User talk:Jersey Devil/Archive 2

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between March 12 2006 and May 8, 2006.

Striver

If I may interject, I don't think you commenting on Striver on AFD or MFD is going to help. Use the proper channel i.e., WP:ANI or something similar. On the MFD, you could have just commented about Striver's spam messaging to many other users, but you didn't need to further your comments about exhausting the communities patience. I generally disagree with Striver's method of creating stubs and then leaving until the AFD arrives. I too agree that the spamming needs to end. However, the AFD (or MFD) page is not the place to discuss this. Stick to the merits, or the weaknesses of the article (or portals). Incidently, despite your comments, the Conspiracy project was not unanimous as their was a weak keep, despite the user now regretting doing so. Pepsidrinka 13:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I'll make sure to join Wikipedia: WikiProject Peru. Thanks, bye. --Gabbec 16:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rfc

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil --Striver 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How amusing to see you do the same thing [1][2][3] [4][5] you told other people to not do [6] --Striver 00:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rfc rules specifically state that I am suppose to do that. That is why it is called a "request for comment".--Jersey Devil 12:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you my support. I think that so far you have not done anything that deserve this treatment. I was victim of one of those too as soon as I started my career as wikipedist. People will forget about that. So far, it seems to me that the creator of those articles has clearly POV opinions. Messhermit 03:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the majority of Wiki knows anything about you Messhermit. The ones who do know you don't think of you negatively. You do need to work on a few things though. I understand you are from Peru, but you need to be ever-aware of the fact that Peru is a small miniature country in comparison to other nations in this world, and you shouldn't think of yourself as better or bigger. Just tone things down, and instead of just editing, RESEARCH. Researching multiple points of view will help you in the long run. I still enjoy your contributions to the Peru articles. Pvt Mahoney 00:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc

Thanks for contacting me with repect to striver's rfc against you, I was very interested to leave my comments and read what others had to say on the matter. It looks like this thing is whole lot of hot air though, no one is paying the request anything more than lip service. I am however curious to know how my name came up as someone with an intrest in the matter. Bobby1011 04:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Striver

I don't know if by that you mean a 2nd RfC on him, or something else. It might be appropriate to attempt to have more people give him advice on his talk page, though at this point I doubt he would listen to me (he ignored my advice when we were on I think good terms, and he also failed to acknowledge the work I did saving some of his articles). I don't know if this would be necessary, though. In terms of identifying further violations of WP policies, the options seem to be going through the contribution history, or doing a wikipedia.org Domain-specific Google search http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en on combinations of terms like +striver +pov, +stiver +npov, +striver +block, +striver +copyvio, +striver +attack, +striver +vandalism, etc. (And neither of these constitute wikistalking, Striver, if you're reading this.) However, this would miss anything that had been deleted, probably.

There seem to be three problems (at least) in the AfDs on his articles. (1) Some people will do a procedural keep on his articles if Striver is named in the nom. This could be addressed by either not naming him in the noms, better identifying multiple policy violations, or identifying a policy that makes naming the creator in fact acceptable. (2) Striver also appears to do "vote stacking," or in any case there's a group of people who are willing to disregard policy to vote keep on his articles (the Shia't Striver - "Party of Striver," if you like). (3) Non-muslims with little knowledge of Islam who vote keep because they are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows what he is doing since he is "a religious Shi'a twelver Quietist Muslim" per his user page and clearly knows English as a second language. He is, then, not an "average" Wikipedian and his contributions could be thought to be countering Systemic bias. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. However, as a non-muslim with a fairly extensive knowledge of Islam (more than the average muslim anyway, who knows about as much about islam as the average christian does about christianity), I don't see that Striver has any special knowledge of Islam. His contributions are equivalent to what a non-muslim with no prior knowledge of Islam could find with a Google search - and in fact are even inferior to that. Striver does not appear to cite to articles or books he owns or consults, but rather seems limited to Google searches. That might not be so bad if he could really analyze the search results. However, Striver's tendancy to copy information wholesale, and not evaluate the reliability of sources, to push POV, to revert edits, and to make substubs that don't even qualify as stubs (and contrary to georgewilliamherbert's claims, rarely revisit and lengthen them), his poor English spelling and grammar, etc. pretty much negate the value his contributions could potentially have.

