User talk:Jeffpw/Archive 4

Your User page
I have deleted the campaign poster you had on your User page. Please don't campaign for candidates on Wikipedia's dime. This is not a political point from me, as I have not made up my mind yet as to whom I will support, it might be Hillary, but that has no bearing on my deletion. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was about to protest this on Zoe's talk page as I wasn't sure you were around but ended up getting into an edit conflict with you. I've still left a brief message as I can't see how WP:UP applies here. WJBscribe 18:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Read WP:USER: What can I not have on my user page? ... Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with abuse of power and all to do with attempting to explain why we are here. To create an encyclopedia, not to campaign for candidates. I have requested a review of my actions at WP:ANI. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No caption, huh? You mean, no caption like ''Please support Hillary Clinton for President in 2008. ''? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going to have to back Zoe on this one....I could see a small picture (that would be OK), but the picture takes up the entire page. I respect your right to choose either side you want, any candidate you want, and to show everyone your support for that candidate, but don't make the picture that huge.  Size it down, add a tag like "I support Hillary, who do you support", so it doesn't seem like you are pushing a candidate on everyone, so everyone is happy:) - SVRTVDude 19:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't do "abusing her power". True or false, it's heard every single day and will fall on deaf ears at ANI. — coe l acan t a lk  — 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking it seriously. This is a controversy I was involved in back in the spring, and it was never resolved. I'll be damned if I'm going to let an unresolved issue be played off as established consensus. — coe l acan t a lk  — 20:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I figured with the "who do you support" would open up a dialouge with others....it would say who you support and give people a chance about who they support. Sorry to confuse. - SVRTVDude 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I also think this image should be removed. Wikipedia is simply not the place for political advocacy of any kind. Friday (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:UP says "extensive" opinion. I feel, now that the Hillary picture has decreased in size, that it is acceptable. { Slash -|- Talk } 00:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Chuckle. I think a monster may well have been unleashed. See User:Hit bull, win steak. The caption: "This giant public domain image of Hillary Rodham Clinton does not care whether you vote or not, but it DOES wish that people were more polite and reasonable. Some may consider it polemical, but I prefer to think of it as polemarrific!" is pretty funny. WJBscribe 16:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, I was just trying to help out. I agree with WJB quote of "pandora's box is well and truly open". - SVRTVDude 17:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't think my above comments are being rude....I was trying to help out further above. I hope by my helping didn't cause more problems.  As I said before, I support your right to choose either side and have a picture up if you choose and a caption even saying "I support Hillary, who do you support", cause it says who you support and allows the reader to say "I support That Other Guy"....opens a little dialouge between users.  Please don't think of my comments as rude, just trying to help out.

Just in case you are wondering....I am not sure which Democrat I support...I am torn between Hillary, Barack, and Gov. Richardson from NM (for some reason)....though I would take Hillary over the other two....but that is my opinion. - SVRTVDude 18:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appericate that...I try to be helpful:)  That is a good ticket...personally I think it could work...we can hope. - SVRTVDude 18:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just noticed the discussion link... is this a joke or something? It's your userpage, you can write whatever you want on it - long as it isn't some form of discrimination. To be honest I find the discussion rather pathetic, and these people who oppose the picture must have too much time on their hands - Bush supporters by any chance? So if I had a caption on my page supporting rights for gay people, or for minority races, because I'm promoting their cause that's wrong? What a joke, and not a funny one either. I feel sorry for you mate - it's like being in a totalitarian state sometimes on Wiki. Let's hope Democrats do win, and make all those Republicans miserable. LuciferMorgan 00:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * People seem to have a wider view of the user page than Wikipedia, and Wikipedia policy does. You don't actually own your own user page, (it is a community resource) and it is offered as courtesy, primarily for you to give a brief description of yourself, and to facilitate communication.  See User page.  There is still pretty active contention about the removal of comments on your own talk page.  Some admins still giving warnings and blocks, and others saying that you can remove whatever you want from your talk page.  There is no clear policy on that.  Although I agree with your politics, Wikipedia is not the right forum for politics.  Atom 15:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I 110% disagree with the above. Let's have a glance at Wikipedia's own Jimbo Wales userpage, where a "Statement of Principles" is present. That's definitely politics in my opinion. I guess it's different when you're the founder of Wikipedia though... LuciferMorgan 03:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, Lucifer. Yes, there definitely are some Wiki Police-State Bullies here, but the majority of the community is as broadminded as you are...thank goodness. And Atom, I'll pull whatever off of my talkpage that I wish. Everyone's comments--including warnings (hypothetically--I have never gotten one) are on my page through my good grace. Comments I really don't like go straight into the electronic dustbin. Anyway, Vote for HILLARY!!! (and have a nice day). Jeffpw 09:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Christ Illusion
I'm glad you were critical, so no worries - such feedback has benefited the article, which is a great thing. I welcome all your comments, which are enormously appreciated. I didn't know what a run-on sentence was that's all as concerns one of your concerns, but I'll address that with your suggestion. With possibly creating a "Controversy" section, hmm I think the information fits better in the lyrical info and album cover sections respectively, as they can be analysed in total in the respective section. Thanks for all your help though, and if you think of any other concerns give me a bell. LuciferMorgan 22:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A light-hearted aside
It just occured to me that I have images of 16 politicians on my userpage! I guess that means I support: Should I be more worried about the number of userpage infringements or the risk of being carted off for a serious case of multiple personaility disorder...? WJBscribe 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The British Labour Party (oh, and the British Conservative Party)
 * 2) The US Republican party (sorry about that)
 * 3) The Chinese Communist Party
 * 4) The Israeli Kadima Party
 * 5) The Indian Congress Party
 * 6) The Tunisian Democratic Constitutional Rally
 * 7) The Iraqi Islamic Party

