Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jpgordon

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yserarau (talk | contribs) at 00:40, 30 March 2006 (Ebay Joke). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:40, 30 March 2006 by Yserarau (talk | contribs) (Ebay Joke)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Cleared 21:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC) -- check for history.


Justforasecond added to Deeceevoice arb

I have added a section on Justforasecond harassing Deeceevoice to the Deeceevoice's arbitration. I have also proposed that JFAS be banned from contacting Deeceevoice, discussing her, and enforcing any arb ruling against her. My understanding is that arbitrations can be expanded to include any of the involved parties, so this should be permitted. Please go and support the measure if you want to. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Healing Misplaced Pages

I wonder if there is a way to heal the issues and differences that DCV's arbitration has brought to the foreground? In some ways, this entire affair has been bad for racial relations here at Misplaced Pages. Those who don't like how DCV acts have said that their actions are solely in response to DCV not being "nice" (so to speak). Those who don't like what has happened to DCV (like me) see the affair as being driven by racism and bigotry. The funny thing is that there is overlap between the two sides. A number of those pushing to sanction DCV admit that some of actions against her have been wrong and haven't helped racial issues here (and that some of the users pushing the issue against her are doing so for possibly racist reasons). Almost all of us opposed to the actions against DCV admit that she is abrasive and has violated Misplaced Pages guidelines and should be more civil in her discussions here. What we see, though, is a double-standard at work, with users appearing to gang up against non-minority editors like DCV for being less than civil but not doing the same to white editors. If this subject interest you, I'd encourage you to post you thoughts here on a special talk page I created.--Alabamaboy 21:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. KHM03 04:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

SL's constant ad hominems

Do you support the non-stop violations of[REDACTED] policies made on the Kwanzaa talk page by the anon user SL? Why did you revert his vandalism? Lets keep it civil even if there is disagreement, please. I hope you are all for that. 136.215.251.179 10:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


Compromise on DCV and an apology

In recent days I have grown disgusted with Deeceevoice's comments and actions. As a result, I am withdrawing my support of her. That said, Justforasecond has behaved very poorly throughout this entire affair but more so in recent days, placing comments on DCV's talk page merely to stir up trouble. As such, I am proposing that both DCv and JFAS be placed on personal attack parole for a year at Perhaps this is a compromise that a majority of the parties involved could agree to. Please check it out and see what you think. In addition, as a side note to this I am apologizing for my use of "lynching" to describe this RfAr. Best, --Alabamaboy 19:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Your Inquiry

The reason I weakly opposed; was because I did not like the answer to Misplaced Pages User Bill of Rights, If it wasn’t for the that I would have been more than happy to support you, as you have done good work on the ‘pedia. I find you an extremely good candidate, and wish you best of luck. Hope this answers your inquiry Brian | (Talk) 22:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

added Jewish Autonomous Oblast

off course you are right that it is not jewish state , but i think that it is worthy mentioning it, that besides the state israel there is somewhere fareast another place which at least is called also JEWISH - a very interesting fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nestore (talk • contribs) 02:24, January 10, 2006 (UTC)

deeceevoice's departure

If you're interested in speculating about deeceevoice's departure. -- Jim Apple 05:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell 02:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Random request

Your vote page doesn't appear to have excessive comments to me. While some of it can definitely be shorter, I'd rather not introduce controversy by removing comments for the first time this election, especially since some of the longest comments were repeated at other candidate vote pages. However, if you don't agree with my assessment, feel free to ask at the talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

civility

As I read your earlier comments, you seemed to say that profanity has a place on a user's talk page. Your newer comment seemed to extend the use of profanity to any talk page. I was willing to accept the idea that a user might decide to use profanity on their own talk page, particularly when confronted by another user who is disrupting Misplaced Pages. I have doubts about the usefulness of profanity unless it is in the context of a Misplaced Pages article that includes profanity as part of its content. --JWSchmidt 05:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"the mere use of the word" vs "a personal attack"
I think I understand the sense of frustration experienced by some editors at the picture controversy page. Sometimes frustration leads to a poor choice of words. People regain control and move on. Sometimes the use of profanity becomes autocatalytic. If one person can get away with "the mere use of a word" (hell) then a bystander might join the "fun" (fucking). Next thing you know, people who had previously allowed an earlier isolated use of "hell" on the same page (and I suspect would have allowed MSK to get away with her use of it) now start objecting, just to keep things under control. In my view, it is best to try to keep things under control from the start. In this case, that means having a rule that says we only use profanity if it is called for in our work of creating an encyclopedia. I think administrators need to lead the way in keeping profanity under control because there are some people who come to Misplaced Pages for no reason but to find ways to cause trouble, and using profanity is one way they do it. Also, some people have a zero tolerance for profanity (that does not describe me) and there really is no point in needlessly antagonizing such people. I thought that both your 12xfuck comment and your comment, "if I want to insult the Prophet on a talk page, I kinda think that's within the limits of generally accepted civility," were not helpful in their context and they make me fear that as an arbitrator you would probably defend users of profanity and insults who damage the Misplaced Pages community. In my view, damage can be done even if there is not an obvious personal attack. However, I must say that I have led a sheltered Misplaced Pages life, and it may well be that if I had as much experience as you, I would naturally be closer to your attitude. I'm dealing with my "comfort zone", and since you made yourself a candidate, I get to subject you to my little-old-lady-worries about what is best for Misplaced Pages. --JWSchmidt 06:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Polite request

