User talk:AJackl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, AJackl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

I did that move for you, but things don't quite work the way you think. Refer to the pages above for further info. Deb 15:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The financial data on Werner Erhardt.[edit]

Dude- it is defintely bad information. Why do you want to include it? ( I am ignoring the possibility that yo uare just trying to cause trouble by posting negative information)

Pressman is not a good source of fatual data. Just because somebody wrote abook does not mean their facts are accurate. I consider this to be AT BEST third-hand information about Landmark that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

Now, unless this MEtro article you quote- but I can't find- references financial documents that actually support the spurious "50%" of pre-tax revenue it is ridiculous. The license thing I think was true until Landmark bought out the licenses.

Can you email me a copy or an image or something of this metro article?

Thanks, Alex

(As stated on Landmark Education, talk page)[edit]

  • Citation is from a reputable source, and is certainly relevant to the section:

Metroactive is a Northern California meta-site specializing in arts and entertainment information and featuring content from three of the San Francisco Bay Area's leading publications: Metro, Silicon Valley's Weekly Newspaper; Metro Santa Cruz; and the North Bay Bohemian. Both Metroactive and Metro's weeklies have won national awards for writing, editing and design. website, Metroactive

    • Here is the actual citation for the article:

The est of Friends , Metroactive Features, July 9-15, 1998 issue of Metro, Metro Publishing Inc. Smeelgova 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Smeelgova edits[edit]

I am reviewing the reversal of edits that he did to my recent edits on the Financial Ties page where he said he did so after getting your agreement. Did you agree to him reversing my edits? I am trying to take out all the irrelevant BS that he is committed to having in this supposed "encyclopedia" and he seems to think that since you are a SL for LE, you have some sort of override on others editing the article for accuracy.

Innappropriate Accusation of Vandalism[edit]

I have kept the below in because I feel Talk pages should not delete content but this was an unfair and totally unjustified accusation on my edits. Alex Jackl 15:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You vandalized the Landmark Education page[edit]

Please don't make sweeping text-blankings for parts of articles that are actively being discussed. The Landmark Educastion article is obviously a highly disputed page, but you cut out huge amounts of text recklessly. Continued vandalism will result in blocking.Wbroun 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice going[edit]

It is such a relief and appreciated to see that you and I can agree and compromise on contentious issues from time to time. I must admit - of the active pro-Landmark supporters on Wikipedia - you are the nicest and most professional and polite so far. Perhaps that is because of all of your training in listening/communication. Smeelgova 07:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Vandalsim Project[edit]

Welcome to the Vandalism Project. This is just getting off the ground so any help you could give would be most appreciated. Remember 18:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but[edit]

Please use four of these: ~ to sign.ERTalk 13:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(I fixed your header, it was on my watchlist from a while ago). You have to use two equal signs on either side for a new one. Smeelgova 13:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
What are you talking about? I sign my posts- unless I forget by accident. Which post do you think I did not sign? Alex Jackl 19:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a misunderstanding. Perhaps in your "preferences" tab uptop, you accidentally checked the "raw signature" box. If you leave it unchecked, your username will appear in signatures as ours do. Smeelgova 23:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
It all becomes clear to me now! THANK YOU Smeelgova for solving the mystery! I thought she was pulling my chain! Somehow I did accidently check the raw signature box. Corrected now! Thanks again! Alex Jackl 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure. I'm sure it was all just a misunderstanding. Hope you are doing well. Smeelgova 05:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Welcome to VandalProof![edit]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, AJackl! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. frothT C 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Started first study[edit]

Go to WikiProject Vandalism studies/Study1 to check it out and help make it better. Remember 22:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say it is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies/Study1. Remember 16:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

LandMark Education reverting Jan07[edit]

Hi AJackl, User:71.246.200.170 starting 4:25 11 Jan posted 6 edits to LE page, User:Smeelgova removed all? of them in 4 edits ending 4:52. Checking on the talk page of 71.246.200.170 I find Smeelgova has welcomed them and shortly after placed a vandalism warning on the page. 71.246.200.170 has no prior posts on any subject. The content of their edits appeared, to this outsider, of medium-low to medium-high quality with no content indicating vandalism. I have posted to Smeelgova asking for an explanation and expressing my concerns at their actions. Will wait for reply - hopefully Smeelgova will make this all clear. Do yo have any thoughts/insights on the events? SmithBlue 06:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I would rather not commment on this too much(content not contributor right?) except to say that I wholeheartedly agree with your position. I also agree the changes were reasonable and of decent quality. I do have an admitted bias against people who don't sign in and fllow fair protocol, but I also agree that we should give newbies a lot of space in the interest of engendering as much participation as possible in Wikipedia. Feel free to email me if you like! Thanks! Alex Jackl 14:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

