User talk:Jd2718

Archives: 06/06 - 03/07, 04/07 - 11/07, 12/07 - 7/08

Edit summaries

(My original note on Jayjg's talk page 05:15, 17 August 2008 (→Edit summaries new section), deleted by Jayjg 05:19, 17 August 2008 (quite well founded)):

Please use edit summaries to indicate the changes you have made; This summary does not indicate that you've removed the IDF from the info box. Instead you've used it to make a poorly founded accusation. You know better. Jd2718 (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries to indicate the changes you have made; This summary does not indicate that you've added the IDF to the info box. Instead you've used it to indicate a far less contentious edit. You know better. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Point-y and wrong, but that's user space. I do appreciate that your further edits to Sabra and Shatila massacre have carried accurate summaries. Jd2718 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Bronxites born in Africa

Jd, I just ran across your discussion of this topic at User Talk:Bellagio99. Bellagio and I just discussed this very question at Talk:The Bronx#African-born population. I tracked Oscar Johnson's Ghanaian-American story "Chilly Coexistence" back up its URL tree, and found it was part of an "race anthology" produced either for or by a 2000 journalism class at Columbia University. I don't know if the anthology was a collection of already-written articles from such sources as the Columbia Daily Spectator, or the work-product of the class itself, which focussed on local reporting in New York City (see the syllabus). By checking Columbia's faculty directory, I found the instructor (should you care to ask him about this) is still there, but working in the administration rather than still teaching. Anyway, my feeling is that either immigration patterns have changed radically in the last ten years or that Oscar Johnson misunderstood statistics which I haven't been able to verify without more research than I care to undertake and which strongly contradict the census statistics that I do have. (Bellagio's rather-more-extreme attitude is that one statistic that's not credible makes the whole source unusable.) Shakescene (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted

You've got rollback now, per your request. I'm sure we're supposed to tell you to read Help:Reverting#Rollback or something, but you've been leaving edit summaries correctly for months, so just keep doing what you're doing. Cheers!--chaser - t 21:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cardinal Spellman High School's "theology" teacher hits The NY Times

The moral theology of double parking:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/the-moral-theology-of-double-parking/

Since you're the parochial school authority of The Bronx, this might interest you. It also mentions Cardinal Hayes High School. Shakescene (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

...as does another notable Bronxian...

Figure in Rosenberg Case Admits Spying for Soviets

Shakescene (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thessaloniki

Thanks for your support on Thessaloniki. A few minutes work is turning out to be brain surgery!  :) I will change. Feel free to alter my changes. But look for opportunities to revert the other editor. Since I can't get his agreement, I will have to catch him with 3RR. I hate to do this but it seems the only way.

If you have other ideas, I would like to hear them! Student7 (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Explain, explain, revert as necessary. Gaming into a 3rr violation is not a good thing to do, and certainly not to plan. I understand your frustration, but normal dispute resolution will take care of this. Jd2718 (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The guy is a bit of a crank and extrem defensive about his English for reasons that are not immediately apparent. (If your Greek was not perfect wouldn't you be aware of it?) I have encountered cranks before and the only way I know is to RFC them and then to mediation. I sure hope to avoid the latter though. What a pain! And on such trivial grounds! Also, he has not gone to any of the references I left WP:MOS, Strunk and White, etc. The latter a bit much for a casual editor, I admit. I don't see this guy as a major functional editor in the long run. A couple of athletic contributions will be about it, I suspect. And all hard-fought! (I hope in some other article!  :) Student7 (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just read your note (written before mine above). I agree that it is better to edit than revert. I will be doing neither for awhile! Student7 (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Some criticism:"Thessaloniki has had a major role in the development of basketball in Greece." "Major" seems pov to me. If it is indeed major, the reader should be able to discern this from the text. The whole idea of pov is that we aren't trying to "manipulate" readers through the use of adjectives.

