User talk:Jay*Jay

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

Please note: Unless you ask otherwise, I will respond to your comments here. If you want a response on your talk page, please ask, in which case I'll respond there and include a copy here, so that conversations are coherent.

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. This account was created for you. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

We 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 or place {{helpme|your question here}} on this page, and someone will be around to help. Again, welcome! --AccReqBot (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I have the page watchlisted, so I always know when there's new requests. :)   jj137 02:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies![edit]

Drawing-Gay flag.png

Hi, Jay*Jay, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies!

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles of interest to the LGBT community. Some points that may be helpful:

  • Our main aim is to help improve LGBT-related articles, so if someone asks for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able.
  • Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
  • The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, peer review and a project-wide article collaboration, all of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there.
  • If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics.
  • If you're planning to stay, have a square in our quilt! You can put anything you want in it.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome!

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Jumpaclass[edit]

Jumpaclass has been cleared and is ready for use in 2008. You might want to prod me so I remember to grade your work in a timely manner, though, I have an increasingly bad memory. But congratulations on wanting to enter, and here's hoping you win! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter[edit]

Delivered sometime in January 2008 (UTC). SatyrBot (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Responded[edit]

NOTE: Reconstruction of discussion held on this talk page and on Avruch's.

Avruch, I feel that I should inform you that I have added a comment to the WP:AN discussion about the departure of William Coleman. I want you to know that I do not intend it as an attack, but that I do feel it is important for me to understand what has led him to accept your explanations. I have looked at the comments posted on his talk page, and in other places, and whilst I believe that you did not expect the controversy your nomination provoked, I am concerned about aspects of your response since then. I don't want to move on from this with a negative impression of you, and so I'd appreciate it if you could give some thought to what I have written. Of course you have the right to choose not to respond, and I am not saying that you owe me an explanation, but I would appreciate you choosing to expand on what has happened so that I (and possibly others) don't form an opinion without flagging concerns to you and providing an opportunity for a response. I recognise that you were likely upset by some of William's comments, and I also recognise that some of my comments may be overly harsh - I can't be entirely rational on a topic like this, and so I ask that you accept that my comments are meant as an appeal for information, rather than a direct criticism. Jay*Jay (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to your comments on WP:AN with my own. Best, Avruchtalk 02:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Avruch. I have, in turn, responded. For the record, I am pleased to find that the impression that I had formed is inaccurate, and I hope we can work well together into the future. No hard feelings? Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and no hard feelings. Hopefully the thread on AN will safely be archived in 7 days ;-) Avruchtalk 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Following on, I don't know if you are still following this discussion or not, but you might want to have a look. Cheers Jay*Jay (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, I have started a thread at WP:AN about your closing and marking as 'resolved' the above discussion. Here's a link. I want to make it clear that I am not asking for any sanction of you, and I completely understand your desire to have the thread archived. However, I am not sure that the action that you have taken is a good idea, as it removes the context from the part of the discussion which you separated. I'm also not sure whether it is considered acceptable, which is why I have asked. You may want to monitor any response and / or make a comment. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to your post on WP:AN about my putting Coleman's thread in a collapse box. Avruchtalk 22:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, I am not surprised that you added a comment to the WP:AN thread - that was why I left you a note to advise that I had asked the question. I have added a link and explanatory note, to the earlier discussion, and marked the present discussion as resolved. Feel free to add if you think this is an inaccurate summary of the outcome. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to your comment on the Queer Wikipedians DRV[edit]

Hello, Jay

I agree with you wholeheartedly that there is a much bigger issue regarding user categories -- and I'll put it into specifics: that the idea of "categories must explicitly foster collaboration" and WP:NOT#SOCIAL have become distorted into euphemisms for "I don't like it" and "it's just not encyclopaedic" and similar unworthy arguments; their interpretation in UCfD is so broad that nearly any user category can be construed to fall under one or the other. (Which, incidentally, has the unpleasant side effect of providing an excellent Wikipedia-policy cloak for bias.) Personally, if this problem cannot be solved in some way, I think it would be best to either eliminate user categories altogether or make them dramatically more difficult to create (for example, by requiring a call-for-creation discussion) and/or delete (for example, by requiring two or three nominators rather than just one). If there is bias against LGBT people in the deletion process, I think it is very likely to be on the part of nominators; the more general bias in UCfD appears to be against any "Wikipedians" category at all that is nominated.

