Jump to content

User talk:Jeffpw/archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PJ[edit]

Hi. Your addition of what has been alleged to be XVE's real name to the Perverted-Justice.com page was reverted. As we have been discussing on the article's discussion page, so far there has been no real proof offered that this is indeed his name. Until such proof can be provided, the name will not be allowed to be added to the article. If you have proof yourself, please come to the article's talk page and present it to other Wikipedia editors who are working on this article. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:31, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Nevermind, I see that you have added a detailed explanation. Thanks for that. But until the community of editors have had a chance to evaluate what you have added and decide whether it's enough of a proof, the name should be withheld from the article. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:34, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

FYI Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Perverted-Justice.com SlimVirgin (talk) 01:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

James Robert Baker[edit]

Oops, its Imoeng :P. I have added an infobox, so you just have to fill that out. Also, I reckon it will be usefull if you look at Tolkien article, since it is a featured article (and he is a novelist :P) and see the flow and structure of the article. For the inline citations, sorry, but you have put it incorrectly. Try using WP:CITET and copy the suitable template between <ref> and </ref>. At the bottom, you can make a new subheading titled "References" or "Notes" and put <references/>. Hope that helps, please tell me if it doesn't work out. And I do want to hear again from you :D. Cheers – Imoeng 22:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, btw, it is Imoeng, :P. About the article, everything looks fine for me, technically. I have changed it slightly, and moved the puctuations before citations. It looks cool. You might want to try WP:CITET. The way to do it is just copy the template (just like the infobox) and paste it between <ref>. Then you just have to fill it out. Good luck and take care – Imoeng 03:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, Jeff. Thank you for looking this up. Citing an everchanging webpage is not ideal, but I suppose anything is better than nothing to substantiate it. Thanks ! – PFHLai 13:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review/Francisco Gil de Taboada[edit]

Hi Jeffpw, thanks for the Nexis tip. I really don't know anything about that site, so I'll give it a try. I suspect there is more on this guy and I just haven't been able to find it. I need to try a big university library, too. --Rbraunwa 13:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Etiquitte question[edit]

Hmmm! Tough issues! And delicate! Usually politeness make miracles (Oupsss! This is said by somebody who usually is nothing but polite!). Once I was also an intruder in an article, but I was definite I was right and I imposed myself, although my attitude to the initial editor of the article was not the best possible one. Of course, results vindicated me (the article is now FA), but I would now handle the whole issue in a different way.

To the point: According to what you told me, as a newcomer, you handled the whole thing quite skilfully. If he really wants to contribute and is a normal guy, you'll find ways to co-exist with him. Otherwise, you have a problem! If you see he insists in his way, one think you can do is ask him to provide sources for his edits. If he doesn't do it, you can revert. In any case, the best way to handle these issues is through consensus and compromises. We like it or not there is no ownership of the articles here.

Have in mind that if a quarrel keeps going, then there may be mediations, arbitrations etc. These procedures are not usually pleasant. You then have to do with more people, uninvolved mediators, ambitious administrators, with people who sometimes don't understand what you tell them etc. Well, nt everything here is ideal!

And something else: Have in mind the 3 revert rule. You are a newcomer here and you may accidentally violate it without wanting it.

Ah! And if you tell me the article and see the problem, I might be more specific in my remarks. Cheers.--Yannismarou 15:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was my Baker article, but the situation resolved itself quite nicely:). Someone else came along and backed up my point of view, so no editing was occurred (which was a concern of mine). Thanks for your response. Jeffpw 20:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalinga Magha help[edit]

Hello Jeffpw. I'm not sure if this is the right place to get in touch - sorry if it isn't, but I'm a newbie! Thanks for looking at the Kalinga Magha article and altering it. I've a couple of questions.

  1. The article was called 'Kalinga Magha' before I edited it, but I would like to change it to just Magha - how can I do that?
  2. I also need an infobox, and would like to get another box made called 'Significant Rulers of Sri Lanka' and include links to the other Sri Lankan rulers' articles I've written. How can I get this done?

Thanks!DocSubster 08:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Assessment of Drew Article[edit]

I think that Start is pretty fair. The article will , in time, grow, but the next time will be with a full list of both resources and references, and a more complete listing of all portions of his life.

