User talk:Jaysweet/archive 4

Archives:

Archive box

Why not use an archive box? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WQA Comment

I commented below you at WQA and saw your comment, viz: the discussion itself is inherently tedious and I don't see how that can be avoided. Such is the nature of (or IMO, failure of) the consensus-based decision-making process when you have far too many participants. :/ (which, again, is why I refuse to participate in policy discussions on Wikipedia anymore under any circumstances) Amen to that brother, but I wonder if this doesn't rather compromise your opinion in such matters - if you cannot even bring yourself to participate in such discussions, does that not qualify any comments you make regarding those who do? Perhaps not, but I would add this: you seem to be saying, all policy discussions are tedious and in that context, some users are more tedious than others. I don't disagree, but I do wonder if a rather more aggressive approach wouldn't be useful insofar as it would discourage the accretion of tedium in an already tedious demesne. It seems needlessly supine to say merely: Oh well, this is what such discussions tend to produce. Anyway, just a thought. Eusebeus (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on my talk page.

Also not a barnstar

Just wanted to drop in and commend you for your technical work with that script. Rather than worrying about what had occurred in the past, you looked to prevent it from re-occurring in the future. ~~Of course, no good deed goes unpunished, so I was wondering if you might be able to sort a way to have this script User:AzaToth/twinklewarn.js display "Blocking" by default?~~ Your actions inspired me to solve this problem on my own (which turned out to be quite simple, really). Anyways, keep up the great technical work. A da vinci barnstar would've gone here. ;p xenocidic (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was as simple as moving "selected:true" from General Note (1) down to Blocking =). xenocidic (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Advice

Very good work there, it needed to be archived. DMN came to my talk to further discuss, essentially I said that any further discussion on the ANI board won't resolve the issue. Good BOLD move. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see followup at User talk:SandyGeorgia#Being treated like a servant; there was a lot of misunderstanding on that AN/I thread, and I'm sorry it was closed before the misinfo could be cleared up. I want to make sure you understand that Tony1 was not "the FAC closer". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No barnstar

I borrowed your no barnstar image. Please feel free to borrow my

ex

This user regrets that he can be inclined to pedantry

as a token of exchange :)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid just like your wife, I also "borrowed" the userbox from another user...User:Pedant :)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikiquette alert notice, and some advice

Thank you for the heads up, and for taking the time to mediate here (although I didn't even know there was a notice until you left me the message). I will make a better effort of judging the edits and not the editor from now on. Should I add a comment to the Wikiquette alert notice? BTW, I would have left you a barnstar, but I'm affraid I've misplaced them... They have to be somewhere in this cruft of a desk... –w2bh _{talk•contribs} 17:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly teared up

This was very nice, thanks. Lots of drama going on around here, so you've given me motivation to continue for a long time to come. But drinking heavily is also quite useful. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Process for challenging complicated edit-warring?

So, what is the proper process for challenging complicated edit-warring? When the editor is skilled and clever, and knows when to back off and lay low, it is not a matter that can be resolved in mediation, and you can't take an editing content complaint to arbcom. I am stumped.--Cberlet (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's.... really hard :) If possible, the best solution is to get a very clear consensus among a number of edits, have a section on the talk page (or a subpage off the talk page) that explicitly states the consensus and makes a strong case that that is the consensus, and then just revert. Continued reversions in the face of a very explicit consensus can be considered vandalism, but please be very careful about when you label it. (I usually drop the person a warning first explaining why their edits are against consensus, and state that "any further reversion could be construed as vandalism")

If the person knows when to back off, though, as you say they can be a pest for some time. If it is the same account doing it, and they do it persistently and against the clear consensus I mentioned above, a report to WP:ANI may be in order.

I think arbcom could be an eventually step, even though they don't handle editing content complaints per se... if someone is sneakily circumventing consensus, that goes beyond "editing content". But I wouldn't try to bring it to arbcom myself; I'd try and get people at ANI to look into it, and if they can't figure it out, they may suggest arbcom.

Sometimes, even this doesn't work. heh... But, we all just do our best.

Can you give me a little more background on the dispute in question? I would be willing to look into it further. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me do my homework and pull together a clear collection of diffs and links. Thanks for offering to help.--Cberlet (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you have taken interest in settling this dispute between Cberlet and me. I just want to bring to your intention that Cberlet is also currently accusing of POV (vandalism) users Gennarous and R-41 on Talk:Fascism and user L0b0t on Neo-Nazism. -- Vision Thing -- 20:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul

You owe me a new keyboard for this edit summary: [1]. Keep up the good work -- stillnotelf is invisible 23:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of the New Revelation

Please don't make AfD discussions if merging is what you want to do. AfD is not for merging. Since this article was barely even a stub anyway, I boldly redirected it to Stranger in a Strange Land. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that. I suppose in the future I'll just do bold redirects like you did with this page. I don't like the proposed-merge tag, because I don't think anybody actually looks at them on low-traffic articles :D And even though silence implies consent, if I don't remember I tagged an article to be merged, it will sit there forever until somebody else stumbles upon it.

But, that just means I need to be more bold, I suppose. Sorry for the mess, and thanks for the tip! --Jaysweet (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Don't threaten me, I'm not adding any personal analysis. Begin, Stern and Jabotinsky were labelled terrorists by many countries. We can't label some as terrorists because they're Arabs or Muslims and leave others because they're Jews. Notika (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it's not worth wasting my time over the articles. You can undo my edits. Notika (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better warning would have been "Please discuss any controversial changes on the Talk page first." I still think what you were doing was inappropriate. <shrug> --Jaysweet (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:June 2008

Hi there. Thanks for the warning but the only reason I was reverting that user is precisely so that we could discuss it on the talk page first, as is happening now. Regards, --Gibmetal 77 ^talk 10:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I understand why you warned me :) --Gibmetal 77 ^talk 13:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am Surprised

I thought I could get fairness from you. What does this mean? "and that the IPs trying to fluff the NFL articles get a clue real fast :)" Am I allowed to edit or not? Who decides what is fluff? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility block?

Jaysweet, the comment you refer to was made after I blocked the sockpuppet. How could I block him for incivility directed towards me after the block? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

I just wanted to let you know that I must strongly disagree with your assessment of the Trilemma situation. The comments removed are wholly factually inaccurate, and serve only to unduely influence the outcome of the RFC by way of an attempt at an ad hominem mischaracterization of a past (unrelated) event. Instead of addressing the policies I've brought up, he tries to characterize my edits as vandalism and against things I "don't like." That is clearly a logical fallacy and improper during a project-wide request for comment. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to Blaxthos' charges as well, on the pertinent section of the page. I agree with you, Jaysweet, that this whole issue would be better served in wikiquette, but because Blaxthos is persisting on the admin noticeboard, I've posted a response there. Trilemma (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm all for editors attempting to help out at WP:ANI and I'm glad we have involved editors; however if you're going to jump into a situation please make sure that you fully understand and properly represent the timeline of events and the actions of the editors involved. Your post makes it sound like I introduced outside issues (ad hominem attack) and then tried to shut down the response, which is absolutely incorrect. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I call it like I see it. It doesn't reflect well on you that every time I make a suggestion to you, you drop a not on my talk page saying my suggestion is wrong... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, man... would you rather I call you out in public. You make the judgemental statement "Trilemma was not the first one to bring ad hominem attacks into the RfC.", which is absolutely incorrect. When I point out that your statement is incorrect, instead of striking through it and acknowledging the mistake (I'm sure it's only a mistake) you say you "call it like you see it." I did so here because I thought it was more courteous than blasting a non-admin helping out on ANI. I swear I'm not usually this confrontational, but when helpers make incorrect statements that give me the raw end of the stick I have to raise concerns. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call me out on ANI if you want, I feel like I have been fair and even-handed. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if i gave the impression that I believe you acted in anything other than good faith, or if I made it sound like I believe your intent is anything other than being fair and even handed. This has morphed into way more drama than I ever intended, and I'm only getting a fair shake. The mis-statement you made severely changes the presentation of the issues and the could improperly color perception by third parties. Do you acknowledge that you misspoke, and if so, will you consider striking those statements in the interests of fairness ? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually just about to strike a small part of my statement. Let me know if you find it acceptable. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotta go, so hopefully that is okay. If not, we can revisit it tomorrow. FWIW, reducing the drama is why I kinda wanted to take it to WP:WQA. That is a better place, IMO, for brokering compromise, and I think compromise is what is needed in this situation. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to strike those comments. Of course, I still must voice opposition to your statement that "it is not clear who started it in the RfC", because I've supplied diffs that clearly show that Trilemma brought the issue up first in the RFC. ;-) I won't deny that in acknowledging Trilemma's initial ad hominem attack I also included ad hominem elements, and I've made a compromise offer on ANI for us to mutually strike the initial comment and my response and remove subsequent irrelevant comments from the poisoned well (no response from Trilemma yet). I also want to point out that this started on ANI because I self-reported my striking of another editor's comments (which is more appropriate than doing so at WP:WQA)... since then the discussion has gotten kindof off track, but as a general rule I've learned it's better to keep a conversation consolidated in one place than trying to fight the same battles in multiple locations concurrently. Thanks for trying to help today, and it's my most sincere hope that it will all be resolved by the time you return. ;-) Cheers! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why Blaxthos is being so persistent with this, as the situation so far as the Admin board is being resolved, but fore the record, Blaxthos is the first to have launched into ad hominem statements, wrongfully calling me an NPOV warrior. Furthermore, he blanked an entire section that had been established and agreed upon weeks prior. I believe that I was correct in labeling this action 'blanking'. Trilemma (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated edit-warring redux

