User talk:McJeff/Archive3

Request for Mediation?

Since we've been talking about it already... [1] BOZ (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

hint

we don't interpret the 24 hours for 3RR as a license. Revert warring that comes close is generally treated similarly to the literal time limit. See WP:3RR. The way to avoid problems is to go to discussion after the first revert. Just a hint, not a warning. DGG (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What's this in reference to? The thing you saw on Gavin's talk page? I thought reverting another user's harassment didn't count as revert warring. McJeff (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: PCE

He's been temporarily blocked. Nikki311 01:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey dude.

HI its me Dan. How are things with you? Im in Magaluf, Mallorca with my girlfriend, just thought id drop you a line and say hi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.26.63.164 (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Formal mediation

I would prefer to keep the number down to a manageable level in the case. Is there someone you believe accurately represents your point of view who is already an active party to the case? Is there anything in particular you feel I should be aware of as the mediator? Feel free to drop a line on my talk page or send me an email if you prefer. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia meetup

As someone who may live or work near Washington D.C., you may be interested - if you've not heard already - about the meetup scheduled for Saturday, May 17th, at Union Station. For details, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4.

You are receiving this automated message because your userpage appears in Category:Wikipedians in Maryland. Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Your 3RR warning to me re the Little Green Footballs edit war (24 May 2008)

Sorry to teplate you, but I'd rather not see one of the good ones get slapped with a ban.

No problem, and thanks for stepping in. I'd like to see this resolved peacefully. HiramShadraski (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Doughface

Hi. Any particular reason for reverting this editor's 2006 blanking of his user and user talk pages? It seems like that's his prerogative but maybe I'm missing something. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

...to be honest I don't know/remember why I did that. McJeff (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I have those moments, too! I went ahead and reverted your changes. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

LGF

Thanks for the note, I've added my 2c to the AN/I report Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: the RobJ1981 thing

You haven't done/said anything that's out of line (yet anyway).

If Fut. Perf. takes any action that is not supported by consensus, it should go directly to ArbCom. It'd be grossly inappropriate not just to take action against consensus, but to act even after there is sufficient concern that he's involved. This is particularly so when a very reasonable request was made for a completely uninvolved admin to look into this long-term dispute that has exhausted all other steps of dispute resolution.

But, that's only if Fut. Perf. decides to step out of line. Momentarily, Hesperian is handling it exceptionally well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Vacation.

I hope you enjoy dude. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Enemies article

I had to modify your deletions a little bit, since you had gotten rid of a fair few many-appearance enemies. Just explaining so it doesn't seem like I was wholesale reverting you.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

General note

Hello! Hey, thanks for the nice comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series (2nd nomination). After participating in one somewhat mind boggling ongoing discussion, I am a bit disilliosioned at the moment and I suppose it's nice to see a discussion where someone agreed with me and where at least one participant even changed his stance. Anyway, take care! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, McJeff. You have new messages at Keeper76's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Please explain to me

Please provide a link to the "Bush should be impeached" userbox and I'll gladly delete it. I'm sorry for the terse removal of your userbox, but similar "I can't stand [insert public figure]" userboxes have spawned numerous shitstorms before and necessitated the creation of WP:CSD#T1. Regards, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you have against Barack; but the Anetode had no right to delete your userbox without taking it to MfD. Do you want me to restore it? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do restore. McJeff (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Userbox request.

Hi dude, I was wondering since you're so keen on making userboxes, could you do me a favour and make one for me?

I just want to show my support for the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, so could you possibly make a "This user supports Gordon Brown" userbox for me please. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Tucker Max

I was wondering why you are removing the entire section on criticism when those links are valid and the criticism seems to be valid. I like Tucker's work, but we must maintain NPOV and report anything that is notable. Those events did seem to be notable to me. The article in the newspaper about his appearance is debatable, but the other things look good to me. Can we start a discussion on this?Atlantabravz (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page, thanks for initiating this though. McJeff (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

careful when reverting someone else's edit

mcjeff, please be careful when reverting an edit, as sometimes you might also revert non-controversial edits, such as grammatical corrections. [[2]] in my edit that you reverted, you also undid the correction of a sloppily (and incorrectly) placed period. so please be careful. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

heads up

You've been tattled on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaysweet#Tucker_Max_and_User:McJeff TheRegicider (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'm quite certain what I'm doing is the proper course of action, and if an admin tells me otherwise I'll of course stop. McJeff (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Tucker Max Criticism

McJeff,

I know you worked hard to clean up the "Criticism" section. However, I think that despite your best efforts, it still doesn't meets the standards for the WP:BLP, specifically the "Criticism and praise" section. I believe that it addresses a minority view, that the Jane Skinner interview is irrelevant, and that O&A are not an authority on the matter.

