This is an archive of past discussions with Trevj. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I see you tried to change this article from a blatant advert to something that belongs in an encyclopedia. Someone has undone your work and made it worse. I'm tempted to revert the whole mess to your version. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Computing for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You tagged the above article for WP:Notability. Please note the list of references I provided on the talk page for the article and remove the tag. Thank You.MrBill3 (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to the Bristol Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Commercial Rooms, 43-45 Corn Street, Bristol BS1 1HT on Sunday 28 July 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Bristol topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you submit this article! I'm the one who uploaded the sign.
"The right way"
I've always wondered why the sign doesn't have the diagonal bar to show 'Motor vehicles prohibited' ? I'll have to admit that your "Usage" para is somewhat baffling --
The Department for Transport (DfT) states that cyclists may be permitted to travel in both directions along one-way streets, where the detour would otherwise be longer and more hazardous.
-- does this mean motorcyclists, bicyclists, or both??
Thanks. Hopefully I'll get round to finalising this some time when I have less other stuff to do (including IRL). I'll give you an update then! Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Raspberry Pi
Please admit to the failure of the USB hardware on the Raspberry Pi. Denying it will only make more enemies for you and your foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.141.46 (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi mate regarding the pashtun/punjabi sources there is some dispute so there is no need to mention the ethnicity. Also i have got no problem with the article, its just i wanted the right information to be on the article but thats alright, you wont find me disturbing that article again. But you need to let Fareed30 know aswell he shouldnt remove other people sources . ThankyouSaladin1987 12:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)
I am just trying to understand wikipedia a bit more,,that is the reason i cant notify any edit warring to you guys because i am not really professional in using wikipedia but some other people are better users of wikipedia than me and are able to provide their information very wellSaladin1987 22:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)
Hi i have notified Fareed30 on is talk page that he should not remove authentic sources with his sources and if there is some conflict in the ethnicity he should just leave the ethnicity out of it but after Prithviraj kapoor, he has started editing Raj kapoor, Shammi kapoor and now Anil kapoor when my source clearly states in the video that he belongs to a punjabi family, If i dont notify you he might complain and get me banned , but why is he reverting all the sourced materials and placing his thoughts. I would appreciate if you could look into the matter, i accept his sources in case of Prithviraj kapoor but now he is changing all the other articles like Raj kapoor, shammi kapoor, Anil kapoor, Surinder kapoor, i tried to carry out discussion on talk page but he doesnt accept my sources but only accepts his own sources. thankyou if you can stop him from edit warring as i am not the professional i cant even send him proper warningsSaladin1987 13:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)
Hi. Unfortunately I don't have time right now to thoroughly investigate all the references, etc., especially as some are video reports rather than text. However, edits which remove references are generally unhelpful to readers of Wikipedia. I'm hoping (as a result of the invitations placed) there will be more input at Talk:Prithviraj Kapoor#Pathan/Pashtun ethnicity of Prithviraj Kapoor. You must please remember that edits need to be based on what's reported by others in reliable sources and articles are to reflect a neutral point of view, whatever the personal opinion of editors. You state that you tried to carry out discussion on talk page but the best place for such discussions is on the article talk page; that way, other editors can contribute at the time and easily refer to such discussions in the future. You may also find it helpful to raise issues at WT:IN. I hope this is some help. -- Trevj (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but it depends how the subjects of articles are reported by others. If the subjects themselves don't publicly identify as any specific ethnicity then you're right that it probably shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia (unless a considerable number of reports discuss it anyway, which would be rather unusual, I think). If the subjects do publicly identify their ethnicity, then mentioning it on Wikipedia can be justified and encyclopedic. If you think such articles aren't justified in including ethnicity, then you need to achieve consensus via discussions with others, based around policies. I must confess to not being fully conversant with all the guidelines and policies in this area, so you might want to seek further advice at WT:WPBIO. -- Trevj (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been entirely clear on how to do a history merge properly. I didn't want to mess this one up since there was such a large page history, so I thought I'd ask for a bit of help and explanation. I've never been entirely clear on this and the instructions are a little arcane sounding. I'll ask for help from another user, but I thought I'd ask here first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)23:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, we tried to send you your HighBeam access code but you don't have email enabled. Could you email me so I can send you your code? Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit | c08:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Trevj, {{relisted}} doesn't work on RMs, and at any rate, RMs run for a week by default, like AfDs, so there's no real point in relisting them before then. To relist an RM, just add <small>''Relisted''. ~~~~</small> directly before the nominator's signature. RMs are listed based on the first signature in the nomination, so this is the only method that will result in a proper relist. If you want to explain the relist or make other comments, it's best to add a Relisting comment in the discussion; though I can't entirely explain why, more comments in that small text can prevent a proper relist. --BDD (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. I couldn't find a more appropriate way to do this, so picked one which I thought might do the job. I recall seeing some relisted RMs in the past, but will research things a bit more thoroughly before doing so in the future. Anyway, in this particular case, the nomination has been withdrawn so it's not going to go anywhere now. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you restored a withdrawn nomination in Talk:CHKDSK in edit #575602943. I had deleted the discussion because despite it having my signature on it, I never put it there. Anthony Appleyard did. I do not know why he escalated a withdrawn discussion but a mistake is a mistake. Since me and Wbm were having another conversation in my talk page, I withdrew it while no one else had commented on it.
Now, restoring the discussion in a manner that implies me has no practical uses except unjustly making a fool out of me. If you wish to have a discussion, please do it on your own terms by starting a new one.
Thanks for the note. I'm very sorry for restoring a proposal which I now better understand had already been withdrawn a couple of times. I did so for the following reasons:
The discussion (while maybe not at the present time having a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted) could still be informative to other editors in the future who share the proposed viewpoint.
It can't be said for sure how much support or otherwise would've been received without running through with it.
The revert included comments posted by Wbm1058, which were more visible to others (and hence appropriately placed) on the article talk page than buried on yours. This is why I cited WP:TALKO in the edit summary.
Anyway, I hope that no lasting harm's been done. I won't reinstate that discussion again, and don't intend to start a similar one there myself right now. Out of interest, did you also seek to address the issue with Anthony Appleyard at the time? Finally, please be assured that I certainly wasn't seeking to make a fool of you - but wanted to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia. You're expected to assume good faith in my actions in this respect.
Maybe I was wrong to link to WP:CIVIL. I am sorry. I do assume good faith in you. Believe me, I never dare assuming less than good faith in an editor who has been here since 2004, has 14000 edits or is a filemover. The consequences are highlighted in WP:Hitler essay.
As for leveling with Anthony, no, I had six other users to level with, but since he is a sysop, there is a good chance he has seen my edit and all connected edits on his dashboard.
As for comment by Wbm1058, again despite his signature on it, it was never posted in the talk page by himself. It came there as part of the misfired escalation.
No problem. I'd assumed that the sigs had been properly placed; in fact, I'm rather surprised that comments were copied across in this way - but I guess there was a good reason in mind. And, as for the 2004 thing, well I didn't actually do anything around here for more than 5 years. And anyway, you've already made more mainspace edits than I have - keep it up! Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free use of File:Parade of the Athletes - Unmixed.svg
Thank you for uploading File:Parade of the Athletes - Unmixed.svg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited General Permitted Development Order, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork, Ireland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Hi. All it means is that I patrolled it as a new page, i.e. I had a look through and didn't find that it needed tagging for speedy deletion, etc. This is noted in the patrol log at Mayflower signatories (before you moved it). If you were hoping it'd mean a more in-depth review, then I'm sorry but I've not done so. Of course, you can always tag the talk page with the relevant WikiProject banners and then list it for assessment accordingly. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is a big mess that I accidently caused. I was not thinking and I looked at the test edits and thought they were vandalism. I am currently removeing all the warnings I stupidly placed on innocent peoples talk page. ---The Cosmos Master (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry - no major harm done, and it's been quickly rectified now! You should be fine to keep on with the work you're doing, and are bound to learn the ropes fairly soon. Also, your sig still needs changing from
Hi, thank to you, the Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale article is spoiled , now it missing two images. I still dont see anything which doesnt allow use images with free rationale, and if you need source that should be asked before deleting anything -->Typ932T·C03:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 37#File:Alfa P33 roadster GS.jpg, reliable sources which refer to the prototype should be added in order to justify inclusion of File:Alfa P33 roadster GS.jpg(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I'm sure you're familiar with the policies regarding verfiablility, original research, etc. Because we're trying to build a free encyclopedia of high quality, illustrating articles with non-free images isn't always the best course of action, especially when they're not fully in context of reliable sources discussing their importance. As an example, an editor could find a photo/mock-up of a claimed concept car and include it within the encyclopedia. Obviously I'm not suggesting that's the case here, but readers deserve the ability to verify that what they're viewing is true and relevant. In any case, the file hasn't actually been deleted yet, just marked for deletion within the next week. Relevant sources could start with a report of the trade show where the car was exhibited at the time. If such sources are found and added, then (as I explained in the discussion) the image could be included within one article. If such sources aren't found before the file is deleted, if/when they are found, a request to undelete could be made. Finally, if it's any consolation, I think I can understand the frustration of having a file removed: it happens to most of us. One example which comes to mind (although not directly comparable to this case) is File talk:Aquae Sulis artist impression.jpg. Is that any help?
