User talk:JackTheVicar

Talk page of JackTheVicar

DYK for Christ Church, Newton

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice article, thank you. I would like to improve a church article, St. Martin, Idstein, ideas welcome, - more history from German needs to be included but I lack the terms in English, - see I forgot to sign, thank you for joining the cabal, you seem to be unafraid ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Establishment and Incorporation

Regarding your edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newton,_New_Jersey&diff=661307244&oldid=661292530, I hope you can see that the administrative process of "incorporation" is distinct from when a populated place actually was founded and it is not useful to have one category set used for two different purposes in an indiscriminate manner. I would not be against have Category:Populated places incorporated in 1864 etc but others previously decided against this (if you feel strongly about this then it would be no bad thing to revisit the question). As regards Newton, New Jersey, quoting the article, we have "Newton was first settled ... sometime before 1751", so assuming that the "sometime" in question was not more than 50 years then it would be correct to categorize Newton, New Jersey in Category:Populated places established in the 18th century. Finally, most populated places in the Category:Populated places by year of establishment categorize by the date that the settlement actually was founded and so I don't really think it correct to say that I am "a user pushing a one-man consensus" as loads of other people have added articles to the category set on the basis of the date of actual foundation. I have played a leading role in establishing some guidelines for the use of the Category:Populated places by year of establishment and if you disagree with what is written there then why not set out your ideas at Category talk:Populated places by year of establishment? Greenshed (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, Greenshed I'm not really that interested in your one-man crusade or a 9-year old discussion that decides nothing. All of NJ's municipalities, and many other states, are categorized this way without complaint. as for your precious category, the advisory of " or otherwise came into existence" in its inclusion statement is overly broad....FYI: 11 April 1864 is the date the Town of Newton was established, legally-came into existence, and the inclusion of Newton in 1864 is not unwarranted. If you want to play a game of semantics vis-a-vis established, incorporated, etc. don't waste my time or start edit-warring over this pedantic nonsense.--JackTheVicar (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Civility

I suggest you calm down. Your constant heated behavior is uncivil. Remember, there are No Angry Mastodons. All problems can be solved with civil discussion. Weegeerunner (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Weegeerunner. You are being very uncivil. You are unable to cooperate with others and are mounting to WP:Harrassment, WP:Canvass, WP:NPA and WP:Wikihounding. Given that the fact you've ignored WV's warnings of bad behavior, based on the diffs provided on the ANI report, I am certain you will be blocked. If it continues, you will be guaranteed a block. I seriously suggest that you calm down and learn to cooperate with others. If one is able to engage with another user about an issue with civility and proper care, so are you. Callmemirela (Talk) 05:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Jack, I've blocked you for two weeks. Your actions are not okay. Follow NPA/Harrassment/etc in the future, or you will be blocked for a longer period of time. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Kevin Gorman • usually, ANI gave people a chance to respond to the accusation which I would have done within the next few minutes. To do so without a response, smacks of arbirtrariness. But I don't care. I have other hobbies. JackTheVicar (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
    • When policy violationgs are crystal clear, any admin can put in place a block - it doesn't require a consensus discussion. When you come back, please change your behavior, or your next block will be longer. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
      • then I'd expect a similar block against the complaining User for 60 days of repeated edit warring (brought by several users to AN) and disruptive editing. As for Winkelvi to say I'm abusive is the pot calling the kettle black. But those don't matter, I'm not allowed to respond to his AN/I complaint. Thats arbitrary. JackTheVicar (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
        • I tend to hand out blocks pretty similarly when I see similar offenses. Winkelvi's past transgressions do not excuse yours however, and given the nature of your transgressions, I'm not willing to punish the victim of your actions. You have no right of reply at ANI when you've committed a clearly blockable offense. When your block fades, if Winkelvi does something objectionable then, feel free to ANI him. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Winkelvi complains with unclean hands and has been far morr disruptive and you ignore it. And I thought admins are supposed to be fair in enforcing policy when the "victim" is worse than his bogeyman. I'll appeal. JackTheVicar (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
            • You're more than welcome to do so. I'll drop a template explaining your options on your page in just a moment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

