User talk:Jahiegel/Archive 5

RfA
Hey, Joe! I was just wondering if you could modify your co-nom on my RfA since the current one sounds like a supporting opinion. If it along those lines, you can place it on the opinions listing since this application should be out by tonight. Yank sox  23:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm
Well, I may have been more firm than normal, but I think that at times it is absolutely worth pointing out that poor behavior reflects badly on the individuals involved and that they should, in fact, feel shame as a result.--Jimbo Wales 02:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

nn-bio
Yeah, I was beginning to wonder if anyone ever listens to me. Most people aren't responding to my arguments there, nor at Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (4th nomination). I don't mind being wrong, but at least engage me, ya know? :) Mango juice talk 02:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Catamorphism's RfA
I noticed that you mentioned in your neutral vote that you wanted to "make sure your concerns were seen". As the final decision coming is fairly close, would you consider re-evaluating the discussion/candidate and picking one side or the other? No pressure, I just wondered if your original reason for voting Neutral still held five days later. -- nae'blis (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you so much! RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 03:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's called Help:Contents
See Keep browse bar header. --Chuck Marean 00:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey
How's the treatment? You back in the gym? - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

my RfA
Thanks for your support in my RfA! Unfortunately, the request did not pass, with a vote of (43/16/7). But your support was appreciated and I'll just keep right on doing what I do. Maybe I'll see ya around -- I'll be here! Cheers! - CheNuevara 17:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Help:Contents
Well it has already been reverted and I agree with this decision. Chuck's refusal to discuss his edits (or recognise there is a bit more to this website than "anyone can edit") is disappointing. Quiddity has an excellent suggestion given the continual reappearance of the Browsebar on Help:Contents. -- Gareth Aus 08:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for comprise->compose
Thanks for changing the "comprise" to "compose" on my Books subpage. I'm rather surprised that you had stumbled on the page in the first page, as I hadn't looked at it for a few months.

BTW, on your main user page, you say that you, "support capital punishment only for those who substitue (sic)comprise for compose". You may want to fix that. --Tachikom a 20:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Baseball Portal/News Section
You're brash edits to the news section of the baseball portal, to the work I've added, are rather insulting. I wish you would read Wikipedia's section of Editing, and be more courteous in your efforts.

There is no style, only your writing type for the News section, and I do not think Wikipedia or most editors would reckgonize it's validity. Please show me where your style is official, and I will gladly relent.

--Wxthewx99 05:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've read your comments on my talk page. I've read your comments on the Portal talk:Baseball/News, and I still disagree with your revision. I do not see how my post was not encyclopedic in the form it was posted after the series of edits I performed on it. I urge you to be (in simplest terms) more diplomatic in the future, and since I plan on spending more time on Portal:Baseball andPortal:Baseball/News, I would like to have healthy collabrative atmosphere around the editing of the portal. I still wish you to be entirely more specific on why you believe my posts to be so entirely unencyclopedic that the entire works need to be revised. I've revised other pages on Wikipedia before, and I've never had my work called "unencyclopediac". That is why it is rather troubling you felt to revise the entirety of my work. Since I'm sure this "issue" will constantly arise if not compromised, I ask that you point out in the work where I've posted. Or direct me to a more specific guide page where it shows my writing to be unencyclopediac to the point that is needed to be completley reworked.
 * Do not misunderstand me. I see your dedicated input to the Baseball portal. It is well appreciated after the complete disarray the project was in. I also understand you are the person listed who maintains the baseball portal. If I could see some kind of documentation on how a maintainer is different from an administrator, that would also be helpful. I'm not discouraged, however, and I hope to help the Baseball portal advance and improve from where it's at now. Response is requested. "-) --Wxthewx99 06:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