It took me a few days to compile it, and then I was asked for some evidence on a discussion page. See here.--Cberlet (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello & Thanks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hey there. Thanks for taking the time to leave that note; I suppose I have let things get out of control and calling his actions craven/cowardly was uncalled for. It's just that many of Yolgnu's edits have seemed intentionally misleading/destructive. I've left a note on WikiProject: Malta asking for assistance there (it might be me over-reacting, after all). I'll stop reverting things on his talkpage: the only reason I was doing so is in defence of my edits (which he called vicious, but to my mind were highly necessary). Anyway, hope all's well with you and this whole issue is soon resolved! golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest perusing Kalindoscopy's user talk page, Jaysweet; it's very informative.--Yolgnu (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does your cattiness know no bounds? "spite of Pride, in erring Reason’s spite" golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hey hey, no arguing amongst yourselves on my Talk page now, heh. For a second, I thought you were talking about my cattiness. I do have three cats, so I suppose I am a little bit "catty" in a different sense of the word, but I don't think that's what you were talking about :D

If I get a chance, I'll drop by the talk page and see if we can't mediate something here. I would advise both of you to tone it down quite a bit. Calling people "racist" is seldom helpful (even when it's accurate, and in this case I don't think it is), and as I alluded to before, calling people's edits "vandalism" is not helpful either -- I avoid calling something vandalism unless it's really really blatant, like blanking an entire page and replacing it with "my friend bobby's mamma so fat".

In my mind, it's actually an interesting question as to what percentage of people have to speak a language before it merits inclusion in the Infobox. I don't think there is a clear cut answer. In the meantime, there is no need for name-calling or edit-warring while we figure this out. :) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant user talk page history.--Yolgnu (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to peruse my talkpage history anytime! Yolgnu's actual talk page is itself quite a read (if you're willing to plough through that sort of thing). golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<ahem> What did I say about sniping at each other on MY talk page? :p ;D I am closing this discussion. For the record, I looked at both your talk page histories and while both of you seem to have some problems with certain other editors, I have no further commenbt beyond that. I'm not going to get involved further unless there is a report at WP:WQA or WP:ANI or something. (And no, I am not telling you to go do that, only do so if you feel there is a real need. Possibly better would be to try to avoid each other) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Serbian-Greek friendship

By my count, I am on my first or second revert. I have edited the page four times: once to nominate for deletion; once to tag; once to try a different set of tags, and one exact revert.

I thank you for the reminder; but Ayala is much closer than I am. (And the fundamental problem with the page is that it does require expansion: it says nothing about quarrels between Serbia and Greece, although there have been two major ones, besides Yugoslavia and Greece being on opposite sides in the Cold War. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlin Troll

No problem with the late warning on the IP Carlin troll. I understand, that sort of thing ticks me off, too. Better safe than sorry with a WP:BLP, especially one for him. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, no longer a BLP :( I did not yet know Carlin had passed away, and my first inkling that he had was when I spotted this edit. Heh, so I was like, super-mega-pissed off about that. Ah well... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of John McCain page

Jay, because I value your equanimity, I'd invite you to comment on the Political positions of John McCain page. I don't wish to enter into an edit war with another user, and there are some edits that I strongly disapprove of and feel are inappropriate. I promise to stop occupying your time after this...well, maybe ;) Trilemma (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and wikipedia appears to be experiencing some technical difficulties. I'm trying to get my comments to appear on page as they should, so apologies if they appear...off...Trilemma (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generalisimo Massino

Hey Jay,

An unsolicited suggestion that you can take or leave: You might want to remove your comments about Hounddog23 from ANI and the RFCU. I had my own Conspiracy-theory type idea who was behind it yesterday, and upon further research it appears I'm probably wrong, and it makes me quite glad I didn't say anything on-wiki. That kind of comment is a bit unfair to Hounddog, if he's innocent; and unnecessary, if he's guilty. Just a thought. --barneca (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis good advice, I have removed the comments. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Us on WQA

Yeah, was thinking the same thing - I thought about hiding under the bed until it passed over lol. You'd definitely get full points for being brave if you did handle it though. ;) But the question is - is there a real need for anybody to respond...particularly on...that? *flees in case the answer is yes* :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! I'm glad that I'm hiding now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha...I kept imagining someone at home suddenly seeing those big letters on my screen lol. Too creepy. :S

I'd endorse that tag about now, as well as closing/locking the discussion so that we don't have to archive anymore of it. A sugary, but firm version of the 'resolve it at the article talk page or go to RFC/mediation - this isn't the place' conclusion should do the trick. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol@edit-summary+contents - hopefully they get the message huh? In any case, I've closed it for now - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. Or at least have some sort of valid basis when lawyering. I don't know if it's experience or just a good guess, but that's why I avoid certain ones - your comment is fine, but you might want to mysteriously change that word you mention to something like...ridiculously lost...I mean, unfounded. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. It's extremely minor, but just to let you know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair 'nuff :) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...and your page is getting comments on...erm...interesting topics now - must be that time of the year lol. Thought I'd take on the GHCool issue but found I'm going to be scarce/v-busy until next week, so I think you might make more progress on it. That said, I will definitely look at the thing relating to the recent arb-scandal and get back to you, probably sooner, or at least on my return. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CadenS

Im really upset about this whole business, its a terrible mess. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 20:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, ill go and drink my latte now. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 20:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaysweet I have moved your message from my page to yours. No prejudice is implied by my consistent policy to reserve my page for other purposes. I think there is potential for CadenS to a be a productive editor if he stays away from certain hot button issues he has strong feelings about. I would please, please ask you to just leave him alone for now, unless he starts editing article pages disruptively. There is no doubt that when he feels like he's backed into a corner, the guy says some stuff I find pretty objectionable. But I'd just like to see how everybody does with a fresh start. If he resumes the behavior (e.g. the inappropriate edit summaries, etc.) that led to the conflict in the first place, then we'll deal with that at that time. Until then, I really want to give the guy a chance. Do you think you could do that? :) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet I hope you are right about CadenS. See my reply to Kotra (at User:talk:kotra) who expressed similar sentiments to yours. Unless CadenS pursues me or disrupts our work, I won't add to what I have posted to CadenS.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince William of Wales stuff

First off, thanks for giving your POV on this and being an unofficial moderator to me and the rest of this. User:PrinceofCanada is editing an article before dispute is resolved. Just an idea, but rather then semi-protect the article, 24-hour warning block on this user in order that he remain civil and remind him that wikipedia is a collaborate effort. That admin changed his mind because I wrote to that another user was doing it toward me but I assured him I'd be civil and not edit again until resolved. Listswhich (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. I took a look at what you wrote over at the WP:RFPP page, and what the admin said, and I think it is going fine. Notice that PrinceofCanada did not edit the infobox again, he edited the article text, and in a manner that suggested a compromise. He would never be blocked for that. I did warn him myself about violating the 3-revert rule (which he came mighty close to doing), and he agreed not to edit the infobox anymore today -- which he hasn't. So I see nothing untoward here. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

40K in-universe

It doesn't, but it has been mentioned before. Others with a better grasp of Wikipedia policies than myself are (slowly) cleaning the articles where they can, and copying (trans-wikiing?) the pre-cleaned version to a dedicated 40K wikia. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 17:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Pollard Page

There is a note FYI on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Discussion page. Thanx 4 your interest on Pollard's behalf.

Furtive admirer (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting the ban vs. block Hdayejr argument

Here's what he said to me on a Google group concerning my recent suspension (please excuse the language).

[2]

It would also confirm that User:Dennyg2007 is him. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"De facto consensus"?!?!?

This doesn't exist, either in policy or actuality. There's no consensus there, which makes what they are doing incredibly wrong-headed. S. Dean Jameson 17:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

Once a case is listed, please don't erase it. Add your comments, and let a checkuser decide whether a check is needed, or not. Jehochman ^Talk 18:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind filing the RfC?

As Tariq has chosen to continue the edit war, claiming there's "consensus" where there clearly isn't any, I see no other recourse. I know he's now claiming I've "poisoned the well" by simply notifying people who happen to disagree with him about the discussion. And after I chose to agree with your suggesting an RfC, he made more rude comments in opposition, before reverting them. I'd appreciate it if you (as a "neutral" or even "opposing" party to me) would open the RfC, and politely request that they stop blanking/redirecting at least long enough to see if there's consensus for it. Thanks, S. Dean Jameson 18:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. Best of luck! --Jaysweet (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get to it? I'm kind of newish, and don't know about all that stuff. This is the first content dispute I've been in. S. Dean Jameson 19:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is just on the article Talk page, but because I put the {{RFCbio}} tag in there, it will also show up here. Er, um, at least it should, I'm not seeing it yet... let me see if I screwed up the tag... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it can take some time for it to show up on the RfC list.... hmmm... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not appropriate to revert to status quo (existence of article) during the RfC? I think so, especially given the nearly evenly split nature of the discussion thus far (8 support merge, 7 oppose it). No consensus defaults "keep", correct? S. Dean Jameson 19:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weeeellllllll..... I'm not really sure I can answer that clearly and definitively. As per WP:DEADLINE, it's not really a big deal which state the article is in right now. We can all see it in the revision history. The "no consensus == keep" is very important for deletion discussions, because once an article is deleted, you need an admin to get it back... so if consensus should change suddenly, it will be a big pain in the butt to fix it. In the case of a redirect, any editor can put the article back, so the rationale that drives "no consensus == keep" becomes much less powerful.

