Jump to content

User talk:Jtrainor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daedalus969 (talk | contribs) at 05:40, 30 November 2008 (→‎RE:Gundam: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Welcome!

The Rules

  1. Be cool to me and I'll be cool to you
  2. No anon IPs
  3. No puppets
  4. No Homers
  5. Don't randomly template me instead of attempting to actually talk to me. This is 'shit and run' and will get you nowhere. Especially don't template me about 3RR-- I am quite capable of counting to three.
  6. Catch-all prove 'em wrong clause:
5a) Yes it is
5b) No it isn't
5c) Yes
5d) No

EBaum's

Look. I have stairs in my house, so I know just how much of an annoying thief Bauman's is. And I support the fact that the article was protected (heh) in its current state. Don't vandalize it. And don't claim he steals everything from SA; he steals from everywhere. DS 12:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I meant he steals everythinhg from everywhere. :p I don't want to vandalize it, I just want his crimes described on the page. Jtrainor 14:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Emot-clownballoon.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags.

Go ahead and trash it, I only used it once for a humourous reply on a discussion page. I expected the auto-purge to prune it long ago.

Yayyy!

Someone else who removes paginal.nl SPAMs! 68.39.174.238 06:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do what I can :) Jtrainor 22:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*grins* I felt this header was most suitable for my feeling on your news. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Look, if you want to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, see the discussion at WP:GUNDAM. Otherwise keep your trolling off my talk page, please. Unhelpful posts like that are neither needed nor wanted: you have clearly failed to WP:AGF on a massive scale. Moreover, if you dislike Wikipedia so much, why are you still here? Moreschi Deletion! 16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll. Jtrainor 18:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? Sorry? I only encountered these Gundam articles about a week ago. Not me. Moreover, your failure to assume good faith is so obvious that it does constitute trolling. I have no vendetta against Gundam. However, these articles fail WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:FICT on a gigantic scale and very few of them actually assert notability, which is actually a speedy deletion criterion. They are clear candidates for deletion. I would appreciate it if you began to assume good faith when there is every reason to do so. Moreschi Deletion! 14:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to assume good faith because no good faith exists on your part. Instead of nominating just the RX-78 Gundam article for deletion as claimed in the AFD vote, you nominated every mobile suit article you could find, in an apparent attempt to flush as much as possible before anyone else noticed.

Furthermore, I will definitely not assume any good faith on your part when you call people who disagree with you trolls. Jtrainor 21:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when you go looking for votestacking support on external websites

Which you did, at Mechatalk, is that someone takes it upon themselves to vandalize my userpage and user talk, and a lot of admins have to waste a lot of time doing blocks. Next time, think before you characterise Wikipedia editors as "going nuts", as the consequences may not be altogether pretty. Everyone has had to waste a lot of time. If you do know the fellow that is doing this, would you mind telling him to call off the socks? Thank you. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 16:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, pictures of lynching? Yuck. Please help stop this if you can. Moreschi Deletion! 16:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no responsibility for anyone who decides to vandalize your userpage and certainly do not endorse such activity. The intent of my posts on other forums was to rally support for an issue I am concerned with.

Fair enough. I'll see what I can do with mechatalk. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 19:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a way. Admins can view the histories and the deleted articles and restore them for you in your userspace, or maybe a subpage of WP:GUNDAM. Contact one of the admins who closed the AfDs, say what articles you want back in your userspace to work on, and I'm sure they'll help out. Damn it, hopefully in less than a week I'll be able to do that for you. Incidentally, the reason why the histories aren't available to non-admins is that otherwise it would be too easy to undo the deletion by simply reverting. Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 08:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article

Eh, I think you've done it OK, but if there's a problem I'll fix it. I just left my delete vote with extensive reasoning...grr, that article makes me sick. Some of us actually bother to source our stuff to RS, and then we get people doing this? Great. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. As a future tip, deletion nominations normally should be longer, but I think I've covered the important points. Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 19:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, fixed now. Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 19:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking big

Agreed. I sincerely doubt that every single episode of The Simpsons passes the central notability criterion at WP:N, or indeed any other notability criterion for that matter. How many of these episodes meet ""A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other."? Not many, I would guess. As regards the technical aspects of mass nominations, WP:AFD will tell you what to do.

However, it's probably best to take a more cautious approach than to mass-nominate a whole load of junk at once. Men are weak and tend to get frightened at mass AfD nominations. My own strategy for this would be first to alert the community - either at WP:CN or at WP:VP to the problem, and see whether rough consensus exists to deal with it. If there is rough consensus, then I would first nominate just one article to set a precedent. Perhaps Lisa's Rival? But mass-nominations are rarely successful - the only one that I can remember of the top of my head for a double-digit number of articles was one for a whole load of TV/radio masts that really did have no other claim to fame bar existing.

Hope this is helpful. At any rate, talking to the community before a mass AfD is definitely a good idea. Good luck! Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community noticeboard

It's back now, an excess of enthusiasm on the part of one admin who is doing sterling work in pruning the project of unnecessary instructions and processes, don't be too hard on him. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lightsaber AfD

I saw you post there again... I would still like to know your answer on the afd to my concern I raised there in my last reply, if possible... thank you. - Denny 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Islamic apartheid -- Article for Deletion

What about these too? These are used far less than is 'Israeli Apartheid'

Your thoughts?Kritt 08:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice those, thanks for pointing 'em out. I'll wait and see how the other AfDs do before I try nominating those though. Jtrainor 20:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Apartheid is overwhelmingly more a legit term and topic than are those others above. I have no idea why you chose the one with the most reliable sources and most use in society as the one to delete.Kritt 22:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Request for undeletion

Page userfied as User:Jtrainor/Sandbox. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 09:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image

I'm not sure what purpose you thought suggesting that image be added. Do not do that again. --Fredrick day 09:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit a dead guy's article about it Jtrainor 10:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I do not understand that response. --Fredrick day 12:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cbwhat.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cbwhat.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. east.718 10:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC) east.718 10:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zaku AfD

Hi Jtrainor, thanks for your note, I'm working on it right now. If you notice something similar in the future the process to follow is here: Wikipedia:Deletion process. Thanks for reminding me that I forgot to follow the process... --Akhilleus (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile suit articles

Please, stop blindly reverting these articles. You do not own them, and they are in need of better sourcing to independent sources with editorial control or peer review, as well as a great deal of style cleanup and rewriting to describe the subjects from a real world, instead of in-universe, perspective. In particular, the old, stat-heavy, tabled infobox is problematic: it's overlarge, filled with in-universe statistics, and completely lacking in the sort of information an infobox in an encyclopedia of the real world needs.

Touching the articles you think you own is not vandalism. I highly suggest you make yourself familiar with what vandalism means on Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I highly suggest you not put words in my mouth. I'm reverting them because your edits are a ham-handed hack and slash job and are significantly detrimental to their quality, not because I think I own them.
Your edits to the Jagd Doga article in particular are vandalism because you arn't even cleaning up your mess, just removing a bunch of stuff and tossing tags on willy-nilly. Jtrainor 16:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I've removed from those articles are the massive infoboxes filled with statistics, and yes, those need to go. They're the kind of thing that belong on fansites, not an encyclopedia of the real world. Why is it necessary to know the exact weight of a fictional object? Or its exact model of equally-fictional engine? What encyclopedic purpose does that serve?
As for the cleanup tags, I highly recommend that you carefully read the cleanup guides linked from each tag. They're telling you exactly what I'm telling you now.
As for accusing me of "ham-handed hack and slash," your reverts have also removed italics corrections, typo corrections, header fixes, and other miscellaneous edits. Pay attention to what you're doing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, in this unexplained revert...