I have read your words on WP:CIVIL, (with which I totally agree btw) and wanted to ask you to look at Misplaced Pages:Community Justice and offer any advice you have. I am trying to offer some impartial guidance on the project and would appreciate any input you could make, time permitting, obviously. The rewording of the goal I've just done, as the discussion clearly pointed that this needed major work, is what I'd particularly like feedback on. --Alf 00:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I read your post onMisplaced Pages:Community Justice, and wanted to say, well said! I'm seriously thinking of copying it to my user page, or using it as a basis for a basic mission statement (I will of course give credit for the original.) I have noticed a tendency for people to occasionally treat WP as an online community, which in a sense it is, but only in that we are (or should be) here for a common goal, that of writing an encyclopedia. Glad to see you putting things in perspective. KillerChihuahua 11:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Kwanzaa edit war

Hi. I recently left a warning about WP:3RR at User talk:Justforasecond. The user complained to me about bias on my part because I didn't similarly leave a note here. This suggests to me that you may be in for a headache if you aren't careful about edit-warring yourself, using rollback for non-vandalism, etc. Just a suggestion to take the time to keep everything spotless on your part. Jkelly 22:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes. ;) Best as always Katefan0/mrp 16:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Bethefawn

He's evading his block by editing as User:128.223.208.70. Tom Harrison 17:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Your post on WP:ANI: even weirder is perhaps that we now have a very informative university e-mail address for this user. Bishonen | talk 18:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Neutrality1

I would like for a copy of this page to be saved. Thank you! http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Neutrality1

Thank you for your post to the Admin Board about me

Josh, I'm sorry to post anonymously, but I am the infamous Jmk56, currently involved in a struggle with User Wyss over the Frances Farmer article. I very much appreciated your comments on the Admin userboard today and would love you to email me at:

jmkauffman@aol.com

Wyss has finally fixed the errors in the Farmer article that first raised my hackles, but she is now repeating everywhere she can around Misplaced Pages that I have cloned her ID and/or impersonated her, which I flatly deny. I have received some initial help from a Wikimedia Board member and another Administrator, but if you personally know how to expedite this process, I would very much appreciate it. I personally request Misplaced Pages and/or Wikimedia to trace the IP addresses of whomever did whatever Wyss is accusing me of. It will prove flat-out (I guess--I'm certainly no internet expert, as my posts to Misplaced Pages prove) that I am innocent of these spurious allegations. As I have stated repeatedly, I am a 50 year old father and husband, whose contributions to Misplaced Pages have mostly been related to Farmer and Farmer-related subjects. I do not "reside" here, as so many seem to, and if my userID remains permanently blocked, it is of little concern. I have only ever wanted the Farmer Misplaced Pages article to be accurate. Wyss has done an amazing job adding information over the past few days (much of it based on my original research, which is published on the web, and other published articles which also reference my research), and my only posts have been to correct her errors, which, unfortunately, have been repeated (I'm not blaming Wyss, which she seems to think I am, she is suffering the same fate that many who have gone before her have, trying to sort out the truth from the many untruths published about Farmer). This whole dustup began when Wyss seemed to think I had some ulterior motives when I attempted to correct her first factually inaccurate edits to the Farmer article.

If you go to my website at: http://jeffreykauffman.net/, I think you'll see we have some other things in common. If you email me I am happy to give my credentials vis a vis Farmer. I believe I am one of the best known Farmer scholars and researchers in the US, at least, if not the world.

Thank you for reading this and I look forward to your follow-up with me if you deem it appropriate.

Frances Farmer

What's to misunderstand about someone who's even angrier because he was blocked for making a legal threat? He's claimed authorship of the article as his own, is all. Anyway, I don't know where you got the notion I was unhappy with the article, I'm delighted with it. Please do be circumspect, I'm sure he's trying to con you, have a look at the edit histories and those Wyss-impersonating socks that popped up immediately after he was blocked. I've removed Frances Farmer from my watch list, no way will I return to it until I hear from you and thanks for your help. Wyss 20:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

A response from Jmk

I again ask someone to please trace the IP numbers of these "socks", as she puts it. It will prove conclusively that I did not clone her ID and/or impersonate her. I did continue to post anonymously, correcting Wyss' errors (all of which she has now accepted as errors and corrected, for which I applaud her), because, for some reason perhaps you or someone else can explain to me, your "block" did nothing to my ability to continue to post here. As I have hopefully made quite clear, I have nothing to hide, I am certainly no Wiki-expert, and this all started because Wyss seemed to think I had some sinister motives when I first brought her initial editing errors to her attention (which I did, I admit, incorrectly on her Talk page--again, I am not a Wiki-expert). I have always used AOL, I have not used alternate ISPs (which I think is another of her false allegations). And again, every attempt at editing has simply been to correct verifiable factual errors which Wyss edited into the article.

Please do look at the Edit histories, as well as Wyss Talk page history and my Talk page history. You will clearly see that my first post (even though evidently not according to Wiki protocol, for which I apologize) was not a threat of any kind. I simply asked her to fact-check her material before editing the Farmer article. At that point, she responded by saying "I don't know what you're up to" (obviously implying I was up to something) and other allegations, which devolved into her calling me a "bonehead" on my talk page (for which she later apologized, to her credit). I should add that she also maintained she had not made any errors even after I provided a URL to her edit history showing her Edit and going into detail about the errors on that particular edit.

