Template:Vandalcount

I stumbled across your {{RE}} template. Just FYI, I added some documentation -- namely, that one implements it by typing {{subst:RE}}.

Agradman (until the sky stops falling, A Concerned Chicken (talk)) 22:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I have replied at Template talk:RE.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Go ahead and get rid of the "subst" in the documentation if you prefer. I just wanted to make sure there was some documentation. Agradman (while the sky falls, A Concerned Chicken (talk)) 01:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and apologies in advance for the unsolicited advice. I've noticed you updating your stats at the requests for admin coaching page a few times recently - so about a month ago I reviewed your contribs because I thought you would actually already be a shoe-in for adminship and I was planning to nom you. I can definitely say you are a fantastic vandal fighter and patroller. However, I think the sticking point for you right now would be content creation. While I am not an admin and am not here to be a coach I wanted to offer my 2cents anyway.

While patrolling is critically important (it's the vast majority of my work) many people will say that you can't possibly be a good admin unless you know how it feels to be a content creator (without which there would be no WP). That being said I see two options:

• Try to work on some content creation:
  • Either find a page that doesn't exist that should (your current town, your hometown where you grew up, your school, nice buildings, etc. . .) - like you did with Daniel Terdiman when you were a new editor.

or

• Find an article that needs work (like an old unsourced BLP) and do some research and build it up.

• or run now as a patroller-only candidate and be prepared to defend why you won't suffer from any blind spots due to lack of creation experience.

But regardless of these two options I don't see you as needing much in the way of admin coaching (which could explain why you haven't been adopted).

If you can think of some pages to create, or some pages you've done a lot of work on please let me know. If you are interested in running now as a vandal-fighting only candidate let me know and I'd still be willing to nom you. Regards,  7  04:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thank you for the advice. I am not sure if you have seen them, but I have actually had input from two "coaches" before - please see User:Jeff G./Admin coaching and User:Jeff G./Coaching. I intend to do more work on content creation soon, perhaps this coming weekend.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see them, I am just still not sure that you need any real coaching. It appears to me that all you need is a bit more content work so that those who will evaluate your efforts can see and understand that you are familiar with all aspects of WP. In any case, good luck and the offer still stands to nom or co-nom when you decide that the time comes. Regards.  7  23:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 00:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up: WP:BLANKING says "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents." - it goes on to say what kind of messages should not be removed. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. As an exception, WP:BLANKING also says in part:

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user - they are part of the wider community's processes or exist to prevent gaming of the system:

• Declined unblock requests".

This edit removed multiple "Declined unblock requests", and so did this second edit. I have just requested protection of that page at WP:RFPP#User_talk:Tfrasheed_.28edit.7Cuser_page.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 so that this behavior does not continue.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, my bad - I saw all the deletion notices, but didn't go down far enough. I have prevented the editor from accessing their talk page (I will leave a message there explaining how they could appeal if they need to ), restored the page (well, the block + unblock messages) and fully protected the page. Thanks for pointing that out to me! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks for taking those actions.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan Last: 03/21/2010 This box: view • talk •

