User talk:Jweiss11

Year

Please see this and let me know what you think. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hyphens and emdashes

Thanks for nominating my categories for speedy. Also, en-dashes? And I thought I knew my dashes and hyphens. Apparently not! Jsharpminor (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

I notice you like to put categories in alphabetical order. Just out of curiosity why don't you put "Living People" alphabetically?--Yankees10 18:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think I got you confused with another editor. Nevermind!--Yankees10 19:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Your input is requested

I know you have commented on the WP:CFB talk page about my proposal to move some of some of the college football season pages. I would like to see what your opinion on the requested move on Talk:1973 college football season & Talk:1977 college football season. Thanks-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hi -- I thought it might be easier to discuss this here rather than in edit comments... .

There's an aspect to how dab pages should be constructed that sometimes gets overlooked: although most people get that they're not articles, they may miss that no, really: they're not articles. They don't exist to have content; they exist to route you to where the content you want lives.

As such, adding material makes for more stuff to wade through to find the content you want. And since we don't know who "you" are, that means we don't know which entry you want. We just know that usually, all the other entries are ones you don't want, and the wordier the entries you don't want are, the harder it is for you to spot the one you do want.

I mentioned MOS:DABENTRY; Here is the relevant part in its entirety:

Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary. (emphasis mine)

Usually, the disambiguating term for a page name is designed to uniquely define it. Sometimes, additional distinguishment or explanation is needed, but a "perfect" dab page would have just the page names, and their disambiguating terms would be sufficient.

Given that, an entry like

• Rose Bowl (cricket ground), cricket ground in West End, Hampshire, England

...has a lot of extraneous material. "Cricket ground" is repeated, so that obviously can go. But also, there are no other cricket grounds on the page, so explaining that it's in West End, Hampshire England isn't necessary, so really is just adding clutter. If I've come to the page looking to find a cricket ground named "Rose Bowl", my search is over even without knowing the part of Hampshire it's located in. If I'm not looking for a cricket ground, that's just more words for me to plow through.

Wikipedia guidelines are that dab pages are best served by being as sparse as we can make them while still directing people to the proper content pages.

Hope this helps --NapoliRoma (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Dumb question

JW, do you happen to know what what percentage smaller the text used in Infobox college coach is compared to regular article text? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a dumb question and one I do not know the answer to. I thought simply looking at the code for the template would reveal the answer, but it seems to be buried in more fundamental, underlying templates. Perhaps check with someone like User:Frietjes? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the reasons why the infoboxes for CFB and NFL players are too wide is that they use the same size type font as main body text. As part of the redesign of the CFB player infobox, I want to reduce the font size, say split the difference between the font size for the college coach infobox and main body text. I've already invited Frietjes to get involved; I may invite another template editor or wiki-coder to get involved, too. I want significantly upgrade the graphics, too, starting with a more sophisticated use of color; instead of the plain color bars, I want something that looks more like a college stripe at the top, and something that looks more like the graphics for the CFB navboxes for the subsidiary section headers. I also want the primary and section headers reversed out in white for legibility.

FYI, I'm also laying the groundwork to revamp the NFL player infobox, too. It's too damn big, with too many options, and in practice it's often longer than the text for many articles. I want to tackle the CFB player infobox first, though. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of Winsipedia?

I have posted a question on the WP:CFB page about this but I trust your opinion as a regular CFB editor, so I decided to come to the horse's mouth? What do you think of these edits? [1] [2] [3] Thanks,-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

UCO2009bluejay, thanks for the message. Are we talking about Winsipedia or those edits? I'm not too familiar with Winsipedia, but I feel like I've surfed by it once or twice before. Those navboxes edits are not good and they've been rightly reverted. The place to take about what is a national championship, what's a consensus national championship, and what needs to be noted where and how should be discussed at WP:CFB or Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now I see where Winsipedia is mentioned in those edit summaries. The site has some interesting graphics, but it appears to have a superficial level of information. It's certainly no authority on national championships. Compare their list of national championships to the level of detail and explanation found here on Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly what I thought, and attempted to explain to this editor. He/She was adamant that this was "the best source for college football." Well it doesn't compare to even Wikipedia in the amount of CFB coverage, I would go by what the schools claim, the NCAA, and the CFBDW, all of these we use on a regular basis.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Internets are full of people with people with wack, provincial, and outright delusional opinions about things. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Niagara