reply
Don't forget about the sixers, who could quite be the worst of those sad, sad "teams". Hmm... the only head injury I have suffered would be the constant head-to-wall contact following Eagles playoff losses. What? Where am I? Ah yes, RfAs. So anyway, to be blunt, I think this guy is a bot (basically). His edits don't really show any intellectual rigor of any sort, and I haven't seen any policy debates or discussions, or anything of the sort. It's just my feeling that if we should allow admins the full tray of admin tools, they should be familiar with every aspect of policy, rather than having some sort of system of specialists. As for my own adminship, I would love to be one, but I have only been editing heavily since early May (moderate experience and readership from other IPs before that), and I'd rather easily clear the bar of acceptance, rather than climb over it. I mean, I myself am a major proponent of time with the project as an RfA standard, and I would look a bit hypocritical if I applied at the moment. but perhaps in, say, 2 months, I would definetly give it a go, and your support certainly would be appreciated. By the way the Phillies lost 15-2 and traded away their best player yesterday. Maybe I do have a head injury? AdamBiswanger1 03:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

RFA Time?
Please? - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy request
Heyo, Steve Caruso here. There is a Request for assistance by Joehazelton (talk) on Peter Roskam. Would you be willing to take their case? If you will, please leave a note and sign under the entry on WP:AMARQ and change "(pending)" in the heading to "(open)." When you're finished with the case, set it to "(closed)". If you're not able to take the case, please leave me a message on my talk page so I can continue searching for a willing Advocate. Many thanks! (This one seems like a simple POV dispute.) אמר Steve Caruso  ( desk / AMA )  02:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly be able to help, but I'm not certain that Joehazelton would think me an appropriate advocate, inasmuch as my userpage contains a (succinct and barely visible) profession to the effect that, even as I'm an anarcholibertarian, I support categorically the Democratic Party of the United States; to the extent that the problems at the Roskam article have devolved from simple content dispute, they seem to be connected to the avowed political views of the contributors. Should Joehazelton nevertheless be comfortable with me&mdash;to be sure, as in any other on-WP undertaking, I've no problem elevating encyclopedic neutrality over personal sentiment&mdash;I'd be altogether willing to help; shall I write him to query him apropos of this? :) Joe 02:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your honesty, Joe. :-) 'Might as well discuss this with him to he is comfortable or not, and I have every confidence that you'll handle the situation wonderfully. :-) אמר Steve Caruso  ( desk / AMA )  12:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal finance
Your turn:. :) --MichaelZimmer (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well done: . --MichaelZimmer (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Deja vu: . --MichaelZimmer (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thankyou for your participation in my RfA. Due to an almost even spread of votes between Oppose and Support (Final (16/13/6)) I have decided to withdraw for now and re-apply in a couple of months as suggested. I thank everyone for their kind support of my editorial skills; it meant a lot to me to get such strong recommendations from my fellow editors. If you ever have any hints as to how I can improve further, I would love to hear from you. Viridae Talk 15:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Cycling Icon Discussion
Joe, regarding your recent move of the cycling icon discussion, all I have to say is, thanks for taking care of something I should have done first, but didn't - mostly for the sake of convenience and laziness. So, thanks. --Mindfrieze 19:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

JoeHazleton
Thank you very much in showing interest, the only concern is that you are in the employ of a paid Democratic media agent.

With you good faith answer of no, I will find good hearted and honest efforts most acceptable.

My goal is to get the nasty and unfair stuff off and leave a reasonable article that may be read by an average person and that average person would think it did not have a spin or the smell of "Bork"

Now, my knowledge of the Wikipedia is somewhat limited but I don't like getting, IMHO getting yanked around by some sharp shooting Wikilawyers, with agendas and some mumbo jumbo. Any rate, I just want some one with out an ax to grind to help me make sure a borking don't happen. I live in Wheaton Illinois so I would say I'm some what partisan, but I try be fair and willing to listen to reasonable argument. I don't want my guy to get a raw shake on Wikipdia from some Chicago Machine Democratic goon squad, expert in sleaze and dirty tricks...( See Kennedy election 1960)

A little story- my mom was a poll judge in one of the precincts in Chicago (11th ward) and she told me she witness first hand the boys setting the voting machines the "right way" was told to look the other way or else... this a true story from that 1960 election) And Chicago is backing Tammy Duckworth to the hilt so I, as very concerned citizen from the Illinois 6th living in Wheaton, and I don't want my guy to get a high class flame job.

Bad, but true, stuff on the page is acceptable, if it's really true and relevant and in proportion to what is "Fair Weighted". I would like to see an overall fair biography of the man.

