User talk:JDG/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

archive1

Contents

[edit] question

why do you keep deleting my comment without a response? SECProto 02:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFAR for Monicasdude

I am happy to join you in writing a RFAR against Monicasdude. Stifle 11:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC) I have created a subpage to my userpage where we can work on this before moving it over to the formal RFAR process. See User:Stifle/RFAR Monicasdude. Stifle 14:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gettysburg1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Gettysburg1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Nv8200p talk 00:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Hey, just saw that you're back. Hope the hiatus was restful. Welcome back to wiki! -Rkitko 05:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Bob Dylan

I'm not disputing the "anthemic" quality of "The Times..." I just don't believe that it fits within the context of the sentence you placed it in; the song has nothing to do with war or civil rights. As far as a superlative statement, please consider that this article is a labor of love by many dedicated Dylan fans and that the introduction is modest should tell you something. Furthermore, I don’t that somebody oblivious to Dylan would understand what you mean by his "place”" being "unique." I do agree however that more could be said of his influence. Elvrum 18:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Sara Dylan

Thanks for reverting, I hadn't noticed. what's up with this guy? Cheers, Lion King 11:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Rodger, Wilco.

[edit] Re. Jtkiefer

Please don't troll other users. Despite your previous encounters, and whether Jtkiefer was right or not, your comments were clearly attacks against him, and are unacceptable. Ral315 (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is completely unexceptable. Two wrongs don't make a right. Mind WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Moe ε 18:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You & Ral are not seeing very clearly here. Or do you really feel that an editor who's been unjustly blocked has no right to say things like "I feel vindicated" and "Can we get the record of the block expunged?" You evidently feel editors should just lie down and take it. I was not verbally abusive toward him (as he was to me), I was simply standing up for myself. Both of you shuld rethink this and I would be glad to see the result of your re-thinking. JDG 18:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, regardless of Jtkiefer's actions, you acted immaturely on his page. If you wanted to have it expunged (which is technically impossible), you should have posted on somewhere such as the Administrator's noticeboard, or asked another administrator. What you did wasn't standing up for yourself, it was blatant hostility meant to piss Jtkiefer off. And your immediate threat to "vote against me" justifies my response; you want nothing more than to troll as many admins as possible. Ral315 (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunantly for you, I too still feel the way I do. Saying comments like you did:
A guy who can't control his 'tongue' has no business in such a position
Your ignorance of copyright law is total.
I suppose there may be a few other loose cannon, totally irresponsible admins out there in the Jtkiefer pattern
Comments of the such are looked down on; this is what I meant by mind WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Moe ε 20:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty clear what's going on here. It's amazing how you newish admins want to strut around as if you own the place, with no repercussions for any petty exercises of power that betray how tickled you are to be in a boss-like position. Keep wishing. Jtkiefer's actions were inexcusable, then he has the gall to say "Fuck you" to me when all I was doing was thanking the guy who went to bat for me using a nomination page as a vehicle to show Jtk's unsuitability... And, Ral-- what is this getting so bent out of shape about my "threat" to vote against you in future? You react as if I threatened to show up at your door with ninjas. Just take it in stride: I don't like how you judge admin-editor disputes, therefore I will vote against you should you try to move up in the hierarchy. It shouldn't come as a surprise and shouldn't be registered as some sort of ultra-hostile vendetta... Now, let's have an end to this. I hate spending my time in meta-squabbles like this. Just let me contribute to articles in peace, please. JDG 22:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Having caught up on much of this dispute, I'm afraid I concur that JDG could have been treated better, a lot better. I will be keeping an eye on this page, lest it creeps up again, somehow. P.S. for kicks, see my block log. El_C 02:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silence?

JDG, I don't think that you're a troll. The part of your comment in which you write "Were you a confidante, for instance, of Jtkiefer's? (I don't know why I suspect it, but I do)..." was a little weird, though. In any case, I haven't responded to either you or Monicasdude because I've been spending most of my wiki- time over at Wikimedia Commons recently. Further, it's not really clear to me that there is much of anything useful that I might be able to do with either the actual Dylan article or the dispute between the two of you. Finally, your first message seemed to convey that you thought my offering an opinion would be somehow inappropriate, but your second message seems to be chiding me for my unresponsiveness. I'm never going to agree that there is something wrong with Monicasdude asking for my input on something, and I get to chose where to invest my time. I hope that clears everything up. Jkelly 03:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

JK, I don't mean to say there's anything wrong with Mdude asking for your input. It's just that you seem to take his part, which requires a willful glossing over of just tons of troublemaking... Anyway, I really want to get back to article writing. Unseen powers of the air, I beg you to lead me away from personalites and intriques. Give me the integrity to ignore slights and innuendos and just do what I'm here to do. JDG 04:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Guernica skull decontrast.png

What you're describing is transformative, educational use of part of the whole, which is about as solid a "fair use" defense as one could ever hope to have for a Picasso painting. If anyone brings up the rule-of-thumb that we're not supposed to crop unfree-copyrighted images, remind them that rule is only for press kit photos and magazine / book / album covers; I cannot imagine any other reason why someone might get confused about that fair use claim. I might have tagged it with Template:Non-free fair use in, but that category is so problematic that the Art tag is probably better. Jkelly 05:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 00:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source for Jack London intentionally emulating Riis?

