User talk:Jusdafax

Welcome to my talk page. Please add new messages to the BOTTOM of the page by starting a new section heading - just use the 'New section' tab above. I will respond to new messages here, so please watchlist my page. If I leave YOU a message, I'll watchlist your page and look for a reply there. NOTE: Though active in anti-vandalism here, I am not a Wikipedia administrator.

ITN for Iraq War

--Happy September indeed. :) I sent you an email, btw. Oh, and thanks for updating that. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help! Jusdafax 20:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

thanks for your advice/analysis.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, happy to do what I can. Wikipedia is like nowhere else in cyberspace, I find; a very odd and shifting mix of the fair and (sometimes) unfair. In this case, the signs indicated a no-win situation for you and the best thing to do in such a case is to not keep getting madder, but to walk away. Otherwise you get warnings and (horrors!) even blocks. And blocks really do tell a lot about editors, in my opinion. Best wishes, Jusdafax 01:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

yes it was a terrible situation to be in. So many false accusations being made (when false accusations were also part of my original complaint!). then you get people believing the false accusations too and repeating them, it really is very unpleasant stuff. Anyway I've pointed out the mistakes to one of those making the allegations and they've begrudgingly taken at least some of it onboard. I'm not sure what I've learned, other than people can basically say whatever they want and get away with it just so long as they don't' go totally over the top. I suppose I should maybe have asked someone else to take up my case and examine it rather than making the complaint myself? Anyway, I certainly do agree with you about blocks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Hurricane Earl (2010)

--You can just give these to yourself y'know? I template myself quite frequently! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Really! Ok... it seems unseemly, but I will try to adapt if it is standard practice. Many thanks! Jusdafax 02:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not uncommon that an admin forgets or doesn't do them for one reason or another. I try to make sure any non-regular gets a template, but I think you qualify as a regular now! ;) There's nothing wrong with templating yourself. If anybody were to dishonestly template themselves, they'd only be cheating themselves (and possibly 10 point in the backlog creation cup!). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This is good reasoning. I again thank you! Jusdafax 03:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy Jusdafax's Day!

User:Jusdafax has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Jusdafax's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Jusdafax! Peace, Rlevse 23:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

9 Aug Sep for you, I was a few minutes early! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean the 9th of September? ;) The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well deserved, an awesome editor. Tommy! 02:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WOW! Many thanks... I had taken a little wiki-break there, and what a wonderful way to log in. Many thanks to Rlevse and the rest of you; I am quite astonished and humbled. Jusdafax 17:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Well earned. Toddst1 (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Another Techwriter2B sock

Hi Jusdafax. Here's a writeup on yet another Techwriter2B sock [1]. He's now calling himself user:TardyHardy. Eurytemora (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seconded your writeup request. Happy to assist in any other way needful. Best of luck, and thanks, Jusdafax 05:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA Nomination

Jusdafax, it is with great pleasure I have started an RfA for you here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jusdafax. You can accept or decline the nomination, but I sincerely hope you accept, with all the best luck. Best wishes, Tommy! 22:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Tommy, I am extremely flattered and honored. I just read your gracious nomination; thank you so very much, really! But, with great regret, I deem it best to decline for now... for a number of reasons that it would be tedious to elaborate on, except to say that I don't believe the time is right for me to request the extra buttons, and I am not sure when that time will come, if ever. Again, my profound thanks, and sincere best wishes to you! Jusdafax 05:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted that page since you declined the nomination. I do, however, look forward to seeing your name on WP:RFA some day. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to see you decline. I was looking forward to supporting this one enthusiastically. MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Shirik, I had answered here first and then had an edit conflict at the now-deleted Rfa nomination page... and now am laughing at myself, as I had put a fair amount of effort into an attempt at an eloquent declining statement. On further thought, it has worked out well. In any case, I am again quite moved my the good opinions of my well-wishers, and promise that I will give your views further consideration in the coming weeks and months, Shirik, Tommy2010 and MarmadukePercy! Jusdafax 05:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to see you declined. I've seen what having admin privileges is like (on other wikis) and it's really not a big deal, despite a potential (not for you though) trip to hell and back. I think and I'd be willing to bet the community is too- that you'd be a great candidate that's fully qualified. Regards Tommy! 05:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP unsourced vs BLP sources and No footnotes

Hi there, for articles like this one, you should use {{BLP sources}} and {{No footnotes}} rather than {{BLP unsourced}} as it does have a reference, it just lacks inline citations. Also, if you go to the trouble of posting a message on talk page, can you check for relevant WikiProject banners? If the article isn't in any WikiProjects, the chances of it ever being improved are much less. Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite right, and I thank you for taking the time to give me a clue! Jusdafax 12:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it? I seem to remember observing that the previous poll was of questionable character, and not casting a !vote as a result. Still, thank you for the notice. Jusdafax 18:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, this notice was sent to all users by bot ( over 600 ) that commented on the straw poll page even if they did not actually take a position one way or the other, you are of course under no obligations to comment. Best regards Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ysgol y Preseli

I got a mesasage from you warning me about changes I made to "Ysgol y Preseli". Until I got your message I had never heard of "Ysgol y Preseli" nor had I made any changes to it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.216.209 (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I see 'Clue Bot' warned you as well, it was a simple deletion of content warning. Hm, back on June 1st, eh? Could someone have had access to your computer then? Since you have like 5 edits total I doubt you are a dedicated vandal. And like you I have never heard of Ysgol y Preseli except when it came up on Huggle, the anti-vandal tool. Well, best wishes to you. It's a mystery we may never solve. Jusdafax 05:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Techwriter2B is back

This time he registered Centpacrr’s full real name as his own username and attempted to impersonate Centpacrr. Was quickly blocked by OhNoitsJamie but is now appealing the block.[2][3] Eurytemora (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Yeah, I'll take a look, and thanks. Jusdafax 01:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk about unbelievable - he's appealed yet again and has even added a header to the talk page essentially threatening libel. Eurytemora (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, where ya been?

We're all missing you on IRC... The sock that should not be (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll be checking in asap. Personal matters and travel (with no computer) have quite consumed me of late and it has only been the past few days that I have settled back down. Of course, now the World Series starts tonight! 'Till soon, Jusdafax 18:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well, see you in a bit. The sock that should not be (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said in the Rfa, it was very tough to make a decision. I again thank you for your many good deeds on the project. Jusdafax 02:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Huggle

When are you going to use Huggle again? WAYNEOLAJUWON 15:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Miss me? I'm a fairly good Huggler, if I do say so myself. I do feel however that much of the effort is a waste of time due to IP vandals. I speak as someone with over 50,000 edits... Required registration would stop 90% of all vandalism, most of which is done by bored school kids on school computers. This would free up an awful lot of time for editing articles and content creation. I don't rule out doing more Huggling... but at the moment I have been a bit busy in 'real life' and have a limited time to work on Wikipedia. But thanks for asking. Jusdafax 18:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, and I hope you will come back to Huggle soon because that's the Jusdafax that I know about because you warned many users. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

An apology

Jusdafax, nine months ago I had committed a judgment of error — one made in good faith, but an error nonetheless. You had raised the point on my talk page and I made the mistake of taking it personally and then reacting thus. I would like to apologize for my ludicrously poor behavior, and I would like to express regret for not apologizing to you sooner about it. I hope you do not consider it reflective of my general behavior, which is typically more moderate. harej 01:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Fair enough, Harej, and I salute you. I decided not to bring the issue up when we later met at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco when you came through for a visit. I was the old geezer in the cubicle next to Cary Bass. I'm currently a lot less involved in the project than I was at that time, but I may yet go back to deeper involvement, so I appreciate any healing offers I can get. I must admit that I felt the way Cda was dealt with overall was the start of my current disenchantment with Wikipedia. Indeed (and to be frank), I pulled back and semi-recently declined a handsome Rfa nomination due to deep concerns around the issues of admin abuse, civility standards, and other wiki-matters that have left a bad taste in my mouth, though my real life time concerns were also a factor... But I take your friendly comment as a good sign. Thanks for reaching out! Jusdafax 12:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Tom DeLay

• Note: Self-templated per HJ Mitchell, above. But it does not feel right or natural to do so. Jusdafax 04:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever need help from a janitor please feel free to drop me a line! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks back. May you use your new buttons with a fair but firm touch! Very best wishes, Jusdafax 05:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Many thanks for your thoughtful, intelligent, and gracious notes on my talkpage and elsewhere. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• You are quite welcome. As I note above, I am a very part-time Wikipedian at the present, and some of the reason for that is exemplified by your recent ordeal. I have seen too many like you get what I'd call shabby treatment, while those truly abusive editors I'd consider worthy of extended blocks escape meaningful sanctions, and smirkingly continue to "play the edge" of what they can get away with. It all has had, and continues to have, quite the chilling effect on me, and I assume others of good will, creating an intellectual and spiritual effect not unlike Gresham's Law. It would seem that, as usual in human affairs, those who want power are almost always the very people who should not be given power.

My best wishes to you and yours this Holiday Season, Jusdafax 09:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

ITN

The Nigerian settlement part was again removed by someone from the Cheney article. I added the info to Halliburton anyway, I think it is better if we feature this instead so please do not go into an edit war on the Cheney article :D --BorgQueen (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Naw, no worries, I've been a big believer in taking it slow for a while now, and haven't been in an edit war in a long time... and have never been blocked. I reverted it back in once, so it's up to other interested parties to debate the issue. Thanks for the update here, our edits crossed when I made an additional comment at ITN. Happy holidays! Jusdafax 19:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Awww thanks! Though actually, I was trying to update the Dick Cheney article, as noted above. Anyway, I really appreciate not having to self-template! Jusdafax 19:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

“ And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God. ” — (Alma 7:10)

The Thing ^T/_C is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:TTTSNB/Merry_Christmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Many Thanks! Have replied on your page... Jusdafax 01:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

WAYNESLAM has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove by adding {{subst:User:The Utahraptor/Christmas tree}} to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.

WAYNESLAM 01:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jusdafax. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 00:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy tenth anniversary

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

WAYNESLAM has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 18:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

WAYNESLAM 18:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, Wayne! Jusdafax 19:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Many thanks; I'll be running again in a few months once I've ironed out some of the issues that people raised. Thanks again, GiantSnowman 19:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure! Jusdafax 19:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A drink

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 19:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't bumped into you so much lately until today, so I just wanted to say it's always a pleasure to see your name on my watchlist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Much obliged for the kindly sentiment! Indeed, I have been contributing to the project at a fairly minimal level for several months due to other priorities, but I doubt I'll ever just stop cold... too much fun. My best wishes to you and yours, and I'll most likely see you around at ITN or Rfa! Jusdafax 23:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe just ITN. I got my fingers burnt a bit recently, so I think I'll stay out of the kitchen for a little while (rants at BN excepted!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

talkback

• Hey there. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 04:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

why you delete

my precious prose?[4]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 07:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• My apologies, if that was my fault, as it appears to be! I have no idea how that happened! Would you like me to replace it, or would you prefer to do it yourself? Jusdafax 07:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh vey, it would not be easy, i'll let you give it a go first. I bet you edited an earlier version of the discussion by mistake, that is probably the culprit.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 07:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok... and you are right, it won't be easy. I'll leave a note on the page first. Jusdafax 07:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it. No problems, accidents happen. Dream Focus 08:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks... that was a most untimely first time for me. Blessings! Jusdafax 08:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Toy Story 3 accepted edit

Sorry about that; I guess I should have read the talk first.

Cheers, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 21:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the note here. I still think the best wording is "and currently final" but I lost that one. It seems that the pressure to make another movie will be considerable, given the monstrous box office TS3 has gotten. Best wishes! Jusdafax 21:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thinking this over; will get back to you on your page. Thanks, it's a honor to be considered. Jusdafax 20:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter (film series)

Hi,

The "Casting the roles of Harry, Ron and Hermione" section has been put back to its original place. I know that you were not a supporter of the move in the first place, and I have taken on board your concerns about the timeline of the article, therefore I feel it's best that it should be near the top under the "origins" section to improve the structure of the article as a whole. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks HH, for considering my thoughts on that topic. And I'd like to thank you again for your many improvements to the article! Jusdafax 23:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

NPP

NPP has some issues that have been come to light since the launch of our bot to track unpatrolled pages, and troubleshooting some recent tech issues with the special:newpages log. Would you be prepared to chime in with some ideas for an NPP 'School' for new users? This is my very first communication with anyone on the idea, and I would value your feedback here or on my talk page. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

For various reasons I am not as active as I once was, but you bring up one of the areas I maintain an interest in. Please let me know if there is a page for discussion, as I think such a 'School' could be a very good thing indeed. Thanks for your coming here, I am flattered. Jusdafax 06:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You're Welcome!

Hello, Jusdafax. You have new messages at CycloneGU's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Feel free to chat there if you'd like. I was very active with PC during the trial and now just wish a decision be made one way or another. CycloneGU (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 08:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I was on IRC for about a year when I was an intern at the WMF in San Francisco. I'll think about coming back to IRC but due to other projects I am working on, my time is limited, and IRC just eats more of it up. It is a vital tool for fighting vandals and other Wikipedia issues, and I made some lasting friends there, but my life is much more complex than it used to be. Thanks you for the re-invite, and as I say I'll think it over a bit more. Jusdafax 18:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

May Want To Comment

You may want to add your two cents (or pence, whatever) to this discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that the editor in question is someone I attempt to avoid when possible due to his combative nature and unpleasant demeanor (note his block record), and his talk page is a place I don't wish to comment at. Thanks just the same for the notice. I continue to feel your act of removing his latest poll was quite right, and I salute you for it. What time I have here of late is perhaps best spent lightly, rather than getting bogged down. Good fortunes to you! Jusdafax 18:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Tis fine...he deleted it NEway, so I copied it to mine. Wanna chime in on mine since he has no permission to edit things off my my talk page? CycloneGU (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You may find this [5] of interest. Jusdafax 00:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I do! Thank you for pointing this out; I've noted it in reply to his most recent comment about how he's busy. CycloneGU (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've also commented there agreeing with you. CycloneGU (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

David Yates

Hi again. I have nominated the David Yates article for GA status. All I need now is for someone to review it. Could you take a look at the article to see if its any good and, if you think it is, would it be possible for you to have a go at reviewing it (it should be in the Theatre, Film and Drama section)? That's if you have time of course. I am not permitted to review the article because I have extensively worked on it for some time. I am desperate to get this into GA status as I think it's a good looking article. If you can't help, no worries. Thanks. :) Hallows Horcruxes 23:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi HH! I am honored to be asked to do this review. But the problem is, as I note above, I am able to spend very little time on Wikipedia of late. If no one steps up in a timely fashion I could give it a try, but I have never reviewed an article for GA before! Those two factors could be hard to overcome. I recently put up a notice at the Harry Potter (film series) talk page regarding a possible GA review for that article. There were a few good comments from people who sound like they know more about the process than I do; could I suggest you ask them for advice or a review? I will keep watch of this matter. By the way, at first glance the article appears to be in great shape for a GA review. Best wishes, Jusdafax 07:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem. :) One of the issues brought up on the film series article was the reference formatting. I'll try to sort that out soon and hopefully it'll be ready for nomination. Hallows Horcruxes 09:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes and that is an area I'm no expert in. I will hope to watch and learn! Jusdafax 07:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Marc Dalton

(Continued from Bearcat's talk page) Jusdafax 08:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There are several MLAs facing recall campaigns; it's not unique to him. It's also sourced only to the websites of specific groups involved in the recall effort and not to any reliable media — thereby making it most likely an attempt to use his Wikipedia article to publicize and promote the recall campaign — and the recent edits which changed the description of the recall effort from "part of the FightHST campaign led by former Premier Bill Vander Zalm" to "part of an NDP backed effort to Re-fight the last BC election from May 2009" are a pretty clear WP:NPOV violation obviously meant to discredit the campaign. For what it's worth, I've lost count of the number of times I've had to pageprotect British Columbia MLAs in the past six months or so due to extreme partisan editwarring. Bearcat (talk) 08:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So I assume it is the photo caption that is objectionable? Jusdafax 08:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Article rotting away

See here - an IP editor has completely changed the tone of the article to declare that the subject of the article is a conspiracy. No longer NPOV, yet I hesitate to revert completely. ~AH1^(TCU) 14:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done I took the article back to the last stable version, which is not to say it doesn't need considerable work. Jusdafax 15:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Task force

Per Tryptofish's recommendation here, which was about the discussion here, would you be interested in participating, and if so, would it be possible for you to round up some people who share your views and keep in touch with them as the task force makes recommendations? - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Dank, thanks for your interest in my participation per Tryptofish, for which I am grateful to you both, and flattered. I have read the pages you linked to, and am glad to see that Jimmy Wales feels something is very broken in the Rfa process. It is my opinion that he is right.

Tryptofish has mentioned Ben MacDui and I because, as you may or may not know, of our work on WP:CDA which in brief, in early 2010 attempted to present the community with a reasonable process to remove adminship from those the community felt were abusing the tools, even in marginal but well documented ways that might not quite make the cut for a case before ArbCom. Again as you may or may not know, the final stages of Community DeAdminship discussions were difficult, followed by a bruising RfC that failed due to the documented disapproval of the Admin community, ironically the very editors whose actions Cda was designed to make more accountable. By the way, MacDui and Trypto's contributions were more substantial than my own, in my view. They did a lot of painstaking work. If it came down to it, I'd be happy to work with them again. However...

At the time we labored on Cda, I was a stealth helper (in that I did not advertise it) at the WMF in San Francisco, working as a part-time assistant to Cary Bass. As such my identity was disclosed to the WMF. My work there gave me a unique perspective on many of the issues facing Wikipedia, to say the least. After seven months, I retired honorably from the position last May when I moved from California. I have since adopted a lower profile, for a number of reasons.

I mention this because I feel that to deal with Jimmy's dismay, echoed in much of the wider community, over the broken Rfa process, a simple Wikipedia task force is not going to cut it. While I could be wrong, my experience with Cda would seem to validate this. What follows goes considerably beyond your request, but I honestly feel it is vital to do so.

• It is my strong opinion that most issues dealing with entrenched admins, many of whom became admins five or more years ago when standards were considerably more relaxed and whom would not pass an Rfa today, require thinking outside the box. Deliberations on adminship by a community whose true identities are unknown, by their nature generate more heat than light, go on at excessive length, and wind up turning reasonable voices away. Therefore, I suggest:

• A newly created and appointed 'Wikipedia-en Extraordinary Council' of five to nine members who have substantial edit histories or otherwise have major involvement in the encyclopedia, who would disclose their identities to the WMF if they had not already done so.

• The Council would meet in conference call, possibly via Skype, and be tasked to determine in real time and with a concrete deadline what exactly the problems are with Rfa and how the issues can be fixed with a minimum of wasted time.

• This council, with the guidance and approval of the WMF, would report to Jimmy Wales and the WMF directly. If approved, the report would be made public and presented to the community.

• A short period of non-binding Wikipedia-en community comment would be then be sought.

• If the report's conclusions and recommendations are accepted they will be acted on and implemented directly.

• The Council would then be disbanded.

There you have it. Feel free to pass this on, up to and including Jimmy's page, as you see fit, or ignore it completely. But I can't be much more candid than I am here about the best way to deal with this issue. Jusdafax 02:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Per your request to stay notified of current developments, see Eureka! We're all morons. - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism from my IP adress.

Hello, I noticed that you posted on my IP based talk page (Not logged in.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:98.28.44.197 According to the warning, "I" vandalized two articles. I would like to state that I did not do what the warning contains. It seems that my IP and the immature person who believes that John Constable was "A famous artist who eats bugs" have been confused, or mixed. I would like to reiterate, I did not perform these edits. Thank you, Ckhi Kuzad 04:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckhi Kuzad (talk • contribs)

• From 2009! For what it is worth, my apologies for the accusation. And as far as Wikipedia is concerned, no one holds anything that ancient against you or whoever did the edits in question. Best wishes, Jusdafax 15:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM March 2011 Newsletter

The March 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform

Hi Jusdafax. Please don't hesitate to join the RfA task force. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's an honor to be asked, so many thanks, will do. Jusdafax 09:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That RfA reform thing

Kudpung has asked me to 'nudge' some people .. as I'm an idle get, I'm just going through the entire Task Force list so my apologies if you didn't need a nudge! You can slap me about over on WP:EfD if you like :o) Straw polling various options: over here - please add views, agree with views, all that usual stuff. Pesky (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Easter bunny

Apologies. I was lagging behind others fixing the original vandalism and undid the wrong edits. You fixed it before I could.--Mobtown Mongrel (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• That's what I figured. Thanks for your work! Jusdafax 01:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

AIV on IP

I blocked this guy, but remember: Except for open proxies we do not "shut down" (i.e., block indefinitely) IPs. We can block them for a year at a time if they get to that point. But not until then. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Daniel. I'm a bit rusty at reporting to AIV and my terminology was not clear. Anyway he's not going to reoffend in the near term, and given the ugly nature of his vandalism, that is what is important. Thanks again for taking the time to write me a note! Jusdafax 06:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM April 2011 Newsletter

The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk page

No problem. I rarely undo talk page vandalism, leaving that to the editor who owns the page, but this was pure gibberish. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 10:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011

Task Force news: Recent updates include basic minor changes and condensing at the main page, additional comments on the main page talk page, a new project sub page and talk for Radical Alternatives, and messages at Task force talk. A current priority is to reach suggested criteria/tasks for clerks, and then to establish a local consensus vis-à-vis clerking. Please remember to keep all the project and its talk pages on your watchlist. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln memorial/Legacy section

We are currently attempting to bring the Lincoln article to FA status and are trying to establish consensus regarding images. Your consensus and opinion is needed on the Abraham Lincoln talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Another interaction ban proposal for Sarek and TT

I have proposed another interaction ban between TreasuryTag and SarekOfVulcan. Since you commented in the last ban discussion that failed to gain consensus I am notifying you of this one. See - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_interaction_ban_between_TreasuryTag_and_SarekOfVulcan_2. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

ITN Notice (self template)

Jusdafax 20:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM May 2011 Newsletter

The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent change patrol

Hello, I'm wondering if I could ask you a couple questions about Wikipedia's culture of volunteerism for a radio program I'm working on. If you have a few minutes, please email me jrdnbwnATgmail.com... thanks! JordanBowen (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry not to have gotten back to you. I am curious why I was selected for your survey, as I am not exactly the most active editor for the past six months or more. Thanks. Jusdafax 05:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Task force WP:RFA2011 update

Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 08:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

you erased an entire thread

at the ArbCom talk page.  – Ling.Nut 02:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• My apologies. Had an edit conflict and edited the wrong box... it seems. Can I undo or what would you suggest? Jusdafax 02:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Undone. :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Many thanks. Usually I'm much more careful, especially when the matter is of such crucial importance, though I try to take care at all times. Again, my apologies and gratitude for the speedy repair job. Jusdafax 02:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
      • No prob. It didn't look intentional, and I figured it would be easiest to just undo, rather then wait for you (or someone else). Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Greetings!

As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.

Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!

Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

Question re: declined speedy for Vivek vk jain

Hi there, Causa Sui. I see you declined my speedy delete request for Vivek vk jain and 'PROD'ded the article for the much lengthier process.