Incidentally, I want to make clear that I am actually on the side of restoring the LGBT user categories; but our side's current efforts in that direction seem calculated to make more enemies than friends and to take arguments rooted outside Wikipedia and march directly into the buzzsaw of arguments rooted in Wikipedia. As long as that is true, and opposition rests its case on WIkipedia policies and guidelines while we rest ours on nebulous and emotional arguments, success is doubtful at best. Until the issue of UCfD's bias toward deletion of "Wikipedian" categories is resolved, any victory of this nature is certain to be a bitter and expensive one, and difficult to hold. I'm not so much interested merely in the restoration of the LGBT categories, but restoring them in such a way that they establish a difficult-to-challenge precedent rooted solidly in Wikipedia procedures; nothing short of that is a complete victory. I would like to see our side hold fire on the complaints of bias and homophobia; that is a heavy thing to say and requires good solid evidence -- and accusing someone of being a homophobe is a powerful way of making her one. --7Kim (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi 7Kim, I recognise that we are working for the same goals, and that emotive arguments are not the way to influence those who are neutral and willing to be swayed by the quality of the argument. I hope you will see my latest contribution to the DRV discussion is policy and process-focused. Ultimately, we need to get the meta-level discussion going, but I haven't figured out where best to do so. If we were to lose there but the outcome where to restructure the categories so that category:Christian Wikipedians and category:American Wikipedians and the like were also eliminated, I could live with that. However, if the hypocritical double standard were endorsed, I would certainly make some noise and move more into the homophobia that would consequently be clearly on display. My guess is that Jimbo Wales isn't keen on "Wikipedia endorses homophobia" type headlines, but I doubt it will come to something like that.
For the record, I don't think I've actually accused any individual of homophobia on the DRV - and if I have, please indicate where, as I agree with you that such accusations should be evidence-based and not made lightly. As a general rule, I would prefer to assume ignorance rather than malice in most cases (such as Steel's comment on DRV) - although some comments do clearly indicate underlying stereotyping and homophobia (such as the one on WP:AN). Thanks for stopping by! Jay*Jay (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Banned user[edit]

01:35, 7 February 2008 and 08:17, 7 February 2008. Interesting... Pairadox (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. You may also be interested in discussions here and here. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Hmm[edit]

Sorry if you felt I was "playing the man not the ball". I didn't intend to be critical of you and was just making the point that policy has to be understood in context of convention otherwise it could be taken to mean anything. Oh btw WP:SOAP has been applied to userboxes (but I quite like yours). --BozMo talk 19:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

