GregJackP with this Imperial Triple Crown Jewels for all his work on content here on the English Wikipedia. Congratulations! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Ex parte Crow Dog

This is a note to let the main editors of Ex parte Crow Dog know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 8, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 8, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Ex parte Crow Dog is an 1883 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that followed the death of one member of a Native American tribe at the hands of another on reservation land. Crow Dog (pictured) was a member of the Brulé band of the Lakota Sioux. On August 5, 1881, he shot and killed Spotted Tail, a Lakota chief; there are different accounts of the background to the killing. The tribal council dealt with the incident according to Sioux tradition, and Crow Dog paid restitution to the dead man's family. However, the U.S. authorities then prosecuted Crow Dog for murder in a federal court. He was found guilty and sentenced to hang. The Supreme Court held that unless authorized by Congress, federal courts had no jurisdiction to try cases where the offense had already been tried by the tribal council, and so Crow Dog was released. The case led to the Major Crimes Act in 1885, which placed 15 major crimes under federal jurisdiction if committed by an Indian against another Indian on a reservation or tribal land. This case was the beginning of the plenary power legal doctrine that has been used in Indian case law to limit tribal sovereignty. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much

Hi Greg. I must thank you kindly for tagging this cat for CSD. I was going to bring it to WP:CFD after the relevant discussions were closed, but CSD seems more appropriate. I really appreciate your efforts looking out for others. It restores my faith in the project. I was looking at your DYK's, GA's, FA's, Triple Crown and Four Award. Wow, that's impressive. The project is really lucky to have your support. I know that I'm very grateful you're here. You're a generous person and I thank you very much. 64.40.54.151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Another night time question

If you have a moment could you look at another picture on Talk:Battle_for_Jerusalem. Many thanks. Padres Hana (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I looked at it, but really can't tell if it were Arab Legion 25 pounders or not. GregJackP Boomer! 18:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Another night time shelling question

If you have a moment could you look at another picture on Talk:Battle_for_Jerusalem. Many thanks. Padres Hana (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Feedback on Ex parte Crow Dog

Hi, GJP. I have been reading the new article (congrats!) as time permits. Being a newer Wikipedia editor, question: Where do I post comments? Here? On the article's talk page? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's an old article. I created it in August 2010, it is just now appearing on the main page though. The best place to post comments is on the article talk page. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 23:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Oversize basket

Thanks for all your work regarding this sockpuppet labeling contray to the WP:HSOCK policy! I have removed a few more of the IPs from the BullRangifer hitlist that have never had blocks and editted totally unrelated fields of articles. As I have attempted to bring forth previously, this basket is too big and used for lumping editors into a bad apple bunch for the kill. After reviewing the list more thoroughly I have found (again) that

• KBlott and a few IPs are clearly sockpuppets, since he/she was blocked and the IPs cleaned KBlott page dirt, at the right timing.
• Beatles and music article editors may or may not be IP hoppers or sockpuppets. (haven't researched any of that yet) but have absolutely no association with the KBlott bunch.
• Some IPs have editted Alternative Health type articles (like me) but do not have the mainstream medical technical knowledge level demonstrated by KBlott.

I am not sure any of this actually matters right now but I do see some violations of policy in a few editors. Interesting that none of the admins will get involved with enforcement. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I was attempting to remove some of the IPs on the BR hitlist, so discussed, and removing the banners from their user pages. I have avoided any of the ones stated as "Beatles", as I hadn't researched any of them, yet. Freshacconci came along and reverted hours of work, came to my talk page, made many interrogative accusations about me being a sockpuppet and attempted to warn me off giving links to some policy "Wiki Policies don't need to be followed if you don't feel like it???" or something. He made mention of the sockpuppet thing and used the WP:DUCK (I can't find anything else to use) mention without any real evidence, AFAIK. I guess I won't be here much longer. IPs must just must give these people nightmares, I guess. Well I got in about 10-12 edits this time. Thanks. Good luck. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not mass-revert IP sock tags