Given that the article creator has the same name, this is a pretty clear case of WP:COI, as I see it. I spent some time in various search engines looking this guy up, and the claims of notability did not check out: all I found were his own blog posts. My question is, is the mere self-assertion of notability (by a self-creator, in this case) a reason not to add the speedy template, under Wikipedia guidelines, or is there 'grey area' around this? If the former is policy, does this not add to the burden at Afd? I also found it of interest that the creator had self-removed the speedy template and failed to respond in any way on the article talk page or his own. Thanks for helping me to understand this issue, Jusdafax 07:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the message. My understanding of CSD A7 is that it only applies to articles that do not even assert significance, regardless of the quality of the citations. Of course, these standards are constantly evolving in practice, and after about a year hiatus I may not be completely up to date on the cutting edge interpretation. But from spending some time handling speedy deletion candidates, I can tell you this: A7 is in practice being interpreted quite broadly, and it's possible that another administrator would have speedied the article for A7 had she been the one to review it. My feeling is that administrators are sneaking a few "around back" here and there because they're articles that nobody would want to have included and the deleting is unlikely to be challenged. Maybe that explains why you are surprised that I declined it. For whatever reason, I choose not to do that. If you feel that there is outstanding precedent on this or that my interpretation of A7 as it currently stands is too narrow, please let me know that you think that, and why. Otherwise, it may be a good idea to bring this up on WT:CSD. Regards, causa sui (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM June 2011 Newsletter

The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011: RfA on other Wikipedias

A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel that other important language Wikipedias should be added, please let us know. This may however depend on our/your language skills!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Response to your comment on Raul's talk page

Jusdafax, it wasn't an empty threat. I don't mind when someone disagrees with me, but when someone calls me a liar, I remember it. Please feel free to put my user talk page on your watchlist, and I've noted that you have called me a bully for taking exception to being called a liar. I will also post this response to your talkpage to make sure you receive it. Cla68 (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• The 24 hours is long past, and you have not acted, so your actions, which you admit are a threat, appear to me to be empty. Feel free to "note" any comment of mine that you want (which smacks of your attempt to foment a 'Cirt's enablers' list at his recent Rfc/U), and your wording and posting on my personal page ("to make sure I receive it") are noted in turn. My question is, if you object to your self-described threatening actions being called those of a bully, what else would you call them? Collegial? I'll take any reply from you on Raul's page, and hereby request that you stay off my page permanently, as I find your manner and tactics offputting at best. Jusdafax 08:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't called anyone names, but you have, and you're saying that I'm the bully? In spite of this, you, and anyone else are always welcome to post on my talk page. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Critical response to the Harry Potter films is in danger.

Do you think you can fix this article so it's a little different than what the individual film articles says. Also see it's talk page to understand why. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Rfc on WTC 7 info deletion at 9/11 conspiracy theories

I've opened an Rfc on the article talk page per your suggestion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ghostofnemo#Continued_deep_concerns_regarding_attacks_on_you Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Rfc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Rfc_on_deleted_WTC_7_information Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM July 2011 Newsletter

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

blocking

Hi, IP 210.213.240.198 has been had final warnings for vandalism which have been breached this evening. You gave him earlier warnings for vandalism a few months ago. I wonder if you could investigate. He seems intent on John Turturro. Thanks. Span (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Que pasa?

Jusdafax, how are you? You've not been here in a while--I hope you found something useful to do with your time. All the best, Drmies (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm good, thanks. Personal considerations led to a decision to take a summer wiki-break, but as of today I've made a few edits and expect to ease back into matters again. Thanks for your interest! Jusdafax 00:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

RfA Reform update

Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:

• Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
• Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
• Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

ITN Notice (self template)

Jusdafax 00:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals: Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks. Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages. The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

WP:FILM September 2011 Newsletter

The September 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk | contribs) 16:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Jusdafax! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

WP:FILM October 2011 Newsletter

The October 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk | contribs) 15:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jusdafax. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.
Message added 22:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 22:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Exopolitics

I agree with your post of Dec 5, 2010, where you advocated that Exopolitics should have it's own page, and not point to the work and viewpoint of only Michael Salla. This is not a slight against Michael who I know quite well and consider a friend. Michael might have been one of the origional founders of the exopolitics movement, along with Alfred Webre... but others such as Stephen Bassett and Paola Harris jumped into the mix very shortly after. It is now a world wide movement with 25+ nations having Exopolitics webpages. There is not one school of thought for how Exopolitics should move forward. It is more like a growing political ideaology, ie: like a new party along the lines of democratic social liberalism with UFO reality as a fundamental given. It is also very much about saving our planet. This is a subject matter that is not about one person. Mikejbird (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not vandalising Wikipedia

I just came to Wikipedia, and before I logged in, I got a message to my IP address warning me to stop vandalising WP.

I have not the slightest idea what's going on, because none of the edits in question are anything to do with me. In fact in the six years I've been here, I have never done anything that could remotely be called vandalism. Most of what I do, in fact, is of the wikignome variety.

So I'm puzzled, especially since I'm not particularly technologically savvy.

Can you enlighten me, by any chance? I'll watch here in case you can give me an answer.

Thanks! Awien (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled too. Might be someone is pranking you. Did the message say what article was vandalized, and say who sent it? In any case I'm also puzzled how it is you are asking me about this matter, as I am not an admin and am semi-inactive of late. Regardless, best wishes! Jusdafax 05:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking you because you (apparently?) gave 173.212.85.30 their most recent "cut it out or get blocked" warning, even though it was a couple of years ago. Since IP numbers change, could I have inherited one that was / is being used by this vandal? In any case, it occurs to me that I might also check into that question with the company. Thanks for your response. Awien (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Jusdafax. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your support at my RfA - and for your congratulations. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

ITNC

can you mark the summit of the americans and the guinea-bssau coup as "ready"?Lihaas (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• It's tempting but I don't think we have consensus yet. Jusdafax 10:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Cap-Haïtien

I'm confused. you said I vandilised Cap-Haïtien. I did not, and visted that page for the first time, today, when I was told I had a new message from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.224.37 (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• It appears we are talking about something that happened two years ago. Could be I was wrong.... I do note others warned you about the article besides myself, resulting in a block which has since expired. Bottom line: I'm confused too, but since so much time has gone by the point is probably moot. My best wishes, Jusdafax 06:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Beatles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Beatles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper straw poll

There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"The/the" request for formal mediation

FYI, I have requested formal mediation here to decide the "The/the" issue, hopefully once and for all. Feel free to add your name there if you so wish. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	the Civility Barnstar
	For defending civility even when it is not the popular choice. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• My humble thanks, I truly appreciate the sentiment. I couldn't help but notice Jimbo's comments on your talk page regarding an unrelated matter. I think he brilliantly points out how this project of ours must proceed, with all of us observing The Golden Rule. Again, with gratitude, Jusdafax 07:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

New LBH Edits

Hello Jusdafax - I've noticed that you have shown interest in creating an accurate and well-written article on Battle of the Little Bighorn from a significant number of thoughtful edits. I'm dropping by now to ask if you'd take a look at a really long addition to the article here Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn#Survivors. I have some serious concerns about the presence of this addition to an already very long article that still needs very substantial editing and sourcing. I am not canvassing, and I could easily rv or rewrite on the bases of length, relevance, writing, and suspect sourcing (History Channel?). It is a good faith edit, as was the earlier "Role of Non-Combatants that I cut down by 75% to what seemed to be strictly relevant to the article. But I think some other eyes need to look it over - I'm also posting this on User:Parkwells's page. Any help would be appreciated. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• I just decided to be bold and reverted it, after noticing that this editor has been with us two days and was rejected at WP:Afc. Thanks for your message and kindly expressed regard; I share your concerns. I have notified the editor and also posted a message on the article talk page, where I invite comments. If I may be frank, while I have taken steps not to discourage what appears to be a promising new editor, I am surprised by the level of skill this editor displays after two days of editing. Jusdafax 07:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, JDF - knew I could count on you, and I completely agree with your welcoming message to the new user. I'll move on over to LBH Talk for specific comments. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That RFC

Hi JusdaFax, reading through YRC's RFC you seem to be the only person explicitly accusing him of anti-semitism. Now that maybe that I've missed a particular bit of the evidence, in which case I'd be obliged if you could add a diff to your statement. Or it may be that you are jumping to conclusions re the JDL and/or British Politician edits. I can see how one could interpret a couple of his edits that way, but they could equally be sourced from the POV of a very Orthodox strict religious definition of Jewishness. In any event may I suggest that you double check whatever brought you to that view and either support it with a dif or strike it. Ta ϢereSpielChequers 15:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi WSC. Thanks very much for pointing this out. This ANI thread [6] illustrates some disturbing quotes from YRC aka Off2riorob, and illustrates what I see as a long-term issue with Jewish people that a number of editors also agree is of concern. The thread was archived, but I see that several of Rob's defenders in the thread have since expressed that they have had enough of him at the Rfc. I find it difficult to rummage through Rob's edits since I find his style offensive, and hope you agree that this thread contains enough of Rob's quotes and diffs to illustrate my own concerns. Having made my point, I don't intend to mention it again at the Rfc. I'll add the above link to my comment in the Rfc as a support, yet this is just a small part of this editor's package of issues that have lead to his 19 blocks to date. Thanks again. Jusdafax 20:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Jusdafax, I'm not disputing 90% of what I've read about him in that RFC. But anti-semitism is a serious charge and one that infuriates people if it is incorrectly used. When I posted on your page earlier I suspected that rather than being Anti-Semitic he might be either a religious fundamentalist or ultra-zionist who rejected some secular Jews as not Jewish because of things like marrying out. Now I'm less sure how to describe his POV. But I can understand why some people who are carefully not calling him Anti-Semitic don't want him editing articles on Jewish people. ϢereSpielChequers 23:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see a fast trip to Arbcom is called for at this stage, not another block or another mentorship. Let's let the big boys decide. But I cheerfully admit to fearing to go through the Arbcom process as a filer or involved party. From what I can see of the process on the filing page, you have to write up an up to 500 word request with diffs which is just the start of the required typing.[7]. An interesting page I had never contemplated before, and one I find isn't conducive to a generalized complaint about an editor; seems it has to be between two or more editors with proof you tried to mediate the dispute elsewhere etc., and for the most part I have avoided YRC for the past 3 years. So that leaves me rooting for a braver soul than I (or just one with more time and patience than I usually have) to take this upstairs. That would be those who certified this Rfc, so efforts are being made to trash or otherwise neutralize them. What an ugly mess it is, to be sure. Jusdafax 07:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

for the vote of confidence. I wasn't sure if anyone would think it was half as strong as it was wordy. And I could be wrong . . . after years of studying the ways of the wiki, I still gauge things inaccurately more often than I'd like. Rivertorch (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• You and me both... I was leaning away from Arbcom after your well-worded statement, when it wound up there anyway, and perhaps this is just as well. I just hope "that what should be, shall be," to quote Tolkien's Galadriel. Good fortunes to you! Jusdafax 05:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Youreallycan

Your arbcom statement about Youreallycan was very good. I'm curious if you have noticed the same thing I have over the years. Sometimes I get the sense that I'm talking to two different people using one account. Have you ever had that impression? Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your kind words. I must admit to choosing my phrasing to Arbcom with considerable care. I and others have noted a Good Rob/Bad Rob effect, but I hasten to add I do not believe it to be attributable to either a mental condition or two actual different people. I just think he is a lot moodier than most people. And after three years of drama, I think the community at large has had enough. Jusdafax 05:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply. Personally, I'm not convinced. Nobody spells "etiquette" as "etiket".[8] These kind of typos appear a bit too forced, too deliberate. Half the time his spelling is perfect, and the other half of the time, it's like he's typing in a straitjacket. It's one thing to have atrocious spelling. We've seen that with several users, such as User:Slatersteven. When you look at his typos, they don't seem deliberate but entirely random. I still think there is something strange going on with this YRC account, as if two different people are using it. Viriditas (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Now that you mention it, I have noticed that aspect. My problem is, I get such a bad feeling from "Rob" that I have spent most of the last 3 years avoiding him. This does merit some thought, however. The other thing I seem to have noticed is his politics, which seem to me to have a severe slant, which I find interesting in a self-proclaimed "POV warrior." Jusdafax 12:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded to recognize particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia Kirananils (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you! I appreciate the positive feedback, and salute you in turn; good fortunes to you always! Jusdafax 19:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

your signature

Interesting to see you have "chosen" to change the color of your signature: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news&curid=485213&diff=511255697&oldid=511219722 μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah what was that all about? That's a new one, at least!

LBH Major Problems

Hi JDF - I know you're as concerned as I about accuracy on the GAC & LBH articles, and we have a problem on LBH. There's a new editor interpolating questionable edits. One on shell casings is OK probably but is sourced from Battlefield Detectives, a junky History Channel show full of speculation and inference. But the big problem is this edit [[9]] which avers that someone named Pennewell survived the last stand. I'm going to RV it politely now, but the source looks legit and I think this may prove to be a problem. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree. TV shows present a particular challenge to sourcing LBH related Wiki-articles. I'll look into this further but I share your concerns and I support your revert. Jusdafax 16:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reminding me. ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ ^{Talk Email} 00:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• You're welcome! Jusdafax 00:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

No apologies needed! I've seen some of the stuff at ITN before. I think people personalise their opposes too much. I took the opportunity to comment on the talk page. Cheers again. Leaky Caldron 19:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jusdafax. You have new messages at Feezo's talk page.
Message added 09:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Censorship in Islamic societies

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Censorship in Islamic societies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Happy 5th anniversary Jusdafax! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Many thanks Gabe! Man, those years went by like nothing. Jusdafax 02:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

quick check.

Hi Jusdafax, I believe you have recently editted while logged out. If it is you, can you please update the edit with your signature, and I will oversight the IP address. Also, I would have preferred to email you about this, it may be worth turning on your email. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Quite right, and I will do, though the email will take a few days. I should never edit after a very long day at work, I suppose. Thanks! Jusdafax 14:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  All sorted for you. Worm^TT(talk) 14:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and also many thanks for your progressive outlook at the page in question. I have added an additional comment there, virtually a plea, for a wider discussion amongst the participants. Jusdafax 15:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48

While working on an RfC/U about User:HiLo48, I noticed that you commented here[10] that you wished to be a participant. The draft RfC/U is here: User:Skyring/RFCU_evidence if you would still like to participate. --Surturz (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised by this notice, and will look in at the Rfc/U. Thanks for the heads-up. Jusdafax 04:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the latter part of this opinion is justified, or constructive. It comes across as a clever snipe, exactly the kind of thing you accuse HiLo (with some justification) of doing. If you're holding out for a Wikipedia full of AGF and mutual goodwill (an endpoint I'd love to see myself) you might like to reconsider whether this comes across as too snarky by half. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of disagreeing with your view on the page in question. My best to you and if you observe the day, Happy Thanksgiving! Jusdafax 21:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Jusdafax I am getting gradually more disillusioned with Wikipedia and our inability to enforce rules even after they are repeatedly flouted. I'm not sure what is happening here. Perhaps users who are not affected by disruption can just out-vote the ones who are without any concern for the wider consequences to the project? There are also users which are far cleverer, subtle and more disruptive than HiLo who are looking in here. They appear to conform to the letter if not the spirit of the rules and must feel invulnerable. It worries me if we can't moderate HiLo what chance have we with these other people? This is all the more bizarre due to some administrators taking an aggressive attitude to some editors and not others. We need to ensure that editors are treated equally across the board. I really don't think there are safeguards to ensure this is happening. --Andromedean (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Request comment

Your input would be appreciated here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

ITN/C IP 86.40.106.60

Hi,

I would appreciate your feedback regarding this IP user. The user has made numerous disruptive comments at the Sir Patrick Moore nomination of ITN/C. I've been caught in the trap and reacted, so I can't really start an RFC or other process. Maybe I should just ignore the user. Anyway, I'm reaching out to you because of your involvement in the ongoing HiLo48 saga.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BPosted_to_ticker.5D_Death_of_Sir_Patrick_Moore

Thanks,

--IP98 (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about Newyorkbrad's closure of Beatles RfC

Hello. This is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at User talk:Mr. Stradivarius#RfC closure questions about Newyorkbrad's closure of the RfC about whether to use upper-case "The" or lowercase "the" in mid-sentence in articles about (t/T)he Beatles. You are receiving this message because you were involved in the mediation case that led up to the RfC. Some editors have expressed dissatisfaction with the caveat in Newyorkbrad's close that "[t]he suggestion that editors should try to structure sentences to avoid unnecessary mid-sentence use of "the Beatles" remains a valid one", and the discussion is focused on how that caveat is affecting the editing decisions in Beatles-related articles. There is also the opportunity to discuss other aspects of the close should the need arise. Please see the points at the top of the discussion thread and leave a comment if you think it is appropriate. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Franklomax

Just a quick FYI to clarify something. I saw in your post at user_talk:Franklomax, you had mentioned "Since this is your first block ..."; I just wanted to mention that if you check Special:Log/block, it will show this is actually the user's third block. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. Silly me, I should have checked. I don't think I would have been as kind had I known this guy isn't learning anything. Jusdafax 20:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

ITN Credit

--Jayron32 05:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks! It's been a while since I got one of these. This credit was earned the hard way, as to get the ITN item up, there had to be an article created. Thank goodness a lot of help came along! Now, if this hostage crisis can just be resolved peacefully... Jusdafax 07:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Undershaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeremy Hunt (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) 11:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Your post to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Epeefleche

Your suggestion that I admit to "agressive Wikistalking" is flat out wrong, and ad hominem. My actual comment was: "I completely reject that it is my responsibility to wikistalk Epeefleche around the encyclopedia and source content that he is too lazy to source himself" (emph. added), as I have repeatedly maintained. I've removed your commentary, leaving just your endorsement. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Your AIV report

Hi, Jusdafax. I've watchlisted List of most viewed YouTube videos. If the IP continues to disrupt there I will act. Your report was valid but I saw it 3 hours after the fact so action now would not be preventitive. If you see further shenanigans and I don't seem to be around, take your report to the venue you think most appropriate. See ya Tiderolls 04:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I suspect you're right

I suspect you're right in what you said here. While I don't agree with the outcome, TParis did a very good job.

There are really so many admin truths to be gleaned from the whole fiasco.

WP:ANIISLOUSY in many ways. Most of the folks commenting at the ANI discussion had no concept of the preventative nature of that particular indef block and the condition logged with it. The consensus there, however whacked it was, was in line with TParis' actions. If there was any doubt, the WP:DOUBLESTANDARD is alive and well.

I suspect you're right that that editor's disruption is not over, especially judging by the pontificating that has been going on on that editor's talk page. We also learned new things about some of the more extreme commentators there. Apparently it's OK to dehumanize folks someone may disagree with because, of course if they weren't fools, they'd have agreed with that person in the first place. Some of the worst behavior I've observed on wiki is evidenced in this episode.

My thoughts are add gun-related politics to the list of shit to stay away from if you want to avoid messy fiascoes. Both sides of the issue (assuming there are only 2) bring out some of the most visceral reactions with little to back up the emotions.

Just my $0.02. Thanks for listening. Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• My pleasure, and thanks for taking the original stand. The ANI thread that got HiLo topic banned, which I posted along with that comment, is a fine example of ANI actually working. Recently I have seen additional evidence of that, so I am much more encouraged than I once was regarding combative problem editors. The terrible irony of all this is that I actually agree with some of the positions taken by HiLo, but vehemently disagree with his extremely harsh polemics. In an era where the WMF is expressing increasing concerns about the editing climate being overly confrontational for women and those not schooled in conflict, I believe the community must act quickly and decisively to make it clear to a relative handful of bad apples that their inflammatory rhetoric will no longer be tolerated, regardless of their contributions. By the way, thanks again for that barnstar you gave me a couple years ago; I value it highly! Jusdafax 00:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

ITN for Shokri Belaid

Good job. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks, and best wishes to you! Jusdafax 09:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

AFD

Sup! You know you AFD'd this right? Your AFD says "prod", specifically as an alternate to AFD. I think you might have meant it the other way around. No biggie, just thought you might want the chance to clarify before people jump in with comments. Cheers, Stalwart111 08:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears I have gotten the directions mixed up, as I don't do this frequently enough to remember it. It already has one !vote for delete. By the way, I notified what seems to be the subject of the article on his talk page; all this started when I noticed the article's tags were removed by him. Thanks for the heads up. UPDATE: I fixed the Afd statement so it corresponds with reality. Thanks again Jusdafax 08:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

All good mate - looks like everything was done right either way. Have a good one! Stalwart111 09:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Arikkadamukku

Hi Jusdafax. The article is still pretty poor stub, but I think it's better than nothing. I remember your username from before, it's good to see you are still around :) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! I seem to have had several stages as a Wikipedian. Others come and go, and here I sit, clicking away on my keyboard. Good fortunes to you and yours! Jusdafax 08:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

ITN for February 2013 Quetta bombing

--Spencer^T♦C 23:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciate the ITN notice, so thanks Spencer! Jusdafax 23:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chris Claremont

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chris Claremont. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed closing of Morriswa RFC

Hi, Jusdafax. As a person who has commented in the above RFC, your input on a possible closure of the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Morriswa#Proposal to close would be appreciated. Thank you. --Rschen7754 05:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jurassic Park (film)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jurassic Park (film). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom case

Hi. I was looking into materials related to the current arbcom case involving Malke 2010 when I noticed your name come up. Back in 2009, Malke was very angry at you after some kind of altercation on the Karl Rove article and she was eventually blocked for edit warring. Right after this happened she said you should be "banned for life" but I'm not really understanding her reasoning other than the fact that she was acting like a clueless newbie. Can you give me some insight on her behavior (conduct) on the article when she interacted with you and tell me if there is any relationship to the Tea Party movement set of articles she is currently working on? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Note, this incident was first discussed here. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas. I have been on a short wiki-break, but have just returned. Frankly, reading your link leaves me in a state of considerable incredulity. I will comment further as soon as possible. Thanks, Jusdafax 07:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

After careful examination of the link you provide to ANI in September, 2009, it appears I was never informed of my name being discussed in such terms, so finding out what Malke2010 was up to in that era is a bit of a shock. I have reviewed my own talk archives as well as the Karl Rove talk page, but as I say, I never, to my knowledge, was alerted to the kind of abusive tricks Malke2010 was blocked for, in this particular case by Moonriddengirl, who later, if I remember correctly, unsuccessfully mentored Malke2010. The period in question involved Malke2010's edits to the Karl Rove article. I felt very strongly in the months of August and September, 2009 that an attempt was being made by Malke2010 to "scrub" the article of well-referenced material that a partisan "fan" of Rove might not be comfortable with.

Eventually I was so disgusted with the way Malke2010 was editing that I found it easier to just walk away from the article rather than continue on dealing with someone I had a very bad feeling about. As your link clearly shows, my instinct was 100% correct. Malke2010's subsequent Wikipedia editing career, with numerous blocks despite relatively little activity, speaks for itself.