BozMo, I think that you were playing the man and not the ball. Look at your post here, which I reproduce below, and ask yourself how much is about either the MfD, or the content to which the MfD-initiator objected, or the policy comments I made about that content:
I am sure that the closing admin doesn't need your advice on policy. As they know, and you will learn, there is a very strong case history in Wikipedia for the community giving considerable latitude to the content of user pages. You might equally argue that pro-gay userboxes such as the one you display amount to WP:SOAP. That is after all advancing a position (as well as a posterior). But I would oppose the removal of that too. If users cannot in any way reflect their views on their userpages it makes it much harder to monitor COI and POV. And what Aminz has done is not exactly in your face. --BozMo talk 16:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The comment about not needing advice on policy is patronising, especially when followed by the oblique reference to me being a new user. It has the tone of a parent speaking to a child, and an appeal to authority through experience - implicitly, it reads as "we know what we're doing, you don't, go do as you're told". An adult-to-adult approach would have been better. After all, I made a policy-based comment. As for my appended note to the closing admin, my (admittedly limited) experience of deletion matters has included two reviews closed against consensus where the admin simply expressed their own view. One of these (relating to the category:Queer Wikipedians) was closed despite other admins noting the failure to correctly apply policy. As such, I believed then and still believe that flagging that there was a policy issue that needed consideration was desirable. It's also useful if you need to ask about what you believe to be a bad decision.
I was also disappointed that no one else seemed willing to admit that the section in question was a blatant violation of WP:SOAP. You comment on my userboxes, and I agree they are not subtle. But, they are not advocating a position, but rather providing information (and pointing to an area of interest and knowledge - useful for potential collaboration). They are not comparable to an unrefenced section that is entirely one-sided, unsupported by the relevant research, and makes outlandish claims. I would have no particular objection to someon displaying an anti-porn userbox, but I have a strong objection to material I know to be untrue presented in isolation, and I don't caren where on WP I see it. If it violates WP:SOAP and there is no chance it can be fixed to be policy-compliant, then it is simple: it can't stay. If responses had been "MfD is not the place for this, because convention dictates that established user pages aren't removed this way. However, the content is problematic, and I call on Aminz to re-read WP:SOAP and do something about it." then I probably wouldn't have said anything. The question for me was not the process - whether MfD was the correct approach - but rather the principle of complying with the intent of the policy. As can be seen from what happened, it didn't take much for Aminz to decide to act.
As for your comments about understanding policy operates within conventions, that was precisely the reason that I only commented on the MfD. I was unsure how the conventions of MfD interacted with the issue of the policy violation relating only to a section of a page (and a user page, rather than one in main space as well). However, the wording of WP:SOAP is inconsistent with any 'convention' over non-compliance on user pages. A convention in how to handle such things, sure - hence I didn't act. But you can't say that convention allows the meaning of a clearly stated policy to be reversed. Jay*Jay (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. All these points seem fair (and not what I was expecting). I thought my comment was no more patronising that you pointing this obviousness to the closing Admin but if we have failed to do the right thing in your experience I can only apologise. I have consistently defended user pages though. I think with the exception of Spam people laying their cards on the table generally helps you to deal with them. Also the community doesn't always follow its own policies: particularly on user pages. Thanks for the thoughtful and unpolemic explanation (I won't say it does you credit in case thats patronising again. However I guess you would agree with userboxes that some people may regard a statement about you as advocacy in itself  :) ) --BozMo talk 18:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have disappointed you! :) Actually, I hadn't really thought about how my note might be seen by others, and that's something I'll have to ponder. Its intent was to flag what I thought was relevant and it wasn't meant to be patronising; nonetheless, I can see that it could be seen that way. In my wiki-time (both editing and lurking), I have seen an astonishing range of admin actions, and have been stunned at a few cases of dreadful judgement (not necessarily relating to deletions). As such, it is also possible that my view of some actions is leading me to an unbalanced approach to situations requiring judgement.
Regarding deletion issues in general, perhaps the origin for some of the controversies lies in the procedures themselves. Take the QW category DRv, for example. I expressed what I thought was a policy-based response, and noted that my view concurred with some others. The closing admin went the other way, and what I thought were legitimate issues went unaddressed. Now, my interpretation may have been incorrect, but I don't learn if I have misunderstood policy if no comment is made; instead, I felt ignored. The closing admins talk page comment that my views were disregarded didn't help, and the closure has simply added to the ill-will around the issue. Of course, in non-routine matters where views have been strongly expressed on both sides, policy-based judgement is needed, but I think the current procedures are failing to address some editors' concerns and leading to resentment. Some closing admins also have poor people skills - like the one whose response on being asked to explain amounted to "I've been doing this for ages, I'm right". Regardless of whether the decisions themselves are correct, the process is creating problems. I don't have a solution to offer that wouldn't add to the work involved, unfortunately, but an approach that seems to leave resnetment in its wake seems to me to be bad for WP.
As for my non-polemical response, I believe that consensus is a fundamentally good thing. As a well educated person (I have a PhD), I believe in reasoned and evidence-based discussions, and am quite willing to be called on actions that are poor. I also try to engage in discussion in "adult-mode", as this implicitly asks for a response in the same mode. Using "parent-mode" implicitly expects a contrite response in "child-mode"; when used inappropriately, it oftens elicits anger and a more strident response also in "parent-mode". Shortly afterwards, an argument typically takes off. FYI, there is a whole bunch of communications research on this stuff, and I am over-simplifying, but you get the idea. I find it a useful approach for my dealing with people, and it is part of the reason that I indicated my intention to follow up in a different location and later. The MfD wasn't the place to address my objection, and the time prevented my responding in a way that might have been less conducive to an adult-to-adult discussion. Hopefully you will find I'm not hard to get on with, and try to be fair. For example, I explained my motivation and thanked Aminz for his actions on his talk page. Similarly, I gave Avruch a barnstar in recognition of his actions after we had clashed.
As for the line between "information" and "advocacy" in userboxes, my inclination would be for a very wide amount of latitude - but there are limits. I would object to an userbox that said "This user believes that watching pornography leads to committing rape" as unsubstiated and inaccurate advocacy, but I wouldn't have a problem with "This user believes pornography is unacceptable" as an example of free speech providing potentially useful information about an editor who might work on pornography-related pages. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to say I read the above and don't really have much to add (except that I look forward to coming across you again). The category thing people spend a lot of time on but I have never really found them an exciting idea either in articles (where there is too much anarchy for the structure to be effective) and for users (I think on Meta this is still allowed, but with some sort of right to non-categorisation). Personally I think I might have objected to the word "queer" (ambiguous where I live and sometimes still with homophobic overtones) but would support a category of "gay" or similar. But then I have never been even tempted to put "category Christian" or "category "supporter of Rowan Williams" on my user page.... --BozMo talk 07:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That MfD[edit]

