User talk:8bitJake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Henry M. Jackson

Hi. User:FRCP11 has request action be taken with regard to a violation of the Three revert rule. That rule states that a user shall not revert an edit 3 times during a twenty-four hour period, otherwise they shall be liable to be blocked. I've reviewed your edits to this page and there do appear to be 3 or more reverts to the same text in 24hours, meaning you have compromised the 3RR. Since the edits were from yesterday, I am leaving this warning on your talk page to draw your attention to the rule, rather than blocking your account. Please consider the rule and discuss edits on the talk page rather than reverting edits you do not agree with. Kcordina Talk 10:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Following further reversions (eg. [1]) you have been blocked for contravention of wikipedias 3 revert rule. Kcordina Talk 19:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Immediately after returning to Wikipedia from his 24-hour suspension for reverting an article eight times in under 24 hours, User:8bitJake deleted all of the language from the article that four out of five editors agreed was notable and verifiable. He dishonestly titled his reversion as Restore consensus version. This is poor sportsmanship at its worst. -- FRCP11 19:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

AmiDaniel (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christine Gregoire and Strategic Vision

Do you have a linkable source where someone in the Washington Dems saying Strategic Vision's goal is "to shape media perceptions"? I did a google search on the wa-democrats.org and found these that reference Strategic vision as "GOP firm Strategic Vision" and referred to David Johnson as "A Republican party pollster", but that was the closest I got. --Bobblehead 22:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Executive DirectorJaxon Ravens used the term in a speech to the Young Democrats. I think I saw it used by Paul Berent. I still can't believe that they don't have all former articles searchable on wa-democrats.org.--8bitJake 22:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh. Okay. We'll see what FRCP11 thinks of the mods with sources. --Bobblehead 22:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am skeptical of his willingness to work together towards a quality article. That text has been in there for months. --8bitJake 22:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. It lacked a inline cite which makes some editors edgy. The additions of an inline cite for David Johnson and further sources in the discussion should solve the problem though. --Bobblehead 22:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The text lacked a cite and seemed an awfully aggressive allegation without a cite. Once a cite was provided, I was fine with it. -- FRCP11 21:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait to see what RFCP11's response to my proposed solution is before removing the POV tag. The downside with wikipedia's policies is that anyone can claim POV and it has to remain until the conflict is resolved. --Bobblehead 19:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Democrat Party" article

Hello 8bit. Our old friend rjensen is up to his old tricks and has written an article called "Democrat Party" that dignifies this term. Wikipedia is considering deleting the Democrat Party (United States) article. I hope you will weigh in on the topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_(United_States) I believe an article about this perjorative term doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[2] made on June 8, 2006 (UTC) to Christine Gregoire

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 19:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That FRCP11 sure likes to throw around 3RR claims when he does not get his way.--8bitJake 19:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion that saves FRCP11 from 3RR. Instead of outright reverting, make a modification to his updates. As long as you are making modifications instead of completely removing it falls under edit war which isn't exactly smiled upon, but it won't get you blocked. --Bobblehead 20:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I just love the fact that his claim got him blocked and now the admins are going over his records.--8bitJake 20:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I just noticed that. Anyways, try editing rather than outright reverting. It's obvious neither of you see eye to eye politically, but life's too short for the feud y'all have going on. If you don't like something he puts in the article, find a 'reputable' source that backs your view, make the modifications and include the source. My main issue with his updates so far has been that when he adds a POV to the article he only adds the side he agrees with and makes the POV appear more widely accepted than it really is. WP:NPOV is not only about making sure dissenting opinions are addressed fairly, but that they are also addressed equally. --Bobblehead 21:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like FRCP11 didn't take his block very well. --Bobblehead 21:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I know. That is surprising. I have been on the net since pre-Netscape days and I guess I just developed a thick skin for online conversations.--8bitJake 21:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

A request for arbitration has been opened up concerning the events of the last 10 days. Please comment there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a statement at your arbitration request here. Dmcdevit·t 00:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'll try to get to that tonight. So expect something in the next 24 hours.--8bitJake 15:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Cantwell

24.45.47.102 19:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC) michaellovesnyc I see you are a Dean supporter so that may be why you can not be objective with Cantwell's IMBRA bill. I have quoted directly from the bill and used links to articles regrding the bill so where is the POV involved? If you have some suggestions to make it less POV (if it is at all) then please make them. But deleting the entire piece is not appropriate. She sponsored the bill and now we have the consequences of it to deal with.