I would absolutely caution you against doing the revert yourself. I don't feel comfortable doing it either. I am inclined to let the RfC play out. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem. The article doesn't exist right now. It's a redirect, which doesn't allow for easy perusal by the commenters to determine the notability of the article. Not everyone can navigate the history/diffs and things required to do so. Allowing it to be only a redirect during the RfC unbalances the RfC in my view. Also would you ask Tariq and Friday to please refrain from insulting me? I think we're genuinely working toward a solution, but it's hard not to become angry when I'm continually insulted (including being basically called a liar) by the opposing side. S. Dean Jameson 19:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) Friday has absolutely not insulted you. In fact, I almost said something when you removed his comment from your Talk page with the aggressive edit summary. I think he is being fair and reasonable and calm.

I also don't think Tariq means to insult you, but I agree the general tone of his recent comments are merely inflaming the situation. That said, I think I could also say the same thing about some of your recent comments, so please be careful. Nobody is out to get anybody here, there are just differences of opinion.

I'll add a link to the full version of the article to the top of the RfC. Let me know if that allays your concern about ease of navigation. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As for Tariq and Friday, I may be wrong about Friday (though being implicitly called a "fanatic" during my first content dispute does seem insulting), but I don't think I am about Tariq. He's been condescending to more than just me during the discussion (see his interaction with Tvoz especially), and basically called me a liar in his last post there. S. Dean Jameson 19:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this link, where he calls me a "raging, habitual liar." This has to stop. S. Dean Jameson 19:29, 26

June 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I understand your point, but disagree. I don't see any similarity between accusing someone of attempting "backdoor deletion" (a criticism of an argument/position they're taking) and calling the person a "raging, habitual liar." If I've done anything remotely close to that to anyone involved in the discussion, I will abjectly apologize. I have tried to keep my arguments restricted to the content of the project, thus far. Have I become frustrated, or even angry? Yes. But I haven't insulted (to my knowledge) anyone's character. Tariq has done so, and refuses to retract or even to prove his "liar" assertions. S. Dean Jameson 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize

that your saying that free and fair discussion has halted doesn't make it so, right? There has now been an RfC filed, and I've tallied the discussion to show that there's no consensus to merge at this time. I'd ask that you self-revert, for the duration of the RfC. Thanks, S. Dean Jameson 19:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have some nerve. Today, you have proven yourself a raging, almost habitual, liar who is unwilling to take criticism. I will no longer respond to any of your junk, and, for that reason, any further comment here by you will be immediately reverted. -- tariqabjotu 19:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq, please be careful, about the personal attacks. Regardless of whether an editor is a "raging habitual liar," there is seldom little good that comes from telling them so. When it the last time you said to someone, "I find that you are totally unwilling to take criticism!" and they replied, "Hmmm, yes, you have a point. Let me consider that and see if I can improve my behavior"? hehehe...

And Dean, as I have mentioned to you, you have also been guilty of ratcheting things up quite a bit. Calling the merge process "backdoor deletion" is a misrepresentation of the reality. Let's all try and be a little more civil, okay? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was obviously not expecting him to agree with my assessment; I was explaining why I would no longer respond to him. A spade is a spade. I have definitively vowed to no longer respond to him. So, although I appreciate your attempt to act as mediator, it is not necessary and your point is lost on me. -- tariqabjotu 19:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have in the past had to tell people to stay the hell off my talk page. I'm just saying, when you say things like "raging liar," it doesn't do any good, and kinda makes you look bad, especially if taken out of context. You don't have to take my advice :) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in writing "a spade is a spade" he again calls me a liar. Are these kind of personal attacks allowed? (I truly don't know, and this isn't a hypothetical question.) S. Dean Jameson 19:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if someone wants to know the backstory, I can point them to it. However, I will concede that perhaps "raging, almost habitual, liar" may not have conveyed the point that I wanted, namely that S. Dean has been sounding excessively agitated in his comments because of how the article turned out (repeatedly merged, etc.) and how he has persistently misrepresented his opponents' positions as well as the statements of the well-meaning Friday and Calton. Obviously, that's not as concise as my previous wording, but it's perhaps more accurate. I'll copy it to the thread on my talk page. -- tariqabjotu 20:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people looking back through the entire discussion will see how you've responded to not just me, but also Tvoz. And the only reason that the article ended up in the current state is that there happened to be 5 or 6 of you redirecting, and only 3 of us trying to keep you from performing that out of process action. That you had a few more on your "side" doesn't make you "right." Also, it doesn't excuse your attitude throughout. You've seemed angry from the beginning, even taking an insulting tone with Tvoz (see your, "now try again" post). I may have crossed a line with how frustrated I became, but I never called you names and insulted you. S. Dean Jameson 20:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) Not really, I suppose, but they also aren't so egregious any action would be taken -- particularly given your level of aggressiveness in this dispute. While you may feel you have not directly engaged in ad hominem attacks, you have accused other editors of lying (which is basically the same as calling someone a liar), of trying to circumvent process, and all sorts of other abuses. Basically, you and Tariq are "all up in it" with each other, and it would be great if both of you would calm down and step away from the situation. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I accused someone of lying, I was wrong, and will apologize. Do you remember who I said was lying. I still see a very bright line between that and calling someone a "raging, habitual liar", which is an attack on the person as a person. And there's an ocean of difference between saying someone is circumventing process and writing what he did about me. And to make sure I understand, those type of insults aren't allowed on WP, but no action would be taken because I've been aggressive in defending my position in the dispute? I'm not sure I understand, but thanks for trying to clear it up. I know you probably don't agree with my position in the discussion (just from some of your comments earlier), but I've appreciated your relatively clear-eyed look at the situation. Keep up the good work. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 20:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, you must have missed the part where I said I wouldn't be responding to S. Dean. That wasn't an empty threat. -- tariqabjotu 20:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq -- yeah, actually, I caught that, and I was just about to tell Dean that since you aren't talking to him anymore, the point is kind of moot.

Dean -- so yeah, here's the thing about personal attacks. They aren't allowed, but typically unless someone shows a pattern, no action is taken. So if two editors are getting in a big argument spanning several hours, and one of them calls the other a name, that's just not going to result in anything beyond a warning asking them to stop. So I told Tariq I thought he should stop, and he basically has (in fact, he just retracted the "liar" comment and explained in more detail what he meant -- and I do not believe his refactored comment can be rightly construed as a personal attack). So really, that's kind of the end of it as far as allegations of personal attacks by Tariq. He said something a little rude while in the midst of an argument -- so what? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment still stands at the top of this thread. I see no refactoring, his later explanation notwithstanding. And I hardly call the "raging, almost habitual liar" comment "a little rude", but okay. If you want this to end, then it's over. As for the "I'm-not-talking-to-Dean-anymore" stance, it seems a bit odd to me, but to each their own, I guess. I think I'm nearly ready to simply wash my hands of this mess. Resolving disputes on Wikipedia seems to be a lot messier than I ever imagined. S. Dean Jameson 20:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned images resulting from the redirect

Another potential argument in favor of leaving it status quo as an article and not a redirect is that an image used only in that article has become "orphaned" because of the redirect. Where's the harm in leaving the article up while the discussion takes place? S. Dean Jameson 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that the article remains merged instead of stand-alone is confusing to at least one commenter at the RfC. S. Dean Jameson 01:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, which was sort of funny, because he said we should provide a link to the version pre-merge -- which I did. heheheh :D So I guess it was very easy to miss!

Anyway, Fletcher fixed the redirect and Neil protected the page. I think this is a good outcome. Even though you had some pretty good arguments for overturning the redirect, I just really didn't feel comfortable overturning it yesterday after the amount of edit warring that had already taken place over those few hours -- but the fact that Fletcher was one of the people reverting to redirect, and he was the one who reverted it back for now, that makes it a lot more palatable. Also, Neil coming in and protecting it will finally end this needless edit warring (I was already considering filing a request at WP:RFPP). I'm glad he did so; it's always frustrating to see editors in otherwise good standing get blocked for 3RR, and page protection stops that.

