User talk:Jaimie Henry/Archive

My Apologies
I seem to have left my account logged in, and in my absence, a few mindless fools seem to have made changes to the page I was currently editing. Is it possible that you can revert the page to the acceptable edits my acconut made? I will make sure not to leave my account logged in from now on! Someone is also continually editing my comment to you, please forgive whatever profanities appear.

Firebringervt 18:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a problem. I've left a message on your talk page. I'll deal with this other sitaution. Jem 19:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Just a note, the BFA page still hasnt reverted to my most recent legitimate changes, (I had a picture and a data table loaded as well)

User warnings have been updated
Heya, take a look at WP:UTM. Looks like the old warning templates are being deprecated. --Brad Beattie (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a change
I didn't vandal that page!?!

Unless you sign your name with four tildes ( ~ ) I can't see who you are and can't comment on the revert I made. Please accept my sincere apologies if you feel I made the revert in error, and feel free to discuss this further with me here. Jem 22:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to add a picture. I edited the page. I fail to see what you could possibly hold as evidence of vandalism.Tah5tah 22:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)tah5tah

Warnings
Please make sure to add your signature when you leave a warning, and use subst: when you leave a warning. Example: use instead of  as without the subst: the template is forced to load every time the talk page is loaded. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application
Dear Jaimie Henry,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that you only have 161 mainspace edits. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Why did you revert my added link to the nice guy article? Did you even visit the site before you deleted my edit? It is a very interesting site with lots of discussion and articles on the subject. Please explain!! :(

