This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jusdafax. 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.
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!
Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.
Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!
On 17 January 2013, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article In Aménas hostage crisis, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Many thanks! It's been a while since I got one of these. This credit was earned the hard way, as to get the ITN item up, there had to be an article created. Thank goodness a lot of help came along! Now, if this hostage crisis can just be resolved peacefully... Jusdafax07:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Undershaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeremy Hunt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Your suggestion that I admit to "agressive Wikistalking" is flat out wrong, and ad hominem. My actual comment was: "I completely reject that it is my responsibility to wikistalk Epeefleche around the encyclopedia and source content that he is too lazy to source himself" (emph. added), as I have repeatedly maintained. I've removed your commentary, leaving just your endorsement. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ]08:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Your AIV report
Hi, Jusdafax. I've watchlisted List of most viewed YouTube videos. If the IP continues to disrupt there I will act. Your report was valid but I saw it 3 hours after the fact so action now would not be preventitive. If you see further shenanigans and I don't seem to be around, take your report to the venue you think most appropriate. See ya Tiderolls04:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I suspect you're right
I suspect you're right in what you said here. While I don't agree with the outcome, TParis did a very good job.
There are really so many admin truths to be gleaned from the whole fiasco.
WP:ANIISLOUSY in many ways. Most of the folks commenting at the ANI discussion had no concept of the preventative nature of that particular indef block and the condition logged with it. The consensus there, however whacked it was, was in line with TParis' actions. If there was any doubt, the WP:DOUBLESTANDARD is alive and well.
I suspect you're right that that editor's disruption is not over, especially judging by the pontificating that has been going on on that editor's talk page. We also learned new things about some of the more extreme commentators there. Apparently it's OK to dehumanize folks someone may disagree with because, of course if they weren't fools, they'd have agreed with that person in the first place. Some of the worst behavior I've observed on wiki is evidenced in this episode.
My thoughts are add gun-related politics to the list of shit to stay away from if you want to avoid messy fiascoes. Both sides of the issue (assuming there are only 2) bring out some of the most visceral reactions with little to back up the emotions.
My pleasure, and thanks for taking the original stand. The ANI thread that got HiLo topic banned, which I posted along with that comment, is a fine example of ANI actually working. Recently I have seen additional evidence of that, so I am much more encouraged than I once was regarding combative problem editors. The terrible irony of all this is that I actually agree with some of the positions taken by HiLo, but vehemently disagree with his extremely harsh polemics. In an era where the WMF is expressing increasing concerns about the editing climate being overly confrontational for women and those not schooled in conflict, I believe the community must act quickly and decisively to make it clear to a relative handful of bad apples that their inflammatory rhetoric will no longer be tolerated, regardless of their contributions. By the way, thanks again for that barnstar you gave me a couple years ago; I value it highly! Jusdafax00:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
On 7 February 2013, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Shokri Belaid, which you recently updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Sup! You know you AFD'd this right? Your AFD says "prod", specifically as an alternate to AFD. I think you might have meant it the other way around. No biggie, just thought you might want the chance to clarify before people jump in with comments. Cheers, Stalwart11108:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It appears I have gotten the directions mixed up, as I don't do this frequently enough to remember it. It already has one !vote for delete. By the way, I notified what seems to be the subject of the article on his talk page; all this started when I noticed the article's tags were removed by him. Thanks for the heads up. UPDATE: I fixed the Afd statement so it corresponds with reality. Thanks again Jusdafax08:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jusdafax. The article is still pretty poor stub, but I think it's better than nothing. I remember your username from before, it's good to see you are still around :) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I seem to have had several stages as a Wikipedian. Others come and go, and here I sit, clicking away on my keyboard. Good fortunes to you and yours! Jusdafax08:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
On 17 February 2013, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article February 2013 Quetta bombing, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Hi. I was looking into materials related to the current arbcom case involving Malke 2010 when I noticed your name come up. Back in 2009, Malke was very angry at you after some kind of altercation on the Karl Rove article and she was eventually blocked for edit warring. Right after this happened she said you should be "banned for life" but I'm not really understanding her reasoning other than the fact that she was acting like a clueless newbie. Can you give me some insight on her behavior (conduct) on the article when she interacted with you and tell me if there is any relationship to the Tea Party movement set of articles she is currently working on? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Viriditas. I have been on a short wiki-break, but have just returned. Frankly, reading your link leaves me in a state of considerable incredulity. I will comment further as soon as possible. Thanks, Jusdafax07:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
After careful examination of the link you provide to ANI in September, 2009, it appears I was never informed of my name being discussed in such terms, so finding out what Malke2010 was up to in that era is a bit of a shock. I have reviewed my own talk archives as well as the Karl Rove talk page, but as I say, I never, to my knowledge, was alerted to the kind of abusive tricks Malke2010 was blocked for, in this particular case by Moonriddengirl, who later, if I remember correctly, unsuccessfully mentored Malke2010.
The period in question involved Malke2010's edits to the Karl Rove article. I felt very strongly in the months of August and September, 2009 that an attempt was being made by Malke2010 to "scrub" the article of well-referenced material that a partisan "fan" of Rove might not be comfortable with.
Eventually I was so disgusted with the way Malke2010 was editing that I found it easier to just walk away from the article rather than continue on dealing with someone I had a very bad feeling about. As your link clearly shows, my instinct was 100% correct. Malke2010's subsequent Wikipedia editing career, with numerous blocks despite relatively little activity, speaks for itself.
