User talk:Jmaynard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

/October 2006

Contents

[edit] Here's hoping this barnstar doesn't get abdu-

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I hereby award Jmaynard this barnstar for kicking ass and taking names in helping to protect the much-abused Freakazoid! article. I was just about to warn the vandal when I saw that, not only had you already warned him twice, but he'd recently been banned. Good work. Now, let's go watch a bear riding a motorcycle. EVula 16:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
*blush* Thanks! Jay Maynard 20:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I did not know

That removing the vandalism thing from my talk page what considered vandalism. I will remember that next time. I also apologize for vandalizing the Freakazoid page. I was thinking that because the edit did not change the over all meaning (except of course make it more dramatic) of the article, that it wasnt exactly bad. But in the long run, the edit was true, you have to admit, as every time you mention Candlejack, you do in fact get abdu

Master Thief-117 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thedrunkendialer.com

I am wondering of this site could be considered an internet phenomena or not. I know it is rather popular and extremely humorous. It features a guy who holds a weekly contest offering $100 via PayPal to the individual who leaves him he best Drunk dialing message on his voicemail.
I did not add this site to this article yet for fear that people would think I am self-promoting. I have no affiliation with the site and can’t find any direct marketing used to purchase products. I just think it is very funny and well known around my area.
I look forward to some objective input before I add, or do not add this site to the list. Take a look for yourself, you be the judge…
  • Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam. (Would this apply?)

Thanks, 69.167.102.181

P.S. I posted the same message on User_talk:Wavy_G for more opinions. Look forward to hearing from you...

[edit] Re: Recent link deletions

Hello there. I did not revert them back, as I follow the one revert rule. However, I have added back the external links warnings, as the external link section is too big. Note that, if you are using some external links as references (usually those links that point to text files, to discussion about the series, to explanations, criticism or reviews) should belong to a References section. If possible, use inline citations to learn where each reference was used.

It is important not to confuse external links with references: external links usually point to the home page of a website, while references point directly to a page or document. Such division allow our bots to easily catch spam added and to know which ones are questionable and which ones are valid (as a thumb of rule, we do not remove external links from references sections, unless it is clearly not usable, like a forum post or a mail). Hopefully you will understand this. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo 12:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:External links:

External links should be used sparingly and kept to a minimum. Wikipedia is not a web directory; there are criteria a link should meet before it is added to an article's External links section.

If the links are for sources used in writing the article, that's fine, but otherwise external links should be minimal. —tregoweth (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:Thor-ax the impaler block

Of course. :) No particular reason I didn't leave a notice -- if you take a look at my contribs, you'll probably see that I'm very active in anti-vandalism; if I'm in a hurry for whatever reason, letting people know they're blocked sometimes goes by the wayside. Just left one at their talk page, now, for the sake of propriety, but I probably should have, in the first place. Thanks for your time! Luna Santin 18:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freakazoid!

Thanks for your assistance with this article, I have blocked the IP address responsible for vandalism and personal attacks. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your blanket revert

Please see the Userbox talk page. Ian¹³/t 18:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing that it is an online community. The bigger information boxes are, the more likely it is that people will not read them. Please just assume good faith. Thank you. Ian¹³/t 21:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] zSeries on Linux article

This one looks like a giant ad again. I thought I would point it out. I'm not qualified to make intelligent edits, but was hoping you might be able to contribute. Rhombus 18:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cindy Morgan

Were you planning to add the page about the singer?

Yes, I am. Probably later today. Is that ok? Thief12 20:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jmaynard/monobook.js

This page (your user script) is including itself in CAT:CSD for some reason. Can you please fix this? Thanks. --W.marsh 04:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Nevermind, someone smarter than me has already fixed it. --W.marsh 04:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • FYI, for future reference, you need to have nowiki tags around anything that contains {{db}}. One of your deletion scripts contains {{db| some javascript stuff here ... }}. That template, even though you don't see it, gets expanded and thus the category gets included. By enclosing the function in nowiki tags, the problem is solved. --BigDT 04:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I had included that script via the user script manager. I'll go look at the source it pulls from, if I can figure it out, and add nowiki tags to it. -- Jay Maynard 14:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bite out of the apple

I know it doesn't perfectly match the idiom you used at deletion review a little bit ago, but have you considered forum shopping as a possible alternative phrase that you could link to? GRBerry 22:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting

Rather than asking for a speedy delete of an article, why not help us fix these articles. You are after all a member of the project. I am getting sick of every yahoo nominating articles to delete, I can't keep my head on straight. I am trying to fix these articles as fast as I can, But I would prefer to be able to choose which ones I work on. This is really beginning to tick me off. There are many other articles that also need work, I'd like to work on them in the order I choose, not at some frantic pace because someone keeps nominating them for deletion and I'm the only one willing to do it. Fer cripesake! Back off a little and gimme a chance to fix them... I do have a full time job and have to research this crap and being tied to a delete schedule doesn't help. Anonym1ty 00:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't argue that, in general, it's better to fix articles than delete them. I've got a philosophical problem with listing every ham rig ever made, and an even bigger one with having only one listed. (Are there even any others? There sure aren't at the prject page.) The article fails to say anything about why the radio is notable, and that meets the A7 criterion. -- Jay Maynard 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The article was old. and blanketing everything under A7 isn't a wise choice. It may have been a more palatable idea to suggest a simple merge. Anonym1ty 15:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
---Also when tagging articles to be deleted, please put notice on the project page.Anonym1ty 16:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It fit A7, since it didn't assert any form of notability whatsoever. I'll comment on the rest on the project page. -- Jay Maynard 16:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're on Digg!

Just wondering if you had seen this yet. I think it's hysterical, yet inaccurate :-( Cyde Weys 21:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Saw it, signed up for Digg (I hadn't before), stuck a couple of comments in there. Nifty picture. If anyone ever made such a commercial, I'd be up for it. Even though my desktop of choice is OS X... -- Jay Maynard 22:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ham licensing page

No, sorry, your revert was wrong. The Advanced Class didn't exist until Incentive Licensing. I was there and remember that the only options in the 1963 ARRL manual were Novice (for a year), General and Conditional. There was an addendum stuffed in the book describing Technician, Advanced and Extra, as well as promoting Incentive Licensing. Unless you have something proving different, let's stay with what the ARRL and FCC were saying at the time, okay?

More than that, you blew away a lot of other work to change ONE LINE??? Come on, be real! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Critic-at-Arms (talk • contribs).

Someone blew away a lot of MY other work because they rememberred it wrong. Gee, thanks. -- Jay Maynard 10:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Take a look now and tell me what you think. I reverted then patched it up a bit. My own memory isn't perfect but I looked over my old stuff and got it pretty much right now. Critic-at-Arms 15:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes I saw about the classes. My error, sorry, a symptom of CRS Syndrome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.178.65.194 (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Stay cool

Please try to stay cool in discussions. Calling other editors jihadists is never helpful; it is not particularly civil, either. If you disagree with another editor’s position, argue about the position, not the editor. —xyzzyn 16:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "born in" categories

Well, the solution is now that you can put yourself in both of those "from" categories. This is just like we do it in the mainspace- We don't have seperate "born in" and "from" categories. I think in the long run this is a good solution because there were so many different "Wikipedian by location" categories that we needed a standard naming convention because it was getting too messy. VegaDark 19:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP

I warned you. WP:BLP is taken very seriously by the community. Edit warnign with me over it is unacceptable. You were told that you could replace the material if your sourced it. You were warned. We discussed it, and then you reverted me as vandalism. I've blocked you for 24 hours and maybe when you return you can abide by policy.--Docg 01:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to abide by policy - but I disagree with your application of it, both in your tactics and in your refusal to state why you believe it applies to each of the 49 cases you're claiming it applies to. Until then, mass-nuking whole sections of an article with no justification is vandalism, and I'll continue to call it such. -- Jay Maynard 01:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll also note that I'd have replied to your statement on WP:AN/I, but the block is preventing me from doing so. -- Jay Maynard 01:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block by User:Doc glasgow

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act. This is right from WP:BLOCK, which doc glasgow violated, only sending this to AN/I after the block. While I don't necessarily agree with what you did, the block was unjustified.

