Wikipedia

User talk:Jreferee/Archive 16

< User talk:Jreferee
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Gatoclass in topic DYK for Silver City Daily Press
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 → Archive 20

Happy first edit day

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Happy First Edit Day, Jreferee, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

  Talk to Me. Email Me. 01:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new WP:RFA. Until December 30, you can file a request at WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you. MBisanz talk 04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(delivered by mabdul 23:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC))

Welcome back

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Welcome back. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks SmokeyJoe. -- Jreferee (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Despite our conflicts way... in the past, it's good to see you around again, we can use as much admin help as we can, if you need help getting back in the project with our changing consensus and such just let me know. Thanks Secret account 16:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Secret. I appreciate the offer and look forward to helping out where I can. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Your entry has been removed from Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians Ottawahitech (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. It would have been nicer to have been on a list such as List of Wikipedians who are missed. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, look at the bright side - at least it does not look like many of your contributions have been deleted while you were gone, like some of the others I see when notifying them. Or maybe you are just hiding them in your archives? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Punkcast

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Punkcast. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MarioNovi (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. Thank you very much for standing up for me and saying I did nothing wrong. I am curious if you agree with how this AFD was closed? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punkcast Also is it strange that he refers to himself in 3rd person? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No consensus looks like the correct close. Sandstein came up with a different view than me and additionally took into account what I wrote. When you add in the rest of the views, you can't really say one view is that much better than the other from which to determine a consensus of the group. -- Jreferee (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wildebeest

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there. I was wondering if you were by the deletion review for Wildebeest lately since I last left a comment about the link that you provided the last time you were there. It said "Yet this link is only thing I found on the link provided which lists information on Wildebeest's action figure." I couldn't find any other book on that link detailing about the Wildebeests of DC Comics. We'll have to come up with a Plan B for this and have the page officially restored. Rtkat3 (talk) 3:50, January 26 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I did not reply to that post. My reaction to ""Yet this link is only thing I found on the link provided which lists information on Wildebeest's action figure." was that the topic probably does not have enough source material to be in an article by itself. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:GenHarrisonThyng.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GenHarrisonThyng.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see also the related discussion for File:ColHarrisonThyng.JPG. De728631 (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Biography verified?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there, what other info would be needed to get this article verified? I added a few more citations, and there is an image up now as well. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eamon_McGrath — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishhurler (talk • contribs) 06:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed the tage. However, since the photo was by Peter Dreimanis, you cannot say Irishhurler pushed the camera button to become the copyright holder without out providing a connection between the two. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead section at List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear Jreferee, I noticed that you did some work on the introduction to this article. At the talk page, I pointed out some issues and problems that I identified. Please feel free to add your thoughts and comments. Best regards --FoxyOrange (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Freeboard

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey Jreferee, I removed the links to patents at the Freeboard (skateboard) article. I started a discussion on the talk page about it. Basically I quoted WP:PATENTS and WP:EVADE noting that the patents were inserted as a form of spam by a blocked user (who continues, by the way, to threaten me with law suits via Wiki email, not that it bothers me -- it's actually pretty amusing). SQGibbon (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Vote

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why are you striking out my only vote with the summary Struck's nominator's additional iVote - that was my only vote. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Your posted the discussion and noted in your listing that you want to restore the link to the site. That counts as your one iVote. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
No one else indicated there's a problem with it. And you made it look like I might be rethinking my support. I don't believe anyone would have concluded there was one more vote than there actually was. And I've seen others vote on their proposals, usually as the first vote. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Proactiv Solution

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Jreferee. Since you gave me the "go-ahead" regarding my COI draft of the Guthy-Renker article back in April, I thought you may also be interested in a related article, where I've put together some content on Proactiv Solutions here. CorporateM (Talk) 03:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I made some revisions. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Proactiv Solution, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Glee and Big Bang Theory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Article restore soil N.