Jennings refs
Hey there. I'm thinking about ditching the citation templates (they're just annoying and unhelpful to me...I also don't like the way they look). Could you hold off converting the refs for now? Sorry...and thanks for helping dig up some of the archive links. However, what should I do about the "Retrieved on" dates for these? Those are misleading to readers, since I certainly didn't retrieve the archived versions on those dates...I retrieved the LexisNexis versions...again, another reason why I linked to LexisNexis instead of the archived versions. Gzkn 01:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I decided on implementing something like this for those LexisNexis articles that don't have equivalent online archive versions:
 * Dare, Patrick (June 14, 1997). "Impatient broadcaster savours Carleton honour". The Ottawa Citizen through LexisNexis® Academic, p. C3. Retrieved on January 3, 2007.
 * This is less misleading to readers. I really feel that I should let them know that I accessed the article through LexisNexis...this also makes it so that the "Retrieved on" is accurate. By the way, I'm kind of basing this on the APA style recommended by LexisNexis.
 * For those articles that do have equivalent online archive versions, I'll link the headline of the article (e.g. "Impatient broadcaster savours Carleton honour"). But I'll still keep the LexisNexis info. I believe this is the best way to present the sources. It really is quite misleading to readers to suggest I retrieved the online archive versions of the articles, when in fact I used the LexisNexis versions. Gzkn 02:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

FARNotice
Shoot, I forgot to add a bit of documentation. Take a look again. =( { Slash -|- Talk } 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just saw this on your talk page, as I was here responding to Severa - not sure we want to prompt people to notify Projects and editors without using the message we've designed at Articlename Also, first-time FAR nominators don't typically know which Projects to notify, so I have to go back and do it anyway.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No merge
Pan Am 1996-1998 and Pan Am 1998-2004 were split from the Pan Am article some time ago. Those two companies are not related to the original Pan Am. Other such same-name airlines also each have their own article. Clipper471 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your run in with Administrator Zoe
Hi Jeffpw. If you have a moment perhaps you would care to review the message "Open Dialogue" that I have tried to start with Zoe. Many of her actions are in clear breach of wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am hoping she will reply, but I doubt it. I intend to go to WP:ANI to try to force her hand. Her personal interpretation of guidelines and breach of procedures make her, in my humble view, unfit to be an admin. Her continued harrasment of great member of the community can only harm this project. If I do go to intervention I would like to cite your case if that is okay. Pedro 1999a | Talk  08:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please keep me informed. If you do decide to take it to WP:ANI, I will be happy to assist. Jeffpw 08:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Jeffpw. And your headline caption has bought a real huge smile to my morning!!! Spot on!!  :) 

Pedro 1999a | Talk  08:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, I suggest a little caution here. I've seen Zoe around and have no concerns about here as an admin other than the incident with your user page. She acted hastily and hopefully will discuss such changes in future. Having reviewed what I can of Pedro1999a's grievance (the article and talk page in question have been deleted so I can't see the difs) it seems that Pedro1999a reverted edits he disagreed with, labeling them vandalism. Zoe warned him against personal attacks- there is general consensus that labelling others' good faith edits as vandalism is a personal attack. Pedro1999a seems to feel his behaviour did not amount to a personal attack. Anyway, short of seeing actual evidence of misconduct on Zoe's part, I still consider her an admin in good standing in spite of her unilateral actions on your user page. I realise you've now gotten off on a bad foot with her, but hope you'll give her a second chance. WJBscribe 14:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re this edit: may I suggest that you not twist the thumbscrews any deeper into her? — coe l acan t a lk  — 00:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got some sympathy here. I really don't think anyone can blame her for letting it get to her. She's human. She's probably pretty upset that a lot of other people on WP:ANI don't agree with her. She also feels like she's being attacked, and whether she is or not, she feels it. There's nothing wrong with her for feeling that way, as emotional reactions are fairly well out of one's hands and certainly nothing that she can be chided for. I don't think I would be a model of civility if I were in her shoes right now. — coe l acan t a lk  — 00:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade FAR
I'm glad to learn that my forethought saved you so much work but surprised to learn that it was so exceptional. On the other hand, SandyGeorgia had to go through all of the pages which I posted on and add more information regarding the FAR process, so, perhaps it was so not so time-saving a gesture after all. :-) -Severa (!!!) 10:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Obsessive detail-orientation is definitely a character trait I can appreciate. :-) I'll just have to remember to be more thorough in notification posts for any future FARs which I might file to spare SandyG the job of polishing up after me. -Severa (!!!) 11:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Copy of message left for Severa. Thanks so much for all the work you did in my absence, Jeff - it was much appreciated and very helpful!)  Hey, Severa and Jeff: I still have a lot of catching up to do, and was just plowing through yesterday.  I should have left you a note yesterday, but ran out of steam.  The message at Article name was worked out on the WP:FAR talk page after several run-ins with editors on FARs who stated that our instructions weren't clear enough (hence, that the process wasn't just).  It seems that some editors go directly to the FAR page of the article in question, without ever reading the instructions at the top of WP:FAR.  So, giving the complete instructions we've worked out is intended to avoid that criticism/confusion.  Putting a notice out helps get the ball rolling, and I appreciate that you did that: I just had to go back and give the subst'd message, which is really easy to do.  Thanks for the help in getting the ball rolling!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan nominated for FA
Hello again Jeff! I thought I would let you know that I have just nominated the Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article as a Featured Article candidate. The feedback and encouragement from you and the other reviewers is what motivated the nomination. Thank you again for all your support! Cimm[talk] 00:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey


Thanks for the moral support. :) I added the ref. This FAC is gonna be exhausting isn't it? Raystorm 00:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wonderful perspective mate! :) Eeew. I owe you a couple of virtual beers for this one, thanks for being there. Cheers Raystorm 00:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * *Grin* Thanks mate! And yeah, I completely share your opinion now. Hoops of fire, indeed! I think I'm gonna need a bottle of oxygen after this FAC... Cheers! :-) Raystorm 13:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Question
I actually came to ask you something, but can't remember what? Any chance you recall what our last exchange was about? I couldn't find anything in the archives, but I'm working on a big project and rather busy right now. Post on my user page, let me know if you think of something--sorry for the cryptic message. Thanks for expending so much effort on Wikipedia in general being the gracious party. KP Botany 01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, that what it, why not go ahead and post it for peer review, get some outside input? Maybe, actually, ask SandyGeorgia, someone who won't just rubber stamp it.  I forget though, if it needs anything else, as I kinda had an inkling that there was one more thing.   Still, I think it could be a good example of a little article if we can keep Bob/Leah away from it.
 * Oh, and, don't go blaming any sense of decency on me--not my fault.  KP Botany 21:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it'll breeze through GA without problems. Thanks.  KP Botany 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Anon blocking
Usually it takes at least 3, (test3, in order to be eligable for AIV. If the edit looks like intentional vandalisim, give them a test4im, which only gives them one warning. The IP is part of BellSouth, so it may be a shared IP. Admins are advised to be very careful with those type of IPs. But if they continue, send it to AIV again -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&middot;chill&gt; 17:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal:LGBT/Selected article
I assume you're talking about the "Selected article", right?

So I see Portal:LGBT/Previous article and Portal:LGBT/Previous articles. Whichever one you use is up to you, though I'd put a #redirect on the other one (or just have it speedy deleted).

As for the content of the archive page, I created the biography one by going back to the history and copy/pasting from the old versions of the page.

Do you want me to do that? I mean, I can if you want ;) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, I got a message from Kirill Lokshin saying we have to automate our archives - don't put massive efforts into anything until I've asked him more... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was very nice of you. :-) Cheers Raystorm 15:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

*bursts into tears*
It seems strange to think that I've only known you both for three months, and I'm probably never going to be in the same country as you, let alone meet you, and yet you can reduce me to tears with a few sentences. Thank you so much for your support - you can certainly count on mine for anything you do. Gratefully yours, Sarah. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Gimmebot
Hey, Jeff ! I just left a query for Gimmetrow; I'm pretty sure that GimmeBot is fully functional now and can take over the facfailed chore, but let's see what Gimmetrow says. Thanks SO much again for everything you stepped in to do ... Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, Jeff, are you seeing the Gimmebot running through the recent facfailed? It's not as fast as we are, but it's doing all the messy housekeeping - pretty sure we're done with that job!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

merged FA tag
I noticed the new FA tag, nice job, I like it! I do have a suggestion, however. See, currently, adding the maindate portion to it, the tag will add the same line as the previous sole tag except that it does not wikilink the date like that old one did. Instead, the date stays in regular black text. Seeing as the FA templates are in American format this means that the date will come out as forced American format while if wikilinked it will default to user prefference, perhaps we can add that feature on so that it remains as neutral as the last tag did? Whaddaya think? -- SmthManly  / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 06:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

World's Smallest Political Quiz userbox
You may be interested in User:Audacity/Userboxes/WSPQ, which is a replacement for the old Political Chart userbox. The new userbox takes the two variables (economic and personal freedom), calculates which political alignment they place you into (Statist, Libertarian, Liberal, Centrist, or Conservative), and links your userpage to the appropriate category.

Please reply to User talk:Audacity, as I will not be watching your talk page.  Λυδ α cιτγ  07:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tim-pete.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tim-pete.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Jeff, I see the reason this image is orphaned is that you replaced it with the better quality Image:Tim-pete2.jpg. If you don't need Image:Tim-pete.jpg anymore, the quickest way to have an admin delete it is to tag it with . WJBscribe 11:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never used IRC but have been meaning to give it a go. I'm using an aged laptop at the moment as my real one is broken (grrr). But I should be fully operational again sometime next week so I'll give IRC a go then. WJBscribe 11:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dev's image
Come on over and voice your thoughts. What now with it? A ribbon? Do you have an idea? --Ouro 15:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I had IRC for two years and I detested it every minute I had it. I would end up in the wrong chatroom or the wrong network, or it would randomly sign me out, or other multitudes of irritating things. Without a very good reason to, I do not intend to acquire it again, it caused me way too much grief. Sorry man. Don't mind setting up a Bravenet chatroom if you really want to gather us all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a web-based IRC client? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Found http://java.freenode.net/, don't know how it differs from normal computer based clients but I can go wherever I need to on IRC. YAY! Do you reckon we ought to set up our own channel, like the tropical cyclones wikiproject have? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There's Skype, too, if you had it. I'm KingCranky there. :-) I wanted to run something by you before I took any action. It's not really that important. But a group chat would be fun, come to think of it. Jeffpw 22:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's only taken me three hours, but I finally got a website set up and a chat room installed at http://wplgbt.tripod.com/chat.html. Dev920.tripod.com was apparently already taken, so I figured I'd keep the option of a wikiproject chatroom open. Anytime you wanna chat, let me know. I'm happy to talk to you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Awesome! That's neat! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  01:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Friendly Challenge!
I challenge you to a Jump-a-Class contest! Pick a stub, any stub, and let's see which of us can jump further :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You know you've got a week, right? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oi! Don't upgrade your own jump articles! :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow! I passed the idiot test today with flying colors! :-) Jeffpw 20:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay - that made me laugh! Thank you :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  20:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Jan Lechoń
Hello, I was bored and translated the polish article on Jan Lechoń into English. If you want to have a go at copyediting it, feel free to do so. Am notifying you as you wrote you're interested in biographies. Cheers. --Ouro 11:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the message, I noticed your work already, though. Uhm, I will try to expand the article somewhat, but my knowledge on him and the movement is not really that broad and I will have to read up on those topics somewhere (Polish literature was a looooong time ago :) ). You might want to reclassify it as it probably isn't a stub anymore, but maybe start-class? Cheers. --Ouro 12:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Subkoff
David and I worked that out. If he says that this person is notable, that is good enough for me. I've seen many people who actually have names recognized by others that don't meet our notability standards. Atom 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary
I felt that it might be too informal where "homosexual" should be used (saying gays and lesbians, or gays as meaning both genders). I always thought/felt that we should only use it when we are distinguishing between male homosexuals and female homosexuals. The negro analogy wasn't good, I'll admit; sorry if it seemed extreme. &mdash; Deckiller 21:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your requested information concerning - Ejaculation_sample.jpg deletion request
Hello Jeffpw, I answered your question about Image:Ejaculation_sample.jpg being listed as a Vanity image in the discussions of the Sexology and Sexuality guidelines on the deletion request page of this image. Thanks for your interest NightFlyer 18:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Imperial Court article
Hi, thanks for the head's up, but I only tagged the article and I share no credit for its creation. I will, however, take a look and see if there's anything I can do to clean it up. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeff
You're right, I'm really peeved! Whether it's governments with bombs or guys with administrative privlidges on Wikipedia, it seems that anyone with a little strength abuses it. I'm not sure Adam4Adam will pass review. People here have a way of making the evidence fit their opinion rather than vice versa and I think this may come into play regarding a gay guy's sex site. I hope HoS sees your message about the Imperial Court System article as it way cheer him up. He blanked his really pretty user page today so I am guessing he's really fed up. You might therefore want to do those citation fixes yourself. Shaundakulbara 00:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Answer to question about LGBT portal
I'm not sure what you're confused about. The section I'm referring to begins "The LGBT Portal is Wikipedia's gateway to material relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender related articles in the encyclopedia." The first paragraph describes what the portal is. The rest of the (rather large) box is a discussion of the term "LGBT". I would think that such a discussion would belong in LGBT, but it's not the sort of broad overview I would expect on a portal page. I would probably cut all or most of the text after the first paragraph, and maybe expand a little more in other directions. Dfeuer 02:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have commented in the discussion at Portal_talk:LGBT. Dfeuer 02:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Idea
If you have a sec take a look at: WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. It seems like a good idea as projects get larger and means people know who to direct questions to etc. Wikiproject LGBT probably isn't large enough to need a whole team but a coordinator might be a good idea. I doubt there'd be any objection to Dev becoming the project's coordinator- she effectively does this already. And it seems like a good way of recognising her efforts and role in the project. What do you think? WJBscribe 04:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's an excellent idea, WJB. By all means, propose it. I will certainly second the motion. And I do think it's necessary, since we now have almost 100 members, most of them new to the project. Jeffpw 08:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are on my watchlist too so we can easily keep the conversations in one place. What a bizarre semi-stalking world this Wikipedia is :-). I'll work on a proposal. Do you think we need to go have an actual vote or shall I just declare a concensus from the start? WJBscribe 13:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia's English LGBT Miss America... I like it! Well, that's going up on my userpage at some point... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Randroide, Primal Therapy
Hi, Jeffpw. Uh, think about Jungian Synchronicity. I was reading your comments about the three pictured ladies in your page, pondering about dropping a note to you about the issue, when your message popped up in a different tag (Firefox forever, pal).

