User talk:Jdkag

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

User talk:Jdkag/Archive 1

A topic of interest to you is covered by discretionary sanctions under an Arbcom case[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom, I'm honored to be among a noble group that strive for honesty and objectivity and who receive as a consequence your threatening letters.Jdkag (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for help concerning energy...[edit]


I noticed you listed yourself as a participant of the Energy WikiProject.

There are 2 new outlines in this area that attempt to consolidate Wikipedia's coverage of their respective subjects, gathering and organizing the articles about them into one place and including descriptions for convenience. The purposes of these outlines are to make it easier for readers to survey or review a whole subject, and to choose from Wikipedia's many articles about it.

The new energy outlines are:

Please take a look at them, and....

if you spot missing topics, add them in.
if you can, improve the descriptions.
add missing descriptions.
show parent-offspring relationships (with indents).
fix errors.

For more information about the format and functions of outlines, see Wikipedia:Outlines.

Building outlines of existing material (such as Wikipedia) is called "reverse outlining". Reverse outlines are useful as a revision tool, for identifying gaps in coverage and for spotting poor structuring.

Revising a work with multiple articles (such as Wikipedia) is a little different than revising a paper. But the general principles are the same...

As you develop these outlines, you may notice things about the articles they organize. Like what topics are not adequately covered, better ways to structure and present the material, awkward titles, articles that need splitting, article sections lacking {{Main}} links, etc.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines.

Thank you. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: see also Outline of energy

Reverting a routine DAB edit at Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship[edit]

Hello Jdkag. Can I ask for your rationale for this edit, where you undid an editor's disambiguation of some links to Laertes? Were you reverting without looking? As you know, you've been notified under WP:ARBSAQ. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ed, if you had looked at the talk page, you would have seen that my revert was part of a comprehensive BRD revert. I am hoping to be notified by someone interesting in starting the BRD consensus building process for the article. Are you interested? Now, as in the past, you've only shown an interest in attacking anyone who does not share your anti-Oxfordian views.

Do you think someone needs to build consensus before doing a DAB? What about fixing spelling errors? Since you were a named party of the Arbcom case, it would be welcome to see any evidence of your good faith. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Ed, the spelling error that you are harping about was mixed in among the major ("bold") revisions. I see that you are interested in trying to build a legal case against me, rather than trying to work with me to build consensus on the article.
It would be evidence of your good faith if you would restore the DAB to Laertes (Hamlet) that you undid. If not, perhaps in the spirit of BRD, you can explain what your objection is to that change. EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Done. Obviously I had no objection to fixing the specific link. I will monitor to make sure that the correction remains as the expected reverts proceed over the coming days.

Request that topic ban be lifted[edit]

Hi Jdkag,

I've made a request that the topic ban be lifted [1]. I hope I can count on your support. NinaGreen (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification motion[edit]

A case (Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:HYDROLOGY 22105 PM-MR1.pdf[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:HYDROLOGY 22105 PM-MR1.pdf. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


You need to get consensus on the talk page first. Content is well referenced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Water fluoridation under discretionary sanctions[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Ronz (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

here. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
FromWP:AC/DS linked above: "Pages relating to Pseudoscience and Fringe science (Pseudoscience)". From WP:GS: "All pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted" and "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning."
You can always ask for verification. I'm not sure what's the best place to do so: Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions should be ok. --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
If you don't believe me, and won't verify it yourself, then good luck to you. You'll find that working cooperatively with others and verifying information are essential here. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Water fluoridation does not seem to be a topic under discretionary or general sanctions and Ronz sent a link to an unrelated topic. Unfortunately editors Ronz and Doc James seem to have adopted a policy of harassing other editors rather than working with them to improve the page.Jdkag (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Would you like an explanation as to why I believe the sanctions apply? Or, if you like, I can ask for verification for you. --Ronz (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)