User talk:Jeepday/Archive 3

Re:Oppose
I asked questions to try to help you, by having you prove to me that you knew more about policy than I had previously thought. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) Jeepday (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel bad giving you an oppose. If your RFA fails, would you let me coach you and share with you my thoughts? You have many more edits than me, but I think I could have answered the questions better. Maybe because I spend too much time reading ANI. Congolese fufu (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a kind offer thank you. Jeepday (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP RfA question
Hi Jeepday. The question is written to reflect some issues we have had in the relatively recent past with administrators disagreeing on what BLP-risky content to include. Implied is that there is a disagreement between long time contributors who are fully aware of policy over whether or not some material should be included (based on BLP). In this situation, the best step is to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article or the other editor/administrator, and escalate from there to BLP/N.

Your expanded answer also posits that if unreferenced material is in an article and poses concerns relative to WP:BLP an editor should attempt to reference it before removing it - that is incorrect. It should be removed immediately, and returned only if it can be reliably sourced and meets other inclusion guidelines (such as WP:WEIGHT). I frame the question as a disagreement between administrators so that you can assume both parties are fully aware of all of the relevant policies (including WP:V and how it relates to WP:BLP).

The absolute wrong answer would be "I'd restore it and then talk to them." I note you didn't give that answer, but your initial answer actually specified no action you would take. Most !voters are looking for a specific answer to this question, and failing to give that answer can be (and is in your case) a significant problem.

You might refer to WP:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff for more information about this issue. Avruch talk 14:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to WP:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff I had missed that decision. Most of the content is carried over into WP:BLP except item 4 ""Summary deletion of BLPs". That is intersting I am glad to know it is there.  DO you have any idea why this section is not included in WP:BLP seems like it should be copy and pasted under "Preventing BLP violations"


 * I would like to split hairs with you on one comment you have in your message above, you report me as saying "relative to WP:BLP an editor should attempt to reference it before removing it" The sentence I believe you are referring to starts with "For most questions of WP:V (other then BLP)", I also pointed out that the community not the policy tends to place the burden on the removing editor. "in theory the burden is on the editor who wants to include the content the reality is that community tends to place the a burden on an editor who wants to remove text". As we both know unreferenced content removal is currently a touch subject that is making the outside news In support of your synopsis of my statement it did end with "in this case I chose not to make that attempt." so I can see where you might draw the conclusion you did.  Jeepday (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies Moved to Archive
Moved to User talk:Jeepday/Archive 3 to provided it a permanent home. The page is on my watch list, make any further comments there for consistency. Jeepday (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies
Re this exchange: It seems to me that after a long series of automated edits, you weren't in the appropriate frame of mind to treat a newish editor in a courteous and helpful way in your initial response, and failed to assume good faith;  your wording seems to me to imply that you were assuming the facts were not as stated by the editor, which may be one reason you didn't provide the required helpful advice. What do you think of that exchange now -- particularly your first comment, which begins "Removing content from Wikipedia..."? --Coppertwig (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I remember the exchange, as I recall my initial communication was here.  The user was claiming to be User:Jakov.miljak and deleting related content If the editor was whom they claimed to be is not relevant the activity was not consistent with Talk page guidelines nor with http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_vanish "Work on the project - Your work, including 'signatures' (text indicating your authorship of comments) on all but your own user and talk pages, will usually not be changed or removed." What is the required helpful advice you beleive I should have offered? Jeepday (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The person claimed to be the same person as the one whose user page they were editing. If that's true, I don't see how it would still violate the policy.  Besides, it only says "usually" -- it doesn't say it's not allowed.
 * The helpful advice was more-or-less what you offered in your next edit: i.e. how to achieve what they were trying to achieve (right to vanish).  For example, you could have suggested the person log in under their account. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * They were not editing the user page of the persons they claimed to be, they were editing article talk pages and other editors talk pages. Additionally they were removing not only content added by person they claimed to be they were removing others comments  The user page had been deleted prior to these edits on 22 November 2007.  It would not have been appropriate to ask them to log on as their self as I had already found that profile was deleted. Is there anything else you think I should have done differently? Jeepday (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh. I apologize.  I guess I completely misunderstood the situation.  --Coppertwig (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, have a great day. Jeepday (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm terribly sorry to have gotten some of the details wrong in my comments above. However, the situation is complex.  You said, "If the editor was whom they claimed to be is not relevant..."  Actually, it is relevant.  The user's intent was apparently to remove his name from all the web pages.  Removing the name from signatures of his own posts is actually allowed, apparently, by changing username and then editing each signature to change it: Right to vanish.  You could have directed the user to that section of that page, or at least provided a link to the page in your first comment, e.g. you could have said "See Right to vanish to find out what options you have."  Or, if it was really impossible for the user to remove his name because his profile had been deleted, you could have explained this:   you could have said "You could have used Right to vanish if you could still log into the account in your own name, but since that account has been closed, there's nothing you can do.  I'm sorry." (although it's not true that there was nothing he could do -- see below.)
 * Almost all the material being deleted by the user was his own comments; I think he also deleted one or two comments by others which contained his name.  His intent was to remove his name.
 * At a later date, the user apparently somehow managed to have his account moved to a new name:  so, apparently it is possible.  I don't know how it was done if his profile had been deleted.  Maybe he had to get the profile undeleted first?
 * Anyway, while some of his reverts may have been against policy (i.e. deleting comments by others which contained his name), most of what he was actually trying to accomplish is actually allowed (i.e. removing or changing his name in signatures of his own posts for the purpose of not having this material come up in web searches of his name). Your message correctly told him that what he was doing was not allowed, but did not direct him to the alternative, allowed activities that would accomplish most of his purpose.
 * Of course, one should assume there is the possibility that the user is not who they claim to be when making decisions such as whether to allow them to delete a lot of comments. However, I feel it's also important to assume that there is the possibility that the user is indeed who they claim to be.  Perhaps both I and the user misinterpreted these words of yours:  "claiming to be the other user does not give the right to edit their or delete the other editors work or words."  I think I understand now:  you were referring to deleting both the words of that user and the words of other users, i.e. the comments by others that contained the name.  But I don't think your sentence parses grammatically, and most of the deletions were of the user's comments, not of comments by others, so I misinterpreted this and I think the user also misinterpreted it to mean that by "other user" you meant that you didn't believe that the user was who they claimed to be.  Even without that misinterpretation, the word "their" in "to edit their" also gives the same impression:  that you don't believe this person is who they say they are.  I feel that proper procedure in such a case is to not allow the person to make the deletions without proving who they are (or at all, or whatever the policy is,) but when addressing the person, to always word one's message as if one does believe them:  i.e. I feel it's impolite to say "their" when, if the person you're speaking to is telling the truth, the correct pronoun is "your".  This may be one reason the person got rather angry in a subsequent reply. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You have some good points there, I will keep them in mind. Thanks for the comments Jeepday (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your willingness to consider my comments. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Re the user we were discussing here: I'm planning to edit the various talk pages where the user's original name appears, and change them to the user's new username, to assist with what I believe is the user's expressed wish (via anon-IP) to avoid having the Wikipedia talk pages come up on web searches for that name. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record: the user seems to have left the wiki (see edit summary) and the account has been renamed by a bureaucrat. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the research Jeepday (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This is probably the last one;  right now I'm just using your talk page to collect all this information in one place so I can refer to it.  Sorry for any inconvenience.  I'm changing occurrences of the user's name on various pages as I said I would.  Here, the user definitely requested the right to vanish  --Coppertwig (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is fine, I will be archiving in a few days, the future location for this post will be User talk:Jeepday/Archive 3. Thanks for doing the follow up. Jeepday (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I figured you were going to archive, and that users following my link will have to look around to find the archive. Not the most ideal, but that's how I did it.  I removed almost all instances of the name.  Most of the remaining ones are in archives of Administrator's Noticeboard.  I'm thinking of being bold and editing them too.  What do you think?  --Coppertwig (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest posting a question at Administrators' noticeboard to ask about it. Jeepday (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Great idea! I think I'll probably do that.  By the way, here's a cup of tea.
 * I think I neglected to introduce myself. I have no prior connection to the user we're discussing here.  As you may have guessed, I saw your RfA and was looking through your contribs for information on which to base a vote, when I came across this right-to-vanish case.  I didn't end up voting, after all, but was very happy to see that your RfA was successful.
 * I wish I'd put a little more thought into this before making all those edits. Now I've left a bunch of edit summaries with links to this thread, which not only will become stale when it's archived, (which I knew but lazily decided not to do anything about,) but which also has a title which is rather critical of you, for which I'm sorry.  For the last few edits, if I do them, I'll put a link to the Administrator's Noticeboard thread, which I'll (probably) start up, but I won't do the edits until after the AN thread is archived.
 * One of the pages on my list is this very talk page. I'll leave it up to you whether to edit out the user's real name in your own message near the beginning of this thread.  I was seeing talk pages coming up in web searches for his name, though maybe not this talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tea that was nice :) The location if this talk for the rest of forever should be User talk:Jeepday/Archive 3 I am moving it now for your benefit, feel free to link to it here. I had thought about changing the name just for subject clarity, but no worries leave it like it is, makes it easier for all considering the history.  As for the users name in this post I would leave it here.  If the only page he sees from Wikipedia on a google search is this one where you documented how you spent a lot of effort cleaning up, well that is probably a good thing. Jeepday (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Jeepday,
You edited out some crucial phrases about the closed mindedness of Scientific consensus. I fear that if you do not edit them back in, the people of the world will forget that scientists are about as useful as...high oil prices.