Thanks for your time! --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 21:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

That's a slick userbox. *grins* --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 18:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas A. Warner III[edit]

Thank you for your comments on Douglas A. Warner III. I modified the article (as time permitted) and copied your comments to the discussion page of the article. – Jreferee 13:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your new comments. A picture is worth 1,000 words, making those two photos worth 2,000 words by my count. LOL. As soon as I get better photos, I'll replace the two you mentioned. Right now, I like creating new articles, but not bringing them to GA or better status. I prefer to leave improving on my articles to others. – Jreferee 13:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Robert Baker[edit]

Hi Jeff, I've left a comment. Good luck! :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster[edit]

Thanks for your comments on the article; it feels good to have finally returned it to GA status.

I note, however, that you've failed to take it off the list of GA candidates, and to add it to the list of GA articles. Would you mind doing this? I could do it myself but think it might look a bit odd, given that it's an article I've worked so hard on. MLilburne 08:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jeff, much better. :) MLilburne 09:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Copyright problems[edit]

Jeffpw; I saw your query on SlimVirgins talk page; please see WP:CV for the procedure. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi Jeffpw. I was happy to receive your friendly greeting and it's nice to meet someone with similar interests. We also have in common an appreciation of travel, but looking at your user page you beat me hands down. You've been to so many places and lived in several countries - I'm envious. Thanks for the message. Cheers. Rossrs 00:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love it, and I will use it. Thank you. (you've got some great user boxes, I must say!) Rossrs 10:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say this, but I've just realized the userbox contains fair use images and they are not supposed to be used outside of the article namespace. I still love it, but... arrgg .... what a pain. Rossrs 11:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the Dorothy photo is in no way public domain especially as the tag says it was made before 1923 and the film was made in 1939 :-) I think the James Robert Baker article is very well written, thorough, interesting - all good. Congratulations. A very sad story though. How different things could have been for him. Rossrs 11:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tillie K. Fowler Article[edit]

I noticed the concerns you raised on Talk:Tillie K. Fowler regarding the article's content, and I strongly agree that all allegedly plagiarized content must removed or modified in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I will contact User:Davidgilliland, who has recently made major edits to the article, to advise him of the concerns that have been raised. Furthermore, as the orginal creator of the article, I will be more than willing to assist in the resolution of this matter to the best of my ability. --TommyBoy 01:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on my earlier comments, User:Davidgilliland has responded to my message, and based upon his response on the article's Talk page, it would appear that he is a little upset. --TommyBoy 04:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pederotics[edit]

Hi, I was surprised at your edit on the pederasty page. I would understand challenging the claim that all these relationships are sexual, since many are patently not. But if they are also not erotic, then what do they have in common? Haiduc 23:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick check,to make sure I was not presuming too much, and came up with this "Erotic = Relating to or tending to arouse sexual desire or excitement" here. To my understanding, the difference, say, between garden variety mentorship and pederasty is that that the man is in love with the boy, even though he may very well restrain himself from acting out his physical desires. There are of course many historical examples. If, on the other hand, there is no desire, where is the pederasty?! Haiduc 12:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely the catch - the chaste forms of pederasty remained on that knife edge where they were simultaneously erotic but chaste. Yes, I think it makes sense to restore the term. Regards, Haiduc 12:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3[edit]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Jeffpw! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS sorry the last bach of welcomes failed to go out if you have readded your name can you please remove it thanks

Marriage[edit]

I have declined your proposal 8), seriously there are enough content dispute tags to advise anyone reading. Gnangarra 10:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC tags[edit]