Best of luck with the RfC! --Jaysweet (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:I think you got lost on the way to MySpace

Snarky but 100% on the money. :) That reminds me I need to write my own essay "You are not-notable"... :) Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious. :) — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 01:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voice4ever (User)

Actually the only one doing vandelism is Voice4Ever and He/She's other accounts which include 'Triping'. Even Gimmetrow the admin agreed. You have been adding not reliable and unsources chart positons and not to mention reverting over 16 edits made to remove you fake false information. When you do not agree on the edit you seem to call it vandelism when it is not merely considered that. And you kept on adding fake references that do not even mention she song or album. And not to mention the amount of vandelism your other account Triping has done. The Billboard refernces for charts that are not official in the end all of the charts listed add up to the Pop 100 Billboard chart which is mention already. So stop you vandelism and delecting claims. If you revert anotehr edit made on those page, you will end up being blocked just like you previous accounts.Prepelos Talk 13:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

I left this message at User talk:Sindian, as you appear to have some knowledge of this matter. If you don't wish to get involved... blame me! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...nice header! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Don't forget the rest

It was intentional, and the right call, I think. Discussion about the account being compromised is semi-legitimate, as is ArbCom's role in the future. The portion regarding 'zomg FT2!!!1' was entirely unhelpful. That was my logic, at least. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for letting me know especially. I'm still reading because I haven't spotted how/why everyone is in fits. Would you object if I emailed you or vice-versa? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail sent -- but I'm going to be out of town most of today. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom RfC

You appear to have bulletin pointed, rather than have hash/numbered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Never given my view in an RfC before, so it was a new experience :D

On a side note, your comment gave me a smile. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was having difficulty thinking of an ArbCom I was particularly impressed by (I know there was a couple, but it is the Dramah ones you remember) so I was pleased to endorse your comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

I replied on my page. :-) — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 16:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch

How does one ask an admin to check if the IP address is the same for 4d-Don and "Jeanne"? Thanks. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice - Thanks, Jaysweet. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contraception article

Traveling for two weeks, but now back to you. On June 12 I sent you what appears below. But it either did not arrive, or else was blacked out. Can we put the issue this way? A link in a contribution, made for reasons "other than merit", is spamming. If the contribution has merit and can only be accessed through the link, then it is not spamming. The issue, then, is one of merit - or of no merit. I presume you accept the distinction made here (if not, please say why). If so, can we rationally discuss the merits of the following proposal. In Wiki's Contraception article [under "Christian Views on Contraception", "Roman Catholic Church" at the end of the "Current View" section], I suggest an entry, more or less as follows, with a linked reference to Burke's article on his site (I repeat, it can only be consulted there): "For an attempt to make an anthropological (non-religious) evaluation of the effect of contraception on marital love, see C. Burke: "Married Love and Contraception" (Osservatore Romano Oct. 10, 1988) [LINK]”. If, when I return to Wiki next weekend or so, I find that this is not on my talk page, nor on yours, then you are clearly exercising a form of thought or opinion control. Is this the Wiki way? In any case, I will allow another period so as to see if something positive happens. If it does not, I will then make the entry as indicated above. If I find that this entry and link are removed, then I have enough of a dossier to show that Wikipedia, at least at your level, exercises censorship, excludes references that could be of interest to readers, with a total and a priori refusal to enter into any discussion whatever on the merit of a contribution. I collapsed the rest of your post because it was so long. You can show the rest by clicking "show" to the right there.

Extended content

[to Jaysweet] June 12, 2008 I am beginning to be a bit tired of this discussion - where I find very little discussion. You write "You are adding a URL to a website you are affiliated with in articles that are only tangentially-related. That is linkspam". Wiki's own entry under linkspam says, "Davison defines link spam as "links between pages that are present for reasons OTHER THAN MERIT". If you keep on shifting the terms of reference, we will obviously get nowhere. It is precisely on merit that the references I made to Burke's thought appear (to me) to be a valid contribution to Wiki's pages. You still avoid that issue; or rather put a peculiar pre-condition ("without using the spam URL") to any discussion. Besides, if it is you who in the end decides what is "disruptive" (disruptive of what? of thought or discussion?), then why continue? As I explained to Alkali, the article on Contraception is not available except through the cormacburke website; and this applies in practice to the one on Concupiscence (unless a reader wishes to subscribe to The Thomist website). If you are determined to exclude any reference-links to Burke's website, please say why. Otherwise we are indeed wasting time. I go travelling today, for the next couple of weeks. But am prepared to take up the dialogue again, when I get back. If it is a dialogue. Thanks. P.S.1) I get the impression you are 'higher up' than Alkali. I feel you may not have read our full exchange, so I copy it below. [I quite agree that Burke's "God interview" has little merit (I think I was still using it in experimental-mode as to how contributions or entries are made; and it should have been taken out). For the rest, however, I think they all have merit. But if there is going to be any further discussion we might as well keep it to the two - Contraception and Concupiscence - which you so baulk at]. 2) It is hard to take seriously your dire threats: "Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well potentially being penalized by search engines". What is implied in this threat is that if I link some reference to Burke, Burke's website may suffer. This could well be ground enough for Burke to take a legal action against Wikipedia. I don't think Burke is the sort of person to do that; but others, in some similar case, might. At the very least, I would suggest that you get your legal people to revise the wording of such threats. Just accessed your talk page to send this; and see you have removed our discussion of a few days ago. Does that imply a total blackout?

[to Alkali. May 24, 2008] In reply to yours of May 18 (the weekend is my only time for catching up): 1. Thanks for referring me to WP:EL which indeed I had not consulted (it took me some time to figure out the meaning of EL: bear with new contributors who have to learn the ropes). I apologise for this; and perhaps now understand better why your first reaction was that I was spamming. But, please let us not stick at first reactions. 2. Let's forget about the God entry which I agree is of little interest (I think I was still trying to see in practice how one makes references). I should add, though, that surely you are exaggerating a bit when you say "You have gone from article to article, etc." In fact I made five or six contributions (including editing a phrase on ecumenism which has no ref. to Burke). 3. BUT - you haven't really moved from your initial suspicions: "It seems very likely that your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to publicize this man's writings" [...] "because so many of your additions seem lacking in merit... I believe you are engaging in linkspamming". I gave you two examples of articles of Burke which have plenty of evidence of merit in their own right. Wiki has to decide whether they are a useful contribution or not; but surely the issue is the worth they have, and not any initial personal hunches or beliefs, however derived? 4. I say this because your comment on Burke's contraception article makes me wonder how you tackle these issues. When you ask, "Consider what proportion of the Contraception article concerns religious views", it is very hard not to conclude that you are judging the article without having read it. Precisely the original thing about this article is that it does not invoke any religious arguments at all; it considers contraception exclusively in anthropological or human terms. Here I feel entitled to ask on what grounds you conclude that the average Wikipedia reader could have no possible interest in such an article? Or does Wiki policy exclude a "conservative", but non-religious presentation, of what is undoubtedly a topic of great interest to many? 5. This is where I find your distinction between "informing" and "expressing an opinion" rather hard to follow. Surely Wiki's policy is to provide information, also about opinions, in fields of interest? When you try to give an overall picture of any theoretical or debated topic you have to give some information on precisely the differing opinions. [And if a certain position is expressed in a new or clearer manner, then it surely deserves consideration, at least as a reference? That is my view on the two Burke articles I asked you to comment on]. 6. Looking at random for a Wiki topic that might be "controversial", I went to "Harry Potter". It is very well done, but a large part of it (especially when dealing with religious critiques) gives information precisely about a great diversity of opinions. This I imagine is what your readers would expect. [Incidentally, I saw too that the official (and professedly religious) website of one Laura Mallory, who is declaredly anti-HP (I totally disagree with her), is one of the external links Wiki has accepted]. 7. To come back to the contraception article, may I suggest an entry in your Contraception article [under "Christian Views on Contraception", "Roman Catholic Church" at the end of the "Current View" section]? The entry could say more or less: "For an evaluation of the effect of contraception on marital union, considered not from a theological but from an anthropological non-religious stance, see [ref. and link]..."? 8. You make no reply to my comment on the concupiscence article. In contrast to Contraception this is hardly a topic of broad interest. Nevertheless, you have it in Wikipedia, so some further contribution may be useful. The Burke article is probably the most recent important thing on the topic. If it has appeared in three languages within the space of two years, there must be something to it. There I would make another suggestion. In the section "Catholic teaching on concupiscence", refer to Burke's article in the text: "For a recent critical study of the traditional presentation of concupiscence in marriage, see C. Burke **" [with a ref link]. 9. You ask about my "connection" with Burke. What on earth has that to do with the merit or otherwise of his articles? I think they are original and of enough interest to warrant a reference. Wiki is no doubt entitled to disagree; but surely it should be precisely on the points of merit and/or interest, not on suspicions that I am Burke's grandmother or cousin or agent or Burke himself. 10. I suppose that any reference to a site tends to "publicize" it. But does it follow that this is spamming? May I say that you are in danger of invoking a very arbitrary standard of judgment here, as well as a logic that could end up by leaving the decision as to what goes into Wiki or not, in the hands of just a few people. Then surely you would have defeated your own very founding principles.

Finisklin (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your original comment because it was long and rambling and a brief skim did not show me anything I really wanted to hear (see WP:TLDR). I will leave these in place now if you want to go on record.

If you do choose to re-add the Burke reference, I would encourage you first of all to absolutely not include the URL to his website (see WP:EL for more information). If you do so, it will be removed on sight as likely spam -- if not by me, then by someone else. If you don't believe me, try it, and I'll stay back and watch it get removed by a dozen other people a dozen times over.

I would also encourage you to read WP:UNDUE, and possibly WP:NOTE. We just don't go around tossing any opinion into any article. It is not clear to me whether the Burke reference is significant enough to warrant mention -- I initially reverted it because you were obviously going around promoting the book (adding it to several articles while making no other meaningful changes; and unnecessarily including the URL against the WP:EL policy). Maybe, despite your apparent conflict of interest, there is some merit to the reference, I don't know. But you should probably try to make your point about the notability of the reference clearly and succinctly on the article's talk page.