Request handled by: Wizardman 06:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to weigh in on the block, but I just want to point out that reverting removal of unverified information on a living person is not "reverting vandalism". Unsourced information on living persons does not belong in an article. The apropriate thing to do is to find sources and add the information back. Just because nobody has chosen to come along and enforce clear cut policy on the article in question doesn't make it vandalism when they do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isotope23 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
The policy says "unsourced controversial information". I've got no problem with WP:BLP as a policy. I do have a problem with an admin coming along, blanking an entire article section, then claiming it's not vandalism. That's just transferring the work to those of us who do the work to maintain the article. If I blanked a section of an article, it'd be called vandalism. On Wikipedia, if an admin does it, why is it not? Just because he makes an assertion and steadfastly refuses to back it up? -- Jay Maynard 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll go a step further. Anyone who comes along and removes entries from the article that clearly meet WP:BLP will get no argument from me. The problem is that Doc did not make any attempt to distinguish between those entries that violated policy and those that did not. he simply nuked the entire section. -- Jay Maynard 01:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That's quite false. I selectively removed the entries that referred to living people but were unsourced. And yes, that does put the workload on those who want to maintain them - that's exactly where WP:V and WP:BLP state that the onus lies. You don't get to replaced unsourced comments on living people and demand I justify the removal. You source it, and then you get to replace it. I explained that countless times. And until you understand that it is unacceptable to replace unsourced material on a living person which has been removed, then you really can't be unblocked.--Docg 01:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Your statement is incorrect, as this diff clearly shows. You nuked the entire section indiscriminately. Your second removal, at this diff, was nearly as bad, removing every entry except for one that had a source on it. If you'd just removed individual entries that clearly met WP:BLP, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The policy doesn't say "unsourced material". It says "unsourced controversial material". You're hitting me over the head with a policy that doesn't say what you're saying it says. -- Jay Maynard 02:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute...what happened to all the sources? As far as I know, at one point, many of these things were sourced, and now they aren't. Jay, I know your entry was sourced, because I specifically remember finding the article on Top Ten Internet fads, where you were listed (I know it sounds weird, but Jay himself is an Internet fad, as well as a Wikipedia editor). This article gets monkied with so much, it's damn near impossible to keep it consistant. Wavy G 02:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The articles linked to are sourced, but that's not good enough for Doc. He wants references for every entry in the list article as well. -- Jay Maynard 02:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

From WP:AN/I: "I'm rather expecting to be endorsed on this one.--Docg 02:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)" Doc, if you're endorsed, I'm out of here, as it's plain that admins are more equal than other pigs, and I'll never be an admin - and I've got better things to do with my time than help out a project that arbitrarily throws away others' work for no good reason. -- Jay Maynard 02:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue of controversial vs. uncontroversial material is a moot point. Per WP:V, all material must be verifiable and must be cited if challenged. As the party wishing to keep or insert material into an article, it is your responsibility to provide such citations. Since we don’t have a deadline, would you consider providing citations for the items which you think should be kept? (It shouldn’t be a difficult task, at least for those items which have articles; maybe old revisions of the list itself are also useful, per Wavy G.) This ought to resolve the WP:BLP concern and would result in a better list. See also WP:LIST#References_for_list_items. —xyzzyn 02:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The process would take some time, due to the sheer number of items Doc nuked. Nevertheless, I'm willing to take it on - despite the significant bloat that that would cause to the article - but only if I'd have some reason to believe that some admin wouldn't come along and nuke it anyway, while or after I was working on it.
Let me be clear: My objection is to wholesale, indiscriminate nuking. Entries come and go from that article, and I'm not arguing about that. What I am arguing about is the mass destruction of entire sections based on a criterion that doesn't apply.
Yes, controversial/negativity does enter into it: the section of WP:LIST you cite says that material should be tagged, not deleted, unless it fails the WP:BLP test - and that test deals specifically with negative/controversial material. Wikilawyering? I don't think so; someone that puts that much work on other editors should have to meet a higher standard of proof, and Doc has utterly failed to do more than claim the policy applies. It does not, in more than a couple of the cases. -- Jay Maynard 02:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
One other note: Per WP:AUTO, I will not re-add my own entry. Someone else gets to do that if they think it's worthy. -- Jay Maynard 02:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I don't recall that our paths have crossed before today, but I just checked out your userpage, and you and I have a number of common interests (including parliamentary law, where we need expanded coverage, and Animaniacs), so I'd selfishly like to bridge this impasse in a way that keeps you contributing here. So let me see if I can contribute to bridging this impasse. Can we agree that:

  • Wikipedia articles about living people, whose lives may be damaged by things that we write here, are in a different category from other types of articles, and should be written with sensitivity to their subjects, especially when the subjects are private individuals;
  • In the case of these articles about living people, it is important that negative or embarrassing statements be verified through appropriate, reliable sources;
  • There are circumstances when embarrassing information about a private individual should not be included on Wikipedia even if it can be sourced and is agreed to be true, because the encyclopedic value of including it is outweighed by privacy, non-notability, and other concerns, although reasonable editors can disagree about precisely where the lines should be drawn; and
  • All editors are responsible for following these policies, and a good-faith attempt by an administrator to enforce them should not be considered vandalism but should result in discussion of which material should be retained and how it can be sourced.

