User talk:TheronJ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Welcome to my talk page. If you leave a note, I'll try to respond here. Similarly, if I've left a message on your talk page, please feel free to respond there. TheronJ
AMA Alert posted: There are 6 cases that need Advocacy. Remember to close old cases. The December 2006 Meeting is now open!
Archive

Archives
February-October 2006

Contents

[edit] A welcome from Sango123

Hello, TheronJ, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango123 14:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

[edit] Clint Curtis

Sure, I'll take a look. Not enthusiastically, but I'll see if I can be helpful. John Broughton | Talk 16:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VI - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on my talk

Thanks for your kind comment on my talkpage. No, I am not an administrator, though lately I have been making my share of appearances on arbitration and administration-related pages. It's been suggested to me that before I pursue an RfA, I need to spend a bit more time back in mainspace, and I plan to do that over the next several weeks; to satisfy some !voters, and complete the process of learning to do admin-type tasks, I probably also need to spend some more time vandal-fighting and in deletion-land. I will continue to consider an RfA in due course, especially due to the kind remarks from you and several other users, and will certainly give you a heads-up if and when it happens. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clint Curtis

[edit] (Alleged) Vandalization of Clint Curtis Page

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Rememberkigali 22:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Remember. I'll respond on your talk page. For the record, the problem is a typo, not vandalism. As the Captain pointed out below, I forgot to close two references during this series of changes. Here are my changes,[1] and here are the Captain's fixes to my typos.[2]. I apologize for any confusion - I'm not normally that butterfingered, and I should have noticed that the references were gone after my changes, but I just didn't. TheronJ 02:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] just a friendly notice

It seems that this user is unhappy with the changes you made on Clint Curtis. He contacted me (I don't know why to be honest :D) and I redirected him on the usual dispute resolving pages. Perhaps you might want to talk with him about it? Regards, -- lucasbfr talk 23:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Posssible explanation

Hi TheronJ, it looks like one of the reasons this user got upset was that he thought you had vandalized (deleted) the links section. The reason he thought so was that you made a few small mistakes in adding the references, I fixed what I thought was missing [3], but maybe you can have look yourself. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for supporting my RfA

 Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA.

I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it.

Again, thanks; └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khazars medation

Thanks for letting me know, I'll take a look. Jayjg (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iran-Iraq War

Well thnaks for the contrubution. I agree with you but here's what the sentry said from the pillbox gunnery post:

