Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jimfbleak

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia 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 MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) at 19:28, 14 October 2016 (→The Signpost: 14 October 2016: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:28, 14 October 2016 by MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) (→The Signpost: 14 October 2016: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
    Jim     Talk     Contribs     Sandbox     Logs     Blocks     Deletions     Protections     Scripts     Bird talk     Commons
Jim Talk Contribs Sandbox Logs Blocks Deletions Protections Scripts Bird talk Commons

Please add your message to the bottom of this page, give it a heading and sign it using four tildes ~~~~.

I'm pretty sure you know better than to cast aspersions at other editors and their motives for participating in WP

But since you're doing it anyway :

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Template:Z33

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  00:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @SMcCandlish: I don't know if I'm missing some attempt at irony here, but surely there's more than a whiff of hypocrisy around warning someone about sanctions relating to the MOS/page title issue mere seconds after you posted a comment saying that "... an increasing number of FA regulars denigrate the contributions of all other editors as second-class and sub-par, often in incredibly insulting terms. It's no particular wonder that a handful of FA regulars have quit; at least two of them spent so much time savaging other editors at every opportunity that it was inevitable that WP become increasingly a place of unpleasant conflict for them, conflict of their own creation. This is remarkably similar to the exeunt of a few editors in one of the biology projects who devoted so much time and escalating hostility to pushing, as an advocacy matter, an off-WP wannabe-standard for nomenclature, then pushing it beyond even the biological order to which is might apply, that WP:WINNING on that front became their #1 priority instead of collaborating on a 💕 with the readership, not a favored group of specialists, in mind." From where I'm sitting, you seem to be engaging in exactly the kind of aspersion-casting and dismissal of which you are accusing Jim. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
SMcCandlish ☺, Having said what I did at FAC, I had no intention of participating any further in the debate, knowing from bitter experience that you will grind us all down. However, I can't ignore your threat of sanctions above since it seems to be totally gratuitous. If you think it's justified, please indicate when I last edited Manual of Style and/or article titles policy, the topics mentioned. I know better than to wade into that cesspit. If you accept that I haven't edited those topics in recent years, please withdraw your implied threat
Josh Milburn, thanks for that, but it won't change his behaviour. I'm not going to let him drive me away, but there will be others, he's really good at this stuff and never tires Jimfbleak (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I decline to respond to that other than to log it as more pointless aspersions you can't back up, cast after a DS warning, which as an admin you fully understand the meaning of.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  05:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: I missed your withdrawal request. {{Ds/alert}} isn't an implied anything, it's just a notice about DS scope, and notice cannot be rescinded (I know, because I tried to have such a Ds/alert invalidated, and pursued an appeal chain from AN to AE to ARCA (twice), and these appeals were rejected on the basis that it is not a warning or an allegation, just a scope notice). I have repeatedly complained to ArbCom's deaf ears that it is virtually never interpreted simply as such a notice, but they refuse (by over two years of inaction) to reword it or otherwise rethink these notices. At any rate, WP:ARBATC applies to all MoS- and article-titles-related matters, broadly construed. It has nothing to do with whether the discussion is at WT:MOS or WT:AT. See in particular WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded, in which it's made clear that aspersion-casting over style matters is the crux of the problem and why DS were authorized. Bashing the alleged motives of MoS regulars certainly qualifies, and I'm quite confident that you understand that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  06:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Description of actions one has evidence of is entirely different from projection about someone's motivations which by their nature cannot be proven; the latter serves no purpose but character assassination. The thing is, Jimfbleak cannot possibly provide diffs proving "SMcCandlish has never been here to improve content", nor that I'm here "just to push his own version of MoS", which are easily disproven. Nor will he be able to back up the claim I've ever "championed" a sockpuppet, which is absurd. Nor the "He won't give up ... relentless onslaught from him and his cronies", which is just substance-free aspersions against me and anyone else who doesn't agree with him, compounded by an insinuation of conspiracy. By contrast, I have diffs that demonstrate everything I mentioned, about a number of FAC regulars denigrating others, of two of the departing FAC people spending months in tagteam attack campaigns against "enemies", and of all the old WP:BIRDS history – piles and piles of diffs, years' worth, and the gist of it already appears in the record at the WP:BIRDCON RfC. I never used it to address individual behaviors at dramaboards, because I'm averse to such processes and because it has seemed more productive to attempt to smooth things over with those people than to take them to task for these antics. Nor do I offer any opinion of the mental motivations for why anyone is engaging in them (I may have my hypotheses, but this is not the place to air them).