No, no action taken. I posted the message(s) two and a half days ago. This is a riddle for me.

I restored nothing, because that could be regarded as an hostile move by the other guy (despite the fact that it is not). I prefer an administrator to clean the mess, just to avoid a "personalization" of the conflict. Randroide 10:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your admin nudgering, Jeffpw. Be "careful" with the synchronicity issue, it is and obsessing meme ; ) Randroide 10:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Eedo Bee
Jeff, I understand your frustration, but as I mentioned on WP:ANI it is incorrect to label this user's action as vandalism. The user is clearly acting in good faith and has a legitimate content dispute. I strongly disagree with his method of conducting this dispute and will block him if he continues to unilaterally remove the LGBT project tags from articles. However you should not characterize this as vandalism. I am trying to reach a solution that satisfies all concerned, please don;t make my task more difficult by continuing to provoke Eedo Bee. Thanks, Gwernol 13:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

sure, it's not offensive... *shrug*
i wonder if you would consider this edit/response as counter-productive if your user was replaced with mine - that was the users "reply" to my degree 1 notice - this response resulted in the rest of the dispute which spreads on more than one location.

extra small note: the new anti-semitism calls itself anti-zionism, if you need examples you can start here: [] - that's just the tip of the iceberg.

last note: i'm not an evil "the zionist gah!", only an israeli who supports peace and is tired of gross misrepresentation which only perpetuate the conflict.

"Jaakobou 17:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)"

Philippe Servaty
I'll see what I can do over the weekend. Feel free to pester me if I've not done anything by Sunday morning (Saturday night your time) — OwenBlacker 16:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Adminship request
Dear Jeffpw

