User talk:Jorgath/Archive 1

Boom!
Wow, that was random. Dreamblade was on my watchlist, and you were the last editor, so here you are! Didn't know you were on Wikipedia. Oh, since I never called, I'll tell you here (haha!): you can totally crash here before GenCon. So, see you in a few weeks! Charlie - talk to me - what I've done 06:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You forget once or twice, go back and fix it, and a bot charmingly tells you that you screwed up. :) Well, I'll leave this up as a minnow slap. Jorgath (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
No, I think you misunderstood what I meant. When I said A thru Z I was reffering to this:

Ncboy2010 (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

inre this discussion
I do appreciate that as the verifiable directorial debut of a notable person, this article meets a criteria of WP:NF, and that it does have coverage... but I ask that you take a look at this edit and consider that a "redirect" is pretty much okay for now just so long as there is no prejudice toward a recreation of the article if/when more sources become available AND as long as the returned article be properly sourced and maintain a properly neutral tone. Reasonable?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Green Ronin Publishing
Sorry I took so long to answer you. This is about your question "I know notability is not inherited, but it seems to me that it's more reasonable for a company to inherit its product's notability than vice-versa." in Green Ronin's AFD. Yes, things such as publishing companies *would* inherit notability from their products. Why? Because the company is the larger unit. First you make an article on Parker Brothers, and later (when it gets too big), on Monopoly. Obviously if the company only makes or has made *one thing*, there should only be one article, but it should probably go under the company name, rather than the product name. If Mutants and Masterminds should be in wikipedia, then so should GRP, but you can actually just have a redirect to the M&M article and put it all in one place. In wikipedia, it really makes very little difference. See my comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Archimedes,_Inc. here] for an example. My opinion only.

Cheers,  Th e S te ve   04:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that helps. That's along the lines of what I thought. It is possible for a larger unit not to inherit the smaller unit's notability, but only if the smaller unit is notable for other reasons (a high school baseball team probably isn't notable, but a player on that team might be if he invented cold fusion at the age of 11). - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 14:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Angolan airports
Thanks for your work on this. Can you state though in every town page you create airports for "It is served by xxx airport and link, otherwise they'll be orphaned.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take that on next, after I finish the airport pages up. Some of the towns need pages themselves. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hokey dokey, but watch out for duplicates under diferent names! Cuango is Luzamba, I believe the town should really should be Cuango-Luzamba (according to google anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hence why I want to wait until later to do this - I have enough time to do a quick stub from an easy-to-find source on a break at work, but not to do in-depth research. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

A big NPT update
Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:

coding
 * Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
 * Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.

All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.

Stuff to look at

We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.

I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.

I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Oil recycling
Thanks for the star! I'm still working to improve the article; if the topic interests you, feel free to help improve Oil recycling for Wikipedia's readers. Thanks again! Northamerica1000(talk) 02:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Help
So, I tried to make the edits you had requested doing my best to present a objective stand point - I found a bunch of other credible citations and trimmed some of the fat that may not have been able to be credited to sources. This is my first time getting involved in this and I dont even know what tags are so I am doing my best. I will not be available for the next 6 hours or so cause its 9am PST and I have not slept working on this. Please let me know if I have made appropriate changes. I have no idea what I am doing. Thanks for your help.Hershdavis (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested references/fact-check for an article (about Paul Ooghe)
Seems fine. Found some sources I added. Asavaa (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I switched it to a no-footnotes tag, and I'll get back to it later if no one does it before me. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried to do something based on the sources. The language seems peculiar at some places, but I left some of it as my english is not good enough to judge. Asavaa (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development New Delhi
Please have a look at National_Institute_of_Public_Cooperation_and_Child_Development_New_Delhi talk Page. JP MEE NA (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to restore the page, if you have any problem please point out. Block the constitution of India maintained on Wikipedia, it's clear violation of government work copyright and never published because it's ever-changing work. JP MEE NA (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

New Pages update
Hey :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.

On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).

On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage prototype released
Hey Jorgath! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

AfD Notice
Hello there, I see that you had previously worked on Recreate Greece. I wanted to draw your attention to Articles for deletion/Recreate Greece. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage/New Pages Feed
Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the New Pages Feed is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.

