User talk:Jeepday

I will respond on this page to comments, unless you ask that I respond on your talk page.

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Re:Oppose

I asked questions to try to help you, by having you prove to me that you knew more about policy than I had previously thought. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Jeepday (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel bad giving you an oppose. If your RFA fails, would you let me coach you and share with you my thoughts? You have many more edits than me, but I think I could have answered the questions better. Maybe because I spend too much time reading ANI. Congolese fufu (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a kind offer thank you. Jeepday (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP RfA question

Hi Jeepday. The question is written to reflect some issues we have had in the relatively recent past with administrators disagreeing on what BLP-risky content to include. Implied is that there is a disagreement between long time contributors who are fully aware of policy over whether or not some material should be included (based on BLP). In this situation, the best step is to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article or the other editor/administrator, and escalate from there to BLP/N.

Your expanded answer also posits that if unreferenced material is in an article and poses concerns relative to WP:BLP an editor should attempt to reference it before removing it - that is incorrect. It should be removed immediately, and returned only if it can be reliably sourced and meets other inclusion guidelines (such as WP:WEIGHT). I frame the question as a disagreement between administrators so that you can assume both parties are fully aware of all of the relevant policies (including WP:V and how it relates to WP:BLP).

The absolute wrong answer would be "I'd restore it and then talk to them." I note you didn't give that answer, but your initial answer actually specified no action you would take. Most !voters are looking for a specific answer to this question, and failing to give that answer can be (and is in your case) a significant problem.

You might refer to WP:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff for more information about this issue. ^Avruchtalk 14:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to WP:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff I had missed that decision. Most of the content is carried over into WP:BLP except item 4 ""Summary deletion of BLPs". That is intersting I am glad to know it is there. DO you have any idea why this section is not included in WP:BLP seems like it should be copy and pasted under "Preventing BLP violations"

I would like to split hairs with you on one comment you have in your message above, you report me as saying "relative to WP:BLP an editor should attempt to reference it before removing it" The sentence I believe you are referring to starts with "For most questions of WP:V (other then BLP)", I also pointed out that the community not the policy tends to place the burden on the removing editor. "in theory the burden is on the editor who wants to include the content the reality is that community tends to place the a burden on an editor who wants to remove text". As we both know unreferenced content removal is currently a touch subject that is making the outside news [1] In support of your synopsis of my statement it did end with "in this case I chose not to make that attempt." so I can see where you might draw the conclusion you did. Jeepday (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite the newbies

Re this exchange: It seems to me that after a long series of automated edits, you weren't in the appropriate frame of mind to treat a newish editor in a courteous and helpful way in your initial response, and failed to assume good faith; your wording seems to me to imply that you were assuming the facts were not as stated by the editor, which may be one reason you didn't provide the required helpful advice. What do you think of that exchange now -- particularly your first comment, which begins "Removing content from Wikipedia..."? --Coppertwig (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the exchange, as I recall my initial communication was here. The user was claiming to be User:Jakov.miljak and deleting related content If the editor was whom they claimed to be is not relevant the activity was not consistent with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments nor with http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_vanish "Work on the project - Your work, including 'signatures' (text indicating your authorship of comments) on all but your own user and talk pages, will usually not be changed or removed." What is the required helpful advice you beleive I should have offered? Jeepday (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The person claimed to be the same person as the one whose user page they were editing. If that's true, I don't see how it would still violate the policy. Besides, it only says "usually" -- it doesn't say it's not allowed.

The helpful advice was more-or-less what you offered in your next edit: i.e. how to achieve what they were trying to achieve (right to vanish). For example, you could have suggested the person log in under their account. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were not editing the user page of the persons they claimed to be, they were editing article talk pages and other editors talk pages. [2] Additionally they were removing not only content added by person they claimed to be they were removing others comments [3] The user page had been deleted prior to these edits on 22 November 2007. It would not have been appropriate to ask them to log on as their self as I had already found that profile was deleted. Is there anything else you think I should have done differently? Jeepday (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I apologize. I guess I completely misunderstood the situation. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, have a great day. Jeepday (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry to have gotten some of the details wrong in my comments above. However, the situation is complex. You said, "If the editor was whom they claimed to be is not relevant..." Actually, it is relevant. The user's intent was apparently to remove his name from all the web pages. Removing the name from signatures of his own posts is actually allowed, apparently, by changing username and then editing each signature to change it: Wikipedia:Right to vanish#Alternative measures. You could have directed the user to that section of that page, or at least provided a link to the page in your first comment, e.g. you could have said "See Wikipedia:Right to vanish to find out what options you have." Or, if it was really impossible for the user to remove his name because his profile had been deleted, you could have explained this: you could have said "You could have used Wikipedia:Right to vanish#Alternative measures if you could still log into the account in your own name, but since that account has been closed, there's nothing you can do. I'm sorry." (although it's not true that there was nothing he could do -- see below.)

