JakeInJoisey

This user previously edited as User:JakeInJoisey (usurped).

An NPOV Disaster - Swift Vets and POWs for Truth

WP:Links to Avoid

Deleted Article - John Kerry VVAW Controversy

AfD Archive - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kerry VVAW controversy

"Swiftboating" Archive - Talk:Swiftboating/Archive 2

Topic Ban

Ownership

Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Swift Vets and POWs for Truth‎. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Continuing to blanket revert with the edit summary NICW "Controversial Topic" - Please discuss before editing - see discuss will lead to a block for disruptive behavior. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Swiftboating article

Jake - There has been a flurry of editing over at the Swiftboating article, with all sorts of opinion and wrong information thrown in. You are good about checking in on these articles, so I thought you'd want to know about that one too. I've tried to return it to its "original" version, but am pretty sure there will be plenty more edits made. Maybe there should be some sort of editing lock put on the page for awhile, 'till things settle down... ? --EECEE (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

EECEE, I've managed to stay clear of that imbroglio and have too much on my personal plate right now to even go near it.

I will say this tho, the "controversial" placard is on the talk page for a sound reason and its guidance should be adhered to religiously, threats of "ownership" notwithstanding. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Jake.--EECEE (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Jake - I am aware of the potentially controversial nature of the article, but I think that my edit did not insert any controversial information. I just added the link to "swiftboating" as a term into the article header because I noticed that it was only mentioned 5 pages into the article... Since my edit is neither substantial nor particularly partisan (in my opinion), I decided to be bold and forego an exhaustive discussion pre-edit. If you think that this is wrong, please say so. - Marcika (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice

I like your username haha. A8UDI 18:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

External links & malware

Because I was unsuccessful in soliciting advice on this subject from individual users, I've raised the issue at the External Links Noticeboard. Since you've got all the details, I suggest you explain the whole issue there.

Full link to the discussion A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Authorlink

No problem. Figuring out some of the behind the scenes stuff like templates can take a while. Happy editing! Coemgenus 14:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP violation notification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#BLP_vios_now_in_retaliation_on_the_World_Net_Dailying You are summoned there. Jon Osterman (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Alleged BLP violation notification

It is generally advisable to utilize the following Wikipedia recommended language in an AN/I alert to a fellow editor...

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

"Summoned" presents a rather pugilistic tone that is discouraged in the Wikipedia process...and the more appropriate word is "alleged".

For anyone interested in the response: WP/ANI Archive 602 --JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI report

Though you're probably already aware, I have reported your recent disruptive behavior to WP:ANI. I also take offense that you made an accusation against me at ANI without giving notice. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's "alleged" disruptive behavior. For anyone interested in the response: WP ANI Archive 602--JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Source

Would you mind letting me know when it is safe to edit the WorldNetDaily article, I don't mind waiting until your discussion is through. I only chanced upon the article today and knew little about them - only that a lot of the article content was obviously original research and without sources. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied at my talk page.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

See your user page

Congrats and good job Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick note

Just letting you know I haven't forgotten our discussions. Been a bit preoccupied very recently, but it is still very high on my list and I expect to be giving it more of my attention very soon. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the advisory...and, given yesterday's activity, I'm encouraged that the RS/N is still there to respond to. BTW, your willingness to at least engage is rather singular...and commendable. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a note

I'm not an admin. I'm just trying to keep the talk page readable. Thanks for giving the table a better title. --TS 23:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

...but the editor who reinstated your edit is. For the record, I would never and have never, ever presumed to edit the content or even the format of some other editor's contribution to a "talk" environment without at least the courtesy of some explanation or dialogue as to a rationale. Quite frankly, the thought of "collapsing" that table hadn't even occured to me...and, after some consideration, I actually LIKE it better that way (save for the title) and probably would have been easily swayed by a moment of dialogue. Kinda has that allure of viewing something hidden, ya know? Anyway, I suppose I could have been less caustic in my initial revert, and for that I apologize...but it's awful WARM in there right now. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Some advice

Take a break from your arguments about WND at WP:RSN. Let the current thread about WND fade into the archives naturally. By pushing this as you are, you run the risk of turning away editors who might actually support you.

Come back to RSN when you have a question about a specific citation supporting a specific statement in a specific article (ie "Is X from WND reliable for saying Y in article Z (include a link to dif so people can see exactly what you are talking about). Blueboar (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice and the spirit in which it is offered (seriously). However, I believe this RS/N road being traveled on WND may well pay possible dividends, not only for a more clear and credible assertion as to WND RS, but to RS considerations to other "sources" subject to the same, incessant RS/N inquiries as well. I believe Xenophrenic has that same type of resolution in mind...albeit a different "consensus".

As to the current imbroglio, it strains credulity (IMHO), given the opinions expressed in these 2 RS/N's thus far, that this ongoing RS/N might be considered even nearly "resolved" or that, even were a legitimate statement of "consensus" to be made right now, that the curent declared "consensus" could even pass a smell test. The next WND RS "objection" is going to point right back to that abominable "summary" of "consensus". No thanks Blueboar. Just...no thanks. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a serious mistake. You really are coming across as the one being disruptive in all this. I strongly suspect that if you continue to push it, you will end up being blocked for a while. Still... its your call. Blueboar (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm making every effort I can muster to keep this current discussion academic...but examining "sacred cows" is not without some potential consequence I guess. Your call right now, I'd suggest, Blueboar, is to examine the evidence and make a determination as to the validity of David Eppstein's summary archive. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have already done so... and found both his arguments and yours to be flawed. My opinion on the whole WND debate is that it should end... now... and only be re-opened if and when specifics are supplied as to exactly what material from WND we are talking about, and what statement in which article we are talking about. Blueboar (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite respectfully, you are simply being unresponsive to the question. Anyone rational should be more than capable of making a qualified assessment based on the material I presented versus Eppstein's "summation", nor has he presented ANY "argument" in defense of that assessment more than parroting the same overripe assessment of the earlier archiver...but thanks anyway. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct... I am intentionally being unresponsive... because the entire debate centers on a false premise. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Final warning

If you remove Blaxthos' opinion from your chart again ([1], [2]) I will seek to have you restricted from further editing of RSN or it's accompanied talk page. Only warning. Hipocrite (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

He is not changing your comments or their meaning. He is placing his opinion within a table which you happened to have made. Removing his input is a violation of what you continue to claim. –Turian (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

My summary of participating editor's contributions to the RS/N was made on the occasion of the premature and unilateral archiving of the RS/N. At the time of that archival, User:Blaxthos had made no contribution to either RS/N and would have had no bearing on the validity of the "archive summary" as it currently exists. If he wants a new chart, I'd suggest he makes his own to make whatever point it is he wishes to assert. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard & AN/I

Note: For any interested observer: AN/I Petition JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this and the spurious report you made to the edit-warring noticeboard, please take this as notice that if you continue to act in a non-collegial and disruptive manner on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise restricted from editing this page. Black Kite 13:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Spurious?

All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it.

Remarkable. Quite remarkable...and quite a precedent indeed. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Precedent? Sorry - no. You made a report to the edit-warring noticeboard which did not contain any edits by the editors you mentioned which violated any of the policies for which that noticeboard exists. Thus it is spurious. Indeed, the only person that appears to be edit-warring and causing disruption at the RSN is yourself. This is not a difficult concept - if you post anything outside your own userspace on Wikipedia you agree that it may be edited by other people subject of course to our policies on talkpage etiquette, civility, edit-warring and other collegial guidelines. If you do not want that to happen, then the only thing for you to do is create your content in your own sandbox and link to from the RSN page. And even then, if it contains comments about the opinions of other editors which they do not believe is correct, they can ask to have those comments corrected or removed. Black Kite 16:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll presume no further on your time or mine attempting to demonstrate to you that the editing of the content I authored fundamentally altered the purpose for which I composed it. Nor will I further suggest the relevancy of the PRIMARY directive under Talk page guidlines,Editing Comments, Other's Comments which reads as follows...

Never edit someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.

Nor will I attempt to demonstrate to you the breadth of diversity of opinion on the topic nor the speciousness of the "summary archive" imposed by the "archiver" that is demonstrated by that table I authored. Nor will I argue further that you have set a "precedent" indeed for something I haven't seen the likes of (the editing of another author's COMMENTS in "talk" [for gawd's sake]) in my 5+ years of editing in this medium.

Good day to you sir. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, last attempt; if you post information on a talkpage which purports to represent all interested editor's views on an issue, you should not be surprised if (a) editors who you've missed out add themselves to that information, or (b) if editors who believe you've misrepresented them change that information. It's as simple as that. If you don't want your edits altering, don't attempt to represent anyone's opinion but your own without their express permission. I hope that's clear now. Thanks, Black Kite 18:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

...if you post information on a talkpage which purports to represent all interested editor's views on an issue,...

Um...you left out a rather salient qualifier, "...who had contributed to the RS/N prior to the archival". Do you even have a clue about what's transpiring in that discussion, more particularly, in those edits?

...and may I also add (as long as you insist on pursuing the subject), it might have been, shall we say, somewhat Solomonesque had you been even 1/10th as solicitous of my position prior to pronouncing your summary execution.JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, from a brief view of the entire talkpage it appears that you are agitating for this website to be regarded as a reliable source for citations other than about itself, when there is a long history of general consensus that it is not. Would that be a correct summary? Incidentally, I just had a brief look at the website myself, clicked on the first news story ([3]) and saw adverts for "NOBAMA" t-shirts, an advert saying "Stop Liberal Media Bias!", ad no less than seven special offers - from the website itself - for anti-Obama merchandise. This doesn't strike me as something that anyone should be claiming as a reliable source, any more than over here in the UK we'd try to use the Morning Star, for example. Black Kite 19:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sir. The venue for your exploration of the RS/N issues are the RS/N's, not my talk page. The venue for the exploration of my petition should have been the AN/I, not my talk page. I'm done here. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. & FYI User talk:Blaxthos#Edit warring JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

WND & "Sacred Cows"

Jake, why are you so concerned about this one source? The Internet contains dozens/hundreds of reliable sources (BBC News, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, etc.). Why not just find another one?

BTW, I suggest you drop this soon. You're starting to piss off the regulars at WP:RSN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

While it shouldn't surprise you (and, if it does, then I'd suggest both myself and Xenophrenic have failed dismally to inspire it), at this point WND's WP:RS status has paled in importance, IMHO, relative to the importance of elevating RS/N's on ideologically biased sources to something more than vote tabulations to see who can gather the most "me too's". Perhaps a hypothetical...

Assume, for the sake of argument, that a "Consensus" is illegitimate in its foundation in fact...and let's call it a "sacred cow". The veracity and viability of that "sacred cow" can only be maintained by the REPETITION of its existence by its progenitors and adherents. Under what method of legitimate intellectual examination for validity might that "sacred cow" be tested WITHOUT inspiring some frustration and/or subsequent allegations of "disruption" by those same progenitors and/or proponents? Suppose we start there? The floor is yours.

