User talk:Larry E. Jordan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for being a sockpuppet of blocked user Obuibo Mbstpo. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Isn't there any face saving way out of this whole thing? Why do you have to humiliate me about it? Why can't you leave me alone? Am I doing anything wrong, aside from switching accounts (which is the only way to keep editing when you won't unblock me?) Larry E. Jordan (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• The most face-saving way out of here that I see is for you to acknowledge creating a hoax article, renounce your attempt to falsify sources in support of it, explain if possible what led an apparent good-faith editor to engage in that kind of vandalism, commit to refraining from doing so in the future, and maintain that the good you've done the project far outweighs the bad. From there, it's quite possible that we could get sufficient support for an unblock. The intent is not to humiliate you - do you find admitting to flagrant violations of Wikipedia policy humiliating? - but to be able to say with a reasonable degree of confidence that you are here entirely in good faith, which the creation of hoax articles obviously calls into question.
• We can't just unblock you because you have done things in the past that look very much like deliberate attempts to damage the encyclopaedia, and have not given any indication that you would not do so in the future. Blocks are preventative.
• Thus far, as far as I can tell the only thing you've done wrong with any of your three most recent accounts is your block-evading sockpuppetry.

I hope that answers your questions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I created a hoax article just to see how long it would take someone to notice it based on the mountains of DeKalb County clue. And then I didn't feel like admitting it because I felt a little sheepish about inadvertently missing the Umuofia thing. No, I'm not going to do it again, and I think anyone who reviews my edits in any detail will see that the good outweighs the bad, although granted, you can only go back so far. No, I haven't intentionally damaged the encyclopedia - why would I spend so much time here if I wanted to destroy it? (On the other hand, it's apparent that Wikipedia is not going to meet all of our needs for information because other outlets will be needed for vanity articles, community-building, and the like, but it's clear that this community will not accept such things on a consistent basis, and it's perilous to try to get away with it; but that's neither here nor there). Anyway, you're one of the nicer people I've run into here, and it seems to be a nice group in WP:WPPP, so I'll probably stick to there for the most part... I seem to have run into a lot of venom in the policy debates and xfDs, and it's been rather hurtful. I don't have the stamina to face that stuff day after day, like some of these inclusionists do. Or maybe I do, but I just don't feel like it. And in the end, it's a losing battle. That stuff needs to be taken off of Wikipedia and moved to a different forum that will accept it. Hopefully some acceptable alternatives will be found, but that's a long-term project. Long story short, I feel little need to disrupt (the edits to xfDs were not really intended as disruptive per se, but were probably kinda pointless, as the sentiment of the majority of editors is too far deletionist to really make much of a dent of it, and the system is not really set up to respond to a "straight ticket," for various reasons) Larry E. Jordan (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have proposed your unblock at WP:ANI. Hopefully other admins will agree with me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocked

Welcome back - I hope we'll both do everything we can to put this behind us. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that you were so very recently unblocked, perhaps it would be best not to try to unilaterally implement deletion policy changes—especially when your first attempt to change the policy (under one of your previous account names) was immediately reverted. You're on extremely thin ice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, without reviewing the edits yet, trying to "unilaterally implement deletion policy" could be taken as referring to this user's application of WP:BRD. Policy pages exist to describe practice, they are not actually creating policy. Editing such a page does not change actual operating policy one bit unless the community accepts the change. I will, after writing this, look at the actual edits to see if there is a problem.

Having said that, I'd encourage Jordan to be careful and to not ... making no implications about individuals ... startle the dogs. Even the best of dogs might bite when startled. BRD is not the only way to implement changes, they *can* be suggested in Talk, with a decent wait, then implemented. It's really the same process, and it won't cause so much barking, it is merely a little slower and a little less convenient. --Abd (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I first wrote this: Okay, having looked at the edits in question, I must concur with TenOfAllTrades that the edit by Jordan was improper. It repeated an edit made by him as Mbstpo. It's a relatively harmless edit, to be sure, changing "tends to be frowned upon" to "not allowed." But it should not have been repeated unless confirmed by discussion in Talk. It doesn't help that "not allowed" is almost always incorrect with Wikipedia because of WP:IAR. If a proposal is truly disruptive, it can be MfDd immediately. The fact that MfD is generally inappropriate for proposals -- while they are being discussed or not -- is not enough to say that they are "not allowed." "tends to be frowned upon" is, in fact, more accurate.

Damn! He's done it again. It's not allowed. The reason is that if a proposal is truly disruptive, the proper remedy is speedy deletion or other administrative action under WP:IAR. Proposing an MfD simply creates another forum in which to debate the proposal, thus not helping at all, simply multiplying and spreading the disruption, and, in fact, any MfD proposed under those conditions should be immediately closed. I will revert TenOfAllTrades reversion, once, and join discussion in Talk along these lines. I'd continue caution Jordan to avoid any action that could be seen as disruptive.--Abd (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Kim Bruning was the original one to try to harden the language, and then it was reverted. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm only now coming up to speed on this. There was nothing in Talk re the last reversion, which means that it could be disregarded. Reversion is not an editing tool if not accompanied by argument, see my Talk, where a complaint promptly appeared about my reversion, based solely on "three editors have reverted this." Apparently, some editors think it is about voting. Count the number of reverts, the version with the most reverts to it wins. Arguments? Who needs arguments?