Hello, Jay*Jay,

Thanks for asking questions at my RfA. I had readied myself to answer questions, but then this RfA has gone surprisingly smoothly without anybody hitting me with anything difficult. I'll answer the questions as you worded them and as they relate to what would most immediately be my own potential administrative duties, which probably won't address some of your underling concerns but please don't think that means I'm blowing any of them off. While I'll answer over there as is appropriate for RfA, I'm perfectly open to discussing other aspects of it outside the RfA via regular talk pages. Anyway, I expect to answer those later tonight. Doczilla (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I was about to answer your first question when I saw a problem. It's the opening sentence: "You recently took part in this MfD discussion about the this version of the user page of Aminz."
In an RfA that is read by so many people, talking about a specific user by name after he/she already voluntarily removed the material could seem uncivil to some readers. It could look to them like we're attacking that individual in such a public setting without having invited him/her to participate (which shouldn't be done either -- RfA is not a forum for that argument). The material in question absolutely violated WP:SOAP and I'll be glad to discuss it, but for the RfA we need to make sure we focus on the issues and not on individuals who didn't agree to subject themselves to my RfA. It's your question, so it's completely up to you, of course, but if you could reword it (something like "You recently took part in an MfD discussion about a userpage where someone listed objections to pornography"), I'll be glad to answer. Anybody who needs to know exactly what we're talking about in order to evaluate my response can still follow the edit history or just ask either one of us.
And please don't interpret this as any kind of admonishment. You've asked a fair question that does indeed relate to the exertion of administrative authority, and you yourself said you're still learning how these things work. Seriously, thanks for asking. Yours, Doczilla (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Doczilla, I see your point, and have no problem with feedback on my actions. However, I would also like the material in question to be easily accessible for evaluation of your responses and reasoning. As such, I'm wondering whether a reasonable compromise would be to note that the MfD was closed as "speedy keep" after Aminz acted unilaterally to resolve the question raised. Perhaps a formulation like:

6. You recently took part in this MfD discussion about the this version of a certain user page. At issue was the now-removed "Why Pornography is bad" section of that page. The MfD was closed as "speefy keep" after the involved user acted unilaterally to resolve the issue by removing the material, and the MfD-initator withdrew the objection. This question is not intended in any way to reflect on the user whose page was being discussed; in fact, I believe that user's decision reflects well on his judgement and I said so here. Whilst I understand the position you took in that MfD, I'd like to explore whether you might have acted differently as an admin, and also explore a related hypothetical.

BTW, the reason I used the hypothetical for (b) and (c) was because I wanted to divert attention from the specific case to the general issue, but still included (a) because I wanted to check your judgement and reasoning on the specific example. I will now strike question 6 until we have a form that is acceptable from Aminz's perspective, after which I will restore it. If he objects, I will find another approach, because I agree that he isn't up for RfA so doesn't deserve adverse scrutiny, and his participation in a discussion on the RfA page would be a totally inappropriate diversion from the purpose of the page. I will invite him here to comment. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, as long as Aminz is discussing it here, I suppose that can work. As long as A. doesn't carry the conversation over to the RfA, because you could wind up getting accused of hijacking the RfA to get on your own soapbox. Doczilla (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of doing anything on the RfA page until an acceptable resolution is reached. If Aminz says here that he wants the question blanked for the moment, I will respect that request. As such, the RfA process should be able to continue undisturbed. In the meantime, would you consider answering the other question (unless you have similar concerns), and I'll await yours and Aminz's thoughts on the modified formulation proposed above. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I already answered the other question. Doczilla (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I note in this diff that Aminz has responded on his own talk page. I take his response to indicate that he would prefer the entire question for Doczilla's RfA be de-identified. That being the case, I will take note of the response above and reconstruct the question, and will notify Doczilla once it is done. Jay*Jay (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