If you can agree that those things are true, I think we should be able to make some progress here. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 02:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll happily agree to everything you put there. Where I draw the line is that I do not consider Doc's mass deletion to have been done in good faith, because he did not exercise the care that should be expected when deleting information: he did not make sure that he was deleting information that was negative, or embarrassing, or should not have been included for privacy reasons. He just deleted the entire section, indiscriminately. As far as I'm concerned, that crosses the line from enforcement of policy to vandalism. -- Jay Maynard 02:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think NYBrad offers a good summation of the pertinent principles. As I understand it, the material removed was unsourced, and was removed in good faith, and despite discussion, there was reversion of the removal characterising it as vandalism. That's not really a good approach. While I'm not sure I would have blocked for this long, I am also not sure that reverting the removal of unsourced material is a good thing. I won't formally decline to lift the block, but I won't lift it either, I think until some acknowledgement of what NYBrad outlines is made by you, the block ought to stand. I just don't see Doc's removals as in bad faith. When challenged, the onus is on the information inserter to provide sources. That's not debatable and it's a broader principle than just in this case. ++Lar: t/c 02:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What part of "I'll happily agree to everything you put there" is not an acknowledgement of what NYBrad outlined? -- Jay Maynard 02:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"I do not consider Doc's mass deletion to have been done in good faith" != "a good-faith attempt by an administrator to enforce them should not be considered vandalism ". Doc acted in good faith. You were incorrect to revert them as vandalism. ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I explained why I do not believe that Doc's deletion was in good faith. A contributor in good faith would show enough respect for the work of others that he would not delete it without a good reason. Merely being present in a section where other entries do meet the criteria is not good enough. If that's not good enough an explanation for you, then I don't think we have a lot more to talk about, and Wikipedia is not the place for me to spend my time. -- Jay Maynard 02:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That would be too bad. You seem a valuable and intelligent contributor. But unsourced material, when challenged, has to be sourced, or it should be removed. That applies to one sentence or a whole swath. It's not negotiable. We have that as a foundational principle here. Doc explained this to you, engaged in dialog, and you reverted him. That's not acceptable in my view although I acknowledge others may differ. It's just not collegial. That you protest that a lot was removed at once... well, we're all volunteers here, folk should have been watching that article for unsourced stuff all along but no one was. We should be glad that someone took on a rather onerous task of reviewing all of it and removing the unsourced stuff, not giving them a hard time and reverting them. That's my view. ++Lar: t/c 02:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That's my point: Doc did not take on the onerous task of reviewing all of it and removing the unsourced stuff. He simply nuked the entire section. Not all of it was unsourced, and not all of it was negative or controversial - which is the only time, according to WP:LIST, that stuff should be summarily removed instead of tagged. -- Jay Maynard 02:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's try this. Would Doc have been justified in blanking the entire page because some of it violated WP:BLP? Why or why not? How is that different from blanking one section wholesale? -- Jay Maynard 02:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict, to Jmaynard) Well, then it's just a question of dealing with the problematic content a bit at a time. Doc's position, founded in policy, is that first we source the material and then it goes in. (Not that having it go in is the end of the discussion, because my view is a lot of it doesn't belong in anyway, but let's do one thing at a time.) Your view is that since it's there, we should go through it one line at a time and take it out. Now what you may not realize is that Doc is an OTRS volunteer, which is code for he's one of the people responsible for dealing with the e-mails the Wikimedia Foundation gets every day along the lines of "there is this false/defamatory/privacy-invading statement in the Wikipedia article about me, and it's ruining my life, and I want it gone." That must sensitize him to the way that Wikipedia affects real people. Having an embarrassing mistake that a person made, or a lapse of judgment about what one should do in front of a videocamera, haunt a person for the rest of their life is a reality in the Internet age. And if the haunting includes on Wikipedia, which is now one of the ten most-visited websites in the world, it can be quantitatively and qualitatively different from having it everywhere else. Almost every paragraph in the "People" section in that article was about a mistake a real person has made, non-notable people of no particular importance to the building of an encyclopedia, and if we want to be able to look ourselves in the mirror, we need to be able to say to ourselves that A, we aren't posting material like that if it isn't true and there aren't reliable sources to say it's true, and B, we're posting it for a legitimate reason and in spite of the harm it may do to the person behind the paragraph or the article. Doc's point of view is that we should make sure of at least A (and I would say maybe even B) before we write this stuff. You would have done more of a line-by-line edit to the thing. But in a couple of weeks, what belongs should be there, and what doesn't belong shouldn't be there; there is no deadline, and is it really so critical to you precisely how we get there? Newyorkbrad 02:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This isn’t an RFC, but I endorse Newyorkbrad’s view. —xyzzyn 02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Believe me: as someone whose innocent mistake led to Internet notoriety, I'm quite aware of how the Internet can turn someone's life upside down over little things, quite probably more so than anyone else in this discussion (even OTRS volunteers). For those people who are not already [in]famous on the Internet, I'll wholeheartedly agree that they do not belong in that section. Wikipedia should not be the instrument of anyone's misery.