It should be noted editors that are active and aggressive on Roskam page are also very active on the Tammy Duckworth page. Read how they treat her vers his and tell me what you think.

Also, I feel its a conflict for them to be editing both, considering the contenous nature of this up comming election for the Illinois 6th seat.

Now, I hope you have a great deal more experience with wikipedia then I do and you don't have a political ax to grind as a wild eye, hate all Republicans kind of person, I will be very happy with your help

Thanks again for your time and interest in this.--Joehazelton 00:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For fun I took that political test and scored Economic Left/Right: -0.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59 I guess I'm a conservante with leanings to a moderate libertarian. --Joehazelton 01:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC) --Joehazelton 04:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Just to make clear, I would gladly accept you help if you are willing..

Thanks again.... take your time... It appears things are some what more strait and narrow now. They must of caught wind that I was going though the process and are more "reasable" with their edits.

and rate, thanks and let me know what you think.

--69.220.184.129 02:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I had a chance to briefly review your comments and I am most impressed. I do appreciate your honesty, hard work, and what appears to a real effort to be no-bias and neutral.

Also, I would have to agree with your assessment for the most part.

In some of my "partisan" edits, though, I was trying to do a Tit for tat game play, in order to force debate. Admittedly, I do let my "Bridgeport id out some times".

Also, as you probably have seen, I'm no Hemingway and writing for me can be a struggle. But, As you have also seen, I have tried to present logical augments, only to have them rejected out hand and this caused some of the more "frisky" parts of my editing on that article and discussions page.

Admittedly, though, I don't like the Chicago democratic political machine (Which I consider very corrupt). The fact that "Da Machine" is putting up an outsider, A "meat puppet" to run in the congressional district were I live instead of the local democart (Christine Cegelis at least she would be beholding to the 6th)is very distasteful to me. (Just as an aside, I think Tammy is an honorable person, but a naive outsider to the ways of Chicago area politics. She is way over her head, and will be just a puppet for those larger and stronger controlling forces that are now helping with her with her election bid in the 6th. These forces are absolutely outside the 6th and not beholding any one inside the 6th and will demand her's undivided loyalty, IMHO)

For this reason I don't edit on the Duckworth page, as much as I would like to. It's better to be positive then negative, although IMHO the Duckworth page is very partisan, non-encylopdic and in great need of honest work. As a President once said, One war at a time :).

Any rate I will need a little time to take in what you wrote and analyze its meaning...

Thanks again for the time you put in and look forward to your help.--Joehazelton 19:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In looking at the site I have two requests for assistance.

First, In reference to "B" the problem of the other editors loading the article up with minutia about this pac gives this and that pac give that... and naturally, these citations are cherried picked out of the worst( most controversial pacs). I feel this don't belong due the fact that... a. All candidate get monies from many different pacs and this puts undo focus on just the very controversial ones. b. Less this article becomes a study on the how, why and reason pacs give monies to political candidates. Second, how to a get a RFC request for comment by others to the Roskam's article?

Third, ....(C) Whether there is anything you might like me to communicate to any of your interlocutors with respect to your good faith or how you might hope better to deal with them in the future...


 * I would like to communicate (the other editors on Roskam's page) that to add and flood the Roskam page with "JUICY" tidbits (potentially and damaging information) should be discussed in good faith first and a consensus reached BEFORE adding it to the page. This IMHO will greatly improve the NPOV & encyclopedic nature of the article as well as limit political agenda's, either left or right considering the upcoming, hotly contested 2006 congressional race this November. Also, I will be more

"GOOD FAITH" as long as they make effort for the same. I'm all for civil discussions. Besides I feel it's in the best intrest for all that this is so. Thanks --Joehazelton 02:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC) --Joehazelton 04:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings... I have been trying to engage in good faith but I'm getting sick of the condescending, ad hominem tactics, as well as, apperant lack of compomise at the Roskam discussion page. I would like to have a RFC on it... I don't know how, please help Thanks Joehazelton 03:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Got your message and thank you for getting back so soon. I understand and look forward to you help, as soon as, you can get free. Thanks again69.220.184.129 04:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response to my request. I will need a little time to review what you wrote and to consider were to go next. Just, for your reference, I chose the picture issue because I thought it was minor and it would start the discussions with an (I thought at the time) easy place to find some common ground.