What drew me to comment at ANI was the similarity of Malke2010's approach to editing the Tea Party Movement article, which I have never edited and had never even read. I noticed the issue when it came up on ANI, ironically, and felt impelled to comment when two editors I have no history with, North8000 and Goethean, interacted harshly: North2000 wanted to censure Goethean's objections to Malke2010's attempt to do the very same thing there that they had at Karl Rove: create a new sub page and scrub out material that reflected poorly on the subject. To quote myself in the recent expanded ANI thread:
Malke2010 has indeed previously "created a new article on the same topic, but excluded all of the negative material" before this: at the sub page created at this link for Karl Rove where they took the most controversial material from Rove's career, then scrubbed out reliably sourced material or added in slanted material like the Moyers material. Virtually every edit there (look at the edit record) is designed to put a positive "spin" on Rove's years in the Bush White House. Additionally, the new [Rove] sub-article is another "click" away from the reading public, and the controversies sanitized with a summary. So Goethean's objections to Malke's similar proposal for the Tea Party article are in fact quite apt, and North8000 is in fact out of line defending this transparent attempt at obstructionism. [End self-quote]
So there you have it. I also posted the above on the TPM Talk page but it was removed. I am likely to weigh in at the ArbCom case as it proceeds. If you have any further questions I will be happy to reply. Jusdafax05:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed reply. I have started a preliminary evidence page at User:Viriditas/Arbcom if you would like to work on it. If not, please let me know if you have any diffs of recent evidence I could add to it. My own experience with Malke2010 both in the past and present is similar to your own. She comes off as very nice and agreeable, but does not listen to the positions of other people, and often times seems to be advancing her own personal agenda rather than adhering to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. My sense is that she's really not here to build to an encyclopedia but to represent her "clients". Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Most welcome. I realized at once what happened. You would think after 176 Rfa !votes (I just used the Rfa counter tool... amazing!) that I'd remember what to do, but it seems I don't comment much at these events. Jusdafax05:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Jusdafax, are you going to continue to participate in the talk page discussion? I actively encourage you to do so; the discussion really needs more editors who have greater perspective and are well-read in multiple subject areas. I also support your suggestion of structuring the discussion as a rolling article-by-article RfC, with appropriate notices posted throughout Wikipedia. In addition to more voices, the discussion desperately needs more structure. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I am honored by your good opinion. We do seem to see eye-to-eye on many of these big-ticket calls. I have cleared out my next 30 hours or so for Wikipedia, and the VA is on my short list of items I consider, uh, vital. Thanks again, see you there soon. Jusdafax00:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
"My advice: drop the mass deletion proposals, period"
If we do that, how are we ever going to get this list back down to 10,000 articles with any kind of speed? Also, any chance you could tell Gabe to stop saying I lack knowledge and stop changing his votes because he didn't like what I said somewhere else? pbp04:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It appears to me that the discussion has degenerated to the point where other, more authoritative voices than mine will be needed here. I truly hope you can both cool it, as I believe you are both dedicated to Wikipedia's best interests. As for me, I will back away from this mess and hope for the best. Jusdafax04:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
That would be regrettable, JDF. As we have discussed previously, the VA project needs a larger number and a greater variety of voices to make this a more valid exercise. If you're giving up, I may be inclined to do the same, because I have no interest in being caught in the crossfire of two or three bitterly opposed editors who can't or won't agree on sound process. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't get why you insist on equating me and Gabe. There's a difference, a BIG difference. Gabe continually claims that I know nothing or next to nothing about certain topics; I don't. Gabe personally attacks me in edit summaries and once called me a "Type-A control freak who can't get a girlfriend", I don't. Gabe arbitrarily changes positions based on how he feels about me, I don't. Oh, and there's the whole won't-shut-about-Harry-Potter business pbp15:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Guys, Winston Churchill is purported to have said "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." I've worked productively on sports articles with PBP in the past, and recently I've come to respect Gabe's passion and contributions regarding the Vital Articles lists. Nevertheless, and at some risk to my working relationships with both of you, I must say that both of you are quickly approaching the threshold of Churchill's definition. It won't be as a result of anything I do, but the two of you are both at risk of being blocked or topic-banned for uncivil and disruptive editing behaviors. When the banhammer falls, it rarely distinguishes between who started it, and who was more responsible than whom. I know I'm not the first third-party to mention this problem to the two of you, so please do yourselves a favor and spend the next week doing your best to kill each other with civility and kindness. Otherwise some passing admin is likely to give you both a timeout. Seriously. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I have come to respect DL1 a great deal in these discussions, and once again second him in every word. Take heed, please. Jusdafax02:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Jusdafax, several positive events have occurred in the last few days:
1. I think it has become apparent that there is acceptance of the proposed moratorium. The start date remains to be determined. Personally, I think seven days prior to the start of the clean-up (April 8) should be sufficient.
2. There appears to be increasing acceptance that there will be no more unilateral BRD changes to the actual lists and sublists. I think an add, delete or swap decision should require at least five affirmative votes for action, with no close split votes.
3. I think there is also general acceptance of the evolving organization for individual topic discussions for add, deletes and swaps: discussion, !voting, minimum number of affirmative !votes, keep threads open until critical mass reached, for each topic in question.
4. PBP and others have archived all of the dead-end proposals and other threads (and most of the strum und drang) for the list of 10,000, making the talk page a more welcoming place to new participants. This still needs to be done for the list of 1,000.
5. Prior ongoing personalized exchanges seem to have been effectively tamped down by the concerned parties (the only way it was ever going to happen, short of blocks or topic bans).
I believe that the overall discussion is now far better positioned for likely productive outcomes. Your participation regarding individual topics is solicited, to the extent you feel comfortable participating. The discussions still need more and a greater variety of voices. Yours would help. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
As an outside editor, I have moved that this RFC/U be closed. If you wish to comment on the Motion to close, please do so here. Fladrif (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
First off, when you say "Then there are the now-open agenda-pushers pursuing their anti-American or recentism slants", what or whom are you referring to? And in regards to this whole slow-down thing, if we were to take the break you want, most of the people would never come back. I've been following this and the Meta one for years; they don't get 15-20 people for any one time, and the times they get 5-10 are few and very far between. Which is why I'm making a lot of proposals right now (although it's worth noting that something like 95-97% of the list hasn't been touched by them). pbp05:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Neitmi !vote AN
Question - was your !vote on the last section in the WP:AN discussion on Neitmi sanctions an "Oppose" to both an interaction ban and civility parole, or just civility parole? I'm trying to close as accurately as possible.