The page can be found at Special:NewPagesFeed. Please, please, please test it and tell us what you think! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Murder of Lin Jun
Hi. I'm afraid some of your changes got lost as I edit conflicted you. I'm still trying to clean up the mess, but I didn't want you to think that I was trying to revert your changes or anything like that. Your changes looked like a good start. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's cool. I'll let you do your thing, so we aren't getting in each others' way. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and apology and thank you
Hi Jorgath. At ANI I made a personal attacks against you and other editors, spraying off personal attacks like some self-righteous scattergun. Without a doubt I should have known better. You responded most kindly. I thank you for that, and sincerely apologise for the personal attacks. Thanks again! --Shirt58 (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted; don't worry about it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta AFD4
Hi, your input is requested at Articles for deletion/Luka Magnotta (4th nomination), per your previous comments at the third AFD. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Onedot's talk page behaviour
Onedot seems to have taken a shine to you. Perhaps you could diplomatically explain to him the accepted procedures for placing comments on talk pages, allowing discussions involving several editors to be followed without confusion? I've got better things to do than restore the correct flow. We all do. --Pete (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You have a point, and he/she's less likely to listen to you than me on the subject, that's for sure. Still, he/she's a newbie, and it's entirely possible that they might have skipped WP:TALK when looking at other more urgently needed policies and guidelines, so I wouldn't call it disruptive so much as justifiably ignorant. I'll drop a kind note, but I'm going to rename this section from "disruptive behaviour" to "Onedot's talk page behaviour." - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 04:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You're a sweetie! --Pete (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I try. :) - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 13:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Thomson affair AfD
Hi - how long is it before this is due to close? One21dot216dot (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's overdue; should have either been closed or relisted on the 18th. But no one can ask an admin to look at it without being accused of canvassing. I half expect a relist, actually, when an admin gets to it through the backlog. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I noted it's been closed now and I've left a note on the closing admin's page. Best, One21dot216dot (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!
Thank you for the help you provided me in getting this started. Not all the work is done, but I felt you should get an invite. Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. And in response to the invite, it's not going to be my main focus, but yeah, I'll join. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I gave you the invite! Thanks for joining! AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI
I don't want to seem to be picking on you, but the comments toward ElKevbo (such requests are regularly placed on ANI) from you and the Catfish rubbed me the wrong way, since I know he's been around for a long time and you two haven't. Telling an old-timer where they should post certain things (when you're not correct) is an invitation for getting things pointed out to you, so to speak, by in this case another old-timer--and then I saw that the two of you had commented on a whole bunch of issues, including one I took an interest in. Nothing personal, though I have a word of advice: modesty is a good policy if you want to be taken seriously. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind having things pointed out to me, especially when I'm wrong. And I was wrong in the ElKevbo thing, and, ah, "not-right" in the shouting-n00bs thing, so I'm sorry. I just felt like I was jumped on, not had things pointed out to me, that's all. I may not have been here as much as the two of you, but I'm not a complete newbie either. So while I'm not actually offended, I guess the way you pointed it out rubbed me the wrong way. I'm sorry for overreacting to that, and I'm sorry for excessively posting to ANI - although on that, it's mostly just that I'm actually interested in a lot of things. I said I don't want to be an admin, and I don't, but being a mediator might be something I'm interested in. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 03:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you do ever want to be one, I won't try and stop you. I saw the comment you made on the mass recreation bit, and that was useful. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind having things pointed out to you, I direct your attention to this: "However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it." So, when I was making a point about revedeleting vandalism at AN/I, and you told me twice that I was being "pointy", you were wrong about that. Cheers... Doc  talk  10:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I've seen the phrase used in the way I did before, by far more experienced editors than I, and I thought it was an appropriate use. My bad. What I meant to say was not that you were being disruptive, but that, in my opinion, you were being overly sarcastic and it wasn't helping collegiality. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem! I'm the first to admit to being overly sarcastic at times, something I'll always have to deal with. I used to be much worse, believe me! Happy editing! Doc  talk  17:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad that's settled, then. Happy editing to you too! - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jorgath
I feel the subject is going to need a full RFC, whether it is precisely ripe for it yet or not I'm not entirely certain, however, I expect it would be one of the more productive RFC's if it is properly presented. I haven't done any large-scale RFC before, so I would welcome assistance there if you can give it, or I would like to offer my assistance if I may. Penyulap  ☏  19:49, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't ever started one myself, but if you want to make it into one I'll give it a shot. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sweet, I have used that template before, once, recently, however I had actually been thinking more along the lines of the ones that go into the watchlist, because this topic is evenly divided, it effects everyone, and it is of interest to everyone, however the RFC on that scale is further down the road, where the options for admin/good standing/everyone has been sorted in relation to how to apply. Penyulap  ☏  20:09, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Note
It was kind of you to try to help someone understand.

However, I was considering removing their comment from the talk page per User_talk:Philippe_(WMF). - jc37 21:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question - did the comment from Philippe's talk page happen before or after the response I gave them? If it was before, then I ask you leave their comment and mine on the proposal page, since it's useful information. If it was after - in response to the info I gave them - by all means take it off. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Before. (and at WP:BN) Was looking like he was seeking out new venues to complain about/to the WMF. I have no way to know if his claims at User_talk:Philippe_(WMF) are true, but regardless, a proposal talk page doesn't seem like a helpful venue.