P.S. I've taken the liberty of re-titling the section. Plz feel free to amend it at your discretionJakeInJoisey (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

At best, you can open a RfC or post a message at WP:V and ask for more feedback. However, this might be seen as forum-shopping and disruptive behavior, so I don't recommend it at this point. I recommend you find a source like BBC News, Washington Post, etc. for your cites. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I recommend you find a source like BBC News, Washington Post, etc. for your cites.

"Cites" to what purpose? These 2 WND RS/N's passed well beyond a consideration of specific cites to a consideration of the totality of WND WP:RS long ago. (on Edit) In fact, upon re-consideration, the RS/N themselves, as presented, don't even refer to specific cites. Your comment is not clear. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Fan Mail

How about you stop being disruptive and whiny? All of these problems have stemmed from your behavior. It must be easy pointing the finger at someone else for all of your problems. Also, you have no right to edit his post. Sound familiar? It's the dead horse you beat the hell out of yet yelled at others for doing the same. –Turian (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Always a delight to see you stopping by Turian...and your provision of Exhibit 1 is timely and appreciated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I thought the polite request above to stop disrupting the RS/N talkpage was fairly clear - so I'm not entirely sure why you thought this and some of the other edits you made to the page today would be a good idea. Removing a personal attack? Fine. Refactoring other people's comments yet again? Disruptive. Thus...

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for persistent disruption at WP:RS/N after repeated warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 14:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your notation and acknowledgement that a "personal attack" was leveled against me within the RS/N "talk" environment is appreciated. However, for clarity and so that I might fully comprehend the rationale for this block, please cite, specifically, the instances of "Refactoring other people's comments yet again" to which you refered but did not specify. Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would not have had a problem with you removing the "troll" part of Blaxthos' comment. However, removing all of his comments, not just that part, was incorrect. More importantly, the link I gave above shows you removing David Eppstein's comment and replacing it with your own which is exactly what you were told not to keep doing above. Black Kite 14:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And, just for the record, another fact. What you refer to as "David Eppstein's comment" had, in fact, already been edited. Oh yes, his "sig" was still on it, but it was no longer "his" comment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate both your consideration of my inquiry and your reply. Now, if I understand your position correctly, I am being "blocked" due to my "refactoring" (assumedly the same as "removal" in toto) of Blaxthos' "Disruptive Behavior" section in the RS/N "Talk" environment and because my "edit" of the existing "archival summary" composition was "disruptive". I should have noted this in my first inquiry, but you also mention "some of the other edits you made to the page today" as reflecting, perhaps, the antithesis of "a good idea" inre, I can only assume, editorial contribution. Shall I assume that equates to being "disruptive" as well? If so, can you please cite, specifically, the "other edits" to which your observation refers? Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

WND discussions & "Block" Imposition

Just so you know... I have archived both the discussions about WND on the main RSN board and the disruptive talk page discussions. I left the "archive summary" in your version (this means you can say you "won" the debate about that and you have no reason to de-archive it). I hope you will consider the matter closed when you return from your block. Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It is somewhat ironic that your apparent desire to just "make this go away" has, in effect, simply assured that the same issue will now be resurrected again, still in fine fettle, in an assuredly upcoming RS/N. I tried. I believe Xenophrenic tried (though not nearly as hard)...and at least one other contributor saw some wisdom in making the effort.

As to my personal views on your particular contributions to this RS/N (though you appear to be under little or no personal constraint in offering your observations on or characterizations of MY contributions), in the interest of peace on earth, I'll decline to comment...save for one observation.

IMHO, it is only by the slimmest of threads and vestiges of personal intellectual integrity you have remnant that I would even choose to consider entertaining your observations...on anything. I believe you knew (all along) that the "archival summary" statement by David Eppstein wouldn't even pass a smell test no less an examination as to the veracity of its summation. My now-infamous "table" (relatively speaking anyway) put the "fallacy" stamp to that...pronto. Yet you said or did NOTHING to rebut that patent untruth...simply because you were unhappy with the "framing" of the "question" as posed in the RS/N. Some "profile in courage". Not until the RS/N was on life-support did you finally man-up enough to state what you KNEW to be true all along...that the "archival summary" was FALSE...and you took the a step necessary to correct the summary. You can sleep better at night for that. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the issues raised in the previous RS/N, I would suggest that any further discussion of this issue be raised at an RfC, because I am pretty sure that the patience of the RS/N board has been exhausted by now. This would allow you to frame your arguments in a far more neutral venue and one that has many more eyes on it than RS/N. Black Kite

With all due respect sir, this (cough) "discussion" was initiated by more gratuitous insult guised as informative comment. As to your participation in this issue, I have made an inquiry (as I believe I am entitled to do) as to the exact nature of the rationale for the "block" you have imposed. Rather than cluttering my talk page with "advice" as to how to further address a subject about which you demonstrably had little or no prior knowledge, perhaps you would better serve your function by responding to my inquiry above so that I might afford myself of some opportunity for defense, an opportunity previously denied me in your last summary execution. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I have to state the obvious repeatedly. My above comment, however, was actually aimed at enabling you to bring your concerns to a more neutral forum that hasn't already been tainted by the previous issues. This was meant to be helpful to you; you can take it as you wish. this will be my last comment here. However, please note that if you cause disruption at RS/N again, as is suggested by your comment above "the same issue will now be resurrected again, still in fine fettle, in an assuredly upcoming RS/N" it is likely that the community's patience will run out completely. Black Kite 00:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Remarkable. When digging yourself a credibility hole, the best first step is to stop digging. Were you even semi clued-in to the RS/N, you'd understand that my comment..."the same issue will now be resurrected again" is in reference to the PROLIFIC record of prior RS/N debates on WND. My efforts (in tandem with Xenophrenic and, hopefully any other interested editor) was to be an attempt to establish a much more substantive basis upon which to render future judgements. But, perhaps, Xenophrenic expressed it better than I did...

Your basic concern is still warranted, however. Like you, I'd like to see definitive reasoning behind the obvious consensus that WND does not live up to Wikipedia's reliability standards. The consensus surely must rest on something more substantive than widespread personal opinion. If this is to be the "FINAL ANSWER", as the header of this discussion indicates, let's push for something engraved in stone - something that can be referenced with confidence in inevitable future discussions of this nature. But where, or whom do we push? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Instead, you characterize my comment as some veiled threat of planned for future disruption. Why am I not surprised?

As to "I don't believe I have to state the obvious repeatedly", I assume you are refering to my petition for you to fulfill your obligation to inform me of the exact nature of the rationale for imposing the "block". I will repeat it again as you have apparently overlooked it...

I should have noted this in my first inquiry, but you also mention "some of the other edits you made to the page today" as reflecting, perhaps, the antithesis of "a good idea" inre, I can only assume, editorial contribution. Shall I assume that equates to being "disruptive" as well? If so, can you please cite, specifically, the "other edits" to which your observation refers? Thank you.

Please advise me of the specific "other edits" to which you refered. It's your function. Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually my "function" here isn't to keep answering your increasingly wikilawyering questions. But since you ask, the two edits were the one linked above (which frankly given your previous record was enough for a block on its own) and this which removed far more content that could be argued for by claiming to remove a personal attack. And that's after such edits as this, this and this, which included claims of vandalism against other users in good standing and which you were previously warned about, not to mention other issues like your spurious report to the edit-warring noticeboard or your edit-war with other users on the Swift Boat article which appeared to start this whole issue off. Now, please post an unblock request if you wish to be unblocked. Thanks. Black Kite 11:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Now, please post an unblock request if you wish to be unblocked. Thanks.

I am not soliciting either suggestions, gratuitous presumptions from you as to my rationale for requesting clarification, gratuitous characterizations of my request itself nor a rehash of your perceptions of what transpired prior to issuance of this block. What I am soliciting, as is my understanding of Wikipedia policy regarding the imposition of "blocks",...

Notifying the blocked user

Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked. Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them.

...is the clarification of your stated rationale.

This is what you offered in that regard...

I thought the polite request above to stop disrupting the RS/N talkpage was fairly clear - so I'm not entirely sure why you thought this and some of the other edits you made to the page today would be a good idea. Removing a personal attack? Fine. Refactoring other people's comments yet again? Disruptive. Thus...

Your reference to "...some of the other edits you made to the page today would be a good idea" is nebulous and non-specific.

On my request for specificity, rather than identifying "other edits you made to the page today" (April 6), you, instead, offer a rehash of edits made PRIOR to "today" (April 4th to be exact), which, as you also noted, had already been the subject of prior "warnings" resulting from my previously submitted AN/I. Do you now wish to amend or clarify your original blocking rationale? In fact, wasn't this "block" triggered solely by the only 2 edits you specified? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me spare you the trouble...

Upon further examination of my "contributions" (disruptions?), the lack of specificity as to "other edits to the page today" becomes clear. There were no "other edits". Here, in their entirety, are ALL edits I made to either the RS/N OR the RS/N "Talk" page after your "final warning"...

• 09:37, 5 April 2010 Black Kite (talk | contribs) (13,405 bytes) (?Final warning: definitely a last warning): (diff)

...posted to my talk page on 5 April:

• 08:24, 6 April 2010 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ‎ (purposefully unsigned as any archival summation should reflect a consensus of contributing editors - see discussion): (diff)

• 08:30, 6 April 2010 (hist | diff) Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ? (?Archival "Summary" of RS/N: new section): (diff)

• 08:34, 6 April 2010 (hist | diff) Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ? (additional text): (diff)

• 08:49, 6 April 2010 (hist | diff) Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ? (personal attack removed as inappropriate and irrelevant within this talk environment): (diff)

• 08:51, 6 April 2010 (hist | diff) Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ? (Inappropriate forum in which to launch personal attacks or to allege "disruptive bahavior"): (diff)

That's it, and then...

• 10:27, 6 April 2010 Black Kite (talk | contribs) (23,572 bytes) (Blocked): [4]

As the "contribution" record clearly evidences, I made NO "...other edits to the page today" and your offered rationale for the imposition of the block was unclear. In fact, your imposition of the "block" is based solely upon the 2 edits you actually cited.

In your reply today to a post by Blaxthos on your "Talk" page, you stated the following (emphasis mine)...

