User talk:Justinm1978

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Archives
  • Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Welcome my brother (APO).

Welcome to Wikipedia. I see you have already found the userbox. :) I'm one of the people who ends up editing the Alpha Phi Omega page more than most, I guess. I'm an alumnus of Kappa Chapter at Carnegie-Mellon U. (Pledged Fall 1986) Naraht 14:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you involved with the APO prospect group at Parkland College? Naraht 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I hope that Alpha Alpha @ UIUC is helping. Naraht 11:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eagle list

Could you please start an article, even if a stub, on Richard Herman, whom you added to the list of Eagle Scouts? It's not good to have red links in a featured list. Thanks.Rlevse 10:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting

You are invited to participate in WikiProject Scouting, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Scouting.
You may sign up at the project members page.


Also, see my response to your stub camp article entry.Rlevse 11:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the project. Could you list yourself and your interests here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Members.Rlevse 18:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonti Picking AfD

Hi, I noticed you nominated Jonti Picking for AfD. However, it appears this article was up for AfD in 2005 and the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonti Picking is therefore out of date. You need to create the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonti Picking (2nd nomination) to re-nominate and update the links on the article itself and the AfD listing. (Although personally I think this AfD is a lost cause, I have to say - he is well-known for Weebl & Bob and the page passed easily last nomination). -- Mithent 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alpha Phi Alpha

Restoring the article to its status before the disputed content was raised is not vandalism or unconstructive. Wikipedia rules allow for the unwanted change to be reverted and then a disussion should take place on the article's talk page. The article should remain in this state until a consensus has been reached by the editors. I believe the discussion is on-going on the NPHC talk page, so it should not have been reverted by you or Narahat (or something similar). Thank You.--Ccson 03:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Ccson as well: please stop calling each other vandals. Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal". Neither of you are vandalizing the article, so stop the namecalling. ··coelacan 04:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Justin, I saw your question at the Alpha Phi Alpha Talk page regarding Skip Mason. Mason is not the Fraternity's Historian; he is instead College Archivist for Morehouse College and Alpha Phi Alpha's Chairman of the National Historical Commission. He is also author of Talented Tenth: The Founders and Presidents of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity.[1] hope that answers your question re: reliability.-RoBoTamice 16:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Notable" and "Famous"

The words "Notable" and "famous" do not set a consistent standard, they just provide a pretext for disputes. They are a total waste of space. I suggest that an appropriate and enforceable standard would be to insist that there are no red links. That way the standards applied will be those agreed by the whole commuity on Wikipedia:Articles for discussion. Honbicot 02:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lamda pi upsilon

I deleted this article as

  1. A copyright infringement from here
  2. Blatantly promotional material, with no attempt to be encyclopaedic (we...)

Both of these are criteria for speedy deletion Jimfbleak 05:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of collegiate secret societies

Jimmy Wales is extremely clear. "Don't just put a citation needed tag on something, remove it, and make the person with the claim prove their claim." Corvus cornix 02:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If the WikiProject can't follow the inviolate policies of Wikipedia, it doesn't deserve to exist. Just what am I "disrupting"? Follow WP:V and there's no problem. Don't follow WP:V, and you are not editing in good faith. Corvus cornix 21:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:V is being followed, you are disrupting by blanket-deleting non-negative information without giving reasonable time to provide references rather than discussing the matter on the talk page, as WP:V suggests. Tagging with {{fact}} or {{not verified}} is clearly written as acceptable policy. You are going way too far on this, and editors are objecting. I suggest you stop and try to build community and enhance Wikipedia instead of trying to turn it to your own personal interpretation of WP:V, which is not editing in good faith. Justinm1978 21:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.. Corvus cornix 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
So you are noting that part of the policy, but completely ignoring the paragraph above it which supports my viewpoint, as well as that of other editiors contributing to the article and discussion. How about contributing to the article and enhancing it instead of blanket-deleting aspects of it simply because you don't agree with the method of WP:V? Justinm1978 00:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides, what's the big deal? If you have sources, write a sourced article, and it's all okay. If you have no sources, we can not have the speculative information in Wikipedia. Corvus cornix 22:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How can I contribute to the article, when even its strongest supporters admit that there is no reliable information for the claims? Corvus cornix 00:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about this overnight. How about if I restore the redlinks and put a "citation needed" tag on all of them? How long would you think the tag should stay before the item gets deleted due to lack of verifiable sources? Corvus cornix 15:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That I would agree with. My best guess, especially with the fact that college is out of session so information isn't always easy to come by, would be a month at the max. If we can't find anything in that amount of time, then I agree that they're not notable enough to be mentioned and deserve to be deleted. Justinm1978 16:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
All right, what I will do is tonight, restore the red links, then we can set a date for, say, the first of August for further review? Corvus cornix 17:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Works for me, let's go ahead and place something in the top of the article saying that they've got until Aug 1 to get some references, otherwise anything unreferenced is subject to deletion. I think it's a fair collaboration (win-win) and thank you for being willing to work toward this solution. Justinm1978 19:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll report it on the Talk page. I am trying to be fair!  :) Corvus cornix 20:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yay!