What drew me to comment at ANI was the similarity of Malke2010's approach to editing the Tea Party Movement article, which I have never edited and had never even read. I noticed the issue when it came up on ANI, ironically, and felt impelled to comment when two editors I have no history with, North8000 and Goethean, interacted harshly: North2000 wanted to censure Goethean's objections to Malke2010's attempt to do the very same thing there that they had at Karl Rove: create a new sub page and scrub out material that reflected poorly on the subject. To quote myself in the recent expanded ANI thread:

• Malke2010 has indeed previously "created a new article on the same topic, but excluded all of the negative material" before this: at the sub page created at this link for Karl Rove where they took the most controversial material from Rove's career, then scrubbed out reliably sourced material or added in slanted material like the Moyers material. Virtually every edit there (look at the edit record) is designed to put a positive "spin" on Rove's years in the Bush White House. Additionally, the new [Rove] sub-article is another "click" away from the reading public, and the controversies sanitized with a summary. So Goethean's objections to Malke's similar proposal for the Tea Party article are in fact quite apt, and North8000 is in fact out of line defending this transparent attempt at obstructionism. [End self-quote]

So there you have it. I also posted the above on the TPM Talk page but it was removed. I am likely to weigh in at the ArbCom case as it proceeds. If you have any further questions I will be happy to reply. Jusdafax 05:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply. I have started a preliminary evidence page at User:Viriditas/Arbcom if you would like to work on it. If not, please let me know if you have any diffs of recent evidence I could add to it. My own experience with Malke2010 both in the past and present is similar to your own. She comes off as very nice and agreeable, but does not listen to the positions of other people, and often times seems to be advancing her own personal agenda rather than adhering to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. My sense is that she's really not here to build to an encyclopedia but to represent her "clients". Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cheers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cheers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

..for fixing the indent issue causing the numbers to drop back starting at 1.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Most welcome. I realized at once what happened. You would think after 176 Rfa !votes (I just used the Rfa counter tool... amazing!) that I'd remember what to do, but it seems I don't comment much at these events. Jusdafax 05:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply to your friendly update

Thanks for the update. :) I'm doin alright, gettin over a head cold. — Cirt (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Good to hear! Me too, actually, and the end of the sniffling is in sight. Jusdafax 00:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles list

Jusdafax, are you going to continue to participate in the talk page discussion? I actively encourage you to do so; the discussion really needs more editors who have greater perspective and are well-read in multiple subject areas. I also support your suggestion of structuring the discussion as a rolling article-by-article RfC, with appropriate notices posted throughout Wikipedia. In addition to more voices, the discussion desperately needs more structure. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• I am honored by your good opinion. We do seem to see eye-to-eye on many of these big-ticket calls. I have cleared out my next 30 hours or so for Wikipedia, and the VA is on my short list of items I consider, uh, vital. Thanks again, see you there soon. Jusdafax 00:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• If you have time, you may want to voice your opinion under the section titled "So what now?" Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"My advice: drop the mass deletion proposals, period"

If we do that, how are we ever going to get this list back down to 10,000 articles with any kind of speed? Also, any chance you could tell Gabe to stop saying I lack knowledge and stop changing his votes because he didn't like what I said somewhere else? pbp 04:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me that the discussion has degenerated to the point where other, more authoritative voices than mine will be needed here. I truly hope you can both cool it, as I believe you are both dedicated to Wikipedia's best interests. As for me, I will back away from this mess and hope for the best. Jusdafax 04:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be regrettable, JDF. As we have discussed previously, the VA project needs a larger number and a greater variety of voices to make this a more valid exercise. If you're giving up, I may be inclined to do the same, because I have no interest in being caught in the crossfire of two or three bitterly opposed editors who can't or won't agree on sound process. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Our talkpage posts crossed. Not giving up, just stepping away for a moment to gain perspective. Jusdafax 05:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• For context. - Here, here, here, and now here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't get why you insist on equating me and Gabe. There's a difference, a BIG difference. Gabe continually claims that I know nothing or next to nothing about certain topics; I don't. Gabe personally attacks me in edit summaries and once called me a "Type-A control freak who can't get a girlfriend", I don't. Gabe arbitrarily changes positions based on how he feels about me, I don't. Oh, and there's the whole won't-shut-about-Harry-Potter business pbp 15:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Guys, Winston Churchill is purported to have said "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." I've worked productively on sports articles with PBP in the past, and recently I've come to respect Gabe's passion and contributions regarding the Vital Articles lists. Nevertheless, and at some risk to my working relationships with both of you, I must say that both of you are quickly approaching the threshold of Churchill's definition. It won't be as a result of anything I do, but the two of you are both at risk of being blocked or topic-banned for uncivil and disruptive editing behaviors. When the banhammer falls, it rarely distinguishes between who started it, and who was more responsible than whom. I know I'm not the first third-party to mention this problem to the two of you, so please do yourselves a favor and spend the next week doing your best to kill each other with civility and kindness. Otherwise some passing admin is likely to give you both a timeout. Seriously. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have come to respect DL1 a great deal in these discussions, and once again second him in every word. Take heed, please. Jusdafax 02:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Jusdafax, several positive events have occurred in the last few days:

1. I think it has become apparent that there is acceptance of the proposed moratorium. The start date remains to be determined. Personally, I think seven days prior to the start of the clean-up (April 8) should be sufficient.

2. There appears to be increasing acceptance that there will be no more unilateral BRD changes to the actual lists and sublists. I think an add, delete or swap decision should require at least five affirmative votes for action, with no close split votes.

3. I think there is also general acceptance of the evolving organization for individual topic discussions for add, deletes and swaps: discussion, !voting, minimum number of affirmative !votes, keep threads open until critical mass reached, for each topic in question.

4. PBP and others have archived all of the dead-end proposals and other threads (and most of the strum und drang) for the list of 10,000, making the talk page a more welcoming place to new participants. This still needs to be done for the list of 1,000.

5. Prior ongoing personalized exchanges seem to have been effectively tamped down by the concerned parties (the only way it was ever going to happen, short of blocks or topic bans).

I believe that the overall discussion is now far better positioned for likely productive outcomes. Your participation regarding individual topics is solicited, to the extent you feel comfortable participating. The discussions still need more and a greater variety of voices. Yours would help. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Motion to close RFC/U

You have previously commented on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Niemti.

As an outside editor, I have moved that this RFC/U be closed. If you wish to comment on the Motion to close, please do so here. Fladrif (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Watchmen

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Watchmen. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:VA/E

First off, when you say "Then there are the now-open agenda-pushers pursuing their anti-American or recentism slants", what or whom are you referring to? And in regards to this whole slow-down thing, if we were to take the break you want, most of the people would never come back. I've been following this and the Meta one for years; they don't get 15-20 people for any one time, and the times they get 5-10 are few and very far between. Which is why I'm making a lot of proposals right now (although it's worth noting that something like 95-97% of the list hasn't been touched by them). pbp 05:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Neitmi !vote AN

Question - was your !vote on the last section in the WP:AN discussion on Neitmi sanctions an "Oppose" to both an interaction ban and civility parole, or just civility parole? I'm trying to close as accurately as possible.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi GWH and thanks for your clarification note. My !vote was to oppose both in favor of Options 1, 2 and 3, as I had !voted above. The civility parole and interaction bans were attempts present alternatives to weaken sterner sanctions, which I feel are called for in this case. Jusdafax 01:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes

It looks like you messed with the Classical Music wikiproject. This insular group of editors has stonewalled the infobox issue for years against many users' objections and has fought to control the debate through canvassing, cementing it within their own nonbinding policy, and generally bullying those who disagree with them. If you keep it up they may even try to ban you from discussing the issue, as they have tried with Pigsonthewing in the past. Good luck dealing with them! ThemFromSpace 17:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the warning, but I got a clue from just one look at the J.S. Bach Talk page, which is why I filed my first-ever ANI report. For a number of reasons in the "real world" I decided to take a lengthy Wikibreak shortly afterwards. The funny thing here is I don't really care that much about the infoboxes or the lack thereof, but the vicious bullying offends me deeply, and I will be looking into this group in the future, as someone who sees civility as a core value to be taken seriously, which is why I assume it is one of the Five Pillars. Hopefully I raised enough dust to put this problem on the map. Thanks again for your note, which further confirms my impression of this problematic group of editors. Jusdafax 08:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

ITN - Welcome back - Thanks, but...

Thanks for the welcome back. I wondered if anyone would notice.

Trouble is, I'm already bothered by the quality of discussion, just from that one post.

Immediately after I made my one an only post in eight months, we got another that said "Support International news. I prefer the blurb rather than the altblurb." And immediately after that, the item was posted, with the blurb rather than the altblurb.

Now, that post I've quoted is precisely the kind of post that annoys me a lot. It's purely a vote. An "I like it" post. No reason was given to support the poster's opinion. Just an opinion. And given the sequence of comments before posting, it seemed to have a significant impact. So a vote, which we're not supposed to do here, rather than a reasoned piece of discussion, swung the day.

Obviously I'm not going to make any public fuss about this (hence this post), but I do have a question. While I've been away has there been any background discussion as to what constitutes a constructive post on ITN/C? I know that me pointing out what I thought were really crappy posts was one thing that annoyed some editors. (No doubt the creators of the crappy posts, at least, but that never bothered me.) Whether such a discussion supports my view here or not doesn't matter. It would help me to know, so that I can do the right thing. HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have been away nearly two weeks, and am trying to get back to speed. We have had our differences, to say the least, but as I have commented elsewhere, the deep irony is that I often agree with your views. The answer to your question is beyond me at the moment. ITN is a real mess though, in my view. I will attempt to answer your question incisively in another day or two, I hope. And again, welcome back, quite sincerely. Jusdafax 09:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Valley of Fear

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Valley of Fear. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Precious

soul music
Thank you for quality contributions for project R&B and Soul Music, for fighting vandalism, for using your wording skills to raise "fresh eyes" awareness, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (9 September 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! Jusdafax 08:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to share some baklava, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again Gerda! Jusdafax 19:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I started some thoughts on the "hot" topic infobox, smiled a lot when I was faced with my personal history, - I was on both sides ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 451st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize. - Last year we sang Sparrow Mass, this year Nelson Mass, last fall Schubert's No. 6. - Did you see the interview on project Germany, with a picture I took, in the last Signpost? (Link on my user page) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Two years ago ... - and what we sang recently, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 451 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thank you for your kind words about my creation of new article, Urofsky v. Gilmore. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U on user:Arzel

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)))

Vital Articles/Expanded talk page

JDF, what is your reaction to the reorganizaed and reformatted VA/E talk page? I've reworked the top 65-70% of the talk page discussions, and plan to finish the remainder tonight. If you have any suggestions for improvement, I would like to incorporate them. My goal is to make it as simple, transparent and welcoming to new participants as possible. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• My first glance fills me with admiration! I have already added a few !votes and will be making more in the next few days. Many thanks! Jusdafax 22:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Your comment

Hi Jusdafax. I have been reading through some old discussions, and I stumbled across one of your comments, to my regret. As I don't think I have ever told you how much your idiotic comment shocked me back then, I tell you now. At least you should have had the decency to answer my question there, when I asked you to justify your position, but no, you never bothered to, and that was despicable, in my opinion. You think you can just make whatever comments you like, and never be held accountable. That needs to change. Thanks, and have a nice day. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I stand by my comment, since socking, especially massive cases editing from 15 different accounts is a serious problem and must be dealt with. You got what you wanted with your unblock request, so coming here eight weeks later to insult and even arguably threaten me is over the top. As your now-unblocked friend User:Kalki put it: I VERY MUCH thank all who have supported me in the recent measures to unblock this account, and wish to assert that I bear no ill will to those who in good conscience have opposed my presence here and elsewhere, in various ways and for various reasons, believing themselves to be supportive of what they believe to be fair and just aims. If Kalki is over it, what is your problem? As for not replying, AN is not on my watchlist, and your assumption I deliberately did not answer is what is despicable, in my view. By coming to my Talkpage, and insulting me about a necro-thread in such a fashion, you breach WP:AGF and show a desire for WP:BATTLE. That is probably what should be "dealt with" and "needs to change." Your comments are noted, and I hereby request you stay off my talk page permanently, becoming only the third such request I have made in my years as a volunteer editor here. Let's just agree to disagree, and let it go.Jusdafax 23:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC))

ITN thanks

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks in return; the acknowledgement is quite appreciated. Jusdafax 23:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC))

A cup of coffee for you!

and here's to a summer of drama-free editing. I'll drink to that! Have one for yourself amigo! MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 18:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you kindly. So far our summer has been anything but drama-free, at least on some of the pages I edit and/or monitor. Perhaps matters will calm down. My very best wishes to you, where ever you edit here. Jusdafax 19:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burleigh Drummond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Producer (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) 11:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC))

Vital folk music

The only reason I started taking an interest in the vital list was because of the fact that the list of folk and country musicians doesn't include a single non-American artist. All of the maneuvers I have tried to add any artist or folk tradition from outside of the US has been opposed by you, mostly without offering rationales - or simply by saying that we shouldn't add names now that we're trying to cut down - yet you vote to keep American names like Joan BAez on the list (who is neither known as a musician or a composer but as Bob Dylan's one time girl friend), you even vote to keep even Les paul who is not even known as a folk/Country artist but as an instrument maker. Now I want to ask you: Do you really think that it is possible that there isn't a single artist or folk music tradition from outside of the US that is vital? Who would you add if you had to add one or two folk artists from outside of the US? And finally don't you consider it to be the case that non-Western or non-US musical traditions should expect some kind of representation? I simply don't understand why people are opposed to globalizing the music section. Especially not the folk section. I don't get it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• My Wikipedia brutha, this list can never possibly satisfy everyone, and we have to accept that we will win some and lose some. When I feel there is an injustice, I have learned to just walk away for a while. Now, saying "Dylan's one time girlfriend" shows me you don't know or choose to ignore that Baez broke ground for, and help popularize, Dylan. Baez was and is a huge symbol of the peace movement, so much so that popular cartoonist Al Capp caricatured her as "Joanie Phoanie" over her views. Vital? Fits my definition. Fairport Convention, not so much, despite their long history and discography, and though I rarely discuss my personal life here, just so you know I did go so far as to ask my girlfriend, who is not American, if she had ever heard of FC. She had not. As for Les Paul... dude, read the history of the guy. He arguably invented the electric guitar and multitrack recording. As for music, he had a big series of smash music hits with three number one songs, with one of them, 'How High the Moon' in the Grammy Hall of Fame. He has his own permanent exhibit in the Rock Hall of Fame. Genres in the late 40's - early 50's were mixed up, so he is termed "country" for lack of a better placement. And to top it off Les Paul invented the harmonica rack which in some ways made folk music as we know it possible. I prefer not to go into combat on my talk page, which is cluttered enough already, but I am responding here since I sense your concern, and also we are ITN editors. If you insist, please continue this back on the Vital list talk page, but let's not argue my views and !votes here, thanks. And if you want my advice, try adding Donovan, who was in my view much more influential than FC. Just see if you can nominate something else to delete. Maybe I'll support, maybe not. Best wishes, Jusdafax 23:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Your definition of Vital is to have been caricatured by Al Capp. That kinds of put the non-American world at a disadvantage. I don't know any folk musicians who could name a single song by Baez, and I move a lot in folk music circles in the US and Europe. Some of them might have heard one of her Dylan Covers. I also don't know any European folk musicians who wouldn't know Fairport, Planxty or the Dubliners. The Grammy and Rock n Roll hall of fame are American halls of fame - its like winning the World Series - utterly parochial.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You ignore most of my points to focus on a few, ignore my attempt at advice, and return to argue against my wishes. So be it. My editing time is often limited and I prefer to use it otherwise. Please do not post on this page again. You are now one of only four editors in my nearly six years here that I have made this request of. Jusdafax 23:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

removing others' comments

If you wish to add your link at the Crats Noticeboard, kindly do so without removing others' comments. Thank you. Taroaldo ✉ 22:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• My apologies, as your comment was inadvertently removed by accident when I was creating a Wiki-link. I see you reverted so I will recreate the link but more carefully this time. Again, sorry about that. Jusdafax 23:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Regards -- Taroaldo ✉ 23:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello Jusdafax, I'm not sure if you've ever been asked this, but are you interested in becoming an administrator? Have you ever had an RfA in the past? I would need to do further research, but I am considering making an RfA for you. --JustBerry (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• First off, and most importantly, please allow me to thank you. I view your interest as a profound complement, and am honored by your consideration. I declined a nomination in September 2010, have never requested the tools and currently lean against the idea of an Rfa, but am frankly curious: what led you to me? Thanks again, and best wishes, Jusdafax 23:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well, to tell you the truth, I stumbled upon your oppose on Huon's RfA and happened to find it quite harsh, no canvass intended. I was curious as to what type of user you were and found that you have made numerous contributions, been helpful to other users (evident on your talk page), but aren't an administrator. This made me consider the different reasons why you may not be administrator, which lead to my asking you about your situation in terms of adminship. You seemed good-willed, but I wanted to hear about "the back story," so to speak. Just to make sure (before I do personal research), would you be willing to be a Wikipedia administrator? --JustBerry (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled, how can my oppose be considered "quite harsh?" It reads: Oppose - per above opposes. I thank the candidate for their work and willingness to serve as an admin, but many of the concerns expressed convince me to oppose this Rfa. As for a run for adminship for myself, as I say above, I tilt against an Rfa at this time. You might try reviewing WP:CDA where I had some involvement back in 2010. In brief, I find it a significant failing of the project that the editing community is entrusted to make admins, but not unmake them. Jusdafax 02:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, anyways. Nice talking to you; see you around on Wikipedia. Please contact me on my talk page if you need anything. --JustBerry (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, likewise! Jusdafax 07:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW, I would support an RfA for Jusdafax! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well now that is mighty kind indeed, Gabe, considering I !voted against yours and DL's as well. Just for laughs I used SnottyWong's admin candidate tool and came up with a surprisingly high score, but at present am simply not inclined to ask for the tools. Perhaps in the fall I'll reconsider; I thank you for your endorsement! Jusdafax 03:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

July 15: WP:VA/E

Hey Jusdafax, there are currently a couple of dozen removal threads that are one or two !votes away from consensus. I hope you can make the time to go through the threads soon and add your !vote and/or thoughts. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hey Jusdafax. I just wanted to touch base with you regarding the recent proposal to significantly reduce the Regions sub-list at WP:VA/E. My concern here is that IMO, User:Purplebackpack89 will do his very best to block or stall-out the proposal as he is already showing signs of doing that. Also, since User:Dirtlawyer1 and User:Carlwev have, at this point, decided to remain neutral on the matter, I could really use some leadership from you, since I don't want argue this out ad infinitum with PbP. My suspicion, though admittedly bad-faith, is that PbP would rather control the content of the list than he would reduce the list to 10,000 or less entries. Same with User:Carlwev, whom I suspect enjoys his numerous swap proposals more than reducing the list to our goal. Also, I very strongly feel that I cannot count on the support of either Carl or PbP, so without their two support !votes and with a recently reduced participation rate, well ... I could really use some help from you in terms of getting this done. Are you willing to work with me to accomplish this task, or should I reconsider my efforts? Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • What the...? I supported chopping ~100 regions and still do, I merely oppose the first draft of the regions that are being kept because it needs work. And I don't know where you're getting the idea that I don't want to get the list down to 10,000. If you look at the proposals I've made since the first of the year and the edits I made to the VA/E pages since then, I feel they're not only hard to argue with, but they keep the list right-sized. When regions is cut to 100 and some of the other proposals made in the last few weeks come to fruition, we will be pretty close to being around 10,000 articles. Maybe even under. Just because I don't support every single removal doesn't mean I don't support getting it back to 10,000. I just want it to be the right 10,000 articles. pbp 19:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The right 10,000? Like chewing gum and bench, right? Anyway, the only reason that I mentioned you here was for the interests of full-disclosure, not because I wanted this thread to turn into yet another Gabe vs. PbP drama fest. I've already had more than enough arguing with you and would prefer if you just kept a respectful distance. I.e., assuming good-faith is NOT a suicide pact and if you want to cut the list then help don't hinder; actions speak louder than words, etcetera. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • FTR, 2 days ago User:Purplebackpack89 said: "While I think we could shed 40-50, I do feel that Geography is fairly right-sized as a whole". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• For an example of what I am talking about regarding PbP, please see here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• And another. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The beauty of the regional articles deletion concept was that it would get us down to, or close to, 10k articles on the list as it is supposed to be. That would reduce the amount of time needed to go through the seemingly endless deletion, swap or even add proposals. I'll take a look in a bit, as I have a few other things I want to work on, and frankly, the amount of time and energy being expended here makes my eyes glaze over. Jusdafax 04:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

A cursory look down at the bottom of the talk page appears to indicate that most of the issues have been worked out, unless I am mistaken. I would tentatively endorse the regional "keep" list though I have not gone over it carefully. Jusdafax 22:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

March Against Monsanto

On the one hand, it is true that I nominated the article for deletion when it was in very poor shape. On the other hand, after four days, when it was a much better article, I requested early closure that so the AFD could be closed as a speedy keep. I am not trying to get the article deleted again, but would like to get the edit warring to stop. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the ANI, however, although the original poster, User:Tryptofish (and me) both thought the discussion was pretty finished, if you read the opening of the ANI, the OP asked for action with respect to the accusations being made, mostly by User:Viriditas as the discussion in the ANI made clear; your closure did not address that. Several editors, including me, said that they were driven off the page by his/her vitriol, and I think it would be useful if you addressed the original concern in your closing. Would you please reconsider the closing to address the reason the ANI was opened? Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I just saw that you left a light warning for V in this dif- thanks for that. Still, it would be useful if your closing mentioned that you did that. I know admin/closings are hard but they should generally address the reason the ANI was opened, yes? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Jytdog, I'm very content with the closing statement just the way it is. I'm going to write a more nuanced and detailed explanation of what I mean by that on my own user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll respond there. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Vital Articles

To all editors displaying the "Vital Articles" template on their User Page.

Hi,

I recently tried to make a change to the list of Level 3 Vital Articles by replacing the entry

" [[Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems|Imperial and US customary measurement systems]]"

with a new replacement article

" [[Imperial and US customary measurement systems]]".

Although I have advertised the proposed change on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles, I had no response and an anonymous IP editor took it upon himself to undo my changes on grounds that my proposal did not have a "strong consensus".

Will you please look at the discussion Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Replacement article: Imperial and US customary measurement systems and add your opinion.

Martinvl (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the most random talk page responses you will ever receive

This is too off topic to post on the ITNC page (and that's saying something!). But in response to your comment about the way RD has evolved, I would simply make the point that progress is not always for the best. You are right: RD appears to have evolved in that way, but there are some notable exceptions. The world's oldest person is generally a full blurb or nothing, for instance. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 19:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You correctly perceive my reservations. Some deaths that would have been blurbs now struggle to make an RD mention, others fall through the cracks. It seems to be about who cares enough to put a substantial update in the subject's article. I was against the RD concept, but in all candor it sometimes allows a relative unknown, like Jack Vance, to get on the main page where they might not have at all. So it's not all bad, but I think I preferred the pre-RD era, all things considered. Jusdafax 22:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pricasso

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pricasso. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Jusdafax, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and -- t numbermaniac c 05:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I will stop that now, but you've got to admit it was pretty funny! (91.43.126.24 (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC))

WP:ITN/C

Well said. We can, I'm sure, agree to disagree over the posting by Secret; in my mind that's secondary to the knee-jerk calls for desysopping which you comment addresses perfectly. At the risk of breaching WP:CANVASS in letter (but not in spirit) this has made its way to WP:AN. Sigh. Pedro :  Chat  10:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Pedro. For the record I opposed Secret's request to get the tools back, and now it is this. I appreciate the notice about AN, and am on my way. Jusdafax 11:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Glyphosate edit war

User:Mark Marathon, User:ImperfectlyInformed, and User:Jusdafax I hope you come and discuss the reasons for the edits you made during edit war you conducted, so when the lockdown is over we can go back to editing productively and collaboratively. I created a Talk section for the discussion. I am copying this note to all your Talk pages. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I frankly take exception your use of the term "edit war" regarding my two edits. I saw a sentence that seemed way out of line as presented in the article lead, and deleted it on the grounds I cited in the edit summary. I was reverted by MM on what seemed to me thin reasoning, so I reverted back and, in fact, asked MM in my second edit summary to take it to the Talk page. Again, that is twice that I edited the article, in total. When MM, instead of discussing as I had requested, merely reverted me again, I was done, but shortly afterward editor II reverted. At that point an admin came in and, in my view, over-reacted by closing the article to all editing for three days or so. I know none of these editors including the admin, and had never edited the article previously. Again, I reject your characterization of my two edits as part of an "edit war" that I "conducted." Your invitation is noted, and I will give it my consideration. Jusdafax 15:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you object! It was an edit war by definition ("An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion."); it is true that nobody broke WP:3RR when the page was locked down. Nobody followed WP:BRD. I was unhappy to see you all deleting/reverting and talking past each other in edit notes and that none of you came to Talk, which is why I took the time to invite you all. In any case, thanks for considering the invitation. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• • • Again, I find a disturbing lack of clarity in your characterization. My two edit summaries clearly show that on my second of two edits, I directly asked MM not to revert again, but take it to the article talk page. Instead of doing so, he chose to revert again and mimic my comment back at me. You now characterize me as "talking past" when I was the one who first asked for a Talk page discussion, so I again must dispute your post to my Talk page. The language of your "apology" above is also of interest... "Sorry you object!" Hm. Jusdafax 15:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

What is not clear in my characterization? It indeed happened, that "editors who disagreed about the content of a page repeatedly overrode each other's contribution." 5 deletions/reversions occurred in rapid succession. Btw, under WP:BRD it is the initial bold editor, who, upon reversion, is supposed to stand down and bring the issue to Talk. That would be you, in this situation. I also wish the other two editors would have stood down and brought the issue to Talk - they didn't either. As for "talking past each other" - the brief format of an edit note pretty much demands declarative statements - it is not a format for discussion and reaching consensus - hence yes, limiting 'discussion' to edit notes generally means talking past one another instead of to each other; that was my read of what happened. But this is not a huge deal - the admin stepped in and shut this down before anybody broke 3RR, and I am not accusing you of any violation of policy or pillar (nobody crossed WP:3RR, nobody accused someone else of bad faith, etc). So I don't understand what is at stake for you in this meta-discussion. I just wanted to invite you to discuss the issue in dispute in Talk while the page is in lockdown, in hopes we can resolve it and be ready to move on when the lockdown is over. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Asking about your comment

