User talk:Clubjuggle/Archive 1

Pennsylvania Turnpike
Thanks for the concern - I just used the correct template - we are getting rid of the USRD cleanup templates. Unfortunately I am just taking what was already there (which also was vague) and applying the proper resources. If need be, we can remove it until we get an idea of what's actually not properly sourced.  master son T - C 07:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm good with that. Thanks for your help  master son T - C 08:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Thanks for the revert!

 * No problemo. Maybe it's time to get a userbox to keep track of the vandalism count-- AngelOfSadness  talk  22:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure go right ahead. A vandal a while back replaced my userpage with "21 times"(obviously he read the UB) as before his edit the UB had a vandalism count of 20. And who says vandals aren't observant. Here's the page diff and the page diff of another observant vandal. The second one has to be my favourite of all vandalism edits made to my userpage.:D-- AngelOfSadness talk  22:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a boot load of them without humour aswell like replacing my userpage with "PLUR" after I reverted their vandalism off that particular article. And then there's the insults. You get called every name known to man on the mainspace and userpage/talkpage after reverting their vandalism. AngelOfSadness  talk  22:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm thanking you for reverting vandalism on my userpage. Thanks :D AngelOfSadness  talk  17:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad I could return the favor, sorry it was needed! Some people's computers should have ignition interlock devices connected to the power button. --Clubjuggle 17:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's true. Maybe it'll read the amount of humour in the vandal or lack of humour. It gets annoying reverting "blanked the page" edits sometimes. I'm just glad there's vandals, when vandalising, imitates popular culture. Like this which is identical to what Weird Al did in his White & Nerdy video. Everything is the same except for the font colour and the article. AngelOfSadness talk  17:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Task Force Invite (Join Us!)
Psdubow 21:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Because I see that you revert vandalism and we need someone to concentrate on concistantly reverting vandalism on articles about or having to do with the Salem Witch Trials. Psdubow 22:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

List of enemies in Doom
We have a way of working called WP:BRD. I have been bold in redirecting an article that is full of information frowned upon by WP:NOT. If a person reverts it for an actual reason, a discussion happens. Random anons and new users rambling about how the information is important and people trying to force a discussion don't equate into it at all. Due to that, I am going to redirect it again. If you believe that the article can pass WP:FICT and WP:WAF, feel free to revert, but please actually state that. TTN 01:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:TTN
Note that I don't have an opinion on the article at hand, as I have little knowledge of the subject. &mdash; Malcolm (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Don't template the regulars, please.
 * 2) TTN obviously knew what he was doing (by that I mean he was not just some random vandal or newbie blanking a page, he was redirecting an article that had what he saw as game guide content), so he wasn't simply blanking all or part of the article. It's not always bad for someone to remove content from an article if it's unencyclopedic.
 * 3) This is a content dispute, not simple page blanking.
 * Fair enough. Thanks for the correction. --Clubjuggle 01:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism??
I received this from you:

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to User:SchuminWeb, you will be blocked from editing. Clubjuggle 14:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how did I vandalise exactly? I would like an amicable solution to this situation. Sorry if I have treaded on anyones toes by the way. 86.40.208.5 14:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Though technically permissible, it is generally considered mildly uncivil to edit others' user pages without permission, and removing content without a good reason *is* vandalism, especially if you are holding that content hostage to get your demands met or just to make a WP:POINT.


 * As to whether SchuminWeb's actions reflect on his inclusionist philosophy, it is important to remember that in his role as administrator, his job is to execute policy in a manner consistent with the policies and philosophy of Wikipedia, which may differ at times from his own personal philosophy. I'm guessing this is a speedy-deletion question. If that is the case, the article was probably tagged for speedy deletion by another person. The criteria for speedy deletion are well-defined, and his role in the process is to say 'yes, it meets this criterion' or 'no, it doesn't.' In any case it is important to remember that inclusionism does not necesarrily mean include everything indiscriminately.


 * If you have a disagreement with policy, the appropriate place to try to effect change of that policy is on the appropriate policy's talk page. If you believe an article's deletion was inconsistent with policy, you can request a deletion review. Shooting the messenger, though, is not likely to land you anywhere except on the wrong side of a block.


 * I'm curious. What was the subject of the article, and what was the reason given for deletion? --Clubjuggle 14:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I will not tell you. Better not give the other side the better chance and all that. 86.40.208.5 14:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As soon as we start taking sides we make this into an adverserial situation that it does not need to be. Wikipedia is not about winners and losers, it is about consensus. You have the ear of a neutral and disinterested third party who would like to help you find a solution. Why not avail yourself of that? --Clubjuggle 14:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason is because the moment I tell you who I am is the moment you will take a side. I have previously been banned from this place for voicing an opinion, which was later regarded to be trolling. Excuse me for being wary of trusting admins who promise neutrality and consensus. My experience has been that people tend to take sides all the time in these sort of situations, usually the side your buddy takes. 86.40.208.5 15:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin, nor am I SchuminWeb's friend. Though I have voiced my own concerns about the way he goes about things, I do believe he generally acts in good faith. That said, one can act in good faith and still make a mistake. To this point you seem quick to question SchuminWeb's motivations and honesty, as well as my own, and slow to get to the substance of the debate. Frankly, it's not unreasonable to interpret that as trolling. As to who you are, I could care less who you are and never asked that. All I care about is the substance of the debate, which I will ask for one last time. --Clubjuggle 16:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am loath to call it a debate. More like a disagreement.

It goes way back to an article called 'Redboy'. The article concerned a mythical creature in my local area who has been written about by Patrick Kavanagh, among others. Now, when I and a friend attempted to get the article up, it was up for speedy deletion. This was fair enough, I messaged the person who put it up to ask for time, I put up a 'hangon' template and posted a message in the talk page pleading for a little time. Now, I went back to edit the article and spent a solid half an hour writing and researching. When I cliced the button at the bottom to add it, the thing had been deleted and I had lost my work.

Rightly teed off, I posted a message on Schuminwebs userpage about it, to which he did not reply but rather cited some bullshit legal mumbo jumbo at me. When I went back to recreate the link, he deleted that also.

I was eventually banned for disagreeing with the speedy deletion policy as I tried to change this deletion policy over on the Village pump.

I am not usually an aggressive man, I am actually quite civil. But the level of sheer and utter passive-aggresiveness, arrogance and downright rudeness I received from Schuminweb has convinced me that he is not a man to be talked to reasonably.