  1. You replace an infobox designed based on the advice at WP:WAF#Infoboxes and succession boxes with one filled with in-universe trivia
  2. You add an additional non-free image in violation of WP:FUC
  3. You change the headers from level 2 to level 3, when there is no level 2 header to begin with
  4. You remove the italics for "Mobile Suit Gundam", the proper name of a longform work
  5. You bold "all range attacks" for no reason I can figure out
  6. You replace a much-more awkward phrasing of the Zeong's attacks

So, what the hell are you doing? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were you planning on explaining? I know you're online and editing, and I believe I deserve some sort of explanation for these wholesale reverts. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello? You're reverting yet again, with no explanation here, at WT:GUNDAM, on my talk page, on the article talk pages, or even in the edit summaries. Were you planning on explaining yourself? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've obviously made up your mind on the subject. I fail to see how anything I can say will possibly change your viewpoint, so why bother? Jtrainor 08:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're allowed to decide that interacting with other users isn't productive and abandon an issue, but you don't get to blindly revert without comment while doing so. I would much rather you made your voice heard, by participating in discussion in any of a half-dozen places. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you're back to revert warring without discussion, often reintroducing images slated to be deleted because of fair-use issues, and indiscriminately removing cleanup and cleanup tags. Please stop this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given your past history, you are hardly in a position to point fingers. Jtrainor 07:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't address the problem. You are reintroducing images slated to be deleted because of fair-use issues, and indiscriminately removing cleanup and cleanup tags.
You also need to carefully read WP:WAF#Infoboxes and succession boxes. The reason I created a new infobox in the first place was because the old infobox (in addition to being rather ugly) included excessive, unencyclopedic in-universe detail and no real-world detail at all. There's a fruitful discussion at WT:GUNDAM#New infobox - Template:Infobox MS Gundam, where you are conspicuously absent. Preemptively accusing me of disregarding your arguments is a bit silly when I've done my best to respond to any sort of communication that didn't accuse me of being part of a shadowy conspiracy (and even most of those) or compared my actions to those of Nazi Germany.
If you have a problem with that infobox, please, PLEASE, participate civilly in a discussion somewhere. I don't care where. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did it again, and still haven't made any comments on talk pages anywhere. You don't own these articles. You don't get right of refusal over any edits made to them. Can you please join some discussion somewhere, preferably without accusations of conspiracy? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please change your userpage

Please remove the "List of people who should not be able to use the edit button". It is not permissible, including in userspace. In the same vein, you may wish to revisit your use of the phrase "Jewish conspiracy". Thanks. Vassyana 19:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The jewish conspiracy thing is something that appeared when someone was quoted in FYAD on the somethingawful forums a while ago. It doesn't mean anything at all. Jtrainor 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours, since you have outright stated you have no intention to discuss your continued reversions to those three Gundam articles. Discussing disputed edits/reverts is not optional. Either stop reverting and drop the issue, or engage in discussion; you seem to want to have your cake and eat it. – Steel 20:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


dear good user

I would like to thank you for helping out Wikipedia, but blowing a shitter actually does mean taking a shit while the ballast tanks of a submarine while it is blowingcitation needed air. Please refer to U.S. Navy slang

A Man In Black, etc

Hiya. Please do actually talk to AMIB sometime. The entire recent history for those MSN-0X articles is you, Malik and him reverting over and over. Honestly, if this continues as it has it'll end in a bad way and all three of you will all suffer in some way and the article will end up how none of you want it. I know you don't like AMIB but evidently he's not going to let this drop so you're going to have to do something about it.
On another note I've noticed that since your block expired you've replied once or twice to AMIB and those weren't the most constructive comments ever made. All he wants is for you to discuss things somewhere. – Steel 20:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMIB's contributions to the articles in question have lowered their quality rather than raising it. He has insulted me and my friend MalikCarr (violating WP:CIVIL in the process), and has been attempting to delete large numbers of Gundam-related images, a pattern which is not out of the ordinary for him with regards to other disputes (see the whole Wikipedia: Final Fantasy talk page etc, there is at least one user there who has had EVERYTHING he uploads tagged for deletion by AMIB). Jtrainor 04:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really address anything I said. What counts as raising or lowering quality is clearly subjective, and the main point I'm trying to make is that you can't carry on blanket reverting with just the occasional snide comment (AMIB isn't the only one here who has violated WP:CIVIL). Secondly, clearing out inappropriately-used fair use images per WP:NONFREE is a co-ordinated effort across the wiki. See User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse and Fair use overuse explanation, and if you think AMIB is being a dick with images try having a discussion with Durin or Gmaxwell about it. I myself have gone through people's logs deleting tonnes and tonnes of their uploads. Trust me, this is not AMIB on one of his one-man crusades. – Steel 14:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images without good sources or rationale need to be deleted, and WP:FUC strictly limits how Wikipedia uses non-free images. It sucks in a way, but it is the way things are. If I weren't tagging the images, Durin or ed g2s or TTN or Jeff Gustafson or Betacommand or Carnildo would be. As for WP:WPFF, I stepped in when I noticed a dispute over non-free images becoming heated, and ended up the new target of rancor from the user already on tilt. Unfortunately, that happens.

Now. I haven't meant any offense to you, and I would like to actually collaborate with you in working on articles. Your pattern of reverting every single one of my edits to Gundam articles with the edit summary "rv" makes this nearly impossible. Would you please engage in civil discussion with me somewhere? I could link you somewhere, but just anywhere that isn't "Go away A Man In Black" or "Looks like a deletionist is trying to ruin our articles." I didn't come here looking for a confrontation.

That said, there is some unfortunate business that needs dealing with. If you continue removing "No fair use rationale" tags without replacing them with proper fair-use rationales, I will unfortunately be forced to block you. This is exposing Wikipedia to significant lawsuit risk, and blatantly violates WP:FUC to boot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Images

Hi, I have noticed the commotion here and had a look at the actual images. While Man in Black there has not shown the best behaviour, please be aware that these policies exist on Wikipedia to protect the rights of the artists - most of whom you will find are not at all happy about their work being used on Wikipedia.

  1. I think this image: Image:Msg ms138.jpg could be saved. But you need to specify where exactly it came from. It is not enough to say "promo image". You need to specify the magazine (and edition) or a specific website where it came from. And then you need to provide a fair use rationale as described (I could help you out there if you are confused).
  2. The website from which the sketch images came: http://www.mahq.net/ are not taken directly from the magazines, so you cannot use them (without permission) even under "fair use" - if you would obtain the images from the magazines directly then you could use them under "fair use" without permission, provided that you specify a fair use rationale as already mentioned above by others.--Konstable 03:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Detour

Unless you'd care to post on the talk page what sort of POV is being pushed in the article, stop adding a tag that claims it's there. Jtrainor 22:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not added a POV tag to the article. The only tag I've added to that article is a cleanup tag to the history section, which is in need of a cleanup. --Farix (Talk) 22:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of bad faith

Why have you repeatedly accused User:Oscarthecat of bad faith? Please explain on the appropriate pages. --Eyrian 20:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check his edit history. On top of that, check the articles which are the subject of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/F90_Gundam_Formula_90. It should be blatantly obvious he didn't read any of them, and instead simply mass-nommed.