What planet are we on? Perhaps I forgot, I am getting a little dotty.--Abd (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It takes awhile to get the hang of how this works, and then you're like "Oh, I get it." As mentioned, it's like a game of Diplomacy. In particular, read Diplomacy_(game)#Game_play. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

Flattered - and I've gone ahead and added a vanity wikilink. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Easter Bunny Hotline

A tag has been placed on Easter Bunny Hotline, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. PeterSymonds | talk 17:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compatibility of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact with voting systems other than plurality

Do we need a separate article on this? Why not just merge it to [[National Popular Vote Interstate Compact? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The hole

A tag has been placed on The hole, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

no need to delete, it's well known slang. i redirected it to the article solitary confinement. ~Eliz81^(C) 20:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked²

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for you continue to be disruptive even after your latest good-faith unblocking. That you return the good faith of others with this kind of thing is why you are re-blocked. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My article was sourced, was it not? Larry E. Jordan (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What was the source? Equazcion •✗/C • 00:34, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Article is deleted; get an admin to provide a copy. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd think you'd want to be more helpful than that. Enjoy your block. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:36, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

You see why I'm in favor of Wikipedia:Viewing deleted articles? Situations like this, when people don't feel like asking an admin for a copy. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a situation where you don't feel like providing a simple reference. We shouldn't need to view the article just so you can prove that you should be unblocked. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:40, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Any admin who would respond to your unblock can read the article. There is NO NEED to preserve it in a publicly viewable form at all... The deleted article speaks for itself, and is the reason why you are reblocked... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't block you myself is that Jayron beat me to it. That article was simply an attempt to troll, nothing more, nothing less. Block endorsed. Blueboy96 00:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense would tend to imply stuff that's not true, while if I recall correctly, what I stated was true, that this is a number with a recorded message relating to an identity crisis of the Easter Bunny's... now obviously the Easter Bunny himself is fictitious, and therefore any identity crisis he would be having is as well, and therefore the contents of the recorded message as well would be untrue. Nonetheless, what I said about the message's contents was true. An article about nonsense is not necessarily nonsense itself. We do not delete the Easter Bunny article on the basis of "nonsense" or block anyone for it. And Blueboy96, you favored indefinitely blocking me before this ever happened, so you probably would have endorsed it no matter what I was accused of. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As would I. This is more of a "last straw" scenario than about that particular article. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:48, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

As would I. Regards Section31. --87.114.141.40 (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So basically, you're saying "We don't care what you did or didn't do in this instance, but it's as good an excuse as any to ban you, which we wanted to do anyway." Larry E. Jordan (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It's just that I would've banned you long ago, so this incident doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned. But if this is what it took to convince everyone else, than that's fine by me. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:55, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Great logic. Remind me not to vote for you if you ever run for RFA. Well, let's see if anyone unblocks. My request for unblock stands. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

it's not happening - even the people who supported you last time have washed their hands of you - see here Regards Section31 --87.114.141.40 (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, what you said in this edit was blatantly untrue, as no actual cusswords appear anywhere in the phone message (well, except for one that's bleeped out). Larry E. Jordan (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what that has to do with anything. You're blocked, "Larry", and pointing out inaccuracies in others' comments won't get you unblocked. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:07, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I'm all about promoting truth and correcting inaccuracies on Wikipedia, so when I see something like that, I can't help but point it out. It's in my nature. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it's more your nature to get blocked :) Anyhoo, you don't seem to have anything constructive to say, so adios. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:09, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Man, it's like one of those scenes in a James Bond movie where they say, "Goodbye Mr. Bond" and leave him to be eaten by crocodiles, or burned up by flaming rocket exhaust, etc. And then he slips away somehow and re-appears when they least suspect it. Hmm, I notice there's a little vent grate over on the wall over there... Hmmm.... Larry E. Jordan (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt, it was an article about a phone number with an obscene recorded message! Even the arch-inclusionist like you can't defend that one, surely? Black Kite 01:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it probably doesn't fall in the category of obscene, although it's not necessarily the thing you'd tell a little child to call. But Wikipedia is not censored. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to SandyGeorgia

(Would have been posted at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:FAC-instructions&action=edit&section=13 )

I'll keep an eye out for a good example. I've seen some FACs where a bunch of people just said something to the effect of, "No way should this be a featured article" or "This article is awesome, we need more featured articles on this subject!" without reference to the criteria. And the criteria are what it's all about, right? There should be some notice that such comments are not going to count in determining the consensus. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop blanking

Discussion here hurts no one. Please stop blanking. See WP:JDI. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:56, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page protected

This page has been protected to end continued trolling by the blocked user in question. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)