"Please, at least read the article and the previous discussions before critisizing it blindly. First U.S. didn't just "offered Iraq limited arms and intelligence support", it directly attacked Iran's navy and destroyed half of it and by protecting Gulf states tankers which carried Iraqi's oil and also supplied Iraq financially it guaranteed Iraq's revenue till the end of the war. Other than supplying Iraq with arms, loans and dual technology it supplied Iraq with intelligence regarding the position if Iranian troops in order to target them with chemical weapons, this was the most crucial support given to Iraq since without it, Iraqis could not have stopped the forwarding Iranian army. In 1982 after Iraq started losing the war, peace was offered to parties of the war but Iran demanded compensation and removal of Saddam from power, Iran clearly stated that it does not want to occupy the Iraqi land. I think most of edit wars could be prevented if only people simply read about the subject trying to "fix" the article. - Marmoulak 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Milord has spoken! Let there be Silence!Marky48 05:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that you're substantively right, Marky, and appreciate what you're trying to do for the article. However, if I can offer one constructive suggestion, I recommend that you bend over backwards to treat Marmoulak as civilly as you would treat a beloved grandmother. (I'm absolutely not saying you've done anything wrong, but I can tell that you're getting frustrated, and in my experience, that doesn't lead anywhere good.) My recommendation would be to take Iran-Iraq war off your watchlist for a week or two, then come back and see what you can work out with Marmoulak. I'll be glad to help you out. TheronJ 14:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks TheronJ. I hear you, but I'm afraid we're in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. My edits have been restored and he agreed reluctantly as you may have seen over there. The mediator who escalated it to arbitraion and insulted me repeatedly has withdrawn for get this, "this uncooperative user (Marky48)." Take a look but unless an "advocate" speaks on my behalf I'm going to withdraw too. I see this an area of yours. It's become a witch hunt for me and no one else has showed. ^demon the mediator who rejected on the grounds I only wanted punishment, had someone come who offered character assisnation evidence against me which has nothing to do with content in either article. It's all about personalities. I'm too old for these continual pointless battles. If you would post your testimony as a participant in the article it would be helpful thanks. It was your source that went in so good show there. The other edits are troublesome as well but let the others fight that battle.Marky48 02:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The Iran-Iraq Warcase was accepted after I tried to withdraw. They wouldn't let me. I'm not sure what this means as no one else has responded. That was my reasoning for withdrawal. From the looks of it it's a one-way indictment in my direction. I would be surprised if anything else is looked at so if you'd like to leave a statement it could help clear things up since we solved my editing issues. The others have been notified but appear to have let me be hung out to dry. Marky48 20:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Marky, I mean this constructively, so I hope you will take my advice for what it's worth.
  • I think you're substantively right about your criticisms of the Iran-Iraq war article, but I also think that you've been way too agressive in the way you've presented those concerns. (The relevant Wikipedia policies are WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:DR). Like I said last week, especially when you're mad at someone, it's essential to treat them like they were your kindly and well-loved, but sometimes offensive, grandparent.
  • In my experience, the arbitration committee isn't going to spend a lot of time worrying about whether you or Marmoulak were right about whether the article portrayed US involvement in the Iran-Iraq war fairly. The first question they ask is whether everyone went through all the steps of dispute resolution in good faith.
  • My guess is that the arbcomm will agree with ^demon - that the purpose of mediation is to get you and Marmoulak to work together, and that your comments to Marmoulak[4], [5], were so aggressive as to preclude any possibility of a constructive resolution.
  • I can tell that you're a passionate editor with a lot to contribute, and I'd like to see you keep editing (albiet more civilly). My recommendation would be for you to concede this one completely - (I) let the arbcomm know that you (1) understand that your comments to Marmoulak were unreasonably aggressive and uncivil, (2) promise to work on civility and dispute resolution in the future, and (3) accept whatever resolution arbcomm decides to impose (I would guess a reprimand if you're sufficiently clear about not doing it again, but maybe probation or an order not to edit Iran-Iraq war again).
If you want to, and are really sincere about avoiding this kind of conflict in the future, I would be happy to give you some more advice and help present your side in the arbcomm committee. Let me know. TheronJ 20:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean to tell me there will no content-related reprimands, only my overly zealous efforts to solve this issue? That's as unbelievable as I thought and a complete avoidance of the actual problem, which isn't me, but the edits made by marmoulak and Khossrow as Iranian partsans. I think this is extremely unfair and beside the point. Hung by a technicality that favors bias and bullying. There is no way I will ever enter into a hostile environment and be expected to just take it. That said, I've reported I won't edit that article again, but did nothing wrong on the article.Marky48 03:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not on the arbcomm, so I can't say for sure what will happen, but my understanding is that it's more important to be civil, and to engage in dispute resolution in good faith, than to be right. There are a lot of people on the encyclopedia who think they are right, but they can only resolve their differences if they approach them civilly. (Often, I've found that even when I'm mostly right, listening to someone who's mostly wrong and trying to find common ground, while exhausting, leads to a better encyclopedia.)
In any case, I've given you my two cents twice - I may be wrong, but don't think that I am. Please feel free to let me know if you have any more questions. Thanks, TheronJ 03:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Being right is a big deal to me. I'm 53. If someone says I'm a "POV pusher" they better be able to back it up. They couldn't here, and that is why professors and others of note avoid this place. With good reason. What constitutes "civility.' Civil is as Civil gets, is subjective and we don't agree on the goose/gander equality theorem. What provoked my overzealousness? It just came out of the blue with no cause? You can present this side for me or with me if you want. I'd appreciate it, but I'll never take part again knowing this. That's a given. I get the idea these other young Wikipedians know this, and thus this is why they refused to respond. They know it was always about me and not them. I'm old I guess and don't operate this way. If I'm insulted I fight back when reason fails as it has here. Who wants this kind of tit for tat when the villain is set up to win? It's complete BS in my view. I have articles that don't involve this sort of thing and this place has articles locked that are controversial. It isn't because of people like me. It's because of people like these two. Thanks for your advice. Say it to arbcom and I'll sign off for good. Thanks.Marky48 03:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks for the assist

No problem! It's something quite a few people make mistakes with, then I go and take the page out of the cases category! It's no trouble, and thanks for the thanks (i.e. you're welcome 16px‎) Martinp23 16:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Thanks, TheronJ, for your response to our third opinion request on Luna Lovegood. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you'd care to come back to Talk:Luna Lovegood, there is a response to the "ruling" on the matter. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Although you are clearly (IMHO) right, 3rd opinions aren't binding -- you can take it to RFC or mediation if the other editor won't accept a 30. TheronJ 05:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SlimVirgin's assertion that I violated WP:3RR...

