User talk:Jpgordon/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Wikilawyering
Do NOT accuse me again of "wikilawyering" when I did nothing of the sort. You do not correctly understand what "Wikilawyering" means if you believe that pointing out a valid discrepancy between two official policy pages (which has been proven to exist) is "wikilawyering," which it is not.JB196 20:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Benito Mussolini
You have administrative powers? I am a new user but I ask you to cast your eye over some of the abuse I have been subjected to on the above page, contrary, I believed, to Wikipedia rules, simply for suggesting an alterantive way of looking at Mussolini's career. I made a tentative edit today-with explanation-only to have it reversed twice, yours being the latest. This was by nature of an experiment prior to incorporating some original material; but it is obviously not worth the risk. White Guard 00:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're abusing others, too, so really, I don't have much to say except tough. Rise above it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
???
Why cannot I add external sites (commercial or no) once there is several external sites (commercial or no) what were added? Why don't you exclude the other external sites (mainly the commercial ones)?
It will be that you didn't notice that the site "Carnival in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Including information, history, schedule and trip planning advice." is a commercial site? Informative he is, just as the site that I want to add, however both possess commercial foundation and you don't exclude this http://www.braziltravelinformation.com/brazil_carnival.htm, it just excludes what desire to add (http://www.carnivalservice.com/).
- The fact that other links that shouldn't be there are there doesn't mean you get to add more. Thanks for pointing out further sites to remove. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, once there is not other link for commercial sites, I find your attitude exactly
Where is the Water?
I am amazed that there isn't one mention in the Las Vegas article of the city's inability to secure any long-term water resources (unless stealing water from upstate counties counts).
And there isn't any mention of LV's pathetic water use standards, other than a token reference to xeriscaping. Don't be a homer; tell the truth about the water. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vegas cat (talk • contribs) 19:33, September 9, 2006 (UTC)
- Sure. After familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's neutral point of view, verifiability, and reliable source policies, feel free to add such material to the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
"Gesher Tov"
"Gesher Tov" means "good bridge", which is meaningless. The person who wrote the article means Ger Toshav. I'm going just going to delete the article, since no-one would normally mistype "Ger Toshav" as "Gesher Tov", so a re-direct is not needed. Jayjg (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Black People article "unreverenced pov" illogical
Similar to the difficult experience of unanimously agreeing on who is Jewish... there is no scientific way to determine who is black.
You took this out because you say it's "unreferenced POV". Think about what you are saying. It's an unreferenced biased point of view to say that blackness (like Jewry) is far from unanimously agreed upon and impossible to classify scientifically. The Jewish article itself makes the same claim for Jewry, and I myself being Black (like just about eveyr other black person) know this to be the same case for Black people. I think you just dont want to see Jews anywhere near black people in the article. If Blacks or linked to Jews... will that appear to diminish or degrade Jews to you? Boogedy Booogedy Boo, the black people are coming! There goes the Bat Mitzvah!--Zaphnathpaaneah 19:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Bill Clinton
Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia. If you have an issue with a link on Bill Clinton's biography page, take it up on the Biographies of living persons. 75.3.23.157 18:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Blogs are routinely removed. That's just how it works. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Institute for Historical Review
Oops, ok you're right, my bad. That's what I get for speed-editing. Wjhonson 06:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Robert Faurisson
It's perplexing, though not surprising, that Jpgordon, jayjg, and at times SlimVirgin, patrol the Holocaust Denial page and revert edits which would tend to put a spin of rationality on the issue of things like gas chambers and other problems with the Holocaust monologue. What sometimes is surprising is that people like me keep going back and trying over and over again to explain differences of viewpoints in calm and logical ways. "That doesn't belong here" they say. "Put it on the Faurisson page" they say. Then when I follow directions, they revert my edits on the Faurisson page. For a while they were deleting even attempts to place the issues on the discussion page. I've been on this planet for more than forty years and I should not be surprised by hypocracy and a devotion to one's own self-interest above ALL ELSE. However, I am. Jpgordon, could you please enlighten me why it is that while I consider myself a rational being and according to the Declaration of Independence created equal to all other human beings, I cannot get equal treatment here on this most egalitarian of experiments, this brave new thing, this Wikipedia? Proskauer 05:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh my gracious goodness, oh my! Then I must pursue enlightenment in the light of the Holocaust, the light which can only cast inky-black shadows of beams of negative light. A black light of midnight masses and wild, primeval ritual abnegation of the good. The anti-light if you will: the light which is darkness and the absence of which is only greater darkness still. I shall become an Orc or a Ringwraith and cast my shadow beneath the light of my master's shadow. It's all your doing Jpgordon, I place the blame squarely in your lap. I walk the mile which your failure to enlighten me has placed before me. Proskauer 08:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Please explain
why you deleted my comments from this Talk Page? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazi_concentration_camps&diff=77675968&oldid=77559118 Is there a Wikipedia rule you are following or is there another reason to do what I believe is unheard of, or at least very rare?
Please explain also why you deleted request for documetentation in the accompanying article as well as deleted another link (in this action?) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazi_concentration_camps&diff=77676416&oldid=77559505
These are serious offenses. I believe you have overstepped. I want to give you the opportunity to defend what you did. Perhaps you can justify what you have done.
I look forward to your reply.
Thank you.
Skywriter 01:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Holocaust denial propaganda gets purged. Removing your comment praising the holocaust denial propaganda was an incidental, but I'm not worried about it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You do not appear to read what you delete. What I added to the article and to the Talk page was specific to the post-World War II camps. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust or denial. The flag I added to the article concerned the post-Nazi camps that made unsupported allegations. You removed my request for citation and documentation. That may not concern you but it concerns me. You appear to be both careless and to have overstepped your role as an administrator. Now, I ask you to revert what you did in both the article and on the talk page. There is nothing--absolutely nothing-- in my comment to suggest "praising holocaust denial propaganda." I am a researcher interested in this subject. The section of the Wikipedia article concerning the post-WWII camp is weak and that is the focus of my comment. Flagging the article in a request for citation could bring in other researchers who would provide documentation. Please revert what you did. Or, read it carefully and defend your action based on what was there not what you claim was there. Thank you. Skywriter 04:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're right. I was bulk-deleting nazifuck stuff from Skorpio88 and accidentally bit yours. Sorry about that; he actually did make one apparantly innocuous edit. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Now will you revert what you did? If I do it--?Hattori-- the other fellow who repeatedly has deleted the requests for citation will just delete my requests again thinking he is justified based on what you, an administrator, did with popups. Hattori contends no documentation is needed and that we must accept what is there --concerning the Soviet camps -- on faith alone without documentation. I have tried to reason with him-- on that & three talk pages and on his user page. He is an inexperienced user who does not yet understand the value of documentation. Skywriter 14:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Talk page fixed. See what happened? Skorpio put his crap on the top of the page and put the one you said was helpful on the bottom of the page; I saw the very top and the very bottom and put two and two together and came out with three. As far as the {{fact}} insertion is concerned -- since I was incorrectly in "up yours" mode due to my previous misapprehension, I didn't pay much attention, but now that I do -- "fact" tags don't really belong in section headers like that, do they? I've put {{unreferenced}} in the section, instead. I'm sorry about all of this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that's interesting. I've not seen an {{unreferenced}} tag before. What's the difference between a request for fact and request for reference? Thanks for taking care of this. Skywriter 23:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've mostly seen "fact" used for specific data -- for example, if the article says "XYZ had persnickety disease when in his teens", someone might add the "fact" tag meaning "Says who he had that shameful condition?"; while the "unreferenced" tag seems to mean "this whole section or this whole article really needs some sources listed". Local vs. global, in computer lingo. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Good to know. Skywriter 10:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Benjamin Freedman
The references are quoted and cited, that is not OR. OR is the creation of new facts by the editor. Those facts quoted from the subject are not OR. Wjhonson 06:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Except none of what's presented are "facts quoted from the subject". Anyway, we'll discuss it at Talk:Benjamin H. Freedman, not here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please post to the article's talk page, the link to where you've posted the RfC. Thanks. Wjhonson 16:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Done. An article RFC is no big deal at all, actually -- it's just that, a request for comment, looking for more input from other editors. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- What I am sourcing is rather, transcripts of an audio speech. Nothing more and nothing less. And articles writen by the subject, are always acceptable, no matter who hosts them.Wjhonson 16:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- You will find that Wikipedia policy is otherwise if this needs to get elevated to adversarial level. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with policy. We've had this very discussion before. If you feel you need to "elevate this to adversarial level" be my guest. I will vigorously defend my position :) Wjhonson 16:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm trying to figure out the right venue for it; it's not a WP:RFC/U sort of thing, since it has little to do with behaviour; rather, it has to do with interpretation of policy. Maybe we could frame it together and dispense with the adversarial aspect completely? Both of our positions are pretty clear, and we're both sure we're right -- and we're both trying to achieve the same purpose (well-sourced quality articles.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with policy. We've had this very discussion before. If you feel you need to "elevate this to adversarial level" be my guest. I will vigorously defend my position :) Wjhonson 16:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- You will find that Wikipedia policy is otherwise if this needs to get elevated to adversarial level. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- What I am sourcing is rather, transcripts of an audio speech. Nothing more and nothing less. And articles writen by the subject, are always acceptable, no matter who hosts them.Wjhonson 16:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Done. An article RFC is no big deal at all, actually -- it's just that, a request for comment, looking for more input from other editors. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please post to the article's talk page, the link to where you've posted the RfC. Thanks. Wjhonson 16:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Request for Review
Hello Jpgordon. During my time at Wikipedia I have noticed that you demonstrate a balanced, thoughtful approach. I would appreciate it if you could review the recent history at "Hippie" and "Hippie:Talk" and offer your opinion. Specifically, on September 18, 2006 editor Viriditas arrived; several of us have mostly withdrawn from the project because of his attitude and actions.
Yesterday, those actions escalated to slander on this editor's part--please see "Amazingly Verbose Introduction" and "Slander--Please Remove It" on the "Hippie" talk page. Not the first time, actually, since he has also claimed (falsely) that I provided fraudulent citations in response to his citation requests and has not responded to a request for retraction.
Questions: What do you think? What should I do?
Any assistance you might offer would be much appreciated. Thanks. Founders4 18:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Viriditas's words might be rough, but he's got a lot of points. I've been worried by the essay-like drift of the article. V's a respected editor with good reason -- his instincts here have been correct. WP:V and WP:RS are absolutely critical, so when you say (for example) "my sourcing additions will be piecemeal, as time allows", he's correct to say the unsourced items don't belong in the article until those sources are available. Sources really need to come first; there are plenty of places to get random information, and Wikipedia's reliability (sketchy as it is) needs to be made better by the addition of well-sourced material, not weakened by the addition of poorly-sourced material. Don't take any of this personally -- editing disputes can get tough, because Everybody Knows They Are Right; you've been adding valuable material but it has to be consistantly sourced rather than someone's own recollections of the literature. Me, I think any article on "hippies" that doesn't mention the transition into "freaks" is lacking, but again, that's my personal recollection. Signed, an only recently "ex"-freak. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding Jp. It's not the roughness of V's words that are my primary concern, though. I was concerned mostly about the slander, which you chose not to address.
- In response to V's demands for sourcing, I spent all of last Saturday (9 hours) doing research and adding cites, only to be accused by V. of fraud. I answered each of his objections, explaining the relevance of the quotes to what I wrote--many of the cites were complete and solid, but this was never acknowledged. Nor was there any retraction of the fraud charge. I do understand the concerns you voice with respect to the example you provide above, which is the one paragraph that will take more time to adequately source. In the future I will work out sourcing of paragraphs that clearly need it before posting.
- Then yesterday, when V acccused me of "chasing" away editor GeorgeLouis--I decided to write GeorgeLouis to ask him if it were true; it would greatly concern me if I had chased him away. He replied that it was not true that I had chased him away, but far from backing off, V added yet another charge--that I must have "intimidated" GeorgeLouis. (I know that can't be true jp.) Let me say that if this is considered acceptable behavior among Wikipedia's editors, I want no part of it.
- With regard to editing and contributions, I recognize the need for sourcing, but the greater imperative IMHO is accuracy. For example, a few days ago V found a source that said the hippie movement BEGAN during the late 1960's, which he added to the lead sentence, even though the article also said the movement peaked during the late 1960s. It was a supposedly "reliable" source, but any fool could recognize that there was something wrong.
- Yet when challenged V refused to deal with it until I added another source that pegged the beginning of the movement to the early 1960's and added that some disagreement prevails as to timing of the movement's beginnings. Now the lead paragraph is more accurate, but it has changed radically EVERY DAY THIS WEEK depending on which source V chooses to highlight on a particular day. And it really does read poorly.
- Each of V's edits may be technically correct--many I agree with. But the article is getting less, not more, readable. And it is far less informative now than it was on September 17, 2006. I am concerned that the "Hippie" article will become progressively more correct in a technical sense (everything can be defended in a "cover your ass" kind of way), yet sucked dry. The Brittanica article, which V once referenced to me, is that way.
- The paragraphs I have written are not without sourcing; it's just that formalizing the sourcing so that it can be added to the article in precise written form takes time. Often V has simply removed the sections without allowing sufficient time--always in accord with his prejudices; he never touches things he agrees with.
- As I have perused Wikipedia articles these past few months, I've been consistently delighted with how alive they are. They are fresh and frequently bring perspective that cannot be found anywhere else. I believe this is Wikipedia's primary virtue, and the pursuit of technical correctness above all else (which is V's approach--though as mentioned above, selective sourcing has introduced significant distortions) threatens the one thing Wikipedia offers that is not offered by more traditional (Britannica) sources. Founders4 08:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
“is graduated”
It was already noted that the American Heritage Dictionary supports “is graduated”. Please cease to ignore counter-evidence, even when it perfectly refutes you. —75.18.113.152 03:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- See Talk:Timothy McVeigh if you haven't already; you're simply wrong on this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Again: Please cease to ignore counter-evidence, even when it perfectly refutes you. See Talk:Timothy_McVeigh#"graduated from" vs "was graduated from", where the sentence that you sought to bury has been extracted. And please do not game the system with the 3RR. —75.18.113.152 03:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
JP - got your message. :-) Hope no offence was taken, and perhaps I have provided an (inelegant) solution?Michael DoroshTalk 03:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you bucking sure about that???
Lol - just kidding! ;) I always thought the first reference was Donald, Daffy and Daisy duck duck duck? (Christ the shit these vandals come up with - I swear thats half the fun :) Glen 19:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Friedrich Kellner
I'm still learning about using Wikipedia tools, so I wasn't sure if you would be notified by my response, which I put on my talk page directly beneath your comments. Thank you for those comments. I will follow your advice. (Rskellner 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC))
Ruth Bernhard
Thank you for your undeservedly polite comments on my bumbling attempts to get Ruth Bernhard in order.
Though I'm interested in photography (more in other people's than my own, which very rarely rises above the utterly mediocre) I was only dimly aware of Bernhard till a couple of days ago, when I stumbled across this mess (I thought) of an article. Like some similar WP articles I've encountered, it seems to take as its main source a short article within a site that emphasizes the gay, lesbian, bisexual or (yes) even transsexual aspects of anyone who's reputed to be gay, lesbian, etc etc. If that's that website's thing, fine, but it skews the WP article terribly. I'd like to knock the article into shape, so that Bernhard (who seems very noteworthy as a photographer, hardly noteworthy as anything else) gets her due as a photographer. However, my only reliable sources right now are small sections in each of two books, plus The Big Heart (a book I happened to buy about five years ago). So in the near future there's not much more I can confidently do. Your assistance would be very welcome. (You might also be interested in this, dormant for the last few weeks but not forgotten.) -- Hoary 14:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've got a couple more text references, but they're in Las Vegas and I'm not at the moment. I'm something of a photography collector; I've got a few choice Bernhard pieces, and my best friend used to work for Bernhard. I'd love to get an example of her dad's work! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey
My name is bpgordon (brian patrick gordon). I'm curious to know.. is the p in your name "patrick"? --frothT C 02:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Jealous
Your user page cropped up on my watch list, and I thought I'd stop by to say hello. I was struck by the beauty of your natural environment -- and how damned jealous of you I am. Gawd, am I sick of pavement, people and vehicle noise and city streets! Your photos have set me to thinkin' I need a daytrip/weekend jaunt somewhere away from the congestion and pollution, environmental and political, of this place. 'Til then, suck up some fresh air for me, will ya? Peace. deeceevoice 07:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Boo-hoo. The cams aren't awake. :(
You know, I went to Vegas once -- took a car trip from Cali. Hated Vegas (which I view as one, big, nasty blight on the desert -- what a waste!), but loved the journey. I still remember the gauge in the car reading the external temperature at 108°F; the surprising vibrancy of the landscape; the burning blue sky; the enormity of the clouds, their vast shadows sweeping the desert floor, living presences on the land. You don't forget stuff like that -- just amazing. I could see myself living on the edge of the desert with a big-dog and a couple of cats, my books and artwork in a "green" house dug into a hill, complete w/a solar-powered greenhouse-solarium. Peace and quiet. Phenomenal sunsets. Yep. Some days that comes on like paradise.
And then I come to my senses. :p deeceevoice 11:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the panoramic shot. Very nice. :) I spent a minute or two just panning back and forth (trying to step into it, I think!). Interesting how the band of sedimentation is constant throughout the formations, like stands of aspens -- separate, but connected by the same, invisible root system. One single organism.
Well, the older I get, the more I think I'd love the country life. God knows I love countrified black folks, their generosity, the food, their drawl, their fundamental decency -- the way they remind me of my roots in the South (and the motherland). I just might pack it all in one of these days. Catch the first thing smokin', head on home to Louisiana and build something on the family land. Gotta get rid of the snakes, though -- and find a nearby pond to fish in! :) Green with envy
Jef vs Jeffrey Poskanzer
Hi.
I was the one who put Jef's name into the e-mail spam article. Although I know him mostly as Jef, I got his full name out of the whois info for acme.com. I haven't checked, do you know if there is a wikipedia policy about using people's full/formal names and such? Wrs1864 15:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for revert on Tennessee Walker page
Thanks for reverting the edits on the Tennessee Walker page. The "unexplained" blanking was vandalism by the same IP addess that earlier vandalized the article to "sanitize" all references to soring--a federal crime of horse abuse that has recently become a hot topic after the 2006 championships where several top competitors were disqualified due to allegations of soring. I appreciate your "babysitting" of that article and encourage the admins to continue to keep an eye on it. Many editors, the least of whom is myself, put a lot of time and research into as accurate and NPOV a piece as possible. To say Soring doesn't happen isn't as severe as, say, holocaust denial, but it stems from similar motives and we horse people appreciate your vigilance! Keep up the good work! Montanabw 04:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's probably on your list if you surf admin pages, as I put in a request for semi-protection on it when I first saw the vandalism occurring, knowing from the way it was worded, that we had a problem--it's the straight lingo from the apologists for soring. They quoted straight from the party line, not even creative! FYI, never heard one way or the other what happened to my request (?) Montanabw 05:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not a lot of vandalism as far as different or multiple users, but the same IP address twice so far and very major changes to the article each time, up to and including the removing of cited material and references to legitimate NPOV sources. And straight "party line" edits. Given that the community with this POV is quite small, even within the TWH breed, but fanatical (A natural result, I suppose of the siege mentality that occurs when a group is under political fire and pretty much condemned by the entire horse industry outside of their immediate circle), there is a strong possibility that they have friends who could show up if they think they can get away with it. Semi-Protection and some alert bots could be a wise precaution for a few weeks. If they have to identify themselves, however little, they may go away. Montanabw 05:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Didelphimorphia & Dame Edna
What does she have to do with them? There was nothing on that article that seemed to be remotely relevant to the discussion, so I had reverted your comment. If you can shed some light as to why your comment is relevant, then it can stay, otherwise it's not about the discussion and is therefor vandalism and should be removed. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for enlightening me. Please add the tidbit about her audience refence to the article. No, I don't troll talk pages, but I do have many pages on my watchlist that I have made contributions to, and that forces the talk pages to also be there. I watch for additions that are good as well as for vandalism, and I'm sorry that I didn't see the humor in your comment. Had I known that she says that, I would have gotten the joke. Indeed, it was a very appropriate comment now that I know. I hadn't removed your comment blindly - I went to the Dame Edna article and, not finding anything about possums or opossums, found no connection and hence saw it only as vandalism. Perhaps I've dealt with too much vandalism that I'm now too jaded to be a good vandalism patroller. *sigh* - UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes! Especially since I've been decaffeinated for 6 days now. *laughs* Good call. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Barry Bonds
Although it lists bobby bonds at the end of the paragraph it is more important to list it in the beginning and not as a side note with Willie Mays. Willie Mays is his god father and not related by blood.