XML Templates[edit]

Hi there! I see you've recently proposed some templates for deletion. However, you've nominated them as articles for deletion, in WP:AFD - they need to go in templates for deletion, WP:TFD, which has a different set of procedures. Tevildo 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was proposing an article I created for deletion. I have been working on some tamplates but it was the article I accidently created that I was trying to get deleted. Thanks for the note- can you clarify or help me out with this if I did make a mistake? Alex Jackl 16:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

New article and conflict of interest problems[edit]

Thanks for all of your improvements to Wikipedia. I noticed you have created the new article Learning_Standards. I am somewhat concerned that the links you have supplied all violate WP:COI since you appear to be involved with all of the organizations/websites. I encourage you to also take a look at WP:EL - the guidelines for external linking. At the moment, there is a strong movement against edits that appear to be aimed at search engine optimization (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam). Your actions, although they may be well intentioned, may fall under suspicion. In cases of WP:COI where you feel compelled to contribute, one course of action is to offer the links or edits on the talk page of the article and let other editors decide if they are appropriate. Good luck with your future contributions. Nposs 21:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your that. While I appreciate what you said I think you may be taking a too literal stance on that policy. I may BTW be off on this and am willing to consider that. The "Learning Standards" article is a good example of that- the organizations that most of those links point to are the standards organizations that hold the standard for containing the learning standards. I am a national expert on this which is why I am writng an article and it and therefore I belong to a lot of the standards bodies. The one organization that isn't is an aggregation site and I don't have personal knowledge of who "owns" that resource - it could be a government project or a private organization. I don't know - it just acts as a content agrregator. It makes the article a stronger article, because it allows someone interested in learning standards to actually get at some of them. BTW: I will be enhancing that article as I go on but decided to be bold, start it and see if I could get some others to start fleshing it out.
I am MASSIVELY against SPAM and am familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam. I myself am gearing up to participate in the anti-vandalism project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies. I am committed that vandalism, spam, and bad faith POV edits be combatted at all fronts because I believe Wikipedia may become one of the most awesome source of shared knowledge on the planet. It is why I am spending so much time here- it is importnat to remember to not assume anything and don't believ ewhat you are told. The fact that Smee actually spoke about my edits as "LinkSpamming" is a clear indication of POV. I am committed that we not use rules to hide attempts to control rather than inform. I look forward to dialoging with you on this... Alex Jackl 02:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Great article written to user AB I could not agree more. Don't pay any attention to AB he is inactive. This is all fake and he hasn't done the proper research to make any choices and he is not up to date on wikipedia he has been offline since Nov. Please disregard!

aspergers prononciation[edit]

I am telling you this was not intended as vandalism. It is following on from my earler query as well over Assburger. Whilst i have never heard it pronounced like that until i came here, i just wanted to check. How have you heard it pronounced? I have posted something similar to this on the talk page. Simply south 15:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I will respond over there! Thanks! Alex Jackl 18:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

E-Learning[edit]

Nice work on editing this page. It is in pretty sad shape and I do not know enough about E-learning to re-write it. I simply try to keep all the linkspam off of there since it seems to be a magnet for such. Feel free to make any changes, sweeping or otherwise, if you find sources and such! cheers -- Patrick Berry 13:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Stubs[edit]

Thank you for trying to mark Bharathi Vidhya Bhavan Matriculation Higher Secondary school, Thindal as a stub. Using a pipe to make the stub more specific like {{stub | school}} does not work. You need to pick a specific stub template. To help you there is a list at WP:WSS/ST. Thank you. Ksbrowntalk 09:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I wasn't sure how best to represent that! Appreciate the tip!Alex Jackl 21:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

I don't think we've met, but thanks for the note. Joyous! | Talk 10:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject on Vandalism studies Study 1 is complete.[edit]

The WikiProject on Vandalism studies recently finished its first study and has published its conclusions (a full and detailed copy of the conclusions can be found here).

