User talk:Jeeny/Archive 5

just in case
You came back last time so I thought to just leave a message just wondering what happened. I looked at your history and I don't quite understand what happened. The way you talked sort of shocked me. I'll talk to the person who blocked you and try to understand what happened. Seth71 17:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur, what happened? I sent you an email. Love, Neran e i   (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also sent you mail, if you are checking in here. - Rjd0060 22:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look here: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-28 Jeeny, this breifly describes the incident and what occured. Also the blocking admin has already had a discussion with the user/other admins on WP:ANI. Tiptoety 18:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also look here. Tiptoety 18:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock
Hi. It has now been 48 hours since the original block. I have undone the extension (see the thread cited above), and you are now unblocked. El_C 10:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ~Jeeny (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! Thanx El C.. Now Jeeny, you see, you have a lot of support and if you'd tough it out, most of this will get sorted. Please consider returning, don't let small stuff like this get the best of you. Wiki can be a stressful environment, but at the end of the day, it isn't worth getting angry over. Please re-consider! Peace..Taharqa 20:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Let me know if your doing better. You seemed mad. Don't let stuff get to you, I don't and that helps me get through my day. Seth71 20:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya, I'm mad, as in "loony"!. I'm fine though. ;p ~Jeeny (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you come back...
. We all need a break (including me). Miranda 00:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks ~Jeeny (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Current Issues
I am contacting all those involved in the mediation @ Pro-pedophile activism who seem to have missed one or both of these issues. Hopefully, with more editors voicing their opinions, we can approach consensus on these taxing questions.

The Blocking of A.Z:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A.Z.

Merger for Adult-child sex:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adult-child_sex#Merge 85.10.140.167 08:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Need your help
I'm hoping that you're not gone for good because I need your help. Stub sorting is trying to kill our stub categories. CJ 01:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

percentages on worldviews
hi. i'd like to know how you got to the chart w/ the percentages on worldviews. especially how you arrived at 44% materialism and 44% idealism interests me. thanks. -- ExpImp talk con 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Take the test ~Jeeny (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

R&I – a new approach
R&I has been protected for a breather while we try to form some consensus as to the direction. In the interim we have set up a “sandbox” at: User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound. Moonriddengirl is a neutral admin who has set up the space where we can work on the text section by section; this allows us to have a talk page for the micro project. So far JJJamal, Futurebird and I have made suggested changes with additions in bold and deletions in strikeout. This section and its talk page is an experiment in trying to come together as a group on a focused area. If it works we’d like to approach Guy, the admin who has protected the page, to insert our work-product into the protected article and then take on another section. I would really like to get your feedback on this so that we can demonstrate a consensus. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 19:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I will continue contributing to Wikipedia on these subjects. ~Jeeny (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Mawlid
plz come on talk page and make a Consensus here Mawlid.As History Can't be from Salafi Websites.Early Scholars View cant be Unerstood correctly if they are linked to Non Neutral sites.plz discuss.Shabiha 06:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

back?
If your back that's great. Don't let wikipedia get to you. In the end it's nothing to get mad over. If I was blocked for 48 hours I would more than likely have some happy high. I would sorta feel bad. Seth71 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's more than Wikipedia, Seth. :) I have real life issues too, that are much more important than Wikipee. Hope you're doing well. ~Jeeny (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Aw, you made that just for me? It's sweet! :) Dang, I wanted to do something like that for you, but gave up trying to figure out how to do it with all the wiki coding. :( ygm2 ~Jeeny (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, umm YEAH, of course I made it. I didn't copy it from anybody.   lol - Rjd0060 03:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! Where do you find these things? I've spent some time looking around for something to errr, copy, tailor and add my own graphics, but I got overwhelmed and gave up. Thanks again! :) ~Jeeny (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is actually just a userbox template. I found the image on some essay and it just pops right in.  I guess the fact that I have been trained in markup helps me.  - Rjd0060 03:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's nice. I used to be a graphic artist a while ago when we had to use math to render the graphics! BTW, dark blue on black bkg is a no-no...lol Now the computers do all the math. I hate math too! I don't understand it, yet I always got good grades. Most of it's luck, some of it is invisible in my brain...like a sense or something. lol. I know math is still used for graphics, but I forgot everything I learned back then. I know a little HTML but no CSS. ~Jeeny (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am ashamed to admit that I actually couldn't just figure out how to change the background color on that one. Thats what I copied from another page.  I wish that WP used straight HTML across the boards, but they dont.  I would have an easier time if they did. - Rjd0060 04:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be ashamed! Sheesh. I can't figure out those dang templates either, with all the gibberish used. I was being sarcastic, in a nice way, about the blue on black, but you couldn't see my face and hear my voice. ygma. ~Jeeny (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Jeeny, can you take a look at African diaspora and see what you think about the edit war going on there? I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. Alun 06:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah right. You just want to see me get blocked again. Pfft! ;p ~Jeeny (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Alun, fight your own battles. Don't get involved in other people's and don't invite others to join in your fiascos.  Do you see me clamoring for a mob to "take out" the competition?  Truth stands on no shaky ground, no matter how much fanatic conviction you might think could make it levitate.  Savignac 06:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He knows I'm interested and care about this topic. So back off. Thanks ~Jeeny (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC) PS: Wikipedia is not about "truth" it's about verifiability. Read and weap. Thanks. ~Jeeny (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also blatantly obvious that Alun is trying to be avante garde with POV pushing. Just look at his user page and edit history. This is unacceptable behavior. Savignac 07:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