JackTheVicar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Ultimately, I recognize what I did was wrong. It wasn't intentionally hounding or harassment, just frustration with a notoriously difficult user with a track record of blocks and editwarring who was reverting almost everyone's additions to the article over the course of two days. I violated my own rule to focus on the content creation and not to get mired in the sausage-making that talk pages and content disputes usually evolves or devolves into. I should have known better that an article in the news at that time would have attention from editors with competing viewpoints on content (even if some of them weren't entirely reasonable). I could have walked away from the page for a day or two and there likely wouldn't have been an edit-warring user hanging around reverting and raising the opportunity for a contentious dispute. Next time I'll remember to hold fast to that. While I recognize your right to impose any block you'd like, two weeks for one side of the blow-up is an egregiously imbalanced response. I don't consider that fair. JackTheVicar (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Ultimately, I recognize what I did was wrong. It wasn't intentionally hounding or harassment, just frustration with a notoriously difficult user with a track record of blocks and editwarring who was reverting almost everyone's additions to the article over the course of two days. I violated my own rule to focus on the content creation and not to get mired in the sausage-making that talk pages and content disputes usually evolves or devolves into. I should have known better that an article in the news at that time would have attention from editors with competing viewpoints on content (even if some of them weren't entirely reasonable). I could have walked away from the page for a day or two and there likely wouldn't have been an edit-warring user hanging around reverting and raising the opportunity for a contentious dispute. Next time I'll remember to hold fast to that. While I recognize your right to impose any block you'd like, two weeks for one side of the blow-up is an egregiously imbalanced response. I don't consider that fair. [[User:JackTheVicar|JackTheVicar]] ([[User talk:JackTheVicar#top|talk]]) 16:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Ultimately, I recognize what I did was wrong. It wasn't intentionally hounding or harassment, just frustration with a notoriously difficult user with a track record of blocks and editwarring who was reverting almost everyone's additions to the article over the course of two days. I violated my own rule to focus on the content creation and not to get mired in the sausage-making that talk pages and content disputes usually evolves or devolves into. I should have known better that an article in the news at that time would have attention from editors with competing viewpoints on content (even if some of them weren't entirely reasonable). I could have walked away from the page for a day or two and there likely wouldn't have been an edit-warring user hanging around reverting and raising the opportunity for a contentious dispute. Next time I'll remember to hold fast to that. While I recognize your right to impose any block you'd like, two weeks for one side of the blow-up is an egregiously imbalanced response. I don't consider that fair. [[User:JackTheVicar|JackTheVicar]] ([[User talk:JackTheVicar#top|talk]]) 16:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Ultimately, I recognize what I did was wrong. It wasn't intentionally hounding or harassment, just frustration with a notoriously difficult user with a track record of blocks and editwarring who was reverting almost everyone's additions to the article over the course of two days. I violated my own rule to focus on the content creation and not to get mired in the sausage-making that talk pages and content disputes usually evolves or devolves into. I should have known better that an article in the news at that time would have attention from editors with competing viewpoints on content (even if some of them weren't entirely reasonable). I could have walked away from the page for a day or two and there likely wouldn't have been an edit-warring user hanging around reverting and raising the opportunity for a contentious dispute. Next time I'll remember to hold fast to that. While I recognize your right to impose any block you'd like, two weeks for one side of the blow-up is an egregiously imbalanced response. I don't consider that fair. [[User:JackTheVicar|JackTheVicar]] ([[User talk:JackTheVicar#top|talk]]) 16:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Email removed

