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 Moved to Archive

Moved to User talk:Jeepday/Archive 3#Don't bite the newbies to provided it a permanent home. The page is on my watch list, make any further comments there for consistency. Jeepday (talk) 03:03, 18 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]

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar - and thanks for reading the Signpost! enochlau (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

idea?

Let's form a small RFA class of 9. These are admin who became admin at about the same time. John Carter, Jeepday, Rudget, Jayron32, Archtransit, Appraiser, Kbthompson, Canley, J-stan. It would just be a friendly support group or like a school class. No administrative tasks needed to form this group, just know each other so if we need an opinion or want to discuss something, we'll be there for each other. Archtransit (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not much of a social lite, but I am always open to problem solving and work building or improving Wikipedia. Jeepday (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost tutorial

Any that you know about, you are encourged to improve and make the best it can be. If you feel you have expanded it enough, you can add your name to the byline. Also, could you help a litle on this one: User:Jonathan/Where to find help on editing? The Placebo Effect (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Carol Paul

I don't think that Whitney Gravel's afd established any sort of consensus against maintaining articles on the spouses of presidential candidates. Several users commenting on the deletion noted that Mike Gravel has no chance of securing his party's nomination, the same may not be true of Ron Paul. Either way, I agree with the basic premise that the notability of article subjects shouldn't be assessed by the availability of coverage for their spouses. Others may disagree, however, and I don't think that the Carol Paul article is a clear candidate for speedy or prod. AfD is the better way to go. Regards, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone already to the article to AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Paul Jeepday (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrcus

On 20 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lyrcus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corn DAB

Thanks! I hadn't seen that page but did enjoy it. It didn't occur to me that the editor may be a newcomer as he is registered with an account but I could have been more diplomatic. The incessant assault on this site's neutrality by bigotry, ignorance and prejudice sometimes gets to me