User talk:Jmanooch

Product service system (PSS)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Product service system (PSS), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Product service system (PSS). Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 13:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Megan foley

A tag has been placed on Megan foley requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Wacko Jack O 13:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jana Von Mackesen

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jana Von Mackesen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. GILO ^{ACCIDENT &}_EMERGENCY 23:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jana Von Mackensen

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jana Von Mackensen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Chzz ► 23:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hi there. Could you please link your signature to either your user page, your user talk page, or both? Otherwise it's significantly more difficult for users to contact you. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Special:Preferences and change your signature to something like [[User:jmanooch|jmanooch]], or [[User talk:jmanooch|jmanooch]], or something like that. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jmanooch. You have new messages at PinkAmpersand's talk page.
Message added 03:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at PinkAmpersand's talk page.

Hebephilia

No where does a reliable source say that hebephilia is a form of sexual perversity, or paraphilias. Hebephilia isn't considered one, if you look at the List of paraphilias. That's why I reverted you. Star767 (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You and the rest of your edit cartel are heading for a fall. Because a) chronophilia, which hebephilia is listed as, is itself described as paraphilia; and b) it obviously is a paraphilia, and the literature surely shows this, except through the eyes of exceptionalists. This has to come out, because Wikipedia can't be claiming that the the characters in Mystic River aren't highly perverse at the very least!

jmanooch 04:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sexology case

Greetings Jmanooch. This note is to let you know that I have reverted your edits to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. The reason for my actions is that, as you can read at the top of the case page, "Any unauthorised additions will be reverted", and arbitrators are the ones who authorise additions to that specific page.

Notwithstanding, if you want to provide useful commentary or evidence related to the case, you are very welcomed to add it on this page: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Evidence. Just start a new section under this header: == Evidence presented by Jmanooch == at the end of the page and add your thoughts. However, keep in mind that you are allowed to use only 500 words and 50 diffs on your statement.

Apologies. Actually, no more information can be added to any of these pages, given that the time established to add new information has elapsed. I recommend to discuss this matter at Flyer22's talk page, or at the Administrator's noticeboard for Incidents. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any questions, or are not sure how to do something, or where to post something, feel free to ask me at my talk page, and I'd be more than glad to help you.

Regards, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology, firstly the page is unclear in how it invites input, since it clearly also states "Please do not edit this page unless you are an Arbitrator or Clerk, or are making yourself a party to this case" - none of these are datestamped instructions, and as such, my input is legitimate for the time being. I have also notified the administrator.

ALSO - IF it is the case that this is an inappropriate addition, it is in ANY case not your job to revert it, since all changes must be done by the Administrator or Clerks. Leave it, and get out of the way of this dispute.

As an Arbitration Committee clerk, is my job to watch out those pages and do the necessary steps to ensure that order is being followed. As I said above, and on my edit summary, the case is moving to a close. If you need to solve this personal dispute with Flyer22, take it to his talk page, or to WP:ANI. The case page is not for that. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not helping in this case. The issue is clearly highly contentious, and I was drawn into it by an edit reversion spat not of my choosing. Rather than merely reverting, without identifying yourself, on a case that is still open, despite 'drawing to a close' in some opaque way - and with the invitation on the page clearly confusing as to whether new submissions are welcome - why don't you help me contribute here, rather than trivialising this? There is a clear case of WP:OWN operating here, and you need to face up to it.

You're being a tad unreasonable here

If you were never involved in disputes with these users prior to the opening of the case, you can't add yourself as a party. Furthermore, Hahc21 is a clerk. I don't care if he didn't "indentify as such"; I told you he is one, as he notes on his userpage and as you can see at WP:AC/C. If you think you can add pertinent evidence to the case, then contact the case Arb or clerks (as you've already said you plan on doing). But – and I'm afraid I have to be direct with you here – do not revert clerks on ArbCom pages. If you do it again, you risk being blocked for edit warring. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're being more than a tad officious - and as such unreasonable, hostile, and really a bad advert for self-Governance on Wikipedia - here. You and Hahnc21 seem unable to help me make a highly reasonable point. Don't you want to do that? Or are you obsessed with the minutiae of how even reasonably competent people like myself extricate themselves honourably from a nasty situation? Do you think I wanted to spend my evening fighting with pseudo-experts on child-sexualisation (as I see them) - and then have to content with entirely un-helpful admins / clerks who should be helping me contribute, not fighting peccadilloes?

