Jeffrey Pierce Henderson

Welcome!

Hello, Jeffrey Pierce Henderson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Conflict of interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Bench press, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Note that your site would not be considered a reliable source suitable for verifying information. WLU (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE: What are you talking about? I have no associations with the people who own the websites referenced in my edit. What close connections do you allege? There is no conflict of interest. In the future you should not make unfounded comments and let the facts speak for themselves. Facts like those listed in the Guinness Book of World Records and documented with the International Powerlifting Federation. My questions to you are:

1. What is your background in bench press history?
2. What are your qualifications for editing bench press records?

I just saw on your page that you brag about your number of edits. How weird. It's not a real number of edits if you are making incorrect assumptions and erasing honest changes that others worked so hard on. Please don't let me catch you doing this again. I will have to report you.

Jeffrey, Note: WLU was just giving you advice that you MAY have a COI -- most likely because the edit you added had the same last name as your username...he's nto accusing, just advising. Threatening other editors and questioning their qualifications is not good practice on wikipedia, as it is not community-building behavior. As to WLU's qualification and edit numbers -- his contributions speak for themselves. His advice is very useful, I recommend following it. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My response is: No. That is not correct Mr. Pritchard. WLU did not “just give advice.” WLU deleted my entry. He took action based on his assumption that I am in some way related to the person in the edit. He based this assumption on the fact that we have the same last name. How many surnames are listed in Wikipedia? Clan Henderson is listed. Henderson is one of the most common surnames in the in the English speaking World! I understand that WLU possibly didn’t know this, but it is much more probable that he didn’t care. Why else would he delete the entry? It is much more possible that he just wanted to reach a higher score on his stupid little edit count, which he boasts so fondly of. You can debate the difference between the definitions of accuse and advise all you want, but there is little doubt of his malice. He deleted my research from the site based solely on my surname! That sir is not good judgment and I also question your judgment for defending such a hack. I did not threaten WLU. I guarantee if he ever removes research from edits based on some ones last name, I WILL report him. Editor’s qualifications are the MOST important inquiries we should be making on Wikipedia. Who are you to say otherwise? I am not a part of WLU’s community and unlike you I don’t wish to build anything with someone so quick to judge and forego an apology when he is wrong. His qualifications on the bench press are nil, his edits are a fraud, and his bench press contribution spoke danger for Wikipedia. His advice? What advice? He is wrong. His advice was that I might have a close connection to the entry. He was wrong. And so are you for being his crony. Why don't you take a stand. Next time tell your cowardly buddy to write me himself and to stop deleting edits based on his almighty whim. -- Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey, You said quite a lot, and I'm on my way out, so I'll just talk about some of your post: first - I'm nobody's crony. next, Wikipedia is not a place for research, but I'm assuming by 'my research' you mean looking into the world records...Finally, WLU reverted your edits (and he said so above) because you may have a COI and the source is not reliable. If having edits reverted will get you upset, I recommend looking for another past-time; everyone gets their edits reverted at some time or other. WLU at least had the courtesy to let you know why, many editors will simply edit and not explain. This is a community, and getting along with others is key. Check out the WP:no personal attacks. I looked closer at your edits -- WLU will leave your edit as you put it when you source it. You sourced a website, which itself admits: "The biggest IPF drug free bench press (RAW) was done by James Henderson at a bodyweight of 390 pounds in 1997 we believe. He bench pressed 711lbs with bodybuilding technique." Note that it says 'we believe' - this is not reliable, and even if they indicated they were certain, websites are not sources for wikipedia. Finally, as to WLU's qualifications, as I've said earlier, they stand on their own -- Benchpress is a heavily vandalized article by folks wanting their name on the record. And nobody must be a 'bench press record expert' to edit these articles, as an editor, WLU has proven himself more than qualified. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Josh, It is my opinion that my edits should not be reverted based solely on my last name, and I am pretty sure that Wikipedia would boldly agree. I am not aware of the depth of your relationship with WLU but if you are his friend please try to point out to him what he did was wrong. I don’t have a problem with reverts, but don’t revert me just because of my surname. I disagree with you that our community is hinged on us getting along. In fact Wikipedia grows because of discussion, debate and argument. WLU made the mistake of reverting me based on my family’s name. I challenge you to show me that you have been reverted because you are a Pritchard, and if you ever get challenged based soley on the fact you are a Pritchard, then sir you will know why WLU should apologize. I have made no personal attacks. I have been the victim of one. My edit is sourced and always has been. That was never the issue. When you look at my source you will see that I sourced the “drug free” portion not the date he did it. The “we believe” references the year in which the press was done, not if it was drug free. I disagree with you on websites not being sources. I see them everywhere on Wikipedia. Even the Scott Mendelson record sources a website. Maybe that should be removed? What about the Guinness Book of World Records I used? Is that a good source? By your standars the Mendy record should come down and Big James’ should stay. I don’t agree to that. I have done some “research” and agree WLU has contributed a great deal and his slip shod effort here is not indicative of his overall work. Thank you for your time in this matter. -- Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing advice

I advice you to listen to what User:WLU says and learn about editing Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is what you said: “I advice you to listen to what User:WLU says and learn about editing Wikipedia.” First of all the word you are trying to use is advise, which is a verb, not advice which is a noun and when used as a noun in your sentence, it makes you sound illiterate in the english language and incapable of editing in Wikipedia. My "advise" to you would be keep your “advise” literate but most importantly keep it to to yourself because I am not interested in your opinions just the facts. -- Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:WLU is a sesoned editor and that is a fact. Igor Berger (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:WLU is a hack and his edits are a sham.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Yankees76 (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Response: I did not attack anyone. I defended myself. Please stop editing records you have no knowledge in. And, a hearty welcome to Wikipedia to you also!

