User talk:Jinxmchue/Archive1

NOTE: This is an archived copy of previous talk page material. Please DO NOT EDIT.

Welcome!

Hello, Jinxmchue/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! For any help you need, don't hesitate to contact me. Enjoy wikipedia!! -- (☺drini♫|☎) 01:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Fitzmas

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Fitzmas, remember WP:BITE and don't bite the newbies! They deserve petting, water, attention, and hugs. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Talk:Democratic Underground

With regards to your comments on Talk:Democratic Underground: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. BenBurch 20:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point out each personal attack that is not (1) a comment exposing your misuse of Wiki guidelines, (2) a comment exposing your attempt to draw DUers here or (3) a comment pointing out the hypocrisy of trolls. I won't be holding my breath. Jinxmchue 20:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out due to unfounded attack. Jinxmchue 13:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to Democratic Underground

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. BenBurch 17:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop blatantly misusing the Wiki rules, Ben. ~~YOU are the vandal.~~ My apologies for that brief outburst. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for what is and is not considered vandalism. Jinxmchue 03:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIAL NOTE FOR GUESTS - This accusation by Ben was without merit. It was made in bad faith when he couldn't defend his edits or contradict my (and others') edits to the DU page. Next time, try finding out the whole story before jumping to conclusions. Thanks. Jinxmchue 18:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Bull. You were engaged in vandalism and a blatant and Stalinistic attempt to make the page serve your ideology. BenBurch 04:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

<sigh> Ben, Ben, Ben... Are you drunk? (I thought that was Pitt's schtick.) Your edits consistantly were shown to be grossly non-NPOV. I and others were trying to make the page neutral in the face of your ridiculously biased edits. In fact, as I recall, I actually ended up agreeing to an edit you made that was NPOV, amazingly enough. Your ranting accusations of "vandalism and a blatant and Stalinistic attempt to make the page serve your ideology" are simply unfounded and extraordinarily laughable. I've never been punished or even warned for my edits by anyone else - certainly no admins. You, on the other hand... Well, I think you know. Jinxmchue 13:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For crying out loud. Is this still going on? Can't we all just get along? VoiceOfReason 17:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben decided to show up after almost 2 months to berate me. <shrug> Jinxmchue 18:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit

Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles. Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies. I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. Crockspot 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from main user page

Jason? Wow. Quelqu'un 19:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? What? Jinxmchue 18:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I was just surprised that you are a Wikipedian too. Quelqu'un 22:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Jinxmchue 22:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did it surprise me? Well, you've gained a sort of negative notoriety on Pharyngula; as a result, the only context in which I can picture you is the blogosphere. Kind of silly, but still. Quelqu'un 01:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. My attitude on Pharyngula and towards PZ really comes from his bizarre and disgusting hostility towards religion and the religious. I actually am capable of being neutral. In fact, before the quotes section was removed from his article here, I was searching for good pro-evolution quotes from him on his blog. Jinxmchue 01:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. The same Jason 'Jinx' McHue who has a website devoted to stalking PZ Myers and who seems to be obsessed with the man. -JL [anonymous comment left by IP 66.245.33.26]

"Stalking?" You obviously don't know the definition of the word. Here, let me help:

stalk[1]

transitive verb

1 : to pursue by stalking

2 : to go through (an area) in search of prey or quarry <stalk the woods for deer>

3 : to pursue obsessively and to the point of harassment

Gee, if I fit that definition, then so does PZ. In fact, he's stalking and obsessed with more than one person: Ken Ham, Ann Coulter, D. James Kennedy, Kent Hovind, etc. ad nauseam. Of course, the difference between me and PZ is that while I directly (as much as possible) confronted PZ with his bullcrap, he snipes like a coward from the safety of his blog and "disemvowels" critics who prove to be his better. Jinxmchue 18:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling my edits "vandalism" are clearly violating Wikipedia's own NPOV statement...The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all affected by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. Though inappropriate, this is not vandalism... Read the last sentence again, "Though inappropriate, this is not vandalism." It has become apparent that the only opinion that counts is of you editors (just glorified users). This is why Wikipedia is not taken seriously. Mi5key 01:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edit: changing Ann Coulter's birth year from "1963" to "1943" = vandalism.

Your second edit: adding the phrase "and her ignorance knows no bounds" to Ann Coulter's page = vandalism.

Your fourth edit: changing Ann Coulter's birth year AGAIN to "1943" after it had been reverted = vandalism.

Your fifth edit: changing the NPOV "critics" to the non-NPOV "anti-evolution activists" on Ann Coulter's page = vandalism.