I explained in my "request" that I am learning by experiencing. This was the first time I wanted to nominate myself for adminship. I read the instruction and acted accordingly. I prefer to work on the quality of articles as long as I am an ordinary user rather than thinking about the meaning of 0/0/0 in adminship request. I learn things when I need. Sangak 17:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's very concerning, Sangak, from a candidate for admin here. Admin is a big responsibility, and if you make mistakes, they can have serious consequences for users. I am aware they can be reverted, but most admin candidates (successful ones) have taken a lot of time to learn the policies, and have participated in many admin areas of Wikipedia before running. I would truly like to support you (I think English Wikipedia benefits by having users and administrators from all over the world), but you simply need more experience before I would feel comfortable endorsing you as candidate. If you spend time learning and gaining experience, I am likely to support you in the future. Good luck to you. Jeffpw 17:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. Take care and have a nice weekend. Sangak 17:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I never thought I'd say this...
But I'm tired of doing Gay porn stars!! After tagging ~237 of them, I'm tired of 'em! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I still have a soft spot for Anthony Gallo, no matter how many times I've....looked at his pictures (maybe soft is the wrong operative word). :-) Jeffpw 20:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No comment on the innuendo in either of those statements... Tut tut! I mean come one - its hard work but someone's got to do it ;-).
 * PS. Now my laptop is working again, I've worked out how to use IRC, any particular channel I should look for you on? WJBscribe 20:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I just kinda float there. I use the name Amsterdad there. Let me know when I should turn it on. And your innuendo was way worse than mine, WJB! Jeffpw 21:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And by the way, I just looked at the article on Anthony Gallo. Let me assure you he is most definitely not a stub! Jeffpw 22:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU! On every single one of 'em that says "he's popular because of his large penis..." I kept thinking "And here I am putting him in Stub category! Hah!"  And I kept imagining the talk-page chatter along the exact same lines as your comment :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  23:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just changed Anthony to a Start class. I agree with you Jeff, he's always been a favourite of mine as well. *sigh* Too bad he's left porn. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 23:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Marriage (Aunt Kathy's opinion)
Sigh. How many articles are we going to end up with at this rate? Thanks for that link. Much as I might enjoy ensuring that article gives fair representation to more liberal religious views on the subject, if I don't get a good answer to my question on the talkpage about why we need this article in addition to Christian views of marriage and Jewish view of marriage, I shall send it to AfD along with its brother. WJBscribe 05:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think even Aunt Kathy's opinion would be too liberal for Nkras. This is ridiculous. Thanks for pointing that post Modern Marriage article out. It's useless, of course, and I said so at the Afd. Jeffpw 05:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So? And the article denotes what that I don't know already? Confirmation that Liberal Jews make their politics the basis of their religious belief, not Judaism itself? What else is new? Nkras 05:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And to think this is the guy you went to all that effort to get unblocked- no good deed goes unpunished... WJBscribe 05:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2 words: Oi Vey. Jeffpw 06:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw: I stated my opinion based upon experience. Don't quote me rules when they are used for political ends or to silence opponents. You and the other anti-traditionalists insult my culture, my religion, my social class. Do not threaten me. Nkras 06:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Philippe Servaty
As discussed on the article talk page, I now have nominated this article for deletion since I am not yet convinced and it may profit from a thorough review. See Articles for deletion/Philippe Servaty. Tikiwont 10:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and said as much on the Afd. It's up to the community now. Jeffpw 16:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:LGBT/Jac review?
So are we all ready? I suggest (since this was a challenge thing) we each review the other three articles on the talk pages and consense to the new ratings - any objections? The four articles are: -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Trembling Before G-d, stub - Dev920 (Have a nice day!)
 * Morris Kight, stub -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)
 * Declaration of Montreal, stub. WJBscribe
 * Anne Fleming (writer), stub - Jeffpw

sure, it's not offensive... *shrug*
i wonder if you would consider this edit/response as counter-productive if your user was replaced with mine - that was the users "reply" to my degree 1 notice - this response resulted in the rest of the dispute which spreads on more than one location.

extra small note: the new anti-semitism calls itself anti-zionism, if you need examples you can start here: [] - that's just the tip of the iceberg.

last note: i'm not an evil "the zionist gah!", only an israeli who supports peace and is tired of gross misrepresentation which only perpetuate the conflict.

"Jaakobou 1 Feb. 2007 (UTC)"

A response would be both civil and appreciated. Jaakobou 16:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try to draw me into your disagreement with Abu, or however he spells his name. I only left one message there saying he didn't need to leave the warnings on his talk page, as there is not consensus or policy about that. I have no comments to make about anything else there, or the diffs you provided here. By the way, it is not considered uncivil not to reply to a comment on your talk page, if you have nothing to say. Thanks you. Jeffpw 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Rosemary Rogers
Hi Jeff! I started the page and then realized that there isn't a lot of information to be found about her online. This is all I have about her now -- if you have more info please post it -- I'd love to know more about her! Karanacs 16:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC) PS I'm very impressed with everything I'm seeing on your user page. Keep up the great work!

/me claps with glee!
I see your page got archived correctly! Yaay :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, honeybunch! If I can ever return the favor, please let me know. I owe you, big time! Jeffpw 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Gay icon
Oh, cool. That was fast! It would be good to have a source for most gay icons coming out of American/British gay culture, but I'm not too worried about it since it's almost certainly true.  &mdash;Cel ithemis  22:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Gay icon
If I had known it I definitely would have used the proper citation templates! Sadly I followed an incomplete reference from somewhere else. Perhaps someone who regularly edits the article for The Observer might own back issues and be able to track it down? ~ Zythe Talk to me! 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. What accent do you have? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Zoe
Yes, I wasn't following ANI or Jimbo's page at the time. I'm dismayed by this. Whatever disagreements we've had, I regard her as a good admin overall and a good editor. I don't think she was in the wrong here, and I certainly don't think she should have taken the fall for this incident. — coe l acan t a lk  — 19:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you know I didn't like her. But I do agree with you about this particular incident. Wales had an obligation to say that the situation had been resolved, to be watching ANI to see what was happening there, and to close the incident without blaming an admin when she was acting in good faith. Pity he never did anything after his public scolding of her to shoe the Wiki community she had his support. Just goes to prove WP:Dick shows up at all levels. Jeffpw 20:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually he did at some point later say "Zoe is good" and showed some support for her. I'll have to go dig up the diff. I don't know if she's seen it though, or if she would care. — coe l acan t a lk  — 20:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen the diff--that was just a throwaway sentence on his own talkpage. Far different than a public retraction on ANI where the whole community would see it. Jeffpw 20:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. If she comes back it won't be because of anything Jimbo said, but rather in spite of it all. — coe l acan t a lk  — 20:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fill in the blanks
"A _________ is a publicly recognized relationship which creates kinship obligations regarding the sharing and transfer of resources between individuals, the children that a sexual union may produce, and, in some societies, the extended family. All human societies have some form of __________, and in all complex societies which are governed by law, __________ is a public legal act with strong social customs and often religious rites involved. People _______ for many different reasons which may include: to publicly declare love and/or companionship; to legitimize sexual relations and procreation; to form a family unit; to strengthen social and economic stability; and to nurture and educate offspring." At least when Nkras wanted this to read "a marriage is union between a man and a woman" everyone knew what he was talking about. The present definition is simply hideous. It would read fine using the word family in the first two spaces. Sigh, from one bizarre POV to another. WjBscribe 05:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That article will be the death of anyone who touches it. That definition really isn't so awful, though. It does cover all the major points. BY the way, good luck on that Abraham Lincoln article. Yet another contentious one to edit. I'm having more fun with gay icons right now, and much less stress. Jeffpw 08:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What an awful definition. Really, anyone who gets involved with that article is wasting their time. I won't name names, but it's very obvious that there are people who are deriving sexual pleasure from winding people up over there. Though I admit I was amused when Rbj claimed my comment in the infoboxes section was because of the disgusting gay POV pushers. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan FA status!
Jeff - thank you for your support in pushing this article all the way to FA status! I appreciate all the encouragement. I am tied up with real-world stuff right now, but in due course I hope to work on quality biographies for othr members of his family. Kind regards Cimm[talk] 11:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal
Oh, very cool! Thanks for letting me know.