I beg to differ. Please see: [1], [2], [3], (not to mention the the veiled attack on myself above implying, incorrectly, that I have no knowledge of Powerlifting). Please refer to Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to end up in the dispute resolution process, possibly including the serious consequences of arbitration, and may become subject to a community ban. Please govern yourself accordingly. --Yankees76 (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not imply you had no knowledge of powerlifting. I stated the clear fact that you have no knowledge in the Powerlifting record area. You don’t. Stop editing in that area. That is not a personal attack. That is a fact. You should learn more about the different organizations that document powerlifting records. You will find that there is no random and supervised drug testing in any of them except the USPF and the IPF. I am not being hostile, just argumentative, which is a part of the Wikipedia policy and is encouraged in order to make an accurate encyclopedia. I am not afraid of the dispute resolution and arbitration processes. I will not be banned on this issue because simply I am right and you are wrong. Since my tone hurts your feelings, I am sorry, and I will sincerely make the effort to be kinder in my conversation on this matter. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Amusing. If you're concerned about making an accurate encyclopedia, you may want to start refraining from posting original research, citations from outdated record books, and mickey-mouse websites where they aren't even sure of the information they're posting; then start listening to what experienced editors (people who've actually taken the time to learn how Wikpedia works) are telling you, rather than making assumptions that one must be an "expert" in order to make even the most basic edits to a topic. When you can grasp those basic concepts, you'll probably find that people are a bit more open and respectful to what you're trying to accomplish here, because right now you have no more credibility than any other editor as an expert of anything - much less of "bench press records". --Yankees76 (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly I have cited a published source. There is no OR issue. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 12:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

One does not need to be an expert on a subject in order to edit an article on Wikipedia. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson you're mistaken in your assumption that other editors who are editing what you feel is your area of expertise are not qualified to do so. Anyone may edit any article at anytime. That's what makes Wikipedia work. Right now some of your statements here are bordering on incivility, and wether you beleive they are or not, are indeed personal attacks. And while I may not be an expert in searching on the internet for bench press records or understand what federations drug test and what don't, I do have a very good grasp of how things work on Wikipedia - and this entire situation needs to be diffused ASAP. I would suggest that those involved take a step back from editing the article in question, stop the name calling, lose the attitude, rudeness, and the judgemental tone, give WP:CIVILITY a close read and then work towards a consensus. --Quartet 05:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We always welcome new editors, and I think you would be a fine editor to join our community. Please try to keep an open mind and learn from others. No one here is out to get you or is trying to be better than you. Please be flexible and work with us. Igor Berger (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree I got too personal, and I apologize. I am sorry for the rude tone. I will look over the information and advice and rethink my attitude. Thank you for your input.Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 09:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Need any help let us know and enjoy editing Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 09:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we've all done this -- its hard to stay cool sometimes when you're editing a subject that is important to you. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The original research is in the division and qualification of records based on a personal assessment of their worth - this record is OK because there was drug testing, this one is not because he wore a bench shirt, this one is OK because of the location and the observers and this one is not good because of X other criteria. If the reliable sources qualifies links in this manner we can report it, but we can not ourselves point to different records as better, worse, a record or not, based on our own personal assessment. My problem with the current bench press record is that it talks about assisted, no equipment and drug-tested bench press without any visible qualification in the sources, in addition to one source being tenuously reliable. Who is Michael Soong, why is he reliable, and where is it originally published? We should be citing the original publication (if reliable) and using the compiled list from powerliftingwatch as a convenience link. WLU (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Jeffrey, please make sure to sign your posts -- it is getting difficult to determine where you end and someone else begins. You do this with the 4 tildes '~~~~'. Also, it is typical to use a colon to indent your comments...so in this case, I'm the first commenter. If you reply to me, you'll add 1 colon to the beginning of your statement, if I reply to it, I'll add 2...it also makes it easier to follow. Thanks. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Josh, Where did you learn this? Will you teach me, master? Thanks. Now, let me test this.Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There you go! Now it is much easier to follow everyone's comments! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Old revert

Hi,

Regards this revert, and the accompanying warning, here's my reasoning.

1. Criticalbench.com didn't appear to be a reliable source; based on my preliminary analysis of the page, it appeared to be a webpage with no visible oversight or claim to expertise. Pages like bench press get lots of vandalism and 'bragging' so I like to insist on high quality references if possible. For some reason, world records are very difficult to verify in the strength training/powerlifting realm. The same thought went for the 'powerliftingwatch.com' page.
2. Based on your last name (and first letter of your first name) I thought you were adding information about yourself or a relative. I was definitely hasty with this one, I didn't read carefully enough (I mis-read Jeffrey as James), sorry about that. You are fully justified in removing the COI template if you'd like.
3. Another point of confusion is the author in the references. Both refs had your name in them (last = and first = shown below) - <ref>{{cite web | title = Critical Bench | url = http://www.criticalbench.com/benchrecords.htm | accessdate = 2008-02-22 | last = Henderson | first = Jeffrey }}</ref> with a lift of 711.0 (322.5 kg)<ref>{{cite web | title = Powerlifting Watch | url = http://www.powerliftingwatch.com/records/600-pound-raw-bench-press | accessdate = 2008-02-22 | last = Henderson | first = Jeffrey }}</ref> I don't know if you are using these templates to indicate you are the individual adding the information (which isn't the correct way to fill out the template if this is the case) or if you are the author of the web page (in which case this is indeed a conflict of interest as adding links to your own webpage is not appropriate).
4. Henderson's record is now justified by a reliable source]], but a citation template would be better. If I can verify which volume of the GBWR it's from and find it, I'll get the ISBN and use diberri to generate a template. Here are some other tools you might find handy.

• • Citation templates
  • Google scholar autocitation, a google-style search engine and reference generator. Useful when the article doesn't have a pubmed number (old, social sciences or humanities) but the citation template isn't as neat and it does not fill in ISBN or pubmed numbers
  • ISBN searchable database, used in conjunction with Diberry to find, and generate citation templates
  • pubmed/isbn Diberry's template generator, incredibly useful, uses the pubmed number or isbn to automatically generate a citation template for you; the most useful if you have a pubemd or ISBN (referenced above).

Note, in regards to some of your comments above, that qualifications are actually irrelevant on wikipedia, and claiming qualifications has led to major scandals including an editor being permanently blocked by Jimbo Wales. Anyone can claim qualifications, far more important is reliable sources and verification of claims. Anyone who claims expertise should easily be able to verify their claims with reliable sources, making diplomas completely irrelevant.

Please also review WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL - you can assume that I'm targeting you unfairly and that my contribution was based on bad faith, but I usually have a pretty good reason for my editing. And if I'm wrong, I'm usually willing to discuss, as most editors are on wikipedia. I'm also unsure where you would have reported me and for what. Being polite is usually a more productive path than threats and taking umbrage. You are correct that having a high edit count isn't automatically evidence of a good editor, but it's usually a middling indication that they're worth talking to. Several thousand edits usually means a good familiarity with the project and the community.

If you're interested, here is an essay that you might find useful as a general introduction to wikipedia. You've already mastered one step - signing your talk page posts, which is very handy for other editors and saves a lot of aggravation for future readers. Thanks, please let me know if you have any questions or further comments; I'm watching your talk page for the next little while in case, but you can also drop me a line on my talk page. WLU (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Bighen.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Bighen.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Genisock2 (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The image appears to be a scan, and appears to be identical to this thumbnail. If you cannot provide proof that you are the copyright holder, it will be deleted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a scan because it is. Believe it or not, I own a scanner. It appears to be identical to this thumbnail because it is. I am also the webmaster of bigjameshenderson.com. Need proof? Simply do a whois search on the domain. Bingo! There I am. How do you like me now? Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This brings up a number of issues then. Most obviously - simply scanning a picture from a magazine doesn't mean you own it or that you have the rights to distribute it. Secondly, if you're the websmaster for this particular individual, the conflict of interest issues brough up earlier by WLU are indeed valid. It appears that despite your protests earlier, you are in fact affiliated with the subject.

