User talk:McJeff/Archive2

List of characters in Bully
You and Dan need to settle down and stop nitpicking many edits to the article. The section called: new people stopping by to edit (February 2008) was uncivil. In that section, you stated "I'm going to make it policy to delete all the tags put up by driveby editors", which is also uncivil. As I stated in that section: people can place tags and not discuss things, it's not a crime. Stop being overprotective over the article, just because tags are placed and the editor doesn't discuss. Discuss the tag on talk, then if it's not needed: remove AFTER discussion, not beforehand. Then there is the whole villain/nemesis nonsense. One word shouldn't be such a big deal. Just because a source uses that word, doesn't mean the article must have it listed the same way. Further article controlling will force me to make a discussion at an admin notice board about this. You and Dan watch the page/obsess with it a bit too much, and it certainly needs to stop. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Rob you state that placing a tag and not discussing it isn't a crime, which is true. But just to play devils advocate with you, making sure an article and editing day in and day out to make sure the article is neat, tidy and up to standards is also not a crime.


 * Deleting the tag and making a suggestion like McJeff did is not a crime and isn't against Wikipedia policy(not to my knowledge anyways). Article controlling like you claim me and McJeff do is also not a crime or against Wikipedia policy(Once again not to my knowledge).


 * Infact I suggest bringing in an admin, because all this bickering is getting out of hand. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dan, why don't you try leaving a message on his talk page and see if he's more responsive to you? I don't think he will be, but Wikipedia policy is fairly clear on the fact that at least two people are required to have tried to deal with an editor's incivility before administrative action will be taken against him. McJeff (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is time to bring in an admin, Rob said he will bring in an admin so let him bring in one, get all this sorted out once and for all, I'll probably get the same reply from him like you did anyways, so it really is no point. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also the way this is going, It's gonna go back and forth and never gonna be resolved. So I think the best thing to do is bring in an administrator, let me, you and Rob state our cases and take it from there and see what the administrators says about it. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Do NOT remove my comments from article talk
See: Template:Notyours. Removing my comment at the Bully list isn't acceptable, so knock it off. I have the right to my view, and you don't have the right to blank it off an article talk page. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fed up with your attitude. I notified you of the notyours note, but you ignored it. Blanking my comments, and being uncivil needs to stop. Blanking warnings on user talk pages is perfectly fine, but blanking things others wrote on article talk isn't correct. I've started this: Wikiquette_alerts, to help with the problem. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "I'm fed up with your attitude."

Hmmmm another uncivil comment Rob. If you don't like his attitude then fine, but keep opinions about other editors to yourself. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to stop by and thank you for offering advice and someone to talk to about a recent issue with an editor. I'm over it at this point unless that editor continues their recent behavior. Thanks again. Angrymansr (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You might wanna start defending yourself now,
Since Rob has posted about you on the admins noticeboards. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is actually kinda funny. I barely need to defend myself though, it's not like I've done anything wrong. McJeff (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats true. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Action
Hello. I just wanted to drop in to inform you that there is an active discussion about some of your recent editing activity on the Wikiquette forum found [here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:McJeff]. Thanks! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC.
If your gonna go through with this, I think you better take a look at this first. If you do an RFC, It aint the first time it has been done on him. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the whole RFC. Several people agree it was retaliatory. Don't just throw out old things, if you havent even read it all. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That isn't the point I was trying to prove. Just proving that the next isn't the first and knowing your history, It won't be the last neither, and I will throw old things out if I like, cause I am very ignorant when I want to be. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I read the whole thing. It looked retaliatory to me to be honest, although Rob accusing them of meatpuppetry was out of line as well. McJeff (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please cease and desist from removing the Notability template without reasonable justification
Please cease and desist from removing the Notability templates from article Elemental (Dungeons & Dragons) which does not have any reliable secondary sources. There is no reasonable justification for removing the cleanup template which was put there to address the problem of lack of secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The reason why I ask you to do this in the strongest possible terms is that you appear to be POV pushing, as the lack of explanation for removing the template are not supported by the notability guideline WP:BK and WP:RS which applies to this topic. Unless you adding reliable secondary sources to the article, I would be grateful if you would refrain from removing the cleanup template, which was place there to alert other editors who may be able to add sources that they are needed. Note that since the depth of coverage is not substantial, multiple independent sources are needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I responded on your talk page, but I will continue to remove unreasonable templates. Out of all the dozens of articles you templated I removed... three. McJeff (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack Merridew
"With the deletionist having been banned, I see no reason not to undo his without-consensus mergism" - I agree with you there, unfortunatley some people (look up) will just revert your changes anyway. *shrug* BOZ (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Boz. It is time we undo some of the damage that these accounts have caused to our project.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I certainly think it's time someone rescued the D&D project from the deletionists. I'll be glad to help. McJeff (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it can be done, but there is always hope. I'm not missing Jack for one. BOZ (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be done. May have to resort to mergism, but mergism has its purposes at least. McJeff (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I have notified Gavin on his talk page of his incivility towards McJeff, but he did not seem inclined to comment on his own behavior. BOZ (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your message on RobJ1981's talkpage
I undid your message since it was pretty long on Rob's talk page. Please explain on my talk page what you said in your message that was for me. Versus22 (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's ok, I'd rather not drag you into the middle of it. Personally I'd love to be done with it. McJeff (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not like him to tell you the truth... It drives me nuts when he keeps doing these unnecessary comments (ex: assume good faith, be civil, etc) so many times! Recently though I got upset at him on a AfD page when he didn't reply when I sent him one or two messages a couple months ago. So yeah what I think is that he should just leave wikipedia if he continues this. I can't take his action anymore... Versus22 (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC of RobJ1981
Where do I vote/discuss? Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Go to Requests for comment/RobJ1981. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since he's new at this, I'm giving him instructions on his talk page. McJeff (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember, you need one other editor to certify that he or she tried and failed to resolve your dispute for the RFC/U to not be deleted. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Angrymansr has that covered. McJeff (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You still need one more beyond him. You need two total.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't mine count? McJeff (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that section on users certifying needs at least two editors to sign there. So, anyone who attempted to resolve the dispute in even these discussions could be helpful:  or .  In that last one, it may even be worth posting there that the discussion has moved to the RfC/U.  Use this request for comment as a model.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless I read wrong, the first link Le Grand gave doesn't apply (the video game project talk page). See this: . According to the RFC note at the top: In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. That section isn't a failure, seeing as how I accepted the idea a person posted there. Also, I replied there before I was even told about the RFC. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say, Rob. McJeff (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was trying to say: Le Grand's link at the video game project doesn't work, as that dispute didn't fail. Also, the response section isn't for you. My undoing of your edit isn't uncivil. The response section clearly says this: This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section. Next time, read the details instead of just adding the link to the uncivil list. Also, notifying me of other links to come wasn't needed one bit. I consider that bad faith. Add the links all you want, but leave me alone while you do it. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