Actually, the team disbanded for the last time in 1987. They had disbanded in 1950, but they came back in 1967, playing for 20 more years. I actually didn't know about that until about an hour ago, due to this website: http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/incomplete_data/year_by_year_discontinued.php?teamid=2253 Wikidude10000 (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw your edits to Niagara Purple Eagles. Thanks for that. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems that Niagara was a club team as of 1985: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19850918&id=kVwxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xW4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=7182,4535530. Jweiss11 (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do we need a revamped CFB player infobox?

Here's the perfect example: Denton Fox. Played three years for Texas Tech, first-team All-SWC, first-team All-American by the Football Writers (major selector). Drafted by the Cowboys, but never played in a regular season game in the NFL. This article uses the NFL player infobox, which emphasizes his non-existent NFL career (draft info, list of three NFL preseason/practice squads, NFL non-debut and final year), at the expense of his notable college career. Too many articles about great college football players are using inappropriate pro football infoboxes, which emphasize the wrong data about CFB players. When the pending TfD closes, let's push the new infobox to completion -- and into general use. It's long overdue. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Isn't it time that TfD is closed already? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Plastikspork closes 75% or more of all TfDs, and he hasn't edited since December 19. The TfD has been open since December 14 -- 28 days ago. No one has commented since December 31 -- 11 days ago. The !vote count has stood at 7 opposed to the merge vs. 3 for the merge for eleven days. I obviously want to move on the revamped infobox. If no administrator closes it in the next day or so, I will request a close at AN. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Administrator Martijn Hoekstra closed the TfD this morning after I requested that he look at it. I've pinged all of the WP:CFB participants who I believe are still actively editing on their talk pages. So far, we've gotten responses from about half of two dozen or so. I would be grateful if you would ping the rest on their talk pages -- we really should get feedback from guys like Patriarca, Crazy Paco and Cbl62 (I'll get you a list of everyone I've pinged so far). Like we did with the CFB and CBB coach navboxes, it's important that we get everyone to buy in; it makes implementation and consistent use a lot easier.

FYI, here's some more of Andy's handiwork: User talk:WikiOriginal-9#TfD: screwed-up merge of Template:Infobox Arena Football player, etc. He really has no clue what he's doing with these sports templates, or how they're supposed to be used, but he's clearly convinced that the more related infoboxes he can merge into massive, all-in-one templates, the better. We really need to start paying more attention to TfD, and checking the list every other day or so. I've watch-listed all of what I believe are the relevant sports templates, but Andy flatly refuses to notify the concerned WikiProjects and major template contributors. In some cases, the original template creators have not edited in several years, so we can't rely on getting notice of TfDs that way. A partial solution is we need to get our own house in better order with writing better template documentation and instructions for Infobox college football player, Infobox NFL player, and Infobox gridiron football person, making it perfectly clear under what circumstances each of them is supposed to be used.

There's also a lot of football player infobox clean-up work lurking out there. There are something like 520 former AFL/NFL bios that still use Infobox pro football player (tailored for the old AFL guys), and those will require manual replacement by editors who are familiar with the AFL-NFL merge history, etc. When Andy started the latest TfD, I also did a quick survey of 100 random transclusions of Infobox gridiron football person: about half were CFL players, about 35 to 40% were old-time NFL players, coaches and administrators who were never converted to Infobox NFL player; and another 10 to 15% were notable old-time college players who never played pro football. There are currently about 7,600 transclusions of the "gridiron" infobox, and about half of them need to be replaced. Once we get the CFB player infobox revamped, I suggest we start replacing the infoboxes for the old-time CFB players (including a lot of old-time All-Americans). Given the numbers, we can't do this by ourselves. Cake and WO-9 should be a lot of help in this, once we give them a nice, new, clean template to work with. Plenty of work for everyone. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

JW, I'm going to be out of pocket for most of the next couple of days, with only limited availability to edit or respond. I've got outstanding requests for comment on the revised infobox template from the following editors who have not yet responded: Dale Arnett, ZappaOMati, Jrcla2, Billcasey905, Crazypaco, Purplebackpack89, Patriarca12, Cbl62, AllisonFoley, UteInDC, Go Phightins!, GrapedApe. If you could nudge them with a reminder ping, I would be grateful, and do what you can to keep an eye on the Sandbox talk page discussion and answer anything that needs to be answered. Also, is there anyone else we should personally invite to comment? If so, please feel free to do so.

