User talk:Jusdafax/Archive 6

Happy tenth anniversary


Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

 WAYNE  SLAM has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 18:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)  WAYNE  SLAM 18:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Wayne! Jusdafax  19:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

RfA
Many thanks; I'll be running again in a few months once I've ironed out some of the issues that people raised. Thanks again, GiantSnowman 19:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Jusdafax  19:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A drink


HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 19:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC) I haven't bumped into you so much lately until today, so I just wanted to say it's always a pleasure to see your name on my watchlist. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Much obliged for the kindly sentiment! Indeed, I have been contributing to the project at a fairly minimal level for several months due to other priorities, but I doubt I'll ever just stop cold... too much fun. My best wishes to you and yours, and I'll most likely see you around at ITN or Rfa! Jusdafax  23:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe just ITN. I got my fingers burnt a bit recently, so I think I'll stay out of the kitchen for a little while (rants at BN excepted!). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

talkback

 * Hey there.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  04:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

why you delete
my precious prose?--Milowent • talkblp-r 07:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, if that was my fault, as it appears to be! I have no idea how that happened! Would you like me to replace it, or would you prefer to do it yourself? Jusdafax  07:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh vey, it would not be easy, i'll let you give it a go first. I bet you edited an earlier version of the discussion by mistake, that is probably the culprit.--Milowent • talkblp-r  07:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok... and you are right, it won't be easy. I'll leave a note on the page first. Jusdafax  07:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. No problems, accidents happen.   D r e a m Focus  08:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks... that was a most untimely first time for me. Blessings! Jusdafax  08:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Toy Story 3 accepted edit
Sorry about that; I guess I should have read the talk first. Cheers, → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four ♣ ← 21:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks for the note here. I still think the best wording is "and currently final" but I lost that one. It seems that the pressure to make another movie will be considerable, given the monstrous box office TS3 has gotten. Best wishes! Jusdafax   21:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thinking this over; will get back to you on your page. Thanks, it's a honor to be considered. Jusdafax   20:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter (film series)
Hi,

The "Casting the roles of Harry, Ron and Hermione" section has been put back to its original place. I know that you were not a supporter of the move in the first place, and I have taken on board your concerns about the timeline of the article, therefore I feel it's best that it should be near the top under the "origins" section to improve the structure of the article as a whole. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks HH, for considering my thoughts on that topic. And I'd like to thank you again for your many improvements to the article! Jusdafax   23:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

NPP
NPP has some issues that have been come to  light since the launch  of our bot to track unpatrolled pages, and troubleshooting some recent tech issues with  the special:newpages log. Would you be prepared to  chime in with some ideas for an NPP 'School' for new users? This is my very  first communication with  anyone on the idea, and I  would value your feedback here or on my  talk  page. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For various reasons I am not as active as I once was, but you bring up one of the areas I maintain an interest in. Please let me know if there is a page for discussion, as I think such a 'School' could be a very good thing indeed.  Thanks for your coming here, I am flattered.  Jus  da  fax   06:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You're Welcome!
Feel free to chat there if you'd like. I was very active with PC during the trial and now just wish a decision be made one way or another. CycloneGU (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation
Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards.  My 76 Strat  08:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was on IRC for about a year when I was an intern at the WMF in San Francisco. I'll think about coming back to IRC but due to other projects I am working on, my time is limited, and IRC just eats more of it up.  It is a vital tool for fighting vandals and other Wikipedia issues, and I made some lasting friends there, but my life is much more complex than it used to be.  Thanks you for the re-invite, and as I say I'll think it over a bit more.  Jus  da  fax   18:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

May Want To Comment
You may want to add your two cents (or pence, whatever) to this discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say that the editor in question is someone I attempt to avoid when possible due to his combative nature and unpleasant demeanor (note his block record), and his talk page is a place I don't wish to comment at. Thanks just the same for the notice.  I continue to feel your act of removing his latest poll was quite right, and I salute you for it.  What time I have here of late is perhaps best spent lightly, rather than getting bogged down.  Good fortunes to you!  Jus  da  fax   18:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tis fine...he deleted it NEway, so I copied it to mine. Wanna chime in on mine since he has no permission to edit things off my my talk page?  CycloneGU (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You may find this of interest.  Jus  da  fax   00:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do! Thank you for pointing this out; I've noted it in reply to his most recent comment about how he's busy.  CycloneGU (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've also commented there agreeing with you. CycloneGU (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