Victor E. Marsden
- Thanks for working on my "preposterous mess."
- I've lost your comments--where did you write them?
- also--I'm a relative novice to Wikipedia--so please excuse the over-linking, which thanks to you is fixable.
- Also, could you be a bit more diplomatic? the "preposterous mess" is an error in form, which people like you can quite easily fix. But I'm the one who started the article on Victor E. Marsden, and substantially single handedly, wrote to whole damn thing? Do you like the content?
- Yours truly, Ludvikus 19:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Spamming
Josh, why are you deleting my links to NoPhoneTrees.com? This is a website which is supposed to help users to get connected with live operators on the customer phone lines. The service is available for free. It is not commercial product. It helps users and I am sure that Wikipedia readers, who look for information on specific companies and then would like to call them, will use the service with pleasure.
Thanks.
Marcin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marmusek (talk • contribs) .
- Please read the links on the warning messages that were posted to your talk page. You are spamming your own site. Add content, not external links. If you add another external link to that site, I will block you myself. --GraemeL (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
List of Satanists
Why have you taken up childish vandalism? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, why do you ask? As you can see I have sources for the claims. Please see the talk page. // Liftarn
Liftarn, you've been warned before about using non-reliable sources to make a point. WP:BLP is very strict, stop endangering Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- They can be used as source to their own views. Jayjg, please stop abusing policy to push your own POV. // Liftarn
-
-
- Actually I don't, but some other editors (no mentioned, none forgotten) does and that's have always been the reply. Wikipedia:Reliable sources do say that nutcase blogs are perfectly good to use as sources about their own views. // Liftarn
-
Terrorism reverts
You have to be careful when reverting those dynamic IPs: [1] [2] [3]. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know...
Just to let you know, one of your indef blocks was briefly touched upon here. --59.167.123.79 11:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that
Yeah, I hate those words too. I actually even tried using AutoWikiBrowser to remove some of them but I got frustrated by the time I got to the third article. <Sigh> I especially hate the fact that many times the simple blanking of those 5 words and the sentence still makes sense. Gdo01 00:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
User:THB
It's my opinion that THB's recent edits to CSICOP are purely disruptive in content and intent. He's also engaging in personal attacks by repeatedly calling me a vandal. If you feel like it, please mosey over to the article and talk page history and see if you agree with me. KarlBunker 20:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- I hate to be a whiner, but how long does this list: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive conduct have to get before someone takes action? KarlBunker 16:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Never mind. For right now I'm not going to remove the incident report (I'm not going to be that mature), but I'm not going to push it either. There were two articles where we were both editors, and I'm dropping both of them from my watchlist. With a little luck I'll be able to steer clear of the little so-and-so from now on. KarlBunker 18:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Um... this is where you say "Gee, that's terrific, Karl. I wish we had more Wikipedians who showed that kind of maturity, good judgement and restraint." KarlBunker 13:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Thank you. :-) KarlBunker 17:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
Jazz & Thanks
Thanks for the tip about placing notes at the end of a page. I am new to Wiki editing, but want to become a big editor and writer of pages.
It is good to see an admin who is a Jazz fan - there is quite a bit of missing info in many of Jazz pages, especially the bios, and hopefully we can add more material.
Gautam3 21:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Random request
Hello, Jpgordon! I saw that you had recently (on RC patrol, I assume) edited Rick Santorum, and am wondering if you would mind taking a look at a dispute between myself and another user on whether an external link should be included on that page. I know this isn't the usual route of dispute resolution, being a member of the Mediation Committee myself, but simply saw that you had reverted vandalism on the page and wanted to get your feedback and opinion. The debate is on the talk page, my talk page, and also the other participant's talk page, and the external link in question was added today and then removed by myself here. (For the record, I openly admit that that edit summary could have been more descriptive, but going through my watchlist I saw a routine addition of an external link I felt wasn't appropriate.) Thanks for your feedback! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look at this; it was greatly appreciated. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Mel Gibson and Anti-Semitism
I knew someone was going to misinterpret that rule. The Prod was incorrectly replaced by a speedy delete notice. That's not the same as the prod itself being disputed. When the speedy was (correctly) declined by Tom harrison, he should have replaced the Prod notice since changing it to a speedy delete was incorrect and did not amount to someone disputing the prod. Gwernol 14:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for revert on Tennessee Walker page
Thanks for reverting the edits on the Tennessee Walker page. The "unexplained" blanking was vandalism by the same IP addess that earlier vandalized the article to "sanitize" all references to soring--a federal crime of horse abuse that has recently become a hot topic after the 2006 championships where several top competitors were disqualified due to allegations of soring. I appreciate your "babysitting" of that article and encourage the admins to continue to keep an eye on it. Many editors, the least of whom is myself, put a lot of time and research into as accurate and NPOV a piece as possible. To say Soring doesn't happen isn't as severe as, say, holocaust denial, but it stems from similar motives and we horse people appreciate your vigilance! Keep up the good work! Montanabw 04:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's probably on your list if you surf admin pages, as I put in a request for semi-protection on it when I first saw the vandalism occurring, knowing from the way it was worded, that we had a problem--it's the straight lingo from the apologists for soring. They quoted straight from the party line, not even creative! FYI, never heard one way or the other what happened to my request (?) Montanabw 05:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not a lot of vandalism as far as different or multiple users, but the same IP address twice so far and very major changes to the article each time, up to and including the removing of cited material and references to legitimate NPOV sources. And straight "party line" edits. Given that the community with this POV is quite small, even within the TWH breed, but fanatical (A natural result, I suppose of the siege mentality that occurs when a group is under political fire and pretty much condemned by the entire horse industry outside of their immediate circle), there is a strong possibility that they have friends who could show up if they think they can get away with it. Semi-Protection and some alert bots could be a wise precaution for a few weeks. If they have to identify themselves, however little, they may go away. Montanabw 05:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Didelphimorphia & Dame Edna
What does she have to do with them? There was nothing on that article that seemed to be remotely relevant to the discussion, so I had reverted your comment. If you can shed some light as to why your comment is relevant, then it can stay, otherwise it's not about the discussion and is therefor vandalism and should be removed. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for enlightening me. Please add the tidbit about her audience refence to the article. No, I don't troll talk pages, but I do have many pages on my watchlist that I have made contributions to, and that forces the talk pages to also be there. I watch for additions that are good as well as for vandalism, and I'm sorry that I didn't see the humor in your comment. Had I known that she says that, I would have gotten the joke. Indeed, it was a very appropriate comment now that I know. I hadn't removed your comment blindly - I went to the Dame Edna article and, not finding anything about possums or opossums, found no connection and hence saw it only as vandalism. Perhaps I've dealt with too much vandalism that I'm now too jaded to be a good vandalism patroller. *sigh* - UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes! Especially since I've been decaffeinated for 6 days now. *laughs* Good call. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Barry Bonds
Although it lists bobby bonds at the end of the paragraph it is more important to list it in the beginning and not as a side note with Willie Mays. Willie Mays is his god father and not related by blood.
Victor E. Marsden
- Thanks for working on my "preposterous mess."
- I've lost your comments--where did you write them?
- also--I'm a relative novice to Wikipedia--so please excuse the over-linking, which thanks to you is fixable.
- Also, could you be a bit more diplomatic? the "preposterous mess" is an error in form, which people like you can quite easily fix. But I'm the one who started the article on Victor E. Marsden, and substantially single handedly, wrote to whole damn thing? Do you like the content?
- Yours truly, Ludvikus 19:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Spamming
Josh, why are you deleting my links to NoPhoneTrees.com? This is a website which is supposed to help users to get connected with live operators on the customer phone lines. The service is available for free. It is not commercial product. It helps users and I am sure that Wikipedia readers, who look for information on specific companies and then would like to call them, will use the service with pleasure.
Thanks.
Marcin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marmusek (talk • contribs) .
- Please read the links on the warning messages that were posted to your talk page. You are spamming your own site. Add content, not external links. If you add another external link to that site, I will block you myself. --GraemeL (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Terrorism reverts
You have to be careful when reverting those dynamic IPs: [4] [5] [6]. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know...
Just to let you know, one of your indef blocks was briefly touched upon here. --59.167.123.79 11:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
List of Satanists
Why have you taken up childish vandalism? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, why do you ask? As you can see I have sources for the claims. Please see the talk page. // Liftarn
Liftarn, you've been warned before about using non-reliable sources to make a point. WP:BLP is very strict, stop endangering Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- They can be used as source to their own views. Jayjg, please stop abusing policy to push your own POV. // Liftarn
-
-
- Actually I don't, but some other editors (no mentioned, none forgotten) does and that's have always been the reply. Wikipedia:Reliable sources do say that nutcase blogs are perfectly good to use as sources about their own views. // Liftarn
-
It should be noted that
Yeah, I hate those words too. I actually even tried using AutoWikiBrowser to remove some of them but I got frustrated by the time I got to the third article. <Sigh> I especially hate the fact that many times the simple blanking of those 5 words and the sentence still makes sense. Gdo01 00:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
User:THB
It's my opinion that THB's recent edits to CSICOP are purely disruptive in content and intent. He's also engaging in personal attacks by repeatedly calling me a vandal. If you feel like it, please mosey over to the article and talk page history and see if you agree with me. KarlBunker 20:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- I hate to be a whiner, but how long does this list: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive conduct have to get before someone takes action? KarlBunker 16:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Never mind. For right now I'm not going to remove the incident report (I'm not going to be that mature), but I'm not going to push it either. There were two articles where we were both editors, and I'm dropping both of them from my watchlist. With a little luck I'll be able to steer clear of the little so-and-so from now on. KarlBunker 18:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Um... this is where you say "Gee, that's terrific, Karl. I wish we had more Wikipedians who showed that kind of maturity, good judgement and restraint." KarlBunker 13:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Thank you. :-) KarlBunker 17:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
Jazz & Thanks
Thanks for the tip about placing notes at the end of a page. I am new to Wiki editing, but want to become a big editor and writer of pages.
It is good to see an admin who is a Jazz fan - there is quite a bit of missing info in many of Jazz pages, especially the bios, and hopefully we can add more material.
Gautam3 21:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Random request
Hello, Jpgordon! I saw that you had recently (on RC patrol, I assume) edited Rick Santorum, and am wondering if you would mind taking a look at a dispute between myself and another user on whether an external link should be included on that page. I know this isn't the usual route of dispute resolution, being a member of the Mediation Committee myself, but simply saw that you had reverted vandalism on the page and wanted to get your feedback and opinion. The debate is on the talk page, my talk page, and also the other participant's talk page, and the external link in question was added today and then removed by myself here. (For the record, I openly admit that that edit summary could have been more descriptive, but going through my watchlist I saw a routine addition of an external link I felt wasn't appropriate.) Thanks for your feedback! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look at this; it was greatly appreciated. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Mel Gibson and Anti-Semitism
I knew someone was going to misinterpret that rule. The Prod was incorrectly replaced by a speedy delete notice. That's not the same as the prod itself being disputed. When the speedy was (correctly) declined by Tom harrison, he should have replaced the Prod notice since changing it to a speedy delete was incorrect and did not amount to someone disputing the prod. Gwernol 14:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for warning user:03powerranger
I'm a new user in the process of attempting to learn the process for reverting vandalism. Was playing with the sandbox to make sure I was doing things correctly, and by the time I returned to his discussion page, you had warned him for vandalism for the article I reverted. I have a question I haven't seen answered; should I leave the user warnings to administrators? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluesquareapple (talk • contribs) 18:33, October 18, 2006 (UTC)
- No, feel free to leave the warnings. And if you find that an editor is persisting despite the warnings (as if they would ever do anything of the sort), then you can report it over at WP:AIV. Happy vandal hunting! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The four tiny triangles in your signature
Hi Josh. What are the four tiny triangles "∇∆∇∆ " after your name for? Is is a Wiki thing, or a secret message? If you will have to kill me after telling me, just make something up. Thanks. Jim CApitol3 20:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing at all! I just liked how they looked when I was deciding how to decorate my signature. And you're the first one to ask, after two years! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it's cool, and nicely abstract. CApitol3 20:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Jimi Hendrix lyrics reversion
Propriety of using lyrics aside, that song isn't even self-referential unless you make some twisted intuition thing about Jimi being "surprise attack in his sleep" by the combo of sleeping pills and wine. There's still the problem of figuring out what "singing his first warsong and fighting his first battle" the next day would be. That was just an amazingly random edit.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 21:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Zionism
Check the craxy discrepancy between the edit version and history and the results shown on the page. Don't ask me what's going on, but a whole section turned into a ghost. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Please restore American Bank Note Company
At 16:33, 23 April 2005 you deleted American Bank Note Company as "nonsense". I am not an admin, so I don't know what the article looked like, and this was before I got involved with Wikipedia. The company (which still exists today) is a manufacturer of stock certificates and used to print paper money for other countries as well as postage stamps. A good reference for the history of the company is found at Collectible Stocks and Bonds from North American Railroads, by Terry Cox. Could you please restore the article if it makes sense now, in light of what I have explained here? If the final version before deletion still seems like nonsense, perhaps the article was a victim of vandalism, and an earlier version of the article could be restored. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just start it up again. All the article had in it, at any time, was asdfghgjkg. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:BEANS
Hi JP!
No offense, but have you read WP:BEANS? These things happen, but telling the persistant vandals (who inhabit ANI because they're that sad) that a problem is happening really doesn't help.
It's an easy mistake to make, we've all done it, so don't be disheartened. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Shrug. The problem of not being able to block users is far more important than a vandal or two discovering and taking advantage of it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
3RR on Palestinian refugee
I appreciate your polite warning. However, I don't think I have violated 3RR on that article. Isarig 17:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Martin Luther King, Jr.
The vandalism rate on this article is astonishing since it was de-protected (and I appreciate your work in fighting it). Is it perhaps time to admit that it must once again be put under one level or another of protection?--Orange Mike 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe. Put it up on WP:RFPP and see if anyone agrees. I tend to prefer not to protect articles that so many people are watching. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey JPG
I am just stopping by here today to discuss this edit of yours. I had removed the personal attacks and off-topic discussion. Within the policies and guidelines, especially IAR because frankly, it wasn't adding anything to the discussion of the actual article. I know you're an admin, so you should realise that that is the purpose of the talk pages. It is to talk about how to improve the article. Just thought you should know that by saying, "Who asked you?" is not very civil and is contrary to the purpose of WP. Thanks. Cya around. --198.185.18.207 14:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't like censorship any more than the next guy; the appropriate action is not to erase other editor's non-abusive comments, but rather to politely remind the editors of the purpose of the talk page. That's how I do it, every day. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
re: yr claim that Jews were "forced" into moneylending...
That would be unencylopedic... People cannot be "forced" into anything. Are you denying the existence of free will? There's a whole new discussion. - RatSkrew 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Feel free to discuss it on the article talk page. I didn't "claim" anything --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Palestinian refugee - I'll just protect the page until an obvious consensus has developed
You've protected the page Palestinian refugee with the comment: I'll just protect the page until an obvious consensus has developed.
And you've done so at a point where it contains clips such as the following, which I find deeply worrying, from a source which almost certainly doesn't meet WP:RS:
"The result has been the creation of a large, amorphous mass of names, some of them relating to real people, some of them purely fictitious or relating to persons, long since dead, a minority relating to people without a home as a result of their or their parents' leaving Palestine in 1948, the majority relating to people who, whatever their origins, are now living and working as ordinary citizens but continuing to draw rations and obtaining medical attention at the expense of the world's taxpayers -- all of them comfortably lumped together in official United Nations lists as Arab refugees and vehemently described as "victims of Jewish aggression."
Looking deeper, it's a lot worse than that - the whole article is dominated by claims that the number of refugees is not what some people have claimed, they were not ethnically cleansed, "the flight of Jews from ME countries balances the numbers", and they're not being allowed to settle elsewhere in the ME.
There's next to nothing on the reasons they're in refugee camps, the massacres and further displacement they've suffered since in Jordan and Lebanon, or the calamitous effect this has had on every kind of normal life. The lead of the article implies that the refugees had only been there 2 years, and the attached photograph seems calculated to stigmatise the refugees as pathetic and to blame the British for their condition.
I appreciate how impossible it is to review everything that has gone before, but surely the whole point of protecting a page is to include only the material that is generally agreeable. It would appear you've accidentally drawn the line at a high-point of nasty revisionism of the generally recognised historical facts, on an article that was quite unfit for inclusion in the first place.
Please note, I've never editted this article, nor has anybody ever approached me to have a look at it (not on my talk-page, and not in e-mail).
PalestineRemembered 17:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't protect it, though. I threatened to if the edit war didn't cease, but FayssalF was less patient than me and did it. I was neither paying attention to the content nor picking sides; I don't even know, actually, what the dispute was about: just that there was a revert war going on. (To know who protected the article, just look at the history.) Best way to get things unprotected is to go over to WP:RFPP and make a request there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Palestinian refugee and Katz
Hi, JP. I appreciate your comment on Talk:Palestinian refugee on the "need to gain consensus to include" the Katz quote. I agree, and I wish you'd weigh back in on the topic. I've tried to make a patient and (excruciatingly?) detailed case in multiple messages for what seem to me the problems with including it -- but no takers. As you already know, the atmosphere is poisonous, an edit war is on and positions are entrenched. The issue needs the patient mediation of editors willing to discuss facts and policy in as dispassionate and even-handed a manner as possible. I'm also in the process of soliciting opinions from longtime contributors to the article to see if this might help break the deadlock. If you had the time to review the thread and respond to my comments, which begin about half-way down, it might help the discussion move toward a workable consensus. --Rrburke 15:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, an edit war isn't on -- the article's been locked since Tuesday. I've deliberately stayed uninvolved with the content, as doing so gives me a freer hand to deal with the behavioural problems. In other words, I have no idea who is right or wrong, and don't really care. I actually wish I hadn't read your well-stated analysis of the situation, because I now understand the content issue, and I agree with you, so I have to change hats from ignorant enforcer to informed advisor. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm sorry -- you're right: the edit wars have actually been at Palestinian exodus and United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, but they've involved mostly the same participants and the wars have all begun to run together for me. :( I've deliberately not edited any of these articles so that I won't be drawn into the tit-for-tat reversion. That said, as I tried point out in my most recent comment, WP:RS states that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question," not on the editors rejecting the inclusion. If the information is not WP:VER, then it simply can't be WP:RS. Can any unverifiable information be considered reliable? The portion of Katz cited, a long passage which makes claims of fact, does not itself cite verifiable information. Perhaps that verifiable information is included elsewhere in the Katz book, but it's not in the passage included by the editor who added the long quote. I'm trying to distinguish the question of whether the quoted passage meets WP:RS and WP:VER from the question of whether Katz himself can be considered WP:RS. But unfortunately no one wants to discuss any issue besides whether Katz in general meets WP:RS. My point would be that the question is moot, because if the passage fails WP:VER, it doesn't matter if Katz meets WP:RS. The question is not ripe until it can be established that the assertions made in the quote meet WP:VER.
-
- But on the question of whether Katz does meet WP:RS, User:Amoruso has repeatedly stated that this has been established elsewhere, but I can't find this discussion anywhere. His response to an editor's edit-summary request to provide evidence Katz is WP:RS is his own edit-summary comment, "we did" [italics mine]. That plural is troubling, first of all, but more importantly, I really wish I could locate where this case has been argued. I confess I'm not competent to judge whether the claim Katz is WP:RS is sound -- this is outside my area of study. But I had a brief look at Google Scholar and could find only a handful (nine, I think) citation references to the Katz book, and none of them appeared to be from scholarly journals. By contrast, a search on Benny Morris's Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, a controversial but well-known work, turned up ninety-one cites, virtually all of them appearing in scholarly publications. And at any rate, Google Scholar is not as useful a resource for this purpose as SSCI or A&HCI. I considered proposing relative numbers of citation hits in these indexes as way to establish the scholarly profile of sources -- I don't know what you think of that idea.