Thanks for the offer, Sandy. Just tell me what to do, and I will be happy to help you with the tags. It sounds like a relaxing chore, actually, and something to calm me down after editing the controversial articles I have been engaged with lately. Jeffpw 19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, Jeff - here's the job I picked up recently. When Raul fails a WP:FAC, someone has to put the facfailed template on the article talk page - that involves editing the talk page, and switching the fac template to facfailed (just add failed to fac). You can see a recent sample here. How to know when FACs fail? Put WP:FA or WP:FAC on your watchlist, and you'll know when Raul archives failed noms and promotes FAs. He adds the failed ones to the archives by month, for example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2006 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2007. You can check those files, by month, to see which ones he's failed - then you just edit the talk pages of the articles and switch them to failed. Every now and then someone asks "why'd you do that?", and you just point them to the archive, mentioning that Raul decides. Thanks for the help - this is one less thing for me to do :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He promotes/fails on average once or twice a week, kinda random, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once you master that, if you want to move up to something more challenging :-) In terms of the problem you found on Same-sex marriage - you can start through the list at WP:FFA (or the archives I pointed you to on the talk page at WP:FA) and see if the old FARs and FARCs are archived on all of those talk pages, so future editors won't go through what you went through. That's a larger chore. (Last week, I made sure that everything we have listed at FFA is in the category of former featured articles, so I know the list at FFA is correct - what I don't know is if the archived version of the FARC/FAR is available on every talk page.) It's not unusual for the original nomination to be red-linked, because the old "brilliant prose" noms are all messed up, but we should have a FAR/FARC archived on all - it gets really messed up when the article name has changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, you don't have to check December - I did them all - you just have to keep up from now forward. (You can do that by clicking on the red-linked January file above, and adding it to your watchlist - when Raul archives something there, it will pop up on your watchlist.) If you find a talk page archive that's messed up, let me know - depending on what the case is, fixing it is different - I'll show you how, depending on what you find. For instance, in Same-sex marriage, I just set up a redirect - depends, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, another thing I watch out for when adding the facfailed tag is messy talk pages - if there are a ton of templates on the talk page, I group the FA, GA, and peer review stuff together, below the other tags, rather than just leaving the facfailed at the top. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For example, look at this mess. It's been failed five times, so I indicated that in the edit summary, to help out future editors who might be confused, and I moved it down to where it was right above the fourth archive. The previous three archives aren't shown, since I make sure they are listed on the subsequent noms - that's another chore I do at WP:FAC - make sure second and third etc. noms contain a record of previous noms, so future editors can find them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if an article has failed multiple times, in theory it is possible to include the archives of the previous nominations in the most recent nomination, and then leave just the most current FA Failed tag on the talk page? That would certainly make the page scan better. Likewise, I would think it would be possible to consolidate the peer reviews so as to only have one tag. It just seems silly to have more tags than talk on a talk page. Jeffpw 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right - but that should be happening at the point an article is nominated at FAC - I try to check them all when they come up, but I probably miss some. So, if you want another job to do, you can help me check all new FAC noms to make sure they list old noms, and that the old noms are archived correctly. There is talk of a new, multi-FAC/FAR template to cover all situations, but it got stalled as people took the holidays off - I'm not sure if that will pick up again after the New Year. Another thing you might want to know about is the template for skipping to TOC on talk pages that are overloaded with templates - have a look at the changes I just made to the talk page of Charizard, which has a mess of templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know exactly what you mean - I used to be involved in a series of articles that were loaded with POV and POV pushers. It's good to have something to do while you wait for the POV pushing to subside - sometimes it never does :-) In the meantime, by doing "janitorial" stuff, you help the project and have the chance to figure out who's who out there in Wikiland, which ultimately helps you write better articles. :-) As far as talk page cleanup, just make sure all the pieces can be easily found by future editors who want to submit FACs or FARs. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Wondering if you caught the archival of FACs today? Have fun :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hurry - I just wanted to make sure your system was working. Happy New Year there ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Marriage[edit]

Thanks for contacting me. When my placed my comment on the talk page I hadn't realized that a long discussion on the matter was occurring. Hopefully a consensus will be reached soon enough, as the article just can't stay as it is now. Regards.--Húsönd 19:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. As soon as you reach a consensus, you may contact me (or place a request on WP:RPP). I see little chance for the first sentence of this article to remain as it is, because no matter how conservative some users would wish the article to be, it is nonetheless a fact that there's a blatant WP:POV/WP:V violation right in the first paragraph, as the global definition of marriage is currently not just a union between a man and a woman. Regards,--Húsönd 19:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the harassment[edit]

