User talk:JJay

Warning:

Due to excessive wiki-stalking, trolling and ongoing provocation, messages should not be left on this page unless absolutely necessary. Please use Email or article talk pages. Note that pages mentioned here are often nominated very rapidly for deletion or otherwise targeted for removal. I will generally not respond to messages left here.

Messages may therefore be edited for content or removed without warning. Section headings can and will be changed. Links are altered or removed as required. Custom signatures may be refactored. This page is archived here.

Offended

I am offended by your make it into high school comment in the Jose of the Future deletion page. I am going to publish this book soon enough. As for you: tell me why you did this at User Talk: FE411.

Speedy tag

The article Woburn Gifted clearly does not fall under the description "it is an article about a real person that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject," with which you tagged it. It is an article about a school department. Please be more considerate with your use of these tags. But welcome to Wikipedia and good luck. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In this case there was a convenient solution; redirect without merge to the school in question, Woburn Collegiate Institute, an article which in fact has info on this gifted program. This effectively destroys the bad content without needing recourse to AFD. I watched the page to ensure that the vandals do not undo the redirect. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boltfish

Copyright issues are tricky. As per my comment on the deletion page- The label may be non-profit, but the boltfish site clearly asserts copyright (scroll to bottom of page) and has the same text as Wiki article [[1]] --JJay 23:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree it's a copyvio (and have marked it as such), it's just that for some reason the copyvio speedy criterion only applies to material copied from the website of a commercial content provider. --fvw * 23:25, 14 October 2005

(UTC)

AfD

Hey there! Thanks for helping out with creating AfDs. The one you made for Pandilla Graphica seems to refer to a nonexistent article. Which article was it that you wanted to set the AfD for? --HappyCamper 00:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Mohican

Hey, thanks for working on RC Patrol to catch copyvios. You might also want to consider plinking the uploading user's page with {{nothanks-sd}}. I went ahead and used it on the anon's page. It's not a huge deal, I only just used it for the first time on the anon that uploaded that article, but I'd like to encourage other users to consider using it as well, just to help spread the gospel of trying to avoid copyright infringements. Keep up the good work! Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

...for extensive work on VFD. Molotov (talk)
23:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Je suis désolé vous n'ayez pas été d'accord avec moi sur le VfD, j'espériez que vous comprenez mon français. Note that I don't speak French. Molotov (talk)
20:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, how was my French? I imagine pretty bad because I don't speak any Molotov (talk)
21:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your French?. C'est magnifique! --JJay 21:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The full quote is C'est magnifique, mais c'ne'pas le guerre / C'est magnifique, mais c'ne'pas la gare, both of which are actually criticisms. [depending on which version is referred to]. --Victim of signature fascism 15:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really...it was all done at the electronic translation services, I personally speak Spanish and Portugues...pero no hablo cualquier palabra en francés, pues...adios. Molotov (talk)
21:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. At least we can't deny the guy/girl's got perseverance. DocendoDiscimus 17:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Justin Frank article, and the appearance that JM and I are engaged in a flame war

I am sorry it looks like a flame war. I am trying my best to continue to keep my responses to JM as civil as possible, under the circumstances. I know they have accused me of calling them names. The record shows, however, this is untrue.

I have suggested that their edits, and attempts to subvert wiki procedures, give the strong appearance of bad faith. I stand by that. I don't think I am doing the wikipedia community any good by enduring their attacks without comment.

As you can see they have been attacking me personally, my judgement, maturity, grammar, intellectual honesty. And they have been following me around, and slapping bogus {copy-vio}, {AfD}, {npov}, {disputed} tags on just about every article I touch. Or they make massive excisions, unexplained, or with bald explanations like "removing obvious bias". Believe me, it is extremely unpleasant.

I know it is unpleasant to watch a flame war. But I don't think I am flaming back.

I went through almost whole week of unpleasantness from them, misrepresentations of what I said, ignoring my attempts to reach compromise, while I continued to reply in a textbook manner of conciliation and assuming good will. Or, at least, that is how I remember it. Finally their misrepresentations on the {copy-vio} page caused me to be prepared to be more blunt. And I openly said I thought they were giving the appearance of bad faith.

JM is following me around, and every article they see me edit they consider making a target for deletion. This phase of their attacks has been going on for six days now. And my well of ability to "assume good will" on their part is pretty well exhausted. Yes, I reply to those, I reply to their bogus {npov} tags, their bogus {disputed} tags, their unexplained massive excisions. Under the circumstances I think I am as civil as anyone could reasonably expect from me. Could I be wrong about that? Sure. I won't ask you to give our exchanges a more than cursory study. But, if you do give it a more than cursory study, and still think I should be more moderate in my replies to them, please feel free to tell me.

A couple of days ago they made a series of responsible mature edits. And since they were making comments in the talk pages to draw people's attention to the responsible efforts they made I gave them some sincere praise and encouragement, to show that I could assume good will as soon as they started acting responsibly. It seems to have backfired. It seems to have just triggered a further barrage of attacks.

Rolling back Justin Frank

I didn't paste the contents of Bush on the Couch into Justin Frank. You and I started editing out the obvious malice from the Justin Frank article at the same time. You finished first, when you scaled it back to a mere stub. I finished second, with my removal of the attacking material. Do you think I should revert my edit, back to your stub, to accomodate JM?

Do you think I should roll it back to your stub in case the result of the {AfD} is a delete? I think that deletion is unlikely at this point.

But, if you really think it is well advised to scale Justin Frank back to a mere stub, I will do so.

Thanks for your removal of the personal attack. -- Geo Swan 17:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indu

Just wondering, why did you move Indu to [[2]]? It seems very strange. Thelb '⁴ 16:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To move an article to a different location, don't include the web address. And you can't just 'move' things from Wikipedia to Wiktionary. Wiktionary is not another namespace. It has to be deleted by a sysop, then created on Wiktionary. Thelb '⁴ 18:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can Al-Zubair ibn Abd al-Muttalib stay

Hi, I've modified AFD:Al-Zubair with facts and references. It would be nice if you can spare some time to read it, and hopefully to reconsider its deletion (or make some comments on my talk page). -- Goldie (tell me) 22:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Feinberg

Is there any reason why you removed a comment on this page? They should be left there as part of the public record. If it was because the comment was not signed, the proper resonse would have been to add the unsigned template. --JJay 13:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, shoddy editing, I did not intend to remove the comment. Rjayres 16:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights

Hallo JJay

Because of the articles (Iraqi Kurdistan front), (Action Party for the Independence of Kurdistan), (Conservative Party of Kurdistan), (Kurdistan National Democratic Union), (Kurdish Revolutionary Hizbullah), (Kurdistan Revolutionary Party) and (Kurdistan Socialist Democratic Party) I would like to say to them that the author John E. Pike permission given only whom John E. Pike mentioned becomes

Test

Iraqi Kurdistan Front (Kurdish: Berey Kurdistani Iraq) In 1988 the Kurdistan Democratic Party, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the KPDP, the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran, and the Popular Alliance of Socialist Kurdistan together formed the Iraqi Kurdistan Front and and and and and

Copyright stuff

I have a feeling that none of that site's content is permissible on Wikipedia and will likely be deleted, if not by me, then by another admin. I've put in a request for Angr to take a look at it because he can speak German very well. See the bottom of his talk page for more details.

By the way, thanks for all your work with tagging copyrighted material on Wikipedia. It's a big help around here. :-) --HappyCamper 20:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll to my best to help ease understanding between Melat and other editors. His German isn't great either, though. Also, User:Melat is not actually a registered username; he edits under User:87.78.47.107, so I have moved User:Melat to User:87.78.47.107. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and now I'm going to delete that redirect... --HappyCamper 21:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marevna

Could you kindly go back and have a look at it now! It is still very basic; but perhaps restoring the "stub" tag would help. At this stage it seems a pity to lose the links, since they may help competent editors to expand the article. (Not that they themselves cannot find them, if they have the time to make a search.) Many thanks! 09:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Modojo

You listed this article for CSD, and it was so speedied. The discussion at WP:DRV#Modojo for 3 Nov concludes this speedy was in error: you may like to have a look at the discussion. In general you should not list an article for CSD with half an hour of its creation, and particularly not if it is receiving many edits, even if the article would otherwise qualify. --- Charles Stewart 15:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right. All editing stopped as soon as you posted your notice. The point is (i) you should not have posted the notice, and (ii) you were probably biting a newbie. --- Charles Stewart 15:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on AFD Executive Order 12333

I take issue with this comment "Bad faith nom per Geo Swan. --JJay 15:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)" As I said over there, before (or in this case after) you accuse someone of bad faith, why not look at the article, as it existed when the AfD was made. In this case, here is the original text:[reply]

Executive Order 12333 extends the powers and responsibilities of US intelligence agencies and directs the leaders of other US federal agencies to co-operate fully with CIA requests for information.

That was it, verbaitm. Is that "encyclopedic"? While we are on the subject, please take a look at the dozens of poorly written articles that Geo Swan has put up, including the ones I have taken the time to fix. I can't keep up with him. Cleanup tags don't work. AfD's don't work. The talk page does not work. For example, please look at the before and after (my edits and his originals) on

Clive Stafford Smith,
Gareth Peirce,
Joshua Colangelo-Bryan (my comments on the summaries are clearly angry and did not help the situation, but it is another example, nonetheless.)
Abderrahman Ahmad
Benyam Mohammed but c.f. the current version with my final version, and his original [3]

There's a lot more, but... this should be enough for now. Joaquin Murietta 16:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please assist with Juma Mohammed Abdul Latif Al Dossary

Would you please take a look at Juma Mohammed Abdul Latif Al Dossary, at both versions and give us your considered advice. I edited the article and Geroge reverted it. I think that his version has clear spelling errors and POV issues. If you run google on the subject's name, Wikipedia] is the first entry, so I think the article should be stronger. Joaquin Murietta 16:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please assist as a mediator in this dispute. Much appreciated. 209.178.165.187 18:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC) (this is me, Joaquin, I keep getting bounced off, it must be a bug or something.[reply]

Got logged back in. Well, George emails and posts to get a posse together, they vote together and generally support each other. I guess that's ok if the articles are well-written and NPOV. See for example, this mass posting, [4]. Then they follow people around and revert. 209.178.165.187 18:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)(Sorry, I keep getting bounced out, whenever I edit now. 209.178.165.187 18:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC) Joaquin 209.178.165.187 18:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

video mr pres

I have deleted The Video Surveillance of Presidents by the Justice Department. In the speedy tag and the talk page you refer to an AfD debate but don't link to it. It is not at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Video Surveillance of Presidents by the Justice Department. So where is it? -- RHaworth 18:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page Vandal

Why do you keep vandalizing my pages? --Beatyou 03:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

I had a conversation with the copyright holder. It can be seen in the Helpdesk-l mailing list archives here, following the "next message" link at the bottom. Generally, don't remove copyvio listings unless you are 100% sure the content was GFDL-licensed. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 16:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lake

Same goes for Ryan Lake. Do some research before you wantonly tag these things.

Article is now on Afd. --JJay 19:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Leybman

I think you're right. I could have sworn I did a cursory search to check the basic facts about the guy when I initally reverted vandalism on him, but it looks like I didn't. Google seems to get only wikimirors and non-related things. Go ahead an AfD. I'll support, unless someone can establish that he is a writer for the Village Voice (though whether that's sufficient notability is also debatable). -R. fiend 23:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Message from User:MarkRyanIversen

The Aetna information I added to thier site was from internal documents as an employee. I am using information we have for press releases and media, so all the info I added to the Aetna site was information that Aetna allows to be published to press, etc. Wikipedia would be considered that.

But the Footballers Wives information, you deleted storylines that were on a fan site that I updated and changed so it wasnt copy and paste and also deleted the following, all of which were not copyrighted: Footballers Wives: Extra Time With the success of Footballers Wives came the spinoff series, Footballers' Wives: Extra Time that began on ITV2 on 26 May 2005. It aired after Series Four of the original and many cast members, including Amber, Harley, Shannon, Bruno, Lucy and Seb, appeared on the series. It ran for 12 episodes.

Foreign Audience Footballers Wives currently airs in Sweden, Australia, Netherlands, Finland and Hungary. It began in the United States in the summer of 2005 on BBC America. It aired Series One & Two and Series Three is scheduled to premiere on 3 February 2006.

DVD Release Series One - Three have been released on DVD in the United Kingdom. Series Four has only been released in Australia. It will be released in the U.K. on 27 March 2006. Series One was also released in the U.S.

why is stuff I am working on being deleted that Ive worked on. Its a TV show Ive been watching since 2002 and know it inside out. I would like an explanation as to why you are considering stuff as copyrighted when it is not. If the storyline details I write from my head from memory, would it stay on the site? And how come you cant use the logo and screen caps from the show? I see those on TONS of TV sites, both logos and screen caps. And footballers wives: extra time site was fully removed when i only used storyline recap from another website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkRyanIversen (talk • contribs) 23:53, 15 November 2005

Thanks for your comments on my user page (now moved to talk page). Regarding the Aetna article and articles on Aetna officers, all the information you added was taken verbatim from the Aetna website or Aetna press releases. An example is the company history, which you copied from here [[5]]. The fact that you are an Aetna employee or that Aetna makes this info publicly available does not change that it is copyrighted material. As an Aetna employeee, I am sure you are aware that Aetna prominently displays a copyright notice on their website and other materials. Following Wikipedia policy, unless you can secure a written release from your employer, stating that it is releasing the material into the public domain (per GFDL), it can not be published on Wikipedia and it was therefore removed. Copyvio notices were placed on the Aetna management articles.

Regarding Footballers' Wives, your edits were taken verbatim from [The Custard]. The changes you made to the copied text, were not material and given that it was taken from a commercial site, might have qualified the article for speedy deletion. Instead I reverted your edits. While an episode guide may be a valid addition to the article, Wikipedia does not allow copying one from a commercial provider. If you hold the copyright to material published on custard.tv, please submit it to Wikipedia.

The same is true for Footballers' Wives: Extra Time. The description and episode guides were taken again from [[6]]. As the majority of the article was a copyright violation, a copyvio notice was placed on the article.

As many of your edits have been taken from commercial sites, they have been reverted. You ask the question if "I write from my head from memory, would it stay on the site" . Yes, subject to future edits. This is what wikipedia is all about.

I'm sure you have many great contributions to make to Wikipedia. Just brush up on wikipedia policies and avoid the copyright violations and you won't have any issues with me or anyone else (although I do have comments regarding your Kent School District edits).

Best wishes. P.S. as you make a habit of clearing edits to your talk page, a copy of this will be put on my talk page. --JJay 01:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:MarkRyanIversen

I'll learn to not do that and when doing storyline issues, to do so from memory (as it is not hard for me to do that). The Aetna one. I am new to it all so it was fun to actually add something. So I will admit to my errors and correct them for future entries.

I resubmitted info on FW:Extra Time and FW that was not copyrighted. The only thing I go from another site that would still be on there would be the premiere date. I know of the year but did need reference to the exact premiere date of the series.

Regarding Kent School District site. I am big on legal issues with various thing and that does hold a close tie to myself. The one regarding myself, that is from my legal files, in court/public record. I was going to delete some and add responses from the other side so it wasn't a one-way issue. I am not against sharing views on both ends. The other legal issues were ones I've had on Word Documents that I assume were from news sites (Ive had them for a while so the exact source I would not know). Feel free to remove any of that. I wanted a fair share of views on a school district and showing "bad" issues to show what the past has been for them. Again, its been less than a week (I believe it is) that Ive discovered Wikipedia and I will be careful in what I do. Please let me know your opinions on this. Again, my appologies. Thank you. Mark

Mark concerning the storylines, its ok to draw on stuff from websites, just don't take it word for word. Rewrite it so it doesn't sound like advertising copy and then cite the source as a link (and try to use mainstream sources).

With the Kent School District, I thought the legal stuff was a good addition but maybe a bit too long. If it can be condensed it would be more effective. Also links to sources or opposing viewpoints are obviously a plus.

Anyway I didn't mean to come down on you and I realize you didn't know the policy on copyvios (which are one of my pet peeves). I've made plenty of mistakes too. Wikipedia can be complicated but its fun and I know you'll enjoy contributing. Welcome aboard. --JJay 01:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Text from www.wga.hu

Hello Cryptic. What's the policy on use of material from www.wga.hu. I've noticed that numerous verbatim articles and images are being submitted from this site. They state their policy as follows:

The Web Gallery of Art is copyrighted as a database. Images and documents downloaded from this database can only be used for educational and personal purposes. Distribution of the images in any form is prohibited without the authorization of their legal owner.[[7]]

Does Wikipedia have blanket approval for using this material? Also, www.wga.hu provides extensive references for their content, which they themselves may or may not have permission to use. See sources [[8]]. At the very least, shouldn't Wikipedia's use of this content be clearly acknowledged on article talk pages. --JJay 19:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have blanket approval (at least, not to my knowledge). I sent a standard confirmation of permission email to the contact address on the website mentioning only the text of the articles Madonna with Sts John the Baptist and Donatus (Verrocchio), Saint Madeleine (Caravaggio), The Baptism of Christ (Verrocchio), and Narcissus (Caravaggio), and received a reply confirming permission to use these under the GFDL. (The images themselves in these articles are in the public domain.) If someone is claiming that he has blanket approval to use all material on their site under the GFDL, this needs to be confirmed again.

For those four articles (which are the only ones I've looked at), the article talk pages do acknowledge the web site - see {{confirmation}} and its talk page.

If you're referring to http://www.wga.hu/sources.html (which is what the "sources" link on all of wga.hu's pages go to), it's a list of references that they consulted to create the text on their pages. Their sources don't have a copyright interest in the text wga created and granted to us, anymore than the sources listed in the ==References== sections of our articles do. (Of course, if they copied the material from elsewhere, their permission grant is meaningless and we can't use the material. There's no reason to think that, though; when googling for the text in the articles, I did find it on a few other sites, but it looked very much to me that wga was the original source.) —Cryptic (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your speedy response. I've reviewed the new pages submitted by Attilios so far this month. The following are all copyvios from www.wga.hu without any reference on the article talk pages:

...

There are probably many more if I look at edits from Attilios in October or earlier. Unless www.wga.hu has released their database under GFDL, I think we need to state clearly where we are getting our material (particularly as none of the articles have links or sources). Could you let me know how to proceed? I don't really want to tag all this as copyvios, but I will without a clear direction on policy. --JJay 01:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. The exact wording I got back (from a Dr. Emil Kren) was "Hereby I confirm that permission was granted to use some pages of the Web Gallery of Art in Wikipedia". Sixty-seven (or more!) pages does seem excessive for "some". The logical thing to do would be to email wga.hu, explain the situation, and ask them about it, especially since their usual license isn't compatible with the GFDL. If they again confirm permission, either for the pages you listed or their site as a whole, forward a copy of the reply to "permissions at wikimedia dot org".

You're certainly right about the lack of acknowledgement being a problem. The source of this material should be clearly stated in the edit summary as it's added and on the talk page, both to satisfy the GFDL and to lessen the chance that someone else stumbles on the pages, checks google, and tags them as copyvios. —Cryptic (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Maybe I proceded it with too much enthusiasm. I asked www.wga.hu if could use their pages, and they simply replied I could. I didn't know the exact way to specify in the WIkipedia article that the used text was their. Therefore, what can I do? Now ALL these articles must be rejected? I have to notify www.wga.hu ALL the times I add text from their database? Please notice I never act in a fraudulent way, since in my opinion I DID receive permission to use the text.Attilios.

Thanks for your response. Enthusiasm is good and I'm not accusing you of fraud or anything like that. I am contacting www.wga.hu to secure GFDL permission for all the articles submitted as well as future content. They may very well grant permission for this. In that case, the main thing that needs to be done is to acknowledge the permission on the article talk pages. If they refuse permission, though, then I'm afraid that the copyright material would have to be removed from the articles. --JJay 19:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish Fellows in Royal Society

You voted "strong keep" because you suspected bad faith on that vote. I think you are mistaken - according to wikipedia a list can be immediately revoted for deletion if there was a no "consensus" - which there was in the last case. Clearly, with so many DELETE votes now, the call for revote was a good call. Please reconsider your vote for "stong keep" as it will probably slow down the process for the deletion of this - as it may create another "no consensus" - thank you for reading. 65.9.143.84 20:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have no edits to your credit I don’t know who you are or where you really stand on this issue. I will say this: there is a difference between what Wikipedia policy allows and the best course of action. My reading of the last debate for List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society [[9]](in which I took no stand) was that the outcome could have been Keep given signs of sock puppet activity in the voting. The admin called it No Consensus. I see no imperative for the rapid renom- and you provide no arguments against the list- therefore I will not reconsider my vote. --JJay 21:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CFD and LGBT criminals

Hi - Appearances notwithstanding, I didn't actually mean to single you out in my comment. I apologize if you took this as a personal comment. By and large, I really don't care for any of the "intersection" categories. I'm not sure what to do about this (it's irked me for quite some time), but in this specific instance there seems to be a claim that this category carries an inherent anti-LGBT POV. It might - but, it might not as well. In any event, I thought a personal message about this might be warranted. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rick, thanks for the note. I didn't take any offense whatsoever. If my response was heated, it wasn't meant that way. Its strange how, um, spirited those discussions can get. I admit I'm surprised by all the support on the Keep Side, though, and can't see the logic or intent of the category. It would seem logical to me to group serial killers together, gay, straight, black, white, etc.

I do understand your concerns though. The category, if kept, will be a POV magnet from all sides. It will be used by pro-gay and anti-gay editors to slander both gays and non-gays. Some will want to pack the category to show that gays are involved in lots of crimes. Some will use it to brand anyone they don't like. Anyone with the most tenuous LGBT connection will be thrown in. People convicted of sodomy will be added, such as Oscar Wilde. Others will want to include people out of a sense of pride (LGBT are normal, they therefore commit crimes like anyone else). Crimes involving homosexual victims might qualify. Should Oscar Wilde be in the same category as a female prostitue who may have suffered LGBT sexual abuse as a child, and then 30-years later killed a series of male clients? When I pointed out a lot of immediate problems with the category, the response is always let's keep it, because those problems will be immediately addressed and won't reappear. In my view, these types of problems reflect an inherently flawed category/list, they can't be fixed and will be a constant problem.

In any case, I'm not trying to get you to change your vote. Just throwing out some ideas, as usual. Take care --JJay 09:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

new category created

User talk:67.171.237.88 created Category:LGBT murderers this morning, you may want to cfd it or watch it so you know when its been cfded. Arniep 16:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. It amazes me that people pull these kind of stunts while the cfd is still going on. I won't be nominating it- have no stomach for starting another debate at this time- but will watch it. -- JJay 17:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish votes

Hi, the sock puppet you spotted, the nominator of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_18#List_of_Jewish_jurists (your comment:Strong Keep. Changing my vote. Don't like anon noms here + 2nd anom vote, both out of Atlanta.-- JJay 05:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)) is back at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_26#List_of_Jewish_American_scientists Thanks Arniep 01:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_26#List_of_Jewish_Americans. Thanks Arniep 02:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Hero

Is you. That was a great response to IZ or whatever his name is on the deletion page for the Jewish categories. I too am sick of the constant nominations and I have been a very strong supporter of categories for every single religious and ethnic group (I was behind Spanish-Americans and Portuguese-Americans, among others). Way to go and it's pretty clear, based on the votes, that these categories aren't getting deleted. I'm just worried that we are now going to get every single Jewish category nominated separately, in which case I am pretty sure that I am just going to remove the AFD on grouds of Extreme Annoyance and the heck with the consequences.Vulturell 07:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought it might piss people off but felt I needed to say it. It did reflect some real anger and disgust. I think the situation has become irrational and the Afd process has broken down. I also don't have time to consider all these lists every day. The only rational solution is to vote Strong Keep across the board until the dust settles. Even if some are repetitive, who does it hurt if they stay? Why the immediate renoms, sock puppets, etc? Right now a whole bunch of AFds are being closed out by a non-admin with a null and void outcome. What the hell does that mean? -- JJay 07:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll explain that situation. Some user (sock puppet?) nominated every single sublist of "Jewish Americans" i.e. "List Of Jewish American Show Business Figures" but didn't nominate "List Of Jewish Americans" itself (that list is a huge list with all the subcategories included). I suggested, not unreasonably, that instead of deleting all these smaller, separate lists, we should delete the content from the main "List Of Jewish Americans" and put in links to the separate sub-lists (which if you add them all up have basically the same content as the main list), thus making it easier to navigate the lists. Mr. Sock Puppet Man agreed and removed his AFD's (the null and void) as soon as I nominated the main "List Of Jewish Americans" for an overhaul, which I think it will get. Vulturell 08:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know if its possible for you guys to do this. I reverted one, and other Afds will be reverted also. Once the process starts, it usually continues. Why is a new user so motivated to nom numerous religion lists? Why doesn't he do some edits first? That strikes me as suspicious and I now doubt everyone's good faith. For the time being, I will maintain my policy and votes across the board. The Jewish subcats will be renomed anyway. That I'm sure of. Anyway, I'll check back later in the day. -- JJay 08:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think people like the idea of having "List Of Jewish Americans" be a link to smaller lists - it really helps navigation and space. It's what he have in List of Jews right now. I am also voting across the board and I think you're right about Mr. Sock Puppet Man. If the Jewish cats are re-nominated without the same user nominating some non-Jewish cats first, then I am actually going to remove the AFD on the grounds that I told you (Extreme Annoyance). If am blocked because of this (could be) than I'll just create a new account, "Vulturell's Sock Puppet".Vulturell 08:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at User_talk:OwenX#User:StabRule. Arniep 16:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The assault on the List of sexual slang

Two users in particular The Literate Engineer & Voice of All(MTG) have apparently made it their duty to get rid of the list and they have been using underhanded tactics in an attempt to do so in any way they can.

But word is getting out, and supporters of the list are starting to rally against them and protect the list (via rerverting vandalism, countering their tactics, etc.).

The results of the 18 October AfD:

Keep & clean = 3
Keep, no clean = 11
Delete = 2

The anonymous clean-up notice

The following anonymous clean-up notice was posted to the list on November 1st:

23:44, 1 November 2005 68.17.227.41

The notice was placed without group consensus, and there was no edit comment. Pretty sneaky.

This was the user's only edit. Nothing before or after. A sock-puppet.

The results of the 10 November Afd

Keep & clean up =3 votes
Keep, with no mention of clean up =7 votes
Delete = 4 votes (including the nomination)

That's 10 votes to keep, out of which 3 voted to clean up. Seven out of ten clearly voiced their desire to retain the list without deleting its entries.

Dishonest report of Afd results

Voice of All(MTG) reported the results as " ", and he and The Literate Engineer used that as the basis to erase the content of the list, which they did in successive edits.