Hi GWH and thanks for your clarification note. My !vote was to oppose both in favor of Options 1, 2 and 3, as I had !voted above. The civility parole and interaction bans were attempts present alternatives to weaken sterner sanctions, which I feel are called for in this case. Jusdafax01:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Infoboxes
It looks like you messed with the Classical Music wikiproject. This insular group of editors has stonewalled the infobox issue for years against many users' objections and has fought to control the debate through canvassing, cementing it within their own nonbinding policy, and generally bullying those who disagree with them. If you keep it up they may even try to ban you from discussing the issue, as they have tried with Pigsonthewing in the past. Good luck dealing with them! ThemFromSpace17:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning, but I got a clue from just one look at the J.S. Bach Talk page, which is why I filed my first-ever ANI report. For a number of reasons in the "real world" I decided to take a lengthy Wikibreak shortly afterwards. The funny thing here is I don't really care that much about the infoboxes or the lack thereof, but the vicious bullying offends me deeply, and I will be looking into this group in the future, as someone who sees civility as a core value to be taken seriously, which is why I assume it is one of the Five Pillars. Hopefully I raised enough dust to put this problem on the map. Thanks again for your note, which further confirms my impression of this problematic group of editors. Jusdafax08:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
ITN - Welcome back - Thanks, but...
Thanks for the welcome back. I wondered if anyone would notice.
Trouble is, I'm already bothered by the quality of discussion, just from that one post.
Immediately after I made my one an only post in eight months, we got another that said "Support International news. I prefer the blurb rather than the altblurb." And immediately after that, the item was posted, with the blurb rather than the altblurb.
Now, that post I've quoted is precisely the kind of post that annoys me a lot. It's purely a vote. An "I like it" post. No reason was given to support the poster's opinion. Just an opinion. And given the sequence of comments before posting, it seemed to have a significant impact. So a vote, which we're not supposed to do here, rather than a reasoned piece of discussion, swung the day.
Obviously I'm not going to make any public fuss about this (hence this post), but I do have a question. While I've been away has there been any background discussion as to what constitutes a constructive post on ITN/C? I know that me pointing out what I thought were really crappy posts was one thing that annoyed some editors. (No doubt the creators of the crappy posts, at least, but that never bothered me.) Whether such a discussion supports my view here or not doesn't matter. It would help me to know, so that I can do the right thing. HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I have been away nearly two weeks, and am trying to get back to speed. We have had our differences, to say the least, but as I have commented elsewhere, the deep irony is that I often agree with your views. The answer to your question is beyond me at the moment. ITN is a real mess though, in my view. I will attempt to answer your question incisively in another day or two, I hope. And again, welcome back, quite sincerely. Jusdafax09:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
JDF, what is your reaction to the reorganizaed and reformatted VA/E talk page? I've reworked the top 65-70% of the talk page discussions, and plan to finish the remainder tonight. If you have any suggestions for improvement, I would like to incorporate them. My goal is to make it as simple, transparent and welcoming to new participants as possible. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
My first glance fills me with admiration! I have already added a few !votes and will be making more in the next few days. Many thanks! Jusdafax22:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Your comment
Hi Jusdafax. I have been reading through some old discussions, and I stumbled across one of your comments, to my regret. As I don't think I have ever told you how much your idiotic comment shocked me back then, I tell you now. At least you should have had the decency to answer my question there, when I asked you to justify your position, but no, you never bothered to, and that was despicable, in my opinion. You think you can just make whatever comments you like, and never be held accountable. That needs to change. Thanks, and have a nice day. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I stand by my comment, since socking, especially massive cases editing from 15 different accounts is a serious problem and must be dealt with. You got what you wanted with your unblock request, so coming here eight weeks later to insult and even arguably threaten me is over the top. As your now-unblocked friend User:Kalki put it: I VERY MUCH thank all who have supported me in the recent measures to unblock this account, and wish to assert that I bear no ill will to those who in good conscience have opposed my presence here and elsewhere, in various ways and for various reasons, believing themselves to be supportive of what they believe to be fair and just aims. If Kalki is over it, what is your problem? As for not replying, AN is not on my watchlist, and your assumption I deliberately did not answer is what is despicable, in my view. By coming to my Talkpage, and insulting me about a necro-thread in such a fashion, you breach WP:AGF and show a desire for WP:BATTLE. That is probably what should be "dealt with" and "needs to change." Your comments are noted, and I hereby request you stay off my talk page permanently, becoming only the third such request I have made in my years as a volunteer editor here. Let's just agree to disagree, and let it go.Jusdafax23:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC))
ITN thanks
On 22 May 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ray Manzarek, which you recently nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
Thank you kindly. So far our summer has been anything but drama-free, at least on some of the pages I edit and/or monitor. Perhaps matters will calm down. My very best wishes to you, where ever you edit here. Jusdafax19:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burleigh Drummond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Producer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The only reason I started taking an interest in the vital list was because of the fact that the list of folk and country musicians doesn't include a single non-American artist. All of the maneuvers I have tried to add any artist or folk tradition from outside of the US has been opposed by you, mostly without offering rationales - or simply by saying that we shouldn't add names now that we're trying to cut down - yet you vote to keep American names like Joan BAez on the list (who is neither known as a musician or a composer but as Bob Dylan's one time girl friend), you even vote to keep even Les paul who is not even known as a folk/Country artist but as an instrument maker. Now I want to ask you: Do you really think that it is possible that there isn't a single artist or folk music tradition from outside of the US that is vital? Who would you add if you had to add one or two folk artists from outside of the US? And finally don't you consider it to be the case that non-Western or non-US musical traditions should expect some kind of representation? I simply don't understand why people are opposed to globalizing the music section. Especially not the folk section. I don't get it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·22:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
