User talk:Justinm1978/Archive 2

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)

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)

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. [1]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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; [2], [3], [4]. 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 user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Justinm1978 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

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)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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)

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)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/207.189.99.134

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

re: Omega Phi Gamma Discussion

I agree. Thanks for all of your help and the constructive edits that you have made to the article. Victor8698 (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Anon

I was thinking the same thing. Badagnani (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of referenced statement from Toyota Prius article

Hi Justinm1978, I assume that you made this edit by mistake, judging by the associated summary comment ("This information is suspect, provide a reference"). If you look again, you will see that I had added a more specific reference for the statement, which you just removed, along with the statement. Perhaps you could undo your own edit, adding an appropriate summary.

Incidentally, why did you think that the information was "suspect"?

For your information, here are the eight cars, with their official UK "combined" fuel consumption and references.

Model	Combined imperial mpg	Reference
SEAT Ibiza 1.4 TDI 80PS Ecomotion	74.3 miles per imperial gallon (3.80 L/100 km; 61.9 mpg‑US)	[5]
Volkswagen Polo 3/5 Door 1.4 TDI (80 PS) Bluemotion	74.3 miles per imperial gallon (3.80 L/100 km; 61.9 mpg‑US)	[6]
MINI Cooper D	72.4 miles per imperial gallon (3.90 L/100 km; 60.3 mpg‑US)	[7]
Citroën C1 1.4HDi	68.9 miles per imperial gallon (4.10 L/100 km; 57.4 mpg‑US)	[8]
MINI Cooper D Clubman	68.9 miles per imperial gallon (4.10 L/100 km; 57.4 mpg‑US)	[9]
Škoda Fabia 1.4 TDI 80PS Green-Line	68.9 miles per imperial gallon (4.10 L/100 km; 57.4 mpg‑US)	[10]
Škoda Fabia Estate 1.4 TDI PD 80PS	68.9 miles per imperial gallon (4.10 L/100 km; 57.4 mpg‑US)	[11]
Fiat 500 1.3 16v MultiJet	67.3 miles per imperial gallon (4.20 L/100 km; 56.0 mpg‑US)	[12]
Toyota Prius 1.5 VVT-i Hybrid	65.7 miles per imperial gallon (4.30 L/100 km; 54.7 mpg‑US)	[13]

Best regards, -- de Facto (talk). 15:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting other people's edits

Instead of blindly reverting people's edits, please look at the edit history and AGF, because the IP did make some constructive edits. miranda 16:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit of a trivial thing to bring to my attention. Instead of bothering an editor who you have no respect for, please assume some good faith yourself before chastising me for missing a very minor error, which you have now corrected Thanks! :) Justinm1978 (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Polite request

Hi Justinm1978, I wondered if you were planning to withdraw the false accusation you made at Talk:Toyota Prius#Deletion of CNW Research, that my 'only contributions to this [the Prius] article are to insert "studies" (used loosely) that push one particular point-of-view ...' It is evidently untrue, anyone can check the edit history to verify that, and cannot be allowed to stand. -- de Facto (talk). 22:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's put this in summary form. You made minor formatting changes (which don't really count as "contributions to an article", IMO), cleared up what you believe to be "POV" with claims of original research, when the facts are presented in the sources, and then your main contributions have been to insert the unscientific Sunday Times section, the unscientific Top Gear section, and now you're pushing a POV on the CNW research. I would call that editing with a very particular bias, since you're not willing to budge and keep moving the goalposts in what you'll accept. Consensus does not mean that you get your way, and it feels like you are just hoping that the editors who disagree wiht your POV will just give up. You are editing on a mission to prove that the prius is not as efficient as claimed and I'm calling shenanigans on that. Justinm1978 (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it makes it very clear to us how your NPOVmeter is calibrated. It's also interesting that you highlight, again, my very clear NPOV agenda, as epitomised by my contribution that you linked to. Your definition of NPOV seems to exclude any POV which conflicts with your own. Another example of your "rigorous" fact checking is your claim that I added the Top Gear section, I didn't (see here and again here). What I did do though, was to tidy it, and being a stickler for NPOV and verifiability flagged it for a reference (see here). Looking for further NPOV improvements I also enhanced paragraphs describing tests in which the Prius out-performed other vehicles (see here and here and here and here), and removed an unsupported and irrelevant "better than the Prius" claim here. Please do not confuse my NPOV actions, some of which may well conflict with your personal POV, as POV-pushing. -- de Facto (talk). 09:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

University of Illinois external links

In light of your reversion, I've opened a new section in the [[[edit]Talk:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign|article's Talk page]]. Please contribute! --ElKevbo (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Apo-crest.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Apo-crest.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) 04:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Alpha Edits

Hi, I wasn't ignoring you--just giving you the chance to show the newbie that you were not simply jumping on his case. cheers -RoBoTam^ice 19:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!! I agree with you and replaced some of the text, but so much as happened that I wil have to read the entire article to see how much damage was done. Thanks again.--Ccson (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Suburban Express

I think our conflict in this article is accidental. While I was trying to "fix" it's orphan status and remove the tag, you nominated it for deletion, and I inadvertantly removed your tag as well. I have NO connection with this company and I am a great distance from your city. My goal was to improve the article and I will not enter into a discussion as to whether it should be deleted or not - I don't care. If it is a valid article it should remain linked to the articles for those universities it serves. This would mean that "orphaned" would not be an argument for deletion and the quality of the article would have to stand up for itself. I can understand your frustration, because you thought it was deliberate interference with your very proper tagging. Sorry about that. -FairFare (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa Society

Hello, Justinm1978. I've seen the Mediation Cabal case requested for Phi Beta Kappa Society here, and I'm glad to take the case. It appears that you have engaged in discussion about the issue, and I have listed you as a party. I have reviewed the relevant discussions and am looking forward to working towards an ultimate resolution. Regards, Jd027 (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Gamma Beta

Hi, I was wondering if you could help me out on my article and getting it unprotected. I've created a user page, and believe it meets wiki fraternity requirements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hawee/Gamma_Beta

Please help me out and let me know what i need to do or what is wrong. [[[User:Hawee|Hawee]] (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)]

WikiProject Scouting elections

You are receiving this notice as an active member of WikiProject Scouting. To change your status as a member, please edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Members.