"The local YMCA was the first to introduce the sport to the country while Iraklis won the first Greek championship." Run-on sentence. What does the YMCA in 1905 (I think I had put in the date earlier) have to do with a championship today? I think the entry is "cute enough" to keep about the Y, but it should be uncoupled from the championship. Probably should have date. Iraklis championship should have date as well. It is history not timeless.

"From 1979 to 1993 Aris and PAOK won between them 10 championships, 7 cups and several European titles." This is wonderful but needs reference.

"Players for Thessalonikian teams have included: Nikos Galis," etc. It makes me a bit nervous that during one of his tirades, he said that some of these players hadn't played for Thessaloniki at all. I'm not really up to verifying each one myself. We really need another Greek sports guy here. (Maybe El Greco can help!  :)

"Since 2000 the Iraklis volleyball team has had much domestic, European and international success." much? That is a bit much!  :) I forget whether that has a footnote, but if it doesn't, it needs one. (I was able to get dates so it must have had a ref). Thanks. Student7 (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost there is no a consensus to your point of view so i don't see a reason to have your comments posted as along as the dispute isn't settled when you and student are the ones who shall justify your deleting of my edits. Secondly i think that my language skills are adequate and free of POV but if you think otherwise you have to point them out specifically. BTW way Iraklis won yet another cup the day before yesterday but i guess that's irrelevant to someone who thinks he owns the article. Last but not least seeing the above comments feel free to know that feelings are mutual --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The section is pretty short and accurate with adequate citations. Yet again POINT THE POV AND THE ALLEGED ERRORS. Discuss the need for changes in talk page. It's only you and Student. In any case numerical superiority can't counterbalance inaccurate knowledge. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

MoS

The Levant and Middle East use British English (when they use English), hence my change to Za'atar. Orpheus (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. On reflection, the whole sentence ought to be changed - it's not really the right usage of "herb" in any case. Thoughts? Orpheus (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. I think herb is supposed to refer specifically to a plant, but your recent edit addresses that entirely. Thanks! Orpheus (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

declined 3rr

Hi,

you recently found no violation at [[WP:AN/3RR#Ioannes Tzimiskes reported by jd2718 (Result: No Violation); I don't challenge your finding. However, I did respond

Indeed. As I wrote in filing the report (above) The letter of 3RR has not been broken. I also wrote Maybe a serious warning from an admin, rather than a block, would be better at this point, and I still believe so. The editor is well-intentioned, but does not understand he needs to collaborate. A message from an uninvolved admin might help. Thank you.[1]

With that in mind, could you take another look? Jd2718 (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left him a message on his talk page. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

And I've managed to exchange nicer words with him. We will work this out. Thank you for the assist. Jd2718 (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Rats, I was just working on a 3RR!  :) Maybe get a different admin? I will be kind of sidelined the next couple of days and maybe the week. Thanks for all your work. Student7 (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

History

Why is there so little history in this article? I take it from discussion that it got unwieldy, and was reduced, but couldn't we say something more? Jd2718 (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Cited entries on the history section are more than welcome. Most of the information previously removed was "alumni pride" about specific colleges and universities. A previous effort was made to research the origin of the HBCU executive order. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How can someone ask

for a third opinion? I remember you did in our disagreement. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Please refactor talk page edit

Jd2718,

This comment of mine has no reference to you or to any other member of the Wikipedian community. As you know, Wikipedia is a public place and users' comments are visible to everyone on the net. In my opinion, Politis should not mention the name of the village for the protection of its villagers concerning their relations with the specific country's current government. Even if you are a member of this administration, it cannot be considered being of ad hominem nature. In short, my comment has no individual person as a target, neither an editor of the project nor someone in the Real World. Thus, I am not removing it. --Hectorian (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Grecomans

I used as I saw its historical terminology used for Grecophile non-ethnic population and that it has pejorative sound for today's population. Anyway didnt itent to use it in offensive way. Luka Jačov (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia

Hi Jd. Since you're the neutral one there, where does it stand? Greek or no Greek? BalkanFever 03:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why? They are the ones reverting without previously discussing it on article's talk page Luka Jačov (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Talkback - Chicago Date

Hello, Jd2718. You have new messages at Pknkly's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I placed the as of date in the Chicago article because if it is not in there it implies it always was and may always be. From what I understand at reading Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words (see the example of "currently"), it would seem to me that the inclusion of an "as of date" is better than implying the status or condition always was. To me the use of the "as of date" gives a little more credibility. Pknkly (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Got your message. Thanks for the effort! Pknkly (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

See you got the info. Final thanks for the research and the edit. Pknkly (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject Greece April 2009 newsletter

The April 2009 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of WP:Reliable sources

Don't remove citations with WP RS from any article. It is a violation of WP guidelines. Please desist from this policy. If you wish to make changes respect the work of others. You have allready removed five (5) WP:RS from the article. --Xenovatis (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

TAF article

Nice try but you are not going to subvert the matter of your removal of WP:RS so easily.--Xenovatis (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia proposal assessment

Thank you for responding positively and constructively to my request for an assessment of the benefits and impacts of your favoured proposal. [2] It certainly helps with understanding the thinking behind it. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia#Winnowing_proposals

We're holding a preferential vote to decide what proposals should go forward to the community and narrow down the vast selection that we currently have. Since you've expressed interest in the above discussion, I thought you would appreciate the opportunity to participate. BalkanFever 13:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia article naming

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Dear Jd2718, thanks for this. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Bronx/The Bronx

This hoary old dispute has come up again in terms of renaming the article. See Talk:Bronx#Query: when do we consider this? Best wishes. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Chicago

Hi you left a message on my talk page regarding the trivia inserted in the Chicago article. The user User talk:Verygentle1969 ignored my concerns, after I told him of them on his talk page. He again edited without source or comment. I deleted his latest edit as unsourced. Any help you can provide, would be appreciated.Alanscottwalker(talk) 23:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Bronx > Canada

Born in the Bronx. Have lived in Canada for many years. Am a Canadian citizen. More than 1/2 of Toronto from somewhere else, I believe. OTOH, I did have a nice visit to the Bronx a few years ago, including the mourning of Alexanders and Krums, and the buy of still-delicious pizza slice at Fordham-Concourse. Plus a walk down my former street, which seemed quite mellow. Thanks for asking.Bellagio99 (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov

Jd2718—as you point out, the paragraph goes on to elaborate on his being Jewish, but elaborating on it doesn't obviate mentioning it from the outset. Bus stop (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jd2718. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 21:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New Haven Line

Heya Jd2718, I don't see any value in this constant back-and-forthing, so I just have one question for you: in August, are you going to add that one piece back in? We're talking about a service that is seasonal, not temporary. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Close of AE concerning SD

Hi, Jd. I noticed your comments objecting to the close, and thought you might like to be made aware of comments I made on the topic, as well. If you need to post comments to that page before Ed responds, I'd be grateful if you'd ... well, wait until he responds. But if you can't wait, I'd appreciate it if you'd open a new thread for the purpose. I think we do need a centralized location to discuss the matter, and I've asked Ed to suggest the correct place for that, but I don't think we should appropriate his talk page for the purpose unless he specifically invites that, since it would likely be a long and potentially contentious discussion. I'd prefer that we keep any substantive discussion in one central location, wherever that turns out to be, but I've also temporarily watchlisted this page, if you'd like to briefly reply here. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion and information. I do not know if I will participate further - I've more or less said what I had to say - but I do continue to watch. Jd2718 (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry for the earlier mispost, btw. Not quite sure how I did that. My only excuse, and it's a poor one, is that your user page does look rather like a talk page. No bells and whistles, no goofy user boxes; I like that, actually. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: AGK impartiality to I/P

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I have been responding to largely the same questions on my talk page over the past couple of days, so I'll post a full, definitive response here, for clarity, rather than on my talk page, as I normally would. I will also respond in the same order as your four points.

