User talk:Jake Wartenberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Signpost
13 August 2014

Syria Infobox issue[edit]

I need to inform you that there is an issue where editors have been arguing over the positioning and presentation of the Syrian infobox despite my attempts to promote a middle ground (neutral lead infobox with competing governments in the Politics and Government section, similar to Libya in 2011) in wake of dramatic changes to the state of politics in Syria. I refrained from making any more moves until an administrator can advise me on what to do next to resolve the dispute. Dear sir, can you please advise on how we can solve the Syrian infobox issue before it gets worse? Thank you. --Marianian(talk) 12:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I have made the editors working on that page aware that they are under a 1RR restriction, and that seems to have stopped the edit warring for the moment. Other than that I guess I would suggest expressing your opinion at the current RfC on the talk page. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
That RFC was about Israel's involvement, so I had to start a fresh one (and consolidate all separate discussions about that). Sorry. --Marianian(talk) 06:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I have to apologize; I thought you were talking about a different article. I hope the RfC is successful. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 23:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

1RR issue[edit]

@Jake, i understand that in order to prevent constant edit-warring you decided to put 1RR restriction on the Syrian civil war page (March 24 enforcement [1]). However, there might be a serious flaw in using the "Arab-Israeli arbitration enforcement" tool on Syrian conflict: first of all Israeli involvement is so far very limited in that conflict and hence it is not present in the infobox yet; secondly, even if considering Israeli involvement, it is not a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict (conflict between Israel and Arab League), but actually part of the Israel-Iran proxy conflict (Iran is not an Arab country and of course is not part of the Arab League). Considering that Syria is suspended from the Arab League (see [2]), thus the "Arab-Israeli arbitration enforcement" on Syrian conflict is completely irrelevant. I suggest creating a new arbitration tool named "Syrian conflict arbitration enforcement" for 1RR enforcing on related articles to resolve this issue.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the editors on the talk page agree that Israel is not a party in this conflict.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
All I can do is apply the criteria for these sanctions, which is set by Arbcom, to the best of my ability; I cannot suspend or alter sanctions. You should direct requests of this nature to Arbcom. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I will clarify myself - you are not requested by us to do anything retroactively regarding the sanctions already imposed. The question is whether you can remove the ARBPIA tag from "Syrian civil war" article now and the editor community will ask to create "Syrian conflict arbitration" 1RR rule (i can start it), or you keep the ARBPIA tag on "syrian civil war" article (which me and many others think is not justified as the case of Iran-Iraq War) until the editor community decides to create a similar "Syrian conflict arbitration" enforcement rule - specifically designated for Syrian civil war articles.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Since i noticed you are gone for a long time vacation - i shall follow your suggestion and turn to Arbcom. Greyshark09 (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Arbcom[edit]

A request for Arbcom regarding creation of specific Syrian civil war 1RR arbitration tool is issued and if accepted will affect Syrian civil war and other related pages. The issue was previously discussed and recommended by yourself for Arbcom solution on the issue above. As an administrator involved in previous discussion, your opinion is requested, thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

AFD close[edit]

Could you undo your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Honduras, Ottawa? That article was already covered by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ottawa, but my close didn't apply to the discussion you closed. MBisanz talk 22:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted my closure and left a note asking the closing admin to extend the AfD. Sorry all. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 23:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

PAK SHAHEEN CRICKET CLUB[edit]

Hi Jake. You deleted my new page 'PAK SHAHEEN CRICKET CLUB'. This was my attempt to establish some history for this club which lasted for over 20 years and which was an important part of the lives of those that were members and resulted in the sporting interests of the parents of two higly respected and important sports of the current generstion; namely Amir Khan (Boxer) and Sajjad Mahmeed (Cricketer). Both of their wikipedia pages were linked to this new page. Please reinstate the page and it will be expanded by the various interested members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaqoob (talkcontribs) 19:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jake. Thanks for your reply. Reliable sources are the following websites:

The original article listed some club members and the following are linked to the external websites which have been on the net for years:

Mohammed Arshad and Mohammed Yaqoob - www.khukh.net

Sahid Mahmood (father of Sajid Mahmood, England Cricketer - www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/17944.html

Sajjid (Shah) Khan (father of Amir Khan, Boxer) - www.amirkhanworld.com

Hope the above will enable you to reinstate the original article. You can add the external libnks or I can do so.

Given a few weeks I am sure members will add further info to justify retention of the article for the future.

  • Unfortunately, none of these qualify, as they either primary sources or do not directly cover the subject of your article. Please see or policies on notability and reliable sources. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Lifting the 1 revert rule[edit]

Can you please lift the 1 revert rule from the Syrian civil war page. The conflict about the infobox is long over. And as the Syrian civil war page becomes a more popular destination in recent days, other editors who are editing the page for the first time and don't know what there doing are making many mistakes that are difficult to deal with the 1 revert restriction. Sopher99 (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but this is not actually something that I have the power to do. All articles that relate to Israel-Palestine, broadly construed, fall under these restrictions. Perhaps keeping track of problems with the article on the talk page would be helpful in the short term. Otherwise, your best bet is to ask ArbCom. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand. You put the 1 revert rule in the first place without no request to do so. Also this article has nothing to do with Israel-Palestine. Sopher99 (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion the article clearly falls under the sanctions. People have been arguing for months over Israel's role in the conflict, as you are well aware. Note that other articles that might seem only tangentially related such as Arab Spring fall under the same restrictions. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Syria Infobox dispute escalating to censorship, edit wars and such.[edit]