-
- By the way, an identical problem is taking place at UNRWA
-
- Thanks for joining the discussion, and sorry to make you change hats. --Rrburke 16:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Drew88
Hello hope you are well. Previously you blocked this user for personal attacks against me. He is still doing it [7] and I think he is getting to be a real problem. I would also like to draw your attention to this [8] and this [9]. I accept that neo-nazis have every right to make useful contributions to wikipedia, but this guy steps over the line too much too often. Thanks for listening. --SandyDancer 00:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, other than those two comments on the 11th, he claims to have quit Wikipedia last week; we'll see. (He was upset that we're not letting him put in a bunch of his favorite links in Holocaust denial). I'll continue keeping an eye on him; frankly, I think "pro-multiculturalism and anti-racialism liberal peace-loving hippie" is a compliment, being a pro-multiculturalism anti-racialism liberal peace-lover myself, even if the Hitler lover (yeah, right, the 88 on his name is just his birthyear) considers it an insult. Me, I agree that neo-nazis have every right to make useful contributions to Wikipedia, and I'd ove to see it actually happen someday. Problem is, most of 'em are dedicated to lies, which kinda flies in the face of Wikipedia's principles. Take a look at the discussion at Talk:Holocaust denial to see what I mean. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your reply. It was the reference to me being a "mutt" which I considered the insult, to be honest! --SandyDancer 10:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Ted Kennedy
Thanks for the lighning fast response regarding the RfC... however, can you please make your reply a little more specific? The editor in question has a history of misrepresenting other editors, and I think the singular word agree doesn't quote convey what you agree with. :-) Thanks! /Blaxthos 17:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why should I possibly care about the editor in question's history? Your statement was precise, exact, and succinct; I've nothing to add other than "What Blaxthos said." I usually avoid doing that, since there usually is something to add, but, well, you said it all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hahaha, fair enough -- that was possibly the most gracious response i've ever seen. :-) Still, thanks for going back and clarifying. /Blaxthos 18:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
OINGO BOINGO
Dude are you f'in kidding me? I loved you guys back in the 80's. Back to School was one of my favoritest movies ever, in no small part to Oingo Boingo scene. I can't WAIT to tell my friends that I ran acoss Oingo Boingo lead trumpet on wikipedia. Snap! However, trombonists still rule over trumpetors. ;-) /Blaxthos 18:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, but not just Oingo Boingo: Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo. (In other words, I was long out of the group by then -- my time there was '74-'76.) Thanks for the props, however -- and you are wrong about trombonists, but everyone is. (What do you call a trombonist with a gig bag? An optimist.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I also give major props to you for being in the Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo. We need more groups like that nowadays. What's even cooler, though, is that you're not bragging about it. Modest people go further in life. Incidentally, my boyfriend is a trumpeter in his school's marching band, so I've always had a soft spot for trumpeters. ;-)
Regards, Releeshan 19:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- What's to brag about? That I was in a band 30 years ago that eventually became semi-famous? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, yes. --Releeshan 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- I guess two years when I was twenty seemed a lot more important that those two years now that I'm in my fifties! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- I guess. I've had the same feeling about the one year where my friend and I made plans to publish our own book. It seemed crucial back then, but now I see it as a crazy time.--Releeshan 20:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- I guess two years when I was twenty seemed a lot more important that those two years now that I'm in my fifties! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, yes. --Releeshan 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
3RR Violation
User:68.9.116.87 (talk) (contribs) has violated the three revert rule in the article Kahanism. If you see his edits to Kahanism and his reply to my explanation on the talk page, this anon is very misinformed, and seems to have been temporarily blocked for the 3RR rule in the past. Thank you in advance for intervening. If there is anything I could've done better, let me know. —EdGl 02:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I was looking and looking for a place to report this (WP:3RR? its talk page?), and it wasn't explicitly clear in the policy page. I just found the correct place though, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. So I shouldn't have to bother you anymore! —EdGl 02:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- They should really make it more clear on how to report violations. Anyway, turns out I miscounted his reverts; I counted his first edit (needless to say, a non-revert) in the equation! All this work for nothing, oh well. —EdGl 02:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
occupied territories
- If you look carefully, you will find that this article has absolutely no references or authorities cited. So before you lecture me on neutrality or POV Wikipedia policy--don't you think you should make that correction--demand sources of reference?
- So please do not change my editing, unless and until the article gets references.
- Yours truly, Ludvikus 03:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you think the article needs references, the proper thing to do is to ask for them, not to delete what you think needs them. Thank you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear J. P. Gordon
- As I have noticed, you've been a Wikipedian since at least 2004.
- As you may have noticed, I'm a relative novice--became a WP only about August of 2006.
- It surprises me that in the totally unreferenced article, Occupied territories, you have been so arbitrary in "reverting" my editing. I do want to give you the benefit of the doubt--that you have done so in "good faith."
- Please consider my proposal--if my arguments are correct, then help me find the references, citations, sources, to support my points. Please do not be too hasty in your delitions or reversions. If what is said is correct, true, but not properly supported by sources, then the task must be to find the sources or references.
- Thanks for hearing me out. Yours truly, Ludvikus 07:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- It surprises me that in the totally unreferenced article, Occupied territories, you have been so arbitrary in "reverting" my editing. I do want to give you the benefit of the doubt--that you have done so in "good faith."
- "Arbitrary"? Do you understand what neutral point of view and no original research means in the context of the large change that I reverted? ...Also, why did you put "Dear J. P. Gordon" in brackets? Did you somehow think there is or should be an article entitled Dear J. P. Gordon? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- (Will create on request: Wikipedia:Requested articles#Dear J. P. Gordon ;-)
- --Dear Rrburke 17:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC))
BLOCK ASSISTANCE
Dear Jpgordon, I am speeking for chessmaster8x he has been blocked indefanataly for a first offence vandalisim. The blocking admin "Centrix" has not been active for days. The blocking policy degisnates that people should not be unneccarly blocked. It also says that the reccomended time for a vandalisim block is 24 hours. It has been almost a week. This block is outragious. Please review this block. Chessmaster8x also reqused that his dicussian page be unprotedted it is fully protedted and he can't submit an appeal. Please consitter this.
Mwx10 15:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
P.s. please respond on my page. Mwx10 15:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Kerry Bolton
I noticed that you're active on Holocaust denial and related topics. We're trying to find the right sources to use for the assertion that is a Holocaust denier/revisionist, as well as some other sourcing matters. Your experience and impartiality would be valuable, and I's appreciate if you could stop by Talk:Kerry Bolton and offer your opinion. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 07:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, when an anonymous editor added a list of Bolton's books, you reverted that addition.[10] I can't figure out why. -Will Beback · † · 05:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- That's a fine line, especially with a prolific author. But the current version, which makes barely a mention of what makes the subject notable, isn't good either. If we can't discuss the Holocaust denial of someone who's written "The Holocaust Myth" then we might as well delete it. -Will Beback · † · 05:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-
typo in ArbCom candidate statement
Hi. I noticed that the link to the Well should really be to the WELL (capitalization issue), but I am relatively new, and think maybe I shouldn't be editing other people's statements. 1. Take care of it, please. and 2, would it have been alright for me to fix the link, or is it better that I wrote to you here? Good luck! (feel free to delete this) Jd2718 20:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Feel free to fix it! Obvious dumb mistaks are fair gaime. (But I fixt it myself. Thanks.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that, generally, interestingly, and ironically speaking, the...
...concept based off a number of numerous different concepts based off the idea of the fact that the idea is a concept of the fact that the concept of the fact is the idea that a number of number of many different ideas that people who use all these redundancies are just trying to sound intelligent :) Glad to see someone else against all these terms :) — Deckiller 08:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Did I 3rr?
Having come here once before, and not really knowing any admins, thought you might be able to help. I have been editing Babi Yar for a few weeks. I added this to the talk page 3 weeks ago [11], then, a week later made this [12] edit to the article itself. Hillock65 reverted, and offered what seemed like non-engagement on the talk page. Would you mind horribly taking a look? Have I violated 3rr? What should I do? Jd2718 06:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hm, sorry to have bothered you. We may have talked it out. I am still curious if either of us 3rr'ed, but I certainly do not want to instigate enforcement. I am also curious if I handled myself correctly, or if I should have behaved differently. Anyway, it is fairly unimportant, but if you have a moment and are willing to share your thoughts, I would appreciate it (and if not, it is pretty minor stuff, I understand) Jd2718 07:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Really nevermind. He reverted again. I reported him. Jd2718 15:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Editing of MLK article
Hello, On Nov. 25, I added some information and made some minor changes to the entry for Dr. Martin luther King, Jr. I noticed that every single change was reversed, even though a notice calls for expansion of the lead section. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am curious as to what an example of POV is and what "flowerfication" (great word, btw) means.
Thanks, Andres
- Well, let's see. From the start, you changed "political activist" to "peace activist", but it was as a political and civil rights activist that he was best known; "peace activist" specifically might describe the last part of his career, but is not how he is generally known. You changed "considered a peacemaker" to "acknowledged as a peacemaker", which is an addition of flowery language with no real change in meaning. Likewise, adding "his belief in the power of conflict resolution through" to "nonviolence" is just redundant; that's what nonviolence is about. "Widely considered one of the greatest public speakers in history, Dr. King is known for his passionate calls" is more flowery language, and would need to be backed up by sources; who has made a claim that he was one of the greatest public speakers? Whose interpretation of the "dream" speech is that? Whose analysis of "beloved community" is that? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
ArbComm election questions
Just a quick note to say that I've added a set of questions here. Oh. You've just answered it. Oh well! :-) Carcharoth 15:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
ArbCom questions
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.
- What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
- Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
- Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Extra Qs
Sorry about that, thanks for catching them. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
MLK rv POV, flowerification pt. 2
You're right on all points except, perhaps, one. "Considered" a peacemaker, and "acknowledged" as a peacemaker are not the same thing. If I say, "I considered you a friend", I could be intimating that you actually weren't a true friend or that you were but are no longer. "I acknowledge our friendship" is less open to interpretation. As an aside, I was surprised by the curt tone of your reply, especially since I acknowledged the fact that you were probably right to begin with. Also, I politley asked for a definition of "flowerification" (and even pointed out that I like the sound of it), yet you ignored the request. What gives?
Thanks.
- I'm just kinda curt sometimes, that's all. Sorry about that. I made up "flowerification" -- it means to put in a bunch of flowery language. Regarding "considered" v. "acknowledged" -- hm, maybe, but "acknowledged" requires a more positive act, an acknowledgement, while "considered" can just be a state of being, no? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 08:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
GetResume.com strikes again ...
This guy has spammed his site all over WikiClassifieds too.
He goes under the username: Goras and the IP: 213.165.176.72
I tried to get him blocked, but they said there was an insufficient warning.
Maybe you will get a better outcome: Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
Good luck ...
- Well, the IP user hasn't been here recently, and there doesn't seem to be a User:Goras here. Luckily, he always targets resume, so I see it pretty quickly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Is the sprotect tag required
Hi! I was actually wondering about that myself. I just took a look at WP:SEMI#How, and it looks like there is some discretion about whether that tag should be used, based on this comment from Jimbo. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, at least I think we want {{sprotected2}}, no? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That's how I would interpret the policy, yes. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Roosevelt
Why you seem not to like seemingly useful contributions to certain articles. Why can't we maintain a pattern of consistency with articles in the same category. After some reviewing, I find that some of the articles do not follow particular guidelines or an organized pattern. This is particularly true of the First Ladies category. The changes made really could not have harmed anything and obviously did not "take away" from the page at all. Is it only editors and administrators who have something to offer this service? 21:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I guess I'm not sure which edits you're referring to. And of course only editors have something to offer this service -- and you're an editor. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm referring to the edits made on Eleanor Roosevelt. I just didn't get the impression my contributions were worthwhile. 23:10, 30 November 2006
- Well, let's see. I'm looking at these diffs. I see:
- Removing her first name from the biography box. (Debatable at best).
- Adding occupation as First Lady to bio box. Yes, for some of her life, and lots of other things; perhaps debatable.
- Adding husband. Suitable.
- Oh, I see, you didn't add that garbage table. I thought it was part of your stream of edits.
- Changing the link from Driver licence, which is a redirect to Driver's Licenses, to driver's license, which is also a redirect to Driver's Licenses. Not of any real value.
- You added Category:Women in World War I, though the article says nothing at all about what she was doing in that decade other than raising her brood.
- Anyway, if you think your changes belong in the article, feel free to bring them up on the talk page there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Removing her name because she was not known as Anna. In fact, it was her birth name but she later dropped Anna.
-
-
- If occupation should be deleted from the bio box, it also should in Lady Bird Johnson. Most people won't recognize any other occupation of Roosevelt's other than first lady.
- [Driver's License]] is the appropriate link, my mistake the first time.
- Maybe the article does not mention it but I do recall in 1918 her uncle Theodore Roosevelt having given his niece $5,000 for feeding and providing aide to troops, sending care packages and simply visiting them and she herself made generous contributions money wise to the effort. She did this because Mrs. Sara Roosevelt took over the rearing of the children, thus leaving Eleanor Roosevelt to find other things to occupy her time. 12:10, 2 December 2006
- If you think your changes belong in the article, feel free to bring them up at Talk:Eleanor Roosevelt. Regarding the last, we need reliable sources for things like that, not your recollection -- it sounds interesting. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Good call
Good call on Talk:Temple garment. That line of discussion was utterly counter-productive. Thanks and cheers, shotwell 18:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- A reminder of WP policy:
- Basic rules for all talk pages
- Sign your comments (see above)
- Log in. (Read why here.)
- Use coherent formatting.
- Copy formatting from others.
- Indent with colons (:), not with tabs.
- Break up very large paragraphs.
- Be civil at all times.
- Don't make personal attacks
- Don't SHOUT
- Do not edit other user's comments.
-
- (The bolded parts are exactly like that on the policy page). The other guy made a statement; I attempted to highlight his point. It wasn't until he responded to me that a personal attack took place. Since you are an admin, will you investigate his removing a legitimate warning on his talk page, then using a warning on my talk page as way of retaliation? Thank You. Duke53 | Talk 19:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't care. Both of you are acting poorly on that talk page; I couldn't care less who started what when. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I DO Care, that you can change Wikipedia policy on a whim. If you're going to play admin then at least be consistent and take action when something is pointed out to you; you can't pick and choose when to flex your muscles. Duke53 | Talk 19:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, actually, I can. There's nothing more tedious than someone saying "Well he was doing it too!" --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- And you can change Wikipedia policy when the mood strikes? Duke53 | Talk 20:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, of course not, and I've not done so. If you have a problem with what I've done, WP:RFC/U#Use of administrator privileges is over there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, you did; you edited users' comments on a talk page; Wikipedia policy says that you can't do that (read the rules I added above). Duke53 | Talk 06:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, of course I didn't change Wikipedia policy. I'm not capable of doing that. You think I violated Wikipedia policy, which is entirely different. However, I didn't edit other people's comments; if you look at WP:TPG, you'll see that injunction means "don't change other people's words". I didn't; I removed an entire section of escalating incivility and I will do so again if it starts up again on that page. If this troubles you, I suggest you first bring this up with an uninvolved administrator; you'll quickly find that not only is what I did allowed, it's considered to be entirely appropriate -- and didn't require any administrative privileges (any other editor could have done the same thing). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Show me one thing that I said there that was not civil; you can't. You changed the policy since you did expressly what it said not to do. Deletion is editing, no matter how you dance around it. Duke53 | Talk 08:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- How could I possibly change policy? Individuals are unable to do that here (other than Jimbo); policy is set by (in no particular order) the community, the Board, Jimbo, and ArbCom. If you believe my actions are in violation of policy, feel free to bring it up at any of the appropriate places; WP:RFC, for example. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 08:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hypocrisy. -- AuburnPilottalk 08:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- How could I possibly change policy? Individuals are unable to do that here (other than Jimbo); policy is set by (in no particular order) the community, the Board, Jimbo, and ArbCom. If you believe my actions are in violation of policy, feel free to bring it up at any of the appropriate places; WP:RFC, for example. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 08:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
-
Re: Talk page spamming
I suspect we may not see eye to eye politically friend, but you should not try to censor me. I'm just being neighborly, I'm new to wikipedia.--Albinomite 17:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Archive restored
Will, I've restored your archive. Check to make sure its working as expected. Good luck, Gwernol 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Warning: one cut-and-paste link on Ludvikus' page (in the archive box) still points to your talk page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I know. I told him to copy the template to his own userspace to solve the problem. Hopefully, he won't move it instead of copy. Once he has his own copy, he can fix the link. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for cleaning upmy mess.
- I learned my lesson. I use the trial-and-error method of learning Wikipedianism.
- You deserve a decoration as a very efficient Wikipedia Patrolman. May I award you the following: user thingy removed jpg
- Best wishes, and Season's Greetings! --Ludvikus 06:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: ArbCom vote question
I've responded to your inquiry about my ArbCom vote at my talk page, and again, I hope I'm not missing something really obvious. Thanks, and best wishes for your own candidacy for the Committee. theProject 02:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Restoring some sanity
In this edit you were one of those editors I was referring to that I deeply respect, yet over the last month find myself losing that respect, and Jimbo's post to the list jerked me back to reality. Like Pshemp and Friday, you were one of those editors I admired and enjoyed reading your useful comments. --Trödel 05:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well...I refuse to refer to editors as trolls; I don't find it a useful characterization. I stuck my nose into the middle of this discussion, without paying heed to the histories of the contributors, for better or for worse. I'm sorry you've lost respect for me, but you might want to at least consider that I'm still the same person you deeply respected a month ago -- you've just found one particular area where you disagree strongly with me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- jpgordon, I suspected you hadn't seen that post by Trodel, but you have; why wasn't it been deleted like this other exchange (with warning) that you removed on that page? " ... I refuse to refer to editors as trolls; I don't find it a useful characterization". Yet you allow that to stay up? All I ask is for you to be consistent; his 'speech' about me doesn't deserve to be there if the other posts were taken down out of interest of the article. Since I don't swallow the 'company line' about certain subjects some editors have routinely attacked me personally; you are getting a small taste of that with the above "losing that respect" remark. If you agree with them you will be 'respected'; if not, then that 'respect' is out the window. If you feel that you must 'protect' them, then the only fair thing to do is to give me equal 'protection'. Thank You. Duke53 | Talk 10:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- p.s. Not only does he pretty much openly admit that he's attacking me personally, he also boasts that he will delete any messages or warnings that I place on his talk page; I have the same rights as any other editor at Wikipedia. I certainly hope that you are paying attention to his intentional violations of WP policy.
Portfolio for ArbCom
On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.
So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first (from their questions page), and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. — Sebastian (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Good question. I guess I'm looking for examples of disputes where opponents are so locked in that it seems impossible for them to come to terms. A bit like some movies where the thrill consists in watching how they can ever get out of this mess. Of course, people differ; what seems hard to me may come easy to you. But the better a candidate's arbitration skills, the more they should have a sense for what makes up the real problems out there, and the better their chances to align with what voters expect. — Sebastian (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Hm. But I'm not an arbitrator, nor I have been involved in formal mediation here, so I really don't have a lot of examples of this sort of work here. However, a lot of article talk pages bear evidence of what I try to do when I encounter such conflicts; sometimes I'm successful, usually I'm helpful, and on occasion I've made things worse. In a way, what I've been doing in my social role as admin is arbitration on a micro level, as opposd to ArbCom's role on the macro level. But that analogy doesn't stretch very far, I don't think; if I'm involved in a dispute as an ArbCom member, I must at all times maintain my neutrality and fairness and propriety; on the other hand, if I'm trying to help informally mediate a dispute, I can always decide to take off my admin Hat of Neutrality and instead pick a side and support it. Some admins have occasionally gotten into trouble doing this, because they still try to exert administrative privilege while in active in the dispute; I think I'm pretty good at keeping the domains separate. It would surprise me if the majority of the ArbCom candidates will be able to provide anything in the way of concrete examples. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Thank you for your reply. Of course, it's up to you, and I should leave it at that. But I have the impression you're selling yourself short, so allow me to write some words of encouragement: I'm sure you have at least something that's better than nothing. Moreover, it is not too late to try out the new role; you don't have to officially wear that hat. E.g., you could pick an article from Category:Wikipedia controversial topics with which you feel comfortable and see if you can help out there. Just an idea. — Sebastian (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well...take a look at Talk:Temple garment. This is the most recent contretemps I've stuck my nose into; I don't know if I made it better or worse, but I tried to help, and might have. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thank you. I think you did make it better by keeping the discussion away from personal attacks and clarifying what you thought the issue was. — Sebastian (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (I stopped watching this page as of 19:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC). If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and let me know.)
-
-
-
-
-
- Jpgordon - your work on the page was appreciated and helped move it closer to resolution. I just wish some editors did more than argue on Wikipedia, but one on that page has a history of being controversial and little else. For what its worth, thanks. -Visorstuff 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Nauvoo Endowment
I didn't want to clutter up any article talk pages, so I decided to clutter up yours instead. For the life of me, I cannot find the reference to the Nauvoo Endowment. If you could guide me to it, I would be appreciative. Bytebear 18:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh! sorry. Temple garment doesn't refer to it by name, but rather references Endowment ceremony, which contains the history of the several Mormon endownments. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Compuserve
I noticed in your answers to questions from UninvitedCompany that you mentioned working in Compuserve fora during the Stone Age. If you don't mind, which SIGs or fora? I look back on that time with much nostalgia, especially SciMath, but I regularly visited quite a few others as well. Jd2718 01:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Mostly the AutoCAD forum. Probably some others too, but that was the only one I spent a lot of time on (while I was working at Autodesk.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
removing changes
Why are you removing all my adds to wiki? If you check on chargeback, you will see that I just added a link that was already there for months and was removed by other sites on the list. Also, you have removed all my other contributions. Why target me when I provided valid links?