There should in fact be more articles on Islam and Shiism, and they should accurately present their views of themselves and of others per policy. However, those articles should be created by people who can create at least proper stubs for them that at least conform to WP policy. I don't know what it would take to get Striver to that point, or if that is even possible. Esquizombi 21:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sending you an email

Just so you know, I am sending you an email that will be important reading.--MONGO 08:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess not...your email isn't enabled.--MONGO 08:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not working so try again and I'll get back to you tonight...don't forget to go to :[7] so they can send you a code to confirm.--MONGO 16:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

I am not willing to act as an advocate in your dispute with Striver, however I am going to give you some advice.

I suggest, very simply, you stay away from Striver; and when he does 'vandalise' ask another member, such as me, for a third opinion. Thanks. Computerjoe 's talk 17:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFC

Just to let you know that the RFC against you was deleted as it did not have the required two certifiers within 48 hours of creation. If you want to preserve the content, please let me know on my talk page or by email, and I will move it to your userspace. Stifle 23:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like a copy of the rfc and rfc talk page on my userspace. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 00:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's up at User:Jersey Devil/RFC and User talk:Jersey Devil/RFC. Stifle 09:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misconceptions about the Shi'a

You should take note that the previous AfD resulted in a merge, yet Striver continuously reverted mine and Zora's attempt at keeping the merge tag up until we both got tired of his antics, and left the tag off the page. Check the page history. Pepsidrinka 00:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder to put "AFD" or something similar in the edit summary when nominating an article for deletion. Pepsidrinka 04:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on what should be done with the article. As for the incivility, etc., if Striver persists, you may request arbitration. Johnleemk | Talk 15:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR v WP:V

I think WP:V fits a lot of your recent AfDs better than WP:OR. I don't think the author made them up, but rather that he simply didn't cite his sources (and the sources' reliability may not have been assessed). I don't disagree with their listing on AfD (i.e. even properly sourced, I don't see them as belonging) but I suspect this is going to get ugly. Esquizombi 05:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Calling Striver a "POV Hawk" on your user page, accompanied by the text "POV Hawk-The Greatest enemy of the NPOV Wikipedian", is a personal attack. I also suggest that it is not productive to stalk Striver and list all articles he created on AfD. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind. Thanks, Lambiam 16:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of those articles meet the criteria for deletion and thus is not WP:STALK. But yes, you are correct in that such language in my user page is hurtful and I will take that comment out. But I also ask if you think that the user cursing at other users and creating blogs on his userspace attacking others users count as WP:NPA. It seems that all the defenders of Striver refuse to acknowledge his violations of Wikipedia policy.--Jersey Devil 20:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being a vandal

On five occassions on my talk page you have referred to legit edits as vandalism. That, in itself, is vandalism and/or a personal attack. Don't be a vandal. Listing an article for an AFD is a content dispute, not vandalism. If you disagree with the listing you can vote against. Now, are you suggesting it coincidence that all those articles you listed for AFD happened to be created by Striver, a Wikipedian you want banned? --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, that happened almost a month ago, will that be your permanent justification for trying to wreck the Shia sections of Wikipedia? --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see that you don't take Wikipedia policies that Striver breaks with seriously and will just vote randomly keep on his articles up for deletion no matter what their content is because you feel that we are "attacking Islam". That is all I needed to know.--Jersey Devil 21:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err..You have blanketly nominated over 20 articles created by a Wikipedian you have repeatedly said you want to see banned. You are clearly acting in bad faith, and I dislike that you are disrupting Wikipedia to make your point. You are not "attacking islam" .. and don't add quotes to statements I have not made, you are attacking Striver for your own personal reasons as part of your bad faith endevour to have a fellow wikipedian banned, and I do not like that one bit, so I voted against. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and therefore you are not taking the merit of the articles themselves into account but just systematically voting keep.--Jersey Devil 23:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are acting in bad faith and attacking a user you want banned. Those are the merits on which i base my actions --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

take a break

Hi. I'd like to encourage you to take a few days off from actioning User:Striver's articles. Other users have found your persistent nominations disruptive. Without passing judgment on whether your actions are correct or not, please consider an observation someone made the other day, in an unrelated matter -- just because something is the correct thing to do, doesn't mean you should do it like a hurricane. I'm sure you want to keep Wikipedia tidy, but right now you're clogging WP:AFD.