I hope this helps. We absolutely do not practice censorship here, but we do engage in editorial control. I hope you can understand the difference. Thanks, and happy-wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Perhaps we are beginning to engage in something more like dialogue. BUT, you still have not given any opinion on the merit of Burke's contraception article. That, surely, should be the reason why it be included or not. It seems Wiki (at least as represented by you) remains determined not to accept linking a reference to the article with Burke's website. Why? As I explained before, there is no other way that the Wiki-reader could look at it. Surely your purpose is to facilitate the easy consultation of varying points of view? You may well not agree with Burke's exposition; but if you, or some Wiki controller, exclude some reader from reading it, that is censorship; or as you prefer to say "editorial control". I don't see how that editorial control can be justified unless you read the article in question and point out why you consider it to be of no value or interest - despite the facts that: a) it does NOT (as Alkali, obviously not having read it, objected) contain religious arguments but offers a simple and original anthropological or human analysis; b) its appearance in the official Vatican newspaper is major evidence that it is considered to be a significant contribution to the contraception debate. You say "Maybe, despite your apparent conflict of interest, there is some merit to the reference, I don't know". I still don't understand the "apparent conflict of interest", but I do think you should read the article and if you consider that it has no merit, then say why. I quite understand that you and I may well not agree in our respective positions on contraception. But is Wiki there to present different viewpoints, or only the ones its editors like?Finisklin (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what, if you re-add the link, I will leave it alone. I don't know why you are still trying to deny that you have a conflict of interest; nobody goes around adding the same link to a half a dozen different articles and gets really adamant about including the URL unless they are trying to promote something.

Anyway, I don't particularly feel like dealing with this anymore. I've pointed you to WP:EL and WP:COI. If you want to re-add the link, go for it, but don't be surprised when somebody else reverts it. --Jaysweet (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, just to clear up any confusion, I do not "represent" Wikipedia. I am an ordinary editor just like you. I am a little bit more familiar with the policies, which is why I pointed you to WP:EL in regards to the inclusion of the URL -- I thought maybe I could help you out in understanding the policies here. But I do not "represent" Wikipedia in any way.

As far as, "There is no other way that the Wiki[pedia]-reader] could look at [the article]," that is bullshit. They can just Google for it. Actually, it's a book, right? So include the ISBN number. That is standard practice when referencing books on Wikipedia. You include the ISBN, and then if somebody wants to read the book, they look it up at their library or on Amazon.

Did you take a look at WP:EL like I asked you?

Also, explain to me again how 100% of your edits to Wikipedia articles have been to add one particular book, complete with URL, to a number of articles, and then you tell me with a straight face that you have no conflict of interest and are not attempting to promote the book? Really?! Come on now, I'm sorry sir, but I simply don't believe that for a second.

Anyway, I don't consider this conversation to be productive. Go ahead and add the URL, and watch another Wikipedia editor revert it. It will happen, because adding the URL is against WP:EL. You still have this misconception that you are trying to prove it to me. You're not. I have no authority, I'm just telling you the reality of what will happen if you continue to try and promote this book in violation of WP:EL. You can ignore my advice if you want, but it ain't gonna work out for you. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, then. It is just that I have been keeping all of our correspondence, for clarity’s sake, on my talk page. And someone, not you, did remove part. But, Jaysweet, don’t come across with your “I am an ordinary editor just like you”, with no special place in monitoring Wikipedia. I can manage to check out our present discussion (I am just about as fed up with it as you are) about every weekend. Yet today, when I posted my mistaken comment on my talk page at 14:10, you had a reply at 14:12. Only someone who is pretty full-time in the watch-dogging business can come back with an observation within two minutes... But this is trivial. I’ll try to get back to you tomorrow on one last thing. Apologies again; I’ll take that attribution out.Finisklin (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC) How can you judge any matter fairly if you don’t take the trouble to have the elementary facts right. You have suddenly gotten the idea that the ref I suggested is to a BOOK by Burke (then if the ISBN etc, is given, it can be consulted through the web). Jaysweet, the discussion is about an article, not a book of Burke’s. See if it can be accessed anywhere except through Burke’s website. In any case, I have put a ref to the article at the end of the section "Christian views on contraception, Roman Catholic Church, Current View". And I have opened a discussion there on the further point of adding an indirect or direct link with the article on B’s website.Finisklin (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam question

Hi Jaysweet, I hope you don't mind the question, but I noticed your activity on the RFC page and hoped you could provide an answer. I happened upon a bio page for Nando Costa that was entirely written by a user named Nandocosta, most likely the same person (I only noticed because a link to the page was added to Motion Graphics, a page I monitor). Is there a way to flag this anonymously? I don't want to piss the guy off. Thanks, and please reply to my talk page. Scaatt (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response and action. That's pretty much what I was hoping you'd do. The page itself isn't obnoxiously promotional, but a user posting their own bio seems contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Scaatt (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CadenS (Again)

CadenS has already got a new warning on his talk page about grossly uncivil edit summaries such as `Use common sense and quit pissing me off with your reverts` seen here and `It's specific enough so quit undoing my edits. Your really starting to piss me off` seen here. He has already started commenting on controversial talk page articles such as "male rape research" seen here and "heterosexuality" seen here and the tell tail warning signs are already back. What action should be taken? After a month away this editor cannot control himself. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 15:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already apologized for that edit summary to the editor himself, but of course you would leave that important part out. Wouldn't you? My comments on the so called controversial topics you mention above were done in good faith. Once again the signs of you wiki-stalking me are back. After well over a month you still can't seem to stop your obsession with me. What's the problem? Why can't you just stop bothering me? Caden S (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I see at least two examples of in civil edit summaries, you apologized after you were warned not before. You continue to use talk pages as a forum, making controversial claims and suggestions without sources. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 16:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I told you before, I already apologized to the editor but whatever man. You don't listen because you don't want to. And it's you who uses talk pages as a forum and what not to promote your aggressiveness as an editor. I have made no controversial claims but you have, especially on the Conservapedia talk page. Why don't you stop it already with your wikidrama please. I'm tired of it. And please stop wiki-stalking me. I'm tired of that too. Caden S (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I helped get the conservapedia article to WP:GA, you have no idea what your talking about for the most part. I'm not going to comment on this issue further until Jaysweet returns. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 16:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I, uh, don't really like when other people are arguing with each other on my talk page and I haven't even commented on the conversation :p

I'll take a look later. Gotta do some work now. :) If you guys want to keep sniping though, move it to one of your talk pages, though? Thanks :) :) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jay, you still haven'y commented on this issue, do you have any thoughts? Cheers. :-) — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 01:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Jay has better things to do with his time instead of dealing with your wikidrama. Caden S (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I'm really not sure where we go from here - clean-up is *now* impossible and what does that leave us with? many of those articles contain copyvios and if we cannot clean-up them and make it stick, then I guess we will have to AFD them - oh what a *joy* that will surely be :-( . --Allemandtando (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to quote a couple people I've been talking to.

"We can just add whatever Lexicanum lacks, then edit the wikipedia pages with a 'see more' lnik to said page."

"guys, wikipedia really ISNT the place for tha 40k infodump. But that's ok, because you dont NEED all this shit in wikipedia. Post a brief summary (of our own, not faggy McGee's version), and provide LINKS to lexicanum for more information. If you want those articles specifically, copy them over to /tg/s 1d4 wiki."

You don't need to do anything. There are people already working on properly cleaning up these articles.--Project Kurtz (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. You could have just said that instead of whining or making false allegations. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you could have refrained from making threats. All I'm saying. I didn't seriously accuse you of CANVASing. I simply made a logical (to me) response to what it seemed you were saying, and it happened to hit a soft spot with you. Trust me, my original intent was not to accuse you of such.--Project Kurtz (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it again: It wasn't a threat. It is the reality. I typically don't work on deleting/cleaning articles like this because I don't have the heart. But if the articles don't get cleaned up, somebody (even if it's not me and not Allemandtando and not anyone any of us have heard of before) will eventually nominate them for WP:AfD, and I've been a part of the community long enough to know that the consensus would be "delete". It's not a threat. Even if I and Allemandtando and everyone else who you feel has been giving you a hard time all died of a heart attack this very minute, the possibility of an AfD storm coming down and causing all that content to be erased is very real. This is just reality. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the kind and honest words at ANI. As rare as it is from me, allow me to present you with...

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your kind and unprompted words at WP:ANI! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello & Thanks cont.

Hey there. We corresponded a while(ish) ago, re:an issue I was having with user:Yolgnu. I've noticed that the user is still trailing my edits and reverting them without initiating discussion or any sort of compromise. Recent edits to Culture of Malta have finally been made to a (grudgingly) favourable outcome for all concerned, but now Yolgnu's decided to stalk edits to Semitic languages. Avoiding the user is, for this reason, impossible. Have you washed your hands of us entirely or is there anything you might suggest? Is there somewhere more appropriate I could voice my concerns? Thanks for any and all assistance. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord knows I've tried...[3]--Yolgnu (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Lord' has nothing to do with it. You posted that after i) insulting me on Taivo's talkpage and ii) making the revert anyway! Your charade is transparent. [4], [5], [6].

golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i) It's an expression ii) Indeed, apologies generally come after the offense, not before.--Yolgnu (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tired idiom. And apologies are generally genuine. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yolgnu -- FWIW, both times that Kalindoscopy has made a comment on my talk page, before I even receive the message, there's like a whole argument between the two of you waiting for me, hahaha... I think it might benefit both of you not to follow each other's edits so closely. Are you really only interested in the same articles??? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Yolgnu is purposefully following ('stalking') my edits. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MJ

Hey great news, I found a new picture for the Jackson article, 2000-present section. By the the is the Jackson article still on your watchlist? I haven't seen you revert vandalism there in ages. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA, do you have any ideas on what you want to write about? Currently I'm trying to get Thriller and MJ to FA so I'm not working on any articles for GA currenly. However I am interested in getting the article for the singer "Prince", "Jackson family" or "Jackson 5" to GA. Prince is currently in a terrible state. Would you be interested in any of these or is music/biographies not your interest? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Hate CADEN Campaign

Realist2 is stalking me once again on talk pages and by messing with pages I work on. Pages that he never participated on have now become an interest of his based only on his never ending, unnatural obsession for me. He's been also talking about me off wiki too with others promoting his "I Hate CADEN Campaign" just like before. I'm sick of him stalking me, harassing me, and accusing me of things that I'm not doing. Please get him to stop. I don't give a rat's ass that he's a homosexual, that's his business. I just want him to stop with his wikidrama and to stop wiki-stalking me. I'd appreciate it if you responded on my talk page. Caden S (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN and AN/I

Just as a heads up, although you are probably already aware - a high proportion of edits to noticeboards is a serious killer when/if you head to RfA at some point. Also, sometimes its tough to manage disputes like those above without a formal mechanism. Best often to separate the content dispute from the behavioral dispute, see if any of the behavioral stuff needs to be addressed, and then channel the folks into a structured setting like an RfC (although your section headers and whatnot were a credible alternative to that). Avruch 16:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had pretty good success with informal mediation, and whenever it becomes clear that the informal mediation is not working, I always refer to the appropriate formal process. Those who have followed my contribs in this area so far have pretty much been universally positive, although I am certainly open to any specific criticisms. In this case, I am pretty confident that, had Realist2 not chosen to escalate to RfA, we could have worked something out. Both editors are quite capable of being reasonable when they want to.