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please,nosratallah khakian essay surveys should be returned to earth since the article was hastily removed and the remaining terms is Wikipedia. Thank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.179.163.183 (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Help with Freddie A. Laker

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Jreferee, I'm not sure if you're around at the moment, but if you have a little time to help, I was wondering if you'd mind looking at a request for some updates related to a new BLP article? I saw your name in the list of members at WikiProject Biography, so I'm hoping you'd be interested. I wrote a new article on behalf of the subject, Freddie A. Laker, working for his company, so I have a COI and would prefer not to edit the article (or related ones) directly. I'm instead looking for an editor who can help with a couple of corrections to the text (errors due to the sources not being clear, but that Freddie later clarified). Can you help? The full request is on the article's Talk page, if you'd be able to take a look. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 23:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. -- Jreferee (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jreferee, thanks for taking a look at this for me! I think the second change isn't quite what I had in mind, Freddie is the founder of Guide so that didn't need changing, but he is the co-founder of the Society of Digital Agencies. Can you correct this in the article? I've also replied on the Talk page about the early life information. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much for making that edit! Everything looks great, your help is much appreciated. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

COI: Matthew Bryden

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi Jreferee, thanks for your input on the COI Noticeboard – I've replied to your comments there (link goes straight to the section). HOgilvy (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi – apologies for the accidental deletion, thanks for spotting and reverting. HOgilvy (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I STRONGLY suggest re-reading the MR you closed

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

It is clear to even an uneducated eye that there is consensus to OVERTURN the closure of the move. There are 5 overturn (including nom) vs 2 endorse which is quite clear consensus to overturn. I STRONGLY suggest that you undo your closure and respect consensus otherwise I WILL file an RFC/U into your actions against consensus at [1]! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 01:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Again; PLEASE ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION. It is quite clear that you misread consensus and you should either provide a clear explanation for your actions or self-revert and let someone else close the discussion. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 05:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
You still have not explained your actions against consensus today. While I do apologise that I may have come across as a bit threatening I still think that such a close against consensus requires a decent explanation which you have not provided yet. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 07:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Admin's Barnstar
I thereby award you with this Admin's Barnstar for closing discussions formerly listed at the Requests for closure subpage of the Administrators' noticeboard. Keep up the good work. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of rationale for adding category to Khurnak Fort

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to clarify my rationale for adding Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War to the article Khurnak Fort. As per four sources, China controlled Khurnak Fort only since 1958. Till then, both countries used to patrol the disputed region; the occupation of various places in the disputed region (by both countries) is what led to the war in 1962. After that, China had had absolute control over the fort. Hence, I feel it satisfies the criteria defined at the category page (China did not have absolute control over in the years before the Sino-Indian War, but has exercised full control over since the war). The category was discussed extensively at Cfd, with other editors supporting the category. In the light of this, do you think my opinion is reasonable (from a neutral POV), or that the body of the article still doesn't support inclusion in the category?The Discoverer (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