Also, while I'm here, I have to ask that you refrain from removing maintenance templates from Wikipedia. While the AfD for the article on Big James Henderson appears to be in favor of "keep", the discussion is not closed. An administrator will remove the template once the discussion is complete. Thanks. --Yankees76 (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Aha! There you are. I was wondering where this all was coming from. My old nemesis. You have reared you head again. Don't you have better things to do than follow my edits around this site? Don't you have something to add? As for templates that you added to my edit BEFORE I am finished with it is just plain rude isn't it? I mean, why are you always engauging me in a revert war? This entry of Big James Henderson is not enven linked to anything on the Wikipedia site yet. But here you are. Can I even finish the edit before you start putting up your graffiti? The fact that I have recently been hired as the webmaster for Big James Henderson's new personal website brings up NO issues. I did not say I scanned the image from a magazine. Where did you get that? Why do you always assume the worst with me? The image scan is from the ORIGINAL image. Also, with the record lift edit, I was not related to Big James Henderson at the time. I have only recently colaborated with BJH as I have with many in the powerlifting community in trying to get the facts so I can properly cite my edit. Also, there is also no COI issue. Wiki definition of COI clearly states that "Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I have not foregone advancing the aims of Wikipedia. Where is your evidence that I have "foregone advancing the aims of Wikipedia"? I feel that Wikipedia's aims are yo get a good solid entry full of facts that are properly cited. Why do I have to continue to fight you with this nonsense when I could be working on my edit? Please leave me alone! And for your information being "affiliated with the subject does not preclude me from posting on it in a nuetral point of view. Actually, wikipedia says "closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral." To say I now am bias on the subject because I called him on the phone for imformation on how to cite his achivements leads me to believe that you don't "assume my best intentions." I have "considered withdrawing from editing the article" but then, who would write it? You? You have nothing to add.

Old nemesis? Don't flatter yourself. I barely even notice you exist except when you post arrogant and offending comments on other users talk pages. And I've actually been quite cordial with you - despite your persistent attacks on established editors (not to mention administrators) and your refusal to follow even the most basic rules of Wikipedia; and quite honestly I'm not interested in arguing with you or explaining every little instance where you think someone has offended you. It's amusing that despite numerous warnings, you continue in the same vein here without any regard for what other editors are telling you, calling others "assholes", making sexist comments and making demands regarding the edits of others, as if you feel you're somehow above the rest of us and that the guidelines here don't apply to you because you have some special relationship with a certain individual or a certain sport. Here's a bit of useful information for you - you're not special, and the same rules that apply to every other Wikipedia editor and those that the govern the content here still apply to you and all of your edits. If you can't handle that, and you can't handle completely anonymous people from around the world editing your material, requesting sources for the material you've added, or even removing images or other material you've posted - find another hobby.--Yankees76 (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yankees was a bit harsh, but he does have a point. What makes Wikipedia unique is that everyone has the ability to edit anything on here. One thing I learned when I first came here is that eventually even your best edits to the project are going to get hacked up, questioned and possibly even removed completely, sometimes by people identified only by their IP addresses. Somtimes is may seem senseless, but most times there is a legitimate reason. If an adminstrator deams your picture to be in copyright violation - he or she is not doing it out of personal spite. Administrators are volunteers who freely give their time to this project with the aim of improving it. If an editor requests you provide a source for your information or believes a source to be below the standards that Wikipedia strives to acheive, then provide another. Any good information that belongs in an encyclopedia will have multiple sources. Notable individuals will have many pictures that are available for free use. The key is to just learn what you may have done wrong and come back with better material that works within the policies and guidelines. Getting worked up about it and picking fights, calling people names and making threats about having admins stripped of their duties will only cause everything you do to be scrutinized further. Stay cool. Try editing some other pages on topics that aren't related to this, then come back later and resume work on the pages that are being contended. You'll find you'll have far better experience here and you'll get along better with everyone. --Quartet 13:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Yankee76 follows me around reverting my edits. He is a great pain for me. Since my first edit. I wish there was some kind of stalking complaint I could file to ditch him. I don't mind if random people hack my edits but to have a serial stalker make me hate Wikipedia is another situation all together. He never has a legitimate reason for his waging revert wars. This time he has lured an admin into his shenanigans. Actually, I am glad he did after I saw his talk page. This admin is mean and careless, and if he doesn’t straighten up his act towards newcomers, I think he should loose his privileges. Your statement is wrong about admin intentions. Just do a search for admins who have lost their privileges on Wikipedia for examples. This admin is a clear violator of biting the heads of newcomers and NEVER assisting them with finding out what they are trying to accomplish. That sir is a direct violation of editor policy so much more for admins. Your bold statement that they are never doing it out of spite is just plain wrong. You don't know that information at all. Admins are volunteers? Well aren't we regular bootlicking editors volunteers also? If not, I have not yet received my paycheck. We bootlicks are also aimed at improving Wikipedia. You make statements like you have a lower view of us plain old everyday editors. When someone asked for source info, I agree, I got upset because I had not yet finished the article. His 48 hour notice to pay rent or he would delete was a bit of a sting since it was in my first hours of editing. I had no idea what he was saying in legalese. I had to stop editing and do all the legal stuff for the image. I thought I did it right but this reckless and hateful admin ripped it down. The 48 hours was not even up yet. I am happy to provide any source I need. To my knowledge the image meets all the requirements to be published. I agree that I got worked up, but again I have not picked the battle. The argument with Yankees76 is an old one and relief from him does not appear to be in sight for me. I took your advice and stepped away. Now I am back to try and finish the edit. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie could have deleted the copy vio image immediatly. Giving you some time to explain it was a courtesy. And getting upset because you haven't "finished" an article before someone else makes edits to it again shows me that you've failed to grasp the basic concept of Wikipedia. Again, anyone can edit your work at any time! Articles are never finished...