Yes, I agree - I was merely pointing out to JJ that if he had merely removed the "troll" comment he might've had the defence that he was removing a personal attack; however, he removed the entire comment, and then went on to refactor other people's comments, so he has little defence. Black Kite 23:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be considerably interested in being apprised of just where it is you purport I "went on to refactor other people's comments"? JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JakeInJoisey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

2 edits were offered by the imposing admin to warrant blocking... *1. The RS/N "Archival summary" edit cited [5] marked the start of my edit and was NOT "disruptive". The end product still resides, as I submitted it [6] (and, in fact, supported by another editor) in the now-archived RS/N. In addition, I created a "Talk" section to support discussion of this edit. Is this an example of "disruptive" editing for which I should have been blocked? If the submission of an accurate and apparently credible "archive summary" is "disruptive", then a "block" is small price to pay for the accurate summation of the fruit of almost one month's worth of RS/N discussion. *2. An editor created a "section" on the RS/N "Talk" page entitled "Disruptive Behavior" (original edit now inaccessible in archive). In that section my contributions were attacked as "disruptive" and I was labeled a "troll". I removed that section as inappropriate content for the "Talk" environment as there are much more appropriate Wikipedia processes designed specifically to entertain and consider such allegations. The "block" imposing admin upheld my deletion of the "troll" content but found my deletion of the remainder to be "disruptive". Are allegations of "disruption" any less offensive or appropriate than "troll" epithets or any less "disruptive" to a consensus building process within a talk environment? If it is considered acceptable conduct under Wikipedia guidelines that editors can, at their discretion, launch accusations of "disruptive editing" within a sectioned "Talk Page" environment, then my deletion of that section was unwarranted and the imposition of a temporary "block" on my further editing was justifiable. I would suggest, however, that it is NOT acceptable content for a "Talk" page environment and urge any reviewing authority to consider the implications before deeming it to be so.

Decline reason:

This edit alone would be sufficient for a preventative block - refactoring a summary comment for a closure with completely different wording and meaning is beyond acceptable. I have taken a lot of time to review every single one of your contributions since that - no matter how minor. Although you have wide latitude on your own talkpage, you moved, renamed, and cherry-picked (ie kept some, deleted others) posts from another user - changing the title to "fan mail" when it clearly was nothing of the sort. These actions completely modified the intended meaning of the message. The rather intensive wikilawyering since, and the WP:BATTLE attitude prior shows that this is a good block: surprisingly short, but valid. I do hope that you return to editing in a more collegial manner, and worry less about the WP:TRUTH. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This edit alone would be sufficient for a preventative block - refactoring a summary comment for a closure with completely different wording and meaning is beyond acceptable.

Interesting observation, given that the original "summary content" had ALREADY been edited (and, I'd suggest, rightfully so), but NOT by ME. In fact, the "synopsis" as written was not even based on the editor's OWN synopsis, but upon the opinion of another editor's prior attempt to archivewhich was criticized by the majority of editors who chose to comment within the "Talk" discussion on the issue.

An archival header offering a "summation" of an RS/N is hardly the bailiwick for the unilateral imposition of a SINGLE editor's PERSONAL synopsis of content. Nor is the Wikipedia propriety of even PRESUMING to unilaterally and manually "close" an ongoing RS/N settled, to say NOTHING of incorporating and imposing a single editor's PERSONAL synopsis within that "archival summary" as "gospel".

This RS/N has opened a veritable "Pandora's Box" of issues not the least of which is the degree of Wikipedia editorial protection that should be afforded to any editor's "contributions". I hope to explore them in more depth within an appropriate Wikipedia venue. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Good article review

The article is a Good Article nominee. Please see the box at the top of Talk:DeSmogBlog. It might also be nice if you moved your comment out of review - it's cluttered enough as is. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your respose and hope you understand it in the spirit it is being offered. That being said, you've not really addressed my question. Are these "Good Article Reviews" normally appended to the bottom of an article talk page as well as being noted at the top?

Also, I fully intend to delete my comments from your "review" as I've no desire to clutter your "review process" with "wiki process" questions.

Thanks JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes GA Reviews have their own talk page but that page is transcluded to the article's talk page. This allows for a degree of transparency so other editors can see what is happening and add comments if they see fit. Once the review is completed it is added to the article's history, which appears at the top of the page. Hope this answers your question. If you'd like more information on the GA Review process you can go to WP:GAC and read all about it. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the information. I've just never seen this in talk before. I'll delete my "wiki process" comments from the review. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just reviewed WP:GAC and I see nothing suggesting or recommending that the review be "transcluded" to the article talk page. My problem with this is that it appears to be an unwarranted manipulation of the process going above and beyond what appears to be the conceptualization of a WP:GAC...which is the voluntary review by a single editor.

WP:GAC contains the following instruction...

• Read the whole article, and decide whether it should pass or fail based on the criteria listed here. You can also put the article "On Hold" or ask for a second opinion. If you wish, you can inform the nominator of your actions (e.g., using {{subst:GANotice}}). The template {{subst:FGAN}} may help you organize the critique. You can also use {{subst:GAList}} or {{subst:GAList2}} to generate a checklist.
• Reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to fix problems with the article under review.

Nowhere does it recommend appending a copy of the "review" to the "talk" page which, IMHO, adds unnecessary clutter to the page itself.

Perhaps, however, this is more a matter for Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

RS/N and RfC

I have commented here. Hope I helped! --Jubilee♫clipman 18:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jubilee, as I read the WP:RfC information, they are generally utilized to solicit additional input on issues that may arise in the editing of a particular article and are to be placed within the respective article "talk" page. "Noticeboard" discussions are a different breed of cat than are "articles" and their "talk" pages are not designed to host "discussions" ongoing within the noticeboards themselves but rather issues related to the noticeboard itself. However, individual noticeboard discussions can also benefit from additional input just as much as can "article" discussions, hence my inquiry. I hope that clarifies the reason for my query. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts at getting more participation in the RSN discussion, but it still seems to me the best way to try to find a consensus on this subject is to do an RfC and advertise it at CENT as you suggest. Cla68 (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Colgan/Frontline

I wanted follow up on one comment you made about the Frontline episode. You called it a "hatchet job". Of course everyone should draw their own conclusions but I was curious about how your developed yours.

After you watched the episode, did you also read any of the other press reports around this issue to see whether Frontline is indeed an outlier? Here are a few: USA Today, MSNBC, The Wall Street Journal, LA Times, The Associate Press (picked up by several papers), The New York Times, Fox News. There are more from a variety of sources at different times since the accident.

Finally, given that the FAA is opening up a special summit on the issue of airline safety following Colgan [7], suggests that there are systemic issues and Frontline is not the only entity questioning this.

Anyway, let me know.Mattnad (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually "hit job" was my euphemism of choice and that characterization was utilized based on your earlier contribution to the article itself and the ensuing dialogue in both "talk" and the RS/N. I have not seen the Frontline episode itself and am not particularly interested in the issue. My concern with the edit is/was a matter of propriety under WP:UNDUE given the proposed "guidance" of the WikiProject which was rather interestingly struck apparently to accommodate your edit and which, I suspect, will probably be addressed by interested members of the WikiProject at their convenience. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The proposed guidance of the wikiproject had its own issues that another editor saw fit to question including instructions for blanket censorship of anything that was not from a short list of sources. I doubt those would survive any serious debate in Wikipedia. And sorry about misquoting you. But I'm still interested in getting your reaction to the Frontline piece and the multiple other articles when you have a chance. You may change your mind. No hurry.Mattnad (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt those would survive any serious debate in Wikipedia.

Perhaps so, perhaps not. I suppose that will be determined if/when interested WikiProject participants (of which I am not) choose to address it.

But I'm still interested in getting your reaction to the Frontline piece and the multiple other articles when you have a chance.

Sorry, but I'm really not interested in the regional airline safety issue. If you feel that strongly about it, I suggest you consider creating an article to host it. I believe your current edit reflects a fair consensus under the status quo and I'm moving on. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Believe it or not, I didn't actually notice your change to the header... thanks for changing it back though. ++Lar: t/c 13:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

While I'm loathe to go anywhere near the CC "black hole", I will use this opportunity to commend you (overdue) for your fortitude in wading in and swimming upstream. I believe you have your finger on the pulse of just what ails this Wikipedia medium and your efforts, thus far, have been Olympian.

I'll also offer one observation. There are 2 "loyalties" at play here, one ideological and the other allegiance to the Wikipedia concept/principles of conduct. It is plainly clear that, for some on the "administrative" level, the former will trump the latter everytime. How that level of bias and demonstrable subjugation of fundamental Wikipedia guidelines continues to be countenanced by ongoing "administrator" status is beyond my level for consideration...and both disquieting and bewildering. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please

Please try to not make comments like this "I'll anxiously await the debut of your sequel, "'The Gore Effect' Effect". Hurry before "Scrappleface" gets hold of this. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)"[8] and question a users language skills as you do here. Ask in a polite way that you don't understand what he/she says. Secondly, it's not illegal to edit Wikipedia if you're not an native speaker… Nsaa (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect for your multi-lingual capability, I'd suggest you are both misreading, misinterpreting and over-reacting to my brief inquiry and comment, perhaps because of some personal hyper-sensitivity on the subject of editing second-language article content.

If you will take a moment to note the following exchange which preceded my comment, it was not I who initially raised the question of some communication difficulty...

I guess if my vote got Polentario to push back with such incoherent blather, it bodes well for my point. Sl?ggo 17:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Uf the enWP wants to stay the The Village That Voted The Earth Was Flat, go all along. --Polentario (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess if my vote...ah, the hell with it. Thanks, buddy. Sl?ggo 17:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note in particular Polentario's response. It is, in fact, incomprehensible and I fully concur with Sl?ggo's characterization...which also reflected my own recently growing sense that Polentario's command of written English can be, at times, somewhat deficient.

My query was simply to confirm that fact and, upon confirmation, I was quick to praise his demonstrated capability...

Well, his English is a farsight better than my German...

That being said, I'm always reluctant to edit another editor's contributions for what I deem to be simply poor composition skills, and, now fully aware of the situation inre Polentario, I said...

I'll feel less restrained in the future editing his contributions there.

Perhaps a better word might have been "reticent", but my query and subsequent comment were neither uncivil nor barbed...as you appear to have interpreted them.

Ask in a polite way that you don't understand what he/she says.

If and when the occasion arises, that would be my natural instinct.

Secondly, it's not illegal to edit Wikipedia if you're not an native speaker…

That's what, apparently, you think I said, not what I actually said. Please read, again, my quote and feel free to comment accordingly if you're so inclined...

I'm not sure he's quite up to editing English article content.

Perhaps I could have added "without compositional corrections", but I'll stand by that assessment which is demonstrable in some of his edit's thus far to "The Gore Effect". For the record and as far as I'm concerned, he's welcome to edit as he pleases but should probably anticipate corrective compositional edits when he does.

As to your initial observation on "The 'Gore Effect' Effect", I'll simply note without further comment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I misinterpreted you here. I've just seen a lot of not so good communication between the waring fractions on the AGW-area, and it's a bit unpleasant to be there, so maybe I'm a bit anxious ... Best regards Nsaa (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No prob...and good effort with your citation work. Ciao ! JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refactor

This[9] is a rather blatant failure in assumption of good faith. Perhaps you should try to address issues not editors? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think not. In fact, it is entirely plausible for you to be AGF and still exhibit PRECISELY the characteristics and editing behavior I stated. Good day. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The failure in assumption of good faith is yours - not mine. Does that clear it up? Even if you think that i am wrong, you are required to assume good faith. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above, my observations on your position are not inconsistent with an assumption on my part that you were/are acting in good faith. In fact, in my tenure in this medium, that accusation against another editor has never crossed my keypad. And you?