There are strong indications that these are IP socks which have been targeting K-pop articles. I am willing to open an SPI for them to determine the validity of the tags. But please do not mass revert them until this is determined by the SPI investigation. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is evidence, then it needs to be presented. WP:HSOCK clearly states that "Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny." The IPs that I have removed the tags from have neither been blocked, nor have they been involved in an SPI, nor has any evidence been presented to show that they have been involved in sockpuppetry. If you want me to hold off for a reasonable time to allow you to present your evidence to an SPI, I will, but the wholesale tagging of IPs without evidence is not appropriate. You need to let me know if that is your intent. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I tagged them per strong WP:DUCK. These IPs have been plaguing K-pop articles for a long time and need to be tagged. If I need to open an investigation I will, but these IPs don't have a named account to go along, so this is going to be an IP-only SPI, which is rather unusual, but if I have to do it I will. I have asked the opinion of Drmies who is also working on K-pop articles. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw that and replied there. I'm not trying to set things back, but if there is nothing at all listed anywhere, it's hard to justify the tags. At ANI an editor had massive hitlist based on "secret" evidence, and was threatening IP editors based on mistaken beliefs about policy. I'm just trying to clean up after that, but don't want to create problems for you. GregJackP Boomer! 01:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Greg. I never wanted to imply that you would set things back and never doubted your good faith, so my apologies if it came across that way. After all you have justified your actions and quoted the applicable policy. It goes without saying that I fully respect your position. I just want to know what is the best way forward other than to have to open multiple SPIs about IPs, but if need be I will proceed. I have asked a few admins I know are knowledgeable in this area, including Drmies and Bbb23. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I never thought that you were taking a pot-shot at me, so no problem there. Hopefully there's a way to address the IP socks without having to do a separate SPI for each - I understand what a pain that would be. My main issue has been the misuse of the process by the one editor at [WP:AN]] (not ANI, my mistake earlier). He was basically threatening IP users if their ISP used dynamic IPs, and appears to have run a couple of editors off. In any event, I won't touch any more of yours until we come to some sort of resolution on it. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Without having looked at my own talk page yet, I can say that I see only limited use for tagging IPs as socks. In some cases that can be useful, with long-term vandals who are known also by their physical location, but in all likelihood there's as much meating as there is socking in the K-pop business. Tagging them may help as an indicator of how prolific they are, but I think at this point that doesn't need much proof anymore. My two cents. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies. I can see your point. Your advice, coupled with the fact that Greg's approach is correct and policy compliant, and given that I am rather tired from this field, strongly indicate to me that I may have to let this go. I'll wait for Bbb23's advice and then I'll just let Greg know to go ahead and delete the tags. Thank you very much for the courtesy Greg. I really appreciate it. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you please hold off until the discussion is settled? I am in great distress as someone fighting random, slow, long term IP vandalism. The sock tag is the only thing I can justify giving someone a 4IM warning and accumulate evidence to ask for blocks on second offense. It seems to me that the policy of the sock tag should be changed instead of just following it. Or if you can advice me another way to fight vandals without frequently spending massive amount of time (which I don't have) writing up cases? HkCaGu (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind holding off, but there has to be some sort of evidence of socking to tag as a sock. The policy actually states that they have to have been blocked in order to tag them as a suspected sock. You can't tag them as a sock in order to sidestep the warning process, not unless they have actually socked and you can prove it. Part of the problem is that the sock tag is being misused. There is a discussion at AN and several other places (VPP, HSOCK, etc) on this right now. GregJackP Boomer! 13:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

But in most instances I encounter (massive and rapid airport vandalism), the sock tag IS the evidence (by cross-referencing edits and grouping IPs into sockmasters who are themselves IPs). How else would I identify the need and justify a 4IM? IP vandals who had earned blocks before (whether current or expired, as they will not return to the same IP) should be able to earn an immediate block without me spending massive amount of time writing cases or seeking a group of administrators' understanding. HkCaGu (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No, a sock tag is not evidence: it is a tool, like a note in a notebook. (And Greg is correct: this is not the proper use of a tag.) But the better way to do this is to collect a list of IPs in user space and then build a case. Still, you can focus on the IPs all you want (this concerns unverified changes to airport articles?) but you won't get very far; the better way to go is to make a list of affected articles and ask for long-term semi-protection. Otherwise you will keep doing this until you (or your counterpart) dies. Make a list, and present it to a friendly admin or maybe at AN. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