What about that don't you understand? And what about this phrase on the Arbitration page "Please do not edit this page unless you are an Arbitrator or Clerk, or are making yourself a party to this case" do you also not understand? Who is to know - even you - which holds precedence? Why did neither of you comment on that or correct that?

Wikipedia is not going to be an editing haven for the intelligent enthusiasts if a) rampant WP:OWN is not being looked at, above all in an areas as publicly sensitive as this. and b) admins / clerks are as spectacularly unco-operative, blind to substance, and rude as this.

Please just go away and leave me alone, the last thing I want to do is pick a fight with you or anyone. I will take this up with the Arb - I wrote to him already. If he has no truck with it, so be it, it's a grander problem than I even imagined.

Gah. Wikipedia.

jmanooch 04:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jmanooch. We're not trying to stop you. I have said that the right venue is WP:ANI to adress your concerns. The problem is that Arbitrations works with specific dates that parties have to follow. The period within which the parties added their comments lasted until March 14, 2013. Now, the case pages can only be edited by arbitrators and clerks. This does not mean that you cannot present your situation, but that you cannot present it there. As I said above, take this matter to WP:ANI or to Flyer22's talk page if needed, and try to solve it from there. Adding it to the case pages won't change anything now that the case is about to close. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you machine? Or are you just having difficulty reading your own page? When the page says "Please do not edit this page unless you are an Arbitrator or Clerk, or are making yourself a party to this case" - and I wish to make myself a party to the case, on what basis am I suppose to know that this is not a suitable place to add a comment?

More to the point, can't you for a moment look to the content of my input? You must realise that this is vastly beyond dispute with Flyer22, whom I have no interest or truck with per se, it's the edit cartel that is clearly dominating these particular sexuality pages. You seem a really poor advertisement for Wikipedia self-governance, both of you, and I am shocked. Why are you spending all this time on procedure without giving me a single piece of substantive comment. Have you actually read any of the reversion comments, or talk page on the main page in question? In any case, please stop writing to me. I don't appreciate your time-wasting 'guidance', which is attempting to dissuade me from contributing to substantive issue. jmanooch 05:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) A few parting remarks:

What you see as being officious, I see as saving you from being blocked. (In fact, word on the street is that several Arbs were prepared to do this if you reverted again.) I was not threatening you; I was notifying you of a very real possibility.
"Making yourself a party to this case" means that you were involved in the disputes that led to the case, not that you've simply been in conflict with one of the parties.
Of course, you do make a somewhat valid point in that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. However, both Hahc21 and I have pointed you to the proper fora to resolve this dispute, and you appear to have already made use of one of them (David's talk page), so I'm not really sure what the problem was with removing the comment that you, out of a completely honest misunderstanding, had left in the wrong place.

Anyways, I'll leave you alone now if you'd like, but I see you as the one who's assumed most of the bad faith here. All I did was try to prevent a few conflicts. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my nelly aunt, this is absurd.

obsession with protocol, desperation to paint this as some personal dispute; rather than welcoming new focus on a vast multi-case of WP:OWN (there's data, go and look it up rather than wasting your precious time squabbling with someone who would have been your ally if you hadn't behaved like an officious ... officiator) by the disputed individual in question, co-option of language and multiple pages by a marginal 'scientific community', and you said I have bad faith? get your priorities straight, how absurd of you. I am invoking all these procedures badly to help WP, not hinder it for pity's sakes.

the amount of complexity on even just the Arbitration page you are incapable of commenting on, because it would require you turn your officious officialdom on yourself. Rather than saying, "whoah! yes, ha ha, it's tricky, that bit about if you want to be a party to the case", you claim - speciously? how is anyone to know this? that it's about /prior related/ parties, not parties that become related to the case /during the case/. In any case, who is to know whether their input is as a party, or as a testimony-evidence provider?

So shocked at you guys. The substance of this is so explosive, and you are bumbling around looking for people to ban. The cabal with massive WP:OWN issues behind those articles are your actual concern, why are you wasting nasty-time on me?

And now, for the last time, for the love of god, please stop writing on my wall, unless you comment substantively on the issue of WP:OWN, de-normativisation by pseudo-medicalisation of these articles, and how I can contribute to the arbitration, beyond writing to the Arb, on the case in hand.