Regarding the (IMO often bizarre and self-contradictory) criteria that makes a successful RfA, I am aware, and in fact I put in a request for admin coaching to get help with article building, etc., which is where I think an RfA would come off the rails for me. I used to do a lot of vandal patrolling, I have done a fair amount of copy-editing, and lately I've been on a dispute resolution kick, so even though lately it's been all noticeboards, overall I think my contribs are relatively well-rounded. If the dispute resolution work torpedos an RfA, that's Wikipedia's problem, not mine. Adminship is not a WP:TROPHY, even though I am interested in pursuing it because I think I would be helpful. But hey, if the community doesn't want the help, I don't really need the added responsibility either :D

Thanks for the advice, though, and I don't mean to come across as flippant. I've been trying to do more clicking on "Random article" instead of ANI, and perhaps I should step back from the dispute resolution fairly soon. It's just that I enjoy the process, and I think I am pretty good at it (maybe I am flattering myself, heh). So it's hard to stay away. But you know, lately I've been getting a little tired of it, so hopefully I will naturally move on to something else soon enough (just as I got sick of vandal patrolling and moved on to copy-editing, then got sick of copy-editing and moved on to dispute resolution, etc.) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I came across more critical than I intended. Informal mediation definitely has its place, although I think even then a degree of structure limits the sniping. Clearly you realized that, since you set up your sections the way you did ;-) The descent into accusations of lying and that sort of thing is what prompted me to include your work there in my comment, mostly I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the RfA pitfall.

Although the last couple weeks have been dead for content editing for me, random article was my preferred way of finding things to edit as well. You might want to take a look at this for potential foreshadowing. Of course, if you stay completely clear of ArbCom you'll probably be OK - but thats hard to do after awhile of commenting at AN/I!. One thing you might consider that I found rewarding was random article patrolling for BLPs and adding references/removing questionable material. Pretty enjoyable cleanup work, all in all. Avruch 16:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you for sharing your RfA with me, that is really fascinating and useful. It's interesting that a number of the opposes were, "He helps out in resolving other people's drama, so no way!" heh... As I mentioned, I find some of the criteria for adminship to be bizarre and self-contradictory, but it is what it is -- and you know, not for nothing, a lot of Wikipedia policies that I initially opposed, I now see the logic in it, so hey, maybe that will happen in regards to the weird adminship criteria, too, as I learn more.

As I alluded to before in regards to the admin coaching, I would definitely not accept an adminship nomination until I had some heavyweight article-building experience to point at. While I've never seen an RfA quite like yours, I've seen enough where the opposes are of the form, "User does great work patrolling for vandalism/running bots/etc., and I trust them 100% and believe they would use the tools in a manner that would help the encyclopedia -- but they haven't written any articles, so NO WAY!" (in fairness, the line "You need to have experience writing an encyclopedia before you can administer one", while mostly clever rhetoric, does have an element of truth to it -- for instance, in disputes regarding whether a particular source is reliable, I often have to immediately bow out and say "Take it to RfC" because I just don't yet have enough experience in locating and judging the merit of individual sources). So I wouldn't even try without having at least a couple of articles I built from scratch and at least a couple of GAs to point at. To do so would be good for my experience, good for the encyclopedia, and good for any RfA chances, so it's a win all around. I just need to stop being lazy and get cracking at it ;D

Anyway, thanks again for pointing me to your RfA. It is definitely enlightening! Heh, if an RfA ever comes about for me, it will be... interesting. In addition to my positive contribs, I did, uh, engage in disruptive sockpuppetry one time (mostly just to see what it felt like to be a "bad guy", isn't that dumb?), and I have made a handful of slightly disruptive edits with this account as part of some experiments I was attempting. I feel like I have been honest and upfront and made due amends for the disruptive behavior, but I know there will be a number of people who will say, "He socked! OPPOSE!!" Heh, so it will definitely be Teh Dramahz if/when that should ever come about :) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your always welcome to copy edit the MJ article, help get it to FA, that will look good at RfA. Either way, I will still be your biggest supporter. :-) — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hehehe, thanks R2 ;) I will likely return to that article at some point. Perhaps sooner rather than later :) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously I would love you to help me with it, its so close to FA now, remember what it was like a few months ago? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kotra decided to add his piece to the pie over at ANI, oh well I'm must be plotting against Caden or something, talk about no AGF. Anyway, I feel kinda bad taking it to ANI, then seeing all that effort you went into on your talk page-I had no idea you were gonna do that. I believe I told ANI before I saw your talk page update and when I saw your talk page I realised why I want to see you as an Admin. The fact that you did that is incredible, you are a unique talent on wikipedia. I'm too hot headed to do what you seem to do so easily. I can write a great article, in a second language but I will never be the communicator you are...not even in my mother tongue. I know you insist on doing some article building before a run at RfA but I like any others have faith in you now. With respect as always. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm flattered. Well, you have the patience to work on articles that I have a lot of trouble with :) Someday I'll get into that though :) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:GHcool user page

Hey, my answer was only an opener. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, unfortunately it got archived before hardly anybody responded. I am hesitant to unilaterally pull it out of the archives (I tend to think it is very bad form for someone to pull their own request out of the archives, comes across as rather pesky). But we somehow need to get community consensus on this highly controversial page. This is not the first time I've seen a complaint about it. (I'm sorry, I don't have diffs, it was too long ago -- but I remember it pretty clearly) So I'm open to any suggestions on how to proceed next... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, it appears that this page can serve as the focal point of this discussion; in which case, can we add User:GHcool to the section title?

I had not previously looked at the page, since I was responding on the basis of principle rather than content, but now that I have I am disappointed that I am an involved admin - my reaction was to delete it under WP:NOT#SOAP. However, since I am now part of the "problem resolution" team my suggestion is that we delete the page and salt it for a short period while we discuss what to do with it with GHcool. I think we need to be very clear that it should not remain as the accounts userpage. It may be useful, and as per the editors POV truthful, in seeing how this editor views certain matters, but it fails the basic function of WP:UP; a basis for furthering the collaborative editing of the encyclopedia. Some of the community are going to be upset by the content, others angry, a few dismissive, and perhaps one or two prompted toward disruption. This is not good. Deleting and preventing recreation while we sort out this matter will indicate our willingness to take firm and unilateral actions should there be no recognition of the concerns.

My view is that the content may be permitted to remain as a User subpage, linked from the Userpage. I feel that this decision, or any other that we agree (to be then presented to WP:AN?), should be imposed, even if GHcool opposes - WP is not a democracy. GHcool has as much right as anyone to have the userpage they wish (i.e. none) and needs reminding that editing, and having a userpage, is a privilige which can be removed.

Hmmm... Okay, that was the hawkish viewpoint. Anyone fancy playing dove? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, I saw two lightish-brown hawks flying by my kitchen window about two hours ago so I've done the deed. Let the feathers fly, I'm listening. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay with me, I changed the section title. Ballsy, Gwen. We'll see what happens next :D --Jaysweet (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would appreciate it if the stuff on my user page (or at least the source) were made available. I worked a long time on it and I don't have a backup. Perhaps the source can be e-mailed to me? I must say I'm a little disturbed to not be able to find my work after being away. If the Wikipedia community is uncomfortable with my user page and does not want these views be expressed publicly on Wikipedia, I'll accept it even if I don't agree with it. However, I think it is only fair if I can keep a copy of my work for my own private use. Thanks in advance. --GHcool (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? If you responded to my message, I didn't see it. Please respond ASAP. Thank you in advance. --GHcool (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain page

Jay, I look at this as upholding the established text against continued edits by an unregistered editor who has repeatedly been blocked for edit warring and has established themself as a POV warrior. We established that the bomb Iran joke doesn't warrant mention in the article, and then azure simply rewrote the text, reinserted it, and claimed it was a "compromise text." I'll hold off on reverting it again in the next day, if he edits it, but I hope that you or someone else will do so. Trilemma (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the thing, even if you are upholding a consensus version, it's generally best to let someone else do the reverting if possible, after you've done two or three, so that you don't get nabbed for 3RR. Since there is no deadline, we should eventually be able to straighten it out without edit warring.

That said, I almost didn't drop you the 3RR warning since arguably you could be upholding WP:BLP. It's a fine line.