And, yes, you stepped away, but why when you come back do you head right down the same combative path you were on before? From my point of view, much of your recent activity on Wikipedia appears to done with the intention of baiting other editors (which now constitutes the majority of your contributions to Wikipedia). If you'd really cooled off you wouldn't have come right back here and started accusing people who have 1000's of positive contributions of biting newcomers, stalking and harrassing you, and violating policy! Honestly, my suggestion is to 1) leave the project completely, as it's starting to appear that you might have issues with working with others or 2) go edit some unrelated articles in a positive fashion and try to avoid the individuals you feel are "out to get you". If you continue to make personal attacks and act in an uncivil and combative fashion you'll end up blocked. Nobody wants that because I'm sure there are plenty of great edits that you can make here. Just stop being such a douche and try to get along for a change, okay? If you need help with anything, ask politely lots of people will be glad to help you. --Quartet 14:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha, ha! That douche comment was a nice try to bait me, but no cigar. Thank you for showing your true colors. I have learned my lesson. I am trying not fall into personal attack traps anymore. I have too much to add to this great website. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok let's recap and see your true colors: The majority of your small amount of edits to this site have been of a confrontational nature. You've feuded with, and/or attacked Ohnoitsjamie‎, Yankees76, Genisock2, Jechochman, WLU, Igor Berger and Josh.Pritchard.DBA (some for no apparant reason [4]); all while contributing a handful of minor constructive edits combined with the shameless promotion of an individual you claim to be the webmaster for. That doesnt really leave you with a whole lot of credibility for someone who conducts themselves the way they do around here. I really hope you have learned your lesson and you actually do intend to clean up your act. Otherwise I'm sure it won't be long before some admin will put a blocked template on here to go along with the Welcome templates and all the other ones you take such offense to. Good luck. --Quartet 18:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Attacks

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Big James Henderson. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.--Quartet 13:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I know I am new around here, but I have been here a little while. When do you stop welcoming me? Can I consider myself officially welcomed form here on out? I understand you are being cordial but to get the same "welcome to Wikipedia" on every revert makes it seem insincere.

There was no offense intended Jeffrey - it's just standard Wikipedia templated message. It just saves time having to type out everything, and avoids any hassles with language. Nearly all the 1st level warnings like the one above are simply friendly notices which is why they all say "welcome". --Quartet 13:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Last warning

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

See a doctor

Whether your problem is mental, drugs or steroid rage, we don't want you here. Please go away and hatefully disrupt something else.76.14.110.81 (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to support such a blunt and hateful attack. But I do agree with the main idea. Please don't disruptively edit Wikipedia, as all you do is take away from the project. There is a limit to how bold you can be, after all, and the ability to take comments, insults, and help is a vital asset to living. Simply put: don't see a doctor (unless you have to), but improve your general attitude, assume good faith, be generous, be accepting, and if it's negative or opinionated, just plain don't add it. Graham (talk, contrib) 05:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops?

I see you *have* been here a while. It was that "this hurts" part in the Bench Press article that made me warn you. WadeSimMiser (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This entry has been removed because the user did not sign his comment. Again. Go and register before making any suggestions here. No sock puppetry, please.

This is the original. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bench_press&diff=prev&oldid=239364386

Insanity

Rather than edit-war by reverting all the time, I strongly suggest you wait for consensus to develop on the article's talk page. The discussion is still new and this disruption is unhelpful. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 17:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So... stop disrupting. Consensus does not make right. I STRONGLY suggest that you suggest instead of strongly suggest. It sounds like you are trying to bully people into agreeing to your ideas.Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have raised this at the talk pages of the Psychology and Law projects. WP:CONSENSUS is worth reading. Let's not have the hassle of an WP:RFC please. --Rodhullandemu 17:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Look. You have a history of harassing editors. Why can't you ALLOW the edit to stand? What is the real reason? Do you really want to loose admin credibility because of this? I can edit any of the pages on this site. If my edit is useful and noteworthy it should stand no matter what your freinds on the committees say. You do not control any page. Get a life and leave people alone. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL. I won't issue a formal warning since you're obviously upset by having one of your edits challenged. That happens here daily, and I've got used to it. --Rodhullandemu 17:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not upset by having my addition to the article 'challenged.' I take offense to it being 'removed' by an admin. I take issue to the fact that you acting in the manner of an editor. There is no reason to remove the edit except for the fact that you are another one of those admins that harass editors, like ohnoitsjamie. I feel admins like you and ohnoitsjamie should take a break from being an admin. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You're continued incivility toward numerous other editors is wearing thin. You will be blocked if it continues. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Your comments here and here violate our WP:Civility policy and cannot continue. Please change your behavior or you will be blocked from editing the site. — Satori Son 19:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously what I said above 6 months ago has not been taken seriously. This user simply does not have the ability to work in consensus with other editors. From his first edits here through his last few over the last couple of days, all we see is aggression, name calling and arguing, without any sort of compromise or regard for other editors - regardless of the article or editors working on it. If he doesn't get his way, he throws a tantrum and out come the insults. "Wearing thin" is putting it lightly. --Quartet 05:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It is funny how the same two admins stalk me around and incite this kind of thread. Will there be an admin who stands up and shows me how to complain against this harassment? Is there no help for the downtrodden and abused on wikipedia? Help! Help! Help! Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have never spoken to you before; however, if you want to complain about harassment, WP:ANI or WP:WQA await your report eagerly, as do I. --Rodhullandemu 14:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As do I and I'm sure Ohnoitsjamie‎, Yankees76, Genisock2, Jechochman, WLU, Igor Berger, User:WadeSimMiser and Josh.Pritchard.DBA do as well. --Quartet 15:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, I have no complaint against you, and I sincerely apologize for you being brought into this. I am sorry for erroneously mistaking you for the admin cabal that follows me around and shamelessly reverts my edits. They try to incite me to react in a manner that will get me banned. Even though I am sure that Wikipedia admin policy makers would disagree with their actions, I have yet to get anyone to help me understand the process of starting a conversation concerning their actions. I thank you without measure for the link you put up and again apologize for my misunderstanding your identity. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Final warning