HI 3
I see that you are here tonight!! Lurking in the shadows, are you? - Rjd0060 06:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, doing research, on Commons, and now look at commie scum's note to me up there. lol ~Jeeny (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont know what I dropped myself into. See the last comments on my talk.  I dont want that stuff on my page lol.  LOL, I see somehow we are both dealing with the same people.  Wierd. - Rjd0060 06:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OMG WTH? How did you manage to get involved? LOL. I see another angry mastodon. It takes one to know one. lol. ~Jeeny (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw an edit war and 3RR vios so I tagged both of them with warnings, and Alun won't leave me alone lol. - Rjd0060 07:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Alun is a sweetie, really. Maybe I'll offer him some coffee. ;) We get these types all the time on these subjects. It's crazy! And it makes one crazy too. ~Jeeny (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's not good practice to tag established editors with template warnings. It can inflame the situation/person more. He knows about 3RR, and those notices are for those who may not be familiar or are only here to disrupt. ~Jeeny (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read the essay on that but disagree. It is the quickest way to stop the situation, and you'll notice it worked.  Coincidence?  Probably LOL  You may be a bit partial to Alun though. - Rjd0060 07:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I may be "partial" to him because I've worked with him. Just as I would never template you. I would talk to you first. But, if I saw what was going on, I would have told him to watch it too. But, not with a template, not for established editors. It's okay to disagree though. lol. I understand "quicker". But, believe it or not, I don't even tag those with whom I disagree, and have bad faith toward either (if they are established), I've commented on their talk page though. ~Jeeny (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Awww..I'd template you in a heartbeat LOL. Just kidding. I think it is effective to template anybody, as they really get the point.  I don't know these people, but I do know if policies are being broken, which tonight, they clearly were.  I wouldn't be so horribly offended if I received a warning template.  Maybe it is just me.  I will say that I suppose I do see your point, but I agree with you.  Agree to disagree! LOL - Rjd0060 07:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be pissed if you or anyone templated me. I'll go postal again. lol. Just tell me to knock it off. Or "STOP". That's quick, right? I'd get the message. :) ~Jeeny (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OOF..I said I was kiddin. - Rjd0060 07:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know you were kidding, can't you see the expression on my face? I was smiling. ~Jeeny (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry couldnt see you. Theres a computer monitor in the way. - Rjd0060 07:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, smartass. There was a "lol" in my comment. :) I thought you knew me by now. :p ~Jeeny (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree also. All should be treated equally, without favor. Savignac 07:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that if templates are the convention, then they should be used, but if nobody wants to use them, then the Wiki-community has spoken. I personally dislike them, because it is like talking at someone, rather than to someone.  Savignac 07:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with being treated fairly. But, you seemed to have just joined and perhaps you do not know the policies/principles. Have you checked them out? Please see; Five pillars. ~Jeeny (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. I completely agree, but Alun's method was to gang up on me, by appealing to other people's systemic biases about race-related issues and how we have been silver-spoonfed certain perceptions by people in the educational system just like him. I like to think outside of the box, not necessarily to "teach others the lesson they need to know", unless of course, I think one person in particular has made stereotypical assumptions about a whole lot of people, a group in which I am a part. I'm not supposed to make sweeping statements of other people and base them in racist interpretations of what I might know of them, for better or worse. I expect others to refrain from doing so, with no backbiting or whatever. In essence, all I have done is questioned the presentation of "racist facts" in Wikipedia, but I forgot to try using a template for talk page discussion. I resorted to 3RR. Mea culpa. Savignac 07:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I have not "ganged up on you", I have merely asked you to support your contentions with reliable sources, you have responded with personal attacks.
 * 2) Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, therefore it uses verifiable material from reliable sources. You have claimed that a specific source should not be used because it is not reliable, but according to Wikipedia rules this source is totally relaibel, having been published in a peer reviewed journal.
 * 3) You claim to "think outside the box", but actually all you are doing is supporting the conventional wisdom that there was a colour line in the USA and that the anti-miscegenation laws in the USA had prevented any "white" Americans from having any recent African ancestry. This is not thinking outside the box, it is the dominant belief in the USA. Recent work indicates that a significant proportion of white US citizens actually do have a recent African ancestor. So what? Just because thie doesn't support your personal opinion doesn't make it wrong or bad science, as you claim. Indeed your whole argument can be summed up as "This resuly offends my personal opinions, therfore it must be wrong". Go and find a reliable source that supports your point of view and include it in the article. I will accept this because it is Wikipedia policy. You do not have the right to remove cited information based on personal beliefs.
 * 4) You have not questioned the presentation of "racist facts". Indeed you have tried to remove cited information that shows that a great many US citizens who are "white" have recent African ancestry. You removed it because you believe that no so called "miscegenation" has occurred in the "white" US social group, and you have stated this clearly. I find it contradictory that you claim to be anti-eracist while being so voiciferous in your belief that it is impossible for any "white" Americans to have any recent African ancestry, which is clearly in support of segregationism. Alun 08:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not about 3rr, it's about the correct use of talk page space and not using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Whatever Rj0060 says, talk pages are not open forums for discussion and Wikipedia does not exist to provide a forum to air personal theories. He's just plain wrong on this issue, but won't admit it. I am fully aware of the 3rr rule and am unconcerned about that issue, edit wars are pointless, but someone has to revert to the consensus article. Warning about a possible breach was fair enough, but could hvae been friendlier. Alun 07:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wub you Wobble. ~Jeeny (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Feeling's mutual Jeeny :) Alun 07:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