I think your time would be better spending writing in a blog or to congress where you get to work through all the anger that you feel about this issue. But I don’t think that Wikipedia is a good outlet for your rage on this issue. --8bitJake 19:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Edwards

I was wondering what your reasoning was for reverting my edits on the page for John Edwards with the edit summary of "RV POV". Was that just a mistake or what? I didn't notice it until now. If you read the Talk page, you'll see that I was replacing a poll that had nothing to do with Edwards with some actual content. Maximusveritas 22:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't the addition of links to Foxnews.com in enhances the non-bias of an article about a Democratic Politician.--8bitJake 22:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The link is to an interview, not an opinion piece. I'm just quoting what Mary Cheney said in the interview. How is that POV or biased? I even tried to balance it by contrasting it with her father's reaction. There are no rules against citing Fox News as far as I know. Maximusveritas 22:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

gosh at risk of being shot, I must say that anything on Fox news is an opinion piece.MollyBloom 05:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well there is a reason why I would not quote Soviet-era Pravda or the North-Korean news agency as a legit source on US foreign policy. It is hardly good form to cite a biased media outlet as a source of fact.--8bitJake 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be your standards, but Wikipedia's standards are a different matter. There's really no argument here. Thanks for your replies anyway. Maximusveritas 23:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure that Fox News is a good source even per WIki standards. There really is no debate about its lack of objectivity.MollyBloom 05:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Vote

What admin vote? --Rory096 23:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[3]. I put it in the support section, incremented the support counter, and put "s" as the edit summary. It was on purpose! --Rory096 23:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitjake

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitjake. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitjake/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitjake/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 23:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Corporation

Thanks! it nearly killed me(6 hours!!!!!!!). Do you think you could maybe clean up my shitty grammar/spelling? Andman8 20:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah. I'll leave that to the former English majors.--8bitJake 20:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Lieberman

Can you help watch this page? LionO is trying to turn it into a Lieberman ad, or at the least add a "factual accuracy is in dispute" tag when there is basically no fact in the article that is disputed. I know you're with me on it, so that's why I'm asking.-KP 04:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truthsquad5's comment

Ass --Truthsquad5 19:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sure Wikipedia appreciate your quality NPOV contributions [4]--8bitJake 22:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I make an honest mistake in editing, and you start with the name calling?? For shame! --Truthsquad5 11:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right.--8bitJake 02:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply on Wikipedia_talk:Resolving_disputes#Dispute_resolution_does_nothing

Please see my reply on Wikipedia_talk:Resolving_disputes#Dispute_resolution_does_nothing. I look forward to your thoughts. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle blog

hey, would you mind providing me with a link to that blog you mentioned on the talk page? I would love to see it. Thanks!!! ImpulsivePuppy 22:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darcy Burner

Thanks for your comments. I actually don't know much about her, but I'm following CQPolitics.com [5] very closely, and attempting to follow all the close House races (to see whether there may be a shift in power in November). Feel free to add more on the race -- the info I put in I got from http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/08/burners_fundraising_makes_wash.html. Thanks again, and be well! -- Sholom 12:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

With regards to your comments on Chris Pirillo: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. (diff). Computerjoe's talk 13:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

But my calling someone a jerk, regardless of their actions, is still a personal attack. I have also provided this as evidence in your ArbCom case, the situation shouldn't matter: you should be civil regardless. Thanks, Computerjoe's talk 20:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitJake

This case is closed and the result has been published at the link above. You are banned from editing articles about poltical figures from Washington State, and you are placed on Probation. These remedies also apply to Bazzajf and 62.77.181.16.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 20:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../8/b/i/User_talk%7E8bitJake_f0b0.html"