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at talk:insanity, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. The comments on talk:insanity are grossly unnecessary and indicate that in the year you have been here, you have not learned that civility is a trait to be cultivated. The problem with the quote on insanity is not regards its verifiability, it's regards what wikipedia is not, in this case not a directory, a section which explicitly includes quotations. I suggest in the future, if you are running into issues with the content you are trying to add, you ask the removing editor politely on their talk page what the issue is and what policies and guidelines their edit is based on. Then review the policy/guideline, and then discuss based on that. Wikipedia is not a battleground and if you continue to approach it as one, you will face escalating blocks. With less than 200 edits you have a lot to learn. If you continue to approach talk pages as you do right now, you will not get a chance to learn anything. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Please discontinue editing my talk page and allow someone who has no history with me to administer my actions. Thank you for your cooperation. Any future edits from you on this page will be deleted. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, I've never had any history with you; your name was certainly unfamiliar to me until I investigated your actions following the report on the Administrator's Noticeboard. As a completely uninvolved administrator, I echo both WLU's explanations, and his warning. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to help me become a better editor. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Insanity, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. There you go, I have no history with you, so as you don't believe User:WLU should be allowed to interact with you, please accept the same warning from a previously uninvolved editor Mayalld (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity, the above is not a new warning for new unacceptable behaviour, but is by way of confirming that the warning that WLU gave you is perfectly valid, and proper. Mayalld (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for responding. I assume you are not a puppet and care about the integrity of Wikipedia and its dedication to allow anyone to edit. I must first ask a couple of questions because I value my ability to edit this great website. Are you an admin? If so, can I talk about this matter without being harassed by the few admins that I have history with on my talk page? Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, in case anyone missed the post prior to Mayalld's edit, I am not allowing those admins that I have history with to edit my talk page for the purpose of making sure this request for help does not result in a heated debate and me being blocked. If you are an admin that has had disagreements with me in the past, please respect my decision and refrain from commenting on my page. Thank you for understanding and I apologize for these needed measures. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As a neutral party (I noticed this on the ANI page) Jeffrey, might I suggest checking out User Adoption or Editor Review? Or maybe check out the Help Desk to find ways of doing things within the Wikipedia society. It's not as crystal clear as some users make it out to be. I spent several months arguing with someone only to be puled aside and slowly explained how it works (as opposed to how it's supposed to work). I can tell you this up front, being taken seriously is a big deal to a lot of these guys. I don't know if you've seen WP:AGF but it means Assume Good Faith, and it's a real stickler for almost everybody here. It basically says "Assume everyone is trying to be doing good right from the start." Like me, I assume you are trying to get better and will read this thinking I am honestly trying to help (and I am). Also, I can tell you the "Not a big deal" about being an admin is mostly true, but not quite a pristine as some would have you believe. As far as knowing things or doing almost anything there's no difference between admins and us "normal folk" and as far as opinions go - no one cares who's what. Admin's can do some stuff that most can't, protect pages, block users... crap like that, and despite our best efforts there is some amount of regard afforded "those with the mop". But I have argued with admins and had them back down. And I've seen plenty of reports on ANI to understand that if you are actually mistreated by an admin you have a recourse. I don't know how seasoned you are to Wikipedia but I would like to offer my talk page to you for any questions you might have or explanations of policies that aren't as clear as they should be. Please ask all you want. Padillah (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

[redacted] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

To be fair WLU you are talking about his user page and he is talking about his User Talk page. As far as I know it has always been acceptable to remove posting from your talk page as you see fit unless it is disruptive. If he doesn't want your postings on his talk page I see you as being disruptive in continuing to post here after being asked twice, rather politely I must say, not to. Padillah (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) For clarity, I am not an admin, and have never had any previous dealings with you. You should understand that issuing warnings is not something that is restricted to admins. Any editor can take another editor to task through the graduated warnings process if they breach policy. An admin only need become involved if you are repeatedly warned, but don't take heed. At that point, the admin would review your edits, and confirm that the warnings were appropriate before deciding on a course of action.

I do not feel that you have been victimised here. The simple fact is that Wikipedia has policies, and that you breached those policies, and that you continued to breach them after being warned not to. Many of the admins that you complain about might have entirely justifiably blocked you for your repeated breaches, but chose instead to try to persuade you to reform.

We are at a crossroads here. You can either heed the warnings, and determine to abide by policy, or you can decide to fight a perceived enemy. If you choose the latter, it is inevitable that you will be blocked. I urge you to accept that the admins were correct, and that you need to take on board what has been said to you. Mayalld (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You make me feel like you might be a little too eager to jump in with both feet to assist me. My situation is a little more complicated than you may think. Please don't take it negatively when I ask you to refrain from posting any further comments about this issue on my talk page. I want to put this behind me and need to move on with good counsel for the future. I wish you well and thank you for helping me to become a better editor. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and it is vital to a collaborative project that editors can communicate. Such communication is not possible where editors seek to restrict who can leave messages on their talk page. If you are to become a better editor, it is vital that you, once and for all, abandon this idea that you can restrict who leaves messages on your talk page, and accept that even people who aren't saying what you want to hear have a right to post messages. Mayalld (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be best if we allowed JPH to cool down and see what steps he feels are appropriate. He may not know the cute wikisyntax but he's clearly asking for a truce so he can get a handle on his approach to editing and dispute resolution. Just because he doesn't recover the way you want him to recover doesn't mean he'll be a "bad editor". Since he knows his emotions better than we do (since we don't know ANYTHING about him) I suggest that we heed the rather polite request to leave him be and simply offer what help we can when he feels the need to ask. He knows he's being watched, he's been warned enough at the ANI dispute that it'd be hard to overlook, and if he continues to screw-up there are mechanisms in place to deal with that too. So there's nothing to worry about, he'll come around when he feels the need to. So let's all just chill out. Padillah (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"(since we don't know ANYTHING about him)" Actually - there's a wealth of information out there if one cares to look, and it provides quite a bit of insight that might be useful for those looking to mentor JPH. --Quartet 14:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And how would the future growth be served by imposing preconceptions from the past? I appreciate the warning, I've been dumped on once by someone I tried to help (he would not stop creating socks no matter how hard I tried to get him to calm down) I think it's the trying, not the succeeding, that should be important. We are starting to clutter this editors talk page unnecessarily, so let's respect the step back he's taken. Padillah (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. You can learn alot about this person - like his interests for example (did you know he's a published author?). There are news reports and other goodies you can use to steer him to articles he'd be able to really improve based on his past education and work experience. --Quartet 14:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Fair enough, my apologies. I'll poke around and see what I can find. Thank you very much. Padillah (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent Accusations regarding Vandalism

Just a comment, but when you say "I have had more problems from this Quartet person than anyone. If you had an edit that you knew was verifiable, but it kept being removed by a user that has made it clear he was interested in having you banned" you should be aware that a content dispute is not vandalism. For the record, before December 22 I've made 2 edits to the bench press article (1 to re-add a maintenance tag, the other reverting a spam link), and have removed "your" content only today (Dec. 30) My removal was not limited to the information you've added and I explained in the edit summary why the material I removed was removed. Please be clear on what Wikipedia considers vandalism and especially what is not vandalism before throwing this word around. This [5] is considered vandalism to the bench press article, the edits I've made are not. --Quartet 23:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't have missed that this was an adoption page. As such I'd appreciate if you respected the privacy it affords and allow me to mentor this editor. Jeffery, please do not bother to respond. In fact if you feel the need to remove this from your talk page please feel free. Padillah (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no "privacy" about the sub-page, but Quartet should try to be sensitive to the fact that Padillah is trying to mentor Jeffrey. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There's obviously no inherent privacy, otherwise Quartet couldn't have gotten there in the first place. But there is the implied privacy of being a single-purpose, adoption talk page with only one way to have found the page - look up Jeffery's contribs and follow them around. Padillah (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Which anyone has the right to do. For example, to track the activities of a suspected vandal, which I've done countless times. But I don't see this as stalking, just a lack of discretion and patience on the part of Quartet. Let's see what how things go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sensitive to it, which is why I didn't address it on that page (which by the way Padillah can been found by looking on your edit history). Still, I felt that I was being painted unfairly as a vandal. ("One of my most tiring and seemingly endless tasks is trying to protect my first edit from vandalism. I have had more problems from this Quartet person than anyone")