Non-consensual list move

During the 10 November AfD discussion, Voice of All(MTG) moved the list to the new article name sexual slang, citing the introduction at the top of the list as the basis for the move ("it is more than a list"). Several users then used the article title as an argument against including any list entries.

When an article is moved, the change history is moved with it, and a redirect is placed under the original article's title. If the redirect is edited, then the article cannot be moved back. That is exactly what has happened to the list. See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for more information.

The current situation

The change history of the list is currently stranded as the change history of Sexual slang.

The content of the list itself has been restored to List of sexual slang, where it was originally. This preserves the spirit of the results of the two AfD discussions mentioned above.

To summarize:

On Oct 18 the list was nominated for AfD (article for deletion), but this attempt to delete failed, and the vote was overwhelmingly to Keep.
An anonymous sock-puppet placed a clean-up notice on the list. It has been used as a justification to delete entries.
On Nov 10, The Literate Engineer made an AfD attempt against the list and it failed too.
Then Voice of All(MTG) underhandedly moved the list to the non-list name sexual slang, while the AfD was still underway.
Voice of All(MTG)reported false results for the 10 November AfD vote, and he and The Literate Engineer edited out the entire list.
I posted a rebuttal to the above antics on the talk page for sexual slang, and reverted the sexual slang article to the November 15 version in the article's change history (the complete list). My username ("Bend over") was banned as inappropriate or offensive.
Some editors stated that an article is not the place for a list, and used that as a justification to keep list entries.
So I replaced the redirect at List of sexual slang with the actual content of the entire list. Unfortunately, the change history for the list is still part of the change history for the article sexual slang.
An attempt is being made to protect the list against vandalism at its original location: List of sexual slang.

Remember, the three reversion limit does not apply when reverting vandalism. Only if enough concerned users participate will this be successful.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Red Rover 21:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Backup needed

JJay can you have a look at the discussion here User_talk:OwenX#User:StabRule. User:StabRule has now placed a third vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish jurists and Owenx for some reason is refusing to even warn the user, I don't understand whats going on here. Arniep 22:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for color transposition

I hearby award you these non-yellow tennis-balls of friendship.

And for your clothing preference: http://www.tenniscompany.com/images/Clothing_Volkl_BlackShorts.JPG

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks. Not sure if those balls would actually fit in the shorts, but they certainly add color to my drab talk page. At least some people still have a sense of humour here. We need more of that in life. -- JJay 19:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um?

What in the world are you referring to? Do you really expect me to know what you're talking about? john k 00:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it now, I have no idea how the revert came about. I was not attempting to revert at all, simply to add a period. I suppose I must have been looking at an old version of the article, or something. At any rate, it was an accident, and I would appreciate it if you didn't make accusations against me, without any specifics, and then refuse to even explain what you mean. john k 04:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you had simply said what you were referring to, I would not have responded with annoyance. As it was, I was standing accused of something which I had no memory of doing. Obviously, I was somewhat careless in accidentally reverting. If you had cited the change and asked me why I reverted in your initial comment, I would have quickly seen that I made a mistake, and apologized. As it stands, I'm not going to apologize for anything, because you've been a dick about the whole thing. john k 05:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I may have been a bit quick off the handle here. I apologize for being rude, and I shouldn't have called you a dick. That said, your original comment was one about what was obviously an inadvertent reverting mistake - even if the revert itself had been purposeful, it can be presumed that I wasn't trying to change usage back to "oppresicly." As such, it was, from the beginning, quite likely that I would not be able to gather what you were talking about from your initial comment. This would have been easily solved by you simply saying what you were talking about. I (perhaps rather rudely) responded, indicating that, indeed, I did not know what you were talking about. In your second comment, you continued to refuse to indicate what you were talking about, forcing me to go back through the contributions list and figure out what was going on. Once again, all that would have been necessary to prevent this entire unfortunate exchange would have been if you had simply indicated the article you were referring to in your first comment to me. Most of the unpleasantness could have been prevented if you had simply linked me after my first comment. Basically, people do a lot of stuff on wikipedia. If you provide a completely out of context statement on a talk page, you ought not be surprised that the person you are speaking to does not know what you are referring to. If that out of context statement is a criticism, you ought not be surprised that the person responds somewhat hostilely. And if you continue to act as though they should automatically know what you're talking about, after they've indicated that they don't, you ought not be surprised that they react even more hostilely. This is not to defend my conduct in this exchange - I have clearly not handled this very well - but just to say that my conduct does not arise out of natural irascibility, but as a fairly predictable result of the way you have dealt with this issue. john k 06:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on User:Antidote

Hi, you may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote. I would appreciate if you could endorse the dispute at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute Thanks, Arniep 15:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you have time I'd appreciate your looking at this, the user is the same as StabRule (aka HotelRoom + EscapeArtistsNeverDie). They voted multiple times mainly on Jewish lists, most recently on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish inventors. Thanks Arniep 14:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

details of their multi-voting: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote/Voting, contributions Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote/Contribution_table, comments Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote/User_comments. Arniep 14:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HB

I acknowledge that you may be right as for the Hilton Becker thing: I'm a little preoccupied today, and may not have given the merits of the article proper consideration relative to its flaws.

Once I'm finished with my today's (paying) project, I'll go over the relevant pages more carefully and perhaps undelete the page. Or perhaps I'll leave it deleted, but either way I'll let you know. Okay? DS 18:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

I'm making them - see Stanford Ovshinsky - so if you have time go ahead and help me out. Antidote 23:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's very impresive. Amazing what an Rfc can do in the way of changes. I'll make some stubs- but I still think you should withdraw your nom on the list, since it's going to be much harder to copy from it once its deleted. -- JJay 23:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing this in order to find a consensus with you. If it were done the correct way then all of the red names would just be moved to their corresponding country lists (many of them already exist there anyway) and these extra lists would be deleted (that way Jews can be treated like any other ethnicity on Wikipedia). You just don't see to like to compromise. Antidote 22:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish inventors

It's pretty funny that Antidote recently made Category:Slovak inventors and Category:Serbian inventors under an anon ip and another of his interestingly named accounts User:EscapeArtistsNeverDie, and just said "one does not wish to start a revolution of ethnic battling on wikipedia with List of German inventors, List of Chinese inventors, and List of Native Inuit Eskimo inventors". LOL Arniep 20:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of what he says seems funny or absurd. While I have got him to start making stubs, he wouldn't be making the stubs without the lists, all of which he wants to delete or "reform". He also seems to enjoy ethnic battles. -- JJay 20:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its not so funny that he wants to remove Jewish people from all the European country lists though... please sign or comment on his rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote. Arniep 20:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the rfc, is that I haven't had time to review the mass of materials there. I'm also not a huge fan of bureaucracy and don't know anything about the rfc process. I'll try to fous on that later tonight. -- JJay 21:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate if you put these comments on my talk page so I can comment on them, or else you'll all be left in the dark and assuming what you wish to assume. Thanks. Antidote 21:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be doing fine commenting here, so no need to put comments on your talk page. Of course, feel free to copy anything from this page that you think you might need. -- JJay 00:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

www.wga.hu

So how far did it get? Can those articles stay? I would like to end it once and for all. Renata3 22:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you fill me in on where you fit in this. I don't remember speaking to you about the WGA problem. -- JJay 22:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Nope, you did not speak with me. You spoke with Cryptic and with Attilios. I discovered one article yesterday and I got interested. And now I want to know if it got settled or just got forgot. Just looking if I can help. :) Renata3 22:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll spell out the situation as best as I can. We have written permission to use "some" of the WGA material. Because Attilios has submitted a substantial amount of articles taken from WGA, I wrote to WGA to ask for clarification. My mails were repetedly bounced, but I have emailed Dr. Krenz twice now without response. I was too busy with work to follow up, but I think a third mail to the WGA would be in order, before we decide whether to keep or copyvio the WGA articles. Obviously, if they are kept, credit has to be shown, which is a big job in itself, particularly as there are more than 63 articles probably well over 100. -- JJay 22:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Is the original permission text available? In any case those articles need clean up. Renata3 22:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're all in it together

I'd just like to say 'thanks' for defending List of fictional Elvis impersonators. I am the creator (something I'm not pointing out on the VfD page), but I am by no means the only contributor. I admit it's not something of striking importance, but it's good to know there are other people who consider it worth keeping. -Litefantastic 00:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I voted the way I thought best. Everyone has their own definition of what is valuable. If the encyclopedia was based strictly on what I think is meaningful, it would be very small and probably very boring. I therefore try to support things if I think others might find it useful. But as I stated, what annoys me a great deal is the lack of consideration to other editors shown by using AfD as a weapon. -- JJay 00:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FROM GHava

Please do not delete us. There are tons of Ghava™ collaborators listed on Wikipedia that discuss projects in which Ghava™ has been involved in creatively. We are in the process of adding more information discussing the art exhibitions GHava™ has been involved with domestically as well as internationally.

On a separate note, The Designers Republic are listed here. Why is GH avisualagency™ being marked for deletion. GHava™ is the same type of collective and have collaborated with many of the same people. This is not making any logical sense.--lerner

Looks like the situation may be out of my hands now. Nothing seems to make any logical sense anymore. Thanks for your message. -- JJay 01:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and honest response. Seeing as how you feel like the situation is out of your hands would you please mind not voting either way by retracting your delete vote in the discussion of the topic? I would sincerely appreciate it. --lerner

Barry Wood

I have created an article about the England cricketer called Barry Wood (cricketer). If the current article in the namespace is deleted as seems likely, I would like to move the article about the cricketer into the namespace. Most of the What Links Here for Barry Wood are for the cricketer. Capitalistroadster 09:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

consumerpedia deletion

Hi JJay,

You voted keep on Consumerpedia. I have lodged a comment on that page disagreeing, with a bit of new information. Please reconsider your vote. Thanks!

DanKeshet 22:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voila. -- JJay 22:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! DanKeshet 22:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of White Americans

I know we've never seen eye to eye, but they're trying to delete this article. Deleting it and keeping NA and Black American lists is just racist IMHO.Gateman1997 00:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I more or less agree with you. But, what can I do? I'm not an admin an there is a speedy on the article. Even if it went through AfD, the list would probably or almost definitely get deleted, based on the previous vote. -- JJay 00:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You could delete the speedy. I'd do it myself but it's against policy since I started the article.Gateman1997 01:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah...I'll leave that for the admins to decide. The list may qualify as a speedy. You also should know that I am more interested in process and policy than content (as demonstrated by my recent voting on the Indian List- my original vote had been delete). There is a way that you could get around this in the future I think. Do a sourced list of self-proclaimed caucasians. -- JJay 01:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paris streets-list

Hi, I think it would be a pity to have this disappear but it has to be reduced in size to meet wiki standards. The easiest would be to turn it into a top level page pointing to 26 alphabetical linked pages. But I think added value would be got by breaking it down by arrondissement - you ask how would this make it smaller and it's true that some streets would duplicate over of the 20 arrondissement but, even still, each of the 20 articles would be close to the recommended 30K or so. The two solutions are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. Dlyons493 Talk 11:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds good to me. How do we go about it? -- JJay 17:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I've added List of streets in Paris, France in alphabetical order into Portal:Paris. It's only got A and B as proof-of-concept but will be easy to do the others in the same way. I'm sure there must be more elegant ways but feel the best thing is to save the data first (I've made a local copy of all the names and can do the other letters quickly). What do you think - if you've a better way let me know or just go ahead and do it. Dlyons493 Talk 21:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is really good. If there is a better way, I don't see it now. In any case, it could always be changed later. The important thing is to hold onto the data for the time being. -- JJay 00:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- More by way of experiment than anything else I've created Rue Zadkine. Comments appreciated. Dlyons493 Talk 02:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IATCE

I mentioned it because that particular construction is rather confusing. Expand is obviously a keep-style comment, but you didn't actually say "and delete unless expanded", you just offered delete as another, opposing, option. It would have been clearer had you expanded the article (or phrased differently). On the broader point, I personally think those who say an article should be expanded should do some of the legwork they are mandating. That's just a personal opinion, though. -Splash^talk 01:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Aileen Passloff

Thanks for switching to the correct template! Bjelleklang - talk 06:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- JJay 06:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi

i read your comment on the GH avisualagency AfD page and saw that you have extensive experience on here. i am trying to contribute to the GH article but everyone on the discussion page keeps giving me the wrong advice. most insisted that i have to prove notability, then they said that it was wrong to list articles about the collective. i don't know who to believe as they all keep leading me astray. if you could please offer me any advice on how to make the article better or make any adjustments yourself i would sincerely appreciate it. even if it does get deleted, at least i will have known that i tried my best to make it a better article. thanks so much.

for editing reference, these lead to some other wikipedia articles i feel are similar: art collective, artist collective, List of graphic designers

Inspectorpanther 16:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Via-à-vis The Three Sounds

Cheers! --Ezeu 14:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gateman1997

Hi JJay. The guy is obviously getting bothered by your replying to a bunch of his votes on AfD, so see if you can refrain doing it, as things are better when things are mellow. Thanks! Proto t c 15:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your great research

Wondering what you think of exploding animal now? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Americas Funniest Home Videos/Opening Credits

Hi, how do you go about getting an undeletion vote? The above article was deleted with a 10 Keep/Merge to 12 Delete vote, which sure as hell aint the two thirds majority supposedly needed! Jcuk 07:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can put in a request at Wikipedia:Votes_for_Undeletion, but I'm not sure how far you will get, as the article was apparently previously deleted and thus speediable. -- JJay 08:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok, cheers Jcuk 17:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jalali calendar

Hmm... so what's the difference in correct usage between copyvio and db-copyvio? Melchoir 08:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Db-copyvio is only supposed to be used for stuff that's taken from commercial content providers, meaning things like newspapers, magazines, books, etc. For everything else, you should use the regular copyvio tag and place a notice on the copyvio page, because it allows editors one week to rewrite the material on a temp page and/or secure permission to use the content. -- JJay 08:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks! Melchoir 08:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teriyaki Boyz

OK, so I mistagged something a few minutes after entry. I err on the side of dropping an SD tag on most of the questionable Newpage stuff I find. If anything, this appears to be my third mistagged speedy delete out of 471 speedies (inclusive of those three), so overall it's not so bad. Heck, that's better than the US Army right now. It sounded like a stack of nonsense to begin with, and I admit I should've googled it, but I went to Allmusic first and there was no entry for them. That said, I don't think that the album itself needs an entry. Overall, the group doesn't meet WP:MUSIC either, so I'm going to keep an eyeball on it for a little while. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 14:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to engage you in debate

1. The AfD discussion was not closed at the point I posted to it, nor was it closed (according to my browser) when I exited it. I assume, this having happened before, that there is some lag time between when an article is closed and when that closure is effective. Whatever the case, I know what I am doing, and at the time I posted my comment, the AfD was still open for comment. I feel no need to apologise for technical issues.

Edit made 7 hours post close- [10]

As I say, I feel no need to apologise for technical issues.

2. I have no idea whether you are just now completing junior high (or whatever you call it where you live) or if you have a Master's degree. I did not venture a guess on that in my post. I can speak only for my experience, not for yours. My remarks concerning your school experience are entirely relevant. Those people who remain connected with their schools have an entirely different perception of the importance of that school than those who do not. Were I to learn that you have not been in touch with your high school since the day you walked out the door, I wouldn't touch your perception as far as I could hurl it. On the other hand, if you have continued to maintain touch with staff and former students, or if you have a child who is attending this school, I would be more than willing to give credence to your account (while still subjecting it to the necessary requirements of noteworthiness).If you are indeed "surrounded by other snickering acne-covered juveniles, many of whom will go on to become distinguished alumni, notable enough to warrant mention on a wikipedia page", you may wish to reconsider an article when in fact these juveniles are actually "distinguished". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

My guess is you haven't seen the inside of a school since you finished high school [11]

Otherwise, my comments stand.

3. My perspective is well outside the mainstream? Nice try. While school debates are regularly closed with no consensus, it is extremely rare that they are closed with consensus. Heretical? You've only been here a few weeks. I will allow you the right to be wet behind the ears.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashland High School (Ohio), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quartz Hill High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilmington Friends School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuarts Draft High School, etc.

"Etc" being shorthand for "I can't find any more". This is four out of how many dozen, over what period of time?

4. I beg mercy for the inability to read your mind. "...while I was adding information..." is not exactly a good reason for me to be shouting hurrahs for the completeness of this article. Moreover, your implicit criticism of my inability to type is petty at least.

If you can find me a notable high school beside which I may be properly recondite, fine. I have no issue with articles on schools which are properly notable, and that notability may occur for several reasons. I will not, however, accept, as you appear to, that a school is notable merely because there are students in the building. This is an encyclopedia, not a yellow pages. We require that individuals, bands, businesses, and web sites show some degree of worthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia. In my judgement, if a school has not been deemed worthy of inclusion in some non-school documentation, then it is not worthy of inclusion here. I trust you understand my position now. Please enlighten me on yours. D e nni ☯ 01:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is also not a debate society. I have been more than gracious to respond to your numerous questions when directed at me. Reread my comments around the site if you really require further details. I will now concede on all points, you may consider that your great knowledge and experience has resulted in another crushing victory. Good luck in your future endeavors-- JJay 01:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for conceding on all points, and recognizing that you have nothing of value to contribute to these arguments. (just kidding. The most important trait of an editor, IMHO, is that s/he appreciates the importance of collaboration with all other editors= in making Wikipedia the best possible source of information. If that is you, I propose we agree to disagree on the issue of schools and work as colleages in other areas.) D e nni ☯ 02:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voting to keep almost everything

I had noticed you regularly vote to keep almost every article on WP:VFD, especially lists of X. I can assure you that to keep open ended and popular enough list is very hard and unpleasant experience. Maybe if you try to do it yourselves you may change your opinion.

It is quite common for novices to forget encyclopedia is not repository of everything. The task of VFD should be to give more experienced people tool to stick with WP rules and aims. Pavel Vozenilek 03:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Please point me to policy that states Keep is not a valid vote on VfD. -- JJay 03:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say Keep votes aren't valid. I just pointed to need to keep with rules from WP:NOT (section Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). This article doesn't and cannot list all cases but it gives enough of hints what is reasonable encyclopedic topic. Thanks for understanding. Pavel Vozenilek 04:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. You did helpfully point out that I am a "novice". If there is a minimum edit count required for voting please state the figure, so I can try to boost my count from the few thousand at present. However, if there is no rule in this respect, I intend to keep participating and voting keep as I see fit based on existing wikipedia ~~rules~~ guidelines. This will be the case for lists, which are extremely useful and appealing and have always existed in encyclopedias. The possibilities for nurturing, growing and developing lists are endless and one of the true joys and delights of this project. I would also suggest you ponder the statement that wikipedia is not paper. -- JJay 04:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should not feel this term as derogatory, it simply means that someone is on Wikipedia for short time and may not be fully familiar with its internal processes, trends, abilities and limitations. As for thousands of edits - this number doesn't count that much and vast majority of the edits comes from AfD voting, not from articles creation and maintenance.

I really recommend you to get involved in maintenance of articles about popular topics. This is much unthankful work, practically hopeless under current state of WP, yet much needed. I did so for a year until I got burnt out. Now I concentrate on Czech related topic (which have minimal attention of vandals), and only sometimes deal with administrative parts. Pavel Vozenilek 05:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are quite wrong about my edit count. Most of my edits come from maintenance as shown here [12], which is the list of roughly 800 articles tagged for speedy deletion. However I may vote on VfD, my edits have led to the removal of far more articles than have been kept. -- JJay 11:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for being one of the few people who found us interesting enough to keep in the discussion about deleting S23 Wiki. Mutante23 08:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to win friends and influence people

Mr/Ms JJay thank you for your almost sole vote to keep my article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Promises of troop withdrawal by American presidents. FYI, I have given up on the article, attempted to mend fences with the perp who started this, and now will include the info in Election promise.

I also really liked your wit in the above post when the guy accused you of being a novice because you almost always vote to keep an article. Thank you sir/ma'am.Travb 12:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think the topic of your article could be developed nicely, presenting both sides of the issue. However, you were not given a fair shake, or enough time to flesh out the article. It also amazes me that people will vote to keep junk like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidential gaffes, but not a potentially serious discussion of presidential issues.

Thanks for the comments regarding my wit. In fact, the guy above is wrong, because I have voted far more frequently overall to delete articles. That never engendered any comment from anyone. It is only when voting keep that you apparently break some unwritten rule and cause a serious breach of etiquette among the old wikipedia boys. -- JJay 12:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that I read what you wrote, and that the information is now at Election promise, I hope this is the last I ever hear of the user. Good luck. Travb 14:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably better if you two avoid each other- that is if you ever figure out who he was. I checked out election promise, interesting topic if it can stay balanced. Has the potential to become huge also. -- JJay 01:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forward-looking statement

I posted my Google search results to the talk page. User:Dzonatas created this page and three templates last night as a result of a discussion about copyediting Joan of Arc.

He asserts that the United States Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 is a usage guideline for medieval history articles. "Forward-looking statement" is not a linguistics term. To toss this together with "gerund" and assert it has anything to do with centuries-old subjects is WP:Complete Bollocks. The term has a very narrow technical application in United States financial law. Either this editor is very confused or it's a deliberate attempt to snow people. Durova 18:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's this? You advise me to submit this for regular deletion and then accuse me of bad faith for following your advice. Durova 19:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please study the substance of my nomination and assume good faith. Your presumption of a dispute bias appears to have colored your response. Durova 20:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a narrow technical term, the article is a dictdef.
The article creator makes fictitious claims in order to expand it beyond a dictdef.
If cleaned up for accuracy, we are left with a dictdef - at best a transwiki to Wikibooks.

I request that you strike the accusation of bad faith from your vote. The nomination meets Wikipedia guidelines. Durova 20:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrim State Hospital

Just wanted to say awesome job on the copyedit and merging! Nice work. Tom Foolery 00:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Romaia's potential

I understand your position (I've seen it e.g., at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TEACCH) and respect you vote. I just want to let you know that I knew what I was doing when I was nominating this page. I could have explained you in more detail, but at the moment it will be just waste of our time. Cheers, mikka (t) 03:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anti-abortion people

Thanks for helping out on that article. The supporters to keep it really appreciate the feedback, especially me. However, it has, unfortunately been deleted. One of the Wikipedians' rationale for deleting it was the paper thing, and 'that it justifies POV?' Well, as I previously stated, the article could've been edited to conform to NPOV. But you can't stop a deletionist any way you try in most cases. I supposes deletionism is predominant among members of Wikipedia, and thus it would be very difficult to keep any article, even with diligence. I just don't seem do understand it in most cases. But anyway, thank you for all the feedback you offered us Inclusionists, and others against deleting that informative article. Эйрон Кинни 04:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd Robinson

On December 21, you voted on this AfD, stating "Weak keep and cleanup. May be notable as president of the Federation. Need some Australian input."

At the moment, it's 4-2 including your vote, so it's at risk of being a no-consensus keep. Every Australian to vote has voted delete, as he's not notable here. More importantly, however, the article isn't in any way verifiable, and it concerns me that such an article might be kept. Would you consider changing your vote? Ambi 09:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I have been able to confirm some of the info in this, but it looks like it will be deleted anyway. -- JJay 05:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Crabtree AFD

Please reconsider your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Crabtree. I believe the subject of the article being AFDed is not the same person as the Guardian author. His blog seems even less than non-notable, and the article completely vanity. Please see the updates I've posted at the AFD. Thanks. Blackcats 22:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945 Afd

Well, I now know personally that you do vote to delete articles, Have you considered the merge option? I have added some comments to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945 page which may help change your mind.Travb 01:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the message. I at first voted keep on this, but then some of the comments got under my skin, hence the change to delete. Based on the votes at this point, the keeps are well ahead so I don't see any point in changing my vote- if it was closer I would switch to abstain. -- JJay 01:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your candor. You probably are talking about "USA is the most hated country in the world" wikipedian, unfortunatly this user begs the question: "if these are my friends, who are my enemies?" I am sorry he got under your skin, he actually got under my skin too. Can I ask you a question. Is it real fair to judge an article for deletion based on a bad experience with another wikipedian? People wanted to delete secret plan because of my actions: "Delete per nom, Travb's attitude"[13] not because of the content of my article. I just feel this is not fair.

I think every vote counts in this argument. Every vote for "keep" is another vote toward a clear consensus. Wikipedians have already elected to delete this article, and it survived. It has been attacked every week since its inception, by people who completly want to delete this rich part of American history from wikipedia. I don't think wiki articles should be held captive indefinatly, under the threat of delete, by such revisionist history wikipedians. Your vote is important. Travb 02:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it some more thought. My mind is just not made up at present. Even with a keep though, someone could still renom. -- JJay 02:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JJay all I ask is you think about it.Travb 02:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CFD & Power Rangers

Nobody ever said look was a criteria for deletion. We were merely poking fun. We are allowed to have fun, aren't we? Search 4 Lancer 07:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thou shalt not give Hitler posthumous victories.

Thank you for your comment. Regards, Durova 17:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

South African College

Hey there, thanks for merging the headmaster thing... I wasn't sure what to do there, but the headmaster part I thought would look weird because I just realised I don't have the full list of headmasters from both the high school and junior school and I thought it might look rather dumb... I'll get the full list for the past 176 years and then post it... --KryptonZone 12:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The full list would be good, but it would have to fit in the article. If you post it as a separate list, I'm sure someone will try to delete it. -- JJay 12:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah agreed, I will be able to stick it in, only 9 for the high school and like another 6 or 7 for the junior school. Thanks for the help anyways, it's really nice :) --KryptonZone 13:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Maywood Avenue School

Hi JJay,

Tally count is 10 keep votes, 6 merge votes, and 1 delete. Majority vote 59%. Merge is not very similiar to keep, because the content is brought over to another article, and the original article deleted/redirected. No consensus is just something academic, because by default it is a "keep" conclusion de facto. So there. :)

Let me know if you need further clarification on my talkpage.

