User talk:Jeffpw

Committed identity: 2df26b6e249c09ecef0a70689ef7efa052d8e0d4 is a SHA-1 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple

Can you please confirm your identity as the user Jeffpw on Simple Wikipedia?
Gwib (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can verify that. I opened the account so that I could post under my own name at the ANI discussion. Jeffpw (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and sorry if we seemed untrustworthy, but we need to take every caution in dealing with this matter.

Gwib (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Given the circumstances, I would have done the same thing. Cheers, Jeffpw (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now posted the following response at simple:WP:AN. Please respond there if you have any further comments.

Hello Jeffpw, and thanks for confirming your identity. Unfortunately, it is difficult for us to make sense of situations like this, as we were not involved at all. Simple has problems with many banned users that come over here to try and continue causing trouble, posing as good users. We are therefore very cautious, and it is the community policy to review all users banned on EN before allowing them to edit here because there are just too many people doing it. It is not that we do not want to have him here as a constructive editor, more that we have few admins and a lot of EN rejects/trolls and in the past we've found it overwhelming. We do not know all the details of this case and what evidence there is to support the story given by User:Iamandrewrice. The idea that troubles me is that you told him to come here rather than requesting that the community give him a trial period over there. I get the feeling that we are a dumping ground for editors that people view as "too risky" for your project, and we simply cannot act in such a capacity - EN has far more resources to deal with distrusted users. We will of course welcome Iamandrewrice as soon as we can build up a proper picture of him, but I do not like the idea that we are left to deal with users that others do not wish to handle. Your offer of mentoring obviously shows that you are willing to take the time, so this is not so much directed at you, but the overall EN community if it comes down to "prove you're OK, but not here". Having heard your support for him, I'm now in favour of letting him in, but please understand that we simply cannot accept all the banned users that come over to us. Nine times out of ten, we will grant second chances and allow banned users, but we must assess the potential risk, otherwise we cannot cope. Archer7 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to take full responsibility for Ben's appearance on Simple English Wikipedia. He expressed so much disappointment at not being able to edit here, and I thought it would be a good place for him to put his energy. To be honest, it never crossed my mind that he should apply there instead of just opening an account like any other user. I do see the logic you're using, though because they are different sites with different administrators and policies, I hope you see my logic on not suggesting he apply. That said, he did state up front that he was banned here, which I think shows remarkable courage.

Thank you very much for giving Ben this chance. And I was quite sincere when I said I would mentor him there. He has a lot to offer, but needs a hand sometimes to reign in his enthusiasm. I had a look around in December, when I made a few changes to the Santa article as an IP. I look forward to doing a bit of work there, too. Jeffpw (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I offer to co-mentor Ben there since I too encouraged him to create an account there. I'm sorry for all the trouble it seems to have caused there but I will be available for assistance and to answer any questions you might have. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer. I believe we have an handle of the job already. I hope Ben will use his chance there correctly. Regards, huji—TALK 15:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Few questions

Hello Jeffpw. How are you? Who is Ben? Can you please explain about the discussion above? And, I have made some contributions for Simple English Wikipedia. Are you a part of it? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The situation above has no relevance to Wikipedia now. I just joined the Simple English Wikipedia yesterday, and will probably be editing there for a while, at least. Jeffpw (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting graphic

on your front page. :) I've updated the articles section on the portal, do you reckon it'll be okay if I don't take off the old ones? I'll go do the same with the rest. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I'll go take a look. If you're around for a few minutes, I may message you for help to see how the articles are updated. Happy New Year, honeybunch! Jeffpw (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems fine to me. How do we restore the news articles section? I want to start updating that at least weekly. And the portal page isn't loading properly in my browser. Some things are off kilter. Jeffpw (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the news section, which is currently very long and out of date. :) I moved the poctures to the centre of the page, which deals with the thing where it was going off the page, but I don't know how to center the image. I'll keep trying with that. And happy new year to yourself. :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all fixed up. You can update the news section by playing with it here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arb talk page

I think that would be so on the page itself, but not on the talk page, which is for discussion purposes. If you think about it, making it 'statement by...' etc throughout would be confusing as it would be unclear what anyone would be responding to as they are writing, which normally you can indicate by a simple :: to make an indendation. The only other arb case I've chipped in on, was more on the other pages, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova/Proposed_decision and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova/Workshop the talk page was mainly run just like any other talk page. But feel free to tinker with my comments- I just want it to be clear that I was responding to the bloke who posted above me.:) Merkinsmum 16:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tillie K. Fowler