PhD?[edit]

Say, what's your PhD in? Mine's in experimental social psychology. (I'd completely understand if you prefer not to answer that in this kind of forum.) Doczilla (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My PhD is in Science, but I'd rather not go into details on-wiki. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

QW[edit]

btw assume you know meta:Queer_Wikimedians exists? Not to argue the principle but perhaps to offer an alternative...--BozMo talk 19:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of QW, actually, but am already in the unbelievably collaborative LGBT Wikipedians category (the one Avruch created - for which I gave him my first ever (and so far only) barnstar - after his nomination wiped out Queer Wikipedians category). I also maintain membership in the ever-so-slightly pointy Queerass Wikipedians category. I appreciate your suggestion, but this is primarily about principle for me, and also about homophobic bias. I am not saying that this is the motivaiton for all who oppose the category, but it sure is for some - and prejudice like that is something up with which I will not put. :) Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Doczilla's RfA[edit]

Enjoy[edit]

Ice Cream dessert 01.jpg

Just thought you might like something sweet. I hope the conversation on the LGBT discussion page didn't leave a bad impression of me. Maybe I should have avoided the mentioning of the 7 year sentence thing...I didn't realize it would create such a stir. I'm glad you said you like to debate and didn't take it the wrong way. Cheers. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you note left on APK's talk page. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hot dog.svg

There's a piece of meat you can eat. Enjoy the weiner. <g> AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes a cigar isn't a cigar - and nor is a hot dog.
Related discussion. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you made a friend. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and I wasn't the only one who was so blessed. Such pearls of wisdom must receive an appropriately welcoming response and preferably the care they require. Jay*Jay (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

More words of wisdom for appropriate consideration. Jay*Jay (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to owe APK if he keeps coming by to tidy up droppings. Jay*Jay (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You can pay me in cartons of Ben & Jerry's. I like Cinnamon Bun, Strawberry Cheesecake and my new favorite, Cheesecake Brownie. :-] AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, when next I can get to DC - but since it's about 19 h travelling by plane, that might be a little while. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Heartfelt thanks[edit]

I'll be commenting there shortly, but I wanted to thank you for your perceptive and thorough work on the AN/I page. I am very thankful you weighed in. --Eleemosynary (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Eleemosynary, I'm glad to be able to help out. I came across it because of the spraying of abuse by Matt - as you can see above, I had a visit as well - and the more I looked, the more I became concerned. For the record, I think that you did technically breach 3RR, but so did SatyrTN - and the edit summaries show that a conversation was going on, just not in an appropriate place. However, I also think that you should have been more cautious in acting - and you need to remember that WP:CIVIL is more important than any other policy in the minds of many admins, so I'd tone it down if I were you. However, I am ultimately more concerned by SwatJester's actions, which I see as yet another case of an admin with questionable judgement. I have serious doubts about remaining at WP... Jay*Jay (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter[edit]

Delivered by SatyrBot around 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC) SatyrBot (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comment[edit]

... has a reply :) FT2 (Talk | email) 02:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Block Needed? originally from user talk:Evil saltine[edit]

Hi, Evil saltine. I noticed that you blocked 208.102.175.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 24 h for a personal attack on user:Allstarecho on March 2. The IP has now made another personal attack on Allstarecho, which was reverted by user:Adambro. Adambro also issued a vandalism warning - 5 minutes after a warning from another editor for an unconstructive edit. Given the nature of the personal attack, the fact that it followed so close after the previous block, the fact that the same editor was targetted, and the lack of constructive edits in the meantime (as shown by the contribution history), I thought you might believe a more forceful response was appropriate. Thanks, Jay*Jay (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I have blocked the IP for an additional 72 hours. In the future, you'd probably get a faster response at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Evil saltine (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the action. I would have gone to AIV or maybe AN/I if I had done the reversions, but since action had already been taken and a warning issued, I thought asking you was a better way to go. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification suggested[edit]