Regardless of where the above comment took place, it's still commenting on the contributor and not the content during a content dispute - not to mention could be seen my some as a personal attack (remember, accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are personal attacks). Added to his claims of a consensus that obviously did not exist, and the insistance of keeping certain records that are not logical, I'm left to question if JPH's edits to this article are conducted in good faith. --Quartet 00:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And that is why he is being mentored. Please respect that. I'm sorry you feel the comments made were out of line, then please bring up to me, the person trying to mentor him, and I can address this with him in a constructive way. Not everyone can think nice thoughts about all people all the time. The comments made were made in an air of confidence between this editor and myself and were not made to you or on a mainspace talkpage. Without some expectation of respect how can any editor be expected to trust any page on here? You say you feel slighted, what about Jeffery? He's trying hard, he's got a mentor and he's not revert warring, and he still gets warnings for stuff he's trying to find a way to deal with. Now he's not supposed to ask for help? Imagine how this looks to him? How can this look like anything other than you hunting him down and attacking him even when he's trying to get help? NOTE: I'm not accusing you of doing this, I'm asking you to be sensitive to the situation and try and be understanding about the feelings of this editor. If you want to tell me I slipped and didn't say something to him as his mentor, fine. That's a good point, my mistake. I don't think it takes much to simply respect the fact that the guy is trying and for you to keep the pressure on like this is of no help at all. Dancing around by pointing out that none of the pages are private or how many different ways you can find the page don't address the lack of basic respect shown. Veiled accusations aside, please WP:AGF and let the user have some time to grow. Padillah (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for having to do this but...

..I thought you should know that if you are resigned to make no further effort in improving your outlook I'm left with reporting the insulting and crass statements you've made to AN/I (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Jeffrey_Pierce_Henderson). I'm sorry we couldn't make more progress. Padillah (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 48 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:51, 26 January 2009 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

The person who has blocked me is one of the same people I have been trying to get relief from through a mentoring process. I made no disruptive edits and those edits I did make were only to my mentoring page. This action has no basis in standard procedure, and I appeal the vindictive action. This action is usually used to handle disruptive edits to articles and there is no precedent that it should be used to squelch the cries for relief of new editors. I regret that my 'mentor' failed and quit, but I believe that the activity of the clique that harasses me to no end should be uncovered. I request that another Admin besides this one who has blocked me review the issue. I will accept the decision anyone else, but DO NOT accept this person as final. This person leads a small group of editors and admins and they have stalked my edits vehemently for months now. I have been trying to get assistance to get this 'cabal' to leave me alone to no avail. These four people include WLU, Ohnoitsjamie, Yankees76, and Quartet. These people have been on top of me for no reason except that I edited the Bench Press article to remove their 'champion' and put in the true champion. When WLU staed it was vandalism, I had to fight tooth and nail to get him to allow it. When Yankees76 fought that the reference was not verifiable, I won that argument with the assistance of the Guinness Book of World Records and the data provided by organizations recognized by the USOC. When I added a bio page for the lifter of note, Quartet tried to get it removed but he failed. Then when I tried to put a photo up on the site that I own the rights to Ohnoitsjamie ripped it down without any mercy. Keep in mind I am a new editors that has been trying to learn this process as I go. I have no delusions that my methods are blunt. I asked for assistance many times but every chance these four people always made a point to stop me from getting help to get away from them. Now Ohnoitsjamie gets to rule on my block? It just smacks of a Kangaroo Court. Please don't allow this to continue for other editors. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per comments below and WP:NOTTHEM. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2009 (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.

Here Mr. Case assumes that I knew to read something other than what appeared on my talk page. The process for lifting the ban makes no such information available. It simply states that if I want the ban reviewed that I put my reason after the unblock code. Nothing more. I assumed that this was the procedure. Why aren’t you assuming good faith here? You are wrong. I am not attacking anyone. Isn't it difficult for admins to make unbiased decisions against the editor they are quarreling with? Shouldn't there be a policy that if there is a problem between an Admin and an Editor that the Admin is not always right? The edits in question are on a mentoring page and the one who made the accusation was a recently fired mentor. This out of work mentor spoke of 'insulting and crass statements' but gave no evidence or examples. Do the two admins and two editors that have gathered here against me really need you to blindly defend them? Why is the appeal process so complicated with no assistance for the accused? Case and point. This system is geared to benefit the cabal. Those who know the system are allowed to manipulate verifiable facts to their whim. Because new editors don't know the 'correct' procedure, they are removed from the process. I rest my case. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In case you are wondering accusing "...a small group of editors and admins..." to have "...stalked my edits..." is a personal attack. Especially when it is directed at "...four people include WLU, Ohnoitsjamie, Yankees76, and Quartet." When you give malicious intent to other users actions by saying "These people have been on top of me for no reason..." it is widely regarded as a bad thing.

There is no assumption of having read anything, if you don't learn the policies that doesn't mean you are exempt from them - ignorance of the law is no excuse.

You make statements like "I will accept the decision anyone else..." and then, when someone else makes a decision you accuse the impartial admin you requested of blindly defending the four editors (which, by the way, is a personal attack against the impartial admin too).

You complain that you were simply told to put {{unblock|reason=???}} but then later ask "Why is the appeal process so complicated...?" How complicated could it be to type {{unblock|reason=???}}?

You can't, in the current reality, manipulate a verifiable fact. That's why we require verifiability, so people can't manipulate it.

You could very easily have gotten the information you wanted in an article. If you would have asked someone which article to put it in and then told people where to look up the fact you'd have it in and be done. I don't understand what is so hidden? What cabal?