Not that he's read any of the other articles either, except for perhaps a brief glance; otherwise he would not be using almost the exact same text for every Gundam AfD he's started, all of them referencing the material in question as being from a comic, when even a cursory glance at the articles in question say that the stuff is from an anime. Jtrainor 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you claim it is obvious he has not read them? I think there is very legitimate concern over the notability of those articles. --Eyrian 20:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Go look at some of the mass-nommed articles in question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gundam_%28mobile_suit%29 in particular is very well written and sourced, as is the Zaku II article and several others. He didn't even add the AfD tag to all of them. Jtrainor 20:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified that nomination, it's only about one particular mobile suit; he is only providing a list of similar articles that should be considered for deletion under similar criteria. --Eyrian 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: AMIB's edits

I've been watching several Gundam articles for a while now, and to be honest I don't see how his edits were "destructive" at all. That would imply to me that he's doing things such as adding false statements, blanking the page, etc., not changing the infobox to something more concise. If anything, this feels like you're holding some sort of grudge against him. Maikeru 17:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't see how changing the best Gundam articles currently on the wiki (besides Gundam (mobile suit)) to a crappy looking thing with an infobox that makes little sense and tags bukkaked everywhere isn't destructive, I really don't know what to tell you. It's especially glaring in the case of the Jagd Doga article-- compare the version I keep reverting to with AMIBs' and it becomes obvious. Jtrainor 21:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The short infobox that tells the most basic details (Where did it first appear? Who designed it? What faction uses it? etc.) doesn't make sense, yet the humongous waste of space and laundry list of weapons, pointless stats, etc., that is the old-school infobox does? I don't understand.
You're right, the in-universe tag on the Jagd Doga is in a poor position, but that can be fixed easily enough without requiring an edit war. Other than that poorly-placed tag on Jagd Doga and that smaller infobox, there is no difference between the real meat of the article in his version and your/MalikCarr's version. Maikeru 22:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace deletions

The only pages I deleted in your userspace were redirects to nonexistent pages (User:Jtrainor/Sandbox and User:Jtrainor/Sandbox/List of Posting Styles). I must have been cleaning up a list of broken redirects. The target page, User:Jtrainor/List of Posting Styles, had been previously deleted by User:Krimpet. I suggest you take the deletion up with Krimpet. NawlinWiki 13:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP notability fiction

You might want to check out the discussion going on over there. There's a link from the anime and manga wikiproject, btw. Kyaa the Catlord 01:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paptimus Scirocco

I agree that this article needs to be fixed, and I've made a few more changes to it, but I would not delete or redirect it considering the epic battle that took place between him and the protagonist Kamille Bidan. Shaneymike 14:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

Hi there. There have been some comments left on the WQA forum regarding your dispute with Necator. Feel free to take a look there. The consensus seems to be that a source is needed to justify the the claims about the missile withstanding the blast (regardless of how true it is). Remember, the guideline for wikipedia is: verifiability, not truth. However, if you think that claim is nonsense, then you need to find sources to back up your position, in order to avoid posting original research. And if you both have conflicting sources: well, that's not really a problem, since it can be written as "Bob claims x, however Alice claims y". Wikipedia's place isn't to determine who's correct, just to report what can be reliably sourced. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some diff's to support that? I'm not really invested enough to mount my own investigation here. --Bfigura (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not really interested in digging into histories. If you give me some diff's, I'll give you my opinion, but otherwise, I don't care enough to do a POV-investigation. (I'll give some suggestions on how to resolve that in WQA though). As far as the IP being Necator's: have you done a checkuser? If not, please don't make sock-accusations with proof. It's not terribly civil. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments on WQA. I'm personally done here. (Nothing personal, I'm just not getting into this). --Bfigura (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Necator

I've fully protected the page, because it's in dispute, and so you guys can have some time to yell at each other and work it out (hopefully) on the talk page (not that I'm implying you're yelling at each other, but it often turns into a yelling match). I'm just still trying to figure out how out of all the admins I'm always the one receiving these (to me random) requests. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 04:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Emot-munch.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Emot-munch.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation

I have filed a request for mediation over the Gundam edit warring at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gundam‎. Please sign your acceptance or rejection over this issue. hbdragon88 05:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's now a deletion review

Hello, Jtrainor. I'm alerting all of the editors that took part in the the deletion debate for the article Adult-child sex that it is now a deletion review, as seen in this link. I felt that you may want to lend your voice about this topic in its deletion review as well. More on what may happen concerning this topic is discussed here. After reading that, I'm sure that I won't have to tell you to watch for it being put up for deletion again, if this deletion review doesn't come out as Overturn and delete. I'll see you around. Flyer22 20:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


N64 games and lists

Hi, I noticed you were one of the few people that thought the List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games had some useful information and it should be meged or saved, and I wanted to invite you to the orignal N64 talk page to see what we've been working on, however the two normal page maintainers seem to not want to discuss it even the one that tried to delete the Japanese page. So far it seems to be pretty good, with one entry per program and alternate names and region names listed in a separate column next to the main Wikipedia title used here. Let us know what you think of the examples we've made there. Have a great day.Talk:List of Nintendo 64 games(Floppydog66 13:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Image:Ms-14a-stutzer.jpg

It takes about a minute to write a quick fair use rationale to satisfy the "no rat" people. I've added it in the interest of not smothering the flames of another possible war, but just an FYI. hbdragon88 00:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the List of people that should not have the edit button probably violates the userpage policy: Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. hbdragon88 00:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gundam.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

User page

Hi Jtrainor. I have some concerns about your user page. Would you mind editing it to conform with WP:USERPAGE? Thanks in advance. --John 00:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My user page complies with WP:USERPAGE already. I see no changes that need to be made. Jtrainor 12:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I was thinking of "Wikipedia is useless crap because anyone can write anything down" and the section entitled "List of people whom I think should not be able to use the edit button". From the policy page, under "What may I not have on my user page?"; "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors" and "There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense". I consider those two sections to be in breach of our policies and I am asking you nicely to modify them to conform with our goal of encyclopedia. Thanks again for your consideration. --John 16:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't attack any specific editors and it's an opinion piece. Wikipedia is not censored and I highly doubt a bit of a rant on a talk page is going to attract negative attention from the world at large. Jtrainor 17:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:MER-C and User:A Man In Black are specific people. --John 17:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All it says is that I think they should not be able to use the edit button. If they complain (and AMIB hasn't despite having seen my user page plenty of times in the time we've dealt with each other), I'll remove the stuff. Jtrainor 17:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation; I think you should ask whether these entries on your user page are actually advancing the project. I think they are not, and rather than argue further with you, I have raised the matter centrally here so that others may have an input. Best wishes, --John 19:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should ask yourself if all those userboxes on YOUR userpage "advance the project any". The long and the short of the matter is that my userpage has had that stuff up for months and no one other than Necator and yourself have complained any, and Necator only brought it up as an attempt to muddy the waters from the fact that his complaint has no merit. Jtrainor 19:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: POINT violation

Let's deal with this in pieces. First, about the edit-warring. Have you taken the issue to the talk page? Perhaps there you can work something out. As for the incorrect warnings, just revert them, just make sure that you're not violating 3RR. My second piece of advice is to make sure you don't violate 3RR. I'm also presuming that the article in question is White privilege (sociology). Looking at the history, I didn't see a recent 3RR violation by anyone, can you please point me to the diffs? If you think the users are the same, and are circumventing 3RR, not just editing constructively, open a WP:RFCU. Also, if going to the talk page doesn't help, open a WP:MEDCAB request; I'd mediate the case if you would like. I hope this helps. Regards, Neranei (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've taken a look at the history, and have seen you revert 4 times on the 27th, and the other person at least 4 times on the 27th. You both are in violation of the 3RR. Don't edit the article for now; violating the rule further will most likely result in all of you being blocked. I really recommend taking this to the 3RR noticeboard, and I also recommend opening a mediation cabal case. Again, I'd be willing to mediate. Regards, Neranei (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Necator

If he continues, let me know and I will block him. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mobile Suit (unused redirect)

I've noticed {{Mobile Suit}} which redirects to {{Infobox Mobile Suit}} but {{Mobile Suit}} has no links.
Is there a reason to keep {{Mobile Suit}}? – Conrad T. Pino 18:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's just a leftover. Jtrainor 18:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any objection to {{tfd}} delete nomination? – Conrad T. Pino 19:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke it. If it turns out to be needed it can always be brought back, after all. Jtrainor 20:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and we'll see where the discussion goes. – Conrad T. Pino 21:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Mobile Suit