I hope you'll consider this message. Thanks for taking the time to help out Wikipedia! :)

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only people who have found it disruptive are those who systematically vote keep in Striver's articles. See the afds, many "keep" votes are not on the basis of the articles themselves but just sytematic keeps because it is Strivers articles that are up for deletion. So no, I won't take a break. If I see an article that obviously does not belong on Wikipedia I will put an afd tag on it and I won't stop that because some people refuse to acknowledge that the articles don't belong here because of a personal friendship with the author.--Jersey Devil 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too want to repeat the sentiments of Adrian. At least wait until this recent collection of AfDs you nominated pass over until you further nominate others. I agree with you partially that if something doesn't belong, it should go. However, with about twenty nominations right now from you, it will definately turn off many other editors who may feel you are making a point, despite the fact that many of the articles do not belong. Pepsidrinka 21:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given your (Jersey Devil's) response, I'm glad to see that you clearly understand that your nominations are polarizing some people. But of the people who find this series of nominations unhelpful have never interacted with User:Striver, or only heard of him due to the recent deletion debates.

I invite you again to lead by example, and demonstrate good faith and civility towards your fellow Wikipedians by taking a day or two off. Have some faith in the ability of the community to expunge bad content -- if his contributions truly need to go, someone else will handle it. But right now, you come across as being too personally involved to be effective, especially since some users will oppose your nominations due to what they feel to be bad faith on your part.

Thanks again for your work on Wikipedia :)

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to nominate any more of his articles for afd for a while anyway. It took alot of time to find those articles. But what annoys me is the different rules we have for this user. I am being accused with being disruptive, well then challenge the articles themselves. Look at the bottom of this page. Why do those articles belong here? If they were created by any other user the deletion tags wouldn't be challenged. Why doesn't Stivers actions of listing articles for deletion for the sole reason of others listing his "Muslim Athletes" article for afd count as WP:POINT and as "disruptive". Why do we continue to bend the rules for this user? See the following:

wtf, why not including this as well:

Lets vote on all of them, why only the Muslim lists? --Striver 04:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (For quote see AFD for Muslim Athletes)[reply]

And he went through with it as well by putting up Afds for all those articles out of revenge for them putting an afd on his article and without even putting afd on the page history.

When the contibutors to this pages saw what he was doing they went to take off the afd tags that he put up to make a point and he reverted it and again put Rv Vandalism on the edit history.

Re: WP:POINT

Thank you for your message. Believe me, Striver is not threatening the very fabric of the Wikiverse, thereby causing the end of civilization as we know it. I think you should try to cool down a bit. It would be better for you and for the Wikipedia project if you staid away from Striver for a while and put your energy in other things before this becomes a vendetta.

I can believe that most of the articles you listed are bad. That is not the issue. I can also see that Striver is not the most cooperative editor to work with. But honestly, I think that you are presently too obsessed with Striver to be able to distinguish clearly between articles that genuinely fit the AfD criteria, and others that you are unable to appreciate mainly because they were created by Striver. Listing so many at the same time has the nature of a hostile act and is, in my opinion, disruptive.

I came upon the whole thing because I saw the AfD notice on the page Sunni view of the Sahaba. I looked at the AfD page, did not understand the argument for nomination, went back later to the AfD list to vote Keep and saw another nomination for Shia view of the Sahaba, which led me to investigate a bit. Then I discovered you had put up no fewer than twenty-four Shriver-created articles for deletion. Very industrious, but not very productive.

I think it is not a good idea to use the argument that someone else is hostile as justification for your own acts. The merit of the articles is independent of that. It really shows you need to let this go a bit.

Hope this helps.

Lambiam 21:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the merits of the articles themselves. Let us look at the merits of the articles themselves. You wrote this in many of the articles for deletion. [8] Please tell me why you think the following merit an article, if this really is about the merits of the articles themselves:

I'd be interested to know the actual arguments for keeping these articles. Had any other poster created these there would be no argument for keeping them.--Jersey Devil 21:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jersey Devil, this is precisely my point :) These nominations have become less about the articles, and more about you and User:Striver. Standing down for a little bit, and letting the situation / discussion settle and percolate may be the most helpful thing you can do. It'd definitely help to keep this a debate about merits, rather than de-evolving into a tug'o-war. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've tried it before, listing the bad articles for deletion at a slow pace. What happened is that Striver just calls all his allies to vote keep and the articles get kept by no consensus. And by the time the afd closes, Striver has created 10 other pages that could be put up for afd. I have yet to hear a real argument for keeping those articles. Again, we seem to have special rules for this user.--Jersey Devil 22:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jersey Devil, take a deep breath, read carefully what I wrote, take another deep breath and read it again. Maybe you'll get what I'm trying to say. I sincerely hope so. Lambiam 22:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT from User:Joturner