My Wikipedia brutha, this list can never possibly satisfy everyone, and we have to accept that we will win some and lose some. When I feel there is an injustice, I have learned to just walk away for a while. Now, saying "Dylan's one time girlfriend" shows me you don't know or choose to ignore that Baez broke ground for, and help popularize, Dylan. Baez was and is a huge symbol of the peace movement, so much so that popular cartoonist Al Capp caricatured her as "Joanie Phoanie" over her views. Vital? Fits my definition. Fairport Convention, not so much, despite their long history and discography, and though I rarely discuss my personal life here, just so you know I did go so far as to ask my girlfriend, who is not American, if she had ever heard of FC. She had not. As for Les Paul... dude, read the history of the guy. He arguably invented the electric guitar and multitrack recording. As for music, he had a big series of smash music hits with three number one songs, with one of them, 'How High the Moon' in the Grammy Hall of Fame. He has his own permanent exhibit in the Rock Hall of Fame. Genres in the late 40's - early 50's were mixed up, so he is termed "country" for lack of a better placement. And to top it off Les Paul invented the harmonica rack which in some ways made folk music as we know it possible. I prefer not to go into combat on my talk page, which is cluttered enough already, but I am responding here since I sense your concern, and also we are ITN editors. If you insist, please continue this back on the Vital list talk page, but let's not argue my views and !votes here, thanks. And if you want my advice, try adding Donovan, who was in my view much more influential than FC. Just see if you can nominate something else to delete. Maybe I'll support, maybe not. Best wishes, Jusdafax23:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Your definition of Vital is to have been caricatured by Al Capp. That kinds of put the non-American world at a disadvantage. I don't know any folk musicians who could name a single song by Baez, and I move a lot in folk music circles in the US and Europe. Some of them might have heard one of her Dylan Covers. I also don't know any European folk musicians who wouldn't know Fairport, Planxty or the Dubliners. The Grammy and Rock n Roll hall of fame are American halls of fame - its like winning the World Series - utterly parochial.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·23:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
You ignore most of my points to focus on a few, ignore my attempt at advice, and return to argue against my wishes. So be it. My editing time is often limited and I prefer to use it otherwise. Please do not post on this page again. You are now one of only four editors in my nearly six years here that I have made this request of. Jusdafax23:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
removing others' comments
If you wish to add your link at the Crats Noticeboard, kindly do so without removing others' comments. Thank you. Taroaldo✉22:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
My apologies, as your comment was inadvertently removed by accident when I was creating a Wiki-link. I see you reverted so I will recreate the link but more carefully this time. Again, sorry about that. Jusdafax23:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Jusdafax, I'm not sure if you've ever been asked this, but are you interested in becoming an administrator? Have you ever had an RfA in the past? I would need to do further research, but I am considering making an RfA for you. --JustBerry (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
First off, and most importantly, please allow me to thank you. I view your interest as a profound complement, and am honored by your consideration. I declined a nomination in September 2010, have never requested the tools and currently lean against the idea of an Rfa, but am frankly curious: what led you to me? Thanks again, and best wishes, Jusdafax23:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, to tell you the truth, I stumbled upon your oppose on Huon's RfA and happened to find it quite harsh, no canvass intended. I was curious as to what type of user you were and found that you have made numerous contributions, been helpful to other users (evident on your talk page), but aren't an administrator. This made me consider the different reasons why you may not be administrator, which lead to my asking you about your situation in terms of adminship. You seemed good-willed, but I wanted to hear about "the back story," so to speak. Just to make sure (before I do personal research), would you be willing to be a Wikipedia administrator? --JustBerry (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm puzzled, how can my oppose be considered "quite harsh?" It reads: Oppose - per above opposes. I thank the candidate for their work and willingness to serve as an admin, but many of the concerns expressed convince me to oppose this Rfa. As for a run for adminship for myself, as I say above, I tilt against an Rfa at this time. You might try reviewing WP:CDA where I had some involvement back in 2010. In brief, I find it a significant failing of the project that the editing community is entrusted to make admins, but not unmake them. Jusdafax02:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Jusdafax, there are currently a couple of dozen removal threads that are one or two !votes away from consensus. I hope you can make the time to go through the threads soon and add your !vote and/or thoughts. Cheers! GabeMc(talk|contribs)22:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Jusdafax. I just wanted to touch base with you regarding the recent proposal to significantly reduce the Regions sub-list at WP:VA/E. My concern here is that IMO, User:Purplebackpack89 will do his very best to block or stall-out the proposal as he is already showing signs of doing that. Also, since User:Dirtlawyer1 and User:Carlwev have, at this point, decided to remain neutral on the matter, I could really use some leadership from you, since I don't want argue this out ad infinitum with PbP. My suspicion, though admittedly bad-faith, is that PbP would rather control the content of the list than he would reduce the list to 10,000 or less entries. Same with User:Carlwev, whom I suspect enjoys his numerous swap proposals more than reducing the list to our goal. Also, I very strongly feel that I cannot count on the support of either Carl or PbP, so without their two support !votes and with a recently reduced participation rate, well ... I could really use some help from you in terms of getting this done. Are you willing to work with me to accomplish this task, or should I reconsider my efforts? Cheers! GabeMc(talk|contribs)19:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
What the...? I supported chopping ~100 regions and still do, I merely oppose the first draft of the regions that are being kept because it needs work. And I don't know where you're getting the idea that I don't want to get the list down to 10,000. If you look at the proposals I've made since the first of the year and the edits I made to the VA/E pages since then, I feel they're not only hard to argue with, but they keep the list right-sized. When regions is cut to 100 and some of the other proposals made in the last few weeks come to fruition, we will be pretty close to being around 10,000 articles. Maybe even under. Just because I don't support every single removal doesn't mean I don't support getting it back to 10,000. I just want it to be the right 10,000 articles. pbp19:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The right 10,000? Like chewing gum and bench, right? Anyway, the only reason that I mentioned you here was for the interests of full-disclosure, not because I wanted this thread to turn into yet another Gabe vs. PbP drama fest. I've already had more than enough arguing with you and would prefer if you just kept a respectful distance. I.e., assuming good-faith is NOT a suicide pact and if you want to cut the list then help don't hinder; actions speak louder than words, etcetera. GabeMc(talk|contribs)20:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The beauty of the regional articles deletion concept was that it would get us down to, or close to, 10k articles on the list as it is supposed to be. That would reduce the amount of time needed to go through the seemingly endless deletion, swap or even add proposals. I'll take a look in a bit, as I have a few other things I want to work on, and frankly, the amount of time and energy being expended here makes my eyes glaze over. Jusdafax04:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