Template:Mobile Suit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Conrad T. Pino 21:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Mobile Suit

Please help me understand, as one of the contributors, recent Template:Infobox Mobile Suit activity by expanding Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit#Ahem and thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 18:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topic updated – Conrad T. Pino 01:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topic updated – Conrad T. Pino 03:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topic updated – Conrad T. Pino 10:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/S-400.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gundam

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party is now active, and your input is requested. Further information is available at the Mediation location, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Return of the IP

I'd recommend you post something on AN/I; the admins there should be able to figure it out. I'm not an admin, and thus can't view deleted contribs and such, so I may not be of much help. Regards, Neranei (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GundamRes

Even if it's a disruptive account, the point still stands that it is written in an in-universe perspective and consists entirely of plot summary. hbdragon88 01:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How am I wrong? There is nothing in the article that has any out-of-universe perspective: no interviews, no information on its creation, etc. Just a huge, long, plot summary. hbdragon88 01:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its a wikistalking and sockpuppet issue. There is a lot of Out of Universe perspective in the Psyco Gundam article, but this nice editor chases around with his sockpuppets to harass trainor and malik.... Just another example of gaming the system to drive away good editors by those who do not remember that wikipedia IS a specialized encyclopedia and worship at the altar of FICT. Kyaa the Catlord 01:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...why is why I re-added the tag and added the {{plot}} tag. I am not a sockpuppet of anybody, therefore I would like a reason for why my addition of the tag was reverted. hbdragon88 01:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing gasoline on the fire, eh? I'm sorry, but instigating problems is bad form Hbdragon. Kyaa the Catlord 01:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but reverting with a summary of "You're wrong" without explaining why I'm wrong? Also poor form. hbdragon88 02:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be nice, Kyaa. In hbdragon's defense, he really has no idea what's been going on all this time. Jtrainor 03:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll be nice. :P I like dragons anyways! :P Kyaa the Catlord 13:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring block

I have blocked you for 72 hours for engaging in edit wars with User:A Man In Black, User:GundamsRus, and User:MalikCarr on multiple articles for an extended period of time. Mr.Z-man 03:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not dispute this block Jtrainor (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GundamsRus

I don't know why you're so up in arms about it – AGK removed that plus the latest AMIB-MC exchange, effectively making it a dead issue. Obviously another RfM is going to be required for the issues regarding GundamsRus, but from what you just said, it doesn't look like any mediation request will get off the ground. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(replying here since I'm blocked) For what it is worth, I do appreciate that you are trying to help. It's not your fault this mess exploded in all directions. Jtrainor (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gundam Mediation

You should dump that. AGK has removed my challenges to hbdragon as "disruption" despite there being no compunction that non-parties do not comment on the mediation case page. I don't see his mediation as being fair unless he's willing to follow the four pillars and remember that wikipedia, and all the pages within, is the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i was actually wondering if that was going to be removed or not – on arbitration cases at least, users make statements and threaded conversation (as we just did) is usually disallowed, with clerks occasionally refactoring it into other statements . I'm not sure if he would let you make your own statement – I'm as new to mediation as everyone else is.
For the record, mediation is the only shot at resolving this long-standing conflict, and I urge you to not reject it outright. If it fails just because the parties cannot come to an accord, that's one thing, but if it fails on account of the withdrawal of one of the parties, that just looks bad. I'm following through with all steps of WP:DR if need be, and I hope this is the first and only step I need to take. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm less keen on this accomplishing anything than I was 24 hours ago. If AGK is going to squelch communication, why bother? And to label our discussion as "disruption" is insulting and betrays a bias in my opinion. He should recuse himself and find another less biased mediator to replace himself. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just to clarify, the second paragraph was for Jtarinor, not to you. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kya, you arn't involved in the mediation, so of course your messages are being removed. Chill out a little and let's see what AGK does with regards to the mediation. I am in possession of information that you are not about this-- wait and see. Jtrainor (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I correct, in good faith, obvious falsehoods and inaccuracies, it should not be labelled as disruption. I may not be a party, but it is incorrect in many ways for my good faith responses to be labeled disruption. Then again, its obvious that Hbdragon has read my responses to him so I guess all is even here. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gundam

The problem is - to an outside observer, it appears that nothing is being done. There are dozens of these pages that haven't been seriously edited for months, if not years. And I'm not particularly targeting Gundam - it's just one example of many fiction-based subjects where there are swathes of really poor articles; badly written, unsourced, in-universe, nothing but plot summaries, and so on. Here's an example - it's utterly pointless in its current state. Even when articles are sourced, they're often merely sourced to primary sources. Most of these articles would be better off in a specialised Wiki; they don't belong in an encyclopedia. Oh, and don't take my talk page personally; I was quoting someone else, best to read his talkpage for the details. ELIMINATORJR 19:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent reversions

I think it's quite possible your recent comments were reverted because they were not particularly civil. I ask you to please remember that insulting other editors is not productive or appropriate, even on a humour page. Revert-warring is also not the best approach. Thanks - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from [[::Image:VX2.jpg]]. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. βcommand 18:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do be civil, and do your homework next time

Re: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#I take issue with Jimbo Wales' assertion that Wikipedia should be used as a source by students ([1])

You don't get a free pass on WP:NPA and WP:CIV, even when the editor you're insulting is the figurehead of the project. Calling a fellow editor 'ignorant' isn't acceptable around here.

In any case, if you want to 'take issue' with another editor, the appropriate place to do so is on that editor's talk page; it's not a Village Pump issue. Finally, before you go off half-cocked the next time, it's a good idea to read that editor's talk page anyway, even if you want to sound off someplace more publically in the end. If you had done so in this case, you would have noticed that Jimbo has already been asked about this very issue: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Disgusting. The remarks published by the BBC were incomplete and taken out of context, and Jimbo had already responded to concerns similar to yours twenty minutes before your post to the Pump, and hours before you continued the thread there.

Jimbo's staked out a reasonable position, and though I can't read your mind, I suspect it's within reasonable shouting distance of your opinion. So, there it is. Either Jimbo is lying about what he said, or he was the innocent victim of some overzealous trimming on the part of the BBC. In the first case, you can call Jimbo a liar someplace else; this isn't the place for it. (We're busy writing an encyclopedia here.) In the latter, you probably owe an apology. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being perfectly civil, if a bit blunt. If my words are unpleasent to read, don't read them. Jtrainor (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't want your words to be read, you wouldn't put them on the Village Pump. I've not called you out on your oversight there because I was hoping that you'd take the opportunity to comment on the information that you – apparently – weren't aware of when you first posted. I still hope that you will. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I do think I'll be keeping away from the Village Pump. I'd rather not have even more people picking through my wiki business and looking for things they can make more trouble for me with. In your favor, I do exclude you from this as you have merely commented and not actually done anything. Jtrainor (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with you, since I don't know you

I do have problems with the personal attacks on your User page and with your comments on the Village Pump. Corvus cornixtalk 21:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the sock?

If you're going to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet ([2]), it's helpful to identify the puppeteer. If you can make a convincing case that an editor is a sockpuppet, he can be blocked, particularly if the sock account is being used to prosecute an edit war or engage in harrassment.