- Greetings!, Mailer Diablo 19:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Take care too, and happy new year in advance! :) - Mailer Diablo 19:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religion of Karl Marx

Thanks for your comment. I only disputed the inaccurate claim that Marx converted from Judaism: it is misleading to claim that a baptism in childhood in an irreligious family constitutes a conversion. --- Charles Stewart 19:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ayden Scheim

Thanks kindly for the heads-up. I definitely had to weigh in there. I agree that he's kind of a borderline case, but for me he's at least marginally on the keep side too. Bearcat 05:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wilsonville High School

Thanks for improving this. I've noticed, that lately you've been one of the top, new school article improvers around here; which is nice to see . --Rob 03:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. The school articles are fun to work on. -- JJay 03:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you may wish to add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools#Participants, as your probably a bigger participant than most of those listed. --Rob 05:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added the page to my watchlist and will use it for reference, but I'm not sure if I fully agree with all the goals listed, so will hold off on adding my name for now. What I'm trying to do is to prevent the schools from getting deleted, particularly as speedies, like Deland High School and Belmont High School. -- JJay 06:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. Even if you don't sign up, you're always welcome contribute to it, in any area, like the notable alumni info I'm gathering there. --Rob 06:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added: If you are really keen on saving speedied articles, you may wish to check out Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/New, as the red-links are generally speedied articles. Often the entire contents are so small they are included in the deletion summary (which you can view). You'll never catch ever speedy-tagged article before delete, so it's worthing noting they're still "saveable" after (mostly, not always). --Rob 07:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, but I caught both of the school articles above before they were speedied- check the edit histories. I save a few articles every day by monitoring the category. You would be shocked by what is being tagged, the abuse of CSD is frightening. -- JJay 07:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Afd comments

JJay,
I've noticed that you're a bit, well, terse in AfD discussions. There are several reasons that this is less than desirable, most of which I've already mentioned. However, it also lends to the less-than-collegial atmosphere of the discussions. We expect that people who nominate will take a little bit of time to explain why they think something should be deleted, and anyone else who takes part in the discussion should also make some effort to add something other than a naked vote. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was bloody excellent! - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

list of insider traders

I wish you hadn't removed my speedy req on the List of insider traders page I started. I want to go back to the drawing board on that one. I think the categories and lists of market stuff are not in good shape, or at least I have a lot of trouble navigating through things that should be related, but I now reckon what I started won't improve the situation. The problems will be with charges being brought as other offences (say securities fraud in the US, I think), with how widespread insider trading was reputed to be in the US in the 1920s (but which will be very difficult to prove enough to add a pejoritive like insider trader to people from that time), and with closely related scandals missed for not quite being literally insider trading (I'm thinking for instance of Sumitomo copper here). So, as I say, I want to revert and look probably at improving the categories, then think carefully about what manual summaries could be maintained. -- Kevin Ryde 01:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIV

Please remember to be civil. Your latest comments were in violation of that rule. Also your comment was not changed, the categorization it had incorrectly placed on the AFD was. Please note the difference as you had placed that AFD in a category it did not belong in, that was all that was corrected.Gateman1997 04:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny. To use your own words, "your comments are no longer welcome". Also do you enjoy when people change your user page? -- JJay 04:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know why I bother. You're definitely not one of the more personable people involved in this project are you? I won't be contacting you again assuming you do the same.Gateman1997 04:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent news. -- JJay 05:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding George W. Bush

JJay, I appreciate your sense of humor in the AfD. I got a huge laugh from your idea of having a bot add GWB to every list, indluding List of Elvis impersonators. Thanks. Logophile 16:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Lindsay_Lohan_Remixes

I researched and followed what I believed to be the correct course of action. Did I jump the gun; did I step in where an admin should have trod? Apparently. Was I attempting to "disrupt" something? Absolutely not. Has the assumption of good faith gone out the window? You tell me. One Wikipedian's edit summary—"what are you doing?"—might just as well have included the untyped "the hell" for the tone it took. This was not a pleasant experience... Radio Kirk talk to me 23:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering

I was just wondering if it was just me who thinks aladin is notable. Thanks for verifying the Times - although if you see my discussion page girlinwhite did that a while back. Not that they pay any notice at AfD. Now - what more than a three page article in the world's leading newspaper could establish a person's notability? Probably the spread aladin got in the Asian Age! Call me a cynic about this one. Autumnleaf 01:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a new team on the aladin page - my subcontinental crew and you! Let's keep on the case. I just realised the photographer is quite famous on the portrait of aladin in Asian Age. Now - who do you know in London who could check up on a few more press things? I am joking of course - I have texted there already. Autumnleaf 02:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've probably seen this but I've found this: Inside Magic.com article Don't know how useful it is, good luck. Englishrose 15:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afd and merges

I think you have a somewhat non-standard view of what Afd means, with respect to merges. There's a bit of discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Is_vote_for_merger_binding_on_destination_article.3F that you might want to read. Merges and redirects can be done by anyone at any time. Of course, if there's disagreement, you talk it over on the talk page, just like any other content dispute. Articles are subject to editing at any time. A prior Afd is not meant to prevent normal editing of the article after it's over. Friday (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is relatively simple. You did not perform a merge. I undid the redirect. The AfD outcome was Keep, not merge. The discussion above is not relevant. -- JJay 19:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's relevant to the issue of your understanding of Afd. You were mentioned specifically there. As for the content issue on Mootstormfront, that talk page is the right place to discuss it. Friday (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really believe I am not aware of that discussion? If you checked the article in question, you would see that the material has been merged, per the AfD, to the general satisfaction of everyone involved. I understand AfD. I also understand the meaning of merge and keep and redirect. I wonder, though, if you are familiar with the concept of a back door deletion? -- JJay 20:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found nothing to suggest one way or the other whether you knew about it, that's why I mentioned it. I guess we can only conclude that we have different opinions about what a prior Afd means. If you feel that a merge on an article with a prior Afd is a "back door deletion" (and thus a bad thing), I'd encourage you to make this point on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion where more people would see it. Friday (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Zoe

Please stop attacking AfD nominations and nominators, or I will start deleting your comments. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? -- JJay 03:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to remove all Jewish lists

Hi. An attempt is being made to force the deletion of all Jewish lists from Wikipedia. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Lists_by_religion-ethnicity_and_profession#Proposed_amendment:_remove_most_Jewish-related_lists and my compromise proposals at Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Lists_by_religion-ethnicity_and_profession#Proposal_to_make_Jewish_lists_and_categories_historical_only. Thanks Arniep 10:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home and Away

Hi, you have voted in the afd for various Home&Away character articles. I have had a go at combining all the articles in a single article (which I admit still needs a lot of work). You can find it at Current Home and Away characters. I suggest we keep this article are either delete or re-direct the others. What do you think? I've given a couple of reasons on the deletion page why I think one aticle is better than individual ones. Thanks, Evil Eye 13:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comments

Please do not hesitate to continue to tell me when I say something you think is out of line. There's no tone of voice in text, and I'm always happy to err on the side of not offending. If you'd like, I'll dig up some diffs where I've given it good to people who nominate with "NN D". A nomination that does not both clearly state its reasoning and provide some evidence that the person had done some research really does no one any good. Not that mine are always perfect, but I do try.

I'm now off to redact.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Ukraine - Shave a monkey and call him dad. It would have been nice to have seen this one before it turned into a free-for-all. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe and I pretty much share one brain in two bodies... which probably explains our respective behaviors. I won't comment further on the whole inclusion/deletion factionalisation, but I like to think that I'm not in any camp.

When it comes to people's reactions to the manner in which recomendations are expressed, there is a drunkard's walk analogy. If someone came and said "delete everything" than clearly that would not be compatiable with the goals of the project. There would be no project. But if someone says "keep everything" than the arguments as to why that is incompatiable with the goals of the project are more nuanced. Thus (here's the drunkard's walk) extreme deletionists fall into the ditch and vanish, while extreme inclusionists bounce off the wall and hang around.

This means that the distribution of views does not end up being symmetric, but left skewed. Combine this with the fact that deletion debates are structurally slanted strongly in favour of keeping (mostly for historical reasons to do with the way the database functioned) and you can see why people with mid-range views can get frustrated with someone that they perceive as an extreme inclusionist.

And I normally do try to watch out for flare-ups on AfD, but I've been pretty busy trying to make everyone be rational and civil elsewehere! *cough* user boxes *cough*

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexual slurs

You voted to cleanup, can you be more specific. Do you want to prune the list or remove it? Thanks.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 19:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm

I realize you don't approve of merging, but there is no reason for you to do a merge template removal as you did here. This is unhelpful to the discussion and disrepectful to other editors. I'm glad you explained yourself on the talk page, but where's the harm leaving the template up? It may draw in more people to comment on the merits of the merge. Friday (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you enjoy redirecting, but why don't you start by participating in the talk page discussions? Furthermore, at what point were you respecting other editors when you redirected the page without discussion? -- JJay 19:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you sound like you're trolling when you say things like that. Can we talk about the articles instead of sniping at each other? I didn't redirect it, I put a merge tag on. I was hoping someone else would comment on the merits of the merge. Now that people have, I've added my two cents. Everyone has their own opinions, and I don't object for one second to you opposing the merge. I do object to you removing the merge template prematurely tho. Friday (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even keep track of your edits? To refresh your memory, here is a link to your edit redirecting the page. [14]. You did not explain this redirect, on the talk page or anywhere else. What gave you the right to shutdown through this unilateral redirect an ongoing discussion on improving the article, in which you were not a participant? You also did not seek to explain the merge tag you later placed on the article until after it was removed. The fact that you do not like an article's contents does not give you license to suppress the article. I would strongly ask that you consider respecting other editors and normal procedure. -- JJay 19:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, you're very right, I had previously redirected. What I thought we were discussing was the merge tag I added later, sorry for the confusion. Anyway, I redirected because I thought it was best. You reverted because you disagreed, now we're discussing it. It's called bold/revert/discuss and it's a very normal way for things to happen. I did nothing that wasn't easily reversable, as you know (having reverted it). I don't see where the problem is. Friday (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"non-working redirect"?

I was confused by an edit you made with a summary of "rv non-working redirect", please see Talk:Mootstormfront#non-working_redirect. Thanks. Friday (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrgh. To me it really, really looks like you're just being intentionally unhelpful here. Please consider how your responses might look to others. Note that the use of misleading edit summaries is highly frowned upon. I asked nicely for clarification, so I don't know why you'd bother responding in such an unhelpful way. Friday (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather busy. If you have a problem I can help you with, please let me know. However, your continued disingenuous distortions are growing tiresome, such as above where you first accuse me of trolling, deny redirecting, then admit I was right. In short, I can not devote all of the very limited amount of time I have available for this project in responding to your incessant inquiries. I would strongly suggest that you find a more useful way of contributing to wikipedia. -- JJay 23:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was honestly asking. The redirect looked ok to me when viewed as a diff, but I see now it didn't really function correctly. I still wish you'd have fixed it instead of reverting it, but I see now that your edit summary wasn't misleading at all. I apologize for assuming otherwise. Friday (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy AfD

You wrote: "What is more troubling is your propensity to only question votes that do not adhere to your line of thinking. In my opinion, that sort of rigid tunnel vision is best avoided if we want to build a viable project that serves the interests of all users. -- JJay 05:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)"

Do you want me to refute that? Do you really want me to provide links to diffs where I give stick to people for saying "delete" with no rational? We're often on the same AfDs, I'm sure you've seen it. And, to be frank, I don't want to build a project that serves the interests of "all users". The project has goals, and I'm interested in users who support those goals. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some links that are worth seeing, why not? Can you also point me to the page that lists project goals (and I don't mean guidelines or policy). Otherwise, thanks for being frank. -- JJay 05:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, that was meant to be rhetorical. Now I have to dig through my contributions! Lucky I'm scrupulous about edit summaries. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 09:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link dump

These are in reverse order, just the last eight (?) times I saw that I gave someone my opinion of AfD. I haven't (willfully) biased the sample, just took what came quasi-randomly. I won't annotate, I'd prefer you just looked for yourself. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 09:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

This is good stuff. I don't have time to make observations right now, but do you have links that date prior to Jan 1? -- JJay 10:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, you want blood. I'll try, but then I'm afraid I'll hit a rich vein of me giving stick to people who way "keep" and everything will collapse. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 10:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, too cryptic?

Yea, if it doesn't make sense than revert. I thought that it was totally transparent. Trying to eliminate the most eggregious "stick something in a list even if only twelve people say it" entries using the bluntest of tools.

There are mostly two urls per edit summary, but only for deleted entries. It took me a few tries to figure out what would fit. For things that looked like they were protologisms but appeared to have some provenance, I pasted the link in html comments.

Which entry was footnoted?

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 09:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if you do feel the urge to revert, please try a few of the links first, to get a feel for if you think I've been to aggressive. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 09:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list needs to be pruned. There's no doubt about that and I hope to participate if it survives AfD. The footnoted term you removed was woofter. Also I almost never use standard google for references, I source using books or publication databases. -- JJay 09:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Goes back to look at woofter in history.) Oh... an actual proper footnote. So rarely seen in the wild, I did not even recognise it. My apologies. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 10:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions

Please take this in the spirit in which it's intended.

I was looking for a particular item in my history, and couldn't find it. Recalling that you had commented on my comment, I looked at your contribution history. It's pretty striking. In your last 500 contrubtions, over half have been to AfD. That's a lot.

I'm a pretty heavy participant in AfD. Out of my last 500 contributions, 55 have been to AfD, and that includes the ten that I've closed.

I understand that you've got some pretty strong feelings regarding what should and shouldn't be included. I also note that the contributions that you do make to mainspace are fantastic. [23] But your time and energy would be much better spent making more of those and less time arguing on AfD.

The simple fact is that well written, well referenced articles about notable topics are very _very_ rarely deleted. Using the Jewfro example, merges result in no loss of information. I love merges. It's just not efficient to spend your time "saving" things. You'll wear yourself out. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea in what spirit you intend these remarks. If you want to analyse my contributions, fine. I suggest you look a little closer at this [24]. 85% of my contributions are directly in the project space. This excludes the roughly 800 articles I've tagged as speedies, copyvios or submitted for AfD (far more than you have). I am thus responsible for deleting far more articles than I have saved. Furthermore, looking at your contributions, I note that fully 45% (2900) to date are to user talk pages and the like. This includes 375 posts to your own user page. I might say that all that talking could wear you out but it's really none of my business. I might also suggest that you spend more time improving articles, but again that's none of my business. However, I do not see why you feel entitled to offer advice on how I spend my time. I also do not understand why you felt compelled to tell me of your love for merges. Please save those sort of personal revelations for your user page. -- JJay 02:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm "entitled" to offer advice because it's Wiki and almost anything can be edited by almost anyone. That doesn't mean that my advice is worth anything, or that anyone has to listen. Delete it all, it doesn't effect me.

I'm sorry, that link doesn't work for me, but I'll take your word for it. In fact, considering that I used my user page as my de facto Sandbox/ToDo/LinkRepos for ages, I'm suprised that it's not higher. And yeah, I like to talk and yeah I could spend that time some other way. My observation is, though, that quite a bit of that talking is about wikiwork, and that it's productive discussion.

I see you've got your back up, which is exactly why I started this. AfD is stressful, and you seem to be mixing it up quite a lot. But that's up to you.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What one can do and what one should do are often two entirely different things. -- JJay 04:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still monitoring my contributions. I find that flattering and sad at the same time. -- JJay 07:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wanted to see if you were using that amazon search as a reason to keep and counteract it if you were.
I've looked at that link you provided, and there seem to a couple of things you're confused about.
- Zerothly, of undeleted edits: 2202 (your project) / 3586 (your total) = 0.61, not .85, and 1954 (my talk) / 65420 (my total) = .30, not .45. Project talk isn't really used for "talk".
- Firstly, XfD is in project space. So, since I couldn't find any edits to policy or anything like that, roughly 60% of your time is spent arguing on XfD. That's worse than I thought.
- Secondly, the deleted edit count isn't quite what you're thinking. If you make three edits to an article and it gets deleted, that's three. As you make lots of edits to pages on AfD, it's probably not a record of that many speedies, etc.
- Penultimately, user space included not just my user page, but everyone's, and all subpages as well. So if I make ten edits to an article I'm creating and then move it into main space, that's zero mainspace edits and ten user space edits.
- Finally, editcountitis can be fatal. It's not the numbers, it's what you contribute.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 13:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi there, I couldn't dig up anything on whether or not you were already an administrator, so excuse me if you already are, but I would like to nominate you for an RfA. I have seen you around on AfD, as I spend much time there myself, and I believe your reasoning and commitment are commendable. I think you would make a fine Admin. If you have no objection, I will nominate you as soon as I receive word that you will accept it. Contact me either on my talk page or on yours, I will watch this page to await your reply. Thanks, and good luck! Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 03:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I have to say that I am both flattered and surprised by your message, particularly as I don't think we have chatted previously. I particularly appreciate the comment about my "reasoning and commitment", since both are challenged on a daily basis (as shown by many messages above). However, I don't feel that I can accept something like that at this time, because I have been here for less than four months and also because I think my time is better served by contributing directly to improving articles (and contributing to AfD discussions as needed). Furthermore, any nomination would probably lead to a messy fight that would really not be in the interest of the overall project. Thanks very much and I hope we get to collaborate in the future. -- JJay 03:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've saved me a hell of a lot of time when voting in AfDs, normally you hit the nail on the head and I can just put "per JJay" (which I do in about 1 in 10 AfDs I vote in). Just thought you had the makings of an Admin, which I hope to be at some stage anyway. Cheers, Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 09:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stockton Massacre

I see you echoed my comments on the Stockton Massacre discussion page. I was rather peeved when my nice straightfoward clean-up (IMHO) of the article was reverted. Rather than getting into a revert war, however, I decided to leave the situation sit for a while. I left an admin a note on the matter, but he said that resolving these questions wasn't his strong point.

Well, that was almost a month ago and the article hasn't changed. So, what should we do about this?? I've been considering going for mediation. Your thoughts?? Madman 00:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is good, except for the fact that it doesn't mention the murderer or victims names. Why are you opposed to the gun control information? -- JJay 01:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a discussion of gun control belongs here, no. This sort of discussion belongs under "gun control and assault weapons" or any some other gun control article. This article is supposed to be about the Stockton Massacre but spends most of its time discussing the cons of gun control. It shows an anti-gun control POV by quoting the Violence Policy Center's strategy on the matter.

And, no, the perpetrator's name is not mentioned, nor the victims, although the victims' names seem to be difficult to come by (I've looked). Madman 23:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

list of sexual slurs

Why not move this into sexual slur as its own subsection, with a different name?Voice of All^T|@|ESP 04:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works better as a list for now. Also your continued redirects are not helping. Please stop doing that so we can rebuild the list per the talk page discussions. -- JJay 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can build it as a subsection, I don't see why this is anymore difficult. Why does it have to be its own article, when the two article could form one stronger, more coherent article?Voice of All^T|@|ESP 04:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is very counterproductive to be focusing on that when we are trying to establish criteria for the list. Please try to contribute constructively to the discussions. -- JJay 04:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that comment is just borderline trolling. You know that we are already in close agreement over the requirement you just put up, which is more progress than anything in the last few weeks here. If you merged this into Sexual slur, I would not have to bother you s much over this list issue.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 04:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that needs to be said can be said on the List talk page. Please refrain from personal attacks and assume good faith. -- JJay 04:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Borderline trolling" is not a personal attack, and "Please try to contribute constructively" is not assuming good faith. This is why I am irritated, this is why I call things like "borderline trolling", because you don't assume good faith on your part and that is exactly what you accuse others of doing.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 04:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anway, I would agree to use the list page, for now, but it really should be merged when it is about finished. Is that ok?Voice of All^T|@|ESP 04:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Seth Ravin

An AfD you participated in is now at deletion review. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B-Movie Poster of Virtue

File:Night of the Living Dead 2.jpg

For believing that the dead may not vote yet still heeding their chill voices from beyond the grave by taking on cleanup of the article, I award you the B-Movie Poster of Virtue. Herostratus 05:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the award, although I don't feel that I have done much on the list so far. Maybe you could help out? BTW, nice job on Stockton Massacre- looks much better. -- JJay 11:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aladin Again

Was the result of the vote to keep the article or was it to redirect it to Aladdin? Or am I missing something? Englishrose 14:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed: 2nd deletion request for Afshar experiment article!

A crackpot is again requesting deletion of the article. [25] Your vote would be appreciated. Prof. Afshar 18:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexual slurs talk page

I wanted to clarify my last comment on the talk page and ask your opinion without it being part of the debate over there. When I said that I wanted to put together a list of terms and then get the references, I meant on the talk page, not the actual article. It occured to me you might have thought I meant in the article itself (which would of course would be counterproductive to everything we've discussed).

What I meant was that I thought perhaps we could develop a short proto-list on the talk page, with perhaps 10-15 popular terms under each category. We could generate the terms, but no term would be put in the actual article without references. I thought this would give us a chance to arrive at major terms we all agreed on (and debate the ones we didn't), and then we'd find the references for each terms before putting it in the article.

I'm concerned that the page is currently just at a standstill, so hope that we can move forward.

What do you think of this idea? StrangeAttractor 14:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. It's true I didn't understand what you meant at first. Thanks for the clarification. -- JJay 17:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy

JJay, hi, I wanted your opinion on something... I have been attempting to follow the dispute resolution process to ask DreamGuy to cease his personal attacks. However, every time I post something on his discussion page at User_talk:DreamGuy, he simply deletes it, and accuses me of harassment. He's also deleting comments by User:Englishrose, and those of a third party. I spoke to an admin about it, and they advised me that for now, I should try to get other opinions. Could you please take a look at the page's history, and let me know your thoughts on the situation? Thanks. Elonka 00:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the page history. I don't know what the best approach is, but I would say that User:DreamGuy seems to thrive on confrontation, personal attacks and general unfriendliness. He has no apparent interest in dialogue, consensus building or most of what makes things work here. He probably needs a daily edit war to feel alive. Unfortunately he is not the only user of that type. If possible, try to ignore his nastiness. Sorry I can't be more helpful. -- JJay 00:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rescue effort.

Hi,

Thank you for rescuing the article; your efforts are greatly appreciated. Cheers! Folajimi 01:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JJay

Thank you for your vote on my RfA, and for taking your time to provide diffs for your issues. I am sorry that you feel so strongly about my edit to the Godcasting article, but what I deleted was crap - see the difference between the edit prior to mine (where I stub-tagged the article), and just ten or so edits earlier [26]. I didn't mean any offence, and am surprised that it bothered you.

I don't necessarily support the 'War on Blogs' fully (and I don't like the name) - but I do feel that there needs to be a project aimed at applying quality control to the blog-related articles on Wikipedia. This does not necessarily mean deleting articles - many just require cleaning up, and I do feel that information on blogs that does not deserve an article of its own could be merged into the article on the blogger. That is my opinion, though, and I appreciate many feel differently - and I would always respect that if I were to be named as an administrator.

The name 'War on Blogs' is unfortunate. If it was called Wikiproject:Blogs or something similar, then perhaps not only would it be less controversial, but editors from the other side of the fence would be more involved, providing some necessary balance. I would note that I or any of the other people keeping an eye on the 'war' have not seen the people involved do anything against policy.

When I said Timecop was my hero, I thought it was just a bit of fun, and I certainly wasn't aware he was the leader of the GNAA. I actually had to look up what GNAA meant. I don't expect you to change your vote, so I won't ask. But I did want to explain myself a little better, and I hope that I've done so. I don't like bad feeling going around. If you have any questions or issues that you would like me to respond to, please post them on my talk page. No hard feelings. All the best, Proto t c 14:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Proto's nominator I thought I would add the following two cents: if I had thought for a second he was a supporter of the GNAA I wouldn't have nominated him and I am absolutely confident that his assertion that he was unaware of who Timecop was is genuine. I didn't know who Timecop was (if he is indeed the leader of GNAA) until you mentioned it, though I did know he'd been blocked.

I would also second the comment on "crap." In looking at the diff I take "crap" to mean "unnecessary stuff." It is a rather mild cuss. Marskell 15:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the derogatory approach that is displayed in AfD discussions and edit summaries. Regarding the GNAA, I have commented on Proto's user page. If as recently as 2.5 weeks ago he was not aware of this group, and was capable of signing a petition without any investigation, he is not ready to be an admin. -- JJay 15:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JJay. I removed my signature from the list in question about three minutes before you responded on my talk page - please check this diff [27]. I don't support pictures of Osama bin Laden, but I do support freedom of speech. And I never look at user boxes, because they are mostly silly. Proto t c 15:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the aladin topic

Hello JJay. I'm sorry that our first meeting would be head-on like that. You are welcome to check and pick my other edits apart, in search for anything done in bad faith. If you don't find anything, then I hope that you at least consider that my input at "aladin" isn't in bad faith either. No, I'm well aware that my knowledge of the business isn't fit to be posted in the encyclopedia, if it isn't verified in print. But the talk pages isn't the encyclopedia. Thanks to said knowledge, I'm able to find sources that are hard to find elsewhere, as well as directing focus to places where verification can be found, or where it should be found if it exists. To disregard the expertise and possible printed verification of known historians in the field, and noted publishers of trade journals, on the merits that they've met me, doesn't strike me as being fair. Had for example David Berglas said that aladin was a good performer who keeps to himself - that statement would not be suited for inclusion, but it would have been a good hint that it was worth the effort to find more sources. And the input of his son Marvin Berglas (head of the toy company "Marvin's Magic" ), who makes a lot of effort on finding and hiring young and deserving magicians in England - his opinion might also reveal whether it's possible to find proper verification or not.

I don't take questions like this lightly. Yesterday I searched through 9 volumes of Genii magazine (international trade magazine, 12 issues/volume) but not a single mention of aladin. I also went through Opus magazine (known british trade magazine) from 1994-1995, which is equally void of aladin's name. So far I've just flicked through the pages of Magic magazine, but I'm at this point quite certain that there will be no mention of his name there either. I was the editor of Tricks magazine in scandinavia until 1994-95, and continued with the magazine "Dr. Faustus Journal" in 1995, and got reports from all over the world. I've checked my old files, but nothing there either. There is the claim that aladin introduced Lennart Green to Ricky Jay, which is untrue. But the only places in England where both Green and Ricky Jay can have met is the McMillan convention in early 90's or possibly the Blackpool convention. I can check which year and ask Martin McMillan to check the list of registrated participants from those years, to see if it's likely that aladin has been even close to them - but as always, it's hard to prove a negative. Would the absense of aladins name from the list of participants at a convention be considered valid verification of a negative?