I believe you are quite wrong in your good faith understanding of Wikipedia policy inre BLP policy and article tagging (as apparently do many others), but I have no issues with your being anything other than good faith wrong. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Worse than tiresome

I'll look into it further. If I've misinterpreted something else, please feel free to tell me. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please point me to the ongoing discussion

[10] Where is the ongoing discussion about "sometimes"? Active Banana (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus building has to start somewhere...and nothing is written in granite. While you're free to try to score rhetorical points as you please, I'd suggest participation in an attempt at consensus building to be a more fruitful use of your time and talent but...whatever floats yer boat. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Request

I am under a restriction currently which prohibits my inserting new references into any climate change related article. If you have time would you look over the refs used in this article to ensure they all meet wp standards, thanks mark nutley (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I'm sorry but I would really prefer to remain at arm's length from the CC imbroglio. "The Gore Effect" is as close as I want to get to it and that's already giving me agita. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Fully understand mate, thanks anyway :) mark nutley (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see my talk page

I have another response to your comment there. Thanks. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

AGW

If you care, I know. Ask William M. Connolley (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed what appear to be the relevant deliberations on the question I raised as linked to by JohnWBarber. Your opinion appears to be already well-represented there and, unless you've overlooked some additional contribution that warrants mention or clarification, I don't see any purpose in repeating them here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC for Media Matters for America at WP:RS

Hello there. You recently participated in a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the systematic removal of Media Matters for America as a reliable source. I've started an RfC regarding MMfA, MRC, FAIR, Newsbusters etc. Please participate on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton

Hello. I accidentally reverted your deletion of some info in the article. I was giving my revert second thoughts when I hit Save instead of Show. Can I revert my own stupid mistake or does it have to be done by someone else? I want to avoid the 3RR abyss. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just self-revert and it doesn't count for any 3RR. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but somebody beat me to it! :) Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Playschool humour on ANI

Your ten insertions in my shortish post have of course rendered that post unreadable. Would you like to rescue it by removing your wit? Bishonen | talk 15:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC).

[only 10? I must have been exercising more discretion than warranted - JIJ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeInJoisey (talk • contribs)

Playschool humor? Wit? Hardly. A demonstration of the absurdity inherent in your peevish (playschoolish?) harrassment and wikilawyering against another admin's legitimate and MOST appropriate (I'd venture you'll soon learn) exercise of his responsibility to this medium? Precisely. Nor am I unmindful of the condescending, puerile and too-cute-by-half title with which you labeled (and for which, IMHO, The Wordsmith is due an apology) this patently vindictive AN/I.

Your ten insertions in my shortish post have of course rendered that post unreadable.

Perhaps your post was, indeed, rendered "unreadable" to some, though I "made it very clear which bits were inserted" by me and "didn't actually change" your post. I'm encouraged that you now seem to better comprehend the "readability" ramifications of the Pandora's box which you apparently, rather self-servingly and short-sightedly, now advocate for opening.

While WP:POINTing appears to be at the heart of your AN/I, my WP:POINT has been made (and acknowledged) and I will revert, with appropriate apologies to the community, my "non-edit". JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

BlackKite appears to have beat me to the punch. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Your WP:PA in the title of this section is objectionable. Please change it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your humour is not amusing, it is rude and childish, hence the playschool reference. Cutting-in to posts by another user inappropriate. You should have been blocked, again, for disruptive editing. Jack Merridew 21:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI regarding SemDem

I started an ANI regarding SemDem. His comments on the talkpage and the Daily Kos comments are too close to dismiss. At the minimum he is working closely with the Daily Kos poster. Arzel (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't believe this needs to be escalated to that level nor do I believe that "proof" of the off-wiki co-identity or collusion (without an admission by the perp involved) can be established to a degree that might warrant admin intervention . IMHO, the canvassing and attempted RfC vote-stacking itself does their position no service and you should, perhaps, be grateful for the ham-handedness of the opposition. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I only think it needs to be escalated in order to try to prevent future attempts. If the Daily Kos people think this methods works in the least then they will do it again in the future on other topics. Arzel (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Fox News Channel controversies

Maybe not your intent, but I thought that was funny. =P Akerans (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Gallows humor? :) JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Not gallows, felt more like slapstick. Akerans (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was standup. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The best Michael Winslow impersonation ever. Akerans (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Partisan sources

I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Strong exception

Jake, I take strong exception to your recent request for sources. It is absolutely and totally dilatory and counterproductive. A few days ago, when I posted sources, you replied "WP:V for the "criticism" is uncontested and irrelevant to the RfC." Now you are claiming those sources (split between news articles and editorials) either were not in evidence or from unreliable sources. Every one of them is a mainstream media source. I would request you consider your position and state it succinctly; I have little patience for moving goalposts. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My "goalposts" have not moved one inch since the inception of this discussion...but your apparent inability to consistently comprehend the issue is both remarkable and frustrating. WP:V for the "criticism" IS uncontested but that is NOT the issue raised in the RfC (which was, in hindsight, HIGHLY prejudicial among its more notable faults). The issue is whether or not this "criticism" warrants inclusion as a valid "Fox News Controversy". Are we on the same page so far? JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciated you earlier pointing out that I was using criticism and controversy interchangeably, which might have led to some confusion. I believe I follow your argument, which is that the criticism or controversy itself must, in your view, originate from a non-partisan source (or be shared by such a source) to be considered eligible for inclusion. Is this your view? --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this your view?

Absolutely not. The "originator" of the "criticism" is, in the final equation, irrelevant as long as it can be reasonably demonstrated that the contention (in this case a "Fox News Controversy") is adequately supported by relevant citations from less patently-partisan sources. You stated yourself that Wikipedia (if I might paraphrase) "...cannot (and should not)" serve as a platform for the wanton dissemination (and implied endorsement of substance) of partisan propaganda...then you attempted to qualify that statement in a fashion that I'm not sure we mightn't be able to find some qualified agreement. One thing for certain (at least as far as I know), "controversy" in undefined by WP P&G and, without an adequate guideline, it is left for editors to resolve every suggested content inclusion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying all you ask is for non-partisan reporting on the controversy? Which of my list of 30+ mainstream press outfits did you consider partisan? --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting closer TeaDrinker, but we're STILL not on the same page. I'm asking for non-partisan (I'll even accept biased, like something from CBS news) that lends substance to the contention that it is A. a "controversy" period and B. a "controversy" that allegedly reflects on the journalistic integrity of "Fox News".

Are we there yet? JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly not. There's no question reliable sources have reported on allegations the donation has undermined the integrity of FOX. Is your confusion on a controversy versus a criticism? --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Then the resolution is a simple one. Please provide citations from non-partisan sources (not links to articles) that you purport support your case. Why is this so difficult? JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I gave you more than 30 citations to newspapers and other mainstream media sources. What is wrong with them? --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Again. Those are not citations. They are links to articles. A citation is text + attribution. Without text, it's anyone's guess as to what is purported to be relevant. I provided 3 citations (twice, I believe, on your request and about which you made no comment) that argued for non-inclusion as a "Fox News Controversy". JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I see your confusion. Actually, citation commonly means just the reference (see citation). An annotation provides a description of the work and it's relevance, but that is rarely included in a citation. I don't think your quotes have demonstrated what you believe they demonstrate, but others have pointed that out as well. But to be clear, if you have citations with annotations, you will accept the material they describe should be included? --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"MY confusion"? A "citation" doesn't exist independent of content it is referencing. Why the word games?

I don't think your quotes have demonstrated what you believe they demonstrate, but others have pointed that out as well.

Then I must have missed some rebuttal. I don't recall anything memorable other than the sound of crickets.

But to be clear, if you have citations with annotations, you will accept the material they describe should be included?

I believe my position should have been rather clear several moons ago. If they support a contention that this is a "Fox News Controversy", I will vote to include. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we may have a point of genuine factual confusion. A citation, in the common usage, does not mean with an annotation. In common practice, the reader is expected to independently locate and review the cited material. That's what you got, 30+ citations for you to take to the library. My posting summaries or quotes is just for you. -TeaDrinker (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In common practice, the reader is expected to independently locate and review the cited material.

In Wikipedia practice, specific content is associated with a citation. It might be a paraphrase, it might be a quote. Without provision of specific text from a purported source, a reader is required to make an assumption as to what source content is being referenced. However that specificity is addressed in the English language is what I have been soliciting and is what I provided in the 3 "citations" I offered. If my solicitation (and personal source offerings) failed to adequately demonstrate (3 times) the information I was requesting then I apologize for my failure to communicate.

My posting summaries or quotes is just for you.

...and if 3 of those "summaries" or "quotes" from other than known partisan sources demonstrate that this event is sufficiently notable as a "Fox News Controversy", I will vote to include.

Back to your list of demands. You wrote "You offer Olbermann, Burns, Ed Schultz and Daschle as non-partisan sources?" What is it you're objecting to? I give you national commentators leveling their objections; if you're not rejecting these folks because you think they're biased, why? --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Back to your list of demands.

That you choose to characterize my request for information as "demands" is troubling. Nevertheless, this is relevant to the RfC discussion and I won't entertain it further here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious where you're getting this "Wikipedia practice." I've been here quite some time and this is the first time I have heard that all citations must be annotated. Nevertheless, I trust since now annotations have been provided as well for several independent sources reporting on the criticism, you're in agreement that the content should be included. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious where you're getting this "Wikipedia practice."

As you appear intent on pursuing an exercice in word parsing rather than reaching an understanding JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC), this will be my final attempt at explaining my request to you. In Wikipedia, "citations" serve to validate specific content included in articles and do not exist independent of that content. You can better support your position by citing relevant content from your purported sources and, apparently, have opted to do so.

I trust...you're in agreement that the content should be included.

Not yet...but I'll address that question in the RfC discussion...where it belongs. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course I am trying to understand the words you use. I don't understand what it is you would find convincing. Citations to reliable sources which are not partisan which report the criticism, with annotations to those citations so you don't have to look them up. --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Then I'll demonstrate further...

Citations to reliable sources which are not partisan which report the criticism...

Nope...

Citations from reliable sources which are not partisan and support characterization of the "criticism" as a "Fox News Controversy".

Yup.

...with annotations to those citations so you don't have to look them up.

Nope...

...with cited quotes from those sources which can be examined for WP:V

Yup.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your continued discussion, however I'm not sure what you mean by "Citations from reliable sources which are not partisan and support characterization of the 'criticism' as a 'Fox News Controversy'." How is that different from reporting the controversy? Are you requiring the source share or take ownership of the criticism/controversy? --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

How is that different from reporting the controversy?