However, if you don't have any evidence to support the suggestion of sockpuppetry, don't level such accusations. Edit summaries like this one ("you have not made a single positive contribution to this article") are never appropriate. If you don't want to work with – or receive messages from – another editor, that is your choice. If, however, you are unprepared to interact courteously and civilly, then you need to step back from the articles where you're in conflict. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you contact User:MalikCarr for details. I don't feel like rehashing all this again. Also, stop watching my contribs to find things to bother me about, please. Jtrainor (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On your advice, I've asked MalikCarr for information. Why don't you want to tell me why you think GundamsRus is a sock? Looking at his block log, he apparently had a rough start on Wikipedia...but as an admin there's not a lot I can do if he's keeping his nose clean now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I still don't see how GundamsRus is a sockpuppet; it would probably be best to stop describing him that way: [3]. If you don't want to respond to his comments, that's fine. If you want to archive them, that's fine too. Just don't call him a sock. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Are you calling GundamsRus a sockpuppet because he sometimes isn't logged in when he edits? If so, you should be aware that that isn't sockpuppetry—it's just carelessness or technical difficulties. I've asked him to be more careful about logging in before he edits, just because using a mix of IPs along with his account makes it more difficult to follow discussions and disputes. In the meantime, I would ask you to just ignore it if it happens, and trust that it's an innocent mistake. You guys already have a lot of legitimate grounds for disagreement—there's no need to get bent out of shape over a minor technical detail.
Note that as far as policies like the three-revert rule go, the 'electric fence' line is at three reverts per person, not three reverts per account. He doesn't gain any sort of advantage in an editing dispute by being logged out, and any blocks he might receive would apply equally to him whether logged in or not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(update) I have given GundamsRus some suggestions about how he might be able to log in; he's apparently having technical difficulties with one of his computers that causes the login process to stall. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing my redirects

Unless you have available sources or some sort of reason as to how they can improved, please leave the articles as redirects. We have a large problem with fiction articles, and leaving them to rot does us no good. TTN (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "we" here. I have had ample opportunity to examine what you are doing and it is not improving anything. Jtrainor (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For one, it is saving us from thousands of AfDs, and the deletion of possibly reusable content. And you probably don't really care about the various other reasons, so I won't go into those. If you would like to try to change WP:N to allow for unsourced content, be my guest, but please do not reflect your view upon a couple of articles that clearly fail it. TTN (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, there is no "us". Your method of operation is as follows: a) redirect articles against consensus. Edit war to preserve the redirects. b) If you lose, nominate the article for AfD and call in several meatpuppets to help you.

I have run into similar editing practices before, though not on so large a scale. Don't try to sweet-talk me, because I will have none of it. Jtrainor (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please try to change the way things work on a higher level instead of playing around with a few articles. If you are going to persist with stalking me, please do some research before reverting. Your last revert was fully discussed for a good while. TTN (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking you? I reverted a few of your edits only, until I noticed the Arbcom case about you and the sheer volume of your stuff. I plan to wait and see on this one as the stuff you are doing most assuredly violates a number of policies. Jtrainor (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to remind TTN that per WP:OWN they are not his redirects. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom does not think that TTN's actions are violationg policy, as the passing principle regarding TTN is that only of cautioning or admonishing...no probation, edit parole, or any punishment that they would give out for edit warring and breaking policy. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thus we're silenced as fiction is driven off of wikipedia. Fantastic. ArbCom "justifies" his disruption. Beautiful. Shall we all bow down before the Cabal now? I think not. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This just isn't any ordinary cabal...this is the ultimate authority on resolving user disputes. Some detractors of the "real-world notability" notion of FICT brought a case against TTN, and the ArbCom looks to say that they don't think it's disruptive (I say "looks to" since who knows an Arb member might suddenly think otherwise). If those detractors themselves become disruptive, then I think they might be put before ArbCom, so, everybody has to tread lightly here. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally not an ordinary cabal. It is a tainted cabal full of super sekrit lists, shady maneuvers and Keystone cop-like fumbling. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I got the secret lists (the Durova case), but I'm not getting the shady maneuvers and Keystone cop-like fumbling. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the zscout desysopping? The most recent one, that is. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[Gundam Mk-II

...And I point you to WP:BRD. MalikCarr BOLDly made a change to the wording which hadn't been discussed on the talk page. In moderation, this is an acceptable practice, with some provisos.

A Man In Black disagreed with the changes, and removed the unsourced statement. This is also a part of the Wikipedia process.

Finally, I expect that there will be no further edits to the disputed section until they have discussed things. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX

Can you explain to me how it's a violation of WP Policy? Alatari (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examine what Torc2 said on the talk page. He explained it before I could. Jtrainor (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

If you feel that you're being stalked by another editor, the best place to go is WP:AN/I, where an administrator can take up the issue.

Please don't just leave accusations of stalking on another user's talk page without being a bit more detailed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guy follows me around and posts on just about every page I do, especially in AfDs. It's fairly clear cut. Jtrainor (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific, he is editing from this IP amongst others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/207.69.137.39 Jtrainor (talk) 22:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons greetings

Since its pass Christmas over here, I will have to greet you with a Happy New Year greeting :) MythSearchertalk 02:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing RPG notability/AfD situation

Hi, Jtrainor. Was wondering if you wouldn't mind reading my take on this situation around here of late, with all the AfD stuff going on in the RPG sector. My user page article is here. Thanks in advance. Compsword01 (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Yo

You have claimed on my talk page that I have violated civility and NPA in regards to Raggz. Could you show me where? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 05:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your constant implications of him being a sockpuppet, for one. If you think he's one, make a request for checkuser. Jtrainor (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War and review the diffs. Sock or meat puppet, it doesn't matter. The evidence is clear and persuasive. —Viriditas | Talk 08:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Regarding your post at WP:AN/I, neither of these instances are personal attacks. In both, the user in question is talking about policy - I can't even begin to guess at what could be interpreted as an attack in either case. Even if an attack had happened, you should first bring it up with the user; the noticeboard is reserved for cases where outside intervention is needed (and Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is generally more appropriate for NPA matters anyway). You may want to read over the NPA policy to make sure you understand what it covers. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Implying someone is an imbecile is most definitely a personal attack. I don't see how it could be taken otherwise. Jtrainor (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that implied? I don't see anything remotely resembling that. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heads up—the comments were changed by BernardL after Jtrainor made the report. There are diffs in the AN/I report now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt; he may have made those changes with good intentions after realizing that he was out of order. If it happens again, take it up with him first and escalate it to the wikiquette page if necessary. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

I'm sure you don't need to be told to assume good faith over at Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States. You cannot revert on the basis that it "smacks of bad faith." I also have a real problem with the way Raggz doesn't include edit summaries, particularly since many of his/her edits are likely to be controversial. If you feel a more incremental rollback to be justified, then could you please do so providing some clue as to what is being done at each stage? It might be helpful, also, if someone "friendly" could encourage Raggz to use edit summaries in his editing bonanzas. Some of the material inserted during Raggz's edit is clearly non-NPOV, and should be reverted. Without a more incremental view of Raggz's contributions, it is very difficult to keep the portions other editors agree with (in the sense of having consensus), while removing those they do not. Cheers, Silly rabbit (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 05:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment

I don't know how to undo your blanking of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard without making it a worse mess. Your action was, at best, overly hasty. There is no way you should have blanked the whole page.

Aren't there automated tools which will intelligently archive threads, based on how many days since they have had activity? How was your wholesale blanking superior than the use of one of those tools? I started a thread on January 24 2008. I've asked other wikipedians to go to that noticeboard and respond to that thread. How are they going to do that now?