The "legal threat" Wyss refers to is in direct response to me attempting to warn her she was pushing the limits of Fair Use by radically taking information from (mostly verbatim) my copyrighted article "Shedding Light on Shadowland" without properly citing it (to which she responded, and it is still archived on her Talk page, "Yawn"). Wyss then maintained for sometime in various comments that I was not Jeffrey Kauffman and had not written "Shedding Light on Shadowland," which is, of course, demonstrably false. I have since been told by two different Wiki administrators that I was within my rights to do so. Perhaps you concur, if not, I am happy to hear your reasoning why. In the meantime, through Wyss' countless re-edits, she has rewritten these sections and, though my research is still not properly cited, I am content to have my article provided as a source in the External links.

I never once claimed "ownership" or "authorship" of this article. You can easily verify this by looking at the Edit history prior to Wyss' arrival. Literally scores of edits have been made both before and after I worked on this article with nary a peep from me. All I have ever wanted is accurate information about Farmer to be disseminated. I have worked to attain this for over 20 years now, which I have a strong feeling is close to how long Wyss has been on this planet.  :)

The only remaining issue I want resolved, and which I will continue to raise many a peep about, is Wyss' insistence that I cloned her ID and impersonated her. I am sure there is some way to trace this activity and I again request that someone at Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia do this as soon as possible. In the meantime, it would be nice if someone with a calmer head could advise Wyss that these continued allegations are counter-productive, to say the least.

Josh, I appreciate your getting involved in this and I hope it can be satisfactorily concluded to everyone's satisfaction. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.101.14 (talk • contribs) 21:41, January 22, 2006 (UTC)

  • This whole thing is very peculiar. SOMEONE cloned Wyss' user page, creating User:Wyss of Switzerland, and then reverting Frances Farmer to the last edit you made before you were blocked for making legal threats. Someone else then created User:Wyss- (notice the trailing dash), cloned Wyss' user page again (this time to User talk:Wyss-), and then immediately reverting back to to the exact same edit. The usual assumption in these cases, and generally the correct one (in fact, I can't think of any exceptions) is that the new accounts are what we call "sockpuppets" of the blocked account. If that is not what's happening here, then someone is attempting to use this opportunity to make Jmk56 look bad (something of a joe job). Let's try to work together to figure out what the heck is going on. Obviously, Wyss and Jmk56 both want the same thing -- a good Misplaced Pages article about Frances Farmer. If it weren't for the impersonation accounts this would be a lot easier. Does anyone have any suggestions? Let's get past this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's certainly possible that someone else, who is neither party, did the impersonation: perhaps someone with a grudge from a previous conflict? I know that this has happened a few times lately. Unfortunately, it's impossible to prove that they were NOT Jmk56; checkuser evidence can prove sockpuppetry beyond reasonable doubt in some circumstances, but cannot prove beyond all doubt they were not the same person. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 02:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

From Jmk: Wyss herself stated yesterday on the Farmer Talk page that the site developers could "triangulate" and discern who a User is. How was the guilty party in the Siegenthaler affair exposed? And vis a vis "previous conflicts," I have had zero, zip, zilch, nada. Easily verifiable. I believe the same can not be said for Wyss.

From Jmk Again, I apologize, but all I am trying to do is clear my name. It was my understanding from Wyss' own statements that these kinds of things could indeed be traced. If I misunderstood, I'm sorry. All I am attempting to do is prove I did not clone her ID and/or impersonate her.

Another response from Jmk

Thank you for finally looking into this. Do you think I would be so adamant if I had something to hide vis a vis the clone/impersonation issue? I will be very curious to see what your findings show, as I have my suspicions, but I will keep them to myself for now. As I have repeatedly stated, the *only* anonymous edits I made were after my editing privileges were blocked, and then only to correct misinformation in the Farmer article, all of which has since been re-inserted by Wyss herself. You're right, all I wanted was accuracy--a simple review of my very first post to Wyss' talk page will show (despite my improper posting etiquette, for which I have repeatedly apologized) that all I asked her to do was fact-check.

I am well aware of the Rashomon like qualities of attempting to discern the truth about Frances Farmer. That indeed is why the subtitle to my article "Shedding Light on Shadowland" is called The Truth About Frances Farmer--it is the 'only' source on either the internet or print media where every single item is sourced completely and irrefutably, something that took me years to accomplish. That in turn is why my research has been used by A&E Biography, NPR, the Washington Post, and, hilariously, the magazine Wyss apparently thinks discredits me, 'American Atheist.' If you read Conrad Goeringer's article in 'American Atheist' you will find that I am his major source of information and, indeed, there is a whole secondary article about me and my findings vis a vis the false lobotomy allegations.

What bothers me about all of this is not the block (though Wyss says it's easy to get rescinded, I have yet to receive even a hint of how to do that, but that truly is not important to me), but Wyss' repeated assertions that I have sinister motives and, more importantly, have cloned her ID and/or impersonated her. In terms of my motives, I have for over 20 years worked diligently to rid the world of misinformation about Frances Farmer, and I have been lauded internationally in the press and broadcast media for my attempts. How is that sinsister? In terms of the cloning/impersonation, what more can I say? I have asked repeatedly for someone to do something technical to prove I didn't do it.

It seems that Wyss has had frequent run-ins with others, and perhaps I am the unwitting recipient of some pent-up frustration on her part. As I have come to surmise, I am probably at least twice as old as most of you, and I am willing to cut you "kids" (joke) some slack, but I want these false allegations to stop and I am asking again for someone to do an IP trace and conclusively state publicly to Wyss and everyone involved that I had nothing to do with this clone ID/impersonation affair.