  • First, four sources you added say China has controlled the fort since 1958, unquestionably before the war. Another one that you seem to intentionally omit says China has controlled it since the early 1950s.
  • Second, all sources you refer to are non-neutral Indian ones. You continue to draw conclusions exclusively based on biased sources, even when they are clearly contradicted by neutral ones. It's clear that you still don't get WP:NPOV, one of the WP:Five pillars of Wikipedia.
  • You continue to insist that the Macartney-Macdonald line is the "traditional boundary" based purely on your strong personal belief, which is not supported by any neutral or even Indian sources. I advise you to read this book published by several senior researchers of the US military: "On October 21, 1959, a team of Indian troops crossed the traditional border at Kongka Pass, entering Chinese territory." (p 331) And Kongka Pass is on the Line of Actual Control claimed by China, not on the Macartney-Macdonald line. -Zanhe (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The category has not been deleted per CfD. The criteria for including a category in an article is at Wikipedia:Category#Articles. The article does not support inclusion in the category. There is a disagreement as to whether the category is NPOV in the target article (which is something CfD does not address). Four references are not enough to show that reliable sources commonly and consistently define Khurnak Fort as an area occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War as a defining characteristics of a subject of the article. This discussion should be on the article talk page. If there still is an editing dispute, follow the policy at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi Jreferee, I'm afraid that your toning down of the closing language at ANI has encouraged The Discoverer to resume his POV pushing. As you've noticed, he's not a typical disruptive editor, but his conduct is perfectly described in the essay WP:Civil POV pushing. For example, he has kept your edit at Khurnak Fort intact, but reverted my similar edits at Lanak Pass, Galwan River, Sirijap‎, and Spanggur Gap‎, where no neutral sources have defined them as areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War. In fact, in the first two articles, sources strongly suggest the opposite. He has clearly ignored your advice to follow Wikipedia:Category#Articles, which says "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view" and "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial." I've already spent two weeks dealing with his non-neutral edits, and I'd really hate to waste more time on this issue. -Zanhe (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kindly see User_talk:Zanhe#Disputed_areas_between_India_and_China
My request to Zanhe from the beginning was simple: I would like to hear the opinions of 2 or 3 other editors; surely, this is a reasonable request. Jreferee is the first editor other than Zanhe and myself to have commented on this topic of reliability and neutrality of sources.The Discoverer (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You actually need two or three editors to tell you that Indian publications are not neutral sources in a territorial dispute involving India? Well, at least another editor has acted: Wangernest, the creator of Galwan River, has undone your revert of my edit at that article. -Zanhe (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I have already given my reasons regarding the sources. Regarding Wangernest's edit, a revert by an editor without as much as an edit summary doesn't count as discussion for me.The Discoverer (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

MtG merges update

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've got all the pre-8th edition blocks ready to go in my userspace. When I've finished the post-8th edition blocks, I will complete the merges in relatively quick succession. Look for that to happen sometime later this week pbp 16:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

RSN on Callahan blog

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. You made some comments at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com. I have attempted to summarize the comments of various editors in a table. Please take a look and make any changes to the summary of your comments as you feel appropriate. I only ask that the summary be brief. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thirty Seconds to Mars Move Review

Latest comment: 10 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

Hi. Why did you close the move review as an Endorse Close? You said that there's no consensus in the move review, but there are four overcomes, two endorses, and a reopen or relist. Almost everyone in the move review wrote that at the requested move there was no consensus to move the page to the current title. I think that you should have closed the move review with an Overturn Close. Read here: "(If Consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM" or "Move title back to pre-RM title, reopen and relist RM if appropriate".--Earthh (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The move review close was based on the strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. In other words, it was a review of whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, not whether the close was correct or incorrect. The iVotes that addressed the sufficiency of the close explanation were not directed to whether closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. SmokeyJoe only wanted an explanation, which BDD provided. SmokeyJoe did not provide much argument, so it seemed to be a week endorse. B2C appeared to indicated that B2C adopted BDD’s explanation, giving strength to B2C position as endorse. Cúchullain and BDD both had strong endorse arguments, with BDD close additionally benefitting from closer’s discretion. On the overturn side, there were strong arguments and additional comments which addressed whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly to varying degrees. BDDs additional details on his close (18:34, 28 August 2013) was there for twelve days, but did not significantly move the discussion one way or another. I did not see a general sense of agreement one way or another. Since BDDs additional details on his close seemed to quell general concern for his close and there appeared to be no consensus in the move review, which has the same effect as endorse close, I close the review as endorse close. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, my lack of criticism of BDD's explanation can be taken as a weak endorsement. I'd prefer for him to put it in the close-proper, and to not include his last two sentences, and then I'd call it an "Endorse, and certainly within admin discretion". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

  Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I was one of the endorse votes, but I think this MR close is spot on. I see two "endorses", four "overturns", one "reopen and relist", and two more "overturns" pending an explanation which was subsequently given. There's no clear consensus there justifying overruling an admin action. It's time to let this go and move on.--Cúchullain t/c 01:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
As you are biased due to your endorse vote of course you would be blinded to the clear consensus against endorsing the incorrect move. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 01:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Uh huh, so then we can accept that you are equally "blinded" and "biased" by your own participation in the discussion and call it even. Let's move on, shall we?--Cúchullain t/c 01:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You spoke about the endorses but not the overturs. The majority of the users expressed an overturn, so there's a consensus.--Earthh (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you consider re-opening this move review so I can follow-up to clarify after BDD provided his explanation? And allow someone else to close it? Thanks! --B2C 21:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi B2C. For some reason, post's on my talk page are not showing up in my notifications, so I did not see your post on my talk page until the notification notified me when I logged just now about your post at ANI, which mentioned that you posted on my talk page, which is how I found your post on my talk page. There is no policy/guideline basis for re-opening the move review for the reason you listed. Move review uses seven days as the length of the discussion. That discussion was open 21 August 2013 to 9 September 2013 - around 18 days. Someone else could have closed the discussion after seven days through the eighteenth day. The discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, which is where I saw it and decided to close it. I've read and posted at the ANI discussion, and do not see a basis to allow someone else to close the move review. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Jreferee (talk · contribs), I'm not suggesting there is a policy-based reason requiring someone else to close it. The point is you are free to revert your close, and we are asking you, for reasons explained at the ANI and which I will not repeat here, to exercise that liberty. If you do that, then someone else will of course be allowed to close it.

Please? With a cherry on top? --B2C 05:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I meant that there is no policy/guideline basis for re-opening the closed move review so that you can follow-up to clarify your post. As for allowing someone else to close the move review, I've read and posted at the ANI discussion, and don't see a basis to re-open the move review to allow someone else to close it. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Jreferee (talk · contribs), no one is suggesting there is "basis [in the ANI] to re-open the move review to allow someone else to close it". Anyone can revert anything they've done for any reason, or no reason. There does not have to be policy basis for you to revert your close. You may just revert it. That's what I, for one, am asking you to do.

The reason I'm asking you to revert your close is so that I may clarify my position there, as it was obviously misinterpreted (including by you). But that's the reason I'm asking you. That doesn't have to be the reason for you to revert. The reason for you to revert could be simply because you were asked to revert. Again... please? --B2C 17:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a mistaken to state that I cited lack of policy basis to revert or that there has to be policy basis for me to revert my close. Taking responsibility for judging the outcome of a discussion means, among other things, that there needs to be good cause for me to revert a discussion I closed and the action needs to be proceeded by careful thought/review. -- Jreferee (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Jreferee (talk · contribs), that's nonsense. A revert is simply restoring a situation to what it was before the edit you're reverting (in this case the edit in question is a close of a move review). That doesn't require any thought or review, much less careful thought review. It requires clicking on an undo link. If you continue to refuse to cooperate in this situation with nonsensical stonewalling excuses for not helping out, like this one, it will not be forgotten. --B2C 17:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Request to review your comments in your ANI closure

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Jreferee, Thank you for your closure of the discussion at ANI; it had been hanging for quite a while. I urge you to reconsider your comments about me in your closure comments. Once the sentence 'The international border between...' was disputed by another editor, I never made an attempt to add it back, because I immediately realised that it was not supported by reliable sources. When I wrote "my statement is not a fabrication", I was not trying to justify its inclusion in the article, but only trying to say that I did not come up with it myself. I have always been willing to address and accept others' viewpoints, and have always worked towards building consensus. Hence, I strongly and sincerely request you to consider editing out your comment 'The Discoverer personal opinion ... appears to be moving towards possibly getting in a way of editing neutrally'. Sincerely, The Discoverer (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't know why you were so easily swayed by this guy's sweet talk, but your toning down the closing language has emboldened him to resume edit warring (diffs: [2], [3], [4]), using the same old "reasoning" that places controlled by China in the 1950s should be included in the Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War (1962). Sigh... -Zanhe (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: not sure if you have been alerted, but an IP reverted the edit you made on Khurnak Fort when closing the ANI discussion. The IP (210.13.79.199) is a confirmed open proxy, and is suspected of being a sock puppet of The Discoverer. You may wish to comment on the sock puppet investigation page. Best regards, -Zanhe (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Incidents