I'm also sorry that you believe it insulting to suffer from mythomania, but that should be considered an alert rather than an attack. I'm unfortunately familiar with it, as I lived two years with a girl who suffered from the combination Borderline personality disorder and mythomania, before I understood that something was wrong, and since then I've studied DSM-IV so hard I can quote it in my sleep. And I don't put moral values on the affliction, as I've seen the pain it causes. There are patterns that are easy to recognize for anyone with either education or personal knowledge. That is also not fit for an encyclopedia, but it should be an alert to people gathering verification that all facts has to be checked and re-checked, even down to the date of birth. That I possess a large knowledge of the field, have friends who are noted authorites and historians, and that I've got personal experience that enables me to recognize an illness shouldn't really be held against me, unless it seems likely that I use my knowledge to cause harm (check my previous edits). To avoid further misunderstandings, I will refrain from posting, researching or even visit that topic again, as I find it quite troublesome to be suspected of bad will. You are welcome to delete anything I've written there (consider that an official permission). And finally, I'm sorry that our first meeting had to be in this shape --TStone 10:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but again I believe your approach here is quite strange and perhaps suspect. You keep wanting to disprove claims that are not included in our article, such as the issue of the Ricky Jay introduction above. As such, I have absolutely no interest, not in claims you or others want to attribute to aladin, nor in your personal beliefs or statements that I can not verify, not in testimony from people you claim to know. As you say you are a magician (not that I have any reason to believe it's true), I find it odd that you feel the need to devote this much time to branding a magician as "sick" or suffering from a psychiatric "disorder". Since you do not claim to be a psychiatrist, and have not published a paper on the topic, your belief is not relevant and constitutes a personal attack. I have repeatedly warned you about this, but you seem obstinately disinterested and would appear to have something else driving you. However, you have convinced me that magicians probably suffer from a range of disorders, such as uncontrollable envy, covetousness, greed, jealousy and spite. Perhaps you could contribute an article on the relationship between these primal forces, backstabbing and getting ahead as a conjurer. I'm sure you would know where to begin the research. -- JJay 13:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the aladin piece in a while, and have assumed it was locked until agreement had been reached. That isn't the case? The version I read included things like the claim of introducing Green to Ricky Jay, among many other untrue things.

And the inclusion of those things are what I assumed you were fighting to preserve - and is that a bad thing to have the idea that an encyclopedia should contain reliable and accurate information. It is true, as soon as I looked into the matter, I noticed a pattern that still haven't been contradicted. This I kept to myself, until I felt that I had to alert people that research were tricky (still assuming the version I had read were untouched). I'm sorry to say this, but it is you who are out of line putting moral values into something that is nobody's fault. I might be totally wrong in my interpretation, but then I'm totally wrong and not something else. I do not feel the need to put quotation marks around sick and disorder (I've mentioned the latter, not the former. And if you don't understand the difference, you should check DSM-IV). It is a bit distasteful that you assume that suffering from a condition is such a bad thing, because it isn't. Therefore you are equally wrong in putting moral values on my interpretation. If I'm wrong, I'm just wrong - and if I'm right, it's just a sign that facts have to be checked and re-checked. That is the only difference that matters in the context of putting an encyclopedia together.

However, I'm trying to improve myself. I spent many hours of research before recognizing a pattern defined by DSM-IV. That might be wrong, but I still spent many hours. How many hours of reseach have you done on me, before branding me with uncontrollable envy, covetousness, greed, jealousy and spite, as well as backstabbing and getting ahead as a conjurer? To me, these words seem more designed to cause hurt and pain, more than what I have ever written in my life, because I can not find anything in this mess that I covet. And greed? Where would my "profit" be. And how am I supposed to be envious of being totally unknown by all noted magicians around the world? And backstabbing? Compare this with my edits on a person of whom I actually do have a grudge with. See talk page of Fearson's floating cigarette.

Anyway, my mistake was to assume that the page had been locked, and that you faught to keep untrue things in. I still find it strange that you claim that the guy is known as a magician, and say that it is irrelevant what the ones who keep track of the business have to say. Oh well, I'm not going to think more on this now. I wish you well in finding further sources that confirm your beliefs --TStone 15:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what your mistake is. I also have not branded you as anything- if you read my post above, I said: "magicians probably suffer from a range of disorders, such as uncontrollable envy, covetousness, greed, jealousy and spite". I probably should have also included anxiety, paranoia and OC disorder in the list. The statement was not addressed to you since I have no knowledge nor can I verify that you are a magician. It reflected what I have come to believe about the profession as a whole. Perhaps the DSM-IV has an entry for those suffering from the irrational delusion or need to claim that they are magicians. This is clearly a topic that demands further research and there are numerous sources that examine mental illness in the magic context. Since you have an interest in the area, I would point you to the following study from the NIMH [28].

Finally, regarding aladin I have no "beliefs" and make no claims. I merely report what I read in the press, which is all we are meant to do here. -- JJay 15:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on JJay, there's no need for rethoric little scams like that. That only makes you look dishonest. You are entitled to have an opinion, so why shy away from it? Why not the full quote? "However, you have convinced me that.." - meaning that you have formed your opinions on a whole sector of people based on observing me - clearly including me. I think you gain more respect if you stand behind your own words.

And is it really clever of you to claim that you incapable of proper research? "nor can I verify that you are a magician" - well if you can't even verify that :-) Good luck trying to verify your beliefs... even rather unnoted working magicians usually get 10-20 newspaper articles written about them (I consider myself to be rather unnoted among the general public, and I guess that anyone searching would just find around 90 mainstream newspaper articles about me, in scandinavina, Portugal, etc, during the period 1984-2005). Someone as noted as your hero here must surely have a lot more press than that, and some day you might even find it, if you keep on digging :-) Any day now, you will find the "fabled Magic Academy of Banglador", and the second recipient of the "Gold Turban", together with a magic formula that makes it possible to become famous without ever getting known by collegues or the general public. Keep on digging! :-)

There were no bad will in anything I said before. It might have been unpopular and in one aspect possibly wrong, but no bad will. I tried to talk and find common ground, and you replied with bad will. I clarified that you were mistaken in a few assumptions, and even gave an example that I do my best to be fair, even when I have personal reasons for a grudge - and once again you replied with bad will. All based on your unfounded belief that someone is known for something he's not. Well, since you have tried so hard to portrait me with bad will, I hope you are happy to hear that you now finally have got it. --TStone 17:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why you persist in your conception that I would seek to verify or even care about your profession or lack thereof is beyond me. I am not in the habit of asking wikipedia contributors about their professions. Frankly, I prefer knowing as little as possible about the people who post to this page. That should have been extremely obvious for some time now. Your accusations of “bad faith” are thus quite unfounded, although not surprising given some of the comments from your user name on the aladin page. As a general remark, I would say it is best to avoid editing articles where one has an emotional attachment or personal stake.

I guess it is your right to misinterpret my comment regarding the magic profession- to believe it was addressed to you- as you have misinterpreted all my statements here since the beginning. Your numerous posts regarding the presumed psychological disorders of encyclopedia subjects made me reflect on the possibility of a generalized psychological instability of those involved in the magic trade. The more I thought about what could motivate individuals to pursue such an unusual line of work, the more I came to believe that this industry must be a seething cauldron of unfulfilled dreams, dashed hopes and delusions of grandeur that can only result in frequent acting out and other psychological manifestations. I would also assume that magicians work infrequently, giving them enormous spare time to reflect on their presumed failings relative to other participants in their industry. This must create enormous stress for those trying to get ahead, or even survive in such an industry. Of course, I am not a psychiatrist so this is mere speculation.

Furthermore, despite your affirmation, I also have no beliefs that I need to verify. Nor do I have a “hero”. I have done no "digging" on the aladin page, nor do I intend to. I merely try to keep articles in line with wikipedia policy and NPOV. I hope this helps to clarify things for you. -- JJay 17:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I twisted and turned a few times, but it's no use since your analysis of magicians are very close to my own :-) I'm sure that you are uninterested in this, but since you are so close.. Yes, it seems likely that getting an interest in magic is a coping process. For someone without power, it gives power of know a "secret", you become someone.. That's only at the start though, most get the "hang" of it after a while and gets in sync with life in general. Most of them turn out to become very kind people (or kind and really strange). So, on the first part, you are not totally off. The second part? That depends more on how often you make the calls to the booking agencies. If you like work the phone, you can get performances all the time. I don't like it, so I wait for people to call me. Meaning it can be a bit irregular, where I do extremely much work from October to January, then a bit slow, totally dead on the summer, picks up again in August, and quite alright until October again.

If I get any "enormous spare time", I seldom reflect on presumed failings of other's in the field, I usually take a beer with them and let them tell me instead. And usually it turns out that the "enormous stress" usually are related to some girl, rather than survival in the business... Man, the field could easily support 40 more magicians just in scandinavia, so competition does simply not exist. Having a collegue to chat with is more important, so arguments are uncommon. Jealousy is more or less unheard of. No, it is a good life, and most involved are good persons and supportive of one another.

And yes, you've clarified a lot for me. More now, since I noticed some of your other edits. Maybe your own advice is valid? :"I would say it is best to avoid editing articles where one has an emotional attachment". Now, good luck finding verification for your beliefs! --TStone 21:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines fleet

To avoid cluttering the afd page anymore, I will comment here. I apologized for my statement that you interpreted as an attack. The very least you could do would be to apologize for your attack on me. I have no desire to "lecture" you. However, responding to apparent attacks with further attacks is indeed counterproductive and against Wikipedia policy. Dbinder 16:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please demonstrate where you feel I attacked you. -- JJay 16:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

My apologies for calling you a vandal. Maybe you could apologize to the people you called vandals for removing spam from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.--Curtis Clark 15:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you label spam- the description of a student activity- I call information. Please don't waste my time with slang expressions such as spam. Lastly, anons who repeatedly remove material from an article, without a valid explanation, qualify as vandals. -- JJay 17:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So registering with a pseudonym makes you special?--Curtis Clark 19:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but hiding behind your IP doesn't make you special. Using sock puppets doesn't make you special. That's just stupidity. -- JJay 20:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that's not an accusation hiding behind a general statement; it will lower my opinion of you even further. (My IP, btw, is 134.71.14.176. It's DHCP, so it might change in a narrow range. What's yours?)--Curtis Clark 22:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions hold very little interest here. Why do you believe this is a forum for your opinions? -- JJay 22:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have shown an utter lack of civility, education and regard for this site through your asinine behavior at the Cal Poly Pomona page. Whereas you have no problem leaving vile, hate-filled discussion missives to others, you threaten to remove them from your own page to hide your true self. Frankly, I believe that you are practicing what I will call wiki page-stalking by running a notifier to let you know when someone removes your useless dribble so that you can quickly reinsert it. You are forcing others to see your unreasonable, pointless, unwelcome and irrelevant writings, which by the way meets the very definition of graffiti, aka vandalism. Are you running bots on Wikipedia? Is it your routine to violate TOS? I think you are touching pages for no other reason than misguided personal hubris. Ingyhere 09:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get a life. -- JJay 13:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edina High School

Thanks JJay. Out of curiosity, where did you get 1903 and trojans? --Dystopos 02:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that my contributions were "part of" a dialog with Denni, though the choice of where to contribute was certainly provoked by that conversation. As for "talking to a wall", sometimes it pays to sharpen one's arguments against a hard surface. --Dystopos 03:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps true, but your work speaks for itself. -- JJay 03:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aladin (magician) moves

I see you undid the move -- while I was posting an explanation of the situation, i might add. I also see that you did NOT move the archived talk pages, so tht those links are now broken. If you are going to undo page moves, please undo them throughly. I would like to ask you please NOT to do any more page moves on this topic, except to finish the one you did by moving the archived pages, until there is agreement. i am making the same request of Elonka and others involved. Please read my commetns on the talk page. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 17:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from User talk:DESiegel):

Not sure what you people were trying to do here. Elonka asks for opinions on apage move then moves the page the second anyone objects. That's completely out of line and a controversial page like this requires a lot more time before a move. -- JJay 17:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka reported on WP:ANI that consensus for the move had been achieved, that she had already moved the article, but had been unable to move the talk page (because the new ttitle already ahd a talk page that was non-empty). I took her at her word and simply completed the move making all talk pages match the article. I should have double checked the talk page to verify the consensus, and if I had I would have acted differetly. You have now moved the article and the talk page back, but (last time i checked) left the archived talk pages at the other title. Plese finish the move you did by moving those talk pages also (or indicate that you won't and let me do so). Then, when everyone is agreed on a place to move this to (if consensus is obtained) please let me, or some other relatively uninvolved editor, carry out the move, if there is to be a move. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 17:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JJay, I give you my word, I did not "immediately move the page in response" to your post. They happened around the same time. You've done enough editing on the Wikipedia to know how time can pass... You edit a page, enter in information, preview it, save, and then find out that something else changed while you were in the edit screen. ;) I promise you, it was an accident. I'd already seen your earlier comments [29] where it appeared that you didn't care what the page title was, and I was unaware that you had changed your mind. Please accept my apology and assume good faith? I'm willing to gather a new consensus, to keep everyone happy. Elonka 18:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my recent comments at Talk:Aladin (magician). Thank you. DES ^(talk) 18:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look all I know is that I saw the new suggestion for a page move while the page was still called "Aladin". After typing a response the page suddenly moved. What I may or may not have said 8 days ago is also no longer relevant given all that has occured in the last few days: 1) a massive fight over the Fateh page talk page (involving Elonka); 2) questions raised in the last 24 hours over other possible stagenames for the magician aladin; 3) questions raised in the last 24 hours regarding aladin's real name. With these issues still very present, any move at this time appears misguided and rather suspicious to me. Furthermore, consensus is not achieved two hours after leaving a talk page message (which I noticed by accident). The page concerns more than a handful of editors and a decision requires time. There is no urgency here. -- JJay 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JJay, I'm genuinely sorry about the cross-posting. I have added a new "Straw Poll" section to Talk:Aladin (magician). Please weigh in at your leisure, thanks. Elonka 18:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Aaron_Brenneman_(second_nomination)#Comment_on_JJay

In this section of the discussion on Aaron's RfA you say "The comments from freakofnurture, Johnleemk and Lar are mischaracterization and deeply insulting". I'm not sure what comment of mine you were referring to, but it was not my intent to insult you or anyone else. If you can let me know which comment you meant, and how it was a mischaracterisation I will redact it immediately. In any case let me assure you no insult was intended, and further, I sincerely apologise for any insult you perceived. ++Lar: t/c 17:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your message. The line I objected to was the following:

It takes a particulary nosy sort of person to notice that it seems like someone always votes keep and do some investigation to see if it's essentially true or not,

As we have never previously interacted, I am sure that you did not intend a personal insult and that your comment was derived from the other remarks on the page. The summary I made there regarding my record can be easily verified. Whether you choose to strike your comment or not is up to you. However, you should note that Brenneman did not accuse me of always voting keep, he accused me of over-participation in AfD debates. He alternately described my contributions as 60% AFD, >60% AfD, or "This user's main contribution to wikipedia is to AfD". I continue to believe that this was: a) none of his business; b) false and not based on any serious investigation; c) character assassination motivated by his discomfort with my voting keep in his AfD nominations. At the point when he posted his comment here regarding "my contributions" there was already extensive bad blood between us. That he had the gall to claim during his RfA that he was reaching out to me or just wanted to talk is absurd. -- JJay 18:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, in case it wasn't clear "particulary nosy sort of person" refers to Aaron, not you, as he was the one digging into YOUR record, and although he and I are (I think?) wiki-friends, it wasn't exactly meant as a compliment! I'm happy to strike the comment (or modify the comment to make it more accurate as to what he was digging into), as you prefer, just LMK in your reply. I guess I can see both sides of "what other users do is none of one's business"... I am a studier of community and the many ways that people choose to contribute is one of the fascinating aspects of it. Personally I think if one has enough background to contribute to AfD meaningfully, it's a very useful contribution type indeed, many people don't give it a lot of attention, which is too bad, and I'd say thank you for doing it! I was doing it for a while but it can be quite draining if you don't have the right mindset. But on the other hand it IS a bit nosy, isn't it, to go mucking about in peoples contribution records that way? Gall is something Aaron does not have a shortage of, but it's one of the reasons I supported his RfA. We need more gadflies and iconoclasts to keep us honest, in my view. Finally, I'm sorry to hear that there was or is bad blood between you guys, if there is anything I can do to help get you guys to an understanding, please let me know. Happy editing! (PS: I watch talk pages for a while after I start threads, so I will see your reply here, I figure you probably figured that out already but just in case... PPS: I'm inclusionist, so thanks for voting keep whenever you can logically justify it!!! ) ++Lar: t/c 19:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Bruckner Problem'

I've left a message on the talk page about a title--you may be interested. Thanks. Chick Bowen 17:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whidden Hall

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Ardenn 21:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look I don't know who you are, but this message is completely out of line. "Other people's work"... are you joking? Have you even followed the talk page discussion on the merger?. Also do not cite wikipedia policy to me. Thank you. -- JJay 21:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Ardenn 22:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently have difficulty understanding my meaning- such as when I typed "do not cite wikipedia policy to me" just above. Since you are reverting without participating in an ongoing discussion you are clearly not interested in dialogue or editing this encyclopedia constructively. Your uncivil attitude is uncalled for. Any further message from you on this page will be viewed as harassment and will be stricken...Is that clear? -- JJay 22:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you
Hello JJay, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 63/4/3. I am honoured by the community support and pledge to serve the project as best as I can. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 17:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whidden Hall 2

Hi I noticed we share a similiar POV on the Whidden Hall article. It seems that Friday and Jonel would do anything to de-value the page and lets not forget Ardenn. I just noticed Jonel has once again re-directed the page back to the McMaster page before it was even discussed. Is there anything to stop this kind of behaviour? Btw, are you an admin? or shall we bring an admin to solve this simple issue which somehow escalated into something so fustrating and complicated. 24.57.131.18 04:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No, I'm not an admin and there is not a lot you can do when faced with a handful of editors who spend most of their time trying to remove decent articles from the encyclopedia. Most of them don't have the skills to add content so they think they are achieving something by redirecting. The McMaster page is now a joke, full of the use of the nonsensical "traditional" to describe dorms. They had no explanation for removing the description, nor the competence to do research and add real info to the Mcmaster page. They spend lots of time on each others talk pages, but very little considering that the information they see no use for might be useful for others. They are prisoners of their small-minded POV and not capable of seeking compromise. Sorry for the rant. For any further communications please use email. -- JJay 04:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden State League

Thanks for the help with the Golden State League article. I never thought putting it up for AfD would get it cleaned up so quickly, or at all. When I first saw it, it was in such a bad state that I didn't think it could be rescued. And then it came back to life! Just one quick question: where did you get that book reference? Did you just happen to have that book lying around?? Carcharoth 07:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I was glad to add some info because I think the story behind these independent baseball leagues is kind of fascinating. More could even be said about Golden State if someone wanted to look at the financial problems that led to its rapid demise, stranding season ticket holders and leaving the municipalities holding the bag. Regarding the reference, it's actually not a book but rather an article from a Jersey paper that did an excellent feature on the league and independent baseball after Golden State folded. They were covering the story because of planning for the Atlantic League, which was heating up at that time. I subscribe to all the major press archives (Proquest, Newsbank, Ebsco) covering 1,000s of newspapers so I can pull up these articles very quickly. This is handy for improving articles. -- JJay 07:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added another comment to Talk:Golden_State_League#Rename.3F. Not sure if it was on your watchlist or not, and it's been a while, so I thought I'd drop a note off here. Carcharoth 10:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Whidden Hall

It would be better for everyone involved if you'd use the talk page just to discuss changes to the article, and not as a place for complaining about other editors. I think everyone involved is trying to improve the encyclopedia, we just don't always agree on what's an improvement. A little bit of "assume good faith" goes a long way. Friday (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are particular comments you object to then strike them out. Otherwise, I see no compelling reason for you to post here. That you monitor this talk page is your business. That you use it to intervene in pages where I am engaged is perhaps your right. However, as previously indicated (see conversations above), I have no interest in responding to your name calling and accusations on this page. All communication between us should be handled on a given article’s talk page. I will not respond to further messages from you here. -- JJay 23:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't know how I offended you so much, but whatever it was, I apologize. It wasn't intentional. All I'm saying is, I found some your remarks on Talk:Whidden Hall a bit snide and unhelpfully antagonistic, particularly the one about editors "destroying the article by any means possible". We're discussing a merge, that's all. We can disagree, but let's keep things civil. Can we start over and assume good faith? Friday (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are particular comments you object to then strike them out. Otherwise, I see no compelling reason for you to post here. -- JJay 23:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GAMEY

PROD was removed once by someone who later changed their mind, and no longer objects, and was removed a second time by a new user in their first edit. I think it's safe to say those are not "obvious objections". Particularly since in neither case did anyone actually state a reason for taking the tag off, without which the process can't work.

Advice on an article?

Hi there. I recently came across this article, Project_Quicksilver, and noted some concerns on the talk page. I was wondering what the best way is to proceed from here? Is there a non-encyclopedic POV tag that can be slapped on an article? Is there a convention that it is OK to talk at length from the POV of a fictional world? Sorry to ask you these questions. Is there somewhere that summarises the different ways to critique an article, and how to draw attention to them (if you are uncertain how to correct a possible problem yourself)? Carcharoth 11:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino actor stubs

Hi Jjay. You contributed to the (withdrawn) AfD on Olivia Cenizal - thought you may (or may not) appreciate the heads up.

I've put a list of all the stubs I originally tried to batch nominate here, and I'll go through them systematically.

As you are clearly someone who feels very strongly about articles being deleted, particularly if they are non-Western, I thought I would let you know that I don't plan to AfD any of these now, at first. I will tag them for proposed deletion, giving any contributors five days to fix the articles up to assert notability and find suitable verification. I have started to go through them myself. Any I can find an IMDB page for, or any other reasonable sources, I am instead tagging for cleanup. I am sorry if my original method to try and clear these stubs up did not sit well with you. All the best, Proto||type 14:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can we resolve this?

Why are you accusing me of stalking you on various talk pages? What can we do to resolve this conflict? I've tried to "bury the hatchet" as they say, but it didn't seem to work. I'm sorry for whatever offense I have caused you. Is it possible to start over? Also, fyi, I was going to email you instead as your talk page instructions indicate, but it says you can't be emailed. Friday (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I have asked you repeatedly not to post any messages on this talk page. To refresh your memory here are the diffs [30], [31], [32].

Since those messages as well as the notice on the top of this page were not clear enough for you, let me make this very plain: Do not post messages on this page. For any reason. Ever. Do not email me either. For any reason.

You have called me names on this page and then apologized. You have accused me, repeatedly, of doing things I didn’t do. And then apologized. This talk page is not a sounding board for whatever problem you may have. It is not a social club. It is not a venue for personal attacks. Nothing requires me to have to endure your continued harassment on this talk page. Nothing entitles you to try and poison my participation in this site.

Secondly, for two months you have stalked my participation at wikipedia. Here are just a very few recent examples:

1) 07:21, 13 February 2006- I'm thanked for writing the Golden State League article [33]

18:22, 14 February 2006- User:Friday makes first appearance on Golden State talk page suggesting merge[34]

2) 20:08, 1 March 2006- I remove Prod on SourceryForge [35]

22:24, 1 March 2006- User:Friday makes first appearance suggesting page should be deleted [36]

3) 08:01, 14 February 2006- I receive message on talk page regarding GAMEY [37]

15:28, 14 February 2006- User:Friday makes first appearance to nominate page for deletion [38]

4) 12:14, 28 February 2006- I revert rediect of Brighton Road [39]

14:52, 28 February 2006- User:Friday makes first appearance places merge tag on article [40]

This behavior is serious and I suggest you reconsider in light of WP:STALK and its potential ramifications. I suggest you find another way to contribute that does not involve trying to drive editors away from this site. I suggest you cease trying to poison my participation in this site.

Thirdly, there would be no conflict between us if you did not stalk my participation. Why? Because we do not have any kind of relationship. We have never had a relationship. We have never collaborated on an article. To my memory, you have never added any content to an article I have worked on. You have never added any references to an article I have worked on. You have never added wikis, cats or copyedited an article I have worked on. What you have done, repeatedly, is to place merge tags without explanation on articles I have worked on. You have, repeatedly, without explanation, redirected articles I have worked on. You have, repeatedly, nominated for AfD articles I have worked on. This is not collaboration.

If you did not spend your time stalking me, our paths would not cross, particularly as there are now 1 million articles here. That leaves you at least 998,000 articles where you are unlikely to encounter me. That leaves you wide latitude to merge, redirect or even practice your XD habit of blanking pages without any input from me.

It should be relatively obvious that the only way to « start over » would be for you to stop stalking me and to stop posting messages on this page. -- JJay 21:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty for the Communards

[41]: you changed from 1889 to 1880. I'm guessing you are right, but could you please provide a citation? - Jmabel | Talk 03:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of Deception

Nice one JJ, always fun to lock horns. Seriously, who do you expect to establish the notability of an article - editors who vote to delete and have no knowledge of the subject matter, or editors who vote to keep and claim the subject is frequently in the news? Instead of putting the links on the AfD page, why not actually edit the article and put them there? I'm an editor first and a deletionist second, you sometimes seem to be an inclusionist first and an editor second. I'm not saying that everyone who votes to keep an article is obliged to improve it but in some cases - and I believe this is one - you just have to put your money where your mouth is and worry about the article rather than the AfD banter. I don't want to see this deleted if it is notable, but if it is notable I want the article to reflect that. Much love as always Deizio 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you've changed this heading from Masters at Work because you think people are conspiring against you and trying to delete articles you've voted to keep (I believe you call it wiki-stalking) then I'm truly sorry. Just delete the whole comment rather than have it point to the wrong article. Deizio 00:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? We both know what we're talking about. There is also a very clear notice at the top of this page, which asks that people not post here and that also states that all posts can and will be edited.

Anyway, I wanted to consider your points first before I responded. Particularly this line: I'm an editor first and a deletionist second, you sometimes seem to be an inclusionist first and an editor second. Naturally, before I can respond to that I need to examine your edits. However, I can state right off the bat that "notable" has no meaning to me at all. It is a hopelessly POV concept that never enters into my thinking on AfD or anywhere else here. -- JJay 00:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analyze, by all means. I agree to some extent about notability being highly subjective, but games need rules and thems the rules. Verifiability is, however, more tangible and extremely necessary. A lot of my earlier ire comes from my perception that you sometimes selectively ignore the principle that "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.", courtesy of WP:V. Now I don't mind doing some research and seeing if an article that interests me for whatever reason is kept, even if at first I think it's rubbish. I will never be able to agree with a decision by another editor to make a keep vote (much less a keep plea) especially if backed up by signs they have done some research, if they refuse to help verify the article they claim should be kept. Deizio 01:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I wanted to consider your points first before I responded. Particularly this line: I'm an editor first and a deletionist second, you sometimes seem to be an inclusionist first and an editor second. Naturally, before I can respond to that I need to examine your edits. However, I can state right off the bat that "notable" has no meaning to me at all. It is a hopelessly POV concept that never enters into my thinking on AfD or anywhere else here. -- JJay 00:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, having now compared our edits for one day (i.e. March 6), it looks like you weren't doing any serious editing until you suddenly got motivated with the Hmong stuff. Prior to that you were mostly participating in AfD. I had already created one article on a High school and added content or references to various other articles. Therefore, rather than complaining about it, you should thank me for allowing you to state truthfully that you are an "editor first and a deletionist second". Also, if you intend to continue, I'd be happy to send you any of the articles from the link I provided.