One more point and then I'll shut up

Though I have made this point repeatedly, I feel at long last someone is reading this and paying attention and so I will make it once again.

I am not a Wiki-expert, as should be patently obvious. I couldn't even post to Wyss' Talk page properly, as she reprimanded me for in her second post to my Talk page. The only way I have ever been able to make edits on Misplaced Pages is to learn by example and see how others have done stuff.

So I therefore put it to you--first of all, I have no idea what a "cloned ID" even is, nor what Wyss is calling "impersonation." I assume it means that someone logged on to Misplaced Pages and created a new User ID similar to hers. Isn't that activity traceable? Second of all, as again should be patently obvious, I do not have the technical expertise (let alone the time) to "clone" a User Page, or whatever they're called. Just look at the page for Jmk56. I have been editing here ("limited-topic," as Wyss described, LOL) for well over a year and still have not figured out how to do stuff on that user page.

It would be nice if someone could put two and two together here--obviously whomever "cloned" Wyss had signifcant Misplaced Pages knowledge that is far beyond my ken.

Thank you again for the opportunity to clear this up.

  • Well, I doubt you're twice as old as I am; if so, you're certainly the oldest Misplaced Pages editor (at least, I don't think we have a lot of centenarians editing here.) And that's totally irrelevant; condescension doesn't help anyone here.
If you want your account reinstated, that's easy -- rescind the legal threat.
Wyss has every reason to accuse you of cloning her account, as I said before; certainly someone did, and the logical assumption, even if happens to be incorrect, is that it was you. So don't bother being angry or bothered by it -- I assumed the same thing when I blocked the first impersonating account.

--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

From Jmk I wasn't being condescending, I'm sorry if you took it that way. What I was trying to convey is that if any of this sprang from "youthful inexperience," I was willing to overlook it; I'm approaching the mid-century mark myself, for better or worse. I'm not sure what you mean by rescinding the legal threat, especially since I am unable to post officially as Jmk56. I still feel strongly that information directly culled from "Shedding Light on Shadowland" is not properly cited per Misplaced Pages policy. My "threat" had to do with Fair Use and copyright protection. If someone is willing to address this issue, then I will be satisfied. I am content that my article at least is still listed in the External Links. If anyone has taken the time to crawl through the labyrinth of Wyss' and my Talk pages, you will know that my article is what first brought me to Misplaced Pages--someone else, long gone, who had worked on the Farmer article had linked my web piece and asked me to come work on the Farmer article. Before that, I had never heard of Misplaced Pages, and I'm beginning to wonder if it's a good thing that I have (that's a joke, for those who may be humor impaired).

  • Rescinding is easy! Just say, "OK, I'm not going to set my attorney on Misplaced Pages." If there are copyright issues, we're well equipped to deal with those (and do so on a regular basis; see Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems). If you think there aren't proper citations, then create the citations; footnotes are a bit tricky, but I'm sure someone will be happy to help you with it; just ask on the article talk page. Me, I think you were over-hasty in suggesting legal action -- in my experience, that draws a line in the sand which makes communication more difficult. Since the problems you were suggesting legal remedies for have simpler remedies, this should be easy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
From Jmk: Josh, thank you. Let me take just a moment to respond to your comment. I respect your viewpoint, but here is how it was from my standpoint: the edits by Wyss each contained verifiable factual errors (again, I'm not blaming her, I'm simply stating a fact). When I attempted to correct them, she responded rather abruptly, ultimately calling me a "bonehead" (I know, it's silly, I again am simply stating facts). When I repeatedly attempted (this was still when I had editing privileges) to correct her inaccuracies, including providing cites and sources (I have what is internationally recognized as the largest Farmer archive on the planet, source of about 95% of the information used on the A&E Biography about Farmer), Wyss repeatedly reverted my corrections with no explanation, and usually with a rude comment. This is all verifiable in the edit history. Then, suddenly, I started seeing elements in the Farmer article clearly taken from my copyrighted article. That is when I had, frankly, had enough. If I erred in the way I attempted to protect my copyright, I hereby rescind that statement, but the motive behind it remains intact: I simply will not see my copyright violated, which I hope you can understand (it's the same with my ASCAP royalties which is something I assume you understand from some bio info on your main page). Shortly after this point in this long, strange saga (joke again, not condescending), Wyss then claimed (it's there in talk page archives) that I was not Jeffrey Kauffman and not the author of Shedding Light on Shadowland. Even if you somehow condone her accusations (which I patently deny) about this clone ID/impersonation situation, I'm quite curious to see what you think about her repeatedly claiming I am not who, obviously, I am.
I am perfectly willing to admit any and all mistakes I made in this matter, from not following proper posting etiquette on Wyss' talk page to perhaps not pursuing Fair Use/copyright issue through the proper channels. As far as I am concerned, that still does not address the issue of Wyss repeatedly reverting my corrections (still when I had editing privileges), which have now been accepted as fact, then liberally "borrowing" from my article without citing it as her source, then claiming I am not Jeffrey Kauffman and not the author of the article, and finally alleging that I cloned her ID and impersonated her.
So while I completely understand that I did some things wrong, it would make me feel a whole heck of a lot better to get a little understanding that perhaps Wyss did not behave as a proper Misplaced Pages administrator in this particular instance.
Again, thank you for your time. I do appreciate, finally, the opportunity to discuss this. I have been trying to find a forum to address this for days and have been met with one shut door after another.
(You can see from the four or so times it took me to format this properly that, again, I am certainly no Wiki-expert and obviously (to me, anyway) incapable of cloning an ID and/or impersonating someone.
P.S. Would someone, just to humor me, perform the checkuser technique Matt mentions above, with regard to the Cloned ID/impersonation issue? I would very much appreciate it. If it shows state and/or country of origin, we could be well on our way to me being vindicated in this accusation. Thank you again for your time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.6 (talk • contribs) 04:10, January 23, 2006 (UTC)
Readers are reminded that zero copyright violations have been established. Wyss 14:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Several things:
    1. First of all, Jmk -- one thing you need to learn about online communication is that shorter missives are favored. The more you say, the less people will listen. I know it's sometimes frustrating for people used to the print milieu, but the primary effect of prolixity online is to cause reader's eyes to glaze over. It's something about the medium itself. Using twenty words where two will suffice is ineffective.
    2. Taking facts from your book is not a copyright violation. You own the words you wrote the book with; you don't own the information that the words impart. Not citing sources is not a copyright violation either; it's bad academic form, and bad encyclopedic form, but it's not illegal (or every piece of secondary research ever done would be illegal).
    3. I can't do the check user; it's restricted to a small number of trusted people. You'll have to look elsewhere for that. (And it can't prove a negative anyway, so the only thing it could do would hurt your case, not help it. I'm discarding as absurd the possibility that Wyss created her own clones.)
    4. "I'm too ignorant to have done that" doesn't work very well; "on the Internet, nobody knows that you're a dog".
    5. Everybody calm down, huh? We're all trying to achieve the same end here. If we're not, someone is in the wrong place. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