Jim can't even prove the claim that I "drove away some of the best and most active contributors to the Bird project", a bardic myth he likes to sing around the campfire but which has no basis in facts.

History lesson redux

In reality, a few editors said they were quitting over "losing" their "style war" to get what they wanted. However, one had actually quit a year earlier and only "returned" to make a show of quitting again, and another had left even earlier, after many threats to quit over just about everything, going back to 2005 (I have it on good authority that the original WP:DIVA was actually written about that editor in particular, before my time here.) In reality, two editors actually quit over that issue, for real, and this was a very undesirable result. I've tried hard to head-off a repeat of this over similar matters like capitalization of domestic animal breed names. But if you look at what they were doing leading up to their decision, it was very similar to the attack-everyone-who-argues-with-me behavior two of the departing FAC editors have been pursuing for months, and like at least one of them, they didn't really quit, but kept coming back just to keep attacking people. When editors get like this it is time for them to take a wikibreak. People own their own emotions, and inability to remember that this is a collaborative, volunteer project for a general-audience readership, not a "SpecialistPedia" for experts or a "BlogPedia" for people who want to highlight and totally control their own "authored" pieces, is a clear WP:COMPETENCE problem, even if its often just a temporary one. They can spin it as retiring in disgust if they want to, but the fact of the matter is that they'll be forced off the system by administrative action if they don't stop attacking people just because their whims are thwarted and their patience short.

On the WP:BIRDCON RfC: It was one of WP:BIRDS own number, Andrewa, who opened that RfC . My proposal, above that, was a much simpler do-or-do-not question about PoV-forking of guidelines. But Jimfbleak, et al., will probably never stop blaming me for them being hoisted by their own RfC petard (and rejecting all compromises that were offered, in every recurrent edition of that debate, dating back to 2008 or so). That RfC started because after a bird article WP:RM (which involved no MoS/AT regulars at all) didn't go the way WP:BIRDS wanted and then a WP:MR followup wasn't going their way either, they totally lost their cool about it, looked for a scapegoat, and launched an RfC full of hubris. I will continue to correct false accusations against me about this every time I encounter them, until the "SMcCandlish made some editors quit" myth dies. Some editors taking a "my way or the highway" battleground/soapbox stance, then choosing the highway when consensus (not, though some SuperMegaEditor™ magical power, SMcCandlish) didn't give them their way, is why some editors left. Editors leave all the time when they get overly emotionally invested in something and WP:CONSENSUS and the WP:MERCIILESS effect do not afford those individuals the ultimate control they want. This is sad, but it's a natural fact of wiki-life, and the best we can do is minimize it.

Also, I am a active member of the WP:BIRDS project, and have been for years. The false dichotomy of "those MoS and AT people versus those bird people" (= "those MOS and infobox people versus those FAC people"), like the belief that WP:BIRDS was unanimous about anything (= belief that WP:FAC is a hive mind, too), are pure fantasy.

Moving on, Jim's "an MoS instigated by a sockpuppet" part doesn't even parse, so I have no idea what he's on about there. Neither MoS nor any of its subpages were created by sockpuppets that I know of, and if they were, I'm skeptical anyone would care as long as what they said made sense and was accepted by site-wide consensus. It's their content that matters, not who first came up with a draft version of them under what username. This relates strongly to the cult-of-personality problems surrounding FAC and FAs in general, a diffuse but detectable pattern of argument that who is doing the writing matters more than the content, than the combined editorial community, and than the audience.

Regardless of these details, the point of Ds/alerts is to encourage de-escalation and more mindful comment posting; they are not salvos in a battle, but reminders that a battle does not need to happen. (I do not consider myself in a battle with Jimfbleak, and was frankly surprised to be verbally attacked by him in this way, over old news from years go that didn't even play out anything like the way he suggests.) I don't like the way the Ds/alert is worded, but ArbCom does not let us edit its content at all .