1. The discretionary sanctions provision makes no such obligation, but I agree that it is fair and sensible to establish my rationale clearly. The presumption, as in all Wikipedia discussions until stated differently, is that the closure is made in accordance with the argument of the filing party. In other words, my thinking is as set down by User:Biosketch in his statement in the enforcement thread. In any case, I am discussing my rationale with SD on my talk page, so this point is resolved.
2. That is incorrect. If anything, the consensus was that some action was needed (as opined by User:Enigma). Nobody said anything about whether the request had any merit, although Ed has since said that he does not have a problem with how I closed the thread. Anyway, AE threads are a one-editor close (again, as Ed said, on my talk page); arbitration enforcement decisions are reached unilaterally by their nature. Did you know that AE functions in that way, and, if so, why are you using this as an argument for why I ostensibly behaved inappropriately?
3. Again, see Ed's comment, and perhaps update your understanding of how AE works. Only one administrator can close a request; there is no such thing as a "group action". Anyway, Ed was asking for proposals as to how to proceed; what was there to discuss? Whether a six or a five-and-a-half month topic ban was warranted?
4. See this comment and also the discussion on my talk page. There is zero substance to these suggestions (although they don't surprise me; any sysop who has more than a fleeting involvement in enforcement in one topic area will inevitably be horribly-biased).

Regards, AGK [•] 12:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Mac and Me

I edited a bit in the disputed area. I participated in the Centralized Discussion that led to some solid naming policy and two years of relative peace in the topic area. I agreed with what FPaS did in the area, and credit him (and several others) with getting us to a place where the Centralized Discussion could be proposed, adopted, and work out for the best of the project. I have at other times found myself on FPaS' bad side. Jd2718 (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Names of Thessaloniki

Hello, Jd2718. You have new messages at Philly boy92's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Balearic Islands

Hi. thanks for your good faith comment. I did take a deep breath, and now, I will continue with my work at "trying" to improve wikipedia. Cheers. --Maurice27 _{About Me, Talk, Vandalize}. 19:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to tell you I am willing to help and improve the Balearic Islands' article, however I will not contribute if Maurice27 is going to impose us his anti-Catalist point of view.

About the edit war with Maurice27:

I was right reverting him as he first changed the official Catalan name to Spanish, and diminished the official Catalan name to a "native name". It seems to me he doesn't care about anything else than that (diminishing the Catalan officiality on the English wikipedia).

I have read many of his comments in other talk pages (mainly in Catalan-related articles), and he has provoked many similar endless and nonsensical edit wars with other Catalan-speaking users about the same issue, causing other Catalan-speakers to cease contributing to the English wikipedia.

I think you should have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries/Official denomination in the infobox.

About your questions on the BI's article:

Spanish is official within the Spanish State, which includes the Balearic Islands. However, according to Balearic laws (Statute of Autonomy of the Balearic Islands), the official language of the Balearics is Catalan, therefore Catalan and Spanish are co-official languages. Additionaly the same law mentions all Balearic placenames are only official in Catalan, thus Illes Balears is the only official name. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 20:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:Careful with "vandalism" edit summary

Hello, Jd2718. You have new messages at Atterion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Perhaps of Interest to you

An article that you have been involved in editing, Falafel [[3]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Veritycheck (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eames: the architect and the painter

Hello, Jd2718, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, Eames: the architect and the painter, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the Help Desk. Thanks again for contributing! jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The three sentences I wrote were crap, but I'm seeing massive Google hits on a newly released documentary - I lifted your tag - notability would be a reason to delete - but that will be met - ugly stub, no matter how true, is not a reason to delete. Jd2718 (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion at AfD. I was not aware of the existence of Articles for Creation, which would have been the right place for me, as a non-article creator, to go. I am a bit concerned that the deletion process seemed to plow forward so quickly, and that as someone who thinks we could do with fewer articles, in general, but I believe the process at AfD worked in a reasonable way. Jd2718 (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eames: the architect and the painter