DO NOT leave threatening messages on my talk. I have the right to remove personal attacks and Haiduc's comments were clearly attacks. Furthermore, noticeboards are public areas, NOT talk pages - others have the right to tone down other peoples comments. If you have a problem with that, then take it to the admin noticeboard, BUT DO NOT HARASS ME EVER AGAIN. Otherwise I will be forced to seek that you and Haiduc be blocked for bullying me and making false accusations. metaspheres 20:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Thanks for the attention. Though I would not spoil the spirit of the moment by giving that too much importance just now. I've never been able to figure out that type of mentality, perhaps a couple of glasses of champagne are in order all around. Regards, Haiduc 22:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you very much for the barnstar, that was most kind of yours. :-) Have a Happy New Year! Best regards,--Húsönd 22:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and postings[edit]

The notice board is for notices and not for discussions. It has been the guideline from the page's inception (I created the board). I don't want the notice board to be pages of discussion (like the admin notice boards). It should just be links to the discussions that are happening elsewhere. The page has been nominated for deletion in the past because people feel it might be pushing a POV. For this reason I think it is very important that we make the postings brief and as uncontroversial as possible. There is no need to comment and sign on most of the sections of the board. The only reason there is any description in that section is to help direct people to the discussion. Requests for comment can be a little longer, but they to, should point to where the discussion happens. If anything gets posted with a POV slant, it is just begging someone to post a reply. I don't want that happening, it will make the board much less effective. I hope this explains where I was coming from when I edited the posting. – Samuel Wantman 00:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I didn't remove the comment from the talk page, I removed it from the project page. There is a big difference. – Samuel Wantman 00:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to NPA Report[edit]

  • This NPA Report is both frivilous and without merit. If harassment constitutes warning another editor to stop deleting and rewriting another user's comments, then yes, I am guilty of harassment. I will also state for the record that I would do it again if I see it. I would also point out that Metaspheres has reverted the comments of Haiduc 4 times now, which to me constitutes blatant vandalism. I would ask an administrator to block him until he comes to his senses and starts to follow Wiki protocols regarding vandalism and civility. Jeffpw 09:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter[edit]

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter!
Issue II - January 1, 2007
Happy New Year to all our members!
Project News

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line.
If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.

Audra McDonald[edit]

Thank you for your very nice note . . . I appreciate your taking the time to write. I have been a fan of hers for many years and have seen her in concert several times. She just appeared at Lincoln Center in a New Year's Eve concert of songs from the movies that was televised live. It was a wonderful way to ring in 2007. If you can find her CD Happy Songs in Amsterdam, I highly recommend it! SFTVLGUY2 12:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikirefs[edit]

Thanks much for your hard work wikifying all those references in the Randy Shilts article, Jeff! Looks much better now.  :-) --Textorus 22:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I see how to do it now. My holidays are over, won't have much time for writing big articles like that anytime soon, but thanks for showing me how. :-) --Textorus 22:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nkras block[edit]

An indef block does seem a bit harsh. I've explained on his talk page about how to request review by another admin through the unblock template. Has the matter been raised at WP:AN or WP:AN/I to your knowledge? (Wow, isn't there an irony in the group of us that are trying to see he gets fair process...) WJBscribe (WJB talk) 17:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest waiting until the unblock request is addressed. Then if the block has not at least been shortened, we can take it to WP:AN/I. The multiple article creation stunt is likely to be taken very seriously though. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 20:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a general point, I am concerned at the growing habit of admins blocking users without explaining how the block can be reviewed. I am thinking about raising the matter. It seems a procedural irregularity, unfair and likely to lead to improperly blocked users leaving the project as they assume ArbCom is the only option... WJBscribe (WJB talk) 20:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I knew (and according to special:listusers) you're not an admin so can't unblock people :). WJBscribe (WJB talk) 21:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your unblock request on User talk:Nkras. I have no familiarity with the situation but neither I nor any other admin would seriously consider unblocking Nkras if he/she doesn't make the actual request. If you feel the block was made against policy, I would advise discussing it with the admin who did it, and if that doesn't resolve things, use WP:RFC. But without a request from Nkras himself, this whole thing is moot. Mangojuicetalk 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well given that the admin who blocked Nkras left no information as to how to set up the unblock request and has already refused to review, there was little other choice but to make a request on his behalf. Jeff, I'd suggest you either wait for Nkras to next be online so he can request unblock himself or post at WP:AN/I. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 21:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern but I don't share it. Nkras was warned about his behavior before being blocked, and when you are blocked and try to edit, clear instructions are given on how to appeal your block, using the {{unblock}} template (as WJBscribe also directly informed him of) – that is the process by which an indefinitely blocked user can become unblocked. And if the community needs to discuss the block further (without input from the blocked party) it is typically done at WP:AIV, or in cases where many feel an admin behaved badly, at WP:RFC under a "user conduct" dispute. Of course, a more simple and direct way of discussing it would be to simply ask the blocking admin on his/her talk page about it. Mangojuicetalk 21:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what – here's my opinion as an independent, uninvolved admin: the block of Nkras, and its length, are totally justified. When a user gets to the point of threatening to disrupt Wikipedia because of administrators trying to enforce a community decision, there really isn't much choice but to indefinitely block, or at the very least block for a long time. Now, if Nkras showed up and apologized and agreed to abide by consensus regarding the deletion of the Traditional marriage article, it would change things, but even so, I would not believe him if it came right away. Mangojuicetalk 22:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vertalen[edit]

