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)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rocky may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | date=2011-10-25 | title=The Real Rocky | medium=Motion picture | publisher=ESPN Films}}</ref> ) Other possible inspirations for the film may have included [[Rocky Graziano]]'s autobiography ''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2014 (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)