- You're adding identical links to multiple articles, for one. Further, links to discussion forums are discouraged; see Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, item 10. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆
04:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- On the chargeback article, I added a link that was up for over 6 months and removed.
ss ranks
hey, i am just randomly asking you because i ran into you at antisemitism. i am getting increasingly annoyed by big sections at articles about former ss officers and high ranking nazis, with complete lists of all the ss and army ranks they held and all the medals they were given (see Rudolf Hoess, Reinhard Heydrich, sometimes take up maybe 20% of the article. i know that space is not an issue at wikipedia, but i find those sections trivial and in bad taste. do you know were i should turn to find out if there is a general policy or were i can get other opinions on that. alternativly you could just randomly give me your opinion. apart from that i would still like to delete the word racial for reason given at talk page. just come to think of it there is an album called jews with horns by the klezmatics that i rather like.trueblood 16:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hey. Well, do we have similar entries for top military brass from other countries? Why is it in bad taste to list the military ranks and medals of Nazis? We don't have to like them to state the facts about them. (Yay Klezmatics!) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- suppose i figured that not all facts need stating and ss ranks and nazi medals are part of that system, it's almost like propaganda. but there are more important things to spend time with therefore case closedtrueblood 17:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- OK. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to conceal information we find distasteful. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- don't be condescending i meant it was distasteful and irrelevant. the purpose of wikipedia is that of any other encyclopedia, provide relevant information. trueblood 20:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- i bore you again with the same issue, at rudolf hoess someone has replaced the list of ss ranks with a nice chart. back to the same question, when does this sort of thing get excessive?trueblood 09:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- When the community decides it's excessive. We provide, or are in the process of providing, that information in military biographies when it's available. George Marshall, for example, has exactly the same data, as does George S. Patton. Georgy Zhukov should have one rather than the text description. Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. is incomplete (just awards, not ranks yet.) Just a few I picked off the top of my head. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- i bore you again with the same issue, at rudolf hoess someone has replaced the list of ss ranks with a nice chart. back to the same question, when does this sort of thing get excessive?trueblood 09:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- don't be condescending i meant it was distasteful and irrelevant. the purpose of wikipedia is that of any other encyclopedia, provide relevant information. trueblood 20:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to conceal information we find distasteful. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Consensus
You are a long standing admin here and neutral on this issue. This is regards the Safiyya bint Huyayy, I was engaged in an edit war with user:Striver in good faith with neither of us falling foul of WP:3RR. The point of contention is whether Safiyya would be considered a concubine of Mohammad according to WP rules. Please read the article and talk page before coming to a consensus. Here was the exchange in natural sized nutshell!
- I inserted the term "concubine"
- Striver reverted saying it was negative without explanation. I rv etc.
- Striver responded to discussion on talk page, I invited a few users to comment.
- It was proposed [14] that she may not be classed as a concubine due to dictionary definition, that a concubine cant be a wife.
- I counter proposed that that whilst in the evil-ages kidnapping a girl and marrying her was considered 'taking a wife', today it wouldn't apply and Safiyya would rightly be title a concubine.
- various other points where proposed and counterd by me and a few short comments from others.
There are three possibilities now, the last is a compromise. I want 1.
- Include concubine.
- Exclude concubine
- Include she was "what would today be called a form of 'concubinage'".
Thank you for your time. FrummerThanThou 19:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Hi Josh, FrummerThanThou asked me to post a comment here regarding my opinion of the three choices. To my mind, #3 would be the best fit, for the reasons I expressed in the talk page. The word "concubine" has become a vague term in modern times since our culture has been so many centuries without direct experience of it. In fact, if you check a variety of dictionaries, you will find about just as many different descriptions of it. Although in modern usage, "concubine" is probably the closest-fitting common English word for the Muslim practice of marriage to a ma malakat aymanukum, Muslims would in fact have as great a difficulty describing in their terms what we mean by "concubine". IMO, the best that we can do, consistent with the philosophy of Wikipedia is to describe it in terms along the line of "Mohammed took Safiyya to wife in what would today be called a form of 'concubinage'", and then briefly explain the kind of relationship ma malakat aymanukum was — in the text, or as a footnote, or possibly with a link to a suitable article on Muslim marriage customs (if there is one). Askari Mark (Talk) 21:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections
Hi there, my name is Neille and I'm a producer at a public radio show called Weekend America. We're doing a piece on the ArbCom elections and would love to chat with you as a front runner if you have a few minutes today or tomorrow. Thanks! I'm at: nilel (at) marketplace (dot) org. Neille i 20:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Wiki Logo
Hi Jeff, I'm a graphic artist and I would love to oversee a project where we would change the wikilogo for special days like world cancer day. There are lots of graphic artists here and we can make it into a contest wiki feature style. I recently started the new Category:Awareness Days. Google do something similar to mark special days as I'm sure you've seen. [[15]] a link. Please advise. FrummerThanThou 03:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Who is "Jeff"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- sorry it josh, i mix up my j names! please can you comment on the page there! thanks! FrummerThanThou 22:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Heh. A lot of people do that, actually -- Jeff Gordon is pretty popular! I'll take a look. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- sorry it josh, i mix up my j names! please can you comment on the page there! thanks! FrummerThanThou 22:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
- Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays Jpgordon! | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 |
May you and your family have a Merry Christmas, as well as any other Holiday you may celebrate. I hope that warmth, good cheer, and love surround you during these special days. May God bless you during the Holidays. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |  |
152.53.23.42
The tune is a sadly familiar one, but I don't think I recognize the specific individual playing it this time. Do you know who it is? Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Pco
OK, she's withdrawn her legal threat, or says she has; wanna unblock her? (I generally don't reverse another admin's actions without consulting.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Already done by Jossi, message left last night. Rich Farmbrough, 09:20 19 December 2006 (GMT).
Re:Kwanzaa, "Bloods"
Wowww, now I feel... really... stupid... Thanks a lot for the correction. I'll think about putting some sort of clarification on the quote, as I'd certainly never heard the term before, and it was naturally the only thing I'd think of. Certainbly did not mean to disparage Mr. Karenga like that. --Lenoxus 17:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Allegedly Overlinking Ludvikus
I have a quote for you! Do you recognise it?
I'm an utter fanatic for encyclopedias and dictionaries of all sorts.
In that spirit, are you concerned with my credibility?
- Sincerely, --Ludvikus 21:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
--- I just realized that you may not be aware that I'm refering to a comment made in 2004!
User:Jpgordon From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaRevision as of 17:30, 14 September 2004 by Jpgordon (Talk | contribs) (diff) ← Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Jump to: navigation, searchHi everyone! My name's Josh Gordon. I've got a ton of different interests and possibly interesting experiences that might or might not result in useful and informative additions to Wikipedia. For example, I've worked at IMSAI, Autodesk and eBay as a software engineer; I was lead trumpet for the Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo; I'm a jazz pianist and folk guitarist; I've lived in Alexandria, VA, Munich, Germany, Eugene, Oregon, Berkeley, San Francisco, and Carmel-by-the-Sea; I spent many years on The Well, and I'm an utter fanatic for encyclopedias and dictionaries of all sorts.
- Best wishes, --Ludvikus 21:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm concerned with your credibility. You've accumulated a lot of quite useful information, in particular about the Protocols, and that's great encyclopedia work, but your presentation of it makes it difficult for others to assess its importance, because your unique approach to style makes the reader see the problems with the style first, and the content tends to get lost in the muddle. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Nature-Lover J. Gordon - a Fower for You
By the way, I'm not gay--"not there there is anything wrong with it."
- However, it is not customer for a man to give another man a flower.
- You are a man, are you not (not that it makes a wikipedian difference)?
- --Ludvikus 21:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Mackan
I would really appreciate it if you would unblock Mackan. Things happen..you know? While I really don't think he all to blame, I'm sure in the future this is not something that will happen again. Thanks man! MetsFan76 00:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'll let him speak for himself. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I think he needed some support considering what he went through with SlimVirgin and Humus. Anyway, thank you for unblocking him. That's all you needed to do. MetsFan76 01:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the unblock. I actually didn't see your double post when you clarified you were just talking about this instance; I would have been less insulted. Not to belabor, but I very much stand by the point that Slim was harassing me. Her edits were not in good faith; she had not read the material, was not commenting, and reverted me within one minute, right after an extended discussion on her talk page and she had reverted me on the Zionism page. She did 3 broad reverts in immediate succession, before even looking at the sources (I know this because once she did she recognized that the material wasn't sourced, like I had said). She also accused me of being the anonymous users, when she very easily could have seen this was extremely unlikely. Anyway, this is what I found so offensive, as a new user. I appreciate you taking a look, though, and of course the unblock. Mackan79 02:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Question
Are you familiar with Financial Models, if so please help me in the math ref desk. thnx. --Foundby 04:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Should This Content Be Removed
Patrolling new user pages and found this: User:X0x0maryamx0x0. Not sure if it's acceptable or not... -WarthogDemon 06:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm. I can't make head or tail of it. It just seems weird...let's see what the editor proceeds to do... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
RfC
Hi Jpgordon,
Would you please have a look at the talk page of the RfC page. I posted a comment 3 days ago, and a day ago, but nobody is responding to that. Thanks --Aminz 10:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Can you please reply to the comments. Thanks --Aminz 23:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Please reply to the comments on talk page of the RfC page: [16]. Otherwise, I would assume that the dispute is resolved. Thanks --Aminz 05:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thanks
thanks for your help in restoring parts of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. I completely agree with you; users should discuss it before removing huge amounts of other people's work. In general, my own contributions consist almost entirely of adding some new ideas or material; I almost never feel any need to delete anything which someone else has written, but I almost always can address any concerns simply by simply adding material which presents another balancing perspective. thanks for your help. See you. --Steve,Sm8900 00:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Help - the penis vandal is back
I'm just contacting admins who seem to be up right now, it's on the main page. Anchoress 15:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- NVM it's fixed. Anchoress 15:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
User Pages
How about when it's a personal attack against another user, falsely alleging that she supports Holocaust denial, and suggesting that she not be given credibility? I was actually curious if such a personal attack by itself is permitted under Wikipedia policies. Can you answer this for me? It was my suspicion that this is not allowed which lead me to comment on the user page directly. (If you weren't aware, I also left a note on GHcool's talk page, allerting him to my comment on his user page and acknowledging that I wasn't sure if it was bad form). Thanks, Mackan79 18:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, some people think it's a good idea to remove personal attacks, but it's not policy. In general, except to remove egregious stuff, you really shouldn't mess with other's user pages; and if you think one is offensive, get a second opinion first. Oh, and, as far as User:Pco is concerned, she did enough damage to her own credibility that she really didn't need anyone's help. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Falsely accusing someone of being a holocaust denier, or supporting holocaust deniers, is excedingly egregious, whether that person is seen as having credibility or not. I will report the statement unless PCO does as defamation as per Wikipedia's don't make legal threats page, which suggests I was correct in leaving a comment. Also, why didn't you respond on my page? It would be nice, if admins are going to post insulting messages on my page, that they post their follow-ups there as well. Mackan79 19:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Did I post an insulting message on your page? I see there: a polite suggestion on how to avoid being tagged as an edit warrior; the stuff regarding unblocking you; and the comment regarding editing other people's user pages. If I want to insult you, I'll be direct about it. I prefer not to have discussions go back and forth from talk page to talk page. Makes it easier to follow. It's a personal preference. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Fair enough, accusation retracted. Mackan79 21:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
It sounds like Mr. Mackan79 is going to report me to the Wikipedia authorities for my direct quotation of User:Pco on my user page. I do not intend on removing or altering my user page unless I am forced to because I do not think I have behaved dishonestly or in violation of any Wikipedia rules. I appealed to Mackan79 to report my quotation to Pco instead and to let her deal with me directly, but instead he took it upon himself to defend Pco's honor.[18] As I wrote on SlimVirgin's user talk page, I am open to suggestions and opinions from a neutral third party about how I should proceed. If you wouldn't mind keeping an eye on this minor dispute as well, I would appreciate it. Thanks. --GHcool 22:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Jpgordon. --GHcool 23:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Jim Jeffords
You reverted my edit when I changed his party from independant to Republican, Indpendant. I think wikipedia ought to disclose ALL info about people. If you prefer I will put former Republican. Please explain why you removed. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.119.157 (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC).
- The info box says what party the Senator is a member of. Not what he was -- what he is. The article talks in great detail about his previous party affiliation and his shift. We wouldn't put both Democrat and Republican in, say, Ronald Reagan's info box. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay that makes sense! Thanks for the reason! MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Your note
I did suggest that he take the comment down from his user page, but he seems not to want to; or at least that he should add the full quote. [19] I'm not entirely sure what the issue is, as I've not read the page carefully or looked at the sequence of events; I only noticed that in one version of his page he was quoting her selectively, which I advised him against. Do you feel we (or someone) should be doing more than just advising? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've posted a clarification on his talk page and asked him to take down the material about Pco. Feel free to get others involved, though I hope it won't be necessary. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- He doesn't want to take it down, so I added more of the quote, and GH is prepared to accept that. Hopefully that's the end of it. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Oversight
Hello. Congratulations for your election. You now have oversight access on the English-language Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Oversight before using this feature. Cheers! guillom 10:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Congratulations. I'm very glad you were chosen for the ArbCom, in what has been perhaps the best election yet. You'll make a great arbitrator. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 11:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Huzzah! Mazel tov! --Releeshan 11:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Hi Jpgordon. In addition, please subscribe to Oversight-l. And congratulations on your new status. Redux 13:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
-
ArbCom
- Thanks and best wishes for taking on this demanding role. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Congratulations. Hope you enjoy this new role, despite the challenging nature of it. Cheers! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Political Cooperative
My understanding was that someone else who is not affiliated with the PCO could post the article, so why was it still deleted?
- I speedied it after someone else put a speedy delete tag on it. The reason is that it just went through an AfD, and so shouldn't be recreated unless something happens to change the group's situation e.g. if it becomes more notable and reliable third party sources start writing about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
There were plenty of notable sources in the original version, but the new person who posted it had not had a chance to add those before it was deleted. You two need to get a life and stop running to delete anything related to anyone that you don't happen to like. Zionism has nothing to do with the rest of wikipedia. So don't discourage other people from participating just because you don't like one thing that they protested about on zionism.
PCO
1.
Wikipedia's success to date is entirely a function of our open community. This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty.
2.
Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny".
"Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other.
For example: rather than trust humans to correctly identify "regulars", we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the community for a very short period of time. The process should be virtually invisible for newcomers, so that they do not have to do anything to start contributing to the community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.135.36.250 (talk • contribs) 08:36, December 26, 2006 (UTC)
- Why are you telling me this here? I don't wish to discuss this with you here; please take it elsewhere. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
External Link Admonishments
I think you are wrong about some of your external link admonishments. I don't see the "promotion" of a site that is not only completely on-topic, but also one that contains no ads whatsoever and who's entire operation is paid from the pocket of the site owner (and when increased traffic causes said owner additional costs). The link you gave me to the Wiki rules upheld the validity of my links, instead of the other way around. In my opinion, you are overzelous. But you know what they say about opinions ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VegasRex (talk • contribs) 17:10, December 26, 2006 (UTC)
- The message I left you said, Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated... That's why you can't include them. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Timothy McVeigh
I have sprotected the page since the anon kept adding the "alarming" link to the page. As soon as I sprotected it, he blanked the Talk page and replaced it with his link, so I have sprotected the Talk page as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations
Or should I say, my sympathies. :) I just saw the announcement on your appointment to the ArbCom. Wear the hat well. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Congrats. I think you'll be a great addition to the arbcomm. Hopefully you can survive with your sanity ;) Guettarda 18:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Philosophy
I'm trying to improve the above.
- Getting capricious reversions.
- Your expertese would be useful, and certainly appreciated by me. --Ludvikus 13:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Tone needed
If people want to use a page to attack karenga then i have a problem and i am legal in this warning to say that these group of vandals with POV be stopped. It was me that ask thepage for protection against this madness. The people who support karenga have no voice on wiki because they are not internet users, and the attacks have to stop..--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I respect that u r there because boy the vandals and pov would destroy it. I am frustrated right now with wikipedia to b honest. I feel like one editor surrounded by racist, almost every article i work on i have to keep defending, I cant even walk away from wiki for a week, people wait for me to go to try things.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Existence of dispute in Antisemitism article
Hi Jpgordon,
Happy New Year!!
As you know an RfC was recently filed on Anti-Semitism related articles which I believe shows the very existence of some dispute in that article if not that which party is right. Some editors are disputing "the very existence of a dispute" on the Antisemitism article. Would you please have at the evidence provided here [20] and see if that testifies existence of at least some dispute over the neutrality of the article. Please sign your name if the evidences prove the existance of some sort of dispute over the neutrality. Thanks. --Aminz 12:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Occupied territories
What do you think of my following contribution?
The West Bank (current), and the Gaza Strip (until 2005), are called occupied territories by those advocating the strongest Palestinian position. However, neither territory is deemed soverign. These lands were allegedly liberated from Turkey in World War I, at the end of which the League of Nations was formed. And the League of Nations had granted Great Britain a mandate over this land, which was then a part of Mandatory Palestine. Accordingly, Great Britain was not an occupying power in relation to this land. It was an occupyer when the land belonged to the Ottoman Empire during the Great War. The British subsequently relinquished their mandate and these territories were occupied, as a consequence of war, by Egypt and Jordan. In the 1967 War Israel liberated this land from its late conquerors. The Balfour Declaration had been adopted by the League of Nations, and the United Nations is deemed a successor organization to the League. Accordingly, the terms of this Declaration are deemed International Law. Consequently, Israel has the legal right to claim this land as its own - under International Law. However, the State of Israel has decided that it is not in its best national interests to assert its soverignity over these two pieces of land. A major reason for this is the existence of a large Arab population, and relatively small Jewish population in Settlements.
- Can you re-visit the cite? Thanks. Best regard, Ludvikus 16:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Besides the obvious POV (excuse me, I call them "occupied territories", and I don't "advocate the strongest Palestinian positions"), you are grossly over-linking, as usual. Why does League of Nations need to be wikilinked four times in one paragraph? Why does International Law need it twice in a dozen words? All that aside for the brief moment, whose definitions are you using here? What experts in the field make the points that you are asserting? At the moment, this looks like pure original research. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's my source:
- Douglas J. Feith, William V. O'Brien, Eugene V. Rostow, Paul S. Riebenfeld, Malvina Halberstam, & Jerome Hornblass
- Israel's Legitimacy in Law and History, Proceedings of the Conference on International Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict
- Sponsored by The Lois D. Brandeis Society of Zionist Lawyers, October 21, 1990, New York
- ed. Edward M. Siegel, Esq.
- assoc. ed. Olga Barrekette
- (New York: Center for Near East Policy Research, 1993)
- ISBN 0-9640145-0-5
About my alleged over linking, its precisely because I want my readers, especially those who are highly uninformed, to have immediate access to the precise meaning of the words I use, words which are often technical, and not subject to personal whim. I am absolutely shocked that you, for whom I have had some respect before, would have the nerve to announce proudly that you use occuppied territories with respect to Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Where did you find that except in the political popular literature of breeding-heart liberals, probably like yourself, who are so overwhelmed with grief over the suffering of Paletinians, that they forget that it was the gas-chamber ovens in Europe under Hitler, that made Israel the only place on Earth that would absorb the remnants of the six-million!
- So tell me more about your POV view regarding territories occupied by Israel!!!
- Happy New Year, Ludvikus 23:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
A request for assistance
Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:52 3 January 2007 (UTC).
Hi Jgordon- I posted to a number of the editors of the Amelia Earhart article in order to see if there was consensus in the move. Otherwise, the usual response is one or two people and not a clear idea of what to do. Sorry if it gets anyone upset. Bzuk 06:04 3 January 2007 (UTC).