Hello, Jd2718, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, Eames: the architect and the painter, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the Help Desk. Thanks again for contributing! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Eames: the architect and the painter

Hello, Jd2718, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eames: the architect and the painter whether the article Eames: the architect and the painter should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving Eames: the architect and the painter, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:

Wops sorry...the last two columns are computed via LibreOffice calc from the original datas, so I'm pretty sure about them...while I put datas in the other columns by hand ^^ --Vituzzu (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that all other numbers are correct. Trijnstel (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Albania

Yes, the figure is supported [4], see top of page 69. Athenean (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)

Hello, I just read through the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia). Is it true that all three of the neutral referees (2 of which are now retired from wiki altogether?) were citizens of the United States? I know this may sound a little OTT, but America recognized FYROM as Macedonia the same month Macedonia committed to sending a few troops to Iraq (which Greece failed to do). This decision changed the landscape of the dispute and soon after the UK agreed to recognise FYROM as Macedonia in attempt to reflect US policy, not for the first time. lol. The US then actively encouraged other nations to do the same including Mexico, who later rejected the name Macedonia after initially being coerced into recognising FYROM as Macedonia by the US. I do not blame the US/UK for encouraging other nations to reflect their policy. Indeed I believe it to be natural. However big chunks of the English speaking world, Australia and South Africa for example refused to join the bandwagon. My point is, on such a delicate subject, like any disagreement, should not the referee's be starting off from a neutral position or at least a neutral country in the debate? Just a thought. Reaper7 (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly did I earn a warning for this? I am asking if the referees should be from neutral nations in a conflict on wiki as I could not find any material on the matter anywhere on wiki? I am not being uncivil, in no way partaking in propaganda (??), not committing personal attacks of any nature and have not been aggressive to you or others. You have imposed a warning on me for 'an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia.' Why would you do this unless there is an agenda I am unaware of? I just read through the whole Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) and was curious if there are any rules or structures in wiki that require the referees to be from a nation not directly involved in a conflict. I was reading -ГоранМирчевски edits and noticed you indicated to him to read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) so I quickly did the same assuming then logically you would be able to answer my question civilly and in good faith. Please reread my message on your page immediately and let me know your reasoning as to why you felt 'obligated' to issue a warning for this question on your talk page and why you felt it was repeated and serious violation as I am at a total loss. I do not wish to invite other editors to this page to get to the bottom of this action and I am sure you have read yourself when it is appropriate to issue a ARBMAC warning. I have made mistakes also in the past not filling out proper ref links correctly when I first joined - but I can admit that. What has happened here? I read through your page prior to posting and realised many other editors have asked you questions and felt it appropriate to do the same as you were not an ultra nationalist editor of any description. I will admit I am shocked and really at a loss as to what to say after your action. Reaper7 (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I was asking you, personally, if referee's nationalities matter in a abritration because I could not find any reference to this anywhere else and saw you were happy to answer questions to other editors on your talk page. I assumed good faith on your part to answer my question. I was in no way challenging the encyclopedia or committing repeated and serious violations in asking you this which is what warnings should be reserved for, not those seeking information from a superior member, which is what you are. I do not care what side you voted on/believed was right - there is no need to tell me this and this shows me you still believe I am interested in persuading you to do something of some sort which