(TL;DR) It's not deleted. Sources can be added to verify existence, and image reincluded (in one article). Readers deserve to be able to verify content.
Why? I dont understand how you are so keen to delete good content and there is no consensus if two people decides to delete picture. Instead deleting stuff you could use your energy to make articles better, but what ever just keep spoiling articles -->Typ932T·C05:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Why what? Why can't we use self-published sources as a basis for verifiable info?
Firstly, please consider that I didn't develop the policies, but that they have community consensus. Having said that, I generally understand their intentions, and agree with their importance and that we should generally adhere to them. Coming back to the SPS (if I've correctly understood that to be one of your concerns), anyone could obviously collect and publish their own content on a website, blog, book, zine, etc. Such information may well be authoritative and correct. However, there is clearly less likelihood that such material is edited/checked by others in advance of it being published. Therefore, it's not something that we as editors should rely on, nor that we should expect readers to rely on: they ought to be able to check back to the original sources of the content we generate, in order to verify that we're not presenting them with inaccurate material. (I appreciate that this is rather idealistic, and is IMO of greater importance in articles where concrete facts are critical to readers' overall understanding.)
As for your opinion that I'm so keen to delete good content, is that formed on the basis of that sole discussion? Consensus isn't a vote, and is generally determined by closers of discussions, rather than by participants.
Also, I suggest that you further research my editing history before inferring that I spoil articles rather than improving them. I add informative sourced content (and images) to articles, and remove (or tag with {{cn}}, etc.) unsourced content. There are a number of possibly self-published sources which I know to be correct, and which could form useful additions to articles... however, I don't include them, rather seeking the same information from more authoritative places.
Finally, you may also wish to review some of my contributions to WP:AFD, where you'll find plenty of instances where I've located sources which contribute towards notability and have argued to keep content. (There are, of course, instances where I've been unsuccessful in my searches and have argued for deletion.)
This is becoming increasingly inconvenient now. I'm taking it to the Unblock Ticket Request System because a backlog is currently showing at Category:Requests for unblock. The blocking admin appears to be currently offline, and it therefore seems unreasonable to approach him directly when my request has now been in place here for 2 hours. I also note that the autoblock is set to expire at 17:01, 27 November 2013, i.e. in around 3½ hours. -- Trevj (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If and when this is lifted, is there a way to request that my account be exempted from any future autoblocks on the same IP address? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
Please see above. Perhaps I should have placed {{admin help}} this morning. I don't know whether or not I'll have much time left today to edit anything via this IP address. Never mind. -- Trevj (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Si. Unblock requests are difficult to evaluate, constantly backlogged, and tend to generally piss people off. In your future run for adminship, you would get my vote with a simple vow to watch this queue. :) Kuru(talk)15:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for handling this Kuru. This is above my pay grade. Trevj, apologies for the inconvenience, and I'm sure you're not Cognoscerapi. xxx (talk)
Thank you both. No harm done, explanation understood. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk)
If an autoblock is required in the future on an IP address I edit from, it'd be greatly appreciated if consideration could please be given to temporarily granting affected editors (potentially not just me) with IP block exemption. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk)
Please Assist re Economic Inclusivism
I wish to create a new page/term to be available on Wikipedia. The term is Economic Inclusivism, and I have a book with the same name on Amazon/Kindle. For a time my concept was on Wikipedia, but was deleted because it was a term that was “not widely accepted”, and admittedly, my page was not as succinct as it could have been—however, as a new term it is a given that it was yet to be widely accepted—Microsoft, as with any new term, was not widely accepted, or known, when first introduced. I am writing to you in the hope that you could either directly, or know of someone at Wikipedia that could assist in creating this new link. The following letter will define in detail, and certain you will agree that it is relevant. Please reply.
TO: The NEW YORKER
Please Forward to Malcolm Gladwell….I have 11 books on Amazon/Kindle….not that any are selling that well….but I want to tell you a “David vs Goliath” story about a theory that is covered in several of the books.
Prevailing thought in Washington, as well as by most Americans, and the leaders in the OECD, is:
Fix the market, and this will in turn fix unemployment—but I say NO---just the opposite is true—Fix unemployment, and this will fix the market--and I have found that I am definitely a “David” in trying to make this point.
During the 2008 election the electorate spoke loud and clear—Fix Unemployment. With majorities in both the Senate and House, I thought the Democrats would employ Public Law 15 USC § 3101, which provided them with the “Legal Authorization” to limit our unemployment to “3%”. In short, at no time should our unemployment in America exceed “3%”.
To my dismay—the Democrats opted for the former, above, with employment now being restored at a snail’s pace, and the result has been a disaster [I believe the 2010 election was retaliation for not fixing unemployment, and also ushered in a House full of lunatics]!
The Democrats would have had broad public support in 2010, with 3% unemployment, and now that is in jeopardy for 10 years, and it left us with a Washington in paralysis.
Also, according to the CBO, on our current path, it will be 2017 for us to get back to even an anemic 5.5%, with unemployment benefits long since expired—and if the market fails, the jobless are out of luck….
The puzzlement for me is why would our brightest and best make such a critical error? The solution to a problem is measured by results—and the data, alone, shows this result to be miserable.
Further, this is not limited to our leaders in America—and is also true throughout the OECD, with Eurozone 12.1%, as I write, and 25% in Greece and Spain, common. I would add that I believe all of these leaders are genuinely concerned with fixing joblessness.
So, I ask, why do our leaders keep applying 1950’s economic theory, in a 21st Century economy—particularly, given the most serious social problem facing us today, widespread unemployment?
And my take is because it is based on a pervasive, but false, “belief”:
“The belief that the market can provide anybody wanting a job, with a job”--[it is bedrock for Republicans[1], and let’s not forget that pervasive belief once had it that the world was flat]. And thus they have framed their policies and laws to solve unemployment, based on this “belief”….
But, this hasn’t been true since the mid-1970’s, and “High and persistent unemployment has pervaded almost every OECD country since the mid-1970’s”, according to Dr. William F. Mitchell, and every credible economist.
What happened in the mid-1970’s as a result of a shift in the world economy, is open to debate—I believe it was the result of the converging forces of automation, globalization, etc., reaching a critical mass in the mid-1970’s—i.e., we became victims of our success, and since, we have celebrated automation in the workplace and then got a “deer in the headlights” regarding the displaced employee. In the U.S. we defined the effect of this economic shift as “malaise”.
A factor apparently not considered in the OECD [our market-driven economies] is that unemployment is a “social” problem, with serious social consequences—We, as societies, have the responsibility to solve….and when every waking moment in capitalism is spent pondering how to eliminate as many of us humans, as possible, from the workplace—to increase profits—why on earth would we turn to the market to solve a social problem--that is antithetical to its objective?
In sum, the world has changed, our solution to address unemployment hasn’t, and the result has been a disaster.
My solution is The Neighbor-To-Neighbor Job Creation Act [hereafter NTN]: A federally mandated, Social Insurance, owned by our employed to provide a fund to hire/train our unemployed. For a modest 4% of salary policy cost we can create more “private-sector” jobs in 6 months, than our current path [HR 2847], in 6 years. Further, this has strong political support--86% of Americans believe that “anybody willing to work should be able to find a job….” [a quote from President Obama in “The Audacity of Hope”].
