User talk:Jim Carter/Archive 3

Let flames die out
Please don't call others "insane". Seek to make problems go away. Silence works. If you feel compelled to say something, please avoid inflammatory remarks. Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Anna Frodesiak thanks for your quick reply. I retracted some parts of the comment. Actually the comment posted by WOWIndian was so harassing that I cannot stop myself. Anyways thanks again.  J i m Carter  ( talk ) 15:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer
Please see here: WP:Reviewing for the relevant guideline. I've added the permission to your account -- Samir 21:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I did seen that before coming to your user talkpage. :)  J i m Carter  ( talk ) 21:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of Massmessage
I do not believe that is appropriate to utilise massmessage for anything but an opt-in list. Please don't undertake such use again for a trawling post. Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay,     J i m Carter  ( talk ) 05:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was truly inappropriate. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 23:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Exceedingly inappropriate, as expressed here: User talk:Anna Frodesiak.
 * Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry again   J i m Carter  ( talk ) 06:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

From SuttonClawson
Jim, please stop adding things while I am in the process of editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuttonClawson (talk • contribs) 15:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see my edit summaries DO NOT revert or undo changes untill the issues are fixed. I will wait for a day or two if the problems are not solved; I will retore those tags.    J i m Carter  ( talk ) 15:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Jim, as I have mentioned earlier, I have already been working with someone to develop this page as per Wikipedia guidelines. Your tone is actually coming across as harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuttonClawson (talk • contribs) 15:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't take my words personally; I don't want to hurt you. And I'm happy to know that are helping develop an article. Your help is much appreciated. But you must understand how Wikipedia works. Try to obey what other users say. I'm sure you will like this place. If you need any help feel free to ask me; I'm always here to help you.  Again I'm sorry if you are hurt.    J i m Carter  ( talk ) 16:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Ansh666 05:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