I'm sorry to inform you but you should check out the history of Talk:Syria and recent events. A user known as Eliastoma is attempting to silence my complaint about editors attacking my users pages and such. I don't think this can go on. Can you please escalate the infobox dis[pute to arbitration if possible. Thanks but I am in a hurry, sorry if it looks rushed. --Marianian(talk) 22:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Zac Poonen[edit]

Could you unprotect Zac Poonen so I can move Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zac Poonen there please?--Launchballer 13:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The Zac Poonen article has been through three or four Afd reviews and has failed each time, only to be reinstated with similar content. The Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zac Poonen page is also not supported - it is almost an exact replica of the three-times deleted article. The article page was protected to prevent exactly this. Any chance of having the protection reinstated to prevent yet another tedious Afd process? Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Wikipeterproject, for providing that context. I usually air on the side of granting requests if I don't have the time to look into them. I have restored the protection. Launchballer, you would need to go through DRV for this. If you choose that route, please advise me. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Having had RHaworth very kindly eMail me the content, that is certainly not similar content to what was eMailed to me; my article is much better, with 10 external links (of which six are inline citations). But as per your suggestion, Yes check.svg done.--Launchballer 12:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The submission for the article's creation has already been declined on the basis of lack of notability. The citations in the proposed page are either primary sources or blogs. Although the actual content of the proposed article might be different, the basis for multiple deletions has not been resolved therein. Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Family Ties seasons AfD[edit]

Hi. You closed WP:Articles for deletion/Family Ties (season 4) as redirect (no deletion) two weeks ago. I commented about the WP:Copying within Wikipedia problems at WP:Articles for deletion/All in the Family (season 1), and I think that these articles have the same problems. User:StewieBaby05 also created these, and spot-checks find identical episode blurbs. Would you consider revising your close to delete or delete and redirect? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted all the revisions except for the ones which contain the redirects. Hope this helps. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 04:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
That does. Thanks for your quick response. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

1rr?[edit]

i thought the syrian civil war article was set to 1rr? sopher has made 2 reverts in one day. [3] Baboon43 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Which diffs are you talking about? It looks to me like he made two reverts, the first of which he self-reverted. Although this is still technically a violation, I don't see much reason to impose a block. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Motion proposed regarding the Syrian civil war clarification and amendment request[edit]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that an Arbitrator has proposed a motion regarding a clarification and amendment request in which you were named as a party. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Syrian civil war articles[edit]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has passed a motion with respect to a request for clarification and amendment, in which you were named as a party, regarding articles related to the Syrian civil war. Please see the link above for the full text of the motion. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for amendment of sanctions on Syrian civil war articles[edit]

Dear administrator, as an affiliated party of former discussions on amendment of sanctions on Syrian civil war articles, i would like to notify you on motion-resulting discussion at Administrators' Noticeboard (WP:AN), in order to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form. Meanwhile, and for a period of 30 days starting July 21, 1RR sanction shall continue to be applied with any notifications and sanctions to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Reginald Wilson (murderer)[edit]

I think the decision to delete this following the AfD was incorrect. Policy-based reasons given in the discussion explain why it does not qualify BLP1E - which presumably was your reasoning - you didn't give any explanation. It seems like, as one of the voters predicted, you went on consensus instead of policy.

For evidence that it does not meet 1E, see for example these news stories; [4] [5] [6].

It looks like some in the discussion - perhaps because they're American - do not understand quite how unusual such a case and sentence is.

It's a pity that until today when I reinstated a redlink, Wikipedia had no mention of this person at all, despite his name coming up quite regularly in the UK as one of the most well-known criminals.

Will you please reinstate the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.27.240 (talkcontribs) 16:47, 9 October 2013‎

I don't think those sources are enough to convey notability. But perhaps you could consider adding the individual to List of prisoners with whole-life tariffs? ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Cupcake[edit]

Should this page be semi-protected? Vandalism is getting rampant. --George Ho (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Lottery Wheeling [edit]

Hi, Jake-

You deleted my contribution on the lottery wheeling page stating it was not constructive. I'm not sure why you don't find it constructive, as it provides an automated lotto wheeler for people who are interested in wheeling lotto numbers. Please review again. Thanks.

Your website does not contain encyclopedic content. Please see our policy on external links. You can also look at the links at the bottom of other articles to get a better idea of the sort of thing that is allowed. Best regards, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

About a page that was deleted[edit]

Hello Jake, I was looking for Zac Poonen on Wikipedia and noticed that the page was created 3 times and in the 3rd Nomination deleted by you for lack of proper argument for notability. Zac Poonen is a very popular Christian teacher from India and well-known among the Christian community. You can check the results on Google Trends. Is it possible to revive the topic?Solatido (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Bad block[edit]

A couple years late, but I just wanted to point out that THIS was a bad block — Flipside at the time of writing was a defunct, historical magazine — so her contribution was not "advertising." A COI edit, yes, but that is not a violation of our policies here. You could have raised that matter with the editor politely. The account name, if objectionable, should have been gently raised with a talk page message. Instead you bit a newcomer. Please be more careful. Thanks, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 13:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)