The first study analyzed a randomly sampled pool of 100 random articles. Within these 100 articles there were a total of 668 edits during the months of November 2004, 2005, and 2006. Of those 668 edits, 31 (or 4.64%) were a vandalism of some type. The study's salient findings suggest that in a given month approximately 5% of edits are vandalism and 97% of that vandalism is done by anonymous editors. Obvious vandalism is the vast majority of vandalism used. From the data gathered within this study it is also found that roughly 25% of vandalism reverting is done by anonymous editors and roughly 75% is done by wikipedians with user accounts. The mean average time vandalism reverting is 758.35 minutes (12.63 hours), a figure that may be skewed by outliers. The median time vandalism reverting is 14 minutes.

Currently the project is working on a related study, Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies/Obama article study, and is also beginning to draft up the parameters of our second major study (see Study 2). If you are still interested in our work (your name is on the participant's list), please participate in our efforts to help create a solid understanding of vandalism and information on wikipedia by contributing to discussions of past studies or by helping plan up and coming ones. Thanks. JoeSmack Talk 04:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure can! Go over to Study 1's talk page and give your thoughts on the data, any other ways we can interpret it, any other ways to look at it, critiques of Study 1's procedure and findings, etc. You can also go over to Study 2's talk page and start talking about the next study (it is pretty up in the air right now, we're trying to amass lessons learned from the last study currently so share your iedas)! JoeSmack Talk 05:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
We're starting to weigh in for what study 2 will focus on, and we'd love your opinion if you're interested in giving it. :) JoeSmack Talk 20:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

the talk-page on Landmark Education[edit]

Hi Alex

You wrote:

Please don't bring the spin war that Smee was waging onto the Landmark Education site.

As I recall, spin-wars have raged continuously in the Landmark Education article since well before User:Smee apeared on the scene. -- Pedant17 01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Although Spin seems to have been endemic to the page for a long time Smee was so prolific and so reactionary that he was blocked several times and he mercilessly pressed a POV that Landmark was a cult and was somehow still connected to Werner Erhard in some kind of sinister fashion. In all due respect that is in no way the consensus of editors but he was relentless and he wore people out. It wasn't until he was 3RR's and the page was protected that suddenly editors started to participate again in dialog about the content. Hence my comment since I sensed the same flavor of POV in the language of some of your responses. Alex Jackl 04:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Some language reminded you of a lot of edits? Seems like a leap to me. -- Pedant17 03:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I see above Smee encouraging you to do that using clearly POV language.

I missed that. Could you please provide a specific quote so I can tell what you referred to? -- Pedant17 01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to the note Smee left on your talk page entitled: "Let the publicity advertising begin..." in which she said: "I have decided to take the article Landmark Education off of my watchlist, so it is possible that the page will soon begin to look like a replica of their own Corporate Web site, publicity advertising for their coursework. Just wanted to let you know. I hope you have been doing well. Yours, Smee 05:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)." Alex Jackl 04:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see much "clearly POV language" (whatever that means) here. "Advertising" always counts as a dirty word, but I know of no useful substitutes. I regard "is" and "possible" as filth, but I have to tolerate them. -- Pedant17 03:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way it is POV to declare an encyclopedia article advertising. I would say it is not advertising. The majority of editors agree with that. If anything I would say we are starting to recover from the article having been twisted into an advertisement for RIck Ross and certain conspiracy theories. We are now setting the article back to being an article on its subject matter. Can you see that perspective? It is because that perspective is in the majority that the page is going the way it is going. The fact is that a lot of the allegations are urban legend and exaggerations. In many ways the only worshipers of the cult of Werner Erhard has been Smee and a very few others who seem to have this man as a Devil in their pantheon. As far as most of us are concerned he is a human being - flawed as they all are- who invited the first example of this particular kind of work that we do and sold the technology to the stockholders of Landmark Education. That is the big connection. Alex Jackl 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying you regard the word "is" itself as "filth"? I just don't get it. By saying you regard "possible" as "filth" I am assuming you mean the jargon "possibility" as Landmark uses it? Alex Jackl 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking you to suppress yourself but to work with us to make a strong article that references what is so not the spin.