I'm glad that the latest ANI discussion has closed, and I just want to ask you about your last comment there, the one about there being much to ponder. With most users, I wouldn't bother to ask, but I'm asking here. You said very clearly that you weren't criticizing anyone in particular, but an adverse side-effect of saying that is it can leave some of us wondering exactly what you meant. The opening of the thread listed a long series of diffs, some of them mine, and accused them of being disruptive; I subsequently tried to explain that I'm quite sure that the content was not OR, and that the combined efforts of me and several other editors reflected something that was at least approaching consensus, rather than tag teaming or the like. You said, right after I had discussed my role with another editor, that you were concerned that civility can mask deeper issues. I'm reading between the lines that maybe you were arguing that the now-blocked editor actually had a valid point, that some (all?) of the editors in the diffs (including me? not including me?) were actually engaged in some sort of POV-pushing, going beyond the garden-variety differences of opinion between editors, and that it had been overlooked because we had mostly been civil about it, but that there should still be scrutiny that was failing to happen. I hope that you remember that I have said that I, too, am watching very carefully for anyone who displays signs of "shill" editing, and that I am opposed to it, if it actually happens. So I'd like to ask: did I understand the intent of your comment correctly? Do you have any issues with my edits here? Do you think that I misunderstand anything? Did you find my attempted explanation about OR unconvincing or incorrect? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I am attempting to engage Viriditas on his Talk page. I hold you blameless, if it matters, and Viriditas obviously blew it on his overall demeanor, which, given his block record, wasn't too sharp. As to the substance of his claims, I reserve judgment. I am unfamiliar with much of the controversy, and have done very little editing in this field, but have started a bit of research. The post just above shows that I recently twice attempted to pull a sentence out of a Monsanto-related article, a sentence I felt was clearly unencyclopedic and slanted the article with undue weight as presented. I feel the results are of interest, though hardly conclusive. To make claims that a Wikipedia editor is POV-pushing is serious, and to say multiple editors are is obviously dangerous. Aside from his demeanor, Viriditas was fighting hard to make some points. I have known him as a Wikipedian for years, and have tended to respect him on the issues. Now that he is tarnished goods, many editors may dismiss him and move on, but as I say I'd like to cautiously discuss the actual issues with him on his Talk page, assuming he can do so in a civil manner. In my view, further research is needed. Thanks for caring about my concerns, and best wishes. Jusdafax 23:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that I may have seen one editor who showed up as an SPA and who might have been a "shill" (and not someone on that list of diffs, by the way), and I'm continuing to watch for that very closely – but I really think that most of the users who might be targets of suspicion may be opinionated and sometimes stubborn, but that doesn't make for bad faith. If you come to think that there is something that I have failed to realize, please draw it to my attention. I'm watching the discussion on his talk with an open mind, and I appreciate the way that you framed it there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, Viriditas was right, especially about the very twisted and difficult to spot (understatement) web of role-playing. I appreciate that someone is looking into this and is willing to accept new information however uncomfortable it most likely will be. Thank you, JustDaFax. petrarchan47tc 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Information is very useful. Accusations and insinuations like Viriditas and Petrarchan are making is destructive and just plain ugly. Say hello, Joe McCarthy. Were there communist spies in America? You bet. Did he go after everyone not like him, recklessly and with no sense of decency? That is the company V and P are keeping. That is where this has already gone. Ugly. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Why in the world would you refer to this as an accusation, jtydog? Let me tell you something, pondering this might be a good idea. petrarchan47tc 02:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In all seriousness... to freak out or try and squelch conversations is a giant red light. And that isn't an accusation, i've been holding my tongue on this one for sooooo long. Don't attack the people calling for transparency. Don't use tactics that shills are known to use. Chill out and don't care so much, this is just an encyclopedia, and we are all just sharing a bit of our free time to help bring info to the People. If editors are entangled in a bunch of BS instead of being allowed to edit as normal, they are going to get upset. We are human beings. I WILL speak my mind and no one has a right to ask me to shut up or to not share articles and information. I won't be intimidated. And seriously, who in the world has time for all these noticeboards and talk page therapy sessions? I mean, i have two jobs, a life to run, and a bit of time in the evenings, sometimes more sometimes much less... So interference with my good faith, good editing is not going to be met with kisses and hugs. I am a human being and I am not interested in dealing with bullshit. That's all there is to it. petrarchan47tc 03:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The conspiracy-spinning that V engaged in on his Talk page, which you praised here, is disgusting. "And when you take the big picture POV, this appears to have been coordinated by what can only be described as the "fringe cabal", a group of editors who target articles they believe pose a challenge to mainstream science and/or the supporting corporatist-scientific complex. Within this group of editors you have certain personalities who almost seem to be role playing: one plays the hardline extremist who refuses to compromise, the other plays the good cop, while another plays the bad cop, still another plays the curious academic and another plays the GMO proponent." He is thinking of specific people there, and I am likely one of them, as he has accused me directly before. It is ugly. Ugly. And has consequences. There are editors like User:Canoe1967, with whom I have never interacted before, who came out guns blazing at me that I was all COI. Gee, where did that come from? I would say, from all these wild accusations you and V and others are throwing around. You, Petrarchan, are helping build up this conspiracy thing, and I have not done a damn thing wrong. I have seen what you have written about me on various Talk pages. I too am a human being and that felt like shit. I am not paid, I am not a shill. I just think differently than you. I am working on Wikipedia to help the People too. You have no monopoly on wanting to do good. And yes it is another round of McCarthyism. Writ small, for sure. But the same ugly thing, here in our Wiki-world. Please speak your mind on CONTENT and leave me out of it. Otherwise, bring it up in a COI noticeboard, where it is appropriate under Wiki policies and leave the personal attacks out of Talk pages already. Jytdog (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

CREWE

Hi there, JustDaFax (love the name), Glanced at your recent notes to Viriditas, about getting the creeps when considering certain observations, and I wanted to share something indeed creepy. BP was caught writing their own article, with 'independent' editors inserting the material for the resident BP COI talk page PR rep (all very wiki legal). This hit the media and wound up on Jimbo's page. It came out during those discussions (or maybe it was on related talk pages at the time, probably SlimVirgin's) that there is a group called CREWE setup to aid company's PR departments to influence their pages on wiki. They organize through a Facebook page that has over 400 members - composed of wiki editors hip to the idea of spreading PR for some odd reason ($?). This needs to sink in deeply with every editor interested in saving the project from corporate propaganda. Even with this exposed, and one editor admitting to working for that group, the overall consensus, including Jimmy's, was that this is a good thing for the wiki, resulting in more accurate articles. (Do an Internet search for "CREWE, Wikipedia"; I believe the article about this group is on "Motherboard"). Thank you for being. petrarchan47tc 22:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

here it is petrarchan47tc 00:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

An arts and cultural magazine, they'll have all the facts in there. Right? BP was not caught editing their own article, the editor disclosed he was working for BP, it's in his god damn name. Utter nonsense and misinformation. Be wary of the conspiratorial ideation that also plagues the global warming denialers. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Nicely played (except for the manic feel and misspellings) -- a) slam/discredit message and source; b) pull out the "conspiracy" label (as if they NEVER EVER happen); c) throw the messenger in with climate change deniers or something similar, for good measure.

CREWE is a fact, and the Wikipedia community discussed it's existence open, public forums, including Jimbo's talk page. What a strange thing to jump all over me for. petrarchan47tc 02:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

'Caught" may be the wrong term, but here's what happened: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57575460-93/bp-accused-of-rewriting-environmental-record-on-wikipedia/ petrarchan47tc 02:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, if you find a similar link about Monsanto instead of about BP, I'd really like to know about it. But if you (and Jusdafax) will let me give you a bit of sincere advice here, the best approach for you to take is to raise these issues at places like WP:COIN, but not on article talk pages where editors are discussing article content. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Recent commentary here

After a short Wiki-break I am a bit surprised to find a couple disputatious threads regarding the Monsanto article(s). I will study this all carefully but have nothing to say at the present moment, aside from the fact that I continue, as I have said for years, to feel that paid editing is something I am strongly against. It's not clear to me what is going on and it appears considerable study will be required to become reasonably informed. My best wishes to all editors. Jusdafax 09:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

JustDaFax, I appreciate your gentle comments here. I noticed that you had said some positive things about one of the main editors of MAM, so i am very confused now. I worked very hard today tending to the MAM article, only to have all my work reverted, including the simplest of things like a little intro to the background of the movement, and a proper use of RS. Here is the edit, if you want a view of what Viriditas and I have had to deal with at this article. petrarchan47tc 23:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Petrarchan47 as per the note I just left for you and Canoe here, these notes approach or perhaps amount to canvassing, which is disruptive behavior. Please stop. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

[Edit conflict: no, it isn't. And there are notes all over pages of the GMO group with people saying, hey be aware of this or come help me here. So you just stop, please.] This is too much for editors to deal with on their own, we have proven that. The very same group who edit warred for months, is the same group in charge of the article now - with the same problems and games. Wholesale reversions, especially right at the 3RR point, and i am told to go get permission from said group, this group is using cherry-picking, OR and SYNTH with completely straight faces, and i am the only one speaking out, and trying to fix it. It is too much for me, and i don't have the time to edit this page towards NPOV any more. We are stuck trying to get the basic facts on the page, while we are not allowed to add any references about protesters and researchers who question GMOs, but a list of 5 "GMOs are super safe for sure" refs to unrelated websites sits high on the page. I think the violations of the guidelines are very obvious, and since this movement is not a convoluted story, this could be handed over to ArbCom for a quick fix. I guess this is me, begging you or anyone out there, to please help get this article to ArbCom. Thank you very much. petrarchan47tc 00:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Jtdog, Petrarchan47 is welcome to post on my page any time. Your statement appears to be an attempt at intimidation, which I resent for both Petrarchan and myself. Jusdafax 00:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Jusdafax. As I have mentioned here and elsewhere, User:Petrarchan47 has been engaging in this behavior - going on the Talk pages of users he/she believes are sympathetic, and making these kinds of unfounded accusations against me and other editors - for quite some time, and I have had it with being bad-mouthed. That is one issue -- the other one is the more garden-variety of canvassing about specific article content. I am not even editing or watching the MaM article, as I already was fed up with Viriditas' behavior there. In any case, informing these users that their behavior is outside guidelines is not intimidation - it is fair warning. The next time the behavior happens - if it happens again - I am indeed going to start an ANI. I really have had it. There are appropriate ways to deal with perceived COI and going around on user Talk pages and article Talk pages and making these accusations is not among those ways. I tell you - I feel persecuted. That matters too. Paid editing is an issue but that doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with you is a paid editor. I could start (and I am not!!) going around and writing everywhere that P is an employee or paid PR person for Greenpeace, right? He/she must be because of the positions that P takes in these articles about environmental issues! But I am NOT going there. And neither should P. Otherwise it is wild McCarthyism - slapping people who disagree with you with a label so you can dismiss them. Just the facts indeed! No more of this personal attack based on 100% speculation. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

So, it appears you are saying I am calling you a paid editor and you are mocking my name? Your remarks and demeanor on my page are truly extraordinary. Jusdafax 00:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that you are calling me a paid editor!! I am sorry you misunderstood. It is hard to control tone in writing. I am saying that with no basis in fact, P has been canvassing around, calling me and others COI/paid editors -- including here on your page, and trying to make you an ally. You have not engaged in that behavior that I have ever seen. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I did play off your name, saying that there are no facts to support these allegations with respect to me, and I have said explicitly on more than one occasion that I have no relationship with Monsanto or any of the other ag biotech companies. Their only basis for these accusations are the consistent positions that I have taken, which are simply different than theirs. Again I apologize for the misunderstanding. Really. I have no desire to offend anybody -- I just want the attacks to stop already. I am sorry that you were dragged into this. Your actions have been totally appropriate with respect to your own approach - you have expressed concern about COI editing, and written that the issue needs to be handled with thought and care. Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Petrarchan47, as we see Wikipedia is under considerable pressure, as I see it, from forces that are interested in seeing information presented in the way that they want it perceived. How to safely identify such forces can be problematic, but it seems likely to me that they exist here. Your edit is of value, and I agree that this article is being watched with near-obsessive interest. But here is the great thing, all edits are recorded and the history preserved. Consensus can change. With Viriditas blocked, the MAM article is likely to be "scrubbed." I have a great respect for Viriditas that comes from years of interaction, and I think he was making points that deserved consideration. The larger issues are fascinating to me, including the very strong possibility that Monsanto has targeted the MAM article. It is only logical to assume this, given the PR value and Monsanto's power. If this is true, sooner or later a whistle blower may step forward. Clearly the confrontational and arguably uncivil methods Viriditas was using are dangerous, as his three-month block shows. But the issues are much much bigger than this one article. The main Monasanto article, the GMO controversies article where I see you are active, the Glyphosate article where I made two edits that drew reverting, and hundreds if not thousands of others, are places where slant and information inclusion are debatable. I continue to mull over the direction I should take, but I was encouraged by a statement made by Jimmy Wales at the recent Wikimania. My comment to that is at User talk:Jimbo Wales currently. You might want to post your concerns at Jimmy's page, and see if he responds. If nothing else, you may find like-minded editors. I will continue to monitor the situation, and contemplate it. I salute you. Jusdafax 00:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A deep bow to you, my friend. petrarchan47tc 02:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: i am very much not involved in any other articles that touch on the GMO issue, by design. I may have made a couple edits months ago, but not since or before. You might be thinking of someone else? Also, i made pretty cryptic remarks on Jimbo's page, do feel free to let me know if you think it would be prudent to elaborate at all. petrarchan47tc 05:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see I misread you. I read this as "drop by and comment" at Jimbo's talk, but you were suggesting to maybe list concerns in a new section for him. I'm not feeling like getting much more involved, and have really been trying pull away entirely from the matter. But I will ponder this... petrarchan47tc 08:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Jusdafax, I just wanted to weigh in to say that I saw your comments in the Jimbo talk page and agree. If you have any ideas on dealing with paid editing please keep me in the loop. Coretheapple (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I see I am not directly involved, but thanks for this notice. Jusdafax 19:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. I notified you just because I mentioned you and agree that you are not directly involved. Sorry to trouble you.Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

My recent RfA

I should have said thanks for your support sooner. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Australian federal election, 2013 ITN

Hey Jusdafax. I see that you changed the status of the Australian federal election, 2013 ITNC to needs update. I've added a results table and some prose regarding the post-election. Could you have another look at the article and, if you think it meets the update requirements, change to ready? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• I see the article is now posted. Thanks for your help! Jusdafax 02:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, Jusdafax! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Pratyya (Hello!) 05:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) characters

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) characters. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you help me please?

Hi jusdafax!

I would just like to say I'm new to this so please point out if I've done anything wrong here as I may take this up in my spare time :) . I had this come up when I came here:

User talk:78.147.150.105 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search October 2009

<Information.png> Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Sole proprietorship has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Jusdafax 20:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this down to me randomly having the same IP or something else, as I can't think of any reason for it...

Any insight much appreciated!

Kind regards

"justpassingtime"

Justpassingtime (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• You mean this edit, a very mild case of vandalism from over four years ago by an IP who never edited otherwise. If that IP number has has been assigned to you I wouldn't worry about it, especially as you have registered an account name and are editing under it. If it troubles you I can either delete my message or add a note stating that the warning is moot under the circumstances, but I consider it extremely unlikely that it will ever impact you either way. Welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope, as the saying here goes, that you like the place and decide to stay! And please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or concerns. Jusdafax 22:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Well said

Here — Writegeist (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, I appreciate it. I hope other editors feel the same way, but as I say, I think this issue needs to be dealt with by the highest levels of the WMF. Jusdafax 21:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC to consider

Might you consider offering an opinion on a content dispute between two editors involving the removal of parts of an article on a group of characters in a fictional novel? The discussion is here: Talk:Druids_(Shannara)#BRD_on_recent_large_addition_of_text. Thanks for considering. N2e (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Jusdafax 08:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 GA Thanks

This user has contributed to Paul Butterfield good articles on Wikipedia.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your editorial contributions to Paul Butterfield, which recently was promoted to WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, my first... many thanks! Jusdafax 23:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Snowden

Hey, sorry for the "Fundraising section" discussion getting a little heated. I understand you technically didn't say you believe I have a hostile POV, but in my mind it doesn't make much of a difference. You referred to "the perception that some may have, rightly or wrongly, that you have a hostile POV to Snowden" which strikes me as somewhat validating that perception, as well as being quite similar to, "Whatever you do don't think about a pink elephant!" I felt the need to counter that on the talk page. As for me being appearing to be "spoiling for a fight," I suppose it does appear that way, but it's a natural and appropriate response to being repeatedly and quite rudely (in my view) accused by multiple editors of acting in bad faith. I value civil debate and I hope more you're not the only editor who will engage in it. I, personally, am trying my hardest despite the baiting by some. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I appreciate your comments, and I thank you for coming here to clarify. My apologies if my manner appears uncivil, even in a backhanded fashion. I do feel that you could be discussed with in a calmer way by others on the talk page. Let's take a deep breath and move on. As it is two areas you have pointed to have been deleted, one by each of us, and this improves the article. There are additions that need to be made as well. I am serious about getting this article to GA status. See you on the talk page. Onward, and thanks again. Jusdafax 22:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

So...

...you endorse posing, do you? Lol. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Man, I had that typo fixed within two minutes... but not much gets past you, I see! Jusdafax 04:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Only because you fixed my typo, which I thought was cute (and nice) of you. μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah! Happy to help, and happy to see a good consensus on that blurb. Jusdafax 04:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI close

I hate seeing an edit summary like this--and it was perfectly correct of course. It's really a shame that an indef block is frequently the best we can do. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Not being an admin, I have never actually blocked anyone. A large moral responsibility to get it right! But I felt, as I noted in my comment, that the only alternative was to avoid pushing the problem to the next group of concerned Wikipedians, and I thank you for making the final call. I looked seriously at the possibility of a topic ban, but the more I studied the edit history, the more I saw an intractable editor running amok. We will never know how many future editor hours you spared with your block, and it is an honor working with you! Jusdafax 21:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Cold?

	Best wishes
	for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

A personalized New Year greeting

Hope you have a bright 2014! Acalamari 13:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jusdafax, Happy New Year! I hope that everything with you is well! :) Best. Acalamari 13:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you!

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for editing Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you!

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for editing Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Martha Nell Smith

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Martha Nell Smith. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Day We Fight Back RfC - Feedback?

Hi JustDaFax ~ always love having a reason to drop by. Wondering if you'd be up for some quick feedback given your support for some sort of nod to The Day We Fight Back. We've just submitted an RfC for a centralized discussion, and I was thinking to get a second opinion on the wording, which is here. I don't know how late in the game RfC submissions can be amended. It does seem a bit urgent though. We'd love your input, thanks ~ petrarchan47tc 10:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Still somewhat urgent, but we've withdrawn the submission until we get the wording right. It would be smart to submit it soon though, like this weekend. Thanks for your time, petrarchan47tc 11:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

False alarm, JusDaFax, sorry to bother you. petrarchan47tc 10:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hendrix

Now you're Wikibuddies are pushing a drug POV at Jimi Hendrix in an effort to justify the mugshot that displays "a clam dignity". They want to make a case that he used lots of drugs so that the mugshot has contextual significance. Are you on board with this? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Gabe, I give you a lot of credit for working as hard on the article as you have, and I know this is important to you. I saw Hendrix twice as a kid, and I have yet to see a more impressive music performance, so the article is a concern to me as well. There will always be controversy around him and how he is portrayed. All that said, we disagree on the mugshots being important to the article. The "Wikibuddies" you refer to are not editors I know or have edited much with, and they may well have different motivations than mine for inclusion. Bottom line is for me that we should let this go now and move on. I might be wrong but I don't see the numbers of editors you need to remove the mugshots. It's a timesink and the topic has reached the point of exhaustion. However, I'll take a look into the article soon and see for myself. My best wishes, and as always I admire your passion. Blessings! Jusdafax 05:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • FWIW, Cullen agrees with me about the drug issue and they apologized to me for misleading people. You say we don't have the !votes, but if just two people !voted the other way it would be 14–7, which is certainly enough. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like they won't leave you alone on this one, Jusdafax! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The plot thickens? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that's pretty uncanny, Trypto. Gabe as you know by now I think you have found a reasonable solution, and it looks like you have consensus to keep. It wont make everyone happy, but as I say it clearly improves the encyclopedia. Thanks for your hard work. Jusdafax 00:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Jusdafax. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is an AfD discussion that may interest you over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debbie Schlussel (2nd nomination). Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Your input is requested for consensus

Please comment over at Draft talk:Abby Martin. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Good Morning Britain (1983)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Good Morning Britain (1983). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — 10.4.1.125 (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks

I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciated your participation in the process. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Filmographies

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Filmographies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

American politics arbitration evidence

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Game of Thrones characters

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Game of Thrones characters. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Banter at AN/I

A statement as serious as this second sentence without any evidence (and even then it's up to interpretation) may just as well never have been put forth. I think you know this better than I do. All of my posts at AN/I within the past 24 hours either reek of "provide diffs", "let's move on" (in fact a conciliatory gesture), or are otherwise normal responses to the OP. Please reconsider. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 08:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• I want you to permanently stay off my talk page, thanks. Jusdafax 08:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'll honour that, but that was not polite in the slightest. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 08:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Feedback request

I am inviting you to leave me some feedback, 18 months after you opposed my RfA. Do you still believe I am not fit to be an admin? Do you believe I have been able to improve past the concerns you have brought up? Do not be afraid of being too harsh, I am specifically welcoming criticism as I believe it is the best way to improve and I am always looking to learn from my mistakes. I am particularly looking for feedback as to whether you have objections to myself lifting the self-imposed 1RR restriction I had agreed to towards the end of my RfA. If you don't have time to comment, don't fret it either, this is nothing I'll lose sleep over. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Your signature

How do you make your signature look the way it does? AlanS (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I cheerfully admit I stole the coding from someone, but I no longer remember whom. If you like it you are free to do likewise, of course. Best to you, Jusdafax 10:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC))

JSTOR - Action required

We need your email address in order to give/renew your JSTOR access. Please email Library Coordinator Ocaasi at jorlowitzgmail.com so we can get you your account as soon as possible. Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 17:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Arrogant and abusive

Dear Jusdafax, in a discussion on civility it is counterproductive to refer to editors as "arrogant and abusive". It wouldn't really change much if you shifted the language to refer to an editor's comments rather than the editors, since I don't think that a comment can really be abusive. If you believe that (in this case) Eric is an arrogant and abusive editor and that his incivility drives off editors (there is no proof for that), and you state that here, you are yourself committing a personal attack that may drive editors away. (Maybe not Eric, but anyone who finds your comments offensive.) I would never block for a comment like that, though I think it is a personal attack, and it flies in the face of AGF, but really, do you think that such commentary is productive? I found BrownHairedGirl's block to be very incorrect, but I'll stop short of saying that it was "an arrogant and abusive block meant to drive an editor away"--if only because I don't believe it's true. I'll assume good faith, even if I couldn't disagree more. If you really believe Eric (or anyone else) is that uncivil (and clearly this is a matter of interpretation: you can't just dismiss your opponents as fools), why would you respond with more incivility? on a board as public as Jimbo's talk page? Sorry, but I think that's doing nothing to solve whatever problem we may have. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• I call 'em like I see 'em. Note the links below my comment that point to the resignation of Khazar2. He specifically states he was driven away by Eric Corbett. Now, what do you call a person like Eric Corbett? Kindly and compassionate? His block was richly deserved, was hardly his first, and in my view he needs to be shown the door with corrective action. Sorry we disagree so strongly, as I often agree with you on policy matters. Jusdafax 16:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Do you see the irony? "I call 'em like I see 'em"--I'm sure Eric could say that too... Sorry, but I'm not feeling you. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• It just occurred to me: the essence of civility is probably that you can't call 'em like you see 'em. It's filtering. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey

Hi, JDF. Just wanted to drop by your page and let you know that I'm around again. I enjoyed our productive interaction at VA/E, but I was also hitting the wiki-wall at the time and needed some quiet time away from the 'pedia. Let me know if I can of service in any of your present endeavors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Likewise, thanks. If you choose to run for admin again you have my support, though I have advocated disbanding the admin corps in favor of selected volunteers with term limits, and WMF paid admins. By the way I have largely withdrawn from the vital articles project. Best wishes! Jusdafax 22:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• A bit of the anarchist, you are, JDF. PBP stopped by my talk page the other day to ask if I were going to get involved in VA/E again. I told him that things seem to have settled down there, and muddling along just fine without me. I see myself as primarily a content creator, and I like to channel my non-editing WP efforts to either helping others create good content, defend good content, or maintain standards for good content. Process and organization have their place, of course, but I get plenty of that in the RW. Stuff like ANI, etc., will never be a focus for me because I see it as a distraction from content creation, and a demoralizing one at that. I felt like I was on arbitrator/mediator duty at VA/E, and that can suck the life and enthusiasm out of you pretty quickly. Most of us don't need a second job. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox musical artist

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox musical artist. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:JSTOR access

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ambrosia (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael McDonald. 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) 09:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply to a reverted and blocked sock

• Nah. I'm a very part time editor these days, and I'll leave the enforcement to the enforcers. I do feel I have earned the right to contribute my opinion on policy matters. It's really too bad that you have to be so abrasive and in-your-face about editing. I believe I have indicated in the past that I often agree with you on some policy and I admire your hard work as an editor. But the bottom line is that we either have to lose our civility, blocking and socking rules and permit you and others of your ilk to run wild, or we have to take harsh measures. I advise the latter. For what it is worth, I wish you good fortunes. I think you could be very great in some field other than this one. I ask you to do the decent thing, and move on. Jusdafax 10:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI

I think we might be talking at cross-purposes at ANI. I'm not really interested in specific cases, and obviously, if you are being harassed by a troll, that's not something I support. It's the wider question that intrigues me. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Your NAC close at ANI

Re: your close here with the edit summary "ArbCom case makes this moot". I am unaware of any case that Arbcom has accepted concerning a topic ban between these individuals. In fact, Arbcom usually requires that other avenues of resolution be exhausted before they will accept a case. —Neotarf (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Objections noted. If you scroll up, you will notice I did not close the proposed topic ban discussion sections. Discussion in the three sections I closed was waning, and appeared to be shedding more heat than light. In any case, in my view, a topic ban may or may not come into play as a remedy at ArbCom. Additionally, Sitush has retired, further mooting the entire issue, as I see it. Jusdafax 21:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see now what you did. You are entirely correct. The only real option still in play is the mutual interaction ban, but the voting is so confused that whoever closes it will need both threads to figure out who voted for what. That is, if anyone gets around to closing it before it archives. —Neotarf (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC))

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Jusdafax:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Hafspajen (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bruce Bochy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Texas Rangers. 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) 13:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bruce Bochy may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * 4x [[MLBASG|MLB All-Star Game NL Manager]] ([[1999 MLB All-Star Game|1999]], [[2011 MLB All-Star Game|2011]], [[2013 MLB All-Star Game|2013]], [
• * [[NL Manager of the Year]] ({{mlby|1996}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC))

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For understanding that you can disagree with someone without disrespecting someone. As far as I am concerned people can disagree with me all day if they are respectful like you. Keep up giving debate a good name. Chillum 04:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• I thank you. In fact I have noticed that since about 2009 I have agreed with you much more often than not. As for the substance of the issue, I remain quite discouraged. I will spare you my further observations, and wish you robust health and good fortunes! Jusdafax 05:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Cause I've seen you be quite sensible more than once! Yay!

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
)

Best wishes for a happy holiday season

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys!Hafspajen (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDHT

What part do you think I did not hear yet?

Why do you think I should be blocked? In what way will it help Wikipedia? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please stay off my talk page, thank you. Jusdafax 08:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Again? Jusdafax 02:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Orson Scott Card

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Orson Scott Card. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Breitbart (website)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Breitbart (website). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Woodstock

Since you !voted in a similar discussion that recently closed, I thought you should be made aware that a similar move proposal is occurring at Talk:Woodstock#Requested_move_28_December_2014, in case you want to weigh in.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• It appears I already have, thanks. Jusdafax 18:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Whoops. It looks like in the first discussion your signature had a space in it (Jus dafax), while the second didn't, which is probably why I mixed it up. My bad, sorry.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• All good, thanks for the heads up. Jusdafax 01:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Move review

There is currently a discussion at WP:MR to which you may be associated with. The thread can be found here. Thanks. Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC))

Please comment on Talk:Version 2.0

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Version 2.0. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Version 2.0

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Version 2.0. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Federal Reserve Bank of New York Building

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Federal Reserve Bank of New York Building. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal remarks

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.

Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 16:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• I hereby ask you to stay off my talk page permanently. Thank you. Jusdafax 17:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for over reacting and will abide by your request. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 00:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

MfD

I think you may have accidentally linked the wrong user as the one who templated you following comments on MfD. I have not seen IP98 participate in that MfD. Did you mean to link Formerly 98? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

proposed iban, please comment

given your involvement, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Suggested_Limited_Interaction_Ban_between_Users_Alansohn_and_Magnolia677. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Broke with Expensive Taste

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Broke with Expensive Taste. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Bare URLs?!?

Oy! Fix that! ResMar 12:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Am hamstrung for time of late, and reason that a bare ref is better than none. Jusdafax 03:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, fix it. This is what FA decay looks like. ResMar 20:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Let's get a few things straight, my lad. I professionally covered Kilauea Volcano nationwide when you were shitting your diapers. Clearly those parents of yours failed utterly to teach decent manners. The article is in flux, and you don't own it, nor are you entitled to give me orders. I will edit as possible, and how I see fit. This is my talk page and I now ask you to stay off it, permanently. Jusdafax 21:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• I just saw this. I think the both of you are correct. Jusdafax, if something like this happens again, feel free to contact me for help. A simple note such as, "I don't have time for this, can you take a look" will work. That way, everyone wins. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Viriditas. My patience for being ordered by children is wearing quite thin. The article needs updating and expanding. I'd like to get back to it once the dust settles below. Thanks again. Jusdafax 04:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware that there are tools that can help you automatically format the bare URLs? Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll look into that, thanks. Jusdafax 06:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my non-admin closure at ANI

This section is for those, if any, who wish to comment. As the section just above shows, as I age I am increasingly impatient with what I perceive as rudeness on my talk page, and have banned people for such. However, I am aware I have previously asked parties involved in said ANI report to stay off this page, so in fairness, if you wish to comment directly here, you may do so, but I request that scrupulous civility and respect towards me be maintained. Thank you. Jusdafax 22:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jusdafax. While I appreciate you taking the time to close, I ask you to reconsider. You have expressed strong interest in COI issues in Wikipedia. I call your attention to the Wifione case at Arbom, which was actually conducted as a long-term POV pushing case. I also point you to the TimidGuy Ban appeal, where an editor went full force after an another editor for paid editing, and was himself banned. To take care of long-term paid editors, is the same path as taking care of long-term POV pushers. The case I presented was a slam dunk for long-term POV pushing (a mission statement of single-issue advocacy and a record of having done nothing but that) and - while I very much wanted to take care of issues with Doors specifically, the larger issues were very much at play here. We need to establish a path - we need to encourage editors to bring cases just like this one, instead of flailing around like the community did with Wifione. (all the evidence presented there was 2013 and before - the NPOV case could have been brought two years ago but the path was not clear). I recognize that I am controversial, and that distracted from the the case of Doors. If you cannot see the very clear evidence and the consensus for the topic ban, I ask you to simply self-revert your close. I am OK with waiting for a close that considers the evidence that was brought. We can do this at ANI; we don't need to go Arbcom for these things. Thank you Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I considered the evidence, and the Doors22 expression of regret and understanding. You asked repeatedly for closure at ANI and AN for the thread to be closed, as did Doors. 72 hours passed. I took that into deep consideration as well. I am asking you to extend the hand of collegial understanding to Doors. If you work together, neither of you might be happy, but the encyclopedia will be a better place. You of course have the option of reopening this lengthy thread yourself, though I don't think that very wise. The alternatives are to ask others to reopen it, to go to ArbCom, or again, to be a good sport about what you saw as a "slam dunk," but that not one admin here felt was worth closing with the results you wanted. And about your use of that phrase "slam dunk," Wikipedia is not a game, and you give me the impression that's how you see it, instead of a source of information that that you sometimes may disagree with. You also refer to yourself as "controversial." I suggest you strive to become less so, because the alternative is ArbCom. Jusdafax 02:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to tell you that I thought your reasoning for closing the ANI was solid. And that I agree 100% with your rebuke to the admins who refused to do anything about it. Well done in my opinion.Vyselink (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I found this close among the toughest words I have ever written for Wikipedia, and appreciate your kindness. Jusdafax 02:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jusdafax, thank you for closing the ANI report. It had been opened quite and while and didn't seem like it was going anywhere. I already mentioned I don't want discussions escalate to this point again, if only to avoid another episode like this, and will play my part accordingly. JYTdog, now that this discussion has been settled I hope you will work with me to make constructive edits to improve the body of knowledge on the encyclopedia. To be fair, I don't think there was a consensus, and the two other editors on this talk page agree. Many of the supporters have to be excluded for being involved (they were pinged by you or had edited the article). I hope we will be able to move past this and put this behind us. If you feel I am incorporating a certain POV into my edits, please discuss civilly. But you should know that adding new objective facts and evidence to support a claim is neither advocacy nor POV. Doors22 (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

What made me decide to step in and close was your statement, the one I linked, at AN. But dude, get a clue. If you want to be taken seriously around here, you can't keep being a WP:SPA. Step back a pace or two and find other topics that interest you, and that you can add to. Try to stay away from those who are demonstrably hostile. You have made some big mistakes, and if you can learn from them, you will be a strong addition to our editing corps. I'm hoping you will heed this warning, and that years from now we can look back at this ANI thread and nod thoughtfully. Jusdafax 02:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Please see my request for a review of your close, here. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I appreciate the notification here and have offered my reasoning. I will offer no further advice. Jusdafax 05:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Now JYT's friend Formerly98 is trying to reopen the case. It's been quite a challenge to work with these two. I can see why several retired users said they've stopped editing because of them. Doors22 (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I saw that. I also noticed that it was quickly removed, which I thought of interest. My advice to you being unheeded, I also make no further statements. Jusdafax 05:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Jusdafax, based on your continued effort at AN to distract from the actual case and further attacks on me (even throwing my acknowledgement that I am controversial in my face), i "went there" and made the claim that you are not neutral and should not have closed. This is what I thought when I saw that you had closed it, but i didn't go there in my initial request to overturn your close. Only after you upped the ante. I'll ask you to please reflect on your POV on me, and I ask you again to simply self-revert your close. In my view, you should not have done it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jusdafax May I also join in the "thanks" for having the courage to rebuke the admins for doing nothing about this. I recently suffered a major boomerang which ocurred, in my opinion, because suitably non-involved admins would not step in. Keep up the good work.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the merits of this closure, but I just wanted to commend you for doing it. This is not the first time serious issues have come up on admin boards and admins have just shrugged. "Too much trouble." "Too much of a morass." "Too long, didn't read." Etc. Yet another reason why I'm less than enthused about naming still more people to super-editor positions that are subject to abuse and often not used at all. Coretheapple (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks from me too, for keeping an eye on things. As a side note, I made comments similar to yours here. (From my recollection, the very fresh thread was closed shortly after.) petrarchan47คุก 01:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• The whole thread has been restored to ANI from the archives, by an admin, who did at least add my closing comment to the already lengthy mass. I have briefly noted my objection to the reopening at the bottom of the thread. I suspect further discussion will now ensue. My thanks to my thankers and those commenting here in support of my now-reverted close. Under the circumstances, I now resume asking Jytdog to stay off my talkpage, thanks. Jusdafax 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • And the final result... Nothing. Archived without a closing statement. Jusdafax 04:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax, I just stumbled upon this and thought I'd add my own 2 cents. I appreciated the wise words in your closing statement; however I came away with a different take on what happened. I really blame Jytdog for posting what I see as a god-awful ANI complaint -- not in substance, but in presentation. Way way way too long and missing the forest for the trees. And the first sentence gives the whole complaint an "axe-grinding" flavor. It was no surprise to me at all that admins would roll their eyes and TLDR the whole discussion. An editor with as much experience in hot areas as Jytdog should have known better. It's especially unfortunate because they obviously put so much work into putting that together. No offense intended to Jytdog, whom I have worked well with on occasion in the past and I usually agree with. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, and I largely agree. Since I have banned that editor from my page, it seems unfair for me to comment in detail since he can't reply directly. I do think his statements above, and my banning, speak for themselves, however. I did what I did, and I appreciate the term "wise" quite a bit. Good fortunes to us all. Jusdafax 08:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_Others has been opened. For the arbitration committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notification. Jusdafax 19:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 15, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for your edits at 2015 Michoacán shootout! They were really useful. BTW, I did not use a translation machine ... it was just my terrible English translations. Cheers! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 21:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank YOU, I appreciate the snack! Jusdafax 21:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:A Voice for Men

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:A Voice for Men. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The Red-Headed League (Sherlock Holmes episode) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Red-Headed League (Sherlock Holmes episode) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Red-Headed League (Sherlock Holmes episode) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fuddle (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zeitgeist (film series). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Your poposal here [11] is really interesting. Agree we need a group of editors to help enforce the TOU. Have proposed something similar here [12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your heads up, and I find your proposal for a small, dedicated group of "Functionaries" most interesting, and somewhat similar in scope to mine for "Auditors." However, I don't believe either can gain serious traction inside the community. As your link shows, my proposal to Jimmy and the WMF board was designed to go past our divided "caste system" where we are now, where any such proposals for a group of investigators will be shouted down. Of course, I'm not saying that those doing the shouting, or even a significant proportion of them, are conflicted or corrupt.

That discussion on Jimmy's page did in fact draw various types of "heat'" which to my mind merely proved my point: that community cannot enact such a proposal from within, for a number of reasons. To my knowledge, Jimmy and the WMF board took no notice, or if they did, they are keeping it under the radar. Since that discussion, to my knowledge at least two conflicted admins have lost the flag. Both had to do a lot to lose it, one quite high-ranking and generating considerable additional bad press, as did the Wifione case. But perhaps even more insidious are clever editors with an agenda, some paid, some with socks. I believe such editors are likely to be working for various interests. I will be happy to watch and perhaps comment on your proposal, but again, I don't believe it can get past a group of determined and in some cases deeply hostile editing interests who will make it their continuing work to shame, blame and otherwise shout down any such proposals, and for reasons ranging from completely innocent and well-meaning to the darkest imaginable. Certainly, I hope to be proved wrong, but I believe TOU enforcement is going to have to come from the top down, and that all paid editing needs to be banned. Jusdafax 22:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes; however, I was just elected to the board of the WMF so someone from the board did take notice, me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

To be frank, I had not known that when writing the above, as I failed to keep track of the recent election results. First off, my hearty congratulations! Your accomplishment is notable, indeed.

So then, I stand corrected. A WMF member, albeit a brand new one, has taken note of my proposal! I am flattered and pleased, and thank you.

As stated at the time I wrote my proposal on Jimmy's page, I believe I occupy a fairly unique niche in the ranks of Wikipedia editors. A WMF volunteer in the San Francisco office in the period 2009-2010, I have somewhat of an insider's perspective while remaining very much in the realm of the rank and file editors. Last year I was welcomed back, given a tour, and deeply gratified that many of the suggestions regarding the physical setup I hoped to be implemented have since been.

I will take a further intensive look at your proposal. I have already glanced at your exchange regarding "rapid change," and see how I can contribute to the discussion. Thanks very much for your post and interest, which, again, I take as a great complement. Also, again, my profound congratulations to being elected to what I believe to be the only body that can effectuate real changes in the project. Jusdafax 05:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Bringing about change will still require support from the wider community. With the WMF and the community working together to address undisclosed paid advocacy editing I believe we will have a chance of improving the situation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox comedian

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox comedian. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Lyle Alzado

Hello. The reason I did the edit, was mainly because I assumed that since a good majority of the athlete article use just "Career NFL statistics", I thought it should be used for Alzado's. I don't have a problem with your edit, I just wanted to explain my original edit. Wikidude10000 (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for doing so! Jusdafax 03:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Drive by to say "hi"....

I was reading through some old debates just trying to learn the various methods used in handling content disputes while also trying to get a grasp on composing succinct closes when, lo and behold, I ended up here. I truly do admire your writing ability. Verbosity was once a close friend of mine during a career that paid by the word but editing WP has forced me to end the friendship. I have always known that brevity is an art form and while it may come natural to some, I really have to work at it. For example, it took me an hour to summarize WP:AVDUCK for the tag "In a nutshell...". After being deleted 2ce, the essay finally made it into mainspace and survived yet a 3rd MfD challenge. We addressed most of the issues but of course we couldn't possibly resolve all the criticism. At least it's stable and, so far, we haven't seen any of the alleged "damage" it was supposed to cause per the delete arguments. In retrospect, me thinks the lady doth protest too much. I recently stumbled across the following statement on an editor's user page, and it really hit home: "Allowing experts to run the show would merely invite them to introduce their personal biases into articles." What do you think? Atsme^📞📧 04:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, and allow me to return the complement; I enjoy your essay and determined statements. Some random thoughts:

• One of the ongoing struggles here regards the nature of the encyclopedia. It's both fortunate and unfortunate that the sprawling mass makes it quasi-ungovernable. The big ticket struggle at present is paid corporate, religious and governmental/military editors versus the rank-and-file types that originally built the place. In the past six years of my serious involvement, I've seen a lot of editors come and go. The most important lesson I've learned is to know when to walk away from a dispute. Time often sorts matters out, though not always. Still, I've never been blocked.
• Your essay touched various nerves, obviously. Had I known it was at MfD I would have gone there. Congrats on surviving that gauntlet.
• Most people can't read. Brevity, as you have noticed, is often the only tactic that works.
• Thanks again. Most of us crave recognition and validation. I'm no exception. I'll drop by your page sometime. Jusdafax 06:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, now I find myself regretting having passed up numerous opportunities to let you know how much I appreciate your presence and words, JusDaFax. You've been one of my favorite Wikipedians since I first read you, and that just continues to be the case with each post. The section above is no exception:

"But perhaps even more insidious are clever editors with an agenda, some paid, some with socks. I believe such editors are likely to be working for various interests. I will be happy to watch and perhaps comment on your proposal, but again, I don't believe it can get past a group of determined and in some cases deeply hostile editing interests who will make it their continuing work to shame, blame and otherwise shout down any such proposals, and for reasons ranging from completely innocent and well-meaning to the darkest imaginable. Certainly, I hope to be proved wrong, but I believe TOU enforcement is going to have to come from the top down, and that all paid editing needs to be banned."

You've so eloquently summarized my observation over the past 3 years. I'm glad that someone from the WMF has taken note.

JusDa, thank you for being here. petrarchan47คุก 00:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks a ton, Petra, and likewise. To put it a bit differently, Wikipedia has the possibility of being both the greatest informational source in human history, or the most corrupt propaganda dissemination tool imaginable. Maybe even both at once. I'll give you one example, from myriads available... glyphosate, which I edited about two years ago to take out what seemed to me to be a remarkably biased statement in the lede. The result: my edit stood. I recently made a couple edits to the article and talkpage, but aside from that, I stand clear, for reasons you note above, and for others I won't go into. "Money doesn't talk, it swears," as Bob Dylan famously sings. Until we have a fearless and uncorruptable group of investigators at work to counter well-paid parties with a purpose, matters will remain dicey in Wikiland, in my view. Bless you, I truly admire your courage and fortitude, so thanks again back atcha. Jusdafax 01:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You just did it again: "Wikipedia has the possibility of being both the greatest informational source in human history, or the most corrupt propaganda dissemination tool imaginable." That's it! But word has it we've already veered heavily towards the propaganda side of things, and so blatantly (to all but those in industry or the PR world) that people are staying away from this site as an information source for all but a few uncontroversial topics - in much the same way that cable news is loosing viewers. People know when they're being lied to or manipulated.

What's going on at WP is very clear and predictable. You're right to take a back seat whilst the fox guards the hen house. It's also true that sometimes a tiny achievement in the midst of it all is possible.

While I'm here, would you mind if I were to copy a few of your statements from this conversation to my talk page sometime? I like to leave words of wisdom there. petrarchan47คุก 04:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Petrarchan47, I am taken aback by your kind statements and willingly give you permission to use my statements as you see fit. I am quite obliged for your good opinion. Jusdafax 04:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I so appreciate your permission, and for your kind words about me. You've never been one to hold back kindness or words of support. Blessings, petrarchan47คุก 06:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kill 'Em All

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kill 'Em All. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

WT:ITN

Your audience awaits your "further question(s)"! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Since your appearance on my Talk page appears to me to be less than collegial, I'm going to ask you to refrain from posting here, thanks. Jusdafax 21:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww and The Rambling Man Arbitration Case Opening

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:SEMA

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:SEMA. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Please comment on Talk:Bella and the Bulldogs

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bella and the Bulldogs. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

User:TryBanMeAgain

You reported User:TryBanMeAgain at WP:UAA suggesting a block for a disruptive useername. I have declined the speedy on this user's user page as not within the WP:CSD, and I see no reason to block the user. This user has contributed constructively for over a year, with no significant problems reported. DES ^(talk) 14:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I do however notice the user changed their name shortly after I brought the subject to the noticeboard, so it's a win-win. That name was disruptive in my view, and others saw it that way as well. Jusdafax 20:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Debut

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Debut. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments on bureaucrat discussion

In the back-and-forth on the 'crat-chat talkpage for Liz's RfA, you indicated you were offended by some of my comments to you. Rereading my words a day later, I agree that I was indeed too harsh, and I am sorry for that. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough, and thanks. Hopefully my growing misgivings about the candidate will be proven wrong. Jusdafax 20:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Accountability

I thoroughly agree, JusDaFax. I have to be honest, the fact that this remains a (growing) problem has disgusted me to the point that I become nauseous thinking about logging in, or in any way participating in this project. I am sickened mainly by the culture that surrounds and upholds the behaviour (see any ANI thread where lone editors have tried to address it), not by the fact that some individual might not be the best fit for WP. I wanted to leave you a note to say thank you for not being one who supports or ignores this. Hope you've got some ant-acids handy, mon ami. petrarchan47คุก 15:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have the same problem, feeling sick at heart. It's time to lance the boil. Jusdafax 16:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

GM Foods moved to Pharma

FYI, the discussion in GM Foods about IP for Pharma has been moved to the Pharma Talk page. Regards. PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that was Pharming (genetics), not Pharma. PraeceptorIP (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. And there is no way this can be considered canvassing, as I have indicated an interest and am involved. Thanks again! Jusdafax 02:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Al Hirt

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Al Hirt. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

OR ping

You have been mentioned here. prokaryotes (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

And here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Kingofaces43_reported_by_User:Prokaryotes_.28Result:_.29 prokaryotes (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I wil monitor the situation, and thank you again for your hard work on the articles in question. Jusdafax 21:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Stox

I updated 2015 stock market selloff with Monday's gloomy numbers. Perhaps you'd like to renominate? Sca (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for alerting me to the article status. I'll look into updating to the article a bit further, but my experiences at ITN last time were unpleasant, and in any case I neither nominated it for ITN nor created the article (the original title, "2015 stock market crash" was a term of the original article creator.) I believe you were the only one at ITN trying to do anything positive with the article and I thank you for that, but I feel I should not be the one to renominate it. I will add that the topic obviously is huge international news, and not having it on the ITN feature not only makes the feature look pretty silly, but speaks to the current state of ITN's dysfunction. Jusdafax 21:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really wanna renominate it either, for somewhat similar reasons. ('Twas I who changed "crash" to "selloff.")

I agree that ITN can be dysfunctional on some topics, but then the same is true, in different ways, at WP:FPC, where ignorant or unexplained comments are rife.