All I want is a proper explanation from him as to why he deleted the redboy article. Even after pleading for a little time to improve it, he deleted it anyway. That to me smacks of masochism. 86.40.208.5 16:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I now assume you have no interest in mediating? 86.40.208.5 18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

--Clubjuggle 19:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry for the slow reply.
 * To be honest, when I asked for the details of your disagreement, I failed to consider the possibility that you are a WP:SOCK of a previously banned user. In this situation, what I'm probably supposed to do is report you at WP:SSP; however, I gave you my word that I would hear you and and give you a fair chance to resolve this amicably. My word is good, and therefore unless and until I see evidence to the contrary, I will continue to operate with the assumption that you wish to understand and play by the rules.
 * The first and most important thing you can do to help yourself is to stop posting at or about User:SchuminWeb and User Talk:SchuminWeb. Keep in mind that as a WP:SOCK of a banned user, you are already starting with at least 2½ strikes against you. Calling attention to yourself will accomplish little but getting yourself banned a third time. I know you're angry, perhaps justifiably so, but acting out of anger will help neither yourself nor the project. Let it go and move on.
 * Next, before adding content, read the content guidelines, especially WP:NOTE, WP:RS, WP:V and especially WP:NOT, keeping in mind however that WP:NOT is not in and of itself considered a valid argument for inclusion. When you're done reading them, read them again, then carefully consider whether your article topic is likely to meet those guidelines. If you think it can meet those criteria, then it may be best to work on the article outside of Mainspace to get it ready for posting. You are welcome to use User:Clubjuggle/Sandbox/Redboy as a sandbox to do so. I've also asked a friendly admin if she could pull a copy of the deleted article and post it to that page.
 * I'll be out for most of the evening (US Eastern Time) but if you have any questions feel free to post them here.--Clubjuggle 21:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to but-in; but it looks as if you're being taken for a ride. The anonymous aggrieved user stated: "The article concerned a mythical creature in my local area who has been written about by Patrick Kavanagh, among others. Now, when I and a friend attempted to get the article up, it was up for speedy deletion."  Yet the article posted into your sandbox space is about a non-notable band.  It is possible that somebody tried to post a separate article about a nn band after the article about the mythical creature was deleted - but unlikely. B1atv 05:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, just read further down when anonymous IP confirmed that this wasn't the article he was talking about. B1atv 06:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Need a Favor
I would love to help you but I'm not an admin. Sorry :(. But I checked the article deletion log and NawlinWiki was the last admin to delete it. Woohookitty and SchuminWeb also deleted it before NawlinWiki. AngelOfSadness  talk  21:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Redboy
Content has been pasted to User:Clubjuggle/Sandbox/Redboy per your request. NawlinWiki 22:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't my article, someone else created that after (It was a bit of a surprise actually) Mine was the article before that. Its all immaterial though, because I really don't want to rewrite it. Thanks for all the effort though. I suppose you could say that you've restored my faith in Wikipedia :-) 86.40.208.5 23:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad I could do so. --Clubjuggle 03:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Ethical question

 * Revert all the way. Seriously they may "go boom" but there's no point on keeping that in the article as it's pointing out the obvious in a fairly childish way. :D AngelOfSadness  talk  20:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Tousche :-P. Really, was put in there by a child??? I really must know :D AngelOfSadness  talk  20:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I know some nonsense edits are hard to revert because they make us laugh like this one on my userpage a while back. I almost was going to keep it as it was but I reverted it. Anyway this one is my favourite of the vandalism edits to my userpage seeing as the vandal at least looked at the userboxes before editing :D. AngelOfSadness talk  20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Same here every single time I look at it. I didn't want to revert it but I was thinking that someone else would come along soon enough to remove/revert it as it's at the top of the page. :D AngelOfSadness  talk  20:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Blanking one's own userpage
It may be so but it is frowned upon. I believe Talk pages should be archived instead. It is true that the page history will show it anyway but I feel it is better for other editors to see this one made a mishap. If they stay clean after one warning, then they become good editors and I see no problem there. If they are habitual vandals and they keep blanking after every warning, it is harder to search and determine if you have to issue a level 3 or level 4 or what have you. Just my opinion, of course. Happy wiking! Alexf (Talk/Contribs) 21:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * When it comes to IP vandals, you generally revert their acts of talk page blanking. Unless of course they are a minor vandal AND have stated in their edit summary that they have read the warning(s). Otherwise it'll just look as though they're trying to cover up their crimes. Again, that's my interpretation of the WP policy.-- Just James  T / C  13:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a fair enough interpretation, but I have a couple concerns with it, specifically:
 * (1) In the case I referenced the person was given a second vandalism warning for blanking his own talk page. As I understand it, blanking one's own talk page, while frowned upon, is not in fact vandalism. My interpretation is that a warning is therefore inappropriate. I'm more than OK with being wrong on that point, but I'd like to know [i]why[/i] I'm wrong.
 * (2) Likewise, if the person does have the right to remove warnings from his own talk page, I can see reverting the warnings for the sake of noting the warnings in the edit summary ("rv blanking of 1st & 2nd level level vandalism notices") but if they then blank them again, is it really appropriate to revert it a second time?
 * Again, I welcome any responses or corrections. I'm trying to learn. Thanks, --Clubjuggle 15:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Just James. I may not have stated it so eloquently but it is my opinion also that by blanking they are trying to cover up their deeds. If you don't want the blemish to show, don't vandalize, period. As WP policy does not forbid this practice in writing (so far), you cannot enforce it. I generally eye those vandals with a closer scrutiny for a while afterwards, checking their contributions page often and nail them for any un-reported new vandalism. When they reach a point they need to be blocked I go to WP:AIV and report them. If blocking them is what it takes for them to learn to behave in society, then so be it. Alexf (Talk/Contribs) 17:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You'll find a number of administrators agree with me. They (and I) believe it is important to keep a record of previous conversations, so vandals (and normal WP users) are encouraged to archive their old conversations/warnings. When I first started using WP I was involved in an editing dispute and let's just say I acted inappropriately. I was cautioned but I blanked the warning. Someone reverted this act of page blanking, but again I blanked the page. However, I later reverted this and you will now find the warning in my first talk page archive. I think it's important to understand that no one really owns their user/user talk pages on Wikipedia. For example, users don't have the right to use their page to say something nasty about someone else.-- Just James  T / C  01:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Yarrr!
Yarr-harr-harr. Ahoy Cap'n. Ye are me Jack Tar. We be never found in Davy Jones' Locker. Lets guzzle down our grub and grog before pillagers come a knockin' :D AngelOfSadness  talk  17:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Eeeeeee! If them Sharkbait yank our swag, they'll be kissin' the gunner's daughter, be fish feed n' be Keyhauled before ye can say Shiver Me timbers!!. AngelOfSadness talk  21:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Congratulations!
Oh my Goodness. That has to be the prettiest barnstar I have ever seen and now I have one. Yay. Thank you so much I really appreciate it. I would print it out, frame it and hang it on my wall. Now if only I had a printer or a frame. :D Thanks again AngelOfSadness  talk  21:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Was it because it had my name on it(well part of it :D)? This is definately my favourite barnstar as you put a lot of thought into it. Really I can't thank you enough. AngelOfSadness  talk  21:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My userpage would be full of them if I knew that there was one, and people wouldn't get annoyed with me for talking like a pirate everyday of the Yaaarrr!!:D AngelOfSadness  talk  16:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is true but I wonder if anyone has every gotten blocked for talking in pirate. Like you can get blocked for not communticating in english on the english wikipedia. Now it leads me to my next point...Is there a pirate wikipedia??? AngelOfSadness  talk  16:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rats. The pirate wikipedia could be called something like "shivermepedia". I know it needs work :D. How about grog.wikipedia.org ? :D. It could work AngelOfSadness  talk  17:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it. I like it a lot. Oh, I found this on youtube today. It explains itself and yes it is very pirate related :D. AngelOfSadness  talk  23:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I love it. That song is going to be stuck in my head when I'm trying to go asleep :D AngelOfSadness  talk  23:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why???? *begins to fake cry, then actually cry* AngelOfSadness  talk  23:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Make it stop *tries to cover eyes and ears*. Good ole stop button: where would we be without you? After hearing that, th first song isn't that bad. AngelOfSadness  talk  00:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Uhh-huh. But there a worse songs in the world but my mind blanked any memory of them ;D AngelOfSadness  talk  00:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yay!!! *does a little dance* If I remember the songs, I'll send you the links via youtube :D AngelOfSadness  talk  00:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it might take a while because it's only when I hear them that I remember my high dislike for them :D AngelOfSadness  talk  00:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I think I better go to bed as it's 01:35 in the morning over here :D. And in case I don't see you later, good afternoon good evening and good night. AngelOfSadness talk  00:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dream pretty pictures! --Clubjuggle T / C  00:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