Hoover Dam
Thanks for the message. The story about the carbon monoxide is straight from the BBC's "Seven Wonders of the Industrial World". These programmes were meticulously researched and so are reliable references. I hope the series has been seen over on your side of the pond, because it is superb. I have now cited the episode on the Hoover Dam to support the story. I have also made a mental note not to use 'interestingly'. JMcC 08:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate/Workshop
I think we are almost ready to take Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate/Workshop to voting. When you feel comfortable with the proposals, please take them to /Proposed decision and fix Template:ArbComOpenTasks so the case shows up in voting. I remain somewhat uncertain regarding Dionysus, Probably all the workshop sections on the individual users don't need to go to /Proposed decision. Fred Bauder 15:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Lee Isaacs
- Keep Lee Isaacs is my vote. This photographer is quite notable. Editor Hoary decided long ago he didn't want Isaacs' on WP for whatever reason. We both obviously see, along with others, that Isaacs work is as notable as half of the photographers on WP whether its art photography and/or commercial photography. I fleshed out alot of this article but I do understand to google Lee Isaacs is not easy since alot of people have his first and last name as a middle name and last name. I have a book here, UPsouth, that has many examples of his work. This is a Warhol project grant through Space One Eleven. He is in good company as far as the notoriety of the other artists here is concerned. Emma Amos and bell hooks are in the book along with Willie Cole and Marie Weaver. Cole is the only other male in this project. Maybe someone could sift through some of this. Artsojourner 06:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I only noticed that you too have had a problem with other people deleting your work I meant no harm at all. I assure you. Artsojourner 06:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Forgery & the Protocols of Zion
Greatings, Jpgordon.
- I hope I can explain my point to you here.
- Forgery would have meant that the Okhrana went out of its way to make the manuscript look like it was written on Jewish paper (with watermarked Star-of-David markings, for example), that the handwriting was by the hand of Jews (waterever that means).
- That they had to do this to convince the censors that the mauscript presented was authentic.
- But there is no evidence for that. In fact, Serge Nilus was a gullible religious fanatic, and he was moved by the words of the text into believing - he did not needed to be convinced very much that the document was real - an actual, original recording of minutes.
- Anyway, if there was a forgery presented to Nilus, scholars do not say much about it except that Nilus gives different stories about the manuscript he received.
- So the appropriate word is hoax, not forgery.
- Hoax means a scam, presenting something as true when it is not.
- PS: In fact, the story, changed as subsequently told by Nilus, that somebody copied from the original. So what Nilus would have had would be fiction, not a forgery, because it was stated that it was NOT the original document! Do you understand this point?
- Best regards, --Ludvikus 20:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free to discuss this on the article talk page, not here. Thank you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Philosophy - Help!
Dear Jpgordon,
- I've encountered two, stubborn, opinionated (expressing personal POV) editors,
- a Ben Nelson, and a Dbuckner
- Whatever you think of me, I have confidence that if you visit Philosophy,
- and just put your 2-cents in, things will improve - the cite is frozed because of an Editors War (I represent the Western front - not that it has been named that!
- I think you might have fun - even find yourself siding with me, of all people, no?
- Best regards, yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Occupied territories and the United Nations
For your reference (you name is mentioned by me on the OT talk page)
The fact should be emphasized that only
what the Security Council formally passes
has the force of International Law.
The terms occupied and territories are used by the Security Council
in its formal resolutions, although rarely juxtaposed together.
The question is, what is its meaning?
It is my reading (but not a mere personal opinion)
that its use in that context (above)
has to do with the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
But User:Jpgordon seems to be blind
to its perjoritive political epithet connotation,
as a cognate for our occupied land,
as used by Hamas. And in that context,
there is no distinction made between
the West Bank, the Gaza strip, Jerusalem,
or the whole of Israel.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Problem editor
Hello. There has been a huge amount of disruption on the Philosophy page from an obsessive editor called Ludvikus. I see you have had 'visits' from this person. Do you know of anyone else who has had difficulty in that area? He seems to have upset a huge number of people. Do drop in by my talk page. Best. Dbuckner 19:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
re: article bans
Fair enough. I can think of some old examples that would fit your description (self-promoter in conflict with unrelated editor) and really needed a set of article bans. The current Starwood case also fits the description but is garden variety spamming plus random annoying user behavior, not at the level of evil of some other incidents that have gone by. I may propose a somewhat milder remedy there and see what happens. Reminds me, I should add some more evidence to that case. It seems to be somewhat stalled, maybe due to the holiday. 67.117.130.181 23:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Router?
Hiyas Jpgordon. I see that you're having a brick-wall conversation with Router (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu) at Talk:PayPal. I've been looking at his contribution history, and I'm convinced that he's a single purpose account solely trying to use Wikipedia as his personal soapbox. ALL of his edits have been to add those attack sites to articles, add criticism sections (and resist any changes to them, see Farmers Insurance). Thoughts? I had brought this up on AN, but only got a comment from an anon. Syrthiss 12:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- First thing I'm doing is asking arbcom for a clarification on the definition of "attack site" from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ok, let me know how that goes. Syrthiss 14:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Follow WP:RFAR#Attack sites. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, let me know how that goes. Syrthiss 14:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion then, with both WP:EL and the principles from the case Thatcher131 linked I think we (I, if you want me to be the hatchet-man) would be on solid ground certainly for removal of the sites and reasonably for blocking Router if he continues to add them. I'm still leaning towards throwing away the key on Router as a SPA, but could be talked down from the ledge. Syrthiss 15:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please, be the hatchet-man; I really should have asked someone else to do it in the first place, given that I could appear to have a conflict of interest there. As far as his being an SPA, he does seem to have the single purpose of adding "gripe sites" to articles; he hasn't made any other useful edits in the year he's been editing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ok. I have only had limited contact with him over Farmers Insurance, and that was pretty much entirely trying to remove the sucks.com site as inappropriate. Off to remove sites and warn him about being SPA to see how he responds. Syrthiss 15:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just as a side note, your RFCU on Router and the IP was declined by Mackensen; although, it does looks very obvious maybe to the point of blocking. That's you call, of course; and good luck with ArbCom and everything that comes with it :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I have only had limited contact with him over Farmers Insurance, and that was pretty much entirely trying to remove the sucks.com site as inappropriate. Off to remove sites and warn him about being SPA to see how he responds. Syrthiss 15:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost interview
Hello, and congratulations on being named to the Arbitration Committee. The Wikipedia Signpost is doing a post-election interview with the arbitrators elected this year. Please answer these questions to the best of your ability. We request that responses be submitted any time between now and Monday, 17:00 UTC, to guarantee that your responses will be published. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
- What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
- What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
- What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
- Test
- After about two weeks on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
- Test
- How active a role do you plan to take on ArbCom workshop pages, and in writing ArbCom decisions, a role that has historically been handled mostly by just a few individuals?
- What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
- If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
- Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
- If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why? Is there anything else you would like to mention?
Cabal
Yeah, you are right, I'll {{prod}} it. Weregerbil 15:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
hi
I just ask that you read my edits first, before you revert. Thanks. Friendship6 19:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I did. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV, and please include edit summaries to explain your changes. Thank you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Nazifarm
What is this "nazifarm"? I'd appreciate an explanation, thanks.Camberwell 15:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- The Institute for Historical Review is a den of Nazis and other Holocaust deniers. Your edits make it appear as if it's a legitimate historical or academic research institute. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Whatever, I did not appreciate seeing an obscure use of the word Nazi or a word containing Nazi associated with my name.
My intention is not to legitimise the IHR I simply think the article is severely lacking in neutrality. I know little of this "Institute". I don't even know how I got drawn into the page discussion. I suppose I hate to see a lack of impartiality. Camberwell 02:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Mackan79
I originally wasn't going to post this, but for the past hour or so, you had me thinking. I think that your comments on Mackan79's page regarding his block were extremely uncivil. From what I have seen on WP, being an admin has absolutely nothing to do with "feeling charitable" on a particular day. It's about looking at both sides and making an educated and meaningful decision. Charity has nothing to do with this. Being an admin was something nobody asked you to do so I don't think Mackan79 or anyone else for that matters needs your charity. If you feel that my words may be a little harsh, then I apologize, however, I hope I got my message across to you. My intent here is not to cause any problems, but to give you something to think about before you make any future judgments. Thank you for your time. MetsFan76 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Good work, Jpgordon
Dear Jpgordon, I've awarded you a Barnstar on your user page.
- Your certainly deserve it for guarding against crackpot racists and cranks.
- So I had to adjust your Pledge/Japanese machine translation.
- I also suggest that you put that foot note, up! - as it is, IT (the incohert pledge) looks rather cookoo.
- Nice to see your picture - I had a sense of you as some sort of cowboy!
- Best Regards, --Ludvikus 02:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the discussion on Talk: Holocaust denial
Hi. A few days ago, we were discussing the issue of censorship. You made a comment, and I asked for clarification. That was several days ago and you haven't responded. I know I sometimes lose track of talk pages, so I was coming here to remind you of the discussion at hand (and to request that you reply to my comment.) Thanks! .V. (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Jadger and J.smith
Thanks for watching the events. I have constant trouble with the J.smith [21] administrator who blindly supports a user Jadger [22]. I stop to argue with Jadger long time ago. He however chases me everywhere. I am afraid that his POV is let say "unusual" and very biased for filogermanic. I suppose J.smith has similar assumption regarding historical facts or rather historical believes. Honestly, I need a help to report the individuals somewhere for appropriate effect. I am sorry that I show some obstinacy and contra Nazi tendency but I have to work against the bleach of Nazi German history. There two kind of attempts: 1) accusation under Polish people and show them as “equally” bad to Nazi Germans 2) to leave the Nazi activity unsaid. Please contact me at my page [23] I would appreciate if you would remove the J.smith block. Best regards, Andrew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.245.84.70 (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
- this user is evading his block by posting here and elsewhere. Also, he is severely misrepresenting what is happening, there are dozens of editors against him on multiple articles, and no one supporting him. Also, as can be clearly seen in his above comment, he was blocked for personal attacks like those made above.
- --Jadger 03:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Refdesk inclusionism/deletionism
You wondered what these labels meant. So do I, but from the way they are used reference desk deletionists are editors who think jokes on the reference desk are inappropriate, and that it should answer questions, not feed trolls, etc. Inclusionists think otherwise. Wikipedia talk:Reference desk is the place where the debate, if that's the word, is taking place. Does not feeding trolls apply on the ref desk? How many jokes per editor, per day? It's thrilling stuff at the very heart of Wikipedia's raison d'être. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous is usually brim-full of refdesk inclusionism. More laughs at AfD to be honest. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't wonder what they meant; I felt they were a false basis upon which to charge someone with a conflict of interest. Thanks, though. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hartley Shawcross
Dear sir,
I am not sure your page is the right place for it, so forgive me if I am stepping beyond accepted bounds. I've arrived to your name throught the talkpage on criticism of holocaust denial.
I've recently come accross a quotation by Hartley Shawcross that was remarkably out of characters. A short search in the internet showed me that the only websites with the quotation were neo-nazi or deniers websites... and the wikipedia. And soon the deniers were using the wikipedia as corroboration. I have edited the page, and wrote an email to Shawcross' son. If he confirms the quote, I will edit it back.
The problema is that I think neo-nazis are editing less known pages--in order to use them as support to edit the more substantial ones. It maybe only my paranoia, and there is not really much that can be done, I believe, other than keep an eye here and there. But since you seem to be very active in this regard, I thought of sharing it with you.Ninarosa 05:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate the problem. But they can't well use them as support to edit more substantial ones; one of the peculiar things about Wikipedia is that we don't consider ourselves a reliable source. Let me know if you see stuff like that going on; it's usually pretty easy to stomp on, though it takes some work. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Doubt or denial?
Hi. I read your response in the edit summary regarding removing Roland Raes from the list. I know he said "doubt" about the Holocaust, but does that necessarily constitute denial in itself? .V. -- (TalkEmail) 22:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- In the context of the rest of the things he said in the same speech, yes. He was engaged quite specifically in holocaust denial. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you help?
There is a new editor that I have been attempting to explain the need to provide the original foreign language, when the material provided as a source is not available in English and has been translated by a WP editor.
I have explained WP:V#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English to no avail. I explained what WP:ATT#Language says, to no avail either...
Could you comment at Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat#Material_in_languages_other_than_English?
Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- For your convenience, I am copying from the above linked talk page here:
- "My position is that a lack of an original language quotation is not a valid reason for deletion of cited material. In cases where a translation is quoted in the text of the document, a copy of the original language may be required. It would also be acceptable to remove the direct quote and instead provide an accurate summation of the author's words."
- Mael-Num 01:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I had already given the original Dutch citation for most authors and for some twice. Full Dutch citation can be found in the archives. I am not willing to provide it again. I admit that I am not sure that I gave the full Dutch original for one author (Kranenborg)~. Andries 06:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- There are hundreds of Dutch Wikipedia users here who can check whether the translations matches the Dutch original that I provided or had provided long ago. This was done in the case of Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 20:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: Policy
I guess it's moot, since the case has already been rejected (apologies for my long time in getting back to you) - however, I just didn't feel like that particular request warranted a case, especially given that the sites in question weren't pertinent to attack sites of editors. Obviously, we disagreed on this, but thanks for your comment again. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, no prob. I'm sure the issue will come up again in a more suitable fashion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Special:Listusers/checkuser
Congrats, and good luck :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 06:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
RFAR Case
Should I ammend the title, then, per your comment? I was merely trying my best to find a title that was not unbalanced. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Limit it to Fyslee and Ilena. The other stuff involves entirely different issues. Fyslee and Ilena are interesting enough; the rest, really, is just bickering. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 08:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sure thing. Thank your for your timely response and indulgence. I will change the title shortly. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Can you please update the [24] section? :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 09:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- No, I really meant limit it to Fyslee and Ilena. Items 10 through 13 in Peter's list aren't about the Ilena/Fyslee issue at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 09:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- They address an administrator's involvement in the matter. I can better explain it, if you don't get the context, should you wish. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, unless I'm misinformed, it is entirely within the discretion of the Arbitrators involved in the case to simply ignore or turn down parts of the case as they see fit. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- The areas of concern have been mutually struck by both Durova and Wizardry Dragon. 61.88.163.26 04:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
CU on Agnes Nitt
Thanks for the speedy check. Unblock-en-l appreciates the help... (well, I do, and I assume the rest of us...). Georgewilliamherbert 08:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Congrats, Josh
Well, you've got pretty much every user right now. Steward is next? :)
It's been a pleasure working with you, bud. ~ Flameviper Who's a Peach? 13:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
ebay customer service
Please see discussion re your revert Pgr94 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry
My apologies for this refactoring [25]. No harm was intended. I only felt that the established format should be maintained. I guess there must be other issues here. Sorry again. -- Fyslee 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it's not that. It was really a matter of principle -- nobody except arbcommunists and perhaps clerks should change arbitrators statements on that page. That's all. Nothing personal or even really important, except the principle. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Arbcommunists? Hehe :) ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I can understand if you were upset that I made a change, instead of letting you do it yourself, but I didn't change the statement in any manner. I only WP:REFACTORed the missing indent. Right now your entry at that point is a long string-along entry, instead of following the format the others are using. Whatever. It's not a matter of content anyway. -- Fyslee 07:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I won't do it again. -- Fyslee 07:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ColScott
Hey, thanks for running this check--I assume if there was anything else we should know (open proxies, etc.), you would have told us. . . editing style (including the abusiveness that got both accounts indef-blocked) seemed pretty conclusive. Chick Bowen 23:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Taj Mahal RFC
Hello, I noticed you were a responder to a few questions on the RFC talk page and was wondering if you might be able to answer a few questions of mine, being that it's the first time I've launched an RFC. for background here's the statement on WP:RFC.
- Talk:Taj Mahal - During efforts to improve this article, a number of editors asserted the need to emphasize a non-academic minority theory. Initially proposed by P.N. Oak, this theory asserts that the Taj Mahal was not originally built by the Mogul Emperor Shah Jahan, but was a much older Hindu temple or palace stolen by the Mughals. It is instructive to note that Oak also claims that the tombs of Humayun, Itmad-Ud-Daulahand Akbar — as well as the Vatican in Rome, the Kaaba in Mecca, Stonehenge and "all historic buildings" in India — were also stolen Hindu temples or palaces.[26] We seek comment, prior to an overhaul of the article, to establish "to what extent we are obliged to include minority points of view within this article."
1. Does it run for a month? 2. Who closes it? 3. Who judges consensus? 4. So far there's only really been one comment from the pro-oak camp and the majority of edits to the main article which added pro-oak views, were from anon IP's. Would their lack of participation in the RFC imply consensus? Many thanks. --Joopercoopers 10:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hiya.
- There's no hard and fast rule
- Nobody or anybody; it's a pretty informal process.
- Everybody. Either it's obvious or it's not consensus.
- Nope. Silence isn't consent; it's just silence.
- Good luck! And keep WP:Undue weight in mind regarding minority views. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Easy duck?
Thanks for looking into the RfCuser on KayKay92, but I have a question. What do you mean by "easy duck" in your comment? That's my first checkuser submission, so I'm a bit clueless. -- Kesh 18:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- See duck test: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's most likely a duck." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Question and some help
I just started working with some AMA peeps at the moment. I fully intend to respond. I just need a min. I do have a life (A family, a business and running two official websites for Terry Goodkind, oh and his IRC chat rooms as well), other than Wikipedia ;p and framing my response correctly and properly I think is important. Especially as the user WLU has not only listed about every edit I've ever made, but has in fact listed such erroneous allegations and assumptions it totally crazy. So I need a mo to offer up my rebuttal and proofs. Is that ok? Or is there a rush to justice and I am to be found guilty even before I can do this thing right? Please note, I am not being "condescending" ;p I'm simply asking eh! Mystar 01:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Vandalim by user Corporaljohnny on page Muhammad
I see that you have previously warned and temporarily blocked user Corporaljohnny for vandalizing an article. He has recently made inflammatory edits to the page Muhammad that need to be taken notice of. Thanks. Aslamt 04:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Tor proxy
FYI: The open proxy user 80.90.47.176 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip) you blocked earlier tonight has now jumped to another Tor proxy 217.20.112.191 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip) and continued his harassment. Numerous Google hits shows that this IP is a listed Tor router based in Germany, the hostname being tor-proxy.jan-muennich.com. - WeniWidiWiki 05:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Flyers
Frequent Flyer Open Proxy Users
Do they get miles? Mackensen (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Default to inconclusive?
I was going to post this on WP:AN/I, but I decided your talk page is better. Anyways, with regards to this statement, won't always using "inconclusive," as opposed to "unrelated," make it impossible for people accused of sockpuppetry to clear their name? As you well know, edit warriors and trolls who care not (naught?) for policy are sometimes the ones who file cases. Defaulting to declaring that the result is "inconclusive" could easily give the check-requester enough ammunition to keep a cloud over their opponents' heads for the rest of those people's wiki-lives. If there is no conclusive technical evidence, and they haven't violated policy to such an extreme that they are blocked or banned for something else, they should be able to go in peace, no? And defaulting to "inconclusive" when there isn't any reason not to say "unrelated," save the impossibility of decisively proving innocence, will make that very hard.
I'm completely unknowledgeable about this specific situation, (the Bosniak case), but I'm concerned about your decision. Picaroon 00:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- But there's no way ever to say "unrelated", at least for the editors. We can say the underlying IPs are unrelated, but as you see, people take that as exoneration, which is an incorrect extrapolation. You have a good point, though. Why not bring up the issue on Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
GoodCop
Hi Jpgordon,
I don't mean to belabor this, but the RfC at Talk:Atlantis seems quite uncivil to me, since it states that I reverted edits under false pretenses; Rwqf's statement that HalfOfElement29 was blocked because of my actions seems like taunting, under the circumstances. Maybe I should be more thick-skinned, but the RfC ought to be about the article, and instead, it seems to be about my conduct. Would it be appropriate for me to refactor the RfC to be more neutrally worded?
As far as the (alleged) socks, blocking the proxies seems to have halted his activity, so maybe no action is required. But if there are further problems, what should I do? When I posted to WP:ANI (thread now in archive), I got no response. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
deathcamps.org vs. death-camps.org in Einsatzgruppen
Hi, Josh. Can you give me the short course on the difference between these websites? Is one a Holocaust denial site or something, masquerading as a genuine holocaust information site? I note that you reverted my reversion, so I presume I unintentionally ended up on the wrong side of the distinction, but from a cursory look at the sites I couldn't see a huge difference, except that one is obviously designed to look like the other. I note that a series of anon-ips seems particularly interested in inserting the link to the one without the dash. Is there a story here? --Rrburke(talk) 13:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm not sure at this point who is the jerk and who's the jerky. But take a look at this blog about it (it's one side's report.) I've been slighty favoring the one with the dash because the one without the dash has been putting stuff in articles telling people not to put in the one with the dash. I didn't even notice that I'd reverted you, though. ---jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, it's now been reverted to the no-dash version by an anon, User: 216.242.194.34, from the same domain as the previous one, similar to the previous one, User:216.242.194.229. So I guess that's... bad? User: 216.242.194.34 has made this change in a whole host of Holocaust-related articles. What to do?