I posted the same 'Stox' note on the talk page of the orginal nominator, Smurrayinchester. – Sca (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Note. I have withdrawn the ANI about you, in light of Tryptofish's comment here Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:WGN-TV

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:WGN-TV. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note...

...That I have readded you as a party to the GMO case, after Jytdog remove your name and formally asked for your addition. As I told you on the talk page, once the case has been opened and the drafters have been selected, the scope of the case will be determined and the list of parties will be updated. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robertson Panel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luis Alvarez (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 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• I was in fact already aware, but thanks. Jusdafax 21:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Agnes de Mille

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Agnes de Mille. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case. The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

AGF?

I notice you didn't come out with any scathing criticsm at this comment so obviously your remark at RfA Thine Antique Pen was a deliberate hit below the belt at me, which was not a particularly good example of AGF, especially where I can't recall having trodden on your toes and generally support most of your actions. Perhaps instead you could consider using you admin influence to help rid the RfA system of regular voters who go there with dubious intent (or at least convince them to be reasonable) and those of little knowledge of our processes, and make the place more of an inviting prospect for candidates of the right calibre. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled by your comment. For one thing... My "admin influence?" I am not an admin. Jusdafax 02:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Then perhaps in fact, you should be, but you'd need to leave off shooting messengers. I remember you as once supporting the need for RfA reform - what happened? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

As you see, dozens of editors agreed with me and the other early opposers in that Rfa. And as for Rfa reform, it doesn't mean attacking all early opposers as if it were a life and death matter. Not to me, anyway. And as for running for admin myself, I don't have it under consideration at this time. Jusdafax 05:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Caitlyn Jenner

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Caitlyn Jenner. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sol Feldthouse

I could find no obituaries online, but Sol did die on Jul. 24. https://celluloidblonde.wordpress.com/tag/sol-feldthouse/ https://www.facebook.com/events/519441864875453/

Peter Mork (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• But Sol the younger, not his father who was in Kaleidoscope in the 60s? Jusdafax 05:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Stone Roses (album)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Stone Roses (album). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Wise stock investment

Rogaine. Atsme^📞📧 19:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much

Jusdafax,

Thank you, very much, for your kind words about my Quality improvement efforts to Wikipedia, and your trust.

I sincerely value greatly your comments.

They mean a great deal to me.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• My pleasure. I felt you got a raw deal four years back. Now, as you may have noticed, my name is currently included a Party in an ArbCom case, though I don't seem to have been a major player. I didn't understand what happened back then to you, and my experience currently has been awkward and mind-boggling, so I'm getting the idea of what you experienced. My best wishes, as always! Jusdafax 00:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I've asked about it at User_talk:Courcelles#Parole_or_repeal, but unfortunately, nothing has happened so far. — Cirt (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

Thank you for your kind comments about my Quality improvement efforts to Wikipedia, at my appeal request to work on Quality improvement for an article I'd previously brought to WP:GA quality, Typewriter in the Sky. You didn't have to go over there and put yourself on the line like that and comment on my behalf, but you did anyways, and I thank you for it. I'll continue to strive to better Wikipedia by engaging in the Quality improvement process, and bring articles to WP:GA and WP:FA quality. I'll work with my mentor The Rambling Man and do my best to learn from his example and guidance. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

	Sir Lance-a-lot Award
	Thank you for your efforts here, JusDaFax. I remain your biggest fan. petrarchan47คุก 22:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'm most grateful. I was just reflecting on the fact that in earlier years I wrote a fair amount of content, but lately I've become a more of a curmudgeon, waving my arms in outrage over editor and even admin actions much of the time. After this ArbCom case is resolved (sadly, not until next month at the earliest) I'd like to get back to creating and improving articles. There have been a number of startling developments during the course of this case, but the one that indeed stands out is what was termed "the boil comment" which I made to you above. It was actually cited as a reason to include me as a Party in the case, yet never mentioned again by anyone once the case was opened. Still, as a result I was forced to pay more attention than I usually do, and was able to weigh in a bit, though not as effectively as I would have liked. And still again, I appreciate the humorous intent behind the Barnstar. My amused and humble gratitude, and best wishes! Jusdafax 23:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate the good wishes, and I'm delighted to hear you're planning a return to content creation! Yeah, looking at the list of official parties reveals a curious pattern (though I'd rather not discuss the case much until it has closed). It's interesting to note that the addition of parties only served to help shed more light on the issue.

I doubt many actually enjoy the curmudgeon role, however it becomes a prerequisite to editing if one encounters... a boil. In joy, petrarchan47คุก 03:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Forte Tenors

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Forte Tenors. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeking WP:Environment members

Hi Judasfax, I have a paid COI regarding Efficient energy use, and I'm looking for editors interested in helping me improve it. I suggested some changes on the talk page a few months ago, but page activity has been rather slow since then. If you have the time, would you be up for collaborating on it?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi Jusdafax. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have taken issue on the Talk page there. Jusdafax 20:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Swill milk scandal

Have you read this article? It's amazing to me that the same issues have been in play since 1858! Read about how the politicians defended the companies responsible for killing thousands of children, and even infiltrated the scientific societies setup to protect public health and mercilessly attacked the critics who criticized the dairy companies. It looks like we haven't come very far as a society. Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• A hideous read, but thanks, I appreciate the note. I find I am constantly amazed by how little I know on numerous topics, including this one. Jusdafax 20:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help me understand...

From what I've gleaned from editors weighing in at ArbCom, there appears to be a dichotomy in that one side considers themselves pro-science because they support the industry's findings (mainstream?) that GMOs are safe, and they are considered GF editors who are doing a good job for WP but sometimes their human emotions show through which causes them to become nothing short of asshats (the devil made me do it), and then there are those editors who oppose or question the industry studies based on independent studies who believe long term affects are unknown, short term affects are questionable at best and there should be mention of that in the articles - and because of that, they are being labeled anti-mainstream science POV pushers. Do I have the gist of it? Atsme^📞📧 01:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, I think you have the gist of it exactly. But the irony is that in my case (and I suspect others), I believe I am as mainstream as a mainstream scientist can be, yet whatever I post in some areas is slapped with a POV accusation and other provocations...even when I write that glyphosate poisons frogs! And now it appears I am to receive a topic ban for edit warring after these provocations. I am beginning to wonder if my time would not be better spent elsewhere. By the way - the show you have linked to below is one of my very favourites!DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"I am beginning to wonder if my time would not be better spent elsewhere" - Dr Chrissy, I've always wondered this about you. I'm flabbergasted WP can keep someone like you around whilst kicking you at every turn. I have never felt WP deserves you. All I've seen (since we don't work on similar articles) is you at ANI being used as a punching bag by the usual suspects. I cannot imagine why a scientist (or any self respecting human) would put himself through this. petrarchan47คุก 07:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for those kind words Petra. I think to fully explain my motivation for sticking around and creating articles like Pain in amphibians, I might violate my topic ban in the eyes of some, so I will deliberately be a little vague here. I have a great sense of general fairness and presenting a balanced, evidence-based view. My main topic area of animal behaviour has taught me to be highly analytical of scientific findings, both mainstream and alternative POVs. I believe that as scientists, we are then duty-bound to present findings representing all points of view, provided these are not debunked beyond question. There are many WP articles in my own area (and others) that do not present a balanced view and I like to redress this. I also have a great sense of fairness when it comes to bullying - enough said I think.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax - I was going to post this link [13] to exemplify the diffs ArbCom is using against Petrarchan47 as well as in other areas to decide the case. 🙃 Atsme^📞📧 15:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure of anything right now. My statement, and my demand for an explanation, are being ignored, it appears, as you have noted. However, I have my email disabled, as it has been for years, and ArbCom operates on emails, it seems. The experience of being a Named Party in this case has been an education, certainly. That a diff being held against Petra originated right here on my page indicates a policy at work which I feel bears community scrutiny and discussion. Jusdafax 16:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax, if you are suggesting that you feel out of the loop because your email is not open, please don't. My email is open and has been for months, but I have not been contacted by Arbcom that way or any other private way. I share deeply your frustration with the lack of feedback we are getting. Unfortunately, I am also getting the feeling that unless this situation is not dealt with now, it will only result in a series of AN/I cases which will ultimately probably get back to ArbCom in a series of appeals!DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I will disavow the word "frustration" as a descriptor of my feelings, lest it be held against me. "Deeply concerned" is perhaps more appropriate here. I have advocated WMF top-down reforms in the past, and that, and community discussion, may be the direction this matter is headed, once the dust has settled. Jusdafax 16:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I asked if adding new diffs was acceptable procedure since that's exactly what is happening now. If it is, then the whole PD needs to be scrapped and we start over from scratch. I also questioned the newly added diffs because if our opinions during consensus gathering at the WS are going to be used against us for a TB, then I want to know. I also want to know why the aspersions cast against Petra are not being addressed by ArbCom. Instead, diffs were added to support FoF against Petra in the PD. I question if the new diffs support the claims any better than the other diffs. I think not. Why does it remind me of a detective adding evidence to a crime scene after the police taped it off? Shall we call Mark Fuhrman for advice? 👀 😀 Atsme^📞📧 06:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how you can still take any of this seriously enough to make rational suggestions. Clearly only a few are taking this seriously, and they are persons like you and I who don't matter. I'm beginning to feel embarrassed that I ever had faith in or endeavored to help better this website. I feel like a schmuck for believing the PAGs mattered. I had assumed everyone was laughing at all of this along with me, but it now appears very few see how funny this is. Oh, Jimmy, it was a nice idea, but the good ole boy's club doesn't result in an encyclopedia, now matter what your logo says. petrarchan47คุก 06:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks Atsme, for calling attention to this important point. I'm aghast... Talk about a chilling effect! So now Petra you have to shut up, or else! I feel strongly this PD is flawed and tainted, and agree that it should be tossed out. Also, there is still no attempt by ArbCom to address a number of serious questions I raise in my section. ArbCom member AKG is stonewalling my direct demand for an explanation of why I can be added to this case with virtually no involvement and subsequently zero evidence presented against me, while AKG blatantly votes questions why JzG is even considered for desysopping, effectively lobbying to clear admin JzG/Guy, yep, involved Sage Rad hounder and eventually warned and interaction banned admin JzG/Guy - on the grounds JzG is not a named party in this case, when it was AKG who, in the vote to take this case, voted to specifically exclude JzG from being named as a party! This stands out as further massive manipulation of process. It's morally wrong, if not literally a violation of the rules. I call foul. Jusdafax 07:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The whole thing is morally wrong and foul. The fact that this particular admin is being held up as beyond reproach, after the things I've seen him say and do, tells me everything I need to know about this site and its true core. As for "community discussion", yes, you can have discussions, and weigh in a NBs, but the idea that you have any meaningful voice here, if it conflicts with WP's (pro establishment?) bias, is a complete facade. petrarchan47คุก 07:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

My overall feeling is that it's a kangaroo court. I've never seen an ArbCom hearing in progress before, and i was hoping to see a reasonable and fair outcome. I know i'm a party to the case, but i seriously think there's an extreme bias in the outcome, with one editor (Jytdog) being "thrown to the dogs" as an appearance of doing something against the industry aligned people, while there's nearly uniform voting in regard to topic banning several who would be considered industry skeptics, i.e. those who keep a check on what seems to be industry promoters. I appreciate your expressions of reaction. I think it's important not be be silenced by the threat of blocking, and to remember that in the end, we're not going to jail, but rather only being denied the ability to help with an online encyclopedia. I had thought (wanted to believe) that Wikipedia was one place in this world where reason and evidence would usually win the day. I have pushed for integrity, not for a point of view. I have a point of view, and that's actually a good thing, but it seems that having a point of view at all is also a thoughtcrime here, if and only if that point of view doesn't line up with what appears to be a hidden core of industry supporting requirement. I don't think i'm being paranoid when i say that Wikipedia isn't what i thought it was. It's not easy to discuss with people who hold differing passionate views, but i've seen it happen here. I've been part of it. However, the superstructure seems not to be strongly enough on the side of principles, but able and maybe even willing to be gamed. Much appreciation to you both and to anyone who stands up and speaks rationally and observes what they see. There just seems to be so much "one hand washing the other" and favoritism of ideological allies, and demonization of ideological enemies going on. In other words, polarization. I've been often willing to take positions that are against what others perceive as my "POV" or better to say "agenda" as that's how they characterize it, and to stand up for what the evidence, sources, and guidelines say. I wish Wikipedia would defend its own principles evenly, and with integrity. What i've seen to be allowed to continue is disturbing, and the sort of biased witch hunt of a trial is equally disturbing. SageRad (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, Jytdog is not being site banned. To me, that is synonymous with saying "Petra, you have no business being on Wikipedia." If the bar is so low that someone can not only spin doctor dozens of articles, but treat people like crap all the while, and still be welcomed to edit, then my suspicions were correct and I am satisfied to know for sure that our standards are too dissimilar to continue a relationship. petrarchan47คุก 07:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Re-reading the dialogue in this section, and everywhere, it's plain to see that there is a significant group of people who sees a dynamic of pushing by editors of one point of view that has gone beyond even pushing content into articles, to affect the very jurisprudence of Wikipedia itself. I would call that a serious issue that merits serious discussion. I just don't know where this serious discussion can be had within Wikipedia in a fair way, with integrity of dialogue and judgment. I wouldn't care, except that Wikipedia is a general arbiter of what is accepted as knowledge by humankind, and therefore occupation by one point of view is a serious distortion of the knowledge base of the human species, and can affect history going forward. People deserve to read unbiased articles about the world. The articles should be the outcome of fairly refereed discussions about evidence and sourcing. It should not be subject to power plays. SageRad (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

My last comment at the PD talk page was "ArbCom was my one last hope". That was it, Sage. I've been trying to take this information to them for 3 years, and this was it.

"Wikipedia, um, it's possible you have a Monsanto problem"

"What?! How dare you!"

This was the highest court in the land, where the serious discussion you seek is supposed to take place, and this was the extent of it. petrarchan47คุก 07:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's clearly a dichotomy among scientists. Mainstream (industry) claims one thing as would be expected, and mainstream (independent) claims the other's test results are not reliable. Both views belong in WP in a manner that complies with NPOV. I don't quite understand why there is even an issue. It's not up to WP to make a final decision in WP voice as to which view is right or wrong. Atsme^📞📧 14:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-says-website-has-been-taken-over-by-trolls-a6732171.html ? petrarchan47คุก 00:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Just saw this added in. Thought you all and Wuerzele Would be interested. SageRad (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• As amendments go, this makes the PD worse, not better. No addition of Kingofaces, which is needed in all justice, and instead his suggestions to add Wuerzele are heeded, which continues the tit-for-tat pattern of intimidation of those asking hard questions. Sill no option to site ban the chief offender Jytdog. The given explanation re: JzG/Guy, one of the most patently abusive admins in my experience, is inadequate in the extreme. I have the distinct impression if not for my repeated demands for clarity, it would be even worse. Still no reply re: why JzG's non-addition as a party is actually used as a rationale for excusing him from sanctions when Arbitrators openly and repeatedly refused to do so in the first place, despite his obvious malfeasance and subsequent convenient disappearing act. Questions can be asked at the current ArbCom elections, and there are other ways to seek accountability in this process, and to have a broad community discussion regarding the glaring inequities on display here. This overall matter has been a cancer on Wikipedia for years, it has now reached Stage 4. Jusdafax 13:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Responded on my talk. I will say the assertion that everything is an all caps Big Monsanto Conspiracy doesn't help your argument. Let's assume there is a giant monsanto conspiracy. This would be truly terrible, but we are not here to right great wrongs. I tried to look at the case through a conduct point of view. Jytdog exhibited remarkably poor conduct in the area, as did many other editors. I see nothing to indicate he could not be constructive elsewhere. Likewise, I saw no editor I thought could be productive nowhere. Furthermore the assertion that everyone who disagrees on sourcing is a shill is remarkably harmful. I'm concerned about the invocation of WP:FRINGE when it comes to other editors, but for the most part those in the 'other camp' limited such characterizations to sources, which were then debated or brought to RSN etc. This is what I have seen in the evidence. I'm not sure whether this source characterization should be happening, but on the other hand the conduct not content that I can see and deal with largely revolves around the wholesale characterization of those who disagree as paid shills or part of some sort of conspiracy, which to me is clearly not productive. NativeForeigner ^Talk 14:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It is unclear if you mean that I am making the assertion in your first sentence, or you are referring to others. I do not believe I have ever asserted such. Still no answer regarding the non-inclusion of Administrator JzG, aside from the mild excuse that it was an oversight, with is very difficult to accept given the number of times I requested his inclusion, his high-profile interaction ban and direct warning, all documented carefully on your Talk page, and his unexplained vanishing act. Even Jytdog had made the excuse of a new job. JzG was acting as an intimidating enforcer, and got away with it until I put my foot down after I was included in this case out-of-process by, yep, Jytdog. This matter now looks really ugly, and a number of onlookers have already agreed that something is wrong. ArbCom members cannot, and will not, be permitted to excuse abusive Administrators from being included in a case and then use their non-inclusion as a rationale to allow them to get off the hook. Jusdafax 14:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• I am personally not saying there is a "Big M Monsanto" conspiracy. I am personally looking for application of policy and guidelines fairly and without bias. That in itself would be enough to enforce editing based in civil discourse, rationality, integrity of dialogue, and reliance on sources evaluated evenly.

• Looking without bias, is it really possible to say that i, for instance, had behavior on par with Jytdog? Or was it moreso that as a new editor, i came into conflict with Jytdog, KofA, Pete/Skyring and a few others who continued to bend dialogue, such as constant use of strawman, changing of subject, lack of follow-up, and general lack of integrity, and at some points i became inevitably frustrated with the huge level of bullshit, where i was expecting to find rationale discourse? I say this in all seriousness.

• I've seen and tried to ameliorate behaviors of Wuerzele's, for instance here where i gently try to get them to not make comments on supposed motivations of other editors when not necessary. This sort of thing is learnable, and Wuerzele has done a lot of good work, as well. I think it would be a loss to see them topic banned, as i think it's a loss to the encyclopedia that i may be topic-banned as well. I wish that i could work on the 2,4-D article to help untangle that conflict. There, both Wuerzele and RockyMtnGuy need to slow down, back off, and need help untangling the conflict. I could do that if i weren't under topic ban regarding agrochemicals. You can see my work there already, helping to boil conflicts down to principles, and gently trying to get both Wuerzele and RockyMtnGuy to edit not from ideology or assertions of pushing, but from sourcing and guidelines.

• I'm not satisfied that topic banning Jytdog is enough to reign in the industry-aligned people in regard to their abuses of integrity of the encyclopedia. For one thing, Jytdog has already stopped editing, it seems, and for another, it seems symbolic, sort of a sacrificial lamb on the industry-aligned side. There's been horrible behavior by many but only this one emblematic editor who's already seemed to stop editing anyway, gets topic banned? And i think Jytdog could possible learn, as well, if willing, to work with others. On the other hand, several other industry-aligned editors with really bad behavior continue to edit, and people like myself and a few others who are industry skeptics, are topic-banned. It's so extremely lopsided that it feels like there was a perceived need to "solve a problem" and it was done.

• I'd like to point out work like this that i've done, for the good of the article, not pushing a point of view.

• There is so much to this discussion, and to really see what is what, you need to get into the weeds, follow individual discussions, and this takes a lot of time. In the end, i'm not satisfied that the ArbCom decision was based on careful investigation and even application of guidelines. I know it's a lot of work and arbitrators are unpaid people who have other things to do. I'd rather see it take longer than to be done in an arbitrary way, though. I just wish people could work together. Integrity of dialogue has always been my pet peeve. If we could really talk with integrity, then we could work out nearly all conflicts in a civil way. SageRad (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• SageRad, per Native Foreigner's statement, we need to present solid diffs regarding KingofAces on the active GMO case Talk page. Please grab a couple of your strongest ones. I agree that you appear to continue to be treated with astonishing unfairness, but this is the current focus. Jusdafax 15:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not a litigious person, and i wish that we could resolve issues when they come up. I would like to see topic bans relaxed, not try to get people from the "other side" topic banned. That said, i will trust your judgment and perhaps help out a bit. This looking backward is informative about my own behavior as well as others.

I guess i might point out a basic obstinacy such as shown in this dialogue in the glyphosate article, after i removed a sentence from the article that just seemed out of place, for flow reasons. I was not pushing any point of view. The content was pretty neutral, it was just out of place and extraneous. You can see in this short dialogue a sort of obstinacy on Kingofaces43's part, refusing to respond to my questions, using condescending tones toward me, and not hearing the actual question i was asking: is this content good for the reader, in the article?

On the Norman Borlaug article, Kingofaces43 had this tussle with me, in which he told me to "please refrain from WP:ASPERSIONS, especially since your behavior is being discussed at ArbCom" when i did not cast any aspersions. He also removed an old "citation needed" tag which in that context seemed contentious and pushy, without noting it. I brought that up in the talk page too. When i asked "What aspersions do you refer to? Please be specific." he didn't respond. Then he posted the issue on the RD noticeboard in which he misrepresented the conflict. I had to correct the misrepresentation. Through an IP user's participation, we seemed to figure it out. Kingofaces43 finally acceded that the edit made sense, but it just took so much angst to get there and there was unnecessary contention.

It's this sort of thing -- unnecessary contention, not responding to dialogue in a whole and honest way -- that are subtle and yet really get in the way of good editing. It's hard to really see, but it feels like obstruction of solid editing. I'm in it for the articles to be right and the article contained a falsehood that i was trying to correct -- the false story of a more widespread famine than actually existed (at Norman Borlaug) -- and therefore i was actually trying to remove a POV bending of facts that was already in the article. I got that level of contention and obstruction from Kingofaces43. It worked out in the end, but why should it take hours of back and forth to get the article right. It felt like Kingofaces43 just assumed that i was pushing a POV in both of these instances, whereas i was seriously trying to improve the articles.

I'm not perfect. People could point out similar instances where i was in the wrong. What i would like to see is more forgiveness, more honesty, more acknowledging that everyone makes mistakes, and a learning process whereby all editors could get more aligned with the real purpose here -- representing reality through good sourcing and good dialogue. SageRad (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting, and heartfelt, but since ArbCom member Native Foreigner earlier used a statement by Petrachan47, here on my talk page, against her in the PD, I strongly suggest you concentrate and come up with specific diffs... Not whole sections, but diffs and put them on your section in the current Talk page of the GMO case page. We are told by Native Foreigner that late evidence is acceptable. Jusdafax 16:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, there are diffs available there to be had. It's hard to boil things down to diffs. It's not like the problems are that someone uses "bad language" or swears. It's more subtle, it's an obstructionism and a pushing that is very subtle. It takes real concern, and time, and thought, to look at a single episode and see what really went down.

Ironically, i feel like i'm being topic-banned because of a few instances where Jytdog really got my goat and i used a little bit of angry language. Is that really the best ArbCom can do? Doesn't a conception of justice in regard to article writing really need to look at the deeper underlying issues? Isn't it reasonable that i'd get frustrated with obstructionism and occasionally let off a little steam, and not be a problem editor for that? Maybe even a better editor because it shows i care about integrity. SageRad (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The Norman Borlaug article is quite notable, i think, because his biography is a locus where the industry has invested a whole lot of effort to push a particular story. That is why it's notable that Kingofaces43 had this particular tussle with me trying to simply get the article to follow the source... and to reflect reality. It went against the industry's preferred narrative regarding Borlaug. SageRad (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Nevertheless. Diffs. Jusdafax 16:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

awesome,jusdafax, thanks! and you sageRad welcome to the language of WP. you are ....i am at a loss of words... unbelievable... the walls of words which only retired or unemployed or paid editors have the leisure to read, the blowing of your own horn (your work) - this isnt a confession booth, man- and you, the pot calling me, the kettle black, your attempts at "gently ameliorating my behavior"! LOL! And before I forget it: I found it highly inopportune to attempt to educate semitransgenic on the arbcom page for his comment while at the same time saying nothing to jytdog's pile of s...t ! you are not scoring any points here, sorry to say, and you know well I have sympathies for you - and for all to know, that this is no ad hominem attack or whatever wikiproject medicine calls this.