This a follow-up message from our November, 2006 discussion regarding the Tillie K. Fowler article. At that time, I changed the name of the "External links" section to "References" in order to comply with Wikipedia's external links policy. Shortly threafter, you reverted my edit suggesting that in-line citiations should be used in the article. Since the article was non-compliant with the aforementioned policy, and citing specific in-line references would be difficult to accomplish without the assistance of User:DaveWGilliland who made substantial edits to the article, but has not edited on Wikipedia since January, 2007, I have recently come up with a solution to this problem. I have changed the non-compliant "External links" section header to "Sources", which acurately describes those links and complies with policy. --TommyBoy (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. I see that this remains a problematic article. While I won't revert over it, the sources should really be inline citations. If that is not done, someone (not me) could easily come along and slap an unreferenced tag on it. I find her a sympathetic person and someone who did a lot of good in politics, and wish that we could fully source everything. I think if inline sources were put into place, and the article expanded just a bit, it could easily achieve good article status. Unfortunately, I don't have the time at the moment, If you wish, feel free to contact me with help if you decide to undertake this task yourself. Cheers, Jeffpw (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that your prediction regarding the article being tagged has partially come true, User:Benjiboi has tagged the article for lack of in-line references. I have explained the situation regarding User:DaveWGilliland's major contributions to the article, as well as his apparent disappearance from Wikipedia, and how this affects our ability to properly source his contributions. --TommyBoy 04:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyBoy (talk • contribs) [reply]

IuseRosary

IuseRosary I have no problems with. His edits have been good, he's been acting maturely, and although he does have his quirks, he is very smart and has been asking good questions and also has been asking help from me. This user is definitely one I wouldn't mind mentoring. He is welcome to stay. I am actually impressed with his newest creation Music Wikiproject. Razorflame (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hope you're right. If it is the same user who disrupted here, the potential for abuse is significant. Jeffpw (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't bother me. I doubt that it is the same user. If it was, he would've already started being disruptive by now, wouldn't he? Also, I left Iamandrewrice an ultimatum on his talk page over at se:WP. I told him that if his next edit isn't constructive, and creating a new article (and a good one at that), then I will have no choice but to add my voice into those for having him banned. Razorflame (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he starts being disruptive, then I will immediately give IuseRosary an ultimatum (the same one as Ben). Razorflame (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He did actually make good edits here so I know he can do that. I know he likes to debate things and I know that Simple English Wikipedia doesn't have the time or people to deal with that so I've told him via E-mail to stop as well. As for IuseRosary I'm as concerned as Jeff but Ben has been informed (I told him to read my user page here - hence the cryptic e-mail message on his talk page). I'm keeping an eye on this but of course it is your call since it is your wiki and I've explained this to him. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi gays

I'm not usually surprised by LGBT human rights abuses in the Middle East, but your news item on the portal about the Iraqi government equating gays with terrorists actually really shocked me. That's disgraceful! I am so glad we live in countries where we don't have to face that. How I wish they didn't have to either... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see people are reading the news portal! I was shocked, too. I plan on updating the news section almost every day. Jeffpw (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response

late, but I responded. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted Owl (a different bird than A Kiwi smiling)

For some reason, my ability to email other members is disabled - even tho I tried several times to work out a solution....

Therefore I will leave my email addy, CricketCourage at AOL dot COM.

I am rather confused as to whether there is truly any need for my input. I am told banning is a sure thing and my input will not be of exceptional assistance. But I also read that the admins here can be counted on to be snowed and the party involved to be guaranteed to continue to garner saviors who only listen to the sad story of persecution, rather than examination of the tremendous quantity of ON WP and directly WP-related activities, thus nothing can be changed, no matter what effort I expend.

If you car to help me sort the wheat from chaff and explain how to lay it out, I am relatively certain there will be yet another opportunity arise within a year or so. Whatever work I do, I will save it online and submit it now if you feel it vital at this time, save it if you think it will help generally in the future.

Thank you again for your offer of help. Education is a forever gift.

Spotted Owl (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought... if you would just like me to send you a terse brief list of things I suspect may be of most value. You can then select those items that show promise and I will flesh them out. And we can take it, step-wise, from there. Afterall, 6 months to 18 months down the road, my memory will not be as sharp and those other people who I have been in contact with over the past year may have changed email addresses or have gotten to the point where it is all just too painful to dredge up again.

The long and short of it, let's go with it and if it's not used now, it will be "in the vault" in my online https:// storage facility if it's ever needed. Spotted Owl (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]