| Revision as of 00:48, 26 October 2009 editBigtimepeace (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,491 edits →"In cases of BLPs of marginal notability we default to delete when consensus is unclear": "may" be closed, which is key← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:50, 26 October 2009 edit undoJake Wartenberg (talk | contribs)Administrators22,979 edits →"In cases of BLPs of marginal notability we default to delete when consensus is unclear": reNext edit → | ||
| Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
| Doesn't exactly meet the above does it. ] 00:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | Doesn't exactly meet the above does it. ] 00:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::(ec) Just to be clear, that policy says "''may'' be closed as delete." So the close was allowable, but not required under policy, and the statement "in cases of BLPs of marginal notability we default to delete when consensus is unclear" is not technically correct since defaulting to "keep" in those situations is not verboten. You might want to consider rephrasing your closing statement, unless I'm off the mark here. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 00:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | ::(ec) Just to be clear, that policy says "''may'' be closed as delete." So the close was allowable, but not required under policy, and the statement "in cases of BLPs of marginal notability we default to delete when consensus is unclear" is not technically correct since defaulting to "keep" in those situations is not verboten. You might want to consider rephrasing your closing statement, unless I'm off the mark here. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 00:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::, thanks. — ] ] 00:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin closure == | == Admin closure == | ||
Revision as of 00:50, 26 October 2009
| This is Jake Wartenberg's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 5 days  |
- I will probably reply here.
Click here to leave me a message
 Archives | ||||||
|
||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 15 sections are present. |
 |
|---|
| 24 December 2024 |
|
- Categorize: WP:UBLP
- Check new BLPs: WP:NEWBLP
- Participate in AFDs: BLP AFDs
- Help resolve content issues: WP:BLP/N
- Monitor recent changes to BLPs: BLP watchlist
- Remove BLP vios: WP:BLPFIX, Unsourced statements, All unreferenced BLPs, BLPs lacking sources
Possible vandalism or libelous edits, as detected by edit filters 39 and 189. Removal of Category:Living people (filter 117)
My unblock
Thank you for the unblock. --Longer comment on my talk page, please post any replies or discussion there, in order to try to stop dispute/discussion spreading further-- Yours, Verbal chat 19:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/A poilu on leave
 |
Guido den Broeder
Jake - apologies for not making this clear, but this user has exercised his right to vanish from the English Misplaced Pages. Accordingly, I've deleted the redirect from his old to his new name, and protected the page from re-creation. This will not, of course, affect his status as a banned user. Cheers — Dan | talk 19:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, I was just coming here to ask a question about the recently-vanished user, but it's about the page logs, which are confusing the heck out of me. When I look at the page log, the third most-recent entry is 18:11, 18 October 2009 Jake Wartenberg (talk | contribs) restored "<userpage>" (3 revisions restored), followed by two protection actions. I would interpret this as meaning that there exists a page with that name, with 3 revisions in the history. Yet the page doesn't exist! What am I missing here?
- I'm sure you guys are doing the right thing with the vanishment (which serves as a cautionary tale to not use your real name on Misplaced Pages :), I'm only trying to understand the logs, or perhaps the malfunction in my own brain circuitry. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- This conversation is now over here. ArbCom has asked that the redirect be restored; that is what I was acting on. — Jake Wartenberg 22:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Talk:List of logic topics
Please see Talk:List of logic topics.
Verbal has clearly failed to achieve consensus for his rename of this article.
The Transhumanist 00:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is consensus on the mathematics project page, and there had been an agreement that all lists - including those that I had returned to list names (and this was a revert) - should remain so named until a consensus for outlines had been established. Please undo this move and await the RfC. The Transhumanist is making misleading comments about this situation and has also accused me and other users of libel. Verbal chat 06:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- The mathematics project is not the only stakeholder in the area of logic. Please, in the future contact the philosophy wikiproject on matters concerning logic issues appropriately. Please do give up on the logic outline. It clearly is an outline more than a list.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- An outline is a list, and until the WP:OUTLINE demonstrates some form of community consensus then these moves should not take place. Having it covered by the outline project and their style guide (which goes against the MOS) makes it much less flexible. Verbal chat 07:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- The mathematics project is not the only stakeholder in the area of logic. Please, in the future contact the philosophy wikiproject on matters concerning logic issues appropriately. Please do give up on the logic outline. It clearly is an outline more than a list.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you moved the list/outname/whatever with an edit summary saying "consensus on talk page". I think that's not correct. People on the talk page only agreed that they 'opposed' something, but it was actually opposite things they opposed. A closer look shows The Transhumanist, Gregbard and penubag arguing for the move that you did, Verbal against it, and SmokeyJoe for not doing any further moves at all until certain specific conditions are met. Hans Adler 12:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Jake, why are you participating in and encouraging this edit war? Now the "move" tab is gone and the original title (List of logic topics) can't even be restored. It looks like your complicity is going to have to be included in the RfC/U. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The Transhumanist has continued his disruptive moves, doing double moves so that he cannot simply be reverted, despite the central issue not being resolved. He has also accused me and other editors of libel, without support, and misrepresented article history, the comments of others, and his own actions. This has gone on too long and he has had multiple warnings from those involved, uninvolved and admins. I ask that you take some action against him to prevent further disruption and until he removes his accusations of libel from his talk page. Verbal chat 05:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- I fear Jake is an accessory to this dastardly situation since he is guilty of improperly moving at least one article. He let the crowd from the Outlines project pressure him. The "move" tab is now gone from both the new and original articles, making it only possible for admins to move it:
- Outline of logic and the original List of logic topics
- He needs to explain his behavior and the situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor is harassing me
Hi Jake:
User:Daedalus969 has left a total of eight heavy-handed messages on my talk page within six hours after I have warned him repeatedly to stop. He continues to do so even though I have threatened to report his behavior to WP authorities. This conflict started over an edit I made to Where the Wild Things Are (film). However, Daedalus969 keeps posting messages on my talk page even after I agreed to leave the edit off of the article until I could improve it with additional citations. This now feels like cyberstalking.