In Whitechapel, you wrote: "In 1902, American author Jack London, looking to write an English counterpart to Jacob Riis's How the Other Half Lives, fitted himself out in Cockney garb and took up boarding in Whitechapel, detailing his experiences in The People of the Abyss." Personally, I think it is more than likely that Jack London was indeed consciously emulating Riis (and hoping for a similar success), but a few hasty efforts on my part did not turn up any source that says so in so many words. Do you have a source for this? An article on The People of the Abyss has recently been created and I'd like to nail that particular point down. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hello Chairboy. If it lies in your power, would you please delete or change Jtkiefer's 10 April edit summary of his talk page [1]? Obviously, it's the worst sort of personal attack, especially as Jtkiefer is aware I have terminal cancer. Thanks. JDG 04:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No can do? JDG 13:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you don't respond. Do you believe I'm malevolent? JDG 03:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you're malevolent, but... I'm not interested in changing the edit summary. Whether or not you have cancer has no bearing on the nature of a personal attack, and as far as PAs go, I've seen worse. My advice? Brush it off. Be the better person and walk away. If there's a continuing problem, let me know, but sanitizing edit histories is not in the best interest of the project or you. It's not like me deleting that edit summary will make you forget that it ever happened, ya know. I'm not trying to be a hard case here, but... perspective. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I may be getting superstitious in my desperation, as if such such a vile ill wish could begin to carry itself out, through some odd agency of "visualization". I dunno. I'm pretty sure that Wikipolicy favors the removal of really vicious stuff like this, even against the competing interest of historical preservation of edit summaries. As the admin who carried out Jtk's request to lock the page, I think you have a duty to expunge such a hurtful attack. No, it wouldn't expunge it from my mind, but at least I wouldn't be reminded of it everytime I glance through my own contribution list, ect.,. I dunno, I feel you actually sympathize with Jtk in the whole thing, which is just beyond comprehension. At any rate, I guess I'll take it up with some other admin. JDG 04:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
NOW I'm beginning to think you're malevolent. Wikipedia is not sanitized, it is a collection of good and bad with no regard to superstition. Can I rely on you to be a positive contributor? Or will you wikistalk people you disagree with? Please let me know now so I can take the appropriate corrective action. I hope you will choose the former. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistalking

Ok, this is unacceptable. You've been harranguing me to delete an edit summary you find offensive, and you're continuing to make little jabs? Wikistalking is not cool. Keep it up, and you'll have a block in your future. Disrupting the project is not the right answer, take it elsewhere. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What?! You're about as insensitive a person I've run across since, well, since Jtkiefer-- and before him I'd have to go for years to find something comparably disturbing. I don't know what your problem is with people suffering from advanced metastatic cancer who take offense at being told to "Fuck off and die", but I really think you should at least control it or be silent if you can't get yourself to be sane and moral about it. And your threat of a block, besides being ridiculous, has earned you a fervid un-admirer who will be sure, as long as he's around, to take every appropriate opportunity (that is, during votes involving your status) to remind others of your insensitivity, fondness of threats, and odd tendency to be the champion of aggressors. I've done nothing resembling "wikistalking" and my attempts to keep my chin up in the face of Jtk's violence, all of it happening as it is on user Talk pages, does zero to "disrupt the project" (which project, by the way, in terms of substantive article edits, I have contributed to about ten or twenty fold when measured against your "contributions", which look to be 80% user Talk babbling, 10% Trekkie ephemera, 5% minor edits and 5% prose that may still be part of the `pedia two months from now)... I came to you because you granted Jtk's request to lock a Talk page, thinking this meant you're amenable to users' requests. It turns out you were wrong to lock the page in the first place and apparently your motive anyway was some sort of warped sympathy 1) for Jtk and his abuse of his admin powers, and 2) his disgusting, profanity-laced wishes of death for the dying. You need to shape up, Chairboy-- and fast. In fact, if I have the energy in the next few days I'll be calling for a little roundtable to help you get started. JDG 09:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
If you feel that I've violated any rules or you object to my behavior, I encourage you to use any of the existing RfC procedures available. I think JTkiefer was incivil and acted like an ass, but I also think that your hunt to sterilize the edit summaries is misplaced effort. I _also_ think that you're being hypocritical when you use the exact same communication method to continue to make jabs at him after the situation has been resolved, hence my warning message. If you would like the community to evaluate my behavior, please feel free and I'll participate fully. If I deserve censure, then I'd love to know, but you'll pardon me if I don't take your word alone for it. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I see that you've been editing, but I haven't heard back from you. Have you come to a decision on whether you'll file an RfC? I'd like to know so I can schedule the time to give it the attention it needs. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if we can just let it go at this. I felt that one should stand up to the aggression/profanity that Jtk was putting out, both for myself and for "the principle of the thing". You seemed to see that as an effort to provoke him further... I would like to just work on articles and not disperse my extremely limited energy on "wikipolitics". If you feel you must chastise me further, I can only hope I'll deal with it in an even-keeled way. JDG 23:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. I also agree that we must not tolerate personal attacks, and I'd like you to examine how some of the things you wrote to me during this conversation could be interpreted as personal attacks. Like my grandmother told me, when you point a finger, two point back! At one point, there were three admins on IRC who (upon reviewing your messages) were offering and advising an indefinite block on you because it sounded like you were promising to wikistalk me going forward. I declined because I understood that you were agitated and that you could be an asset to the project, and I hope you'll prove me right! Best regards, and I'll see you around the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Chairboy, you're an interesting mix of goodfaith expression and greenhorn-ish admin near-saber-rattling (I would extend that last description to your IRC pals). Please reflect and understand that Wikipedia belongs to 1) the people, 2) the editors and 3) functionaries like Administrators who put in their efforts to counteract the inherent chaos of an openly editable compendium. Editors, like myself, with a long history of substantial contributions should be given more than the "benefit of the doubt" in tussles with newish admins like JTkiefer and, yes, like yourself. Our long hours of work going back to very early days deserve at least a little deference. I don't need to prove you right. My history of solid, researched prose is what it is. My efforts and the efforts of those like me is what brought Wikipedia here and is, largely, what sustains it. What needs proof is the concept of scores of wikifunctionaries who rarely contribute as editors incessantly dipping in and out of the process of article building, machinating on extra-Wikipedia platforms like IRC and generally threatening to turn the project into a webby social scene of its own, with people chasing emotional satisfactions through the exercise of power, rather than a scholarly endeavor. That was JTk's emphasis and his downfall and it should seriously be studied by you and similar admins as a cautionary tale. I hope you'll prove that this new large class of functionaries is, in net terms, good for the encyclopedia and I'll see you around the project. JDG 02:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC) -- An addition made some hours later, after a large dose of methadone: Chairboy-- I apologize if I was insulting. I see that you love the project also. Let's try to be allies. I do have a wee chip on my shoulder for recent admins. Perhaps it's unfair. But each of us carries our own weighted scales, and I do think it would be right if you gave some tare weight to longtime contributors of large volumes of original prose. Especially in cases when they've lashed out only after being lashed. JDG 06:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
On that final see you around the project note, I ask that from now on, all parties (including JDG) refer future administrative concerns of JDG to myself. I am confident of being able to resolve these to everyone's satisfaction. El_C 05:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, JDG. The aforementioned edit summary and its extraordinary connotations is what brought me here before, in fact. Had I seen it at the time, JTK would have been instantly blocked for a considerable period of time. I wouldn't have deleted that edit from the history then, though, as I would'nt now. It is probably outside of policy to do so, since edits are removed from the history either for: immediately visible offensive material (racist profanities and so on) and/or compromising personal information. The edit summary in question exhibits none of these. But while I advise against having it removed, if it still bothers you that strongly to have it remain in the history, I will do it for you (it is a rather labourious task, since every single edit except it will need to be manually restored, but that's okay). Please think it over and let me know. Best wishes, El_C 23:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your good words, El_C, I really appreciate the support. And no, I'd rather not put you to the trouble of doing that edit-by-edit manual restore. If Chairboy and others are ok with it, let's let this dog sleep and then let it lie... By the way, I've always had an odd affection for Che Guevara (who seems to be a primary inspiration to you). I consider Communism to be a badly deluded political construct, but Che's honest caring for the have-nots of Latin America (and, by extension, for those getting the short end of the stick everywhere) leads me to sort of "partially idolize" him. Plus, I like Argentines and Basques, so an Argentine Basque is quite a cool entity... I've done a thing or two in my time to help out folks with little to no resources of their own. I raise my coffee cup to you at this moment and hope that you also will do what you can to help those Che would have helped. JDG 00:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Not at all, any time. To be precise, I don't have to restore each edit, but what I meant was select each one prior to hitting restore. My inspiration comes from many things, also from the life and legacy of Che (though I would'nt say primarily), now immortalized as perhaps the foremost recognizable revolutionary martyr in this millenium. Communist theory is not a political construct and right-opportunists, would-be communists who advance it as a mere political construct are badly deluded (at best), and I otherwise defer you to The Iron Heel (the chapeter titled "The People of the Abyss" —I noticed People of the Abyss mentioned above— is especially prosaic). Rhetoric is of course hollow without practical work which draws its strength from and is directed toward the masses. In a real, grass roots and concrete way (as you remark you have done above) to help cultivate and give human potential a chance. But I also feel that in order to not only act locally but also to do so within the framework of thinking globally, one must realize that human society cannot advance to a higher stage without power and resources in the planet being shared in a natural and non coersive way. If it was easy to get there, we'd already have been there. Hopefuly, it will not take 700 years as in The Iron Heel. But I have great distaste for the 'never-never-never, we've had a few post-industrial revolution centuries and have exhausted all possibilities' mantra, I find it historically unuhumble (rather than opting to learn from past lessons, giving up & burning the books). In an era which discarded the notion that women, people of darker skin pigmentation, various ethnicities, etc., were inherently inferior as per nature, the imperialist slave-masters propogate the class shackles lie as similarly gospel truth, but unlike those former stratifications, this is one 'part of human nature for all times' lie which they cannot do without, their vital interests depend on it. But I'm polemicizing, which I did not intend to do. Thanks for your kind words. Please do not hesitate to contact me for any reason. Yours, El_C 05:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carleton S. Coon