I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to refrain from blanking pages in future. Geo Swan (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't blank the page, I followed the copy-paste method on the policy page that talks about how to archive things. Click Archive 6 to see previous threads. Jtrainor (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cap.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Cap.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back

Thanks for the info. I have been chasing marlin in Mexico, and will be returning soon. I'm thinking about the article, still. Raggz (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent comments on various AfDs

Recently, you've left a number of comments on various fiction-based AfDs with this comment: AFD violates the current Arbcom injunction. Could you please explain this (along with a link to this "injunction")? I know of no injunction against any good faith AfD. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 00:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2 Essentially there's an injunction on deleting or redirecting character pages until this arbcom case is concluded. The exact criteria are within. Jtrainor (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine -- However, there's a few problems with what you did. The text is "For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character". 1) There is nothing in this injunction about creating AfDs. At best, the final determination on the AfD will be held until resolution. There's even a template in place for this very purpose. 2) It only applies to television series characters. You placed it on an Honorverse AfD, which is not a television series but rather a series of novels. My recommendation is that you strike your speedy keep there. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 01:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State Terrorism

I removed your comment [4] be cause it was rude and violates civility, the situation on the page is already in dire need of some teamwork, not further pointless jabs. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Regarding this: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Stone put to sky, do you have any idea why Stone put to sky (talk · contribs) wasn't punished, nor any of the sock puppets blocked, especially given that this isn't the first time. He's just going to keep up with this crap until he's banned, expect more of these SPAs every time there's another dispute. Dance With The Devil (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me. Presumably admin oversight-- couldn't hurt to poke them about it. I certainly hope he either cleans up his act or goes away for a long time, he's the largest obstacle to getting State terrorism and the United States into order at the moment. Jtrainor (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For your support. I will continue to try to make the article follow WP policies.Ultramarine (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


V-22 Accidents

Just wanted to give you my support, if your still lobbying it. That article is a joke.It should be Dumped! The article, might have notability, but only as much as we (editors) give it. This should be placed in the V-22 Main. Incidents: like “Delivery of the Osprey to a combat zone for the first time, one of the ten aircraft experienced an unidentified malfunction which required it to land in Jordan, before continuing on to Iraq” WOW! Sorry but that’s kinda stretching it. I you shows a great point, if you have a article for the V-22 accidents, then you should have separate article for all aircraft, especially aircraft like the AV-8 HarrierANigg (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BJBot

You're not allowed to have fair use images in your userspace, the opt out doesn't apply to removing said images. BJTalk 11:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AAGF

Regarding [5] please read WP:AAGF. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on WP:ANI is that it was, in fact, a bad faith nom. As such, go away. Jtrainor (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are being rude and uncivil. This guideline applies to you as it does to everybody else. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL doesn't protect one from criticism. And I'm quite entitled to tell you to go away. Jtrainor (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're up

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jtrainor.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently you are not. Please do not post on my talk page again, because if you are going to display such behaviour I really have no interest in interacting with you in any way, shape, or form. Jtrainor (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Communism

Short and unsourced but links to two long articles with somewhat different focus which are sourced. Could possible be merged into the Communism article as a section as you say. One advantage with current structure is that one can link to "Criticisms of Communism" from templates and other articles. Like the Communism template does now. I was part of those editor who created the current structure. It seems to have worked and have been stable so I would suggest keeping it.Ultramarine (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Agreed. Thanks for your support.Ultramarine (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will report him. Working on this now.Ultramarine (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Very interesting.Ultramarine (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU

Very likely sockpuppets of some experienced editor(s). Maybe someone banned. However, RFCU does not check IPs or names against all other Wikipedia accounts. One must state exactly which account is suspected of using a sockpuppet account/IP and give an explanation. Only those accounts are checked. When I get some time I will try to see if the IPs an be associated with some earlier editor.Ultramarine (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this: [6]. But the IPs are probably not Stone since he seems to reside in Taiwan according to those IPs who have been identified as him in earlier RFCU. See "Attack accounts" [7].Ultramarine (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is possibly Giovanni33, however. Jtrainor (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again

Yet another one, expect more tedious irrelevancy on State terrorism and the United States. On another note, support for the move back to "Allegations of..." has been growing pretty fast. Dance With The Devil (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It is likely another sockpuppet-- I suspect Giovanni33 myself. Jtrainor (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your protest?

[8] What exactly are you protesting? Are you protesting the fact that I have concerns about how material was removed from a locked article by the locking admin without concensus? Or are you just reverting? A clarification would be nice.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerriet42 revealed as sockmaster

You can really be proud of yourself. First you provoke other users who make good contributions into using sockpuppets with your destructive edits, and then you blame them for that.

You should try to make some usefull contributions instead. Solidarity and working together is what counts here in Wikipedia. It is not your personal forum to start a battle and win it just so you can feel like an alphamale. Jtrainor has done this to other users aswell as you can see on his talk page. First he has unjustified and destructive edits without dicussing them and then he "reveals" the sockpuppets which good contributers resort to.

Please use a lot of sunscreen. Preferably the one which contains a lot of PABA or oxybenzone. Gerriet43 (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're revert

Notice how it says should be and not must be from DELPRO. I'd actually appreciate it more that you revert yourself and take it to DRV as suggested in my closing statement. And I did mark it as no consensus. A no consensus is keep by default. And you also should have made mention in the AfD that it was closed and you had reverted its closure, while copying the closing statement and pasting it into the AfD. I'll give it a few before I revert myself. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Question about possibly filing an arbcom case

It seems that a separate case would need to be filed to ask Arbcom to look at the Allegations of state terrorism by the US article and the various conduct issues of the editors that constantly surround it. How would I go about doing this? There's been plenty of WP:ANI stuff and I think a few RFCs before as well. I asked you since you seem to be interested in such an arbitration case, and I am unsure of the procedure to be followed. Jtrainor (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with the way other requests have progressed it looks like you will have to file a separate request in order to have the history of editing of that article considered. An important issue is always prior dispute resolution: arbitration is always the final step, so the main thing you will need to demonstrate is that previous efforts have been attempted and have not been successful. As for the mechanics of making a request, there's some advice at Wikipedia:Arbitration guide, or else you could contact one of the clerks who can talk you through it. --bainer (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No anon IPs?

Are you actually trying to ban anon IPs from messaging you here? Exxolon (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a number of disputes with a certain anon who connects from multiple IPs in the past, and that's intended to keep him away. On a wider scope, I really don't see much point in communicating with someone that won't even reg a handle. In practice, I enforce things by simply removing postings from people whom violate what I put at the top. Jtrainor (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hello! Just wanted to chit-chat for a bit. First off, I just want to put you on a little imaginary conveyor belt and show you WP:POINT, WP:3RR, WP:AGF and WP:VANDALISM. Also WP:NPA and WP:REF. I'm not sure what your beef is with User:Sesshomaru, but the common practice here when you disagree on a subject is to discuss things on the coresponding article's talk page. I also see that you removed the warning from your page. I understand your rationale behind this (I've been down that road myself) but beleive me, it's better to just leave it be. Warnings are best left alone until a consensus can be reached on the subject at hand. WP:DTTR applies to people who have been long-time contributors, whereas you are relatively new. It's just a matter of process, not any personal grudge or belittlment on Sesshomaru's part.--Koji†Dude (C) 02:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, precisely, would lead you to the assumption that I'm new around here? I'm fully familiar with those policies. I'm also fully familiar with the way TTN and his cronies operate. Jtrainor (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because you're using the undo function without reading the instructions (using standard edit summary for edits that are not vandalism). Otherwise I find the idea that Jtrainor is a "new user" both hilarious and insane, since you've been here since December 2004 and IIRC you had a first account whose password you lost. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahah, people who've been here since 2004 are NEW? Amazing! This guy is certainly PLONKable, Jtrainor. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step away from the spade!