Almost all the material being deleted by the user was his own comments; I think he also deleted one or two comments by others which contained his name. His intent was to remove his name.

At a later date, the user apparently somehow managed to have his account moved to a new name: [4] so, apparently it is possible. I don't know how it was done if his profile had been deleted. Maybe he had to get the profile undeleted first?

Anyway, while some of his reverts may have been against policy (i.e. deleting comments by others which contained his name), most of what he was actually trying to accomplish is actually allowed (i.e. removing or changing his name in signatures of his own posts for the purpose of not having this material come up in web searches of his name). Your message correctly told him that what he was doing was not allowed, but did not direct him to the alternative, allowed activities that would accomplish most of his purpose.

Of course, one should assume there is the possibility that the user is not who they claim to be when making decisions such as whether to allow them to delete a lot of comments. However, I feel it's also important to assume that there is the possibility that the user is indeed who they claim to be. Perhaps both I and the user misinterpreted these words of yours: "claiming to be the other user does not give the right to edit their or delete the other editors work or words." I think I understand now: you were referring to deleting both the words of that user and the words of other users, i.e. the comments by others that contained the name. But I don't think your sentence parses grammatically, and most of the deletions were of the user's comments, not of comments by others, so I misinterpreted this and I think the user also misinterpreted it to mean that by "other user" you meant that you didn't believe that the user was who they claimed to be. Even without that misinterpretation, the word "their" in "to edit their" also gives the same impression: that you don't believe this person is who they say they are. I feel that proper procedure in such a case is to not allow the person to make the deletions without proving who they are (or at all, or whatever the policy is,) but when addressing the person, to always word one's message as if one does believe them: i.e. I feel it's impolite to say "their" when, if the person you're speaking to is telling the truth, the correct pronoun is "your". This may be one reason the person got rather angry in a subsequent reply. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have some good points there, I will keep them in mind. Thanks for the comments Jeepday (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your willingness to consider my comments. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re the user we were discussing here: I'm planning to edit the various talk pages where the user's original name appears, and change them to the user's new username, to assist with what I believe is the user's expressed wish (via anon-IP) to avoid having the Wikipedia talk pages come up on web searches for that name. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Jeepday,

You edited out some crucial phrases about the closed mindedness of Scientific consensus. I fear that if you do not edit them back in, the people of the world will forget that scientists are about as useful as...high oil prices.

Please edit back in the information, for the good of the people of the world.

Thank you,

Empire of Justice

Chief Democratic Officer

Agent R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.13.204 (talk • contribs)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Have a good time. Rudget . 17:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, lots to learn now :) Jeepday (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Addhoc (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, reading Wikipedia:New admin school now, then I have some work to do at Wikipedia:Most wanted articles#Possibly unwanted articles. Jeepday (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! --Coppertwig (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Jeepday (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations - feel free to ask me any questions you might have especially if they relate to image or copyright policies. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will was just looking at Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. Lots to learn before helping there. Jeepday (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insertion Permission

Sorry about the re-creation. I wasn't clear that was happening until the second round.

Just to be clear - I need to add to the website, www.inwardoutward.org, the statement "I, Meade Jones Hanna, release the contents of this website under the terms of the GNU free documentation license" Correct?

OR say it in my own words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meadejh (talk • contribs) 21:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Congratulations, new administrator! If you are interested, maybe ArbCom in a year or two. Spevw (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and maybe we will see what happens Jeepday (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.

KillerChihuahua^?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Western film actors 2

Just delete the list -categories can serve that purpose. It was only created when it looked like the category was going up for the chop but they saved it -no point in having both ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 09:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hurry, we can let the AFD run it's course unless someone suggests a speedy delete per Recreation of deleted material (CSD#5). Jeepday (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

goodbye

Because of overzealous attacks against me by Jehochman, I will no longer be editing the three articles that I was working towards FA status nor Congo articles. Jehochman went on a rampage RFCU. His RFCU claims were disproven and according to another user, he lied about the category.

WP:SOCK#LEGIT allows multiple accounts for segregation and security. The multiple accounts edited separate articles.

A multiple account was necessary because of the controversial nature of User:Profg. Editing about him would bring stalkers to the 3 FA contenders. Edits about User:Profg were never meant to defend him but to point out things that the community was overlooking. The community shouldn’t overlook everything that a user says simply because he is bad. One member of the community said he was seeking a ban just to make it easier to accuse others. These is a diabolical scheme.

What good does is exposing User:HappyBirthdayClubMember? That’s like exposing the identity of Santa Claus. Congolese fufu (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]