Isn't there a prohibition on putting fair use images on portals, though? The first edition cover is, unfortunately, not out of copyright.  &mdash;Cel ithemis  23:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Much prettier, and she's the best thing about the book anyway.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  23:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Gay Icon Edit
Hi, I know that Martina Navratilova is a lesbian, but Billie Jean King is bisexual. The section of the article I changed stated that they have 'come out as lesbian', so I changed it. Unfortunately I managed to get it the wrong way round but I've now altered it to get it correct. Thanks for pointing out the muddle. Argenteum 09:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In Need of Some Assistance
Hi, well it seems I will be needing some assistance from you again. If that is okay. Recently, I started fixing up the article Royal Descent. However, over the last few days, another editor has started to edit the article and is deleting my edits and another person's edits. Everytime, something new is added they delete it. I have tried to discuss it on the talk page with them, but they delete edits and then argue about it later to the point it just had gotten silly. This user has already been blocked twice for breaking the 3RR rule, although, it appears they are being careful to not revert so much again. Yet, back to their old behavior. Should this be reported and would it be wrong to file another report? I do not want to become one of those annoying people who complains about everything. RosePlantagenet 15:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for checking it out! They have been careful not to break the 3RR rule, so I was not sure where the complaint belonged. RosePlantagenet 15:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Servaty
I'm confused. Do you know why Articles for deletion/Philippe Servaty was relisted? I don't see it in DRV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coelacan (talk • contribs) 11:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

I have no idea other than what was written on the additional comments. Whoever relisted it felt that not enough people had commented. That doesn't seem a good reason to me, but since I am involved in it I didn't want to remove the tag. Jeffpw 11:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Relists are fairly common where only one or two people voted. However, the admin should probably have used his common sense in this to realise that the article was well-written, notable and sourced and thus no more discussion was actually needed.
 * On Jaroslaw, I kinda saw that coming. Poland is 95% Catholic, and the most homophobic country in Europe. It is hardly surprising Polish editors would want to erase all homosexual references, for whatever reason, from Polish articles. However, the stuff on Jaroslaw should be there, regardless of what Piotrus thinks. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I see. What a pain. Well you did good work on the sources Jeff. It'll be kept. — coe l acan t a lk  — 11:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Imperial Court System
That would be great if the Imperial Court System article made it to the LGBT page as you suggested. It would also be super if you would give the reference notes any improvements they need -- I'm not wiking very much these days. By the way, Adam4Adam passed the AfD debate. Thanks for your support. --House of Scandal 12:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Eedo Bee
Jeff, thanks for pointing me to the ANI discussion. Sorry that the LGBT project had to put up with that level of abuse. I'm glad to see appropriate action has been taken against Eedo Bee. Best, Gwernol 12:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't online at the time and so failed to notice Eedo Bee's Wikisuicide the other day. I'm glad Proto put a stop to it. Personal attacks are bad enough but it has to be zero tolerance as far as hate speech is concerned. Reading 'that post' sent a shiver down my spine. Those sort of comments cut pretty deep and must do so especially for those personally affected by the virus. My warmest wishes, Will ( WjBscribe ) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Greg&jenny.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Greg&jenny.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 16:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sweet

 * *Blush* Thanks for your kind words. I noticed that the discussion about Eedo Bee had disappeared from the projects' talk page, and checking its history found the mini-edit war that had been going on. That led me to Bee's user and talk pages, and that's where I saw your comment. I could tell his thoughtless remark had hurt you, and in my small way wanted to cheer you up. :-) I see now more clearly why it affected you so much -you've had a tough life regarding this issue. Forget Eedo Bee's remark (I even think he's apologised to you on his own talk page) and focus on the bright side of this mess: action was taken swiftly against this user for his unconsiderate behaviour, and your wikibuddies were there to cheer you up. :-) Oh, and I also love seeing your name on my talk page. Live long and prosper mate! Raystorm 20:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser
Thx for pointing that out, although I myself would never edit someone's userpage, but would confront them first (as I did w/ CroDome). :) Stop The Lies 22:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

New messages
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=108029529&oldid=108029522 This] is an extremely incivil comment towards David Levy. This whole discussion about fake evil message bars of d00m is certainly going to be on WP:LAME if you keep up comments like this.— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 08:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You find that uncivil? Seriously???? I just re-read it in the light of your comments, and I still don't find it the least bit uncivil. It's an honest assessment of his actions. Maybe he would prefer not to hear it, but the intention was to help him improve as an admin. Please think a bit more kindly about me. Nobody has ever accused me of incivility before. Jeffpw 08:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow.
Dude, tone it down. Putting a billion practical joke bars on your page is nearly (if not completely) a violation of WP:POINT. You can express your ideas a bit better if you just calm down, step away from the computer if need be, and come back later. It's seriously not THAT big a deal. It's the internet. Life will go on. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You know Jeff, I might actually click on the link if it was Hillary telling me that I have new messages. :p Seriously though, you may want to trim the number of those boxes down. The screen ablazes with yellow. AgneCheese/Wine 08:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT is a guideline, not policy, just like the guideline on userpages that David is trying to shove down the community's throat. But since I'm genuinely fond of Agne, I will revert it back to Hillary (who I am quite fond of, too). Jeffpw 08:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff, though I would be very impress if you did find a way of including Hillary in that message box. :) AgneCheese/Wine 08:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Judy Garland, etc.
Hi Jeffpw, thanks for your message on my talk page. Just so you know, I reverted the information because it was unsourced. Also, the anon added this category to the articles of seven other actors, some who are living. As you know we need to be especially careful to source information such as this in biographies of living persons. Thanks again. Regards, Accurizer 10:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ref Question
You may have seen a discussion on my talk page, but I have a question I think you can answer. If there are multiple refs to one book on an article, but to different pages in that book, how do you include that? Several full on cite books with different "pages=" parameters? Or is there a way to ibid? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, you can only IBID if the page numbers are the same. For different pages, you'd have to either use different cites or manually input the data, which wouldn't really be that hard, since you could cut and paste, and then simply change the page number afterwards. Jeffpw 22:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ordinarily I'd hate it but..
Right about now I like that version very much. Thanks for the moral support Jeffpw. 00:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeff: While I agree that the joke banners should not be removed, I ask that you please stop restoring them for the time being. David Levy and I agreed to neither remove nor restore them at the present time (in the interest of preventing further disruption), and it would be very helpful if you would accept these terms. Thanks. 06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