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, Jreferee. I see you've noticed the edit-warring over at Tomislav Nikolić and Ivica Dačić. The content being inserted is obviously highly-charged and inflamatory, supported by unreliable sources. Furthermore, I've been personally attacked, with the editor in question (User:QueerStudiesRS) baselessly calling me a "homophobe" because of my opposition to the user's biased edits. I have not made any personal attacks against the user. What do you suggest we do about it? 23 editor (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Ivica Dačić". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 17:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Possibly unfree File:Ontario Provincial U16 Soccer Team (1976).jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Jreferee, This issue was addressed back in 2011 (see top of the page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:InPerpetuity). While I'm unable to find the email I likely sent to Wiki, I do have a copy of the emails I received from the Ontario Soccer Association with a letter permission. If you want me to resubmit, then please let me know.InPerpetuity (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Re:File:Peter Pakeman (Cornell University 1982).jpg & File:Toronto Jets S.S. Pauline (1978).pdf

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Jreferee, As above, these issues have been addressed and resolved with Cornell University and the Canadian Soccer Association, respectively. If you want me to resubmit the emails, then please let me know.InPerpetuity (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Walter Poenisch

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Walter Poenisch needs some BLP sourcing. RNealK (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:MRV Closing script

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  FYI

I have created a closing script for move reviews, which can found at User:Armbrust/closemrv.js. If you want to use it, than simply add 

importScript('User:Armbrust/closemrv.js');

to your vector JS page and bypass your cache. (Not tested on monobook or modern either.) Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 02:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
You received this message because you closed at least one MRV discussion in the last six months.

Ayn Rand

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Can you clarify what you've done? It seems to me that you edited through protection during an edit war. The specific Russian American verbaige was an issue in the edit war that I just protected the article against and enacted 1RR restrictions. I think you made an honest mistake, so I'd like to allow you an opportunity to revert before I must take this to WP:AE.--v/r - TP 12:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I went to the Ayn Rand page per the post on AN. The closed RFC on the talk page addressed "philosopher". I changed the lead to essentially keep the information that was there, but make it more readable. I was not aware of any issue regarding Russian American verbiage. The page protection and the Talk:Ayn_Rand#1RR do not mention anything about specific Russian American verbiage. MilesMoney opened a thread to discuss my change to the lead on the talk page. I'll reply there as well. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Since you did not actually implement the RFC result (which had already been done) or any other requested edit, you should self-revert. Because the page is full-protected due to content disputes, you should have proposed your changes on the Talk page like any other editor. --RL0919 (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I've had to file an Arbcom case. Please see here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Ayn_Rand.--v/r - TP 18:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Please self-revert. There's an unwritten wiki rule admins should only edit fully protected pages for trivial typos and per talk page consensus. NE Ent 23:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
But it's a written rule that admins cannot continue an edit war through full protection.--v/r - TP 23:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Which is moot anyway since if the 30 seconds to mars threads above are any indication then Jreferee will NOT self-revert. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 07:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

RE:MOS-AM

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To answer your question "Why the opposition to this page being a guideline?", it appears to be because the objecting editors are trying to end run around consensus about how most manga series pages are formatted. As best I can tell the MOS-AM doesn't actually even address the issue they're fighting about, but they seem to nonetheless believe they would be in a stronger position if it weren't a guideline.

Seeing as the fight's been going since January and they've been unable to draw any outside support or interest, I consider it primarily a WP:TEND issue at this point. --erachima talk 19:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Tiger Woods at Accenture?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hey Jreferee, thanks for dealing with the Principal subsidiaries section of the Accenture article, as per the conversation on Talk—very much appreciated! I'm wondering if you had any thoughts about my other suggestion over there, regarding rewording Tiger Woods' role in the company's advertising? Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in—I've now marked the request as   Done. Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Rebecca Housel at Speedy Deletion

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your talk page post here is formatted to reply to Gråbergs Gråa Sång. No, it's indented to the right because it's standard practice to indent one's post to the right of the prior one, up to three or four times for each succeeding post until starting over at the left. Readers can understand from context the person to whom I'm replying. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

:Rebecca Housel PhD

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Jreferee. Greetings from the Photography workshop. A reply has been made to your request. You may view the reply here.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

Begoon talk 05:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC).