Looks like Baird's carried the day!Naraht 20:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really, I simply suggested this be the test. But since you're not sure if its based on title Ix or Bairds, you can't change APA until the decision is solidified and the litmus test is agreed to by all editors and all groups are subject to the same standard. When we're ready to update the infobox regarding type, let's leave APA as it has been.--Ccson 14:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for participation in a Mediation Cabal case

The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation
Dear Justinm1978: Hello, my name is NicholasTurnbull; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-29 Infobox Fraternity

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John bambenek

Hi, you recently blanked this page. If you feel the redirect that was there is inappropriate, you can nominate it for deletion using the Proposed deletion process or submit it to redirects for discussion if it's likely to be contested. Blanking the page is not appropriate and I have therefore restored the original redirect. Thanks. → AA (talk) — 10:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision and WP:TALK

Per, WP:TALK, specifically the Omega Psi Phi discussion which is not relevant to improving the article can be removed. Please do not make this into a revert war. Thanks. Miranda 00:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Secret Societies

Looks like the anon has added back the tags to the list section. I don't think continually reverting is a permanent solution. I think this should be brought to an admin's attention as the personal attacks have made the page impossible to work on. I wanted to get you opinion as to the best way to go about this. Let me know. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I put the page up for protection, and was told to just watch and revert because it's not enough to warrant protection. You can try if you want, and I'll support your opinion, but I wouldn't get your hopes up though. If protection/admin intervention fails, I'll keep watching/reverting in the hopes they'll eventually go away. Justinm1978 03:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFCU

The RFCU you filed here shows no diffs as evidence for a checkuser. Could you supply some as evidence on the case page? MSJapan 17:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you do need to cite them. Remember, the CU is not as familiar with the situation as the filer, and the CU also can't spend a long time trying to figure out exactly what edits are the problem. You do this by showing diffs. If you know how to do this, skip the next paragraph.
To cite diffs: go to the edit history, and select two consecutive versions via the radio buttons, and click the button at the top that says "compare". That will open up a new page. Take that new page's URL, paste it into the case page, and stick brackets on it. Add a timestamp or something else descriptive to it, and repeat until you feel you have enough material to illustrate your point. MSJapan 23:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Statement

I fail to see how my edit to Tribe of Mic-O-Say was a "POV Statement". StaticElectric 19:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. I'd put that in the OA article but I left my handbook at home when I went off to college. StaticElectric 19:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab Case

I offered to mediate the current case you are involved in here. I would appreciate a response. Sincerely, --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 03:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible solution to Mediation Case

is listed here. Please list your thoughts. Miranda 22:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I marked this as closed. Miranda 05:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summary for recent revert

Hi. I noticed that this morning, you reverted an edit over at Chief Illiniwek with the edit summary of rvv from anon IP. I understand entirely that the recent set of edits that have gone back and forth are rehashing old ground on the article, but please assume good faith. To me it's a real stretch to call the edit you reverted vandalism as it's clear that the editor is trying to improve the article as he sees it. -- Upholder 14:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, dude, take it easy with the reverts. It would seem to me that the consensus on the talk page, after I *did* read it, was that mascot is a POV term, not symbol. Why include it in the article when it is clearly not necessary and there is no consensus for it, and Chief Osceola does not have one single mention of the term "mascot". Don't revert people just because you disagree with what they changed, and don't assume they haven't read the talk page. You just make yourself look like a jerk. 130.126.214.185 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's because there is no consensus that both terms belong. Mascot is POV to some and symbol is POV to others. Had you read the talk page you'd see that, and wouldn't be injecting your POV and rehashing an old argument. Justinm1978 (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fellow Greek

