User talk:Jakers3200

Welcome!

Hello Jakers3200, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  ^BlankVerse 07:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mt. Baden-Powell.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Mt. Baden-Powell.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Mt. Baden-Powell.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jakerome, I saw your flagged comments on the Lynda Resnick page, so I went in and trimmed all the superfluous ad speak. I am keeping your flag up, I just want you to check it out and see how it looks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjdehut (talk • contribs) 20:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your bias in support of Flickr is astounding. Stop trying to censor (Wikipedia:CENSOR) contributions that although are negative toward Yahoo and Flickr, are verifiable and true. CaffeinAddict (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His "I can't believe how biased everyone else is! I bet they don't even hate Flickr!" attitude is certainly wearing a little thin. Given that when I raised concerns over biased, slapdash BLP sourcing of Flickr-related quotes on his talk page he just blanked this as "irrelevant", it may be time to take this to WP:ANI - he seems to be engaging more civilly on other articles recently, but clearly still has something of a blind spot about Flickr, for whatever reason. --McGeddon (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for dealing with disruptive editors should point you in some useful directions. Taking a look over the options, it actually says not to go to ANI "yet" if a tendetious editor is using "poor or misinterpreted" sources, so an WP:RFC might be a more constructive avenue for now. (A similar dispute at Talk:Marissa Mayer went quiet after a couple of uninvolved editors chipped in.) I can do that if you like. --McGeddon (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this before guys, when two editors gang up to try to wikilawyer their way into somehow pointing out I'm wrong. I'm not doing anything disruptive, all I've done is added sourced information in a controversy section during a controversy. CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the policy jargon looks intimidating, but I'm just trying to find the most constructive way to resolve this disagreement, here - bringing in other editors for comment is what the guidelines seem to suggest at this point. Assume good faith, we're all here to write an encyclopedia.

If you think someone is sneakily misrepresenting policy in order to trick someone, call them out on exactly what they're doing. If you're not interested in wading through policy but think something vaguely underhand is going on and would like a more experienced editor to take a look, try the Teahouse or throw up a {{help me}} template on your talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very aware of wikipedia policy, but they can misconstrued, hence "wikilawyering". However look, the best way to solve a disagreement is to have more editors' opinions. Right now we have three people going back and forth. There's no real "consensus". CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a COI, please pass your information through an independent editor. I'll suggest me. I have no affiliation with anybody there. Let me know what you know. I wrote a lot of this article based on my last visit but was limited to what I could source (fences and photos speak volumes). If the hostile situation/public extortion efforts have changed, I'd love to know and post it for the public. If we need to post a more dour story about the city (council) or stern warning to visitors, it is also our responsibility to the public. Trackinfo (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a message to let you know that an RfC you participated in at Talk:Flickr ended with the closing admin suggesting that it be reopened as a simple poll of several possible wordings. This new RfC can be found at Talk:Flickr#RfC:_Weight_given_to_redesign should you wish to participate. --McGeddon (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]