User talk:Jacroe/Archive 1

Gone

Hi Jacroe. On the tobyMac page, you said that they had removed the Gone video from YouTube. Do you happen to know why they did that? Or when you found out about it? Thanks and have a great day!--CJ King 21:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind if I find a working link and put it up on the page? I think it would help.--CJ King 23:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks:D--CJ King 00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Jacroe, The topic headings in table of contents are fine, but the spacings are not. As in 5 and 5.1 and 5.2 are in the same indentation. Also, you can see that if you press hide the table of contents. Everything after heading 5 is not hid. I was wondering if i had done something wrong in the headings. Thank you for responding. Cheers, Vinwe 03:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

this a clear example of an outside party making a mockery of your Mediation Cabal

No problem Mr. Jac roe. As Scuro said, I was just flamebaiting for some fun. And i got it. I laughed a lot! Bye right now. —Cesar Tort 08:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

--scuro 11:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hasidic Mediation case

I just read the insults thrown at you in that case. Just wanted to note that I think their remarks against you were totally unfounded. You seem to be a very mature person and I'm sure you would have done fine. (Perhaps together with another mediator; I would prefer multiple mediators in any case, just as a court handling a more complex case has multiple judges.) I most definitely disagree with their disqualifying you because of age. --Rabbeinu 23:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

ECT mediation

Hi. Do you have time to close off the ECT mediation request? It looks like User:Staug73 is waiting for feedback on you on exactly what terms are being discussed - would be great if so, as I'm trying to get consensus to archive some of the recent discussions from the talk page. Thanks. Nmg20 10:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hate to bring this up again - but the Electroconvulsive therapy page is the subject of significant and irreconcilable-looking disagreement again. Given that there is already a request for mediation open, can we simply use that one for new mediation, or should we request a new one? Nmg20 16:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I believe strongly in the virtues and values of mediation, I'm opposed to the suggestion of opening up new mediation for the ECT page at this time, because I feel it's being used as a perpetual tool by a minority of users to exert control over the page itself by unduly burdening even small changes to the page while taking advantage of wikipedia mediators. I am not the first person to feel that user Scuro has bad intentions with regard to the integrity of the page, along with Nmg20. Wikipedia policy requests editors to assume good faith and intentions when dealing with other editors, however this can be overcome with substantial direct evidence to the contrary, which there is in this case. I do have a concern however, that by asking that mediation not be re-opened that I will look like the bad one, simply because the mere act of requesting mediation has a tendency to make a user look respectable and well-meaning even if their true motives are anything but, and it makes the person wishing to refrain look bad even if not going to mediation is the right decision. Danrz 07:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read the "modern usage" section of the page sophistry to understand the basis of my position here with regard to these character(s). Sophistry has many variations and levels of expertise, and in this case involves the intentional crafting of deceptive and illogical claims that put the opponent in a perpetual state of defense. The fallacious logic is often immediately recognized by the opponent, but often not by outsiders not deeply involved with the exchange. The sophist does not concede to the superiority of logic made by the opposing party in response, but rather continues to make further logically deceptive remarks in response along with demanding and unnecessary queries, which typically infuriates the opponent with the hope that the opponent will get himself into trouble due to his own outbursts. Sophistry in this particular case also involves intentional misrepresention and equivocation of the results of scientific studies, forcing the opponent to exhaustively correct and defend. On Wikipedia, sophistry can be used as an ultimate means to unjustly prevent what's loosely referred to around here as "consensus", and to also create what looks to be a genuine good-natured debate on the surface where there really is none. In short, people with no proper justification for changes they want made to a page can use sophistry and abuse the mediation process into either forcing an exhausted opponent to concede or to force an unreasonable compromise, such that they ultimately are allowed to publish disinformation to the community. It has been suggested that this page is at high risk for industry-funded manipulation of page content given the recent developments and publications in this area, and the sheer number of visitors to Wikipedia.Danrz 23:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29_Occupation_of_Baltic_states

Hi Jacroe,

I think you are doing a top job mediating this case. Looking at the comments by all the parties it would seem a rather difficult case, so I don't envy your position. However, I think the easiest solution is to simply rely upon WP:RS and WP:V as the basis to mediating this dispute, since these principles are the foundation to Wikipedia.

Simply create two sections called, say "Sources refuting occupation" and the other "Sources supporting occupation". The first section would contain verifiable references to reliable published sources refuting occupation and another section to contain verfiable references supporting occupation. Copy the already presented sources to the appropriate sections and ask the respective proponents to add any additional sources to the relavant sections. Then you will have a clearer view and then be able to rank and count them to determine the amount of weight that should be given to the competing propositions.

Cheers, Martintg 03:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Chacha search.gif

An image that you uploaded, Image:Chacha search.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. LaraLove^T/_C 03:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

I reviewed you. YechielMan 14:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chacha search.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Chacha search.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Checking in

How are things going with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Occupation of Baltic states? Do you have any questions or concerns? Vassyana 07:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How is the ECT case doing? It looked like things were set, almost set. Should the case be closed? Vassyana 05:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am Jacroe on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/jacroe. Thanks. -- Jac _roe^Blank 18:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

response

check my talkpage. responded to your question. Yadaman 03:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Checking in

How are things going with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Occupation of Baltic states? Is this case still active? Do you have any questions or concerns? Thanks! Vassyana 22:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And what's the outcome& Can we insert the POV tag in the article or it is still prohibited (dispite the article is written from only one point of view)?--Dojarca 02:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorely disappointed in your ruling behind editors backs. Where are the sources for the "other" POV that the article deserves tagging? I expect a response on the mediation page, here. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You might consider reading this speech delivered in a "sister" Louisville (i.e., Kentucky), you will see Latvia discussed specifically: www.dol.gov/_sec/media/speeches/20061019_Rotary.htm
Unfortunately nothing for Latvia associated with your (Mississippi) Louisville. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Let us know if/when you read it. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

monobook

I added the tag and it just shows up as unformatted text. User:Kansoku/monobook.js Kansoku 18:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Help!

My article, Moeco Matsushita is up for deletion, and I created it a few minutes ago. I need your help to save it from being deleted, because I can't do it alone.Kitty53 02:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You Tube links

See the edit summary for the removal edits concerned, the links were removed because as stated the (C) Status of the You Tube clip was unclear. In other words if you wish to link a You Tube clip it either has to be, content of the uploader concerned, an 'offical' clip from the appropriate media company, or a clip you created yourself.

Whilst not 'offical' Wikipedia policy, it is generally frowned upon to link to actual or possible copyright violations on other sites from Wikipedia. This applies to any website, not just You Tube. ShakespeareFan00 16:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: List of praise and worship songs

Hi. I've raised a question regarding the validity and the necessity for the list of praise and worship songs as it doesn't seem to be adding any real value to Wikipedia. Since you've added to the list, I thought I'd notify you. Please feel free to state your views on the discussion page. Thanks! aJCfreak yAk 14:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chacha search.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Chacha search.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Trivia

Portal:Trivia, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Trivia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Trivia during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

File:Jacroe thinking.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jacroe thinking.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)