Just wanted to say hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and you've made a couple of comments to me. I wanted to say, I have no issue with anyone changing the page obviously anyone can edit, but as a proud member of the organization I would like the information to be correct as I'm sure you would with your organization. Yes, some of the books are reliable sources and some are not. Alpha Kappa Alpha does not publish everything for the public, some items are for the public only and some are for members only, which clearly states in our by-laws that we cannot share with the public. A couple of the items stuck out to me, because only a member would know them which is why I asked the editor if she was a member. No harm, no foul. Just very passionate about my sorority, my Redskins and the list goes on (smile). I do know a few members of your organization, pretty cool people!Knicksfan4ever 14:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DST Founder Pages

Hello!!! Are citations the same as footnotes? Can you provide an example. Thanks HistoricDST 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting

Please do not revert me when I remove PRODS. Prods can be removed. If this is you logging out from an IP address to put prods on pages that I am working on, I find that to be very disruptive, because I am trying to make an article an FA. Miranda 00:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Miranda is right--anyone can remove a prod for any reason, and it cannot be added back. See WP:PROD. The thing to do now is to send the articles to WP:AFD. I cannot imagine that all the articles in question will be found notable, unless more information is provided, but that is the only way to remove them. If you need any help , let me know. DGG (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I have given Mirand some advice on her talk page [2] that you might want to bear in mind, about what is and is not likely to be considered notable. I suggest you are selective in what you nominate for AfD--start with the least notable. All I can give is advice about the way things are likely to be seen here, and I give her as well as you the most accurate advice that I can, but what will happen at AfD is never predictable.. DGG (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nellie Pratt Russell

Hi. I encourage you both to step back from the brink. --A. B. (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh :) I agree, and that's why I moved the "discussion" away so it doesn't taint the vote on what I'm trying to accomplish. Justinm1978 20:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Being sarcastic about somebody (Surprise, surprise....if Miranda doesn't like someone making a change, then it must be disruptive.) and then, in the same paragraph, asking them to be civil seems to me to be contradictory. If you wish people to be civil to you, please help them do this by being civil yourself. I have no background on the dispute myself, but when I see people acting like that it tends to skew my sympathies to the other side. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's how I read it. Maybe as you say, not what you meant, but that's how it seemed. Anyway, things seem to have calmed down a little on the AfD now. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Justin, withdraw this arguably unfair AfD, and relist them separately. Some of them are notable. I will certtainly support some of the deletions, but not all of them. DGG (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that this is not a fair AfD. These articles have been up for months with no real contributions. I'll consider withdrawal if consensus is unable to be reached in a few days, but as it looks right now, I think it'll go to a merge into the sorority article, or will be merged into their own article altogether. Either one of those I'll support, but at this time I have not yet been convinced that I need to change. I have no intention of giving into threats and bullying from other users (not you, but the person who is most adamant against this and is disrupting the AfD discussion with attacks on me) Justinm1978 02:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd recommend adding all the material you can find into an article on the foundation of the sorority and then when this is ready, re-listing individual articles that have no notability past being a founder. However, ones like Harriet Josephine Terry and Marie Woolfolk Taylor are much more notable than ones like Alice Murray and Marjorie Hill, so putting them all together seemed unwise. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I know all of them might be deleted, but with such varying degrees of notability I think it would be best to do them individually. When you re-list them this will be their first individual AfD, so I'd just put first nomination. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myra Hemmings

I closed the AfD as Keep per consensus, if you wish to relist individually that is of course up to you. It might be best to leave it for a bit though as rapid renominations can be frowned upon. Regards to you, RMHED (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack

Please stop reverting my attempt to remove the personal attack that an anonymous editor had made against me on Talk:Sigma Alpha Mu. I understand that removing another editors comments is considered controversial, but considering the comment is about me and otherwise unsigned I believe you should leave it to my discretion if I find it to be a personal attack or not. Thank you for your understanding. Alan.ca (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(for continuity of discussion reposted from my talk page to here)
I understand your feeling, but this isn't a personal attack. Please show how this meets any of the criteria in WP:PA, otherwise you're just censoring a talk page, which isn't kosher by any means. Justinm1978 (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Justin, I don't need a policy to clarify that someone accusing of me of disrupting Wikipedia because I challenged a source for an article is offensive. We are supposed to be discussing the content on Wikipedia and not making allegations about a person's motives. Such discussions are better held elsewhere and definitely do not contribute to the progress of any article. If we are to maintain civility here, we must remain focussed on the task, not the people. There are dedicated areas where a person may make a complaint against an editor. These places do not accept anonymous complaints. Alan.ca (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
That's fine that you do not feel you need a policy, however Wikipedia disagrees with you, hence why they have a policy and the expectation is that users follow it. A talk page is where discussions and comments belong. Unless this fails WP:CIVIL and WP:PA, it has to remain, no matter how much you dislike it. Especially in a talk page on a page that you put up for deletion and continued to fight even after consensus went against the deletion. It looks like in reading the complaint that you filed that others agree with me that it does not fail these policies. Justinm1978 (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Justin, think about what you're saying here. There was a discussion about content, which ultimately was resolved. Agreed not all parties were satisfied, but the issue has been put to rest. An anonymous posting was made, accusing me of acting in bad faith. I removed the anonymous remark because I felt it was insulting. Why would you feel keeping this remark on the talk page would in anyway benefit wikipedia if not to further a view point that I am acting maliciously? Alan.ca (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As you seem concerned to have a Wikipedia policy spell out decent manners, I have found Wikipedia:Assume good faith for your perusal. Alan.ca (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Guys, this is an edit war worthy of WP:LAME. Alan, as personal attacks go, that one is pretty tame. Justin, that comment has nothing whatsoever to do with the development of an encyclopedia article and off-topic talk page comments can be removed on demand, particularly when they are addressed at one editor in particular and no response is needed. But either way, this is about as lame as a thing to argue over. Please stop. --B (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk page returned to its rightful place...

Done and sorted. Redirects deleted too. HTH. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving pages

I have moved User talk:Justinm19783 to User talk:Justinm1978/3 since User:Justinm19783 does not exist. miranda 23:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sigma Iota Alpha

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Sigma Iota Alpha, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your block on User:Justinm1978

In fact I got mixed up while reviewing your contribs and the other user's. I realized my mistake when double checking (I usually double check CU blocks). I know there is no (easy) way to remove a block from the log so I only hope you'll accept my deepest apologies. I hope the unblock message is clear enough to clear any confusion that may appear. Sorry again. -- lucasbfr talk 14:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry your good name was besmirched. The edit history looked very suspicious and I listed all diffs related to the edits. Your account seemed to be the master account. Looking at the history and talk page I would have made the request again so this is not an apology for the event but for the accidental block on your record. User:Rhetor230 deserved his 3RR violation block. Alatari (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock!

Y

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

Autoblock of 76.195.219.53 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Mr.Z-man 04:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Per my previous talk page entry, this block was done accidentally by Lucasbfr. Please remove the block immediately and remove all history of it from my talk page history. I do not wish for this rather insulting bit of incorrect checkuser block to be part of my history. Justinm1978 (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

m:Right to Vanish. miranda 08:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gamma Sigma Sigma

I see that you are working salvaging the changes made overnight to the Gamma Sigma Sigma page. My guess is that even though not logged in that there are made by the person who had the gssmarketing account who is the members of the GSS national board for marketing. In my email conversation with her, she definitely refereing to it as "Our Wikipedia page" indicating that people not in Gamma Sigma Sigma should not be editing it and it appears that she feels that the Gamma Sigma Sigma National Board should be the ones determining who should edit it. She just doesn't get Wikipedia at all. This is quite clear given her deletion of *all* references. I'll take a look after you make your changes and see if I think anything else can be salvaged. I'm tempted to completely revert almost everything she did. The only one that really seems appropriate to keep is that GSS doesn't call it cardinal principals, they call them ideals. Naraht (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