Zou je willen helpen met het vertalen van het Nederlandse artikel over Lucia de Berk. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation/Lucia_de_Berk en http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk Aangezien je aangeeft een verpleegkundige te zijn met een dubbele nationaliteit. In Nederland zijn er nu veel mensen mee bezig. Verschillende wetenschappers en juristen. Zie ondermeer ook http://www.luciadeb.nl/ Dank --NL77 18:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay[edit]

Come on Jeff, this is massive project. You shouldn't quit because you're unhappy with user(s) or particular facets of it. I have found you a great contributor both in terms of your edit quality and the warmth you have shown me in our discussions over the last couple of months. If all the good editors who value fairness and the right amount of fun leave the project it will become exactly what you are worried about.

Anyway, please stay- I'd hate to loose a valued Wikifriend.

WJBscribe (WJB talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile2}} or {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

?![edit]

Where did you go? Be like a squirrel - have the nuts for breakfast. Haiduc 01:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Jeff, please stick around. Who's going to write the FAs on weird gay writers if you don't? Work on something a little less contentious for a bit (like a stub!) but don't give up completely. You're too good a contributor. And a Wikifriend. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't leave until I do. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you already opened the case somewhere, I didn't see it, so I've opened it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disputed indef block of User:Nkras. I know stress levels are high; mine certainly is. I hope you'll also read my take on things at User talk:Nkras#Overreaction?. — coelacan talk – 02:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

request for arbitration.[edit]

arbitration has been requested for a dispute that you are or may be involved in. please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Nkras indefinitely blocked by admin User:Zscout370 r b-j 04:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do that[edit]

I'd be more than happy to discuss the wisdom of participating in wikipedia with you. Please let me know if you prefer aprivate medium.--SidiLemine 12:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same. Syrthiss 16:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry[edit]

Ik hoop dat het niet mijn schuld is, omdat ik je heb gevraagd te helpen met de vertaling van het stuk.

sorry

Niels NL77 14:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nkars thoughts[edit]

OK, I've just been catching up on the developments since last night. Frankly, I'm disappointed by the comments Nkras has made on his talk page. They fully support the rationale for his being blocked and undermine those who were trying to help him. His repeated comments: ""Same-sex marriage" is not a subset of marriage, because it is not marriage. It is a wholly fabricated construct. Members of the same sex cannot get married, because they are not of the opposite sex. To demand the inclusion of "same sex marriage" in the Marriage article is pushing a political and social agenda, is the destruction of language, and an attempt to push a POV" is inflammatory of the situation, as is the reference to one of the most distasteful passages of the old testament. Does he not see that he needed to back down rather than rub everyone's faces in his religious zealotry.

I'm sorry but I'm no longer going to do anything to help him. Not just because I honestly no longer want to but because I think ultimately he's making fools of us. I still think there were errors in process- he should have had the unblock procedure explained to him and an indef block was too long. But what he needed to do at this stage was apologise for the disruptive manner in which his points were made and give an undertaking to behave better in future.