-
-
-
- I read the blog you offered a link to. My eyes glazed over and I ended up feeling the need for a scorecard. Did this dispute strike you as pretty inside baseball, or was there some substantive issue my lack of expertise in this area was concealing from me as I struggled desperately to stay awake to the end? --Rrburke(talk) 17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- From what I understand of the matter, you're probably best off using the one with the dash. Although hosted by folks who are partisan (in the sense of being anti-deniers), their mirror was created to maintain a copy of historically useful materials untainted by forgeries possibly being introduced by a partisan (denier) source. I'm afraid the childish personal battles between the principals of each side continue. Considering the venom involved between the parties and the fact that only a very small number of people are involved, the edits are probably coming from the former ARC's HEART faction; as such, it's probably a POV activity. Since we know where the ARC-HC Blogspot faction's site is going, purpose-wise, but not that of the former's (which is nominally defunct), the "dash" site is probably "safest" for the time being. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Worse ... you'd have to repeatedly wade back in to revert them. As an alternative, you might wait 2-3 months and then edit them. Since they're combative, single-issue folks, if the person(s) changing them sees the articles stabilizing with their POV links, then they may come to feel the job has been done and leave them alone. Maybe not, but it might reduce the amount of wasted time. I ceased having anything to do with groups like these some time ago because even the anti-deniers can be as fascistic as the deniers. These blow-ups occur all the time in both faction-ridden camps and often over trivial issues. I doubt that ARC's stated goal of neutrality is at all feasible with regard to the revisionism issue. Most of the people attracted to the issue see everything as black or white, and here that's treated as pro-denier or anti-denier — and if you don't believe in everything I believe to be "white", then you must be a fellow-traveler of the "dark side." Best wishes, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
On Irpen's request for arbitration
Strictly speaking, I agree that the question of the channel's existence isn't within Arbcom's competence (nor, in my opinion, the community's). But the request has been made by someone who has a fairly well established history of extremely aggressive attacks on the good faith of other editors, and he isn't the only one. You could accept the case to examine this. There have also been allegations of malfeasance on Wikipedia coordinated on that channel. You could also look at that should you have credible evidence of this. Quite a number of past arbitration cases have been accepted to examine a serious problem that is different from the problem presented to the committee in the request; since there is clearly a problem of some sort here it isn't a bad idea to open up the problem to examination. --Tony Sidaway 17:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Please read my e-mail
Thank you. Dino 20:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Ploughman
I noticed your check-user results for this editor came out as "Likely". I don't deal much with socks myself, but I have been following this JacobPeters drama for awhile now. At any rate, I'm wondering why this sort of finding wouldn't result in an immediate indef block. I've been editing here for a year, and I'm studying up on admini-stuff. Cheers, Rklawton 22:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Except in the case of open proxies, I think I want to keep the identifying vs. taking action on functions distinct. Someone familiar with the Peters case gets to do the blocking stuff. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah! Thanks. Rklawton 22:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppets
I saw your reply at the CU request. How do I go about getting those tags off then? I believe there's some guideline or other about waiting ten days for confirmation, and then the tag can come down, but I don't remember. Milto LOL pia 00:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you're more specific about which accounts were improperly tagged, and in conjunction with what request, us clerks can do that. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Would you do the check anyway, so the accounts can be shown to be related/unrelated? I wasn't sure if your comment on the CU page meant you wouldn't do it or not. Milto LOL pia 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think I finished it while you were typing...--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I wasn't sure if you were gonna do it, sorry for my impatience :-P Milto LOL pia 02:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think I finished it while you were typing...--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Would you do the check anyway, so the accounts can be shown to be related/unrelated? I wasn't sure if your comment on the CU page meant you wouldn't do it or not. Milto LOL pia 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: Reverting eBay
Why not edit what you don't agree with, rather than deleting material which someone else has taken time to prepare - or make a suggestion on how it could be improved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikigod (talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
- Because often, as in this case, removing the material completely is a better solution than a quick half-assed rewrite, which is the best I'd be able to do in a hurry? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Lightbringer socks
Thanks for the user checks and blocks... but he is still at it. As soon as we block one sock, he creates a new one. Is there no way to block his IP or something so he goes away? Blueboar 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
RfArb regarding Lucky 6.9 (talk • contribs)
I have completely revised my statement in regards to this RfArb I started regarding administrator User:Lucky 6.9. In particular, given a couple days to reflect on others' comments, I make a substantially different point, completely unrelated to furthering accusations toward the administrator. I would appreciate if you'd take a quick glance. Link Reswobslc 23:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ip check
Hello im also concerned about adil, he's edits are harmful along with dacys the users share common edits, see [27] and [28] the users start so many edit wars i hope you dont mind me emailing you. Nareklm 04:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- This makes no sense, because another admin agreed with me that these were personal attacks, so obviously, one of you is right and the other one is not. Also, I think there is some confusion going on, because I have brought up the evidence which should be enough for a check IP all on its own, and also, user Tengri has been blocked indefinetly for being a confirmed sock of Atabek, so please, I urge you to do a check IP on the other users as well, there is something going on here.Azerbaijani 04:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Oh, I apologize, user Khoikhoi just informed me what the letter A was supposed to be used for and I shouldn't have used it. I made a mistake putting that up, so could you please do the check user?Azerbaijani 04:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also see this, [29], [30] if there not socks than there accomplices? Nareklm 04:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Request for Reconsideration of WP:RfCU
Considering the # of sockpuppets involved with the User:DogJesterExtra RfCU you just declined, is there any chance we can go ahead and make sure there AREN'T any other Socks we've missed, because this is a long term vandal (see JB196's page under WP:LTA), and he has shown no signs of stopping. Thanks for any reconsideration. SirFozzie 06:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Glad I requested it :) Holy canoly, that's a lot of socks. SirFozzie 16:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Nwwaew vs Nwweaw
Hi, you recently ran a checkuser in a case brought by Nwwaew (talk • contribs) (with "ae") involving among other things an apparent impersonator account Nwweaw (talk • contribs) (with "ea") (here). In your results, you listed the complaining party himself, Nwwaew, among the socks. As a result, Nwwaew was indef-blocked and is now appealing. He says he's normally on a stable IP (which he has tagged as his), namely 24.50.211.226 (talk • contribs • WHOIS).
Was that intentional? Also, even if Nwwaew was a sockmaster faking the harassment against him, wouldn't an indef be rather harsh? We normally indef only the socks, not automatically the masters, do we? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well...I just provided a list of the editors who were using the same IPs. Yes, Nwwaew did use that stable one, but also showed up on the two other IPs that all of those other editors were using. I'm not drawing conclusions here; I'm just reporting my findings. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for the clarification. In the checkuser discussion it was said that there might be a group of harassers who are different from Nwwaew but know him in real life. Could the two shared IPs be a shared school or work IP or something like that and the stative one a home machine? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's quite possible, yes. The shared IPs are from a school district in the American Midwest. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just FYI, I've reversed the block in question. Luna Santin 19:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's quite possible, yes. The shared IPs are from a school district in the American Midwest. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for the clarification. In the checkuser discussion it was said that there might be a group of harassers who are different from Nwwaew but know him in real life. Could the two shared IPs be a shared school or work IP or something like that and the stative one a home machine? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
About my RfCU on User:Nationalist that you declined
I think there was a misunderstanding between us. I did not mean that he might have used User:Taiwanlove as his sockpuppet to avoid/evade the 3RR warning/block that was 6 hours after Taiwanlove's edits, and I know that is illogical; I meant to say that he might have used Taiwanlove to substitute his 3rd revert on the history link in the Case so that his 4th revert would appear to be only his 3rd and last (i.e. Nationalist reverted 2 times, then there comes Taiwanlove to revert for N (3rd if it is a sock), and then N reverts the 3rd time in 24 hours after T's revert (4th if T is a sock)). I have provided more evidence in the Case, and I wonder if you would be so kind to take the trouble and investigate them again. Thanks. Vic226(chat) 16:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Reconsidered and confirmed. Originally I'd turned it down because there were almost no edits from Taiwanlove so it seemed pointless. Now there are many more. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry
Sorry about putting my message on your user page, I thought I was on your talk page.Azerbaijani 02:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think I made a mistake, I think I should have posted that request in the check IP section, not the check user section, corret? Can you make the change or should I, or should I just start another subsection there?Azerbaijani 02:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- How long do check IP's take? I've put it up since last night (in my time zone atleast), your probably busy or something.Azerbaijani 17:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I do them when I please in the order I please. I'm still unconvinced yours is justified. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- How is mine unjustified? You claimed that those were not personal attacks, while another administrator told me that they were personal attacks. I also laid out clear evidence as to the possibility of them being socks. Also, note that user Atabek was already confirmed to have a sock, user Tengri, which has not been blocked indefinetly.Azerbaijani 03:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I do them when I please in the order I please. I'm still unconvinced yours is justified. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- How long do check IP's take? I've put it up since last night (in my time zone atleast), your probably busy or something.Azerbaijani 17:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Israel
BS"D
I can't believe that a wiki admin and everything else you are would undo an edit that was RV massive vandalism. I'm ashamed and feel that you should lose rights for this. --Shaul avrom 01:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Mm. Please assume good faith and consider the possibility -- just the distant possibility -- that I made a mistake. I am not responsible for your shame; you'll have to deal with that on your own. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations
Greetings! After a long period of discussion and consensus building, the policy on usurping usernames has been approved, and a process has been set up to handle these requests. Since you listed yourself on Wikipedia:Changing username/Requests to usurp, you are being notified of the adopted process for completing your request.
If you are still interested in usurping a username, please review Wikipedia:Usurpation. If your request meets the criteria in the policy, please follow the process on Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Please note that strict adherence to the policy is required, so please read the instructions carefully, and ask any questions you may have on the talk page.
If you have decided you no longer wish to usurp a username, please disregard this message. Essjay (Talk) 12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
blocking user
jpgordon,
User 123nick321 has been adding nonsense to several pages, including The Holocaust, which is one of the pages you use to edit. He ahs been warned several times. I am not sure how the block policy works: does it have to be done by a administrator (like you) or anyone can block anyone? thanks.--Ninarosa 03:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom IRC channel case
I noticed you removed this case. It seems that standard procedure is not to archive rejected cases, however, since UC moved the bulk of the comments to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC it has been in effect, archived, even though rejected and those comments not removed. I'm seriously disturbed by the mixing of a rejected case with the personal espousal of arbcom views in the arbcom namespace. If the personal opinion essays must exist there, the comments from the original rejected case should be removed, as they would have been had UC not moved them. It isn't standard practice to archive rejected cases, and this is what has now happened. As it is, the page is doing nothing but to promote more drama with no resolution, but that's beside the point I suppose. pschemp | talk 05:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Whoops
Sorry, I obviously need to go get some sleep. :) Yonatan (contribs/talk) 17:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
User:DeanHinnen attempting to make it appear as though you signed a comment...
...at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/DeanHinnen. Sorry for bothering you again, but I thought you should know this. --BenBurch 21:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
ebay
Hi I saw somewhere that you used to program for ebay. Could you please tell me (since anyone who knows in eBay only gives form letters) why they allow asterisks in usernames, but don't allow asterisks or quotes in their ebay messaging system. Someone once told me that the disallowing of asterisks or quotes in their ebay messaging system is because of some coding issue, but this sounds like something extremely novice to fix (such as adding backslashes) and it's annoying if someone has a username and one can't type it because the asterisk is restricted.
So do you have any idea why such a simple fix never happens at eBay? SakotGrimshine 22:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Barack Obama
Fyi, and thanks for the support. --HailFire 16:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
MFD update
I've moved that rfar irc page to Wikipedia:IRC channels/Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC. Some other current pages have some inbound links to the page so I have not deleted the redirect, though it should be speedyable in a few weeks. Do you think this will be sufficient? Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 02:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
RE: Asian2duracell report
With all due respect, I am new at this. Please tell how and what I should do to go about this. Regards. Wiki Raja 03:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Insert-Belltower
Thank you very much for running the check on IB. I hope this leads to some lasting action against him. Best,--Ameriquedialectics 05:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
It may interest you that I've found another sock used to impersonate Amerique: Ameriquə (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), who is likely another I-B sock and has already been blocked indefinitely. szyslak (t, c) 22:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
!!! Woh. This is NOT me. I would like to request that a Check-User be done ASAP. Insert-Belltower 00:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thank you. I understand. Insert-Belltower 00:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon,
Would the IP address of the new impersonator correspond to any of these:
- 64.54.92.76 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip)
- 64.54.91.177 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip)
- 64.54.92.76 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip)
- 64.54.68.138 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip)
If so, I know who it is.--Ameriquedialectics 02:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Bluntly, I think it's UCRGrad (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser). The rhetoric of the impostor is identical with his. He and IB were known to work in concert to keep the University of California, Riverside article a constant edit war until I began organizing a sustained community response against them in June of last year. UCRG was the ringleader, and I was about to launch a second ArbCom case against them in September when UCRG entirely split, followed by IB soon after. I'm now openly trying to pilot that article to FA status and this seems to have caught their attention.-- the "real" Ameriquedialectics 03:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for checking. I still think it's him, but he's probably posting from another IP address by now. If he resurfaces in any other form I'll be sure to request another IP check against "Ameriquə." Thank you very much for your assistance.-- Ameriquedialectics 06:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
-
Re: RFCU on Frater Xyzzy
Any reason for the declination, especially given the admission of the user? Moreover, is that enough to ask for a block based on prior block evasion? MSJapan 07:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking that over again. MSJapan 07:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hkelkar IP data
Essjay and Dmcdevit do. Daniel.Bryant 22:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and this needs your clarification, as it is a claim contrary to your technical findings. Daniel.Bryant 23:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- There seems to be a follow-up check requested at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar regarding Bakasuprman (talk • contribs). Can you please confirm/deny whether any evidence of Bakasuprman being Rumpelstiltskin223 showed up when you ran the CU? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 03:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Oversight, again
I'm a stupid, impulsive ass. Please delete this... ~ Flameviper Who's a Peach? 18:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- As this is my user talk page the comment was made on, I'd like to request this isn't oversighted. A. I don't see anything in the oversight policy that suggests that someone being a "stupid, impulsive ass" as oversightable and B. this is a big comment that is being used at Flameviper's RFA. This is a clear example of incivility and to get rid of it is to get rid of evidence in the adminship discussion. Thanks, Metros232 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- If your mom was going to go through all your files, wouldn't you at least make an effort to delete the porn? ~ Flameviper Who's a Peach? 18:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter. The purpose of oversight is not to prevent people from making fools of themselves, unless the way they do so is by revealing certain categories of information. That you told someone they are a stupid, impulsive ass does not fit into that policy.--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- why can't you just oversight edits on the request of the people who make the said edits? I'm not attacking you, I'm just wondering. ~ Flameviper Who's a Peach? 19:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy explains the very limited circumstances in which we may do this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Can you just do a normal sysop revision-delete instead? ~ Flameviper Who's a Peach? 20:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy explains the very limited circumstances in which we may do this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- why can't you just oversight edits on the request of the people who make the said edits? I'm not attacking you, I'm just wondering. ~ Flameviper Who's a Peach? 19:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter. The purpose of oversight is not to prevent people from making fools of themselves, unless the way they do so is by revealing certain categories of information. That you told someone they are a stupid, impulsive ass does not fit into that policy.--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- If your mom was going to go through all your files, wouldn't you at least make an effort to delete the porn? ~ Flameviper Who's a Peach? 18:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser in CoI case?
Hello. Could you please tell me whether WP:RFCU is the correct place to check a users IP to confirm or not a claim of corporate conflict of interest? If so, which code to use and if not, could you direct me to the correct page, if such a one exists? Thank you very much. 121.1.155.27 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if that's a legitimate use of RFCU, and it's certainly the only place where you could request it (other than in the process of an arbitration action.) Who's the editor in question? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. The editor in question is Sparkzilla, whom I have a good faith belief is intimately involved with crisscross.com, which apnic cites as block assignment 219.123.156.16 - 219.123.156.31. (S)He is probably 219.123.156.18. Will of course provide fuller details if I am permitted to apply for an official check. 121.1.155.42 05:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- You'll need to address the possible COI elsewhere, I think. WP:AN/I might be a good place to start. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Questionable Question
Hello, I am a current Penn State student and thought you seemed like a quite knowledgable person and wondered if you could answer a question for me. One of my professors, in a recent lecture, tried to explain a short history of CAD programs. Long story short, he said that there was one person who wrote the programs AutoCAD, and Pro Engineer (I can't remember in which order he said). But then something he said really interested me. This person, whomever he was discribing, said he was moving away from these companies and writing a new program that would "blow the current CAD programs out of the water and take the drafting world to the next level". Which brings me to my question, well actually more than one question. Who wrote the programming for AutoCAD and ProE? Was this just one person, or possibly a main contributor? And have you heard anything about his new company or program if he does indeed exist? Or is my professor just trying to tell us a good one, and its really a big crock? Any input you have would be greatly appreciated.
05:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC) a currious Penn State student
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.38.77.182 (talk • contribs) 05:12, February 6, 2007 (UTC)
- One person? No. Mike Riddle wrote the first version of what became AutoCAD. I don't know if any one person at Parametric wrote the original version of what became Pro Engineer, but it wasn't Mike. No idea about anyhing upcoming; I've been out of that industry for almost a decade and haven't paid too much attention. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps...
...Wikipedia's policy should be altered on that one to include the possibility, no? --PaxEquilibrium 22:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, I could just now make tens of sockpuppets and start to edit in collaboration, presenting my POV as the general viewpoint of all Wikipedians on one case. But apparently, that qualifies under no request code, so there could never be a checkuser and I'm free to command a little private "Wiki-Army". --PaxEquilibrium 19:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Good point, but he/she's denyin' it. --PaxEquilibrium 20:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
My checkuser
Hi there, Are you an admin? Do you have checkuser rights? If you do, I'd dare you to go ahead and conduct the checkuser on me. For God's sakes, the ip and I are not even in the same country!! If you cant conduct the checkuser, I demand that you take back your words and stop feeding the troll.
As for the reverts itself, it is NOT vandalism. It is a simple 'content dispute' and I have taken the pains to explain my stance on many talk pages(Dravidian people, Dravida, Carnatic music, Template:Dravidian topics etc.,. You are free to go and investigate. You will notice that Wikiraja is just stonewalling without convincing anybody. As for me, I've even got support for my views from user:Bakaman with whom, it is no secret that I dont share a very cordial wiki-relation with.
As for the convoluted charges and bullcrap of a million diffs that he's plastered all over the checkuser page, I can only laugh. I dont have the time to go through each one and counter them. So conduct the checkuser and settle this once and for all.
And as for him, he's been crying 'vandalism' when it is a content dispute. He's been doing it for days now and I've just ignored his troll. But now I've been forced to respond. I've also warned him on his talk page.
btw, if you might notice, this is not the first time someone's filed a CU on me but each time I've come out clean. I take it in my stride as I know that this is part of wiki-life if you take it upon yourself to fight POV-pushers or patent nonsense.
So, once again, conduct the checkuser get this done with. Sarvagnya 16:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- You're not quite civil, but in this case you are correct. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Civility in Edit Summaries
Hi. I noticed you called another user's edits "crap" on Institute for Historical Review [[31]]. I think it's somewhat incivil to do such, so please reconsider the usage of such words in edit summaries in the future. Thanks. .V. [Talk|Email] 21:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Holocaust denial is crap; that's the kindest thing I can think to say about it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Even so, it only aggravates situations when such terminology is used. I'm sure there's some way to phrase it that doesn't have to insult. .V. [Talk|Email] 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever. Stop trying to whitewash the article, please; deniers is what they are, and deniers is what they'll be called. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Even so, it only aggravates situations when such terminology is used. I'm sure there's some way to phrase it that doesn't have to insult. .V. [Talk|Email] 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Your 3RR comments
JP - If you see the edit histories - the other users are simply revrting the content without discussing.I reverted their vandalism and even wrote that in edit summaries (rv. Vandalism) even then this bunch of editors continue doing reverts without discussion. See the redirect change of Hindu Fundamentalism to Religious Fundamentalism - One of them changed it unilaterally even though it was linked to Hindutva - since a long time and that is what vandalism is Neptunion 23:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Indeed mine is a good faith edit while those editors have knowingly subverted the articles.Please don't be judgemental before reading the edits and going an inch deeper Neptunion 23:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Heh. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MinaretDk and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk Page or Forum?