To be honest if he wants to keep digging I'm not going to waste anymore time trying to stop him. John Smith's (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to stop him? I prefer to shovel dirt down into the hole on top of him. Jtrainor (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Giovanni33

For some inexplicable reason, the discussion of the block of User:Giovanni33 is occurring in two places, on his Talk: page, and on AN/I. Since you have commented in one please, I thought you might want to comment in the other: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_of_Giovanni33. Jayjg (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did :) Jtrainor (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<griiiin>>

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For the creation of File:Emot-munch.gif, and judicious application of same. 'Nuff said. :-D --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now visting your talk page, I see you won't listen to anon ips here? That's not very nice to them. Why do you say that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It keeps away a particularly annoying IP editor that I"ve had troubles with in the past. Fortunately he seems to have moved on. Jtrainor (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm,the image is gone. You didn't actually create it yourself, or what gives? --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who bought it on SA originally. From there it spread across the internet. I don't feel like making a kerfluffle around here over an emoticon though so I don't care if it's deleted =p Jtrainor (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's yours it's yours, right? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Mobile Suit Gundam 00, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. You are the one who needs to stop it, and stop it now. The tags are valid. Your removing them is not, nor is following behind my other edits to leave false accusations. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll see you at WP:ANI. Don't template the regulars. Jtrainor (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule against templating "regulars" when they are doing wrong. You want to report me for templating you, go ahead. You improperly removed valid tags from an article for no other real reason, and made false accusations of "bad faith" in three different places. I don't what your problem is, but telling lies and making such accusations violate WP:CIVIL, and removing tags for no reason is considered vandalism. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. Reverting someone for a valid reason is never vandalism. Falsely accusing people of it in an edit summary, however, is quite uncivil, as is templating someone without attempting to discuss things with them. Jtrainor (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Par for the course for our friend Collie. She's got a troubling history of labelling edits that don't meet her POV as vandalism. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It could just be that we might classify Collectonion as an intermediate level editor? Seems to be following the rules strictly, so that seems about right. <scratches head> --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cell (Dragon Ball Z)

Regardless of Cell first appearing in a sequel of the series, I believe that we should set "(Dragon Ball)" as a disambiguator since the franchise is only known as Dragon Ball. That's why we use Baby (Dragon Ball) instead of Baby (Dragon Ball GT) and Pan (Dragon Ball) in the place of Pan (Dragon Ball Z). For instance, there actually was a poll on Talk:Baby (Dragon Ball) that ended with the page being located at "Baby (Dragon Ball)" (here's the link to that discussion). Thoughts? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this site is for English speaking users, it makes more sense to split the characters by series in order to avoid confusion. This should be done for the same reason every Star Trek character and series isn't merged into the same article/list. Jtrainor (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that this an encyclopedia for English speaking users, but all I'm saying is that we should disambiguate the articles after the franchise, which is named Dragon Ball. This is in order to avoid confusion, like the "Pan (Dragon Ball)" VS "Pan (Dragon Ball Z)" VS "Pan (Dragon Ball GT)", etc., case. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV banner

Would you care to explain why you added the POV banner in the article Safety of the Large Hadron Collider? --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the argument on the talk page, obviously. Jtrainor (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm back. If you have time, would you drop by Extraordinary rendition by the United States? I'm putting some work on that article. Nice to see you are still kicking, it around. Raggz (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to the AN board

Hi. I thought you should know, your edit to the AN page was reverted as a personal attack here. Wanted to let you know because I got trouted for reverting NedScott. He reverted back. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suprised about that. Ned Scott doesn't like me at all, and has a habit of picking up the causes of worthless people. I don't care enough to revert war over it, so I'll leave it be. Jtrainor (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 3tera (Copyright Law Infringement)

In 3tera article you placed the {{business-stub}} without any citation without giving any evidence. Accusing of other of copyright infrigenment without any clear evidence given is against the national law and please you it accoridingly. Do not take this as a joke. In the template you give no evidence that the original article belongs to you or any registered documents, products, technologies...etc and it is an unresponsible action, please stop using it abusively or else it is considered as a disruptive behaviour and Wikipedia has no toleration of this kind action. --Ramu50 (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the date on the tag. I don't remember why I added it but it must have been for a good reason at the time as I'm not in the habit of adding BS tags to things.

Also, you can retract your legal threats right away. I don't take kindly to people trying to push me around. Jtrainor (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat? You are the one that is violating the law yourself by false accusing. --Ramu50 (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramu50 is confused. It wasn't a copyvio tag at all. It was, as Ramu50 quoted, a {{business-stub}} tag. This has utterly nothing to do with copyright violations. I've restored it, as that article is still at the stub level, the only things added since the tag was added are external links. Jeh (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V2

I know, but V2 is never a main character in the other games, I have played great battle IV and know that it is the main character, the only problem is that the game itself might not be very notable and it is kinda obvious that the article page of GBIV is only a stub at the moment. MythSearchertalk 07:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

If you edit copyright violations into articles, by reversion or otherwise, such as with MSN-03 Jagd Doga and Gundam (mobile suit), I will block you. You do know better. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes, please do block someone you are involved in a content dispute with. I am utterly underwhelmed by your threats. Jtrainor (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay. You're blocked for 24 hours. Please don't do that again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok, I've noted your breakage of WP:BLOCK on ANI. I assume you have this page on your watch list and will consider this notification. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking a look at this. For convenience, the link to the ANI thread is here. I also dropped a note at AMIB's talk page (that is nearly always best even if you assume he has seen the above note, as if there is a dispute later, a direct talk page note means he will have had the orange bar appear). If this is being disucussed anywhere else, please let me know. Carcharoth (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jtrainor, I've noted at the ANI thread that someone needs to keep an eye on this talk page. If you do file an unblock request before the block expires, could you point the reviewing admin to the ANI thread? Carcharoth (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}}

Hi Jtrainor, I understand what you are saying, however it could possibly be easier to unblock if you were to indicate that you're going to attempt to resolve the disagreement by discussion, or perhaps by using the dispute resolution process. Would it be possible to give some sort of assurance that you aren't going to edit war if unblocked? PhilKnight (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, consider my point of view: what AMIB is doing is little more than vandalism. A previous attempt at mediation failed (check the WP:ANI thread for details). Interactions with him have shown that he is universally unwilling to compromise on anything. I can't simply let him have his way, so I am at a loss as to what else I am supposed to do here. Jtrainor (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This would not be the first time AMIB has used the power of the block in a content dispute either, as I've come under fire for pretty much the same thing as Jtrainor has in the distant past. There is a history of this sort of strategy. MalikCarr (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. I would suggest that a viable course of action could be to establish consensus on the talk page, possibly getting outside views by setting up a content RfC. To clarify what I'm saying, I'm not in any way objecting to another admin unblocking you without conditions. However, at the moment, I'm only prepared to unblock on the understanding that you don't continue the edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I accept -only- if AMIB is held to the same condition. He started this, after all. Jtrainor (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a messy issue, and the problem of copyright could be real. The ANI thread has not yet converged on a clear verdict. It may be possible for Jtrainor to be unblocked quickly if he will make some assurance about this future behavior. For example, he could promise to avoid this issue for a month. Per WP:GAB it is uncommon for users who merely complain about others' behavior to be successful in their unblock requests. (AMIB might be at fault but you shouldn't have to wait around for that to be decided). EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A month? I would settle for 13 hours! If the edit war kicks off again during the time he would otherwise be blocked I'm going to look very foolish. PhilKnight (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-undent- Well, let's look at the block on it's own merits: AMIB threatened, then blocked, someone that is arguably in a content dispute with him. Various parties may dispute whether it is entirely a content dispute or also a policy dispute, but regardless of this, he is an involved admin. He's been an admin a while, he's clashed with myself and other WP:GUNDAM people about this issue before, he really has no excuse for claiming ignorance in the matter. I really should have made this my unblock reason rather than dovetailing into why his other activities are wrong (which properly go in the WP:ANI thread). Jtrainor (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I would note is that AMIB stopped editing four minutes after he blocked Jtrainor and has not edited since. It is possible that AMIB will comment here or at the ANI thread before the 24-hour block is up, but if he doesn't, I suggest that a few minutes before the block is due to expire, that the block be lifted with a note detailing that AMIB hadn't responded to queries about the block, and also noting whatever the ANI consensus was (even if there has been no consensus yet). That way a link is maintained between the block log and the ANI thread, so that those reviewing the block log in future can ascertain whether the block was justified or not. (I'll copy this to the ANI thread as well). Carcharoth (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With a 24 hour block, I think 12 hours is enough time for the blocking admin to respond before we take a consensus from ANI as a substitute for their explanation. I am going to undo this block on the grounds that AMIB was apparently involved in a content dispute and may have used copyvio as a pretext for blocking. AMIB has had a chance to respond, but they have not for whatever reason. The ANI discussion does not support the block. I'd say it is no consensus leaning moderately towards an unblock. I think an unblock is closer to compliance with policy (both in spirit and in letter) versus keeping a dubious block. Should Jtrainor resume edit warring, I or another admin will reblock them without much patience. The matter of copyright infringement should also be investigated. As Carcharoth has noted, it is possible for unintentional piecemeal copyright violation to occur. That would be best investigated by somebody who was not involved in prior content disputes at the same article. Jtrainor, please click here and choose an appropriate dispute resolution mechanism. You will notice that "reverting" is not on the dispute resolution menu. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 19:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable to me, and a much cleaner way of handling it. Could you leave a note at the ANI discussion? Carcharoth (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to wait one hour in case AMIB appears, or in case anybody else objects. I will leave a note when I do the unblock. Upon double checking, I note that it has only been 11 hours. Jehochman Talk 19:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. One other point is that most of the people at the ANI discussion may be people who edit Gundam articles, so I'm not sure about what that thread means at the moment. I tend to think that there is a copyright problem, but that Jtrainor and AMIB clashed once again and AMIB had had enough and blocked. But as you say, give him (AMIB) another hour to respond. Carcharoth (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Events in real life are calling me away for a few hours. Carcharoth, or other admins, do what you think is right, or I can finish this as soon as I get back. My opinion is stated above. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 20:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I've unblocked based on the above discussion. However, if you resume the edit war, then you're going to be reblocked.