I want to report him to WP authorities but I really don't know where to go with such a complaint. Can you point me in the right direction? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppet?
Greetings. Your name was offered up as clerk who could be approached re: sockpuppets. Unfortunately, I suspect that Emilblonsky may a puppet for DrBat, who recently objected to my reworking of the Abomination article (Emil Blonsky is the character's real name). The comment left in an edit summary here is also in line with another comment for which the editor was warned . Can you help with the steps, as the procedure seems a tad unclear at . By the by, the link See #Quick CheckUser requests. just bounces you back to the same section of the same page.
Regards Asgardian (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- You caught me on my way off to bed, so I don't have time to look into this, unfortunately. If you follow the instructions here someone should get to it before I do. Best of luck. — Jake Wartenberg 03:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- who recently objected to my reworking of the Abomination article (Emil Blonsky is the character's real name).
- I joined Misplaced Pages in March 2008. Your conflict happened in late 2009. --Emilblonsky (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Sal Castaneda's page
Hi Jake,
I'd like to "fix" the notification on Sal Castaneda's page. How can I add citations that are more appropriate?
Thanks,
Brenda. Brenda234 (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Brenda234_2000@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenda234 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Brenda234 (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Courtesy note
–Juliancolton | 22:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- and another on Talk:Outline of water. -- penubag (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- (redacted - thank you penubag) I'm attempting to start the RfC process to resolve this issue. All comments are welcome, within reason (keep them civil).Verbal chat 10:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Put Back the AOE 3 unit list!
See title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.122.222 (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Happy Jake Wartenberg's Day!
 |
User:Jake Wartenberg has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Re. 166.109.0.203
Another IP from the same group (BOCES) was give a 1 year block today (166.109.0.249). Please consider a span block for all BOCES addresses, as they seem to be churning out an alarming rate of vandalism. Nezzadar ☎ 19:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK Copyright Violation
Hi, the current DYK image of the A,A sculpture is a copyright violation. I probably shouldn't handle things directly, since I know the artist personally. Could you please check into getting it removed? The article itself is fine, it's just the image that should be taken down. --Elonka 01:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hey there Elonka. I removed the image from the DYK template. The file is located here if you wish to nominate it for deletion. Regards, NW (Talk) 01:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) I'm in touch with the file uploader now (who has also posted other images by the same artist). Their intentions were good, I think they were just unaware of the copyright issues, and they seem amenable to simply going through and deleting the images themselves. --Elonka 01:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Completing DYK prep areas
Do you know how to add a hook that has an image included to the DYK prep areas? I can't figure out how to do it and I can't find instructions anywhere. Thanks for your help. LargoLarry (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- The example image is right above the hooks. You just replace it. — Jake Wartenberg 05:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
strider11 problems
I unclosed Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Strider11 to add more IPs. I see that you denied the speedy deletion of several categories because they were populated, but they had been populated almost all in the same day by one IP, which had also been doing edits similar to Yousaf.san, one of the socks in that case (aka, the banned user created the cats and then populated them by adding other users to them, with no evidence that he asked for permission or that there was any real need to have that cat in the first place). I am undoing those edits so the categories will now be empty. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't realize that he had added the users himself. I will delete the cats. — Jake Wartenberg 23:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
User talk:70.48.112.221
In the past, this individual has abused talk page editing privileges during the block. Also we don't need him figuring out what text string the abuse filter is preventing him from putting onto Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Changed the block settings. Thanks! — Jake Wartenberg 05:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for rollback
I would just like to thank you for granting me rollback rights. I have found it immensely useful to revert vandalism using Huggle Thanks again!--Michaelkourlas (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- No problem! — Jake Wartenberg 22:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
"In cases of BLPs of marginal notability we default to delete when consensus is unclear"
Mind pointing out that policy to me? RMHED 00:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- See here. Best, — Jake Wartenberg 00:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- "especially if the subject has requested deletion, where there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete."
Doesn't exactly meet the above does it. RMHED 00:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Just to be clear, that policy says "may be closed as delete." So the close was allowable, but not required under policy, and the statement "in cases of BLPs of marginal notability we default to delete when consensus is unclear" is not technically correct since defaulting to "keep" in those situations is not verboten. You might want to consider rephrasing your closing statement, unless I'm off the mark here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Done, thanks. — Jake Wartenberg 00:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Just to be clear, that policy says "may be closed as delete." So the close was allowable, but not required under policy, and the statement "in cases of BLPs of marginal notability we default to delete when consensus is unclear" is not technically correct since defaulting to "keep" in those situations is not verboten. You might want to consider rephrasing your closing statement, unless I'm off the mark here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Admin closure
I disagree that David Shankbone is of "marginal notability" so this loophole you appear to have found does not apply. It is unreasonable to claim someone is of "marginal notability" when there were clearly hundreds of people involved in that last AFD. How often does that occur? DGG clearly stated that Shankbone was not even a borderline notability case. You labeling him "marginal notability" is your own opinion, and clearly you are allowing your position as Misplaced Pages administrator to override the wishes of the community. Please undo your error. Thanking you in advance, Varks Spira (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)