Danielos2 18:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jam, regarding SURREALISM article to prevent edit war and gain resolution
Jam, thanks so much for contacting me on my discussion page. The subsection, SURREALIST ART and RESOURCES in the EXTERNAL LINKS has been on the article for months without any problem until the users, THEEVILPANDA and TEXTURE SAVANT have come along to cause mischief. Also look at the edit history on the article and that will help. SURREALISM NOW! www.surrealismnow.com is specifically a SURREALIST ART and RESOURCES website for students and researchers and general art lovers. I have no problem with the other edits, I think it only fair to keep this link and the other one, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Classicjupiter2 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC). Classicjupiter2 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)forgot to sign, now I will.Classicjupiter2 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jaimie, thanks for your kind intervention in this silly business. As far as I can tell, the trouble seems to have begun in 2004. Here is a link to the part of the archive where I think Wigdor begins his involvement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surrealism/Archive_02#Keith_Wigdor He harasses Daniel C. Boyer and fills the talk page with rants and essays. Initially his posts are unsigned, but you'll notice that the style of writing is the same as, for example, the above post by Classicjupiter2 on your talk page. I think you can skim any page of the archive from there and see the extensive rants and sock-puppetry on the part of Wigdor leading to the present day. Throughout, many unsigned or unidentified users appear supporting Wigdor's claims. Apparently he even wrote an article about himself which was removed after a VfD. He has a severe bias against the Chicago Surrealist Group and other loosely affiliated groups, perhaps because they do not accept him as the "leader of the International Surrealist Movement." If you look at Wigdor's website www.surrealismnow.com you will notice that Wigdor's name appears on just about every page. The site bills itself "the official website of surrealism and its affinities," which IMO is such an obviously bogus claim that it already merits removal of the link. However, I've looked further and there is nothing to suggest that most or any of the artists listed on the site describe themselves as surrealists or participate in the surrealist movement. I am for the removal of this link from the article because it contains misinformation, it is mainly promotional of Keith Wigdor, and has little information about surrealism. As for the links that Wigdor opposes, these include links to the Chicago surrealist group (www.surrealistmovement-usa.org) and numerous other surrealist groups, in Paris, London, Portland, Athens, etc. These are active surrealist groups, some of which have a historical connection to Breton's circle. I think it's important for these links to be on the site to show some of the contemporary surrealist activity, contrary to the claim by some that surrealism died out. Keith Wigdor has raised a number of objections to these links and has changed his argument several times; however, his most persistent problem seems to be the lack of photographs showing Franklin and Penelope Rosemont (founders of the Chicago group) meeting Andre Breton. He claims that if such photographs cannot be produced, then the Rosemonts must not have met Breton and they must be frauds. I think that this is some very specious logic; furthermore, it has little relevance regarding the Chicago group's relevance and activity. It seems now that Wigdor has relented a little on this, after I produced scans of the Chicago Group's Arsenal publication. Nevertheless, he persists in deleting the links unless his links are included has well. The other link he insists on including is clearly a commercial site promoting another painter. Well, I think I have summarized the tedious details well enough. If you have any further questions I'll be happy to answer them. I think a glance at the archived talk page might be enough to convince you of Wigdor's insanity. Thank you. TheEvilPanda 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Protector777.Classicjupiter2 00:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of all the Wikipedians, students and researchers that use Wikipedia as a tool for study and research, I think its a huge mistake to use the Wikipedia article as a tool for promotion of non-notable "groups". One cannot make history and become notable by having an article or a promotional link to a "group" on Wikipedia, where the fact is that they are only using Wikipedia for promotional purposes and self interest. Andre Breton died in 1966. The Paris Surrealist Group was disbanded by Jean Schuster in 1969. International Surrealism was only recognized by the public and the historians and scholars between the years, 1924 to 1969. From the late 1960's to 2002's SURREALISM DESIRE UNBOUND Retrospective, the public acknowledges that International Surrealism is a retrospective movement in the arts and literature composed of notable figures who came and went, in and out of the International Surrealist Movement, like Aragon, Dali, Ernst, Matta, etc. Between the years, 2003 to today, there is a surrealist presence online from artists and others that claim to be surrealist, and in fairness to the everyone that claims the surrealist label, its the public that is the final judge. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and it should not be used for self-promotion of non-notable groups that claim to be surrealists, just because they say so. The Internet has literally hundreds of surreal and surrealist related material, art, etc, and we would open the floodgates for misinformation on this encyclopedia. For the benefit of everyone, its wise to leave the Surrealism article be, and not to allow Wikipedia to become the broadcasting medium for unknown "groups". I have no idea who or what is an ATHENS SURREALIST GROUP, LONDON SURREALIST GROUP or a PORTLAND SURREALIST GROUP! The information on their online blogs is so vague and misleading, that its just a case of any creative person using a BLOG or MYSPACE to draw attention to themselves, but Wikipedia is not to be used as such, its just not right.Classicjupiter2 01:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice Classicjupiter2's double standard. He claims here the international surrealist movement is finished and that the current groups should be excluded for being "non-notable." Meanwhile he has been vociferously promoting his "Surrealism Now" website which chiefly promotes Keith Wigdor, surely the non-notable of non-notables, as "leader of the international surrealist movement." Is it not glaringly obvious that this Classicjupiter2 is a clown who has nothing positive to bring the wikipedia project but disruption and self-promotion? Something needs to be done about him, it is really not much use negotiating with him- he will exploit any opening to promote Keith Wigdor (ie himself) and to obstruct information on genuine surrealists. TheEvilPanda 01:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks, especially on Jem's discussion page. This good gentlemen is trying to help us all. We can reach some kind of consensus for the benefit of the Wikipedia community.Classicjupiter2 17:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You have just proven that you have no interest in consensus. TheEvilPanda 18:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, if you want so much to put your friends groups in, then do so. As for the links that been on here for months, SURREALIST ART and RESOURCES, they stay. I added BEINART SURREAL ART COLLECTIVE because they also have many notable artists. Also, I couldn't help but notice Eric W.Bragg's SURREALCOCONUT in the links of that site, so its a win=win for all.Classicjupiter2 19:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal regarding St. Catharines, Ontario
Thanks for taking this case. I should be forward with you and inform you that I have filed an AMA request for this dispute already that has not been assigned. Also, it should be noted that I have filed a formal complaint against Snickerdo on the Administrators Noticeboard. I'm not sure how these will affect this case, however in the meantime, if there is any background information I can supply you with for this, please feel free to let me know. Thanks. Yankees76 15:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussions on Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
Hi Jaimie. Thanks for taking the time to join in the discussions on the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict talk page. I'm curious about your support for a suggested edit to the page, or, to be more specific, I'm curious which suggestion you support. My suggestion for the statement reads:"News reports indicated that most of those killed were civilians, but official Lebanese government figures do not differentiate between civilians and combatants, and Hezbollah militants are difficult to identify as many wear civilian clothing."And the version supported by Shamir1 is:"Lebanese government figures do not differentiate between civilians and combatants. Hezbollah militants are difficult to identify as many wear civilian clothing."Blueboar suggested:"'Civilian death totals are a matter of some debate - see link to section of article where discussion takes place '"However, Blueboar was vague as to whether he was suggesting replacing all three statement or just the first, which begins "News reports indicated...". I oppose the later, as I believe only leaving the other two statements introduces neutrality problems. My counter-proposal was to replace all three statements with simply:"'Civilian and militant death totals are a matter of some debate - see link to section of article where discussion takes place '"The problem is I'm not sure which of these you were voicing support for. If you could clarify that would be great. Thanks! — George Saliba[ talk ] 08:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Joining AMA
To join, read the guide to advocacy, and add your name to the member list. G e  o. 21:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Surrealism article
If you claim that you are not taking sides, then please be fair and open a case against TheEvilPanda and TextureSavant who are the same user, Eric W.Bragg. Show that you really are neutral or show me how to bring a case against EvilPanda and TextureSavant.Classicjupiter2 23:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the excellent work you may or may not have been doing for the possibly nonexistent Cabal. --Ideogram 19:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Community enforced mediation/Requests
You're officially on the trainee list. The proposal has moved into Wikipedia namespace and a new noticeboard has been started: Community noticeboard. Nothing will actually move forward until the community approves a trial run. Durova Charge! 03:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Community enforced mediation
Here's your first training exercise: have a look at this thread and add your thoughts to it. Wikipedia_talk:Community_enforced_mediation Regards,  Durova Charge! 20:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Keith Wigdor's interference in the Surrealism article
Jem, any thoughts on what to do about Keith Wigdor's interference with the surrealism article?