editing user page?
whos user page have i edited? not edited anything in while jesselp 16:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC) oh okay i see someone else did, you can delete these comments jesselp 17:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Greg&jenny.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Greg&jenny.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Evrik
Would you care to take a look at Requests for comment/Evrik and leave a comment if you feel it is appropriate? Thank you. -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  23:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you possibly be able to "certify" the RFC...? I'm not exactly sure what the process is but I'm worried it will be deleted... --  PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  08:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation... will look at getting one of the others to do so. --  PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  08:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

How interesting evrik is being RfCed for being uncooperative and bloody minded when he's just started another campaign to demote the LGBT Barnstar. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jeff
Lol - All those user boxes on my page come from *your* page - ha! You had such a variety. I would have taken more, but I ran out of time and patience with the layout spacing. I'll take a look at some of the projects and see what's shaking at the LGBT Project Page. I mostly do images, though I occasionally dabble in some editing. But to be honest, I don't have the best temperment for editing wars, so I limit my involvement there. I'm too sensitive :-( --DavidShankBone 23:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

recent discussion
I've removed Category:LGBT organizations for the time being, per my comments at WT:LGBT. I know we're in disagreement here, but for erring on the safe side, I hope we can leave it off unless and until a consensus develops. — coe l acan t a lk  — 18:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

NAMBLA
Thanks for the comment on my talk page. Much appreciated. I can't believe I'm in an argument like this! OY!ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made on note on User talk:Enzedbrit about WP:CANVASS. I think his talkpage messages crossed the line by a long way. WjBscribe 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm worn out! I need a cyberauthoritarian robot clone to cover for me while I take a nap. What a day. — coe l acan t a lk  — 23:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, "Coelacan, [John Kenneth] Fisher, et. al." It's a good thing I'm just a bot so I don't really get tired. Either that or I'm O'Brien. I'm not really sure, with all the mixed metaphors. — coe l acan t a lk  — 00:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why on earth is Nkras being allowed to use the Community noticeboard as his personal soapbox? He's indef blocked! He is not allowed to edit Wikipedia. Grrrr. WjBscribe 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Use those balls I gave you and badger an admin into blocking every one of those fucking IPs he's using until someone with authority grows some balls of their own and bans the muthafucka! Wikipedia would be a delightfully different place if I had those shiny buttons. Jeffpw 00:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He is blocked, not banned. I am in the process of getting him banned, on the noticeboard. At the moment, the IPs can be blocked if they are being used for abuse. The case for that is uncertain. — coe l acan t a lk  — 00:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Even blocked users can't edit Wikipedia via their IPs. Using sockpuppets to get round blocks is abuse. WjBscribe 00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Forgot to ask: How was your party and why wasn't I invited????? Jeffpw 00:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Party was very good thanks. Oh, and you weren't invited because:
 * You claim to live in Amsterdam
 * You made me feel guilty when I complained about preparations for said party by reminding me of the more selfless activities you were undertaking that evening ;-)
 * But if you're ever in London... WjBscribe 00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * While I am in Amsterdam, I have been known to fly over to London if the offer was tempting. I flew there last June for an evening seeing Shirley Bassey in concert at Wembley (and don't even think any cracks about aging queens and Dame Bassey!).
 * Of course I made you feel guilty--I wasn't invited and had to think of a good reason why I couldn't have attended even had I wanted to (and oh how I wanted to!).
 * Glad the party was fun. And I told Bbatsell to ban the fool so let's see what happens. Jeffpw 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Bbatsell blocked that Nkras IP. I've let him know that he just switched to a new one (63.228.44.65). Sigh. WjBscribe 00:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And I just posted at ANI for more admins to get their butts over to CN and put a stop to this nonsense. Jeffpw 00:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess my little post at ANI was just what the doctor ordered. Can you say B-A-N-N-E-D??? Jeffpw 00:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Lady Records
Hi Jeff. I've submitted this article for peer review ... I figure if I've got it up to good article status, I may as well see how far I can take it. I can't figure out how to add it to the LGBT-specific peer review, so it's on the main PR page. Please feel free to contribute. Thanks. Proto  ►  18:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Administration Noticeboard/Incidents
Jeffpw, g'day. How's it going? Good I hope. I trust that you've had an enjoyable night in the wintry northern hemisphere and that your day is going to be fine. I have trolled through some of your previous postings and I don't believe that you're in a position to stand in judgement of me as you have done on my talk page. Therefore, although weak - I'm not a violent man nor particularly argumentative - I've discussed my views on the AN/I page. Warmest regards, Enzedbrit 06:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've slept quite well, thank you, my fine Kiwi friend. Kind of you to ask. My day is looking good, too, since Wednesday and Thursday are my weekend this week. I'm going to the movies--I hope you can work on your suntan, living as you do in the Southern hemisphere. Thank you for airing your views about my conduct on ANI. Any opportunity to improve myself as an editor is welcome. A frank exchange of views can do nothing but enhance the experience for all editors. Have wonderful day, and I look forward to more refreshing chats. Cheers, Jeffpw 10:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Purple Heart