casus belli of 1948 war
All wars have a cause ? I would have say : all wars have cause s. ;-) But whatever, casus belli is a precise term with a precise juridic meaning; it is not synonim of cause(s) of the war. And both (causes of the war) or (casus belli) should be sourced. Alithien 17:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a fair enough point, however an assertion that historians have not identified a casus belli would itself need citation -- one I think you'll have trouble finding. They may disagree on the casus belli, but that's very different from saying "none identified." I've reverted to the previous version but tagged it as citation needed. Feel free to discuss further on the article's talk page. --Clubjuggle 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for standing up for me. I appreciate it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I have little patience for incivility and am only too happy to do my little part to stop it. --Clubjuggle 23:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ares.
Heh, major slip up, I know. The worst thing by far is I almost warned myself. :-P · AndonicO Talk 20:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Just wondering what the serious action you were talking about is meant to be? 86.45.208.104 17:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Socks
Before I was an admin and dealing with socks like this, I would normally ask an administrator familiar with the case to block the vandals. An AIV report would be rejected. Acalamari 19:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:72.10.113.123
It seems I misread the date. My bad. Feel free to revert, see ya around. Nol888 22:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL
Very amusing conversation. Thanks for showing it to me! =)  Just James  T / C  06:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Tops markets logo
A rationale was provided for Image:Tops Logo.jpg several months ago. Daniel Case 16:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops... so it is! I missed that the article title was listed on the rationale. Sorry. --Clubjuggle T / C  20:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi, i vandalised your page by changing the "home many times my page has been vandalized" bar from 9 to 10, i then got criticised for vandalizing your page (which i can understand), but am still at a loss to why it has been changed back to 9, when surely it should have just stayed at 10!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baddmind (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Still no change —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baddmind (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, look, now worries, i'll change it for you!! woudln't want anything to be incorrect or unfactual on wikipedia now would we!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baddmind (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dude
An editor has nominated Dude, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Careful w/ edits
Howdy! You appear to have accidentally deleted a number of comments in an active talk page when posting. If it was because of an edit conflict, please be careful to make sure your edits don't happen at the expense of others. Sometimes it's necessary to copy your additions, then edit the page anew and paste them in to avoid this sort of thing. Cheers! - C HAIRBOY (☎) 20:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I actually did that, and for some reason the problem still happened. Not sure what went wrong, as it's the first time I've ever had this issue with an EC. --Clubjuggle T / C  20:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries! - C HAIRBOY (☎) 20:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!
It's the first one I've gotten here, and I really appreciate it. I'm just doing my best to make that article better. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to explain so that you will understand
Many of us prefer to avoid all of the drama and explaining oneself that come with having a Wikipedia account. Almost all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) change each customer's IP address at least once a year. So an IP editor may have an extensive edit history on hundreds of different articles, then lose that history involuntarily and appear to be an SPA.

Some cases are far more extreme. For example, an editor who travels frequently on business will hop from one hotel IP address to the next after just a day or two. Sprint, a wireless ISP with millions of customers, changes each one's IP address at least once a day.

I am a Sprint customer. I've been editing Wikipedia for about three years, including hundreds of articles. Assuming that an IP editor is an SPA violates WP:AGF. Please stop. 68.31.185.221 (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the word "even" in the headline. There are thousands of editors who only use IP addresses for various reasons. Few of us are vandals. A few others are driven by other, less than admirable motives. But most are just here to improve the encyclopedia.


 * We're not here with an agenda. We don't want the drama or the politics that go with having an account. We're not here to make friends or make enemies. We're not here to fight, or to gain power and abuse it. We just want to improve the encyclopedia.


