User talk:JCaesar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, JCaesar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Jaranda wat's sup 00:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the other user because it was pure PoV/vandalism, as for your corrections, try to make the idea in the talk page of American Airlines Flight 77 as there are admins who probaly will revert your edits without you disscussing in the talk page first. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 00:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Other interests[edit]

I see you have worked hard on the articles related to the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon. It is a difficult thing to deal with. Truthfully, I feel that those that contradict the findings of virtually all the sane world are either trolls just trying to stir up trouble, owners of websites that stand to lose if we don't allow their websites to be liked to, the misinformed and lastly, the crazy. Not to get you to feel obligated to contribute elsewhere, but if working to ensure this nonsense stays out of Wikipedia is your goal, then you may wish to also look at Collapse of the World Trade Center and 7 World Trade Center. I appreciate you hard work as I know that dealing with this mindthink is not the most pleasant way to spend your time here at Wikipedia. Thanks.--MONGO 11:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks This comment [1] violates that policy. Please try to keep it civil, even if you feel you have been provoked. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 13:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

International Society for Education Through Art[edit]

I restored the page and moved it here. I hope that works for you; the idea is that you can improve it and then move it into mainspace. We want to preserve the history as a legal requirement and so that everyone gets credit for their contribution. Sorry I didn't see your message for a few days. Let me know if you need anything else. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of people with major depressive disorder, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Producer and Painter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

March 22 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to John Stanley
November 11 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to John Stanley

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Archie Goodwin[edit]

Your edit to March 1 added Archie Goodwin which links to a disambiguation page. I think you might want to use AArchie Goodwin (comics) or code wise [[Archie Goodwin (comics)|Archie Goodwin]] Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Moved to WT:DOY

Calendar entries[edit]

No, you haven't made any case, you've merely listed the edits you want to make.

As it says in the Edit Notice prominently displayed each time you opened the edit window:

  • The births and deaths listed on this page are only for people for whom there is a Wikipedia article (no red links and no redirects). Please do not add yourself, or anyone without a Wikipedia article. Any entry added for anyone without an article will be deleted.

All of the entries you've added are redirects to group articles. This means, as per standard practice, that they are removed from the calendar pages. Again, if you'd like to make an exception for those entries, you'll have to make a case for it at on the talk page of page, or, more realistically, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

'As for whether or not the Andrews Sisters are notable enough... seriously?'

As no-one has made or even suggested that, seriously, jokingly or <anything>ly, I don't understand why you bring that up. The best way to make a convincing case to argue honestly, not create Strawmen

'If it's your argument that they don't have pages devoted solely to themselves...'

Speaking of strawmen: I am arguing nothing, I am merely informing you of current practice and how it's applied. If you do not like current practice and how it's applied, again, you are free to make a case--honestly and without point-less sarcasm--at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year instead of badgering me with your games. If it's as obvious as you think it to be, then it will be simplicity itself to gain consensus.

'Just found another one...'

I honestly do not care, and a reading of the principles behind this page should serve to illustrate the pointlessness of your less-than-subtle attempts at bludgeoning someone with whom you believe you have a disagreement.

You've been informed of what you need to do. If you are unable to do so, I suggest you may not be at the right web-site.

I believed you had a case; now, with your immature badgering, I'm far less convinced. Persist, and you get no support and perhaps opposition from me. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

--CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have difficulty in reading? I DO NOT CARE. If you are actually interested in making a change to the guideline--which you knew about all along be tried to start an edit war anyways--then you must go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year and make the case there.
You will have to make the case by yourself, as I do not have the slightest interest in aiding anyone who persists in dis-honest argumentation. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
'I'm just going to find people who don't have individual pages, just to make you work your butt off.'
Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point--particularly because you lack maturity to avail yourself of normal channels of consensus--will se you blocked from editing sooner rather than later. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Please centralize this discussion at WT:DOY. It's counterproductive (and impossible to follow) to spread it over three (or more) user talk pages. And as a show of good faith, please stop your campaign to make us work our butts off until we have reached consensus. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Disambiguation link notification for February 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

July 14 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mike Esposito
October 24 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mike Esposito

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you![edit]

Roadster 2.5 windmills trimmed.jpg A Tesla Roadster for you!
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, JCaesar. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, JCaesar. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Gossip networks, social media, and Wikipedia[edit]

Two other BLPs that you can see in my contributions[2] are Al Giordano and Naomi Wu. Lawrence Krauss, Al Giordano, and Naomi Wu have in common that each has a lively group of people who dislike them very much, and are eager to amplify a gossip network accusing them via social media of bad things.

Giordano is a Hillary-supporting Democrat. Naomi Wu is also not a libertarian, Randian bro...many of her accusers are much more in that category than she is.

It is not appropriate to use the talk pages of an article to lob accusations against the subject that can't make it into the article. But maybe I can say on your talk page that allegations against Krauss and Giordano have something in common with allegations against the artist Chuck Close: that they allegedly expressed sexual interest in women who felt they were being treated like "meat" when they should have been treated like colleagues engaged in the same lofty quest for knowledge and stature as male (or older women) colleagues. (In the case of Giordano, he is also accused of asking women to do work for no pay, which seems a not-surprising claim against somebody running a volunteer organization.)

I am very suspicious of "journalism" that tries to inflate claims of inappropriate horniness onto the same level of "sexual misconduct" as Weinstein or Trump or Epstein. The Buzzfeed article about Krauss has fishy elements I deplore. For example they try to inflate a decision by someone at Perimeter Institute (in 2012 based on a complaint someone made in 2009) not to invite Krauss to give a talk, into a campus restriction equivalent to the one Case Western issued after 2 student complaints, one of them assiduously solicited by a CWU administrator. Buzzfeed also neglects the context, visible in Krauss's bio, that he led a no-confidence vote against the CWU president shortly before his departure for ASU. So maybe CWU administrators had some reason to want to hurt Krauss, when they decided to ban him from campus? Anyway, that is enough from me, but you and I probably agree on more things than we disagree on. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. Al Giordano recently blocked me on Twitter (this is true) for politely pointing out - with well-reasoned and not insulting arguments - why a Tweet of his was beyond hyperbolic. What's funny is it wasn't until you mentioned him and said something about the gossip brigade that I realized I had been mistaking him for a relative (son, brother) of the late, great comic book artist and editor Dick Giordano, because the Tweet of Al's I pointed out was hyperbolic claimed Black Panther could get nominated for a dozen Oscars like The Godfather, and I assumed he had said that as someone in the comic book industry.
I have never heard of any sexual misconduct allegations, but he's not... exactly the stablest guy, from my one interaction with him. -- JCaesar (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Hail Caesar :) My point was just that my advocacy for BLP in the case of Lawrence Krauss is not completely explained by my hypothetical love for atheist Randian bros--because I advance similar arguments on articles of non-atheist, non-Randian, non-bros. Even the most horrible person we dislike for legitimate reasons deserves that we follow BLP and WEIGHT on their bios.
But I believe you are trying to make Wikipedia better, just as I am, even though you and I disagree on some points. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi from HouseOfChange[edit]

Hi, hoping all is well with you. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)