User talk:Jeh/Archives/2015/11

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

{{done}}

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

{{Done}}

November 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Third rail. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges.

You're at your second revert. 174.23.104.46 (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm at my second reversion? So are you. Then I guess I haven't broken the rule, huh? Even if I reach 3 in the same day period, I haven't broken it. Same with you when you reach 3 in the same day's worth of time.

So you think that people should say "there are a group of cats over there"? "There are a pack of dogs over there"? No, that doesn't make sense. It's always been taught to treat groups as singular. 174.23.104.46 (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Re 3rr, no, I have edited that page ONCE. You have your original edit and then your two reverts to that state.

As for the actual issue, please discuss at the article talk page. (Did you somehow miss the bright green box?) Jeh (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay, so counting your sockpuppet, then you've done 2 reversions, jeh. And I don't give a crap about your supposedly "green" yellow box. You left a note on my talk page, did you not? I will leave notes on yours. 174.23.104.46 (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No sockpuppetry here. Believe it or not it is possible for more than one person to disagree with you at about the same time. Please either withdraw your accusation or file an WP:SPI case. Jeh (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

{{Done}}

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! I am not the filing editor but I am one of the DRN volunteers. The case is in relation to the David L. Jones article. Looking forward to productive discussion, Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hi again Jeh. In regards to your "Summary of dispute" and your comments regarding discussion around editing behaviours and environs, DRN is not the place to discuss such problems. There is a separate noticeboard for such discussions about editing behaviours and editors, but this should be entered into carefully as editors are occasionally boomeranged by their arguments. DRN moderators/volunteers will only discuss editing behaviours in direct relation to a specific content change, e.g. if an editor reverts a change of content, the moderator will state that the content was reverted and may mention that it was done by User:Example but will not discuss the behaviour itself except to possibly state that this was the hypothetical fourth revert on a given day. Please try to keep discussion centered solely on the content dispute, and if you still feel that the editors are behaving in bad faith, or are violating WP:Policies, then go to WP:AN/I with a carefully constructed argument, but be careful to avoid finding your desired outcome on a different noticeboard if things don't go your way on DRN. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC

{{Done}}

Talk:David L. Jones

What if I can set archive time to 365 days? Or 999 days? Any discussion longer than either time would be automatically archived. --George Ho (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

We're right in the middle of a DR/N, and IMO some of the oldest stuff on the page is relevant to the dispute. Do we have to do this now? Jeh (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

What about welcoming newbies? What about convenience? They can read Archived messages if they want to. But if you think archiving discussions is too soon, as I said, you can set archive time to older than 365 days or more. You don't have to set it to lower than that. --George Ho (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

#WP:NORUSH, it can wait, it doesn't have to wait, but it can wait George Ho and makes it much easier for DRN Volunteers to just check the one page rather than archive trawl. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

All right, but what about other editors going to discuss same ol' issue over and over? --George Ho (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

True, we don't have to set it lower than 365 days. As a matter of fact, we don't "have to" set up archiving at all. Yes, we could set it to 999 days. Which is tantamount to no archiving for quite some time, so why not just leave it as it is?

Let me say it again another way: I don't consider any of the existing content on the page "stale" and I don't want to risk it being shuffled off to archives at least until the current disputes are settled. (Even if we set it for "long time", this could easily happen if someone else decides "oh, 365 days is too long! Let's make it two months.") For now, archiving will simply make DR/N and any other /N's more difficult to compile and analyze. As for new editors to the page, having everything on one page makes it easier to find if a topic has been discussed before, not harder. Jeh (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The case will be closed at DRN. Shall I request archiving? What about RFC or mediation? George Ho (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Archiving should be discussed at the article talk page. The other processes will, I'm sure, be brought up. Jeh (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

{{Done}}

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "David L. Jones". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 December 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

{{Done}}

Please avoid "outing" other editors

Jeh, you left a comment on my talk page that attempted to identify my account. I changed my username due to harassment, please avoid referring to the old one or linking my account to activity on other sites or in real life. Such linking can be considered harassment as per WP:OUTING. ゼーロ (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I hardly think that noting a coincidence of usernames rises to the level of "exposing personally identifying information", but in any case I have said all I will say on that subject. Jeh (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

{{Done}}