David Yates
Hi again. I have nominated the David Yates article for GA status. All I need now is for someone to review it. Could you take a look at the article to see if its any good and, if you think it is, would it be possible for you to have a go at reviewing it (it should be in the Theatre, Film and Drama section)? That's if you have time of course. I am not permitted to review the article because I have extensively worked on it for some time. I am desperate to get this into GA status as I think it's a good looking article. If you can't help, no worries. Thanks. :) Hallows Horcruxes  23:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi HH! I am honored to be asked to do this review. But the problem is, as I note above, I am able to spend very little time on Wikipedia of late.  If no one steps up in a timely fashion I could give it a try, but I have never reviewed an article for GA before!  Those two factors could be hard to overcome.  I recently put up a notice at the Harry Potter (film series) talk page regarding a possible GA review for that article.  There were a few good comments from people who sound like they know more about the process than I do; could I suggest you ask them for advice or a review?  I will keep watch of this matter.  By the way, at first glance the article appears to be in great shape for a GA review.  Best wishes,  Jus  da  fax   07:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, no problem. :) One of the issues brought up on the film series article was the reference formatting. I'll try to sort that out soon and hopefully it'll be ready for nomination. Hallows Horcruxes  09:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes and that is an area I'm no expert in. I will hope to watch and learn!  Jus  da  fax   07:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Marc Dalton
(Continued from Bearcat's talk page) Jus  da  fax   08:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There are several MLAs facing recall campaigns; it's not unique to him. It's also sourced only to the websites of specific groups involved in the recall effort and not to any reliable media — thereby making it most likely an attempt to use his Wikipedia article to publicize and promote the recall campaign — and the recent edits which changed the description of the recall effort from "part of the FightHST campaign led by former Premier Bill Vander Zalm" to "part of an NDP backed effort to Re-fight the last BC election from May 2009" are a pretty clear WP:NPOV violation obviously meant to discredit the campaign. For what it's worth, I've lost count of the number of times I've had to pageprotect British Columbia MLAs in the past six months or so due to extreme partisan editwarring. Bearcat (talk) 08:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So I assume it is the photo caption that is objectionable? Jus  da  fax   08:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Article rotting away
See here - an IP editor has completely changed the tone of the article to declare that the subject of the article is a conspiracy. No longer NPOV, yet I hesitate to revert completely. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 14:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I took the article back to the last stable version, which is not to say it doesn't need considerable work. Jus  da  fax   15:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Task force
Per Tryptofish's recommendation here, which was about the discussion here, would you be interested in participating, and if so, would it be possible for you to round up some people who share your views and keep in touch with them as the task force makes recommendations? - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dank, thanks for your interest in my participation per Tryptofish, for which I am grateful to you both, and flattered. I have read the pages you linked to, and am glad to see that Jimmy Wales feels something is very broken in the Rfa process. It is my opinion that he is right.


 * Tryptofish has mentioned Ben MacDui and I because, as you may or may not know, of our work on WP:CDA which in brief, in early 2010 attempted to present the community with a reasonable process to remove adminship from those the community felt were abusing the tools, even in marginal but well documented ways that might not quite make the cut for a case before ArbCom. Again as you may or may not know, the final stages of Community DeAdminship discussions were difficult, followed by a bruising RfC that failed due to the documented disapproval of the Admin community, ironically the very editors whose actions Cda was designed to make more accountable.  By the way, MacDui and Trypto's contributions were more substantial than my own, in my view.  They did a lot of painstaking work.  If it came down to it, I'd be happy to work with them again.  However...


 * At the time we labored on Cda, I was a stealth helper (in that I did not advertise it) at the WMF in San Francisco, working as a part-time assistant to Cary Bass. As such my identity was disclosed to the WMF.  My work there gave me a unique perspective on many of the issues facing Wikipedia, to say the least.  After seven months, I retired honorably from the position last May when I moved from California.  I have since adopted a lower profile, for a number of reasons.


 * I mention this because I feel that to deal with Jimmy's dismay, echoed in much of the wider community, over the broken Rfa process, a simple Wikipedia task force is not going to cut it. While I could be wrong, my experience with Cda would seem to validate this.  What follows goes considerably beyond your request, but I honestly feel it is vital to do so.


 * It is my strong opinion that most issues dealing with entrenched admins, many of whom became admins five or more years ago when standards were considerably more relaxed and whom would not pass an Rfa today, require thinking outside the box. Deliberations on adminship by a community whose true identities are unknown, by their nature generate more heat than light, go on at excessive length, and wind up turning reasonable voices away. Therefore, I suggest:


 * A newly created and appointed  'Wikipedia-en Extraordinary Council'  of five to nine members who have substantial edit histories or otherwise have major involvement in the encyclopedia, who would disclose their identities to the WMF if they had not already done so.


 * The Council would meet in conference call, possibly via Skype, and be tasked to determine in real time and with a concrete deadline what exactly the problems are with Rfa and how the issues can be fixed with a minimum of wasted time.


 * This council, with the guidance and approval of the WMF, would report to Jimmy Wales and the WMF directly. If approved, the report would be made public and presented to the community.