Yes, I saw you commenting on an afd to Irishpunktom about the claims of this for "keeping" an article. Unfortunately he always votes keep on Striver's articles no matter how bad they are or what wikipedia policy stands against it (because he feels it is an attack on muslims) and whilst he accuses me of trying to make a point (which I am not since all of those articles do warrant an afd), no one ever says anything about Striver explicitly listing afd's on good articles to make a point. See the following:

wtf, why not including this as well:

Lets vote on all of them, why only the Muslim lists? --Striver 04:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (For quote see AFD for Muslim Athletes)[reply]

And he went through with it as well by putting up Afds for all those articles out of revenge for them putting an afd on his article and without even putting afd on the page history.

When the contibutors to this pages saw what he was doing they went to take off the afd tags that he put up to make a point and he reverted it and again put Rv Vandalism on the edit history.

I am familiar with that incident, considering I was the one who originally created that AfD. I ran into a similar issue when I nominated those articles (and several other by him) for deletion. Some people mistook a problem with his articles with a problem with him. I'm not (and I'm sure you're not either) deleting those articles simply because Striver created them. Striver just happens to create a large number of articles, many of which get deleted. Note that he has had nearly nine hundred deleted edits, or 7.3% of all his edits, deleted. Compare that to my 1.8% and your 1.5%. Considering that Striver is clearly an inclusionist, and both you are I are at least somewhat deletionists, that seems to indicate that his additions get deleted at a disproportionally high rate. So to say that your recent actions have been an attack on Striver would be unfounded; historically a surprisingly high number of his pages have been deleted. joturner 22:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

During edit conflict: Hmm... I may have to re-consider on my above statement after looking at the comments on your RfC. I get the impression that you may in fact be nominating articles for deletion just because they are from Striver. If that is indeed the case, I do not support that. If articles appear to have a decent amount of potential, they be noted for expansion. If they don't, then they do deserve an RfC. But if you have in fact been attack Striver for his Shi'a point-of-view, that is just plain wrong. Adding an article about every single Shi'a that every lived and every single topic of Shi'a Islam certainly can be annoying (and at times unnecessary), but that is not point of view. That is educating others about Shi'a Islam. If you want to add an article for every place (of significance) in New Jersey, that is fine. Not point-of-view. And to echo the words of a few other users, you may want to wait until your current AfDs are exhausted since, although many of your AfDs may be legitimate, the appearance of carrying out a vendetta against Striver will prevent others from voting Delete. joturner 22:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I find often is that the defenders of Striver always say "he makes stub articles, but he always works on them and builds them up later" which simply is incorrect. Check out this page on the userspace of Zora User talk:Zora/Striver new article. A very large portion of the articles he had created long ago have remained incredibly small and not updated.--Jersey Devil 22:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I don't approve of is statements like the one above. I admit that Striver can be annoying, but need you point out every single piece of evidence that supports that claim? I didn't think it would have to resort to this but...

I understand; I get your point; now please calm down. joturner 22:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT from Alba

I do not know who User:Striver is and I do not care. I do not know about his past behavior, and I do not care. I do not know who you are, and I do not care. When considering WP:AFD I judge by the merits of the article.

In this case, Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan, the article does indeed need verification per WP:V, but the idea of the article itself has merit. It can't be WP:OR because the family relationships of Uthman have been public record for upwards of 1400 years. The other, and apparently primary, reason for your AfD nomination seemed to be its authorship and your content dispute therewith. Again, I have no dog in that hunt. All I care about is quality content. The family tree needs a lot of work, but it can be quality content, hence my vote. The WP:OR comment and unnecessary mention of authorship did not seem apropos, hence WP:POINT.

I repeat, I do not care about his other edits or AfD nominations; they are not germane to the question at hand, whether a single article should be kept.