confuses me, that is not my aim or question and I am not interested in your personal beliefs on the topic at all - why would I be, only what is allowed/ considered the status quo on wiki and I am would like a definite answer if a referee's nationality matters in an arbitration. For example if an Israeli editor is allowed be a referee on a Palestinian editing war arbitration for example - does that deserve a warning? Can you please remove the warning as you realise it is unfounded and know it was an abuse in itself to warn me over this. i take great care in what I write and am offended by this. I simply believed you acted too fast and have obviously been over battled-hardened on the topic to the point which for a second you could not differentiate a serious violation in bad faith from a simple well constructed question by someone who considers you 'to be in the know' concerning Wkipedia policy. If you cannot answer my question or direct me to someone who knows the formula or rules on which referees can be assembled/ chosen to solve conflicts from the nations directly involved it is not a problem. From a simple football game referee to a assembling a grand jury, nationalities and beliefs of a referee or judge/jury are key and taken onboard. Of course asking if this is the case in wikipedia is not something more serious than ad hominem as you just posted on my talk page. It is a simple question regarding the process, policy and rules and regulations which I am clearly not familiar with concerning a wikipedia Arbitration. I have learnt not to assume good faith on a stranger's talk page, trust me - bit it is not like I have made a habit of asking strangers policy either - which even then would not justify a serious violation. We both know what constitutes serious and repeated violations on Wikipedia and we both know this question which you even admit was in good faith does not justify any type of warning - at all as I am not question the judges or referees - simple whether there is a policy which negated said judges/referee being allowed to rule over an issue that directly involves the nation they are a citizen of, really no debate here. Can you please remove the warning and if you cannot help me in my question, I will appologise for asking the wrong person and refrain from ever asking you any other questions about any abritration process, or anything else on any topic you may have experienced problems with in the past. I would like to remain your friend as I believe this is a simple misunderstanding. I simply asked a question in good faith inorder to check the process was completely correct, which is all my question was involved. Please don't let pride or anything of that nature prevent you from remedying this unfortunate episode for both of us. Anything repeated or serious violation deserves a warning, I agree, but this does not constitute such a case. Reaper7 (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response to my last post and doubting your original decision which was carried out 'sharply' in your own words and in the full knowledge I has asked the question in 'good faith,' That is enough for me to sleep well concerning this blatant injustice. This was not a serious or repeated violation and it was not even your pay-grade to issue a warning. This has been a very sad experience and I am considering leaving this project due to what your attempted warning represents. Thanks for just being yourself and showing me I am out of my depth asking questions on here..I mean..making serious and repeated attacks - 'in good faith' which is what you sanctioned me for. Thanks for your time. Case closed I spose. Another useful and productive day at the office.. Reaper7 (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have always edited positively imo. Chris0 tried to ban me a few times before finally succeeding. It was political and he damaged himself hugely in the process with the first 5 failed attempts - all documented. Sometimes however one has to know when enough is enough. Looking back, I think however I am not really wikipedia material - perhaps never really was and I did deserve the warning for asking you if wiki policy allows referees from involved nations. I mean, although in good faith, that was a serious violation and perhaps a ban would have been more suitable as I had stepped seriously out of bounds on hind sight asking that question after a decision has already been passed - the worst time to question a process. Thanks for opening my eyes and don't think your action which lead to me leaving was in anyway negative for wikipedia. I had a good run, built quite a few pages from scratch and learnt quite a lot about human nature on here. If I was to weigh up my time here, I was say overall it was quite successful in most respects. Thanks and no hard feelings. Reaper7 (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Brown people AfD