Otherwise, the driving force for me in AfD is participation. I believe the only way that article quality, and by extension wikipedia, can improve is through massive participation. Every deletion drives editors away who care/cared about the material being deleted. If something is verifiable it is good enough for me. Notability is meaningless. What is really "notable" to me would interest very few people. What is notable for you is probably not notable to me. The quality of the article doesn't matter to me either. Since I view this as a very long-term process that should continue well beyond my lifespan, the actual state of an article at a given moment in time is completely unimportant. Now I don't object to people who have a different point of view on this. What I do object to are derogatory comments such as those you made initially. Lastly, regarding your point about "editors who vote to delete and have no knowledge of the subject matter"- I don't believe anyone should participate on AfD if they have no knowledge of the subject matter. Keep, Delete, merge: expressing an opinion without doing your homework is a very dangerous game.-- JJay 01:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I can't believe that I'm having edit conflicts on this page despite the warning. Despite that, that point that you and others like to quote from WP:V just makes me laugh because it's taken so wildly out of context. I also don't believe games need rules, and "notability" is not the rule here for me. Finally, regarding your new comment, you should know I always do research before voting on AfD. I always google the topic. I always check our other coverage. I always check the topic on Newsbank and other databases. What I choose to do after that is up to me. -- JJay 01:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think comparing one arbitrary day is useful as what kind of editor you are is built up over weeks, months and years. I've been looking at a fair bit of AfD stuff the past couple of days but check out the days before that and you'll see I was doing a lot of article creation & improvement... It annoys me too when I see editors offering opinions on every single AfD, just this evening I contacted one editor who has been putting "delete per well made nomination" on every page. That's not even deletionism, that's just upping your edit count. I too look for issues that look interesting and are not foregone conclusions, find out about them and vote. Many people don't agree with my "better articles through deletionism" approach but it works and I can prove it, not least with the school article we were bantering about a while back when we first talked. As to taking the WP:V point out of context, games not needing rules, or any other point, I have little more to add because you've made it very clear that you don't want your methods, motives, edits, opinions or votes to be judged, indeed you believe nobody can effectively judge them because you are so fundamentally individual in the way you live your Wikilife. I think that's wonderful, so have fun with it. Deizio 02:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fine. Nice sarcasm at the end but that's cool. I have to admit that I don't remember talking to you about a school article, but it must be my advanced years. You are right that a one day comparison is not fair. Any more comparison though would have bored me to tears. -- JJay 02:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC) PS. Not sure if I mentioned it above, but I liked what you did with the two AfD articles. I would change my votes to merge except that could create problems down the road if someone wants to expand one of the articles to the point where it needs to be demerged. -- JJay 02:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. That really wasn't sarcasm btw. I'm an idealist too... Deizio 02:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Nomination for adminship for (aeropagitica)

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to vote for me in my recent request for adminship It ended successfully with a final score of (40/10/5). I value all of the contributions made during the process and I will take a special note of the constructive criticism regarding interacting with users in the user talk space. If you have questions or requests, please leave a message. (aeropagitica) 17:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I didn't vote for you but good luck. Try editing articles. It's fun. -- JJay 17:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino movie stubs

Hi, JJay. Could I ask that if you state an article is verifiable, please could you provide a reference (it doesn't need to be an online reference) to back this up? It would make assessing the validity of an article on AfD a lot easier. Proto||type 11:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks against me

Please see my response to your unsubstantiated personal attacks against me in this deletion debate. I have repeatedly argued that the general concept of fuck truck is notable while a specific college shuttle is not. At the worst, my feelings that this is true have become stronger and, admittedly, I have become less willing compromise and name the article after this one shuttle. I have made a fairly large number of good faith edits. My intention is not to make a joke (see the explanation of what I am up to on my user page). I would appreciate an apology for your efforts to defame me and my good faith actions. Interestingstuffadder 00:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions in the two debates speak for themselves. I have no interest in defaming you, which is why I quoted from your own comments. If you make good edits all the better. But strongly arguing in 12 posts to keep an article, then a few weeks later nominating it for deletion using the complete opposite argument is a violation of WP:Point. Nominating an article for deletion unless the name is changed to one that you find to your liking is a further violation of WP:Point. That's the way I see it.-- JJay 00:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on the deletion debate justifying my shift in position. Briefly, I argued to keep this article because I believed that it could become an article about the notable general concept of "fuck truck". the new, wellesley-specific name precludes this article serving that general fucntion and limits it to being an article about a specific college shuttle bus, which seems patently non-notable. this is why my point of view changed. How is this rationale bad-faith or a violation of WP:Point? If you truly would have read my comments (including those on the move debate on the target page's discussion area), you would see that I have previously stated this rationale; that is, I have repeatedly stated that it is the concept of "fuck truck" that makes this article notable. Interestingstuffadder 04:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you continue to refuse to respond to my arguments and leave in place your damaging comments. This is starting to look like bad faith. Interestingstuffadder 13:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way, but your position makes no sense at all. This is an encyclopedia designed to give people information. It is not a forum for in-jokes. You posted 12 times last month to try and save an article from deletion. The name of the article has since changed but the contents are the same. You nominate that article for deletion because you are unhappy with the name and based on the opposite argument you gave repeatedly last month. It is not a personal attack to point out the inherent inconsistencies in your actions. Other than that, this is not the proper forum for arguments about the future direction of the article. You would be better served making those arguments on the article talk page. You might also try editing the article, for example expanding the "fuck truck" segment, if you really have something to say on the matter.-- JJay 17:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will see that I acknowledged the perceived inconsistencies and changed my vote. However, it should still be pointed out that I provided a fairly rational account of why the name of this article does matter (see above) and you refused to even acknowledge this, instead arguing that "my position makes no sense at all" and accusing me of just trying to make an inside joke. I dont see what is so nonsensical about the argument that fuck truck is notable as a widespread folkloric term and an individual bus in boston is not notable. In fact, other users have stated and agreed with similar arguments. Also, even if my positions are somewhat inconsistent, is there a policy against changing one's mind as the debate unfolds and he is conviced by others' arguments? I am a good faith editor, have made many constructive edits and have reverted quite a bit of vandalism. All I ask is that you stop calling me names and levelling accusations at me and perhaps take the radical step of actually responding to my well-reasoned argument of why the name of this article does matter. Unfortunately, you seem unwilling to move past name-calling. Interestingstuffadder 04:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bodymap

Hi JJay. I've just been reviewing my involvement in articles for deletion and I stopped at this one. I don't believe consensus was reached and may have changed my vote given more discussion. I'f you'd like to request debate is reopened or WP:DRV I would support that. Not that it will change anything in the long run, but it might. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 10:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for the message. I agree that there was no consensus because those on the delete side gave no reasons for deletion and probably didn't even read the articles in question. However, the other problem is that those articles were copyvios. The simplest thing would be to submit a new/non- copyvio article on bodymap, thus avoiding DRV, which is an utter waste of time. -- JJay 11:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Good luck with it if you create new ones. I'm sure I'll see you round. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 13:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mall afd: "this is not a blog"

Dear JJay,
You're being harsh. My intention was to draw attention to the important message - it's a certain no-consensus, and I wanted to make sure the admin didn't gloss over it. I won't go and revert it - but regardless, you've been mean. It's not nice to be mean. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 17:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"still friends?" of course. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 19:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mall

JJay,
We're drafting the document, and will eventually post it for people to comment on. Because you were so vocal in the Riverbend Mall debate, I am inviting you to join in our deliberations. Feel free to tweak the text and/or add comments.
Regards,
the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 20:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always wreaking havoc in the AfD's I propose? Hafta go and change peoples' minds? I love you like a brother. Thank you for doing what you do - keeps losers like me in check :) - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 03:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the kind words. Just calling them like I see them I guess. But you're no loser. Sooner or later you'll find the right mall...and I'll vote delete like everyone else. -- JJay 03:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about Chinese Rock

I tried proposing it several times. However, many people (or some) object the idea of having it deleted after 5 days by letting admistration board notifying it.

I created that page because I assumed there could be more than two different definitions. However, I did not appreciate that kind because that was all I researched.

Why should not it be deleted? Should I or someone put it under debate of making it deleted? Why or why not? —69.27.173.21 20:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message, JJay, to my IP address, I understand your logics. Unfortunately, no one even knows or cares about that page. There's only two defintions of the phrase, one is genre and other is song. Should we let others know about it? If not, should we make a debate (I mean votes) of this deletional situation? 69.227.173.21 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on 911 In Plane Suite

JJay - I'd suggest that your commments here: "designed to intimidate," "distorted summaries," "Yeah, whatever," were outside the bounds of civility. - brenneman ^{L} 03:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way. -- JJay 03:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see that you are as civil to everyone else as you were to me when we were on opposite sides of a deletion debate. Interestingstuffadder 03:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but at least ~~Fuck Truck~~ that bus is still here so everyone is happy. Add anything interesting lately?

Well, I'm certainly not happy that wikipedia has one more non-notable article wasting its server space. And not so much lately, you have any good ideas? Interestingstuffadder 03:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-notable article". Surely, you jest. Bang Bus Boston is an ode to the erotic underbelly of MIT, a mondo unmasking of the underground Wellesley, the wet dream of shuttle busses worldwide, a source of inspiration for future Henry Millers and J. G. Ballards, boldly going where encyclopedia articles have never gone before. Well you get the picture. If I get any good ideas you'll be the first person I call, oh adder of great stuff. -- JJay 03:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I must say I appreciate your sense of humor, I remain a bit bothered that you accused me of acting in bad faith and never responded to what you must admit was a reasonably well formulated justification for my actions. Interestingstuffadder 04:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email me if you really want to talk about that, or I'll email you. I will say that while your many posts here on the topic have convinced me of your good faith (which was rather difficult to assume at first), your justification is a bit harder to swallow. -- JJay 12:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bad faith comment

Had you taken the time to review Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools you would have noticed that 1) I created the page 2) a suspect sock puppet of a banned user added links to pages that did not have articles. I removed those links and thus the fork that is up for AfD was created. I removed the links added a speedy tag and a AfD tag. Don't assume bad faith without reviewing the full situation. Instead you listened to possible two meat puppets of the suspected sock that has a off wikipedia webpage that aims to put Christianity at wikipedia. You can read the full discloser at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastrich. Arbusto 01:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but accusations of puppetry don't really interest me and are not even relevant to the discussion. You knowingly mistagged the article as a speedy nonsense- hence my comment. If you really thought that there was some kind of patent nonsense, you would have mentioned it in your nom, which you didn't do. As far as I can tell, your reasoning for creating TRACS is not really the issue here either. -- JJay 01:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my creation is part of the issue. If it is truly a "bad faith nom." then why would the creator of the main page want the list deleted? Claiming it to be in bad faith makes no sense in that context. Arbusto 01:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread my comment. I said that the speedy tagging looked like bad faith to me. I still believe it was bad faith because it looks like a blatant attempt to delete something you don't like through the misuse of a speedy tag. That is a slippery slope that leads to complete anarchy. As to your question, the immmediate response is what I call "ownership issues". You created the page for whatever reason, but don't like additions from other users. I say deal with it through editing, not AfD. -- JJay 01:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I mistakenly put the wrong tag on. If you keep the TRACS list then you will head down the slippery slope to include the 13,000 schools accredited by Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Which had the beginnings of a list that I removed a month ago.[42] No, I did not create that article so my feelings about accreditation lists are across the board and have nothing do to with "ownership." Arbusto 01:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School lists are fine with me. Whether there are 13 in the list, 1,300, or 13,000. I hope as well that we do articles on all those schools. Eventually, I think wikipedia will have articles on every school in the world so lists are certainly helpful. -- JJay 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but I contacted you here to correct your bad faith claim. Arbusto 02:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to ask for details? It took you quite some time to claim you made a mistake. If that is true, then I retract my accusation of bad faith regarding the speedy mistagging. -- JJay 02:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Results and Thanks

JJay, thank you for your constructive opposition in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. In the meantime, I will do my best to address your concerns in the hope that when the opportunity for adminship arises once again, you will reconsider your position. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path.

--- joturner 05:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you following every single page I edit and add?

Why are you following every single page I edit and add? You have added nothing to the articles. Arbusto 00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm reviewing every page we have on Christian colleges, accredited/unaccredited colleges, diploma mills etc. My interest in this was raised by the article on TRACS that I recently discovered. There is a massive amount of mistakes, sloppy sourcing, no sourcing, POV, etc that needs to be cleaned up. The lists are especially troubling given the almost complete lack of sourcing and the fact that we lack articles on most of the component "institutions". These subjects need to be treated correctly and as per guidelines. Please review WP:RS, WP:Cite, WP:V and WP:OWN. Cheers-- JJay 01:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is doing this[43] 8+ times correcting "a massive amount of mistakes, sloppy sourcing, no sourcing, POV." As you posted in that edit summary "is your problem???" Instead of doing this[44][45][46][47][48][49] why don't you expand the article you want expanded or do research add stuff?

Oh and so you can correct your own mistakes Independent Baptists are fundamentalists[50]. I suggest you click and read some of the links before you remove them. Arbusto 01:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment, it is standard practice to only link once in an article as per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. There is thus no need to list terms under "see also" that have already been linked in the article body. As to the ABBC page, I reviewed their website and they do not refer to themselves as "fundamentalist". They refer to themselves as Baptist. Since no other source was provided for the article, I replaced "fundamentalist" with "Baptist". I would remind you that it is not for us to make judgements, bur rather to report data based on WP:RS. If you have a source that calls ABBC "fundamentalist" then please correct my "mistake". Otherwise, I would ask that you adjust your tone here and try to refrain from POV when editing. Cheers. -- JJay 01:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being an examination of odd reactions and other assorted wit and wisdom, formerly known as personal attacks, later changed to pet rocks

Regarding your comment on the Jackson vote [51], I have no idea how you can construe what I've said as a "personal attack." If you consider your own experience of hearing Jackson's story as being "the human face of the Katrina tragedy for millions," okay, more power to you. Disagreeing and pointing out that your statement is strongly point-of-view rather than an actual statement of fact is not an attack.

"I would ask that you adjust your tone here and try to refrain from POV when editing." Your own words, right above this section. Please don't take the AfD so personally. Tijuana Brass 04:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of distorting facts because of their "hardcore POV" is a veiled personal attack that is designed to discredit. I could accuse you of having an obsessive desire to remove this article fueled by your "hardcore POV" dislike for people named Jackson. I didn't do that. What I did do was make a comment that is fully backed up by the facts of the situation. CNN has an audience in the millions. They ran Jackson's story repeatedly over a period of days. Many more millions read about or saw Jackson via all the other news outlets that picked up CNN's ball so to speak. I can point to story after story that discussed the emotional impact of Jackson and the effect he had on people. The fact that that bothers you is a demonstration that you should not allow your POV to get in the way of common sense. -- JJay 12:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only bothered to see someone react so unexpectedly, which is why I asked here. And I think you'll be hard pressed to find any accusation; if you're finding one, you've created it. Apparently, you're really stuck on someone pointing out that your statement was opinionated. Sorry to see that bothers you, but it's going to happen to everyone at times. Why take it personally?

At any rate, if you have story after story to provide as objective proof in favor of keeping Jackson's article, by all means, add some links to the vote page. Despite what you seem to believe, I don't dislike people named Jackson, hurricane survivors, or people who vote against my AfD nominations; I'm just interested in keeping Wikipedia in good shape. If there's good reason shown to keep the article, I'm willing to change my vote. Common sense. Tijuana Brass 16:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing unexpected about it. If you are going to accuse someone of "hardcore POV", now or in the future, you should expect a reaction. You admitted in your nom that you had never heard of Jackson outside of wikipedia. You wrote: "He's one of the thousands of faces of victims of the storms". How do you explain then that CNN used him as the lead-off in their "quarter century of newsmakers" article [52]? Or that PBS called him "One of the first noticeable people during Katrina" [53], or that the BBC sought him out in December. Or that he received a car and a house from benefactors. The media caught Jackson by accident and made his circumstances internationally known. I believe that our role as an encyclopedia is to reflect that for posterity. I believe people in the future will see footage of the event and want to know what happened to Jackson. That is how I keep wikipedia in good shape. That you disagree is fine. Just don't attack me for having a different opinion. -- JJay 18:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. I didn't bring this up on your talk page to debate the merits of the Jackson article — I was interested in finding out what motivated your odd reaction. You can read whatever you'd like into my pointing out a POV statement, but there was no attack there. Looking over your talk page, it seems that conflict with others is a recurring thing for you. If you're taking editing on Wikipedia so personally, perhaps you're looking at things the wrong way-WP:AGF.

Best wishes. Tijuana Brass 17:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the point is your comment was unnecessary and a violation of WP:CIV- a bit like your message above. Furthermore, my statement demonstrated no more POV, hardcore or otherwise, than your statement that Jackson was "one of the thousands of faces of victims of the storms". A statement I might add that ignores the evidence. Other than that, I'm glad you've had time to peruse my user page. Since I have absolutely no interest or need for your advice and distorted observations, I suggest you heed the warning at the top. Goodbye. -- JJay 17:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC) -- JJay 17:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on RGTraynor

I took a look at the diff you cited in your opposing comment on RGTraynor's now withdrawn RFA. Although I neither supported nor opposed him, I think your comment was a little strong. If you read not only the article being AfD'd but also who the author was (and read the author's article on his own professional wrestling career), you would see that calling that article "vanity" was not much of a stretch. -- DS1953 ^talk 19:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way. I did not look at either the article in question or the author. What I did look at was Mr. Traynor's Speedy Delete: per WP:VAIN. As you probably know, WP:Vain is not a wikipedia policy. It is, therefore, also not a criteria for speedy deletion. I expect admins and prospective admins to uphold CSD criteria to the letter and most certainly not to invent new criteria when its suits their purposes. This is essential. I hope RGTraynor bears that in mind the next time he submits or is nominated on RFA. -- JJay 23:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cantwell

You re-inserted "researcher" - I would say that is problematic. A career total of under 30 published papers is well below the level normally expected of an active academic researcher in these fields. A hundred or more would be much closer to the mark. Here's the list for a friend of mine (with no Wikipedia article that I know of): [54] - this guy is around 40 and still publishing actively. I'm not going to remove the word, but I don't tink it is necessarily accurate or neutral in context. Just zis Guy you know? 22:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would you describe him then? The papers, I assume, were not about conspiracy theories. They apparently concerned medical research. Therefore, describing him merely as a conspiracy theorist, when we go on immediately to say that he did medical research, is inaccurate. I do not know of a litmus test that determines when someone has earned the right to be called a "researcher". I would also imagine that quantity is not the sole criteria, but that quality is a factor. Your friend may have significant output; that may not make him a "researcher". So I guess my question to you is: why do you believe that labeling him a "conspiracy theorist" is more accurate or neutral in context than "retired researcher and conspiracy theorist", particularly since the article as it stands, presents no more evidence of Dr. Cantwell's "conspiracy theories", than it does of his "medical research"? -- JJay 23:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOst doctors, almost all specialists, publish something. Doing this, indeed doing some research on something, does not make them "researchers", except in a sense too trivial to be notable or encyclopaedic. Some hold academic posts and are concerned mainly with research rather than teaching, or even see patients as a part of their research, rather than do occasional research as part of seeing patients. They are clearly researchers. Midgley 12:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing content

This is the only time I will ask you before seeking admin help to remove what I have written on your talk page, as you have changed my original wording. You may also restore them to their original form. You may not represent what I, or any other editor, has said by editing things into talk pages. Tijuana Brass 02:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Gastrich- get your live gastrosmearing right here folks- the madness is spreading

Do you know or are you/ever have been in contact with Jason Gastrich, wiki4christ, or any connection no matter how loose? Thanks. Arbusto 03:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before we answer your query, the committee requests your response to the following: Do you know or are you/ever have been in contact with Joseph McCarthy, DontooQuixote, Bugsbunny4, or any connection no matter how loose or far removed or completely unassociated (but don't worry, we'll make the connection anyway)? Do you know or are you/ever have been in contact or affiliated with, or sat next to on a bus, or overheard a conversation involving, or taken out a library book that mentioned someone suffering from paranoia or dementia? Are you now or have you ever been a member or associate or fellow traveler or consultant in his own mind of any official or quasi-official or unofficial wikipedia secret police unit or interrogation squad or unaccredited agency charged with the objective to struggle against and crush those persons who are taking the ~~capitalist road~~ road we don't happen to like right now, to criticize and repudiate the reactionary bourgeois wiki4christ and the ideology of the Jason Gastrich or any connection no matter how loose? (if so that sounds like fun, where do we sign up?, wheeee)... Have you ever been linked, affiliated with or appeared on the same expired web page with someone who may now or in the past or in the future have been visited by someone who may have dated wiki4Christ's maternal second cousin (she's hot) before getting slapped for talking trash and trying to cop a feel? Now whatever you say or don't say can and will be used against you in our special tribunal, your willingness to tell us everything you know and name names will, of course, be taken into account when rendering judgement, although as per section LTunes4, codicil 4 of the Wiki Gnomestead Security Act (familiarly known as the "my POV is bigger then your POV act", also referred to as the "Gastrosmearing Act"), the charges as well as the judgement will not be communicated to you or made public. Most importantly, where do you get off asking us questions like that on our user page? Thanks-- JJay 12:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarfiy, yes or no? I have never seen you revert any of his vandalism. Arbusto 19:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is your name Javert or Spitzer, please clarify, yes or no? We've seen these types of thought police mindgames before. We also refuse to be indoctrinated into whatever DoublePlusUnGood you are pushing. Wikipedia is not the the right place for that. Accusations have their forums. Articles have their talk pages. If you feel the need, use them. Otherwise, the committee has enormous patience in the face of nonsensical queries. Big brother is watching. -- JJay 19:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, my name/connections are not related to anyone with the name Javert or Spitzer. So you are refusing to answer if you have any connection to Jason Gastrich? Arbusto 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that you've admitted your name/connections are part of the international Javert-Spitzer conspiracy, we want the real truth. Did Gastrich or antichristwiki send you? We could feel them getting closer and closer, breathing down our necks, and then you show up. Asking question after question, shining lights in our eyes. First there were just a few sandalpuppies (you know what I'm talking about), then they multiplied, now they're everywhere. We rarely leave our user page these days for fear of the contagion, especially when we run out of garlic. Do you know what it's like not to sleep for days on end to the point where your brain hurts so bad? Where the only thing you can find to do is run down user lists to see who of the few remaining you might be able to trust? Knowing that some day they'll come for you too? Of course you do, you're ...wait, please tell us they haven't gotten to you....Is this Arbustoo or Jason Gasterchrist talking? Was there ever any difference? Think about it- what better place to hide than on Arbustoo's user page? We heard that can be done pretty easily. Well, to be honest we read it on a chat board. But that means it's true. We've been observing you for quite some time. Yes siree Bob. That's some whitewashing bowlderization smokescreen that's been going around lately. Hope you haven't been smoking from that pipe. If the great white hunter will just let us get some sleep we'll say whatever you want us to say. Just write out the confession, we'll sign it. But your question is sooooo silly, you're Jason Criscowiki4, right?...........For the love of god, is there no end to the madness? -- JJay 00:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes or no to the original question? You have been interested in his-related articles, share his POV, and have never reverted his vandalism (ie white washing, false additions, or uncited POV). Your pointless diatribe isn't impressive. Arbusto 00:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really. We thought it was almost as humorously inane and pointless as your initial question. Also if you are going to start whitewashing your grammar, would you mind doing it for all the comments on this page? -- JJay 00:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes or no? Also fixing grammar is common[55]. Arbusto 01:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we are now more convinced than ever that you are Gastchrist given the clear signs of obsession shown on your user page and the fact that you only edit his-related articles. You also win the troll of the year award on this user page. Anything else we can help you with? -- JJay 01:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you can help me with (as you so kindly asked) is to answer: Have you ever been in contact with User:Jason Gastrich, wiki4christ, or any other intermediary? Arbusto 01:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you always been this much of a troll or is this a recent problem you've developed, JG? -- JJay 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and refusing to answer questions. What are you hiding? Arbusto 01:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks, that's really quite funny coming from you and the little bag of accusations and slander that you drag around behind you. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that we don't answer questions from users who spend all their time on this page pissing on WP:AGF? You show up here like McCarthy sweating lies, insinuations and innuendo and expect answers to some bogus question that you haven’t got the beginning of a right to pose. Take your Gastrich games back to the shrine you have constructed on your user page. And calling a troll a troll is not a personal attack.