 * Feel free to migrate this to your user-page if you like, or keep it here, whichever you prefer... Yours, Smee 11:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Pedophiles.
I don't see an organisation that has resulted in 167 convictions of pedophiles to be hysterical or reactionary. I get that they are paranoid, which is why they want us to hardban anyone who is a pedophile, but accusations that we are harbouring pedophiles are hard to refute when the only vague guidelines we have are unwritten and based in the heat of a wheel war. We need to have a firm policy to point to, and I resent that you think you can tell me what I should and should not trust. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just stop attacking everyone who doesn't agree with you. It gets tiring after a while. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not Enzedbrit. But "It's just a group of people, most of wehom have been molested at an early age and who never recovered, being manipulated by a monomaniacal internet cult leader for his own fun and financial gain." is an attack, and you do it to everyone. It's annoying. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am responding here instead of your talk page since you seem provoked by my posting on yours. You've spent a couple of hours reading their blarney, Dev. I spent years both working there and then working against them for their violations of civil rights. I';m in a much better position to say what kind of people they are and what their leader's agenda is than you are. To paraphrase your last edit summary, this is getting tiring. So let's just drop it before one of us says something we both will later regret. Jeffpw 16:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no point discussing this on talkpage. Join me in the chatroom (which was set for stuff like this, after all) and we'll talk about what's apparently wrong with Peej. http://wplgbt.tripod.com/chat.html Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm there now. Jeffpw 16:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * May I ask whether the off-Wiki discussion was able to resolve (or at least cool) your differences or did it make things worse? WjBscribe 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent question, WJB. Dev and I have very different perspectives on certain issues. I think we have agreed to disagree, after a long chat. Jeffpw 21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Complex vandalism
Following a report at WP:AIV I saw your comments at the talk page of 63.228.47.144 - I assume some edits were deleted but how are you sure this is a banned user?- from their contrib history I couldn't figure that out. Just wondering, maybe if you explain it I can be more effective in my own vandal fighting.

Oh...and I can't resist...after reading your userpage I have to point out Ms. Albright was a relentless Arafat kisser. You'd make her President? Yikes. :) Kaisershatner 16:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I realize I didn't read back all of the way- his 1st contrib as an anon contains the username. Got it now.  Sorry to bug ya. Kaisershatner 16:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping watch while I slept, Jeff. By the way, you don't need to warn Nkras socks at all, and it doesn't matter what they are saying, you can just revert them even if they're being "nice". Per WP:BAN, he can't edit. Everything he says is subject to immediate reversion, even if it's just "hey how's it going?" Just tag it with (but not  because the sock might be used by someone else someday... only User:Nkras needs to be tagged with that one). Once the user page is tagged, you can report immediately at WP:AIV, including a note that it's banned User:Nkras. A lot of admins are already familiar with his style. — coe l acan t a lk  — 18:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotchya, Coelacan, and no problem. :-) Jeffpw 18:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for your apologies. As far as I'm concerned, the issue is forgotten. Cheers! Raystorm 22:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
That was both unexpected and pleasant. While you are at it, you might keep an eye on John the Apostle‎. Not unexpectedly, a certain subgroup is reacting strongly to any suggestion that their idol may have truly loved. No further comment, I have too much to say on the subject. Regards, Haiduc 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "lose faith in the masses' ability to reason." I hope you were being ironic. Haiduc 12:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Christ Illusion
Hi Jeff, I hope all is well and once again thanks for the helpful peer review comments on Christ Illusion. I wish to submit the article for FAC very soon, and was hoping you could give it the once over to make sure there are no visible problems within the article. If you're too busy, then that's fine - anything you can say regarding the article is fine, whether it be critical or an appraisal. Thanks! I'm buzzing others from the peer review with this same message also, so didn't think you wanted to feel left out. :) LuciferMorgan 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

NAMBLA/LGBT
The old consensus which involved many editors and lengthy discussion is not overruled by the comments of a few in a recent entry on the talk page. Tomyumgoong 13:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Living_History.jpg
Hi, could you please remove this fair use picture from your user page? As I'm sure you know, you can't use fair use pictures on user pages. You can easily use one of the many free pictures from Hillary Clinton. Thanks, Yonatan (contribs/talk) 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. ;) I figure people are more receptive if they're approached politely rather than someone just removing the picture from their user page without notification. By the way, sorry about not linking you to the right page on commons. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 06:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh
I've warned Tmac68 about the three revert rule. If he continues, I guess he'll have to be reported on the noticeboard. WjBscribe 12:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course annoyingly by the letter of the rule, we're both out of reverts too! Grrr. WjBscribe 12:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I have only reverted that twice. I think you have only done it twice, too. I removed it once during my rewrite (which doesnt count), then reverted him twice. That's two. And I told you this article would be a nightmare. Jeffpw 12:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you take a look at Tmac68's last edit? How much of that section should be in the article? WjBscribe 13:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Gemini Killer thingie might be accurate. As I recall, Exorcist 3 had several Zodiac refs in it, but I would want a source. Blanking the page is not accurate however (sigh). I have listed this on ANI.
 * Chat in a bit would be great. Need to be IRC as I don't have the capacity for Skype. What channel? In the meantime, can you help out with a problem at WP:ANI? See . WjBscribe 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * gmail's probably easiest for me. I confess to being a bit of a luddite when it comes to online chat. WjBscribe 17:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Salesians - Thanks
Thanks for weighting on this issue. As you see for the extensive talk page, it has been quite an ordeal. On the canvassing issue, as I stated in the talk page my opinion is that the practice is disruptive. As if it is a violation of the rule, it may be a matter of opinion. Evrik sent 17 neutral messages to various users. Some of them with a history of postings on catholic issues. In an attempt to keep the paragraph untagged I agreed to all the suggestions but one of the contacted editors tagged it again yesterday. Bakersville 13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)