Hello, I saw that you voted on the deletion of the article Brown people / Brown race back in January 2007 here. As you probably know the result of the voting was a slight keep, so the article is still there. I found the article recently and considered it unacceptable, so I nominated it for deletion again. Could you please visit the article or deletion page and cast your vote? I would really appreciate it. Thank you. FonsScientiae (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I totally agree with you about ties in the "Pirate Game". Do you want to make the edit?

Mdnahas (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Go ahead and make the change. Jd2718 (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Your 4000th edit! Congratulations for a job well done!

Dear Sir JD2718,

Congratulations on your 4,000th edit! I now dub thee oh faithful and good editor, as a Yeoman Editor, and Grognard Extraordinaire, no less. (insert sound effect here: bonk.) Here are some of the service medals, any of which, you are now entitled to proudly display anywhere you may wish on your user page!

This editor is a Yeoman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

This editor is a Yeoman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Yeoman Editor

Please guard these tokens of Wikipedia's esteem for your hard and illustrious work carefully. We now wish you every bit of luck, good will, and success in your ongoing journey towards obtaining our next high rank and honor of editing, at the 6,000 edit level, as a duly Experienced Editor, and Grognard Mirabilaire.

Sorry if I might have hit you a little too hard there.... Didn't mean to. :-)

Scott P. (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Appreciate the medals. But I think it's 5300, minus a few deleted ones. Jd2718 (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Actually I see now that according to the Wmflabs user analysis tool, it's now exactly 5,253 for you, though I doubt that that includes the last 24 hours. Sorry this comes about 8 years too late! This is my very first "Service Medal" awarding ceremony to another. Actually nobody else does it regularly, but I think someone should. Next time I do it, I'll be certain to do more research first! Thanks for the feedback. I've now got 12,000 and something edits, but I'm still like editor number 4,000 or something!

I think that it never hurts to attempt just a little, to try to make up for all of the "crap" we all have to put up with while editing here, not that I'm complaining. It is really a great privelige to be able to edit here, and I wouldn't give it up for anything. Take care, Scott P. (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

thank you Jd2718 (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

My bumbled edit

Hi JD2718,

Thank you for your most recent input at the "Turkey Talk" page (you know which page I mean.) Your comments to me there in some way helped me to become aware of the fact that I probably should not have been asking Kazekage to "recuse himself" from the lead, and I thank you for that. I've since deleted my request of Kazekage, and instead made a few comments on his talk page, (and in his talk page comment 3.7) that I thought might be more appropriate. As a part of my comment deletion at the Turkey talk page, it seemed to alter that talk-page comment's overall discussion-flow. I was wondering if you could please take a look at what I did, and select which one of the three following 3 options you might prefer:

1. Leave that edited comment section as I left it.
2. Precede your first comment with my own comment that would say "Earlier comment deleted here after commenter's reconsideration."
3. Delete the comment section entirely.

Please let me know which of these three options you might prefer, and I will gladly edit accordingly (or you could edit as such if you wanted to.)

Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Restoring unsourced content

Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations (WP:BURDEN):

"All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. ... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

Thanks, Neutrality^talk 01:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This is about the article, and should be properly addressed on the article's talk page. Jd2718 (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate behaviour

This revert was highly inappropriate. Per WP:TPO there is no obligation for the striking editor to 'prove' there was an SPI (in fact, this was a check-user reveal). Aside from the fact that it is easy for any editor to check the veracity by simply clicking on the details of the user's account, your edit summary was disruptive and downright rude. I am not accountable to you and your exacting demands, and such edit summaries remain in perpetuity giving the impression that I've been 'naughty'. That's bad form, Jd2718.

As you're adamant that proof is needed, here's the ANI, although discussions are still taking place on several blocked user pages. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, on a less formal note (i.e., outraged 19th century school mistress), I've been aware of your revert since yesterday when you actually reverted in real time. I was going to let it stand, but the edit summary is misleading for other editors. Please don't create the illusion of protocols that don't exist. Normally, editors would reserve striking through for RfCs in order to make it easier for the closing admin/experienced, uninvolved editor to evaluate the outcome. Ultimately, we use our discretion as to where and when striking comments by socks is appropriate. The article's talk page has been turned into a sprawling piece of complaints against editors and bludgeoning, which was my rationale for striking repetitive arguments. I'm also fine with letting it stand, so I'm not going to argue the point. I just want to drive it home that you shouldn't read 'rules' into processes that don't exist. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It would have been easy to write that DF had been blocked as a sock, cite the ANI thread, and propose the strikethroughs. It would have been a collaborative approach. But when we choose to act unilaterally, without supplying clear justification, we invite unilateral responses. Also, I do not believe that your understanding of when strikethroughs are appropriate is correct. Jd2718 (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you do not 'believe' my understanding of striking is correct. Please provide a list of the conditions under which it is and isn't correct. It strikes me that your comprehension of 'collaborative' editing is purely your own interpretation, full stop. Again, there is huge difference between collaborative editing and behaving as if other editors are accountable to you and your own perceptions. You had not engaged in the discussion on the talk page, or given any indication that you were involving yourself in said discussion. To revert my striking with such a terse edit summary out of the blue was contrary to Wikiquette. My discussion with the user in question, and the ongoing nature of it, is clear: in black and white, on the talk page, and easy to follow. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