A cursory look down at the bottom of the talk page appears to indicate that most of the issues have been worked out, unless I am mistaken. I would tentatively endorse the regional "keep" list though I have not gone over it carefully. Jusdafax22:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
March Against Monsanto
On the one hand, it is true that I nominated the article for deletion when it was in very poor shape. On the other hand, after four days, when it was a much better article, I requested early closure that so the AFD could be closed as a speedy keep. I am not trying to get the article deleted again, but would like to get the edit warring to stop. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for closing the ANI, however, although the original poster, User:Tryptofish (and me) both thought the discussion was pretty finished, if you read the opening of the ANI, the OP asked for action with respect to the accusations being made, mostly by User:Viriditas as the discussion in the ANI made clear; your closure did not address that. Several editors, including me, said that they were driven off the page by his/her vitriol, and I think it would be useful if you addressed the original concern in your closing. Would you please reconsider the closing to address the reason the ANI was opened? Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I just saw that you left a light warning for V in this dif- thanks for that. Still, it would be useful if your closing mentioned that you did that. I know admin/closings are hard but they should generally address the reason the ANI was opened, yes? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Jytdog, I'm very content with the closing statement just the way it is. I'm going to write a more nuanced and detailed explanation of what I mean by that on my own user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
To all editors displaying the "Vital Articles" template on their User Page.
Hi,
I recently tried to make a change to the list of Level 3 Vital Articles by replacing the entry
" [[Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems|Imperial and US customary measurement systems]]"
with a new replacement article
" [[Imperial and US customary measurement systems]]".
Although I have advertised the proposed change on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles, I had no response and an anonymous IP editor took it upon himself to undo my changes on grounds that my proposal did not have a "strong consensus".
One of the most random talk page responses you will ever receive
This is too off topic to post on the ITNC page (and that's saying something!). But in response to your comment about the way RD has evolved, I would simply make the point that progress is not always for the best. You are right: RD appears to have evolved in that way, but there are some notable exceptions. The world's oldest person is generally a full blurb or nothing, for instance. —WFC— FL wishlist19:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
You correctly perceive my reservations. Some deaths that would have been blurbs now struggle to make an RD mention, others fall through the cracks. It seems to be about who cares enough to put a substantial update in the subject's article. I was against the RD concept, but in all candor it sometimes allows a relative unknown, like Jack Vance, to get on the main page where they might not have at all. So it's not all bad, but I think I preferred the pre-RD era, all things considered. Jusdafax22:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to STiki!
Hello, Jusdafax, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and -- tnumbermaniacc05:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Well said. We can, I'm sure, agree to disagree over the posting by Secret; in my mind that's secondary to the knee-jerk calls for desysopping which you comment addresses perfectly. At the risk of breaching WP:CANVASS in letter (but not in spirit) this has made its way to WP:AN. Sigh. Pedro : Chat 10:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Pedro. For the record I opposed Secret's request to get the tools back, and now it is this. I appreciate the notice about AN, and am on my way. Jusdafax11:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I frankly take exception your use of the term "edit war" regarding my two edits. I saw a sentence that seemed way out of line as presented in the article lead, and deleted it on the grounds I cited in the edit summary. I was reverted by MM on what seemed to me thin reasoning, so I reverted back and, in fact, asked MM in my second edit summary to take it to the Talk page. Again, that is twice that I edited the article, in total. When MM, instead of discussing as I had requested, merely reverted me again, I was done, but shortly afterward editor II reverted. At that point an admin came in and, in my view, over-reacted by closing the article to all editing for three days or so. I know none of these editors including the admin, and had never edited the article previously. Again, I reject your characterization of my two edits as part of an "edit war" that I "conducted." Your invitation is noted, and I will give it my consideration. Jusdafax15:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry you object! It was an edit war by definition ("An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion."); it is true that nobody broke WP:3RR when the page was locked down. Nobody followed WP:BRD. I was unhappy to see you all deleting/reverting and talking past each other in edit notes and that none of you came to Talk, which is why I took the time to invite you all. In any case, thanks for considering the invitation. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Again, I find a disturbing lack of clarity in your characterization. My two edit summaries clearly show that on my second of two edits, I directly asked MM not to revert again, but take it to the article talk page. Instead of doing so, he chose to revert again and mimic my comment back at me. You now characterize me as "talking past" when I was the one who first asked for a Talk page discussion, so I again must dispute your post to my Talk page. The language of your "apology" above is also of interest... "Sorry you object!" Hm. Jusdafax15:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
What is not clear in my characterization? It indeed happened, that "editors who disagreed about the content of a page repeatedly overrode each other's contribution." 5 deletions/reversions occurred in rapid succession. Btw, under WP:BRD it is the initial bold editor, who, upon reversion, is supposed to stand down and bring the issue to Talk. That would be you, in this situation. I also wish the other two editors would have stood down and brought the issue to Talk - they didn't either. As for "talking past each other" - the brief format of an edit note pretty much demands declarative statements - it is not a format for discussion and reaching consensus - hence yes, limiting 'discussion' to edit notes generally means talking past one another instead of to each other; that was my read of what happened. But this is not a huge deal - the admin stepped in and shut this down before anybody broke 3RR, and I am not accusing you of any violation of policy or pillar (nobody crossed WP:3RR, nobody accused someone else of bad faith, etc). So I don't understand what is at stake for you in this meta-discussion. I just wanted to invite you to discuss the issue in dispute in Talk while the page is in lockdown, in hopes we can resolve it and be ready to move on when the lockdown is over. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Asking about your comment