 * We have no control over our ISPs. They change our IP addresses on their own schedules, and so we haven't got any histories to show you. In 24 hours or less, I'm history. But assuming that we are SPAs, or engaging in other behavior that treats us as second class citizens, is a violation of WP:AGF. 68.31.185.221 (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want the benefit of a reputation you have to create a stable identity. The tools are available.  We have serious problems with SPAs and sockpuppets on Wikipedia, particularly on the talk page you (the IP editor) have been editing.  In nearly all cases they use the same argument you do: it is an assumption of bad faith, unfair, etc., to single them out.  This should not be news, but we have to single out suspicious-acting accounts, and after we go through the time-consuming procedures most of them in fact do turn out to be editing in bad faith.  If you have been editing Wikipedia for years you must be aware that an unregistered IP address with zero history who shows up to vote in a poll on a contentious issue where there is already vote-rigging simply cannot be taken at face value.  Wikidemo (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey there
I've responded to your comments on my talk. Happy editing! Arkon (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. I have your talk page on watch, so feel free to reply there and I'll see it. Cheers! --Clubjuggle T / C  00:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but
Please don't characterize legitimate discussion as "attacks"; such characterizations aren't exactly civil in and of themselves. Shem(talk) 17:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should have posted my comment to Shem's talk page. Rick Block has done that with me, and it's a better way of addressing problems with another editor, now that I think about it. I wasn't attacking him (I think he's a very good editor, as I mentioned in my comment) but criticizing the way he's gone about participating. I agree with Shem's commment just above that it would be better (more diplomatic) to be a bit more exact in your language, but your overall point is sound. You might want to suggest on the Obama talk page that comments on others' specific behavior should be addressed on their talk pages. Thanks for the note, anyway. I'm going to redact my comment to Shem on the Obama page in order to try to keep the discussion closer to the topic.Noroton (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a fair criticism, and I do appreciate the feedback. In my haste to keep the discussion from spiraling further out of control I was probably less precise in my language than I should have been, and for that I apologize. My goal, as you have correctly concluded, is to keep the discussion focused and avoid the meta-discussions that dominated the last attempt at consensus. --Clubjuggle T / C  17:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been an editor for about two years now, and this Obama article is the toughest page I've ever been involved with. I think you've taken on an enormous challenge by being involved. Expect to make more mistakes, I know I will; don't hesitate to point mine out to me. I don't know whether your efforts can keep us on track, but I don't see a better alternative. Noroton (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I take issue with your ground rules. You're placing cautions on my Talk page for questioning SCJ's truthfulness but encouraging others to use SPA tags. An SPA tag is quite clearly a challenge to the editor's motives. In effect you are giving one side in this debate, but not the other, carte blanche to constantly challenge the motives of the other side with such snide remarks as "all the established editors are on my side." WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion of the ground rules is welcome within the "proposed ground rules" section, however I disagree with your characterization on several fronts, to wit:
 * "...encouraging others to use SPA tags. An SPA tag is quite clearly a challenge to the editor's motives" - If you read WP:SPA you will note that it cautions established users not to rush to bad-faith assumptions, and to avoid biting the newbies. The WP:SPA essay explicitly reminds participants be extra-careful to assume good faith. To this point, no one has been tagged as WP:SPA. How about we agree to revisit the issue if it begins to become a problem?
 * "In effect you are giving one side in this debate, but not the other, carte blanche to constantly challenge the motives of the other side with such snide remarks as 'all the established editors are on my side.'" - Immediately after that comment was made, I left a note on its author's talk page reinforcing the need to focus on content and asserting that any claims of consensus at this point are very premature, and also reminding him to focus on content, not contributors. I have sent several such reminders today (check Special:Contributions/Clubjuggle) to editors on both sides of this debate, in the interest of keeping the discussion focused. If we go back to the previous meta-discussion of contributors' behavior, we will not make any more progress than we did the last go-round.
 * For those reasons, and in the interest of keeping the discussion focused, I ask that if you have an issue with another editor, please either leave me a note here on my talk page so I can attempt to address it as mediator, or bring it up to the user directly (civilly, of course) on his or her talk page.
 * Our best chance at finding a consensus will be to set asside any personal beefs with other editors and to focus on improving the baseline text. Thanks, --Clubjuggle T / C  19:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * All right, I've got an issue with another editor. Shem, based on a "possible" finding at RFCU, has been running all over Wikipedia tagging IP accounts as my sockpuppets and even creating a new category called "Sockpuppets of WorkerBee74." I left a note on his User Talk page stating that his actions have been a lot like saying, "The guys who raped that white woman were black, and you're black, so we're stringing you up from this lamppost."


 * Take a look at his recent edit history. If you are really going to serve as a mediator here, you'll revert them. It would be a real challenge for me. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Since the RFCU only returned "possible" it's certainly looks to me that User:Shem has overstepped by tagging you as a "confirmed" sockpuppet. I'll file a report an WP:AN/I. To be perfectly fair, though (and in the interest of full disclosure), the findings of the RFCU does create grounds for reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry. I therefore must also file a report at WP:SSP documenting those observations, so those with more experience than myself in making those determinations review the facts and make an appropriate determination. I will continue to assume good faith on your part unless and until an official determination would me made to the contrary. This SSP report is not in response to your request, I was actually started working on it an hour ago but my phone rang. --Clubjuggle T / C  23:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I welcome any additional attention to the SPA/sock activity on Barack Obama-related articles, be it at AN/I, SSP, CheckUser, ARBCOM, or elsewhere. Shem(talk) 23:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Yeah, that was some pretty nifty figure-it-outery. I kneel before Zod/Clubjuggle. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, thanks guys! Now with regard to the article, I think the best course of action is to simply ignore him and let the process run its course. --Clubjuggle T / C  14:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pennsylvania
I just realized that you are in PA (from your comment in the sock drawer and your unhealthy Turnpike fixation). I'm in Swarthmore, which is at the bottom of the Blue Route. I used to commute to Allentown up the Northeast Extension when I was attending a business college there. Whereabouts are you, if you don't mind me asking? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm near Lancaster but I grew up in Bucks County. I also went to Lehigh University so I know the Allentown area quite well. --Clubjuggle T / C  15:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My wife and I are hoping to buy one of the new homes in Valley (once we've offloaded this place), so we'll only be a short hop down US-30. Small world, eh? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Very much so! --Clubjuggle T / C  15:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

that request
It came from WorkerBee74. I had assumed this, although the email as I looked at it didn't indicate who it was from. (I use AOL, and it hides the "Details" about the routing unless I click on that. I just looked now, and it's from WorkerBee74. Noroton (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack watch
Please take note of the last part of WorkerBee74's comment where he mentions my wife. I responded to what I considered to be a pretty unreasonable personal attack with this warning. I would like to request that you drop him a note to remind him of the importance of civility, because I don't think he will listen if it comes from me. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest, in the context of your previous lighthearted comments about Mrs. Scj's contributions I have a difficult time calling this a personal attack. I will continue to keep an eye out, though. --Clubjuggle T / C  17:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No benches
1. No one is required to assume good faith after repeated examples of bad faith. Read WP:AGF. I appreciate your motives and goals, but telling me to accept this kind of behavior is not going to be productive.

2. Speaking of productive, I recently went through the initial diffs you posted about WorkerBee74 at AN/I. I could hardly find an example of rude behavior outside of heated discussions in which WorkerBee74 was getting about as much as he was giving out, often in the face of Scjessey's trademark goading -- the same type of thing he was trying to pull on me just now, the same type of thing he constantly pulls. I don't think you posted at AN/I out of bad faith, but I think there's a bit of tunnel-vision in your targeting people on one side of the issue. I understand you think WB74's a sock, and he's certainly an SPA, and being an SPA certainly should raise anybody's suspicions, so I can't fault you for being suspicious, but you might want to focus a bit more energy on Scjessey's POV-pushing, impolite, almost totally unconstructive behavior.

3. When I call Scjessey out on his goading and other totally unconstructive behavior, I'm not attacking him, and I'm attempting to keep the discussion on a constructive path by answering whatever substantive points are buried in the rudeness. I am going to point out his misbehavior and move on to substantive points whenever it comes up in discussion. If you think I've been impolite myself in the current discussion, please point it out to me, because I'm trying not to be.