 * And no idea what this means. - jc37 21:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, someone attempted to out a not-particularly-good CLEANSTART. That may be what they're trying to get Phillipe to deal with. If they are the other user in question, that user may speak English as a second language; French being the other language they speak. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As for removal, I'll leave that up to you at this point. - jc37 21:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I say leave their comment and mine, but if they reply in an inappropriate way, remove all responses after mine. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 22:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for the welcome, it's much appreciated :-) Letsbefiends (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sabermetric stats
I saw you left feedback a while ago that I neglected to check. You suggested that I add the sabermetric statistics to the article baseball statistics, which makes plenty of sense. The one reason I had wanted to create a glossary was so that I could easily link to a definition of a particular stat when using it during an article. For example, if I wanted to say "XXX's curveball has a whiff rate of 27%, well above the league average of XYZ%," the whiff rate link would jump to a definition instead of a long list. (Whiff rate is a stat that probably doesn't deserve its own page.) Any suggestions on how to do something like that with the current baseball statistics page? -- Jprg1966  (talk)  15:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The one way I can think of is to insert a lot of anchors into the baseball statistics page. So, in your example you'd be linking to baseball statistics, although you'd probably make a piped link (whiff rate). - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess what I'll do is merge the draft of a glossary I'd been working on into baseball statistics. For those stats that don't have their own page, I'll create anchor links. Thanks for your advice. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  16:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagal e jo^^^ 06:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Inline-twin engine for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inline-twin engine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Inline-twin engine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to re-open
Hi there. Feel free to re-open the ANI discussion about Bridge Boy if you want, I just closed it because the whole discussion was becoming de-railed by the content dispute. If you re-open it, I would suggest you hat all the discussion which is just content dispute. Regards Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 12:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way...
...in response to your question about Evlekis and his awareness of the ARBMAC restrictions, see their talkpage where there is a link to a previous ANI discussion (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that helps. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 02:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Wifione  Message 18:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks for the tip Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Nationals
Are you a Nats fan? Note to self: this unsigned question was posted by User:Fasttimes68 - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am. It's in one of my umpteen billion userboxes. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Good Faith vs Bad Faith
Hi. I went back to the Noticeboard to update my bookmark of, since the urls change when the discussion are archived, and noticed this statement by you:


 * "It is an assumption of bad faith to accuse someone of lying when the possiblity that they may be mistaken exists."

Wrong. It is an assumption of bad faith when you jump to the conclusion of a particular intent on the part of someone else, rather than basing (and presenting) that conclusion with evidence or argumentation that supports that conclusion to the exclusion of other possibilities. To argue that you can never accuse any editor of wrongdoing so long as there is a "possibility" of other intents is completely preposterous, and further proof that so many of the people who populate the ANI boards are largely incapable of forming coherent reasoning. WP:AGF says nothing about never making accusations or criticism so long as there are other "possibilities", because there are always "other possibilities", even if there are infinitesimal ones, or ones in which we might tend to place less confidence. Strictly speaking, it is "possible" that OJ Simpson, Robert Blake, Lizzie Borden and Bruno Richard Hauptmann were all innocent. But that does not mean one who concludes that they were guilty is "assuming bad faith", or for that matter, that they are "assuming" anything at all. This is why the policy admonishes not to assume bad faith. It does not mean that we cannot conclude bad faith when evidence can be provided, even if that conclusion turns out to be wrong. If it did, then no one would ever be able to criticize any other editor of anything. Please refer to this sentence from the Lead section of AGF:

"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice."

I met my burden by pointing out the evidence that Alan hit the "Undo" button, and not one of you was able to counter that statement. Only after I left the discussion did you suddenly claim my evidence was "insufficient", and that Alan did not overwrite all of my edits, despite the fact that I flat-out asked for one example of writing or photo rearrangement of mine that he preserved.

But if you insist, then fine: please point out to me an edit of mine that he preserved. Just one example. And if you can't, then stop trying to get the last word in after someone has already left the discussion, long after you turned down the opportunity they gave you falsify what they said. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to get the last word in; I was trying to communicate. I'm sorry if you felt like I was trying to one-up you or something. It definitely wasn't my intention. Besides that, I remember seeing such an edit, and could probably dig it up if I tried, but since this matter's been otherwise dropped, I want to leave the stick on the ground. If you really want me to, I'll go digging. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Dig away. I'd like to see where this mythical aspect of my edits is that both he and you insist that he preserved. I can't wait to see it. Nightscream (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see the problem here. I didn't mean to assert that he preserved any of your edits (if I did say that, my bad). I said he didn't do a blind revert, as in he didn't just hit the undo button. This, your original evidence, demonstrates that by the simple fact that there is in fact a difference between his edit prior to your 8 edits and his edit after your eight edits. It occurs to me now (and it didn't at the time) that he could have done a different kind of blind revert: he could have edited based in the old revision. If he did that, I apologize, because that is a blind revert. But the fact that there are differences between his version on July 10 and his version on May 9 means, at the minimum, that he didn't use the undo button, unless his undo button works differently than mine does. My evaluation is actually that he did a total-but-not-blind revert: he decided he didn't like any of your changes, but that doesn't mean he didn't look at them. That said, even when you have reason to not assume good faith, it's good practice to act a little more civilly than you did in this case. After all, the one place I can still see where it's not ridiculous to AGF is that he misunderstood your use of the term "blind revert" to only encompass "using the undo button." - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"But the fact that there are differences between his version on July 10 and his version on May 9 means, at the minimum, that he didn't use the undo button...." No, he reverted all of my edits, and then made additional changes to the article after reverting them. That does not mean that he didn't use the Undo button to revert all of my changes (which he clearly did), much less that he didn't do a blind revert.