Hi, a couple of comments were left by User:200.126.136.204 on the above article. One was unsigned, but the other bore your signature. Just wanted to check that this was you, or whether someone had masqueraded as you. --BillC 17:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello BillC. I'm not sure what you're really asking. I started the Coon article (the article creation was mistakenly done without being logged in) and have made small adjustments to it ever since. I believe I only left one Talk message (the first one on the current Talk page, about using a non-copyrighted source as a template for the article)... If you're wondering if I'm the anon user who recently put the (POV) tag in there, no, I'm not... I do (a little sheepishly) admit to a certain admiration for Coon. His major books were magnificently laid out, his arguments used his photographs and charts brilliantly. He put in long years of careful fieldwork, unlike his rather ivory-towerish, stylish detractors Montagu and Washburn. But while I do not go along with the bulk of modern anthopologists who like to dismiss Race as a purely "social construct", I'm also far from a "Coonian"-- I reject the multiregional hypothesis and believe that when the strengths and weaknesses of modern populations are averaged out, all populations have pretty much the same net potential. I think Coon probably was, underneath it all, a racist in the approximate lineage of Madison Grant. Yet he had a certain honesty and benevolence that distinguished him sharply from Grant and the German eugenicists. Remember, even if the "Alpha and Omega" caption was offensive, the representative of the Alpha was a Chinese professor, not a British Don or a well-educated upper-class American blessed with that famous "Yankee ingenuity" and entrepreneurial drive. That says a lot about Coon, and a lot against those trying to typecast him as an unthinking Anglo-Saxon supremacist... And his wide-ranging theoretical work that had little or nothing to do with the Race question (for instance, his analysis of the chemical changes caused in the human eye and brain upon exposure to direct sunlight) show that there was a "disinterested" scientist down there below the layers of social controversy, and that he lacked the monomaniacal fixation on Race that is the hallmark of the bio-demagogue... Does this answer anything? BTW, I think the article as it stands now is quite good and should not be under dispute. JDG 21:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comprehensive reply, but, ack, my mistake! I was looking at this diff, which for some reason I misread as 200.126.136.204's edit, but signed as you. So all I was doing was seeing if it was you who had made the edit, or 200.126.136.204 had done it, but left your signature. I can see now that the anon simply placed the {{POV}} at the head of the talk page, plus an unsigned comment at the bottom. So, sorry for troubling you, but your reply here was interesting and informative to read. --BillC 22:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of Life

Thank you very much for your nice comment about my contribution to the article on Tay-Sachs disease. You inspired me to add another paragraph this afternoon. I have been looking at the Origin of Life article, and I have some ideas for how to organize article as a whole, although I don't consider myself qualified to contribute to the writing itself. I will add some comments to the discussion page for that article. --Metzenberg 20:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude closed

This arbitration case is closed.