I suggest further discussion of matter take place at your RfC page.Alba 23:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original Rfc was deleted by admins for not fitting the requirments for an rfc. That page is on my userspace for my reference and is no longer active. So I reverted your changes.--Jersey Devil 23:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When this WP:RFC was userfied, it was noted that it could be endorsed and moved to project space. It's my sincere hope that doesn't happen, but it's important to note that it was only de-listed for lack of timely endorsement, although there were users willing to endorse.

That said, thank you for affirming that you'll back off from AFD'ing User:Striver's articles for a bit. I really hope it does some good.

Cheers :) — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Devil, your comment above that the original RfC was deleted for not fitting the requirements is not entirely correct. We failed to certify it, which is a procedural goof. That's very different than "that's not a valid subject for a RfC" or "there is no issue here worth discussing". There was clearly an issue here, and the RfC was properly presented other than not having been certified in time. As noted by User:Stifle at User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#The RFC, he's perfectly happy for us to move it back to live if we have two people sign it where it is now (userified).

WP editors have certain discretion related to pages in their user space, and your reverts are within that policy. However, my current inclination if this is not otherwise resolved soon is to make a copy of the page over in my userspace, sign it, get another signature, and put it back up at RfC. The recent AfDs that you did without any apparent attempt to mark Striver's articles for cleanup or improvement were exactly contrary to my point regarding AfD being the wrong mechanism for getting Striver's stuff cleaned up, which had significant support in the RfC.

I see Adrian's comment above about you indicating you'll back off; not sure what that was referring to (haven't found the source yet) but I am hopeful that you will do so.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 04:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the rfc copy wouldn't even exist had I not asked for a copy and thus it is mine for reference. Don't expect me to bend over backward to help in attempts to make me look like I am doing something wrong when I am trying to delete articles that don't belong on Wikipedia. Thanks.--Jersey Devil 04:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, any editor can ask any administrator to bring back a copy of it for any purpose. You can nuke your copy right now, if you feel like it, but any administrator can bring back another copy somewhere else, so it would be sort of pointless.

And, though I believe you are acting in good faith, you are doing something wrong. AfD policy states rather explicitly that you should tag articles for cleanup as a strongly preferred alternative to AfDing them. If you were right and the articles were all hopelessly out of place and unsalvagable, there would be little controversy, they'd be gone after the AfDs, and we wouldn't all be talking about what you're doing.

Most of the AfD nominations you made for his articles failed. Persistent rejected AfD nominations is a clear, glaring sign that something's wrong. Persistently highly controversial AfD nominations... and yours of his articles have been the most high traffic of any regular AfD nominator over the last month, that I can see... are another sign that something's wrong.

I have no problem with you wanting to clean up Wikipedia. I have no problem with your acting to clean up Wikipedia articles by Striver. I have a problem with your going against AfD written policy and just AfDing them, en masse, into highly controversial and mostly unsuccessful discussions, rather than tagging them for cleanup first and waiting a reasonable period of time to see if Striver cleans them up or not.

AfD policy is bent a lot on marginal articles. They mostly just get AfDed without Cleanup tags. Nobody objects too much when that happens. But lots of people are objecting at one level or another to your widespread nominations, without cleanup attempts.

Again: if you will change your behavior to conform with AfD policy, and instead of just AfDing them tag them for cleanup for a while, only AfDing them if Striver fails to clean them up... then this discussion is over and you have my encouragement and blessing to tag his stubs to your heart's content, and delete the ones he doesn't clean up after a reasonable period of time. Georgewilliamherbert 04:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, and when Striver adds a sentence to claim it has been "updated" and removes the tags I'll list them up for Afd. But I am more than sure that I will still get as much attacks from the same people when that happens as well.

Ex. Khattab ibn Nufayl (Clean up/Bio Context since July 2005, Striver removed the tag after adding this.) --Jersey Devil 10:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to defend these kinds of additions as well? ([9] [10] [11]) If I revert them am I, yet again, "abusing" Striver? I just have to wonder how far he has to go before any of my changes to his edits are justified by his defenders.And with regard to Stifle's comments, see Striver's talk page about the Rfc. Striver: Can [the deletion of the Rfc] be un-done? Stifle: Generally, no, but since User:Jersey Devil requested it, I have put it at User:Jersey Devil/RFC. [12] So, according to him Rfc's are not for the most part undeleted.--Jersey Devil 15:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you removed my "amen" comment as "nonsense", let me expound on it so you can remove it as "don't like you so your logic is invalid":

I have no idea what's going on here, but I had your talk page on my watchlist from the AfD run you did, in which you were accusing a whole group of people as having some sort of keep-bad-entries-at-all-costs agenda. I saw Georgewilliamherbert's text here and realized he had a highly similar experience with you as I did--a run of your AfDs made without due consideration.