Any "what is so" ranks as unpardonable spin in my book -- hence the importance of providing sources and accurate quotations and counter-factuals. -- Pedant17 01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
This makes no sense to me. "What is so" is the "facts", the what actually happened and is true by a reasonable test of reality. Providing sources is great so long as you are moving forward the purpose of the article and not trying to undermine something or prove a point. "Counter factuals " is the kind of thinking that WIkipedia strives to avoid. We are not countering anything, we are supporting encyclopedic content. You know what I mean. Alex Jackl 04:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I feel called on to clarify here. I see "what is so" as baseless assertion, and it makes me at best wary (I see a lot of it). -- I don't see that articles have to have a "purpose", let alone a single purpose. Undermining and point-proving can form part of any discussional to-and-fro: I welcome them. -- My sloppy use of "counter-factuals" (not "Counter factuals") may have misled: I intended to convey something like "countering facts". Countering things forms the basis of many many advances (and a few retrogressions, such as Landmark Education's countering of the ideas of "meaning" and "try"). Thesis/antithesis/synthesis. -- Pedant17 03:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
A couple of things: "What is so" is hanging you up clearly so use a different term. "What is so" cannot be a baseless assertion - call it the facts instead if that makes it more comfortable for you. Undermining, point-proving, and countering do indeed form legitimate "moves" in a debate or an inquiry- they don't however belong on encyclopedia pages, except perhaps on the talk pages. Part of why we had so much trouble in the past year or two with the Landmark Page is that certain parties were indeed using the page as a platform to "prove" their point-of-view. Let's use the talk page to iron out our differences, but this is an encyclopedia not a chat room or a newsgroup. The purpose of the article is to present a factual, clear and informative view of the subject matter- that is all I was referring to when I mentioned "purpose".
The other thing is that someone has been whispering untruths in your ear. What exactly do you think Landmark has done with the words: "meaning" and "try"? I would be happy to have a discussion of that with you because we use the standard English meaning of those words - I even use a dictionary when I am leading to clarify what we are talking about. This is probably not the environment to have that talk-I would be happy to have an email exchange or a call on that if you would like. Alex Jackl 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, Be careful on a talk page of inserting your comments in the middle of conversations rather than at the end. Talk pages are supposed to be linear.

Linearity has its merits, as does interpolation. I find indented interpolation suitable for rebutting or questioning specific points on talk-pages. -- Pedant17 01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In two occasions you put your comment after the text someone used and BEFORE their signature. I am sure that wasn't intentional and I corrected it by placing the sig back next to their text.

I did that very deliberately in order to preserve the distinction between indentation (my comments) and non-indented stuff (the original text, with the original author's signature at the same level as the other edits of that Wikipedian, yet separate and relatable to each relevant segment). -- That said, I would like to see a more thread-conscious technology available for Wikipedia talk-pages. -- Pedant17 01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be more careful in the future!

Wilco. -- Pedant17 01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Alex Jackl 16:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject MMO Newsletter - April 2007[edit]

WikiProject MMO Quarterly
April 2007 Issue I
About Us
WikiProject MMO Quarterly is a quarterly newsletter posted on the first of January, April, July, and October. The newsletter is written by any and all interested members of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games for members of the project and interested Wikipedians outside of the project.
Questions, comments, and concerns
For general questions, comments, and concerns, leave a message on our talk page here. For questions, comments, and concerns about our newsletter, leave a message on the talk page for the newsletter section of our Outreach Department here.
New good articles and featured articles
Good articles and featured articles are a great way to see what major acomplishments we have made over the last quarter.

Good articles

Featured articles
None this quarter!

Role call
We ask that within a month, all members sign our role call to show that they are still active participants in the project. More information is available on the role call page.
Major news
WikiProject RuneScape, our former child project, was moved to become a task force of this project in January as it had a small scope but the task force is still going strong to this very day.

This past quarter marks the beginning of our new collaboration system MMOGCM. Past collaborations thus far have been World of Warcraft and MMORPG, both of which made it to GA status while it was the MMOGCM.

As well, we now have an Outreach Department which works on this newsletter as well as spreads the word of our project.

WikiProject MMO is also now a participant in the Work via WikiProjects division of Wikipedia 1.0 and as such, we will be helping decide which are the best (based on quality and importance) articles within our scope. Project members can discuss which articles are to be included here.

News from the RuneScape Task Force
We are currently trying to improve this task force so that we can edit all RuneScape-related articles in an organized manner. To do that we started a massive overhaul which we invite all task force members to participate in.

We have also gotten our main article, RuneScape to good article status this quarter. All this, and the task force was only created in January.

Signed...
Greeves, Ed

On behalf of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games.

To change your personal newsletter distribution preferences, please see the newsletter page from the Outreach Department.