I'm glad that the latest ANI discussion has closed, and I just want to ask you about your last comment there, the one about there being much to ponder. With most users, I wouldn't bother to ask, but I'm asking here. You said very clearly that you weren't criticizing anyone in particular, but an adverse side-effect of saying that is it can leave some of us wondering exactly what you meant. The opening of the thread listed a long series of diffs, some of them mine, and accused them of being disruptive; I subsequently tried to explain that I'm quite sure that the content was not OR, and that the combined efforts of me and several other editors reflected something that was at least approaching consensus, rather than tag teaming or the like. You said, right after I had discussed my role with another editor, that you were concerned that civility can mask deeper issues. I'm reading between the lines that maybe you were arguing that the now-blocked editor actually had a valid point, that some (all?) of the editors in the diffs (including me? not including me?) were actually engaged in some sort of POV-pushing, going beyond the garden-variety differences of opinion between editors, and that it had been overlooked because we had mostly been civil about it, but that there should still be scrutiny that was failing to happen. I hope that you remember that I have said that I, too, am watching very carefully for anyone who displays signs of "shill" editing, and that I am opposed to it, if it actually happens. So I'd like to ask: did I understand the intent of your comment correctly? Do you have any issues with my edits here? Do you think that I misunderstand anything? Did you find my attempted explanation about OR unconvincing or incorrect? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I am attempting to engage Viriditas on his Talk page. I hold you blameless, if it matters, and Viriditas obviously blew it on his overall demeanor, which, given his block record, wasn't too sharp. As to the substance of his claims, I reserve judgment. I am unfamiliar with much of the controversy, and have done very little editing in this field, but have started a bit of research. The post just above shows that I recently twice attempted to pull a sentence out of a Monsanto-related article, a sentence I felt was clearly unencyclopedic and slanted the article with undue weight as presented. I feel the results are of interest, though hardly conclusive. To make claims that a Wikipedia editor is POV-pushing is serious, and to say multiple editors are is obviously dangerous. Aside from his demeanor, Viriditas was fighting hard to make some points. I have known him as a Wikipedian for years, and have tended to respect him on the issues. Now that he is tarnished goods, many editors may dismiss him and move on, but as I say I'd like to cautiously discuss the actual issues with him on his Talk page, assuming he can do so in a civil manner. In my view, further research is needed. Thanks for caring about my concerns, and best wishes. Jusdafax23:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that I may have seen one editor who showed up as an SPA and who might have been a "shill" (and not someone on that list of diffs, by the way), and I'm continuing to watch for that very closely – but I really think that most of the users who might be targets of suspicion may be opinionated and sometimes stubborn, but that doesn't make for bad faith. If you come to think that there is something that I have failed to realize, please draw it to my attention. I'm watching the discussion on his talk with an open mind, and I appreciate the way that you framed it there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, Viriditas was right, especially about the very twisted and difficult to spot (understatement) web of role-playing. I appreciate that someone is looking into this and is willing to accept new information however uncomfortable it most likely will be. Thank you, JustDaFax. petrarchan47tc23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Information is very useful. Accusations and insinuations like Viriditas and Petrarchan are making is destructive and just plain ugly. Say hello, Joe McCarthy. Were there communist spies in America? You bet. Did he go after everyone not like him, recklessly and with no sense of decency? That is the company V and P are keeping. That is where this has already gone. Ugly. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
In all seriousness... to freak out or try and squelch conversations is a giant red light. And that isn't an accusation, i've been holding my tongue on this one for sooooo long. Don't attack the people calling for transparency. Don't use tactics that shills are known to use. Chill out and don't care so much, this is just an encyclopedia, and we are all just sharing a bit of our free time to help bring info to the People. If editors are entangled in a bunch of BS instead of being allowed to edit as normal, they are going to get upset. We are human beings. I WILL speak my mind and no one has a right to ask me to shut up or to not share articles and information. I won't be intimidated. And seriously, who in the world has time for all these noticeboards and talk page therapy sessions? I mean, i have two jobs, a life to run, and a bit of time in the evenings, sometimes more sometimes much less... So interference with my good faith, good editing is not going to be met with kisses and hugs. I am a human being and I am not interested in dealing with bullshit. That's all there is to it. petrarchan47tc03:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The conspiracy-spinning that V engaged in on his Talk page, which you praised here, is disgusting. "And when you take the big picture POV, this appears to have been coordinated by what can only be described as the "fringe cabal", a group of editors who target articles they believe pose a challenge to mainstream science and/or the supporting corporatist-scientific complex. Within this group of editors you have certain personalities who almost seem to be role playing: one plays the hardline extremist who refuses to compromise, the other plays the good cop, while another plays the bad cop, still another plays the curious academic and another plays the GMO proponent." He is thinking of specific people there, and I am likely one of them, as he has accused me directly before. It is ugly. Ugly. And has consequences. There are editors like User:Canoe1967, with whom I have never interacted before, who came out guns blazing at me that I was all COI. Gee, where did that come from? I would say, from all these wild accusations you and V and others are throwing around. You, Petrarchan, are helping build up this conspiracy thing, and I have not done a damn thing wrong. I have seen what you have written about me on various Talk pages. I too am a human being and that felt like shit. I am not paid, I am not a shill. I just think differently than you. I am working on Wikipedia to help the People too. You have no monopoly on wanting to do good. And yes it is another round of McCarthyism. Writ small, for sure. But the same ugly thing, here in our Wiki-world. Please speak your mind on CONTENT and leave me out of it. Otherwise, bring it up in a COI noticeboard, where it is appropriate under Wiki policies and leave the personal attacks out of Talk pages already. Jytdog (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
CREWE
Hi there, JustDaFax (love the name),
Glanced at your recent notes to Viriditas, about getting the creeps when considering certain observations, and I wanted to share something indeed creepy. BP was caught writing their own article, with 'independent' editors inserting the material for the resident BP COI talk page PR rep (all very wiki legal). This hit the media and wound up on Jimbo's page. It came out during those discussions (or maybe it was on related talk pages at the time, probably SlimVirgin's) that there is a group called CREWE setup to aid company's PR departments to influence their pages on wiki. They organize through a Facebook page that has over 400 members - composed of wiki editors hip to the idea of spreading PR for some odd reason ($?). This needs to sink in deeply with every editor interested in saving the project from corporate propaganda. Even with this exposed, and one editor admitting to working for that group, the overall consensus, including Jimmy's, was that this is a good thing for the wiki, resulting in more accurate articles. (Do an Internet search for "CREWE, Wikipedia"; I believe the article about this group is on "Motherboard").