If you still want to fight this one I wish you well of it. Hope you're not too disappointed... WJBscribe (WJB talk) 16:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, Jeff, I don't understand why you've got so het up about a bypass of process. Nkras was deliberately winding people up over gay marriage and got blocked for it. He was obviously aware that what he was doing was wrong and repetedly said he was going to ignore consensus come what may. Frankly, who cares if the admin concerned didn't bother to follow the full process, which would have resulted in more and more frustrated users every step of the way? WP:IAR is there for a reason. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm glad you're gonna stick around though, WP:LGBT could do with some FA LGBT articles... (*hint hint*). :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On fair hearings: yes, I want to make sure that the whole thing plays out fairly, especially considering that I requested the salting that began the escalation of hostilities. It's not my intention to help Nkras, but for those like yourself who care to continue editing with him, I want your stress reduced. I gave Rbj some advice; you've been around longer than I have so I doubt I can suggest anything you haven't thought of already. But it appears, from my view, that the sticking point now is whether or not Nkras will request unblock, admit to seeing an error in his actions, and state an intent to act differently in the future. I think I read somewhere that you had already emailed Nkras about this. So you may have already done all that you can reasonably expect of yourself. If he doesn't want to make that statement, then that's his choice to not participate. If he does, my tingling wikisenses indicate that the block will be reduced to a week or "time served". It's mostly in his court now. Anyway, thanks for your good words on my talk page. I was very sorry to see how this affected both GMS508 and you. I hope you don't end up too jaded by all of this. Peace, — coelacan talk – 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks . . .[edit]

. . . for the note. I am not surprised, and to be honest, I do not follow these things too closely or take them too seriously. My experience of this place is that it is populated by mostly kind and thoughtful people. Mostly. There are some nuts (see advice above) but that is to be expected. In almost three years of editing I have been mostly pleasantly surprised by the consideration and open-mindedness of the other editors. I have also been mugged a couple of times. So it goes. I pick myself up, dust myself off, and think about the million or so other articles crying out for my ministrations. If you do not expect very much you will always be pleasantly surprised. Regards, Haiduc 19:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-presence[edit]

Hi Jeff, I don't know what the ruckus is about (I really don't want to know), and I thought I'd just mention something I've come to realize about this place over the last few years: You can choose where you want to hang out and where you want to devote your energy. Without a doubt you will come across a confict, a heated debate, and people behaving badly. There will always be someone willing to fight the good fight, and sometimes I choose to fight them myself. But sometimes I just walk away and the project doesn't collapse without me. I've been tilting at some windmills for over a year, but it is by choice. Some issues I never engage in because I know that it will upset me too much. For instance, I avoid most battles that deal with blatant homophobia. The reason is because I know it will be an energy sink for me. Too emotional, with too little potential reward. I also know there are others who are energized by this sort of thing. So all I'm saying is choose your battles, and just walk away if you want. But if you are walking, don't walk to far, just find a different room to hang out in. I've really appreciated your contributions, and hope you can find joy in more of the same wherever they may be. – Samuel Wantman 21:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for your message of support on my talk page. ATren 23:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool your jets[edit]

Hi. I know things can get quite heated (I'm a veteran of the Userbox wars and knows how the urge to give others the virtual finger feels like) but I feel encouraging others to tell their opponents "to blow this pseudo warning out his ass" are quite over the line regarding civility. CharonX/talk 01:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie?[edit]

I thought you might need a WikiCookie!

A WikiCookie for you!
A WikiCookie for you!

Sorry Nkras didn't live up to your trust. You did your best for him though...
WJBscribe (WJB talk) 06:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Theresa Knott has decided to unblock Nkras effective immediately. I do hope she doesn't come to regret it. I guess there'll be a lot of people watching what he does... Fingers crossed. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary[edit]

No need to apologize to me. I was happy to see someone support me, to the point where I really didn't even notice the incivility (and it wasn't even directed at me, so I certainly didn't take offense personally when I later reread what you wrote). Anyway, I don't think it's a big deal; I'm starting to realize that occasional acts of incivility are not such a big deal here (something that is certainly not reflected in the stern policy pages) so as long as it doesn't become habitual and/or too severe, I don't see why you should worry about it anymore. Thanks again for the support, especially since it wound up getting you in hot water. :-) ATren 07:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeffpw/archive_2&oldid=1171184971"