You crossed out someone's comments. That's a pretty dramatic step. Yes, you need to justify it. And frankly, there was no reason to do this. He's an editor who's been blocked, rightly or wrongly, for two weeks. Just two weeks. He's going to be back. And you have been in dispute with the editor. How can justify the strikethroughs? And when we take actions against editors who we are in dispute with, we should be very careful not to give the appearance of using process to settle a dispute. Unfortunately, no matter what your intent, crossing out DF's Salimidris's comments could easily be seen that way. Jd2718 (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Um, did you even check to see whose comments I struck? Wow, you've really caught yourself out in a knee-jerk reaction, haven't you. I struck out comments by Salimidris, not those by Dfroberg. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I saw who's comments you struck. As I was trying to respond I was trying to follow what had happened (I still do not see a report). And yes, I got confused as I typed my previous comment. It was not correct. I've struck it. But you are still wrong about striking through. Jd2718 (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI. I'm dropping this now as there's obviously nothing to be accomplished in our pursuing this argument. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

July 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2021 New York City mayoral election. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please discuss on the Talk page as has been requested of you multiple times instead of edit-warring. JesseRafe (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

You are reaching for a template before you go to a talk page? In fact, I made a change, was reverted, looked at the edit summary (the vexatious editor who insists on "his" version cretin editor who is reverting me refuses to discuss and uses edit summaries in the place of talk) considered the argument and let the editor's change stand, but added clarifying details. The edit warrior continues reverting to his preferred version, and has made not attempt to engage on talk. Jd2718 (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a blatant lie and you know it. You never bothered to comment at Talk:2021 New York City mayoral election#WFP - Deborah Axt, even though you're the one who is supposed to start the discussion. You're edit warring, and you've gotten numerous warnings and invitations to follow the BRD cycle and air your grievance. Just because you don't understand WP protocols and guidance is not a defense to harass users on their talk pages after you were asked to go away or edit war, without ever once even trying to resolve on the talk page. JesseRafe (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Jd2718. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. "Cretin" above. JesseRafe (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Every word you have used describes your own vexatious behavior. Demanding someone go to talk - in an edit summary for a revert - is poor editorial behavior that only one of us, you, have engaged in. Templating someone you are in an editorial dispute with is poor editorial behavior. It's taken a full week to bring you to a talk page. You sir are a poorly behaved editor. Being convinced you are correct - and you are not - does not excuse how you have conducted yourself. Honestly, I could have easily used worse than "cretin" above - although I apologize for having done so - because you have been going so far out of your way to frustrate. Hiding derogatory discussion of me in edit summaries on pages I am not watching is worse than poor editorial behavior - it indicates some other sort of deficiency. Go ahead, leave another template. Jd2718 (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Comparison to Stalingrad might be better than a comparison to Leningrad at this point, re Siege of Mariupol

Stalingrad was a battle in a destroyed industrial city (as is Mariupol).

However I can not agree with your suggestion that such comparisons are political "Hyperbole".

Not with 90% of buildings in the city damaged, 40% of buildings destroyed (this has been verified by military / intelligence satellite photos), 100,000 citizens (still) trapped there, under daily shelling, that have been repeatedly denied food or the ability to evacuate (only small 'token' numbers have been allowed to evacuate free of attacks).

Hyperbole? No, in Mariupol that is reality.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Several politicians made the comparison to Leningrad. I did not. The scales are not similar. A million civilians died during that siege.

No reliable source has been offered supporting a comparison to Stalingrad. Jd2718 (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)