User talk:Jahiegel/Archive 15

Just to clarify...

BQZip01's example article is USS George H. W. Bush, which sees vandalism from a wide array of logged in and anonomous editors. My reply to semi-protect is based in part on past experiences where in multiple IP adresses have added their two cents concerning the current Bush and his policies. I just wanted you to know. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to tack on to Cirt's thanks; although, I am not quite as clever as he is with templates. Thank you much for your confidence. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Email

I've sent you an email; if you have a few moments of spare time, I'd very much appreciate it if you read it. Thanks. :) GlassCobra 16:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I must say, I'm incredibly impressed by and appreciative of the thoughtfulness and detail you've put into your support rationale. I've been uneasy with the whole "2b or not 2b" situation this entire election, especially since I've gotten nothing but opposes over the last twenty-four hours until you commented. Your single well-researched and carefully considered support means more to me than the deluge of opposition I've faced as of late. I'm both encouraged and sobered by your comments and will face the ArbCom balance-of-power issues with all due forethought and caution. Again, thank you so much for your vote of confidence, and happy editing! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom

Hi! I'm slightly surprised your comments on my candidacy. This is because I do not believe that ArbCom should be in the business of creating policy: policy is the responsibility of the community (with the caveat that it is difficult to forge consensus quickly). However, as I acknowledge, the realpolitik is that the effect of some ArbCom interpretations of policy will inevitably result in policy evolution. This do not mean that I support "judge-made" law. My specific solution is finding ways of creating a much better practical partnership between ArbCom and the community it serves. If I'm elected, that is the goal I'd be working towards.

On BLP, my comments are basically a risk assessment exercise, reflecting my experience in real life publishing. I don't think the current arrangements are commercially prudent especially as the "we are not publishers but webspace providers" defence has not yet been extensively reviewed by the US courts. That said, my comments on BLP do not represent a POV, because I really don't have one. (See my discussion with Seraphimblade starting here for more information.)

However, even if I did have a POV, I'm old enough and grown up enough to not let it intrude on the facts-and-current-policy equation necessary for ArbCom decisions. I have not incidentally had a single oppose from editors who know me well and their comments in support confirm my integrity. My integrity defines me and I would not dream of abusing the comunity's trust to push an agenda at ArbCom.

Thanks for your time, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarifications here and here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"inexperience and legalese" are second only in utility to irony, sarcasm, and facetiousness. ;) --Scott Mac (Doc) 09:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Chuckle :)

Wiki-greenness is a risk I agree: I sort of anticipated that and promised in my candidate statement to ease myself in during the first month or so, which of course I'd honour. In practical terms, this would mean avoiding being the casting vote until I've got my feet under the table. All in all though, I think I'll pick it up pretty quickly. My professional background is twenty-plus years working in the media (some tv, but mostly press) dealing with incredibly difficult and often highly manipulative people, ranging from celebrities with massive egos to outright crooks. I was also responsible for running a complaints department for a couple of years, dealing with (frequently overstated) compensation claims and fending off litigation (hence the legalese, I suppose). I'm much more hard-bitten than I appear at first sight :)) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Roger. I really should have started a new section above. The "inexperience and legalise" vs "sarcasm" dig was now aimed at you, but was a response to Joe's support vote, and his comment on mine, which are here. Whilst you may be a little green in places, you are far from being the cabbage that prompted that discourse. ;) --Scott Mac (Doc) 10:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey

Well, I'm glad somebody gets it.  :) I am concerned that WP:BLP is turning into something of a crusade (with all the worst implications of that word). While I very strongly believe that we need to guard the project against libel and slander, it appears that for some, that need is becoming all-consuming.  :-( That sort of absolute belief is blinding. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Userification of Dale Dubin

You recently took part in this DRV for Dale Dubin. The deletion was upheld and I asked the deleting admin to userfy the page and its talk page (since it had some citations that weren't in the article), but I got no response. Would you be so kind? - Draeco (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident

An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Improper warnings

I think differently than everyone else on the project, so a good faith edit to you may constitute vandalism to me. --Gp75motorsports ^TALK 21:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that gnomishness

Thanks for that ϢereSpielChequers 20:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No flagged revisions category up for deletion

The category associated with the no flagged revisions userbox you have placed on your user page is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 April 23#Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions and you are invited to share your opinions on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello Jahiegel! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. FlyingToaster

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Current events

Please help improve the current events. I should want Wikipedia to be more cultured than the common newspaper. I am doing my best.--Chuck Marean 09:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Yeah, I corrected it and then realized it might be an alt spelling and got lazy. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno^talk 14:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

... for the tip. You made me laugh hysterically and uncontrollably. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your recent AfD comment

Hi Jahiegel! You recently made a comment at RfA, which I had a bit of trouble understanding:

The answers to the questions do nothing to allay concerns about the candidate's conversance with policy and practice (and, most crucially, his ability to know whereof he does not know, lest he should inadvertently misuse the tools) and sense of judgment that one might reasonably have at the outset ...

— User:Jahiegel

The part that I am not able to fully comprehend, is: ... his ability to know whereof he does not know, lest he should inadvertently misuse the tools ...

Could you possibly clarify that part a little? Thanks, decltype (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I hope I am not coming across as insincere if I say that I wholeheartedly agree with most everything you just wrote on my talk page. decltype (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you time?

Hi, I notice that you recently voted on the Ireland naming question, and you voted for "F" as a first choice. Looking at your user information and your interests, you seem like a pretty great example of a "neutral" editor with no obvious Irish or British connections. I'm genuinely curious as to why you chose option "F". My own preference used to be "E" and I've withdrawn from the vote. I am not trying to influence your vote in any way! I'd be happy to insist that your vote remains the same. But I am really genuinely interested (if you have the time of course!) to understand why "F" represents, for you, the best choice. And you can tell me to get lost if you like, no offence taken. Thank you. BTW, also more than happy to conduct this over email if you prefer. --HighKing (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For your information

I have sent you an e-mail. Regards, decltype (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I would like to ask your permission to quote a small fragment of the e-mail I received from you, that is, not in a manner that reveals the subject of the correspondence in any way. Regards, decltype (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

RfA

I tried to sleep but couldn't, so I got up and saw your vote. That request stemmed largely from frustration over my last RfA, in which I was subjected to some fairly extreme attacks, and was based on the idea that, because the ArbCom itself desysopped me (thereby producing a certain level of opposition in all subsequent RfAs, just by virtue of that decision), and considering that the RfA was quite close to passing (even under those circumstances), the ArbCom should either resysop me or make some kind of statement that its past decision shouldn't reflect on my capacity to do the job at the present time. It was probably misguided (as a few people advised me at the time), but that was my reasoning. Everyking (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)