 * A short period of non-binding Wikipedia-en community comment would be then be sought.


 * If the report's conclusions and recommendations are accepted they will be acted on and implemented directly.


 * The Council would then be disbanded.

There you have it. Feel free to pass this on, up to and including Jimmy's page, as you see fit, or ignore it completely. But I can't be much more candid than I am here about the best way to deal with this issue. Jus da  fax   02:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Per your request to stay notified of current developments, see Eureka! We're all morons. - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism from my IP adress.
Hello, I noticed that you posted on my IP based talk page (Not logged in.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:98.28.44.197 According to the warning, "I" vandalized two articles. I would like to state that I did not do what the warning contains. It seems that my IP and the immature person who believes that John Constable was "A famous artist who eats bugs" have been confused, or mixed. I would like to reiterate, I did not perform these edits. Thank you, Ckhi Kuzad 04:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckhi Kuzad (talk • contribs)


 * From 2009! For what it is worth, my apologies for the accusation. And as far as Wikipedia is concerned, no one holds anything that ancient against you or whoever did the edits in question.  Best wishes,  Jus  da  fax   15:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM March 2011 Newsletter
The March 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform
Hi Jusdafax. Please don't hesitate to  join  the RfA task force. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an honor to be asked, so many thanks, will do. Jus  da  fax   09:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That RfA reform thing
Kudpung has asked me to 'nudge' some people .. as I'm an idle get, I'm just going through the entire Task Force list so my apologies if you didn't need a nudge! You can slap me about over on WP:EfD if you like :o) Straw polling various options: over here - please add views, agree with views, all that usual stuff. Pesky  ( talk ) 12:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Easter bunny
Apologies. I was lagging behind others fixing the original vandalism and undid the wrong edits. You fixed it before I could.--Mobtown Mongrel (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I figured. Thanks for your work!  Jus  da  fax   01:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

AIV on IP
I blocked this guy, but remember: Except for open proxies we do not "shut down" (i.e., block indefinitely) IPs. We can block them for a year at a time if they get to that point. But not until then. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Daniel. I'm a bit rusty at reporting to AIV and my terminology was not clear.  Anyway he's not going to reoffend in the near term, and given the ugly nature of his vandalism, that is what is important.  Thanks again for taking the time to write me a note!  Jus  da  fax   06:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM April 2011 Newsletter
The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk page
No problem. I rarely undo talk page vandalism, leaving that to the editor who owns the page, but this was pure gibberish. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at    :Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 10:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011
Task Force news: Recent updates include basic minor changes and condensing at the main  page, additional  comments on  the main  page talk  page, a new project  sub  page and talk for Radical Alternatives, and messages at Task force talk. A current priority is to reach suggested criteria/tasks for clerks, and then to establish a local consensus vis-à-vis clerking. Please remember to keep  all  the project  and its talk  pages on  your watchlist. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln memorial/Legacy section
We are currently attempting to bring the Lincoln article to FA status and are trying to establish consensus regarding images. Your consensus and opinion is needed on the Abraham Lincoln talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Another interaction ban proposal for Sarek and TT
I have proposed another interaction ban between TreasuryTag and SarekOfVulcan. Since you commented in the last ban discussion that failed to gain consensus I am notifying you of this one. See - Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

ITN Notice (self template)
Jus da  fax   20:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM May 2011 Newsletter
The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent change patrol
Hello, I'm wondering if I could ask you a couple questions about Wikipedia's culture of volunteerism for a radio program I'm working on. If you have a few minutes, please email me jrdnbwnATgmail.com... thanks! JordanBowen (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry not to have gotten back to you. I am curious why I was selected for your survey, as I am not exactly the most active editor for the past six months or more. Thanks. Jus  da  fax   05:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Task force WP:RFA2011 update
Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 08:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

you erased an entire thread
at the ArbCom talk page. – Ling.Nut 02:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies. Had an edit conflict and edited the wrong box... it seems. Can I undo or what would you suggest? Jus  da  fax   02:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Undone. :)  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  02:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Usually I'm much more careful, especially when the matter is of such crucial importance, though I try to take care at all times. Again, my apologies and gratitude for the speedy repair job. Jus  da  fax   02:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No prob. It didn't look intentional, and I figured it would be easiest to just undo, rather then wait for you (or someone else).  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  02:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Greetings!

As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.

Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!

Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

Question re: declined speedy for Vivek vk jain
Hi there, Causa Sui. I see you declined my speedy delete request for Vivek vk jain and 'PROD'ded the article for the much lengthier process.