I think it's worth commenting about this here because I now see two completely different groups of people who think you're jumping the gun on AfDs where cleanups might be more appropriate. Rather than taking it defensively, please consider whether there might be some validity to this. The AfD process can be time-consuming and draining for those who have to defend it, and shouldn't be taken lightly. Several intelligent and articulate people I know, who might otherwise have been valuable contributors had their first experience been a positive one, are now convinced that Wikipedia is useless as a direct result of the whole mess we were in. --Spinn 14:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misconceptions about the Shi'a

I generally don't edit or make keep or delete votes on articles I know nothing about. I see it was essentially a merge in that article and it may even be a POV fork. BUt I stay away from areas I know nothing about unless I see them to be seriously and obviously flawed in article content or POV.--MONGO 09:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Don't mind user:Northmeister. He accuses me of being a troll whenever I don't agree that the American System (economics) is the center of the universe. -Will Beback 01:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I'd forgotten about his disruption at Democracy Now!. -Will Beback 01:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Jersey Devils rudeness to Radical Mallard, his agreement to not revert articles before discussion which is why I self-reverted in the first place, his continued harassment of Radical Mallard after this etc. Give me a break. --Northmeister 01:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I call them as I see them. --Northmeister 01:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you've been blocked for 48 hours. Next time please remember WP:NPA (telling Will Beback and myself "go to hell") and WP:POINT (reverting my edits solely out of revenge). Thank you.--Jersey Devil 02:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of fair use images from your userpage

In response to your query on my userpage; certainly. Please see the edit summary where it says "Removing fair use logos per terms of Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy item #9". All of the images that I removed from your userpage are tagged with a fair use tag of one sort or another. The use of fair use images in your userspace is not permitted by fair use policy on Wikipedia, as decided by the Wikipedia Board of Trustees. --Durin 17:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Jersey Devil 17:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Funny, I was just about to edit your page to let you know I already knew about it. Maybe I should wait to see if it gets certified this time before posting. Striver's characterization of the failure of the first RfC as "deleted due to a technicality" is dishonest. It was deleted because it was not certified by two users, which is a requirement not a technicality (and a rather hard-to-miss one at that Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#User-conduct_RfC). Note Striver wrote "He got a rfc on him earlier" without mentioning it was him that did it. Esquizombi 02:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on your RfC. The RfC was a bit unnecessary. joturner 02:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About your RfC

You're supposed to write a response in the response section of your RfC, not endorse the outside views. joturner 02:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm remove that, I saw Striver doing it in the other Rfc so I thought that was what you were suppose to do. I'm writing the response right now.--Jersey Devil 02:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you may still be able to add endorsements to that section (I just re-read the instructions under Outside Views and saw Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.). I believe you can go ahead and re-add them. But yes, you should write a response. joturner 03:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jersey Devil...I will monitor the Rfc and if two editors agree with the Rfc, it will become live, at which time I will chime in. If they don't sanction it, then I may be wasting my time as I did last time.--MONGO 04:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've seen your edits repeatedly pop up on my watchlist. Please avoid spamming other users' talk pages, thanks. NSL E _(T+C) at 05:02 UTC (2006-03-20)

I am undergoing an Rfc and under Rfc rules I am suppose to inform users involved with the dispute about the Rfc to get their comments (See the first bullet). I think that is the "spam" you are referring to.--Jersey Devil 05:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My preferences

Open the my preferences tab, open editing, and you should see this:

Enable section editing via [edit] links
Enable section editing by right-clicking on section titles (JavaScript)
Edit pages on double click (JavaScript)
Edit box has full width
Show edit toolbar (JavaScript)
Show preview on first edit
Show preview before edit box
Add pages you create to your watchlist
Add pages you edit to your watchlist
Mark all edits minor by default
Use external editor by default
Use external diff by default

Makes sure you don't have a check mark next to Add pages you edit to your watchlist...there may also be a glitch in the system. Let me know what you find out.--MONGO 06:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just check it....It wasn't checked in. Pretty weird...hopefully just a glitch in the system.--Jersey Devil 06:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a few random edits and it isn't happening with mine. Try logging out and then log back in after a few minutes.--MONGO 06:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC situation

Jersey Devil, did you see that Striver endorsed Isotope23's outside view? I'd say that that is a very conciliatory gesture. Any chance of some gesture from your side? Who knows, maybe you'd like to endorse it as well (one may always remain hopeful). Lambiam ^Talk 03:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not come on my talk page with the intention of trying to make me sound unreasonable. I've made my response and that is that.--Jersey Devil 03:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lambiam was trying to be friendly to you.

