User talk:Jmundo

The Signpost: 14 May 2014
Check out what I said in the "WikiProject report: Relaxing in Puerto Rico". Tony the Marine (talk)


 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested
Jmundo, I hope that you and the others accept the invitation to mediation on OLR, because what is the point to argue on issues on an article's "talk" page if no one willing to discuss the same issues when invited to a mediation? I am also leaving this message on the pages of Mercy and Sarason who were also invited. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Would you be able to signify your agreement (or not) to this mediation on the mediation page here? Sunray (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I will not participate in the mediation. The editor who requested the mediation has not follow the suggestions of two previous "Dispute Resolution". I'm not interested on wasting more time listening to his POV when he is not willing to reach a consensus.--Jmundo (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Your warning to Froglich
seems both over the top and unhelpful. You haven't made it clear exactly how he violated BLP, and a personal message would have been enough. Since there has been no evidence shown of BLP problems in the past, the issue you warned him about isn't made explicit and isn't obvious, I doubt that any Admin would block him a similar edit on the basis of your notice. At the very least you need to tell him what you think has violated BLP. Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant you need to specify what exactly was contentious. I don't know specifically what you meant. Obviously you wouldn't warn him if you didn't think the information was contentious. I'm guessing that it was the description of the organisation, but I may be wrong, and even if I'm right, it would be useful to know specifically what was contentious. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify a bit more - if I were to consider a block was necessary if he repeated it, I'd need more detail before I would block. I think other Admins would react the same way. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why are you hovering over my edits? Are you auditing my edit history? I hope is not because of my interaction with you at Persecution of Muslims (completely off topic). In any case, my edits are self-explanatory. Of course, you can undo then or block me if you feel I didn't follow policy. --Jmundo (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverts at Tony Santiago
Do not revert again at Tony Santiago. That article uses problematic sources, and the tags warns readers (and editors) about the concern. There is work to do in that article. Regardless of how much you like the article's subject, the article still needs to follow our standards. You're welcome to collaborate. --damiens.rf 16:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)