4. And in that edit war between Scjessey and WorkerBee74, why wasn't the equally contentious Scjessey blocked for edit warring as well? I found no difference in his behavior. Noroton (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. True enough. I probably should have cited WP:COOL.
 * 2. While on the one hand, I agree, he did make combative posts directed at multiple editors. the suspected sockpuppetry was a factor. The AN/I report was to request an administrator look at the entire pattern of behavior, not only the combative posts.
 * 3. Pointing out his unconstructive behavior "in-band" probably won't help your cause. It's only going to serve to get his back up, and make him even less likely to focus on your substantive points. The best way to focus on the substance of the discussion is to focus on the substance of the discussion. You can't control your counterparts' actions, but you can control your own.
 * 4. I was not a party to the complaint or the discussion that triggered it, so I honestly don't know. Probably best to address that question to the blocking admin. --Clubjuggle T / C  21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a one-revert rule on the Obama page?
Are there currently special rules for reverting on the Obama page? If Shem and others revert, I'm going to revert back, up to the 3RR while discussion continues, unless there's a special rule imposed on that page. I'm more than willing to be reasonable about this if people can just respond to my reasons. Noroton (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeking clarification
I have been extremely careful to make sure my comments have addressed issues with content, particularly with the new section you started. Can you clarify what you mean by "attacks" you say I have made? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly another puppet problem
I believe recent Barack Obama editor User:Round55 may be yet another sock of User:Improve2009, but I do not have enough supporting evidence to file a report (just a familiar editing pattern). After being banned, User:Improve2009 came back to edit under User:Scjessy and User:Scjessey02 as a retaliation for being banned, but I had these usernames blocked for obvious reasons. Do you know anyone with checkuser privileges who can check this? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hostility
I'd considered posting this to Talk:Barack Obama, but it's more appropriate here: Your tone towards me is becoming increasingly dismissive and hostile, and I don't appreciate it. Your link to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, an essay concerning AfD discussions, wasn't even germane to the subject. Had you actually read the essay itself, or were you simply using the link because it had the letters "WP" in front of its name?

No one threw this sort of frustration toward Noroton when he vetoed Rick Block's version based upon not liking the word "scrutiny," and I really don't appreciate the double-standard. To summarize: While you presumably entered this discussion to play the role of a "fair broker," I don't think your recent comments are reflective of that role at all. Shem(talk) 17:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been a long time since I read WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I remembered its context incorrectly. I've struck the offending text and apologized on the talk page. I'd appreciate if you would do the same with your "deference" assertion, which strongly implies that I'm somehow blindly yielding Noroton's opinions without thinking it through or researching the facts. I've taken what can be viewed as the "pro-Obama" side on a number of issues (most notably and most inistently the judgment text), and what could be viewed as the "anti-Obama" side on others, so to suggest (and I'm not saying you did so intentionally) that I'm blindly following anyone is grossly unfair.
 * My frustration is not with your stand on the scrutiny/criticism issue, but rather with the difficulty I've had in getting you to engage in a meaningful discussion on the matter (I won't bring the ad hominem arguments into this, because there have been more than enough of those flying around, but they do nonetheless contribute to my frustration, because in some cases yours have been in place of, not in addition to, substantive discussion). I've presented substantial evidence that there is support for the use of "criticism" in similar contexts. You have questioned the value of that evidence, but have not presented any countering evidence of your own. I've asked what standard of evidence you would even consider, and have not received a response. I've offered to consider a much lower standard of evidence than I feel I've met, and you have not responded. On the other hand, comments like these compel me to wonder whether you ever intend to respond (and, if so, when), or, indeed, if there is any standard of evidence that you will even consider (and, if so, what that standard is).
 * I do appreciate the feedback here, as well as the opportunity to respond to your concerns. Thanks, --Clubjuggle T / C  22:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Y'know, Clubjuggle, I actually reckon the most offensive thing about your behavior is how you pretend I've not already made my case for supporting "scrutiny" over "criticism." Showing that a word's been used (often poorly) in other articles doesn't in any way illustrate why it should be substituted for another.  The question here is this:  Why must "scrutiny" be changed to "criticism"?  I don't find complaints of "limpness" even remotely persuasive in answering that question. Shem(talk) 23:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your immediate use of a red herring following our exchange is discouraging. Shem(talk) 23:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We were both posting at the same time. I did not see your post on my talk page until after I had made mine on the article talk page. I am acting in good faith, please treat me as such. --Clubjuggle T / C  23:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Our edits must have crossed, as I've replied to this question on the talk page. it is, however, a restatement of the argument I've presented previously, most recently here.
 * I'm not contending you haven't presented arguments. I'm asking for evidence in support of the argument that the use of "criticism" would be somehow contrary to Wikipedia policy, or if no such support exists, for you to concede that point so we can focus in which, if either, is the better word.
 * I can't help but notice that I've been responsive to your claims of offense, but you've not responded to mine. Also, would you mind responding to my questions above? Thanks, --Clubjuggle T / C  23:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Implicit and Explicit
I hope this can get us somewhere! I think I might have hit on something. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could say that Obama "agreed with criticism that the transactions created an appearance of impropriety" instead? That would give us this choice:
 * Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama acknowledged the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.
 * 'Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to their current $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood. The wife of friend Tony Rezko bought an adjacent lot, part of which was sold to the Obamas the following year. Tony Rezko, a real estate developer, was a significant fundraiser for politicians from both major parties, including Obama. The property transactions occurred while Rezko was being investigated for unrelated political corruption, for which he was later convicted. Although not accused of any wrongdoing, Obama agreed with criticism that' the transactions created an appearance of impropriety and donated $150,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions to charity.
 * -- Scjessey (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Your new version
A work of genius. I particularly like your use of "nonetheless" to setup the sentence for a softened note of criticism. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Tool to help break up arguments
Need an awesome tool to break up fights on Talk:Barack Obama? Make people watch this! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama's ties to radicals
On the Barack Obama page, you have censored my citation of a report that documents Obama's ties to bomber William Ayers. I already opened a new section on the talk page of the entry before you highhandedly acted against me. Syntacticus (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re your comment on my page, I have been entirely civil. I did not call you or anyone else a name or say anything disparaging. You have censored my edit. I don't know why but you did it. How can you not believe Obama's ties to Ayers are not relevant? The issue have been covered extensively by the media. Obama admits he knew Ayers but downplays the significance. It is newsworthy and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Let history decide its overall importance. Syntacticus (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No. You are mistaken.
There is no issue of defamation here. Obama admits he has ties to William Ayers but downplays their significance. It is newsworthy and has been covered extensively by the media; therefore, it must be included in the entry on Obama. In any event, I write from the United States where defamation against as prominent a figure as a major-party presidential candidate is virtually a legal impossibility. Syntacticus (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not editwarring
I am attempting to add, word for word, a version that has consensus. It is painfully obvious that it has consensus. I'm trying to be very careful in adding it word for word and I'd appreciate any help in that regard.

The obstruction now is in regard to sourcing. It is ludicrous to challenge sourcing like this. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times. This is the gold standard of sourcing. It is ridiculous to pretend that these sources are inappropriate.

I suspect that the goal of certain editors is to delay these edits as long as possible (preferably until after the election) by insisting on discussing each one for weeks, and only one edit may be discussed at a time. You enabled any such effort by reverting an effort to post the obvious consensus version in the article.