"He decided he didn't like any of your changes, but that doesn't mean he didn't look at them." It is very likely that he did not look any of them, because if he did, that would mean one of two things:
 * He looked at all of my edits, and decided to undo them because he felt that none of them were legitimate, including the new, sourced material that I added to the article, the copyediting/condensing/streamlining of some passages (compare the passage on Kevin Smith and the James Thurber essay) and the addition of fact tags to some passages that I did not remove.
 * He did look at them, realized that a good number of the changes were legit, and darn well undid them anyway, simply out of anger or spite.

The former is possible, but highly unlikely. He offered no rationale explaining why none of those edits were valid, and didn't dispute me when I restored them. Alan has recently exhibited irritation with my removal of unsourced material, even making snide personal remarks that are clear references to me in his edit summaries (though I didn't bookmark them, and can't find them right now). This is in contrast to your theory that his characterizing me as a "pruner" was a neutral comment, and it also suggests that with the Red Bank article, he was so angered that I had removed content, that he hit the Undo button out of spite. Whether he technically "looked" at each edit is beside the point, and is little more than hair-splitting (or at the very least, indicative of different definitions you and I have for "blind revert"). The point is, he did an indiscriminate revert of everything I did en masse, without distinguishing between those passages he wished to restore because he had find sources for them, and everything else. He did this by hitting the Undo button, and then added those sources in. That, Jorgath, is a blind revert. This is clear from the diffs. To suggest that he did not use the Undo button, would imply that went down the article, and undid each changes passage manually, I suggestion I find incredulous.

"That said, even when you have reason to not assume good faith, it's good practice to act a little more civilly than you did in this case." I acted perfectly civil. He could've just said, "Okay, I hit the Undo button out of anger; I shouldn't have done that", or "I meant to re-add only the removed passages I found sources for; sorry about that", and had he done so, I would not have said anything further. But he just had to embellish by falsely claiming that he actually made a discriminatory effort at preserving legitimate edits I made, and that, my friend, was a lie. It is not "uncivl", much less a failure to AGF, to call someone on their deception, any more than it's a failure of AGF to call someone on their vandalism, sockpuppetry, or for that matter, violations of AGF. If criticizing anyone for anything, under any circumstances is a violation of AGF or CIV, unless "no possibility" exists that the accuser is in error (which again, is ridiculous, since neither AGF or any other policy hold inerrancy as a standard), then that would mean the accusation he and others leveled at me at ANI was such a failure, as is any instance in which an editor is accused of violating policy, a silly bit of self-defeatism that would make adherence to policy impossible.

Indeed, Alan's hypocrisy on this point is nice underlined by the fact that while he seems to operate under this silly little idea in order to dismiss criticism of his behavior, he had no problem attacking me ad hominem on the ANI board by saying that "New Jersey articles appear to be [Nightscream's] bete noire and any edit contrary to his viewpoint is treated as a challenge to his authority and ownership, too often triggering abusive responses", despite the fact that he not only offered no evidence for this, but the fact that my editing history is filled with quite calm responses and attempts to compromise on my part in matters of editorial conflict, but even in instances in which I'm outright attacked. Consider my rather polite response to this attack message; or my response to another editor calling me "stupid", as well as the fact that I subsequently defended him someone else's attack; Hell, after one IP editor called me a "moran", he was later so impressed with my response to him that he called it "impeccable", and apologized for his earlier message. If I'm so authoritarian and OWN-oriented, how do you explain things like this barnstar someone gave me for mediating a dispute? Or the fact that I've not only been asked to mediate other disputes by other editors, including in two recent matters, one in which my help was requested by someone with whom I've previously gotten into heated conflicts with (See the two Vanessa Paradis sections and the Gus Fring sections on my talk page)? As I stated before, jumping to an knee-jerk assumption of bad intent, without providing evidence that points to a particular motive to the exclusion of others, at least as a strong possibility, is a violation of AGF. Arriving at a conclusion, and then illustrating it with evidence/reason, even if that idea could conceivably turn out to be incorrect, is not. Of myself and Alan, which one of us exhibited which of these two behaviors? Nightscream (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Then his "undo" button works differently from mine. Not that I use mine very often, granted. But if there's differences, it should be in two different edits, unless my preferences are set to something really weird (a possibility, I grant you - I've done some tinkering). If that's the case, I'm sorry for the mix-up. As for the rest, I feel that you reacted civilly, but more angrily than I would have. But from what I've seen, you are an excellent editor, and part of the reason I wished to trout Alan was for the ad hominem commentary he did make (if you'll note, I rebuked him for that, as I saw no pattern of "ownership" on your part). You are almost always civil, and knowing my own issues I suspect that that "almost" is just a matter of "you are always civil, and I'm being over-sensitive." I highly approve of the work you've done. I understand that I've frustrated you with my defense of Alan, but I basically think he screwed up, not quite as badly as you think he did, and then I think pride got in the way of apologizing, a reaction I completely understand. I think we can basically agree, though, that Alan screwed up, and just agree to disagree on the degree to which he screwed up, which in turn causes a minor disagreement over whether your response was completely proportional to his offense. I definitely agree that your response was proportionate to the level of screw-up you perceive him to have done.