Martial Arts[edit]

Thanks for the comments, I tend to get passionate on some stuff so know how you feel, made few more comments on it & some edits, aimed @ providing a balanced view, hope if it comes across aggressive you understand I'm trying to present my view point explicitly not start an argument. --Nate 11:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute, origina of term Neurodiversity[edit]

over at Talk:Neurodiversity there is a dispute with Judy Singer from Aspar, I'd like to get some discussion going to resolve the matter ... The essence of the matter is Judy claims she originated the term, research has turned up another guy, they happened to know each other ... CeilingCrash 06:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We're going with Random Edits for study 2[edit]

Heya AJack. Just to let you know Study 2 settled on the Random Edits idea. We're beginning to work out the procedure and structure of the study - I wanted to invite you in on the collaboration! (Notice new content on both the main Study 2 page and talkpage). Thanks for your help; its nice not being a team of just 3 anymore like it was for Study 1! :-) JoeSmack Talk 01:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it looks like we have bot help too. JoeSmack Talk 02:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of Landmark Education jargon[edit]

If you feel an article is non-notable, tag it for speedy delete or AfD. Please, don't just blank it. Your edit appeared to be vandalism, and I reverted it as such.--AgentCDE 19:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder: there's no AfD or DB tag on the page itself. Thank you for responding!--AgentCDE 19:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
er... Leave the page as is when posting the AfD/Prod. --AgentCDE 20:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Please stop vandalizing the article Landmark Education jargon. Continuously blanking it is vandalism. Either put it up for WP:AFD, or contribute in a positive manner, not simply removing material all the time. Thanks. Smee 20:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Please stop accusing people of being vandals when you are the vandal. I have reverted to the form we had finally come to after a long protracted set of discussions including multiple admins. You have vandalized that page by trying to avoid the consensus process on the Landmark page. I have marked it for deletion. Please follow process. Thanks Alex Jackl 20:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Your vandalism was called out by un-involved parties and you have been reported as such. Smee 20:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
The uninvolved party retracted their accusation of vandalism- they had not read the history of the page and thought I was blanking the page and did not realize I was literally restoring it to the agreed state that YOUR vandalism has disrupted. Come on Smee: Please don't besmirch the Wikipedia policies by using them to forward personal attacks and justify your not liking the consensus. I don't know why you hate Landmark or why you are so fanatical about it- but please don't misuse Wikipedia policies for that- its very disappointing I will sign off for now and I will see what other editors and admins have to say about this.Alex Jackl 20:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
When you try to compromise and reach out, and yet at the same time attack what you perceive to be my motivations, when you actually have no idea, that is not conducive to any sort of constructive discussion whatsoever. Smee 20:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
If you look at our history Smee I have tried to reach out. You should not be curious why people perceive you to be agressive and a manipulator. You game the system constantly and you keep adding content that represents a anti-Landamrk_Education view point and you show NO interest in balance at all- you only want to prove your view point and when it is demonstrated as a minority you are now trying to game the system to get your stuff in despite the consensus. I would love to reach a compromise with you but it seems like you are not committed to that- you want to be right about your views. I am withdrawing for the moment but let me give you o ne example of bad faith on your part: You keep removing my proposal to delete the article. That is one of a hundred examples. Alex Jackl 20:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. You are not following policy regarding prod, as per Luna below, and you continue to blank, which has been called out as vandalism.
  2. With all of your "training", you should be able to Assume good faith on my part, as opposed to drawing your own biased and hurtful conclusions as to my actions, which, by the way, I almost always back up with multiple reputable sourced citations. Smee 20:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Violation of 3RR[edit]

  • You have been reported for violation of 3RR, at WP:ANI/3RR. Smee 20:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Prod[edit]

Two points (1) when prodding, please don't blank or redirect the article unless there's a very pressing reason to -- which if there is, you probably shouldn't be using prod, and (2) contested prods should not be replaced, per WP:PROD, but should be followed up with the AfD process. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I did NOT BLANK. The redirect was ALREADY in place by concensus and with Admin oversight. The other user TOO K OFF the redirect and tried to restore content that had been taken off the Landmark Education main page as non-notable. Smee is now trying to get around that by resurrecting the content on the site we already (many many months before ) had decided was appropriately redirected. This is an attempt by Smee to get around the consensus on the main page. Frankly - if it isn't notable enough for a pargraph on the main page it definitely doesn't deserve a whole page on its own. Alex Jackl 20:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You should listen to Luna and learn how policy works. Stop using CAPS to try to make your points as it is disruptive and not conducive to a constructive discussion. Smee 20:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
Why don't you tell them all the truth and that I haven't blanked the page and that you changes the stable state that the page has been in for months.Alex Jackl 20:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Because after I restored the material, your blanking the page was wrong and is vandalism. Smee 21:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
I didn't "blank the page". I restored the redirect that you took out. Alex Jackl 21:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You did both. It was blanking, vandalism, and called out as such. Smee 21:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
If you can't be civil please do not write to my Talk page. There was no vandalism- I am not the one doing in bad faith. Please remember WP:AGF. Alex Jackl 21:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was aware of this little argument before either of you mentioned anything about it where I could hear -- on RC patrol, I tend to notice large removals and additions. You very certainly were blanking, the prod very certainly was contested, and you very certainly need to use AfD or some other discussion forum if you'd like to use the redirect -- edit wars are bad. I wouldn't call this vandalism, but I don't think either of you is handling this all too well. Calm and reasonable discussion beats screaming, any day. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see you've tagged it for AfD. Good. That should get some input from the community at large. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand the contention now-my mistake- I made a procedural mistake and used the PROD template instead of the AFD template. I as you noted I have put the AFD template. I do know that screaming makes no difference- I should know better than to let myself be provoked. My apologies- I am just really committed to having Wikipedia be great. Thanks for your sticking with it Luna! Alex Jackl 02:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Realise/realize[edit]