You may want to take a look at the ideas for the revamped infobox graphics and design here: User:Dirtlawyer1/sandbox3; I'm waiting on Frietjes to react and provide a feasibility assessment of upgraded design. If she needs help, we can invite another template editor/wiki-coder to assist. Is there are a template editor with whom you have a working relationship?

Now that the TfD is closed, we need to do what we can to get this moving. I think we can have a consensus on what parameters to include by the end of next week. Cake has raised a good question regarding the presentation of nicknames for old-time CFB players, and I think we need to figure out the best way to deal with it (top of the infobox? infobox parameter? separate statement in the first sentence? redirect?). Anyway, that's all I've got for now. I should have full-time access again by the end of the week. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Random

Have you seen this (encyclopediadramatica.se/Jweiss11) lol. Link is blacklisted. It was in the Wikipedia category. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I had not seen that. Quite the hagiography there. There best part is the Star of David superscripted after my name. I'm going to start signing checks and credit card receipts with that. By the way, been meaning to ask, is your user named a reference to Sons of Anarchy? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No, what is the connection though. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Nvm, ref is Redwood Original 9. I would ask you if you were going to edit the ed page but that site and uncyclopedia seem to be have a smaller hardcore following and you have to make an account to edit. The recent changes is smaller so if you edit anything to make it unfunnier it will probably be reverted lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't plan on editing on that site and getting involved in that nonsense. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A wise move. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm honored to have been lampooned. I must be famous. Now where's that fame money? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You must have just made someone mad lol. Also, in the edit summary I'm not making fun of the misspelling. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC

I think this is our guy: User talk:Jweiss11/Archives/2012#Edit-warring. I exchanged private emails with him. He was trying to claim that the NCAA governed national football titles going back to the 1930s and 1940s. This is, of course, false. Dude was in the Army. Nice way to represent the US. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice, Weiss. You've been immortalized. BTW, how is your sister? LOL And, yes, I did check to see if there was an entry under my username. Unfortunately, I have not made any EncyclopediaDramatica friends, and I am not notable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

My sister is well and still female, as always. I heard there was an article for you, but it got AfD'd after a heated discussion determined that you're a non-notable, run-of-the-mill Wikipedia editor who's never won a major award and never garnered more than routine, passing attention from psychos on the Internet. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That's me: Mr. Routine Coverage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You're like the Susan Lucci of Wikipedia editors. Always a bridesmaid. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Cleveland, Ohio

Whatever the case may be, the article name is still not 'Cleveland, Ohio' but simply Cleveland, and both Cleveland and Ohio are obviously distinctly different. One is a state and one is a city in that state, and both warrant links in an article -- especially about a player at the Ohio State University. It isn't inaccurate or fundamentally incorrect to list them separately (especially seeing as both city and state are part of the infobox and both have significant articles of their own)Ryecatcher773 (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Ryecatcher: The common practice is to format American cities and states as a single link (e.g., "Cleveland, Ohio") for the sake of clarity and consistency. You can try to change it, but you're going to find most other editors will ruthlessly enforce the standard convention. Jweiss11 is not the only editor who does so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Alabama-Florida football rivalry