''
 * You consider everything bad faith, Rob. You twist the most innocent remarks into personal attacks on you, and on the rare occasion someone says something that can't be interpreted as an attack in any way, shape or form, you ignore it.  See also:  the fact that you refuse to address the fact that I've apologized for one of my posts and that I've insisted I made it in good faith.  McJeff (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't consider everything bad faith, so don't assume. You adding my latest revert under the uncivil section was innocent according to you, right? Read how the section works, before posting in it, getting upset, and then calling my revert uncivil. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your continual accusations of incivility are what I have the problem with, Rob. If you would just assume good faith and quit attacking people, none of this would be happening. McJeff (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As the person complaining, you are one of the two users certifying the basis for the dispute - your signature should be under this heading. I've fixed it up now, but please ensure that in future Rfcs you create, that your signature is under this heading. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought that as the creater of the RfC I wasn't allowed to certify. Thanks for fixing it for me though. McJeff (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome - I think you were misinformed because the creator of the Rfc is one of the editors certifying the basis the dispute. Anyway, now you know. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You aren't innocent either McJeff, so stop acting like you are. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I may not have handled the situation with perfect decorum at all times Rob, but I have a clean history and you have a long standing pattern of picking fights with editors who disagree with you and being generally disagreable to the point of disrupting wikipedia. McJeff (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing stages
Hey McJeff, how are we going to make a decision here about this user? Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Usually these things run for at least a month. I've seen them run for 4+.  And it has to be an administrator to close it, because only administrators can hand out punishments and sanctions. McJeff (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The one on Gavin.collins has been running since October! I have yet to see any admins or anyone make any sort of official statement about an outcome, either. BOZ (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It may have been removed at some point because the discussion went stale. Of course, people have popped in and made comments here and there from time to time. BOZ (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Notorious vandal" - not that it makes much of a difference - but the SolidPlaid who commented on Gavin's RFC was the same editor who later changed his name to AnteaterZot, and then also got banned for using sockpuppets at AFD debates. His user page was deleted, so Grawp re-created it to taunt him and used that as a sockpuppet for himself, which is why when you click on SolidPlaid's name you get the Grawp sockpuppet. :) Maybe someone should correct that to keep things from getting confused.  Or maybe it doesn't really matter since they're both banned now.  ;) BOZ (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like the Gavin RFC was closed again. I'd like to take my time to think about how I want to handle it, as I was thinking of making my own statement there.  I may not do it very soon though, but there is a lot I would say. BOZ (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the first thing we should do is leave evidence that the dispute is still going, and once that's been done, petition the closing administrator to reopen. However, I read the dispute and checked Gavin's history, and it appears he has at least slowed down a LOT when it comes to prod/AfDing articles, so it's possible the RfC is no longer needed.  Still, I'm not exactly sure how "closed due to inactivity" should be happening - isn't an administrator supposed to step into the RfC's, hand out a few decrees and declare it closed, instead of ignoring it and declaring it inactive? of course, considering the way the RfC I started on RobJ1981 is going, I'm currently holding a very low opinion of RfC's.  McJeff (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, you do not understand the purpose of Rfcs - I have therefore explained them in a little bit of detail at the talk page of RobJ1981's Rfc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So then, if a dispute continues *after* an RfC (or entirely despite it), the next step would be a request for mediation? Or would it be more appropriate to move right to a request for arbitration? If those are too severe just yet, what else can we do in the meantime? BOZ (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This depends on the situation. Mediation is not severe (just another attempt at the negotiation process), but whether informal or formal, usually deal with disputes about article content. NOTE: Mediation cannot take place if all parties are not willing to take part - Rfcs and arbitration cases, on the other hand, can still take place even if parties are not willing. If the parties are not willing to take part in mediation, then there are two options: try negotiating again through discussion amongst yourselves - this is something that can be done at practically any stage of dispute resolution, but if it's proving ineffective even after pursuing the other steps of dispute resolution, then there is little other choice, other than to add to the Requests for arbitration. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In the case of Rob, he's not doing the stuff that raised everyone's ire for now, so my decision is to disengage from all the articles he and I've both been involved in save Bully (video game) and the List of Characters within it, as I was working on those for literally years before I ever heard of him. So misunderstanding on RfC aside, I guess that one worked well enough.