The deleted material, by and large, wasn't like that. The overwhelming majority of the entries in that list were genuine phenomena, checked as they were added by multiple people (for those that are not notable generally are removed from the list quickly), and linked to articles of their own. Those articles can be easily checked for sources, and I'll happily agree that those that do not have any should be submitted to WP:AFD.
Doc's mass destruction reflects a total lack of respect for the work of the other folks who worked on that article. That's why it's important to me how we get there: Doc's way would require a lot more work than simply doing as WP:LIST calls for and tagging things, and then removing them later. You noted above that I'm involved in the study of parliamentary law. I got that way because I've been involved for 30 years in various and sundry volunteer organizations. The best way I know to run off volunteers is to wantonly ignore and destroy their work for no good reason, or through laziness or lack of respect. That's what's at issue here, not WP:BLP. -- Jay Maynard 02:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting points, thanks for responding, and we can all certainly take cognizance that we are dealing here with a sincere contributor who has a disagreement in principle with how Doc has processed this issue (although I foresee that you and I may wind up disagreeing on where we draw the line in particular cases, if you stick around—an irony, because I am probably one of the more "inclusionist" administrators around except where WP:LIVING concerns are involved). I want to leave you with the thought that Doc didn't just pick a random article to cut large parts of; there is principle on his side as well; and I hope you can apologize for calling what he did "vandalism," which is defined as intentionally acting to hurt the encyclopedia, which is certainly the farthest thing from what Doc did, or meant to do. We have 1,600,000 other articles to worry about besides this one, and a lot of work to do on them, so I'd hate to lose a contributor over WP:BLP enforcement. But I guess I've said all that I have to say, and maybe then some (I was accused of long-windedness on Jimbo Wales' talkpage only this morning, and I can't seem to help myself), so give this some thought and I hope you can understand Doc's position and stick with us. Newyorkbrad 03:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
My issue is not with specific entries in the article. As I mentioned above, those come and go. Yes, there's principle on his side, and it's one I support.
OTOH, if someone blows away the hard work of a lot of other people, and thereby discourges participation and even runs people off, how is that not harming the encyclopedia? Doc's heart may well have been in the right place; I'm willing to go that far. However, his lack of respect for other contributors and what I still see as abuse of admin powers makes it difficult, if not impossible, for me to apologize for calling a spade a spade. If Doc withdraws his block and apologizes for his abuse of admin powers, I'll apologize for calling it vandalism - but I will still think it is.
Once again, it's not about WP:BLP. It's about how it was enforced in this particular case. -- Jay Maynard 03:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I don’t see the abuse of which you speak. I don’t see work being ‘blow[n] away’, either—anybody is free to readd the removed content with citations, and it’s still available in the history. —xyzzyn 03:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
His abuse of admin powers is his blocking me (and threatening to block anyone else) for restoring the content he nuked. Going back and getting the content to re-add is a royal pain in the tuchis, and will take a major effort for the substantial number of entries he nuked - each of which must be located individually, then followed back to the article they linked to (for the most part), sources extracted from that article, then cut and pasted into the list article along with the deleted entry. That's a hell of a lot more work than simply tagging the entries and then coming back and deleting them later, which is what WP:LIST calls for if it's not a WP:BLP violation - which it's not if it's not negative or controversial. -- Jay Maynard 03:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I’m sorry to say my impression is that you’re continuing to accuse Doc and that you won’t stop. In case you haven’t noticed, you are in a minority of one with your point of view. I now concur with Lar that the current block should remain. —xyzzyn 03:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you support Doc's lack of respect for other contributors here who haven't attained his lofty status. -- Jay Maynard 03:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Another item about which I can be more clear: His heart is in the right place, but that doesn't excuse blocking someone over a content dispute - which is all that this is, since it's not a WP:BLP violation. If WP:BLP didn't clearly say that only negative or controversial material needed to be removed immediately, then I wouldn't be complaining. However, if Wikipedia has policies, it should abide by them - and that goes for everyone, admin or new editor. It's clearly not in this instance, and what I find most disappointing about all this is that everyone's rallying to Doc's side when it's obvious to me that he screwed up. If I'm that far out of step with Wikipedia, then it's time for me to find something else to contribute my time and effort to. -- Jay Maynard 04:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I also have to add here that I believe that my reputation on WP has been irreparably damaged by the block. There are two broad classes of users on Wikipedia: those who have been blocked, and are therefore the bad guys, and those who have not been, and are therefore the good guys. This whole affair has placed me in the bad guy category, there to remain for eternity. -- Jay Maynard 03:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Or so they say. —xyzzyn 03:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I have filed a request for wider community comment on this whole matter here--Docg 12:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Un-autoblock