Out of the six edits you made between Sept. 5th and Sept. 7th, five of them were to Ann Coulter's page and four of those were obviously vandalism (your third edit seems not to have changed anything).

As for Wikipedia not being taken serious, that is the fault of trouble-makers like yourself, not honest editors like myself.

Jinxmchue 22:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PZ

Hey Jinx- Allow me to suggest that you're misdirecting your efforts here, contesting ID as pseudoscience on the Myers page. Allow me to suggest that under the current definitions of science, ID actually is pseudoscientific. The problem lies more in the fact that the Philosophy of Science article and related articles are wholly inadequate in presenting the anti-naturalist critique of the current understanding of science. In essence, evolutionists are evaluating ID's claims to science on the disputed ground of methodological naturalism. I think I've got a good shot getting "pseudoscience" out of the article on the basis of being a loaded term, and I'd of course appreciate any support on that score. Best, Gabrielthursday 16:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Andrew Stephenson

Re: "sneaky" and "underhanded" It was nothing of the sort. Encyclopedic articles should not by filed under a nickname BenBurch 22:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted and the deletion was endorsed. Recreating it under a different title is absolutely sneaky and underhanded and you know it. Jinxmchue 23:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. BenBurch 22:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, Ben, I'm not the one calling people "assholes" and telling them to put their heads in a bucket of water three times and pull out twice. Having a little trouble practicing what you pontificate on at length? But please, provide proof of your accusation or withdraw it. Thanks. Jinxmchue 23:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have no doubt seen the request by now and have failed to provide proof (and an explanation of your accusation), I will withdraw it for you. Jinxmchue 03:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. BenBurch 19:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you start to back up your accusations with proof and explanations, I will stop striking them out. Until then, your "warnings" are nothing more than baseless, malicious attacks against me and I will ask you to stop. Jinxmchue 20:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment at 02:24, 31 October 2006 in the deletion review for Walter Andrew Stephenson

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. BenBurch 02:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how it's a personal attack or retract this. A personal attack is just that, Ben - personal. I'm not singling out or even naming anyone. I don't even know for sure who was behind reposting the article. How then, in Heaven's name, is that a personal attack? Jinxmchue 02:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. STEEEEE-RIKE! Jinxmchue 20:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why allow yourself to crawl in the gutter with Ben? He's going down in flames of his own ignition. To quote from Saving Private Ryan: "Don't shoot, let him burn!". - Crockspot 22:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how would you descbrie

this then?

I mean, Elisha, the bald prophet -- and a lesson for out-of-control kids NOT to tease bald prophets of God!!

Does that mean we can't laugh at Duane Gish's wig? Paul A. Newman 12:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn what NPOV means here in regards to editting. Jinxmchue 14:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation on Democratic Underground

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

I've also cautioned you specifically with regard to calling content disagreements "vandalism", but I notice your latest edit summary, posted after my several warnings, still referred to the edits you didn't like as "vandalism".

Atlant 16:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I count only 3 reverts for me on that page this morning. My understanding of the 3RR rule shows that reverting the vandalization of the anonymous user last night do not count towards the rule[2].

Count again. You made four reverts in a rolling 24-hour period.

Atlant 16:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just emailed you. Two of those reverts were due to vandalism, which the link in my previous response shows does not generally count towards the rule. Depending on the view of BenBurch's latest edits, one could argue that three or even all four of those reverts were due to vandalism. Jinxmchue 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I clearly stated to you (several times before your fourth revert), there is a content dispute going on here, and not simple vandalism. You and several of the partisans on your side think the external links are appropriate; some other folks disagree. Your conversations on the article talk page make it clear that you understand this is a content dispute yet you:

Persist in characterizing the changes as "vandalism"
And made your fourth revert, even though I warned you specifically about characterizing the edits as vandalism.

I see no reason to unblock you for a clear rules violation.

Atlant 16:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first revert (of the four in the last 24 hours) last night was for simple vandalism by an anonymous user/suspected (by me) sockpuppet and the 3RR rule clearly states that reverting due to vandalism doesn't generally count towards the rule. (And I would argue that my second revert was also for simple vandalism.) That means I am at and not over the limit. Please unblock me. Jinxmchue 16:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But by edits three and (especially!) four? In other words, by the time I warned you that your vandalism excuse not only wasn't going to wash but was going to get you in other trouble? Sorry -- you're busted; take your punishment, learn from it, and return as a less-deliberately-confrontational editor.