Jack - I've removed your ability to use the email function because I was informed you were using it to canvass other admins to unblock you. Your unblock pathways are lined up above. Emailing a bunch of admins hoping you find a friendly one isn't among them. Once I see the contents of the email, I may even consider extending your block for canvassing like that. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• The initial email was from before the block, that administrator replied this morning. He stated he would contact you. I emailed two administrators before you blocked me asking initially for their assistance. I state again: two weeks is heavy-handed against someone with no disciplinary history and a solid contribution history compared to the complaining "victim" who has consistently been dragged to WP:AN for the last few months for edit-warring, harassment, and hostility (look at some of his edit summaries for people who harassed him on his talk page from March forward). Thus, I take issue with punishment being meted out to address only one-side of the issue. I accept my behavior was less than honorable, but punishment and adjudication has been entirely unfair. JackTheVicar (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Sorry, you're correct, I misread something. Canvassing admins to intervene on your side in an ANi thread violates the rules by itself, and means your email access will stay revoked. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • THe other admin I contacted was to ask if he would intervene to tell Winkelvi to not post on my talk page since I did not want to interact and cause an issue. It was before WP:ANI. The admin who contacted you I asked for help because I respected (past tense emphasized) his previous efforts in "dispute resolution". But it is telling that no one addresses the core of the issue, just the symptom and usually with a rush to judgment (since apparently you haven't read my correspondence to that administrator and have jumped to this conclusion without assembling all the facts). I wasn't allowed to reply to Winkelvi's accusations, and you have been making decisions without all the facts before you, so I'm not surprised I don't get a fair shake. If this is how administrators make decisions, there's a lot to be desired and now I understand why people comment negatively about administrators on this site. Asking for help (even without directly asking "take my side") is automatically "canvassing", now I know. JackTheVicar (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Kevin Gorman : Ultimately, I recognize what I did was wrong. It wasn't intentionally hounding or harassment, just frustration with a notoriously difficult user with a track record of blocks and editwarring who was reverting almost everyone's additions to the article over the course of two days. I violated my own rule to focus on the content creation and not to get mired in the sausage-making that talk pages and content disputes usually evolves or devolves into. I should have known better that an article in the news at that time would have attention from editors with competing viewpoints on content (even if some of them weren't entirely reasonable). I could have walked away from the page for a day or two and there likely wouldn't have been an edit-warring user hanging around reverting and raising the opportunity for a contentious dispute. Next time I'll remember to hold fast to that. While I recognize your right to impose any block you'd like, two weeks for one side of the blow-up is an egregiously imbalanced response. I don't consider that fair. JackTheVicar (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Jack, can you please explain how the hell you ever thought this post was good idea? [1] You contacted, or claimed to contact TEN DIFFERENT USERS including admins offsite, in order to try to intimidate someone and stop them from filing a report about your inappropriate behavior? I originally missed this in Wink's ANI report, and blocked you based off of your other personal attacks and harassment. Unless you have a really good explanation for canvassing ten users, and using it to threaten another user, I'm likely to extend your block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It was probably bluster, hoping he'd quit wasting his time and mine. I was sick of his crusade and my state of mind in extreme frustration with him was "let's nip this in the bud". Bad idea. HOWEVER: Having edited other pages or areas with many editors, I engage with a lot of editors offsite and consider many editors to be friends outside of Wikipedia (as well as other sites I contribute to), sometimes it's easier to correspond via e-mail on sources rather than having to encode on a talk page (i.e. I can just cut-and-paste a URL to a source into an email and save some time). Frankly a lot of people who were discussing changes on the Nash article didn't want to be harassed online by Winkelvi who harangued every editor that barely happened to disagree with him (look at the Alicia Nash AFD and you'll see if anyone voted Keep or indicated a position against the AFD, Winkelvi started spouting back). One editor was fed up with having to argue to a wall with him. We spent 5000 words changing 4 words in the lead over "while riding in a taxi". If it's inappropriate to collaborate with other editors toward constructively improve an article independent of the means (onwiki or offwiki) I apologize. I was surprised by the editors who in their emails discussing content directed me to other misdeeds or run-ins with Winkelvi which have essentially gone unpunished for a long while and several said they supported some of the changes I made that Winkelvi reverted (to the organization of the article). I enjoy editing, Kevin, and I enjoy the unique personalities of 99% of the people I run into on Wikipedia, and have found email correspondence with several of those friendly editors aids my work, especially in sharing research.JackTheVicar (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As another note, the rewrite of the mathematical and game theory contributions of Nash was being written and revised by myself and three editors in a collaboration located entirely offsite. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As for WV's claim on your talk page that my motive was hiding something, that's patently ridiculous. He's obsessed with SPI and sockpuppets, so per Maslow's law of the hammer (Law of the instrument) he only has a hammer so everything looks like a nail.JackTheVicar (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

To be clear:

• Canvassing is unacceptable. Emailing about sources and such is fine, but you explicitly said you were talking about getting a cabal together to deal with his bad behavior.
• Threatening other users in the way you did is unacceptable, especially when it's to get them not to report you.
• If you have a problem with his behavior, take it to ANI. Don't act like a high school bully.
• Although not relevant to the reason I'm extending your block, you can't forbid him from posting on your talk page. He is in fact required to post certain sorts of warnings on your talk page. You can delete his posts if you like.