Rlevse is retiring as our lead coordinator; see Stepping down as ScoutingWikiProject Lead Coordinator. Election for a new coordinator will be held after the new year. If you are interested in nominating yourself or another editor, please add the name to Project coordinator election.

Yours in Scouting
---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris Baty

I restored the prod on that article, since you didn't say any reason in the edit summary or on the talk page as to why you disagreed or how the article's subject meets any kind of notability guidelines, nor did you offer any way to improve the article, which is requested when removing a prod. I have also added a proposal to merge the contents of the article into the NaNoWriMo article since I believe that is the best way to handle it.

Not even wrong. Have a read of this:

If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

Do you have a problem with this? WP:AFD. --Calton | Talk 03:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A word of advice: Do not go against Calton, he has JzG in his pocket and can do pretty much whatever he wants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.50.238 (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Red Links

I noticed that you eliminated all the organizations without wikilinks from Cultural interest fraternities and sororities. Couldn´t you just unlink them? Is this a list of organizations in wikipedia or a comprehensive list of cultural organizations? Can I add back the organizations without wikilinks just for informational purposes? --Coquidragon (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The list is supposed to be of ones that are notable, and ones without an article are inherently non-notable, as are single-chapter non-national organizations and most defunct organizations. Notability in the fraternity/sorority articles (as far as that wikiproject is concerned) is that a group has a few chapters and has been around long enough that the founders have all left school. What I'd suggest doing is creating articles for the ones I deleted with some information filled in about them. They don't have to be in-depth articles, but something that shows their notability. Hope this helps! Justinm1978 (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don´t know about the other groups. Within the Latino group, the youngest (not defunct) organization is 13 years old. There is only one organization with one chapter. There are about 10 orgs with between 3 and 9 chapters, which are only in one state. There is one with 4 chapters in two states. From the wikiproject perspective, can you share some light on notability? I don´t want to create articles for orgs that I shouln´t. Thanks in advance. --Coquidragon (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, anything that is considered "national" (IE, formally incorporated as a business, has multiple chapters, etc.) passes for notable in my book. I'm not the judge on this matter, only a member of the jury :) I would suggest that you create articles for whichever ones you think pass the nebulous criteria for notability and see if they stick around. What will get them put up for speedy delete for spam or put through AfD is if the article is fluff about the "vision of the founders and their quest to bring about major societal change" or other stuff like that which is written with dramatic pose. Wikipedia isn't a rush flyer and articles written like one tend to get flagged for lack of notability because they're all talk with nothing concrete to back it up. Let me know if you need any other help, and good luck! :) Justinm1978 (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I´ll see what I can do.--Coquidragon (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Phi Rho Eta

Is http://apqgss.tripod.com/Related.html , the only source for the Alpha Phi Omega connection?Naraht (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the only documented source that is readily available. I've talked with FRH members on campus here, and they've confirmed for me that it is true. Unfortunately, that doesn't translate to wikipedia. Justinm1978 (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Which campus? And any chance we can actually get that added to the Phi Rho Eta national site?Naraht (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

UIUC. I doubt they'll add it, though; it was not a very complimentary story and they didn't really want to talk about it. Justinm1978 (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess, but still part of their history. Sort of makes me wonder if Alpha Phi Omega should have the fact that Beta Sigma Alpha was considered for the letters... Do you want to ref the change in Phi Rho Eta, or do you want me to do so?Naraht (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can do it, that'd be great. I'm not 100% sure the best way to ref that statement with the source provided. Justinm1978 (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd just link to it with a simple ref. I'm not really sure how to get more complex either..Naraht (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Im the founder of Phi Rho Eta Fraternity, Inc., just wondering where you getting this information from!! If you want to know anything about our fraternity feel free to contact be at mrandolph@phirhoeta.org. And your right your not 100% right!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etaman (talk • contribs) 19:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The Phi Rho Eta founders were at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. The reference for this is actually on the Phi Rho Eta national website. I've made some recent changes to the Phi Rho Eta page. Any additional references that anyone can find for the wikipedia page would be welcome.Naraht (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Parkland president.

While the Alpha Phi Omega alumni database is an acceptable reference, there are lots of other places that are better. Any idea if there is anything on either the chapter or even better school website indicating this?Naraht (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll see if the chapter can get that updated Justinm1978 (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Justinm1978. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: May 2021

WikiProject Scouting | May 2021 Notes for May: Please go and "watch" this page: Article alerts. You will quickly see if any issues arise. Here is a list of other pages to watch as well: Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Watch Congratulations to our Barnstar awardees! Interested in coordinating a zoom meeting? Please let us know. Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications

--evrik ^(talk) 20:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: July 2021

WikiProject Scouting | July 2021 Things to watch for: New: Newest articles Alert: Article alerts Continuing: To do Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications

--evrik ^(talk) 17:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: October 2021

WikiProject Scouting | October 2021 It is with sadness that we note the passing of Jim Howes. Throughout his life, Jim worked to make the world a better place. WikiProject Scouting now has no administrators listed as willing to help the WikiProject. If you are an administrator and are willing to help, please let us know here. Things to watch for: New: Newest articles Alert: Article alerts Continuing: To do Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications

--evrik ^(talk) 15:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)