Monicasdude is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. Monicasdude is banned from making edits related to the deletion process (excepting obvious vandalism and copyright problems) for one year. This is to be interpreted broadly, and includes, but is not limited to, commenting on articles for deletion nominations and removals of nominations for proposed deletion and speedy deletion. He may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year.

Should Monicasdude violate any ban imposed by this decision he may be briefly blocked, up to a week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Monicasdude#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney talk 08:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

  • Since "repeat offenses" are needed for a ban, is there somewhere you or another Admin can keep a running tally of edits that may then be considered "repeat"?

Only an administrator can decide what is an offense in an individual case, in addition to what constitutes a "repeat offense". "Repeat offenses" are gauged by the number of blocks he has received for breaching his probation. These blocks will be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Monicasdude#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. --Ryan Delaney talk 10:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)--Ryan Delaney talk 10:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:Classicscifi.com

[2].--Sean Black (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deletion of comment on monicasdude's userpage

You said it could be called bad faith that he deleted your good natured comment on his userpage. I dont think that qualifies as bad faith, no more than clearing a userpage when it gets cluttered. He wants his user talk to look like that he can. Besides which, he did it to many comments - perhaps he read them and decided no response was necessary. ne? SECProto 02:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

He is leaving in comments by editors who have supported him. He deletes mine because I've been an adversary, even though the comment itself is supportive... I haven't pursued it further because it is, after all, his Talk page. In all probability he'll be back in a few weeks or months and will carry on exactly as before. I'm not worried. For a while I was basically the only one standing up to him. As he became active in areas outside Bob Dylan, he of course rattled the cages of active editors in those topics. Any future editing by him will follow the same pattern. It's like the `pedia is a human body that will send its macrophages against any threatening entity. If he reappears so will the antibodies. JDG 16:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment

Whoa, what's up? I saw someone making nonsense pages (something like asdfhgjhg and I asked them not to do it using the 'Leave Comment' functionality. Then I saw that there was a lot of other traffic on the page, read the user page, then realized that I had made a mistake and apologized. I appreciate Rick's followup, but I don't understand where your comment came from. Why be hating? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, I remember now that you're upset with me because I didn't expunge that edit history for you (as noted above in your talk). C'mon, don't hold a grudge. If you feel I was in the wrong, please use the RfC process. I'd really like to know if I'm not doing my job, and RfCs are an excellent method for getting community feedback. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
C'mon, Chair. This isn't hate. Far from it, in fact... Just take the time to learn something about who you're talking to, especially if you're contemplating some harsh criticism or innuendo. JDG 19:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I've left a response to your message on my talk page, I look forward to your reply. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your attempt at nominating Citizens for a Free Kuwait for deletion

Greetings. You did not follow the three steps (I, II & III) of WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion. As a consequence, there was no proper entry on the AfD log, no discussion page, and no notice on the article itself. If you still feel the articel has to be deleted, then please follow these steps, and also please indicate the rationale for your nomination, in particular how the article, in your view, violates Wikipedia policy (see WP:GAFD). --LambiamTalk 23:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Somebody undid step I as I was doing step II. I'll try again. Thx. JDG 23:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If you mean this: [3], that does not qualify as step I of the AFD procedure. The {{dated prod}} tag is for Proposals for deletion; see WP:PROD. That is meant to be a lightweight alternative to the AFD procedure for supposedly noncontroversial cases. In step I of AFD you add the tag {{afd1}}. I recommend not to wait for an extended period of time between steps I and II. --LambiamTalk 00:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ernest Hemingway/Typed Letter

As it has been less than 70 years since Hemingway's death, unpublished works by Hemingway (in this case, a private letter) are still under copyright and are considered copyvios on Wikipedia. Thanks. TheProject 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not an administrator, but that's quite irrelevant, I think. Do you have a source showing that the work is actually in public domain? The fact that it comes from the LOC does not necessarily mean that the LOC has obtained the copyright to the work. In particular, LOC's legal page[4] says that "... as a publicly supported institution, the Library generally does not own rights in its collections", and often, donations of Hemingway materials to the LOC say something along the lines of "single copy reproductions require the donor's permission". Unless there's a source somewhere that says the image is actually in public domain, it should be treated as a copyright violation. TheProject 18:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You are misapplying the first statement: "the Library generally does not own rights in its collections". Of course it doesn't— at least 98% of its textual/photographic holdings are in the Public Domain, meaning there are no rights to be held. Your second statement about "donor's permission" bears looking into. I would appreciate it if you would restore the image page, plus the page referenced in the Hemingway article, until we can sort this out. They have been there since 2002, and have passed the scrutiny of many copyvio checkers (in fact I think there was a challenge in `03 that was shot down). Unless you have a particular expertise in copyright law, I'd say respect for these earlier workers should keep the longstanding arrangement intact until a judgment is made. I'll be looking into it and I'll be contacting one of our legal people. Thx JDG 18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Source texts belong on Wikisource, actually, not on Wikipedia. If it meets copyright, then it needs to be moved to Wikisource. If it does not, then it should be struck as a copyvio. Since the copyright on this work would need to be explicitly released before Wikipedia could use it, there needs to be proof that said release has already occurred. If that evidence is provided, it will be moved to Wikisource. TheProject 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It should not be moved to WikiSource. I saw that suggestion by the other editor and was about to enter an objection when my attention was taken by your action. The primary interest of this image is in seeing an actual typed page from Hemingway's actual typewriter. The text itself is less than secondary. To see his original spelling mistakes, his own erasures and handwritten addenda, etc,. is the whole reason for the image being there. If you can't see the reasoning behind this, then I ask you: why does anyone bother with an autograph? Why isn't it enough to have a slip of paper with the letters W-I-L-L-I-E M-A-Y-S typed on it? Why would someone bid, say, $20,000 to own a hat that Hemingway wore when he/she could have an exact replca for $12?. The interest is in seeing the article exactly as it was produced and seen by the subject and his/her associates. JDG 22:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see your rationale. In that case, the image should probably be moved to the main article on Hemingway and not the subpage, as it seems the notability of the image pertains to Hemingway and not the text of the letter then. An article devoted to the letter itself is very likely to find itself moved to Wikisource. At any rate, if the copyright status of the image could be clarified, I would be very much obliged. TheProject 22:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's an odd arrangement-- the way the image is a page unto itself. I had a reason at the time... Maybe it should just be a standard image with a standard image tag in the article. I'll try to clarify the copyright status... JDG 22:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, it's a footnote in the Hemingway page, as I'm sure you already know. If the image is indeed in public domain, I'll tag the article as merge to the parent page. Thanks! TheProject 23:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Old Folks at Home" sources