And, by the way, it's "case in point" as in, supplying a case to illustrate your point. Padillah (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is more of a personal attack: stalking someone or identifying someone who is stalking you? Is it a personal attack to list the people who are personally attacking you? Is it wrong to ask others for help to defend you against the attacks of certain people? Isn’t it easier for someone to defend you if you tell them what to defend you from? Padillah, you seem a little confused. I typed unblock|reason=, and I put my reason there. I was told by Case that it was required for me to read the policy on removing a block before proceeding (which is not the case, the policy is merely recommended). There was no such information, and therefore I viewed Case as another Admin coming to the defense of other Admins without getting the facts straight. A policy is not a law. There are no ‘laws’ here, and I think that is the problem we are getting into. Some Admins think they are needed to burden new editors with some perceived Wikipedia Law. This is not what Wikipedia is about. This is an open community with flexible procedures and very few Laws. If you will stop looking at my struggle as an issue that I am having and start looking at it as a chance to improve and strengthen Wikipedia, I think you might finally see what we can accomplish here. You say that we cannot manipulate a verifiable fact, but it has occurred! That is why this discussion has arisen. Thank you for identifying yourself as a member of the group that would rather have new editors beg Admins to add something to a page than to just edit the page themselves as Wikipedia was intended. The ‘case and point’ was a play on the person’s name and his not reading the point I was making and the well known idiom ‘case in point’ in which means the case I refer to makes my point. In my retort, He was missing the case and therefore not “in” (or more appropriately ‘on’) the point. Also, in the future, can we please not use bold in these discussions. It is not needed because we are all very intelligent and can be taken the wrong way very easily. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is more of a personal attack: stalking someone or identifying someone who is stalking you? - calling someone a stalker without proof is a personal attack. For about the 50th time, please review WP:NPA.

Is it a personal attack to list the people who are personally attacking you? - No, however if you list people who you beleive are attacking you, you need to provide evidence. Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are personal attacks. Calling people stalkers and accusing them of being racist requires serious evidence to support those claims.

If you will stop looking at my struggle as an issue that I am having and start looking at it as a chance to improve and strengthen Wikipedia - You're disrupting Wikipedia. Your overall pattern is disruptive. Your edits interfere with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve Wikipedia. And you continue to resist moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from other editors and/or administrators. How is anyone supposed to help improve Wikipedia, when so much valuable time is wasted on fancruft powerlifting records, and quotations in places they don't belong? And that's not including your personal attacks directed at pretty much everyone you've come into contact with. How do you plan on strengthening and improving Wikipedia, or allow anyone else to strengthen it, when you have a year of editing behind you with no real contributions? What have you actually contributed to Wikipedia aside from a few wikilink corrections, and a large unsourced contribution to an article on a retired powerlifter?

You say that we cannot manipulate a verifiable fact, but it has occurred! - Doubtful -otherwise you would not be in a situation where there are calls for your indefinite block.

Thank you for identifying yourself as a member of the group that would rather have new editors beg Admins to add something to a page than to just edit the page themselves as Wikipedia was intended. - It's amusing that you say this because Padillah is probably the best thing that happened to you here. New editors add material to Wikipedia every single day without problems. They edit with the understanding that what they contribute can be edited or removed completely by other editors. And when it happens they don't resort to insults. Until you're able to figure out how to do this, you'll lead a miserable life here and you won't have too many supporters. --Quartet 22:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Here we go with the "cabal" again. You were given numerous warnings to not attack people. In the end, you personally attacked the editor kind enough to mentor you. If I didn't block you, someone else would have. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And OH NO! Look who showed up. Is it the MILLIONS of other editors or hundreds of other admins for Wikipedia ready to discuss the atrocity occurring here? No. Just the usual suspects. Methinks they doth protest too much. Ohnoitsjamie says I was warned numerous times about personal attacks but the only ‘evidence’ he links has no warning by him for personal attacks. He says I attacked the person 'kind enough to mentor me' but his link shows no comment by me. He says that ‘If I didn't block you, someone else would have.’ Stand back everyone. The omniscient Ohnoitsjamie is going to predict the future actions of all other Admins. Case and point. Ohnoitsjamie is not interested in the appearance of an impartial decision. He would rather save us all the time that justice takes and act as accuser, jury, and executioner. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So...what JPH is saying is that when he followed the policies and guidelines cited by other editors, his edits have stood and not been removed. JPH - consider that the editors may not hate you, but may have reasons for their edits and you being belligerent and insulting will alienate them and reduce the amount of good faith that is assumed. If you're not sure why an edit was removed, try asking. I'm perfectly willing to both provide my reasons for my edits and to provide suggestions on how to best source and insert new information. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't beleive this individual is suited to editing on Wikipedia. Even in his unblock request, we see the phrases "fight tooth and nail" and "I won the argument". Wikipedia isn't about winning or losing, and it certainly isn't about argueing. The overwhelming majority of contributions by this editor are on article talk pages and are confrontational in nature. Edits to Talk:Insanity, Talk:Hamas, and edits like this [6] and this [7] where none of the "cabal" that is constantly being used as the reason for this behaviour are present. This block has more to do with this users overall pugnacious attitude [8] and unwillingness to work with others , and has little to nothing to do with the perceived harrassment from group of editors or administrators - and certainly not on my part. I think this page sums it up, as all of these concerns were echoed by other users [9] when a formal complaint was made in the past. And the fact that this user has brought race into the discussion only makes this block even more justified in my mind. --Yankees76 (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll let someone else do it, but I think JPH has exhausted the community's patience. Recommending indef block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

At this point I don't know what else we can do. He's been told, point blank and period, "Don't talk about other people, just the edits". He's actually been told "Don't type other editors names" in an effort to make him stop fixating on the people and work on the articles. The rant that broke off the mentorship was a pretty clear statement of WP:POINT, JPH is trying to get something done and has no intention of stopping until he does. He has said as much in as many words. There's not much gray area here, I can't, in good conscience, suggest anything but an indef block on the next infraction (and, given our history, I can't help but assume there will be a next infraction). I'm sorry I couldn't do more Jeffery but I told you once "I am counseling you now, with all the severity I can muster, if you continue to make this about "winning" and "losing", if you continue to ignore the merits of other editors changes, if you continue to discuss editors instead of edits than I'm going to have to bow-out and leave you to your eventual and inevitable ban." I don't know how much clearer I can be. I'm sorry. Padillah (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding where I was told "Don't type other editors names". Could someone help me find it please? Thank you. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Now I want you to think of why having the records in a separate article where they can be explained at our leisure is a good thing. And, as a edit-building exercise, don't type any editors name." How's that? It's in the Avoiding Conflict section, my third response, near the middle. Padillah (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Padillah. That makes sense. But, you do realize the mentoring advice you were giving me there was to not use editors names on the talk page of an article. It is disingenuous for you to refer to it as advice to me that applied to everything I wrote. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If that is what you believe, then I truly failed you. I'm sorry. Padillah (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Feb 27, 2008 - User:Josh.Pritchard.DBA tells JPH to "Check out the WP:no personal attacks."