Because of the egregiousness of your post, I'm extending your block. If I ever see you make another post like that, I'm blocking you for at least six months. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Again, I protest that it's heavy-handed. While his behavior doesn't mitigate mine, this is his true character when someone posted on his talk page after being told to "go away" [2] (not the first time). I chose to go to an admin to ask him nicely to "go away", and Bbb23 advised him so--chiefly the purpose of going to him. Further, you ought to review with your fellow administrator, User:PBS, about Winkelvi's conduct disputes he was involved in before you immediately write him off as a "victim"--adjudication of any matter ought to be done fairly and impartially, especially when there are bad acts all the way around.JackTheVicar (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• If someone else wants to block Wink for something he's done that's blockable, they totally can. You seem to not realize the seriousness of your actions. Canvassing ten users about someone's behavior in order to intimidate them is just not at all okay. The block review you filed above will be reviewed by an admin other than me, and you have other block appeal options. I will not be shortening your block, and was very tempted to make it longer. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not assume that I'm oblivious to the nature of my misdeeds. I realize my actions were wrong and comprehend the reasons they were but I have no intention of going beyond accepting that in order to beg for penance or publicly grovel for the sovereign's mercy. When someone does something wrong they don't incessantly need to plead "i'm sorry, have mercy" and go around wearing sackcloth. Frankly, I don't believe one day's blow-up with a excruciatingly frustrating user is so egregiously serious that it requires a 3-week time-out. That's beyond heavy-handed. I think your efforts here have a chilling effect on any other user who runs into Winkelvi when he's acting disruptively and obstructively. Winkelvi has done far worse and you seem fit to ignore that. I've had one incident in my 4 months of productive editing--go through his contributions just for the last 60 days and I dare you to walk away saying he's not a problem editor with all the times he's been dragged to WP:AN, blocks, or his run in with User:PBS among other users and admins. To state it clearly, I think your decisions here have been unbalanced given the facts and behavior of both parties.JackTheVicar (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • BTW, the conversation you're having with Winkelvi on your talk page gives me the impression that he enjoys watching this as part of "gravedancing" JackTheVicar (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Nobody is asking you to wear sack-cloth; it's very difficult, however, to believe that any recognition of misbehaviour is genuine when it's consistently followed with "...but he started it!" Ironholds (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
      • perhaps, Ironholds. But when you have two users with problem behavior, both culpable for the flareup, enforcement against one user while turning a blind eye to the other makes enforcement look arbitrary and disingenuous. Can't respect you or your colleagues decisions when you don't dispense punishment to both parties who were both in the wrong. I readily admit I screwed up and will be careful not to repeat it, but that winkelvi walks off unscathed leaves a bitter taste. And it's more likely that winkelvi will be dragged before WP:AN a half dozen times before you even come across my usernam again. If you can't accept my skepticism because of the lack of equivalent action against winkelvi, well, I would hope that would be an invitation to you to examine how onesided this has been instead of consistinently holding it against me that I point out how one sided it has been. Because if this is standard operating procedure, no wonder admins aren't held in high regard. JackTheVicar (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm not an admin, for reference; just a regular editor. And yes, if Winkelvi has been misbehaving, or continues to misbehave, they should be sanctioned - but I've not seen any evidence of this, simply you being disruptive and abusive towards a fellow editor. At no point in the discussions did you present any evidence whatsoever. If winkelvi not being blocked leaves "a bitter taste", consider that blocks exist to prevent misbehaviour, not to punish for it, and remember that a system of preventative justice that is predicated on what the blocked user wants is...probably not going to be a viable one for very long, so your wishes around who gets blocked are somewhat moot.
        • As for the "holding it against [you]"; let me be very clear. I have no problem with you saying "hey, no way, that user should've been blocked too!" (although if all you can do is repeat that over and over rather than provide a solid rationale I wouldn't expect it to go anywhere). What I have a problem with is that literally every message, every apology, every attempt at an explanation of what you did and how you now understand that it is wrong, contains that argument. Every single one. That's the problem: that you are attempting to use it as a justification for your actions. Nobody but you is responsible for your behaviour, and you cannot simultaneously claim you were wrong and also claim that your behaviour is a secondary concern, here, and expect people to treat the admission of wrongdoing seriously. Ironholds (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
          • I get the impression that no matter what I say, you'll just miss the point. I have stated that hes been blocked four times and brought to wp:an repeatedly the last 60 days (something a quick stroll through history will evidence), so much for preventative measures or punishment. Administrators are just arbitrary, this is arbitrary. And if you miss the point, youre no different than an attempt to discuss anything with Winkelvi...What started this frustrating mess. Sorry, but contacting you has been a waste of time...and here I thought you would be able to resolve the dispute without such draconian overkill. JackTheVicar (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