All right Jeeny. I will remove myself from this convo, so you and your friend can have some peace. Sorry. Savignac 07:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's OK. We've had history with this so it's a sore spot on these subjects. Make sure when you think out side the "box" you do not soapbox. It is very frustrating, and there is a policy against it. Take care, and peace. ~Jeeny (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation wiki
Don't want to push you to much, but you are still listed on the mediation wiki as an involved party, and you haven't put in your statement yet. Can we expect a statement from you soon? (I would really like to get forward and get a consensus article out). You more or less indicated before that you didn't want to participate in the whole mediation, and step away from the dispute altogether. If that's the case, could you let Ryan know? Thanks! Martijn Hoekstra 20:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you could email me your email address then I can create your account on the MedCom wiki.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I would like to step out. I need to remove myself as much as possible from controvercial subjects at this time. I have limited my contributions to such issues. Thanks. I hope for a good outcome, and good luck to all involved for the betterment of Wikipedia. ~Jeeny (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good luck. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Same to you, Squeak. Thanks. :) ~Jeeny (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye, good luck. Martijn Hoekstra 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Same to you. :) ~Jeeny (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

HI 4
LOL, #4. Anyways, HI!! - Rjd0060 23:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, Hi x &pi; ~Jeeny (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * At the commons again? - Rjd0060 23:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, how'd you know? Also searching for references for many articles that are missing them. ~Jeeny (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Lucky guess. I am doing my usual RCP, but also following BetacommandBot around and adding fair use to images it tags for deletion.  Fun fun. - Rjd0060 23:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, thats Wikipedia for you. - Rjd0060 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, and that BetacommandBot can be a nuisance at times, so good to have people like you following it around. :) ~Jeeny (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It tags so many images. I am only fixing the logos though.  Those are the easiest, just slap a template on them and they are good.  - Rjd0060 23:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh the joys of Recent changes patrol. - Rjd0060 00:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. I was reading a conversation on a talk page last night but can't remember where it was. But I laughed out loud because of all the arguing and name-callling. It was good entertainment, like BB. :p (I should have saved that page, dang)~Jeeny (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at these diffs User:PeWiHrMn. He only was blocked for a day.  Pfffff.  LOL.   I've left a note on the admins page.   Rjd0060 00:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * YGM Rjd0060 00:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) Yeah, but it is a ranting of a mis-behaving child. Blanting cursing, is easy to revert. I agree with the admin that 24hrs is enough...but if s/he continues, then s/he has to stand in the corner longer and longer. :p I've seen worse, like the more sophisticated vandals, and sneaky ones are more disruptive. ~Jeeny (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(rm indent) Looks like somebody is. I dont care LOL. But I cant figure that one out. The template automatically adds the boiler plate tag for some reason, which is why there are 3 BP tags and 3 FUR's. Obviously you need an individual FUR for each article that the image is in, but image pages only need one boiler plate tag, but I cannot figure out how to remove the extra ones. Do you know? - Rjd0060 05:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why there needs to be three. I'm guessing/hoping that the links to the individual articles the image is in, should be enough. As long as the article it is used in is refering to that image. I'm going to try that. I'll take the heat with the bothead. ~Jeeny (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I know for sure there has to be 3 fair-use templates, one for every article the image is used in. - Rjd0060 05:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've undone you. "This tag is meaningless without an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in each article in which it is used."   I need to figure out how to get rid of the extra Boiler Plate tags (the thing that says "This image is of a cover of an audio recording, and the copyright for ....").- Rjd0060 05:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine I was going to do it myself...after I just read that part of the fair use policy. Hmmm. Maybe using the rationale without a template so it doesn't created the BP tags?