Feb 28, 2008 - User:Yankees76 tells JPH to "Please refer to Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia"

March 3, 2008 - User:WLU tells JPH to Please also review WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL

May 29, 2008 - User:Quartet tells JPH that Getting worked up about it and picking fights, calling people names and making threats about having admins stripped of their duties will only cause everything you do to be scrutinized further. Stay cool.

July 7, 2008 - User:Gnorthup tells JPH to improve your general attitude, assume good faith, be generous, be accepting, and if it's negative or opinionated, just plain don't add it.

December 11, 2008 - User:Satori Son tells JPH that he needs to Please change your behavior or you will be blocked from editing the site. while User:Rodhullandemu again asks him to read WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL.

December 2008 - January 2009 - User:Padillah spends days talking about not attacking editors on User:Jeffrey Pierce Henderson/Adoption.

December 23, 2008 - when JPH asks for an "unbiased admin" to comment, User:TenOfAllTrades says am very concerned that unless this editor learns to stay cool – and perhaps have a cup of tea when he's about to hit 'save' – then he will continue to find himself frustrated by editing here, and probably won't be allowed to do so for much longer. I am also very concerned that an editor who has been editing regularly for the better part of a year hasn't already internalized those principles. If this is to be a 'final' warning, then it really must be final.

On December 23 Jeffrey Pierce Henderson claimed that "My lack of knowledge has resulted in problems"[10]. How is this possible? Despite all of these requests time and time again, how is this still happening? How are we still being subjected to insults and snide remarks from this user? Jeffrey Pierce Henderson do you have a learning disability? And I'm 100% serious, because if you did it would at least explain some things. I'd really like to know - what is your major malfunction that you can be asked over and over again by numerous different people to follow a few simple rules on here, and yet you still somehow manage to violate nearly all of them? --Yankees76 (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue regarding your conduct opened at AN/I

An issue regarding your conduct has been opened on the AN/I page. There is discussion regarding the length of your current block. I did not open this issue, I patrol AN/I and came accross it as opened by another editor. I've asked them to notify editors when AN/I issues are opened in the future. Padillah (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's proper etiquette to let people know when you complain about them, so here you go. It was me. I don't like this guys attitude or it could be just that I despise people who can never admit when there wrong but either way it was me that was calling for a longer block because blocked people shouldn't be getting mouthy and this person is. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(Personal attack(s) redacted by Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)}) Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed your personal attack on KomKiev. If you persist in making them I will block you for longer. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is Komrade Kiev? Is he a machine or not? Is it possible to personally attack a machine? In order to be personally attacked, don't you by definition have to be a person? What exactly was the 'personal' attack? Case in point. Some Admins don't teach their interpretation of 'personal attack' and how to respond correctly. They are interested in telling you when they are going to block you. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* I'll chalk this one up to you being a bit behind the curve when it comes to pop culture. See You're a Woman, I'm a Machine. The user is obviously a fan of this record and their user name is probably taken from the second song on Corey Hart's Boy in the Box (album) (thanks Google). Machines or "bots" on Wikipedia are programs or scripts that make automated edits and are generally named as such and have their own policies - see WP:BOTPOL. I'm 99.99% sure that Komrade Kiev is not a bot. --Quartet 22:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What about there being no discussion page? He can comment on our talk page, but we cannot comment on him? Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following you....unless you're still blocked you should be able to post a comment on their talk page.--Quartet 22:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

He has every right to blank his talk page of all but block and sock notices. His talkpage is not deleted, but I would imagine he wouldn't want to talk to you if you keep up with this behavior. Your block expired a while ago. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 23:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am showing nothing on his site. Should Admins be able to block access to their talk pages? It gives the impression that they are above reproach. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's because he blanked the page, Jeffrey, meaning he removed all the text from it, but did not touch the history. Admins cannot block read access by any means short of deletion, and personally, in your case I'd certainly enforce a restraining order forbidding you two from interacting because of your frankly cruel behavior. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 03:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops misread that. Hrm, you're saying an Admin has their page protected? KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

He's complaining because Komrade Kiev blanked his talk page (as is well within his right). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 03:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

Before I answer your request, I have a few questions and comments:

• Are you sure you want me?
• You are not a newbie; you're having problems. This will be a different kind of adoption, more of a mentorship.
• I am very candid, one might say blunt and depending on how thin one's skin is, one might say uncivil or aggressive. If I think you're acting like an idiot, I'm likely to say "You're acting like an idiot! Stop it!" I expect you to say "how am I acting like an idiot?" or "what am I doing wrong?" or "how should I handle this instead?" but never, ever whine about being told you're acting like an idiot. Mind you, I tend to the over-the-top in examples and allegory, but the point remains. Can you stay focused on improving how you work within Wikipedia's structure and rules and keep it off trivial stuff?
• I won't hold your hand, or walk you through things. I won't give you a "reading list" except for the standard Welcome list, although I will almost certainly link to pages and policies I think you should read, and I will expect you to do so. I might give you "assignments" but I might not.
• I will ask you to reduce your editing radically until I feel you are ready to move on a bit. I may ask you to confine yourself to one article or one category.
• I will answer questions, and I'll discuss but I won't debate endlessly.
• and I'll block you myself if you are blatantly violating policy. No mercy.

Let me know. You can answer here, I will watch. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I didn't want this to be on my talk page because I didn't want others involved with my request. I looked for voluntary mentorship, but the link led me to the adoption page. I went through the list and out of the five that seemed like possible candidates, you are the first one I asked. I know my page looks like I have been around a while but really I am still working on my first edit. Although the data was verifiable and notable I have lost the argument. The information is still not 'allowed' by the original Admin who removed it a year ago. I have a history of not getting along with people who abuse their authority, and I want to change that. Mostly I am interested in learning the policies and procedures of Wikipedia from an Admin who has knowledge of policy precision and a history with trying to make Wikipedia a better community. I want to create articles, upload images, and learn the ropes from an Admin on how to deal more productively with the static that inevitably comes from certain people. I have read your terms and agree. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nancy Schaefer

A tag has been placed on Nancy Schaefer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. andy (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of fictional antiheroes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ernest Palmer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion

Howdy hello! You recently added a dispute at third opinion, but I'm not sure if I could find it. Third opinion is used for mediating disputes between 2 people. Could you point me to the issue you're having, and provide some diffs/evidence of discussion? If you're not in a dispute, third opinion is probably not the place for this question. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Howdy Capt. I edited the article Mt. Ararat to include information that is clearly in the Hebrew text. It was reverted with the words "No its not." Before I reverted it back, (and by doing so declare "yes it is") I wanted to help in how to do this. I don't want to get into religious arguments. Just the facts. Thank you for your help. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Captain Eek Thank you for your help. I have posted a message on the other editors page, and I will wait for the response. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)