User talk:Jpgordon

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

For older history, check [1] as well as the archives.

Re: The Chosen (Chaim Potok)

Hi... I noticed you haven't been de-crapping this article lately, and wondered if you were still active. Hope you're well... and I hate patrolling alone; makes it look like I think I own the thing. ;-) Zephyrad (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm active! I guess I haven't noticed any crap on my watch; has it been getting a lot? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just the usual... other'n someone injected a particularly Jewish POV line, this week ("creating this state would be superceding the authourity of G-d"), and couldn't spell, on top of it. (I notice now it's back, in an amended form: "Rebbe feels that...") Oy gevult. Zephyrad (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? That's not a POV; that's the reason the Rebbe opposed the creation of Israel. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the storyline (or the reasoning); I'm talking about the phrasing ("Rebbe" and "G-d"). Someone not familiar with Jewish culture would likely read that and go "Huh?", and not in a positive way. NPOV/"worldwide view" or a similar principle would apply, I believe. Zephyrad (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jeffhardy28 why did you block him

To JPGordon, The person who made Jeffhardy28 password was figured out by his friend David the dogman now it says he is abusing multiple accounts and he is blocked can you please unblock jeffhardy28's account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fake28 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Feel free to use the {{unblock}} template on User talk:Jeffhardy28. Perhaps someone will believe you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.73.17.181

Blocks should be based on the protection of Wikipedia rather than the punishment of offenders. Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours, since the malicious user will probably move on by the time the block expires. If there is persistent disruption or vandalism from an IP address, the block should be extended (with the 'anon-only' option selected) as long as is necessary to prevent further disruption. §hawn hath 22:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users Adatapost, Mr. moose

Just had an odd experience, maybe you can explain it. I use a Google search to find new (Google's 24 hour time limit) pages with the word "Software". This morning Category:Computer Education popped up, with one categorized page - User:Adatapost. Adatapost had only the history of creating the category - I nowiki'd the categorization of the user page, with the edit comment Nowiki'd category. See Wikipedia:Categorization guideline#User pages.

Almost immediately I received the message User talk:69.106.242.20#March 2009 that my test on that user page worked so it had been reverted. Message signed Mr. moose. Curious, I looked at the User talk:Adatapost - it's full of speedy deletion flags. That got me to look at User talk:Mr. moose where I found your recent, and curious, entry.

So - what I have stepped into? Is there an explanation for all of this? Thanks, 69.106.242.20 (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd. I thought it might be because it blanked the page, but no; and someone else removed the category, but then someone else reverted it. Weird. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi

how do you report a user of suspicion? AgentSpy101 (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand how "suspicion" would be anything to report. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how do you report a user? AgentSpy101 (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report a user for what? At any rate, perhaps you should concentrate on helping us put together an encyclopedia, rather than goofing around with user talk pages. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for vandalism, suspected sockpuppetry, ect. thats what I think he means. MusicMan4444 (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes! yes! thats exacly what I mean! AgentSpy101 (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for suspected sockpuppetry, you go to WP:SPI. For vandalism, WP:AIV. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Anne Teedham

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{Sockpuppet category}} template.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. This should be robotized if it's important enough to bother me about. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon, Great catch!

The sockpuppets of User Anne Teedham have created quite a mess of multiple pages within wikipedia, those of us involved in things surrounding those pages-Inslaw, Danny Casolaro, Michael Riconosciuto, Wackenhut, Peter Videnieks, Earl Brian, United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Political scandals of the United States, Robert Hanssen, Prosecutor's Management Information System, October surprise conspiracy theory, United States Office of the Independent Counsel, Ted Gunderson, and more are wondering if there's a way to revert all of the edits this person has done? If you look at the talk pages related to Inslaw and Michael Riconosciuto you'll see where this person has been quite biased in their editing and promoting misinformation throughout these articles. Any help you can give would be great. Again, thanks for catching this. desertfae —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hm. I know someone knows how to do that, but I don't. Ask around. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks again! Desertfae (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of converts to Judaism

I've had no luck with the RFC. How should I proceed now? Divamia (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request mediation; if that fails (and it probably will, since the one person doesn't think there's anything wrong at all with his position), you'll need to go to arbitration. Or just shrug and say "what a crock" and walk away from it; that's what I did. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello, Jpgordon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a ban of a user you were involved with. The discussion is about the topic Proposing a ban of user El Machete Guerrero. Thank you. --— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 10:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith edits?

I've recently started looking over the Recent Changes page and reverting some obvious vandalism. I came across these [2], [3] and I don't know enough about the subject(s) to know whether they are good faith edits. I'm hoping you could take a look and either revert or ignore. Thanks for your time. Tiderolls 17:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JAFN. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:69.194.137.183

Do you think the user who made the legal threat has moved on to a new IP yet? (Blocked since 2006) –xeno (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine so. Unblocked; thanks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cheers, –xeno (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help about a false sock puppet acussation

Dear administrator. My now blocked name is RodolfoMita or RodolfMita. We have a long discussion with Oli_Filth because he discriminates the Latin America people in scientific and technical matters. Please se Audio amplifier talk page the comment about his discrimination to Professor Bonello. The Oli_Filth reply to my accusation was to block me (and other university teachers) . The real true is as follows. As a resulto of a goog work of the AudioEngineering Society, New York in Latin America, giving conferences, Recording studios visits, etc. A rising interest in Acoustics and Audio Engineering can be noted in universities of South America (mainly Argentina, Brasil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia and Chile) Then many professors at universities (including myself) are interested in improving the students participation. One thing we noted is that Wikipedia, frequently consulted by students, has a poor documented articles in this field. Sometimes with personal opinions with no scientific based concepts. All professors usually communicates among us using the Educational News Report, received by e-mail. We did a good work, that lasts about 10 months with the agreement of many editors… But at this point Oli_Filth starts erasing our work because (he said) the name of Professor Bonello is “promotion” Please note that Bonello is a FELLOW member of AES New York (www.aes.org) . Then I ask myself; why several young editors that teaches at universities are now for Wikipedia like a gang of gangsters ? Why our work scientifically documented is continuously erased and never discussed at talk pages ? List of erased articles (previously accepted by others editors) are