Hey, thanks for the added info at "Old Folks at Home". Would you mind adding your sources to the article? That way, the article won't be in violation of WP:CITE. Thanks, — BrianSmithson 20:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Brian. I'm supposing you mean the 2nd paragraph I added, the one starting with "Most authorities trace..."? I'm afraid this is based on a number of print sources I no longer have easy access to. One of them, an essayist writing in an anthology, makes the claim about "most authorities" and I figure he's enough of an authority himself to repeat it here... Feel free to delete that paragraph for now, as there's no way I'll be able to hunt down the sources in the next few weeks. When I have them I'll run them by you before restoring the praragraph. JDG 04:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Is it possible you could find it on Amazon or perhaps Google Books so that we can add the title, author, and publication information? — BrianSmithson 14:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spencer W. Kimball

Thanks for giving me an excuse to rewrite the Spencer W. Kimball article. I've finished my first rewrite and, if you have time, would like you to look at it and see if it's now NPOV. Thanks for your time. ekimd 00:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice job, Ekimd. I guess if you wanted to you could include a little more "color", so long as it's in a neutral voice. But it's fine as is. Removing advert tag. JDG 18:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JDG Do you have examples for both Harris and myself

Please provide examples for your statement: "Sbharris wants to quote principals and witnesses while RPJ wants to quote and characterize them."

Thank you

RPJ 04:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Dylan

Sorry to dig up some ancient history, but I reviewed the Bob Dylan article recently and noticed it lacks references. Since you were apparently a major contributor and supported it for Featured Article/Brilliant Prose, could you possibly add these in? Otherwise I'm afraid it's an obvious candidate for removal. I left a note here requesting sources, but no one else has responded. I've also asked Gareth Owen, who made the nom and who also worked on the article. Thanks, Walkerma 06:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize you are talking about October `03?? Now that WP has streamlined its web-page referencing, the article will attract references as we go. JDG 09:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to just put the references in rather than hope someone else can find the references? What if no references exist? RPJ 06:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Levels?

The only trouble with your very interesting idea about creating different "levels" of wikipedia, to allow viewers to separate wheat and chaff, is that presumably the decision of what goes on which level would be done by users - meaning "minor characters in Simpsons shows" would shoot to Level 1! Still, as a person who has long enjoyed Chess related deaths, I suppose I can't call anything "piffle"!- DavidWBrooks 21:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

I just wanted you to know that I submitted Race for a minor review. It's grown to twice of what it was back in October 2004, and the review process may help the article regain some of its former shine. Sandy 05:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandy. I'll try to look into it. But it's hard to argue with the main editors of the current version. They insist on a hyper-sophisticated approach. I'm more in favor of "plain speaking" wherever possible. Given the topic, they have the upper hand. JDG 09:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Bob Dylan

Before you throw words like "hooliganish" and "banshee" around, please read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 22:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you upload another unfree image to replace a freely-licensed one, you will be blocked again. Jkelly 04:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
********* (talk · contribs) made some rather uncivil remarks, and Aaron Brenneman (talk · contribs) directed both of you to Wikipedia:Civility. You then called two anon editors who inserted NPOV and weasel tags on the article "hooliganish" and Harmonica Wolfowitz (talk · contribs), an editor who directed criticisms towards the article (not any user), a "banshee". I didn't see any incivility towards you on the talk page; regardless, if you are confronted with incivility, you should never use incivility in response because it just escalates the situation. Asking a user who has been incivil to read Wikipedia:Civility (which is an official policy) is not incivil in and of itself. Additionally, good faith edits do not constitute "outright vandalizing" in most cases, so please don't falsely accuse people of vandalising the article or deliberately bringing down its quality. This kind of behaviour isn't acceptable. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 14:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
No time to go in depth, but as an example-- the user I stooped to call "banshee" had inserted the (fact) tag in an article 80+ times. It made the article an absolute eyesore and at the very least was a particularly bad case of WP:POINT. Using the term "banshee" and making a rather elliptical comment about it being "almost outright vandalizing" was actually pretty mild. And now I'm tempted to say something like "Run along, young man, and keep your nose where it belongs" or "Look here whipppersnapper, I admire your enthusiasm, but before you come along dressing down old-timers, be damn sure you're in the right." Thanks. JDG 20:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about the "uncivil" accusation, but they should give you points for creative insults. "Banshee" is a good one, begorrah. :) Wahkeenah 23:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Bonds