We could just revert everything, and then redo the wikipedia-appropriate content. I'd be a lot more in favor of that rather than trying to fix what was done. I was also considering redoing the userbox to make it inline with the rest of the greek userboxes, but I'll hold off on that for a little while longer until we get a page we can revert back to when this happens again. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm in favor of that. Would you rather I did that since she already knows (and apparently dislikes) me. She objected to the fact that I had reverted something else that a member of the GSS board had changed.Naraht (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I've already made enough "non-friends" for a while :) I'll try to get the infobox done today after the revert. Justinm1978 (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
So, revert back to the DeanLaw entry that added the wikilink for the Baltimore Hotel?Naraht (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that looks good. The two changes I made in there were all reverts or copyedits that could easily be redone. We may need to request protection if it continues, though. Justinm1978 (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Made some changes as well. What official permission would be needed in order to have things directly copied from the Gamma Sig web page. Would the person who made the change simply have to identify themselves as a corporate officer?Naraht (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) I'm not sure if that would be acceptable, because that lends credence to the marketing person wanting to own the article like you stated above. My thought is that if it's on the webpage, it's a good start to writing more detail into the article, but I wouldn't be ok with a blanket copy/paste. Unfortunately, their page leaves a lot to be desired in terms of information-gathering. I'm noting that about a lot of GLO's, actually. Makes me appreciate the work that M&T puts into making our info available online. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phi Iota Alpha

The article Phi Iota Alpha has been nominated for Good Articles status. Please see Phi Iota Alpha to provide comments and/or Support of the nomination. 2much (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your corrections on "correct use of semicolon", I've always done it the opposite as you see. I also include a comma after the last ittem in a list, (for example, Justin, Naraht, and Dr. Cash). Should there be comma after Naraht? I was told it doesn't matter as long as you use the same convention within whatever you're writing, (i.e. shool paper, article, thesis, etc.)--Ccson (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've always learned that the semicolon goes where a longer pause in saying the sentence would be, whereas the comma goes where a brief natural pause to break up the sentence flow. The comma thing I think you're right on, but I'm not sure on that either as I often over-comma my sentences (again, reflecting natural pauses in my speech a a large portion of my contributions are done with a speech-to-text converter.) Justinm1978 (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to jump in. See Serial comma for an absolutely mind-numbing discussion of it. :) Naraht (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
See however, which shows Justin is correct. I read the article about serial comma and yes, it can be confusing.--Ccson (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Omega Delta Phi

The article Omega Delta Phi has been been recently maintenanced by you. What are the sections that are peacock and inappropriate? Also, does this mean that the unreferenced wiki ref can be deleted? 11:30, 23 January 2008 (CST)

Responded on talk page

RJT011000 - Thank you for the response. I have posed some other questions for you. Thank you for taking an interest with the Omega Delta Phi wiki talk page. —Preceding comment was added at 23:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gerald Duff

You recently deleted Gerald Duff from the List of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign people article. I have not researched the author, but if he is prize winning and an alumnus, then I think he deserves to remain on the page. The lack of a wiki page should not bar someone from the article. In fact, many noteable people on the list do not have pages. Let me know if you disagree.H.al-shawaf (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

They failed WP:V and WP:NOTABLE. Please see the talk page for why the argument that other crap exists is also not valid. Justinm1978 (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chapter lists.

I am apparently more lenient that you are on chapter lists. What criteria are you using to determine whether a list of chapters should be maintained in article or in a linked page?Naraht (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of any chapter lists at all, as I see them as something that should be found on the organization's website which is more likely to be updated when chapters are founded or de-chartered. I've come to accept it as a barely-necessary evil, though. In my head, I'd say that if I can't see the first and last chapter on a full-page browser window (1152x864 resolution), then the list needs to be placed in 2 columns. If after that, I still can't see the list in whole without scrolling, it needs to be its own page. Not a very scientific measure, I know, but that's where I'd place my criteria. If we have to have chapter lists, I'm completely in agreement with the discussion on the project page that individual chapter links are not allowed, per WP:DIRECTORY, and have been editing as such. Justinm1978 (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Then I am definitely *not* trying to add APO's list back. :) For good or ill, the standard for Greek Letter Organization pages is looking more and more like Baird's and that *did* come with chapter lists. Perhaps we could come up with a guide on the Wikiproject page?Naraht (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, and adding the APO list would be completely redundant, as that is easily accessible online. I'm noting as well that these are starting to look like Baird's. I'd like to come up with some kind of a guide on chapter lists, but I'm not the best to write it because my bias is to do away with them altogether :) Justinm1978 (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a lot of these are easily available online, but there are other things elsewhere on Wikipedia that are easily available online... Be interesting to at least find out what the general feeling is. I don't remember any of the NPHC groups having theirs up, but that may have to do with the fact that they would want to include the Graduate chapters as well and there are a lot of those with a fair amount of creation and deletion...Naraht (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SSP case

Just to let you know that a case you recently submitted to SSP has been closed. See there for the final comments. Regards, Rudget. 21:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UIUC College of Business

I have added references to the page for all alumni listed. Do the references meet verifiability standards in your opinion? In the future, I ask that you post a citation tag and add a note before you delete.