First, that's alleged "Fox News Controversy". It would establish that adequate, non-partisan reliable sources would be willing to even report it as an alleged "Fox News Controversy".

Are you requiring the source share or take ownership of the criticism/controversy?

That would certainly make for a stronger inclusion case, though I haven't seen one cited yet. Nevertheless, it is not mandatory.

For a good example of what I reject wholesale, please see the cites from PBS and Channel 4 submitted by Akerans.

Your Kurtz cite, thus far, is not impressive though you do suggest, perhaps, something more relevant...but as yet uncited. However, I will comment further in the RfC...where this belongs. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your interest in returning to the RfC page, if you would not mind, I am following your statements here much more clearly than there. I'd like to request to continue this discussion until I can make sense of the sort of things you believe are necessary to include something. I'm rather frustrated since I keep providing what I think is exactly what you're requesting, only to find it is not quite it. If a non-partisan, reliable source reports on people making criticism, people responding to that criticism, and so on, how is that not reporting a controversy? --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If a non-partisan, reliable source reports on people making criticism, people responding to that criticism, and so on, how is that not reporting a controversy?

TeaDrinker, do you not understand that you are "presuming facts not in evidence" and that verifiability of that "criticism" as a legitimate "Fox News Controversy" is in the language of the RfC itself? The TITLE of this article is "Fox News Controversies". There IS NO Wikipedia guidance on what might be considered a "controversy". It is therefore incumbent upon editors to determine, via reliable sourcing, that this is a legitimate "Fox News Controversy". You simply can't rely on hyper-partisan sources to make that determination. You have said so yourself in not so many words...and you keep making the same mistake over and over and over...equating the existence of a hyper-partisan "CRITICISM" with "Fox News Controversy" and failing to see the distinction. THAT question must be answered via the provision of adequate, non-partisan reliable sourcing that reports this News Corp donation "criticism" as being relevant to or even alleged to be relevant to "Fox News" journalistic standing. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to discern what evidence of a controversy you are looking for. If the media source characterizes the back and forth criticism as a "controversy", is that sufficient? --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A "Fox News Controversy". This is getting ridiculous. The Politico cite was borderline acceptable. Find more like it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Something like (i) calling it a controversy in (ii) the context of a discussion of the impact on FOX News? That is sufficient? --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Controversy" isn't even required. If it is from a source not generally regarded as partisan (I'll even accept allegedly biased) and reports/suggests/insinuates that the News Corp donation is relevant to a consideration of "Fox News" journalistic integrity, I would accept it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean the non-partisan source has to take the position that the donation affects Fox's reporting, or can they merely be reporting on the fact that someone else has made that claim? --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

...can they merely be reporting on the fact that someone else has made that claim?

I would probably be inclined to accept that...but, like all sourcing, I'd have to see it in context.

Now Let me try a question on you. Assuming adequate non-partisan sourcing is available and that sourcing makes note that the "Fox News" bashing emanates from partisan sources, would that be appropriate content for inclusion under NPOV considerations? JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel like you're leaving yourself lots of wiggle room in saying "I'd be inclined to accept that... but, like all sourcing, I'd have to see the context." Your pattern has been stating things you wanted to see (often, I think it is fair to say, things not required or endorsed by policy or guidelines), being presented with them, and then saying they didn't quite fit what you wanted for one reason or another. I hope you can understand how this is frustrating. Moreover, that's why I brought the discussion here in the first place; I don't find it helpful or rooted in a cooperative model of editing. However to answer your question, certainly, if the media reports are characterizing this as criticism by a particular organization, we should say that. If some say that and others report broader criticism, we should say that. We represent the range of opinion reported in reliable sources, in proportion to the prevalence in those sources. That's based in policy but more importantly, that makes a good encyclopedia, and that's what we should do. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel like you're leaving yourself lots of wiggle room in saying "I'd be inclined to accept that... but, like all sourcing, I'd have to see the context."

Interesting comment...and perhaps reflective of something that warrants further discussion with you when this dust settles.

Your pattern has been stating things you wanted to see (often, I think it is fair to say, things not required or endorsed by policy or guidelines), being presented with them, and then saying they didn't quite fit what you wanted for one reason or another.

I'll exercise some considerable effort and stifle my reaction to that comment. Suffice it to say that your grasp of the issue here has been demonstrably (and self-admittedly) tenuous at best and whatever "perception" you may have developed of my "moving goalposts" is fantasy not supportable by fact. If you're inclined to pursue this further, please provide the diffs that you purport to support your perception and I'll be more than happy to explore it further.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me be clear, I brought this up with you, not to ANI or some other authority, because I only wanted to make you aware of what could be a problem, not persecute you for it, as well as trying to resolve this editing dispute. I completely admit I don't always get what you're driving at (although I do think I have a firm grasp of the relevant issues). I am still unclear of what you would count as evidence of a controversy. Inclusion on national media or metro daily op/ed pages doesn't count. Descriptions in the national or international press, describing a controversy in regards to FNC don't seem to count either. There are now lengthy lists of citations backing up both points (some now have annotations as well, to make it easy for you to check). Your criteria seem to hold these are insufficient because there's a Washington Post blogger who doesn't think much of the controversy (one who states, in fact, the donation was "widely covered by many other news outlets"). Sometimes you request evidence that the controversy is more than "run of the mill partisan sniping." While maybe this is asking for evidence the criticism is justified (which is obviously impermissible under WP:NPOV), we can take this as asking for evidence of people reporting it as justified criticism. You said you needed quotes. I, and others, added them. You then criticized a quote by saying it was not related to FNC (which is incorrect, it was, although it was not evident from the quote). You asked for "You need to provide reliable third-party sourcing to adequately support that contention." I added several more, including Kurtz who you suggested. You tell me the others on my list are partisan, so they are not evidence of a controversy (ignoring Kurtz, saying it is only "unimpressive"). I give you three more, which are also inadequate, although you have not told me why. I think we have been very accommodating to your requests, but as I say, the evidence you actually seek is elusive to me. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me be clear, I brought this up with you, not to ANI or some other authority, because I only wanted to make you aware of what could be a problem, not persecute you for it,...

I can assure you sir that had I known I was going to be subjected to this level of obduracy in your inquiries here, some trumped up ANI harrassment initiated by you would have been a much preferred option. I have given you chapter and verse, multiple times explaining my position...elements of which apparently elude your retention beyond 2 paragraphs distant. I also ignored the WP:PA with which you commenced this now ridiculous charade of a dialogue and several more that followed. Now, after all this discourse, you are still confused as to what is my position on legitimate sourcing from non-partisan sources to support inclusion per the RfC. I'm returning to the RfC and will make my comments there. Please refrain from further inquiries here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Screwball23 at ANI noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is in reference to the Linda McMahon articles.

TPG

Please take a moment to review the TPG guidelines. And please *don't* make spurious deletions William M. Connolley (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a good faith deletion under TPG guidelines which link directly to WP:NPA Mr. Connolly. With your kind indulgence, I'll await the outcome of a Wikipedia process review as to the "spurious" nature of that deletion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning

I'm sorry to have to say this, but we really need to discourage the kind of drama, battleground, and ruleslawyering which you added to the CC case (which had enough of those features already) with these inappropriate accusations of "ad hominems" and "personal attacks". If you file another frivolous action on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement, or again poke William M. Conolley with a stick, you will be banned from the Requests for enforcement page, or from interacting with or discussing WMC, whichever your behaviour makes more appropriate. Please edit constructively. Bishonen | talk 01:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC).

I'll allow myself, if you don't mind, some appropriate time for adequate reflection. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

And WMC's numerous filing of far more frivolous complaints is, of course, ignored as usual? Fell Gleaming^talk 01:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You know something, Fell Gleaming? That "of course" in that context does you no credit at all. A whiny, mean, feebly-sarcastic, bad-faith-assuming, petty little phrase. But I'll charitably assume that your rhetorical sentence does mean to be a genuine question (since there's a question mark) and answer it. Here it comes: for my part I'll certainly ignore them, unless you provide diffs so I can find them, always assuming that they exist. If you have or can find relevant diffs for your claims, please supply them on your page, or mine; not here, where I was addressing someone else (JakeInJoisey) and would prefer an undiluted response from him. I hope you have or can find such diffs; remember that "it is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse others of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation". That came from the Ottava Rima RFAR [11] The intention of principles posted by the ArbCom is that the readers should give some thought to whether they're themselves guilty of the behaviour described. The principles are not missiles to be hurled round the horizon at anybody you happen to be pissed off with. Bishonen | talk 04:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC).

If you gentlemen don't mind, please refactor your colloquy elsewhere...perhaps FG's talk page?

JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It will have to be FG's page [12] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Thanks for the heads up, I will keep an eye out for it. Most of the time, things like WP:NPA only weed out the most severe personal attacks. It is often wise to simply ignore personal attacks and address substance. Cheers, --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have and will continue to ignore them, but they are disrupting the discussion. (BTW, I don't know why this exchange is being incorporated into the hatted section above. I have tried to fix that but no go. I will duplicate this section (unless you object for some reason) outside the above "hat" as a workaround until I can figure this out). JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Old tags

Back in May 2010, in this edit, you placed a {{Multiple issues}} tag for perceived WP:DISPUTED and WP:NPOV problems. The tag is still in place, but I see no active discussion of these issues on the talk page of the article. If there is an active discussion, I'd appreciate a pointer to it. If there is no active discussion, please either open one or remove the tag. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your bringing this to my attention and I have removed the tag(s). At the time the tags were placed, the disputed Olbermann content was also incorporated in the "World Net Daily" article and I linked to the dispute discussion there to avoid 2 simultaneous ongoing discussions. I have also removed the associated tag in the WND article

For the record (and just in case you're interested), I still believe my objection to be valid but I can't support that contention other than by WP:OR since the subject was so trifling and petty that no media entity elected to further explore the veracity of Olbermann's allegation (to include Farah himself). Olbermann's "worst person" quip was based on a failure (either deliberate or in ignorance) to distinguish between 2 distinct documents in question yet the specious "quip" resides to this day in both articles. Alas, WP:V is not foolproof. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

WND at RS/N

I've closed this section. I would have thought that after I ended up blocking you for your antics at RSN last time you brought this up, you would've refrained from doing it again. I see you are unable to do that, and have wasted many editors' time having to point out to you yet again the huge weight of previous consensus on this issue. I would strongly suggest that you do not bring this issue up again at RS/N - I have no doubt other editors not familiar with the history may do so, but I think you have been shown enough times that this is an argument you are not going to "win". Black Kite (t) (c) 07:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

I had to modify your last edit. As I explained on the talk page, the Slate article also calls it rebranding, and does not use as cautious language as Gallup. As a result, I kept the plural and added a citation, while otherwise restoring the original text, with the exception of those scare quotes, which I left out. Dylan Flaherty 06:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

All of which, given the current contention, could have been better resolved in talk rather than by additional, potentially contentious editing of the article itself. Read the notice at the top of the talk page and take it to heart...and cool it with the snarky "unfortunately for Jake" and "what he was trying to accomplish" editorializing...please. I'll be reading Slate manana for the relevancy of your offered cite to the content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend to be snarky, so please do me the favor of assuming good faith by reading it as a simple statement. Unfortunately, because your edit directly contradicted our sources, I felt compelled to revert it. Even then, I was careful to add citations and preserve changes that were not related to this error, such as removing those scare quotes. I believe that what I did was exactly the right thing. As for LAEC's actions, I think I've explained my feeling about them already. Dylan Flaherty 07:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

...because your edit directly contradicted our sources, I felt compelled to revert it.

