User talk:Jprg1966/Archive 3

(comment without section)

You reverted my edits, and made the following comments on my talk page (prior to my registration):

"Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Yitzhak Shamir. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Jprg1966 (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The supposed "support" I express for Shamir is your own imagination. The fact is that your additions to his page did not adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy and were reverted for that reason. As you can see, there was already a discussion on the talk page about this. You are free to have your own opinions, but this is an encyclopedia and operates by consensus. In the meantime, please don't accuse me of having biased editing. --Jprg1966 (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)"

First of all, I was simply reverting the article back to it's original statement. I added no new material. I did not write the words you attribute to me, and I did NOT "add commentary or your personal analysis". If you look at the edit history, I merely put it back as it was before someone (very recently) edited it.

Secondly, I don't remember calling your edits biased or saying that you "support" anyone. Please refer me to any comment along those lines. I made no such claim. You did select a very recent edit, however, over my reversion to the original text. I would most certainly have to wonder how that can happen in a collaborative environment. This subject is still under discussion at this time. I would suggest in the future that you refrain from accusations unless and until you have proof. I believe you may have confused me with someone else. In any case, the article is still under review and is not the domain of any single person. We should at least agree upon that. Tjp1962 (talk) 08:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

:I am very confused. Are you the same editor as 98.194.39.86? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I get it now.

First of all, you did not revert the article back to its original statement. This is the article as it existed before his death and the whole question of him being a terrorist was raised. As you can see, his membership in the Irgun was not even mentioned. Following his death, an edit war over what to call the Irgun ensued, beginning here.

When you began to change the lead, there was no consensus on the talk page. Your non-NPOV edits were therefore reverted by me.

Six minutes after I reverted you for the second time, you left this comment on the talk page: "There is no point in calling him a terrorist, although he indeed was one. No matter how much evidence there is, and how many times it is written - some supporter will come along and change it back. Outrageous." I believe that was and is an unwarranted attack on my decision to revert your edits as not NPOV. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(comment without section)

(good idea, I requested protection)

Hello, Jprg1966. You have new messages at Jim1138's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:COIBot protected. Our friend switched to an IPv6 address. Seems to gotten bored. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(comment without section)

Consensus of WHO? Biracial and Mulatto are not African-American in the traditional sense much less in the battle for "people of color" to get rights in US society. How is mislabeling people on a wiki page a good idea?

Non-Partisan. Don't even VOTE, as I dislike politics, but I also dislike people mis-represting history and biographies of people.

Note I have not insulted you and am keeping it on the talk page.

Please explain why mis-labeling heritage is a good idea if one expects to have an accurate tome.

Thanks12.207.42.206 (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It was a consensus decision of the Wikipedia community at large. Believe me, this issue has been raised innumerable times before (such as on all of these pages). Again, I refer you to the FAQ answer, some portions of which I have highlighted:

Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa," a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well. Thus we use the term African American in the introduction, and address the specifics of his parentage in the first headed section of the article. Many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American." Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body.

Biracial and mulatto are not inaccurate terms to describe Obama, but they are not the most commonly used. I have not accused you of partisanship or being unfair, and you have not acted unreasonably. But you should realize that your opinion must be weighed in balance with the community as a whole, and it may not always align with yours. If you insist that another discussion be raised about the issue on the talk page, I cannot stop you, but I will advise you that other editors are probably unlikely to settle on a different consensus. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review of James Randi

Hello, I am beginning a review of the article you nominated for good article status. The review page is here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I put the review on hold because I feel there are a lot of outstanding issues in need of resolving. My Internet is spotty right now so I will wait until tomorrow to point out all the issues.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the heads-up. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The review has been updated with problems noted and suggestions made for addressing those problems.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful review. I'll see what I can come up with. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for YOU

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your upright acceptance of the decision by Admin in the edit warring page on Independence Day 2012 and for continuing your efforts to protect Wikipedia from vandals. Many should follow your example. DocTree (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Sometimes everyone needs a little reality check. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper straw poll

There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

...