See above: the block was overturned. I intend to participate in Doc's Rfc; that was what I was going to edit when I discovered the autoblock. -- Jay Maynard 13:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed your autoblock. Discuss all you want, but please behave from now on.--Docg 13:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe I was behaving, and apparently at least one admin agrees with me. In any event, I'm not about to restore the 53 entries you've nuked without some assurance that mt work won't be destroyed in one quick edit. -- Jay Maynard 13:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
When there are 1,500 admins, unfortunately finding that one makes a poor judgement call isn't unusual.--Docg 13:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi Jmaynard,

I am sorry you were put in a position that left you feeling, quite literally, out in the cold. As "Cat" says: "Take some time, think a lot, think of all the things you've got." A sound and steady mind is needed here. I do not know enough to be of any use to anyone, yet? But maybe you can just do things that you really feel are essential. When you do that, you are quite successful. You showed the world today, that you mean a lot. You saved an essential part of history, IMHO. I was proud to be on your side.

A near 100% total victory in support of the article is hardly "one administrator."

I went to St. Olaf and the U. of M., by the way. Cold, but beautiful country your way. Be well, Lee Nysted 20:36, 23 February 2007 (

Question about procedure in re: Internet article?

Sorry to trouble you, but when an admin. loses as badly as "Docg" did, is it customary for them to comment back about the outcome, like he did?

(i.e., "The result was SPEEDY KEEP nomination was a WP:POINT, and as much as I have issues with this article, Wikipedia hasn't (yet) matured to the level to dispose of it, so WP:SNOW. For now, we'll just need to make sure WP:BLP is enforced in spirit and letter on all relevant entries. . -Docg 18:02, 23 February 2007")

We "haven't yet matured?" Is that the way an administrator should salute the consensus opinion process at an encyclopedia?

Ergo, it appears that his initial request for comment, followed by at least 16 editors opposing his obvious desire to have the article deleted, brought forth a different analysis and conclusion than he initially suggested in his RFC. He indicated he would resign. I guess that is not happening.

Thank you for being a part of my continued search for answers, here.

Grateful to be free, Lee Nysted 23:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

 UTC)

[edit] Your note

I just wanted you to know I saw your note on my talkpage earlier this week. It's not really for me to say anything more, because it's up to Doc glasgow whether he wants to be active here just as it's up to you whether you want to be active here, but I appreciated your posting and what you had to say. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help in sourcing Amateur radio licensing in the United States

I've attempted a significant rewrite of Amateur radio licensing in the United States in my sandbox here User:Davandron/Amateur_Radio, and have noticed how poorly this article is cited. Its all "faulty memories" as you put it. However, you are someone who was familiar with the history and I've found being familiar with the details allows one to find sources to support articles here.

Would you be able to look at this sandbox article, and perhaps track down some sources to fix the errors that are being carried through from the original article? Thanks for your help! - Davandron | Talk 03:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/m/a/User_talk%7EJmaynard_62e9.html"