- Be cool to me and I'll be cool to you. If you show up here and act like a jerk expect to have your posts removed.
- No anon IPs. Log in if you want to talk to me.
- No puppets. Self-explanatory.
- No Homers
- Don't randomly template me instead of attempting to actually talk to me. This is 'shit and run' and will get you nowhere. Especially don't template me about being close to 3RR-- I am quite capable of counting to three and assuming that I can't will most definitely be taken as a personal attack.
- Catch-all prove 'em wrong clause:
- 5a) Yes it is
- 5b) No it isn't
- 5c) Yes
- 5d) No
- 1 Deaf Culture
- 2 Your last two AfD nominations
- 3 Mangum or Magnum
- 4 Re: DIREKTOR at WP:AE
- 5 Arb
- 6 Starnbar
- 7 Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute
- 8 Categories
- 9 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 10 Banned from posting sources, replay
- 11 Working to remove Mark Roosevelt POV tag
- 12 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hi! Just wanted to explain quickly why I removed the Disability template from the Deaf culture page you added. It's been an on and off debate whether the page should have it, but an informal straw poll came to the conclusion that it should stay off the page. The basic reason came down to that though the physical inabilty to hear can be considered a disability (though some would say otherwise; a debate for another time, I'm sure) Deaf Culture is more about the culture that revolves around the Deaf Community. I'd be more than happy to elaborate a bit on this topic if you'd like. Deafgeek (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree, but I don't really have the time or energy to start a fight over this. Jtrainor (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Your last two AfD nominations
Please read WP:BEFORE before considering nominating articles for deletion. In short, an unreferenced article won't be deleted on notability grounds if the sources can be found easily via a search. I find it generally saves everyone's time if I do a quick search for sources before considering nominating, with Google Books and their news archives being most useful. --Pontificalibus (talk)
Mangum or Magnum
Re: DIREKTOR at WP:AE
- You're complaining because someone made three reverts in -11 days-. Jtrainor (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Professionalism and civility and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
|The Original Barnstar|
|Common sense is so rare these days. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)|
Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute
This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey - when you add a category tag to an article (as with Breen), it's good to make sure that the category actually exists. The category in question was deleted a few years ago as a result of some discussion. DS (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Banned from posting sources, replay
Hello. I would like to replay to you here since my posts are being deleted in the report. I was never reported and that admin keeps banning me. He appears in every discussion I have with the reported user. I'm not hiding I'm the same person because I haven't done anything wrong. You said that all are saying I'm a sock but that is not the case. Only FkpCascais and HighInBC are doing that. In the referenced discussions you can see that none of the following editors had a single complaint against me: Joy [shallot], Director, Ąnαșταη, Robert McClenon, Brustopher , Tuvixer, No such user, Shokatz, Markewilliams, Relichal1, LjL,AlbinoFerret . FkpCascais is calling HighInBC to ban people for him and all that is done without any report (I'm not the only case). I've been active for a few month in the referenced discussions and you can see that there is no reason to ban me. I feel I haven't done anything wrong by posting sources and when the page protection expired I'll post them again. From the reports against FkpCascais it is obvious how he deals with people who he don't agree with. I had a quite of struggle on Serbs of Croatia article with him. I opened a RfC, discussed for months, he tried to block me and another user when we were the only one who opposed him. I managed to bring that RfC to other editors who joined. Then FkpCascais became very rude to them also, and he was finally reported by one of those editors and banned from that discussion. Sorry if I bothered you, but you seemed interested to why I'm being banned without any report. I will keep posting sources to the talk page in any way since those sources can help someone. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Working to remove Mark Roosevelt POV tag
Thank you for your work on Mark Roosevelt's page. I am working to address your concerns regarding neutrality. May we talk here or shall I comment on the "Talk:Mark Roosevelt" page? Thanks. Johnnie Stringfellow (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hit me up whereever. My primary concerns, as noted on that page, is that it's current state was created basically by a PR flack from the university the guy works/worked at. Jtrainor (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)