While it is true that one can be bold and redirect articles, it should not happen while an AfD discussion is in progress. Doing so is out-of-process and can be considered disruptive. Please do not advise people to do so. Thanks, Ansh666 05:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to my talk page, Ansh. Yes, it can obviously be done if the majority says so. Such discussions were generally speedy closed. Even I have closed many such afds per WP:NAC. Don't you add speedy deletion tags when an article qualifies for speedy even if it is at Afd?? I have been on Afds for quite sometime but this is the first time someone told me that my advices are disruptive. Anyway, thank you for message & have a good day.    Jim Carter (from public cyber)  06:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy deletion tags and redirects are different - the former usually happens when the article is too problematic to keep around; there are generally no such concerns with the latter process. And, no matter what the consensus is, it is not generally accepted that articles should be redirected while the AfD is still open: see WP:EDITATAFD, 3rd bullet point. Ansh666 06:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and, another thing: your close at Articles for deletion/Example of proverb was effectively a supervote - there was a building consensus for a deletion of some sort, but you closed as redirect - you should have undone the out-of-process redirect (I was going to, but you closed it before I could) and waited for a clear consensus to build. That is an inappropriate NAC; I should know, I've done it before and been called out on it. Nothing much that can be done about it now - just keep in mind for next time. Ansh666 06:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I will keep it on my mind. And will close Afds with more care. Thank you very much. And if you wish you can still take that redirect for discussion. Thanks again,    Jim Carter (from public cyber)  07:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. You're doing plenty of good work out there too - just have to be careful and make sure what you do and say is actually right. Lots of Wikipedia practices go against common sense! Don't worry if you make a mistake or two along the way, as long as you learn from them. Cheers, Ansh666 12:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Your question at Thomas.W's RfA
Hi, Jim. Please reconsider. The question seems to WP:BAIT and it appears WP:POINTy to me. It looks like you might be trying to goad him into a less than civil reply. Removing the question is my preference but I guess you could strike through it and leave it, point made. Thanks in advance for your consideration, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 17:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Jim: The request is academic now as the RfA has been withdrawn. Nevertheless, please take on board 's comments before posting your next RfA question. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 18:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if my question hurts anyone. But honestly I don't have any intension of baiting Tom and I actually don't think it was baiting. I just asked him about his opinion on how admins should behave. Nothing whatsoever meant at him. The question was asked AGF. And you both should AGF before directly coming to conclusion. The question was not meant to goading him as the question has no direct relation with the candidate. If you ask me, the question can be answered in a civil way. Candidates should prepare themselves for this type of tricky questions. I think candidates should have a thick skin to tolerate the opposition. They must be ready to answer any question asked. Personally I think Tom is a very valuable editor and should stay here but before coming under the microscope he should have prepared himself for everything. Now, thank you Doctree for the message. I would have striked it even when it doesn't appear wrong for me but the RfA has already ended. Is this a warning? If yes, I would like if  and  can look at my question and say few words. Thank you both for the message. Have a nice day!   Jim Car ter  19:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be so dramatic. As you might phrase it, my comment was WP:AGF and made in a WP:CIVIL manner. I simply informed you of the RfA closure and asked you to listen to someone's opinion, so of course it wasn't a warning. Philg88 ♦talk 19:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Jim, I agree with Doctree and Phil. The question was offensive, and you should not have asked it. It was drawn directly from the comments that were being made under "oppose" - things that said he was "bitey" and "quickly snapped". This question tried to force him to respond to those allegations. It was a question that has no possible good answer. I have noticed in the past, that people have challenged your questions for admin candidates (you seem to think that posting "tricky" questions is a good thing). I suggest that you shouldn't try to post questions at RfA. Just state your !vote, questions are not necessary. Or at least, get advice from someone you trust before posting an RfA question. That's what mentors are for. Certainly both Phil and I would have advised you not to post this question, if you had asked us. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It was juvenile and redundant. While that might not have been your intent, it came across as pouring salt in a wound, as being a toadie for the community of opposers.  Regardless of intent, it was not your best moment.  Dennis - 2&cent; 20:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thank you, and . Will take care of this. Have a nice day!   Jim Car ter  20:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Urgent reminder
I see there is another oppose. Reminder: Don't argue. Don't reply in any way. PLEASE. It looks really bad if the nominee's friends badger the oppose voters. And it's not necessary. People can evaluate the oppose vote for themselves. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, bad idea. I speak with prior experience. Also a bad idea to mention other RfAs. I learned those things a few months ago. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 17:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jim, you did it again. This time on someone's talk page. I don't know how I can say this any more plainly: PLEASE DON'T DO THIS. Don't argue with people. Don't reply to people. Not on the RfA page. Not on their talk page. Not at all. I know you think you are helping me or defending me or something, but you are not. Please, just stop it. STOP IT. Yes, I am angry. --MelanieN (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh. I thought I was not arguing. My bad. I will remove that page from my watchlist for now and will spend sometime creating articles. Anyway, sorry, .  Jim Car ter  06:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's probably a good idea. Maybe you could work up a DYK for your new GA. I'm sorry to see you went to their talk page a SECOND time. I apologized to them on your behalf, and I promised it would not happen again. Please don't say anything more to that person - not to apologize, not to explain, not for any purpose. Just leave them alone. And don't say anything to anyone else who might post at my RfA. Not for any purpose. As you suggested, it would probably be best for you to take the RfA off your watchlist, and do other things. --MelanieN (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jim, I came here to say the same thing that those upthread have already done. I realise you get on with MelanieN and she's been helpful, but in my view your comments are rather sycophantic and starting to border on harassment. I get on well with EEng and we have a good laugh together with plenty of humorous banter, but if I felt he did something silly and got blocked over it (which he did), I won't hestitate to call him out on it (which I also did). Editors are human, we make mistakes, and as grown ups we're capable of fighting our own battles without a fanclub getting in the way. I realise I've just posted some stuff on the RfA myself but it's because I get on with Andrew D, and feel his oppose deserves a fair hearing (as any legitimate RfA oppose should) and it will ultimately produce a fairer result if the pros and the cons are respected. Can I please advise you just stay away from contacting MelanieN in any way, shape or form - it's not helpful. Cheers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy, happy
Just wanted to let you know that I shared your happiness about Kudpung using your EotW nomination of MelanieN in his nomination of her for admin. Nice to see you around! Buster Seven   Talk  16:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * After having read some of the "kerfuffle" (above) about your actions to support MelanieN, I'd like to reach out to you in support of your spirit. Having worked with you at WER, I know you have the best of intentions. I also know that sometimes your intentions are mis-understood and seen as the opposite of what you meant. I would suggest that you temper your immediate desire to participate and consider if what you are about to put on the page will be mis-construed. Best---Buster Seven   Talk  16:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I echo the same. An admin can remove the wiki break enforcer for you. - NQ (talk)  06:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and  for your kind words and thoughtfulness. It comes as encouragement at a time when my wiki-energy seems to be running a bit low. Yes, you both are right. I will try to do what you both have said. Thank you again. BTW I will wait until  get the tools and remove the wiki break enforcer. :)   Jim Carter (from public cyber)  07:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)