If Jim believed he could prove some case against me, he would have already done so years ago, judging by the heat of his posts about me. What he's doing is just ad hominem and argument to emotion in service of personalized denigration because, as he says "yes, I'm still bitter". It has to stop. It's been going on sporadically for over two years, now that I bother to go diff-digging again: , a remarkably similar 2014 message casting the same mental aspersions and nefarious motives, and again making claims that are false on their face (e.g. "his changes to bird articles ... have lost several editors as a result" – I didn't make the changes to bird articles, I just argued more convincingly in WP:BIRDS's own RfC, which didn't close the way some WP:BIRDS members wanted, and a few people left because the RfC didn't go their way, being overly invested in the result). The fact that Jim's tune has not changed in years inspires me to cite WP:GRUDGE. The hilariously ironic thing is that particular discussion from 2014 was about me supposedly "disrupting" animal breed articles (which Jim doesn't edit that I know of – he just seemed to have showed up to stick it to me) with moves toward consistent names; later, the RMs went exactly the way I suggested, their naming is now stable and consistent, and (among other actions by me) this directly thwarted a then-brewing "let's go decapitalize all the animal breeds" putsch that would have caused even more drama than the BIRDCON fiasco. Of course, I never get any credit for that, just as neither the closer of the WP:BIRDCON RfC, nor the other closer of the RM that led to it, ever receive any ire from Jim and friends. Nope, everything bad is SMcCandlish's fault, and everything he does is bad. <rolling my eyes>

Jim's entirely within his rights to constructively criticize other editors, if the criticisms are something he can back up. If they're not, it's just a WP:NPA / WP:CIVIL / WP:ASPERSIONS problem, and he'd do well to take a close read of WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man, where ArbCom is seriously considering desysopping someone for civility problems. BTW, I'm arguing against that result , despite being the recipient of some of that editor's incivility. Not everyone on WP has some binary "do things my way, or else either I have to quit or you have to be forced off the project" attitude. But note that Jim said "expect other FAC contributors to walk rather than face" continued disagreement, and repeated this sentiment here on his talk page. Honestly, I think my road is higher, and my horse lower, than Jim's on this matter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  05:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I really have no interest in debating this with you, so this is going to be my final comment in this thread (you can, of course, reply if you want to). What I will say is that that wall of text is hardly convincing when it comes to the matter of the acceptability of your comments. From the outside looking in, the distinction you are drawing between your putatively innocuous and putatively evidence-based aspersions and Jim's putatively problematic claims is not nearly as clear-cut as you seem to think it is. Further, your latest comment contains a range of comments and commentaries about other editors which are, themselves, deeply untasteful, and not at all conducive to a productive editing environment (whether or not they meet some more-or-less arbitrary set of criteria about what is or is not acceptable to say about fellow editors). I hope you will rethink your approach, here; if you're serious about "de-escalation and more mindful comment posting", then I have to trust that you will. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
@J Milburn: That was longer than intended. The things you're taking issue with are pointed but fact-defensible criticisms of behavior patterns I find troubling for WP's long-term stability, and I'm not alone in that (see various similar observations by others including Thryduulf at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes about the denigration of non-FA-focused editors by certain FAC regulars, etc.). Vague "I can read minds" aspersion-casting about people's motivations is not defensible with any form of real evidence and is way beyond pointed. This distinction is not "arbitrary" but central to the difference between attempting to resolve disputes about editorial behavior and just casting aspersions as a form of personal attack.

But I didn't come here to pick a fight with Jim; rather to head one off, and just got distracted. I have no ill will toward him. Nor do I have any toward other WP:BIRDS editors, or WP:FAC editors. What I do have an issue with is "site-wide rules just don't apply to me and my friends" behavior patterns by some few people (I wasn't count Jim among them) some of the time in those and various other circles. As a side matter, I don't like being wrongly accused of making other editors quit (Jim is not the only one to have pointed that finger). I'm not singling Jim out, but I'm asking him to stop treating me as a scapegoat for 2014 RfCs and RMs started and closed by other people, or as a whipping boy for every MoS/AT-related dispute. I've barely been active on WP at all for about two weeks now, specifically to avoid most further conflict over these matters with other people (so much for "he will never stop", etc. – I'm not the one with a let-it-go problem in these disputes); it was Jim's post about me (pinging me on it) that drew me back into the argument at WT:FAC in the first place. I was back on WP for a bit to work on improving a cat breed article, and only got about 5% of that done due to renewal of personal scapegoating of me at WT:FAC. (Which is particularly absurd; I've been critical of the excesses of both camps in the "infobox wars", and infoboxes are not even an MoS matter at all – MoS is entirely neutral on them. But go ahead and blame SMcCandlish and other MoS regulars, since that's what they're here for, right? Last I heard, they were also responsible for inflation, pancreatic cancer, and global warming.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  16:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Heartfulness meditation page