This is Amanbir Singh. Do not interfere.

You do not own anything on this Wikipedia. Nobody does. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 06:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Malakwal

This page seems to be a mess due to vandalism and COI edits. I can't make heads or tails of it. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 07:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yuck! I didn't see just how bad it was on Huggle. This calls for some serious repair. Thanks for the heads-up. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried correcting it a little, needs more work perhaps. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 07:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

so

im being threatened for saying "fuck your robots bro"? So ClueBot has feelings and thus it's a personal attack if I make that statement?

hold on.... you were saying i was attacking people with this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becoming_(Abigail_Williams_album)?diff=501522774 nevermind, that makes even less sense

Oh, did Huggle select the wrong edit entirely? My bad. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

message

PLEASE stop making edits to my revision on Medicina Mexico. I am in the process of writing a new one per the instructions of a steward. Thank you Samuel Samuelmeza08:11 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A moment of clarity for you

You are not permitted to post to my talkpage under any circumstances - given your paranoia and obsession with getting me into trouble.

Is that clear? Do not, ever, at all, in any shape, form, geometry, infiltration procedure, post to my talkpage again. If I have done something so egregious that I need talking to, someone else will do it.

Not you. Ever. As an editor or as an admin, you are permanently unwelcome at my talkpage. I will not be watching your page, and should you ever post to my talkpage again it will be construed as harassment and I will take it to ArbCom if necessary.

Never. Ever. Forever.

To eternity and beyond - when our atoms become the reminants of the destroyed solar system, to drift through the universe and from which anything can happen - be it that they form a new planetary nebula and solar systems with new life forms which devlop their own computer technologies and internets and wikipedias telling the same thing to simalar editors, or crushed and shredded by black-holes, whooshed through wormholes (should such cosmological topology exist in spacetime fabric), and collapsed into the big crunch or frozen solid in the "deep freeze" end to the universe.

Except that you will not edit my talk page. Not ever. For all time.

Understood? Sparkling clear as a wine glass? Actually - is diamond opaque in comparison to what I just said?

I trust we understand each other.

Goodbye (as in I am leaving WP for a short break, not permanently).. :-/ Hublolly (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This is incredibly rude of you. Out of respect for your misbegotten ideas for the way Wikipedia works, I will not write on your wall to respond now. But I have not obsessed over getting you in trouble. You have failed repeatedly to follow Wikipedia's guidelines regarding civility, including with this last message. How many times must you be told to assume good faith? You have no right to report me for harrassment if I leave an appropriate message on your user page. I had warned you specifically about attacking other editors, and what have you done here?

The Wikipedia community has shown extraordinary patience with you, but it is not infinite. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User:108.74.208.56

Can you specify the article or articles in question, and the passages in question that are in dispute, as indicated by diffs? I personal obligations today so I may not get to it until tonight or tomorrow. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that he has ceased his activity at this point. Would you concur? Nightscream (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

appear to constitute what?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.102.5.90 (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the him welcome message, I appreciate it and yes no i deleted it but egg I hope you don't mind fridge. Sorry, bad good englsih. 80.65.243.36 (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Distressing to see how fast it has gone downhill since this recent contribution of yours. Favonian (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a little strange, yes ... --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Rani300

User:Rani300 is still making the same sort of edits to Jacqueline Fernandez for which you gave a last warning. Can you get them blocked? BollyJeff | talk 02:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

??????

Why are you editing my personal page? Do you know anything about me to edit info about the languages I speak??? This is not your business!