You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Photography reply}} template.

User:Anisa moghaddam

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

My inclination would be to wait a couple more days and see if she returns to edit and responds to the concerns on her talk page.

If she doesnt return, we can probably just stub the user page to something short and appropriately user page-ish.

If she does return and responds positively and appropriately to her talk page, then we dont need to do anything.

If she returns and does not respond appropriately, then we can take the user page to Misc for deletion.

But i dont think we need to move it to article space and AfD it, at least not yet.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: Ayn Rand

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The clarification request concerning you has been archived, with no action taken: [5] For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 05:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


BLPN on Alaska political corruption probe

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for the advice. I've requested temporary page protection and will proceed with further steps. Activist (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your considerable help with this page. You have substantially more experience with Wikipedia than I do. Was the reason you removed the Bothelo and Metcalf quotes because they were excessive, or for some other reason? I thought they contributed to an understanding of the process of the probe that is rather difficult to follow, in no small part because it was conducted in secrecy for years and has never been fully explained. Bothelo was the AG in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and had a very good reputation for being above partisan politics. Metcalf was a former Republican legislator who formed his own short lived party, the Republican Moderate party, I believe, and was seen as a reformer. His party was responsible for the election defeat of one of the mysteriously unindicted players in the probe, Jerry Ward, though the victor, Senator John Torgerson quickly changed his registration to Republican after his election. Activist (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I did not think that the Bothelo and Metcalf quotes belonged in the lead, which is only a summary of the main body and should avoid redundant citations used in the main body (see WP:LEADCITE). Feel free to put them in the history section and summarize or also use them in the lead. However, there is no time frame listed for the Metcalfe quote and it includes an "according to" and "said", where you probably only need one (see WP:SAY). I didn't see a Bothelo quote. In general, feel free to revise the article. My main concern was the BLP issues and some of my other edits were more as an editor than admin removing BLP issues. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I deleted the material that was a subject of contention, violation of COI and RSS guidelines. I'll see if I can find the sources for the Metcalf and Bothelo references. Thanks for your interest and assistance with this page Activist (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Art Plural Gallery

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Jreferee, thanks for informing me about the gallery's page. Are there anything you would like me to take note of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorneliaHTang (talk • contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The post on your talk page provides information that you may want to take note of. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI, Discrimination

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I responded to your message on ANI. Thank you 124.149.70.154 (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Three things

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
  • I have replied to your comment at my talk age.
  • I have mentioned you at the second ANI thread.
  • I have edited the article per your helpful comment.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I have left a further reply for you at my talk page. Also, my experience has always been that editors have no ownership of their non-neutral talk page headings, in contrast to their comments under those headings, and I think it's generally been agreed in the past that article talk page headings contrary to policy can be changed by anyone.[6] I don't see them often, but if I do see any further non-neutral article talk page heading, then I intend to render it neutral with or without permission from the heading's author. Okay?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your proposal is sound... Oct 27, 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Jreferee, your proposal is sound... I added a subbullet suggesting why don't we just add this draft attempt User:WashD101/sandbox to a subsection of American University... and redirect Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership to there? Thanks for all your help... WashD101 (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 1#Futz!

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 1#Futz!. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Kudos User:Jreferee for an AMAZING brokering of a creative solution to the List of Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership recipients discussion. Impressive table, formatting and references! WashD101 (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the Barnstar. The Jones award is an impressive one. They seem to be able reach into the body of federal workers and spot the rising stars. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Premature close of RfC at Ten Lost Tribes

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Are you an admin? I would guess not, because then you would know that an RfC should stay open for 30 days Wikipedia:Rfc#Ending_RfCs. I suggest you re-open it, pronto presto, because you are causing me to spend time that would otherwise be used more productively, and should I have to open a discussion on this at AN/I, that would be more waste of time as the policy is clear.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Lost tribes RfC

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'm not happy with closing an RfC this early, especially at the request of the person who initiated it. It's probably going to go that way, but this isn't a BLP so there's no rush. Dougweller (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I closed it based on Bahooka's request at WP:ANRFC and reopened per your reasoning above. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much for doing this. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with keeping the RfC open for the full 30-day default period, but I did want to explain my reasoning so there won't be any concerns about good faith. I tried to read the RfC page very carefully to make sure I did it correctly. Regarding closure, it states that "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." (emphasis added) I knew the default period had not ended, but interest in making comments had waned (a week had passed since the last one) and the consensus seemed clear. That was my rationale, but we can revisit on 11/25. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

About Edit War.

