User talk:Jtrainor

Welcome!

The Rules


 * 1) Be cool to me and I'll be cool to you. If you show up here and act like a jerk expect to have your posts removed.
 * 2) No anon IPs. Log in if you want to talk to me.
 * 3) No puppets. Self-explanatory.
 * 4) No Homers
 * 5) Don't randomly template me instead of attempting to actually talk to me. This is 'shit and run' and will get you nowhere. Especially don't template me about being close to 3RR-- I am quite capable of counting to three and assuming that I can't will most definitely be taken as a personal attack.
 * 6) Catch-all prove 'em wrong clause:
 * 5a) Yes it is
 * 5b) No it isn't
 * 5c) Yes
 * 5d) No

Deaf Culture
Hi! Just wanted to explain quickly why I removed the Disability template from the Deaf culture page you added. It's been an on and off debate whether the page should have it, but an informal straw poll came to the conclusion that it should stay off the page. The basic reason came down to that though the physical inabilty to hear can be considered a disability (though some would say otherwise; a debate for another time, I'm sure) Deaf Culture is more about the culture that revolves around the Deaf Community. I'd be more than happy to elaborate a bit on this topic if you'd like. Deafgeek (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but I don't really have the time or energy to start a fight over this. Jtrainor (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Your last two AfD nominations
Please read WP:BEFORE before considering nominating articles for deletion. In short, an unreferenced article won't be deleted on notability grounds if the sources can be found easily via a search. I find it generally saves everyone's time if I do a quick search for sources before considering nominating, with Google Books and their news archives being most useful. -- Pontificalibus  (talk)

Mangum or Magnum
Please double-check the spelling. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: DIREKTOR at WP:AE
Would you mind explaining how exactly my request is "clearly frivolous"? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're complaining because someone made three reverts in -11 days-. Jtrainor (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Arb
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Starnbar
ref

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute
Dear Jtrainor.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Categories
Hey - when you add a category tag to an article (as with Breen), it's good to make sure that the category actually exists. The category in question was deleted a few years ago as a result of some discussion. DS (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, my bad. Jtrainor (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Banned from posting sources, replay
Hello. I would like to replay to you here since my posts are being deleted in the report. I was never reported and that admin keeps banning me. He appears in every discussion I have with the reported user. I'm not hiding I'm the same person because I haven't done anything wrong. You said that all are saying I'm a sock but that is not the case. Only FkpCascais and HighInBC are doing that. In the referenced discussions you can see that none of the following editors had a single complaint against me: Joy [shallot], Director, Ąnαșταη,  Robert McClenon,  Brustopher, Tuvixer,  No such user,  Shokatz,  Markewilliams,  Relichal1, LjL,AlbinoFerret. FkpCascais is calling HighInBC to ban people for him and all that is done without any report (I'm not the only case). I've been active for a few month in the referenced discussions and you can see that there is no reason to ban me. I feel I haven't done anything wrong by posting sources and when the page protection expired I'll post them again. From the reports against FkpCascais it is obvious how he deals with people who he don't agree with. I had a quite of struggle on Serbs of Croatia article with him. I opened a RfC, discussed for months, he tried to block me and another user when we were the only one who opposed him. I managed to bring that RfC to other editors who joined. Then FkpCascais became very rude to them also, and he was finally reported by one of those editors and banned from that discussion. Sorry if I bothered you, but you seemed interested to why I'm being banned without any report. I will keep posting sources to the talk page in any way since those sources can help someone. 141.138.59.111 (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Working to remove Mark Roosevelt POV tag
Thank you for your work on Mark Roosevelt's page. I am working to address your concerns regarding neutrality. May we talk here or shall I comment on the "Talk:Mark Roosevelt" page? Thanks. Johnnie Stringfellow (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hit me up whereever. My primary concerns, as noted on that page, is that it's current state was created basically by a PR flack from the university the guy works/worked at. Jtrainor (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will work on it and move any additional discussion to the "Talk:Mark Roosevelt" page. Johnnie Stringfellow (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Good morning - Revisiting this issue. Looks like sources were added back in July. However, I didn't want to remove the maintenance template until we touched base. Looking forward to your response. --Charlottemj (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Select Survey Invite
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_8ppceiOEKZAn8gZ&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

PROD
Articles that have previously been through AFD are not eligible to be PROD'd, as info. -- ferret (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, good to know. Jtrainor (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Misclicked
rollback but the undo-ing was intentional. Gasoline on a fire and all that. If you're bothered enough, please read the archives. &#x222F; WBG converse 14:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You have no policy-based reason whatsoever to remove my post from the talk page. Jtrainor (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Unhelpful speculation is just that... unhelpful. You have no basis to bring up unfounded rumours, either.  Please desist.  There's enough salacious material there as is that is based on facts.  If anyone knew about some Spanish contributions causing problems, they would have already been brought up at that page.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've done some investigation on my own and found out that the rumors are far from unsubstantiated. Fram offended LauraHale, who has subsequently used her ties to the WMF to get him unjustly punished. Jtrainor (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Speculation at WP:FRAM
I have removed the section (and good faith responses) you recently started at WP:FRAM since it contained wild speculation about both Fram and another user with clear and forseeable real-life consequences. Please be more mindful on how such posts may affect actual persons. Abecedare (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not wild speculation because it, you know, ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Jtrainor (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what you say, without any evidence to back it up. Knock it off, or I will block you for BLP violations.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 12:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You do realize that anyone can click someone's contribs and find things out the exact same things I did? You are too late to hush this up in any case; people are already talking about it outside Wikipedia. Jtrainor (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not responsible for preventing disruption outside of Wikipedia. People can and do say all kinds of garbage at other sites.  Some editors have, with diffs, pointed out that evidence could suggest the WMF may have a COI in this instance, while other editors have given evidence that this is not the case.  What has not been said is that they have "proof" of the motives of others.  I've seen your edit history, and you have done a good job in the past of removing unsourced, speculative material from articles.   Why you would promulgate such drivel ("It's a fact!") is perplexing, as you wouldn't allow this in an article.  But if you must, go to one of those other sites with a much lower standard of care, lower standards for "facts" and lower standards for the well-being of other people.  They will welcome you with open arms.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 14:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There are literally other people discussing the exact same stuff I've mentioned on WP:FRAM right now, and I can't help noticing that you arn't trying to pull the same act with them. Jtrainor (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm hardly omniscient. I happened to notice your statement.  You have no idea how much I don't want to say this, because I utterly detest this type of admin work, but if you'll point out the diff where unsubstantiated aspersions and say-so occurred, I guess I'll have to deal with it.  Otherwise it is just another unsubstantiated aspersion.  I should point out that I know the difference between "A+B looks funny if it were to equal C" and "A+B=C".   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 20:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 20:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

User page deleted
Your user page, User:Jtrainor/Summary of Fram Drama, was tagged by another editor as G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP and I have deleted it. Please do not recreate it or continue to speculate on the habits, editing and behavior of other editors or it will also be deleted. If you want to write this type of content, please do it on some other website, message board or blog, not on Wikipedia. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ANI for Talk:Yasuke
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 16:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)