From Jmk again: Thanks for the feedback. Someone else has agreed to do the "Checkuser," which I appreciate. What I am hoping is that it provides country of origin, which, if it is not the U.S. (as I suspect, perhaps incorrectly), I'm off the hook.

I am perfectly calm and if it seems otherwise, I again apologize.

With regard to copyright/citing, as I stated above, my concerns with regard to that issue have been largely addressed. However, I'll give you one concrete example, which, by the way, contains an error (which has been brought to Wikimedia's attention) that is potentially fatal:

The Arnold v. Brooksfilm subsection. I defy anyone to find one other source other than my article for this information. I was the first, and am still the only, person to reprint transcripts and give details of this lawsuit. With the help of Farmer's nephew, who is an attorney, we were able to get the transcripts, which had been sealed for over 20 years, and which are quoted extensively in my article. There is no footnote to this section, which I believe is a bare minimum required by Misplaced Pages protocol.

Now for the error: Wyss has reworded Arnold's own verbiage, which I quote verbatim in my article. Arnold never stated his book was "fiction" (as Wyss has written in the Farmer article), he stated that elements of the book (including the lobotomy) were "fictionalized." Now, this may be a mere nuance, but I for one don't think so. The reason Arnold has never raised a peep over my article (when he is obviously litigious, as patently proven by the Brooksfilm suit itself), is that I quote him directly without rewording anything. Indeed, the Farmer article previously stated "fictionalized, as he put it," which Wyss has removed. I think it would be wise if someone changed it back in the Farmer article.

Thank you again for your time.

  • You're welcome.
    1. Misplaced Pages protocol: please sign your posts with ~~~~. That's four tildes, twiddles, whatever you call them.
    2. I'm not interested in the details of the Farmer article here; that's for that article's talk page.
    3. You're mistaken if you think country of origin of the IP proves or disproves anything; there are IP addresses available for anonymous use and abuse in pretty much every country. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
From Jmk: The reason I am not signing is because as of this morning (I just checked) my UserID is still blocked. So I am unable to sign. Now I think AOL keeps a "cache" of sites so that they load faster, so maybe if it is indeed unblocked it simply hasn't shown up yet. If it is unblocked, please let me know, and, again, I do very much appreciate all of your help in this.
  • Readers should note that "The Arnold v. Brooksfilm subsection" Jmk56 refers to above was already in the article when I arrived. I did alter the form of "fictionalized," as being what is described in WP terms as "weasel" language. A polite note on the talk page about Arnold's litigous nature and the reason for the precise use of this term, quotes and all, would have resulted in my promptly changing it back. Wyss 18:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
From Jmk: Wyss, I want to state for the record (as I did on the Farmer page) that you have done an amazing, almost Herculean job in adding information to the article, and I totally applaud you for it. I feel very bad that this conflict happened, but (whether you choose to believe it or not) my one and only motive has been accuracy. As you seemed to understand before things got out of hand, I have spent several decades trying to correct untruths about Farmer, and because your first several edits contained inaccuracies, I think we simply got off to a bad start. This was compounded by the fact that when I continually attempted to correct things (when I still had editing privileges), you repeatedly reverted my corrections to your versions, even after I provided cited sources. Therefore, I feel my mentioning something "politely" on the Talk page would have accomplished little. If I'm wrong, I apologize.
There are still a few relatively minor errors of fact in the article as it stands. If you are receptive, I will gladly post them to the Talk page, again with cited sources. I will make no edits myself and leave that to you.
I do want to state again for the record that I did not clone your ID and/or impersonate you at any time. I hope once this situation has calmed, you can believe me. Thank you, Wyss; I feel you are a well-intentioned editor who for some reason, perhaps your past history here, mistrusted me from the get go. Hopefully that, too, will change. I only want an accurate Farmer article.
Again, thank you for your time.
  • Jmk56, these celebrity bios are especially prone to trolling. Maybe you didn't fully realize how confrontational and needlessly combative the tone of your edit summaries and talk page remarks (including that legal threat) were, and how much they resembled deliberate disruption (or whatever). Even after you were blocked, the talk page dialog shows I was asking for article-related information and cites from the anon IPs and new user GoldenBoy1 who'd subsequently shown up, all of whom I continue to assume (but do not necessarily assert) were you. I'm still waiting for those LA Times quotes btw :) Wyss 18:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Wyss, I again state for the record that the *only* anonymous edits I made were after my editing privileges as Jmk56 were blocked, and then only to correct errors, all of which are now corrected. I have assumed no alternate identities and have not posted from multiple ISPs, which I wouldn't even know how to do in the first place. I am friends with many of the Farmers (as again should be patently obvious) and I did send out a bulk email to them when all of this devolved so badly. I subscribe to AOL, as should be patently obvious from my email above, and for some reason even though I was ostensibly "blocked," I could still make edits. It's obvious to me (perhaps not to you) that other people were involved here. I know not why. I have nothing to hide--I have repeatedly published my name, my email, my website, here for all to see. I don't know how much more transparent I could be, but I am open to suggestions.  :)