Finally, the market thrives when we have a robust, employed, consuming workforce [FULL EMPLOYMENT IS A PRO-MARKET CONCEPT and ECONOMIC INCLUSIVISM: NEO-CAPITALISM Inclusive Pro-Market Solutions To Our Social Problems, on Amazon/Kindle]—high unemployment/sluggish recovery is not a non sequitur. NTN is a “win-win” solution—The unemployed win, and the market wins.
Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, 2000 www.Inclusivism.org
[1] The Republican’s theory [asserted as fact] is cut taxes for the 1%, they will build factories with the windfall of cash—and we will all have a job in the corporation—it is BS—been there, did that—[Reaganomics] it has a 7 year shelf-life before the economy collapses [1987 & 2008], it drove us into a $10 trillion hole to dig out of, $6 trillion more to clean up their mess, and a 11.1 million job loss—The lesson from Supply-Side is that we cannot siphon America’s wealth away from the consuming middle, without sending our economy into meltdown [and yet, it is the Republican ONE AND ONLY program, to this day]!
A BRIEF ADDENDUM: If one concludes that the market cannot provide everybody wanting a job, with a job—then they have to look elsewhere to solve the problem of unemployment—and this, I believe, is the perceived conundrum faced by those charged with fixing our unemployment crisis—their only choice is “public-sector” jobs, and many fear this will compete with “private-sector” jobs—but this is specious--for one, the employees are doing different things—and in the trade-off there is a far greater loss to the market by not employing an expanding and contracting public workforce [Buffer Stock Employment Model--Dr. William F. Mitchell]--that expands during downturns in the market and contracts as employees return to the private sector—and apparently least understood is that this is an indispensable component to the effective functioning of a modern market economy. Humphrey-Hawkins had it on the nose in limiting our unemployment to 3%. Three vital components in creating a buffer stock of employees, includes: 1] it would be based on the premise that we have far more work that needs to be done, than persons to fill these jobs [“make-work” jobs, is archaic thinking]. 2] It must have renewable funding [this is not a “jump-start” solution, as currently practiced], and 3] it will not add a dime to our deficit. American law still has one foot on the plantation--American “employees” are seen as “A Pool Of Slaves” [persons without rights], to be used and discarded “at will”—while conversely, the human need to be a productive member of society cannot be stressed strongly enough, and in time, in America, it will be looked upon as a Human Right—it is one of the few things communism got right.
Hi. You're right about the deletion of Economic Inclusivism (and Economic inclusivism, which would be the correct capitalisation for the term). I've done some research and came across a copy of the text of your letter above online. For such terms to warrant separate articles here on Wikipedia, they should satisfy the general notability guideline, which seems to still not be the case, and the term may be considered a neologism. In the case of you enquiring about this particular term, it's also important that the conflict of interest be acknowledged.
You may be correct that, over time, the term will become more widely recognised. If/when this is the case, readers of Wikipedia will be considerably more likely to search for an encyclopedic entry about it. There is sometimes a period during which new terms deserve some recognition within articles of wider scope (before being considered to have their own independent notability). This also appears not to be the case here, although I did find a couple of references to the term in other publications.
You may want to consider posting a brief query at WikiProject Economics, although I'd suggest that including the above text wouldn't be particularly helpful. Another option is WP:AFC. I hope you find my comments to make sense and that they're of use to you. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Trevj--Can you assist in making Economic Inclusivism [below] available for the readers of Wikipedia? I don't ask that anyone "agree"--only that the readers have the opportunity to consider--and I would vehemently disagree with anyone who does not believe that the subject is relevant--indeed, it is highly relevant. If you have the time--please feel free to edit to meet guidelines, and get back to me....i.e., so long as the purpose and intent are not altered.
Best regard,
Jim Green
ECONOMIC INCLUSIVISM:
A Pro-Market Solution For Our Unemployment Crisis [what we are doing now is Anti-Market]
Pope Francis has presented us with a challenge for social and economic justice—but until we get honest about the “Belief” that is preventing us from moving into our 21st Century economy…here and throughout the OECD [the market-driven economies, including the U.S.]--both the jobless and the market will suffer.
During the 2008 election the electorate spoke loud and clear—Fix Unemployment. With majorities in both the Senate and House, I thought the Democrats would employ Public Law 15 USC § 3101, which provided them with the “Legal Authorization” to limit our unemployment to “3%”. In short, at no time should our unemployment in America exceed “3%”.
To my dismay—the Democrats opted for 1950’s economic theory, with employment now being restored at a snail’s pace, and the result has been a disaster [I believe the 2010 election was retaliation for not fixing unemployment, and also ushered in a House full of lunatics]!
The Democrats would have had broad public support in 2010, with 3% unemployment, and now that is in jeopardy for 10 years, and it left us with a Washington in paralysis.
Also, according to the CBO, on our current path, it will be 2017 for us to get back to even an anemic 5.5%, with unemployment benefits long since expired—[the House Republicans are threatening not to renew the current rollover, as I write]--and if the market fails, the jobless are out of luck….
The puzzlement for me is why would our brightest and best make such a critical error? The solution to a problem is measured by results—and the data, alone, shows this result to be miserable.
Further, this is not limited to our leaders in America—and is also true throughout the OECD, with Eurozone 12.1%, as I write, and 25% in Greece and Spain, common. I would add that I believe all of these leaders are genuinely concerned with fixing joblessness.
So, I ask, why do our leaders keep applying 1950’s economic theory, in a 21st Century economy—particularly, given the most serious social problem facing us today, widespread unemployment?
And my take is because it is based on a pervasive, but false, “Belief”:
THE “BELIEF” THAT THE MARKET CAN PROVIDE ANYBODY WANTING A JOB, WITH A JOB —[and our market economies stand on one foot and then the other waiting on the market to solve a problem it is incapable of solving--more on this shortly—this “Belief” is bedrock for Republicans(1), and let’s not forget that pervasive belief once had it that the world was flat]….
And thus the policies and laws to solve unemployment, in our market-driven economies, have been framed around, and based on this “Belief”….
Also, many in the “rank and file” have so bought into the myth that ONLY the market can create jobs—they have joined with the 1% who deny climate change to justify drilling the Rockies down to an anthill---to assure their having a job—the planet be dam--ed!]….
But, this hasn’t been true since the mid-1970’s, and “High and persistent unemployment has pervaded almost every OECD country since the mid-1970’s”, according to Dr. William F. Mitchell, and every credible economist [and pervasive unemployment dominates our news programs to this day].
What happened in the mid-1970’s, as the result of a Grotian Moment-like paradigm shift in the world economy, is open to debate—I believe it was the result of the converging forces of automation, globalization, technology, etc., reaching a critical mass in the mid-1970’s—i.e., we became victims of our success, and since, we have celebrated automation in the workplace, and then got a “deer in the headlights” regarding the displaced employee [a problem that left uncorrected, will grow exponentially as we advance into the 21st Century]. In the U.S. we defined the impact of this economic shift as “malaise”.
A factor apparently not considered throughout the OECD is that unemployment is a “social” problem, with serious social consequences—We, as societies, have the responsibility to solve….and when every waking moment in capitalism is spent pondering how to eliminate as many of us humans, as possible, from the workplace—to increase profits—why on earth would we turn to the market to solve a social problem--that is antithetical to its objective?
In sum, the world has changed, our solution for unemployment hasn’t, and the result has been a disaster—i.e., as a result of the “Belief”, above-- nowhere in the OECD do we have a program specific to ending unemployment!
For perspective on the stubborn and sub-conscious nature of this “Belief” [3% is perceived as unsustainable], ask: Why can we land on the Moon, but we can’t fix unemployment? And why would we turn to anything as erratic as the market for a solution? And why do we ignore data which clearly tells us we are on the wrong path?
My solution is The Neighbor-To-Neighbor Job Creation Act [hereafter NTN]: A federally mandated, Social Insurance, owned by our employed, to provide a fund to hire/train our unemployed. For a modest 4% of salary policy cost we can create more “private-sector” jobs in 6 months, than our current path [HR 2847], in 6 years. Further, this has strong political support--86% of Americans believe that “anybody willing to work should be able to find a job….” [a quote from President Obama in “The Audacity of Hope”].