Let's please be precisely accurate here. The content was NOT "my" edit and I made no "error". "My" edit was to correct the misrepresentation of the source of the existing edit to include the singular nature of the existing source, omission of the qualifying "mostly like" and the removal of the POV "scare quotes". I will be posting this response in the forum talk. JakeInJoisey (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting

This is something which may interest you. Lionel (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Before I take this to 3RR, I will give you a chance to undo your own edit. You don't get to add material on a contentious article without consensus. Three editors have questioned your edit and made it clear they want the differences between polls inserted, yet you kept removing them. So until there is consensus wording, per WP:BRD, you cannot keep adding the material. Dave Dial (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Any venue of your choosing my friend...but I'd suggest you consider both the sequence of edits and what article probation portends for your agressive editing. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI - Courtesy reply

Thank you for the courtesy notification. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Inadvertent Deletion

Hi, all I did in making that edit was ... edit the page as I've been doing for the 8 years I've been editing Wikipedia, by clicking the "edit" tab and typing. Did not mean to erase your comment but I'm not sure what happened and how I could have been more careful. Shouldn't one of us have gotten an error message if there was an edit conflict? --Jfruh (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it was some bug as Off2riorob suggested. At any rate, no harm, no foul...and all is well in Wikilandia. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

MMfA RfC

Thanks for all your work at trying to get the RfC to list properly on the boards. I can't figure out why the RfC bot is having so much trouble listing it as it should. Drrll (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I was actually hoping to learn something in the process (I didn't...at least not yet).

BTW, did you ever cross paths with this? YIKES! JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I ran across that piece earlier and I'm in the early stages of seeing if I can add a reference to it in the MMfA article. The tide may be turning on the view of the usefulness of MMfA as a resource. Drrll (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I was somewhat astonished at what a cursory search unearths as to an apparent decline in MMfA's reputability...even among its supposedly like-minded peers..."Mediaite" in particular. Didja catch this MMfA drubbing from Kurtz earlier today?

I got a feeling Brock's in some hot water for meager returns on dollar investment and this "War On Fox" is a double-down...which will, IMHO, only exacerbate their reputability decline.

Anyway, there's more than enough out there on MMfA's troubles to warrant inclusion I should think. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that piece in The Daily Caller before, but I did actually catch Kurtz making the comments on CNN (his show Reliable Sources is a pretty good show and he is not your typical liberal reporter with a bunch of bias). Brock may be in hot water for more than his returns on investment; this article about Brock talks about his lack of success with ambitious plans for a super-Politcal Action Committee. And just last week, former White House counsel C. Boyden Gray laid out a strong case that MMfA should lose its tax-exempt status. Please let me know about other articles on MMfA's troubles you may have run across. Drrll (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup. I saw both the NY Mag and Wash Times as well...and there was a todo in March over a bogus MMfA story that got some notice in Business Insider and Mediaite. Not been a very good 2011 for MMfA thus far. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Pledge of Allegiance

All I did was correct the grammar of the sentence, I did not add that line to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.234.97 (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. You are quite correct and I'll blank the entry. Sorry about that. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Conspiracy theory

The paragraph you disputed in the Conspiracy theory article has been removed from the oarticle so further discussion on the Talk:Conspiracy theory page is pointless. I've therefore archived that discussion but feel free to start a new one if you feel it's necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That isn't "discussion", that's a decree. If you'll pardon my inquisitiveness, under what Wikipedia policy do you presume to a. be the determinant as to just when a discussion is no longer worth occupying space on the talk page and b. be judge and jury as to what gets archived and what doesn't? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on the article talk page and I'm copying there. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please note that every month is a new month, as a big picture. "Normal" users get a new chance every month, most of the time. Wikipedia assumes good faith. But every system operator handles it a lil bit different. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of any lurker who might gasp at the title, this is the context in which Chris.urs-o's observations are offered. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussed to death

That particular bit has been discussed to death. "Vulgar" is a well-cited word that people of all stripes and involvement feel is an acceptable designation for that word, including Dan Savage himself. Why is there is a fuss still? -- Avanu (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Because positions are hardened and further discussion towards a clear consensus resolution has dropped off the scale low (for various reasons). I suppose one might legitimately posit that the existing text is consensus-acceptable by default. I wouldn't mess with what currently exists until some editorial focus has returned to the article. You, of course, are free to edit as you please but, FWIW, I'd advise agaisnt it. IMHO, there's too many other irons in the fire elsewhere to make any definitive consensus progress right now. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That's disappointing to hear. I'm not torn up with the wording either way. I think its good enough (and has been for some time). -- Avanu (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion has been voiced already by 3 like-minded editors. Unfortunately those voices, given the current state of affirs, will need to be increased several fold before this article is 1. consus acceptable and 2. in it's ultimate residence. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Linda McMahon

Thank you for your interest in the McMahon page. I appreciate you reading the source, but there is much, much more to this. Please see an ongoing discussion here, and yes, you can join in to talk about it too. :->

[[13]]--Screwball23 talk 02:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

My purpose was to correct what was, IMHO, your clearly unsupportable reversion of sourced content and to encourage you to, instead, participate in discussion towards resolution. I would be less than candid if I didn't advise you that I've had personal interaction with you and your editing style before and that the memory is not a good one.

Subsequent to my edits, I realized you've sought intervention which is the right thing to do. I've no desire to become further involved in this and, since you are now at 3RR you'll have to mandatorily take an editing break on this issue. However, both the talk page and your mediation page are still open for business. I wish you good luck in coming to a satisfactory consensus resolution. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Weasel Words" - Caution or Prohibition?

Hello, JakeInJoisey. Just letting you know that I listed this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Citations vs. attributions because you seem to be having the same issue that I am with interpretation of the guideline and you are likely to get more help there. The guideline obviously needs to be tweaked. Flyer22 (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. At this point I'm actually quite ambivalent as to how this gets resolved in the specific instance that motivated my question but, I concur, the problem of discordant views in interpretation of WP:WEASEL appears to require some re-consideration and/or clarification. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

for the note on my talk page. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No prob...and glad to note it was addressed. Rgds. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wade Sanders

Thanks for the pointer, I deleted the material on the talk page, but do you really think it was that big a deal? Do you have some experience with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZHurlihee (talk • contribs) 14:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No prob...and I have some considerable experience with Wikipedia and a basic understanding of libel if that's what you mean. IMHO, your deletion was well-considered. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have seem some pretty outlandish things here, do you think what I did would be taken all that seriously? ZHurlihee (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I highly doubt your unsourced assertion wouldn't have been challenged by numerous editors had I not made the observation first. WP:BLP is a serious concern here and you would do well to keep that firmly in mind. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. ZHurlihee (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Enjoy, I have looking over your contributions and think you deserve it. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw your "Anatomy of an NPOV Disaster" and have to agree on what an utterly botched abortion that article is and kudos to you for documenting it in such a fine fashion. Fortunately, the nice thing about topics like this is they tend to be flash in the pan events. Topics like this tend to attract a great deal of attention and little to no follow up once the significance of their relevance, the 15 minutes of fame, are over. I say you have another crack at it, fewer people care about it now, as it has little significance to current events, and correcting the more blatant issues should be easy peasy japanesey. FWIW. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your observations and compliment tag. I've yet more work to do on my "reproduction" and it is a tedious process that is not high on my list of fun things to do...but I'll finish it eventually. As to...

...fewer people care about it now, as it has little significance to current events...

Let's just say I'm not nearly so confident of that as you are and that the Wikipedia denigration of the Swift Vets is still an article of faith among those who have that article on their watch list. Thanks for taking a look though. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

Looking at the diffs, I got confused and thought it was the lead. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No prob. S**t happens. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Care to weigh in?[14] ZHurlihee (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

no consensus?

Its clearly no consensus - why don't you close it yourself? Why do you think no admin has answered your request is from JakeInJoisey (talk) 4:27 am, 30 September 2011, Friday (15 days ago) (UTC+1) ? Why don't you ask at the WP:AN for someone to close it? Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Its clearly no consensus...

Perhaps so, perhaps not...but an RFC closure (as you well understand) isn't predicated on counting votes. Have you read the 2 preceding RFC's as well as this one? If so, have you considered commenting? Which of the arguments per WP:Policy do you find to be more compelling? Do you think those in opposition to incorporating the characterization are going to discontinue efforts to expunge this characterization from the lead? I think not...and a current attempt is underway.

...why don't you close it yourself?

I'm way too heavily involved.

Why don't you ask at the WP:AN for someone to close it?

I have utilized what I believe to be the proper WP channel for soliciting the consideration of an uninvolved user/admin. If that assistance isn't forthcoming shortly, I'll perhaps escalate to WP:AN as you suggested. In the interim (and given the lengthy evolution of this super-contentious issue), I find your archiving of the open RFC to be both ill-considered and premature. This issue needs to be settled, one way or the other. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No consensus resolves in keep the current, if you can call that settling. - the articles pretty stable at present - Wikipedia:AN#"uninvolved closure request - Off2riorob (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't call that settling. I call that a recipe for continued bickering on this issue. Without a definitive resolution to this question, those in opposition to the status quo have, IMHO, a legitimate rationale for further disputes on this point. It needs to be settled. Why don't you reflect a few moments on the question itself? Your comments might inspire further dialogue towards a legitimate consensus resolution. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Its an awful article I vote to delete it in preference to discuss it. The RFC has been over a long time - discussion is stale - I am the last person to start more up again. I see the last user that was active in replacing the more attacking version has moved to the Santorum BLP and is now attempting to add the attack phrase there. The whole thing is activism and I hate to see people use the project in an undue way for activism as Savage and his flying monkeys have done/are still doing. Off2riorob (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Its an awful article I vote to delete it in preference to discuss it.

Awful or not, the article currently is what it is. My attempt has been to seek consensus resolution towards stability. Once that's accomplished, there are numerous other bridges to be crossed. One step at a time.

BTW, I disagree strongly with your section title and have appended a question mark. I assume you were seeking dialogue and not declaration.JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

'Nuf Said

On its face your comment (on my talk page) is reasonable, and a fair point. (And for what it is worth, I hve indeed been on the receiving end). But over the past few days I have seen people with fraid feelings keep escalating conflicts that only distract us from what I consider more serious issues that we would be able to manage better if we could put feelings aside. My intention was to stop another escalation, and not to challenge a person's right to feel whatever they feel.