 * As far as Gavin.collins, checking his history, he's been much more subdued about marking articles for deletion. The dispute over his tagging of articles continues though, and he has AfD'd an article following a short edit war over leaving it standalone vs making it a redirect.  Still, BOZ pretty much single handedly solved a lot of the problems with that situation with his lists of monsters (the only manual I own for monsters is the 1993 Monstruous Manual, so I can't be much help with it).  So maybe it's time to try a little good faith, figure that Gavin's right in many of the cases he questions notability, and hope that the lists of monsters solves the problem.  If it gets worse again there's always Arbitration. McJeff (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Then help with the Monstrous Manual. ;)  That book certainly is big enough that any help you give there would go a long way!  Good luck with Rob, McJeff.  As for Gavin, it seems to be a civility dispute that arises from a content dispute.  I really doubt that my monster lists will have much of an effect on anything, other than taking a few dozen articles out of the equation, but thanks for the vote of confidence all the same. Maybe the next best thing after the RfC which never really went anywhere is to try an RfM (since the content issue is what keeps him going), mentioning the incivilty that has arisen as a result of the long, drawn-out (6 months and counting) content disputes that many editors have had with him.  If *that* fails to tone down the civility issues he has with other editors, then we can look honestly at an RfA. I will agree that the RfC did have *some* positive effect on him as he takes to tagging over deletions more often than not and does try to resolve things on talk pages.  However, I've seen heated debates between him and Percy Snoodle, Shemeska, Rray, Shadzar, WebWarlock, and a number of others over his tags being inappropriate at times, with little "give" on his part - this is where the conflict arises, and conflict like this does not help wikipedia. So maybe Mediation is the next step in resolving this ongoing struggle. BOZ (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of rosters in the SmackDown series article
Personally, I'm not a fan of these type of tables, as I don't see the need for them. However, I do know that a lot use a sortable table. The wikicode for it sets the class to "wikitable sortable" the first line of the code for the table would be: {| class="wikitable sortable" style="width:95%"

If you are making it sortable, you would need to include the word "Wrestler", or something to that effect, in the left cell of the top row. I would also think about including some explanations outside of the table for readers that are not familiar with them; for example "Pre-made CAW parts". Hope that helps. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC))


 * It does help. I'm putting some work in.  I already addresed the "CAW parts" thing with a ref and quote.


 * I used red/green/yellow cell shading because I thought using checks and exes like the List of characters in Super Smash Bros. (series) would make it difficult to deal with. As some of the wrestlers appeared in games with alternate gimmicks (e.g. "Goodfather" in Smackdown JBI), each one would need a footnote.  However like I've said, I'm working blind messing with tables and don't know exactly what standard policy is - if you think the checks and exes and captions would be better, that can be done.

Request for assistance and cleanup at List of species in Redwall
The easiest way to remove indiscriminate info is to title the article so that it naturally defines a boundary. I would rename it - at least - to something like List of the main continuing species in Redwall so that only the major characters that feature in more than one book are included. As it is, one mention and some one is going to edit war. Insist on sources other than the books. This should not be hard to do. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)