Hi, I got the notification about speedy deletion of Heartfulness meditation page (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Draft:Heartfulness_meditation&action=edit&redlink=1). Today when I visited to add addition info, it was already deleted. I had received a comment from User:Robert_McClenon that the article reads like an essay and reflection, and taking his suggestion I was working on making it better and more Neutral, but suddenly it got deleted and with a different reason stated - unambiguous advertisement or something. Please note that Heartfulness meditation is a heart centered meditation practice, practiced by 100s of thousands of people around the world, it may not be as popular as Mindfulness but it is very much prevalent. Please allow me to write the article conforming to the Misplaced Pages Guidelines. If you can point out some specific areas / shortcomings, that will help me a lot. I request you to restore the page. Thank you. Duty2love (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Replied on user talk page Jimfbleak (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Duty2love (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

CLASH WITH DD RESTORATION

I am extremely glad to be back in touch with you jimfbleak thanks again for helping me a lot. As instructed by u i have redesigned my article in a neutral way and this time I have added references too for it check it up here https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Tiven2240/sandbox now my humble request to you is to put it on the Misplaced Pages link that was deleted by u https://en.wikipedia.org/Clash_with_DD . Do feel free to contact me for any more assistance on my talk page or reply here Hope I see my article on the right place Tiven gonsalves 07:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiven2240 (talk • contribs)

Tiven2240, you can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~ I've copyedited an removed inappropriate links to Amazon (sales site), Youtube and your contact us page. You may wish to find independent third-party sources to replace those. I still can't see that it meets the notability guidelines. When you are ready, you can use the "move" tab to move it back yourself Jimfbleak (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Re:Media Fuse Dentsu Aegis Network

Hi Jim, I noticed that you deleted my article with the above title. Am a little bit surprised as to why even after quoting relevant articles to support it. I will like you to help by citing the necessary areas that might not be in consonance with your terms. So i can restore back the page. I earnestly await your response. Thank you.JJ kelvin (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Replied on user talk page Jimfbleak (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jim I have indeed noted all you said and will make appropriate corrections in subsequent edit. Thanks for the corrections.JJ kelvin (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you for the "real James Bond and Fermín Zanón Cervera in the steaming swamps of Cuba"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Jim, there used to be an image in the article that was removed. It was just re-added today (without discussion that I can see), both to the article and the TFA. Is there an issue with the image? - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt , thank you, I aim to please (sneak preview - I will have a castrating parasite in my next FAC!). Dank, replied here Jimfbleak (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
My next FAC is more conventional, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, ping me when you post it Jimfbleak (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

IP vandal

IP 184.54.175.170 has vanalized Korey Stringer several times today. I reverted them all in one and gave them a one and only warning. Do as you see fit. lol. CrashUnderride 01:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Crash. That seems appropriate. They are kid-type edits done in a four-minute burst rather than anything more disturbing or protracted, and as long as there is no repetition, your warning should be enough. No need to semi-protect either, for the same reason Jimfbleak (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced query by Puneet3210

Puneet3210 (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Hi, I am new to Wiki and I have absolutely no idea if this is how it works. My question is on a page deletion. Please see "06:49, 25 June 2016 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page CRISIL (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)". CRISIL is one among India'a largest companies that employs over 5000 people. I believe, there should be a page on this company. You may delete the content that looks promotional. But deleting the entire page is not wise. Thanks. Puneet3210 (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) moved -- samtar 07:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks samtar. Puneet3210, I note your comment. Since another admin recently thought it was fixable, I've restored the article for now. I've removed all unsourced text and removed much of the company-sourced promo. I've put the financial stuff in the text, since that's what makes it notable. I'm watching the page now, and if my edits are reverted or the spam is restored, I'll reconsider the restoration, thanks Jimfbleak (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

retain the Samahang Makasining (Artist Club), Inc. article

Samahangmakasining (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC) kindly retain the Samahang Makasining (Artist Club), Inc. page and just improve it instead of deleting the article, thanks

Samahangmakasining, not possible, the article was a copyright violation. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Misplaced Pages, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Misplaced Pages, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient. But in any case the copyrighted text is far too promotional to be useful for Misplaced Pages's purposes, so there would not be any point in your jumping through all the hoops that are required. It was also written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
You appear to be operating multiple accounts to edit on behalf of an organisation, and your user name is a breach of our user name policy, so I'm blocking the relevant accounts.
Jimfbleak (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)