We already have too much to fight over: should "not truth" stay in the first line or not ... and, do comments after Oct. 29 count or not ... and, is this a straight up/down vote, or is it a request for comments which editors must discuss once the RfC has closed, as they continue to work towards a consensues ... and, do we need a consensus to change the policy or just a majority? To me, these are the serious issues, and again, I am just wary of inflaming any other conflicts. I am concerned it will difuse attention from the major issues into multiple smaller side issues. I am also concerned that it will encourage people to personalize the arguments rather than settle them with policy.

So I won't tell you how to feel, or how to act on you feelings and I do not think I would have made that comment had you replied to BB rather than a third party. 'Nuf said. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Serial comma

See MOS:SERIAL. Happy editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. One can learn something new every day...but my compositional instinct (which is generally pretty reliable) took immediate exception. I'll have to reconsider, however, this use under MOS:SERIAL. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are userboxes on the subject, if you can believe it, for those editors, like me, who firmly believe in the serial comma, and those who don't. When I edit, though, if I add material to an article, I'll use the serial comma; however, I won't impose my belief on existing material.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Futile

I thought I would register continuing interest in the subject, rather than ignoring the proposal completely. I cannot understand why anyone would want to push for a change for 14 months without reviewing whether it was still valid. The outcome that 3 uninvolved Admins would simply dive for cover under a no consensus decision was inevitable and it will take far better organisation than is being demonstrated to get this beyond the drawing board. I just don't see the fundamental problem having been clearly set out. All the Best. Leaky Caldron 14:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Be more thorough next time

Kindly be more rigorous in reverting. There was no malice only clarification intended in my edit. Retaliation is unwarranted, and slipshod editing is unwelcome. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not utilize an "undo" and your intent is irrelevant. Editing/refactoring another editor's comments in a talk environment is a large no-no and could be cause for the issuance of a block. As to "slipshod editing", I've no idea as to what you're referring to, but if, in my attempt to restore my comments (and your responses) to their original state, I erred in some fashion, you are more than welcome to correct that error. Had you not edited/manipulated my comments in the first place, there would be no error to correct. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You erred in reverting my comments to their original state. And the block-quote was to close the discussion, which you indicated was resolved. Apparently not. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your petulance is becoming annoying and tiresome. Any further manipulation of my comments will be brought to a higher level for consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There was no further manipulation. The layout didn't touch your comments, and I won't edit war with you on this. So you can back off now. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Respectfully, I have already modified that comment, to give it context. Please see if the new version is acceptable. -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Not respectfully, I've removed them for you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, you just violated WP:3RR on that page, JIJ... you seem to be enjoying this too much. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Egad...did I? I recall several reverts of different content from different editors and had no sense of edit-warring or imminent 3RR doom. I'll take a look tho at 3RR to refresh my recall (as well as a break to preserve my stellar reputation). In the interim, perhaps you might consider just why it is that you opt for BRD in lieu of talk? I suppose we'll iron that out shortly. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, obviously I know you're an upstanding editor, which is why I left you a friendly message. But hey, if you send me a note I'm happy to self-revert if nobody else has yet. I think it was your day job edit summary that incited me. I'm pretty proud as English language-wise. But I do consider the entire thing completely silly and unimportant... I mean, the Wikipedia phrasing. The Internet phenomenon and intersection of politics and pop culture is interesting and of some importance, however slight, in society at large. Poor Santorum is at the right place and wrong time, or something like that, to run afoul of a new online phenomenon. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, obviously I know you're an upstanding editor, which is why I left you a friendly message.

Our exchanges have always been cordial and I regard you in that same light. After reviewing that rather contentious list of today's flurry of undiscussed edits and my responses, I'm rather shocked at the extent of my own lack of 3RR discipline. So much so that I've self-reported (and the break will be, no doubt, therapeutic).

But hey, if you send me a note I'm happy to self-revert if nobody else has yet.

I'd much prefer talk to BRD edginess, especially in the current environment.

I think it was your day job edit summary that incited me.

It was offered as a light-hearted jab but I can understand it being taken otherwise I suppose. It was also intended to inspire some talk-page discussion for which, alas, I waited in vain. As I said, I expect we'll iron it out. As to...

I'm pretty proud as English language-wise.

Here we'll just have to agree to disagree then on your edit in question. It was, if I might be blunt, such god-awful composition as to literally make me cringe...seriously. Add to that the irony of your comment on "convolution" and then toss in your addition of, IMHO, barely footnoteable minutiae for flavor...and I was instantly compelled to compositional vigilantism. All in a day's work 'round these parts I guess.

As to the whole Santorum kerfuffle, my sole concern here is the integrity of this project...and the POV pushing currently in progress here is positively shameful. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my edit was for substance not style. The sentence is already a mash-up of several different things introduced in parenthetical clauses. My change doesn't add another twist to that knot - I was just noting that the sentence also needs to be less convoluted. The main problem is at the end: the <<...campaign to associate Santorum's surname with a newly coined and sex-related word, "santorum".>> The sentence is structured to suggest that there just happened to be a newly coined word, santorum, and Savage started a campaign to make the association. But the word is Santorum's surname, coined by Savage's reader at Savage's instigation. That's the whole point. Without the knot: (1) Santorum made comments perceived as anti-gay, (2) Savage responded to the matter by initiating a contest among his readers to create a new unflattering definition for Santorum's last name, (3) a reader took up the challenge and coined a sex-related winning definition, and (4) Savage publicized the new definition. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your appearance in the docket for the defense. Many thanks. As to this discussion, I'm going on a weekend hiatus and will immerse myself fully in football to the exclusion of all else. Perhaps a cut and paste to the talk page on Monday for some rhetorical fisticuffs? Have a nice weekend. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. B^e——C_ritical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Your placement of Trystan's suggested language is commendable and an edit which I could not have made myself without throwing oil on the fire. Regards. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

3RR

That's three reverts by you today on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism. In case you had lost count. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the warning but BLP-based edits are not subject to 3RR. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Checking if you are logged in

Hi, the way I check if I am logged on is to change the colour of the edit box to a pale apricot colour in my style sheet. Then if I edit anonymously it comes out white and looks peculiar.

I use this

textarea {
        width: 100%;
	padding: .1em;
        background: #fff0d0;
 }

in vector.css and monobook.css subpage. You can set this up yourself or ask me to do it for you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Graeme, I hope that will be my last request...EVER...and I'll give some consideration to your suggested CSS/monobook subpage edits (I was only vaguely aware of their existence and have never had an occasion to mess with them...nor do I even know where they are). Thanks again for your assistance. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

at User:JakeInJoisey/vector.css if you use vector skin, User:JakeInJoisey/monobook.css if you use monobook like me (also very obvious when monobook flops back to the default vector). These style sheets can change font, colour, background, placement or visibility on the screen for you. If you do the wrong thing you can make a mess for yourself, but it can be fixed by putting it back how it was, or changing your skin to a different one that does not use that sheet and then editing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If you do the wrong thing you can make a mess for yourself...

While fairly proficient at html, I long ago elected to remain blissfully ignorant of CSS (though I have dabbled just a bit with "Blogger" code). Perhaps I'll give it a try here (once my fear factor subsides). Thanks again. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If you trash it you can turn off style sheets in your browser, and then fix your problem, blanking will do or undo. If you copy and paste my suggestion you will be pretty safe, and you can change colour by altering #fff0d0. So do not fear! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the difference between using vector.css and monobook.css and how that relates to WP page presentation. Can you suggest a WP link which will edjumacate me? Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Skin talks about it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm apparently using vector.css (why? don't ask me) as your CSS code placed in User:JakeInJoisey/vector.css is now applying a background color (monobook.css edit did nothing). Now all I need to do is find a palatable color and I'm off to the races. Thanks for the tip! P.S. One of the benefits of this exercise is that I have an excuse to play with color cop again, one of my all-time favorite little apps. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Gone

I will be offline for a few days and thought I would let you know since you trying to fix the RfC problem. Best of luck trying to get it to work. Arzel (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been down this road before but didn't wish to step on anyone's toes. I'm confident you'll see it appropriately re-listed shortly. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

My Toes are not even slightly bruised.  :) Arzel (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you're not kicking enuf arse ;-) JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

John Kerry VVAW

Hello, JakeInJoisey. You have new messages at LFaraone's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LFaraone 03:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, B^e——C_ritical 22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Swiftboating, again

You wrote, WP:BAIT - 3RR: Don't take it. A resolution to the clear violation of WP:YESPOV in the Swiftboating article resides in this RfC. What the article currently contains or does not contain is irrelevant and will ultimately be predicated upon the interpretation and application of WP:POLICY. Utilizing the ongoing process for that determination is the way forward, not ad hoc edit-warring or tit-for-tat goaded ventures into ad hominem. Just my .02 JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite apart from the POV violations, this little molehill of an article is in sad shape. And I am unaware of any requirement that I write so as to make a special effort to retain the unwanted POV violations in my text while making other improvements on it. X seems to have a weakness for just hitting "revert" rather than reinserting his POV into what is unquestionably attempts to improve the text. That got him up to 3 reverts in 24 hr at 16:36, 19 February 2012... I hadn't violated 1RR, as it happens.

The controversy under discussion on the talk page, as I understand it, is whether Wikipedia should state as a fact something that indicates that it is incontrovertably true that the SBVT folks planned to lie about Kerry. And so far as I can see all they have is partisan sources. Do you disagree?

Your faith that WP:POLICY will be applied is... unfounded. Sorry. That's the way it is. Andyvphil (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite apart from the POV violations, this little molehill of an article is in sad shape.

An assessment in which I fully concur.

And I am unaware of any requirement that I write so as to make a special effort to retain the unwanted POV violations in my text while making other improvements on it.

How you elect to edit is your business, but I would suggest that, in this particularly contentious editing environment, multiple text changes in a single edit (perhaps, and only perhaps, save for benign copyedits) will simply invite reversion. While you might personally rankle at single edits for multiple reasons, a reverted edit can then be brought to talk for resolution. Perhaps even better (but certainly more tedious) would be to offer the suggested edit in talk at the outset...and the prospect for edit-warring will be precluded.

X seems to have a weakness for just hitting "revert" rather than reinserting his POV into what is unquestionably attempts to improve the text. That got him up to 3 reverts in 24 hr at 16:36, 19 February 2012...

While 3RR is alive and well, it also can easily tresspass into ad hominem territory...an area in which I'm generally loathe to participate for the vast majority of provocations. My suggestion is to avoid that prospect by utilizing talk once reverted, particularly in this current environment.

I hadn't violated 1RR, as it happens.

You were in dangerous territory, and my post to you was cautionary. And just to be sure you're aware, 3RR refers to the entire page, not just to a specific edit.