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

a/c to HumanRightsWatch link Neda Agha khan was struck in traffic jam and she was several kilometers away from protests and there were no Basij forces when she was killed. But a/c to FoxNews & CNN link she was going to protests and she was killed by Basij. Thats why I was asking that HumanRightsWatch report is more authentic than FoxNews or not. SpidErxD (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Challenge of decision to delete article, Peter Pakeman

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've been away and unable to participate in discussions. How do I go about challenging the decision? Xave2000 (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Xave2000 - Discuss the matter with Mark Arsten (who deleted the page/closed the discussion) first. If that does not work, post a request at WP:DRV using one of the WP:DRVPURPOSE as a reason for your deletion review request. The usual DRV reasons are 1. the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly or 2. significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank youXave2000 (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Incomplete DYK nomination

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Eric Estorick at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reward_board#As_we_are_going_to_keep_this.2C_do_we_need_to_tighten_the_criteria_a_bit.3F

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Given it's been kept at MfD, I've reposted a proposal to tighten it. See header. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Banner/Workpage28

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Four editors supported deletion and four (including the editor who created the page) opposed. All provided valid rationales, and I can't see consensus that it "advertises/promotes a business" - those opposing emphasised it's relevance to Wikipedia, rather than to a business. Peter James (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The stronger argument was that the user subpage advertises/promotes a business. Those opposing deletion of the page generally did not challenge that position directly or challenge it with arguments that were strong enough. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The argument was that it was promotional - of the editor, not of a business. That wasn't challenged but editors opposed deletion because of its relevance to Wikipedia; the same arguments could also be used in discussion a page that lists an editor's achievements or barnstars, or of many pages related to WP:GLAM. The only mention of business is by an editor who opposed deletion and doesn't apply to the current status of the page. Peter James (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 11#Futz!

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 11#Futz!. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

COI

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Regarding your message on Conflict of Interest, I will keep that in mind, and will restrict from editing. Thank you! Yoonchip (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Eric Estorick

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Original Barnstar
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my help desk question[7] earlier today. MFM14 (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the Original Barnstar! -- Jreferee (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Help with my article

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you Jreferee for all your help with my article, its very much appreciated as I am new and learning the site, I will get exact dod date. Re your other suggestion I can't at the moment find a reference to link the two artists, just links to paintings. (Enuejel (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC))

You're welcome. Biographies are a good place to start with learning how to write Wikipedia articles. As for help in finding references, many librarians and researchers hang out at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities and they usually can help. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

New rule proposal

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can you please reply at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#New_rule_proposal.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting second round of feedback

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear Jreferee, thank you for your comments and feedback about my first contribution to wikipedia. It is extremely helpful as I have been putting a LOT of time in to it. I have since made edits to refine the article and incorporate all the feedback. I am also excited that a few others have helped me edit the page. I am quite hooked to Wikipedia and hope to author/contribute more within my expertise in nutrition education. ! Would you please be able to take a second look to advise me about how I may improve further? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bhargav_Sri_Prakash

Thank you! (Chippadum (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC))

Overturn of deletion decision for John Schlossberg

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can you please explain why the deletion decision for John Schlossberg was overturned? If possible, please include plain language for those of us who may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia lingo. Thank you. --Crunch (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The administrator who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Schlossberg (2nd nomination) as delete, later stated at the deletion review of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Schlossberg (2nd nomination) close that his close was a misinterpretation of consensus. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Silver City Daily Press

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Gatoclass (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jreferee/Archive_16&oldid=1169300912"