Kindly revert your edit. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts on polling
Here's something to consider. I've been thinking more and more about polls. They seem to give those who are only casually interested a chance to muck up the works. If you simply chose one version that you liked and thought would get support and asked, in the text, without announcing you were doing a poll or announcing anything: "How's this version, guys?" You would get a response from the interested editors, and the editors with less interest would either miss the whole thing (and not care) or see it later and be more willing to accept the consensus already forming on the page. The more elaborate we make the request, the more divergent the views we're going to get, and those same editors with divergent, nonconsensus views, then exit the scene, inhibiting a new consensus. That's the way it seems to have worked previously on this page. Maybe it won't matter much now, and I sure hope so. Wikipedia doesn't explain consensus well at all, but it seems to be a kind of balance between sheer numbers, adherence to policy and extra weight given to those editors most interested in the subject and willing to talk it over. In some of the other consensus discussions I've seen, somebody just announces "we have a consensus" or, even more common, they just act on it and put in the edit summary "per consensus on talk page" and the bold editor seldom gets challenged. Maybe that wouldn't work here, but I think my first idea would: Just casually ask, get some responses, wait a bit and implement with an edit-summary announcement. If we do have to have a poll, I think having one or two options should be the maximum, because the more options, the less likely any one of them is to get consensus, and we just slow down this glacial process even more. That's my thinking anyway (which changes every few months). Noroton (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not editwarring
I am adding the consensus version of the Rezko material to the article, word for word.

Word for word, Clubjuggle.

Please do not enable the Barack Obama Whitewash Brigade to obstruct this material until after the election (their obvious goal) by discussing, and discussing, and discussing, and discussing, and discussing, and discussing the SOURCES, for God's sake. We're talking about the New York Times, Washington Post and LA Times and that is the gold standard of sourcing. Kindly revert yourself. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Among other things, I noted in particular there was nothing close to a consensus for "simultaneously". If you wish for others to consider your opinions, you would do well to present them calmly and rationally, to focus on the issues, and to refrain from commenting on your fellow editors or your perceptions of their motives. When you attack people they are not inclined to hear your point of view. That's just human nature. Treat our adversaries with respect if you expect the same in return. --Clubjuggle T / C  15:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus
I briefly hinted at this at Talk:Barack Obama, but I'm concerned with your ability to accurately perceive and broker consensus in Talk discussions. While some editors (including myself) were off-wiki for the July 4th holiday, you created a a poll whose options totally excluded the preferences of several of the article's editors. When I returned from the holiday and objected to this, you falsely claimed that "except for you, it appears all editors fully support the change," which is quite a stretch.

In summary: I also have my concerns about you, but I'm cordial enough to bring them directly to you rather than try dragging your name through the mud in an AN/I discussion about a disruptive, personal-attack-addicted sockpuppeteer. I was initially supportive of your attempt to broker as an uninvolved editor, but my confidence in your ability to serve that role's been greatly diminished. I'm sorry if you find this bluntness "confrontational," but hope you can take some constructive criticism without subsequently juxtaposing the critic's name alongside a serious problem editor in retaliation. Shem(talk) 16:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll be more than happy to respond to your concerns, when I get back from lunch if time permits, or otherwise, when I get home. In fairness, however, I would appreciate a response to mine and will wait for that before responding further. Thanks, --Clubjuggle T / C  16:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, when you stop construing my good-faith approaches as "confrontational" and deliberately juxtaposing them alongside AN/I discussions on disruptive sockpuppeteers. I'll grant you as much courtesy as you've offered me. Shem(talk) 19:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not deliberately juxtapose anything. Also, I am not questioning your good faith, only your approach. In fact, if you reread what I wrote, you will find that I was quite careful to point out that your activity did not rise to anywhere near the level that would require any kind of sanction, but simply wanted a second pair of eyes to look at the situation My only reason for making the request there was that it was intended as a reply to that specific admin, since he was one who had not been previously involved in the discussion but had already taken the time to familiarize himself with the situation. I was also quite clear that I was open to guidance myself, if he had any to offer. --Clubjuggle T / C  21:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your use of "on a related note" is a very deliberate juxtaposition to the WorkerBee discussion, nor do I reckon you'd convince many editors of otherwise. Shem(talk) 22:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And I see you struck through it while I was offline, which'd seem to indicate you're aware of what the language implied. Shem(talk) 22:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You may note that I struck that text at 21:41 UTC after carefully rereading it for anything that may have inadvertently offended. The wording was perhaps careless, but most certainly not intentional. --Clubjuggle T / C  22:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm hesitant to continue with you at length given your portrayal of my words as "confrontational," but let me explain what I've seen since returning from the July 4th holiday:


 * I returned from a 3-day holiday weekend, and after objecting to your newest straw poll and characterization of consensus, you shortly thereafter injected my name into a discussion on WorkerBee74 with the preface "on a related note." I've already expressed concerns that you've become slightly hostile toward me after I started landing opposite your proposals, and this recent episode hasn't done much to convince me of otherwise.


 * I'd humbly posit that you've gone from "outside opinion" to "involved" in the Barack Obama dispute, and may no longer be the best of brokers when it comes to analyzing a discussion for consensus. Most recently, you singled me out while completely disregarding the input of User:Tvoz, which was a pretty grievous oversight.  You described your recent wording at AN/I as "careless"; perhaps you've become careless in other matters, too.


 * When I worried you were being dismissive towards other editors, I brought it up directly with you, as I'm doing again right now. When you felt I was being "confrontational," you injected my name into an AN/I discussion about a disruptive editor with a compulsive personal attack/sock problem with wording that was careless at best.  You tell me which one of us has shown more courtesy and good will to the other, Clubjuggle. Shem(talk) 22:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Once you've responded to my questions, I'll be happy to respond to yours. --Clubjuggle T / C  23:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Typo fixes
You may wish to re-read your post here as a typos has broken an intended link to User:WorkerBee74 and in another case, changed the intended meaning of your comment.. At least, I hope you did mean to say "threat opponents with respect" --Bobblehead (rants) 22:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks! --Clubjuggle T / C  23:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning
Thanks for the warning; I am aware of the rule and of the problems going on with that article. I did attempt to gain consensus with the parent WikiProject of this article, and did so. In accordance with that, I have replaced the earlier versions of the edits. KV5 •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  16:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did see that, however, having been reverted, it would probably be prudent to initiate a discussion on the article talk page as well. I support some inclusion of the Phillies' history of struggles in the lede, but it needs to be more neutral than what you have proposed. The 10,000 loss number (being a rather arbitrary milestone) definitely warrants mention in the article, but a more general statement of the history would be more appropriate for the lede. --Clubjuggle T / C  16:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I did not write that statement; it has been part of the article for an extended period of time and was left in when the article was re-written, and through its promotion to B-class. The number is important because it is a unique record; it has never happened in the history of American professional sports. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  17:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to move forward on Talk:Obama
I don't know if it will do any good, but I've WP:CANVASSed the last 11 user names that participated in any Rezko discussions (the one's whose names still appear on the page). It may help get us out of the current rut. My sympathies with the rough treatment you've gotten from Shem. I think you can guess exactly how I feel about that. Please don't give up just yet. Noroton (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR reminder
Hey Clubjuggle, you've made three reverts within only 10 hours at Barack Obama:


 * Revert 1
 * Revert 2
 * Revert 3

I'm not sure what the deal is with the back-and-forth changes you and LotLE are making post-discussion, but I don't see support for either of your edits. Shem(talk) 05:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's only two reverts. The first diff is the original edit, not an undo of the actions of another editor. After my initial edit, I explained my actions on the talk page. Since no one voiced an objection, and silence implies consent, I took that to mean the edit was accepted. Those who have reverted me, including yourself, have declined to engage on the talk page. --Clubjuggle T / C  05:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Desist
Any further communication between us can be facilitated by the Arbitration Committee. Shem(talk) 07:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --Clubjuggle T / C  07:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Clubjuggle, you should be aware of the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. — Satori Son 13:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

last.fm
Hello! I understand that editing user pages is considered rude, so i'm gonna tell you first. Your last.fm link is messed up due to two quotes on both sides that makes the URL unuseable. I just thought that you should know. dposse (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks for the heads-up! --Clubjuggle T / C  17:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. dposse (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted...
...to express my regret that following my advice led to this shitstorm (I'm not precisely apologizing, since I still think the advice was sound, but I do feel somewhat responsible). I think most editors are reaching the conclusion that your actions were entirely appropriate, though and, briefly scanning the relevant talk pages, it looks to me like you've handled this conflict admirably from the get-go. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also wanted to chime in. While I may not be an admin and I don't carry that much, if any, weight around here.  I do want to say that you're actions were/are right.  You did the right thing and you have nothing to worry about.  Like Sarcasticidealist said, I don't see anything to be worried about.  You handled it just right.  He's just pissed that you found out his connections.  The other admins see that you were right in dealing with it the way you did.  Brothejr (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Trusting that the above refers to Obama edit wars, I essentially agree. You've taken on an "impossible mission" there and have shown that it's appropriately categorized as such. I'd also be interested in notification about any RFC or NPOV/N that you file pursuant to the notice you provided at Obama talk. Thanks for your help! JJB 20:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson
Please refrain from reverting edits that are necessary. I added the remarks to the section Remarks about Senator Barack Obama. I agree with you the entire section doesn't need to be there; however, if the section is there, the quote needs to be included. The remark is still there; it needs to remain so. Thank you. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether the edit was "necessary" is a matter of opinion, since the quote is a click away in the linked source if anyone needs to see it, and some would argue that it makes the section too long. I simply reverted back to the stable version since there had been a history of edit-warring, and referred you to the talk page. --Clubjuggle T / C  19:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Jackson on Obama NPOV
Sorry, but what? How does NPOV apply here if that policy refers to having a balanced POV from the article's sources? I didn't think an NPOV dispute applies to editors' opinions on what policies apply. And is there even a policy on comprehensiveness? dfg (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT is part of the WP:NPOV policy document. If some editors feel the issue is being given too much weight and creating bias against the subject, and others feel it's being brushed under the rug to prevent bias against the subject and requesting or attempting expansion, that's a POV dispute. While usually the content of the text is at issue in a POV dispute, it can also be, as it is in this case, a dispute of POV-pushing in the form of whether and to what extent to cover a controversy. --Clubjuggle T / C  21:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Cheers, dfg (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74
Anything within the last week you can add to this report? Recent vote stacking perhaps? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 19:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize icon
"I see the Nobel Peace Prize icons consistently included on recipients' pages. For examples, see Al Gore, Anwar Sadat, Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela. Did I miss something? --Clubjuggle T / C  21:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)"
 * I'm in the process of removing them, but it will take a while because someone added them to lots of articles. If you go to the template page for an infobox, you'll see the list of acceptable parameters, in the case of Martin Luther King, Jr. it would be Template:Infobox revolution biography. Any changes to parameters must be discussed and consensus reached on the template's talk page. Otherwise anyone could add (or delete) anything to a template and it would be chaos. For example, I might like to add an icon for every university that King attended as well as other awards he received and any other whim that comes to my mind. This might inspire another editor to add a dozen or so more things to the infobox. Then we would have some very ugly infoboxes. Ward3001 (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll defer to your judgment. I was going to self-revert Jimmy Carter, but I see you beat me to it. Cheers! --Clubjuggle T / C  21:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

characters from canceled sitcom
Agreed, they  are not appropriate articles, but instead of listing them for PROD, why not just propose the redirects to the main article or a list of characters, and, if there is no objection in a week, go ahead and do it. Be Bold. DGG (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Is there a template I should use to propose the redirects? --Clubjuggle T / C  21:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oddly,unless I have missed something, there is no specific template from this--the whole merge /redirect process is rather chaotic and what rules there are do not seem to be followed consistently. I would use the mergeto and mergefrom templates. first decide if you want to create a page for Characters in.... or whether to just use the main article. (I'd suggest having a single line or two to identify   each character's role) Then place  on the page you want to redirect, and a corresponding  . This then centralises the discussion on the page you want to merge  to. If there is opposition, then the best thing would be a group AfD, which can force the redirect/merge. Hope this helps.   DGG (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you dont want to do the redirects & remove the prods right now, I will remove the prods at least & leave the rest to you. . DGG (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Russert article
Thanks for the info. I thought I had hashed the page up and couldn't figure out what/how I'd done. I'd added the exact same paragraph(s) before without anything like that happening. I didn't just want anyone charging me (accidentally/deliberately) with vandalism.

I've been around for a while but I'm still not an "expert" on inner-wiki (there's a neologism for ya) workings.

PainMan (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As requested, my argument for ACORN sentence, organized
This is a form message I'm cross posting on various user talk pages: As requested, I wrote up my argument in one spot, consolidating what I'd said before and adding just a bit. Please take a look at it at User:Noroton/The case for including ACORN and comment at Talk:Barack Obama. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Help at Project Vote
I could use some assistance here, if you are able to: Talk:Project_Vote. LotLE × talk 23:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

To reach a consensus on Jesse Jackson.
Hello! Please, try to come on to the Jesse Jackson talk page again so we can try to form some kind of consensus with 72.0.180.2 (aka "Fancy Cats") over the disputed content on the article. I have tried my best to explain my position, but i am only one person. I cannot keep doing this on my own. I need you and others to come to the page so a consensus may be reached. Thanks! dposse (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Tim Russert
Your concern abt my, uh, smackdown at Talk:Tim Russert is welcome, even tho my frank impatience was intended -- including putting the harshest words within a sincerely alternative clause. The history involved is not trivial, tho relatively short -- by "relatively short", i mean it wouldn't be a big deal to acquaint yourself with the context if you choose to. I hasten to add that i don't mean to suggest that your presumable unfamiliarity with that context implies you've wronged me, nor even that you're mistaken. Rather, i want to say up front that IMO your improving this situation would require further effort on your part, and not instead spring that on you at the end. If you would like to rewrite my response, i would welcome that: i consent to your removing mine, and adding your own that in your opinion makes the same essential points, but avoids incivility. I share with you my belief that such situations require acknowledging that a msg has been removed and that its author has consented to its restatement; while i think that also should be in your own words, my words for it would be something like
 * (A colleague who had commented here has welcomed my removal and restatement of their comment, and a restatement follows:)

