User talk:Jpgordon

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived. Archive #1 Archive #2 Archive #3 Archive #4 Archive #5

For older history, check [1] as well as the archives.

Leo Frank article

You have been involved with the sock puppet blocks on this article. FYI, I have made a request for page protection due to recent edits by three different IPs that have made edits identical to the puppets. Anything else you can think of would be appreciated. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably the right thing. Pity. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We may have another winner: [2]. IronDuke 02:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Unban request by (part of?) User:The abominable Wiki troll

Hi. As an admin who has previously interacted with this banned user, you may be interested to participate in the discussion at WP:AN#Unban request by (part of?) The abominable Wiki troll. Regards,  Sandstein  11:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I wonder if you would mind commenting on the puzzlement several of us have in this section of ANI: [3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved yet?

Regarding this edit of yours, I was wondering if the issue in question has been resolved yet. I was thinking about trying to understand the issue, but if it's been definitively resolved to your satisfaction then I won't bother.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. I walked away; I've little use for people who would rather argue than edit. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be nice if nothing happened at Wikipedia except for editing articles. I'm not suggesting that the individual in question was or was not being a jerk. But it does seem like there was a legitimate issue about copyrights and templates, that is yet to be resolved. Maybe I'll look into it. It's probably not best to resolve a legitimate issue by obliterating the minority and then forgetting about it.  :-).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, nobody ever responded to my question about just how that particular template was deprecated; I wasn't dealing with the actual copyright issue, just the mystery of the template. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, maybe I'll look into it, if no one beats me to it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

<Undent> I've looked into it, and have succeeded in changing the extremely dumb policy that was the main reason for this block.[4] However, the blocking admin no longer has a "Sysop flag", and in any event still demands an apology which will almost certainly not be forthcoming. The block seems punitive at this point, because the policy now addresses the blocked user's concern. Since you previously offered to unblock the user, would you please review the situation and again consider unblocking? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it odd how this user is unusually persistent in attempting to have Zsero unblocked six months after an incident. Why, I had to review the entire discussion before I could argue back! I hate to assume bad faith, but just throwing it out there - quack quack? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you insinuating? As I explained at your talk page, considering that it may turn into a lifetime ban, I don't understand your reluctance to review the situation every once in a long while, particularly on the same day that the cause of the whole controversy disappeared (i.e. today Wikipedia stopped claiming that images are copyrighted when actually we don't know that).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Take this elsewhere, please. My sole involvement was the unblock request; I made a suggestion; it was essentially brushed off, and I thus lost interest in the discussion; and I have not regained it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Will do, sorry to bother you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:99.101.128.39

Why don't you also take away 99.101.128.39's talk page privileges? WAYNESLAM 19:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Maltese (dog), you may be blocked from editing. BLGM5 (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's see. "Bite me"? No, that's not polite. Regarding politeness, Don't template the regulars. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Malcolm Schosha

Hi, there is a discussion at WP:ANI#User:Malcolm Schosha and User:Kwork that is in part about your deletion of User talk:Malcolm Schosha. Like others commenting there, I think that user talk page should not have been deleted, both on the merits (in view of the RFC about this issue) and also as a matter of procedure (because WP:CSD#U1, invoked by you, explicitly rules out deleting user talk pages). I appreciate the arguments raised on ANI about possible lawsuits, but as I commented there I believe that any deletions required to avoid lawsuits should be made by Foundation staff, not us. Could you please restore the page and, if you think it should be deleted, submit it to MfD? Thanks,  Sandstein  21:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No. It's particularly appropriate to delete user pages for users that use their real name and wish not to be associated with Wikipedia any more. The only reason non-process-related reason to insist on keeping such things is essentially vengeance against an unpopular user. I understand policy is otherwise; I tend to err on the side of decency when it conflicts with policy. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a reasonable argument. But people can in good faith disagree about what decency requires. That's why deletion policy mandates that deletion decisions must be made by community consensus if they are not covered by the criteria for speedy deletion. I am requesting a deletion review of that page.  Sandstein  22:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"First of all, do no harm". I'm surely not going to make a fuss one way or another about this, but if a courtesy deletion will help an unpopular editor stay away, it does seem to be the sensible thing to do. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but per WP:RTV, the decision to delete a user talk page is reserved to the renaming bureaucrat, which you are not. You could have asked that bureaucrat instead of deleting the page yourself. I've raised this matter at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 12#User talk:Malcolm Schosha.  Sandstein  23:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't care. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)