From Jmk: Can someone please update me on the Blocked ID issue. I rescinded my comment above, but am still blocked. After all of this tsuris, I do not want to post anonymously on the Farmer Talk page if I can help it. If it has been decided to keep me blocked, that's fine, just let me know, and one of the Farmers will get around to posting about the errors. Thank you.

  • Please sign your postings with ~~~~. Regarding your blocked ID, unlike some admins here, I prefer not to unblock other admins' blocks without at least discussing it with them first. So there might be some time-zone issues, but I'm sure it will be resolved soon. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


  • OK. I've unblocked you. A couple of things to remember: if you do make another legal threat, you'll be blocked again; if you are blocked again, if you continue to edit anonymously as you have been, you'll likely not be given another chance. Good luck. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

My Lai Massacre capitalisation

Hi! I noticed you reverted my own reversion of the name of this event. The article itself is called "My Lai Massacre", with an uppercase "M" in massacre, and I believe the same form should be used throughout when referring by name to the Massacre. You'll notice that the Library of Congress authority (below) for this subject also uses an uppercase "M". See also the article's talk page. Unless there is some reason to oppose it, I think the name should be changed back to reflect this. Does that make sense?

Anglo-American Subject Authority File, s.v. "My Lai Massacre", LC Control Number sh 93003756, cited 5 January 2006. Authorised form of name is: "My Lai Massacre" ("__ |a My Lai Massacre, Vietnam, 1968") Pinkville 18:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh, I don't much care about the capitalization. My revert was aiming at some of the other vandalism and ill-informed edits (yes, it is Courts Martial) that came around the same time as yours. Work out the capitalization stuff on the talk page; I'm not sure who trumps here, the LOC or the WP style guidelines. Sorry if I stepped on toes. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, I figured you might have been more interested in nailing the vandal. By the way, as I understand it the WP style guide is compatible with the LOC form anyway, the former suggests using lowercase for regular nouns when they are not a part of a name, as in, for example, "Chaco War" (not "Chaco war"), but "Ink brush" (not "Ink Brush"). Ciao. Pinkville 19:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
From Jmk: Here's a little synchronicity for you, Josh, and then I will truly shut up.  :) Calley's attorney, Latimer, was an officer of my father's (my father was a US Army General), and he also defended my late Uncle, who was accused of being a Soviet Spy in the 1960s. Both of my Uncles were friends with Frances Farmer during the late 1930s, when they worked together on the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.

Kennedy

I'm glad that somebody else (you) is keeping an eye on the Kennedy article and its associated vandalism. --AStanhope 16:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there an admin in the house?

Is there an admin in the house? The FA €2 commemorative coins is under mass vandalism. Can it be protected? --Red King 00:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Problem dealt with. --Red King 00:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


What do you mean ABOUT TO? 83 already did his 4th well after you messaged me warning me I'm on my third. Again, this is crap!