You want me to created Alabama-Florida football rivalry it's alright for me Thanks User:AuburnDee. — Preceding undated comment added 06:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, I just wanted to say thanks for reverting my edits on the coaches templates. I changed the dates per MOS:DOB. I guess WP:WikiProject College football has different opinions on that? I thought, and still think, that it looked nicer by shortening the dates. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 23:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Corky, thanks for the message. There has been extensive discussion about six-digit vs. eight-digit formats for year ranges with respect to WikiProject College football, WikiProject College Basketball, and other sports projects. I think @Dirtlawyer1: and @Rikster2: know the most about the history of this issue. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Alrighty, it really isn't a big deal. Thanks for replying to me! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 23:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan:, there was extensive discussion about 6-digit vs. 8-digit date formats for sport tenures and the final consensus was that date ranges are expressed as 8-digits (e.g. 2005–2008), while specific seasons for sports that span 2 calendar years (like basketball or hockey) are expressed as 6-digits (e.g. the 2005–06 season). This has been added to Wikipedia's manual of style (see notes here) and is how tenures are handled by most sports. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rikster2: Thanks for the explanation! It makes since now. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 23:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Rikster, thanks for chiming in. I wasn't sure if the MOS had been updated. Good to know that it has. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about lists of seasons

In what order do you suggest long list (of lists) that would need to be changed be adjusted. Also, how would these need to be reconciled with the what I call TT (or Michigan) version that is leaner and lists conference record as well where as the Alabama, OU version doesn't.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

UCO, not sure what you are asking above about "order". First step is to figure out what the new, winning format is. Then I'd hit all of the lists that have been rated FL first and convert those, then keep working down the rest of the lists. Let's keep the discussion of this on the CFB talk page, so others can chime in. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

"Working down the rest of the lists" is what I wanted clarification for. But I agree it can wait.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Yeah, I don't think a absolute strict order of work is needed. I'd just hit the FL ones first. Jweiss11 (talk)

Potential problem edits

JW, FYI, you probably want to look at this ASAP: WT:CFB#Widespread changes to college sports program articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1990 All-American Bowl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeff Bower (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Saturday February 7 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon

Saturday February 7 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon

You are invited to join us at New York Public Library's Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture for our upcoming editathon, a part of the Black WikiHistory Month campaign (which also includes events in Brooklyn and Westchester!). Saturday February 7 Black Life Matters Editathon (RSVP). 12:00pm - 5:00 pm at NYPL Schomburg Center, 515 Malcolm X Boulevard (Lenox Avenue), by W 135th St The Wikipedia training and editathon will take place in the Aaron Douglas Reading Room of the Jean Blackwell Hutson Research and Reference Division, with a reception following in the Langston Hughes lobby on the first floor of the building at 5:00pm. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Department of Duplicative Redundancy

This kind of silliness drives me nuts: [4]. For every BCS National Championship team, this IP user is adding a "Consensus National Championship" yellow banner to the infoboxes of BCS championship CFB teams. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I agreeably agree with you here. :) So that makes the 1996 Florida Gators football team the final consensus national champion since there was a split in 1997 and the BCS started in 1998? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, what about 2003, where the BCS champ wasn't the consensus champ? Does that change anything about how we regard the "consensusness" of the other BCS champs? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That sounds about right, Mr. Agreeable. If we're going to list "consensus national champions" for winners of the BCS National Championship Game, we might as well list Associated Press Poll national champions, Coaches Poll national champions, Houlgate System national champions, Litkenhous national champions, blah, blah, etc., etc., which is a really bad idea. Pre-1998, if there was a split between the two major polls, the two major polls should be listed separately; since then, simply listing BCS or CFP national champions should suffice. As I said on the IP's talk page, the goal is not to accumulate as many little yellow "champions" banners as possible on the top of these team infoboxes.

As for 2003, there was obviously no "consensus national champion," because of the AP Poll awarding it NC to USC. I suppose the Trojans could also list the "Cheaters R Us national championship" and "Our Heisman Trophy winner is a dumbass national championship," but other editors might disagree. Query: Why does the 2003 LSU Tigers infobox not have a yellow "BCS National Championship" banner? Other than 2003, I see no credible challenge to the "consensusness" of the BCS champion teams, but there's no reason to list it in the infobox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI, this guy is back, and did not take the hint from my having left him a talk page message. I'd be grateful if you would watch list these pages, and take a look at his other handiwork. He's reformatting all of the season articles for BCS championship teams. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we ought to bring this up WT:CFB and settle on / reassert some new standards for Template:Infobox NCAA team season, because the issues are bigger than just this IP's redundantly redundant handiwork. There are a few persistent problems. First, "Champions" is almost always capitalized in this infoboxes, even though it usually should not be. Many of these instances are my edits from years ago, e.g. 1990 Michigan Wolverines football team, which I created in 2009. Second, do we need to note bowl championships in Champion field? The bowl win is clearly stated a field below. Third, do we need to note rivalry "championships", e.g. Florida Cup, or even two-team rivalries wins, e.g. 2008 Oregon Ducks football team? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Being the resident WP:CFB hardass, I'm going to say no to bowl championships and rivalry championships, and, yes, to correct capitalization. Note, however, that BCS National Championship and SEC Championship are proper names, even if BCS national champions and SEC champions are not, raising the question are we listing "championships" or "champions?" Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