 * On another note, I don't want to be on your bad side. I really do respect you and your work, and I wish this hadn't been our first contact, because I think if we'd met working on articles we'd have a good chance of becoming friends. I'd like to be able to work with you in the future, because I think I could learn a lot from you. Happy editing! - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, I have found your responses hear on your talk page to be considerably more thoughtful and balanced than most of what passed for commentary on the ANI board, and really do appreciate your kind words, and don't want to be on your bad side either, Jorgath.


 * But really--your Undo button works differently from his? C'mon. In what way does it work differently? The Undo button does what it's supposed to do: Revert the last edit. My error, of course, is that I made eight edits rather than one, so rather than use the Undo button, he clicked on the version of the article prior to my eight edits, and then added the sources and made one photo change to that version. But the effect of what he did was the same: He undid everything I did, without discriminating between merely restoring the removed passages for which he now had sources, and everything else. And that, my friend, is a blind revert. Happy editing to you too. Nightscream (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

RfA
You'd be surprised how many of us get around without ever getting involved with ArbCom! You may be shocked, but I have no interest in those two cases at all. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised at all. It just feels like there's been a rash of admin-related cases lately, and so I just want to make sure any future candidates understand some of the problems that went into those cases, especially wheel-warring. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 02:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wheelwar, that's a fair question, sure. But the ArbCom cases are fraught with politics and speaking out on them one way or another is often seen as a choosing of sides--and that's the part that can really screw up an RfA. Besides, Bbb needs to sleep sometimes and he may have a dog to walk: fully answering your question would take a whole day. Speaking of which, have a good one. Drmies (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't think you realized this
Prioryman stated he'll comply with an arbiter's direction for him to stop posting on the ArbCom case talk page. That instruction seems to have been given to him because the arbiter found an interaction ban violation or something akin to it. NewtonGeek (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I knew that the arbiter's direction was in place, but I wasn't aware (hadn't noticed) that Prioryman had agreed to comply. My bad. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I expect you are more familiar with practically all of this matter than I will ever become. I didn't intend to point out any shortcoming on your part and I don't see any. I just wanted you to know what I assume you hadn't already known. NewtonGeek (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, I took no offense and saw no reason why anyone reasonable should. And the only reason I'm more familiar is because I'm a Wikiholic who lurks AN/I and ArbCom even when I'm not posting. (Also, I'm a speed-reader). - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not--p l e a s e s l o w  d o w n . Drmies (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your 2,000th edit. Just thought I'd let you know I noticed that. NewtonGeek (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI
No action needed on your part; I just thought you might like to know about the latest development in the Nenpog Soap Opera...

Arbitration/Requests/Case

Previous AN/I discussion: Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive759

Previous discussion on Jimbo's talk page: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 109