Note that "realise" is the Commonwealth spelling of what Americans spell "realize"; it's not something that should be corrected. The Wednesday Island 17:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh... thank you for that! Is there a standard in Wikipedia on "British" spelling versus "American" spelling? Or is it interchangeable? Alex Jackl 01:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Normal practice is to use the same form throughout an article, and that to be dictated by the subject, e.g. an article on California would use American one on British Airways would use British, failing that use the same as the first/most significant contributor. It's written in WP:MOS somewhere --Nate 09:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

reasonable[edit]

The review of the book was written by Smee. As your edit comments and logic appear to be sound and reasonable.. You have my support on your edits. If user Smee will not address your specific claims, then in my opinion your claims can be assumed to be true. I have never been satisfied with his revert messages of 'dont removed cited source material', and see no reason to begin accepting it now.

Peace-in-God.

Lsi john 05:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It is always good to get some affirmation that one is not on the wrong course. Appreciate the encouragement. I liked your LGAT treatise on your user page by the way!Alex Jackl 05:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome and Thanks, I call 'em like I see 'em. Lsi john 06:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to step on your toes, so I left the template objections for you to address. My concern is that the articles stay neutral and don't use technically accurate but immaterial facts to push a POV or a campaign. And that nobody is allowed to spin the question into something other than what it is.. SHOULD we .vs. CAN we. Peace in God. Lsi john 15:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Promise of Philosophy[edit]

Hi,

The AfD nomination represents no personal feelings on my part. I happened across the article because another editor had nominated it for speedy deletion. As an admin, I regularly patrol such articles to see if deletion is warranted. In this case, speedy deletion (WP:CSD) was not in order. However, since I was unclear on the proper notability standards for an academic paper, I referred the matter to AfD -- the discussion there will last five days.

I'm sorry that no message was left on the article talk page. Wikipedia is simply over-run with questionable articles; it is not general practice to deliberate long before sending something to AfD: that's why the discussion lasts five days at that forum.

The article is certainly in need of further sourcing. If the AfD should determine to delete the work, you may ask to have the article userfied to a subpage in your userspace. You may work on rewriting and sourcing the article there before asking to have it reinserted in the mainspace by Deletion Review. Ideally, every Wikipedia article should enter the mainspace only after having satisfied our requirements for verifiable, reliable sources. I realize you may have many articles in the mainspace that do not meet this ideal. This is unfortunate; the encyclopedia's work is sometimes piecemeal. Editors must work with articles as they come to our attention. Your article was in no way the victim of particular agenda: I can personally guarantee that, as I had no idea of the context surrounding the paper when I submitted it to AfD. I'm still a little unclear on what est is, having now been prompted to read WP's article by the discussion at the AfD. The only point of which I am reasonably sure is that your article requires better sourcing to meet encyclopedic expectations.