JW, this guy is back, again, and is engaging in slow-rolling reversion game regarding BCS and consensus national champions banners: [5] and [6]. BCS National Championship Game and SEC Championship Game are trademarked proper names, should be capitalized per WP:COMMONNAME, and are capitalized Wikipedia articles titles; Consensus national champions, BCS national champions, SEC champions, and SEC Eastern Division champions are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. Your assistance in maintaining proper capitalization and your input on the article talk pages would be appreciated -- these are not the only CFB national championship articles he's messing with. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Terrell Williams

Hey, in discussing ongoing infobox discussions for NFL coaches with Frietjes, I noticed that Terrell Williams has left the NFL and is now a Gators assistant. I think he needs to be converted to Infobox college coach -- care to handle that one? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Done, along with other cleanup, updating, and project tagging of the talk page. I noticed Frietjes editing the format of some infoboxes as well. What's the plan there? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want the gory details, read the extended discussion between her and me on her talk page. What she's doing now should actually facilitate the conversion of Infobox NFL coach to Infobox NFL player in the near future. Need to happen, but it needs to be planned well, and Infobox NFL player needs work, including paring its length, before we just dump 350 coaches into it. In the mean time, we need to finish revamping Infobox college football player, and then Infobox NFL player. Which reminds me, Big Dog -- I think you owe me some feedback here: User:Dirtlawyer1/sandbox2. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jack Bighead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dallas Texans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

KCAC coaches?

Hey champ! I reverted the edit you made in the KCAC Coaches template... Marty Mathis is still the head coach there from all sources I can find. KCAC website too. What have you found?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I made a mistake before. I meant to update Bethany, not Bethel. Manny Matsakis is no longer the head coach at Bethany. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm

Imagine my surprise: [7]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Patricia Neal was a ferocious blocker in her day. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Andy Gustafson.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Andy Gustafson.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Warning - WP:NPA

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, please stop this disruptive nonsense. Jweiss11 (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I've never known Jweiss11 to make uncivil comments on Wikipedia. If you're going to make such an accusation, you should provide a link to it if you want your accusation to have any merit and credibility at all. However, accusing someone of being uncivil when they have not been is normally considered disruptive behavior. If you have something, provide a link. If you don't... well, then don't.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Paul, the accusation is based on comments at Talk:Sam Harris (author)#Another arbitrary break. Note, also the absurd claim of "original research" in response to my discussion about how we might best manage content relevant to that article. Ubikwit has already gone to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding his clash with other editors over the same topic. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jweiss. I'm briefly stepping back, as common sense and reasoned discussion seem to have taken a back seat to a mini-crusade, so it's best to let it run its course. I'll remove or correct the policy violations in a little while. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: The statement you made

whatever the practice may be by certain social scientists, the reality is that religions tend to be—and the three Abrahamic religions certainly are—political systems.

seems to have been presented as a pretext that you asserted was the condition upon which I be required to edit the article, and that is obviously an arbitrary assertion; moreover, it was not based on policy, but on your personal interpretation of subject matter related to the content of the article.

Second, you accused me of "smearing" while asserting that I have a COI, both of which are personal attacks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, the statement I made above is rather obvious and non-controversial, no? These religions all have laws, don't they? And the point I was trying to drive home there was that your structuring of the article was introducing redundancies. The idea that politics and religion have to be treated as separate animals in all contexts is just as much as a personal interpretation. And, in the case of the Sam Harris article, that approach is promoting redundancy. As for the "smearing" and COI" I think this is a reasonable assessment of your editing on the Sam Harris article. I'm not attacking you at large. I don't really know anything about you. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)