Anyway, I hope we do come to an understanding on the talk page. I think a compromise is possible, where the focus is to explain that his position is that it was a joke. That is a political position of John McCain, IMO, and it serves to clarify if the comment is acknowledged and McCain's official position re-emphasized. But anyway, it's open to discussion for sure... --Jaysweet (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually

Jaysweet, there is quite a bit wrong with using "he or she" or "him or her" when a person has requested that they not be referred to with those pronouns. Your disapproval of a singular gender-neutral pronoun such as ze does not make the use of a combined phrase referencing two gendered pronouns appropriate. Please correct your Wikiquette alert to Skoojal to reflect that "he or she" is not appropriate phrasing. Whistling42 (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you respond with "wow"? Whistling42 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(moved discussion)

I responded with "wow" because I don't think your request is reasonable. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is English Wikipedia, and there are no word gender neutral pronouns for living beings in the English language. Editors may chose to refrain from using pronouns altogether when referring to Whistling42]

"No word gender neutral pronouns"? What does that even mean? Whistling42 (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, typo. The word "word" doesn't belong there. I'll fix it. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I request that any further discussion on this matter should take place at my Talk page. I say this only because it is the one place I know where no one can easily come along and insist it be removed. Whistling42 (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved tag

Hi, please consider refactoring your resolved tag notes (and signing it). Currently it says, "This is English Wikipedia, and there are no gender neutral pronouns for living beings in the English language. Editors may chose to refrain from using pronouns altogether when referring to Whistling42". This seems to lay a lot at Whistling42's feet, when, on the surface, the concern could be viewed as having more than one user's issues at play. Specifically There are gender-neutral pronouns although I personally don't expect most folks to be aware of them or use them. But they are there. Secondly let's take the focus off making an exception for Whistling42 and simply state something like "editors are encouraged to use gender-neutral language and user names if unsure of a user's identity". I think this may benefit all concerned. Banje boi 22:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I request that any further discussion on this matter should take place at my Talk page. I say this only because it is the one place I know where no one can easily come along and insist it be removed. Whistling42 (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LHC

Hey, for what it's worth, I know something about this topic but am uninvolved. What can I do? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kalindoscopy

I see you were involved in an AN/I on this editor. Can you review his recent edits at Talk:Jesus and User talk:Tourskin where another conflict seems to be brewing? Tourskin has labeled kalind a troll, and if he is right then in conjunction with the AN/I he warrants more watching and perhaps mentoring but frankly, I am not sure Tourskin is right. I turn to you as you seem more familiar with his history and behavior. thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on my tone at AN/I

I saw your reply to my comment in the "Outing" thread, and I didn't get the impression you were offended, but I want to make sure you didn't think I was posting out of anger at you. When I reread my comment just now, I began wondering if that was clear. Since that could've been interpreted as rude, please accept my apologies. I'm obviously perturbed by some other people, so maybe trying to make my point a little humorously was a bad tactic. I am serious about looking at Shem's comments, starting at about July 3 in the history of the Talk:Barack Obama page. You might also look at the history of Clubjuggle's talk page (actually, I think some of it is still on the page). It goes beyond simply being hotheaded for a bit during a debate. Of course, if he's gone, maybe I'm beating a dead horse. If you're watching the Obama talk page and have any advice for me, feel free to tell me on my talk page or by email. I'm not sure what I'll do next and may just walk away, although I think there's a POV problem with a very prominent article. Noroton (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone was a bit severe, but I wasn't offended at all :D Really, I meant what I said that I don't envy anyone working on that page. I stay far away, it's just too contentious for me. I am not really familiar with Shem's contributions to that page, I just thought that in basic principle Clubjuggle's "outing" (or lack thereof) was a crappy reason for an admin to leave the project, since CJ really didn't do anything. But hey, maybe it is better off, far be it from me to say :)

Maybe if I get really brave I'll take a dive into Barack Obama, but I don't know if that will happen anytime soon. heh... Actually, I'm taking a bit of a Wikibreak (sort of) right now, to spend more time editing our local city wiki. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice site. 5,000-plus articles! This local author may be of interest -- she gets serious attention from critics, and her husband has a Wikipedia article, too. I've only driven past Rochester, but upstate New York is too beautiful to avoid forever. I think I may be getting a habit with severity; a break sounds very tempting, come to think of it. Noroton (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, thanks for the heads-up. And now: [7]. Unfortunately, I don't think RocWiki's license is compatible with the GFDL, so I need to paraphrase if I am going to flesh it out.

I'm really psyched to get out with my camera this weekend. To think I might be able to actually add meaningful free media to a Wiki! heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Is there something in your contribs history explaining why you haven't run yet? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thanks for asking, I'm flattered. :)

But anyway, the answer is yes. heh... seems like forever ago, but it was less than three months ago. I didn't mean any serious harm.. I wanted to see what it felt like to be one of the "bad guys" for a little while, and I never thought anyone would bother to run a CU -- yeah, pretty dumb, eh? (The funny thing is that it was waaaaay less satisfying than I expected it to be. Kinda hollow, really -- even before I got caught!)

Also, even if people were willing to overlook that, I am concerned that I don't really have a lot of article-building experience. I do some copy-editing here and there, but most of my contribs are vandal patrolling and informal mediation, and I've seen too many RfAs fail on that basis.

I applied for admin coaching, figuring maybe I could get some help spending a couple/three months building articles, and by then the "Bad Hand" incident would be six months in the past and maybe people would overlook it. <shrug> A lot of people have brought it up lately though, so if I got nommed by an admin I probably would not turn it down. Dollars to doughnuts, I'm probably not getting a successful RfA right now :) --Jaysweet (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also have some deleted contribs on this account that aren't ideal, but I asked for those to be deleted myself, so I am pretty sure most people would overlook that. Anglophilately is the most egregious one :) --Jaysweet (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you are probably one of the most informed and helpful contributors to AN/ANI (recently at least), I knew there must have been something holding you back :). Could've been infinitely worse than that though. I'm fairly exacting when it comes to RfA votes, I oppose more often than not, and I would probably never support a questionable candidate. That means I didn't come here for no reason. I've only ever suggested one candidate run, only ever nommed one (the same guy), so I don't take it lightly suggesting someone looks like a great potential admin. Within the next week I'll do a deeper look into your contribs history and let you know my thoughts (not like you even asked for this :). The only thing I can guarantee is that I'll be honest. To sum up though... I have been overwhelmingly impressed with the way you have handled a few tough situations in the past month. Some admins have the best intentions to help out in drama filled situations, but just don't have the skills for it and end up messing things up worse. You seemingly have the skill to fix things without offending either side. Anyways, in the mean time, keep up the great work. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is really high praise. I really appreciate it. Well, thank you, I will continue to do my best. I may be a little less active in the coming weeks as I have decided to spend some time contributing to the local city Wiki. But I'm sure I won't be able to fully pull away from Wikipedia, hahaha :D ---Jaysweet (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

I am going to remove our recent discussion from my talk page because (hopefully understandably) I don't want to call unncessary attention to the debate. Feel free to re-add the discussion with additional comments if that seem useful at any time in the future. Thanks. - House of Scandal (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Max and User:McJeff

hi, i was wondering if you could review mcjeff's wikipedia history of inappropriately reverting other people's editing without any compromise, seemingly because disagrees with the edit, even if it's sourced. in the few articles of his that i've checked, there are complaints about him doing that and other types of inappropriate editing (little green footballs is one of the articles - the discussion page has some examples of this). also, mcjeff's talk page has accusations of this same type, but you have to check the history because he removes them. the reason i mention this is because he has an established history of doing what i'm accusing him of doing to me. i also believe that he falsely accused me of violating multiple wikipedia policies when there was not a definitive violation. i believe his claims of my violations were not necessarily clear cut violations, but rather arbitrary accusations based on ambiguous interpretations of the rules. i believe that editors making false accusations about violations of policy is a detriment to wikipedia and also is a type of defamation that serves to weaken another editor's reputation while strengthening the accusor's position, especially during an edit conflict. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, sorry to bother you again, but could you please look into McJeff's most recent ... aggressive reverting, even when he admitted he was only doing it because he was biased against me. please see the discussion page of Tucker Max about where i question the validity of the claim that tuckermax.com gets 1 million unique visitors a month. the sources listed on the article are either invalid or don't support this, and there is contrary evidence that the site gets many fewer hits. after bringing up this point in the discussion, with perfectly valid reasoning as to why the claim is unsubstantiated, mcjeff told me he was reverting every edit i would make, regardless of whether i'm right or wrong. also, please see [[8]], which is another situation. i really think the manner in which he automatically reverts all my changes is highly inappropriate. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was brought to my attention by User:TheRegicider. I have filed an AN/I on Theserialcomma. [9] I believe my actions have been correct, but I will accept any administrative correction that is deemed necessary. McJeff (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond at ANI. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user page edits...

Thanks, Jaysweet.. (20040302 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comments on userpage

Dear Jaysweet, it was an error on my part, sorry. Thanks for moving it to the appropriate place --Truthsayer62 (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! It looked like an innocent mistake, so no worries :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to talk page warning

With edits like this lets call rape surprise sex would you blame me calling an editor a troll. Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia I feel this is what this editor is doing. They followed me to the Ireland article and reverted an edit I made, an article that they have not edited. Is that not the actions of a troll? Also regarding the sock who I called an idiot after edits like this and this Idiot is a fir analysis of what this editor did and then along come Sennan to issue a warning come on please.BigDunc^Talk 18:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tucker max

sorry, maybe i am confused, but should the RfC about the criticism section have any effect on a completely different section that isn't the same controversy? as far as i can tell, the whole article isn't locked from modification, just the section that is RfC. what i am trying to change is just an claim that has sources that do not say what claim says, and there are other sources that are contrary to the claim. mcjeff admits that i may be right about my non-RfC edit, but he will still revert it, regardless, just because it's me. is this okay behavior? Theserialcomma (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I do not buy your claim that McJeff will revert "just because it's you." Please try harder to assume good faith, which I have already warned you about. You and McJeff are having an agreement, but that does not mean you should ascribe malicious intent to him. Please comment on the edits, not the editor.