Thank you for being. petrarchan47tc22:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
An arts and cultural magazine, they'll have all the facts in there. Right? BP was not caught editing their own article, the editor disclosed he was working for BP, it's in his god damn name. Utter nonsense and misinformation. Be wary of the conspiratorial ideation that also plagues the global warming denialers. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Nicely played (except for the manic feel and misspellings) -- a) slam/discredit message and source; b) pull out the "conspiracy" label (as if they NEVER EVER happen); c) throw the messenger in with climate change deniers or something similar, for good measure.
CREWE is a fact, and the Wikipedia community discussed it's existence open, public forums, including Jimbo's talk page. What a strange thing to jump all over me for. petrarchan47tc02:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Petrarchan47, if you find a similar link about Monsanto instead of about BP, I'd really like to know about it. But if you (and Jusdafax) will let me give you a bit of sincere advice here, the best approach for you to take is to raise these issues at places like WP:COIN, but not on article talk pages where editors are discussing article content. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Re: Recent commentary here
After a short Wiki-break I am a bit surprised to find a couple disputatious threads regarding the Monsanto article(s). I will study this all carefully but have nothing to say at the present moment, aside from the fact that I continue, as I have said for years, to feel that paid editing is something I am strongly against. It's not clear to me what is going on and it appears considerable study will be required to become reasonably informed. My best wishes to all editors. Jusdafax09:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
JustDaFax, I appreciate your gentle comments here. I noticed that you had said some positive things about one of the main editors of MAM, so i am very confused now. I worked very hard today tending to the MAM article, only to have all my work reverted, including the simplest of things like a little intro to the background of the movement, and a proper use of RS. Here is the edit, if you want a view of what Viriditas and I have had to deal with at this article. petrarchan47tc23:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
[Edit conflict: no, it isn't. And there are notes all over pages of the GMO group with people saying, hey be aware of this or come help me here. So you just stop, please.] This is too much for editors to deal with on their own, we have proven that. The very same group who edit warred for months, is the same group in charge of the article now - with the same problems and games. Wholesale reversions, especially right at the 3RR point, and i am told to go get permission from said group, this group is using cherry-picking, OR and SYNTH with completely straight faces, and i am the only one speaking out, and trying to fix it. It is too much for me, and i don't have the time to edit this page towards NPOV any more. We are stuck trying to get the basic facts on the page, while we are not allowed to add any references about protesters and researchers who question GMOs, but a list of 5 "GMOs are super safe for sure" refs to unrelated websites sits high on the page. I think the violations of the guidelines are very obvious, and since this movement is not a convoluted story, this could be handed over to ArbCom for a quick fix. I guess this is me, begging you or anyone out there, to please help get this article to ArbCom. Thank you very much. petrarchan47tc00:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Jtdog, Petrarchan47 is welcome to post on my page any time. Your statement appears to be an attempt at intimidation, which I resent for both Petrarchan and myself. Jusdafax00:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your note Jusdafax. As I have mentioned here and elsewhere, User:Petrarchan47 has been engaging in this behavior - going on the Talk pages of users he/she believes are sympathetic, and making these kinds of unfounded accusations against me and other editors - for quite some time, and I have had it with being bad-mouthed. That is one issue -- the other one is the more garden-variety of canvassing about specific article content. I am not even editing or watching the MaM article, as I already was fed up with Viriditas' behavior there. In any case, informing these users that their behavior is outside guidelines is not intimidation - it is fair warning. The next time the behavior happens - if it happens again - I am indeed going to start an ANI. I really have had it. There are appropriate ways to deal with perceived COI and going around on user Talk pages and article Talk pages and making these accusations is not among those ways. I tell you - I feel persecuted. That matters too. Paid editing is an issue but that doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with you is a paid editor. I could start (and I am not!!) going around and writing everywhere that P is an employee or paid PR person for Greenpeace, right? He/she must be because of the positions that P takes in these articles about environmental issues! But I am NOT going there. And neither should P. Otherwise it is wild McCarthyism - slapping people who disagree with you with a label so you can dismiss them. Just the facts indeed! No more of this personal attack based on 100% speculation. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
So, it appears you are saying I am calling you a paid editor and you are mocking my name? Your remarks and demeanor on my page are truly extraordinary. Jusdafax00:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I am not saying that you are calling me a paid editor!! I am sorry you misunderstood. It is hard to control tone in writing. I am saying that with no basis in fact, P has been canvassing around, calling me and others COI/paid editors -- including here on your page, and trying to make you an ally. You have not engaged in that behavior that I have ever seen. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I did play off your name, saying that there are no facts to support these allegations with respect to me, and I have said explicitly on more than one occasion that I have no relationship with Monsanto or any of the other ag biotech companies. Their only basis for these accusations are the consistent positions that I have taken, which are simply different than theirs. Again I apologize for the misunderstanding. Really. I have no desire to offend anybody -- I just want the attacks to stop already. I am sorry that you were dragged into this. Your actions have been totally appropriate with respect to your own approach - you have expressed concern about COI editing, and written that the issue needs to be handled with thought and care. Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Petrarchan47, as we see Wikipedia is under considerable pressure, as I see it, from forces that are interested in seeing information presented in the way that they want it perceived. How to safely identify such forces can be problematic, but it seems likely to me that they exist here. Your edit is of value, and I agree that this article is being watched with near-obsessive interest. But here is the great thing, all edits are recorded and the history preserved. Consensus can change. With Viriditas blocked, the MAM article is likely to be "scrubbed." I have a great respect for Viriditas that comes from years of interaction, and I think he was making points that deserved consideration. The larger issues are fascinating to me, including the very strong possibility that Monsanto has targeted the MAM article. It is only logical to assume this, given the PR value and Monsanto's power. If this is true, sooner or later a whistle blower may step forward. Clearly the confrontational and arguably uncivil methods Viriditas was using are dangerous, as his three-month block shows. But the issues are much much bigger than this one article. The main Monasanto article, the GMO controversies article where I see you are active, the Glyphosate article where I made two edits that drew reverting, and hundreds if not thousands of others, are places where slant and information inclusion are debatable. I continue to mull over the direction I should take, but I was encouraged by a statement made by Jimmy Wales at the recent Wikimania. My comment to that is at User talk:Jimbo Wales currently. You might want to post your concerns at Jimmy's page, and see if he responds. If nothing else, you may find like-minded editors. I will continue to monitor the situation, and contemplate it. I salute you. Jusdafax00:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Note: i am very much not involved in any other articles that touch on the GMO issue, by design. I may have made a couple edits months ago, but not since or before. You might be thinking of someone else? Also, i made pretty cryptic remarks on Jimbo's page, do feel free to let me know if you think it would be prudent to elaborate at all. petrarchan47tc05:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see I misread you. I read this as "drop by and comment" at Jimbo's talk, but you were suggesting to maybe list concerns in a new section for him. I'm not feeling like getting much more involved, and have really been trying pull away entirely from the matter. But I will ponder this... petrarchan47tc08:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Jusdafax, I just wanted to weigh in to say that I saw your comments in the Jimbo talk page and agree. If you have any ideas on dealing with paid editing please keep me in the loop. Coretheapple (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome. I notified you just because I mentioned you and agree that you are not directly involved. Sorry to trouble you.Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey Jusdafax. I see that you changed the status of the Australian federal election, 2013 ITNC to needs update. I've added a results table and some prose regarding the post-election. Could you have another look at the article and, if you think it meets the update requirements, change to ready? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations, Jusdafax! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Pratyya(Hello!)05:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Could you help me please?
Hi jusdafax!
I would just like to say I'm new to this so please point out if I've done anything wrong here as I may take this up in my spare time :) .
I had this come up when I came here:
User talk:78.147.150.105
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
October 2009
<Information.png> Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Sole proprietorship has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Jusdafax 20:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this down to me randomly having the same IP or something else, as I can't think of any reason for it...
You mean this edit, a very mild case of vandalism from over four years ago by an IP who never edited otherwise. If that IP number has has been assigned to you I wouldn't worry about it, especially as you have registered an account name and are editing under it. If it troubles you I can either delete my message or add a note stating that the warning is moot under the circumstances, but I consider it extremely unlikely that it will ever impact you either way. Welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope, as the saying here goes, that you like the place and decide to stay! And please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or concerns. Jusdafax22:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. I hope other editors feel the same way, but as I say, I think this issue needs to be dealt with by the highest levels of the WMF. Jusdafax21:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey, sorry for the "Fundraising section" discussion getting a little heated. I understand you technically didn't say you believe I have a hostile POV, but in my mind it doesn't make much of a difference. You referred to "the perception that some may have, rightly or wrongly, that you have a hostile POV to Snowden" which strikes me as somewhat validating that perception, as well as being quite similar to, "Whatever you do don't think about a pink elephant!" I felt the need to counter that on the talk page. As for me being appearing to be "spoiling for a fight," I suppose it does appear that way, but it's a natural and appropriate response to being repeatedly and quite rudely (in my view) accused by multiple editors of acting in bad faith. I value civil debate and I hope more you're not the only editor who will engage in it. I, personally, am trying my hardest despite the baiting by some. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I appreciate your comments, and I thank you for coming here to clarify. My apologies if my manner appears uncivil, even in a backhanded fashion. I do feel that you could be discussed with in a calmer way by others on the talk page. Let's take a deep breath and move on. As it is two areas you have pointed to have been deleted, one by each of us, and this improves the article. There are additions that need to be made as well. I am serious about getting this article to GA status. See you on the talk page. Onward, and thanks again. Jusdafax22:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I hate seeing an edit summary like this--and it was perfectly correct of course. It's really a shame that an indef block is frequently the best we can do. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Not being an admin, I have never actually blocked anyone. A large moral responsibility to get it right! But I felt, as I noted in my comment, that the only alternative was to avoid pushing the problem to the next group of concerned Wikipedians, and I thank you for making the final call. I looked seriously at the possibility of a topic ban, but the more I studied the edit history, the more I saw an intractable editor running amok. We will never know how many future editor hours you spared with your block, and it is an honor working with you! Jusdafax21:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jusdafax. 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.