-- JJay 01:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no innuendo or insinuation, I have flat out asked. You still have not answered the question maybe my "accusation" isn't unfounded. Arbusto 01:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe your intelligence is absent tonight. Maybe your coy little question about connections "no matter how loose", or distorted comments about sharing someone's POV, or not reverting someone's vandalism aren't worth dignifying with a response. When did someone hang out a shingle here marked Arbustoo's kangaroo court? With you as the self-appointed prosecutor, judge and jury. McCarthy had this act down and you're just transposing it to this page, maybe because your own is so full of nonsense. What you have implied here is so off base that it's comical, although your guilt by association games are frankly disturbing. Hope that was helpful for you, but why don't you wander off now to the next name on your list of dirty tricks. -- JJay 02:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes or no? Arbusto 02:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking for a date the answer is no. Let's hope they find a cure for Gastritis before it's too late. Gnight and happy trolling.... -- JJay 02:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your posts were brilliant and hilarious, JJay. You rock. --Head Like A Hole 05:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		JJay, this barnstar is for going above and beyond the call of duty in the Dominionist political parties debate. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 05:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Head Like A Hole is a suspected Gastrich sock. Arbusto 06:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is everyone, as you have so eloquently shown tonight. -- JJay 11:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone, no. But there are a lot of them, as you must know - see Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Jason Gastrich for over thirty proven sockpuppets, and there are ninety-odd suspected as well. It is not necessary to smear Gastrich, he does a more than adequate job of smearing himself. Just zis Guy you know? 12:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but the new sport seems to be to smear anyone else by calling them Gastrich, or claiming they voted on the same AfD as Gastrich, or didn't revert Gastrich's vandalism, or went to the same grade school as Gastrich. That sort of guilt-by-association mentality led to the inquisition, Salem witchtrials, Stalinist purges and McCarthyism and allows people to feel justified in asking questions about connections "no matter how loose". That's the kind of Gastrosmearing I'm talking about. -- JJay 12:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a persistent and ongoing problem caused by editors who are either sockpuppets of Gastrich or encouraged to come here by him externally. New socks have been confirmed recently by CheckUser. There is almost no limit to the number of accounts which appear, get blocked, and then another account takes up exactly where the previous one left off, and most of the socks are found precisely because of the "Gastroturfing" of articles on unaccredited schools and young-earth creationists - it is pointless to deny that it's happening. As a Christian I find it very frustrating that Gastrich is dragging down the reputation of Christians in this way. Just zis Guy you know? 13:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, but I have been here since before that user was banned, before Arbustoo showed up (at roughly the same time, I might add) and since well before you were an Admin. Anyone can check my 6,000 or so edits. If they find any coherent pattern please let me know. If they can figure out my religion or who my "connections" are "no matter how loose" they could also let me know by email. I'm dying to know. I'll give them a little hint, though, I'm not interested in religion, I don't know anything about Christianity and I don't live in an English speaking country. I also don't edit any article with any consideration whatsoever about religion. What I want is for the articles to be properly sourced. I think articles need to adhere to NPOV. That this is a problem for some people to the point that they resort to false sock puppet accusations and innuendo is sad. -- JJay 13:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning about personal attacks and causing disruption

[56] + [57] + [58] = irony. That was cute of you. There's no prohibition on hipocrisy at Wikipedia. But there are rules on personal attacks and causing disruption, and a number of your comments both here and at WP:AN/I cross those lines. You need to stop trolling others and find a more constructive way to contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk 06:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the social commentary, although I'm still waiting for a response to the messages I left on your user page [59] regarding your series of reversions of my edits in violation of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context while leaving uncivil edit summaries [60], [61], [62], etc. Perhaps you have since had time to read the guideline, but I hardly think the application of wikipedia guidelines and policies qualifies as "white washing". When you say "find a more constructive way to contribute", you mean like finding more blog or chat board posts we can source from [63] [64], or making false accusations of sock puppetry [65], [66], [67]? I don't troll people at wikipedia, but there is ample and growing proof that I respond to trolls on this user page. -- JJay 12:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of themed etc AfD

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_themed_timelines

This was a borderline close and currently doesn't have the numbers to be re-opened, but since I don't believe in voting anyway I'm dropping you a line. You were a bit brief in your rational at the AfD and regardless of where you do it (at DrV or AfD if I re-open it) it would be more convincing if you expounded. - brenneman ^{L} 05:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Mail

Hey JJay,

Did my e-mail ever get through?

See ya,

Primetime 05:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Woggly

I have opened a Request for Comment on User:Woggly due to harassment which is clearly evidenced by her in a harassment campaign that she has organized on her talk page User:Woggly 4 On this page one can witness how accusations of using sockpuppets were never confirmed before she accused me of these actions and others. JJay - can you please provide advice on this matter through e-mail. Thanks, IsraelBeach 01:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA and reverting to unsourced material

Thanks for pointing that out. I knew that I had done that occasionally but I didn't realize until you pointed it out how often I've reverted to unsourced material like that. I definitely need to work on that. Again, thanks. JoshuaZ 16:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page header

I just thought I'd link The Game (game) here on the off chance :-D Just zis Guy you know? 20:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from thewolfstar

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for what you said under the strong throw out altogether section. You got a chuckle out of me. I am pretty new at Wikipedia but am being watched like a hawk. I need all the help I can get at this point. I've been harassed, lied to, insulted, lawyerized in debate and blocked four times since I joined on 3/22/06. All I want to do is bring neutrality back into Wiki articles. At the bottom of my page is a warning left by SlimVirgin. Can you help me please? Maggiethewolfstar 05:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote on my RfA

Hi, My RfA passed. I'd like to again thank you for your constructive criticism in my RfA and assure you that I will work on the issues you brought up. JoshuaZ 14:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Good luck. -- JJay 16:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Editor / User Page Review

Hey JJay –

You opposed my last RfA in March on rationale I believe may have been related to my user page. In the time since then, I have changed my page to be more universalist (which still conforms with my personal beliefs) and removed the majority of information regarding my conversion to Islam in favor of a section on my philosophy (as well as yours if you desire). Now, I'm looking for your feedback on what you think of the redesign of the page and whether it is sufficient in quelling the March controversy over the page as well as solving the issue about possible inability to maintain a neutral point of view, especially in religion-related articles. For what it's worth, the reason I kept a condensed version of the timeline was because there were, and still are, many people who find it interesting instead of a form of proselytization. Many people have also given me positive feedback on my talk page regarding the look of the page. I personally believe that it is okay to insert individuality onto user pages, especially if it still promotes a sense of community. That is what I was going for with this current version of my user page.

Please make comments regarding the user page on my editor review page. Thanks in advance. joturn e r 15:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for the message. I didn't really oppose based on the user page, my exact words were "The user page is also a bit over the top, but maybe that is not important". My concerns were more in the area of inexperience, the focus on articles where you have a very strong personal commitment, and some problems with your AfD nominations. I also indicated that I would probably support you in the future. That still holds true today. I'm sure that the users who were more vocal in their opposition to your page will provide you with feedback. Good luck and thanks for your contribution. -- JJay 17:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New mop

JJay, give me a shout if anything I do with the mop concerns you. We may not see eye to eye on everything but I respect you and your opinion. Nice one, Deizio talk 23:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good luck. -- JJay 23:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move the deleted Male Unbifurcated Garment to the wikipedia fork?

JJay, I feel , like some others who voted for keeping this article on WP , that the admins were biased. So since there is a wkikipedia fork which allows sympathetic point of view could be the place to keep this article. I don't feel this article should die and it deserves to be here at WP more than many articles we have here. But probably for some time , the best option we have for keeping this article alive is by taking it to another encyplaediac project. I hope you reply back to me about it because we both feel trhe same way about this article.

Unitedroad 09:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Male unbifurcated garments

You might want to bring some of your references to Men's fashion freedom. I think the subject can be encyclopaedically covered there - while there is no real evidence of independent usage outside this small movement, it is undoubtedly a part of that movement, as evidence the small number of highly passionate advocates seen defending the term. Just zis Guy you know? 09:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Thanks for the message. It doesn't particularly matter to me where the information is dealt with, although I would indicate that I know of no proof that this "movement" has coined the term, as claimed in the Men's fashion freedom article. I would ask that you provide a source for the claim. It may well be that one of these groups (because there are more than one) originally adopted the MUG term. However, when fashion designers and industry have started using the term, and that is reflected in the mainstream press, it becomes a topic that bears consideration for inclusion here.

Furthermore, as I pointed out on the DRV page, I have to take exception with your continued mischaracterization of the facts surrounding the use of the MUGs term. You have repeatedly stated that no reliable sources existed/exist for the use of the term [68], [69], [70]. You have repeatedly called the article "original research" [71], [72]. You made that claim when you nominated the article for deletion. You again made the claim on the DRV page [73], and you persist here when you say: there is no real evidence of independent usage outside this small movement. You persist in making these statements despite the sources I have pointed to on three continents (NY Times, India, Australian newspapers), despite the fact that I know of many more printed sources, despite at least one major company that uses the term to describe their products. I am puzzled about why you chose not to respond to the sources when they were placed in the AfD.

That you were unable to find any sources prior to your nom (or made no attempt) is not overly troubling. More disturbing, though, is your continued denial of their existence and simultaneous mischaracterization of their contents (I would encourage you to read them). It is disturbing because it unnecessarily cheapens the level of discourse here and damages the presumption of trust necessary for a collaborative endeavor of this type. It reinforces some of the more unfortunate Orwellian undertones of the project (an untruth becomes truth if stated repeatedly). It degrades the collegial atmosphere that should be an unfailing minimum standard for all contributors and all discussion everywhere on the site.

I do not know if the MUG article is the best envelope for an examination of the term/concept and the underlying gender and societal issues involved in the wearing of the garments. However, I would ask that you take a more constructive and less inflamatory approach in the deletion discussions (perhaps this whole comment is just me "waving the cluebat") [74], particularly when dealing with people with whom you disagree. -- JJay 20:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign?

I was somewhat concerned with what's going on, so I did something utterly unprecedented: I actually just went and asked the nominator. :-)

It turns out that the string of nominations is simply a category sweep, where you check all the articles in a catagory, and nominate the more wonky ones on AFD.

Some other time someone might do a sweep of all software related articles, or of sailing articles or school articles.

PZFUN typically hangs out writing featured articles, and he thought he'd make himself useful as an Admin for a bit as well. Little did he know ...

Note that many of the nominated articles *do* need a cleanup, even if they're kept. Else sooner or later someone else will come along and nominate them again, as per wikipedia content policy.

Would you care to amend your comments on Articles for Deletion, now that you know this?

Kim Bruning 00:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your comments in the AfDs. First you call it a "stub" sweep, even though many of the articles were not stubs. Now you call it a "category" sweep, even though many of the articles are in different categories. I don't care what motivated these many, many nominations. But the appearances are bad and it looks like a major violation of WP:Point to me. Every one of those noms should be withdrawn. P.S. Regarding asking the nominator, I would have done that earlier, but when I went to his talk page he had deleted it along with his user page. -- JJay 00:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, it started out as a sweep of Category:Judaism_stubs as far as I'm aware, so apparently it's both. Hence the mixup.

I have asked not one, not two, but several people to look at the Nominations, and this is the consensus they came to. I haven't touched them myself.

PZFUN appears to have left wikipedia (hopefully temporarily), due to the incessant attacks of the last two days. He was discussing things with IZAK and Slimvirgin, and also on WP:AN/I Kim Bruning 00:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your attempts to support this user, but I am far from alone in thinking that these nominations were misguided. Particularly troubling is the nomination of all the hasidic rabbi articles without any attempt at dialogue. There is no excuse for this action. That the user has "left" the project I assume is pure posturing. However, it is very poor form to stir up a hornets' nest and then delete your user/talk page in response. That is exactly the sort of histrionics that should never take place here, particularly on the part of administrators. In my view, it demonstrates a certain lack of thought on the part of this user prior to action. Finally, I have seen very little in the way of "incessant attacks". Otherwise, thanks for your comments. -- JJay 01:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For people familiar with the background for these articles, it's easy to figure out the notability, "because you just know".

The problem with the articles is that in themselves, they don't really have much by way of explaining why they are notable or how come they are verifiable, as per policy. People who are not as familiar with the topic of the articles are not going to be able to figure it out.

So unfortunately, no matter who does it or what you think of any particular nominator, sooner or later these pages will be back on articles for deletion, unless they get improved.:-(

In the case of PZFUN, in fact he has many featured articles under his belt. He also got slandered by Siegenthaler on national television and held his ground. I'm pretty convinced of this gentlemans maturity. I linked to several pages where he has been attacked above, and he's been attacked on AFD, of course. Kim Bruning 01:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether "notability" was apparent or not, he made no attempt that I can find to examine the issue. He made no serious attempts to look at "verifiability". He left no comments on talk pages (with one belligerent exception that I know of). He used none of the available tags. What he did do, was nominate +50 articles, one after another, for deletion, with essentially the same nomination. His interpretation of policy, pushed to this extreme = disruption...and the fact that the articles all had religious connotations makes it worse. I can see you hold him in high esteem. That is your prerogative. Frankly, I'm very unimpressed by his behavior. I think he should apologize to the community. -- JJay 01:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think he could have made a better effort to examine the issue, yes. We've talked with him and he's certainly going to do that from now on. It's the automatic assumption of bad faith that I was not pleased with. With a bit of luck, that wraps it up. Kim Bruning 03:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. You are quite the good advocate. I hope you argue my case the next time someone accuses me of something. Having said that, I would tend to disagree with your comment regarding the « automatic assumption of bad faith ». I saw very little of that directed at User:PZFUN. I would characterize it more as initial confusion and disbelief that led, after some investigation, to the recognition that bad faith was at work in these nominations. For there was clearly bad faith here.

You previously asked me to indicate the point this user was trying to make with his excessive AfD nominations. I now know that the point was spite after a previous failed Afd nom. On May 12, this user nominated a bio article of an orthodox rabbi: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Berel_Wein. The AfD closed as an overwhelming keep - with numerous users calling for a speedy keep - on May 17. I believe the Afd also led to some edit warring over the nominated article. Some words look to have been exchanged during the AFd. If the nom was bothered by the comments made, he could have used any of the various means of conflict resolution.

Instead, it was only after the conclusion of this AfD, and despite the indisputable result, that this user proceeded to nominate, one after the other, articles on Jewish organizations, summer camps, and rabbis (+20 rabbi bios exactly similar to the previous article that was kept on Afd). Given the immediate precedent of the recently closed Berel Wein AfD, there could be little doubt that the results of most of the scores of new Afds would have been keep. The articles were clearly nominated to make a point, to provoke further disputes, and to try to overwhelm the AfD mechanism.

Content disputes, or anger over a failed AfD, should never lead to a massive wave of nominations on AfD. It is an immediate expression of bad faith to all the editors that contributed to the articles in question. It is an overt and violent rejection of the community consensus demonstrated in the previous AfD that had just closed. It is counter to deletion policy, since it refuses any of the available alternatives. It is also a patent and sanctionable violation of WP:Point.

User:PZFUN then proceeded to delete his user page and talk page, shutting down an entirely civil, ongoing discussion about his nominations and leaving people who were looking for answers (such as myself) completely in the dark. This is a very egregious abuse of admin powers for which I think he should be desysoped. He has also learned nothing from this unfortunate episode because he is currently massively nominating churches and summer camps. Take care. -- JJay 19:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29

WP:PORN BIO

You seem to be well informed on the subject, and would be very welcome in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors). You are quite right that it is not a guideline or policy yet, but in theory, neither is Wikipedia:Notability, yet that is the main reason for deletion on AFD. With enough work, WP:PORN BIO will be a good guideline, rather than a bad one. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DISCUSS ON RFC FOR SECTION ON G PATRICK MAXWELL

You said you thought the article about legal precedent and professional misconduct useful. The author of the article has taken it to mediation - not hte article, just this paragraph, because why? The author was a student of this surgeon, and wants to burnish his reputation. He does not want a biography. Instead, he wants a hagiography. PLease come discuss at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-08_G._Patrick_Maxwell

This is most telling. The author wants nothing that hints of a true biography of this man. MollyBloom 20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is essential. But there is nothing on the page you indicated. I will comment if necessary. --JJay 23:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dumber question

LOL! If needed, checkuser will demonstrate I'm no one's sockpuppet, sockpuppeteer or proxy. Disruption has its boundaries, no matter the user. RadioKirk talk to me 03:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merely commenting on the message from that user on your page from shortly before your AN/I post [75]. You should know that Brenneman is the last person you should ever turn to for advice regarding Tony Sidaway (in fact, avoid most topics with that user). Some friendly advice: avoid getting caught up in Brenneman's long-standing vendetta and obsession with TS. It is entirely destructive and disruptive- far worse than changing a signature. --JJay 04:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. See my responses at Brenneman's talk page. :) RadioKirk talk to me 04:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Not trying to hound you. I just don't think this is the right approach to the sig issue. That's why I commented. Anyway, I have to admit the whole thing seems irrelevant to me. Anyway thanks for the response and good luck. --JJay 04:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to avoid throwing around words like "obsession" quite so easily. Only a very tiny percentage of my edits relate to Sidaway, despite popular opinion otherwise. And it's hardly as if I'm the lone voice crying out when it comes to Tony. I know it's often easier to just believe the hype, but do try and sort out actual facts when commenting. 1) RK had warned Tony several times and 2) My "advice" was hardly controversial: Don't warn if you won't block, make a note to ANI if you do so, and be sure to use the right words. It would probably be good if you took your own advice and avoided telling people how to deal with me. - brenneman ^{L} 05:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think obsession is too weak a word to describe your focus on User:Tony_Sidaway. It was, as you might recall, the primary subject of your narrowly successful RFA. Your behaviour since has done nothing to dispell the idea that you will seek every opportunity to get in his face (spurious rfc, reverting clerk statements, edit warring on user page, etc.). Your judgement regarding that user has been frequently questioned (see any of your archived talk pages). You have admitted directly to TS that you can not assume good faith.[76] As such you should avoid him completely; instead, you seek and - most likely - relish confrontation. This is not particularly rational, but is undeniably disruptive and destructive (for the overall encyclopedia and whatever positive contribution you are capable of making). My advice was that no one should seek your counsel regarding TS. I fully reconfirm that idea. I also intend to "take my own advice": please be assured that I will never seek your opinion, thoughts, or guidance concerning TS or any other matter. --JJay 15:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to prevent trouble between us right now, before there is any.

For the moment I'll completely ignore the numerous complaints about you on your talk page, because they simply aren't relavent to what goes on between the two of us, even if the theme may be the same. Basically, I want you to chill out and let me do my thing until it impinges on your freedoms or rights. I've noticed that you get pretty excited over AfD's, often over AfD's for articles of extremely questionable worth. Sometimes, you say how "excellently written" they are, necessitating me to check the writing of the article, only to find that the writing is very poor. Maybe you have low standards. Maybe you write like those film critics who praise every b-movie they see to the skies! I don't know, but I'd like to know why you do things like mockingly pointing out that I used the word "worthless.?" Of course I did, and I put it in my nom. "Worthless" to me doesn't mean nearly the same as it does to you, apparently, and you don't seem to have any respect for the way I use words, which, by the way, is perfectly grammatical and in line with Wikipedia's PC polices. So, I get pissed off when you pick on my language. Most people probably do. I suggest you stop it as far as I'm concerned. If you want to take part in AfD's that I nominate, go ahead, it's your right, but please, hold back your impulse to bark orders or tell others how things ought to be done. You've already made my experience here less enjoyable, and I'd really rather never hear from you again. If you snark at me in a debate again, I really should take some action. It would be the honorable thing to do. I follow the Golden Rule, and I hope you do to. Please take what I've said seriously, because I'd hate for things to escalate. Also, I'd really appreciate it if you'd quit following my contributions around. I don't want to have to get another login name just to evade you. Erik the Rude 23:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was absolutely no point to that comment as far as I can see. If you are interested, I do not "get pretty excited over AFDs", however, it would seem that you do. I find words like "worthless" to be needlessly agressive and potentially offensive to contributors. There is no confusion over its meaning, which, by the way, is the same for everyone [77]. I'm sure that you can find other ways to express your dislike for an article without completely denigrating the contributions of well-meaning users. Otherwise, while I appreciate your comment, I would encourage you not to post here again unless you are sincerely interested in a discussion. Statements such as: "I'd really rather never hear from you again" indicate that you have no interest in dialogue but instead came here to rant. Save that behavior for your own user page. --JJay 02:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Ah, there's the JJay I know, petty, defensive, cavilling, and judgmental. I remember a fellow by the name of Monicasdude who got run out of here on a rail for doing what you're doing. I was rather upset when I wrote the above comment. Actually, I would like to try to help you with your problem with telling people what to do and say, but I doubt you'd be receptive. Erik the Rude 12:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Perkins

Editors such as Maxwell Perkins are considered writers, not publishers. (Category:Print editors is a great-grandchild of Category:Writers.) If he were a publisher he would have owned Charles Scribner's Sons, which as far as I can tell from the stub, he did not. Editors should soon have a stub type of their very own, Both {{editor-stub}} and {{US-editor-stub}} have been proposed and barring the unexpected, will be created sometime after the 7-day waiting period finishes. Until then, editors belong among the writers. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until then, I would suggest you not put the wrong stub on the article. Perkins on numerous occasions claimed he could not write. He never classified himself as a writer. He was an editor and later executive at Scribners. I think you should look at the people that are in the publisher-bio-stub category, before starting ridiculous edit wars (supposedly while awaiting a new stub cat in seven days) involving a figure with whom you seem to be completely unfamiliar. --JJay 03:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to throw my 2 cents in here, since I saw this one. Maxwell first was a reporter at the New York Times, before he went to Scribner. Maxwell Perkins was not just any editor. He was famous, and 'discovered' writers like F. Scott Fitzgerald. Perkins is a legend. There was (and still is) no more famous editor in this country. Most certainly he belongs in Wiki. I had a friend who named her cat Maxwell Perkins, after him. Okay, so naming a cat does not create notability. Nonetheless, Maxwell Perkins among writers (and much of the public) is as famous as the writers who were his clients.MollyBloom 06:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV fork

I know what POV is, but what the heck's a "POV fork"? And more importantly, is it any good for eating peas more than 1 at a time? --Dweller 23:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it could work for peas or anything else someone wants to feed people. In any case, please use the article talk page to hash this out. --JJay 23:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF Warning

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. — Mike • 11:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of ther policies here. But I haven't a clue what your message concerns. --JJay 16:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wheat

Hehe... went looking all the way to January, I see? Cute... - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all part of RFA due diligence. --JJay 19:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nude beach external links

When you added back in these links, you may have missed the existing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nude_beach&diff=61818990&oldid=45452511 thread I made on the talk page to discuss it. I also note that you http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nude_beach&limit=500&action=history only contribution to this article has been to add in those links. Can I ask that you take part discussion on the talk page, please? - Aaron Brenneman 12:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balls in your court now. --JJay 18:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks, believe it or not

Thank you, JJ, for giving of your time to take part in my RfA. While I am happy that wikipedia as a whole reached a consensus to allow me to perform administrative tasks, I will keep in mind everything I have learned through the process, of which you were a part. Please feel free to provide constructive criticism. Although, I must say that for someone who disapproves of essays, you did see fit to improve WP:WING 8-) -- Avi 03:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and good luck.

Yes, I disapprove of essays because I do not think it is time well spent on improving the articles. The not google page is also especially antagonistic and I completely disagree with its philosophy and approach. However, since I like editing articles and have no particular connection or interest in any of the articles I edit, I felt there was nothing wrong in adding a few words. Note that many of the articles I edit end up getting deleted. I hope that is the eventual outcome for not google. --JJay 23:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German (?) philosophers

Greetings, I see that you have added to the list Writers of German-language philosophy in the recent past. I have called for a renaming of the related category (German philosophers), and want to invite you to join discussion. The more rational voices, the better. (My suggestion is to rename to "German-language philosophers," so that the category becomes one of language rather than ethnicity.) Thanks in advance for any thoughts you might have. Universitytruth 13:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so neither of my links work. Still a newbie, I'm afraid. Anyway, I hope you'll know what I'm talking about! Universitytruth 14:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zapping Speedy Delete Notices ...

To keep it short, non-admins are not permitted to remove speedy delete notices. If you disagree with my actions, throw a {{hangon}} template on the page and put your reasoning in the talk page — the admin reviewing my speedy-delete notice catches it that way, especially when alerted by the {{hangon}} template. But flat-out removing speedy-delete notices is actually considered vandalism. --User:WCityMike 02:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moot now, an admin turned down the speedy. --User:WCityMike 02:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment and I'm very sorry your speedy was refused by an admin. Since you are obviously very well informed, please point me to the policy page that says "non-admins are not permitted to remove speedy delete notices". --JJay 02:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, there's the entire category of {{drmspeedy}} warning templates. I'll see if I can get you an exact quote in a moment. --User:WCityMike 02:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's avoidant vandalism in Wikipedia's vandalism policy, defined there as "[r]emoving {{afd}}, {{copyvio}} and other related tags in order to conceal or avoid entries to risk deletion," which, tied with the existence and persistent use of the various {{drmspeedy}} templates ({{drmspeedy}}, {{drmspeedy2}}, {{drmspeedy3}}, {{drmspeedy4}}, {{drmspeedy5}}), indicates it's pretty clearly not permitted. There's also this, which says that non-administrators shouldn't close any deletion process except an undisputed one. And there's also the simple fact that they took the time to set up a process for non-administrators to go through if they dispute a speedy-delete tag, which is to post a {{hangon}} template to the article's page and then indicate their reasoning as to why it shouldn't be deleted on the talk page. If just removing the tag was permitted, there'd be no cause for the alternate method's existence. --User:WCityMike 03:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response mike. That's an awful lot of interpretation derived from assorted templates and unrelated policy to admit essentially that, well, to keep it short, nothing states that "non-admins are not permitted to remove speedy delete notices". There are often very good reasons to remove speedy delete tags. Such as when they are placed on articles by vandals, or when they are placed on articles for absolutely no credible reason. Since you are interested in the WP:VAND policy, I might encourage you to examine the section entitled "Abuse of tags", defined as "Bad-faith placing of afd or speedy-deletion tags on articles that do not meet such criteria." Considering you placed a speedy delete tag on an article based on non-applicable criteria at a time when said article was the subject of active discussion and broad support from experienced users and administrators, some might view your action as akin to vandalism. Some might also view your action as a violation of WP:Point. Now, I know you were acting in good faith, but you were also clearly wrong. The next time someone removes one of your speedy tags, a better approach might be dialogue, rather than a reversion, false statement of policy and bogus warning. Mike, there is nothing magical about a speedy delete tag. They should be used sparingly after a certain degree of reflection (and the same can be said for their removal). They should not be placed on an article because of anger. I will continue to remove them if necessary. --JJay 18:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I need to ask that you please use standard signatures with any further posts to this page. Your 3-4 line sig is not acceptable here and will be refactored--JJay 18:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your interpretation of the governing policy, and personally feel the policy regarding avoidant vandalism, coupled with the existence of widely used warning templates, makes the matter fairly unambiguous. But, really, the matter is moot at this point. Should we run into a situation where our difference of opinion is once again relevant to the situation at hand, Wikipedia offers non-antagonistic mechanisms by which the policy can be clarified, whether that be the administrators' noticeboard, or a policy request for comment. Finally, please feel free to refactor my signature as you see fit; it is, after all, your talk page. --User:WCityMike 19:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by --Michael C. Price on Afshar experiment page

Dear JJay, --Michael C. Price insists on using unsubstantiated claims without proper references on the article page. Regardless of the nature of his claims, I have requested that he does so, but instead he has produced at best irrelevant quotes from non-peer-reviewed sources. His edit follows:

Though Afshar's work is still the subject of ongoing interpretation and discussion, a significant portion of the scientific community is of the opinion that Afshar's experiment does not refute complementarity.

Some general criticisms are:

Bohr's philosophical views on the Complementarity Principle are generally seen in accordance with the Schrodinger wave equation. Since the latter is obeyed in Afshar's experiment it is not obvious how complementarity can be violated.^[1]^[2]

The modern understanding of quantum decoherence and its destruction of quantum interference provides a mechanism for understanding the appearance of wavefunction collapse and the transition from quantum to classical. As such there is no need, in the decoherence view, for an a priori introduction of a classical-quantum divide as enshrined by complementarity. Any experiment that claims to violate complementarity needs to address this issue.