As far as the # of hits thing, I didn't realize that was a separate discussion from the RfC. You are right about that. Let me take a closer look... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaysweet, I ask please that before you assume that I am acting in bad faith, or somehow mistaken about mcjeff reverting me "just because I am me," please see these quotes in the discussion from McJeff: "As I have done with the criticism section, I will revert you every time you try to make that edit (this is in reference to the non RfC edit Re: 1 million unique hits)." and "And I will repeat. You may be right, but I want to hear from editors who are not you before we remove a long argued over, well sourced entry." (this one sounds fair, except the questionable content (1 million unique visitors) is not well sourced, nor is it long argued over. it is just because it is me making the edit.) thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand my exhortation to assume good faith. Perhaps you didn't check the link? I don't believe you are acting in bad faith at all, far from it. I was just concerned about whether you were assuming that McJeff is acting in good faith. Anyway, please just calm down -- it is only Wikipedia! ;) -- and we will get this sorted. Thanks! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you are right. i read "try harder to assume good faith" and interpreted that as "stop acting in bad faith." i was wrong and i apologise for misrepresenting your words. that was totally my bad.

i still would like for you to address my other point, though. you said that you "do not buy (my) claim that McJeff will revert '(me) just because it's (me).'" i suppose i took issue with that statement, just because i thought mcjeff's quotes that i showed you were pretty clear that he said he'd revert me because i'm the one doing the editing. sorry about the confusion. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not revert you just because it's you. I will revert you in the case of BLP violations, but I will also justify said reverts on the talk page of the article in question when I do so. Fair enough? McJeff (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WQA notification reply

Hi Jaysweet. Thanks for notification, I have been following all messages including Vassyana replies, before your notification. I have not wish to comment there, unless you want to see the diffs of accusations by Dedalus, but I think that is unnecessary. There is nothing to worry I am already resolving the problems with another user (Feraess). Thank you for your messages anyway. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 17:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You got "dark"

This is deep. While I do agree with most of what you say due to a view that we both seem to share, you know that I was just joking here, right? It was slightly unexpected, that's all.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hehehe, I figured you were joking, but I thought I'd respond anyway. I figured my reference to the "tiger/philosopher" made it clear I'm not too bent out of shape or anything ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instant classic! El_C 21:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I intend to continue to be helping out at WQA and would appreciate a bit of leeway. Thx. El_C 17:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sure, I mean there's no formal rules on WQA and nobody owns it, so I imagine I would give "a bit of leeway" to just about any editor who showed up. Heh, I gave a bit of leeway to Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) when he helped out for awhile, and I personally think he's a bit of a crackpot ;D So don't worry about me... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I'm saying is that I found your ani comment to have been a bit unfair toward myself. El_C 18:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Ncmvocalist was mostly in the wrong, and was definitely displaying WP:OWN issues at that page. But I didn't think that edit warring and saying "cease your disruption" in the edit summary was the best way of dealing with it. I'm pretty sure if you'd dropped him a note saying, "Here's why I closed these", it would have been a better way of solving the problem.

<shrug> I dunno, I'm sorry if you felt I was unfairly critical of you. I'm not defending Ncm's undo of your closures, not at all. I just can't abide edit warring of any sort. If a good faith editor reverts me and I think it's inappropriate, I very rarely go and revert them again. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, to be clear, I welcome the help, especially from someone with the mop. It sorta sucks when we get to a point where it's like, "Yeah, clearly so-and-so needs a short block, but uh... no admins 'round here. Try ANI." heh...

I stand by my concerns about edit warring, but with the exception of the reverts-after-reverts, I haven't had a problem with a single edit you've made at WQA, and I hope you continue to make more. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You, again, are ignoring that the day before this incident, he described my comments elsewhere as "disruptive trolling," or his vehemence in the ani thread. I seem to be unable to penetrate that through to you. El_C 18:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't feel too welcomed, at all. El_C 18:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, maybe I missed that "disruptive trolling" thing...? There was a lot of hot air in the ANI thread, so I didn't read the entire thing. I thought I had checked every single on of the diffs, though, but it is possible I missed some of them.

Anyway, what do you really want from me? I said I thought Ncmvocalist should not have reverted you; I said I agreed with most of your edits to the page (and on the one where I didn't, it was only a difference of opinion and I didn't have a problem with you making the edit, I just disagreed); I said I would be glad to have you contribute further. Why are you taking this aggressive tone with me???

I think edit-warring with a good faith editor is universally undesirable, and you're not going to get me to say otherwise. I didn't say I thought you were out of line, I just said I was a little disappointed, because there might have been a more effective way to handle it. Maybe I am wrong about that -- but who cares? We can differ on opinions, can't we? I can have my opinion, and you can have your opinion, and the fact that they are different does not mean we need to disrespect each other.

Other than the fact that you have a difference of opinion with me on the effectiveness of your reversions on WQA, can you point to a single edit of mine that you have a problem with??? Why are you being so aggressive?!? This is bullshit. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you felt like another editor called you a "disruptive troll" in appropriately, maybe you could take it up at Wikiquette Alerts.... --Jaysweet (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel "this is bullshit." I'll take that as a sign that this discussion has outlived it usefulness. El_C 18:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it has. I just want to reiterate that I do appreciate and welcome what you have done at WQA, whether you believe me or not. I'll leave it at that. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tucker max (again. sorry)

could you please review the "phrases that must be removed, revised, or reworded" section of the discussion page of Tucker Max? i believe that McJeff is misrepresenting your removal of the "hits per month" as my change to the article, and is basing his argument on that misunderstanding. could you please comment on the section in general, since you commented on the "unique hits" situation, and since this is directly related to that. thanks Theserialcomma (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea

[no idea] what that is about - I didn't make those edits. As for the Allemandtando account - I'm a blocked user as fredrick day, but it's a block that is never going to end, so it's a ban by any other name. So I'm afraid I have to sock to make article edits - hope that clears that up for you. --87.113.118.192 (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sound stressed

... which probably explains why you didn't give due consideration before you snapped at User:hAl, but I must remind you that pulling bullshit like this, specifically telling an established editor to either file an SSP report or "shut the fuck up" is not acceptable behaviour. I shouldn't need to explain this to you, and I won't belittle you by linking to the relevant Wikipedia policies. Just don't do it again, okay? Warren -talk- 08:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While perhaps the tone was a little less than civil, I stand by both my underlying message and my lack of continued patience. Perhaps you could find a way to convince him that going on about this on his talk page, without actually doing anything about it, is less than productive. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should not be so flippant, though. You are right, the tone was definitely way out of line. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is funny. One user accuses an other user of using foul words and uses foul words at the same time.

Anyways, please note that HAl continues with his speculations on his talk page and sees no wrong in it. IMO we should escalate the issue. --Saint-Louis (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Warren was objecting more to my tone than the profanity. If I said, "Shut your trap", the effect would be similar.

In any case, I am, believe-it-or-not, really on a pseudo-wikibreak here, in the sense that I am not spending more than 5 consecutive minutes on Wikipedia at any given time, and I think dealing with this hAl/AlbinoFerret crap is going to take more than 5 consecutive minutes -- so I'm out. Best of luck. :/ --Jaysweet (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Malal

An article that you have been involved in editing, Malal, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malal. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Terraxos (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive box

WQA Comment

Also not a barnstar

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Advice

No barnstar

Re: Wikiquette alert notice, and some advice

I nearly teared up

Process for challenging complicated edit-warring?

Rahul

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of the New Revelation

Re:

RE:June 2008

I am Surprised

Incivility block?

Disagree

Complicated edit-warring redux

Hello & Thanks

Serbian-Greek friendship

Carlin Troll

Political positions of John McCain page

Generalisimo Massino

Us on WQA

CadenS

Prince William of Wales stuff

40K in-universe

Jonathan Pollard Page

Revisiting the ban vs. block Hdayejr argument

"De facto consensus"?!?!?

Checkuser

Would you mind filing the RfC?

You do realize

Orphaned images resulting from the redirect

Wikipedia:I think you got lost on the way to MySpace

Voice4ever (User)

Heads up

Re: Don't forget the rest

Thanks

ArbCom RfC

Replied

Good catch

Contraception article

Spam question

CadenS (Again)

Thanks

Thanks

Hello & Thanks cont.

MJ

I Hate CADEN Campaign

Happy Independence Day!

More problems

General

Incivil edit summaries

Use of the term "heterophobic"

The hand-holding pic

The heterosexual-pride symbol

Allegations of stalking against Realist2

Anything else?

AN and AN/I

User:GHcool user page

John McCain page

Actually

Resolved tag

LHC

User:Kalindoscopy

Clarification on my tone at AN/I

Adminship

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

My talk page

Tucker Max and User:McJeff

user page edits...

Comments on userpage

Reply to talk page warning

tucker max

WQA notification reply

You got "dark"

tucker max (again. sorry)

No idea

You sound stressed

AfD nomination of Malal