User talk:JustGettingItRight

Welcome, and comment

Hello, JustGettingItRight, and welcome to Wikipedia. I've reverted your edits to Category:American criminals; there was a lengthy discussion on the subject before you got here, which can be found here. If you still believe the category should change, I'd invite you to participate in a new discussion here. Again, welcome to Wikipedia, and please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page if you ever have any questions about anything. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JGIR. I join SI in welcoming you. An invitation to discuss a contested matter on the Category's talk page is just about the opposite of an invitation to re-revert. You've unwittingly stumbled into a thicket. I regret that. One of our big rules is don't bite the newbies and I sure don't want to scare off someone who could be a great new editor.

If you review the prior discussions on this topic, you'll see I've argued for a strict interpretation of the "solely notable" criterion. But consensus did not go my way. I hope you see from my examples on the talk page that there really are a lot of articles in the category that fit under the consensus formulation, but don't under your new one. But if I start pruning Otto Kerner, Billy Cannon and the others, based on your edit, a big kerfuffle will ensue. Another big rule is don't edit other pages just to prove a point. Arguably, that's what I'd be doing if I started trying to rescue Leadbelly from the American Criminal categorization. (Although I'm sorely tempted.)

Please consider reverting your second attempt to modify the definition and please continue the talk page discussion. We may generate a new consensus that says a person should only be categorized as an American Criminal if they are solely notable for their crime(s). But the burden of persuasion is on those seeking to change consensus. Thanks for hearing me out. Cheers, David in DC (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:FreeRepublicTeaBag.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:FreeRepublicTeaBag.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

There's a question for you here:[1] Will Beback talk 22:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You commented:

Revert to consensus that was developed after over month of discussion. Prior version violates WP:BLP and must be reverted. Please participate in ongoing talk.

But I don't see any discussion about deleting that criteria. Can you please point me to the month-long discussion of it? Will Beback talk 07:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a discusion topic back in February, it was assented to by David, and over a month and a half went by without any further comment. In actuality, my main intent was to add a critia of notability to the offense, and I corrected the solely notable criterion, which was an archaic remnant when the and criterion was used (the intent being that a person's crime is notable and not just because of the person's prior notability). Your current version, with the or operator, would ensnare a lot of people adjudged innocent in a court of law. I posted a RfC under the biography category as I wish we can get some collaboration on this timely. Feel free to ask me any other questions or give any comments. JustGettingItRight (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any discussion of the deletion, you just post it and say you'll delete it if no one objects. That's not really a consensus. Last year we had an actual discusion with a real consensus - look in the archives. Please don't edit war. Will Beback talk 07:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not edit warring, you are. I posted this discussion item and it did receive assent from another editor (David) and was open for discussion for a month and a half. You had ample opportunity to comment then. Why is it so hard for you to make your case on the talk page? JustGettingItRight (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am making my case - but I just can't find any discussion of consensus to remove a logical criteria that already had been discussed and achieved consensus among more than just two editors. You still haven't explained your objection to it in a way that makes sense. Will Beback talk 09:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't cite a discussion from a year ago which had a equivalent number of commentators for your proposal (the initial question was about the category being too strict, not about your proposal) and call that the real consensus opposed to the discussion from last month. You had over a month and a half to comment on the definition, which you did not do. I expect the definition to be reworked drastically (it will not be the current version), but let the talk page process play out. Your version has adverse WP:BLP implications that are not acceptable. JustGettingItRight (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a WikiBreak for 48 hours

Feel free to contact me if need be, but I won't edit, talk, or check my messages for at least 48 hours. I am going to sign off and only use Wikipedia for reference (i.e. learning stuff a lot quicker than reading the textbook) during this time. JustGettingItRight (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration

Hi JustGettingItRight, just wanted to give you a heads up that I've written a note on the talk page of this article asking you to clarify your recent changes. Thanks. --Beerfinger (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks for the message. JustGettingItRight (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goguryeo language recent edit

Hi JustGettingItRight, the edited version does appears tobe work of the vandal. That is why I'm reverting the article. The sources are questionable, it appears tobe work of Japanese/Chinese nationalists trying to link their languages to ancient Korean language.--Korsentry 06:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 48hrs for disruptive editing, vandalism, edit-warring and trolling, for instance here and here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JustGettingItRight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

How are my edits at Discrimination against the homeless and Suicide methods trolling? These were good faith edits and it appears I am being blocked for some rouge reason without any warning.