As Michael claims, those statments are supposedly "popular views" that preexisted my experiment, and as such must be present in peer-reviewed publication predating my work. All I have asked him to do is to provide such valid ref.s but he has persistently avoided doing so and instead engaged in personal attacks. He seems to have a lot of time on his hands to be on Wikipeida constatntly, but I don't. This is turning to oneupmanship, and I don't have time for such antcis. Maybe he would heed your request. Thanks!-- Prof. Afshar 13:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I will be discussing this issue with Michael Price on the article talk page, and would highly appreciate if you could monitor our discussion and interject when you deem fit. I'm afraid it might get a little testy, as Michael has been persistent on personal attacks. Thanks very much for your help. Best regards.-- Prof. Afshar 17:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I might take a look, but as I have never edited that page, I don't think I would be of much help. --JJay 17:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee talk

Thanks. I don't know what he imagines he's playing at removing these common words, but it's nice to see someone else doing excellent work on this. --Tony Sidaway

No problem. Certain users seem to feel that removing valuable information and reducing the utility of various articles takes precedence over adding references. Maybe they don't like fact tags. Maybe they have trouble finding sources via "google trawling" and the internet- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freebord. They possibly do not live in English speaking countries, or have never met queens or fairies. Whatever the explanation, I see little reason to let wikipedia articles be weakened for extended periods because of a queer attachment to pedantry over common sense. --JJay 02:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd direct (both of) your attention to the big bold letters in one of our core policies:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

If you think that this should be changed as "pedantry," take it up on Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. What I utterly fail to understand is why anyone would, to use the "Freebord" example cited, add a dozen odd references to the AfD while adding nothing to the article, or to use the List of sexual slurs example argue over (and re-add) terms rather than finding and adding sources. If these terms are so common, so widely used, surely the path of least resistance would be to follow the policy as written? User:Aaron Brenneman 06:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think you are achieving something by removing "Queen" and "fairy" from a list of sexual slurs you either: (i) know nothing about the subject; (ii) have decided that a determinedly blinkered approach to policy best allows you to make your presence felt (i.e. you ignore not only the spirit but much of the actual text in the policies); (iii) have an intense desire to spark edit wars; (iv) have a queer attachment to pedantry over common sense; (v) are in close, daily contact with someone who desperately needs a wikibreak; (vi) all of the above. Furthermore, someone who spends all his time removing material from articles is not in any position to use phrases such as "adding nothing to the article". Someone who has never added either a term or a reference to the sex list (but who has removed numerous sourced entries) should not be making strident demands about "finding and adding" sources to the article - particularly when roughly 95% of the article is more than adequately sourced (of course, not with any participation from you). There are numerous editors working hard to try to write valuable, sourced articles here. That process takes time. Why you feel the need to obstruct the process is beyond me. --JJay 07:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Nice bunch of personal attacks there, all sugar coated and all. But anyway...

I suppose since A Consensus on the List of sexual slurs talk page (prior to your arrival) was that all material had to be sourced, that B Policy says material had to be sourced, and that C the HTML comments said things had to be sourced, it's quite clear to you why you feel they don't. Or why they must go on the main page with a {{fact}} tag rather than on talk.
Let's be frank, what's "obstructing" your efforts is your intense argumentative nature. Some examples:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freebord - Your contributions to the article Freebord are exactly zero while you've contributed five hundred words and twelve references to the AfD.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cary Towne Center - Your contributions to the article were again zero, with another five hundred words to the AfD as one of three in fourteen who said to keep.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Songs Containing the word Fuck in a Prominent Position - over 2,000 words you contributed to this discussion, one of only two people in twenty-six who recommended keep. Yet to the article... zero.

You brought up frog cake so go and have a look at my edit, please. Try groucho glasses while you're at it. I suggested this to you once before, and I'll suggest it again: Find a more productive way to spend your time here.

User talk:Aaron Brenneman 13:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to be more interested in character assassination than the truth, I'll point out the following:

a) prior to my "arrival" the sexual slurs list had zero sourced entries.
b) I was the first person to provide sources for the list.
c) Every contribution I have made to that list has been sourced.
d) I proposed sourcing standards for the list that you refused to accept.

On the other hand, you have removed numerous sourced entries from the list. You have challenged the validity of the sourcing. You have never added any references to the list. Your approach has been continuously obstructionist. You are thus in no position to lecture anyone about sources, nor to imply - in any way, shape or form - that I am opposed to sourcing. The next time you want to make bogus accusations of that sort, do it in a public forum and back it up with diffs.

Regarding your AfD diffs and the nonsense about my "intense argumentative nature":

freebord- my original comment consisted of nine words- "Obvious growing trend. Many news hits from major publications" [78]. You challenged that statement. The rest of my comments were in response to you. You asked for links - despite admitting that you couldn't be "arsed" to look at them - and you got links. Your participation in that discussion has been less than exemplary. Most of your comments (as the only person aguing for delete) have proven false (i.e. "few google hits", no news hits etc) . You have chosen not to redact those comments. You have chosen to maintain your delete vote. You have felt it more important to "reformat" my comment on references [79], than add them to the article. What I choose to add or not add to the Freebord article is my business. Oh and what have you added to the Freebord article exactly????

Cary Towne Center- My original comment to the Afd consisted of five words: "Decent stub on this mall" [80]. The rest of my comments there were in response to a question from one user, who concluded by calling it "one of the finest debates I've engaged in AfD". If you do not believe that AfD should be used for debate then I would suggest you not participate in the process. If you have a method of debating that does not involve words please let me know. There was little incentive on my part to add anything to the Cary Town article since it was clearly going to be deleted. And what did you contribute to Cary Towne Center exactly????

List of fuck songs- almost every one of my comments was in response to questions from other users. Are you suggesting I not respond to these users? Are you suggesting that keep is not a valid position on AfD? The article, unfortunately, was not kept - so the point about my additions are irrelevant.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with your personal edit diffs. That you know how to write 3-line stubs??? Is that supposed to impress me?? When you start producing this sort of response- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West 4th Street (Greenwich Village) and producing this sort of diff [81], I will be the first to applaud. In the meantime stop wasting my time. --JJay 15:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help in discussing a list

Greetings; if you would visit the call for discussion at this page, I'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Talk:List_of_German-language_philosophers Best, Universitytruth 13:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irving

So why not share? - BalthCat 19:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of responding. Patience please. --JJay 19:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Hey JJay,

I'm borrowing your warning template to put on my talk page if you don't mind. Thanks. YCCHAN 03:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Hope it helps. --JJay 04:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your behavior has improved - message from a sock puppet

You haven't been your old nasty flame-baiting self for the past few days. I'm glad to see that. I congratulate you for the improvement, and I hope it continues so that an RfC on your behavior will not be necessary. I'd be happy to open one. That template on the top of this talk page is funny when I consider how many people you have wikistalked yourself. Obvious hypocrisy is such an ugly character defect. Maybe you've been making use of the rolling papers recently? Whatever it is, keep it up. Erik the Rude 12:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, instead of using a sock puppet account to troll this user page [82], or sending abusive and threatening email messages, I would encourage you to show good faith by participating in your rfc: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Brian G. Crawford. --JJay 17:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd strongly encourage you not to provoke me or continue to be uncivil, or things could really get much worse for you. I will use the tools available to me to make your Wikipedia life as miserable as possible to change your behavior for the better. You reap what you sow. You are treated as you treat others. Bullying should not be tolerated. My account isn't a sock puppet account. It's a new account I created to make a fresh start. I admit I made some newbie mistakes in the past, but I'm older and wiser now. I do productive work and try to stay away from AfD unless there's no choice. You think that email I sent you was threatening? It was nothing. If you want to be a baby about it, call the police. Since you probably don't live in the State of West Virginia, they would tell you that there is simply nothing that they can do. If you lived in W.Va. you might have a case for a restraining order or a civil action. Trust me, I know the all the ins and outs of what legally constitutes a threat, and what I said doesn't qualify in any American jurisdiction. Apparently, you need a little legal education. I've indicated no intention to harm you physically, I have no idea where you live, and I'm not going to track you down and come find you. Let me make myself perfectly clear. YOUR BEHAVIOR IS UNACCEPTABLE. I will keep telling you that until I can get you to accept it. I won't personally attack you on WP, and I'll be as civil as I can. I don't even know you personally, but if I did, I suspect I could help you out. I'll even be polite. I look forward to your progress from agitator to good contributor. I look forward to you spending less than half your time in AfD. If you have problems with anger, try my suggestion and talk to a therapist. Hell, you can even talk to me. I'll listen. I can advise you in making more appropriate responses. Remember, I'm here for you, JJay. Nemo me impune lacessit. Erik the Rude 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[83]
[84]
[85]
etc. --JJay 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is typical of your behavior, digging up dirt on your opponents rather than trying any kind of change. You'll do anything than address the topic at hand, the fact that you have maladaptive behavior that needs to change and that lots of users have serious problems with you on a constant basis. You wasted your time typing in all those diffs, everyone has seen them. I did my time for the incivility. Also, I'm rather proud of some of those as flames. They remind me of my glory days in USENET. I was on pills and booze at the time -- Lortab and strong beer, a bad combination. What exactly is your excuse for what you do? Do you drink and edit too? Do we need a support group for our kind? Do tell! Like I said, JJay, you have problems. We're going to get them sorted out so that you don't piss people off. If you don't like that, that's too bad, because I have a cause of action here, and I resent being consistently ignored by you. You dig up stuff that doesn't even matter and you say things that have no meaning. Why won't you be honest and real? Erik the Rude 00:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping Mall articles

Hi, you recently voted to keeep the article Macarthur Square. Could you please suggest something that could be added to the article to make it notable compared to all the other articles for shopping malls on Wikipedia? I ask this because I cannot see what makes one shopping centre notable compared to the one in the next suburb. Not every house has an article, why should every shopping centre? Thanks, I hope to implement some of your suggestions. I am happy to conduct a reasonable amount of web-based investigation to implement some of your thoughts. BTW - please if you want me to email you instead, be more upfront about how to do it. --Ga rr ie 06:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from The Simpsons

Your comments here that I'm "biased," "pretending" in my explenations, and discussion with me are "an exercise in futility" are at the very least incivil. I also note that at the DRv you've stated twice that I used the word "sockpuppet." This is simply inaccurate. User:Aaron Brenneman 12:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing incivil nor was there any intent, per my comment on the talk page. As the DRV review of your close is still open, please use the DRV page for comments related to your close. --JJay 12:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your opinion sought at WP:LIST talk

I've made a proposal here, and am seeking feedback. Best,--Anthony Krupp 14:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GHe's RfA

Hi JJay!

Thank you for taking part in my RfA! Ultimately, it ended with a final result of (62/23/7), and with only 73% support, no consensus was achieved. Nevertheless, I will continue to contribute and gain more experience and time. Thanks again for voicing your comments.

G.H e 21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hello!

Thank you for participating in my RfA! Unfortunately, it ended with a final result of (32/31/5) which no consensus was achieved. Nevertheless, I'd like to thank you again for your comments and to keep an eye out for me within the next 3 months. If you would like to give any helpful advice, please contact me via my suggestions page for my next RfA. :)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University Hill Elementary School

I have a soft place in my heart for school articles, and I have tried to temper my inclusionist tendencies on the issue with concise explanations of why I think school articles should be retained. I have long been baffled by the opinion that a notable graduate confers notability on a school, as if the school had anything to do with it in almost all cases and as if the school has an obligation to churn out individuals who will meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. While I thought I had honed my cynicism on the issue in some of my Keep votes, I must bow down and prostrate myself before your majestic take on the subject in the abovementioned AfD. Down with School Deletionism! After all, even Deletionists went to school somewhere (and if they didn't, that explains a great deal). Bravo! Alansohn 03:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on List of ...for Dummies books

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ST47Talk 21:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Shadowing my AfD participation is not very nice. [86], [87]., [88], [89]. Taking it to the next level by entering an edit war on an article you have never edited based on my participation is out of line [90] and serves just to inflame the situation. Stalking is not very becoming. Please tone down the insults as well. [91]. --JJay 23:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wikistalking you, LOL? If anyone is getting wikistalked its you following my edits.[92] I've been actively involved in voting afds of primary[93] and high schools[94][95] for weeks, and colleges for months. How long have you been involved in voting in Norwegian ski jumpers and choral conductor afds? Here I voted before you.[96][97] As for a insult, I simply agreed with another user at the Norwegian ski jumpers because your comment showed either you are confused about the policy or didn't look at the article. If its the latter, why did you vote in the afd the way to did-- my vote maybe? As for your edit warring, this edit summary says it all-[98]- your egging on users. If you don't want your edit warring to be watched you should be more careful on how you behave (see your talk page for evidence). Arbusto 00:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reread my comment above. --JJay 02:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT and WP:STALK

You reasoning is inconsistent in an effort to vote keep in two of my afds.

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ...for Dummies books (2 nomination), (this is a copy and pasted list) you wrote keep[99], but in an effort to keep an unnotable diploma mill you said [100]"However, copying diploma mill names from government websites in order to construct a pseudo-official diploma mill list at wikipedia... It violates both the meaning and spirit of the list guidelines."

Stop using the afd to STALK and make a POINT. Arbusto 02:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, since you stalked me to the dummy list, your comment about stalking is laughable. Second, I have been involved with both the dummy list and diploma mill list for at least six months. Third, they are not "your AfDs". If you nominate articles for deletion you should expect to encounter differing points of view. Shouting or bolding your comments is childish. Fourth, I have previously warned you about trolling this user page. That includes leaving bogus warnings such as the above that display a complete misunderstanding of wp:point. --JJay 02:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Is copy and pasting a list a copyright violation? If yes, change your comment on the list of books afd. If no, change your comments on the institute afd. Arbusto 02:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, did you copy and paste it? If you have proof that the list is a copyvio, we have procedures to deal with copyvios at wikipedia. My AfD particpation is entirely consistent and has been for the last year. Including my participation in the previous AfD of the list and my involvement with editing the article. Unlike you, who recently stalked me to the article and then nominated it for deletion. In short, as I previously told you, your role here is not to troll this user page, make accusations or try to tell people what to do. Please adjust your tone before posting here again. --JJay 02:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

...for Dummies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
List of ...for Dummies books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've reviewed your contribution history, both in the articles noted above and elsewhere. I'm of the opinion that your use of the revert is tantamount to disruption, as well as your style of contribution to deletion discussions being problematic. This can be handled lots of ways, in my order of preferance:

You and I have a chat here,
A thread at ANI discussing it,
Something else that you propose, or
A request for comment.

Dispute resolution (like mediation) probably isn't appropiate, since I don't actually have a dispute with you. However, I do intend to pursue this.
User talk:Aaron Brenneman 02:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll discuss wikipedia-related subjects with most users if they post here in good faith. However, your track record in that regard has been poor. I'm talking about messages you have left on this page such as these [101], [102] that contain a mix of insult, misplaced "advice", intimidation and an obsessive focus on the contributions of other users (this most recent message being a further example), or more blatant types of trolling such as this [103]. Furthermore, the insincerity of your concern with the two articles referenced above is manifested by your failure to place a comparable "warning" on the user pages of those users who spent months redirecting without seeking consensus, entering any sort of discussion or collaborating with offers to improve the page. I also note that you have not mentioned anything even remotely content-related in relation to these two articles.

Since, in your own words, we "don't actually have a dispute" the remedies you propose for this non-dispute are entirely non-sensical (and display a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of ANI). Instead, they betray a certain interest (or is it glee?), in creating disputes where there are none, and escalating minor editing disagreements into major confrontations. This is entirely the wrong approach and is part of a vision of wikipedia as a platform for petty disputes and personal vendettas that I do not share. I also have no interest in discussing your contributions here (i.e. your two stub articles, frequent removal of material w/o discussion, changing policy w/o consensus, reformatting articles w/o discussion, proposing mergers w/o giving reasons, badgering participants in deletion discussions, etc.), no matter how distasteful they may appear to me. Many would view that sort of pattern as "disruption", although I have no doubt that your article edits reflect good-faith attempts based on your way of seeing things. Nevertheless, I would ask that you make an effort to adhere to the arbcom ruling in your regard [104] by toning down the confrontation in favor of consensus (and accepting that consensus will frequently not agree with your vision of things). Take care, --JJay 14:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

I have opened an Arcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Arbusto 17:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...which I wouldn't worry too much about, because it doesn't appear that he's pursued any of the previous steps in dispute resolution. JYolkowski // talk 01:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to improve that article, but you added material that is on the page linked at the bottom.[105] As for the other article I've edited recently that you also took interest in eight minutes after I did, one news report doesn't make it notable.[106]

Are you watching my contribution history? Arbusto 00:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits such as this [107], where you remove referenced content from the New York Times and other sources with an edit summary of "its website goes over this and in more detail" demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of WP:RS. Repeatedly removing all references from an article [108] so that it fails WP:V as part of a deletion nomination is a violation of both process and policy. Constantly using "notability" tags [109], [110], [111] following failed AfD nominations - without providing any justification- in order to start edit wars seems to me to be another form of vandalism. Please stop your edit warring/blanket reversions and try to work with community consensus. --JJay 01:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking again since you failed to answer: Are you watching my contribution history? Arbusto 04:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above is fairly clear and you have chosen not to respond. You have now reverted my edits adding references to Flamel College three times in the last three hours [112], [113], [114]. You have not explained your opposition to these references on the talk page, nor have you explained why you believe an article is better sourced by an organizational website (in violation of WP:RS), rather than valid 3rd party sources. This is particularly poor behavior while an article is being discussed on AfD. If you revert again in the next 24 hours you will be blocked from editing wikipedia. Regarding your last question, who is watching whom? This edit - where you "voted" for the second time in the same AfD five minutes after me [115]- answers the question. --JJay 04:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've answered my question with a question. Are you watching my contribution history? Yes or no? Do you understand the question? Arbusto 04:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And You have not responded to any of the comments above, nor have you modified your behaviour in any way. You spend most of your time edit warring or badgering users with slanderous comments such as this [116]. You have repeatedly stalked my AfD participation to the point where I had to warn you about it. Your response was a wave of incivilities on talk pages and a bogus RFAR. I have warned you repeatedly about your belligerent tone on this page. Since you have not come here to discuss anything in good faith, you should now stay off the page or expect your comments to be removed. --JJay 04:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs by sock

Some of the articles nominated by the sock were in fact deleted. You may want to consider DRVing them. Incidentally, process-wise this will presumably also overturn those which ended as keeps and thus they will not count for consensus in that regard. JoshuaZ 22:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. In response to your points: (i) I will not be DRVing anything. Deletion nominations and the associated review process are an enormous waste of the community's time. The opportunity cost in terms of lost input to articles is incalculabe, but I tend to believe that entire quality wikipedias would be built if the energy was ever channeled away from the AfD debate club. I participate because I feel I have no choice, but I am not at all happy about the situation. In addition, the fact that so many users are perfectly willing to engage knowingly in a sock/vandal nomination is indicative of how a DRV would be an exercise in recrimination and futility; (ii) your second point displays a certain confusion with the deletion process. An invalid deletion nomination that results in keep does not become a delete because the process was invalid. The result is nullified, but the article would remain. Remember - and this is of crucial importance - consensus is required to delete articles here, not the other way around. --JJay 00:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My last point was not saying that the articles would be deleted then but rather that the keeps would presumably not count for precedent purposes. In any event, your statements above seems reasonable. JoshuaZ 00:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XPLANE deletion review

JJay, recognizing that you may not read this (per your comment at the top of the page), I'd still like to ask: would you mind weighing in on the deletion review for XPLANE at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24? I believe your voice is important to this review and your comments/opinions are much appreciated.Dgray xplane 15:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Olympics medals prod

Hi, I was in the process of editing this article when you deleted it. There are lots of reasons why this is not a valid prod, including the previous AFD for its 2000 counterpart and the stated reason of OR, which is belied by scholarly research on the topic. My edit recreated the article( unfortunately without the history). --JJay 14:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright; hold on a moment, and I'll restore the history. -- tariqabjotu 14:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. --JJay 14:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long sigs

I agree with you that signatures that take a large amount of space in the wiki markup language or the final rendering are disruptive. This encyclopedia is less about it's generous contributors than it is about it's final goal of a free encyclopedia for all the world. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right on both points. I usually try to refrain from refactoring other people's sigs, but that one was just insane. It completely blocked out all the messages on the page as I was trying to write my comment. That is both unfair to me and a waste of resources. Good luck on becoming an admin. --JJay 02:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary block

You have been temporarily blocked for violating WP:3RR on Wikipedia:External links; see WP:AN/3RR. When you return, please work out edit conflicts on the article Talk: page. FeloniousMonk 00:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for caring. That was actually what I was doing when you blocked me. --JJay 00:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet Afd noms

Commenting here, since as I mentioned I don't feel it's appropriate to continue at that venue.

You wrote: A contribution history dating back ten edits is not a real contribution history. I have a right to have an idea who is nominating articles for deletion based on their history - that is explicit in policy. I'm alleging violation of policy (bad faith is irrelevant) and as to double voting, a sock nomination automatically raises the suspicion. How could it not? Furthermore, Wikipedia:Deletion policy mandates discounting sock puppet "votes" in deletion discussions. Why should it be different for nominators? I am not aware who is behind the account - the user in question has declined to respond to messages on his talk page - and am not particulalry concerned with abuse. I am concerned with what I view as an invalid nomination by a new account.

Again I ask whether you have any evidence that the nomination is invalid or that the account is not a legitimate sock. Failing to assume good faith is not irrelevant when you proceed to declare a user suspect of double voting, vandalism, circumventing blocks, and breaking policy. It's irresponsible at best to make such statements without anything but a hunch to go on. The administration may ignore his !vote, but there's nothing I can see against bringing an article for deletion in that manner. If a double vote actually occurred, then that would be in violation of policy, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume that that's happened without any actual investigation into the matter.

I note also that you've made no such allegations about Highfructosecornsyrup, even though his account is only a week old and his contributions are limited to school articles and AfDs. I choose to assume good faith on his part, in the absence of evidence -- and in the same vein I'll assume you simply overlooked him. I admit to some curiosity, though, about your thoughts.

Anyway, while recognizing that there's reason for concern (the choice of username does not inspire confidence, and abusive sockpuppetry does make a mess of the situation), I still feel we should assume good faith in the absence of any concrete reason to do otherwise -- it's policy, but more importantly, it's the right thing to do. Although P.S. seems pretty clearly to be a sock, and is used specifically for this purpose, I haven't seen any reason to believe that the editor behind the account isn't attempting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. I realize that there are people who take attempted deletion of articles personally (and there are people who take failed deletion attempts personally), but I don't think it serves any purpose to do so. Most articles are not nominated for deletion out of malice, and most keep !votes are not out of spite. I think we should assume that to be the case even for new accounts such as P.S. and HFCS, until we've got reason to believe otherwise. That's all I'm trying to get at.

(In that vein, I apologize for the sniping about ad hoinem arguments in my last reply. It might've been true, after a fashion, but it was glib and not helpful to the discussion.) Shimeru 09:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to assume good faith is not irrelevant when you proceed to declare a user suspect of double voting, vandalism, circumventing blocks, and breaking policy

I have done nothing of the kind. You need to read my comments more closely. Other than that, I reiterate that I am not talking about good faith or bad faith or attempts to improve the encyclopedia. I am talking about policy and, as I have stated, I consider sock puppet nominations always to be in violation of policy. --JJay 11:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Stronger"

I meant "stronger" as in the previous criteria (time here,activity level), not who has more power. I hope you did not interpret it as meaning "power".Voice-of-All 04:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of works out to the same thing doesn't it? In your weighting system, power would be derived from whatever criteria you consider worth weighting. The end result would be, effectively, a sytem where certain users have and exert more power than others. That power would be abused, just like in the way that administrators frequently abuse their power today. All power leads to corruption. In any case, besides those issues, a user who already believes that editors should be divided up and ranked based on subjectives like edit counts or time, should not, in my opinion, serve on a body that has to judge and weigh impartially the actions and opinions of a broad cross section of users. --JJay 04:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI was not banned because he does some good content editing. I've talked to arbitrators about him. Is this any more subjective? If a host of 3 hour old users oppose an AfD with no reason given, should that block it? Beyond the fact that I already said I'd steer away from consensus issues on my Q&A as we have yet to clearify what consensus means (votes or community as a whole?), I don't see this as unfair. I never said we should divide everyone into a hierarchy, where any elder can just trump a new user. That is vastly misinterpreted. Reason and good judgement still apply.

A user proves his/her faith and membership to the project simply by being around and making edits (not vandalism or trolling). That way, I can be confident they are not just a drive-by user or sock/meatpuppet. They don't need any fancy titles, bits, or FAs. I assume that 1 day old users have good faith and won't vandalize, and I can only speculate if they are one of the thousands of accounts that make 3 edits and never return or not. Logically, speculation and assumptions are weaker than proven actions and a longer track record. This is not a hierarchy, if a new user had a good argument and an older one gave no reason for something, the new user still has a point, and the upper hand in the dispute.

However, by your criteria, it would likely be too subjective to measure if it was reasonable (whether you agree with the person or not) or what points where left unaddressed though, right? So should we just count all user's comments as equal votes (unless confirmed by checkuser as a sock)? Does posting 1 comment make you a "member of the community"? Does consensus mean "consensus of the community as a whole", "consensus of the community that edit this page" or "consensus of the people on this page", or, if not checking the actual reasons/points addressed (as too subjective you may say) "consensus of the votes on this page"?

Its like saying test scores are more "objective" than more panel oriented reviews; just because you can turn it into numbers using some simple mechnanism does not necessarily make it more accurate, the mechanisms and test may actually be "subjective" in its assumptions and premises. On the other hand, there is the other issue of "well, who can determine community consensus as a whole?", and I understand how that can be a sticky area. Wikipedia:Consensus does not specify which of the three above definitions is the one we use, and the ambiguity is reflected by the issues with Bureaucrat's powers a while back. As I said on Q&A, since it is unclear, than I'd stay out of it as an arbitrator and move to reject any cases where that is the sole issue. Hope that explains things. Voice-of-All 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Re your comments on the deletion review of the Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia article.

A line from my original comment in the DRV:

This AFD was closed as 'no consensus' by User:Glen S, despite there being a clear consensus to delete, based on both (spit) numbers, and, far, far more importantly, Wikipedia policy.

Your version of it:

Thanks for your opinion. Make sure you tell User:Proto, who starts his renom by indicating the "clear consensus to delete...based on numbers". --JJay 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could now feel entirely justified in ignoring everything you contribute to a discussion, ever again, as you and the truth clearly have nothing more than a passing acquaintance. I won't, but come on, you have more sense than this. Nobody will pay attention to you if you continue act like this.

Even better is that you then complain about people misrepresenting your words. The hypocrisy of this is marvellous, and JJay, I salute you. Proto::► 10:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment again. Look long and hard at the word "starts". Consider its important role in that sentence. Otherwise, I salute you as well and wish you the best of luck with that arbcom candidacy. --JJay 11:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JJay, how dare you suggest that? Your response starts "see my ... long and hard ... on". I can't believe you wrote that. Oh wait, you didn't. I selectively picked words from your comment to make it say what I wanted. Apparently, that's exactly how to quote someone, as long as you use the word 'starts'.