Your block of Mr. Stark

Must you? I mean, have you really got nothing better to do? All he has done is leave me a perfectly civil, uncontroversial, unobjectionable message - he hasn't edited any articles at all. Regardless of what the official view is, I would like to have a conversation with him, there doesn't seem to be any way of communicating with him other than on this site. Can you not just let it pass, at least until he starts trolling or doing something unpleasant (however insignficant) that is genuinely of concern to the management of the site? Even if you're not minded to give him a break, what about giving me one? ElectricRay 22:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, I must. The man has proven himself entirely unwelcome here; you've come into the issue many months after it started, and if you believe any good can come of his presence, you are sorely mistaken. If you wish to communicate with him, that's for you and he to arrange, elsewhere; I'm sure he can set up another sock puppet (he seems knowledgeable about it, even though he spent much of his defense in his arbitration case pretending he had never done such a thing) and you can trade email addresses that way. Any account which is identified as his will be terminated on sight; he's earned exactly that much consideration. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but he is not "entirely" unwelcome here - I welcome him, and I'm part of the community. This might seem a small point, but its implications, in terms of how you understand a community project, are not. And that's not even addressing the obvious factual point that continually searching for and blocking new sockpuppets he elects to create is a total waste of your time.
    • Look, here's an idea: why don't you block him from everywhere but my talk page? ElectricRay 22:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Not technically feasible. Regardless, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark. He is banned. That means the community as a whole finds him unwelcome, regardless of whether one or two people for some people enjoy his presence (though I didn't notice anyone other than his socks supporting him during the lengthy arbitration process). As far as searching for him, I never have; the only reason I noticed him this time (for example) is because he posted something on a page I happen to have on my watchlist. Blocking the puppet and extending his six month ban takes only two minutes -- I'm a fast typist. And it's not a waste of my time; as should be obvious from my contributions and from my ArbCom candidacy, doing janitorial work for Misplaced Pages is something I actually enjoy. Your advice to him was sound -- stay away from certain pages. But he can't seem to resist returning to the scene of the crime, and his MO is consistent. I don't have to search for him, and I never have; he makes himself visible. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
        • which means you have my user page on your watchlist, since it's the only one he's edited (other than his own new one). Might I enquire as to why? ElectricRay 07:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Because I left a message on your talk page once. It's automatic if the default preference is set. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Curious. Exactly what "crime scene" did he return to? Exactly what "MO" are you referring to? When you said, "the only reason I noticed him this time (for example) is because he posted something on a page I happen to have on my watchlist" why didn't you say "the only reason I noticed him this time (for example) is because he posted something on your page which I have on my watchlist"?. In any case, would you mind unwatching my page? I'm not sure I like being stalked. ElectricRay 17:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
              • Tough. You're not being "stalked", and the accusation is quite unpleasant. The reason your talkpage in on my watchlist is because you asked me a question, and I answered it. I think that's enough of this conversation, anyway. It's going nowhere. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In other words, "talk to the hand, face isn't listening", to go with the familiar Admin refrain "resistance is useless, resistance is useless". And this from someone who aspires to be on ArbCom. ElectricRay 18:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, yes. This was an ArbCom decision I heartedly supported. Bad apples like Zephram Stark are highly detrimental to Misplaced Pages. You disagree. I understand that; however, if it's not obvious, I'm not likely to be convinced of your position. You're not likely to be convinced of mine. Why should we keep on talking if neither of us is going to gain anything from the conversation other than typing exercise? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OK - apologies in advance for the stream of consciousness, but I do want to say this - once said, if you wish, I will trouble you no more. Here goes:

  • I think it is useful discussing, because I have the vain hope of persuading you to look at things in a different light - not to agree with me, but just jump your paradigm. Zephram Stark is an interesting case, but it's the principle that i'm interested in. You might not believe this, but I think the Misplaced Pages project is fascinating, and I would love for it to succeed. But it won't succeed through autocracy - it is a viral, algorithmic, evolutionary, invisible hand operation, and the attempts of "controllers" (and I include Jimbo Wales in this) to control it and enforce arbitrary rules which suit them is the one thing that will kill it - enough people will defect to a competing project which doesn't have these rules (perhaps like Fred Bauder's Wikinfo) and Misplaced Pages will wither and die, slowly. You'll be janitor to a derelict house. Now you have firm views about what is best for the project - you repeatedly refer to these, as if they're self evident and objectively true, when the very point of a collaborative, community effort is that this simply can't be the case - the actions of the community itself, in toto will, in an evolutionary way, summarise what's best for the project. Just look at the infantile wheel-warring, blocking and hissy fitting episode about the pedophile userboxes. That's what will kill Misplaced Pages.
  • All that creating this class of autocrats called "admins" has done has artificially empowered one bunch of people and disenfranchised another buch, which includes Zephram, who would otherwise be very interested in contributing to the project: it's exactly the same scenario as the Stanford Prison Experiment - there really are striking similarities - you've been granted some special status, pretty much arbitrarily, and now you're using it arbitrarily against other people who offend your sensibilities, purportedly in the name of "the greater good of the project". It's patently ludicrous to suggest that you know - or anyone else knows - what's for the good of the project.
  • The point is that Zephram understands this and articulates all of this very well - have a read of the paragrpah he left on my talk page before you blocked him. He's not just a troll. Even one of the complainants in theArbCom thing makes this point - and there has been the odd administrator (Ed Poor is one) who, while they might not necessarily condone anything Zephram has done (and let me be clear, neither do I), have reacted maturely to him, and engaged with him, and have gained,and been given a measure of respect.
  • Someone made some comment about "we don't negotiate with terrorists" - in fact it might even have been you. It might seem distasteful to you, it might go against the grain, but engaging with terrorists - enfranchising them - is the only way of making them stop. Do you really not appreciate that?

Anyway, that's my bit said. ElectricRay 23:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

RE

The comment I removed is deeply offensive.

I think an Atheist would have a better chance of getting into heaven than most of these Cafeteria Catholics

I believe that does not help "civil discourse" or the article in any way. I have made it clear to User: Chooser that this is not an attack on him/her. Please think twice before blocking me, as I am following[REDACTED] policy to the letter. It is not appropriate to arbitrarily attack groups of people based on their religon. --Colle 03:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Personally, I think he's right, but that's irrelevant. You have no right to remove that message, and if you do so again 3RR clicks in; if you persist after your 3RR block, I'll bring an RFC on the issue. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yigal Amir

Why did you revert me, pls give a reason and don't abuse the fact that you are an admin here. By the User:Gidonb was blocked because of violating 3RR on this article.