Request handled by: PhilKnight (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

I said above, "Should Jtrainor resume edit warring, I or another admin will reblock them without much patience. " Edit warring is not the way to resolve disagreements, especially if you happen to be right. Next time you revert any edit in the area of dispute, I will block you. Jehochman Talk 17:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jtrainor, I've been reviewing your recent edits as well, and they are unacceptable. You have gone straight back to edit warring over those articles. I came very close to blocking you for 48 hours, and leaving the ultimate length of the block to the mercy of ANI. The only reason I didn't block was because I found this warning here and you seem to have stopped. As Jehochman says, if you continue to edit like this without discussion, you will get blocked. I asked both you (in the ANI thread) and AMIB to start talking about this to get some outside opinions. AMIB has started some discussions (he has mentioned them on the ANI thread). Please do the same and discuss this, regardless of what the pages in question currently look like. You and he need to get this sorted out. Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:CP#4 November 2008 and Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit#Copyrights. Carcharoth (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's very telling that none of you admins have done a bloody thing about AMIB abusing his administrative tools and instead are goose stepping all over me with cleats. Jtrainor (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What we are trying to do is get the two of you to talk and stop edit warring. Part of that was me telling AMIB to stop blocking people where he was involved in a long-running dispute, and to post at ANI instead. That is what he did. I realise he also protected a page, but at least other options are being explored. At the end of the day, if me, Jehochman and Phil Knight had not got involved, AMIB would have blocked you again. You may feel we are preventing you from editing the way you want to, but what we are saying is stop, take a deep breath, and go and discuss the issues involved here. If you and AMIB can't get anywhere with discussion, then try and get others involved in the discussion, or take the discussion to a noticeboard or request for comments. What is not acceptable is to either carry on reverting and edit warring, or to just let thing lie for a bit and then carry on reverting and adding in the disputed text and stats. Carcharoth (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the dispute has moved to User:Jtrainor/Sandbox/obsolete/Jagd Doga. Jtrainor, even though it is a sandbox in your userspace, there are no special exceptions that apply there. Since it is a userspace page, why not just blank the whole page until you are ready to work on it? For an example of a blanked userspace page, see User:Carcharoth/Gracia Fay Ellwood. If you want to ask people's opinions on whether the disputed text is a copyvio, use a link like this. That will work regardless of what the current version of the page is. Carcharoth (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been looking over your recent contributions, and I don't see any sign that you have contributed to any of the wider discussions I asked you and AMIB to start or contribute to? I mentioned these above, but I'll mention them again down here. See the listing for RGM-89 Jegan at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 November 4, and see the discussion at Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit#Copyrights. If you don't take part in these discussions, it will be difficult to make progress on this, and ultimately this lack of participation in recent discussions will be something that will be noted if this moves further down the stages of dispute resolution. Carcharoth (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Gundam

If you read the rest of that deletion rationale you'll notice the "result of AFD" part. That should explain it.

As for brushing aside keep arguments, I beg to differ. First of all, these were the keep arguments;

  • Several sources a referred to and subject is well established as notable by the coverage and books that discuss it. Article may need to be cleaned up.
    • Discussed that on talk page. Again, any book created or copyrighted by the company responsible for publishing something is considered a primary source.
  • While most of this article's sources are primary sources, it links to multiple articles on the Japanese wikipedia, which indicates they think the topic is rather notable and hopefully could be used to obtain more sources.
    • Just because something is on another Wikipedia doesn't make it notable.
  • The article got at least 3 third party secondary sources, 2, 4, 5, 7 are all third party(2 and 5 are the same source) 2 and 5 are from a magazine that published in the 70~80s, 4 is a magazine that is still selling well and 7 is a news article. This would show the very basic argument of this nomination as faulty. The only equation in the article is actually a real life equation, see Nuclear fusion for the reaction equation. In fact, the article is only poorly written, and the nom does not show any regards to the first 2 paragraphs where those are actually talking about the out of universe impact on the real world. Looks like the nom simply scanned through the article and did not read it before nominating.
    • I already went over the sources. The rest about the nom isn't the matter here.
  • a good combination article. In articles such as this every item does not have to show notability, just be relevant content. The technology of the series is clearly a major aspect, and its good to have it brought together Dividing up content this way is a matter of editing convenience, not a matter of deletion or inclusion on the grounds of noatbilty. . A reasonable article. The material is reasonably well sourced.
    • The article as a whole didn't show relevant notability.
  • No valid deletion reasons given under policy. Those claiming that these magazines are primary sources need to show some proof.
    • Again, primaries.
  • This is popped. There's plenty of Gundam articles floating around with no sources and blatant copyvio article bodies, and this perfectly well sourced and very informative one gets the chopping block? The world has gone mad.

Also, let's look at our definition of primary sources (since everyone seems to love policy):

  • "Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event."
  • "Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event.

Out of the 8 sources:

  1. Gundam Officials afterword - primary
  2. Gundam Century renewal version acknowledgment - primary
  3. G20 - primary
  4. From the G Field, Newtype magazine special edition - primary (magazine named after the subject it publishes an article on)
  5. The Times, 1 November, 2008 - secondary
  6. Gundam Century, Minori, 22nd Sep, 1981. - primary
  7. Char Deleted Affairs - no idea.
  8. Gizmodo Japan - secondary

Hope that makes sense. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 03:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think the above rationale is a prime example of someone using his own view, rather than following the opinions. The "good combination article" comment quoted was mine. It's a policy based argument, and should not have been dismissed by the closers own personal view of notability. DGG (talk) 04:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument was dismissed, what about all the other keep arguments that were lacking in policy then? Should this delete be reverted because you said that the article should be kept? Last I checked, to assert notability, an article needed significant 3rd-party reliable sources that are independent from the subject. I see two sources, and as far as I've seen, two sources is not an indication of notability. To clarify, when I say seen, I mean the general consensus I've seen in AfDs around the community.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 05:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jtrainor&oldid=254940032"