Atlant 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What warning? You mean the warning buried on the DU talk page? Perhaps you should've warned me here instead. In any case, it doesn't matter. You didn't block me for not complying with your warning about labeling edits as vandalism. You blocked me for allegedly violating the 3RR rule, which I have not and proven I have not. There is still no reason to believe that the anonymous user that started all this is anything but a vandal[3]. What would you call a user that comes out of nowhere to target a specific section from an article (a section on which there had been a months-long consensus) and adds the ridiculous "known for the lack of grammar and spelling skills of its participants" to describe an online forum he personally dislikes? Sure seems to be a vandal to me and I think the majority of editors would agree. My first revert last night was to counter this vandal and my second edit this morning probably was, too (I'd have to review who edited what to verify that). At the most, I'm at the 3 non-vandal reverts limit. If I have to involve another moderator, I will. I hope I do not have to, however. Jinxmchue 17:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. Given that you were busy arguing on the DU talk page, I made the assumption that you were also reading it and would see the warnings I posted there (specifically for your benefit). Regardless, even without any warnings, you should have known better than to post your fourth revert.

But if you feel I'm being unfair to you, by all means involve another administrator. But I have no intention of unblocking you for your 3RR violation.

Atlant 17:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My attention was focused primarily on the section of the article talk page regarding the new objections to the previous consensus. Your warning appeared buried in a different section after I had made some edits in it and given up on any further meaningful discussion in it. I did not see your warning and will take a little blame for that. Had I seen it, I would not have labeled BenBurch's edits as vandalism and I will apologize for that and retract it. However, I will still stand by calling the edits by the anonymous user vandalism, in part because I don't believe it is fair for you to retroactively apply your warning, but particularly because at the time of the first revert, I did believe it was vandalism and not a meaningful edit. There simply was no reason last night and (imo) still is no reason today to believe they are anything other than vandalism.

In any case, I have asked another admin to review your block and my contesting of it. Jinxmchue 18:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack Warning

Please do not make personal attacks on other people, as you did at [4]. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inappropriate warning over comments made on an off-Wiki message board. There is no administrative action pending that this would even be relevant to determining faith. It should be deleted by the issuer, or an admin. - Crockspot 00:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As highlighted on PAIN, you can remove this warning if you feel like it. Warnings can be removed by the people who the talk page belongs to, this was reaffirmed by Durova. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 11:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. I just strike out their disingenuous, baseless warnings. I find it much more satisfying. Jinxmchue 15:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. This is the most pathetic thing I've ever seen. They can't "get me" for anything here, so they try to bring in stuff from other websites. It's hypocritical, too, considering all the personal attacks NBGPWS and Ben have made against Wiki editors on Democrat Underground and Democrat Warrior. Jinxmchue 15:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, look what I found: http://www.democraticwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3345

09-26-2006, 07:40 PM
PWS PWS is offline Neophyte Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 31 Default Re: Does anyone else feel sorry for this freeper? No Not one bit.

Anyone who is so selfabsorbed that he has Wiki user boxes telling us abour every boring aspect of his life, including which fast food chains he prefers is a total loser. Not to mention his admiration for The Confederacy. He's such a pitiful loser that he would fit right in at Protest Warrior!

And this: http://www.democraticwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4202 (a whole thread devoted to personal attacks against Wiki editors and, in fact, Wiki itself- "Understand that Wikipedia is RUN by the right wingers.")

10-16-2006, 03:32 AM
PWS's Avatar PWS PWS is offline Neophyte Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 31 Default Reichwingers trying to delete Andy Stephenson's Wiki Article! Please weigh in with you thoughts! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ephenson.5D.5D NOW the heartless cons are embarrassed that they smeared him while he lay dying on his deathbed, and even after!

Don't let them get away with 'erasing' Andy's legacy on Wiki, and sweeping their own shameful history under the rug!

Tsk, tsk, tsk. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and all that. Jinxmchue 15:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you cross-posted this to FAAFA's talk page. Crockspot 16:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. My 24-hour 3RR ban ran out while I was away. Jinxmchue 18:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I opened an RfC regarding Fairness And Accuracy For All, it is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All and would appreciate you comments if you have any. This message is being posted to anyone's talk page who it seems has had much contact with the user in question. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Democratic Underground

Hey, Jinx, I just wanted to let you know that I wasn't trying to admonish you or any such thing when I recommended that you not remove attacks; I understand that you were trying to be helpful and constructive, and I appreciate that. I just fear that people will start editing each others' comments (as has already happened once on the related RfC) and that all hell will break loose. In general, I think removing pure personal attacks is fine, but in this situation I think it could get dangerous. Thanks for your understanding. - Che Nuevara 20:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not in the least. Your suggestion made a lot of sense and I appreciated it. I did not take it negatively in any way. Thanks! Jinxmchue 05:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]