User talk:Justinm1978

Welcome my brother (APO).

Welcome to Wikipedia. I see you have already found the userbox. :) I'm one of the people who ends up editing the Alpha Phi Omega page more than most, I guess. I'm an alumnus of Kappa Chapter at Carnegie-Mellon U. (Pledged Fall 1986) Naraht 14:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you involved with the APO prospect group at Parkland College? Naraht 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I hope that Alpha Alpha @ UIUC is helping. Naraht 11:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Eagle list

Could you please start an article, even if a stub, on Richard Herman, whom you added to the list of Eagle Scouts? It's not good to have red links in a featured list. Thanks.Rlevse 10:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Scouting

Also, see my response to your stub camp article entry.Rlevse 11:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the project. Could you list yourself and your interests here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Members.Rlevse 18:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Jonti Picking AfD

Hi, I noticed you nominated Jonti Picking for AfD. However, it appears this article was up for AfD in 2005 and the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonti Picking is therefore out of date. You need to create the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonti Picking (2nd nomination) to re-nominate and update the links on the article itself and the AfD listing. (Although personally I think this AfD is a lost cause, I have to say - he is well-known for Weebl & Bob and the page passed easily last nomination). -- Mithent 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Alpha

Restoring the article to its status before the disputed content was raised is not vandalism or unconstructive. Wikipedia rules allow for the unwanted change to be reverted and then a disussion should take place on the article's talk page. The article should remain in this state until a consensus has been reached by the editors. I believe the discussion is on-going on the NPHC talk page, so it should not have been reverted by you or Narahat (or something similar). Thank You.--Ccson 03:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Ccson as well: please stop calling each other vandals. Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal". Neither of you are vandalizing the article, so stop the namecalling. ··coelacan 04:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"Notable" and "Famous"

The words "Notable" and "famous" do not set a consistent standard, they just provide a pretext for disputes. They are a total waste of space. I suggest that an appropriate and enforceable standard would be to insist that there are no red links. That way the standards applied will be those agreed by the whole commuity on Wikipedia:Articles for discussion. Honbicot 02:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

lamda pi upsilon

I deleted this article as

1. A copyright infringement from here
2. Blatantly promotional material, with no attempt to be encyclopaedic (we...)

Both of these are criteria for speedy deletion Jimfbleak 05:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

List of collegiate secret societies

Jimmy Wales is extremely clear. "Don't just put a citation needed tag on something, remove it, and make the person with the claim prove their claim." Corvus cornix 02:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If the WikiProject can't follow the inviolate policies of Wikipedia, it doesn't deserve to exist. Just what am I "disrupting"? Follow WP:V and there's no problem. Don't follow WP:V, and you are not editing in good faith. Corvus cornix 21:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:V is being followed, you are disrupting by blanket-deleting non-negative information without giving reasonable time to provide references rather than discussing the matter on the talk page, as WP:V suggests. Tagging with {{fact}} or {{not verified}} is clearly written as acceptable policy. You are going way too far on this, and editors are objecting. I suggest you stop and try to build community and enhance Wikipedia instead of trying to turn it to your own personal interpretation of WP:V, which is not editing in good faith. Justinm1978 21:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.. Corvus cornix 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So you are noting that part of the policy, but completely ignoring the paragraph above it which supports my viewpoint, as well as that of other editiors contributing to the article and discussion. How about contributing to the article and enhancing it instead of blanket-deleting aspects of it simply because you don't agree with the method of WP:V? Justinm1978 00:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides, what's the big deal? If you have sources, write a sourced article, and it's all okay. If you have no sources, we can not have the speculative information in Wikipedia. Corvus cornix 22:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How can I contribute to the article, when even its strongest supporters admit that there is no reliable information for the claims? Corvus cornix 00:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about this overnight. How about if I restore the redlinks and put a "citation needed" tag on all of them? How long would you think the tag should stay before the item gets deleted due to lack of verifiable sources? Corvus cornix 15:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That I would agree with. My best guess, especially with the fact that college is out of session so information isn't always easy to come by, would be a month at the max. If we can't find anything in that amount of time, then I agree that they're not notable enough to be mentioned and deserve to be deleted. Justinm1978 16:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

All right, what I will do is tonight, restore the red links, then we can set a date for, say, the first of August for further review? Corvus cornix 17:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me, let's go ahead and place something in the top of the article saying that they've got until Aug 1 to get some references, otherwise anything unreferenced is subject to deletion. I think it's a fair collaboration (win-win) and thank you for being willing to work toward this solution. Justinm1978 19:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll report it on the Talk page. I am trying to be fair!  :) Corvus cornix 20:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay!

Looks like Baird's carried the day!Naraht 20:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really, I simply suggested this be the test. But since you're not sure if its based on title Ix or Bairds, you can't change APA until the decision is solidified and the litmus test is agreed to by all editors and all groups are subject to the same standard. When we're ready to update the infobox regarding type, let's leave APA as it has been.--Ccson 14:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for participation in a Mediation Cabal case

The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation

Dear Justinm1978: Hello, my name is NicholasTurnbull; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-29 Infobox Fraternity I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

John bambenek

Hi, you recently blanked this page. If you feel the redirect that was there is inappropriate, you can nominate it for deletion using the Proposed deletion process or submit it to redirects for discussion if it's likely to be contested. Blanking the page is not appropriate and I have therefore restored the original redirect. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 10:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision and WP:TALK

Per, WP:TALK, specifically the Omega Psi Phi discussion which is not relevant to improving the article can be removed. Please do not make this into a revert war. Thanks. Miranda 00:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Secret Societies

Looks like the anon has added back the tags to the list section. I don't think continually reverting is a permanent solution. I think this should be brought to an admin's attention as the personal attacks have made the page impossible to work on. I wanted to get you opinion as to the best way to go about this. Let me know. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I put the page up for protection, and was told to just watch and revert because it's not enough to warrant protection. You can try if you want, and I'll support your opinion, but I wouldn't get your hopes up though. If protection/admin intervention fails, I'll keep watching/reverting in the hopes they'll eventually go away. Justinm1978 03:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

The RFCU you filed here shows no diffs as evidence for a checkuser. Could you supply some as evidence on the case page? MSJapan 17:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you do need to cite them. Remember, the CU is not as familiar with the situation as the filer, and the CU also can't spend a long time trying to figure out exactly what edits are the problem. You do this by showing diffs. If you know how to do this, skip the next paragraph.

To cite diffs: go to the edit history, and select two consecutive versions via the radio buttons, and click the button at the top that says "compare". That will open up a new page. Take that new page's URL, paste it into the case page, and stick brackets on it. Add a timestamp or something else descriptive to it, and repeat until you feel you have enough material to illustrate your point. MSJapan 23:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

POV Statement

I fail to see how my edit to Tribe of Mic-O-Say was a "POV Statement". StaticElectric 19:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. I'd put that in the OA article but I left my handbook at home when I went off to college. StaticElectric 19:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)