Last not least: FYI the fricking arbcom decision talk page is no discussion page, SageRad, though you certainly treated it as such, so your education attempts were not only contentwise but also formally completely out of line.--Wuerzele (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It is what it is, Wuerzele. There are important points to be made, but we can do so in a civil way. The ArbCom page is a good a place as any. It's a ditch attempt at reason and sense ruling the day. Showing that you can be against the cabal of pseudoskeptics and seem the most sane person there, concerned about the encyclopedia and not out to demonize any individual is the best one can do. I honestly thought Semitransgenic's rant was out of place and would like to hear their thoughts in more collected language so it's taken seriously. I'm calling the whole damn trial a sham. That doesn't mean that I or you or anyone is perfect. Call me out, too, Wuerzele, on my mistakes of content or manner. Please do. But don't tell me not to speak in my turn whatever I need to say. Join me, don't fire at me. SageRad (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

A call to action

NOTE: I have the following reply from Native Foreigner. It basically gives a go-ahead to re-present diffs regarding Kingofaces. I will ping all parties involved. Jusdafax 14:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• In terms of Kingofaces, if someone can actually present evidence which shows policy violations, and not waving of hands "We don't like these edits", I'll propose a remedy to match. There is relatively little evidence submitted against him that doesn't rely on there being some sort of cabal, for which little evidence is presented. I suppose we could add JzG at this point in the case, I'm not necessarily opposed to that. It was an oversight. I thought Guerillero had (an error on my part, undoubtedly). I could present a siteban for Jytdog, but I wouldn't be in support and it almost certainly wouldn't pass. Also, Guerillero had included Wuerzele in his rough draft at a PD. Going back through evidence I agreed with him that there was adequate evidence. I'd also note that I spent several hours earlier today going through literally all of the diffs presented against Kingofaces. I saw the concern, hence went back through to make sure I wasn't making a grave error. My conclusion was that there is very little good evidence against him, as I stated previously. Perhaps @Guerillero: has an opinion on this, but I do not believe he saw the evidence for a sanction against Kingsofaces either. Even at this late stage you're more than welcome to outline which specific evidence you find damning and why. NativeForeigner ^Talk 14:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Just to clarify, on PD talk only, no threaded conversation, in section. I've limited diffs I've looked at to stuff in the Evidence or workshop phase for the purposes of presenting evidence on other parties. I'd appreciate if my attention could be drawn to anything I have missed. (I've literally read through all the diffs, so do more explaining of why these diffs are harmful than necessarily that they exist). Do not cast aspersions, and try to get it all done ASAP. I have read all of the comments on the PD talk, for those who are curious. NativeForeigner ^Talk 14:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th's FOFs had the following "(Examples of SQS/edit warring:[14], [15], [16] (3RR series);Removal of large chunk of sourced content and edit warring - it looks like KOA simply opposes any edit made by DrChrissy: [17], [18], [19]; revert history on Glyphosate: [20]; creates a POV FAQ and adds it to 6 GMO article talk pages, ignores discussion about NPOV, see discussion in this section [21]; removes picture of Justice Kagan from GJP's GA-nominated article to further Jytdog's dispute: [22], see talk discussion here)"

Please note the accusations of edit warring do not rely on an arguement that there is a cabal. Please also note that it appears I am about to receive a substantial topic ban...for edit warring.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Noted, but we have to present this on the GMO case Talk page, per Native Foreigner's statement above. Jusdafax 15:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I have included it in my section on the Talk page.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, we have:

Involved parties

• Looie496 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yobol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Prokaryotes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GregJackP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DrChrissy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AlbinoFerret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Minor4th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SageRad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wuerzele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jusdafax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jusdafax 14:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Pings: @Looie496:, @Tryptofish:, @Jytdog:, @Yobol:, @Prokaryotes:, @GregJackP:, @Petrarchan47:, @Kingofaces43:, @DrChrissy:, @AlbinoFerret:, Minor4th (talk · contribs), @Atsme:, @SageRad:, @David Tornheim:, @Wuerzele:, @Robert McClenon: Jusdafax 15:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this list and all the pings? Looie496 (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The section above explains the sequence pretty well, I believe. Jusdafax 15:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of reading all that. If there is anything I should respond to, I hope somebody will point me to it. Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That the primary filing party of an ArbCom case can't be troubled to read a few pages of current material is of interest. Jusdafax 18:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax, thank you for pinging me. And I assure you that I have been doing my best to read all of the material in the case, as best as I can, even if the Arbitrators appear incapable of doing so (or even reading their own Guide to Arbitration, for that matter). If anyone has any questions for me, my user talk page is always open (except for two editors who are banned, and will remain so). I'd prefer, however, not to relitigate the ArbCom case here on your talk page, but I will watchlist and follow. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You should also ping SlimVirgin, whom I suspect is aware that arbcom has broken down. The problem as described up above is pretty simple. Arbcom is voting on a case where they have failed to review the evidence. That's pretty serious, no matter what side you are on. SlimVirgin, in another forum, has pointed to the possibility of a mistrial occurring in a case that does not resolve within a satisfactory time period and in a case where arbs can't review the evidence in an appropriate manner. Based on these facts, I recommend taking a very drastic step. I propose that all of the above parties work together to petition the community to change how arbcom functions, and do so now using the momentum of this case for initiative. I suggest that SlimVirgin should help lead this effort because she has expressed an organized way of thinking about arbcom reform that I have not seen anywhere else. But it's time to act. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, given that this isn't a court of law, and given the general concept of so-fix-it, my preference would not be to demand that everything be thrown out, but rather to try to correct everything that has been botched so far. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not both? Please review SV's preliminary proposal here. There is momentum for change, and timing is everything. Viriditas (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• (multiple edit conflicts) Tryptofish, we may have disagreed pretty sharply at the start, but we appear to be a bit closer now. There may be some further developments before its done. As you note, there are still major irregularities to hash out. Seems we both feel that issues remain to be explained by ArbCom members. I thought NYB had an interesting comment on your situation. Viriditas, noted, and thanks. Fascinating and progressive proposals! The situation is indeed quite fluid today. Jusdafax 20:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I like Viritidas' suggestion and I would be willing to join forces with other involved parties to bring about ArbCom reform. Minor4th 22:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I support the idea expressed here:

Arbcom is voting on a case where they have failed to review the evidence. That's pretty serious, no matter what side you are on. Slim Virgin, in another forum, has pointed to the possibility of a mistrial occurring in a case that does not resolve within a satisfactory time period and in a case where arbs can't review the evidence in an appropriate manner.

With regard to the present case, given what is unfolding, this is the best idea I've heard. I would support serious moves to start over from scratch (perhaps with a few weeks break for everyone before beginning again). petrarchan47คุก 05:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I'm sure there's a procedure to petition the arbcom to "reset" the case. I think I recall seeing it happen before in various forms. I think you would have to get Tryptofish on board, however, and he's pretty committed to going forward so that could be a problem (and he's stubborn as a mule, kidding dude, kidding). On the other hand, I think Atsme and DrChrissy are knowledgable about arbcom procedures so maybe they could twist Tryptofish's fins and work together on this. Also, I hope everyone comments on the Village Pump discussion and helps SV get the ball rolling. I want to see more women working on these issues and it looks like we've got several in this thread alone. Men are great at destroying stuff and tearing shit apart, but women have insight into creating things and reforming institutions that men often have trouble seeing because we are too focused on a task. I really think women should lead the effort to reform Wikipedia and help turn it into a place they can be proud of and safe enough to feel at home. Let's invoke the spirit of Sophia. Just don't mess with my mancave. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas, I'm afraid you have it completely wrong regarding my knowledge of Arbcom procedures. This is the very first time I have been involved in a case, and I feel like I am in a complete vacuum as to understanding this process. Regarding reseting the case, I would say for the vast majority of those named in the PD, this would be beneficial. In my own case, however, I feel it would not. The singularly different way in which my proposed FoFs were presented has, I believe, poisoned the well. Having said this, if it were reset, it would mean that my present topic ban (which I will appeal at AN/I on November 20th) may not need its own section in this case (if it should be there in the first place). As for twisting Trypto's fins, I suspect he is more of a Lateral line organism. ;-) DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I got Viriditas' ping, thanks. (And no problem about the latest zoological comparison. At this point, I have become a one-editor zoo.) I will follow those discussions, but I'll tell you right now that I am unlikely to support them. As I see it, there are two kinds of possible approaches. One is to tear the house down and construct a new one. It's a legitimate choice, but it's not what I feel like at this time. The alternative is to, instead, eradicate the cockroaches (another zoological) without demolishing the house – and that's my chosen path. Now folks, I cringe when I say what I'm about to say, and I feel bad about saying this to some of my friends. But. The section below, with a blocked user's comments about swinging anatomy, and the gleeful mockery that accompanies it, is a bad idea. ArbCom has rules about conduct during cases, and another editor has already drawn attention to it on the PD talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's leave sexism out of it. Women can be great at destroying things too, dude ;) petrarchan47คุก 06:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not sexism at all. If you study the major problems in the world, you will realize that women are the key to solving them. The education of women, as an example, can lead to the reduction of population pressures, which is responsible for many problems, including terrorism. In fact, the education and improvement of social conditions for women is the leading indicator for preventing terrorism and for improving the environment. That's only a few examples, but if you do the research, you will learn that women are the key. Viriditas (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Oddly enough, it's true that nearly all pseudoskeptics are male:

There are some members of the skeptics' groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion...I have to say it—most of these people are men. Indeed, I have not met a single woman of this type.

SageRad (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a mistrial. My first experience ever with this sort of process, and it's totally secretive and unaccountable. Where is the reasoning? Where is the transparency? Non-existant. I declare it bankrupt, personally. SageRad (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jusdafax: See this post and the discussion following it re: mistrial. [23] Minor4th 22:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

What's going on?

Here's my best analysis of what's gone on. There seems to be a group of people who have taken their brand of skepticism to a level (which i would call pseudoskepticism and essentially have waged a war on Wikipedia for that. I think this is the nature of much of the battleground mentality here. By stating this, i am not engaging in the battleground mentality, but trying to call it out, to name it, to expose it for what it is. That's a valid position, but one that people easily mistake as me being in the battleground mentality.

Pseudoskepticism is a form of dogmatism that silences real skepticism, and that's part of the dynamic that seems to have been going on.

There are many valid points about sourcing and due weight, and such things. We can't write entire articles based on primary sources. Wikipedia is not a coatrack or a soapbox. We must be civil in dialogue. I've not been a saint. Nobody has. But i'm really WP:HERE and not pushing a point of view. The only thing i am pushing is integrity. That's when i push back, when anyone violates basic guidelines of integrity.

I know a few of you think i'm speechifying, and don't like it when i disagree with behaviors of anyone, whatever side they're on, but i think that is important. To stand for integrity, whoever it is. Even Kingofaces43 has done many good things on Wikipedia. Even Jytdog, if you can believe it, has done good work. But the ratio of Jytdog's bad actions and incivility to his good actions is just way too bad for him to remain an editor without serious personal reform. However, i think everyone else can learn to work better, if willing.

But in the meantime, we have to recognize why this place has become a battlefield. There has been pushing by "anti-GMO" people and there has been pushing by "industry aligned" people. Pushing is not ok. However, i see the pushing by the industry aligned people as generally having more support within Wikipedia due to having gained a foothold on the power structure of Wikipedia. WikiProject Skepticism seems to have conflated with the agrochemical and biotech industry to impose a falsely tight notion of scientific consensus, and to engage in a battle against other points of view in related articles.

There is a clash of worldviews here in Wikipedia. The behavior issues are small in comparison. The better we can act toward each other, the better we'll be here. I understand feelings of anger. I have them myself. Let's show what's going on. That is not to engage in battleground behavior, but to show how and why Wikipedia has become a battleground in some topic areas, and why this is not beneficial to Wikipedia as a source of knowledge for the human species.

End speech. SageRad (talk) 12:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been following this from afar, mainly because editors I hold in high esteem (among them Jusdafax and Petra) have been involved in various ways. Personally I'm not sold on the whole anti-GMO line, but on the other hand I'm not an expert and, as a reader, I want to see all points of view fairly presented. You can't have that when editors are behaving as I've seen in that subject area. I think it's fair to say that the skeptical editors sometimes go too far, and this is what we see in this subject area. As for arbcom, it bothers me how it has handled this case, in bringing in people who weren't named as parties, in bringing in Jusdafax because one party wanted it. Arbcom needs to be more sparing in bringing in relevant parties, and excluding irrelevant ones, lest they waste time for people unnecessarily as they did for Jusdafax. Coretheapple (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to be sold on any "anti-GMO" line to want to see actual integrity and justice. I'm for integrity and following the guidelines, and yet i'm being nailed to the wall because i push for integrity, and for representing sources correctly, and following discussions to their logical ends, to work out what the actual conflict may be and then decide on content based on principles. There is not even a semblance of justice here. There is no integrity in the decisions. The "arbitrators" are lining up and voting on party lines. This is a pogrom or a kangaroo court, plain and simple. I say we all vote no confidence. SageRad (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I came to say essentially the same thing to Core, this truly isn't about "anti-GMO". It is unsurprising, however, that this meme continues to live, regardless of the fact that no evidence has been presented to support the claim, because it is repeated often, loudly, and from on high, by tenured untouchables. But the cold hard facts are that the GM foods article has been the host of a fabricated claim (that 'the science is settled on GMO safety'), a claim that twisted the words of the WHO, a claim that was called out as misrepresenting science (in a paper dismissed by WP admins as fringe); there is a complete and utter lack of NPOV in this suite after years of disallowing any dissenting view. All that I have tried to add to the GM foods page (but was reverted by the KingDog team) are two things: the percentage of Americans in favor on GMO labels, and the fact that the USDA started a GMO labeling program. Does this make me anti-GMO? I'm seen that way.

If you have a few moments, read/watch these (in order of importance):

• http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PDF/Illusory%20Consensus%20GMOs.PDF
• http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2014/10/31/the_gmo_deception_sheldon_krimsky_on
• http://now.tufts.edu/articles/questioning-gmos
• http://patch.com/new-jersey/montclair/scientist-challenges-monsanto-10-million-if-you-can-prove-me-wrong-0

This isn't to be seen as anti-GMO, but to give those who haven't been studying both sides of this issue an idea of how wildly biased and inaccurate our GMO articles have become. Though I don't expect RS to have any impact in this case, as WP has taken a position: It's the Guerrilla Skeptics' world, we're all just living in it. petrarchan47คุก 20:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Viriditas speaks to this bias here in a comment worth reading. petrarchan47คุก 08:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not even particularly anti-GMO. I've never read or seen any of those links above. I'm generally a skeptic of the science that says that any particular trait is surely safe because of the track record of the industry, but i'm not inherently anti-GMO. I'm concerned that articles must contain a balance of points of view. One of my interests has been the chemical industry, seeing as rivers near my place of birth were polluted by industries through the centuries, and so it's been an interest of mine through the years. SageRad (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, just saw this. Yes, your points re "anti-GMO" are well taken. Coretheapple (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's an update on the $10 million "Monsanto challenge" by the inventor of email. petrarchan47คุก 20:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I am simply seeking integrity, both in terms of content and process. Integrity of representation of sources, integrity in terms of balance in selection of sources, integrity in representation of reality in the articles, and integrity in the processes by which we work out the end result. Unbiased application of principles and guidelines would result in good articles. Abusiveness in dialogue and gaming of the system result in bad articles with POV content pushed into them. I've called out people many times who were adding something that, if i were just interested in making the chemical industry look bad, i would have said nothing about. I think it's important to admit when i'm wrong, and to admit and point out when someone on my supposed "team" or "side" seems wrong to me. I want the articles to represent reality as best we can achieve. People can then work from there. If there are issues with specific chemicals or specific GMO traits, then let's include that in the articles. This is a public service, not a PR tool for the industry. Similarly, it's not a PR tool for anti-GMO activists to push unreliable content or rhetoric into the articles. I must be stupid, but i believe that people of various perspectives can work together. However, 95% of what i've seen in Wikipedia shows me how far we are from that place. SageRad (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I am sharing 'the other side' with Core in a way that I believe can swiftly bring him up to date on the issue with regard to substantial equivalence, Codex Alimentarius, etc. There is a lot of information in the short clip, and since he's pretty busy, I thought he'd appreciate the brevity. A person can look at these few links, and then view any of the articles in the GMO suite with a better understanding in order to gauge their neutrality. My interest has only been neutrality, and adhering to PAGs. I reject use of the term "anti-GMO" if referring to me, vehemently (this is a general statement, Sage, not directed at you). Editors should be able to engage in any topic without fear of being automatically subjected to harmful rhetoric and derogatory labels (like the various forms of "advocate") based on evidence-free assumptions.

Ideally there should be no information when building an encyclopedia that, if well-sourced, an editor should feel ashamed to add or discuss. I'm afraid that the rhetoric surrounding the GMO issue in particular has a silencing effect on anyone interested in adding, or even discussing, 'the other side'. In case you're one of the many who've been told RT is not WP:RS, is "fringe", or in this case, would be unreliable for the words of the scientist, you've been lied to. I've read all of the archives at the RS noticeboard pertaining to this source. petrarchan47คุก 22:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Stade de France evacuation picture

Can we get an image like this one? -- Dandv 02:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• It has to be uploaded properly to Commons. I'll look but it's pretty early. More likely in the next couple days. Jusdafax 02:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Copy and paste of Semitransgenic's reply to Jytog's GMO ArbCom statement

dude, seriously? you think it's acceptable to roll in here, after the fact, and start swinging your dick? wtf were you doing when it was an appropriate time for you to defend yourself? sfa. You have utterly invalidated your position by scurrying under a rock, only to return when you think it's safe to crawl out. Disgusting, cowardly display. Semitransgenic _talk. 21:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Semitransgenic. My heartiest laugh of the case! Jusdafax 21:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I laughed out loud as well :) Minor4th 22:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"swinging your dick" is my new favourite phrase. petrarchan47คุก 02:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

...what is sfa though? Sounds serious. Jusdafax 02:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

sfa = "sweet fuck all". YW. petrarchan47คุก 03:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Damn. I've gotta get out more. Thanks. Jusdafax 03:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

www . urban dictionary ;) petrarchan47คุก 03:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I did too! --David Tornheim (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

if it only was 'swinging his dick'- to me it looked more like his nose getting brown....--Wuerzele (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A deletion discussion you may be interested in

An RfC you were recently involved in (RfC: Filmography navboxes) is being discussed in a Templates for Deletion discussion (TfD Template:Anthony Marinelli). Please excuse this unsolicited contact, and avoiding WP:CANVAS, all of those involved in the RfC discussion (for, against and comment) are being notified.

• User:SNUGGUMS Closing editor
• User:Robsinden Proposing editor
• User:TonyTheTiger
• User:Betty Logan
• User:MarnetteD
• User:Lady Lotus
• User:NinjaRobotPirate
• User:Lugnuts
• User:TonyTheTiger
• User:BattleshipMan
• User:Dimadick
• User:Rlendog
• User:Frietjes
• User:Debresser
• User:Wikipedical
• User:Jusdafax
• User:Mamyles

Again, I apologize for the intrusion -- seeking clarification. Cheers! -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 08:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for integrity

Hey, I just want to say it's been great editing with you. I appreciate that you have integrity and really stand up for others in dialogues. You look to see who is right and don't usually just react to superficial things. I hope I'll still get to edit in areas where you're active even though it currently looks like I'll be banned from the agrochemical and GMO topics which had been a part of my main interests and I still really don't see how that could have happened in a fair world so I guess even here the world is not fair. Anyway, I appreciate you for standing up for me when you have done so in cases where others were being abusive or misleading. SageRad (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, and back atcha. It's clear to me why you were targeted, and it wasn't the mistakes you made at the start of your editing. No, you are simply brilliant. There's a chance this case may be started over or be tossed out, and if not, and if you are actually topic-banned (which I find utterly shocking) I encourage to appeal to the next version of ArbCom, which per the current election is likely to have a different view. Wikipedia needs you badly, and I encourage you to edit elsewhere, hang in here, and persevere. I'm sure we will continue to communicate here, on your page, and on Talk pages. Blessings! Jusdafax 20:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax for ARBCOM! Minor4th 00:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

+1,000 petrarchan47คุก 00:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

..... Hahahah, nah. Being named a Party gave me a real jolt, as far as realizing how little I know, not only about how ArbCom works, but how Wikipedia works. This case featured numerous twists I wasn't expecting, today's block of Jyrdog being the latest. In brief, I have a lot to digest here. But thanks for your nice thoughts! Jusdafax 04:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

JusDaFax, I'm sure you'd catch on fast. On a related note, and I may be way off track here, but didn't you have a proposal once suggesting paid positions for ArbCom, or something like that? (See my comments at SarahSV's) If so, I think we may have similar ideas. petrarchan47คุก 08:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably putting this in the wrong place, but... Jusdafax, I just saw your question to the admin who blocked Jytdog. I have the misfortune of knowing exactly what the block was about, and it definitely had nothing to do with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Noted, and thanks! Jusdafax 12:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Killing of Cecil the lion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Killing of Cecil the lion. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow

Curious about your reaction to this comment from an Arb in response to a question of accountability: [24] Minor4th 22:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax, I came here independently after seeing the same thing. I am supposedly on the other "side" of that case, but what I saw there made me feel ashamed to be a Wikipedian. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me, as I had not noticed. Yeah, I'm now being called names by ArbCom member AGK who adamantly refuses my demands that he answer questions regarding his, AGK's, previous statement, at the very start of this case in the votes to accept it, regarding Admin JzG/Guy being specifically exempted from being included as a Party. I and SageRad repeatedly requested JzG be made a Named Party to the case, especially if I was going to be included as a Party by Jytdog within minutes after I posted my statement.

I continue to profess that JzG used his Admin powers to block, and subsequently harass SageRad on SR's Talk page and even directly on the ArbCom case Talk page, causing me to squawk in protest. This act may or may not have wound up finally resulting in JzG's being handed an Arb warning and interaction ban regarding SageRad. Whereupon JzG blanked his own Talk page warnings and stopped editing cold. Since Jytdog also stopped editing, citing real-life pressures, and has since been blocked for unmentionable other matters, I find that the withdrawal of these two editors from the discussion, and the Arb reaction that you two reference, leaves me with reduced options to get answers.

As Trypto notes, you two are supposed to be at opposite poles in this Case, yet have come here to discuss the Arb non-comment and ask my reaction to the refusal and insult. It floors me, actually, and leaves me with a sense of having been chilled. This is a serious matter, and I welcome further comment from you two, and any other lurkers. Thanks again to you both, Jusdafax 12:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

If you had gotten the email that I got a few days ago from another Arb, you would feel not only chilled, but refrigerated. It's bad, and the worst that I have seen in a very long time. What is particularly bad about your situation is that the same Arb who said that to you is the one who summarily opposed adding the administrator as a party, when parties could have been added. However, on the positive side, the Arb who sent me that email and the Arb who said that to you are both stepping down at the end of this year, not seeking reelection. So a significant part of what one might do next is to wait until after the election and after the new Committee is formed. There is a procedure for requesting that a decision be amended, and that could include a request that someone who was not admitted as a party be examined now. That approach could be an option after the new year. (I've even made recommendations about which Arb candidates to vote for and against, linked from my talk page, and I hope everyone votes, whether you agree with me or not.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax - just wanted to add to your statement that I also made a "formal" request on Guerillero's talk page to add JzG as a party. It was at the beginning of the case. Guerillero hatted off the section of his talk page with a closing note that he was looking into it. Then we heard no more, despite several follow up inquiries. Minor4th 18:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

^{(talk page stalker)} Yep, a few others did, too. Well...following is what I've gleaned per Euryalus, [25]. The arbs apparently don't see anything unfair about making an uninvolved editor a party to the case. They choose who they want to include and there's nothing anyone can do about it. That sends a message that speaks loudly to double standards and favoritism. It also indicates that WP has no system of checks and balances. Going back a few weeks in time, you formally requested that other editors be added, [26], and further stated: I also formally protest my inclusion in the case as patent retaliation by User:Jytdog. Note that I had not once been mentioned prior to my statement, and Jytdog's addition of me came within minutes of said statement. If allowed to stand, my inclusion sets a precedent that effectively creates a "chilling effect" - speak up, and you become a target forced to spend time as a party to a case. I submit this is gaming the system. If there is a more appropriate place to file these motions, please let me know. Thanks. Jusdafax 4:46 pm, 28 September 2015, Monday (1 month, 25 days ago) (UTC−5). A drafting arb responded to your formal request nearly a week later, [27]: I didn't see this until I was pinged. This page is low traffic so I don't check it very often. I have already said that I am not going to remove anyone as a party and I am not going to make an exemption. Being a party does not mean that you will be sanctioned. As for adding parties, we are already discussing JzG and I will consider Skydog. --Guerillero . Try to find peace knowing that It will all soon be over and we now have a chance to vote for new arbs. It probably won't change anything. Unfortunately, it probably won't change the way WP operates. To do that we need arbs like you, Jusdafax. Atsme^📞📧 19:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, i hadn't seen that it was a foregone conclusion upon accepting the case that JzG/Guy would not be included in the case, as shown here stated by AGK and then agreed to by Courcelles and Guerillero. That seems like an issue to me. To accept a case but to have a predetermined outcome in regard to one particular editor seems wrong to me. SageRad (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, i have started a discussion at the Village Pump ideas incubator about anti-bullying -- how to recognize and fight bullying within Wikipedia. I've been thinking about all the issues i've encountered in this topic area, as i go back through the various diffs provided as evidence, and i see a huge amount if interactions that i would now call bullying -- and in the rear-view, with more experience here, i can see how a few editors act like heavies, and take advantage of the naivete of new editors, and try to get their way through bullying tactics instead of rational and good dialogue. Please add your comments if you like. SageRad (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Did an arb on this case just say that they put a lot of the evidence from the case directly into their recycle bin? [28] It appears so. How can anyone feel confident in the outcome of this case?