 * Thats what the user did originally, but BCBot tags stuff like that because it doesn't recognize fair use without templates a lot of the time. - Rjd0060 06:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah! hmmmm. Dang BCbot. (My browser crashed, and I had to open FF. YGM2) ~Jeeny (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ive already replied to the mail. I guess I'll just leave it for somebody else to fix lol - Rjd0060 06:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just did something. I hope it works. What do you think? ~Jeeny (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work!! I made one adjustment, just moved the bp tag to the top.  Thanks! - Rjd0060 06:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work, yourself. Looks good! Thank you! :) ~Jeeny (talk) 06:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess that somebody else was you. - Rjd0060 06:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(redent) Huh? What I do now? lol I'm tired too. ~Jeeny (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, duh, I GET IT! LOL! nevermind. We did it as a team! :) ~Jeeny (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess so. LOL, when I read your first "huh" I didn't even remember what I was talking about either. - Rjd0060 06:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * LMAO! Getting the touch of old age, eh? ~Jeeny (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont think so. I really am tired.  Wont be long now.  When I disappear, that means I fell asleep. - Rjd0060 06:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was kiddding! lol. I'm tired too. Good night, buddy. :) ~Jeeny (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nl 2007 chicago.png

 * Speak of the devil...Lol - Rjd0060 01:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's your fault. lol. ~Jeeny (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats funny though. I actually did laugh. - Rjd0060 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was funny...after the fact. I didn't laugh at first, because I was too busy trying to find the template for the fair use rational. lmao. You kinda voodooed (sp?) it to me. ~Jeeny (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Loooooooooooooong overdue
Thank you! And you are very welcome! ~Jeeny (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if anybody deserves it Jeeny does. - Rjd0060 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thx, it was unintentional.
I had to look somewhere for the template to borrow, but now, it's given me naughty ideas. Savignac 07:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * YW, but please don't act on your "naughty ideas". Hmmm, you're also reminding me of someone else I've had the pleasure *cough* of working with. ~Jeeny (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL? (at your comment). Also see User_talk:Savignac. - Rjd0060 18:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, thank gawd. Sheesh, while you were sleeping this maniac was creating havoc! He was absolutely insane. lol. See here for the report. ~Jeeny (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw that. It is the same guy from the other day but he actually was defending me. - Rjd0060 23:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he was okay at first, then he went bonkers. Oh well. ~Jeeny (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on how I will be treated, when some sysops get around to toying with my account. I may just have to pull a Lir, or Sollog, or Vogel, or Mike, or Stark, or Communism, or Entmoots, or GNAA, or Cheese, or Willy, or simply Jeff, or Mr.Pelican_Shit, or Kenneð, or Vandal on them all, as always. I am the sockpuppet of sockpuppetry. There is no way in hell anybody knows who I was originally, or what trail of breadcrumbs I have left in my wake. Ask Bolt (website). I destroyed them and am damn proud too. I broke the longest lasting troll/flame and red herring cabal in that case. Nobody can destroy me--I come back. Savignac 07:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You have us quaking in our boots, sockpuppet incarnate. --arkalochori undefined  08:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

According to User:Wobble, I am also User:Fourdee. Why not simply see WP:DENY? Aah, predictable gullibility is my favourite torture! Savignac 08:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be Hayden or some other. I don't think you're Fourdee, but then again...hmmm. Who cares, you just need to go away whoever you are/were/will become. ~Jeeny (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You wanted my sex when you edited my user account page. I thought you might have been Katt73. See how big the WWW is? Savignac 08:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, this is clearly a wackjob. --arkalochori undefined  08:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever/whomever you want me to be, sugar! Savignac 08:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, sock or no sock, or any investigation. I don't care who you are, but do know what you are...and you need to go. If I get a block for calling a self-proclaimed racist, a racist, within seconds of User:Fourdee reporting me, I don't understand how these types get to hang around for so long. After that block it has made me more hostile towards this crazy-arsed place, ergo my many blocks since. ~Jeeny (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You said I was pleasurable. Admit it! Savignac 08:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)