Thanks for the compliment on my userpage; I'm very sorry that we've met under what might seem, from your point-of-view, to be an antagonistic circumstance. If you'd like any help in editing your article, or your other efforts at Wikipedia, I'd be glad to assist. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Helpful FYI[edit]

Re: Your "NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN" -- If you so desire, you can move and/or copy the article now to your own user space, you don't have to have the Admin do it for you. For example, you could simply copy the entire code of the page to User:AJackl/The Promise of Philosophy and the Landmark Forum. Yours, Smee 06:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

  • Goes without saying then you would attempt to make a case for notability for the article whilst in your own user space, by trying to find mention/critique/review of the study itself in other reputable secondary sourced material, from which to add potential citations to the potential article... Smee 06:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
    • I am assuming that you noticed that I left you a message here on how to move the article to your own user-space. You may even copy the article to your own user-space before it potentially gets deleted, by copying the entire text of the code of that article, and creating a new one at: User:AJackl/The Promise of Philosophy and the Landmark Forum. Smee 09:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
      • Or simply rename it to something else. There are several examples of this on wiki. Lsi john 02:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD/The Promise of Philosophy and the Landmark Forum[edit]

As requested on AfD. Please tag page with {{db-userreq}} once you're done. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Asperger article FARC[edit]

I hope you will be commenting on the discussion here :

 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Asperger_syndrome  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CeilingCrash (talkcontribs) 19:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 

WikiProject Germany Invitation[edit]

Coat of arms of Germany.svg

Hello, AJackl! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.


--Zeitgespenst (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

June 2008[edit]

Information.svg If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Template:LandmarkForum, 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. Thank you. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What is this about?[edit]

If this is a genuine concern of yours you might want to read the whole thread at Landmark Education. This is is an encyclopedia- it is probably best if people who know something about the subjects they are writing about create the entries. I am aware of the Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest policy and intend to honor it. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Motto of the day[edit]

Hello, I notice you're using one of the {{motd}} templates, run by Wikipedia:Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

COI Editing[edit]

Information.svg If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Landmark Education, 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 or creating 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,
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 07:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

See also the discussion I have started at conflict of interest noticeboard. Jehochman Talk 07:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Please, when you claim an affiliation with a group, do not remove a COI tag from that group's article.[1] It is up to unaffiliated editors to make that decision. For best results, I recommend you use the talk page to recommend changes rather than editing the article yourself. Your edits have had the appearance of non-neutrality. Jehochman Talk 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I understand appearances are important but the truth is more important! I do understand though and so will respond to these accusations on the talk page. For the record - I am NOT an employee or owner or shareholder of Landmark Education. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
We are not concerned with formalities. If you have a personal affiliation or loyalty with them that is greater than your loyalty to Wikipedia, that creates an appearance of conflict. Having a conflict is not a big problem, as long as you deal with it appropriately.
The Wikipedia community often hears from editors who claim to be defenders of The Truth®. I recommend you avoid making those sorts of arguments, as they will be met with increased skepticism. It is better to say that you are close to Landmark and know a lot about it, and would like to help dispell myths. It will be especially useful if you present evidence and sources on the article talk page and work with other editors, rather than battling with other editors. A soft touch might be necessary if you want to have any influence here. Jehochman Talk 15:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Landmark Education[edit]

Other comments on your page here indicate that you have already been thought to have a conflict of interests regarding this topic. Please read WP:COI for details. As such, you are probably among the most easily questioned of all parties to determine what content does and does not belong in an article. I have reverted your uncalled for removal of sourced material from the article. If you wish to change the material added, please receive consensus from parties who do not have the apparent conflict of interests you have on the article talk page first. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not have a conflict of interest and there is a consensus that this is not appropriate- it isn't a religion. Just because one crazy guy calls Harvard University a religion doesn't make it Wikipedia-worthy or even anything-worthy.

Also, I do not have a conflict of interest. I have participated in Landamrks programs and am an ex-staff member. That does not make an conflict of interest. If you want to dive through the history you will see this has also been discussed ad nauseoum. Please read the history before you start these things. You have been bamboozled by the anti-Landmark fanatics. Alex Jackl (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

removal of the banner qualifies as vandalism and a violation of WP:OWN, and I would suggest very strongly that you not engage in such clearly inappropriate behavior. Again, you have no place seeking to dictate to others what material they will or will not deal with. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
You know, I am actually the one developing the NRM project page, so I know it probably better than anyone. The continued arrogance and lack of attention to detail, including the comments otehrs have made, once again seem to indicate that you are yourself incapable of making reasonable conclusions regarding this subject, and that WP:COI may apply. Also, it would be interesting to know whether, as an ex-employee, you still retain any sort of financial stake in the firm, or if you receive some sort of benefits based on such a stake. If such were the case, and you had a clear financial interest in the topic, then there would be a very good reason to believe WP:COI is relevant. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:ANI for related thread on this issue. Cirt (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Alex - your participation in the editing of this article violates our policy against edit warring and you appear to be editing with a conflict of interest.

Parties with a conflict of interest are allowed to edit articles - but are subject to closer scrutiny.