MP3 Audio amplifiers Audio signal processing Room acoustic (erased by Oli_Filth but now restored by other editors) FM Broadcasting Tephone Hybrids An so on…

Please what we must do ? Regards User:RodolfMita (now blocked) --200.61.154.31 (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must not edit on Wikipedia while blocked, except to request unblocking on your user talk page (which can still be edited by the blocked user.) But it does look quite evident that User:RodolfMita, User:Binksternek, User:RobertTanzi, and User:Albert-Kraft aer the same person, which is going to badly damage any claim you have to acting in good faith. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, but I feel it do not solve my problem. I will try to be more clear:

a) When you said: "But it does look quite evident that User:RodolfMita, User:Binksternek, User:RobertTanzi, and User:Albert-Kraft are the same person" I do not understand your proof. They are at different countries (you can test it using IP address) They are different persons with the same purpose That is edit acoustical articles to improve it (please see again my comments at the beginin of this text) Then, Oli_Filth has bloked me with no evidence. What is the next step ? Since you are an Administrator; can you unblock me ?

b) item a) can be solved in my case or not because hundred of professors and doctorate students in Latin America probably wishes to come into Wiki to add Acoustics articles, please let me know what to do with the people discrimination problem ? If Oli_Filth (or others) still discriminates me and all the other editors (including new editors) that writes references to resarch work did in Latin America. What we must do ? Plese remembre that to block editors is a punishment measure used to improve an illegal situation of People Discrimination (First step: erasure, Second step: block Latin American editors) Please let me know exactly what to do. Can you help me to solve this problem? Or I must use another Wikipedia path to stop people discrimination ? In this case what I must do ?

Best regards RodolfMita--200.61.154.177 (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not in different countries. The only way you will get unblocked is by posting an unblock notice on your own user talk page. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. But the main question is item b. How the Latin American editors can avoid discrimination ? There is not sense in asking for be unblocked if Oli_Filth or another people can discriminate me (or others) again and block me again? Please this issue is not a joke. Can you give me a detailed explanation about what to do into Wikipedia to solve this problem ? Or we must presente a case for discrimination at the USA Embassy in Colombia, Chile or Buenos Aires ? (recently it happens with Facebook) What do you recommend me ? Regards RodolfMita--200.61.154.114 (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you not edit while you are blocked; I will not answer any more of your questions here. --

jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jpgordon: I have the same problem that RodolfMita about Discrimination Of course I am not blocked. I am editor about Acoustics I had a couple of discussions with Oli_Filth. Please give me information about how to proceed:

- Does Wikipedia have an internal procedure to avoid Discrimination ?

- Must I presente the case outside Wiki (USA Embassy, Local discriminations comitee, etc ) ?

Regards --BetoVinci (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously and verifiably the same person. I've blocked this account also. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gordon I wish to read your opinion about the main issue: Discrimination regards MarkAlonso --174.34.141.37 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is you should stop attempting to edit when you are blocked, from any account, or in any way. Your allegations of discrimination are without basis; since Wikipedia depends on reliable sources and a neutral point of view, as opposed to any concern with the personal background, beliefs, or opinions of our editors, it doesn't matter at all where the editor comes from. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I follow this discussion with interest. Why do you think that in all cases are the same person ? I see different IPs RGDS--94.76.196.61 (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just part of my responsibilities. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Mutation

Deletion Mutation has requested that you discuss his block/checkuser results at his talk page, and has asked for someone to notify both the blocking administrator and the closing checkuser. Thanks, — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems straightforward to me; perhaps another checkuser might want to double-check my results, as always. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Octotweak.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Octotweak.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi

who do you think was the most confusing, sly, vandalizing sockpuppets you ever delt of, or heard of? Rick Tryker (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh, by the way, im not trying to set a record. see on my talk

I really couldn't say; I don't make a point of comparing pieces of dogcrap I encounter on the trail, either. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts

Hi Jpgordon. I've noticed you go round blocking people for "abusing multiple accounts". I have several accounts that I use to edit with, but it's not to evade blocks or anything like that, it's just so I can voice my opinions a bit stronger. I wasn't aware that there was a policy against using more than one account until now, so I just wanted to find out from you if this was ok, or if I'm going to end up banned? 91.108.208.101 (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Voice my opinions a bit stronger" is exactly what you may not use multiple accounts for; we call it "evading scrutiny". The best thing to do is either stick to exactly one account or stay completely away from any policy areas. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh christ! Who knows how many other policies I've violated! :S 91.108.208.101 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (and...)

Thanks for blocking User:ProfXY for socking. Another admin shut down their IP address after they did 7 vandalisms today. Peace and best wishes. --Boston (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Josh

Hello Josh,

Please stop harassing me and do not protect my talkpage. If I had not mentioned you in that conversation, or your friend Ryulong (or rather your friendship), then you would never have done such a thing. Remember, you were the one who started it this time, by using your protection tool, and this is not harassment to tell you that this is abuse of the protection tool. Don't pick on me because I don't have a friend like you to stick up for me when someone makes a criticism of me. Jonas Rand (and yes this is my real name and I am never referred to Ionas in real life) 68.96.209.19 (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]