The market thrives when we have a robust, employed, consuming workforce [FULL EMPLOYMENT IS A PRO-MARKET CONCEPT, and ECONOMIC INCLUSIVISM: NEO-CAPITALISM Inclusive Pro-Market Solutions For Our Social Problems, on Amazon/Kindle]—High unemployment/sluggish recovery is not a non sequitur. NTN is a “win-win” solution—The unemployed win, and the market wins.
Jim Green, Democrat candidate for Congress, 2000 www.Inclusivism.org
(1) The Republican’s job creation theory [asserted as fact] is cut taxes for the 1%, they will build factories with the windfall of cash—and we will all have a job in the corporation—it is BS—been there, did that—[Reaganomics] it has a 7 year shelf-life before the economy collapses [1987 & 2008], it drove us into a $10 trillion hole to dig out of, $6 trillion more [and counting] to clean up their mess, and a 14.4 million job loss—In short, rather than being pro-market [which they boast] the Republican agenda is a menace to the market! And the “Belief”, above, explains why Republicans spew out broad-brush, mean-spirited, irrational blather “The jobless are lazy”, etc., etc…..
The lesson from Supply-Side is that we cannot siphon America’s wealth away from the consuming middle, without sending our economy into meltdown [and yet, it is the Republican One and Only program, to this day]!
A BRIEF ADDENDUM: If one concludes that the market cannot provide everybody wanting a job, with a job—then they must look elsewhere to solve the problem of unemployment—and this, I believe, is the perceived conundrum faced by those charged with fixing our unemployment crisis—their only choice is “public-sector” jobs, and many fear this will compete with “private-sector” jobs—but this is specious--for one, the employees are doing different things—and in the trade-off there is a far greater loss to the market by not employing an expanding and contracting public workforce [Buffer Stock Employment Model--Dr. William F. Mitchell, Australia]--that expands during downturns in the market and contracts as employees return to the private sector—[triggered at 3% under Humphrey-Hawkins].
And apparently least understood is that this is an indispensable, a sine quo non component to the effective functioning of a modern market economy. Humphrey-Hawkins is Pro-Market—and they had it on the nose in limiting our unemployment to 3%.
And as just one illustration—were it not for the moneys from Social Security Insurance [Social Insurance] in the U.S. percolating up through our economy during the 2008 meltdown, we would not be talking about having narrowly averted another Great Depression, we would be buried in one! A weapon, incidentally, available to President Obama, that was not available to FDR—and it also explains, in large part, why we have not had a Great Depression since.
And, perhaps it needs to be added that Social Insurance is democracy in its highest form. On a societal level, our choices are: Adapt and change in a world that is changing whether we like it or not—or create a Police State to hold anachronistic [unworkable] solutions in place….and in America, we have, sadly, opted for the latter….
Three vital components in creating a buffer stock of employees, include: 1] it would be based on the premise that we have far more work that needs to be done, than persons to fill these jobs [“make-work” jobs, is archaic thinking]. 2] It must have renewable funding [this is not a “jump-start” solution, as currently practiced], and 3] it will not add a dime to our deficit.
Finally, the notion that this would result in massive federal job creation is absurd, archaic—and HR 870 provides the correct model, with grants to local jurisdictions—and our local unemployment offices become employment offices. To overcome this “Belief” we need to think differently, for instance, our mind-set should change from fix the market, and this will in turn fix unemployment—to fix unemployment, and this will fix the market. And our current pernicious result in job creation is consummate proof of the fallacy that “market-only” solutions work [Ron Paul, et al]--it is a fallacy. At present, American law still has one foot on the plantation--American “employees” are seen as “A Pool Of Slaves”, on Amazon [persons without rights—a slave by definition], to be used and discarded “at will”—
While conversely, the human need to be a productive member of society cannot be stressed strongly enough (2), and in time, in America, it will be looked upon as a Human Right—after all, our “economies” are only about one species—us—us human beings--it is one of the few things communism got right. If it isn’t clear yet, I am a capitalist….I staunchly support: Make a better widget, sell it for a million bucks, and retire in South Florida—but the truth is, labels have become a menace and our political parties need to evolve into a single label, objective: “eclectic problem-solver”….[and a fitting label for President Obama—but undermined by our current political paralysis].
(2) Our current indifference to this human need is the reason for our epidemic of workplace violence, a pernicious incarceration rate, and our youth shooting each other at an alarming rate in every major city in America—and at the core of this indifference, and a plethora of other ills--is an anachronistic “BELIEF”….
Hi again. Sorry, no I can't help in making Economic Inclusivism available. As I stated above, this is because the term doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline. Additionally, copying/pasting such text into Wikipedia has associated copyright implications. The content also appears promotional.
I suggest you re-read my comments of 6 December 2013 above;
It seems that your RfA closed with 94% support. If you do become an admin, then congrats. If you didn't, you are definitely a great candidate. Best wishes, Epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to everyone for spending time researching my contributions here, posing questions and participating in the discussion. I'll be checking out the relevant (extensive) reading material again and will proceed slowly in areas where I don't have much experience. On the non-administrative side, I'll be continuing to improve my content creation to address deficiencies there. All the best, everyone, and thanks again. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, don't sysop functions include the filemover right? If so, then I think you can remove the filemover function yourself, as it is redundant. Unless the filemover right isn't part of the sysop package, in which case you can keep it. Epicgenius (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, especially for succeeding as a self nom. When you get bored of looking up the right block message have a look at my monobook - some kind person added some code there that gives you a dropdown menu. ϢereSpielChequers23:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding content work, I'm waiting for editors to pick up Giving Victims a Voice,[1] and Jessie Stephen[2][3] although I understand that it could take a while longer yet. These are stable articles, and I am pretty familiar with their contents. Once I've participated in such reviews, I plan to build on the experience in other areas. In essence, I see reviews of these articles as being partly in preparation for work on others. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You moved on the 4th Dec, 2013 article name from "Prosa Structured Analysis Tool" to "Prosa SA/SD/RT Modeller". Could you please undo this change. I do not how to make the move again, because I already made this move once on the 10th Nov 2013.
(Trevj moved page Prosa Structured Analysis Tool to Prosa SA/SD/RT Modeller over redirect: WP:AFDEQ - discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosa SA/SD/RT Modeller, better to consider move during/after close) (undo | thank)
Hi. The article was deleted because the consensus outcome of the discussion (linked to in the deletion log accompanying the current redlink) was for deletion. The Citi Bike issue isn't enough on its own to establish notability of the subject. If you are able to cite a number of sources which could demonstrate notability, then we can take it from there. The discussion could be reopened if this is the case... but this would be unusual, and I see that you already made your comment in the discussion at the time. Are you able to point to such further sources? I'll put a welcome template on your talk page which has a few links to policies & guidelines surrounding sourcing and notability. Please say if you have any further questions. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Monkey note
Hi, Trevj:
Why did you remove the nastygram from my talkpage? I prefer to keep these nasty notices for anyone to see. They reflect on the sender, not the receiver. Best, BsBsBs (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstated[8] I'm very sorry about that. Considering the age of the comment, I should really have guessed that you were OK to leave it in place. I'll think twice before doing anything like that again... and will try to remember to think 3 times in your case. All the best, and sorry again. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 05:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... and I've just removed the auto-signing of that. It can be reinstated too, if you'd like it to remain as a reflection on my unwanted interference. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 06:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your oppose on Sue Rangell's RFA
Hey, Trevj. I noticed that your oppose vote on Sue Rangell's RfA actually says "Moral Support". Shouldn't it go under "Support" instead, or is your !vote correct? Epicgenius (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. The !vote was correctly placed. I really didn't feel able to support, but wanted to avoid piling on by typing Oppose. Actually, I first considered placing it within the 'Neutral' section but thought that wouldn't have been very sincere, therefore deciding that 'Oppose' was its rightful place. It's a shame for Sue, but I think she exercised good judgement in withdrawing. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 05:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sue Rangell✍ ✉ is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
If I reply on my old talk page ([[9]]) I am worried about being blocked again. Whatever happened to my old Wiki account is a mystery to me. I have started over and just checked in out of curiosity only to find that I could not sign into my new page because the old IP was auto blocked. This seems to me wholly inefficient. Yes, I use a proxy service (everyone I know does) and I'm sure this fact is the source of whatever problem there was with my own account. But I don't like my name associated with whatever happened before and I would like to remove my name from whatever investigation is going on. I hadn't even begun editing when this happened. I write today in the spirit of Christmas to let me continue and to put an end to whatever part of the investigation affected me. Thank you. JRWeisman (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HI and thanks for the message. I don't have total familiarity with the history of the block, but would suggest that creating a new account isn't likely to be helpful in the long term. You really need to file another unblock request at User talk:Jeffreyweisman, explaining the cirumstances which have been examined and clearly stating the reason(s) why you should be unblocked. For the moment (and in the spirit of Christmas), I'll leave this as it is... -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 18:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. The problem is that whatever happened (and I've learned a lot about Checkuser and various ways to check) you can see that i hadn't even edited before my account becoming corrupted. When I tried to log in to ask why, my talk page was blocked so I cannot even apply for another block to state the reason. I tried to state my case on the administrator's page without logging into my account (just like a random person) but then my address was blocked. This is the problem now -- my internet address is flagged. I don't really mind except that I used my full name before and when people google me all this sock puppet stuff comes up. I would be very grateful for any advice you can give . JRWeisman (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested that consideration be given to reinstating talk page access for User:Jeffreyweisman(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It looks as if you may have tried to contact a different administrator with your IP posting, as I can't see a record of it there. The user page is listed as no-indexed and the talk page should be automatically set. I didn't see that page in search engine results, so am not sure how much of a concern it is. I suggest waiting for further guidance from the blocking admin. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kind sir! I'm enjoying the process of editing, these bumps with my previous account notwithstanding. If middle school students come to Wikipedia for their science reports, well they should get good quality information and I'm glad to help with that. JRWeisman (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An image file I recently uploaded which you deleted is not copyrighted; I took the shot myself with my personal DSLR when I visited the set of the movie 2 years ago. Please it will be appreciated if the image is restored. If you saw the image on websites, it was obviously uploaded by bloggers whom I might have shared it with (and also shared it with others perhaps) for promotional purposes. I repeat, it is not copyrighted! Please return the image.