Also, I think all the red alumni wiki links are justified on this page. Note that I left many names without a red link. I feel the people with red links need a page. Someone should create a page. Wilma Vaught was the first woman to achieve the rank of General in the Air Force. Matthew Paul is credited with orchastrating McDonald's turnaround.

If you think other links in the page should be "de-wikified" that is another story.H.al-shawaf (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of UIUC People

Can you help me move the people you deleted to the talk page? I have started but need some help.H.al-shawaf (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to get to that later today or tomorrow. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In regards to your last edit, Steven K. never graduated. The list only includes graduates, not those who simply attended. H.al-shawaf (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

He was also in the faculty section. Considering he was a graduate student, he needs to be moved to a different category. I deleted him because his categorization wasn't factual. You can move him to a category you find appropriate. Also, I might add, that perhaps we need to have a discussion on alumni v. graduates. A number of names were removed from the list previously because they were not graduates. If we include those who attended, the list will become much longer.H.al-shawaf (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed the category from other to notorious. Do you agree?H.al-shawaf (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John F. Kennedy

I am the person who keeps editing the Notable Alpha Phi Omega Members page to say that John F Kennedy recieved honorary membership from Epsilon Mu and not Eta Phi. I have a newspaper article as my source. However, you keep reverting the edit. Can you please revert the page back? Spinkava

I have e-mailed the national office to clear this up. BTW, how did you get the boy scout and APO userboxes? --Spinkava (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Your Photo Changes

Thanks - yeah I read all the articles, looked at a few other fraternity pages (noteably [Lambda Phi Epsilon]) but couldn't figure out what it was talking about, so I was taking potshots. Hopefully this one works out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor8698 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

I understand your concerns over {{User:Allstarecho/scouts}}, but edit warring over the userbox list is not the proper way to handle this. You should start with a direct discussion with Allstarecho— hopefully you can come to a compromise, perhaps it just needs to be reworded. If you still feel that the userbox is in violation, then list it for deletion at WP:MFD. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, already started. Justinm1978 (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You might want to see this [3]. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 21:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting read. I've been looking for a similar document to this for non-Wikipedia related reasons. Thanks for sharing it. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You placed the deletion notice on my page as the creator- this need to go to Allstarecho. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I placed it there originally, but also placed it on yours to notify you then forgot to re-word it after it inserted the text. My bad. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UIUC edit

I just wanted to make it clear that I am not questioning the quality of UIUC at all. The school is world renowned and is no doubt among the best in the county. However, if you look other flagship school pages, they do make an effort to avoid terms and phrases such as "highly selective" and "prestigious" simply because they are hard to define. I've seen people here on Wikipedia argue that MIT isn't prestigious and only the Ivy League should be considered so. Of course that isn't my opinion, but you can see my point. It's a fluff term which cheapens the article and really should not be used in cases like this, especially in the opening paragraph. Bvjrm (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Campfire

It's not as bad as the first one, but it still appears to be somewhat divisive to me, and considering the history behind the creation, I'm sure there's more to it than first meets the eye...I try to WP:AGF, but sometimes history overrides such assumptions. An MfD couldn't hurt.... Dreadstar † 19:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to assume good faith, but given the entire conversation on the original MfD discussion and the editor's talk page, I'm having a difficult time with it. I'll give it some thought over the next couple of days, and see where things go before I make a decision on whether or not to nominate. Thanks for your feedback. Justinm1978 (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You might want to be cautious about comments like this, that can be construed as uncivil and possibly even a violation of [{WP:NPA]]. Dreadstar † 20:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
True, I shouldn't be stooping down to the same level, and kinda wish I had worded it a bit differently. Thank you for the admonishment :) I'm forming the MfD now, as the whole thing just isn't sitting right with me and rather than go back and forth with someone who won't change their mind, I'm just going to get some outside consensus and call it that. Justinm1978 (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Revert?