Your discussion on the article talk page does not sufficiently justify two wholesale reverts on the article that you've done today. This exceeds allowable margins for editing in conflict situations. You need to stop.

This is a final warning on edit warring. If you continue disruptively removing material without discussing in greater depth on the article talk page and getting a solid consensus that the material is problematic, you will be blocked by myself or another administrator.

Please discuss to consensus on the talk page then if consensus supports you take any actions on the article.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain form filling my talk page with unjustified accusations. If you wish to discuss this with me you may but I am a legitimate editor who has attempted to keep vandals and POV editors form grinding their POV on several pages including the Landmark Education page. I removed inappropriate material from the page when i visited it after some time gone form it because of the edit warring. It was then immediately reverted and I was accused of various things above. If there is warring and POV grinding going on here it is not by me. I request you look into this a little more carefully. I reverted fewer times that the people putting the objectionable material did yet you are accusing ME of edit warring. Please cease and desist.. this is an unprovoked accusation. The religion section is a smoke cloud by vandals trying to corrupt the article. Please look at some of the other editors. John Carter reverted both my changes within seocnds of my making them- and I haven't been on that page for a long time. If you take being an admin seriously please look at the big picture and you will see I am not edit warring and you will see I stopped after John Carter reverted back my legitimate edits a second time to avoid edit warring. If you want to warn someone you might want to talk to them. I haven't touched the site since I added my comments to the TALK page.Alex Jackl (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Georgewilliamherbert is an administrator who was giving you a formal warning as per the ANI thread referenced earlier. It was hardly an unjustified accusation, but rather what he said it was, a formal warning. I would urge you to take the comment in the spirit it was given, rather than try to make it appear to be something it was not. John Carter (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
John- I have not touched the page since I did two legitimate edits - in my opinion- after not being on the site in a long time. I also just discovered that Cirt has put my name on a list of accounts to be banned for "edit warring". I did two edits - my first in a long time and then I stopped after it became clear that editors were committed to those edits and then I expressed my thinking on how inappropriate the material was and made no further changes. I feel like I am being singled out for opposing Cirt's opinions- this is pretty ironic when Cirt's record is looked at. He has been blocked from editing the Landmark site in this and his earlier incarnation. I am requesting that some neutral administrators stop this abuse of Wikipedia's processes. I am not editing this site right now- stop putting materials on my talk page or falsely accusing me of edit warring. I have honore dthe request to stop editing and I continue to be harassed even while I am being a good Wikipedia citizen. Alex Jackl (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusation against you[edit]

Hi Alex

Are you aware of this accusation against you: [Proposed_topic_ban_on_Landmark_Education_SPAs]? This looks like an attempt to condemn you without giving you an opportunity to defend yourself. DaveApter (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Great Revival: CVU Vandalism Studies Project[edit]

Hi! We're dropping you this rather unexpected message on your talk page because you signed up (either quite a while ago or rather recently) to be a member of the Vandalism Studies project. Sadly, the project fell into semi-retirement a few years ago, but as part of a new plan to fix up the Counter-Vandalism Unit, we're bringing back the Vandalism Studies project, with a new study planned for Late 2012! But we need your help. Are you still interested in working with us on this project? Then please sign up today! (even if you signed up previously, you'll still need to sign up again - we're redoing our member list in order to not harass those who are no longer active on the Wiki - sorry!) If you have any questions, please leave them on this page. Thanks, and we can't wait to bring the project back to life! -Theopolisme (talk) & Dan653 (talk), Coordinators

Motto of the Day Help Request April 2014[edit]

Today's motto...

Whatever hath been written shall remain,
Nor be erased nor written o'er again;
The unwritten only still belongs to thee:
Take heed, and ponder well what that shall be.


Nominate one today!

Motto of the Day (WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.

Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This message has been sent by pjoef on behalf of Motto of the Day to all editors of the English Wikipedia who are showing MOTD's templates on their pages, and to all the participants to MOTD: (page, template, and category).

Landmark DS[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Landmark Worldwide, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. • Astynax talk 20:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of That COI "Case"[edit]

As with every attempt to obstruct any kind of reasonable editing of the Landmark page this case also ended. Please stop spurious insertions and accusations if you please. I am trying to enjoy being a good Wikipedia citizen and I hate putting up with trolls. Thank you Alex Jackl (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Common Education Data Standards[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Common Education Data Standards, and it appears to include material copied directly from https://ceds.ed.gov/whatIsCEDS.aspx.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarified this on CEDS talk page. Should be fine. Alex Jackl (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)