But, It would appear to me that I was dismissed and marginalized by those people. Now, I would have considered, that I may be the one that was being "stubborn", but what I find distressing is the fact Propol and Geathen both, edit on the Ductworth page and it would that they seem to treat it with loving kindness. As I have said, I could go over there and correct what are in my humble opinion to be real screamers ie... the Swiftboating entry. I ask, HOW in the name of God to you Swiftboat a red blooded, decorated, injured in battle, war hero? IT's insane. The entry is unencyclopedic, self serving, damaging; it screams like a air raid siren. No opposing politician to Tammy, in there right mind would try that. Only when you have questionable military record then a "Swiftboating is possible. You see my point, my fellow editors, by their recorded deeds on both the Roskam page and the Duckworth page would seem to perjure themselves to the title of Good faith.  I could be wrong and I welcome others to check in and offer a consensus.  I belive in the light of day truth can shine and in the dark, is were evil can lurk and prosper. But one war at a time and its better to be a positive advocate then a negative one. So I will, for a time, leave the Duckworth page as it is.  It speak for it's self and it's point of view.

Any rate, even though I'm a partisan, I am willing to accept good faith discussion and edits. But my experience with Propol and Geathaen, have made me very concerned, that they're not willing to do the same.

There are a number issues I would address about the Roskam article some time in the next 24 to 36 hours an what point the there should be discussions. I will have them ready then. Again thank you for being patient with an old south side (Bridgeport, Chicago)Polish person.Joehazelton 05:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, I would like some of your input regarding the arguments I have been putting forth on the Roskam's talk page. Also, I would like to have more direct communications via email if that's possible. I can be reached at dupage_duba@yahoo.com. there I can trade my private email address and it will be better. It's up to you. Thanks Joehazelton 02:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if you had a chance to take a look at the Rosakam page? I appears that the page is in permanent lockdown. I think the page will need to be rewritten, due to the many, in my humble opinion, sections that have poor citation, and/or unenyclopedic. It would be helpful to get other opinions, especially ones with out an political ax to grind. thank you for your attention and help in this matter Joehazelton 17:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I was wondering if you will have the time to help? The edit wars there are frustration because of the accusatory nature of participants there. The condescending and patronizing tone, there is uncalled. Being labeled "Juvenile" and the like, when in fact IMHO, I am standing up to their outrageous edits and apparent bias has been a real education. I can read see what is being done. Sadly, though, truth is no protection from the lies. Joehazelton 15:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of the condescending Bullcarp and bias editing at the Roskam page. I WANT to have another admin over see it if posible? The politcial partisanship is so thick it's a joke. Good faith and NPOV IS A JOKE. Might as well let it go and let them turn it in to Tammy Duckworth Campaign Tract., I want it wiped it clean and start over per policy WP:LIVING I need help. Please. Joehazelton 21:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back, I am comfident you hare highly quailifed and I'm confident of you efforts to see peaceful resolution of my little problem. I do understand that real life and other comitments some times stand in the way of good intentions and for that I am not bothered. Thanks again and look forward to your imput.Joehazelton 19:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am done bandying words with the administrator there. It is apparent that discussions there consists of Ad hominem and  sophisticated Non Causa Pro Causa manipulation.


 * Shoving two facts together, in order to created a implied accusation, which is not, as I understand Wikipida policy, WP:LIVING. Advocacy journalism has no place, IMHO in this article,WP:LIVING yet the other editors are engaging it with a certain "gusto" and agenda, which, if any honest person were to follow the edit histories of Propol and goethean, it will become apparent,upon inspection, what that agenda is. Plus, having the Admin calling me "Juvenile" for questioning what is, In my humble opinion, to bold face bias, is real eye opener and indictive of the rules of argument now operating there.


 * With my last communication, on the Roskam article, The admin Gamaliel there will probably block me for life. He loves to wield that threat like a Polish saber and if he should do that, I hope he's not the only and final authority in Wikipdia, as well as, speaks for Wikipdia, as a whole.