Please edit back in the information, for the good of the people of the world.

Thank you,

Empire of Justice

Chief Democratic Officer

Agent R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.13.204 (talk • contribs)

You are now an administrator
Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done! Have a good time. Rudget . 17:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, lots to learn now :) Jeepday (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Addhoc (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, reading New admin school now, then I have some work to do at Most wanted articles. Jeepday (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! --Coppertwig (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) Jeepday (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations - feel free to ask me any questions you might have especially if they relate to image or copyright policies. -- Spike Wilbury   ♫  talk  21:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will was just looking at Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. Lots to learn before helping there. Jeepday (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Insertion Permission
Sorry about the re-creation. I wasn't clear that was happening until the second round.

Just to be clear - I need to add to the website, www.inwardoutward.org, the statement "I, Meade Jones Hanna, release the contents of this website under the terms of the GNU free documentation license" Correct?

OR say it in my own words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meadejh (talk • contribs) 21:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA
Congratulations, new administrator! If you are interested, maybe ArbCom in a year or two. Spevw (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and maybe we will see what happens Jeepday (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Western film actors 2
Just delete the list -categories can serve that purpose. It was only created when it looked like the category was going up for the chop but they saved it -no point in having both  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       Talk? 09:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no hurry, we can let the AFD run it's course unless someone suggests a speedy delete per Recreation of deleted material (CSD#5). Jeepday (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

goodbye
Because of overzealous attacks against me by Jehochman, I will no longer be editing the three articles that I was working towards FA status nor Congo articles. Jehochman went on a rampage RFCU. His RFCU claims were disproven and according to another user, he lied about the category.

WP:SOCK#LEGIT allows multiple accounts for segregation and security. The multiple accounts edited separate articles.

A multiple account was necessary because of the controversial nature of User:Profg. Editing about him would bring stalkers to the 3 FA contenders. Edits about User:Profg were never meant to defend him but to point out things that the community was overlooking. The community shouldn’t overlook everything that a user says simply because he is bad. One member of the community said he was seeking a ban just to make it easier to accuse others. These is a diabolical scheme.

What good does is exposing User:HappyBirthdayClubMember? That’s like exposing the identity of Santa Claus. Congolese fufu (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar - and thanks for reading the Signpost! enochlau (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

idea?
Let's form a small RFA class of 9. These are admin who became admin at about the same time. John Carter, Jeepday, Rudget, Jayron32, Archtransit, Appraiser, Kbthompson, Canley, J-stan. It would just be a friendly support group or like a school class. No administrative tasks needed to form this group, just know each other so if we need an opinion or want to discuss something, we'll be there for each other. Archtransit (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not much of a social lite, but I am always open to problem solving and work building or improving Wikipedia. Jeepday (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost tutorial
Any that you know about, you are encourged to improve and make the best it can be. If you feel you have expanded it enough, you can add your name to the byline. Also, could you help a litle on this one: User:Jonathan/Where to find help on editing? The Placebo Effect (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Carol Paul
I don't think that Whitney Gravel's afd established any sort of consensus against maintaining articles on the spouses of presidential candidates. Several users commenting on the deletion noted that Mike Gravel has no chance of securing his party's nomination, the same may not be true of Ron Paul. Either way, I agree with the basic premise that the notability of article subjects shouldn't be assessed by the availability of coverage for their spouses. Others may disagree, however, and I don't think that the Carol Paul article is a clear candidate for speedy or prod. AfD is the better way to go. Regards, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone already to the article to AFD Articles for deletion/Carol Paul Jeepday (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Corn DAB
Thanks! I hadn't seen that page but did enjoy it. It didn't occur to me that the editor may be a newcomer as he is registered with an account but I could have been more diplomatic. The incessant assault on this site's neutrality by bigotry, ignorance and prejudice sometimes gets to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.2.135 (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your Welcome, stuff happens. Jeepday (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It does indeed... all the time! ;-) Nice to meet such a good admin. Take care. 69.228.2.135 (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I might as well respond to your message on my talk page under this same heading. As I said in my edit summary when reverting the changes again just now, I put maize at the top in accordance with MOS:DP (which I cited in my original cleanup), specifically MOS:DP. Corn redirects to maize, indicating that as Wikipedia sees it, maize IS the primary usage. (Also, the edits I reverted, or at least the original one--I'm not sure about the second--included a number of other changes that I found inexplicable, including rearranging the links, again in violation of the Manual of Style, and describing the town of Corn, Oklahoma as a "conurbation", which I had never seen before and, to be honest, did not think was an actual word until I looked it up just now. At any rate, the article about the town doesn't seem to suggest it's anything but a town, and there aren't any non-conurbation towns called Corn in Oklahoma listed on the disambig page for it to be confused with.)

It also strikes me as a little weird for you to tell someone posting from an anonymous IP, who had no contribution history at all before this incident, not to "bite the newbies", in reference to a registered user who has several hundred edits and who referred repeatedly in her edit summaries to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, a concept that 90+% of Wikipedia users don't seem to be aware of. I'm not offended or anything; as I said, it just seems weird. Propaniac (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I kind of think of WP:BITE and WP:AGF together and you can BITE anyone new or not, if the other editor is new or not no one needs to get bit, as I reminded the IP. The IP editor would seem to have some wiki history as evidenced by the POV comment.  As I pointed out in my comment to you and as evidenced in your reference to MOS:DP in the language "School may also refer to:" the language the IP editor used "Corn may refer to:" may be more neutral then the current standing text of "Corn' most commonly refers to maize.". Considering the long history on the subject, more neutral might be more preferred.  Also considering that main of point of entry to Corn (disambiguation) is from Maize, any thing to increase the WP:NPOV would seem like a good thing.  Keeping in mind the assumption that the editor was acting in good faith, and barring their less then optimal presentation of the point. I am just asking you to consider if the "may refer to" may be more neutral then "most commonly refers to" give is some thought and do what you think is best.  Wiki is always moving towards perfection, and the whole Corn / Maize thing has a way to go before it reaches perfection.  Jeepday (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * From a quick skim, though, every reference in WP:BITE seems to be to "newcomers." I seriously don't mean to be like, "What?! This guy dares to call ME a newcomer?! Well, I never!" I just found it seriously strange that of the two of us you left comments for, you would tell him not to scare me off. Although it may actually have been fairly apt, since I'm getting pretty tired (not scared) of performing thankless cleanup drudgework that leads way too often into tedious debate with utterly irrational and incoherent users (not that I'm calling you such a user yourself; you're able to have an actual CONVERSATION and not just revert all my changes with a completely nonsensical comment).


