User talk:Jayzel68

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks This project creates and improves neglected articles.
	Review and Improve: Medical Assistant Requests: Heather Dean, Dandakaranya, Semelaic languages, Settler colonialism, Bambous Expand: 2000 Mozambique flood, Deba Habe, Dwangwa River, Eugenie Potonie-Pierre, Ed Bullins, Bura Gauranga River, Rosa Mayreder, Amrit Bohara, Lusaka, 2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste spill, Sre language Update: Ivorian Civil War, Cotonou, Banjul, Darfur conflict, Stay at home dad, Ituri Conflict other tasks \| edit

[edit] Mosque FAC Comment

I've replied to your comment in the Mosque FAC. joturn e r 04:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reponse to your comments on FAC

Hi, on the nomination page you stated: "When you respond, please do not whine and nash your teeth. It will not help you get this named as a featured article. And it can be one if you actually try. Look at spoo] for tips"

First of all with the kinds of responses i'm getting It's very hard not to get pissed off. I'm controling my frustration here but the people who respond are truly the toughest bunch of people ever. I can't belive that one of them actualy wanted to delete the article. If you were in my position you would be just as pissed trust me. Now, you said that it can be one if I acutaly try. Trust me ive been trying. I worked on this article for 8 hours today. Ive read spoo 6 times now. What does it have that I don't? I don't see it. I have included all known information on the subject on mine. The refrnces on the page are the only ones that exist. How could i possibly add more? Tobyk777 07:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

==Welcome to VandalProof== Thanks for your interest in VandalProof! You've been added to the list of authorized users, and feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page if you have any questions. AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Torchic FAC

Thank you for supporting Torchic's FA nomination, I'm sorry for any hurtful feelings I may have caused you. If you have any further notes on how this could be improved, please leave them on the nomination page. Cheers, H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 23:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VandalProof 1.1 is Now Available For Download

Happy Easter to all of you, and I hope that this version may fix your current problems and perhaps provide you with a few useful new tools. You can download version 1.1 at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Let me warn you, however, to please be extremely careful when using the new Rollback All Contributions feature, as, aside from the excessive server lag it would cause if everyone began using it at once, it could seriously aggitate several editors to have their contributions reverted. If you would like to experiment with it, though, I'd be more than happy to use my many sockpuppets to create some "vandalism" for you to revert. If you have any problems downloading, installing, or otherwise, please tell me about them at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs and I will do my best to help you. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WAKE UP JAY!

I am not joking
I do my work here
Just watch THEY LIVE!
mfg

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Jayzel 20:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

Is the above a response to something I wrote? If so, what?
Why don't you sign what you post? Four tildas (~~~~) suffice.

Michael Hardy 22:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Freeh

Hello and compliments on all your contributions, your additions to the Louis Freeh article in particular. I see that you have been barnstarred for your work on improving citations, something badly needed in this project. These days I'm very keen on the idea of "Featuredifying" articles - if you would like to collaborate on one, please let me know, I'd love to work with you. Regards, Paul 15:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fraudulent?

Don't do this. Further such disruption will be taken most unkindly. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Katrina

You pretty much undid all of your edits by blindy reverting. I'm trying to get a conversation at Talk:Hurricane Katrina of what to add to the page, as there were objections to the objections you brought up at WT:FAC. Unnecessary rhetoric at the talk page and at WT:FAC doesn't advance your cause much, though, so try editing and helping to solve them instead. Tito xd^(?!?) 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "vandalism"

Few things really upset me on Wikipedia; it so happens that you just managed to do one of them. Calling something "vandalism" [1] when it is actually a good-faithed, civilly-worded disagreement on both sides is a Bad Thing. If you haven't, please, please go read Wikipedia:Vandalism, escpecially the second paragraph. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I called it vandalism because you even deleted the history of my addition. You did not just revert. That's a "no-no".--Jayzel 21:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? You must be misreading something; I did no such thing, nor would I even think of it. Article history here —Bunchofgrapes (talk)

[edit] WP:NPA

Don't call good-faith edits vandalism. Just please never do that. There is no excuse for personal attacks. Don't make them. Edit summaries are the worst place for personal attacks. Bishonen | talk 21:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC).

