| Revision as of 04:28, 18 March 2013 editKhabarNegar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,402 edits →The alert you have given: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:08, 6 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,260 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Jayjg/Archive 43) (bot | ||
| (929 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 125K | |maxarchivesize = 125K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 43 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 3 | |minthreadsleft = 3 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(7d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:Jayjg/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:Jayjg/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{/WelcomeNotice}} | {{/WelcomeNotice}} | ||
| {{AutoArchivingNotice|bot=MiszaBot III|age=14|small=yes}} | |||
| {{archives|auto=yes}} | {{archives|auto=yes|age=7|bot=MiszaBot III}} | ||
| {{busy|small=yes}} | {{busy|small=yes}} | ||
| <br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/> | <br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/> | ||
| {{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
| == |
== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | ||
| Jayjg, I understand and agree with removing links to the works of David Irving, but some of your removals are throwing out valid citations (e.g. to the Times and the Independent) which are merely copied onto Irving's website. I don't want in any way to defend or highlight Irving, but most of the references are to things unrelated to his Holocaust denial. Clearly, alternatives should be sought, but I am afraid they won't be if you don't leave a hint as to what was removed. Is it possible to simply tag for deprecation and cleanup? ] (]) 21:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Given the speed at which you removed the links I would assume you did not read many of them? The ones removed seem to me to be often rather less offensive than the ones left for example on es.wikipedia see --] ] 13:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Incidentally how did we get quite so many links in the first place? --] ] 13:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::If a source fails ], then we shouldn't be linking to it, even as a "convenience link". You may have noted that if the items had a proper source (e.g. "Story about Mr. X", ''The Guardian'', May 23, 2007)", then I generally just removed the link. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Talkback == | |||
| {{talkback|User_talk:Ignocrates#Opinion please|ts=] (]) 00:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| Thanks in advance. ] (]) 00:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I think ] and ] probably apply, specifically to Ignocrates. He seems to be doing little if anything by way of constructive edits since I warned him about his habit of abusing others on the talk pages of other editors, specifically in this case Dougweller, and honestly all I see is the same sort of behavior which led me to think that he himself probably deserves to be taken to ANI, particularly considering that just about the only thing he seems to be doing lately is, basically, stalking me. ] (]) 00:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, but you are the one following <U>me</U> around and commenting on <U>my</U> edits. As to being "taken to ANI", I suggest you be careful what you wish for. ] (]) 01:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually, Ignocrates, the evidence rather clearly proves you wrong. Your recent dialogue with Pass a Method, for instance, only came ''after'' I and others raised questions about that editor's basic competence, as can be seen per that editor's talk page and the history of you and I there. Also, honestly, if one were to review the recent pattern of edits, I think it is clear that since I warned you on Dougweller's talk page about your almost hysterical claims that In ictu oculi should be taken to ANI for matters which in no way merit such attention, you have, basically, been all but silent. I realize that since you have been warned about your clearly unacceptable conduct more than once on this matter, you, basically, are forced to engage in harrasment such as this, and I do think that if this matter were to be brought before ANI, the probable outcome would be that you, whose recent history has been little if anything beyond making accusations, are the one far more likely to be in some way sanctioned for misconduct. I gave you some lenience in the past, because, as I said before, you have, at least until the recent past, been at least once in a while in behavior other than harrasment, but that seems to have stopped since the Dougweller warning. I really wonder whether anyone would think that someone whose apparently sole current purpose is to basically make snarky comments about others is really here to contribute to an encyclopedia. And, FWIW, unlike you, I actually am trying to do a few other things around here lately, so I doubt I will notice if you make another basically pointless and less than productive snarky comment as the one above. | |||
| :::BTW, Jayjg, I am working on an article list from the one-volume Wigoder Encyclopedia of Judaism, which might be ready in a week or so. When it is finished, I will probably post a notice to it on the Judaism WikiProject talkpage, and I do think it would be useful if someone who might know the subject better reviewed the list. A lot of the shorter entries seem to be quotes from verses and other sources, and I'm probably not the one to best decide which if any extant article here most clearly and directly relates to it. ] (]) 01:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I've found that commenting about other editors is rarely helpful, even when (rightly or wrongly) I think they richly deserve it. I'm not always perfect at avoiding making such comments, but I try my best. Can I still recommend to everyone that they simply don't mention the other editor at all going forward? I think that will help ease tensions. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :First, I am more than willing to send you the entirety of the e-mail exchange between Ignocrates and myself, which consisted of three e-mails total, the first in which I tried to be conciliatory to a degree after his retirement, the second of which involved what I did and continue to regard as frankly ''insane'' aspersions on myself by him, and the third in which I admit having lost my temper. Since then, and, specifically, since his return from retirement, during which, so far as I can tell from the reasons he gave for his return on his user talk page, he has done little if anything along the lines of the reasons he gave for his return, he has continued to engage in the sort of abusive talk page edits which were so frequent here for a time. At this point, I honestly cannot see that I have any reason to assume good faith of Ignocrates, or, for that matter, to assume even a basic grasp of policies and guidelines if they do not support his promoting his own personal opinions. Also, it is worth noting that just about every comment he has made has been on a page which shows up on my watchlist, and in general I think I have only commented regarding him when I see his name appear as the most recent edit on that list. So, in short, I have not been "stalking," but observing the often problemattic, inflammatory, and irrational conduct of what seems to me to be a committed POV pusher. That is considered acceptable by policies and guidelines. If Ignocrates were to perhaps get over his longstanding greivances against me which seem to be based almost exclusively on his having, basically, lost an argument regarding the content of what seems to have been the only article he had been significantly involved in, and perhaps refrain from the sort of bombastic, irrational, inflammatory, and well silly behavior that he seems to have adopted, particularly regarding me, since then, there wouldn't be a problem. Once in a while he has shown an interest in actually trying to build the encyclopedia in accord with policies and guidelines. Sadly, that seems to be more of the exception than the rule of late. If that were to change, then, certainly, I would have no reason to continue to feel the need to review what seem to me still to be generally problematic edits. Basically, so far as I can see, it's up to him. If he begins to predictably conduct himself according to wikipedia principles, guidelines, and policies, I would have nothing to say about him. As long as he continues to do otherwise, however, I can honestly say that I do see that my monitoring his conduct is more than acceptable as per guidelines and policies. ] (]) 01:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::And, as a PS, the Wigoder encyclopedia contained far fewer articles and subarticles than I expected. The list can be found at ]. Like I said on its talk page, I acknowledge that I am far less than expert on that subject, so I have no doubt that there are several typos particularly regarding capitalization and other things. But it is at least a start. | |||
| :::P.P.S. Regarding the alleged threats, I think it worth noting that ArbCom and ANI have repeatedly indicated that editors who are, in the opinions of those speaking, not here to contribute to an encyclopedia are potentially eligible for sanctions. Rarely, except apparently when he is so warned, have I seen much if any interest on Ignocrates' part to actually make an effort to build an encyclopedia. Instead, there is, unfortunately, more regularly an attempt to, as with the Jehovah's witnesses some time ago, tell people who are often much better informed on matters than he is what he in his somewhat amusing self-aggrandisment thinks about subjects. Out of control ego coupled with little interest in actually doing anything productive are in general considered a very bad combination, and that seems to be in general an apt description of Iggy except in those instances when he is actually, well, warned. I am not sure that basically advising someone to abide by conduct standards is genrally a threat, except to those who might have never had much interest in abiding by them from the beginning. ] (]) 01:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| There is nothing I can say that illustrates the ongoing problem more clearly than these last two edits. ] (]) 02:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Because a thorough review of the facts, which I welcome from Jayjg or anyone else, would reveal their accuracy. In short, you can't say anything about them because it is hard to deny the reality of your own recent edit history. I regret that you seem to believe that somehow policies and guidelines shouldn't apply to you simply because you can't admit that the great Ovadyah/Ignocrates could ever be wrong, but the evidence seems to bear out at least in my eyes that your reasons for returning to editing are, basically, vindictiveness and an unwillingness, or inability, to deal with a fairly clear and rational application of policies and guidelines. Feel free to check ArbCom and ANI rulings for the phrase "not here to build an encyclopedia" or similar, by the way, and see how often they turn up. And, if at all possible, maybe try to once in a while do something other than engaging in snarky whining? ] (]) 03:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::You don't seem to understand that your own actions could be called into question in an arbitration case due to extreme prejudice, and as a result, your supposed findings of fact may be disregarded as fruit of the poisonous tree. I'll say it one more time - find a way to let go of a dispute that ended almost two years ago, and move on. ] (]) 15:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent discussion on Elazar Shach page == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| Your input would be appreciated here: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Elazar_Shach#Works | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| ] (]) 02:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| :I haven't looked, but I'll assume it's the usual; Chabad followers trying to discredit Schach. I wish I had the time and energy to deal with these kinds of persistent, on-going policy violations, but unfortunately I don't. Perhaps you could try some of the ] suggestions; I'm sorry, but it's the best I can do right now. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| == RFC at ] == | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Hello, there is an RFC at ] about a proposed change to reduce the amount of detail given to discussion of the term ''pogrom''. Everyone who's been involved in this discussion is receiving this notice. Your input is appreciated, thanks. <code>]]</code> 04:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| == FYI == | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 --> | |||
| == Mink (manga) == | |||
| With you removed an important template for the inner workings of the ] page. It's fixed, no action required on your part, just wanted to let you know. Thanks. <small><span style="background:#FC7; color:#000000; border: 1px solid black;padding-left: 3px; padding-right:3px" >] • ]</span></small> 23:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Yikes, that was a bed edit. Sorry! ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I am interested in recreating the article for ]. I am not sure how the original article looked, but I have since found more sources for the article, including and a from '']''. ] (]) 00:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == The alert you have given == | |||
| == Deletion review for ] == | |||
| Please answer my question . ] (]) 04:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| An editor has asked for ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.<!-- Template:DRV notice --> ] (]) 03:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:08, 6 January 2025
| Thanks for visiting my Talk: page.
If you are considering posting something to me, please: *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting. |
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Mink (manga)
I am interested in recreating the article for Mink (manga). I am not sure how the original article looked, but I have since found more sources for the article, including an interview with the author about the creation of the series and a review from Da Vinci. lullabying (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Deletion review for Mink (manga)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mink (manga). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. lullabying (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)