I have not read any of the recent books on the steroids situation, but the recent one about Bonds ought to have some similar citation, I should think, as it's perfectly obvious Bonds' numbers took off during the time he allegedly got into steroids. Instead of posting the numbers as your own "original research", and drawing continual wrangling, how about quoting from one of those books? Wahkeenah 08:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Because I don't happen to own the book or anything else that mentions Bonds. The numbers I reference are in no way "original research". They are there in baseball statistics published in a thousand sources. I just put them together in a way that, for instance, ESPN commentators do every other day. It's not original. It's not research. This sourcing craze is really out of hand and I will not cooperate with it. I'm all for citation where it's called for. In matters of common knowledge ("the sky is blue", "Bob Dylan is a greatly admired songwriter", "Barry Bonds hit for such-and-such an average in such-and-such year") it is not called for. JDG 09:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
They have ways of getting back at you if you don't do things their way. Just take a look at the hassle I went through on Superman Returns. Here's the problem: The career stats are already in the article. If someone looks at them, they can see the jump in the numbers and might draw their own conclusions. So far, so good. The problem comes when you use those numbers as a back-inference as to when he would have started. That's putting your own personal spin on it. But if you cite the recent book, by these guys who have done an in-depth investigation, and if they say when he started and how his numbers jumped after that, then you've got it nailed. Do you see what I'm getting at? The current situation is a no-win for you. They will keep reverting you and eventually they will block your user ID. Just friendly advice. d:) And I'm sure you can find the book at your local library, or maybe just go to your Barnes & Noble cafe and look for the pertinent info, since B&N lets you treat their store like a library to some extent. Just note the page and the quote, and voila. Wahkeenah 09:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
In fact, if you look at the stats, his numbers aren't really all that different from Henry Aaron's at a similar age, except for 2001, which is anamolous. Also, it could be argued that the move to the new park in 1999, with it's short right field area, could have added 5-10 to his total each year. Aaron was aided significantly by the move to Atlanta, which is at a higher elevation and the ball carries farther. You can't necessarily account for all of Bond's recent numbers on steroids alone. 2001 certainly looks like a statistical oddity. But then again, so was Maris' 61 in 1961. He never even reached 40 any other year. But he had several things in his favor (although obviously steroids was not one of them). Wahkeenah 09:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:fact

Hi! Based on your contributions to the talk page for template:fact, I thought you might be interested in a proposal I have made to change the recommended use of {{fact}} prescribed in WP:Cite. dryguy 22:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

I know this is not the best of timing for you and isn't really for me either but I wanted to at least attempt to apologize for my behavior in both how I handled the copyright issues with you, blocking you, and the aftermath. I know the timing will obviously seem suspicious with me just coming back and the RFA I'm going through but please believe me when I tell you that this has nothing to do with that and is as sincere as I can possibly make it. I would also like to note for the record that at the time that I made that edit summary I had no idea about your condition and would never had made such a hurtful remark if I had known and it was only my personal pride and your response that prevented me from apologizing Immediately. I don't expect you to forgive me immediately if ever but I do truly hope that you can and I hope that that you will continue being around to edit for a long time. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 09:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to acknowledge the above, and your email. I'm afraid I'm going through a period of great pain right now and can't respond at length... My recollection is that you did know about my condition before the "Fuck off and die" edit summary, but my recollection in my state is shaky at best... Jtk, I don't wish you ill. My advice is this: go to Wikia and find a subject you have some knowledge in. Do some serious contributing there, earn respect, move into a leading position and acquit yourself well for at least 6 months. Then you might think about coming back to Wikipedia and replicating in large scale what you accomplished in Wikia... But understand, you need to grow not just emotionally but also as a writer of English. I remember somewhere you wrote "[because of this or that] for all intensive purposes [you are this or that]". The phrase you were thinking of actually goes: "for all intents and purposes". This sort of thing crops up a lot with you and it will put a ceiling on how much you can rise in any community (like Wikipedia) that lives on the written word. Back to basics on grammar and usage, and double check every colloquial expression. The Urban Dictionary is one sort-of good source (see for all intensive purposes)... Anyway, good luck. JDG 20:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Betterfact

Template:Betterfact has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. dryguy 21:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring talk pages

Talk pages have to be refactored and kept on-topic or they quickly lose sight of their raison-d'etre ... helping write the article. It makes perfect sense to remove someone's irrelevant original research definition of what he personally thinks should be the definition of a planet. --Cyde Weys 15:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, Talk pages should be maintained whole unless personal abuse is happening. What you take to be "irrelevant original research" often leads to an understanding of the core issues of a subject, allowing editors to then source statements on these issues. JDG 15:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
You're arguing from the enviable position of never having seen a talk page discussion get totally thrown off track by irrelevancies. Please take a look at the history of Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Maybe you'll gain a new appreciation of circumstances in which it's absolutely necessary to corral conversations. --Cyde Weys 16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Cyde, as I mentioned elsewhere, I've been with Wikipedia far longer than you have and have seen discussions that make your example look like a sharp, concise exchange. Deciding that you are the one who determines relevance is incredibly puffed up and, in the old days, the air would have been quickly let out of your balloon. But I don't blame you. This is the new administrative style and you're just doing what you see others doing. Somebody will have to put a stop to it, but I'm afaraid it won't be me... However, in the few articles that I happen to look in on, I will uphold the old values of inclusion in the Talk space. JDG 16:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Dylan

I don’t like the first para and I don’t like the photo but right now I can’t think what to do about them. I think paras 2, 3 & 4 are quite good, they say something about Dylan’s artistic range. In the first para I added the Time 100 reference. I thought it was more interesting that he was one of the 100 most significant people of the 20th century than he won the Polar Music Prize.

As you may have noticed, they want more references and more verifiability. So I think they're down on your invocation of Woody Guthrie, Hank Williams, Stephen Foster & everybody else. Unfortunate but there it is. If you could turn it into a quote from Greil Marcus, you may be getting somewhere. I think the Kramer photo is a million times better than what’s currently there, but every time someone tries to change it, I think Jkelly reverts it because of copyright issues..