Jpgordon, since you are also following the Holocaust/Holocaust denial pages, could you answer me a question? I understand taht the talk pages are not supposed to be discussion forums. Therefore arguments there are not supposed to "convince" my interlocutor, but just to bring what is most reliable academic data to the wiki, is it correct? However, am I authorized to bring original research to the talk pages to counter an argument from a user--that I believe to be untrue? I am referring to this section in particular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Holocaust#Biblical_implications
Thanks~!--Ninarosa 22:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Of course you can bring original research to talk pages. The whole point is to keep it away from article pages. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
WTF
"Wikipedia is not a role-playing game"? That makes no sense, and I find it insulting. I created that account... ~ Flameviper Who's a Peach? 15:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- You mean you performed an informal checkuser? Shame on you! ~ Flameviper 16:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think what Jpgordon is saying is that it was painfully obvious that you registered that account (hence your autoblock after its blocking). Metros232 16:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. It's not rocket science. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hence the phrase "informal checkuser". You blocked the account that I created and then I logged in. When I wanted to be un-autoblocked, I had to disclose my IP address. And you don't need checkuser rights to figure that one out, nor execute it. In this case it was an accident, but eventually someone's going to be de-sysopped for it. ~ Flameviper 20:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- De-sysopped for.....not being an idiot? All Jpgordon is saying is that we all knew it was you who created the account because of the autoblock. No checkuser was performed nor needed to be performed. If you hadn't created such a blockable account, this wouldn't be an issue. So don't go around with your accusations when you could have prevented this all yourself, Metros232 21:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was referring to the practice of informal checkuser, an underhanded move. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. Don't be so offensive. ~ Flameviper 23:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Of course you were making accusations. You accused me of performing an "informal checkuser", and said "shame on me". What else am I supposed to interpret that as? Stop playing games with Wikipedia; there are plenty of articles to improve, or, if you prefer, plenty of vandalism to clear up. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was referring to the practice of informal checkuser, an underhanded move. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. Don't be so offensive. ~ Flameviper 23:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- De-sysopped for.....not being an idiot? All Jpgordon is saying is that we all knew it was you who created the account because of the autoblock. No checkuser was performed nor needed to be performed. If you hadn't created such a blockable account, this wouldn't be an issue. So don't go around with your accusations when you could have prevented this all yourself, Metros232 21:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hence the phrase "informal checkuser". You blocked the account that I created and then I logged in. When I wanted to be un-autoblocked, I had to disclose my IP address. And you don't need checkuser rights to figure that one out, nor execute it. In this case it was an accident, but eventually someone's going to be de-sysopped for it. ~ Flameviper 20:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. It's not rocket science. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think what Jpgordon is saying is that it was painfully obvious that you registered that account (hence your autoblock after its blocking). Metros232 16:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- This wasn't deliberate or somekind of a tatic agaisnt you. You revealed yourself to be in control of that account. If you didn't want anyone to know, you should have e-mailed me. Yanksox 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Blocked user
Excuse me, I think you may be able to help. I've have been repeatedly blocked by User:Pschemp based on their assumption that I am a sockpuppet of user "light current". See WP:ANI#Blocked_by_User_Pschemp
Looking at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Light current I notice that two of the anon IP's are mine - they are the ones from 'Karoo ISP' the others are not. I would appreciate it if you could help here seeing as you noticed that 'light currents' socks were from 'Tiscali ISP'
My request for unblocking is currently at WP:ANI#Blocked_by_User_Pschemp
Thank you.87.102.7.51 10:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Israel
Hello,
Would you be willing to semi-protect Israel? It seems like it would benefit from some protection. okedem 17:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I kinda prefer someone less involved to do it; I'd think pretty much any admin will look at what's going on today and agree. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:RFC
Can you point me in the vague direction of an ongoing dispute, flamewar and all? I'd just love to get a bag of popcorn and watch the RfCs roll in...if I'm lucky there'll be a desysopping and a vandalistic rampage to follow, shortly ended by an indefinite block of the-
Oh, ascuse me. I was just hypothesising about what might happen if there were to be a particularly entertaining RfC or RfAr.
~ Flameviper 17:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please find some way to make useful contributions to Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've done that...done that...and done that again. I want to see some Sysop Versus Sysop! I found the RfC against InShaneee particularly entertaining. Is this somehow wrong? ~ Flameviper 18:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- You really, seriously need to get a clue, or your stay here on Wikipedia will be short lived. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Flameviper
I just blocked Flameviper for a month. If you wish to comment on this action, please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Blocked. Thanks, Metros232 20:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Re:RFCU
Hi. I saw that you said that Checkuser wasn't necessary. Is that because it was an obvious sockpuppet, or for a different reason? I ask only so I know what to do in the future and so I won't waste anyone else's time on unnecessary checkuser requests. Thanks! Heimstern Läufer 05:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, I missed a step on that one! I'll edit it now. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, we're good now. Just one more clarification if I might have it: If I find another IP like that that's clearly the same range as Jacob Peters uses and fits his MO, should I just go to WP:ANI rather than Checkuser? Thanks for your help. Heimstern Läufer 05:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow
[32] Reassure me - this guy has stayed banned, right? 84.13.246.20 12:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
CU question
Why[33]? Miskin 16:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
There was a mistake, check again, the user has already a known record (as expected). I messed this up because it's the first time I'm requesting checkuser. Miskin 17:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Right, and there's no need; you've proven your case without it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Report on Sarvagnya
Hi,
I would like to thank you for your recent help on user check. By the way, I have just reported Sarvagnya for several reasons. one of them I believe you would understand is that this guy feels that he can get away with anything he does. He has even dared you to do a check on him. I cannot believe the number of things he gets away with on Wikipedia. When he gets confronted, he twists Wikipedia's policy to suit his own interest. Anyways, if you would like, could you back me up here on Problems with user Sarvagnya? It would be most appreciated. Regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiki Raja (talk • contribs) 20:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
- Sorry, I forgot to sign my name. Wiki Raja 20:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser case
You declined a checkuser case here as unnecessary [34]. I'd just like to ask why, and how such things might be handled in the future, so I don't waste anyone's time again. Thanks! Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 05:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- You've done a good job already of establishing the sockpuppetry; checkuser won't provide anything more useful. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I formaly request that a checkuser be performed to once and for all clear this up,after all I am the one being accused of sockpuppetry. Planetary Chaos Talk to me 18:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Is there any thing that I can do to clear my name as I am most definitely not who Seraphimblade 2 claims me to be. Planetary Chaos Talk to me 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser case on Cs
You declined... why? KazakhPol 05:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- See the second entry in the table at the start of WP:RFCU. You said, "this was a one-time attempt at harassing me"; the table says (and I agree) that "no checkuser is necessary". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
193.82.98.8
Per your request, User talk:Xcvz is currently requesting unblocking. Haven't looked into it past that, any, just yet. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- This user was on "the ctsb list", of which we discussed. Daniel.Bryant 09:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
regarding your WP:AN comment on Flameviper
Hi there, I was trying to fix the formatting of my comment on the matter, and I'm not sure if I inadvertently messed up your comment. When I was fixing my formatting, I removed what looked like a malformed diff, because I thought I had mistakenly inserted it. Looking back at the page history, it looks like it was actually put by you. Now, I know that I could simply restore it, but I would rather doublecheck with you first in this case, because I don't want to inadvertently "put words in your mouth", so to speak. Really, I would prefer if you reinserted the diff if it was indeed your addition. Thanks. --Kyoko 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't put any diff there; I kinda fixed my own signature which someone else had mucked up by putting the diff in the middle somehow. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- If that happened to be me, then I apologise. I do remember copying and pasting a diff and then not being able to find it. It's a moot point, now that User:Flameviper has been indefinitely blocked. Thanks for your time. --Kyoko 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Gravitor/Carfiend
I'm guessing you declined to look into this [35] because he/they have not yet reached the level of disruption of last summer. Fair enough. If and when things get to that point again, I'll try to make a stronger argument. Wahkeenah 04:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. I do need to be pretty strict there; simply annoying isn't enough to justify a checkuser; it has to be downright disruptive. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, these users were very disruptive last summer, and the pattern is beginning again. Their entire editing energies were focused on one subject, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, and their disruption (especially Carfiend's) accelerated to the point where Bubba73 posted an RFC against him, whereupon both Carfiend and Gravitor abruptly stopped editing. Gravitor recently returned, and at first he seemed reasonable, but his disruptive behavior, personal attacks, etc., are accelerating again. A few days ago, Carfiend resurfaced, just briefly. That's when the light went on for me. My thought was that maybe Gravitor forgot which user he had signed on as. That revived the suspicion I had also had last summer. I posted the RFCU, and mentioned it on that page in order to be up front about it. At that point the insults accelerated, as Gravitor began accusing Bubba73 and me of being sockpuppets (which we aren't, and I would encourage you to verify that) and of being "NASA shills" (words used by Carfiend last summer), and such stuff as that. I didn't accuse them out-and-out of being sockpuppets, but I listed my concerns: timing, similar behavior, similar wording, single-subject focus, etc. They might be different users, but their tactics are nearly the same, so they're at least copycats. OK, that's the story. Thanks for listenin'. :) Wahkeenah 08:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- It would be interesting to see if this similar comment from an anonymous IP is the same IP as these two users. This was in response to my posting the RFCU: "LOL @ the gestapo tactics. They are not the same person.24.7.34.99 07:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)" Wahkeenah 08:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- The user/users seem(s) to have disappeared again, once the heat was on, but it might be that it/they just got bored and have temporarily left. Too soon to tell. Wahkeenah 13:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into this further. If they're not the same user, they use the same M.O., so I must assume they're essentially copycats. Wahkeenah 08:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Help me
I began Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Recoome. Did I do it right? Thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I guess some people never learn. Hey, are you an administrator? Can you extend User:Recoome's block and/or protect his sockpuppets user and talk pages, that is, after I tag all of them with the right sockpuppet/meatpuppet templates? Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Probably should find another admin to do it; I prefer to keep my checkuser job and sockpuppet blocking separate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- This seems a perfect segue to my request for help. You did a CheckUser here, and presented the result of "Likely." Since then, another editor has been using your result to justify harassing me with block requests, user page vandalism, stalking, etc. I understand that you prefer to keep checkuser and blocking issues seperate, but when I speak with other Admins about this, they point me back to your RFCU page [36]. I would like to get this mistake cleared up with as little bureaucratic runaround as possible, so I am asking for your assistance. What is the next step? Xenophrenic 18:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Probably should find another admin to do it; I prefer to keep my checkuser job and sockpuppet blocking separate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Please don’t be fooled by this individual and his “aww shucks” and “who me?” demeanor.
-
-
-
-
-
- This is nothing more than some kind of game to Rob/Xenophrenic. He has violated every single solitary editing and conduct standard imaginable; why he was not banned indefinitely is beyond me (the copyvio that User:Duk documented should have been more than enough). Look at the evidence on the face of it. A single purpose account whose edits are strikingly similar in both content style and tone to an anon referred to in the Arbcom decision. Please refer to the Arbcom decision that resulted in the sanctions in the first place before making any decision. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I stand by my report and stand away from any other involvement. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
JB196
Would you mind blocking all of his puppets? –– Lid(Talk) 20:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Your response to my latest RFCU implicated that Miamivice was on the previous list but I don't see him listed? –– Lid(Talk) 05:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I meant he was in the same category -- the ones I listed (the "rather huge list" which came up because an IP wasn't fully blocked include him. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Philwelch RfAr
I would request you to have a look here. Philwelch is removing my comments under the pretense of libellous editing by myself – [37]. Thatcher131 moved the comments to the talk page – [38]. I would request you to have a look here and perhaps direct, if you deem fit, that Welch stop revert-warring and removing other users' comments. My original statement stands here – Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Evidence#Evidence presented by Sir Nicholas. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- And *I* would request you to perhaps direct, if you deem fit, that there are enough actual abuses I have committed that it contributes nothing to invent abuses I have *not* committed just to further defame my reputation. Philwelch 19:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Given that a case is in progress, I request that all conversation regarding it take place there, not here. (And there's too much noise there already; continued addition of noise is not making the determination of the case any easier.) Thank you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Adverbs
Interestingly, I noted your crusade against adverbs in general, and I wondered if it would be ironic to ask you whether, basically and essentially, the phrases 'basically' and 'essentially' are similarly verbose? :-) Carcharoth 21:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I followed the link on your user page to Wikipedia:Words to avoid, and expanded this bit here. Ironically, the example I found was on the page itself, while searching for the word 'basically': When a statement is basically factual but its importance may be disputed, consider using argue or dispute instead..." - oh, the irony! How on earth can something be 'basically' factual?? Carcharoth 21:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Policy proposal
Since you're an arbitrator who was pulling for certain workshop proposals that "made the rest of the [Philwelch] case go away" and are currently proposing independent measures to formalize removal of adminship, I thought you might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Desysopped admins. I'm sure your observations as an arbitrator would be helpful to such a developing policy, if it's written up and proposed. Milto LOL pia 06:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Proxitude?
Is this a word? --Ideogram 02:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
google:define:proxitude --Ideogram 03:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
A question
Hi Jpgordon, I wonder if you could advise me on this. Will it be worth my while to respond to the "evidences" of my "POV pushing", "Vandalism", "Personal attacks", etc at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan/Evidence? I feel I can do more productive things during the time I spend on wikipedia. deeptrivia (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's really up to you. You could, but you could also wait until proposed findings of fact show up on the Workshop page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I never posted that comment on Hkelkar's talkpage
FYI I am extremely upset at the false "evidence" RA is posting against me.I never posted that comment in Urdu on Hkelkar's talkpage.Please check the history of that page.
And another thing that I "attacked" muhajirs is so wrong.I AM PART Muhajir from my father's side.My father is Muhajir born in India of Azeri ancestry from his mother's side. Many Muhajirs despise this Muhajir nationalistic belif that cooked up by the MQM that Muhajirs are the only "educated" people in Pakistan.Does that mean they become anti-Muhajir?No.
I'm sorry but it cannot allowed as evidence.Those are simply unproven assersions which RA usually posts.--Nadirali نادرالی
- Yes, I am in error about that Urdu comment on user talk:Hkelkar. The comment was actually made by MirzaGhalib (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and tagged {{unsigned}} by user:Bakasuprman. I should have double-checked this - I apologize. As for the anti-Muhajir comments, the diffs are perfectly clear and Nadirali is responsible for it. Rama's arrow 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please keep discussion about this case on the various arbitration evidence and talk pages. Thank you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser case concering me
Thank you for your work doing this. You are doing well in your role as checkuser. I think the users were not assuming good faith about me. Thanks, --sunstar nettalk 01:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
SunStar Net
Thanks for running the check on SunStar Net. I figured it'd be hard to pull information on the other users since they'd probably gone stale at that point. Do you think it might be worth going for a comparison investigation of their contributions through WP:SSP, ANI, or some other means? Metros232 01:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- The 1qx relations (there are several, aside from the address) is the source of the issue, actually. Thanks for running the check! --SB_Johnny|talk|books 03:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Please help with National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
I wanted to report this at WP:ANI, but that page is semi-protected. The notice on that page said contact an amdin. I picked you because I've seen your name before, though I don't know you. Here's the problem: User:Nightstallion keeps reverting me everytime I delete the inaccurate state map graphic from that article. The chart in the article makes clear that 8 states have rejected this initiative, but the inaccurate map shows that only 2 have. There have other problems with this map as well. Nightstallion appears to be a POV warrior, totally focused on pushing a point. Take a look at the page history and talk page. NS makes no explaination for his continued reverts. Please help. 64.74.153.189 06:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You have a fan at simple.wikipedia
Hello, Jpgordon! It seems that you have a few fans at simple.wikipedia. Just thought that you should know. Cheers, PTO 14:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Redlinks
You said it better than I could. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Taj Mahal RFC
Its been nearly a month since posting an RFC to determine whether or not we include the theory that the Taj used to be a Hindu temple. How and by whom are RFCs usually closed? I started drafting a closing section here and started to tally up the for and against positions to get some idea of where the consensus might be. I stopped when it occured to me that it was starting to look like I was presenting the results of a debate as a poll. The debate suggests a majority are in favour of removal altogether, some of these and others are in favour of a very limited inclusion and a small minority would like a fuller inclusion. I'm considered contacting the participants and asking them to comment on specific limitation proposals I made towards the end of the RFC. Do you have any advice or would you be willing to sum up the RFC and close it? cheers. --Joopercoopers 01:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Seems to me that you're working this one through on the talk page pretty well; you don't need really to "close" the rfc -- someone eventually will decide that it's time to age the listing off the RFC page. Otherwise, just move on. Undue weight should give a clear enough guideline on the bizarre point of view (which reminds me in its loonyness of Nazi racial theories.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah I posted to you last night and then we've been thrashing out a compromise today - looks like I'm in the chair to rewrite the section. My worry is there are only 3 participants on the talk page at the moment and I think we generally agree to some form of limited inclusion - if we put this in the article, can it be said we are doing it because consensus been reached? If the RFC were a poll the claims would be removed entirely if we just needed a majority to vote remove. I'm still a little hazy on the WP:CONSENSUS, I brought the RFC in the hope of bottoming out the edit warring that had been going on about these theories - is the conclusion (because there wasn't a unanimous consensus) that no consensus has been reached and so we have to leave things as they are??????? --Joopercoopers 15:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Consensus isn't unanimity; it's an obvious weight of opinion, and I think you have that. But: isn't the Taj Mahal the centerpiece of Mr Oak's fantasies? If so, you can dispose of it with one sentence and a wikilink: "The Taj Mahal is given as a prime example of RN Oak's unorthodox and largely dismissed theories of Vedic influence". Or something like that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sounds good, many thanks --Joopercoopers 16:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Letitsnow22113 checkuser
Thanks, I definitely don't want to drag in legit users with real edits. I blocked the four I listed. Unless any of the other accounts had some variation on the above username I'd guess they are not related and at this point I'll just keep an eye out for usernames along those lines.--Isotope23 20:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration is closed?
G'day,
If the me-Mystar arbitration is closed, does that mean it has officially taken effect? Could you let Mystar know so he leaves the Terry Goodkind page alone? It's petty but it's wearing down my teeth. WLU 20:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, the case has been posted for closing on the arbitration clerks' noticeboard. A clerk will formally close out the case and notify the parties before the end of the day today. Newyorkbrad 20:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Gracias. WLU 20:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Verdict
Verdict (talk • contribs) is back today with Marcus roy (talk • contribs). If he follows previous behaviour, we'll probably see another couple of abusive socks today. This is in relation to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Verdict. --Yamla 20:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- And Coolioso (talk • contribs). --Yamla 00:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the recent checkuser on Verdict. Much appreciated. --Yamla 17:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
If you have some time...
...could you provide some insight at Talk:Prem_Rawat#RFC_Summary? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Warning
Please do not create hoaxes. Please do not attempt to put misinformation into Wikipedia to test our ability to detect and remove it. This has been done before, with varying results. Most hoaxes are marked for deletion within a few hours after they are created. Some Wikipedians suspect that the majority of hoaxes here are attempts to test the system. Kindly — do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method is to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia, and then to check to see how long they have been in place and, if possible, correct them. --Spalberings 17:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Uh, right. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have to say, that's a barrel of laughs. Maybe they could identify the offending diff? ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Lee Nysted
As the Checkuser who rooted out this editor's hosiery drawer, would you be able to go to his talk page and explain a) how (in a general sense, of course) the checkuser result was determined, and b) that it's probably not a good idea for him to be going around removing sock tags from the pages of the confirmed puppets, telling them to identify themselves, and declaring on his user page, in his edit summaries, and on the socks' pages that he's going to investigate the Checkuser (or, as he refers to it, Checkloser) system? Just thought someone might want to point out this guy's actions since he was unblocked in good faith. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nah. I try to keep my checkuser and my other admin/arbitration roles distinct. You'll want to get someone else to gently explain to this editor how it works. I'd say it's up to the unblocking admin to take responsibility here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Your ArbCom Nom and Jesse Jackson
JP, I was preparing to archive my talk page and noticed this comment you left there:
- Hm. I just re-read Talk:Jesse Jackson to remind myself of the disagreement we were involved in. I'm sorry you concluded that my motivations there were political; I'd have done the same thing if it had been (say) Rick Santorum. I thought we had had a good strong discussion of the quote in question as regards Wikipedia policy and encyclopedia writing, not politics -- my stance was, basically, "he says a lot of stupid stuff; what's so special about this incoherent one?" Otherwise, we've been doing about the same thing on that article: defending it from general vandalism. However, if you perceive I've been acting politically there, you're probably not alone; can you suggest how I might proceed in the future to diminish the appearance of political behavior? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for not responding sooner, somehow I missed your post back then. I just re-read the whole talk page at Jesse Jackson and I have come to believe your assessment of our discussion is accurate (I think I was confusing you with another editor I disagreed with who would not intelligently discuss the issue). For what it's worth, in light of this, my comments on your ArbCom nomination were undeservedly harsh and I would change them if I could find the link to do so. The fact that we (most likely) disagree politically on some issues would not prevent me from supporting you. I hope you succeded and I hope there are no hard feelings.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 04:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You might want to look at this
Even though I don't see how you could decline to look into my allegations, and say that "The system appears to be working", in light of the fact that I have not violated any identifiable policy (just stubbornly insisted that I have a right to voice my opinion), I will not second-guess your judgement here.