Also, another arb on the case said that i forced their hand? What is meant by this? How did i force anyone's hand to have to ban me? That arb cited a diff from June 9th as apparently the evidence as to how i "forced hands". That diff is my response in a situation where Jytdog appeared to be following me around to pick on my edits, and i was indeed copyediting noncontroversial (so i thought) material and therefore accusations by Jytdog about unsourced material were off base. There are reasons for such things, and in the light of how i had been consistently treated by Jytdog just prior to that moment, my tone there (mainly calling him "dude") would be understandable to many people, though the arb isolating and highlighting it there making it seem like i'm unreasonable and mean or something. Strange things. And [29]. SageRad (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Certification Table Entry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Certification Table Entry. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting

I was initially turned-on to the Daily Dot as one of the sites some WMF members follow, and a few minutes ago, I stumbled across the following article, [30]. Ok, so if Sony is involved in COI editing and their May 2015 Market Cap is $34.2 Billion (per Forbes WMV Brands), why would anyone think Monsanto isn't doing it with a $55.7 Billion MC? The article states, "It would be difficult right now for hired editors to sneak in changes or whitewash unwanted details without being noticed. But since all scandals eventually die down, there will come a time when such edits may receive less scrutiny." Interesting, isn't it? And what exactly is/was WP's response regarding the whitewashing of the Monsanto suite of articles; i.e., the GMO case at ArbCom? Nevermind - it's a rhetorical question that doesn't need answering. Atsme^📞📧 02:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I have gone from quizzical to profoundly concerned regarding this entire matter. That corporate involvement is likely is, as you note, backed up by documentation. The holiday festivities have greatly reduced my free time but further action is clearly required. The retirement of Petra, which I just now read about in your commentary on the ArbCom case Talk page, comes as a deeply unpleasant shock. Jusdafax 23:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I read you loud and clear. In a turn-the-other-cheek attempt, I've created two more fun banners - diversions, you might say - one of which was inspired by your post on my TP re: my block. User:Atsme/Banners <---all in fun and somewhat therapeutic, although I doubt you'll find a systematic review about it at PUBMED. It's too FRINGe-Y. Atsme^📞📧 01:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You have never been blocked, so.....

Stackable	You are the recipient of a WTF Block
	Remember how much fun you had playing with blocks as a kid? Now that you're a mature adult, you can collect blocks with adult letters, and they're not only stackable, they're collectable. Atsme📞📧 17:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Disclaimer: Intended as humor. Pure pun-ishment. [31]

• Hah, thanks. I appreciate a bit of levity at this juncture. Jusdafax 11:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to ping you....

Sorry, i forgot to ping you here -- no offense meant. SageRad (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that time of year....

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)
	Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water, and it won't catch fire.
	Wishing you a joyous holiday season... ...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉
	--Atsme📞📧 22:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)	Pure pun-ishment. [32]

Ooops - I would rather this greeting follow the Arb decision because after that one, we all need some cheering up. Atsme^📞📧 22:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2012 Sydney anti-Islam film protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2012 Sydney anti-Islam film protests. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms case closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.

2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.

3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.

7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.

11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Genetically modified organisms case closed

JzG and DrChrissy

You recently mentioned an interaction ban between them, can you point me to the related discussion? Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe I mentioned SageRad in relation to an interaction ban with JzG, not the Doc. Here was the final stage of JzG's harassment, at an ArbCom Talk page. Note my comments, leading to admin action, by scrolling down. Check JzG's talk page history, which he wiped clean before taking a Wikibreak, for his actual official notification of an interaction ban. It should be noted that he has subsequently apologized to Sage Rad on Sage's Talk page, and that I and others have taken issue with said apology, a masterful bit of writing that scares me silly. This is no ordinary apology, in my view. Jusdafax 16:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to confirm, there is currently no interaction ban between JzG and I, other than we have banned each other from our respective Talk pages. Rather ironically, I am considering requesting an interaction ban as JzG does not seem able to resist the slightest temptation to malign me to almost anyone that will listen, e.g. here[33]DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah i meant SageRad, confused you since you too had problems with this admin. prokaryotes (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears the admin has breached the 1RR today.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Where? Minor4th 18:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th Its questionable, take a look here.[34] Some would say removing whole sections is reverting, and there is one clear revert. AlbinoFerret 20:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I would definitely say he's gone beyond 1RR, but I'm not ready to to bring an AE case yet. Noting the behavior though. Minor4th 20:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:Reverts states "The typical way to effect a reversion is to use the "undo" button in the article's history page, but it isn't any less of a reversion if one simply types in the previous text."DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

A number of very recent/current discussions were also 'one click' archived on the Glyphosate talk page without explanation by the editor under discussion.Dialectric (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

And oddly, not the oldest one, which is still "Cancer? Not so much" -- would appear to be selectively done... odd. Wonder why. If one is going to archive just to clean up a talk page then wouldn't they start with the oldest one that is inactive for a long time? SageRad (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. This is actionable and must be dealt with. A rogue admin is up to his old tricks. Jusdafax 21:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

For those following this thread, you might be interested in a question I raised at WP:AN#Reverts and archiving DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:AURORA

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:AURORA. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Jusdafax: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Wishing you all the best . . .

JDF, may all your holidays be merry and bright . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Seasons Greetings!

I've been hearing from the elves that you've been a little worried about how Santa's list is looking for you. They say he's almost done with his second check, and so far it looks like you've hardly been naughty at all! Thanks for the good work you do. I consider you to be one of the best of the best we've got here. I wish you and your family Seasons Greetings and a very Happy New Year Gandydancer (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

	Wishing you a Charlie Brown Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
	Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw(talk)

Please comment on Talk:Ed Sheeran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ed Sheeran. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Vote: Alexa Brown

I made a vote on Talk:Clyde cancer cluster. I encourage you highly to vote on whether Alexa should or shouldn't have a separate article. Thanks. Philmonte101 (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested

Some very good comments here and here. SageRad (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charli XCX

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charli XCX. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Arnnon Geshuri

Hello Jusdafax,

Was the WMF board fully aware of Arnnon Geshuri's central role in a major anticompetitive scandal at Google when they approved his appointment to the board? In 2010, the Justice Department shut down the illegal collusion between Google and five other Silicon Valley corporations. Geshuri helped manage that collusion for Google. A class action lawsuit settled in September, 2015 forced those companies to pay $415 million in compensation to 64,000 employees whose careers were damaged by the conspiracy that Geshuri was part of. Geshuri was directly involved in the ugly and humiliating termination of a woman who did not comply with the illegal scheme. He was chastised by federal judge Lucy Koh for attempting to pull Facebook into the conspiracy, and threatening retaliation if they didn't. Details can be found at User:Cullen328/Arnnon Geshuri. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for this. I had no idea of these particulars. I'm appalled of course, and as I mentioned on Jimmy's Talk page, think a Rfc for a vote of Wikipedia editor "no confidence" should be discussed. In fact, not if it should happen, but where and how. Thanks again. Jusdafax 10:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sugar Mama (song)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sugar Mama (song). Legobot (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Red Hot (song)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Red Hot (song). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mary Katharine Ham

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mary Katharine Ham. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Proscenium

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Proscenium. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment: Lead sentence for train or railway stations

In what way should the lead sentence of articles dealing with railway stations or train stations be fashioned? See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment: Identification of train or railway stations in the lead. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk page header

Jusdafax, I see that you added a talk page header to Talk:Radioactive decay. The documentation states repeatedly that it should only be used where needed ("Talk pages that are frequently misused, that attract frequent or perpetual debate, articles often subject to controversy, and highly-visible or popular topics may be appropriate for this template.") Talk:Radioactive decay seems a quiet, well-behaved page, so it would probably be better off as it was before. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted some similar additions of the template, for the same reasons. Kanguole 09:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:A Free Ride

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:A Free Ride. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sicario (2015 film)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sicario (2015 film). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Caravan (1936 song)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Caravan (1936 song). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 Stanley Cup playoffs

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 Stanley Cup playoffs. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:To Pimp a Butterfly

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:To Pimp a Butterfly. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kanye West

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kanye West. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Time (Electric Light Orchestra album)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time (Electric Light Orchestra album). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Top Model (Scandinavia)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Top Model (Scandinavia). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

ITN RD criteria

Just in case you didn't know, there's an ongoing discussion regarding the merits of the trial update to RD criteria here. Banedon (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Platinum (Miranda Lambert album)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Platinum (Miranda Lambert album). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

my talk p

I added a note to my previous remark on your comment--it is not intended as personal criticism or anything of the sort, but your reply gave me occasion to say something I think needs saying. My sincere apologies if it may have seemed otherwise, but I couldn't think how to say it better. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI

I should let you know that I mentioned you in the course of a comment that I made at WP:AN. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You've been mentioned

Hi JdF,

For some reason, I had a hard time creating a ping when I mentioned you, your name appeared in red. But it was here, in relation to the RfC process. petrarchan47คุก 09:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Petra. Jusdafax 18:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Coffee discussion

FYI. Your name came up in a discussion at Coffee's talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Jusdafax 18:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion - The Buzz Magazines

Hello,

My name is Maddy Payne. I am a local resident of the Bellaire, Texas area, and I am wondering why you keep petitioning for "speedy deletion" of The Buzz Magazines Wikipedia page. The page does not try to promote or advertise the company. The page is up for informational use only and I believe it is extremely beneficial considering the magazine is sent out to 58,000 residents in the Houston area.

Is there something I am doing wrong in particular? Or is there something I need to be doing to ensure the page does not keep getting deleted? I have read over (multiple times) the background and circulation information I provided on the page and did not find any information that was either "unambiguous advertising or promotion" or "did not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." Both of these are reasons that have been listed as to why the page was deleted - G11 and A7. Could you explain this, please? Should I add references at the bottom to ensure the credibility and importance of The Buzz Magazines page? I read somewhere on Wikipedia that it was not required to have references, though.

Also, I have not tried linking anything in The Buzz Magazines wikipedia page to anything outside of Wikipedia. In other words, I keep all links within Wikipedia. Thus, that could not be mistaken or labeled as unambiguous advertising or promotion since I keep it within Wikipedia and my descriptions are neutral. 

Please get back to me soon. Thanks, Maddy Payne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddypayne99 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

As you know, I was not the first to nominate your article for speedy deletion. What caught my eye was that you had rapidly recreated the article without addressing the concerns expressed in the first deletion. Anyone can make a mistake, of course, but I renominated the article for speedy deletion after a quick look showed no references were included. I also made a Google search, and a look failed to show The Buzz Magazines had significant third party coverage from reliable sources. But I could have missed something, and if you can come up with this requirement, you can try a third time. As I have previously noted on your page, it helps to read WP:RS. The notice on your talk page also has other links worth reviewing.

Writing an article with no previous experience in Wikipedia can be difficult. I'd suggest a bit of editing on other topics, to get used to how things work here.This also will deflect the impression that you are here for one purpose only (see WP:SPA). Assuming you have no close connection to this business per WP:COI, the article will eventually be created if the subject can be sourced reliably and meets notability requirements, per WP:NOTE. The main point is, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory. Best wishes! Jusdafax 11:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kodak Black

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kodak Black. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Helping BMK

BMK believes he did nothing wrong. His latest journal entry insists that "there was, and is, no impetus for me to verify what I'm certain exists. When the onus for proof is on the other guy, and they refuse to build a consensus (and especially when they're a POV SPA), I am not going to spend any more time and energy on the matter than necessary. Anyone who is accusing me of lying is engaging in a personal attack." He believes that if he's certain he's right, he doesn't have to explain himself or verify his claims. He believes someone accused him of lying—search the AN/I discussion for such accusations; they don't exist. He believes no attempts to discuss and reach consensus were made. He believes this AN/I discussion is about him making a factual error, instead of his conduct issues. Perhaps someone he trusts, maybe you, should help him understand. Furry-friend (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White savior narrative in film

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White savior narrative in film. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Giving You the Best That I Got (album)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Giving You the Best That I Got (album). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Note on AE request

Hello Jusdafax, I've recently closed an AE request with which you were involved. While this request resulted in no sanctions against you, you're notified that the practice of casting aspersions is not acceptable conduct. Specifically, this means that accusations of wrongdoing against other editors must be backed up by clear evidence, or not made at all. Failure to do this going forward could result in sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe it is not in my best interests to respond to this message at this time. Jusdafax 02:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Closing on David Tornheim is ridiculous

Wow, Jusdafax, i recently saw the closing on David Tornheim and it's so over the top ridiculous i can hardly believe my eyes. And this is the process by which the repository and representation of the world's knowledge is being processed? It's absurd. It's so unbelievably biased. What can be done? SageRad (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that people get banned and warned for talking about the behaviors of other editors, but only in one direction! -- never does the same action get banned or even warned or reprimanded when it's about calling someone an "activist" -- as if that is admissable and as if it's a bad thing.... it is neither... and as if others are not "activists" in the other direction which based on their actions they obviously are, but they simply claim to be "pro-science" even though it's not science but an agenda that has clear bias... and "skeptic" even though it's an ideological movement, not a true skeptical position... it's absurd and mind-blowing. SageRad (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Now watch them kick me right off of Wikipedia for saying that. Please keep an eye on me. SageRad (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've taken a lengthy break from what we used to call The Project, and am just returned. I'm taking your statement under advisement. As always, I wish you the best. Jusdafax 02:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Axis: Bold as Love

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Axis: Bold as Love. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Unseen character

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Unseen character. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom case you might be interested in

I just filed an arbitration request against The Rambling Man, citing an example in which you were involved in. You might be interested in the case. Link is here: [35]. Thanks, Banedon (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Noted, thanks. As I say just above, I took a couple months break. I believe the action you took was long overdue, and I see the case was accepted by a large margin, so I'll be following it as time permits. Best wishes, Jusdafax 02:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Slut-shaming

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Slut-shaming. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Harmonic series (music)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Harmonic series (music). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lists of Google Doodles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lists of Google Doodles. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:I Am... Sasha Fierce

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:I Am... Sasha Fierce. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Limp Bizkit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Limp Bizkit. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Terrence Malick

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Terrence Malick. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Suzanne (Leonard Cohen song)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Suzanne (Leonard Cohen song). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Jusdafax,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Star Wars expanded universe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Star Wars expanded universe. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jusdafax. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Apprentice (UK TV series)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Apprentice (UK TV series). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Apprentice (UK series one)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Apprentice (UK series one). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a wonderful time of the year!

Christmas tree worms live under the sea...they hide in their shells when they see me, So with camera in hand I captured a few, and decorated them to share with you. Atsme📞📧 15:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Fisher's Exact Test

Regarding the following paragraph in Fisher's Exact Test:

The formula above gives the exact hypergeometric probability of observing this particular arrangement of the data, assuming the given marginal totals, on the null hypothesis that men and women are equally likely to be studiers. To put it another way, if we assume that the probability that a man is a studier is P, the probability that a woman is a studier is p, and we assume that both men and women enter our sample independently of whether or not they are studiers, then this hypergeometric formula gives the conditional probability of observing the values a, b, c, d in the four cells, conditionally on the observed marginals (i.e., assuming the row and column totals shown in the margins of the table are given). This remains true even if men enter our sample with different probabilities than women. The requirement is merely that the two classification characteristics—gender, and studier (or not)—are not associated.

As the main hypothesis of Fisher's Exact test is that of independence of the two categories, the probability that a man is studier should be equal to the probability that a woman is studier and both should be equal to the probability that a person is a studier. Hence the notations "P" and "p" which imply that these two probabilities differ are not constructive and are rather confusing.

I don't presume to debate the text, but you deleted it leaving the next paragraph to begin "For example..." which I found unencyclopedic. May I suggest you discuss this proposed deletion on the article Talk page? Thanks. Jusdafax 05:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Will do! Thank you so much for your reply! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.30.180.21 (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sharon Tate

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sharon Tate. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Sport in Leeds

My edit to Sport in Leeds was constructive. Please be more careful with Huggle and remove the incorrect warning from my talk page. Thank you 2A02:C7D:89A3:F400:D40F:B6AB:30EF:A52F (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The edit summary "update" was not particularly informative, and I saw a club name change by a new unregistered editor, so it looked like one of hundreds of such edits which are vandalism. After nearly a decade as a Wikipedian, I do indeed take such matters seriously, and am exceptionally carefull, I assure you. I will remove the warning at your request, but I have a question for you in turn. Your reply appears to indicate a familiarity with Huggle and Wikipedia in general. Have you previous experience as a Wikipedian, and if so, why edit while not logged in? Jusdafax 02:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the huggle message as requested. To answer your question, I gave up editing Wikipedia as a user many many years ago and I now only occasionally edit from my IP, but my IP tends to change periodically for reasons only known to Sky Broadband. Happy editing 2A02:C7D:89A3:F400:D40F:B6AB:30EF:A52F (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry about the miscue, and Happy New Year! Jusdafax 02:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Editing

Okay man, that wasn't cool. If you thought that the summaries of the series wasn't adequate then why don't you do it yourself? At least I gave summaries to let others know instead of what you haven't done. At least I was helping unlike you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.192.21 (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted the Huggle warning on your Talk page. May I suggest you use edit summaries, especially when deleting blocks of content? This helps prevent reverts like the one that you refer to. Feel free to edit the article. Jusdafax 03:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Universal Health Services edit

Hello! I'm a new-ish editor and am wondering what the standard is for credible sources. You reverted my addition to the summary of Universal Health Services' article that described the controversies about them. How should I improve the controversies section or the summary to meet Wikipedia's standards? Theoriginalandrewia (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• As I mentioned in the edit summary, WP:RS covers a lot of the requirements Wikipedia asks of content additions such as the material I reverted. Is there proof that these statements are sourced reliably? Read the link carefully, and if there are sources to back your claims that are in major newspapers or other media, reference them in the article to back up your statement. This is not to say the edit is automatically going to stand, but it's a solid start. I'm sure you understand why this is needful for an online encyclopedia. Best wishes! Jusdafax 05:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverted page

Hi, I am an actual member of this team. This list is not only incorrect, but is part of our private records and is not meant to be published. Please do not revert it. Thank you

• According to the first sentence in the Gator Guard Drill Team article, the team is "nationally recognized" which implies a certain amount of transparency is to be expected. However, I have no interest in this subject, and thought I was merely reverting vandalism. On the chance you are who you claim to be, and operate from pure motives, I will abide by your request. Best wishes, Jusdafax 03:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Super FX

Exactly what's wrong with it? Comanche series leads to a dab page -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• My apologies. I have reverted the page and removed your Talk page warning. Jusdafax 07:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Este Lauder - do not revert

Do not revert the corrected URL again. Check and see -- the previous one was wrong, what I found and put it is c-o-r-r-e-c-t. Check before you do more damage by random reversals.

• I checked carefully, before and after. My revert restored the infobox photo at Estée Lauder, which you had vandalized. The other change, to the URL, appears to have no effect either way, though it may be a Hungarian spelling. At this point, given your rudeness, familiarity with Wikipedia for your seeming very first IP edits, lack of signature which given the statement above appears deliberate, and bold assertions that are demonstrably untrue, my assumption has to lean towards you being an editor who is at best of dubious value. I'm willing be proved wrong, 50.233.53.98, but if I am right, by drawing attention to yourself in this fashion, you do yourself a disservice. Jusdafax 01:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Free-Will Defense

Hello,

I would like to talk about the last edit on the page for Plantinga's Free-Will Defense. In the final sentence of the header, it mentions hat John Mackie conceded that Plantinga's defense had solved the problem of evil as he stated it, but I'd like to point out that this claim is false. I will quote from a passage in "The Miracle of Theism":

"This is a particularly subtle attempt to solve the problem. It defends God's goodness and omnipotence on the ground that (on long enough view) this is the best of all possible wolds, because it includes the important second-order goods, and yet it admits that real evils, namely the first-order ones, occur. It reconciles these apparently incompatible theses by, in effect, modifying one of our additional premises. It denies that a wholly good being would eliminate evil as far as he could, but explains this denial by pointing to a reason why a being who is wholly good, in a sense that is thoroughly intelligible to us and coherent with ordinary concept of goodness, might not eliminate evils, even though it is logically possible to do so and though he was able to do whatever is logically possible, and was limited only by the logical impossibility of having the second-order good with out the first-order evil. This defense is formally possible, and its principle involves no abandonment of our ordinary view of the opposition between good and evil, we can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another. But whether this offers a real solution of the problem is another question. Let us call an evil which is explained and justified in the proposed way an "absorbed" evil. For example, some bit of suffering which is actually the object of kindness or sympathy whose goodness outweighs the badness of that suffering itself will be an absorbed evil, as will be miseries or injustices that are in fact progressively overcome by a struggle whose nobility is a higher good which outweighs the evils without which it could not have occurred. What this defence shows, the, is that the existence of completely absorbed evils is compatible with the existence of an omnipotent and wholly good god. But then the vital question is this: can the theist maintain that the only evils that occur in the world are absorbed evils? When this question is squarely put, it is surely plain that he cannot. On the one hand there are surplus first-order evils, suffering and the like which are not actually used in any good organic whole, and on the other there are second-order evils; these will not be incorporated in second-order goods, but will contrast with them: malevolence, cruelty, callousness, cowardice, and states of affairs in which there is not progress but decline, where things get worse rather than better. The problem, therefore, now recurs as the problem of "unabsorbed" evils, and we have as yet no way of reconciling their existence with that of a god of the traditional sort This brings us to the best known move in theodicy, the free will defense: evils - that is, as we can now say, unabsored evils - are due entirely to bad free choices made by human beings and perhaps by other created beings that have free will. But how is this a defence? Why would a wholly good and omnipotent god give human beings - and also, perhaps, to angels - the freedom which they have misused?" (p. 154-155)".

As you can see, Mackie doesn't even start discussing the Free-Will Defense until after the paragraph sited that stated that he conceded to Plantinga the soundness of the defense.

Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:33D1:A130:9D5F:69C3:E995:B879 (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have no opinion about the material you present here, and the fact remains that you deleted sourced material without extending the courtesy of explaining why in the box provided for an edit summary. May I gently suggest you do so in the future, especially should you desire to continue deletions in such a fashion? I'd suggest taking this discussion to the article talk page, thanks. Jusdafax 01:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

New York Life article

I saw that you restored its Criticism and Controversy section. I'm not the one who deleted it, but I'm not sure the "well-researched" justification fits that particular text. See the article's Talk page. I left the main page alone. – 2*6 (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)