The controversy under discussion on the talk page, as I understand it, is whether Wikipedia should state as a fact something that indicates that it is incontrovertably true that the SBVT folks planned to lie about Kerry. And so far as I can see all they have is partisan sources. Do you disagree?

Only with some nuances in your paraphrasing. I tried to be explicitly clear as to my POV objection. As you have not contributed to the RfC thus far, I'm not confident you've actually read it.

Your faith that WP:POLICY will be applied is... unfounded. Sorry. That's the way it is.

WP:POLICY is all we've got. We'll soon learn, I suppose, whether my faith in its vitality is unfounded or not. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Your faith that WP:POLICY will be applied is... unfounded. Sorry. That's the way it is.

As it turns out, you were, rather regretfully, quite correct. It was an exercise in futility after all. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I regret it too. Wikipedia is useful, but infested with shameless POV warriors. You know and I know that this was not a close case, but the correlation of forces was such that it could not be corrected. I'd gone away from editing, but it's tempting to fix things when if you do so the results appear on the page. But you have to pick your spots or you're wasting your time. As you found out, it appears. Andyvphil (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is useful, but infested with shameless POV warriors.

Who could not prevail were it not for administrators whose ideology trumps their dedication to the principles purportedly embodied in this project. Wikipedia is, in fact, a left-wing, propagandistic sham. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Per request

User:JakeInJoisey/John_Kerry_VVAW_controversy --Xavexgoem (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism

OK, maybe there is no place for humor when it comes to santorum on wikipedia. Fair enough.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I do appreciate humor. I do appreciate your re-consideration. Appreciatively... JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Given how widely we are separated in ideologies and opinions about the nature of objective reality, I am amused (and touched) to see you agreeing with my opinion on at least one aspect of this discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear JakeInJoisey: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope...not interested in enabling forum shopping. If the WP community elects to remain unresponsive to the demonstrated disdain for and abrogation of fundamental WP:Policy of consensus editing, especially as it applies to the ongoing BRD editing of core WP:POLICY (specifically WP:V), then so be it. It will get the WP:V policy that its somnolence warrants. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello JakeInJoisey, I only just saw this, and thought I ought to comment. Actually, I was really hoping that you could take part in the mediation. If I have gathered the right impression from my reading of WT:V, then you are in favour of a wording that resembles the traditional WP:V text, and think that any update to the policy should be based in a broad consensus gained through a community-wide RfC. I won't know for certain until we have finished the analysis of the previous big WT:V RfC, but it seems extremely likely that one of the drafts that we present in this new RfC that I'm proposing will look very similar to the version that has been in the policy for years. If you were part of the mediation - and it wouldn't necessarily take up much of your time - then your contributions would be a very useful counterweight to those editors who prefer a completely new version. Let me know what you think about this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but recent events within this project, besides the editorial anarchy that has gone unchecked within WP:V, has pretty much removed what remaining wind was in my sails for the integrity of this WP project. It's pretty much a lost cause in that regard and my subsequent participation will, at least for the forseeable future, be minimal. Good luck in your mediation efforts. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

Just FYI - you warned an IP for vandalism[15] but it appears that person was actually reverting someone else's vandalism.[16] Kelly ^hi! 21:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but repetition of patent "vandalism" in deletion edit summaries is well-recognized for the dodge that it is. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In this case, I was assuming good faith as the IP had no other contribs. Kelly ^hi! 21:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith as well...which is why it's a level 1. P.S. You apparently beat me to the request page protection venue by mere minutes. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP and Images

Hi! Could you show the source for this on the article's talk page - can't find it in the talk archives. Thanks [[17]]93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Specifically "*Per WP:BLP, a photograph of Sen Santorum should not be incorporated in this treatment." 93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Have searched the archive, and the only discussion I could find was in favour of retaining images of both savage and santorum -[18].93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Repost of User:JakeInJoisey/John Kerry VVAW controversy

A tag has been placed on User:JakeInJoisey/John Kerry VVAW controversy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This well-sourced content critical of Kerry was forked from the original Kerry article and the fork was then purged from Wikipedia utilizing the standard Kangaroo Court process. De riguer for this place. I'm done here. Do what you want. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

@MfD now Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem

Took care of it. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Much obliged. Thank You. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

Hi. Do you know if material on Ancestry.com is generated by paid employees? I ask, because you were previously involved in a discussion about Ancestry.com on RSN, in which you said that there was considerable editorial oversight over the material there, but did not elaborate on how you knew this when another editor asked you. If you can elaborate on this, could you join a discussion here to offer your opinion? A user is saying that some of the material on that site is not from users, but paid employees, and WP:BLPPRIMARY is also an issue. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

draft

please add {{userdraft}} to John Kerry VVAW Controversy NE Ent 01:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Hopefully it's of some consequence. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:JakeInJoisey/Anatomy of an NPOV Disaster - Swift Vets and POWs for Truth

User talk:JakeInJoisey/Anatomy of an NPOV Disaster - Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:JakeInJoisey/Anatomy of an NPOV Disaster - Swift Vets and POWs for Truth and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:JakeInJoisey/Anatomy of an NPOV Disaster - Swift Vets and POWs for Truth during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Time to invoke BLPSE?. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

I'm sorry to inform you, but the discussion at WP:ANI has shown that there is consensus for a topic ban of yours. From now on, you are indefinitely prohibited from editing pages concerning John Kerry, broadly construed, which includes related topics such as swiftboating and discussions about John Kerry anywhere on Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Please advise as to the disposition of this RfC and to its intended closure by an uninvolved administrator. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

On my user talk page, I have replied to your question about the topic ban procedures. As to the RFC, I'm going to ask another admin to evaluate and close the discussion. I could do that myself but in light of my administrative involvement I feel it would only be fair to have a complete outsider's opinion in this matter. De728631 (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Style suggestions for Jake from Wiki Lurker

Hi, Jake. For several years I've lurked the Talk pages of many political articles you frequent as an editor. Quality writing is nothing if not the expression of quality thought. When folks struggle to express something, it's usually because the underlying thought remains inchoate. As an English enthusiast, I can no longer resist offering you the following suggestions as sort of a stylistic anti-diarrheal for your writing:

• Resist peppering your statements with such jejune and empty qualifiers as “somewhat,” “particularly,” “rather,” “simply,” “If I may,” “shall we say,” “shall I assume,” “may I suggest”; they’re pretentious, bloated & stylistically impotent. One conjunction per sentence is another good rule of thumb for reducing bloat.
• Good writing conveys quality ideas in clear & simple language. If you choose nouns more deliberately, they’ll sufficiently represent your ideas without having to tack onto them strings of qualifiers & repeated reference to the cerebral process that ostensibly generated them.
• Since every one of your statements is signed, “JakeInJoisey,” that it’s you speaking & representing your opinion is self-evident; reinforcing that with such clauses as “If I might say” or “In my humble opinion,” again, just imposes superfluous verbosity, which is weak substitute for substance.
• Avoid passive, infinitive & other tortured sentence constructions; they’re vague & superfluously verbose where active constructions suffice. Instead of, “I would suggest,” just say “I suggest.” Instead of “…a reverted edit can be brought to talk for resolution,” just say “You can bring a reverted edit to talk for resolution.”
• Faux formality by way of overwriting and stilted, archaic references such as "good day," and calling other editors "sir" comes off as priggish and disingenuous and primes others to question the faith in which you edit.
• Check your use of prepositions. For example, we don’t do something “to,” but “for” a purpose.
• Check the dictionary to ensure the words you use exist. “Relevancy” is not a word, but “relevance” is. “Evidencing” is not a word, but “evincing” is. “Regretfully”…do you mean, “Regrettably”? "Impactful" isn't a word, but "effective" is. “Utilize” is just a bloated & pretentious synonym for “using."

Let’s apply these principles to some examples from your talk page:

• YOU WROTE: “While it shouldn't surprise you (and, if it does, then I'd suggest both myself and Xenophrenic have failed dismally to inspire it), at this point WND's WP:RS status has paled in importance, IMHO, relative to the importance of elevating RS/N's on ideologically biased sources to something more than vote tabulations to see who can gather the most ‘me too's.’”
• SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE: “WND’s status as a WP:RS isn’t the point; it’s the principal of the process that concerns me more. Specifically, it concerns me that ideological bias influences the RS assessment process more than WP standards. Does this possibility surprise you?” (If you’re saying something else or more here, it’s lost on me).
• YOU WROTE: “Assume, for the sake of argument, that a ‘Consensus’ is illegitimate in its foundation in fact...and let's call it a ‘sacred cow.’ The veracity and viability of that ‘sacred cow’ can only be maintained by the REPETITION of its existence by its progenitors and adherents. Under what method of legitimate intellectual examination for validity might that ‘sacred cow’ be tested WITHOUT inspiring some frustration and/or subsequent allegations of ‘disruption’ by those same progenitors and/or proponents? Suppose we start there? The floor is yours.
• SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE: “In the case of WND:RS, the ‘consensus’ seems intellectually dishonest and to now constitute a ‘sacred cow’ whose logical basis no editor is willing to revisit. Instead, they reflexively defend it, figuring that just because it exists, it must be legitimate, which seems circular to me. A corollary of this logic is that any challenge to it is inherently disruptive, which I’m now called. Do you recognize my dilemma, and if so, can you suggest alternative ways I should approach it?”
• YOU WROTE: “IMHO, it is only by the slimmest of threads and vestiges of personal intellectual integrity you have remnant that I would even choose to consider entertaining your observations...on anything.
• SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE: “Although intellectual integrity disinclines me to entertain your observations on anything…”
• YOU WROTE: “While 3RR is alive and well, it also can easily tresspass into ad hominem territory…an area in which I'm generally loathe to participate for the vast majority of provocations.”
• SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE: “While 3RR is alive and well, it can trespass into ad hominem territory, into which I’m loath to venture.”
• YOU WROTE: “How you elect to edit is your business…”
• SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE: “How you edit is your business…”

68.98.133.194 (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Another doozy I can't help but untangle (then I'm done):

• YOU WROTE: "I did not utilize an "undo" and your intent is irrelevant. Editing/refactoring another editor's comments in a talk environment is a large no-no and could be cause for the issuance of a block. As to "slipshod editing", I've no idea as to what you're referring to, but if, in my attempt to restore my comments (and your responses) to their original state, I erred in some fashion, you are more than welcome to correct that error. Had you not edited/manipulated my comments in the first place, there would be no error to correct."
• SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE: "I did use the 'undo' function, and your intent's irrelevant. Editing/refactoring another's talk comments is a no-no and cause for blocking. As to 'slipshod editing," I've no idea to what you're referring. If I erred in my attempt to restore our exchange to its original state, you're welcome to correct the error; however, there would be none to correct hadn't you edited my comments in the first place." 68.98.133.194 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You have entirely too much time on your hands. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Pithy, Jake! Keep up the economy of expression! -AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)