For now, I’ve decided to ignore the first para and concentrate on improving references & occasionally adding ideas. You say you’re looking for someone to re-write the first paragraph an die for you an more, but it ain’t me babe, No No No! it ain’t me babe. Just kidding.

A while ago you asked my help in fighting the evil interventions of Monicasdude. Well now it’s extraordinary machine & Jkelly. Yes, I find some of the strictures narrow & boring but I can see some point to their insistence on sourcing information. There are after all many Dylan fanzines where we can go & write our brilliant prose without the Wiki police swooping on us. Best wishes Mick gold 14:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In a roundabout way, something has happened to the opening as you requested. Wish I could do something about the photo, but I'll keep on improving/ reffing & citationing / choogling. Time to cast your vote in the great FARC debate. Mick gold 17:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your posts to WikiEN-l

Hello. I see you have been having trouble posting to WikiEN-l. It appears to us as though you have not attempted to send any messages to WikiEN-l. I have unmoderated you, though that was probably not the problem. Could you please re-attempt to send messages to the list (wikien-l@wikipedia.org), and CC it to me (ultrablue) ... at ... (gmail.com)? Thanks. - Mark 06:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maglev article

Hello, I just wanted to mention that I agree with what you say about speculation: that some forms are permitted here. As I understand it, speculation is permitted as long as it's identified as someone's opinion, reported from a reliable source, and not original research. I reverted the note about the future of maglev because it didn't meet these criteria - I've seen no reports (yet) speculating on the effects of this crash on future projects. Until then, we should avoid including it. ATren 18:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cite web quote param

Hi JDG. Due to absence of further qualms (besides mine about parameter piling :), I have duly exercised my (relatively new, duh!) powers as a wiki-plumber and have thus added your requested "quote" parameter to {{cite web}}. Happy quoting! --Ligulem 19:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'King alcohol' image

Hi there! I noticed that a while ago (2002 actually), you uploaded this image. I'd really like to use it for the Alcoholism article, but i know nothing about it. Could you describe for me where it comes from or what exactly it's about? Cheers. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 22:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Joe. This image accompanied the Alcoholism article for years until some guy (a D.V. Wilson with no user page and no Talk activity) blew it away for no stated reason back in June of this year ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alcoholism&diff=next&oldid=61262992 ). I think you should simply restore the image to the article... I don't recall off-hand exactly which text it's from, other than that it was an 1820 English manuscript with an essay on the evils of alcohol. Since it is at wiki commons, you can be sure it's ok to use, copyright-wise (it's from the Library of Congress)... If you need more detail on what the picture portrays, one of us would have to find the source again at the LOC, as my memory just doesn't serve. Loosely, the human figure in the foreground was referred to as "King Alcohol" by the text, and the skeleton was called this King's "Prime Minister" (hence the Wikipedia image caption through the years: "King Alcohol and his Prime Minister circa 1820"). Plz let me know you've seen this note, else I'll have to copy it to your own Talk to be sure. Thx. JDG 00:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, good memory. Thanks for the info, the only page i had from google on it was in Icelandic (i was going to have to find a translator via Wikipedia:Babel)! I'm going to comb the LOC (i presume it is online) later tomorrow to see if i can't get more detail, but as per that revision in June is probably what it'll look like reimplimented. And consider your note recieved; thanks again! :) JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 00:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Eureka! [5] I don't know much about copyright/image tagging, can i download this to make a better crop of the image? JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 18:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I think i get it actually, seems straight forward. I just wanted a bigger cropping of the picture for the article. I'll post a link here to the new image when i have it up. UPDATE: Here it is! [6] JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 18:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Von Neumann reply

Thanks for the message. I understand the issue and will work to make the necessary improvements and citations. Robert K S 02:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fractal1.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Fractal1.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] Motorcycle crash

Hi JDG, I'm glad you're back at work editing. I hope you're feeling good. I genuinely hate to disagree with you, but I loved the rhythm of Creative height, Motorcycle crash, I thought the 2 phrases fitted together really well. (I didn't write this heading but liked it.) I'm not being literal about the crash, I always felt it was more of a symbolic/spiritual crash, the atmosphere of impending psychological disintegration as evoked by This Wheel's On Fire. best wishes Mick gold 20:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] historical Abraham

take it easy. I've replied on my talkpage. dab (ᛏ) 00:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Wilson (The Beach Boys)

This is what I recall, though it may not be 100% accurate: Dennis Wilson drowned in the waters of Marina Del Ray, near Los Angeles. He was living on his sailboat, 'Harmony', which he had recently re-purchased after losing it to financial difficulties. He was drinking heavily the day he died, as he had been for quite some time. My recall is that he was drinking a 'fifth' of vodka a day. Anyway, He was diving off his boat, at the slip where he berthed her, not with any gear but just free diving in an effort to recover items he had previously tossed overboard. I forget to which depth he dove, but he brought up item after item, including a silver picture frame an ex-wife had given him. He was giddy at finding these things, items he'd tossed overboard in anger over a period of time. At some point he made a dive and simply never resurfaced. I think there was another person on board that day, who went for help. This is all I remember, except that People magazine did a cover story in their next issue, and that is where my information comes from. I'll try to find the magazine (yes, I think I still have it), then I will add detail to the 'Death' section. Hurrmic 19:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Saturn-V N1 comparison.png

What was the source of the N1 image?Geni 18:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bonnie and clyde gun question

Could you add a little more to your edit of the Bonnie and Clyde page to explain to us who don't know anything about guns why the BARs were better? --Eitch 00:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I replied to your request: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Colonel Westhusing Greetings Wandalstouring 10:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletionist Ahoy

Please cease and desist in your actions here. These postings constitute a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT. Regards, howcheng {chat} 19:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop harassing other editors. IrishGuy talk 00:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The old man is blocked.