... is a lie. If you go back through the history of the page you will see that what was at issue was not the use of "was" in both cases, that was simply included in the reversions both times. SlimVirgin is trying to find an excuse to block me so she can keep the nonsense on the page, which, by the way, was stolen from terrorist websites - see the talkpage. KazakhPol 23:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a note TheronJ that I agree with you based on diffs SlimVirgin added to User:KazakhPol's talk page:

KazakhPol's failure to assume good faith (in this instance) and his usage of the word "lie" and other incivilities sets us up the bomb for "battlegrounding". (→Netscott) 23:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks
Thank you for the Support

I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, TheronJ, for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, Martinp23 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom

Thanks very much for the kind words. I really think I'm too new an editor to have been elected to ArbCom, and I'd rather put in my time first. Next year, I promise! Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy

Thank you for taking my advocacy. You are truly a G-dsend.Let me know when you have the "desk page" created so that we may communicate.Hkelkar 17:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I am digging through. I will e-mail you my first thoughts today, but if you prefer to start on wiki let me know. TheronJ 17:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi TheronJ - I've said somewhere, after encourgement by Royalguard11, that I'll offer to help in this case as a "second advocate" for two reasons - 1) I dealt with Hkelkar's first case, so have some background and 2) It's a big case, being at ArbCom now. If you're happy (and Hkelkar is) for me to assist, could you leave me a message or email? Thanks :) Martinp23 18:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I sent you an email. I think some text got truncated so I resent it with better formatting. Let me know if you received it and if you are having trouble reading it.Hkelkar 20:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - I will try to respond tonight. TheronJ 20:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Killian rfc

Hi, I opened an RFC about the blogs issue @ Killian, just FYI. Please leave comments if you would like! Kaisershatner 16:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Foley Scandal

Please note that I have just nominated Mark Foley Scandal for Featured Article status. You can find comments about its nomination here. I am leaving this message because you have significantly contributed to the article. Thesmothete 02:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about policy

Hello, TheronJ. I got your name from the Advocates page. I have a simple question: is there any policy against compiling evidence against a user on my talk page (or a subpage of my child page)?

I have been involved in a 8 month content dispute with JzG. During that time, I've compiled several instances of what I believe to be inappropriate behavior. As the conflict continues to rage, JzG has repeatedly mischaracterized the details of the dispute at places like AN/I. In each of those cases, I've had to spend a lot of time defending myself, digging up diffs, basically trying to present my case.

For this reason, I would like to maintain a page of evidence that I can easily refer to if (when) the debate flares up again. Also, with arbcom elections coming, I would like to clearly/concisely document the issues I've had with him, so I can refer to it when I vote in the elections.

You may ask why I haven't gone to mediation or arb com - there are two main reasons: (1) I don't think I can get a fair shake against someone as popular as JzG. Let's face it, I'm a nobody here - I know about 10 editors - while there are literally dozens (if not hundreds) that know and love JzG. I honestly don't think I'd get a fair shake from a mediation/arbitration. This is in no way an indictment of mediation/arbitration - I'm just enough of a realist to understand that it's human nature for people to trust people they know and like, especially in such an impersonal electronic domain such as this. I've personally seen evidence of this kind of thing on AN/I and arb com cases - again, it's not an indictment, it's just reality. (2) The timing was not right - I was actually strongly considering arbitration back in April, but then JzG had some personal issues and there was no way I was going to bring him to arbcom then. By the time he was fully back, the time had passed. But now that he's severely misrepresenting that old dispute, I feel the need to properly document those old issues.

So I'd like to create this evidence page, but I don't want to violate policy to do so. It would not be an "attack" page (certainly nothing uncivil or personal) but it would be quite critical of the actions JzG took in this dispute. What do you think?