Can I put a PoV\Cleanup tag on it? --Haham hanuka 08:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Previously blocked user back at it

I would like to draw your attention to anonymous editor 70.176.62.225, whom you have previously blocked for vandalism. He/she has engaged in personal attacks and used racial slurs, and assumes a flame war attitude in his/her edit summaries. See relevant Talk discussion. --AladdinSE 01:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Neo Hippies

I saw your comment on Hippie, and you're right, that section is very OR. I didn't check the history to see if there was a tag there, but I put back a {{SectOR}} on that section. Karmafist 02:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for blocking Lulzworth. He has been causing a major headache for several people tonight. VincentGross 08:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby

So much for second chances... I wasn't involved in Gibby's arbitration case, but he edits a lot of articles on my watchlist so I inevitably run into him. The ArbCom case has had no effect whatsoever on his behaviour. In particular, he just said today that I am "simply on a communist hell bent anti libertarian tirade". Please read my summary of his recent comments (that I know of) at the Admins' noticeboard: -- Nikodemos 08:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Talk Vote (again)

I think we're approaching a consensus that will hold. Please come and vote. --CTSWyneken 15:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Persian Jews

Would you mind taking a look at Talk:Persian Jews? There's a discussion going on there regarding whether or not the term itself is "factual" and "NPOV". Jayjg 17:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted you :)

On Bill Clinton an anon. made a little gramatical edit, and it made sense to me, then you reverted it. I don't know if it was just knee-jerk anon-ip-on-a-frequently-vandalised-article revert, or if there was really a problem with it. I have "pretty good grammar" but it's entirely by feel, so it's possible I was wrong. Also, I dated Mike Bacich's daughter for a while. He was in Oingo boingo, but I don't know if it was the same time. How weird is that? Cheers, Makemi 23:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Talk Runoff Vote

Our hopefully last vote on this paragraph. --CTSWyneken 11:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User:RJII

I don't see how the first is not a revert? He reinserted the item "individualist anarchism", and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th time as well but then with 4 links to footnotes (which take up a lot of space but don't make it any less than of a revert). Cheers, —Ruud 11:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I discussed it with User:William M. Connolley and he agrees it was a 3RR violation. Would cou please consider reblocking him. Cheers, —Ruud 17:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No. 3RR is not punishment; it's designed to stop edit wars. Has my lifting RJII's block restarted an edit war that your block stop? If so, deal with it as such. And I respectfully disagree that his reinsertion of "individualist anarchism" is sufficiently related to the other three edits to warrant a 3RR block. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I you look carefully at the diffs you will see that he reinserted the term "individualist anarchism" in all for the reverts. If this is not a violation of 3RR, neither where infinity0's edits. Therefore I would have no choice to unblock him as well, at wich point I have little doubt the dit war will continue. Please reconsider taking into account that RJII is on probation. —Ruud 18:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

-Ril-

Heh, nice! I love it when people pull that stuff. One of my opposers got banned for one year shortly after the election. :) --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 14:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

some argue

That link took almost all its information from paypal wars book so I've left it out this time . DyslexicEditor 01:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC) I put paypal wars as a source and I believe it is a source for more things in the ebay article, also. DyslexicEditor 01:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page and hope to keep the discussion on just one page for readability. And[REDACTED] is lagging bad right now too. DyslexicEditor 16:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I carried the discussion on more and haven't heard a response from you. DyslexicEditor 01:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

ebay

Are you ebay user j2gordon or jpgordon? DyslexicEditor 16:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism and the Power of Nightmares

No - it's okay - I'm absolutely not going to start whining about Zephram Stark. Promise. But I thought that, as you're interested in terrorism, you might be interested in the attached url, which is to a google video clip of an excellent 3 part BBC Documentary from last year about the concurrent rise of Al Qaeda/Radical Islam in the middle east, and the Neo Conservatives in the US. It wasn't broadcast (as far as I know) in the US, and it isn't available on video, but it is extraordinarily thought provoking. Well, it was for me, anyway.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/powerofnightmares

Best, ElectricRay 23:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Visibility & attacks

Well, I am not sure. I think it is more related to an editor discovering who I am and then having a snit. I get quoted in print and on TV & radio now and then, but have not seen a cause and effect. There are only a handful of people here on Wiki who have gone berserk.--Cberlet 04:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Jews

Could you keep an eye on this article? Someone is challenging its accuracy, but I'm not sure what he wants. Aucaman 07:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not therapy

Going to be writing this. Fred Bauder 13:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ebay Joke

I made a new buyer account recently and I got a letter from ebay about my first positive feedback. I was thinking ebay should send a letter for negative feedback in the style of positive. I took out all the web links, which the email is filled with. Here is how it would look:

MAIL SUBJECT: You've Got Your 1st Negative Feedback on eBay!
MESSAGE BODY: 

Congratulations!
You've Got Your First Negative Feedback on eBay!
Have you looked at your eBay I.D. recently?
There's a new number beside it. Someone
who's done business with you on eBay gave
you a negative feedback comment. Way to go!
Feedback is the cornerstone of trading on eBay.
Your negative feedback is like a stamp of disapproval.
It tells other community members what it's like to do
business with you, which builds distrust across all
aspects of your trading on eBay. The more you do
business in an irresponsible way on eBay, the greater
your negative feedback number--and your bad reputation
on eBay--will be. 
Take a minute to learn more about giving and receiving
feedback. Each time you leave feedback, you help build
a stronger foundation for yourself and for everyone in
the eBay community. We thank you for that.

And I think ebay should add: 

Now that you received negative feedback, if you have not
already, go ahead and leave retalitory negative for the
other party.  This lets buyers and sellers know that the
person likes to neg and so those who fear negatives can
avoid them.

DyslexicEditor 00:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Jpgordon Add topic