Reviewing your response to the latest RfC, you seem to have gotten more confrontational, for no obvious reason that I can see. Can you take it down a couple of notches in the interest of civil discussion? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 09:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NACLA

Thank you for starting the article. It's been on my list for...well, since I joined. I don't think you need to worry too much about notability, though. If it does perchance get nominated, I'll definitely vote "keep". PAZ--Rockero 07:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote for it, but I don't intend to contribute to the article. Not that I wouldn't like to, but my research plate is just too full right now. I just hate not following through with things. But thanks for the heads up.--Rockero 08:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More junk

I can't believe this guy...he is the worst POV pushing troll I've ever seen...look at this nonsense. How can this be considered an article?--MONGO 14:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What! You should have removed that afd tag and put up a clean up tag. By not doing so you are not assuming good faith and breaking with WP:POINT. It also further proves that you are on an anti-Islamic Christian Crusade and are a far-right George W. Bush supporting, France hating, Iraq War supporting, fascist. /sarcasm On a serious note you can expect the same crowd to come in and systematically vote keep because it is a Striver article, because Striver is above Wikipedia policy. All he has to do is list it on his personal page at his Wikiproject and that is where he gets his keep votes from.--Jersey Devil 19:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but that would be an abuse of that page since it isn't relevant to it. You might get some criticism for not WP:AGF yourself for the text of your vote. My regret is that I didn't do the obvious thing and recommend "Pull it per nom"! Esquizombi 19:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppet

I think it's blowback from the 911 Eyewitness and Rick Siegel AfD's, which attracted a lot of newbs and anon trolls. Marking the new edits should be sufficient.

--Mmx1 23:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ollanta

I think that there is an option that more or less protects the article from IP editions (that is, users that don't have an account here in Wikipedia). Maybe we should ask someone to protect the page. Messhermit 23:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the page is semiprotected. In Wikipedia/Spanish this problem is still going on. Messhermit 22:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Muslim interactants with Muslims during Muhammad's era

Just from a tallying point, I guess it was about 63% for deletion? I guess that could be called no consensus (the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Supermajority calls 66% a supermajority for AFD purposes). Considering the arguments for deletion versus keep, I'd have to say there weren't any good arguments for keeping, but then I'm not an admin. I tagged it for sources just now, since it lacks any even though it asserts their existence e.g. "Muslim historians have kept detailed lists of people who interacted with Muslims during Muhammad's era" (OK, which historians, and where were those lists published?). Esquizombi 16:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With a designation like THAT....

You are invited to join the Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers. Martial Law 04:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Curiosity about Peru

I see your of Peruvian descent and you seem interested and know much of Peru. My knowledge of that country is limited right now. I have quite a curious mind and am interested in their present economic system and their past economic system. I feel Latin America has abundant resources and courageous people that with the right approach could spring some strong industrial nations on par with Japan and Germany...such as Argentina and Brazil. Also, is Peru mainly native or European like Argentina? It is unfortunate that no nation there has produced the economic miracle of a Japan. Venezuela especially has the potential to emerge strong with the right approach in using their oil money to build productive enterprises, high speed rail and modern forms of transport, and to improve the quality of life of their citizens. But, back to Peru...who is the George Washington of Peru by the way? Thanks. --Northmeister 01:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

It seems that a Request for Comment would be initiated against person. If you wish to state an opinion, I will be more than welcome to hear it or recieve it. Thanks. Messhermit 20:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rutgers University

Hey, I figured I'd drop you a line about Rutgers and its various daughters. Edit warring will get us nowhere, so let's talk about this. Daughter articles are an accepted, respectable part of Wikipedia. Look at almost any featured article (so long as it's a long one) and you'll note that it has daughter articles. Why should Rutgers not be the same? In addition, you've claimed that "lots of people are complaining", which as far as I can tell, they aren't. Could you clarify what you meant, or show some instances of someone other than you complaining about this? In the meantime, s there is apparently a 2:1 "consensus" on the talk page against keeping it all on one page, can we keep it split up--for now, until we reach a real consensus--please? Thanks. (If you want to reply, do so on my talk page, please.) Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation comments