Why did you undo all of my edits. I placed in cited historical and non biased information which shows this to be the true. SexyNupe2000 (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

how is the information non neutral? would you simply like to do an RFC? SexyNupe2000 (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


ok i'm going to file for an RFC to see the opinions because you stated that the sources weren't neutral at all. SexyNupe2000 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

will you agree to sign it? SexyNupe2000 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you but fact check first ok

thank you for making it to the FSU pages but the user that created Sammy Seminole took information from the source and skewed it himself. It was simply rewritten with all of the facts from the source page. I would love for you to bring it up in talk so that other users of the WP:FSU can come to consensus. --Nolephin (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Secondly user Badagnani has an anti Native American binge right now skewing all articles for his view. Members have been workin hard to maintain a neutral POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolephin (talk • contribs) 17:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bairds lists Kappa Kappa Psi as a recognition society

I reverted your edit to Kappa Kappa Psi, where you switched it from "Recognition" to "Honorary, Service" on the basis that Bairds has no such category. A simple Google book search shows Baird's 19th edition does indeed recognize "recognition"-society fraternities (see index page xiii), and in fact lists Kappa Kappa Psi under the heading "RECOGNITION" on page 54. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajenkins (talk • contribs) 22:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?client=firefox-a&id=d2YIAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22kappa+kappa+psi%22&q=%22kappa+kappa+psi%22+recognition&pgis=1#MAAJ&d Bajenkins (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Justinm1978 (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You and Miranda

Have you two tried to talk it out peacefully over either of your talk pages? If not, do you want me to try to mediate? I may be retiring, but I don't want anymore drama (I had my fill for a while). Kwsn (Ni!) 14:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kwsn. I'm not sure what there is to mediate. Miranda and I certainly have had our disagreements in the past (as noted in her notebook that she is maintaining on me) and definitely is not happy with what I do here. (which I admit, isn't a whole lot, but I feel that someone has to do the mundane, minor details :) I'm not opposed to any kind of mediation, I'm just not certain what there is to mediate since this is less of a dispute about content and more of her wanting me removed from Wikipedia. Guidance and feedback on how to proceed from here are welcome, though :) Justinm1978 (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
What's the general problem exactly, or better yet, how did it get started from your point of view? Kwsn (Ni!) 16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It "all started" when I went through an started classifying greek-lettered organizations as social that were previously classified as service. There was a mediation case that settled the issue. Then I started standardizing more greek life articles so the naming conventions would be the same. We self-mediated that and came to an amicable conclusion. Months later, I put some articles up for AfD that she happened to be working on as I felt they didn't fit the notability guidelines, she got incredibly upset. They were not deleted because I should've done them one at a time, and her bad-faith noms of two articles I had worked on were also not deleted. That was really my last interaction with her up until yesterday when I saw she was putting together a case to have me banned. I've had some issues with User:Allstarecho lately (I put two templates up for deletion, one was deleted as an attack, and the re-write was kept because I withdrew my nomination. Other issue included perceived attack on WP:LOC) that I should've resolved in a more civil manner. That's when she started going through my edit history and compiling a list of every perceived violation (Including ones that were resolved in mediation that she agreed to) and threatening to have me banned.
Since she has declined any kind of mediation, I don't see what can be done here at this point but to let her gather her evidence, allow me to gather mine, and roll the dice I guess? Justinm1978 (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chief Illiniwek

What part of this edit were you reverting in the name of NPOV? Also, the fact that a white student was the general portrayer is absolutely relevant to the article, as that is a main point of the Chief debate. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused here and I think you might be reading that edit history backwards....I reinserted the part that says it was a white student as well as the mascot/symbol part. I was reverting an anonymous IP edit that removed "white people" and "mascot", per the talk page. Justinm1978 (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Uhhhhhhhh yeah, let's just forget this ever happened. Always nice to see someone else who can approach the Chief issue logically. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, no problem, mistakes happen :) Justinm1978 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
To the Chief Illiniwek Return, The announcement is coming, and citations will follow, thanks for keeping the quality up, I jumped the gun! Watch the news! 28 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.220.12 (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alpha Phi Alpha