 * I don't even know if there's even any point in discussing my version of the page any longer, since it seems like anonymous IPs will continue to revert all my changes at any rate, but did you notice that what I actually said was "Corn most commonly refers to maize. It may also refer to:"? I mean, to follow the MOS:DP example precisely, I would have said "Corn is maize. It may also refer to:". Since the page is at corn (disambiguation), the MOS calls for a reference at the top to the content of corn, which is a redirect to maize. I don't really care what the reference is, but there should be one. If corn is as likely to mean barley or oats as it is to mean maize, then the redirect should be changed, but the top of the disambig page is just supposed to REFLECT the article at the main title. I don't know why it's so difficult for the anti-maize contingent to address the redirect instead of the disambiguation page. And, you know, I almost wrote "to address it where it actually matters instead of the disambig page", which reminded me that none of this matters, it's a completely silly thing to waste time on, and I'm washing my hands of the whole thing. Propaniac (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:66.215.5.163
Well, the user only has one contribution, and that's to their talk page; I'm thinking it was the dynamic IP thing (more info at IP address), as that's happened on my computer before. At least, that's all I can offer up. Cheers, Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  01:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Search rangeblocks
I have noticed the same problem, reported it at administrators' noticeboard (probably a better idea, since few people look at Wikipedia talk:Special:Ipblocklist), and the link is now fixed. Regards, Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did a check and found the blocked range 66.215.0.0/16 (Talk) (expires 16:34, 10 January 2009, anon. only, account creation blocked) (Range used by Scibaby). I beleive this leaves the IP above 66.215.5.163 outside of the blocked range so, any editing problem should not be related to a block. Jeepday (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? 66.215.5.163 is within the range 66.215.0.0/16. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You understand more about IP's then I. Then that would explain the message at User talk:66.215.5.163.  Would you be so kind as to look into it while I go find someplace to study up on IP Ranges? Jeepday (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * After reading several articles inlcuding Subnetwork I am thinking the block above only impacts 16 IPs 66.215.0.0 through 66.215.0.16 (17 if you count the zero).  Then I go to DNSstuff.com and run 66.215.5.163 which is in [City: Pasadena, California] belonging to Charter Communications and then run 66.215.0.16 which is in [City: Burbank, California] belonging to Charter Communications.  So I would say the two IPs are geographical neighbors using the same internet provider but the small block range should not impact User talk:66.215.5.163.  Would you let me know if you learn different? Jeepday (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In the range 66.215.0.0/16, the number 16 signifies the number of bits in the network part of the address (16 bits=2 bytes); then, the range includes all addresses with the matching network part (66.215.0.0 to 66.215.255.255). (Note: the first and the last address of the range won't be used, being reserved for identification of the network itself and for a broadcast address, respectively.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I will assume that you have made whatever considerations are appropriate in this situation. Jeepday (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ford Meteor
Hi, I added couple of citations, this car seems very hard to find decent sources, I updated the tag to refimprove also. --&mdash; Typ932T 14:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fluvial landforms of streams
Thanks for your message. I'll see if something in Judson & Kauffman's Physical Geology will serve as a reference. -- Cuppysfriend (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) Jeepday (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Added Rhodes W. Fairbridge (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Geomorphology, New York: Reinhold Book Corporation, 1968, pp. 956-957 ("Classification of Rivers") as reference and removed "unreferenced" template. If you think that more is needed, let me know.  -- Cuppysfriend (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

reliable sources?
You know, I could take your policy on reliable sources more seriously if the material I edited had been reliably sourced. I replaced inaccurate material that had no source with accurate material, for which I also didn't cite a source. I understand if you don't want unsourced material on your site, but all you did was take out my unsourced material and revert back to other unsourced material (which by the way was badly written and inaccurate).

If ever page/fact always has to have a source (and I've seen plenty of pages on the site that don't), then how the hell did the original material get there, and what the hell is it still doing there? It's ridiculous.

I will go back at some point soon and cite some sources - I have every Jefferson Airplane album ever released, a couple of box sets with extensive liner notes, and several books on them, so it won't be a problem, except for the time and trouble I'll have to take to learn how to do it and then do it. And then I'm sure you'll find some "good reason" to remove it anyway. On second thought, maybe I should just start using a real encyclopedia and not this amatuer hour bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.202.82 (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, that one was my fault
Upon closer examination, it appears the Airplane material was not removed - I was confused because I had two messages, an old one about a joke line I inserted in Bono's biography being removed, and then a message about the Airplane stuff which basically just says "cite your sources." I had forgotten all about the Bono thing and after just skimming the message thought the whole thing was one message about the Airplane. My bad. I will go back and cite some reliable sources soon, I promise. Many apologies for the mixup on my part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.202.82 (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds great, thanks. Let me know if I can be of any help. Jeepday (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bill Rancic

 * Per WP:V The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Thank you for finding the references and suppling them. Jeepday (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the references supplied and only found one that seemed to come close to meeting the expectations of a reliable source that being www.nydailynews which was from 2006, by it's self it does not support that the show is currently having any problems. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, please review WP:Welcome and learn you way around. We were all new once, and are willing to answer any questions you might have. Jeepday (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thx. I moved the info outta the lead paragraph. In retrospect perhaps all the info should be in te In the Loop with iVillage page & not at all on Bill's page. It is just that originally the page was a huge advert for iVillage so I wanted them (nbc) to see that we are aware the show is not doing well & they shouldnt dubiously change lie about their show on wiki.

Also thx for being gracious. Other wiki admins need to be like u. 70.108.122.10 (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Patriarch Alexius II article
Biophys has already reverted first attempts at correcting the NPOV violations in the article. I made my edits step by step, noting in my edit summaries the reasons. Without comment, he reverted almost all of them. We are not going to get very far at this rate. We are not dealing with a constructive editor who wishes to have a neutral article. I held off trying to make any corrections prior to your intervention, because I new this would happen. Until something is done here from the outside, there is no point in going any further. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish I shared your optimism about the direction the article is heading, but at present we now have Muscovite99 reinserting more WP:BLP violations into the article. You can see his lack of balance on this subject rather clearly at this edit. For more on that, see Requests for comment/Muscovite99.

I am also not sure I understand your instructions about what we are going to do. Are you saying that I can now edit the entire "Criticism" section? Because I can assure you, my edits are going to be reverted by Muscovite99. Or are you suggesting I come up with a draft, and present it to you, but not by actually editing the article itself? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

These reverts occurred after your note... the article was moving in a much more positive direction when you made your comments. Can you let me know whether you would prefer me to stand back and let you handle these reinsertions, or should I feel free to revert them myself? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit by adding or clarify not removing, leave all references in place as appropriate. Do not remove references or referenced material unless you added it.  When everyone gets done adding we can look at removing content as needed.  If you feel that specific contend is untrue, or not supported by references and you beleive that other editors may not agree with your assessment.  Bring it to my attention and I will offer a neutral perspective.  Will that work? Jeepday (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is fine. I have previously addressed some of the insertions in question.  The question of the commentary about the Patriarch's Marriage is a matter of a few basic facts, with a lot of judgment and commentary that are not based on facts.  See this comment.


 * The question of the nuns who clean the Patriarch's residence, I address here, and here. This is not a well sourced comment.  It is original research. The sources do not substantiate the assertions made.


 * The comments about "Rodina" being a KGB Front Organization are also not facts, but commentary disguised as fact. The "Mitrokhin Files" are themselves a controversial source.  Doing Revisionist History based on new tidbits allegedly taken from the KGB archives has been a cottage industry, and there are serious doubts about the authenticity of the information from that particular source.


 * Now, back to my work on the Criticism section. There is no way for me to rework the section as it currently exists without removing or modifying some of the content.  Biophys has also restructured the entire section in a very strange way, and so I need more precise guidance on what you want me to do with it.  If you just want me to add material, I can add somemore on the defense side... but this is not going to get anywhere near the 500 words or less limit for the whole section. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for mediating this issue! I guess main question is what we consider reliable sources per WP:Source. Do we consider a scholarly book published by Christopher Andrew, who is one of the best world historians on intelligence issues and Cambridge University professor (second coauthor is Vasily Mitrokhin), a reliable source? If that is not a reliable secondary source, then there are no any reliable sources. That is not something Mitrokhin said or brought with him from KGB archives. The books by Andrew are based on many hundreds of other primary and secondary sources, as any good scholarly book.Biophys (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not know any sources who would call Christopher Andrew "a history revisionist" as Frjohnwhiteford just did. Of course there are historians who proudly claim themselves to be "revisionists" like Arch Getty, but Andrew is not one of them. Some reviewers actually criticized Andrew's book for re-telling some obvious things that everyone already knows (one of them is collaboration of Russian Church with KGB).Biophys (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For criticisms of the reliability of the above, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitrokhin_Archive#Criticism This particular claim also has the problem of being based on this one source alone... although two references are in the article, they are two references to the same source.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the work of Christopher Andrew would constitute a reliable source.  But would only be a single source, so you have one reliable source but all or some work needs at least one more reference.  It is questionable if the work of Christopher Andrew would be a primary or a secondary source in this context.  If other references from generally reliable sources are found based in whole or part on the Andrew work that would make Andrew a primary and you would still need two of these (working under the assumption that these secondary works verified facts in the primary source (see WP:PSTS))  Is this acceptable to both of you?  Jeepday (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's acceptable... though I think, even if an additional source can be found, the wording of the text would still need some work to make it a bit more neutral. I don't doubt that the KGB used all sorts of organizations for their own purposes, but I do doubt whether this was a "front organization" or that Patriarch Alexei knew full well what the KGB was using it for.  I'm not sure even being a Cambridge Professor gives one the ability to read minds. But in any case, we shall see if another source can be found. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure your suggestion is consistent with WP policies. It would be extremely laborious to provide multiple sources for every statement in the articles. WP rules only require content to be sourced, that is supported by at least one primary or secondary reliable source (reliable primary sources are acceptable per WP:Source although secondary sources are preferred). Could you please provide any link to an official WP policy that explains which exactly statements should be supported by multiple sources? I did not find any clear-cut definitions. In this particular case we could make a better attribution and exact citation. The fact that Alexius was an organizer of "Motherland" is supported by multiple reliable sources. The assertion that "Motherland" was a KGB front is nothing unusual and the Andrew book is sufficient (almost any Soviet-sponsored organization abroad was a KGB front). The claim that Alexius knew about the true purpose of this organization is Andrew's view (he said: of course Alexii knew because he was himself a KGB agent).Biophys (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Content that is challenged or likely to be challenged, is subject to increased verifiability. (note that WP:V requests reference singular, but others below require multiple sources)


 * WP:BLP "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth."