However, since your last post, I have noticed that no actual WP:CONSENSUS existed against me - since, of course, only a minority of the votes went against me -and a minority is NOT a "consensus." Observe:
There were 33 parties who participated in the Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts, but no more than 14 of them endorsed ANY one type of community action against me -as shown by this perma-link diff.
The reason was, obviously, that NO WP:CONSENSUS existed to penalize me. Also, other than having a minority opinion, I committed no crimes -at all -so censorship executed by User:JzG here (based on LESS than a majority of the participants) was certainly inappropriate, and if you allow this matter to stand, then you are implicitly endorsing this behaviour.
Don't feel bad: We all make mistakes, and I am the 1st one to admit that I mistakenly thought consensus existed, but hey! I was wrong.
In conclusion, the fact I have not actually done anything against the policy (did not edit war, did not vandalize, usually did not post excessive long posts, accepted consensus even when it was against me, etc.), if no consensus exists against me (not even a slim majority, mind you), this is the sort of thing that would prompt an email to Jimbo: Isn't it against policy (and also quite wrong) to pretend a consensus exists when it, in fact, doesn't?
Besides, many of participants who submitted the statements in my matter DO ask ArbCom to look into this matter -even if they don't agree with me on all the points.--GordonWatts 10:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- You might also be interested in another interpretation of the community ban consensus. ChazBeckett 10:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Flameviper arbitration request
In connection with a pending arbitration request, User:Flameviper requests that you check your e-mail and/or his request on the RfAr page. Since he is blocked, he made this request on his userpage and I agreed to bring it to your attention. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks; I've removed it from my trash can and forwarded it to ArbCom. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Award
 |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| Jpgordon, this barnstar is for you, for all your hard work, finding, and blocking those open proxies!! Keep up your good work, both as a Wikiadmin, ArbCom member, Checkuser and open-proxy blocker! sunstar nettalk 08:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks! I've copied it over to my user page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Winston Churchill
Being not so familiar with Wikipedia procedures yet, I would be glad to learn what was wrong with my edit which you reverted (at least I understood it this way, or am I wrong?). Sorry for having put out, FloK 15:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hm. Looks to me like your change was in the middle of some pure crap by vandals and kids, and I undid yours in the process of undoing the vandalism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Mcmillancaleb
Any chance you could advise on this user's current unblock request? They seem to be affected by a checkuser block you set on the relevant /24. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Took care of. I'd set a one-month range block on a naughty little range a couple weeks ago. Hopefully two weeks was enough. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Ernham
[39] Here we are. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Antisemitism
Hi Jpgordon,
I was wondering if you have some free time helping with Antisemitism article(in which case I would be thankful). If not, that's perfectly okay.
I have been involved in that article for awhile and I think the Islam section is very POV. I think the section would not become neutral unless several new editors join in. There is a dispute here [40].
Thanks,--Aminz 06:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser
I know you did the last one of these. [[41]] When you find the time maybe you could check on these newest incarnations. I would appreciate it. Thanks. Jiffypopmetaltop 05:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks JP. But would you mind blocking those accounts too. I would do it myself but I cant. Jiffypopmetaltop 00:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. I generally don't mix checkuser and other admin functions; please ask someone else to take care of it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Understandable. Thanks anyway. Jiffypopmetaltop 03:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Sloat
If you disagree, feel free to unblock him. The block was based on the fact mainly that he needs to get a wake up call that BLP applies even to people whose politics he disagrees with. We've had this problem with him for almost a year now. JoshuaZ 07:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure who you mean by 'we' (I assume you mean the 'collective' WP community) - but I read this and felt the need to say that while sloat can certainly be an impassioned editor, he certainly appears to be working for the encyclopedic good of WP. It seems doubly unfair to minimize him with an 'us vs. sloat' frame like that. The circumstances of this block are such that I'm glad he's unblocked, I hope he doesn't run afoul of BLP and I also hope that he continues to be given just as much consideration and respect as any other editor with his history (politically active, sometimes confrontational but not intentionally disruptive). There are a lot of other editors who conduct themselves far more egregiously. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
How is this fair?
Looks like the arbcom has decided to ban me for a year. I honestly dont know how this conclusion was reached. I contributed like a good user, never insulted any user and never vandalised any article. The Indian users openly made racist remarks against Pakistanis, Muslims and our Prophet and Literally hijacked Pakistani articles to prevent anyone form editing. If this isnt good enough for you, then let me explain the 2nd major flaw. This arbcom was opened The Day After me and Nadir were unblocked from one of Ramas unfair blocks, and minutes after we tried to complain. It was simply to save himself from our complaint against him. We barely posted a word between the unblock and the complaint, and all the evidence used against us, is old evidence he had already used to ban us before. Not to mention the lousy evidence is the reason we complained against him in the first place. The only thing I see happening here is the arbcom banning the Minority users to solve the problem. Rama started the arbcom and omitted certain Indian users who were the Key causes of this dispute, and this lets them off the hook, even though they have made extremely racist remarks. Why treat me worse than a vandal? The so called evidence used against me doesnt even make sense. Is PoV pushing defined as making suggestions on Talk Pages? I am so shocked by this outcome.
I guess it helps to have a lot of people supporting you blindly. A 6 month punnishment was rejected for a guy who openly insulted the muslim Prophet (by linking him to paedophilia), insulted muslims by comparing slavery to the Hijab, said Pakistanis enjoyed killing people, and clear evidence was shown that he reverts every single edit from other users on Hinduism pages which doesnt fit his PoV. The Arbitrators didnt even suggest punishing any Indian users. Instead, a proposal to give all Pakistani users bans were put forward.
I dont know what has happened here. I really want to discuss this matter with you. I am an honest guy, I have nothing to hide, yet here I am being treated like an obvious vandal who deserves to get banned. In the first month I joined Wiki, I made some minor mistakes. I went through more than 3 weeks of bans by the same admin for this. And now the Same mistakes are giving me another year? Please get back to me. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Why are you ignoring me? --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 04:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what you want me to say. I found the evidence presented against you convincing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at the evidence. (some of the diffs are given amazingly misleading titles). The same evidence has been used to give me 3 weeks worth of bans so far. The Arbcom against us was started 1 day after my last block expired. And minutes after I tried to complain against Rama. And what about the Indian users who made extremely racist remarks and edit warred like no end? How come nothing was proposed for them? --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 05:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did look at the evidence. I'm not going to argue this here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The Essjay fiasco and pseudonymity
Hi, Josh. I noticed that on the mailing list you said:
- I will consider criticism of Essjay particularly valid when it is accompanied by a general call to eliminate pseudonymous editing of Wikipedia. The vast majority of editors on Wikipedia are anonymous, and I'm sure they have their various reasons, but anyone whose persona is not congruent with their real personality is doing exactly what Essjay did, on one level or another.
- I don't expect a lot of support for this position, but it's the logical extension of the outcry against Essjay's charade.
I thought you might like to know that at least one other Wikipedian agrees with you. Indeed, this was my first response when I learned of the situation.
I know that the use of pseudonyms is highly entrenched in Wikipedia culture, and a movement to use real names (as you and I do) is unlikely to gain much traction. But if such a movement were to be organized, I would support it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not gonna happen. That's several steps above requiring registered usernames, and that's not going to happen either. (And it probably doesn't matter, given the ease of creating accounts; doing checkuser work has made me realize that our registered users can be just as nasty as our IP-only editors.) But thanks for the support. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Oh, I know it's not gonna happen. (Although abolishing pseudonyms isn't necessarily the same as requiring registered usernames — at MeatballWiki they allow anonymous edits from IPs, and "RealName" edits from registered users.) And I know that requiring real names would be unenforceable on a project of this size. That said, there's an interesting proposal at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Wiki Policy Proposal - WP:HA Honestly Anonymous, as well as a new essay at Wikipedia:Honesty. At User talk:Essjay, Dbachmann (talk • contribs) said, "just like Siegenthaler gave us semiprotection, there could be a lesson here." I hope he's right. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Brandt to close
If you want to close the Brandt case you can vote to close in the motion to close section, someone will then list it in the open task template. (This is one area where the clerks can't guess). Thatcher131 06:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- thanks!--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- everyone's a noob at least once :-) Thatcher131 07:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, Thatcher131! 132.161.187.62 08:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- everyone's a noob at least once :-) Thatcher131 07:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Halaqah
Please do not revert my edits without comment. It is a violation of Wikipedia policy. 132.161.33.98 19:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. Here's what happened: I noticed your edit to Halaqah's page. I went to look at it, and followed the link to the MfD page. But probably exactly while I was doing that, another editor was fixing the MfD so yours was a new one, or something like that, and all I got was the link to the MfD for his page from last year. This made no sense at all, so I assumed it was some sort of harassment, and reverted. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, no harm done. But I'd probably believe that story more if you hadn't almost accused me of bad faith at the MfD page. 132.161.187.62 06:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me, did you just accuse me of lying? Look at the edit histories, if you will. You added the tag to Halaqah's page at 18:39. I saw it and looked at the MfD entry, and then reverted the tag at 18:50. However, at 18:50, User:Tjstrf reverted the entries in the MfD -- the one I was looking at -- and created Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Halaqah (2nd nomination). So when I followed that link, all I got was an old MfD. It could have been avoided if Tjstrf had done the sequence backwards -- first editing the MfD notice, then creating the new article -- but it's just happenstance that I got the wrong idea there. And, hey, I didn't mean to accuse you of bad faith; just of slightly bad manners, in my book. Didn't mean to harsh you; just defending another editor a bit. (Who is, I'll admit, a bit frustrating sometime, but he means well. We've run into each other, which is why his page is on my watchlist.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, no harm done. But you need to get in tune with universal peace and harmony, dude. You're harshing my mellow like, "whoah". 132.161.187.62 07:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- (haw!) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Eh? 132.161.187.62 08:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- uh...laughter? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm trying to assume good faith, but please keep your sarcastic laughter to yourself. It is clear you're not laughing with me... 132.161.187.62 19:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- (scratching my head in puzzlement) was your comment regarding universal peace and harmony not supposed to be humorous? oh, never mind. You seem to want to take offense; I don't want to give it, so I guess I'll bow out of this conversation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- As you wish, although I will miss talking to you. The best of luck to you in all of your future endeavors! 132.161.187.62
- (scratching my head in puzzlement) was your comment regarding universal peace and harmony not supposed to be humorous? oh, never mind. You seem to want to take offense; I don't want to give it, so I guess I'll bow out of this conversation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm trying to assume good faith, but please keep your sarcastic laughter to yourself. It is clear you're not laughing with me... 132.161.187.62 19:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- uh...laughter? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Eh? 132.161.187.62 08:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- (haw!) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, no harm done. But you need to get in tune with universal peace and harmony, dude. You're harshing my mellow like, "whoah". 132.161.187.62 07:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me, did you just accuse me of lying? Look at the edit histories, if you will. You added the tag to Halaqah's page at 18:39. I saw it and looked at the MfD entry, and then reverted the tag at 18:50. However, at 18:50, User:Tjstrf reverted the entries in the MfD -- the one I was looking at -- and created Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Halaqah (2nd nomination). So when I followed that link, all I got was an old MfD. It could have been avoided if Tjstrf had done the sequence backwards -- first editing the MfD notice, then creating the new article -- but it's just happenstance that I got the wrong idea there. And, hey, I didn't mean to accuse you of bad faith; just of slightly bad manners, in my book. Didn't mean to harsh you; just defending another editor a bit. (Who is, I'll admit, a bit frustrating sometime, but he means well. We've run into each other, which is why his page is on my watchlist.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, no harm done. But I'd probably believe that story more if you hadn't almost accused me of bad faith at the MfD page. 132.161.187.62 06:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Abstentions and calculating majorities
In response to your query in the wheel-war case, precedent is that an abstention is treated as removing that arbitrator from the pool of participating arbitrators on that proposal for purposes of calculating the majority. I don't know if this has ever been discussed in detail, but of course, if the committee wants to change the procedure, it can do so, just let us know. I think the rationale for the procedure that's been used to this point is that if an abstaining arbitrator still counts in the total, then an abstention becomes the equivalent of an oppose. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Which makes sense -- it should be. Silence in the face of a positive action should be negation, not agreement. No big deal, as long as I know how it works. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- This has been the practice as far back as I have been a clerk. It doesn't seem to be documented anywhere, so I just wrote it into Wikipedia:Arbitration policy. If the Committee wish to change the practice, we will obviously follow your lead. Thatcher131 23:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
RfA on Madrid Bombings
jpgordan,
I filed an amicus curiae on the RfA/Madrid Bombings. In this briefing I detail why it's not accurate to say an RFC was never attempted. Your ultimate point, however, might be correct -- that they would make progress just the same by attempting it again. Perhaps you could read my filing and kindly re-consider. --Otheus 00:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Great job on closing the gaps
 |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
| Awarded for the relentless work on closing open proxies. Keep it up and thanks for the hard work! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC) |
An award!
 |
Congratulations, you have been awarded the Spirals of Doom! OH YAY! 132.161.187.62 01:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC) |
Mr. Gordon
A few things. Can you remind me how to be a gnome? Also, in looking at my history I noticed there is a lot of stuff there that does not seem to have anything to do with me. I wonder if some of the comments and IP addresses that are seemingly attributed to me are incorrect? Any way to check? Any way for me to delete inaccurate entries in my history screen? Also, since I am no expert at WP, I see that some comments have titles such as "Anti-Zionist" this or that which it automatically added to my comment without noticing, any way to change that?
Anyways, how ya been? I see that the Khazar and the Jewish page are still just as hot as they were before ... Anyways, thanks for your help in advance. Talk to ya later ...
Oemb1905 04:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
RFCU on Cs
Could you explain your reasoning here... it's a mystery to me. KazakhPol 06:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!
Check User Clerk Qualifications
Hi, Jpgordon. What qualifications are there to be a check user clerk, or a clerk in general? I am very interested. Thanks. And, could you please reply here? Thanks. Real96 22:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hiya. You'll need to ask the check user clerks -- I really don't know what the qualifications are, because someone else has always handled that end of things (and I don't think we've made any new ones since I became a checkuser person.) Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks should have some useful information too. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help and assistance! Real96 23:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
"Vulnerable to harassment"
At RFA talk you said it was desirable that candidates be "vulnerable to harassment". I suspect you really mean something like "experienced in putting up with harassement", but could you clarify? My userpage openly declares my real world identity, so in practical terms I am more "vulnerable" than most Wikipedians. I would agree though that I probably don't recieve a high level of harassment at present. Dragons flight 03:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you delete an image that proved defective and problematic
Hi, Josh, could you delete this image for two reasons: 1) it didn't turn out as expected, and 2) it may prove problematic in copyright. I am sorry that I tried to download it. It was in my zeal to provide a first edition title page for the novel in question. The image is image:Deerslayer.gif.--Drboisclair 19:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I intend to create my own image for this purpose. I have an edition of this book in the public domain, the title page of which I will scan, edit, and upload without any problems. Thanks again for your kind response, cheers.--Drboisclair 20:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
RFCU
Regarding Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Goguryeo edit warriors, I will be providing evidence for "possible" 3RR evasion. I just listed part of it. I will be listing more in a few hours. Please stay tuned.--Endroit 02:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course! And when creating an RFCU, it's perfectly OK to say in it "More evidence forthcoming." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hi, I believe I'm done for now. Please let me know if we need more info for the RFCU. Thank you.--Endroit 14:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Spammer
Hello Jpgordon,
I just wanna thank you for declining This checkuser request concerning me. I take full responsobility for adding an external link to wikiproverbs.org, which I by myself own. I didn't know the exact policies beforehand about external links, and didn't put that much into it, given that it was written in context, is non-commercial, creative commons, etc. I didn't add the link again after being warned. What bothers me though, is that this guy Alexander Radyushin is having a personal vendetta against me, because I discovered his spam business. I was told that some of his pages are now already blacklisted. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jokum (talk • contribs) 09:02, March 8, 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. You should't be inserting your link, either, though; it weakens your argument against spamming (it doesn't matter here whether it's a non-commercial or whatever; if it's your site, you shouldn't be inserting it.) Also, people will wonder: why the multiple accounts? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Acussations
Hello. Regarding the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Afrika paprika I hope you understand that I was previously cleared twice by Checkuser. PaxEquilibrium is obviously fishing trying to get me blocked for whatever reason he has. Besides the obviously similar IPs with Afrika paprika, which can mean only thing - that we possibly have the same ISP, there is absolutly no similarity between me and this person. Also as I understand, PaxEquilibirum is also living in Croatia, so he too is possible user of the same ISP and he too would have similar IP's. How this proves anything is beyond me. Just to let you know. Tar-Elenion 17:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Correction: This user was not cleared twice by CheckUser. The first one was a request regarding severals anons allegedly used by Tar-Elenion to evade 3RR (it was disproved). The second one (this time regarding him being a sock-puppet of Afrika paprika) was declined because Tar was inactive after I filed the request. There is a possibility that this is a way of evasion of Check-User because considering that Afrika paprika has been sock-puppeteering for a year or so (creating 6 major accounts), I expect that he has become more experienced at this.
- P.S. I would not have filed a check-user (just like You once said "Check-user is not for fishing") had there not been much allegations that Tar-Elenion is indeed a sock-puppet of Afrika paprika. --PaxEquilibrium 18:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
See what I mean? This user is higly aggressive towards me obviously seeing what others don't. I was cleared twice by checkuser and this is a fact. You can see it here: [42] and here [43]. Besides you know that since you cleared me yourself the first time Jpgordon. This user is obviously fishing, please tell him to stop. Tar-Elenion 18:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please remain civil, Tar; I'm being civil & calm to you as much as possible. Neither of the two checkusers are valid to support your argument (just like I said, the latter has nothing do with Afrika paprika's case and the other was declined because you were inactive [perhaps tried to evade check-user?]}. "Fishing" is argumentless aiming and filing RFCUs without basis for users in whose case Check-User is most definitely not gonna be positive (yours however, even confirmed that you're Afrika paprika). --PaxEquilibrium 18:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I am perfectly civil as one can be in this situation. None of the checkuser's was declined because I was inactive, look more carefully and you will see it. And where did any checkuser confirm I was this AfrikaPaprika? The last one by Jpgordon said likely which doesn't exactly means confirmed stating also: But this is really one for duck testing, no? which means this is not exactly for Fishing as for the similar IP there is no proof. You have no proof of me being AfrikaPaprika's sockpuppet because similar IP doesn't mean someone is a sockpuppet. Stop this charade! Tar-Elenion 19:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I can hardly think calling people "totally insane" and "lunatics" can be called "perfectly civil" (AFAIK, I don't consider it civil at all). --PaxEquilibrium 19:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- No. Take this discussion elsewhere, including the incivility. I've given the results, as asked; you guys get to hash this out without me, unless you need more checkuser analysis, which will probably yield exactly the same results. Why anyone things "likely" means "cleared", and why anyone thinks calling someone insane is civil, is beyond me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Understood. I apologize for practically spamming Your talk page with pointless discussions. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 21:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- What about his incivility? He called me a "revert-warrior" several times without any proof. Now he accused me of being someone's sockpuppet. This is more than incivility. And what did you think by likely? Beside similarity in IP what is there? Tar-Elenion 20:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Libby
yea, libby wasn't appointed to the president's cabinet but he was the Vice President's chief of staff and is listed on http://web.archive.org/web/20050211141618/http://www.fpc.state.gov/8488.htm as a senior white house staff member. Anyways, its undeniable that Libby held an important position in the white house and that his resignation and subsequent felony charges are a major issue. Given the importance of the scandal over libby and the plame affair it should be listed on Bush's article somewhere. If you know of a better place to put the mention I'd be happy to relocate it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkmiles22 (talk • contribs) 02:08, March 11, 2007 (UTC)
- (a) Please sign your posts. (b) Please put new talk page comments on the bottom, not the top, of talk pages. (c) Article talk pages are the appropriate place for comments about specific articles. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Please explain your revert
do you think this is not true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_refugee&diff=114320433&oldid=114318942
Zeq 16:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think you've been here long enough to understand why it's not relevant for that article, in that place; I'm not sure it's relevant anywhere in that article. Perhaps I'm wrong; feel free to explain on the article talk page why the sentence belongs. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Protection for the "Hippie" article
Might some protection be appropriate for the "Hippie" article given massive daily vandalism? Seems there is more vandal action than legitimate editing. Apostle12 17:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
"how'd that happen?"
Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Edit_histories_temporarily_scrambled.3F--VectorPotentialTalk 19:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
My RFCU the other day
Hi, for this one you had confirmed it was the same person/IP on those two accounts. Were they supposed to be blocked for sockpuppetry? I noticed they weren't. - Denny 13:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