I was looking at this history of Alpha Phi Alpha's talk page and ran across this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-29_Infobox_Fraternity. In which you were involved. I did a whole lot of history research and used strong references that could be cited. The individuals involved so far that have demonstrated a lot of issues were Miranda, CCson, and Robotam. They accussed me of being a sockpuppet the first day I edited. I passed the checkuser that was done on me. Now they are building a case against me for suspected sockpuppet. They have also reverted a number of my edits. All of my sources can be edited and seen; while a number of the sources that were previously used were cited but could only be viewed if you had the book. I was wondering if you could work with me on an mediation or RFC. Thank you. RobertOgleFan (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm on a bit of a WikiBreak at the moment due to real life. However, I don't know if I can be of much assistance here, being that one of the users you listed is actively working to have me removed from the project. I'll look over what you've contributed, though, and see if I can give some pointers on how to integrate your cited information with the existing article. I suspect there may be some reliable source contention (just because it's verifiable doesn't make it reliable), as well as a similar editing pattern to a previously banned user. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Please feel free to comment here

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-22 Alpha Phi Alpha
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-22 List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers RobertOgleFan (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


I included you because of your past interactions with all 3 of these users. From what I saw here as well. [4]. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. thank you. RobertOgleFan (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


you're not a problem, but you're a reference to some of the issues that have come about. please feel free to comment on the cases or possibly the information that i put on the articles. RobertOgleFan (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Hello

I had a few questions about Vigil Honor as well as a few other things. I was wondering if you could email me. Thank you. Hadsomefun (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You may be better off making a question on the Scouting WikiProject discussion page. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I emailed you. thank you. Hadsomefun (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

A request for comment has been filed on your behavior. Please make your comments known there. Regards. miranda 13:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please comment only on your section so that people won't get mixed up on our comments. miranda 23:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like nobody cares...Naraht (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, and I'm not surprised. I've got notes I've compiled for my defense that I haven't posted yet, but it looks like I have nothing to defend since no other users are endorsing her complaints. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting on Delta Sigma Theta

I kindly suggest you stop reverting on Delta Sigma Theta. The IP has already broken 3RR, and apparently you have too. There's a thread on ANI if you would like to discuss. miranda 21:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I was about to submit a 3RR, but if you already have a thread there, I won't. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I've blocked you for breaking the three revert rule. You weren't warned, but given that you warned the IP, then broke the 3RR yourself, you clearly understood what the rule was. The previous three reverts are; [5], [6], [7]. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that reverting vandalism was not a violation of WP:3RR. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not vandalism. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "This block is a bit arbitrary, as returning page content to be in-line with consensus on the Template talk:Infobox_Fraternity#Results of Mediation should not be a violation of 3RR. I would like a different admin than the one who blocked me to review this."

Decline reason: "The block is correct. Reverting to what you think is the consensus version is not among the exceptions allowed under WP:3RR. —  Sandstein  21:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Given that you've reverted another two times as soon as your block expired, I've blocked you for a further 48 hours. You once again warned the IP for edit warring, then went ahead and reverted youself. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright then, what's the correct course of action for this situation then, since the other editor won't cite their source, is going against consensus, the template documentation, the defined Title IX definition for fraternities and sororities, as well as Baird's Manual (the definitive third-party source for this type of thing) which says Delta Sigma Theta is a "social" sorority, not a "service" sorority? Justinm1978 (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|I stated my reason for reverting [[Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Content Dispute on Delta Sigma Theta|on the ANI page for this "content dispute"]], which explained how this editor was going against the template standard. That is not edit warring, nor is it violation of [[WP:3RR]]. This block is not justified, as there is no content dispute when the issue has been settled and there is a standard definition in place.}}

This doesn't strike me as edit warring. It's one thing when two editors simply disagree on a content dispute, but this IP isn't even explaining himself, while Justinm is. What is he to take that as? Protecting the article would have been a much better solution than blocking a good editor. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have left a note on Ryan's page about an unblock. Daniel Case (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for considering this. Justinm1978 (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I've unblocked you - this isn't a let off from the original block - you did continue to edit war straight after coming off a block, but I believe you understand this and you won't make a further revert to the page. If there's still a problem with the article, start an RFC on the matter - saying that this has been discussed before on the infobox talk page and consensus reached there does not make you exempt from 3RR or blocks fot edit warring. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind unblocking the IP's I use as well? Justinm1978 (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My turn on the DST monitoring, I guess.

I'll try to keep an eye out.Naraht (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it, thank you! :) Justinm1978 (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/207.189.99.134

Please read my comment. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)