 * WP:N "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.


 * WP:NPOV The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.


 * BLP requires "multiple, highly reliable sources", Notability (which is usually used to speak about a complete article) also requires multiple sources, NPOV requires "that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly" and "various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader". Does this address your questions? Jeepday (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the answer. Obviously, the rules do not require that every single claim in a BLP should be supported by multiple sources. I asked if there are any formal rules that define exactly which claims (in a BLP or otherwise) must be supported by multiple sources. The rule you cited tells: "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation". Then, simply telling that "Motherland" was a KGB front would not require multiple sources, as long as this is not a statement about a person. However, telling that Alexius was a KGB agent should be confirmed by multiple sources. So, this answers my question. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * When you insert such comments into this article, and then assert that he knew what the KGB was up to, the BLP issues kick in, and thus the two sources. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.. If the material or an attribute is challenged there should be multiple resources to cite. Jeepday (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you encourage Muscovite99 to stop deleted the NPOV tage, and to stop reinserting the text you had removed. For more on him, see Requests for comment/Muscovite99. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The deal
I guess we had a deal with Frjohnwhiteford that we both stop editing this article for a few days and that everyone will work on his own portion of text. That is exactly what I am doing. But Frjohnwhiteford started edit warring there with another user. Does it meant that the deal is off? Or perhaps your inetervention is needed? I would prefer if everyone followed the agreement. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I posted a request Diff for User:Muscovite99. I think the deal is still on.  I am trying to let you work among yourselves as much as possible and intervene as little is possible.  The goal would be create a working relationship within boundaries you can all live with.  I am pretty sure you will all see each other on different articles in the future.  Let me know if you think there are any other issues that need my attention.  Thanks :) Jeepday (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not care about Muscovite99. The deal was with Frjohnwhiteford, not with Muscovite99. Since he started editing this article after our agreement, I can do the same. I appreciate your neutrality on this issue.Biophys (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not edit warring when you are undoing unilateral edits, that are contrary to the instructions on the talk page. I have not been editing the article. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you "have not been editing the article". That is really amazing. Do you need the diffs? Here they are:,.. You repeatedly "undid" segments of sourced text without any consensus. More important, you deleted it when we both agreed to step aside.Biophys (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Either you really do not see the distinction, or simply refuse to see it. However, I was simply reverting the attempt to reinsert a text that Jeepday had already agreed was original research and had removed.  I was not making any unilateral decision... simply abiding by the one already reached. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are both correct you had a deal not to edit the page directly and the edit John made was a simple change back to where I left the page. John could have chosen to resist the urge to revert the edits and Bio could have chosen to accept that John was not trying to violate the ideal of the deal.  What should have happened is I should have reverted the edit and directed User:Muscovite99 to Talk:Patriarch Alexius II to address improvement of the section with all involved.  John  is incorrect in his statement above "Jeepday had already agreed was original research" please review my statement at "It has been suggested that the content on nuns below represents WP:OR, it does not appear that there is previously published reference supporting the claim".  I did not agree that it is OR, that would be an assumption of bad faith on my part.  In all likelihood it will be shown to a true and accurate statement that needs to be reworded and more references to satisfy the requirements of WP:NOR an WP:BLP and would be replaced in the article.  The fault on Johns misunderstanding may stem from my use of WP:OR instead of WP:NOR as the short cut to the policy page that discusses the rules when the possibility of Original Research exists. Jeepday (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not an assumption of bad faith to reach the obvious conclusion that when you cite two sources which make two different points, in order to make a third point that is contained in neither source, that is original research... that is simply a fact. That an editor would do such a thing might only reflect a failure to be aware of the policy against original research in wikipedia, or a failure to properly understand it.  The fact is, no source has been provided which asserts that Patriarch Alexei is violating the ecumenical canons by having nuns clean his residence. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Disregard
Biophys has now again removed the NPOV tag, and reinserted the comments you removed. He has gone ahead and inserted a new section. And now we have a new user Ellol, who has unilateral removed defenses of Patriarch Alexei. This is the sort of contentious POV pushing I have been having to deal with. I will await further instructions from you before taking any further action. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it was you who started edit warring with another user after our bilateral agreement to step aside for a while. So, right now you complain about User:Ellol, just as you complained about Marting, Malick, Muscovite99 and me?  Please note that User:Ellol is my constant "opponent". He is not on my or Muscovite99 "side". You can not work like that in WP. I still believe the problem is WP:COI as was reported by Martintg.Biophys (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. I included NPOV tag back. But if ellol or anyone else removes it, I am not going to fight over it.Biophys (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion
I have requested a second opinion, I should have a response in a few hours. Jeepday (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Content defending the Patriarch has been removed. Content which you removed now remains in the article.  The article is simply being vandalized at this point. I am refraining from reverting anything lest I be accused of edit warring, but the abuse of wikipolicy is rather egregious.  Can we get this rolled back, so we can methodically edit this article? As it is, it is just getting worse. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Page Protected?
Could you clarify whether the article is in fact protected (or will be)? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not protected, and there is not an edit war going on. I am hoping to keep both of those two items true.  As long as editors work towards solution on the talk page and reach consensus prior to editing the article everything should be fine. Jeepday (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am skeptical that it will go that smoothly, but we shall see. So, just to be clear... do you want us to just propose edits, and let you make the changes, or do you want us to do the editing ourselves?  Will you be giving a green light for such things?  The problem here is that at present, those who are on the other side of this dispute have no incentive to engage in the discussion, because they like the article as it is now.  As you can see, I have been trying to get reasoned discussions about particular issues, with no reply.  After a certain amount of time with no response... do you want me to just go ahead and make the changes, or not? Thanks for working with us. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The most appropriate thing is to suggest on the talk page content that is a reasonable combination of both points of view. Anticipate that other editors (on this article) will want to include content that you personal don't agree with.  Accept that the final article will not be exactly like anyone person wants and do your best to contribute to a workable middle ground that is a WP:NPOV between all editors and references.  When you have worked out a reasonable compromise then post it to the main article.  If you make changes to an article that you know are not going to be acceptable to other editors and do not represent consensus, then you would be engaging in and contributing to edit waring.  You should be able to stick to the rules at Talk:Patriarch Alexius II but with out the restrictions that relate directly to page protection, and if you can always find consensus before editing the article you will not need to contact me for problem solving.  Jeepday (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But what about the situations in which I simply get no responses to what I post on the talk page... which has happened quite often? Is there a reasonable amount of time that should pass before I go ahead and make the change I proposed, if no one has responded?  Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are offering on the talk page what you beleive should be a reasonable combination of both points of view, and no one has responded to it on the talk page for a few days you should be able to safely assume that no parties are objecting (assuming it is not just your perspective and other editors are active in Wikipedia during the time) and post it to the article. If you have reason to beleive that a specific editor (i.e. User:Biophys who has agreed to work towards solution) may object or you really do need their input to reach balance, then you should post your proposed text and any questions on the article talk page and post a request at their personal talk page to come participate. Remember there is no deadline so give them a couple days to think about it, you might even check their user contributions to make sure they have edited after you posted the request.  You may not always be able to get editors to participate in discussion, so try to offer what you beleive is a reasonable compromise, also if you know that there has been stressful communication occurring allow extra time between communications and decisions.  Because of the history on this article I will say that if I am called into mediate I will assume that a week should be sufficient time (assuming major editors are active) for no response to be considered silent consent. If an editor who has a history of editing the article makes a change that is counter to consensus (documented or silent consent) without seeking or finding consent on the article talk page, it would be fair to revert that edit, and in the edit summary and on the users talk page invite them to the appropriate place on the talk page.  Jeepday (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Renewed Edit Warring
Moscovite99 has again reverted your deletion of the original research regarding the nuns and the canons. See this. I don't think there is any question of whether or not he understands what he is doing. This is about the 3rd time he has done it since you first removed it. He has also done numerous edits to the text, making it more biased than before. Can we either get a block on him, or protect the page? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Can We have a Ruling on this issue?
Talk:Patriarch Alexius II. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have replied to your post at the above link, and would ask you to reconsider your conclusion. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have responded to your most recent post Talk:Patriarch Alexius II. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Roads
Here is an article that argues for the private ownership of roads http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf. Presumably there are at least some people who like public ownership: does this no qualtify as a disagreement? Larklight (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think the topic is notable? Are there multiple independent articles discussing the topic (see WP:V and WP:RS)? Jeepday (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In this edit the topic was reinserted without addressing the questions above. A single essay by an economist does not make a topic worthy of encyclopedic content, While it is true Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content, with out multiple references Wikipedia can not maintain a non-negotiable principle of neutral point of view in which all significant views are represented fairly and without bias, with representation in proportion to their prominence A single essay does not represent prominence about a topic as broad as Road. Jeepday (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you mean we need several sources for all statements? There are many statements that don't have any sources, and rarely does anything have >1. My statement was technically true, and it would also seem that who makes and owns roads is more notable than different words for traffic light or the plasticity requirements of general fill matereal, both of which warrant mention in the article.Larklight (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, why is it imperative of me not to revert you till the debate is over, but not visa versa? Is there any official policy?Larklight (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me Address your last question first, I apologize for not making it clear. Per WP:PROVEIT "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". No offense is intended  by my action of removing the content. Jeepday (talk)