I also understand that it has a "Request for Comment." To be completely honest, I don't know what that entails, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes by editing the article. When can the issue be addressed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svernon19 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. The O&A incident provided a great topic for discussion, unlike whether Tucker has "millions of visitors" or whether myelectionanalysis.com is a credible source. I don't know how you were even able to get the O&A section to where it was in the first place. God knows I wouldn't have lasted that long. Svernon19 (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your changes to the ITT Controversy section.

Good Job!! May GOD save you! (I forgive you.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.121.157 (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: anonymous blog

you still haven't answered, how do you justify keeping this anonymous blog as an external link? what evidence do you present that this anonymous blog was written by a legal scholar or anyone reputable? how is this anonymous blog a valid source/external link if you cannot present any evidence that it was written by a trusted source? please respond either here, my talk, or the discussion page Theserialcomma (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. McJeff (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback removed (and restored)

After seeing a complaint about your use of rollback, I have removed the tool from your account. These edits were not vandalism. There have been 25 examples posted to my talk page about possible misuse, some of which were justified, but others were certainly not. Furthermore, on the Tucker Max article, you reverted during a content dispute that lead to a request for comment, which is not appropriate. When you demonstrate a clear understanding that rollback is only used for blatant vandalism, you may request it again through me or WP:Requests for permissions page in a few weeks. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those edits were vandalism from a vandalism-only account who has been both warned and blocked over the edits they were making. A classic example of wikipedia red tape protecting the stupid and worthless against those who are trying to fight against them... the longer I try to edit seriously the more I come to realize why there is such a high rate of serious editors retiring. McJeff (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I was in error with the final diff, for which I apologise. However, the removal of "a normal" from a sentence is not blatant vandalism. The removal of a criticism section from an article is good-faith, not vandalism, and the fact that the IP editor provided a source (albeit unreliable by WP standards) shows good-faith on their part. Most IP editors will not know about WP policy - just because we know that WP:RS says that this website is not appropriate, it doesn't mean that they will too. Removing what an editor thinks is a poorly-sourced claim is not vandalism. Editors have every right to challenge sources unless it is clearly bad faith, which this was not. Just because an edit is "inappropriate", it does not mean that it is vandalism. Furthermore, rolling back to keep a blog entry in an article is inappropriate; blogs are not allowed to be used as sources because, like Wikipedia, they can be edited by anyone. Not all of the 24 diffs provided were wrong, of course, and I believe Theserialcomma is in error for listing all the recent uses of rollback. However, you may want to develop a clearer understanding: if it doesn't scream of vandalism, use undo instead. If you let me know that you will adhere to this in the future, I will be more than happy to add the flag back to your account. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your civil response. All the best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the right per your statement - thank you for re-reading the policies, and I'm sure you'll use it appropriately in the future. In answer to your question, unconstructive edits can't all be rolled-back unless the case is a genuine attempt to disrupt the encyclopedia. Basically, adding spam links would be rollback-worthy, and links to attack pages etc. However, other edits are less simple: vandalism can be disguised as good faith, and good faith can occasionally look like vandalism. New editors will often get irritated if their links are removed, so a "reverted edits by S3 to last version by S4" as a summary will inflame them even more. You could also use twinkle, which has a "revert good faith edits" feature -- similar to rollback, but it lets you leave a summary, and has a less dismissive autosummary. At WP:US, there's a script that allows you to leave a custom edit summary for MediaWiki rollback, which may also be useful. Communication is the key: If you rollback an edit, or undo it, explain to the reverted editor 1) why and 2) how they can improve. It goes a long way to avoiding potential conflicts, but if conflicts arise, rollback is a tool that often inflames the situation. Hope that helps, and feel free to ping my talk page if you have any queries. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi McJeff, I didn't reply because the comment at AN/I was the last thing I did before signing off, and the users who took over from me (Wisdom89, seicer etc) said all I was going to say. The "criticism" bit was among the diffs that I'd specifically asked you not to use rollback for. I don't know of this dispute with Theserialcomma, that frankly is irrelevant to your use of rollback. If you need dispute resolution with this editor, there are proper channels, but your use of rollback is very much a separate issue. Rollback is never used in a content dispute, but despite telling me you wouldn't use it in a content dispute, you did. Your rollback has been suspended indefinitely until you can show accurate and appropriate use of it. Rollback isn't just a tool to speed things up, it's a tool specifically for vandalism; vandalism in terms of genuine and deliberate disruption, and not good faith edits or those posted in a content dispute. My view was backed up by a number of editors and administrators at AN/I, who all independently reviewed the situation, so I hope you take their comments and advice on board. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)