An image file I recently uploaded which was deleted is not copyrighted; I took the shot myself with my personal DSLR when I visited the set of the movie 2 years ago. Please it will be appreciated if the image is restored. If you saw the image on websites, it was obviously uploaded by bloggers whom I might have shared it with (and also shared it with others perhaps) for promotional purposes. I repeat, it is not copyrighted! Return the image.
Hello, Trevj. I wonder if you can elaborate on your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logan Grove. I have carefully re-read the discussion, and I can see nothing there that could be read as suggesting a "soft delete", let alone a consensus for one. Have I missed something, or have you injected your own opinion into the closure, rather than making an impartial assessment of consensus among those who took part in the discussion? JamesBWatson (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MovieCode, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
When I realised the sound of my speakers was inconsistent, I found out that one of the tweeters had blown. The project to repair them, beginning with thorough research - through finding all the replacement parts that included investigating 12 different types of screws - and ending in a "proper" restoration, took three months. I'm glad I took my time over the job. You mentioned the Codas, you might like to check out LS3/5A too. Hope it inspires. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!12:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. Yes, I spotted the DYK for LS3/5A! As for my Codas, I think the problem has been isolated to the crossovers. A mate of mine helped me switch them over and it seems to be that. So I'm going to try to source some relatively inexpensive replacements and see what difference they make! Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, replacement parts for my 25-year-old speakers actually included capacitors. In some circles, it is said that "recapping" electronics is required for optimal performance after about 10 years because the substance that separates the two electrodes, particularly of electrolytics, dries out over time. If you are UK based, check out Wilmslow Audio for good quality parts. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!01:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. WA's site is one of the ones I've been browsing over. Not sure I can afford their prices, as I have much less spare cash than I did 10 years ago! I'm actually considering trying something like this or this, and see how they sound. Anyway, I'll give it a bit more thought. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 05:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot to be said for very simple crossovers, and at those prices, there is margin for error if you need to execute "plan b" ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame!11:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you do not misunderstand what I wrote at Talk:National Westminster Bank, I moved the page back because each time it has been moved a still active editor has moved it back. So rather than have you move it and later have that editor move it back claiming no consensus, if a consensus to move is shown to exist in a RM (requested move) then it can not be moved back on the whim the editors who wish to move it back instead they will have to show a consensus for the move back through an other RM. -- PBS (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for expressing some frustration there. It just seems rather unnecessary to me. Anyway, perhaps I'll be proved wrong if there's no consensus for the move! Cheers and no hard feelings. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article MovieCode, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the creator of the MovieCode blog was inspired by Neill Blomkamp's 2013 film Elysium, which uses an extract from an Intel manual? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/MovieCode. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
In August 2012 you helped resolve a dispute about the Jimmy Henchman page. It was decided to keep as is due to WP:HEY and my and others work on it. Since this time several people have made excellent updates including adding his sentencing for multiple crimes. Recently, since Henchman has gone to trial for murder a few editors on the board have gone back and wiped out the page many times to the point that it's censored. I was wondering if you could help with this since you were the administrator on it before.
It just seems counterproductive to let this sort of thing keep going on when many of the issues have been voted on. I'd really appreciate your input. Also Ronjohn StaticVapor (sp?) and Dennis Brown have spent a long time discussing the content up to the point of the 595354859 version. Best, Scholarlyarticles (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. I'll have a look later on today when I can. (Please note that I wasn't an admin at the time, not that it really matters.) -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching template:like, and it seems like a certain editor spammed the documentation with his facebook page. Apropos, I know. But anyway, I can't for the life of me find the actual edit to revert it, and I even looked in the "template documentation" which I didn't know was a separate page, and I'm a Bit stumped. I thought you might be able to remedy the problem. Sorry for being inept. AgnosticAphidtalk15:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to clarify that I didn't mean that the article should be frozen in time a year and a half ago. I only meant that the specific paragraph that was discussed there should be included. My point is that the Jimmy Henchman talk page was worked on for a year and a half and was a fine, well-documented article as of January 23, 2014. Then Henchman's agent objected someplace else in WP (where no one on the talk page could see it) and the page WP was promptly dismantled. Editors were told to start from the beginning. The January 23rd complaint of Henchman's agent referenced no in-line citation or sourcing issue but blamed the judge who sentenced him to life, the reporter who investigated it, and the messengers. The strategy of Jimmy Henchman has been to shoot the messenger (often more literally then we like to ponder.) The page is a difficult one because the subject is a convicted felon sentenced to life on trial for murder who continues threats of violence from jail. The COI issue was not discussed on the talk page an none of us understood where the apparent hostility was coming from. Three people have coordinated efforts that seem quite intimidating. Today I found this in another section of WP:
"Jimmy Henchman
We have people trying to restore content about criminality sourced to the New York Post, New York Daily News, rap lyrics and court documents. Eyes would be helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)"
It seems a call to coordinate efforts to censor the information of all the editors who have worked on the page for a year and a half. Indeed, three editors have coordinated efforts and wiped out a lot of references that have existed for a year and a half. (The fact that Henchman is currently on trial for murder was wiped out as well as the specific paragraph whose references and content was discussed in 2012.) It wasn't made clear anywhere near the talk page. The effect has been chilling. My point is this: The editors who work on biographies of life criminals making violent threats from prison deserve our respect and support, our discretion, and, at the very least, not to be ganged up on. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for responding. I don't know what a COIN is and am not familiar with the procedures. We could sure use help on the Jimmy Henchman talk page though. What happened is that once the COIN was raised three editors coordinated an attack on the page, without informing us of the COIN. The three editors are working in concert and threatening each editor who previously worked on the Henchman page repeatedly with being blocked for just talking or reverting to the pre-COIN version. Is there a place where I can weigh in on the COIN? When I tried to, my comment was wiped out by NeilN. How are these things generally handled? Can we freeze the page at the pre-complaint level on January 23, 2014 [10] until it is resolved. Best, Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for responding. Sorry I took so long. I was trying to find the relevant diffs and also had some other work to attend to. NeilN reverted my request [[11]] for the COIN issue person to come to the page and talk twice [[12]] [[13]] He did not inform anyone on the talk page of the COIN or any of the issues, the person with the conflict of interest raised. He and RedPenofDoom rather discussed it on his page notifying canvassing the people he prefers and gossiping about me here [[14]] and other places.