 * Statements that are unquestioned and represent main stream knowledge have several references available, but for cleanliness they are not represented by multiple references. When a statement is about a topic that is not mainstream or are question require more references actually be cited. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources ask yourself if the referenced essay the best source available to support the statement? Also you may want to read WP:RRR as I see you have appear to not be aware of the ideal. Jeepday (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I understand about WP:Provit, but what do you mean by the ideal for the RRR rule? The rule is for more than 3 reverts, and I've made less: two reverts, and one some time before.
 * It may not be the best source, but it was in the first page of google hits. If it counts as an exceptional claim that there is disagreement, surely the existance of a page that inherantly necessitates the existence of such disagreement by virtue of it's own existence proves that there is disagreement? There is no way in which that article could exist at the same time as my statement being false (unless no-one liked public roads)Larklight (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique Jeepday (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The question is not if there is disagreement (there is almost nothing without disagreement see Flat Earth), the question is; Is the disagreement worthy of encyclopedic treatment in Wikipedia? If so does it deserve it's own article or a minor mention in an article?  I am suggesting that if the topic is worthy of any encyclopedic treatment in Wikipedia, then better references then you have supplied should be available, as you are the editor who wishes to include the topic the burden of providing references falls to you. Jeepday (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been nearly 3 hours with no further comment from the user Larklight. In this edit I removed the content again. If adequate references can be found the content may be readded, but it may be more appropriate for the article Transport economics.  Jeepday (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Patriarch Alexius II
Quite frankly, failed to understand your message. Do you mind him being referred to as Ridiger when he was twentysomething of age? Alexius is his monastic name and when he was being wed he did not have this name in this form and one does not refer to adults by their first names alone.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Muscovite99
Hi Jeepday. I just wanted to notify you of this AN/I thread involving Muscovite99. As your attempt to mediate the content dispute was recently brought up, some input from you might help shed some light. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeepday, thank you very much for help, but this is too much for me to handle. WP:ANI and WP:BLP complaints, personal offence from this priest at may talk page, DGG and ellol joining the dispute... I would rather stay away of Alexius II article for a while, and then possibly come back, unless someone makes dramatic changes in the article. Sorry. Biophys (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeepday. I wouldn't say the AN/I thread was resolved or settled, so much as went stale. However, as you are taking the larger issue in hand (I like what you're proposing at Talk:Patriarch Alexius II and hope it succeeds), if you just keep an eye on M99's civility then my purpose will have been accomplished. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

IP Message
hey, i got a message from you saying something about citing references when editing a bevis and butt-head article. However, I haven't edited anything on that page (nor even visited it.) I've had a few messages like that from other people (that i've edited a page when I haven't.) I don't know if it's my IP address or yours, but just a heads-up in case there's someone with malicious intent with access to your computer/files/IP address/whatever-else. Figured you should know, in case someone's done something with your stuff. Hope this helps!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.191.80 (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Some IP address change or are shared by multiple users. It looks like the IP 72.152.191.80 in Miami, Florida is used by Bell South. You may wish to  [ create an account]  if you are bothered by seeing messages for others, it has other benefits as well see welcome-anon. Jeepday (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

AFD
I just noticed that Tax slavery was deleted. In the future, could you notify the WikiProjects (WP:TAX) associated with the article. I don't see any comments from the common tax editors in Wikipedia and nothing was posted to the project. I don't know which way I would have voted but it wasn't cool that it just got deleted with a nom and a weak delete, without even telling the group. I can't monitor all the tax articles on my watchlist... Morphh  (talk) 13:17, 02 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As a rule I don't notify projects that I have nominated a specific article for deletion. I do attempt to notify anyone who has significantly contributed to an article. In this case I posted to User talk:EECavazos.  It has been my experience that for most articles with a project template on the article talk page, they have little or no desire to actually improve the article, their only goal is to list it under their project heading.  I can see that you have an interest and should I in the future notice that an article is part of WP:TAX I will keep your comments in mind. Jeepday (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with you regarding wikiprojects - I'm not sure how effective many of them are. For WikiProject Taxation, we have a section on the main page for AFD noms.  Thanks  Morphh   (talk) 0:59, 04 February 2008 (UTC)

This revert on Whore of Babylon
Thanks for the concern. It seemed pointed rather than genuine good faith editing at the moment, but I'm aware of WP:BITE and will try to be more careful, at second glance I think I was reading too much into that edit. Triona (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It happens :) Jeepday (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Toad (color) Afd
You put an Afd template at Toad (color) but you didn't create the Afd page. Why?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to finish writing it before I can finish creating it, will post a link to your talk page. Jeepday (talk)

Reference
Do you have a reference for this statement? Jeepday (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Their own website says "The Wall Drug Store got its start during the Depression years by offering Free Ice Water to thirsty travelers." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I added it as a reference. Jeepday (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hay Jeepday
Hey, I saw your messages on my talk page; Sorry if I have erased a part of the comments on 'Bunjevci' discussion page, it was just a repeated part of one of my previous comments(exactly same as the one following it, I saw it twice, so I erased the first part of the double article). What I am doing now is:, as I promissed a few weeks ago, I will erase (or change) all the most offensive words I was using in some of my comments on some of the discussion pages on wikipedia. I am doing it now, and will also report all the offensive language from a few persons used towards me on some of the discussion pages on wikipedia, with recquesting for it to be erased as well. Thanks for your observations and all the best. Pozdrav24.86.110.10 (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for letting me know. Be sure to use a good edit summary especially with anything that could be considered counter to TALK. Welcome to Wikipedia. Jeepday (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your posts
I suggest you read carefully your posts to me, looking at my first edit you referred to.

"Your recent edits here Diff are not constructive. The are the same edits that have all ready been reverted as not helpful to the article and violate the ideal of the WP:RRR.  If you have any questions or if I can be of any help please leave a note on my talk page. Jeepday (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your edit here Diff is counter to WP:BLP restores content that has been removed and has been discussed at length on the talk page.  The material has been removed a number of times and you have restored it a number of times.  I always try to  assume good faith but it would appear that you are intentionally ignoring Wikipedia Policy and attempting to engage in edit waring behavior.  Your comment here Diff which completely disregards the content that is in violation of BLP and the fact that your first edit to the article after posting to my talk page was to restore the same, would seem to indicate knowledgeable intent to edit counter to consensus and policy. Before making contributions to an article that have been previously deleted and/or may be controversial please discuss them on the talk page of the article and seek consensus with other editors. Jeepday (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)".

Again, I fail to understand what you meant in your original post. As to the alleged WP:BLP violation, you are entitled to have your opinion, but this is just your opinion which i disagree with. Nothing of what i added, in my view, violates any WP requirements. I had been asked to contribute some material to an article that obviously was fundamentally uninformed and uneducating. I have no intention to engage in edit wars generally and in this case especially -- never ever deleted other people's material. Apropos the article in question, knowing the subject all too well first-hand, it is abhorrent to me, therefore i shall very happy to wash my hands of it.Muscovite99 (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PS The mere mention of the canons serves the purpose of giving basic background information to those who may not be aware of the Orthodox Canon Law.Muscovite99 (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The BLP topic is discussed in detail at Talk:Patriarch Alexius II and comments in the edit summary of the history of the article discussing the relevant policy and directing users to see the talk page. Edit warring occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert content edits to a page or subject area.  If you are implying that you have completely ignored edit summary and discussion on the talk page related to content that  you disagree with in order to replace content without any attempt to reach NPOV and other policy then consider Wikipedia works best when people with opposing opinions work together to find common ground. Neutral point of view advises that all significant views can and should be documented proportionally. An edit war is the opposite of this, with two sides each fighting to make their version the only one..  I am glad to hear you have "no intention to engage in edit wars generally" and will not edit in a manor that may be interpreted as such.  I wish you happy and non-controversial editing in the future. Jeepday (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome yourself
Thanks for your welcome. I've been here a while, though, so you're a little late. What article is it you're refering to as requiring refence? Are you refering to the textual addition I made to the road article? I would assume that there are verifiable waterways on the map that have been called roads for centuries, ie Hampton Roads, on which there is an article right here in wikipedia, to which a link was provided, should be sufficient verification. Are you suggesting that this is not sufficient? I'm open to persuasion.