Thank you for your generous comments on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-01 September 11, 2001 attacks. The Mediation Cabal usually does a pretty good job. I expect you meant to write, "This Mediation shouldn't exist" instead of "This Mediation Cabal shouldn't exist." Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD thanks

Hello JerseyDevil. Thanks for pointing out my error. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current event articles

Unless there is a lot of vandalism, I don't protect articles that are in current event categories. Keep me posted, but I am going to be very busy this week...lots going on off wiki for the next 10 days or so.--MONGO 11:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Hi Jersey, thanks for the star!! Here's some cherries for you! Arniep 22:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Peru

Thanks! I've added those pages to your WikiProject table, and made a quick assessment of those articles. I left some comments at that page, so you may want to have a look at it, and please feel free to keep it up to date. Thanks! Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests

Thanks, Jersey Devil, but I actually removed vandalism, if you check the history of the page 2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests. I don't appreciate your accusation.

The edit summary above yours stated "stop adding vandalism..." and I must have clicked the IP below yours in seeing the vandalism being added. I strongly apologize and I have removed my vandalism comment. Sorry.--Jersey Devil 08:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Crimes Commission

You are invited to vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Crimes Commission (2nd nomination) Morton devonshire 00:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's kind of a personal ethics thing of mine to be wary of people asking me to vote on afds. I voted on this particular one because I did have an opinion on it but next time I ask that I not be informed on afds (because it may in the eyes of others delegitimize my vote i.e., "he only voted this way because he was asked to...". Anyway, I usually check out the afd page and things like that usually catch my attention anyway. Hope this is no prob, I've seen you around and like your contributions to Wikipedia. Later.--Jersey Devil 00:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you would have caught it too. That's one of the peculiarities of notifications, that not infrequently the people being notified didn't need to be. Maybe you have some thoughts about the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Vote Stacking? It would be nice to get that promoted to guideline in some form, not necessarily the way it is now. Шизомби 01:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question about my edit history. It occurred to me that since you asked on the vote page, rather than on my talk page, that your question carried an unfortunate implication. While I clearly have some experience here, I am not sockpuppeting anything. Nor do I have any dishonorable reason for a new name or any unpleasant history here. I just like to shed my old skin now and then, here, as in real life. If you have any concerns about any of my edits, please let me know on my talk page. Best Regards, Brillig20 07:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removing AFD tags

I don't know, I took a quick look and didn't notice anything about it. It would seem to be a bad practice, otherwise it could happen all the time, which would be disruptive. I think the nominator can withdraw and even close it if there's a consensus for that, and an admin can close an afd early if there's a clear consensus. There is WP:IAR but I'm not very enamored of that. You might try asking at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion. Шизомби 16:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about a nominator withdrawing/self-closing but didn't get many responses Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#withdrawing_an_AFD. Шизомби 19:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The usual process is that the nominator uses <strike> through the nomination at the top and then adds a comment "Withdrawn by nominator, please close.", and leave the close and cleanup to an admin. Georgewilliamherbert 20:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Speedy keep, which includes a provision for Speedy keeping if "the nomination was clear-cut vandalism or WP:POINT and nobody disputes this or votes to delete it anyway (since calling a nomination vandalistic does not make it so and actual POINT-making AFD nominations appear far less frequently than accusations thereof)." Thus it would seem to be preferable to recommend speedy keep on something in a case like you described rather than removing the AfD tag. Шизомби 02:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

maps

I have seen many like that, but I don't know how they're made. I would try posting on the user pages of the people who uploaded those, or there's a Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps, you might try asking there. Sorry... Шизомби 00:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Sockpuppets?

It looks like Kungfuadam already blocked him. If I read it right, he didn't actually make any sockpuppets, just a bunch of fake votes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, the IP made fake votes first and then it seems he created a bunch of sockpuppets (other accounts) to also vote keep. Yeah, I posted the incident in AN/I as well and it was handled.--Jersey Devil 00:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias

Makin' the rounds. Thanks, Devil.--Rockero 00:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting vandalism

In the future, please report vandalism on WP:AIV, not WP:ANI. Thanks! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]