You might want to clarify whether you intended "slanging matches" [1] or "slinging matches". Admittedly, either meaning can fit the situation. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Profanity.svg Balearic Slinger.jpg

I meant slanging matches - as in situations where discussions degenerate into throwing abuse at each other [2]. I have never before encountered the term "slinging match". Perhaps I am using an expression which is peculiar to some parts of the English-speaking world? Thanks for the suggestion, and I'll add the link as a clarification. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought you meant to use a variant of "slinging insults" which has similar meanings, although "slang" implies one style of phrasing in the insults. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ban Policy[edit]

Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. It says it plainly. REGARDLESS of the merits of the edits. There are somethings to watch out for, (especially BLP), but it can't be plainer, that what I said IS explicitly policy. SirFozzie (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The confusion here seems to be whether edits being reverted are prior to the ban (which is what it looks like NYB was talking about) or edits made after the ban. The standard for reversion is understandably different, and in this particular case it is the latter that is at issue. From what I've read, the two of you haven't actually disagreed with each other directly - you are talking about different situations. Avruch T 17:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Avruch, but you are wrong. NYB is not talking about edits made prior to the ban - look at the context within which his comments were made, in a thread on his talk page today following posts from both BrownHairedGirl and Giano. SirFozzie is also wrong, as the quote he provides demonstrates - and as NYB has pointed out - the key word is that the edits MAY be reverted, not that they should be reverted as he claimed. NYB is correct that the situation calls for common sense. If the WP:BAN policy is insufficiently clear, it should be ammended to clarify this point. The policy does not mandate the reversion of useful edits, and when it comes to reversions that would introduce errors (whether minor typos or more important factual errors), the idea that policy requires such a reversion is ludicrous. Such an interpretation is manifestly a case where any editor should exercise their judgment and common sense, invoke WP:IAR, and decline to introduce errors to encyclopedic content on the spurious grounds of discouraging a banned editor from returing as a sock. Jay*Jay (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see that you are right, my mistake. NYB's reading of the policy would seem to contradict with the policy quote above from SirFozzie, though. To expand my comment, though... Since NYB's comment below that said he was refraining from commenting on the specific issue at hand, I mistakenly extended that backwards - but I see that his comments about reverting edits did include "sockpuppet of a banned user." Also, I don't know that reverting edits from a banned user in order to discourage a return of that editor as a sock is grounds I'd call spurious - there seems to be some logic in not allowing edits from a banned user, even if they are superficially constructive. Anyway, as I said on the AE thread... Discussions even tangentially related to Giano/Troubles get heated, and actual substantive debate typically gets thrown off the rails pretty quickly. The issue of reverting these edits ought to be fairly straightforward to resolve, and the level of drama and heat exchange about it is pretty strange. Avruch T 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
considering reverting a banned user is one of the very few things that gets through the electric fence of 3RR, I think that Jay and I have different viewpoints on this. I guess Jay and I will have to agree to disagree. *shrugs* SirFozzie (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the comment. I suppose if there's nothing you can do, then to some degree I don't see the need to rage about it. I agree with your concerns, but I think the truth is that things have actually improved some recently, along with attention to problematic use of checkuser. This has I think been in the direction of more rather than less checking, but that's still probably a good thing in my view. In any case, I appreciate your comments and the issues you raised. Mackan79 (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

my RFA[edit]

Blue Australian Iris.jpg
Thank you!

Thank you for your support in my RFA. The passed with a final count of (73/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! :) Aleta Sing 18:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy Easter[edit]

Don't let those cute smiles fool you, these bunnies are dangerous.

Sadly, Former First Lady Nancy Reagan has been abducted by the Easter Bunny's evil cousins, Frank and Billy Ray. But don't let that stop you from having a great Easter! Cheers. The one and only ----> AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter[edit]

This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)[edit]

  • Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter[edit]

This newsletter was sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of Moni3 (talk)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)[edit]

  • Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jay*Jay![edit]

I hope you don't mind I removed that nonexisting category from your userpage. Feel free to revert me if you want to, it is not very important, so put it back if it makes you happy. I am trying to make this list a little bit shorter. Arcandam (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

An Barnstar for You![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif
The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
AFC-Logo.svg

Congratulations, Jay*Jay! You're receiving The Tireless Contributor Barnstar because you reviewed 101 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)