Ergo, thank you for opposing my arbcom candidacy; if you had supported me, I would have clearly been doing something wrong. Proto::► 15:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cher Proto,

Your ability to deconstruct my comment is really quite remarkable. I guess I could have stated something explicit like [117], which although not my style, is apparently the sort of directness that befits certain admins and (former) arbcom candidates. Speaking of arbcom, your thanks are most appreciated. I'm glad you feel my opposition demonstrates that you are doing something right. In that case, you must share my joy at the other 37 oppose votes that have helped you reach an impressive low support rate of 26.92% at last count [118]. Don't lose hope. There is still adequate time for you to do much more of the right things [119] to help get that support even lower. Best wishes. --JJay 02:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

28.3%, thank you very much. I'm a dark horse, coming from behind! Proto::► 09:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk : Michael Richards

Hey, JJay! I didn't deliberately move your comment on the Michael Richards page. Another editor had inserted a comment in the middle of my comments. I was just moving his response to the bottom of my statements. I hadn't noticed that your edit came before his. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Cleo123 06:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. It would have been better, though, if you had responded to the questions. --JJay 19:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DDV

Hi there! You said that "many users claim this page is inaccurate". Could you please point out a single user who makes this claim, and/or a single inaccuracy in this page? Because on the talk page, there is indication of neither. Rather, the dispute is about the "guideline" tag. User:Radiant 17:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather than worrying about the custom tag's ridiculous wording, or trying to parse elements of the dispute, this would be immediately resolved through the use of the standard dispute tag. --JJay 17:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're conflating two different disputes. Do you believe the page is inaccurate? If so, please point out where? If not, why do you think it's ridiculous to claim that an accurate page is in fact accurate? User_talk:Radiant! 17:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is a dispute. Hence, the page is tagged with a dispute tag. You and others have been edit warring over these tags. That is further indication that a dispute exists. The tag should indicate merely that a dispute exists. It should not contain opinion, editorializing or assorted comments from various users on the "accuracy" of the page or anything else. --JJay 17:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At last

That wasn't so hard, was it? - brenneman 23:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of leaving excessive messages on various talk pages, message boards and AFD discussions, I would strongly encourage you, again, to improve articles by adding references when you feel they are needed. --JJay 23:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- JJay, I had forgotten all about you, I must admit. I'd again encourage you to read the guidelines and policies that I've pointed out to you countless times: It's not my job to follow along behind you adding in citations that you can't be arsed to do yourself. I don't understand your willingness to find and pour references into deletion discussions while steadfastly refusing to put them into articles, but I *am* going to try and find some solution to it. I'd much prefer it to be with your co-operation, but without will work as well. - brenneman 23:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't understand why you continually nominate notable articles for deletion. I have no solution to that other than "voting" keep in those discussions. Despite your ongoing threats, I intend to maintain my voice on AFD. Finally, as you well know, I add more references to articles in the average week and month than you have since you joined wikipedia (not that it's really your concern). I'll now ask for your co-operation in not leaving clueless posts on this user page regarding my contribution here, as you have done for over a year.--JJay 23:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You civility issues aside, I'm forming a proto-request for comment regarding your contributions on my talk page. Depending on the outcome there, it will probably be migrated to a "live" request for comment. If you are able to contribute in a productive manner, I'd welcome that. - brenneman 23:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If you are able to contribute in a productive manner": you are poorly placed to make comments regarding civility. Good luck with your talk page scratch sheet. --JJay 23:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of dictators

I'm really annoyed.

After I and you and many others worked hard to make this article truly excellent and indeed an exemplar list on wikipedia, the same people that tried to get the previous list deleted come along a pull a scam like this.

I don't know if the deletion was marked at the top of the page, but I check the article from time to time and didn't notice it. They picket the holiday season when no one was looking, lost the vote, deleted anyhow using the same argument that was explicitly rejected by the community now and before. They gave no notice to the people who were watching the article. Doc Glasgow had previously been involved in the article and should have recused himself anyway. Hundreds of hours of people's time have been deleted on the whim of a admin with in axe to grind.

Carefully worked out criteria, methods of discussion, 120 references, dozens of articles linking in, a fantastic resource.

Again to refute the silly argument made by some that dictator is an "inherently POV" descriptor, simply search wikipedia for the word dictator and notice how many people are described that way. Britannica, Encarta etc all do so, as do all news outlets.

What can we do?

juicifer 13:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Stone - not good enough magician for encylopaedia

Please see I have written to complain about Tom Stone (magician). Jan Antwerpmagic 03:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about Tom Stone. You should take this up with User:Elonka or WP:AFD. --JJay 22:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube

You keep reverting the proposed template. You seem to be a lone voice disputing this so may I suggest you use the talk page before reverting this again without a discussion. --Spartaz 22:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a lone voice. You would know that if you had participated in the discussion over the last few months. As indicated, the essay is extremely factually inaccurate and not even close to being ready for guideline status. If you have real interest in seeing it become a guideline, I would suggest focusing more on improving the text, rather than tags. --JJay 22:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are incorrect to assert that there has been only one editor. Spartaz moved the proposal off the talk page, where it had been edited significantly by a number of people. Spartaz left a note at the top of the Talk page indicating that he had taken that action. Argyriou (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. Nevertheless, the underlying problem remains the same: in its current state this essay is extremely misleading, innacurate and completely misrepresents YouTube's business model. It needs a complete rewrite, but should never become a guideline anyway because of the precedent. The bottom line is that we do not do "guidelines" for every website on the internet. --JJay 23:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we also don't do is blindly revert each other without discussing differences of opinion. The count is currently 3 to 2 in favour of it being a proposal but since JzG has seen fit to take it down, I can't be bothered with the futile argument anymore. --Spartaz 09:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not futile and also prevents a disputed status tag, which would have been worse. --JJay 11:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss after reverting

Hello, after a revert, you are supposed to leave the page as is and take things to talk, as per WP:1RR, WP:HEC, or WP:BRD (take your pick). You have not read the talk page for WP:TRI, where your concerns were already addressed. You have not responded to email yet (which you had requested in preference to talk page posting), so now I'm posting on your talk page... if you were not yet aware, please do not blindly revert. Always go to talk! (And then stay there until the situation is resolved). Thank you!

--Kim Bruning 20:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[120], [121], [122]. Thanks for the information. Where in those pages does it say to number your reverts so as not to break 3R? And after reverting three times, is that when editors should start complaining about the lack of exceptions to 3R and "clueless edits"? [123] Perhaps you need to review WP:1RR, WP:HEC, or WP:BRD (take your pick). Also see : Wikipedia:Trifecta with specific reference to "our basic social principle" and "the suggested personal policy". --JJay 02:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use a slight variant on WP:HEC, or WP:BRD (take your pick) which tries to get the person to actually respond and take it to talk, by doing an additional revert if the first revert doesn't elict a response. (It's terribly rude not to respond to the first request to take it to talk, let alone 3, so typically people cotton on quickly enough. :-))

If both parties are acting in good faith, the numbering will go 1 revert... and... that's where it stops, because it gets taken to talk.

If someone is being rude, you can see folks like me counting up: "2* take it to talk", "3* seriously, take it to talk"... and since this lovely invention called the 3 revert rule, we don't have to worry about "4* take it to talk" anymore <evil grin>.

If we're slightly more patient, we could instead observe a long string of "Reverted after 24 hours on talk, with no response.", if people rudely keep reverting without discussion.

However, ideally, it's quite possible to never see the three revert rule or edit warring at all, as long as both parties DO take it to talk. It's that simple.

So it looks like you were finally willing to come discuss and form a consensus still? Though perhaps you've missed the boat by now, because several other people are already coming to a tentative agreement, it looks like.

At any rate, have a nice day. --Kim Bruning 03:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and guess what? The page was renamed. Which was what I was aiming at in my edit summaries. And all that without endless talk page messages. Of course, reverting three times (numbered or not) does leave more time for talk. --JJay 03:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, um, I contacted Seth on IRC, and we discussed, and agreed to move it. No reverting, no 3RR gaming. So there you go. :-) --Kim Bruning 03:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. So much for consensus discussion. Glad you guys are running the show. Just spare me the hypocrisy in the future. --JJay 03:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked to talk with both you and Netscott on the talk page for TRI, then 3 times in a row in edit summaries, then I tried to reach you per your own talk page and/ or email, and then the other way around. Only after all that failed to elict much response did I contact Seth on irc as well. Even so, Seth is certainly present on wikipedia. You can contact him per any method, including wikipedia, email, and irc, if you prefer, and he will likely respond to you and be quite willing to discuss. :-) --Kim Bruning 03:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem a bit confused. You were engaged in a discussion with Netscott but went for the 3R revert anyway with an uncivil edit summary and all caps.[124] If you don't believe me check the time stamps.[125] So what you are essentially saying is that all other editors should revert once, then discuss (while you apply your own "variation"). You are an edit warrior who feels justified in leaving little pointers to pages like WP:HEC while ignoring your own behavior and championing WP:IAR. You want talk page discussion, but feel entitled to fill talk pages with comments about "clueless edits" and the like. I'm not too impressed. And I reverted once and did not revert you. Is that clear? --JJay 03:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I originally responded to this edit at 18:52 : [126], which had previously been addressed on 11 December 2006: [127] (to wit "And this page is actually older than Wikipedia:Five pillars.").

The other comment you made does not seem to have much to do with that.

Note that other editors are welcome to use the same variants I do, the outcome would normally be the same as standard HEC or BRD. Since it generally seems to work ok, I am considering adding the variation to those guidelines.

Have a nice evening. --Kim Bruning 04:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While your bobbing and weaving is mildly impressive, most of what you are saying appears to me to be ~~bullshit~~ hogwash. As shown by your edits [128], [129], you have no qualms whatsoever about reverting three times while a talk page discussion is underway. You have little if any consideration for the people you are "talking" with, habitually litter talk pages with snide, belittling remarks and brag about deciding things on IRC. That is your variation. It is a caricature of the pages you claim to care about. I don't know if you are a member of WP:HEC. If I were a member, I would be calling for an emergency board meeting to have you removed. Of course, no one is ever removed from WP:HEC. That wouldn't be harmonious. What a crock. Enjoy your Sunday. --JJay 04:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit to talk you supply here is by you, while the revert as supplied is a revert of netscott, who indeed at that point in time had not yet taken it to talk. Eventually he did, and people (including Seth) heard his statements, afaict.

There's not much bobbing and weaving going on, as there is plenty of evidence in the history pages, which means neither of us have much of a space to bob and weave in.

What I have realised, now that we are reviewing diffs, is that a comment that I thought had been made earlier today, had in fact been made on December 11, so you may have missed it, which does put your edits in a somewhat different light. <scratches head> --Kim Bruning 04:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Your confusion continues. The edit is not by me. Click on the links again. The bottom line is that you have been edit warring rather than discussing. Review the pages above before posting here again. --JJay 12:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So on the basis of an edit which you had to explain to me two times, I am now acting in bad faith and edit warring. Correct? --Kim Bruning 15:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it three times. Most would have understood the first time. Regarding edit warring and bad faith, your fourth reversion of the page [130] (which you neglected to number), where you removed a requested move tag with the comment "not policy" and a justification on the talk page that the tag was "spam" [131] should have gotten you blocked for violating 3R. Was this bad faith? Well, two users accused you of bad faith on the talk page, and considering you claim above to have later moved the page after an IRC discussion (I contacted Seth on IRC, and we discussed, and agreed to move it), it becomes somewhat more difficult to understand your behavior, particularly when you claim to champion consensus and talk page discussion - but take direct steps to stifle talk page discussion while making aggressive comments, edit summaries such as "we're using this way, deal" [132], or "falls over laughing" [133]], or "don't think too deeply about it" [134]. Is this bad faith? I don't know, but no amount of cute little smileys that you tack on to your comments can cover up the disdain/condescension for other users expressed in your words. --JJay 06:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're going to assume bad faith on each of those, there's not much I can do. I could go and explain my motives for each of those statements to you, and show you how each was made in good faith, but I have a feeling you might not want to believe me, no matter what evidence I put forward?

It also didn't help me when I asked an administrator (with both the ability and the will to block me or reprimand me as nescesary) to review this discussion and my actions, to see if you had a point. He gave up halfway through reading, pointed to some of the comments other people made on your talk page, and said he wasn't going to do anything. *sigh* I probably put forth more effort to get myself reprimanded or blocked than you did. Can't say I didn't try! :-/

Anyway, since you've now got me confused over which of us is right, and I can't even get myself reprimanded, it's just costing both of us a lot of time, and we're not getting much gain, I'm afraid. So let's call it a lose-lose, cut our further losses in time and stress, and leave it at that. --Kim Bruning 07:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're going to assume bad faith on each of those, there's not much I can do...I didn't say I assumed bad faith. I said you were immediately accused of acting in bad faith by two editors on the talk page. I did say that your comments are aggressive and condescending. I would ask you to tone it down in the future and not violate 3R when engaged in talk page discussion with other editors. --JJay 07:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I do my best to not be agressive or condescending. Where I fail, I can only hope that people will assume good faith and help me get back on the right track.

When both parties do their best to account for the failings in the other, life is pleasant.

I hope you have a pleasant further experience on wikipedia! --Kim Bruning 07:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments have been aimed at getting you "back on the right track". Good luck in your future endeavors. --JJay 07:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KETTLE warning

Do not give people warnings if you're engaging in the same behavior yourself. Do not threaten people with blocks if you're not an admin. Do not issue condescending templated warnings to regular users. And do not throw stones if you're living in a glass house. Radiant 12:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit touchy aren't you? I'm certainly not threatening you with a block. I'm indicating that I will list you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR if you exceed three reverts. The policy recommends a prior warning. Please do the same for me if I violate that policy. --JJay 19:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This page might explain why it's not so productive to give long-term users a templatized warning aimed at new users who don't know what the 3RR is. Incidentally that template does threaten with a block, if that wasn't your intent you shouldn't have used the template. WP:KETTLE might explain why warning someone of the very same behavior you're engaging in yourself is not so productive either. Surely you don't expect admins to block one side in a simple edit war at the request of the equally-guilty other side? Radiant 11:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not suggesting I write an essay entitled Do template the regulars are you? Or how about Do template the regular edit warriors on guideline pages? Perhaps you want to upgrade those pages to guideline status, as you have done many times with numerous other pages. Or perhaps you feel they should not be categorized, as per your other recent essay. Whatever the case may be, your comment about "equally guilty" is not accurate: you were the user who reverted the page 3 times in less than two hours using a minor edit mark---not me. --JJay 12:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Over the last 100 edits on that page, I count nine reverts by me, and nine reverts by you; looks pretty much equal to me. I'm sure that it's possible to find some metric or reasoning that would make the count eight-vs-ten or ten-vs-eight or whatever, but that's beside the point. Radiant 13:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JJay

Per my earlier note, I've opened a request for comment. - brenneman 02:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let 'em get you down

You're a valuable editor. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Randi

RE: remove link to commercial bookstore site per WP:EL

Just a note, because I didn't want to revert anything before speking to you, that you removed a link to the JREF store on grounds that it was a "commercial bookstore". I wanted to explain that firstly, the link in question was direct to the authors website and thus surely should be allowed to be linked to in the relevant section of the page? And secondly that the JREF is a non commecial not-for-profit organisation. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. The article in question already links to the author's website, i.e. http://www.randi.org/. A second link to the on-line shopping section of the same website is thus not justified, particularly as the link provides no meaningful, relevant content not present in the article. Our readers do not need to know that James Randi's on-line store sells books, T shirts and dolls [135]. In addition, a "commercial bookstore" in the context of WP:EL is any site that sells books. The profit status of the seller is not especially important. --JJay 22:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Straw polls

Greetings JJay, I'm writing to inform you that I've decided to head up getting this page back to its former guideline designation. As one might guess User:Radiant! is editing to try to negate this push. Given your familiarity with this I was wondering if you might join the discussion about this. Also your previously edited on the shortcut WP:POLL which apparently you agreed with in terms of it pointing to Wikipedia:Straw polls (rather logical no WP:POLL → WP:POLLS ?). Radiant! doesn't agree with this logical redirection (and neither for WP:POLLS as well). Could you take a look at these too? Thanks. (→Netscott) 08:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott misrepresents the situation. WP:POLL presently points to our guideline on straw polls ([[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion}}, rather logical no?). Netscott doesn't like this guideline and so wants to "hijack" the shortcut to point to a dissenting page instead. >Radiant< 08:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JJay, there's talk of a merge which has been proposed by User:Ned Scott between Wikipedia:Straw polls and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. User:David Levy proposed essentially the same thing some time ago and that the new combined page should be called Wikipedia:Polling. There appears to be a decent level of support for this idea. If you've got a minute could you weigh in on this over here? Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

It's things like this and this that inspire feelings of great justice in fellow Wikipedians. It's good to know that someone still has the energy to flip the argument back at Bus stop. I've all but zombified. --C.Logan 01:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this makes a lovely read. --C.Logan 05:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll laugh if Cleo tries to represent communication like this as some sort of actual teamwork, but I'd like to ask you something. What's up with this? I'm curious as to why they consider you in such a light. It seems that Cleo had accused me of being a troll for responding to comments on Bus stop's page directly related to the discussion. I'm assuming you are in the same boat, but as it seems that they take your reasonable removal of Bus stop's latest personal attacks as vandalism, it's worth asking. Apparently, they aren't aware that there's no consensus on Wikipedia regarding the act of removing personal attacks, but that it is permissible in some instances- and considering that the statements you removed were somewhere near the hundreds mark for Bus stop's personal-attack-o-meter, I find this to be an acceptable instance.

Unfortunately, I'm reminded by this that many of my own statements are offensive and could be considered attacks. Though they are usually from frustration (or disbelief at the argument being put forth), I hope to curb such statements in future comments. --C.Logan 10:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this makes a lovely read. --C.Logan 05:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll laugh if Cleo tries to represent communication like this as some sort of actual teamwork, but I'd like to ask you something. What's up with this? I'm curious as to why they consider you in such a light. It seems that Cleo had accused me of being a troll for responding to comments on Bus stop's page directly related to the discussion. I'm assuming you are in the same boat, but as it seems that they take your reasonable removal of Bus stop's latest personal attacks as vandalism, it's worth asking. Apparently, they aren't aware that there's no consensus on Wikipedia regarding the act of removing personal attacks, but that it is permissible in some instances- and considering that the statements you removed were somewhere near the hundreds mark for Bus stop's personal-attack-o-meter, I find this to be an acceptable instance.

Unfortunately, I'm reminded by this that many of my own statements are offensive and could be considered attacks. Though they are usually from frustration (or disbelief at the argument being put forth), I hope to curb such statements in future comments. --C.Logan 10:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe time for archiving?

Thank you for your reasonable comments of late regarding religious issues. However, I note that your talk page is getting almost as long as some of the threads in the Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity page. Anyway, keep up the good work. :) John Carter 13:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested ArbCom

I have requested ArbCom leave your comments here. Arbustoo 17:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a smokescreen. You violate 3RR. You abuse arbcom. You add nonsense to articles. And you Puppeteer. Knock youself out. --JJay 00:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jew list template

JJay, I'm unsure why you keep removing that template, which is trying to fix the very problem you have with the lists in the first place. The lists are filled with unsourced claims; the template encourages people to remove dubious items. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly the lists are filled by design with many, many non-Jews. Inclusion standards on many of these lists explicitly state that anyone with any Jewish ancestry can be included (one grandparent, etc). The template, however, states unequivocally that these are "Lists of Jews". That is intensely POV and false. It is based on no coherent definition of Judaism that I can ascertain. I could care less if editors want to build lists that include those with very distant Jewish ancestry (even if these people never practised Judaism, actively practised other religions, renounced Judaism, etc. etc.). I understand the historical interest. However, I oppose use of a template that strives to mislead readers and directly implies that some kind of verification process took place based on a rational definition of Judaism. Before that template should be used, if ever, a real standard for who is a Jew should be uniformly applied across all these lists. However, we both know that will never happen. Since you insist on using these templates, I will alternately challenge the lists or remove unsourced entries, as you seem to be encouraging. --JJay 22:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have entirely misconstrued the point of the Template; the point is to rid Wikipedia of this unsourced, unencyclopedic nonsense. I strongly encourage you to remove unsourced entries. I've insisted on proper sourcing for two lists, List of Jews from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus and List of Jewish American businesspeople. You can see the results (the first list still needs work). Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree rather strongly with your comment. If you are interested in sourcing these lists, you should use the unreferenced template. Instead, you are adding templates that claim these are lists of Jews - which they are not and can never be, based either on explicit inclusion standards that conflict with most anyone's definition of Judaism, or a complete lack of standards. You chose to completely ignore that in my comment above. Incidentally, don't you find the use of a template that states "This is a list of Jews" a tad bit absurd when placed directly under the titles of articles such as List of Jewish American businesspeople? Are the titles of these and other Jewish lists really so unclear that we need to repeat the subject immediately to our readers? When I see that I wonder if many of our readers suffer from Alzheimers or other memory problems. Should we be doing this for all articles? Should List of automobiles have a template that reads This is a List of automobiles? Not only is the template POV and misleading, it is also embarrassing. --JJay 22:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While your idea of using the unreferenced template may sound good in theory, let's see what happens in practice; the List of Black Jews article you were editing earlier has had that template on it since January. If anything, it has gotten worse since then. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of which justifies the use of a redundant and PoV template. --JJay 04:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HHO gas AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (4th nomination)#ems_comments. Those sources are not worth much of anything. --EMS | Talk 23:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[136] --JJay 23:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Whittle

With regards your edit summary here, I would suggest you "get real" and stop violating our biographies of living people policy. This was the version that complied with policy, and this edit inserted a BLP violation into the article as it had no sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of BLP precisely? Link to the section. --JJay 10:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right in the header - Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles. If people wanted to add the name, a source was required. Bear in mind at the time I removed the name the Neilson article did not exist having been deleted per BLP. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) The Donald Neilson article was improperly deleted and rapidly restored; 2) There is nothing innately "contentious" about using a convicted murder's name in an article about a victim of his crime. The name was also not "highly questionable" - you knew that based on your involvement with the article dating back to December 2006; 3) at the time I restored the edit, the Donald Neilsen article both existed and was sourced; 4) BLP should not be used unreasonably as an excuse to censor or expurgate all information perceived as negative from a reference work. JJay 12:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So many words, so few correct ones. 1) No it wasn't. It was correctly deleted, and restored as a stub with no unsourced negative claims about a living person, in fact it had no negative claims whatsoever when first restored. 2) Yes there is, read the policy. If it's so uncontentious it should have been easy for you to add a source and by doing so not violate policy. As for my "involvement", I suggest you see what edits I made, then you'll see yet again how wrong you are. 3) Irrelevant, it needed to be sourced in that article. Obviously it would have been sooooooo difficult for you to actually add a source at the same timke. 4) Yes it should. Surely the alleged "reference work" didn't have references, which was kind of the point in the first place? Feel free to reply if you need correcting any further. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"So many words, so few correct ones"...."Feel free to reply if you need correcting any further".

If you post here again with that sort of tone your messages will be removed. --JJay 17:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an idiot

Damnit JJay - I'm so sorry about this! I have no idea how I managed to revert the Chicago Graduate School of Divinity back into the article twice. I was obviously trying to keep the well-cited fact removed (twice, I think) by anonymous editors but somehow I got my wires crossed and the Chicago Graduate School of Divinity got caught up in my reverts. Thanks for noticing and fixing my mistakes! --ElKevbo 16:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message and don't worry about it. After checking your edits I figured out that you were trying to add back one school, but not both. Had I realized that I would not have reverted, but just removed Chicago again, which I just did. --JJay 16:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of formal conversion of Bob Dylan

On the Talk:Bob Dylan page, we have once again been told that there is no evidence of the subject having ever converted by you know who. I think you can answer this better than I can. John Carter 01:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Thank you. --Dynaflow babble 04:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

I have submitted a report on User:Bus stop on the ArbCom page here. As an individual who was involved in this debate, your participation would be appreciated. Thanks. Drumpler 17:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deletion of Dryve article

Hello,

You were involved in a debate back in March/April regarding an article on the band Dryve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dryve

For whatever reason, it was resurrected again for debate and deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dryve_%28second_nomination%29

Could you be of help in reversing the deletion? I was a founding member of the band and I can fully verify any and all of the information in the article. I firmly believe it meets the requirements laid out in WP:MUSIC.

Thank you and please contact me if you need any more information.

Keith Andrew kickstar1@hotmail.com --Kickstar1 04:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please involve yourself on my count Idontwantaccount2 17:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines fleet

This is to inform that the Singapore Airlines fleet article has been nominated for deletion by Russavia. Please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines fleet (2nd nomination) and weigh in your opinion if you wish. Thank you!--Huaiwei 06:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dominionism

As you participated in the prior TfD, I thought you would be interested that it has been proposed for deletion once again. You can find the discussion here. SkierRMH 02:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Beecon

An article that you have been involved in editing, Beecon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beecon (2nd nomination). Thank you. ... discospinster _talk 23:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rebecca Cardon for deletion

The article Rebecca Cardon is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Cardon (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for external link?

I saw one of your comments on a page giving guidance about external links to YouTube. You stated that if the link adds value and does not violate copyright, it should be linked.

I have added a requested edit to a medical topic; I’m a year away from my degree (medical doctor). The edit request is a link to a YouTube video that I created, and is therefore a conflict of interest (I also earn an insignificant amount from the ads that run on the video).

I have been declined by three people simply because it goes to YouTube, and/or because someone might earn money from it, but nothing actually addresses the value of the content or the copyright issue (which are both fine).

What advice do you have? Talk page on hepatic encephalopathy Tmbirkhead (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ "There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Afshar's experiment." "And of course, the conventional quantum mechanics is compatible with the principle of complementarity." Lubos Motl at [137]
^ "Bohr would have had no problem whatsoever with this experiment within his interpretation. Nor would any other interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is simply another manifestation of the admittedly strange, but utterly comprehensible (it can be calculated with exquisite precision), nature of quantum mechanics." Bill Unruh at [138]

[motl-1] "There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Afshar's experiment." "And of course, the conventional quantum mechanics is compatible with the principle of complementarity." Lubos Motl at [137]

[unruh-2] "Bohr would have had no problem whatsoever with this experiment within his interpretation. Nor would any other interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is simply another manifestation of the admittedly strange, but utterly comprehensible (it can be calculated with exquisite precision), nature of quantum mechanics." Bill Unruh at [138]

[1]

[2]