Previous Topic bans: Diff1gDiff2Diff3 --Guy Macon (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I decided to toss in my own two cents. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Romney in Aurora shooting.
I see you've re-added this. No doubt Romney is a notable person, but relevance is the concern. Obama represents the country, Perlmutter the district, Warner Brothers the film. Napolitano's job revolves around this kind of stuff. Romney is simply running against Obama in a totally unrelated event. The election doesn't need to be considered every time Obama makes a statement on anything. That kind of undue weight is a flaw in American journalism and should not be copied into an encyclopedia. I suggest removing it to avoid politicizing a tragedy. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I noted in my edit summary, Romney's reaction is sufficiently relevant that we should keep it in. But I did move it to a separate paragraph so as to avoid politicizing the Obama paragraph. I just feel that it's not undue weight because I feel that we're actually not including enough reactions. To sum up: keep Romney, separate paragraph, add more reactions to re-weight it. Further discussion already taking place at Talk: 2012 Aurora shooting. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you said it was sufficiently relevant. Could you explain why you believe this is true? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The best way I can do it is by asking who he's more relevant than. He is less relevant than the following people: President, Governor of Colorado, Senator from Colorado, Representative from that district, relevant state legislators, heads of state of other countries, Warner Bros. He is more relevant than, for instance, a senator or representative or governor of any other state (except possibly Giffords) says anything. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not really an explanation, is it? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine. Because I firmly disagree with your idea that they are totally unrelated events. If both major candidates comment on it, it's relevant to the election. To be blunt, it would be highly relevant to the election if Romney hadn't expressed condolences; therefore, the reverse is true. Furthermore, the presumptive nominee of the major opposition party is relevant to any event of national significance. If this had happened in France during the election season (oh wait, it did - that school whose name I forget) I'd expect to see reactions from everyone who had a serious chance of winning. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Edited to add: If you really disagree with me, start an RFC on the article talk page instead of just a section. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, instead of Stamos, suggest you add some reaction from an actor who was in The Dark Knight Rises. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes to DRN
Hello there. I have recently made a proposal to change the way that disputes are handled and filed at DRN. As you've listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN, I would appreciate your input. You can find the thread here. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Get involved in DR! 02:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, I think you're doing a fine job on that Serer dispute. I don't completely agree with the "expert" proposal for reasons I outlined there, but that's beside the point; I have respect for the calm way in which you're handling it. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your time
Just to say thanks for taking the time to deal with the Serer religion dispute at DRN. Let's just hope the problem will stop now. Thanks. Tamsier (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got a different perspective on this. I still see real problems with at the very least 'too few opinions' (specifically leaving out opinions that disagree), and possibly pov. I may even have found a case where a source used doesn't back a claim. If you can use your skills in French to help that would be great. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to, of course, but it'll take me a few days' worth of free time. Can you point me to the section where that case occurs? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 12:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. My response to Dougweller can be found in the notice board. . I just saw their edits and responded there. Thanks. Tamsier (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's sorted. And I'm sorry, but I am not happy with the 'expert tag' as I think the problem is, at least for some, that there are too few opinions. And "Raampa pictographs" is either OR or pov or both, it's a phrase that exists only here and a fringe website. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. The specific dispute, brought to DRN, was the POV tag, which one editor (out of 3-4) objected to on the basis that the rationale wasn't clear to them. The expert tag was a compromise to resolve that dispute. Tamsier's sources do, by and large, seem to support the article; if you've found a specific place they don't (such as "Raampa") then tag that line as unverified. I don't think it's either POV or OR, in this case, it's unreliable sources. Per WP:RS, you could also remove it; if I were you and I decided to do that, I'd also ask Tamsier to find a better source so it can be re-added. I did the best I could, but although I'm actually fairly knowledgeable about other African religions and cultures, the Serer are not something I know much about besides what's on here and what's in the sources provided by those articles. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Jogarth, I know you have taken a break and sorry for the intrusion. This is not an immediate matter that you need to see to now but in your own time. Since you have verified the sources yourself per requested judging by your above statement, I think it may be helpful to add that to the Serer religion talk in the relevant section as the editor who added the expert tag and approved the dispute fact following the discussion at DRN. If you are satisfied that the references support the article, then the tags should be removed or at the very least make a note to it in the talk page. Again, take your time, no rush. Happy Wiki break and thank you for overseeing the DRN.Tamsier (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Tamsier has accused me of canvasing you. I certainly wasn't trying to do that, but I admit I was trying to enlist your skills in this. I still may do so. Dougweller (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You've probably noticed this at DRN, but it turned out that one source was unreliable and the other did not support the argument about Raampa pictographs/writing, and Tamsier has kindly removed the unsourced text. The 'experts needed' tag doesn't seem to have been necessary. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikibreak Notice
Jorgath - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

- Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Nattitude
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Washington_Nationals_season&diff=505098231&oldid=504998504. :)] Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You just said "Natitude" unironically. *sniff* I'm so proud. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Bulgaria DRN
Regarding the Bulgaria DRN: the primary issue that is being discussed in the Bulgaria Talk page is whether or not Bulgaria was in existence from 1400-1700. One editor says yes, another says no. The DRN is focusing on one particular sentence (that there was resistance following 1453). The person that wrote the DRN perhaps worded it in such a way that it looked like the only issue was whether the source was biased or not. But the underlying issue is much broader, and within DRN's purview. It is no big deal, since it is being discussed on the Talk page, so closing is probably the right thing to do. I guess the point I'm making is that sometimes the wording in the DRN statement can be insufficient or even misleading, so the Talk page context is needed to fully understand the issue. --Noleander (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter
Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A follow up on Bwilkins
Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing the Pantheism page
Hi Jorgath. It would be really great if you were interested in improving the Pantheism page. Although Allisgod took me to Dispute Resolution, in fact it is he who is editing in a rigid agenda driven way that has turned the edits into an edit war. He is going all out to remove Naturalistic Pantheism and to promote Classical Pantheism, determinism, Charles Hartshorne and glorification of Spinoza. If you compare my last edit from before he arrived, with my last recent edit, you will see that I have in fact accepted quite a number of his significant changes but he expects his edits to be just left completely alone even if they contain POV and OR material (which they often do). He has avoided all my suggestions of cooperation and everything that occurs is turned into confrontation. It would be a very healthy development if other editors became involved.--Naturalistic (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We'll see. I don't know what my time is like, I may have to confine myself to findin the DRN discussion extra sources. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Hey