 * Any rate, When you can, I would like to have the article place in RFC and Mediation as soon as it can be done.  Thanks again for having patience for an ignorant man.Joehazelton 22:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I want you to understand, I have opperated out one IP number and I did not try to hid it, and the only reason why was I sometimes forget to log in. Now if that is consuted as a "sockpuppt" then I am sorry for the mistake. So the charge is unfounded.69.220.184.129 04:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...Joehazelton 04:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-editing biographies
Looking at your comments on WP:VPP, I wonder what you'd make of Jim Duffy (author). Note the self-created category that contains only four members, one of whom is Cherie Blair.

RfA
Thanks for your support.

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 13:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Marean
Re, perhaps an RfC would help bring editors' opinions together? Minor discussion on the topic here: User_talk:MichaelZimmer. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

hello
Hey I was uh wondering if you could help just a tiny bit on what I can do to get the clean up tag removed from Neoplatonism and Gnosticism article. Thanks LoveMonkey 13:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Rentwa and I
Hi Joe,

I'm very glad he's consulting with other folks, as my efforts at explanation met with a rock-wall. I'll take no part in defending myself there, as I suspect Rentwa's unduly angry tone will lead to his exposure as a disgruntled newbie in short order on its own. Remember, the requirements at Category:Recall are in my case superceded by my RfA pledge: I only require that one established user complain of admin abuse on my part in reasonable good faith. Of course, Rentwa is too new to meet this personal criterion. Thanks for the notice, though.

On a happier matter, I'm still working on my own book-length reply to your earlier voluminous electronic missive -- I know you understand the time-intensive nature of these things from experience! :) When are you planning for your own RfA, by the way, and may I have the honor of nominating? Best wishes, Xoloz 15:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

GHe's RfA


Thank you


Thank you for your message
Thanks for your message about the Afd, best wishes. Travb (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz discussion
Please join the new discussion at: "Paid to edit" dialogue -- MyWikiBiz 05:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hey thanks for the barnstar-- maybe you could propose the "testicle sacrificing barnstar?" I have some images you could use... AdamBiswanger1 13:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My blood runs Blue(-State)
Hi,

You know, I could explain the depth of my passion and commitment to the Democratic Party, but this is a public wiki, and -- if I allowed myself full freedom to vent -- my integrity as a friend of NPOV would be compromised.

Suffice it to say that at night, every night, I dream of nothing but the electoral defeat of the conservatives. I don't edit political articles for a reason; I am incapable of objective thought regarding America's current "majority," and I know it.

I have reached the limit of my ability to discuss this subject without descending into profanity. My email is enabled, if you wish my unexpurgated opinion of this little. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests_for_adminship/Wangi
Hey mate, looks like you may have inadvertently voted in this RfA twice, see #12 and #58 - tho no one has noticed yet :) Thanks for your support in mine too whilst on subject, appreciated - GI e n 07:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh, another one. Supports 15 and 45 in Requests for adminship/Pmanderson. Regards.--Kchase T 08:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notes; I mean always to search for Joe, as I often seem to happen upon RfAs in which I've already participated, but I suppose I forgot. I'll try to be more careful in the future, at least until Joe is more important that any other editor is adopted as policy... Joe 20:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You might just check WP:BN's RFA summary with duplication notices and see if duplicates are yours. From what I hear, getting policy approval for WP:Joe counts twice in RFA might be easier than some of the other policies we currently have. Cheers!--Kchase T 23:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wangi/RFA
Thanks for your support on my RfA. Give me shout if I can be of help. Thanks/wangi 00:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for letting me know about the discussion on AN/I. I'm going to put in a reply later on after I've slept. --Sue Anne 09:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Realignment
Inasmuch as you're fucking impossible to understand at 1AM, it would behoove you, all else being equal, if time allows, to clarify what it is precisely you're asking me to do w/r/t this article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK :) I'll take a close look at it if you return the favor by turning Incommunicado into a proper stub. For one, I am curious if it's prohibited by the Geneva convention. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject British Royalty
D B  D  16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)