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find more information about what is OK and what is not? I am having a hard time figuring things out from the intro links. I did not know naughty edit summaries meant the whole thing got reversed. I also did not know that the game show buzzer sound was inappropriate. I am kind of blunt and brasive but I do not want to get blocked. Help would be appreciated. Also is there a place with article tags and how to use them? Everything seems all spread out and I cannot figure out all the tags. Surely there is a central page for it? And I am sorry for calling you a troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.234.225 (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for again being super polite. Re bluntness and abrasiveness, please see WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:DICK. You can be blunt without resorting to accusations of previous work being "idiotic nonsense" and "bullshit", not having "a fucking clue", being "a moron with too many buttons", being a "troll", and "trolling". Re article tags, please see WP:CTT (OR WP:TEMPLATE for a wider view of template messages in general). I accept your apology.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the pointers. I will try to hold my tongue better. 67.247.234.225 (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may seem stupid to ask. It is ok to tell someone they are wrong and what is right. It is ok to say a source is used wrong or does not say what the article says. It is ok to be really forward about them and say them bluntly. It is not ok to call someone a moron or say they are a liar. Is that the right line? What about responding to direct arguments? Is it ok to say someones point is nonsense or call them out on not talking about the topic? How do I find the right line there? Sorry to be a bother. I am really trying to find where being honest crosses the line so being a dick. 67.247.234.225 (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are close about that being the right line; however "It is ok to tell someone they are wrong and what is right", but only if you tell them why they are wrong and/or why you are right, and if you are prepared to back up your statement. To "say someones point is nonsense" is borderline. To "call them out on not talking about the topic" is ok if you do it nicely, as "I am still waiting for a direct answer about ..." or "I am sorry, I was unable to glean your opinion on the topic from your response". This is all my opinion based on my years of editing here, but you may get a wider range of answers at WP:EQ and WP:WQA.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning at User talk:JBsupreme is misplaced and so is the accompanying text. His edits are clearly not vandalism and vandalism is never a question of edit summaries. Anyway lack of cility is not an offense for which you can issue "only warnings". Furthermore you cannot block anyone so why issue block warnings like that? You'd have to convince an admin that he was doing something blockable which he isn't. All in alkl I agree that his edit summaries are unacceptable, but you didn't handle that problem well.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't handle that problem well, and overreacted. This edit contained what I interpreted as a personal attack on me in its Edit Summary. On English Wikipedia, personal attacks are one form of vandalism. Based on his history (both his user talk and his recent contributions), I chose to report him to WP:AIV. Fastily (talk · contribs) redirected me to WP:AN/I in this edit, and I went along based on past discussion of this user's problematic Edit Summaries at WP:AN/I (archived here), advice about reporting personal attacks at WP:DR#If_the_situation_is_urgent, and advice about dealing with death threats at WP:CIVIL#Dispute_resolution. I have not been able to find anything that excepts Edit Summaries from Policies WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and Guideline WP:EQ — did I miss something? My vandalism warning of him is no longer on his user talk page. If his behavior persists, do you think it would be appropriate to open a user RfC, as Pohta ce-am pohtit (talk · contribs) suggested? Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If his behaviour con tinues yes that would be appropriate, but an RfC requires evidence for having tried to resolve the dispute amicably first. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Final_decision involved JBsupreme as well. Pcap ping 08:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looking at his talk poage many editors have told him to tone down the expletives already.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, he has received a civilty warning form ArbCom. That makes a RfC rather inconsequential. Arbitration enforcement then.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears prima facie that ArbCom warnings (such as the one JBsupreme got in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Final_decision) are unenforceable. Is there precedent for successfully getting them enforced? Are my hands clean enough?   — Jeff G. ツ 08:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly it opens the possibility of requesting a new ArbCom, this time on JBSupremes conduct particularly. It is a lot of tedious work though, so perhaps an RfC would be preferable afterall·Maunus·ƛ· 08:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, but I won't be doing either tonight, as my pillow is calling. Good night, all!   — Jeff G. ツ 08:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I determined WP:AE to be an inappropriate venue because there is no ruling to enforce; instead I have filed an amendment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Tothwolf.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your signature uses font size 4, which is the same, if not larger, as big tags. Please reduce it to 2 or lower, as 3 is the same as big tags. Signatures are not supposed to be overly large.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. I have considered your request and wish to decline at this time. Would you write the same to Fastily (talk · contribs), Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs), J.delanoy (talk · contribs), Tnxman307 (talk · contribs), OlEnglish (talk · contribs), and Elockid (talk · contribs), all administrators who use <big> or <font size="n"> tags in their signatures, setting the example for users like myself? I ensure that my tags do not "disrupt the way that surrounding text displays".   — Jeff G. ツ 17:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to abandon this for now, but reverting my change at WP:SIG is just wikilawyring. Font size 3 is the same as big tags. Arguing otherwise doesn't make any sense.

By the way,

• Font size 3
• Big tag

Font size 3 is clearly the same, if not bigger than Big. Arguing otherwise, and that consensus is needed for such an edit, is clearly wikilawyring.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using GK 1973 from the start and now changed it to GK for simplicity. I didn't know of any user called thus, so thanks for letting me know. Yet, as I see, user:GK has been inactive since 2006 (actually September 2005 not counting some Arb Committee Elections). Here is his contribution page [[1]]. If you still think that there is a problem I will change my nick. Thx GK (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Have you considered attempting to usurp the GK account?   — Jeff G. ツ 17:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I'm a sockpuppet; it's old news.

—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Jack Merridewthis user is a sock puppet 21:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found satisfaction of the requirement "User:Jack Merridew discloses all prior socks" at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Indefinite_block_lifted_with_editing_restrictions. What were all your prior socks? Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 21:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link both on his current userpage and on the Davenbelle one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one on my current user page is there because I put it there; the ones on my older user pages are per the boxes (as you know;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh, they're disclosed. I'm thinking the AC's requirement really meant that I disclose my socks to them. I don't believe disclosing to you was mentioned. I'm pretty sure there's category listing them, though. Oh, see this, too. Chuckles, Jack Merridew 22:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you for the veiled links. It would be better for all concerned if you referred to yourself as a "former sockpuppeteer" rather than as a "sockpuppet".   — Jeff G. ツ 22:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, Jack does (and has) made very many positive contributions to WP, and he's got a lot of clout. Part of it is that he so danged funny! While I don't have Clue, I know that even when Jack is "a bad widdle boy", he's not going to get blocked. An small and loyal army of admins will see that doesn't happen. "There's the way it is, and there's the way it ought to be". Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]