 * Note to self: replied. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on educating new editors
Jorgath: Thanks for all your great volunteer work at DRN. I noticed you made the comment at the DRN on Pantheism:  "From my own knowledge, 1 is true-ish. ...".  You were referring about the assertion that pantheism was experiencing a resurgence in the 20th c.   I'm sure the resurgence happened, and I trust that you read about it a reliable source. But I'm wondering if there is a better way to present that information to the parties of the DRN dispute? I've found that many parties are new to WP, and are unfamiliar with WP policies like OR and V. Many times, a DRN case or RfC is really an educational experience:  where veteran editors teach the newcomers about the policies. In the pantheism DRN, it is clear that the two parties are not at all familiar with many WP policies, like NPA, V, OR, PRIMARY, etc. Therefore, as DRN volunteers post comments, we should really strive to make sure our comments help the parties understand what the polices are. A comment like "From my own knowledge, 1 is true-ish...." from a DRN volunteer may mislead the parties about the OR and V policies, dont you agree? I think it is better to emphasize the WP policies clearly over and over. So maybe the comment could have been phrased as "From my own knowledge, 1 is true, but of course the WP:V policies requires a source before the material can be included in the article, so let's work together to find a source ..." What do you think? --Noleander (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why I tried to make it clear earlier in the thread that I was commenting NOT as a DRN volunteer, but as an editor, because I have a COI. As such, I'm willing to stand by what I said. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What I was trying to say is that since I know about this, I'm pretty sure that RS exist for it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your intention. My point was that new editors reading DRN may get confused by your statement, and may conclude that it is okay to add material to an article based on personal knowledge.  Wouldn't you agree that any veteran editor (volunteer or not) should take extra steps to ensure that newcomers reading DRN cases don't get confused about WP policies?  --Noleander (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, sure. And if you want to clarify that for them, go ahead. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

New Pages newsletter
Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right. It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). We'll be holding two office hours sessions to discuss the tool and improvements to it; the first is at 19:00 UTC on 14 August, and the second at 23:00 on the 15th. Both will be in #wikimedia-office as always. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

re: Rocky Loves Emily maitenance tags
Could you please give a more detailed critique on that article's talk page, so we can discuss steps to take? Also, feel free to move this message if it belongs on the article's talk page instead of yours. (I wasn't sure.)--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Explained. And this was perfect - discussing the article here isn't ideal, but requesting here that I discuss it on the talk page is. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Could you please leave a comment at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard, so that the page move could occur? All that is needed is your approval/disapproval of RfC closure. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for participating in my RfA. I appreciate your sentiments and hope to see you again sometime.

By the way, have you ever considered filing an RfA yourself? =) Kurtis (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've thought about it. I came to the conclusion that it's a terrible idea. I think I'd be a good admin, actually. I also think that I'm too much of a wikiholic to risk it. I'd either burn out on wiki or on real life if I became an admin. I'm considering the merits of trying MedCom long term instead. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 06:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. I think you'd be good there. =) Kurtis (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the beer
Thanks for the beer, and contesting the deletion. I do not know but, I always feel like Delicious carbuncle (the guy who is always tagging my created articles for deletion) is always policing me. Thanks really for helping me with that article.--Renzoy16 &#124; Contact Me 18:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think he's policing you, per se; he's just very adamantly against anything resembling using Wikipedia for advertising. I'm very adamantly against using WP for advertising too, but he and I draw the line in different places. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I might have misunderstood the guy. But again, thank you. :D --Renzoy16 &#124; Contact Me 19:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Renzoy16, if you didn't write articles that read like adverts written by a paid editor, I wouldn't have anything to say about your work. Perhaps instead of waiting until someone tags the article before removing the PR copy, you could just leave it out altogether? And yelp.com should never be used as a reference. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Coal scrip fact and neutraility
Hey there, I have updated the coal scrip article, its [pretty much every sentence from Edkinns coa scrip catalog. I also answered the monopoy assertion in that since there were no iother reatil places, except, one, its a monopoly. So, if you could please let me know what facts I am missing, I would be greatly appreciative. I also cant see this as orginal, its, from again, Edkins. The Company scrip article is post socialist lecture from a lecture I had in grad school and not a soul has questioned its veracity, although its a total POV. My ancestors actually used coal scrip, so, let me know where to improve, thanks!Coal town guy (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a "stub" article, which just means it's short enough that it needs expansion if it's going to properly cover the topic. More sources would be good. And lastly, while you're correct in that it created a monopoly (I agree, truly!) that word needs to be said by one of the sources. Does Edkins say that? P.S. I didn't add the original research tag, but I didn't challenge it either. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * YES, its a stub, because, the company scrip article is a regurgitation of post structuralist social dogma from the late 1920's from academics who did not die in coal mines. My relatives did. I own Copy 333 of 500 of the 3rd edition of Volume 2 of the Edkins Catalogue of United States Coal Company Scrip. YES, its there. The VP of the National Coal Scrip Collectors Association, who publishes this Catalog, put the phones in my mothers home town. IF you want a dictionary reference for a monopoly, from websters online aor my copy ogf the OED, I can provide it and would tha get rid of the POV argument. Imbuing a word, is NOT a POVCoal town guy (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I want to assure you I'm not ignoring you, I just want to think through what you've said thoroughly and make sure my answer is correct and clear. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I supplied a Oxdord Dictionary definition of Monopoly, the article is totally neutral and contains no original researchCoal town guy (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My basic answer to that is this: it'll do for now, and for a while. For a stub, or even a C-class article, that'll do. Depending on how much expansion it undergoes, it might need better sourcing, but for it to be expanded that much it'll need more sources anyway, which I'm sure can be found. So feel free to take the tag off, and good job.
 * I do want to clarify that I wasn't disparaging your work. Nor was I disagreeing with your assertion that coal scrip forcibly created monopolies. I was just wary of saying so in a WP article without a source that said the words, somewhere, "Coal scrip forcibly created monopolies" or an equivalent statement. Without that, we were just on the good side of synthesis, but we were brushing up against it, and I wanted to get a little more breathing room from it is all. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I was too strong on the issue, however, recent events, and my life in that environment have lead me to be rather overtlty cautious in any environment. The emotions have no place in Wikipedia and I very much appreciate your time you took to look at the article. I need to learn distance in such circumstances.Coal town guy (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. I have no problem with someone being passionate about an article on Wikipedia, as long as they keep trying to work together. Which you did, because your passion went into trying to convince me. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