Aodhdubh (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The comment I left on your talk page is referring to this edit, though I did also tag Castle Roads, Bermuda as unreferenced. You are correct I am suggesting that link to the Hampton Roads is not sufficient verification. As a self published source Wikipedia does not qualify as a reliable source WP:SPS. Let me know if you have more questions. Jeepday (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Templates
The reason I am stating those facts are I don't believe I was given a fair warning/revoke. It was immediate without any chance at redemption. Undeath (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see that your frustrated, and that is usually not a good time to edit. There are two topics the one about rollback Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and the second about Template standards. It is unlikely that you will find resolution that you like about the rollback, I understand your argument and in other cases it would be valid, but in this case the presumption is that you should have known prior and that you should have also known that the tool could be taken away at anytime, it was taken away within the terms it was given.  I have not been party to the template discussion so I can't address it, but the rollback thing is over.   Let it go. Jeepday (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a bit harder than just letting it go. I'm trying to state that I interpreted the rules the way I did, and my interpretation was that the other reverts, after warning, were becoming unconstructive. Undeath (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, another reason of why I cannot just let it go: My RfA failed last month, the admin who nominated me told me to re-apply in a few months. (march) This little thing here is going to cause an eruption of oppose votes. I feel like I need to make my point clear here and now as to clear up confusion in the future. Undeath (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I hear and understand, I am trying to tell you that you can not win this argument. Learn and move forward.  Let the dust settle, let your emotions clear, then reexamine the how and the why. Jeepday (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Scott Horton (editor)
What specifically would you like added to the Scott Horton(editor) article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsgods (talk • contribs) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You should start by reading Notability (people) and Conflict of interest and decide if you think the article is appropriate for Wikipedia and if you can/should make it appropriate. Once you have done that let me know and I will point you in the right direction. Jeepday (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Patriarch Alexei II -- Response
I am responding here, because in addition to the points that I made on the talk page for the article, I want to make a few points more directly to you. You say that my logic is flawed, please help to discover my error by telling me exactly where it is. You cited this evidence: Diff, and are arguing that I endorsed. If you read my edit which you cited, I stated "What follows is typical of the tabloid journalism found in Moscow News..." That is not an endorsement, in my opinion.

Do you doubt what I say about the fact that there is no canonical violation when a bishop applies economia in a pastoral situation, even when the result is that the action is contrary to the letter of the canons? Economia is applied in the Church every day, and we would have hardly a clergyman in the Church, or a laymen in good standing if we strictly applied all the canons to the letter. For example, the canons say that before someone is consecrated a bishop, he must know the Psalter by heart. There was a time when it was common for monastics to know the Psalter by heart. I have never met a bishop who knew the Psalter by heart, because that is no longer the case. Circumstances often require a pastoral application of the canons.

You suggested I needed to learn to compromise. The edit you cited was an example of my trying to do just that. In my edit, I suggested a form of the text which would have been accurate and fair. I left in the original cited source, because I am not aware of any other source on the subject, and was trying to compromise with the previous edit. There is no doubt that Patriarch Alexei was married and divorced. I have seen the pictures of the wedding. I have long held a very low opinion of Moscow News, and for a number of reasons... having seen too many examples of their style of journalism. But since I know the basic facts that I left in the edit to be true, I was not inclined to quibble over the source, if that was all the source was used for. Furthermore, there really are no other sources on the subject that are available online in either Russian or English. Every article I could find was either a simple cut and paste job, or simply repeating the basic account given by MN, and citing them as the source.

Even if we accept as a given that the Moscow News is every bit as reliable a source as the New York Times, just for the sake of discussion, the New Times may be a reliable source for verifying some fact say in the life of Albert Einstein... however, if a New Times article asserted something erroneous about Einstein's theory of relativity, it would not be a reliable source... because the New Times is not a scientific journal, it is a news paper, with reporters that may or may not always understand every subject they touch upon. In Attribution, it states: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (Emphasis in the original quote). Evgeny Sidorenko is not an expert in Canon Law, Church History, Pastoral Theology, or Theology. He is therefore not a reliable source to pontificate about the appropriateness of Patriarch Alexei's marriage vis-a-vis Orthodox Canon law and Tradition. While a reporter may be well qualified to dig up the basic facts of a marriage of some public figure, and report on them, they are not reliable sources on theological or ecclesiastical matters.

I would not be arguing these points with you to the extent that I am were it not for the fact that you continue to question my motives and good faith for making comments on the talk page. Had I subverting your decision by making unilateral edits, I would expect you to reach such conclusions, but even if my arguments are flawed, you have no cause to question my motives here. You have assumed good faith in the face of a lot worse from some of the other editors... who actually were attempting to subvert your decisions by making unilateral edits. I don't understand why you would do so in the case of someone who is simply advocating a particular opinion on how best to handle a particular issue, but attempting to do so within the process that you have laid out for handling such things.

I would also again point out that you had said two reliable sources would be necessary in cases of controversy, and so far I have not heard your explanation for why this has changed. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I hear you saying "that there is no canonical violation when a bishop applies economia in a pastoral situation, even when the result is that the action is contrary to the letter of the canons". I hear you saying that the only reference available are MN or reworks of the  MN but that there are multiple occasions of this (here is were I am giving credit for multiple, I beleive we discussed the principle here).  What I am not seeing is any reference that says ecnomia was applied in the wedding.  I am hearing that there is little real doubt the everything happened as described in the article and supported by references that have be reported and re-reported. The only question left is of "canonically forbidden" topic, which could be nullified by the action of a bishop.  So answer this question and supply a references, Who is the bishop that applied economia to the wedding? Then you can add a sentence to the paragraph that says the violation of the letter of the cannons was nullified by what ever the reference says. Jeepday (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I realize that there has been a lot said in this discussion, and perhaps you have not had time to read it all, but I have said who applied economia in this situation. I have said all along that I did not take issue with the basic *facts* presented in that article.  I take issue with the characterizations and commentary that are contained in the article.  I would encourage you to pop the url for the article in Russian into Babelfish.  You will not get a perfect translation, but at least you will get some idea of the contents.  A key (really, *the* key) document cited in this article is actually a denunciation that was written by the head of the Leningrad Theological Seminary.  That alone makes the basis of the article shakey, because denunciations were often written under duress in one form or another, and some times they were completely fabricated by the person making them, for the purposes of deflecting attention away from themselves, or simply to stop the beatings.  Here is what the article says (which I will leave as Babelfish produced the text, but inserting some explanatory notes in double brackets:


 * In the archive of council for the matters of religions with the Council of Ministers ((the Council of Religious Affairs, which worked hand in glove with the KGB)) OF USSR was preserved its letter (simply stated - denunciation)"authorized of council for the matters of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Council of Ministers OF USSR for Leningrad and Leningrad region A.I. To kushnarevu":


 * "In L.D.A. (Leningrad spiritual academy. - note of avt.) there was the case of dedication into the dignity of priest for the purpose to deviate from the serving of service in the Soviet Army. Ridiger A.M., 1929 g.r., was subject to call to the military service in 1950. Being the fiance of the daughter of the archpriest Tallin G.Alekseyeva, Ridiger a. desired to get rid of the military service. After learning for sure after several days about the call into the army, Ridiger, archpriest Alekseyev and bishop tallinskiy novel entreated metropolitan Grigoriy to the agreement to marry Ridigera on Tuesday on Easter sedmitse, when marriage was forbidden according to the church regulations.


 * Ridiger was married in the academic church on Tuesday of Easter sedmitsy of 1950, is in haste produced into diakony ((ordained Deacon), then in priests by bishop roman and it was assigned to the Estonian arrival ((Parish)) st. of yykhva, Balt. of RR, Narva ul, ya"0; 102.


 * Inspector of academy L. pariyskiy, on 27 November 1951 g."*.