That wasn't my "opinion", that's an official WP:NPA warning. Next time is block time. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC).

[edit] FA director

His name will remain secret? You do realize it's given right here, yes? Kirill Lokshin 22:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the nature of your disagreements with the existence of the FAD—or with the current director—the correct way to handle such disputes is not by adding vaguely-worded insinuations ("It has been decided that the name of the featured article director will remain secret" is more conspiracy theory fodder than real explanation) to one of our most public pages. Kirill Lokshin 23:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Calling me a "conspiracy theorist" is a personal attack. Please stop. There was no theory. I added the name of the director and it was censored. --Jayzel 00:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm somewhat baffled that the difference between calling someone a "conspiracy theorist"—a borderline personal attack, to be sure—and suggesting that a particular wording is such that it will encourage conspiracy theories is not apparent.

More to the point, though, the name was never censored. True, the mention of the position in general was removed—for what seems like a legitimate difference of opinion as to what the page should contain—but at no time was there an attempt to leave in mention of the position and simultaneously remove the actual name. Kirill Lokshin 01:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured articles

You know, adding your "support" to every featured article candidacy, just because you disagree with the promotion of Hurricane Katrina, and not because of any valid article-related reason, is a blatant violation of WP:POINT. Please don't do that. Powers 14:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I could be any clearer. The guideline states: "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point." By "support"ing all of the featured article candidacies without any good reasons for doing so (and with the exact same message on all of them), you are disrupting the normal editing of Wikipedia. Worse, you outright admit that you added your support for them because of your dispute over Hurricane Katrina and the status of the director position. That means you're trying to make a point. Thus, "disrupting Wikipedia" and "to make a point". Powers 14:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's unlikely that these bogus support votes will have much of an impact, especially in articles that are WP:SNOWBALL in either direction. It may be disruption to prove a WP:POINT, but probably without much impact. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

With due respect, adding a "Support" vote to every nomination, each one identical in reasoning, and that reasoning referring not at all to the content of the article but rather to a dispute you're in the middle of -- how is this "discussing" anything? Powers 17:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm just not sure that was the best way to make your point. It looked bad. Thanks for listening. Powers 17:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Hi! I see you've been to Hungary. I'm hungarian. :) BTW what are your exact plans about FA procedure? A committee? In what kind of form? I'm curious about it because I try to improve hungarian wiki's FA procedure as well. There I've established a system where we can vote for which featured article should appear on the front page. NCurse _work 15:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point regarding the role of FA director. This is your only warning, if you continue this behavior I will block you. Joelito (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If I get one more threat of blocking from an administrator without a specific violation of Wikipedia policy cited I will report you all for Wikipedia:Harassment. --Jayzel 18:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As you wish, Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption. Joelito (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not take the legal route in this, looking for conflicting policies. You very well know that adding comments unrelated to the article in every FAC is disruption to make a point. This is not about a conflicting view since I clearly assumed good faith and gave you some slack when I posted "your reasons are valid" here [2]. Once again please do not disrupt the process any further. Joelito (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You do a good job editing articles and it would be a shame if you left, so I hope you'll reconsider your decision. Raul654 06:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't dream it's over

Hi, Jay. I just wanted to drop in quickly since it seems you haven't left just yet. I just wanted to add that I hope you don't utterly give up on Wikipedia as a result of this experience. It would be a shame; you seem to have made some very positive contributions in the past. I sympathize with your frustration over how certain elements of Wikipedian process work (or how they are presently working, or even how they are presently NOT working, if that's your take on it). So you got pissed off, and did some things that pissed others off, who in turn did some stuff that pissed you off -- oldest story in the book. Violations of WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL are misdemeanors in the wiki-world -- I don't advise going any further down that road, but you can still go forward from this point if you want to. Personally, I don't think that Raul needs to be replaced, but you don't have to let anyone tell you not to hold a discussion about it, for crying out loud. That's just silly. If you get involved with critizing process, you're sure to annoy others from time to time, but this is a wiki: you can hold a discussion about anything you want, regardless of how popular it is or isn't. I can't tell you what to do, but honestly, I hope you take a deep breath and come back. Especially if you take the deep breath first. :) Regards, Lee Bailey^(talk) 04:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lose what case?

