User talk:Jimfbleak - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) at 07:54, 10 October 2016 (→CLASH WITH DD RESTORATION). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:54, 10 October 2016 by Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) (→CLASH WITH DD RESTORATION)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


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 ~~~~.

Re: Speedy deletion nomination of Boxed (app)

Hello, I just noticed that Boxed (app) was deleted. It was deleted the same day it was flagged, so I didn't have a chance to dispute it. I was the one who originally wrote the article, however, I do agree with the claim that the article read as an advertisement when it was deleted. I wrote it neutrally (FYI, I have used the app a couple times but I'm in no way affiliated with the company), however, it seems to have evolved over time to be written more like an advertisement. Given the amount of press and funding the company has received, I believe I can revise it so that reads neutrally, and I can also help establish its notability. If you're able to provide a copy to User:Danlev/Boxed (app) (or any other method), I'd appreciate it! Thanks! --Dan Leveille (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Dan Leveille , posted as requested, I've taken out the most obvious spam (eg quotes from the boss) and dodgy ELs, good luck Jimfbleak (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

My page was deleted due to A7

Krxnic (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Hi there Jim, basically you deleted my Bio that i was created for my page that i need called Krxnic i know self wrote bio's are not allowed but i seriously think if you would have seen the finished page after i edited it you would have kept it active. Basically i started to edit the page and saved it to see what it would look like, i then spent 3hours editing it a when i pressed save you had deleted it. I am currently in the process of being verified on facebook and need my Wiki bio as an extra reference for facebook. My music is played on BBC radio by highly rated presenters. I reallt dont understand why i cant have a bio on wiki ? Please contact me back and let me re-do my page for you to take a second look at as you deleted my preview from when i saved it. I literally spent all night editing it to press save and out you had deleted. R Please reply or contact through email to - contact@krxnic.com Krxnic (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Replied on user talk page, watching draft now Jimfbleak (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Activating Recently Created Page

Hi Jim,

We created page Aniceto Nazareth https://en.wikipedia.org/Aniceto_Nazareth a week back. As per your recommendations we added reference as well as various link within the content to internal and external source.

Still the page was deleted.

Could you please check our recent updates and enable to page again?

Let us know if anything in addition we need to make to avoid the page being deleted.

Appreciate your help.

Anicetonazareth (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anicetonazareth: it was probably deleted per:

Please do not write or add to an article about yourself, as you apparently did at Aniceto Nazareth. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Drm310 (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't for self-promotion. CrashUnderride 09:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Anicetonazareth, not much to add to Drm310 and Crash's comments. Most of the text was still unsourced, and your one reference was not an independent verifiable source. More to the point, it was a hagiography, not a neutral encyclopaedia article. Phrases like They could not stop singing, so noble did they find the melody and so well fitted to the text of the Mass. The classic trend has come to stay and will hopefully replace Mass music based on pop songs. expresses your opinions and hopes, but is entirely fact-free Jimfbleak (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

page Krxnic deleted

Hi Jim,

Thank you for the reply on my page Krxnic I will delete the sandbox and just redo the article as it was my first ever time using Wiki. I understand that i need reliable sources and my song is in the process of being added to my BBC Profile account. - Link to my BBC Profile below.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/3af002bf-5ff0-41b1-a222-889734e828f4#tracks

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krxnic (talk • contribs) 21:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼ 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼ 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼ 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.

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼ 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼ 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)

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)