 * Metropolitan Gregory gave permission for the marriage. In his denunciation to the Soviet authorities, this person does not use ecclesiastical language, and so there is no mention of economia, but that is what it is called when a Bishop agrees to do something that is contrary to the letter of a disciplinary canon.  A bishop could not grant economia for someone to commit murder, because that is inherently evil, but he can grant economia for a couple to get married during lent, or during bright week, if he considers the reasons to be sufficient.  This gets back to my point about Einstein.  Sidorenko may be qualified to dig up this document.  He does not have the knowledge to have properly addressed the canonical issues he raised.  He did not properly address them.  From a canonical and theological perspective, his statements are incomplete, misleading, and inaccurate.  I can prove that with sources, but not sources that directly address Patriarch Alexei's specific case... because no other sources address the Patriarch's marriage... much less are their qualified authorities on ecclesiastical matters who address it.  What do you do, according to Wikipedia policy, when there is some issue for which there are not reliable, qualified sources to cite?  You leave it out of the article... which is what I have been arguing for.  Leave in the facts... but leave out the erroneous commentary.


 * And by the way, by adding a link to the "unexpurgated" version of this article (i.e., the version that did not undergo any editorial process), Muscovite99 has clearly added an unreliable source to the article. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Muscovite99 added a primary source (and named it a primary source) which is supported by multiple secondary sources which have undergone an editorial process. I read it via google translation, shortly after it was posted.  I actually have been waiting to see if he adds the reference to the bottom of the paragraph as well as it seems to support the entire paragraph not just the first sentence.  As for the point you want to make "From a canonical and theological perspective" given the resources available, I don't see how it could be done without being a Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Jeepday (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What are the *multiple* sources here? There is only one published source, and that is the article in Moscow News.  What is on that page is the form of the article that did not undergo an editorial process. WP:VERIFIABILITY states: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  WP:Reliable Sources states "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought."  "The unexpurgated version" is unpublished by any reliable source.  WP:BLP states: "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article."  If you think the link is justified by the wedding photo, there are other web pages that reproduce the original article in Moscow News that have that photo.


 * And on what basis do you conclude that Evgeny Sidorenko is a reliable source to comment on the appropriateness of a wedding in the Orthodox Church, which was approved by two bishops (Bishop Roman and Metropolitan Gregory)?  Again, I quote from Attribution, which states: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (Emphasis in the original quote).  Moscow News is not a Theological or Ecclesiastical Journal.  Sidorenko is not a theologian, or a Church historian.  There is no more reason to think that he would get this right than Brittany Spears.  THerefore neither Moscow News nor Evgeny Sidorenko are trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.  There are apparently no such sources which comment on that subject.  Thus the material should not be included in the article on that basis. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeepday, could you clarify what about the above referenced source added recently by Muscovite99 that you find an acceptable primary source? Are you referring to the photos, or to the "unexpurgated version" of the article? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Frjohnwhiteford could you clarify what part of the article section in question you beleive is questionable or untrue? Jeepday (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I object to the footnote which refers to this as "the unexpurgated version", and I object to the following paragraphs, which were not in the Moscow News article, have not undergone any editorial review, and therefore violate WP:BLP:


 * Судьба двух людей, связанных браком - вещь весьма тонкая и никогда не знаешь, где и когда порвется. Развод - дело неприятное, но ничего достойного того, чтобы это скрывать, здесь нет. Если только это действительно не связано с каким-либо неблаговидным поступком. Сегодня Патриарх Алексий II много говорит в своих выступлениях о важности священного долга защиты Отечества ("только в Церкви и в Армии служат, а не просто работают", - сказал он как-то), об укреплении семьи - ячейки общества. Хотелось бы надеяться, что так он считал всегда. Поэтому нам трудно предположить, что заставило его вычеркнуть из своей официальной биографии эпизод супружеской жизни, который чисто по человечески не может повредить имиджу ни одного нормального человека. Ни в обществе, ни в церкви.


 * Над этим материалом работал целый коллектив авторов, в том числе и я (Евгений Комаров). Но особая заслуга в нём принадлежит двоим музейным работникам Санкт-Петербурга, пожелавшим остаться неизвестными: именно они разыскали в архивах все документы, упомянутые в статье, и фото, про которое бывшая супруга патриарха Алексия, по слухам, сказала: "Ну откуда они могли это взять? Этого же ни у кого не должно было остаться! Только у него и у меня, да и он, наверное, уже выбросил". В немного сокращённом виде материал опубликован еще 22 мая 2001 года в Московских Новостях под подписью: Евгений Сидоренко; Таллинн Санкт-Петербург."


 * In the first paragraph, it is not a matter of fact, but of commentary, and in second paragraph, it is a matter of further violating the privacy of the Patriarch's first wife (given her age, and the fact that she has remarried, and no doubt has children and grand children... and possible great grand children), I rather doubt she asked for the attention this article brought her -- if she did, she could easily have spilled the beans on what prompted their divorce, but she didn't, or it would have been in this article. I also think it is unfair to challenge the patriarch to explain what happened, because there are all kinds of possible reasons, which may not only be embarrassing to himself, but to  her and both of their families -- probably only the two of them know, and  I don't see why it is anyone else's business.  I object to other parts of the article on other grounds, as stated above, but I don't see how you can possibly argue that this "unexpurgated version" does not violate Wikipedia policy. If you can, I would just like to see the rationale. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, the material is not available solely from that source, it has been republished several times,as you well know. John you have a conflict of interest in the article that creates an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.  Look at this string of comments, here you are arguing to remove content from Wikipedia that you know beyond doubt is true.  Ask yourself if your goal is to create a balanced article that contains criticism.  Consider this first sentence This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing the application of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline to incidents and situations where editors may have close personal or business connections with article topics.  Then read Tendentious editing and see if you notice anything that might lead you to consider if you belong in one of these categories. Editors who engage in this behaviour generally fall into two categories: those who come to realise the problem their edits cause, recognise their own bias, and work productively with editors with opposing views to build a better encyclopaedia—and, well, the rest. The rest often end up indefinitely blocked or, if they are otherwise productive editors with a blind spot on one particular area, they might be banned from certain articles or become subject to probation..  I am hoping that you can find your way into the first category. Jeepday (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeepday, first of all, I am not engaging in tendentious editing, by any stretch here, because when it comes to a dispute like this, I am talking the issue through, and attempting to work the text to get it into a form that conforms to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. You do not see me unilaterally removing the material in question... only making a case for why I think it should be removed.


 * Secondly... and I am not sure why you refuse to see this distinction here -- I am not arguing that facts verified by multiple sources be removed... I am arguing that commentary on those facts, in questionable sources be removed. It is not a fact that Patriarch Alexei's marriage violated the canons... that is an opinion... and an erroneous one, I would argue.  It is not a fact that Patriarch Alexei should explain his divorce... that is an opinion, found in a source that does not meet the WP:BLP criterion for inclusion., which states: ""Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article."  The web site in question is not, as best as I can tell, the website of a reputable news paper.  The article was not published in a book.


 * Thirdly, you keep stating that "multiple sources" have verified the information in question, when the *only* source is the same article, in either the edited or unedited form. Name the other multiple sources here.


 * Fourthly... and perhaps you just are not hearing me here -- assuming no one else objects to the Moscow News Article (in which case the guidelines you set out would call for a second opinion), I am accepting that this source will remain in the article. I am also suggesting another link, which includes the edited article, along with the two photos that are on the "unexpurgated" version's page.  If there is no substantive difference between the unexpurgated version, and the edited article, as Muscovite99 has stated, then why not compromise, and just use the link I suggested?  If you look at the talk page for the article, I have proposed a revision of the paragraph that provides more detail from that article.  I have never argued that the marriage and divorce should be omitted from the article precisely because I have no reason to doubt those facts to be true... though had I been contentious about it, I could have, I suppose, argued that it not be included unless another source was provided.


 * As for the issue of conflict of interest, I think you have only superficially considered what that policy addresses, because it clearly does not apply to me. It cites for example, a climatologist who edits articles on global warming.  Such a person is obviously committed to the topic, but there is no conflict of interest.  It cites the example of a fan of a rock band editing an article on that band (again, clearly such a person has a commitment to the subject, but no COI... though a band member, or the band manager would probably have a COI. This issue has been raised previously, and it was reviewed by multiple uninvolved editors, and it was concluded that this policy did not apply to me in this article.  I would ask you to consider whether or not you are remaining neutral in this article, or whether you have taken sides, and become an involved editor.  I would hope not, but am beginning to wonder.  I have attempted to work within the bounds of the guidelines you have set.  I have avoided making unilateral edits that were controversial.  I have merely attempted to make the case for why I think certain edits should or should not be made.  Here, I have simply asked you to state your basis for including an unedited article as a source... particularly, since according to Muscovite99, it should not matter, since there is no substantive difference. I believe there is a difference.  Why can't we just use another link with the same photos and be done with it?  Had Muscovite99 not introduced this new factor into this discussion, we would already be done with it. If you do not argue that this source violates the BLP policy (which is hard to understand), I don't see how you could believe that my raising the question was anything other than a good faith questioning of a source, based on a good faith reading of the policy. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I just realized that from the time I originally quoted from WP:BLP, the wording has been changing. The form you quoted would make the source in question at least more arguably allowable.  The form I quoted read: ""Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article."  Note the rather absolute wording *should never be used*.  There seems to be some disagreement about this issue... but again, consider the wording I was working with, and ask yourself if my reading was not a good faith interpretation of the text. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Last first, wording changes in policy, it happens no worries. Unless you watch the talk page of every policy you can't always keep up with it. I think we can both assume good faith on the part of the other that we are interpreting the policy as best we understand it.


 * Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_21 that was ugly, something like 4 paragraphs about COI and pages of bickering. I would not be so bold to say "clearly does not apply to me" The potential for you to cross the line still exists particularly in the heat of the moment when you are arguing conflicting POV of view, with editors who you have history with.


 * Tendentious editing, this whole section is tendentious, A week ago Diff you asked me for an opinion, and you have not stopped asking me to change my mind about it since. You may recall Talk:Patriarch_Alexius_II you agreed to have me "facilitate the dispute resolution" and in Talk:Patriarch_Alexius_II there are 5 rules that are related to editing the article.
 * 4 You continue to work amongst yourselves on the talk page on the disputed content, ask Jeepday if you need a opinion or decision.
 * 5 Before asking Jeepday for an opinion all parties who are involved in the dispute give a short explanation of why their position is correct and provide policy (with links) to support their position.
 * 6 Everyone involved agrees to accept Jeepday's opinion as definitive, If two editors agree that Jeepday's opinion is not realistic We will ask User:DGG for a final decision.
 * 7 Agree to accept User:Biophys as an expert in the Russian language and User:Frjohnwhiteford as an expert on the church
 * 8 Everyone agrees to try not to take this personal, there is a history here, feelings are strong, and some viewpoints are harshly opposed. There is no question that in this process you will feel upset at each other and probably at me as well. You will think twice before accusing anyone of bad faith, and if you accidentally do respond poorly you will apologizes. If offered an apology you will accept it and continue to move towards the goal.


 * You are not following rule 4 to work with the other editors to reach a solution and only coming to me when you need an opinion,


 * You are are not following rule 5 for all parties who are involved in the dispute give a short explanation of why their position is correct


 * You are not following rule 6 Everyone involved agrees to accept Jeepday's opinion as definitive, Take a look how many times you have questioned my opinion.


 * And now you are questioning my neutrality "I would ask you to consider whether or not you are remaining neutral in this article, or whether you have taken sides, and become an involved editor. I would hope not, but am beginning to wonder", I am not editing the article, other then a casual check once in a while I am not monitoring the article or the talk page. Yes I am becoming involved because you are ignoring the rules and trying to influence my neutrality. Almost all of my interaction in the last week is here with is you trying to change my POV to yours.


 * If you User:Frjohnwhiteford are not able to work towards solution with your coeditors on the talk page of the article and come to me for an opinion, when you and your coeditors need an outside uninvolved opinion, Then I will withdraw from participation. I volunteered to facilitate from a neutral perspective when it was needed, I have no relationship with any part of the subject of the article and have no intention of forming one. I have no desire to spend my limited Wikipedia time fencing words or opinions with you.


 * Where would you like to go from here? You are invited to ask either ask me to withdraw as facilitator (which I will gladly do) or you may go work with your coeditors and come to me when there is a solution you can not reach among yourselves (which I will also gladly do). What I will not do is continue to the interactions that are occurring on my talk page that so resemble the ugliness on Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_21.

Signed Jeepday (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You have ended the quote of rule #6 in mid sentence. The full rule is "Everyone involved agrees to accept Jeepday's opinion as definitive, If two editors agree that Jeepday's opinion is not realistic We will ask User:DGG for a final decision." Since the rules envisioned steps that would follow when people disagreed with you, I did not take this rule to mean that no one could voice disagreements with you, only that your decision would stand, unless those other steps kicked in. I would not have taken this discussion to your talk page had you not questioned my motives on the other talk page.  Had you not continued to question my motives here, but simply stated your disagreement, This discussion would have been over much sooner.  Also, had you not endorsed Muscovite99's addition of what I consider a questionable source both here and on his talk page, I would have not asked you about the merits of that source here. If you would please refrain from questioning my motives in the future, I will confine further posts to your talk page to asking you to give a ruling on the article talk page.  I have asked you on several occasions to clarify your expectations.  If you would prefer I not do that, and wait for you to clarify them after I have done something that you don't agree with, then I will approach it that way (and I don't mean this as a threat... I have no intention of intentionally doing any such thing).  I do not want you to withdraw as facilitator, but if in the future I disagree with your decision, I would only ask that you not take what I say as implying that I will not abide by your decision, or as a personal affront, but instead take it as my being the first editor to suggest that your "opinion is not realistic"... but if there is no one else who shares my opinion, that will be the end of it. Forgive me for offending you, and for taking up so much of your time. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

John Thanks for your comments above. I don't have a problem with disagreement, in the future I am sure we will both modify our approach. I only have one expectation, that at some point the intervention of an outsider will not be required to settle disputes on the article Patriarch Alexius II, everything else is interpretation of current policy. As for you doing something I don't agree with (presumably on the article), It does not matter if I agree with what you do to the article (I am not even really watching), what matters is if the other editors agree. My part is to help you all through impasses until you can do it on your own. Jeepday (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

image
Re Horn of Gondor - yes I have issues - that image is under copyright and does not fall under fair use - note fair use does not include 'to add a nice illustration' to an article - these things are other peoples intellectual property - and you have no right to use them here. I recommend that you read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle-earth and continue the discussion there if you disagree with me re-removing that image.

I would like to draw youe attention to Non-free_content Non-free_content for when images should be included.

Specifically if the image itself was being discused and that could be a reason to use. Using other peoples copyrighted work as illustations is precisely the reason copyright laws exist and constitutes theft.77.86.8.83 (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be correct and if there is good cause for the image to not be on wikipedia then you should go to Images and media for deletion and post the Image:Hornofgondor.jpg for deletion. Removing the image from the article does not remove the image from Wikipedia.  I see that you are working from a non-static IP so will will post the image back to that article to asking you to post the image for deletion.  The proper format for discussion about fair use of images is Images and media for deletion not Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle-earth Jeepday (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Mazda T platform
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mazda T platform, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.carluvers.com/cars/Mazda_T_platform. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Mazda T platform, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.Jeepday (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The information for the Mazda T platform, which was the basis of the Mazda Millenia was removed from Wikipedia for an unknown reason. When I searched the internet for information, my results cited WIKIPEDIA as the source. I searched for about an hour and all my results produced the same results, citing WIKIPEDIA as the source. If WIKIPEDIA is the only source, why does the information that I replaced need to be deleted? (Dddike (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Because Wikipedia can not be a source for it's self. Some add the content to wikipedia without sources, then a bunch of web pages duplicated something that could not be verifed, then the article was deleted because there was no sources,then you took the duplicated Wikipedia stuff and posted it back to Wikipedia, when it had already been deleted per WP:V and WP:N Jeepday (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Dora Vandalism
There are vandalism-cases on Dora The Explorer. It seems that there are many people with hatred against the show, me included, but I do not vandalize the article, and neither do the other Wikipedians who hate the aforementioned show. However, it seems to me that those who hate the show but do not vandalize it want to keep good reputations and their dignity so they do not vandalize anything. However, I am more worried about those who do NOT have the aforementioned traits. Therefore, I ask that you guard the article mentioned above. Thank you. (Please reply on my talk page.) Yours truly, Pokemon Buffy Titan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokemon Buffy Titan (talk • contribs) 05:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

From Muscovite99
Thanks for the message and advice. Apropos the source, i haven't done the textological comparative analysis, but there does not really seem to be much substantive difference between the versions and our paragraph does not deviate in any way from what both sources say. As for the style of referencing, i did use those templates you suggested, but came to try to do without them because in heavily-referenced articles they create a nearly impenetrable jungle when you need to do another edit.Muscovite99 (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, for giving it a shot Jeepday (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Robisim
Hey Jeepday, your UAA report requested a message if the report was declined. I declined it because the username itself doesn't really present a problem. Someone else deleted the userpage. It struck me as someone just trying to be funny; I don't think the user was really trying to be offensive, and I wouldn't have deleted it, but it's done. As long as he doesn't start creating "Robisim" articles in mainspace, I don't think it's a huge cause for concern. Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Hi there. I just wanted to follow up with you on your report to WP:UAA (which Bongwarrior removed while I typed this up). I don't think that the username needs to be immediately blocked, but I did delete the user page as an attack page and welcomed/warned the user. If we get a good contributor out of this, good. If they wind up blocked for continuing like this, at least we gave them that opportunity to help the encyclopedia. You can, of course, RFCU this, but I do agree with Bongwarrior that the username itself isn't the issue.  W ODU P  07:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)