Decline reason:

{{subst:I have only examined the edits at Suicide methods, but they are clearly vandalism.}} Ladyof Shalott 18:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

JustGettingItRight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

How are my edits vandalism? I'll concede I violated 3RR, but so did Sceptre. However, I take umbrage to this allegation that my edits were trolling or vandalism. In fact, I made only one edit to the Discrimination against the homeless, only asking for citations, just as Mr. Jimmy Wales has asked for. It is clear that admins block for political reasons and because of this, it is no wonder people ridicule Wikipedia and view it dimly as a source. I am done with this project. The intentions are noble, but for the reason given for the block, this is clearly an ideological block. JustGettingItRight (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=How are my edits vandalism?  I'll concede I violated 3RR, but so did Sceptre.  However, I take umbrage to this allegation that my edits were trolling or vandalism.  In fact, I made only one edit to the Discrimination against the homeless, only asking for citations, just as Mr. Jimmy Wales has asked for.  It is clear that admins block for political reasons and because of this, it is no wonder people ridicule Wikipedia and view it dimly as a source.  I am done with this project.  The intentions are noble, but for the reason given for the block, this is clearly an ideological block. [[User:JustGettingItRight|JustGettingItRight]] ([[User talk:JustGettingItRight#top|talk]]) 19:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=How are my edits vandalism?  I'll concede I violated 3RR, but so did Sceptre.  However, I take umbrage to this allegation that my edits were trolling or vandalism.  In fact, I made only one edit to the Discrimination against the homeless, only asking for citations, just as Mr. Jimmy Wales has asked for.  It is clear that admins block for political reasons and because of this, it is no wonder people ridicule Wikipedia and view it dimly as a source.  I am done with this project.  The intentions are noble, but for the reason given for the block, this is clearly an ideological block. [[User:JustGettingItRight|JustGettingItRight]] ([[User talk:JustGettingItRight#top|talk]]) 19:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=How are my edits vandalism?  I'll concede I violated 3RR, but so did Sceptre.  However, I take umbrage to this allegation that my edits were trolling or vandalism.  In fact, I made only one edit to the Discrimination against the homeless, only asking for citations, just as Mr. Jimmy Wales has asked for.  It is clear that admins block for political reasons and because of this, it is no wonder people ridicule Wikipedia and view it dimly as a source.  I am done with this project.  The intentions are noble, but for the reason given for the block, this is clearly an ideological block. [[User:JustGettingItRight|JustGettingItRight]] ([[User talk:JustGettingItRight#top|talk]]) 19:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

In the Explosion section of Suicide methods, you added, "In most cases body parts go EVERY WHERE. This is also rude to those who are around you as they might faint at the sight of blood and gore." You seriously deny that is vandalism? Ladyof Shalott 19:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my edit and I did that unintentionally. I reverted the AfD closure by a non-admin. If I reverted vandalism unintentionally by the revert war (which I admit and wish to discuss separately if you have time), I apologize, but it was unintentional and it got caught up in what I admit to be an edit war. However, I was not "trolling" or intentionally vandalising either article. JustGettingItRight (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

JustGettingItRight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

That wasn't my edit and I did that unintentionally. I reverted the AfD closure by a non-admin. If I reverted vandalism unintentionally by the revert war (which I admit and wish to discuss separately if you have time), I apologize, but it was unintentional and it got caught up in what I admit to be an edit war. However, I was not "trolling" or intentionally vandalising either article. JustGettingItRight (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=That wasn't my edit and I did that unintentionally. I reverted the AfD closure by a non-admin.  If I reverted vandalism unintentionally by the revert war (which I admit and wish to discuss separately if you have time), I apologize, but it was unintentional and it got caught up in what I admit to be an edit war.  However, I was not "trolling" or intentionally vandalising either article. [[User:JustGettingItRight|JustGettingItRight]] ([[User talk:JustGettingItRight#top|talk]]) 19:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=That wasn't my edit and I did that unintentionally. I reverted the AfD closure by a non-admin.  If I reverted vandalism unintentionally by the revert war (which I admit and wish to discuss separately if you have time), I apologize, but it was unintentional and it got caught up in what I admit to be an edit war.  However, I was not "trolling" or intentionally vandalising either article. [[User:JustGettingItRight|JustGettingItRight]] ([[User talk:JustGettingItRight#top|talk]]) 19:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=That wasn't my edit and I did that unintentionally. I reverted the AfD closure by a non-admin.  If I reverted vandalism unintentionally by the revert war (which I admit and wish to discuss separately if you have time), I apologize, but it was unintentional and it got caught up in what I admit to be an edit war.  However, I was not "trolling" or intentionally vandalising either article. [[User:JustGettingItRight|JustGettingItRight]] ([[User talk:JustGettingItRight#top|talk]]) 19:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}