Its only mediation. Do you think we are going to court? What is the deal with your attitude? We would have had this settled a long time ago if only you knew how to interact with good faith editors. Read back through your comments and look at your aggressive behaviour. Thats why we havent compromised and thats why I will no longer talk to you except through a moderator. Jasper23 01:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't make personal attacks

Crossposted to Talk:Democratic National Committee

Jayzel, this is an official administrator warning. I urgently request you to moderate your combative tone and desist with the personal attacks on Talk:Democratic National Committee. Please review Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks, WP:NPA. The essence of that policy is comment on content, not on the contributor. Feel free to criticize people's edits (civilly); don't criticize editors personally, and don't call names. Frankly, I hardly see a single post by you on that talkpage that isn't unacceptably aggressive. To launch attacks like "pathetic excuse for censorship" as your very first response to a polite request for your opinion about removal of material poisons the climate of the page and makes collegial editing and consensus that much harder to achieve. Just don't do it. Bishonen | talk 01:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Your response to the above on my page

Pardon me, but I was accused of spamming for linking articles together like we are supposed to here at Wikipedia. If that is not a personal attack on me, I do not know what is. I can respond any way I please to an attack on my character. And I have HAD IT with power drunk folks as yourself threatening me. There was nothing to discuss with those people. He BLANKED a section of information. BLANKING is vandalism. If you do not understand that, your credentials should be revoked. You do not deserve your position. --Jayzel 04:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! How have the others put up with you for so long? I don't want you on that talkpage until you've reconsidered your approach to other editors quite radically. You have been blocked for 24 hours. That is a conservative block under the circumstances. Please don't continue in the same vein when you return, or you will be blocked for longer real fast. Bishonen | talk 04:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC).

== To Bishon: ==

I think you need to review Wiki policy. Blanking is vandalism. Calling something vandalism is not a personal attack. Calling someone a spammer for linking articles together is a personal attack. And false public chastisment of an editor is probably a violation of Wiki rules too. I will definately be researching this. You do not deserve your position here at Wikipedia. P.S. I see I am now blocked. You ARE power drunk. This is all about our disagreement over promotions in FAC. I am reporting you to your authorities. --Jayzel 04:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We've disagreed over promotions on WP:FAC? Are you sure? I've no recollection of it, sorry. I guess it must have made more of an impression on you than me. Bishonen | talk 04:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC).

Blanking your talk page is a violation of the rules too, Bishon. --Jayzel 04:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh. You're funny. Can you really not spell my name, though? Bishonen | talk 04:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC).

Your immature comment just proves you do not belong in your position and have a vendetta against me. --Jayzel 04:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request.

Request reason: " HELLO! I would like an independent non-political Wiki admin out there to unblock me. I was blocked with the reason: Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Bishonen for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Personal attacks and disruption on Talk:Democratic National Committee Your IP address is 64.12.116.11.

I was responding to personal attacks against me accusing me of spamming for linking articles together. I was also upset about an editor blanking factual, referenced information on a page. I was under the impression blanking is vandalism. Correct me if I am wrong. I have been editing at Wikipedia for over 6 months and have had an article I primarily wrote named an FA. I do not deserve to be blocked and be ridiculed for a spelling typo as the admin did below. I also don't appreciate being singled out and publicly attacked on an article talk page.

This is the history between me and BISHONEN that she blanks from her talk page:"

Decline reason: "Block seems reasonable to me, your credentials in article writing make no difference you still need to operate in a constructive manner with other editors. pgk 19:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)"

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

WP:NPA Don't call good-faith edits vandalism. Just please never do that. There is no excuse for personal attacks. Don't make them. Edit summaries are the worst place for personal attacks. Bishonen | talk 21:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC). That wasn't my "opinion", that's an official WP:NPA warning. Next time is block time. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC).

I'm not interested in your opinions, but thanks anyway Blanking is an act of vandalism. It was my choice to call it vandalism. Don't tell me what to think and write. --Jayzel 22:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC) I'm still not interested in your opinion. I looked through WP:NPA and I see nothing that compares using the word "vandalism" to a "personal attack". From the link: Examples that are not personal attacks A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is not a personal attack. However, it is important to assume good faith when making such a comment — if the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism. --Jayzel 22:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen"

[edit] Wikipedia Admin Make Me Sick

I just found this other complaint regarding a false blocking:

Please explain how my username is inappropriate.