You can see from his recent posts on the surrealism talk page that he's searching for new angles and rationales for including his own, personal surrealismnow.com link back into the article. And when he can't get what he wants, he simply creates a new username and says things to provoke other wiki-editors. This has been going on for almost a month, now.

I know you started a sockpuppetry page for him, so is anything going to happen with that? What's the next step?--TextureSavant 16:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom/Keith Wigdor/Surrealism Article
Jem, can you please point me in the right direction about what to do next (ArbCom?) about Keith Wigdor's sockpuppetry?--TextureSavant 15:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Jem, thanks for the info. Yes, I do think making a case against Keith Wigdor & his sockpuppetry is a good idea, but I'm not sure I understand what a "community siteban" is. I'm willing to put the case together, but I'm not sure how to assemble the "evidence". Is there some kind of template for this? Can you shed some more light on this please?--TextureSavant 16:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Community enforced mediation

 * We're up to six trainees now with no actual requests for mediation yet. If you'd like to get some practice the Mediation Cabal needs help.  BTW with this many people it's easier to post general stuff to Wikipedia talk:Community enforced mediation/Requests.  Please bookmark it and thanks for volunteering. Regards,  Durova Charge! 22:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

sockpuppetry on surrealism article
Jem, on the surrealism talk page, a user left the suggestion that we do a checkuser request (RCU). I went to the RCU page ,and it seems like this might be useful? Would you be able to help me fill out the form?--TextureSavant 16:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jem, I think I'd rather you do the ANI request, since you have more experience with this. Also, I'm not sure if you've seen this yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2 but it definitely helps build the case. Thankyou for your help! --TextureSavant 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page. IrishGuy talk 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Surrealism case
Hi, can Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-24 Surrealism be closed? --Ideogram 10:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you may as well. This stage in the DR has been exhausted; other methods are being looked at but for the time being I don't think there's much else I can do with regards to mediation. Jem 14:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CEM
Community enforceable mediation has gone into experimental rollout. Thanks for volunteering as a mediator trainee. We'll be in touch as this develops. Durova Charge! 04:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CEM case opens
Commodore Sloat and Armon have begun mediation. For training purposes we'll be discussing the case by e-mail. I have a gmail account where we can chat as needed (if you have gmail too). Should you wish to comment directly to the participants, community input is welcome at this page. Best regards, Durova Charge! 09:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:RAIB logo.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:RAIB logo.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)