If the edits are not destructive to an article (I realize that is opinion, usually), why bother spending al the effort and time to track these IP editors?. Some of these obsessive people are just sock hunters for the sport of it, similar to a person hunting animals, just for the self-accomplishment and macho boost. That needs to be recognized and differentiated the same as IP editing and IP hopping need to be. When we are dealing with policy violations, of this nature, just for sport, it hurts the Wikipedia project by shunning potential contributors. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that I said "unverified changes"--I looked at half a dozen IPs and half a dozen edits. I'm not going to call it vandalism since I don't know whether it is or not. Whoever is thinking of protecting those articles should make the decision if such serious matters are worth it, if the edits are of such concern that locking articles is to the benefit of the project. So one thing that our airport sock hunter would have to do is build a case that this is in fact disruption.(I can argue that case for the K-pop articles since I know that subject matter a bit.) If that case cannot be made then it was a vain exercise to begin with, yes. Don't discredit the investment editors make until you know whether it's energy well spent, though I agree that some editors are invested far too much in things that don't matter so much. (I'm not talking about anyone in this current investigation, just to make that clear). Drmies (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. My comments were apparently more general than the conversation here. That investigation would be interesting but right now I don't have the time. I already spent too much on defending my position to care about editing and quickly diminishing. I did state "some" and meant "not all" even though it may seem that way, as an IP editor sometimes. I also do not know what K-pop or anything about this airplane sock investigation so I should maybe just stay out, here. Thanks. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raymond W. Godwin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Your ignorance is showing

Your gross failures to exercise due diligence are going to end up damaging your reputation. You're seriously flunking "Sock Hunting 101" and "Dynamics of Edit Warring 101." You should know what "You (using many IPs) are guilty of violating 3RR by using multiple accounts" means. To assume bad faith against me is pretty sad. I did my extremely easy research and left proper warnings.

I should not have to explain this to you, but multiple IPs from the same place making the same disputed edits against multiple experienced editors in an edit war are all considered ONE person, and thus each edit made by the IPs counts as edits from that same person. Thus one person quickly violates 3rr. The warning was proper and your assumptions of bad faith are just that. This is very sad. This particular Bezeq International editor has a long history here, and it's often disruptive. I suspect your hatred of me will prevent you from ever apologizing. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about your opinions on "due diligence" on "sock hunting." First, there is no support in policy for your actions towards IP editors.

1. Use of a dynamic IP does not "automatically" put an editor in violation of the socking policy.
2. Use of "secret" evidence has been repeatedly repudiated on Wikipedia.
3. The abuse of sockpuppet accusations in relationship to certain contentious areas has been well documented.
4. Typically the accuser brings up the false accusation without the accused sock having met the requirements of socking.
5. False positives are prevalent in those false accusations.
6. This runs off editors, many of whom are productive, because they don't participate in the approved "groupthink."