I was not referring to NeilN when I brought up the COIN. I was referring to the COIN mentioned by Dennis Brown, a mentor of mine, concerning a “COIN issue” mentioned here and here. I wasn't completely sure what that meant. I know Dennis is semi-retired and I preferred not to bug him. He said that this COIN was heating up. Only after I asked Dennis Brown to comment this time (around Feb 13th, 2014), did NeilN allow people at the Jimmy Henchman talk page to get the benefit of being aware of the complaint made by 67.81.205.59, who said he was Jimmy Henchman’s agent. The user 67.81.205.59 changed the page here [[15]]. That's the diff I meant. I don't know how these COIN issues of 67.81.205.59 to which Dennis referred are resolved. This controversy has been ungoing since 2012 and a key edit warrior was RedPenofDoom who was tag-teaming with Diannaa in 2012, before it was resolved. He has now, as of January 23, 2014 decided with alf laylah wa laylah and NeilN to again attack the issues that were resolved in September of 2012. {{u|RedPenofDoom]] continues to edit even my sandbox (where I put a notice that it was a draft not for citation or dissemination) to delete a fact about the subject of the article has issued vioilent threats from jail [[16]] despite the fact that it's a well documented fact [[17]]
NeilN reverted my request [[18]] for the COIN issue person to come to the page and talk twice [[19]] [[20]] He did not inform anyone on the talk page of the COIN or any of the issues, the person with the conflict of interest raised. He and RedPenofDoom rather discussed it on his page notifying canvassing the people he prefers and gossiping about me here [[21]] On January 25, 2014
RedPenofDoom wrote somewhere outside off the talk page: "Jimmy Henchman - We have people trying to restore content about criminality sourced to the New York Post, New York Daily News, rap lyrics and court documents. Eyes would be helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)"
This comment was made off the talk page. I brought it to the talk page and said I thought such calls should be made here on the talk page. I said that if there is a coordinated effort to undo the year and a half's worth of work by a number of editors by a few, it should be examined there. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC). Red responded: "Why didnt I ask here for feedback? because ... Asking for feedback from the current article creators would be like asking a drowning person for swimming lessons."
In the summer of 2012 plenty of people worked on this article before me.
There was a copyright problem made by someone else [[22]] [[23]], before I was ever on the page. The copyright issue had nothing to do with the Attack at the Quad which has been the reason for Diannaa's and RedPenofDoom's attack.
Editors tried to restore the substance of the article while taking out the copyright violation [[24]]. It's hard to tell from history who edited the various versions because at least two editors sandboxes were spammed.
The first serious blanking of the article came by Dianna here:[[25]] with a misleading edit summary. In the following section Diannaa reverted not only my work but the original copyright violation unwittingly restored by me: [[26]] Here Dianna again reverted the original copyright violation that I unwittingly reverted PLUS all the work of the previous editors. [[27]]. [[28]] Nouniquenames restored it [[29]] Here RedPenofDoom tries again to revert it [[30]]. One of the reasons given was that Jimmy Henchman aka Rosemond was misidentified as Richmond in an AP article. Henchman was only misidenfied in one place in the article. Then I tried to the interrupt the disruptive edits while adding a new citation [[31]] This is when Diannaa took out all everyone’s work saying blogs are not reliable sources [[32]], Dianna accused me of copyright violation, speculating offline about who she thought I was, I was told by several people. (she was wrong.) Then she decimated any article I had worked on, attacking them with misleading edit summaries. I reached out to someone on the Arbitration Committee who mentioned Dennis Brown. Dennis Brown reached back to me. The disruptive edits by Diannaa and RedPenofDoom were based on the Attack at the Quad issue that was resolved here: [[33]]. and on my talk page [[34]]. She and I have tried to put this behind us and I wanted to downplay any mistakes she made to cool things down so I hid the controversy on my page. I've manually revealed all the discussions that took place in the few weeks between August 31 and September 4. .
Here is my final discussion with Dianna. Dennis resolved the sourcing question. I've never heard from her again.
Blogs are not considered reliable sources
Hi, Scholarlyarticles. I see you are once again adding defamatory material based on a blog post with this edit [35]. Blogs are not considered reliable sources for defamatory material on this wiki. I have removed the content.-- Dianna (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure which you're referring to but the Village Voice article has been around for about 30 years. I also added a huff po article to the same reference. I hope this clarifies things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by - (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2012 Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Dennis. I have reverted my removal of the material. -- Dianna (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks D and D. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)]]]
It's been a year and a half since the resolution of the Attack at the Quad Issue here at WP, Jimmy Henchman has been sentenced to life imprisonment, and has begun his new trial for murder. His WP is getting worse because he is no longer primarily known as a music mogul, not because of anything we're doing. I haven't worked on it much for a while except to try to protect it from continually being wiped out by numerous anonymous IP addresses. Before January 23, 2014 a number of editors have worked on his page to get it to where it was before 67.81.205.59 raised the complaint and changed the page [[36]]. His or her complaint is completely without substance or merit, making no substantive claim about WP sources except to blame his lawyer, the journalist involved, and Judge Gleeson.
Nevertheless, TheRedPenOfDoom now is now using it as a reason to tag-team with his new partners alf laylah wa laylah and NeilN. Some examples of the edit wars he's involved with have been with these people- RedPenofDoom diff1 [[37]]; RedPenofDoom diff2 [[38]] STATicVapors restoration [[39]] Rmhermen attempts to restore [[40]] Red Pen of Doom's reversion of Rmhermen [[41]] (note- he makes a misleading summary)
The trio have nearly continually threatened many including STATicVapor, and others with blocks, intimidating us from editing every three sentences, disrupting our edits and even collapsing edits to hide them with with misleading edit summaries such as "more conspiracy theories" [[42]] thus censoring even the talk page. I asked RedPenofDoom why the three editors why they were complaining about the content of the Jimmy Henchman talk page where no one on the talk page could see it, why they did not inform us of the complaint of IP address 67.81.205.59. He said that is because we, the editors of the Jimmy Henchman page, had made an incompetent page over the last two years and we'd have to start from square one. In other words we'd have to start since before his edit-warring, tag-teaming with Diannaa. The trio of editors have advised us in no uncertain terms that we can make no changes without there approval or we will be blocked. RedPenofDoom simply reverts the material decided on in 2012
RedPenofDoom diff1 [[43]] RedPenofDoom diff2 [[44]] STATicVapors restoration [[45]] Rmhermen attempts to restore [[46]] Red Pen of Doom's reversion of Rmhermen [[47]] (note- he makes a misleading summary
I've made an attempt to restore it to the January 23, 2014 version. There is not a lively discussion. There is tag-teaming intimidation to try to re-litigate all the work that was done regarding the attack at the Quad and the crimes of which Henchman has been convicted. Also note STATicVapor's argument [[48]]
Please Red's final note to me to chase me from the Jimmy Henchman talk page:
The version that you prefer is NOT going to happen because it is is major violation of a number of policies and guidelines particularly WP:BLP.
How it got from your preferred but completely non compliant version to the one today is explained in the edit summaries.
The article is certainly in need of improvement, but it will need to be fixed one step at a time with appropriately reliably published sources used to present appropriate content in an appropriate manner.
Suggestions for large scale non compliant edits are going to be dismissed outright.
This despite that it was they who dismantled the article on January 23rd, 2014 based on nothing. It was repeatedly decided that there was no BLP issues. Where on Wikipedia was it decided that RedPenofDoom and his team of two should be the judge and jury of this page for all the arguments that were resolved before? I'm sorry for my typing. I've really tried to get it in better form for you to look at. I and a number of other editors feel hounded by this trio. Any help would be greatly appreciated. My best, Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted her posts here and here and undid myself [49]. Note the edit summaries. Also note the instructions on the page: "The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages." I've sought clarification here.
"He did not inform anyone on the talk page of the COIN or any of the issues, the person with the conflict of interest raised." There is no COI issue... There is no COI issue... Ironically, it was Scholarlyarticles who posted on COIN and didn't "inform" the talk page but no one is harping on that.
"...gossiping about me here..." That's not gossip, that's prep for a straightforward RfC/U which I informed Scholarlyarticles about.