I'm not sure either that i was right or wrong, but in any case, i'm confident in the abstract that there are others who could have handled it better, and concretely that my previous interaction tilts my point of view. Check out User talk:HRCC, and then take a crack at it bettering the message that concerns you. Thanks. --Jerzy•t 19:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

admin?
I notice you're not an admin (and nobody has apparently asked about this before). Is this something you might be interested in? I assumed based on your recent mediation attempt at talk:Barack Obama that you were. I haven't closely looked through your contributions, but would be willing to spend some time on this and possibly nominate you if you're interested. I won't bother if you're not. Totally up to you. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd have my vote! -- Scjessey (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD
Hi Clubjuggle,

I just declined your G11 request on New Zealand Silver Fern, so I thought I'd stop by and remind you that these kinds of speedy requests should be saved for blatantly promotional material only. Thanks, and please feel free to ask if you have any questions! -- jonny - m t  06:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting my comments, you bastard!
Just kidding. That's fine by me. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Jibberish and Huggle
I don't know if you're aware of this but I responded on a talk page about Huggle and anonymous IPs. It basically said that crap edits or not, an editor shouldn't have to worry about their good edits being reverted by a Huggle stalker who is an anonymous IP. It's called judge on a case by case basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.233.28 (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this in reference to something I was involved with? I don't even run Huggle. Any reverts I do are on a case by case basis. If you feel I've made a good-faith error, please feel free to politely point it out to me and we can discuss it further. Thanks, --Clubjuggle T / C  16:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

RFAR
You may be interested in a case that an IP just started at WP:RFAR. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 19:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help
Thanks for the the help on doing the talk pages, I'm still new on talk pages and discussion. Abdowiki (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'll no longer add the Noble Icon awaiting a final discussion conclusion of putting it or removing it. But nevertheless, I'll add the information under "awards" or "prizes" with the type in the InfoBox meanwhile. Thanks! Abdowiki (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do feel free to add the prize itself in the awards or prizes section when one exists. It's just the use of the icon that's in question. Thanks, --Clubjuggle T/ C 16:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Nobel icon
Template:Nobel icon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Eustress (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for your comment
Here. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     23:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dropped it? Right
While you tell me "Arthur dropped" the matter on his talk page user:arthur smart, he obviously had you fooled. He then placed a personal attack on his user page, hoping that by leaving names out he could game the rules. Yeah, he dropped it alright. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Templating regulars
You are right, of course. I was not aware that CJK was a regular, and I used my own little script thingy to perform the revert and deliver the message. I'll pay more attention next time. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of WP:BIT
Hi. Someone has made the sensible suggestion on BIT Talk that you should have the shortcut now, rather than wait until the taskforce guideline is created and passed. Thinking about this, I don't see why not - you are ultimately more deserving smiply as someone who wants it for long-time use alone. All you have to do is beforehand, change all the previously-made links listed in 'what links here' to WP:BRITISHISLES (the most un-ambiguous short cut we have). Then make the redirect point to your essay, and finally remove the link from the taskforce page (there are plenty of others ther now). Hopefully it will help resolve another shortcut issue we are having too! Thanks, and good luck with your essay. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama birth certificate
Hi, I have deleted Image:BarackObamaCertificationOfLiveBirthHawaii.jpg, but note your rationale for keeping. If it does get nominated for deletion on Commons, I'll reinstate it. Kevin (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Uw-serious1
Template:Uw-serious1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. NuclearWarfare  contact me My work 17:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama probation notices
I saw you reminded a couple users of article probation, so I wanted to alert you to a new template I created for the purpose, template:uw-probation. You can find usage instructions there. It's designed as a friendly, neutral notice template to avoid WP:DTTR concerns. After warning someone, whether in person or using the template, it's best to record that back at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation - I added a cut-and-paste code snippet that can make it easier.

One key issue is to make sure everyone is notified so that any administrator taking action does not have to be concerned that the editor was not warned - if that isn't done or is not clear then someone has to first warn the party, which itself could cause rancor and introduces an extra step.

I've taken the liberty of adding you - and myself - to the list of parties on notice. I'm trying to be evenhanded and uncontroversial with the notice. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I did notice the template the other day (and was rather impressed!), but in these specific cases I decided to go with custom notes, since there were specific issues I thought warranted attention. I'm also more than fine with being added to the list of notified parties. In fact, had I known a list was being maintained I would have added myself. Thanks! --Clubjuggle T/ C 21:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring
One edit on the 18tj and one edit on the 19th does not constitute edit warring. CENSEI (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you had made two reverts on the same article within 24 hours, it seemed the right thing to do was to give you a heads-up. I could, of course, have said nothing, leaving you at risk of someone running off to WP:3RR if you accidentally reverted a third time, but I felt the more [{WP:CIVIL|civil]] thing to do was to alert you to the possibility before it became a problem. As to WP:DTTR, I believe that is intended to refer to the "welcome to Wikipedia" type templates, which are more likely to appears as condescending to a more experienced editor (why would one need to welcome someone with thousands of edits?). Other general-use templates like uw-3rr are worded in a way that is more acceptable for other than new users (of course, all of this ignores the fact that WP:DTTR is just an essay anyway). --Clubjuggle T/ C 15:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I apologize for thinking you were doing it to be a jerk. CENSEI (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

vandalism counter doesn't work. Sorry for the test. I added one to make it 15.
Sorry about that. I was testing it. I fixed it back.

As far as Mrs. Tubb Jones, if she finally dies, the lead paragraph should be changed. To afford her respect, continuous fighting over a sentence or something is not appropriate and I'll let it go. Fossett&amp;Elvis (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL! The userbox is not an automated counter, I increment it manually after reverting any vandalism to the page. No worries on the test, I do try to have a sense of humor. :o)
 * Regarding the lede at Stephanie Tubbs Jones, I agree that the lede will need to be remarked if/when she passes on. In the meantime I will do my best to help keep it trimmed down, but it is appropriate to have something there. Thanks, --Clubjuggle T/ C 21:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Al Gore
Sure. Thanks for the feedback. -Classicfilms (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama probation incident report
What do you think about this "report" filed by Noroton? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad
My mistake. 5 tabs open, applied Twinkleness to wrong tab. Restored with explanation. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

hello
when you rv my barack obama edit, what did you mean by "creep"? --Smuckers It has to be good|undefined 18:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant it in the same context as scope creep or feature creep. --Clubjuggle T/ C 18:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

PA
Since knowledgable in the Pennsylvania judicial branch, did you happen to witness this?  Grsz  talk  06:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, no. I was in school that day. --Clubjuggle T/ C 06:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Double standards
You have failed to respond to my answer to your unwarranted final warning on my talk page.User talk:kerryh_r

kerry 10:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Project Vote
As the person who originally added the reference, you may wish to know that it is being dismissed by User:Bdell555 as he once again seeks to link Project Vote directly to ACORN. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for watching my back
Thanks, Clubjuggle, for keeping an eye on my talk page while I was on that long wikibreak. Much obliged. --Art Smart Chart/ Heart 19:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

My answer
Hi,Wikipedian.I always respect the rules but he always adds wrong entires to that page.I warned him for that many times.I must write facts for Wikipedia users.What can I do??? I did not say that "you are a vandal" him.Thank you.Rangond (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)