Angr and confederates: this is a very, very unwise move on your parts. Please see the history of the only other Admin who thought it wise to block me: User:Jtkiefer. Let's see if you can reconstruct the chain of events ( good starting point, perhaps) leading to his departure from the project... Probably you will extend the block because you'll see this as a threat. But what else is an undeserved block but a threat accomplished?

I was not harassing editors. Discomfiting them a bit, perhaps. But I deserve to be blocked for alerting them to the fact that there a good many Wikipedians who are more than a little upset with the way they and other Deletionists enforce policy, and that they will have to answer for their actions in the future?... So we're just engaged in tit-for-tat here. We'll just have to see who is better at tit-for-tatting. My money's on the old guy. You teen admins (both in RL and in W terms) better huddle up and work out a good game plan, because in 94 hours or 2 weeks or 6 months, you'll be sitting at your computers with your socks rolling up and down, your fingers straining to stay unclenched and your synapses firing, misfiring and re-firing in frightening yet beautiful patterns -- JDG 18:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you continue to make threats, I will extend your block. For the record, I agreed with the block are you going to try and dig up something about me to make more threats as you did Jtkiefer? IrishGuy talk 18:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You will extend the block for what reason? For having a tone that rubs you the wrong way? You say "If I continue to make threats...". What threats, exactly? That I will fight abuse of admin powers vigorously? Because that is all I am doing-- nothing less and nothing more. So extend my block, IrishGuy. I have no idea how you've conducted yourself as an admin, but if you also suffer from an itchy block finger, you too will be reviewed. There are many, many Jtkiefers out there, and if this is the way they are to be exposed and dealt with, so be it. JDG 18:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
My reason? Threats such as they will have to answer for their actions will not be tolerated. If it becomes clear that your only purpose here is disruption, I will entend your block. IrishGuy talk 19:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, Irishguy-- don't you see the absurdity here? You're going to extend a block because I said "they will have to answer for their actions".?? Would you please reveal the acceptable wording available to a mere editor who needs to express disapproval? Perhaps, "Sir, I recognize that I am as nothing to you, but I humbly, humbly submit to you that your, um, your slightly, lightly aggressive policing of [insert policy here] has a slightly, lightly-- yes, oh, barely discernible negative impact on our project. Forgive me, O splendorous Admin, for even raising the issue and I will be quiet now." Is that close to acceptable?... And then you thunder "[this] WILL NOT BE TOLERATED"!, really as if you're royalty or at least a stormtrooper for a very vindictive apparatus ultimately answerable to some sort of tyrant bearing no resemblance to Jimbo... Go ahead, Irishguy-- extend it. You know you want to. I won't raise a finger to deny you your little endorphin spurt as you hit the button. JDG 20:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I was on record as being against blocking you. But you've been around long enough to realize that artificially inflaming perceived divisions ("deletionists" in need of "re-education"?) by going around leaving notes on users' talk pages is not helping the project. Maybe there's a problem with excessive deletionism; if there is, though, this is not a constructive way to approach it, and it smacks of an attempt to get a rise out of people. Mission accomplished. MastCell Talk 21:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I meant to thank you for your stance, but I guess I was carried away downstream while being called a dick, a harasser and what not... Mast, there is a problem with excessive deletions. A huge problem. And I'm afraid it's largely fueled by people becoming increasingly hooked on that little endorphin kick they get as they blow away an image or article, and when they talk down to and then ban those who get uppity in defense of same. It's at epidemic proportions and I decided I had to get some attention for it... Review my edits, keeping in mind that the couple dozen edits involved in the creation, polishing and sustaining of entire articles (like my first, Whitechapel) is worth several hundreds, or even thousands, of janitorial edits. I'm no troll. These people are treating me like one with very little serious discussion on their end and, yes, now that they've lost it completely and have banned me, they're in for some serious scrutiny down the line. JDG 21:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree about the endorphin part; as Wikipedia's prominence has grown, there's been a logarithmic explosion of spam, copyvios, fancruft, low-quality articles on non-notable subjects, etc. This growth has far outstripped the growth in the number of admins. If fingers get itchy on the delete buttons or at AfD, it's more likely from having just deleted 20 corporate press releases or "Tim is gay lol"-type attack articles, and not scrutinizing that 21st article as closely as one ought to. I don't think anyone can knock your well-documented contributions to Wikipedia; I know you feel strongly here, but please consider the effects your approach is having and whether they're going to advance your goals in the long run. MastCell Talk 21:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Mast. I'm going to disengage here for a bit and do some thinking along the lines you suggest. Thx. -- JDG 21:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The old man waits

Sent an email to admin who blocked me (as per procedure asking for unblock), waiting for reply. JDG 17:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Answer sent by e-mail. —Angr 19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To MastCell

MastCell, I've read your reply to anonymous editor 38.117.157.92 (by the way, thank you whoever you are... is it you, Anne?), particularly your stipulation: "If JDG is not going to pursue "retribution" (other than through appropriate channels such as an admin-conduct WP:RfC, if he feels that's warranted), and has reconsidered his initial approach to making his point about deletionism".

I can tell you I will not pursue "retribution" against the blocking admin outside of an admin-conduct RfC, and that I will not resume my Deletionists Ahoy campaign, nor any other campaign that includes confronting individual editors on their Talk pages. At the moment I am of a mind to try to address what I believe is a growing culture of arrogance among Administrators, in addition to the wayward image use policies that set this whole thing off, but next time around I will mostly restrict my activity to "behind-the-scenes" discussions. If those discussions break out onto the wiki itself, I will strive to put on the cool, calm airs that have become the norm for policy discussion. Thanks, JDG 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked you (you may have logged in a bit early - if the autoblock caught you, let me know here or by email and I'll lift it). I'll take your word that you'll pursue these issues, which you feel strongly about, with decorum. MastCell Talk 19:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Mercy is among the noblest qualities. I'll let you know how the Decorous Approach works out. JDG 19:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)