Thanks very much, both of you. I've read all of the above, but it'll be some time before I'm able to review all the diffs, etc. There seem to be some fundamental misunderstandings of policy between some editors, which I hope to be able to help with when I've more time. Until then (or until there are more eyes are on the issue), I think it's important that we all assume good faith. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Trevj: Thanks for your help and your diligence. I have a suggestion, rather than heating this up any further, in order to proceed by the Principle of Least Drama, why not take the version here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Rosemond&oldid=592182401 restored by Rmhermen on January 24, 2014 after the disruptive edit of Henchman's agent IP 67.81.205.59, then vet any sourcing issue on that version one step at a time? In other words, if there's a source an editor is uncomfortable with in that version, ONE editor could identify the source. Then you or you and another administrator could discuss whether it is a valid source. In other words, to work backwards from the consensus pre-disrupted version restored by administrator Rmhermen rather than start from two years ago? Just a thought on how to make this more collegial. All the best, Scholarlyarticles (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarlyarticles: And again, why don't you accept that discussion took place about the sources on the talk page, realize that administrators have absolutely no special say in article content matters, stop lobbying for your preferred version, and, as you've been asked many, many, times, state (specifically, not "bring the whole thing back") what changes you want to the current version? If you think a contentious source is reliable, you can always ask at WP:RSN but for god's sake, read the instructions before posting. --NeilNtalk to me20:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN I think we all can all agree that 1. the January 23, 2014 edit by Jimmy Henchman's agent was disruptive. 2. Attempts to restore it by Rmhermen [[50]] as quickly as possible was entirely appropriate and that 3. There was no consensus that you Red, and Al should be the arbiters of whether sources from the New York Times, The New York Post, and the VV enter the article. Besides, the issues of whether those are valid sources has long since been resolved. You have refused to discuss the content of the articles. If you three are saying the restored version is based on poor references (despite the fact that it was consensus for a year and a half since the last discussion), please tell me a. what percentage of the thousands of pages of sources there have you read and b. specifically with which do you disagree?
Alf has asked me "why don't you pay for your own blog and go away?" Your wish to run me out of WP is noted. But it's not responsive to content issues. It's not helpful to building an encyclopedia. That's what we are here to do. Why do I prefer to be in the presence of an administrator or arbitrator? Frankly, I find that most editors who get to be administrators have mastered a friendly tone. I like being in places where people are knowledgeable and friendly. I've found that people tend to be more civil when there's an administrator or arbiter around. Best to youScholarlyarticles (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm running late but I'll respond to one of your points. Your assertion about what alf laylah wa laylah said is false (I'm done with using the more polite "misrepresentation"). You asked, "Is there a way I can make this private?" ("this" being your sandbox) [51]. He responded, "If you're answering my comment here, what I'm talking about is the fact that everything on Wikipedia is open and to be used for the purpose of collaborating on the encyclopedia. You can't make stuff private. If you want to write your own thoughts on whatever topics and not have other people get involved, you ought to pay for your own web-hosting and run a blog." [52]. --NeilNtalk to me22:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
alf laylah wa laylah: Thank you for clarifying that that is what you were thinking. Good to know. Because what you SAID was "Yep, get a blog somewhere else.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)" and that could be misconstrued as harsh. BestScholarlyarticles (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the diff to which I was referring was this [[53]]. I have discussed the situation with another editor only as a way acknowledging what seemed to be his frustration [[54]] with the tag-teaming. Since you three are following that thread, as well as everything I write, it didn't seem to require notification. However, I feel that the canvassing between you three for a block of me and asking each other whether you would certify without notifying me [[55]] [[56]] is not appropriate. You seem to be collecting votes already before it is even submitted. Am I being dense again? I and the other users would like to stick to content. We've read thousands of pages. You seem to be trying to find any other strategy than actually looking at the issues and articles. The BLP issues have been looked at over and over again and it doesn't seem appropriate to coordinate efforts to get people blocked as a strategy instead of litigating the content issues. All the best, Scholarlyarticles (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're misunderstanding Wikipedia processes yet again. An RfC/U is designed to get outside output on a user's behavior. It is not asking for an outright block. I notified you here as a courtesy to let you know what I was thinking of doing (I didn't have to). If you read the page I linked to, you'll see it states at least one other editor must certify the dispute. I am puzzled by your assertion that you'd like to stick to discussing content. You've been asked numerous times what specific content you'd like to change but seem to want to discuss COI, canvassing, (every time I mention a Wikipedia concept to you, you seem to jump on it), tag-teaming, how dangerous editing the article is, and nebulous past history. Will you at least put forth one sentence or paragraph you'd like to change/add in a concise way? That is, "here is the paragraph I want to add and here are the sources". --NeilNtalk to me04:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be primarily a content dispute, and the level of detail discussed here isn't really appropriate for a user talk page. Here isn't the most logical place for editors to review discussions related to content of the specific article in the future.
Any uninvolved editor in good standing may intervene during disputes, although I understand that administrators may be expected to employ greater tact... of course this is not always the case, with some non-admins being better mediators than some admins.
I've still not had enough spare time to review all the diffs, so I'm sorry but I won't be able to comment further until I've done so.
Just a note I've finished writing up the RfC/U I linked to above but will wait to file until you comment. No hurry - I'm hoping you find an alternative to us having to go through that process. --NeilNtalk to me04:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the links and diffs I've referred to keep being archived. This is primarily a content dispute. But NeilN is trying to pre-certify a block of me, by canvassing, selecting specific editors and administrators to deal with things, entering articles I've worked on and putting templates on them. Please help.
RfC/U for Scholarlyarticles?
Please read this. Do you think a RfC/U would be a good idea and if so, would you be willing to certify? --NeilN talk to me 03:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN: the complete lack of understanding or willingness to follow BLP is troubling (i have just given her a final warning) as is the SPA campaign and the conspiracy mindset, all of which are troublesome enough in themselves, but then bundled together... if she ignores the final warning then something will need to be done. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
RfC/U for Scholarlyarticles?[edit]
Please read this. Do you think a RfC/U would be a good idea and if so, would you be willing to certify? --NeilN talk to me 03:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I think your account is accurate. I don't quite understand what the RfC/U process is meant to accomplish, but I can certainly attest to everything you've written there and would certify if you should initiate it. The weirdness around here has no bottom.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
It's an alternative to asking for a good-faith but problematic editor to be blocked or banned. Hopefully the editor in question would change their behavior. --NeilN talk to me 05:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I can't actually say anything I'm thinking about the chances of that, so I'll
just say "OK."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Scholarlyarticles[edit]
FYI, I'm having a similar issue with the same user, although they are not as eloquent with me. But now I just saw that you have noticed it here. You're quick! Fnordware (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I also notice that Scholarlyarticles seems to be putting Chuck Philips in other places. For example, the Biggie Smalls article frequently mentions that Chuck Philips wrote an article about something in the article text thanks to edits like this one. And then this link you mentioned refers to Chuck Philips as "my client." So it appears that Scholarlyarticles may actually be working for the subjects of articles he's editing. Fnordware (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Fnordware, the IP was talking about Jimmy Henchman, not Philips. I don't think Scholarlyarticles has any COI, just deep misunderstandings of several policies and guidelines. By the way, do you mind if I move this conversation to my talk page where it belongs? Lastly, note I mentioned her edit on your talk page here. --NeilN talk to me 07:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand, but I am being hounded. Is there an appropriate way to proceed? The three are gong through everything I'm working on and vandalizing it. They already decided to pre-certify an RfC/U that I don't even know how to respond to and they've submitted it. They even seem to know how to find which administrator to use to block me. I need help with the procedures. How should I proceed when I'm being hounded?Scholarlyarticles (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think you're being subjected to harassment, then please be sure to elaborate on this in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Scholarlyarticles(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I'll try to endorse (in whole or in part) some of what I see there, and may even post a view there myself. In order to do either, I need to spend some time familiarising myself with events. Please be sure to use selective diffs, rather than copying and pasting conversations as you've done above. Excerpts may be useful, but conversations themselves can be viewed via diffs and archives. You may want to mock something up in your sandbox first, adjusting it for brevity and clarity before posting. If you think this may take you a while, you could simply drop a note at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Scholarlyarticles explaing what you're doing. I hope things can be resolved amicably and with civility. Cheers for now. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. It's hard for me to craft a complaint with diffs because Diannaa seems to be working on NeilN's page to wipe out links where they are discussing me and lobbying to get me blocked. Frankly, I don't know she does this. Since Red is spamming my sandbox everything is coming out gibberish. Meanwhile, NeilN is Wikilawyering to get me blocked and issuing threatening messages every three seconds and I don't know what they mean. It's a bit much to deal with not being familiar with the various procedures. Thank you so much for all you're doing. You're a peach. I'll try to figure this all out. It might take me a while. How do I get diffs that have been wiped off Neil's page? Thanks again so much. Cheers,Scholarlyarticles (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As usual Scholarlyarticles' allegations have no basis in reality. To save you time: Diannaa hasn't been anywhere near my talk page. The only page that was deleted was this by Shirt58 as it was incorrectly created by another editor (the entire contents was moved to my talk page). I haven't mentioned blocking (even in my recommendations in the RfC/U) and my "every three seconds" messages were notifications about the RfC/U to Scholarlyarticles as I'm required to do. Frankly, I have no idea why Scholarlyarticles persists in these misrepresentations when they're so easily proven wrong. --NeilNtalk to me14:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First line of the policy: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." (emphasis in original). --NeilNtalk to me15:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, I saw that. But it could be referring to pages (within main namespace) other than those directly concerning the subject themselves, i.e. BLP issues in related articles. I guess it's been discussed somewhere, but I did a quick search and spotted nothing obvious. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 16:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Trevj: I'm just learning all the various rules and procedures. Let me strike the above comments about Diannaa. It will take me some time to work in my sandbox given that things can be moved and archived. With regard to NeilN, what I meant to say is NeilN has issued a number of templates that had a note of finality that being rather new, was confusing to me. I've found some discussion by him of lobbying for a block of me and requests by him to for others comment on his sandbox and asking whether they would pre-certify a block. They have apparently been wiped clean or relocated so the effort to work in my sandbox has become difficult. It will take me some time to figure this process out of while responding to the RfC. Please bear with me. Thank you again. BestScholarlyarticles (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, I did. I was just wanting to point out a couple of recent edits which may be of interest in connection with the RFC/U. As I'm not fully familiar with such procedures, I thought it best just to drop a note there. Sorry for any ambiguity. I'll add to it if needed. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 16:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. It's clear now, I followed the link... Originally I thought this was a comment that you were posting and I was surprised at the bad English :-) --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Iam not sure I see consensus to keep, but i certainly dont see consensus to delete. There seemed to be agreement that degree granting isntitutions were notable. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The way I saw (and still see) that discussion is that the notability of degree granting institutions requires non-primary verification. Without this, the content fails WP:V, which I concede that I perhaps should have noted in the closure. The discussion could have been relisted for a third time, but such relisting can be controversial. I'm not sure that a no consensus outcome would be necessarily appropriate, and (after having reviewed the discussion) would feel uncomfortable amending the result accordingly. If you wish, the discussion can be relisted for a third time, with an explanatory note. I'm happy to do this, or please feel free to do so yourself, referencing our discussion here. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and I hope that I've explained my thinking clearly enough. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we need verification, and third party is as a minimum always very much better, especially in a part of the world with so many colleges of dubious or uncertain standing; I have seen a number of websites from colleges there and elsewhere with no actual college behind them. Whether it should be actually required is to some extent a matter of judgment: in this case there's a substantial website with some actual information about accreditation & some genuine-appearing pictures, so I expect to be able to find something. Of course I always look for 3rd party confirmation & get very skeptical indeed if I don't find it--in such a case I would delete the article or let it get deleted & have so argued at relevant AfDs. I just looked for 2 minutes in Google: besides a number of possibly unreliable unofficial directory listings, there's a listing on the official government site, [59] and a decent newspaper story. [60]. The problem for me is I cannot simultaneously keep up with NPP, AfC, and AfD, and lately AfC has gotten most of my attention.
Done I often have a look for sources myself before considering closing, but this discussion had long expired and there was a closing backlog so I may have been less diligent than usual. Thanks for picking this up. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your support at my recent RfA. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. I think there were a number of positive things to take from the RfA, and hope that any discouragement is short-lived. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 18:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Belated thanks
I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciated your participation in the process. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. If you work to address the various areas highlighted in the RfA, then you'll stand a better chance if/when you run again. On a practical note, if you start a new section (rather than editing the last one),[61][62][63] your edit summaries will make more sense! Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jessie Stephen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dudley Miles -- Dudley Miles (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a note to self and others, I'm very sorry that I'm busy, etc. for an extended while. This is rather unfortunate but can't really be helped. Normal service can be expected to resume later in 2014. Cheers, all. I hope to see you at Wikimania! -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 22:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.[reply]
Hi, I'm attending Wikimania 2014 and can offer a spare room on the Saturday night in North London, 8/9 tube stops out. **Please let me know if you are already sorted, in case I can offer somebody else.** Do you know a way I can pass on phone no. without it being permanently published? Otherwise we can arrange a rendezvous during conference. Regards Jim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimroland (talk • contribs) 01:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. That's really generous and sounds great. Yes, it'd be good to meet up today/tomorrow. I'm meeting family tonight but might pop back to the Barbican later. Thanks again. I look forward to chatting with you soon. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Ives until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Xionbox₪16:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Trevj, I have just restored the image File:SilvanaM.jpg that you removed from Circe in the arts about a year ago. I was working abroad then and did not have the time to check details. On looking at the file now, I see Fair Use is claimed for it to be used in the Silvana Mangano article on the grounds that the actress is now dead and there is no other source available for this representation of her. I also claim Fair Use on the same grounds, in that this section of the article refers to the actress in that particular role and, moreover, discusses the film-still in the context of the section's subject. I hope you will now agree with this action and not interpret it as an act of defiance. If I need to make the Fair Use claim somewhere else, I would be grateful if you would inform me where. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've been battling a suspected sockpuppet (troll) on the Tallia Storm article. The editor posts negative content almost exclusively and is prone to removing positive content using the flimsiest excuses. Take a look at the most recent edits and you can see what I'm talking about. I recently removed a catty statement on the basis that he had used Youtube comments as his source. Now, he has removed one of my statements on the basis that it's against Wiki policy to use blogs as sources. The section is regarding Storm's personal style (which is obviously subjective) so I can find lots of blogs that support my statement but none that are "news" or magazine sources. Is he correct in his assertion? I would appreciate hearing your thoughts and advice on this situation. Many thanks! SchoolMarm101 (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Virtual Boy Wario Land about to squash a baddie.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Virtual Boy Wario Land about to squash a baddie.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RootzWiki until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Trevj,
You added the image of the Bristol Pound notes on Wikipedia,
you managed to protect the content and mention it is property of Bristol Pound CIC and Bristol Credit Union. How did you do that? I would like to add additional images to the page but I want to make sure it is clear that they are property of Bristol Pound CIC. Thanks!
Marie Ingrid Herman (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Hellier Peters until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Rodtalk13:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyburst Illuminations until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Rodtalk20:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Help decide the future of Wikimania
The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Mary Joy branding.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Mary Joy branding.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easton Cowboys and Cowgirls until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Easton Cowboys and Cowgirls logo.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Easton Cowboys and Cowgirls logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, Trevj. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
This is an archive of past discussions with Trevj. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thank you -- Trevj (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Done -- Trevj (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Not done but thanks, anyway. -- Trevj (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Trevj/Flying motorcycle sign.jpg)
Agree Now replaced with File:VirtualAcorn logo.png. -- Trevj (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susan_RoAne_(2nd_nomination). Benboy00 (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
-- Trevj (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you to everyone for spending time researching my contributions here, posing questions and participating in the discussion. I'll be checking out the relevant (extensive) reading material again and will proceed slowly in areas where I don't have much experience. On the non-administrative side, I'll be continuing to improve my content creation to address deficiencies there. All the best, everyone, and thanks again. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
did these[6][7] quite some time ago now after closure of the RfA (and as referenced therein). -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Doing... Apologies for the delay. I see that you're referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Henchman. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
-- Trevj (talk · contribs) 19:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Frak! § Electron Frak!
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ugog Nizdast -- Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Giving Victims a Voice for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ugog Nizdast -- Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
; see Talk:Giving Victims a Voice for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ugog Nizdast -- Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:Olddelccc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