Finally, this is being prepared for my use at RFC/U, if necessary, should you resume the bullying and harassment of IP editors. I have no hatred of you, but after noting that you don't think you have done anything wrong, I doubt that you will abide by your agreement to stop the harassment. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 11:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I will stand by my agreement. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I have found one (or more) listed and flagged IP editors that have no edits or history but are also from a similar IP address range meaning they would be licensed by Rogers Cable in the same geographical area (Collingwood). It would seem these IP editors have been flagged in case of future usage and the only criteria used was ISP and geographic location. Is that prejudice based on imagination ("secret tells") or am I missing something? 174.118.141.197 (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why I didn't remember this, because I know it well. There is a situation where an editor, IP or not, can have an empty contribution history. If their edits were on an article or talk page which has been deleted through an AfD, those edits disappear from their history. That can eliminate all trace of what they have done, and if it was disruptive, also be the "missing" explanation for their block. If they have also participated in the AfD, those comments will still appear and give a strong clue as to what they were up to. This may well be what you've encountered. Does that make sense?
Since these people may well have used several IPs, their disruption may have occurred mostly with one or more IPs, while the other IPs were still very clearly the same person, and thus they got tied together in the same category. I know that has happened quite often. Admins will block all the IPs on that basis alone. They are all considered disruptive socks. It is the person who is getting blocked. Since IPs are only blocked for a short time, this has little consequence, and since they may be editing from dynamic IPs (IOW not consciously changing IPs, and not knowing when it happens), they may not even know what has happened at their old IP user pages. No communication or warnings are reaching them. In such cases they may continue their disruption and edit warring, and then admins resort to range blocks. Occasionally this blocks their registered account(s) and blows their cover. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Or it could be that you flagged them since they were editing from a dynamic IP, and thus, in your mind (but no one else's) automatically operating a "sock farm." The problem with that argument is that there is nothing in the block log for the IP, and no SPI for it. Oops. Policy states that you can't tag it without the account or IP having been blocked, and AfDs don't cause blocks to go away. GregJackP Boomer! 02:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No secret tells, which BTW, only applied in certain situations, but many times. To illustrate, when someone with only three fingers on one hand and two on the other keeps waving at you from different windows in the same apartment, you can safely assume it's the same person. That's about how plain and obvious this particular "tell" was, and they did make the same types of edits in edit wars on the same articles, in opposition to numerous experienced editors. We do keep track of disruptive editors who have been blocked. They return, but often give away their true identity. When one with such an obvious tell then lies about not being the same person, I have been sadly amused at how blind they were to how easily identifiable they were.

We even had an Indian homeopath from the Karnataka region who kept returning with various IPs and registered accounts. They would all be blocked for flagrant sockpuppetry (by ANY definition). He would lie again and again that the disruptive edits were not made by him, and he'd get caught every time because he was so ignorant of how experienced sock hunters can recognize block evading editors. Needless to say he was blocked indefinitely.

So, getting back to those IPs with no contribution history, you'll have to ask the blocking admins, because I too have discovered blocked IPs with no edit history, and I could only discover them because an admin had blocked them. I've seen this many times. Only a few times have I tagged them so they'd show up on my watchlist when they actually did begin to edit. Admins are able to access information I can't, so ask them. I have no way of discovering an editor who has not edited or created an account.

Even with GregJackP's strict interpretation of an internally inconsistent and confusingly worded policy that goes against the way Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets has ALWAYS been used, including its obviously intended purpose (for "suspects"), my tagging them is okay because they were blocked IPs.

GregJackP, why haven't you addressed the problematic wording of the policy? Even you should be able to see that it makes no sense. That's why your campaign, using an edit summary based on YOUR interpretation of that policy, is rather disconcerting and ruins your credibility. What do you think of that wording? I have previously asked you to respond to that question, but you haven't. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't addressed the wording of the policy because on its face, there is nothing wrong with the policy. To tag someone (either an IP or a registered account), it has to have been blocked and there has to be evidence to that effect. If you have a blocked IP or user with no edit history, due to deleted edits that only admins can see, then only admins should be tagging the account as a sock. The fact that you label the policy as "inconsistent" does not make it so, any more than the ludicrous contention that editing from a dynamic IP automatically put one in violation of the socking policy.

The other fact was is that you were labeling IPs as socks regardless of any blocks or misconduct. Where I have removed tags, there have been no SPIs, no blocks, and no evidence listed. If they had any of the three, I left the tag in place.

Also, a number of admins have agreed with my interpretation of the policy, most recently Drmies.

Finally, this is not a talkpage for discussing policy or my actions. If you have something to say, say it on my talkpage, not here. I'll delete this talkpage in the next several days. GregJackP Boomer! 15:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not discussing whether there is anything "wrong with the policy." Don't you see that the wording is inconsistent with the name of the category? Why does this category exist? We already have other categories for blocked socks. This wording needs to be fixed. That's the issue I'm interested in, not whether the policy is right or not. With the present wording we can't even be sure what it really means. Nonsense cannot be consistently interpreted one way or the other, except by only choosing the possibility one likes and ignoring other possibilities. That ambiguity needs to be eliminated, and I don't really care whether it ends one way or the other. You should be interested in clearing this up, because, with this wording, all your edit summaries are like ice skating on very thin ice. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The wording does not need to be fixed, and you need to drop the stick. GregJackP Boomer! 15:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)