WQA
WP:SANITY may be some interest for you - we're not planning to redirect WQA to ANI, but focus on self-help so little conduct issues can be sorted out where possible without outside intervention, but have an alternative if that's unsuccessful. Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 01:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Follow up on speedy deletion
The "Crowe and Dunlevy" page should not have been speedily deleted because this page was not exclusively promotional and therefore did not meet the qualifications for a speedy deletion. See the note in section G11 of the speedy deletion criteria which reads "an article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion."

As far as I could tell, all of the information about the subject of the article was true and written in a neutral point of view. If you will allow the page to be recreated as "Crowe & Dunlevy," then it could be re-written with content that is in NO way "exclusively promotional." Any feedback would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechD472 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I may have nominated the article for speedy deletion, but I was not the one who deleted it, since I'm not an admin. It appeared to me to be an excessively promotional article about a possibly notable subject. I'd be perfectly content to see a neutral version on Wikipedia, but the version I nominated was in fact exclusively promotional; it in no way described the company neutrally. See WP:NPOV for clarity. As for getting it undeleted, I suggest you take it to deletion review. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 hajat vrc  @ 23:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!
Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout 21:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

DRN needs your help!
Hey there Jorgath, I noticed you've listed yourself as a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard but you haven't been very active there lately - I was hoping if you had some spare time if you could take a look there and offer some assistance. Thanks again for your help :-) Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 11:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC
Because of your interest in dispute resolution,, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem

This dispute has been going on for over ten years and there have been over 1,300,000 words posted on the article talk page (by comparison, all of the Harry Potter books together total 1,084,170 words). Over the years the dispute has been through multiple noticeboards, mediators, and even the Arbitration Committee without resolving the conflict, so a lot of wisdom is needed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter
Hey. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.

Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter - closing up!
Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The user Almust removed your prod notice rather a while ago. Check it out if he improved it enough so that it doesn't hit the prod criteria, or prod it again and warn the user? Just a heads up in case you didn't know. =) Dengero (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter
This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Editor Review
I am currently cleaning up the backlog over at Editor Review and I found this in the backlog. As it is no longer posted on the main page at Editor Review, I was wondering if I should remove it from the backlogs and put it to rest or if I should repost it for community review. I will remove it from the backlogs three days from now if I am not given a response.— cyberpower Offline Happy 2013 22:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

--Amadscientist (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

DRN organisers
Hello. I am just letting you know that I've made a proposal to create a rotating DRN organiser-style role that would help with the day-to-day running of DRN. As you are a listed volunteer at DRN, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, and the other open proposals at DRN. You can read more about it here. Thanks! Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 00:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Edgar Gott
Thanks for the positive review! I do hope to find more good sources and expand it in the future. Dohn joe (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
§§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 03:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Banga Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Banga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to self - resolved. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 13:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

1988 New England Steamrollers
I will remove the redlinks, but they are all notable people. According to WP:NGRIDIRON, anyone who plays in and Arena Football League game is notable. DMC511 (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're sure that they're notable, then leave the redlinks as articles that need to be created. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 Miami Marlins season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jose Fernandez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to self: resolved. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

DRN needs your help!
Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 11:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The new face of DRN:
Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 17:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your involvement with DRN
Hi there, I noticed that you haven't been as active at DRN as you was before. DRN has been a bit backlogged lately and we could use some extra hands. We have updated our volunteer list to a new format, Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers (your name is still there under the old format if you haven't updated it) and are looking into ways to make DRN more effective and more rewarding for volunteers (your input is appreciated!). If you don't have much time to volunteer at the moment, that's fine too, just move your name to the inactive list (you're free to add yourself back to active at any time). Hope to see you again soon :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)