I foretell a bunch of newspaper articles about all this stuff in the coming months.

jmanooch 05:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you can't contribute to the Arbitration case. What you want to do is jump in the middle of the race, and that can't be done. We have standards, we have procedures and we have dates. It's sad but you're 16 days late to the party. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We occasionally allow evidence beyond the deadlines if it's critical (for example, an ongoing edit war while case is active). However, ArbCom would need to see them in forms of diffs. My personal opinion is the fact that what you wrote here does not provide enough information for the arbitrators to change the proposed decisions.
If you can provide examples (in terms of diffs) to assist ArbCom - especially stuffs that have not been brought up prior - I'm sure that ArbCom may be interested. But, at this stage, it probably needs to be evidence that support your accusations well. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three reverts at Hebephilia

Hebephilia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Jmanooch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please be aware of the WP:3RR rule. And I have to observe, checking your recent edit summaries, that you are on the edge of a block for disruptive editing. Editors with strong opinions who do not step carefully regarding Arbcom-accepted cases risk repercussions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To All the Bright-Spark Editors, Admins, Clerks, etc showing up at this page

What is wrong with you? Seriously. What the hell is wrong between your ears that you cannot, not a single one of you comment on the substance of the issue:

- there is clearly an unscientific tag team claiming science backing for ownership of a lot of age-sexuality articles, in particular hebephilia, and downplaying the conventional definition of these issues (i.e. perversities, legally/medically, whether or nor morally wrong);

- there is clearly a violation of WP:OWN going on, repeatedly, at scale over time on at least Hebephilia

... the reason for the Arbitration being ... this stuff. Is that such fucking rocket science? Why is not one of you saying, "whoah, here's a chap that has done a few useful edits over time, why would he just vandalise a random page? .... hmm, let's look at this issue, ah I see okay, there's something substantive and deep here" and then "well, let's see if we can help him find the right way to input, explaining what he needs to know".

The fact that you can't, and de facto are protecting malfeasance in this edit cartel is fucking disgusting. Go and get a life and conscience and a good education, if you can't for one moment focus on the content.

AND why not also comment on the legitimates of the procedural stuff

- I wrote to the Arbitrator, the one useful piece of advice I got, go and fucking read that, before coming here and accusing me of malicious editing; and read the comments on the diffs and on the talk page of hebephilia, before accusing me of anything approaching unguided editing - I just added a link and clarified flow, putting the emphasis of the article where the OTHER articles in this area also put it (hebephilia is a paraphilia, by reason of being a chronophilia - READ the ARTICLES in question, people, before crashing in here with your 'big' guns).

- I didn't start an edit war, I got stuck in one, and my edit reasons are sound; how about looking at that, you insulting person above, before challenging the value of the edit as 'disruptive'. The reason dispute resolution exists is BECAUSE legtimate edit battles start, so back the fuck off before accusing me of malicious intent.

- On the arbitration page, it says - after don't add - only add if you want to make yourself a party? How come all you bright fucking sparks can't find a definitive reason why that's not a legitimate invitation in this case? No-one has commented on it, other than obfuscation about 'parties' only being 'prior parties' with no link to any actual rules or guidance.

Got it? Who the fuck do you think you are? Find legitimate reasons to ban me, enact them, so I have a track for grievance to actually clearly follow, or just fuck the hell off out of it - if, that is, you cannot FOR ONE MOMENT OF YOUR LIVES focus on the actual content issues, or legitimate aspects of my procedural approach.

This is such a bad sign of the Wikipedia edit community. So much time spent ant-fucking procedure, when any poor fool could see I have no interest in or pattern of vandalising articles, and use the system as simply as I have known it, well and respectuflly. I give my donations, I rely on Wikipedia, I respect the project immensely. But not this. This is ridiculous.

Now that I've got that off my chest, as I say

- comment on the content - ban me with reasons and show me how to 'appeal' or whatever - or fuck off and read this Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy over Easter and this Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules

and if anyone tries to impugn my good intent, or bust me over bullshit procedure that I CANNOT be expected to know immediately, not least because a lot of is impenetrable and mutually inconsistent, then get ready to spend a lot of time in ant-fucking procedure too, because I'll be just as tight as you.

OR - how about this to reset the clock - go and EDIT that dumb hebephilia article, god knows it needs it. Or are you scared / friends with the WP:OWN edit cartel that runs it over there?

and, happy to take this off-wiki if anyone cares to be way more sensible and civilised, and explain why this WP:OWN behaviour is not worth you fucking time, and how I can contribute to the proper resolution of this. My username at geemayl.