According to the Verifiability policy:

"Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor."

Therefore, I was removing material that did not cite a reputable source, in accordance with policy. How can I be blocked for following policy?

--Verifalse! 04:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that your username is inappropriate because it is inflammatory. Further, while you should not be blocked for following policy, I don't believe you were. Some of the things that you removed should have been submitted to discussion or been tagged (for example, with ^{[citation needed]} ) first. I think that your actions were a violation of WP:POINT, as a result. --Nlu (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC) How is "Verifalse!" an inflammatory username? And the policy states that any material which does not cite a source may be removed. That is what I am doing, and if that statement is in the policy, it means I'm following it. If this is wrong, that means that statement in the policy, or something else in the policy, is wrong, and should be changed. The ^{[citation needed]} and other things seem really complicated. --Verifalse! 05:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Verifalse%21"

This entire process is a disgusting fraud. --Jayzel 08:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All right, I'll correct you if you're wrong

You're wrong. The removal of your section from Democratic National Committee is by no stretch of definition properly to be called "blanking". Blanking is defined in WP:VAND as "removing all or significant parts of articles". Removing your paragraph with a full explanation on the talk page and a "So what do you think? Disagreement?" was not vandalism. No, accusing you of spamming was a content dispute, not a personal attack. No, having written an FA is not a carte blanche for insulting others. No, when I objected to your persistently calling me "Bishon" (!), that was not me "ridiculing" you. As for your complaint that I "blank" the "history" between you and me from June of this year from off my talkpage, well, I've archived my page four times since then. If I'd been aware we had a "history" (you rather dignify it by that name, don't you? I'd forgotten all about it) that you still felt bitter about, I grant you that it might have been better to ask somebody else to review your recent posts and make the call about blocking you. (You'd probably have gotten a longer block if I had, though. As I said, I'm a conservative blocker.) Bishonen | talk 08:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC).

You're walking an extremely fine line, and you know it. I will end this discussion after this point. Removing all or PART is blanking. He removed PART with the flimsiest of reasons. He/she kept crying that they wanted to discuss and compromise, but NEVER put forth any compromise to discuss. As for the issue between ourselves, I did not realize who you were and our history until I checked my contributions. Your name looked a bit familiar; I thought I knew you and was surprise at your hostility towards me -- that's all. If calling me a spammer is a "content dispute" what exact quote can you point out of mine is a personal attack? The only thing that would even come close is the use of the word "ideologue" in regards to Derek. That man has a link to a far left web log on his user page and previously called me a zealot in a post on the Talk:Al Gore Controversies page. Ideologue is not an "attack", it's a perfect description. As for your immature mocking my mispelling of your name: I cut and pasted your name and did not realize I didn't highlight your entire name. Sue me! --Jayzel 08:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to hop back in. Once again I am offended that you would say that I was CRYING and NEVER willing to compromise. Once again, please BE CIVIL. How can you talk to someone who does WEIRD little CAPS LOCK things to show you how ANGRY they are and then ATTACKS you at every other word? No one ever called you a spammer by name. Especially not me. But in your past posts you have implied that I have. As for personal attacks, you posted this last night "I was blocked because Wikipedia is ruled by leftist trolls." I dont know if that is referring to Me, Derek or Bishonen but please, lets be civil in our conversation and show respect to all other editors. Even the ones you disagree with. Jasper23 17:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever considered taking a course in anger management?

[edit] MedCab Case

Hi, I'll be your mediator for the MedCab case, the discussion is going to start on the talk page, when you're ready. Sorry for the delay in responding. Addhoc 11:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could you have a look at the initial suggested compromise on the mediation-cabal case page. Would you post any comments about this initial suggestion in the discussion section of the case page. Thanks, Addhoc 10:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've introduced the suggested compromise into the article. Addhoc 11:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Jayzel68, your contributions to Wikipedia have been most valuable and you are rewarded with this picture gallery...