Thanks. Feel free to reply here or on my user page, whichever you prefer. ATren 06:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The rule on evidence pages is still evolving. Most of the time, if you clearly label the page something like "Scratch pad for possible RFC", you will be ok, but if you don't, the admins may decide that you've got an attack page. On the other hand, if you prepare your page off-line, in a word processor or something, you will always be ok.
As to your underlying dispute, I think you would be best off dropping it and trying to work with Guy on the personal transport page. I've read the exchange in his candidacy page, and, IMHO:
  1. Guy was not a formal mediator, he was just acting as an editor, so their is no conflict of interest.
  2. Any editor is free to enter a dispute and try to resolve the issue.
  3. As long as Guy didn't use his admin tools (i.e., block someone or protect a page) while he was involved in the content dispute, he's just a long time editor who decided to chime in on your content dispute.
  4. In any event, your dispute with Avidor is a long time ago by internet standards. I think if you let it go and try to work with Guy on what the various sources say about PT, you will probably find him pretty reasonable.
Just my two cents, of course . . . TheronJ 11:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, TheronJ, for your advice. I will keep it offline and post it as needed.
Just to address your points:
  1. He himself referred to it as a mediation here, and he didn't deny it here. Whether informal or not, all parties involved treated it as a mediation.
  2. True. But he acted like a mediator, and referred to himself as a mediator.
  3. He didn't use his admin tools, but he twice threatened to lock the page after Skybum's edits. The first threat was just a few minutes after Avidor told him to, and was due to JzG's misreading of a single word in Skybum's edit. Even after Skybum politely corrected JzG's mistake, JzG still insisted he was right (though he was clearly misreading the word) and again threatened to lock. Note, also that he repeatedly referred to Skybum as a "proponent", and actually argued that Skybum's edits were worth less because of this supposed "proponent" status. I should point out that JzG never even acknowledged or apologized for his mistake. Now, when these kinds of threats and accusations come from an admin, it's pretty frustrating, especially when that admin admittedly has an admiration for the editor we've been arguing with for 4 months, and appears to be trying to get that editor's completely inappropriate content in the article. It really seemed to us like we were being bamboozled by JzG. And this was not the end of it: for months, every edit we made was summarily reverted by JzG, even though the edits were relatively minor. Eventually, nearly every one of those edits made it into the article (because they were good edits), but it took a revert war in which JzG would not even consider our edits or comments until it we reverted them 2 or 3 times - after which he'd finally take a closer look and realize that the edits were OK. The fact is, JzG's attitude and actions set the stage for this entire dispute, and he completely frustrated and alienated the three of us on the other side - Fresheneesz was so disgusted with JzG he went on his Notability crusade, Skybum largely quit the project (which is a shame, because he was an excellent editor), and obviously I have no shortage of frustration...
  4. We've repeatedly tried to work with JzG - but he's basically written us all off as drooling proponents (you can see it in his edit comments referenced above). No amount of discussion would convince him that we weren't POV pushers. You know, JzG is very loyal to the people he respects (including Avidor), but if he doesn't respect you, he's extremely condescending and rude. And once he's pegged you as a POV pusher, he will never change his view. It's extremely frustrating...
But anyway, I just wanted to answer your points. I don't want to drag you into the whole mess. Thanks again for your advice. ATren 12:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
ATren 2/2/06: "So now you're bowing out, eh? You went in and empowered that fucking idiot and now you're dropping it on the floor. You are as much a moron as he is." Why is ATren allowed to "edit" Wikipedia?....Avidor 14:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Because we do not kick people for a single out burst, if so AN/I would be a quite place =) --NuclearZer0 17:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your question

Finally answered today. In your everyday job, do you encounter such recusal cases frequently ? Please tell me about it, thank you. --DLL .. T 20:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In real life, not so much, but on Wikipedia, it seems as if about 20% of the Arb Comm cases see a call for at least one person to recuse. Thanks, TheronJ 20:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY

Good evening. I looked at your edit to the paragraph. I liked the comment about votes often being counterproductive but thought that the wording could be tightened up a bit. I believe that my edit was minor and preserved the sense of your addition. Another editor took exception and immediately reverted. The paragraph has now been returned to the last stable version - which would be a version before your edit. I'm afraid that it's time to open the discussion on Talk as you suggested. Sorry. Rossami (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the note - let's see what we can do. TheronJ 14:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "a fair PROD nomination"

Hi. Sorry, I don't understand anything you are referring to at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/GeneralForum#.22PROD.22. I appreciate it if you offer me your help, but what exactly is this about? And why do you consider this nomination "fair"? All the best, <KF> 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I responded on the novels project page.[6] If it's ok with you, let's keep the discussion there in case someone else in the Novels project wants to chime in. Thanks, TheronJ 22:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay. But it's almost midnight here, I have to get up early tomorrow morning and will be away all day, so I won't be able to carry on for much longer now. I'll be back in a bit less than 24 hours I guess. <KF> 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/User_talk%7ETheronJ_2bc0.html"