Roman Zacharij (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You were not logged in when you made those edits. There was no way to know it was you. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation

Hi,

I have opened a sockpuppet investigation on an editor with whom you have had dealings:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/User:81.129.112.196#24_July_2012

Your input would be much appreciated. Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Class act

You, Jprg, are a class act. So many editors would have flown off the handle, but you handled the situation with calm and class. As much as we need fewer editors like me, we need more like you. You have earned one anon's respect today, and I shall endeavour to behave myself in honour of your restraint. 98.82.83.17 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You are too kind. I was in a good mood only because of your edit summaries. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

unhelpful autoEding

Edit such as:

• diff of SMS König Albert

are unhelpful and will be reverted. There is no consensus to scrunch the wiki-text like that. This seems to be a new 'feature' of WP:AUTOED and it should be removed. Please see wp:fait accompli. Thanks. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a custom tweak I've added. My reasoning was ease of scrolling and editing in the back end. Why do you consider it unhelpful? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 14:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

So it's not WP:AUTOED, as the edit summaries said. That's deceptive. Whitespace and vertical layout increase readability and ease maintenance of wiki-text. Your removals are not helpful. Many articles are formatted this way and removing it using automation will get you blocked for disruption. I trust you will not drop in on articles and do this any more? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need to threaten me with a block. Since your first notice, I have temporarily ceased using AutoEd altogether, if you care to check my contributions. The reason why I asked why you thought my edits were disruptive is solely so I could understand your reasoning. It's not like I was breaking some cardinal rule of Wikipedia that necessitated urgent and immediate action. I'm proud of my block-free history and don't think it's unfair to expect some good faith.

I was also not trying to deceive — I did use AutoEd on all of those edits, and AutoEd did much of that elimination of whitespace. It automatically eliminates spaces between sections, more than one space between words, etc. I did change a few other things that were only visible in the edit space and should have (as I sometimes do) added an extra notice about that. You have made it abundantly clear that I am to do that no more. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to adjust the tenor of my comments, now that I have had some time away from them. I never try to disrupt Wikipedia, so please just assume good faith and let me know what you think I should be doing better. I thought that since I politely responded to and did not disobey your first notice, mentioning the b-word was unnecessary. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not threatening you with a block; I'm not an admin on this project. I was just saying that if disputed editing continues it often results in blocks. I'm asking the author of AutoEd about this. I believe a change was recently made to that script and want it undone. Thanks for not continuing this. I've used AutoEd in the past and don't like it. Tip: regulars on articles don't like it when drive-by scripts edits impact 'their' articles. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I think we understand each other better. Perhaps I ran a higher risk of controversy by auto-editing FACs. I will be mindful of that. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The white space removal is unhelpful on any article that has been formatted with an intention. It's another matter on a chaotic article. Instead of AutoEd, try these:

• importScript('User:Cameltrader/Advisor.js');
• importScript('User:GregU/dashes.js');

nb: the dashes script is incompatible with AutoEd, so don't try and mix them. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Aaguan

Hello Jprg1966. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Aaguan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. Electric Catfish 22:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I replaced the CSD tags with a PROD tag. Electric Catfish 22:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. When I tagged the page, A1 applied. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I know. I looked at the diffs. I user the CSD Helper Script in conjunction with Twinkle, so it automatically sends out these notices if I contest it. Best, Electric Catfish 00:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC).

Check again

I wasn't doing disruptive editing, man, check the record. A bunch of idiots were posting dumb stuff on that page, and I was trying to bring it into Wikipedia standards by making an "In Popular Culture" section, etc.

Try to message the people who are creating the problem, not the people who are trying to fix it. 76.168.175.233 (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you got caught in a firefight with vandals. I'll strike out my warning. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

copyvio

Wikiconstable, eh? Did you check before reinstating copyvio text at Lucy Morton? Did you see the copypaste template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.232.222 (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I made one fatal flaw. I did, in fact, check the page you marked as being the source of the copyvio. However, I did not realize that I could only see the text in question with subscription. So I saw the page you marked as being mostly empty of text. My mistake. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

While I lack access to the original source, I assumed good faith on the part of the IP and subsequently reverted the article to a state prior to the purported copyright violation. Since other editors have contributed to the article after the violation occurred, I anticipate that it's inappropriate to apply WP:REVDEL. Thanks, Meph^talk 16:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC).

Sounds like a good solution. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)