Given that the article creator has the same name, this is a pretty clear case of WP:COI, as I see it. I spent some time in various search engines looking this guy up, and the claims of notability did not check out: all I found were his own blog posts. My question is, is the mere self-assertion of notability (by a self-creator, in this case) a reason not to add the speedy template, under Wikipedia guidelines, or is there 'grey area' around this? If the former is policy, does this not add to the burden at Afd? I also found it of interest that the creator had self-removed the speedy template and failed to respond in any way on the article talk page or his own. Thanks for helping me to understand this issue, Jus  da  fax   07:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the message. My understanding of CSD A7 is that it only applies to articles that do not even assert significance, regardless of the quality of the citations. Of course, these standards are constantly evolving in practice, and after about a year hiatus I may not be completely up to date on the cutting edge interpretation. But from spending some time handling speedy deletion candidates, I can tell you this: A7 is in practice being interpreted quite broadly, and it's possible that another administrator would have speedied the article for A7 had she been the one to review it. My feeling is that administrators are sneaking a few "around back" here and there because they're articles that nobody would want to have included and the deleting is unlikely to be challenged. Maybe that explains why you are surprised that I declined it. For whatever reason, I choose not to do that. If you feel that there is outstanding precedent on this or that my interpretation of A7 as it currently stands is too narrow, please let me know that you think that, and why. Otherwise, it may be a good idea to bring this up on WT:CSD. Regards, causa sui (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM June 2011 Newsletter
The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011: RfA on other Wikipedias
A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on   major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel  that other important language  Wikipedias should be added, please let  us know. This may however depend on  our/your language skills!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Response to your comment on Raul's talk page
Jusdafax, it wasn't an empty threat. I don't mind when someone disagrees with me, but when someone calls me a liar, I remember it. Please feel free to put my user talk page on your watchlist, and I've noted that you have called me a bully for taking exception to being called a liar. I will also post this response to your talkpage to make sure you receive it. Cla68 (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The 24 hours is long past, and you have not acted, so your actions, which you admit are a threat, appear to me to be empty. Feel free to "note" any comment of mine that you want (which smacks of your attempt to foment a 'Cirt's enablers' list at his recent Rfc/U), and your wording and posting on my personal page ("to make sure I receive it") are noted in turn. My question is, if you object to your self-described threatening actions being called those of a bully, what else would you call them?  Collegial?  I'll take any reply from you on Raul's page, and hereby request that you stay off my page permanently, as I find your manner and tactics offputting at best.   Jus  da  fax   08:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't called anyone names, but you have, and you're saying that I'm the bully? In spite of this, you, and anyone else are always welcome to post on my talk page. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be worth noting that this editor was indef blocked in 2016. Jusdafax (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Critical response to the Harry Potter films is in danger.
Do you think you can fix this article so it's a little different than what the individual film articles says. Also see it's talk page to understand why. Jhenderson 7 7 7  21:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Rfc on WTC 7 info deletion at 9/11 conspiracy theories
I've opened an Rfc on the article talk page per your suggestion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ghostofnemo#Continued_deep_concerns_regarding_attacks_on_you Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to the Rfc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Rfc_on_deleted_WTC_7_information Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM July 2011 Newsletter
The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

blocking
Hi, IP 210.213.240.198 has been had final warnings for vandalism which have been breached this evening. You gave him earlier warnings for vandalism a few months ago. I wonder if you could investigate. He seems intent on John Turturro. Thanks. Span (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Que pasa?
Jusdafax, how are you? You've not been here in a while--I hope you found something useful to do with your time. All the best, Drmies (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm good, thanks. Personal considerations led to a decision to take a summer wiki-break, but as of today I've made a few edits and expect to ease back into matters again. Thanks for your interest! Jus  da  fax   00:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

RfA Reform update
Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:
 * Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
 * Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
 * Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

ITN Notice (self template)
Jus da  fax   00:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to  these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising  the project  pages, researching  statistics and keeping  them  up  to  date. You'll also see for example that  we have recently  made tables to  compare how other Wikipedias choose  their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on  specific issues of our  admin  selection  process and to develop  RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that  all Wikipedia policy changes take a long  time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to  be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not  to make it  either  easier or harder to  become an admin -  those criteria are set by  those who  !vote at  each  RfA. By providing  a unique venue for developing ideas for  change independent  of  the general discussion  at  WT:RFA, the project has two  clearly  defined goals: The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project  pages to  suggest  and discuss ideas that are not  strictly  within  the remit  of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they  will  offer maximum exposure to  the broader community, rather than individual  projects in  user space.
 * 1) Improving the environment  that  surrounds RfA in  order to  encourage mature, experienced editors of the right  calibre to  come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their  time to  admin  tasks.
 * 2) Discouraging, in the nicest  way  possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to  guide them towards the advice pages.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in  order to  build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any  editors are always welcome on  the project's various talk  pages. The main reasons  why  WT:RfA was never successful in  getting  anything  done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody  remembers them and where they  are hard to  find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on  the founder's talk  page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

WP:FILM September 2011 Newsletter
The September 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2011 Newsletter
The October 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)