JackTheVicar, let Gorman have his power trip, it seems things are going in your favour at ANI anyway. Having said that, please learn by it as next time, you might not be so lucky. My advice would be that if you are emailing others, for whatever reason, keep it quiet . Cassianto^Talk 12:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Unblock offer

Perhaps I have a thicker skin than most (which probably comes through playing in bars to drunks for decades), but all I can see is that Jack and Winkelvi just don't see eye to eye for whatever reason, and the two of them just need to work in opposite areas of the encyclopedia for a bit. I'm not happy with the ANI thread which acted as judge, jury and executioner without Jack being allowed to tell his side of the story, and the block looks far too much like punishment to me.

Jack, if you promise to completely and utterly ignore Winkelvi and dial the snark down, I'll unblock you on the basis of "time served". Don't go anywhere near him, don't post on his talk, don't add your two cents to any debate he's in - nothing. If he puts stuff on your talk page, ignore him - somebody else will pick up on it and deal with it. If you can do that, you'll be fine - go and work on things like Christ Church, Newton. However, I don't like people who break promises and if I do catch the pair of you quarrelling again, the next block will be indefinite. Sounds like a fair deal? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Ritchie333 That's a fair offer, and I could easily live with that. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Common practice says I should ping @Kevin Gorman: as blocking admin before I do this. I've got a sinking feeling we're going to agree to disagree, but hopefully we'll get you unblocked soon enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Ritchie333. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333 has there been any progress? I don't know how soon you may hear from Kevin, from his user page and other things I've seen him post online, it seems his serious IRL problems make his Wikipedia involvement intermittent, so I don't know if he might be able to reply immediately. Despite this run-in with him, I'll keep him in prayer. JackTheVicar (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• I normally am supportive of early unblocks... not here. Jack has not shown that he understands he's done anything wrong, and he's done some pretty serious wrong - canvassing admins to intimidate someone from posting an ANI, etc. The block has a preventative purpose: it makes it less likely Jack will do it in the future, and less likely others will follow. Please reflex to ANI if you must. Also, Jack: although I take no offense from it, you'd probably be better off not implyig that admins sixteen hour absences are due to their health issues. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It also prevents Jack from editing content and improving the encyclopedia, so I don't believe the block is a "net gain". Looks like we'll have to hit the WP:Slough of Despond then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unblock of JackTheVicar. Thank you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ritchie333 -- I thank you for bringing this discussion to ANI. Apparently for Kevin and some of his colleagues apologizing and saying above that I'd avoid Winkelvi on the threat of indefinite block, that I recognized my actions were wrong and I'd be vigilant to avoid risking repeating them isn't enough for their tastes. I think from the timbre of their comments at ANI indicates that I can't do anything more than a full blood sacrifice to satiate their retributive desires. I think your offer is fair and measured given both my actions and the capacity to avoid such problems in the future. It is enough rope to hang myself if there are future misdeeds, but also takes into account my potential going forward to focus solely on solid content creation and avoiding disputes as a strategy. Sufficiently both carrot and big stick. If there are admins like that demanding a pound of flesh and arguing this with such unforgiving toxic vitriol against reinstating me and your fair compromise in this situation, I question if really want anything more to do with Wikipedia. I thank you for calmly entering into the fray on this one and believing in the possibility of deserved second chances. JackTheVicar (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Liz despite your prediction on the ANI discussion I have no intention of contacting or interacting ever going forward with Winkelvi or his close associates who have deemed fit to call for my head and posted on the initial ANI and this one. If he ever contacts me, I will contact an administrator. Your prediction makes an assumption without evidentiary basis. Further, I made a promise to Ritchie333, and I don't renege on promises.JackTheVicar (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)