User talk:Jfitch/Archive 1
Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, Jr.[edit]
Given your participation at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, Jr., I thought you might consider taking the time to comment at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, Jr..--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Marquette Building[edit]
Given your involvement in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Marquette Building, I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Marquette Building.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
PING[edit]
Hi Jfitch—I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, hate to be a pain, but I've prepared a possible replacement since you voted on this. Think you could have a look? The colours should be as accurate as they can possibly be made without a colourbox. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Cato June[edit]
Given all the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cato June, I would like a fair consideration of Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Cato June.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Your image now listed as Valued[edit]
 |
- Could you please adjust the description page to show the source of the crop. I believe you cropped from the cloned version, but am not sure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
3RR on Alexz Johnson[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
3RR on Jude Harrison[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jfitch! Just FYI, I have a nominated an image of yours at featured picture candidates. A comment has been made about some possible stitching issues, if you happen to still have the originals. Regards, Jujutacular talk 23:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you have been involved. Thank you. Maedin\talk 19:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
June 2011[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 20:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC) During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
You and the other editor have been edit-warring at Alexz Johnson and Jude Harrison over the white balance (!) of the lead image. To get you to stop, I am blocking both of you for 24 hours. After the block expires, you should resolve your disagreement per WP:DR without resorting to further reverts. Some advice: (a) consensus about which version of a picture should be marked as featured is not the same thing as consensus about which version to use in an article; and (b) any consensus or lack thereof is not a justification for edit-warring. Sandstein 20:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting how the other editor got his ban removed. Pretty hasty to jump to a ban, then pretty biased to decide that one person has a higher status so deserves to be let off as the other doesn't don't you think?
- With regards to the article. I will stand by the integrity of the article, as we are asked to do here. I also didn't continue without reason. I clearly stated the reason's in the place where it was brought up and linked to me in teh section above. You yourself have stated that discussions over at FPC are not discussions on which image should be placed in articles. This is what the above editor is trying to use as his 'reason' for inserting it. JFitch (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Because you have continued to revert the article Alexz Johnson to your preferred version after the block expired, I have reinstated your block for a duretion of 48 hours. The block duration will continue to double if you continue the edit war. If other people repeatedly revert your change, and you are the only person to support the image you prefer, you need to accept that consensus is against you and let it go. Sandstein 16:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are now abusing your powers for a second time. I am entitled to revert an article as no consesnus has been formed and I am not breaking 3RR or edit warring. Show me the consensus on the talk page and i will admit i have been wrong, but stop basing bans on things that haven't happened. You need to step back and refer this to an admin who knows how to handle their powers. JFitch (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- For your ease...here is the page with the discussion: Talk:Jude_Harrison The Alexz Johnson picture is referring to the jude harrison page as stated in the caption. JFitch (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Because you have continued to revert the article Alexz Johnson to your preferred version after the block expired, I have reinstated your block for a duretion of 48 hours. The block duration will continue to double if you continue the edit war. If other people repeatedly revert your change, and you are the only person to support the image you prefer, you need to accept that consensus is against you and let it go. Sandstein 16:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Jfitch (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Personal dislike seems to have set in. And ban's being given based on consensus that never happened. Tried discussing on talk page however they just ban and move on.JFitch (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
All it takes is glancing at the edit history of the relevant articles to see you were edit warring. Whether you are right or wrong is irrelevant. Whether it took place over several days is irrelevant. You were edit warring. Agree to stop doing that and you'll be unblocked. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Actually, you continuing to revert on that issue was improper: You knew that it was still disputed, and that it wasn't going to be resolved by reverts and edit summaries. The only constructive way forward from there, in particular once a situation has escalated to ANI and blocks, is for everyone to stop reverting and begin a talk page discussion to reach a consensus. Not doing so is edit warring (The three-revert rule is only one minor aspect, and nobody is entitled to a number of reverts per day). Amalthea 17:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Did you look at teh talk page? Did you see that I do talk on that talk page. There was indeed a discussion about it as you have asked for. Nobody has added anything to the disussion. If someone would have made a point there i would have gladly responded to it. JFitch (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is enough to see that you didn't engage in discussion since the recent block: You continued to try and get your way through persistent editing even though your changes are obviously disputed.
Now that you asked: I see a seven-month old discussion spread over four pages: 1 2 3 4. Apparently consensus was to mark the image version that you did not favor as a featured picture because it was found to best illustrate the topic in question. Discussion at FPC may not be the strongest consensus to use the white-balanced picture in the article, but it can be considered one. It appears to be the closest thing to a consensus we have about it. If you think it's wrong, you should re-initiate a discussion and work towards a more explicit one. That means a bit of work on your part, and it really is a lot of fuss about a rather trivial change, but apparently you feel strongly about it. It's safe to say that continuing to revert won't get you anywhere.
Amalthea 17:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)- You have seen an FPC discussion. Which has been stated to me on many other occasions for different images, and by admins here regarding to this image (Including the one doing the blocking i might add) that FPC discussions are not discussions on images to be used in articles. They are seperate projects. You will also notice that i accepted the FPC decision, and stopped fighting it's status. You are right i do believe in it as it is a misrepresentation. FPC moved on, I moved on. The discussion went to the only place it could be. I'll link it yet again: Talk:Jude_Harrison. This is the discussion that I was indeed part of. Issues were raised. I stated the facts from my view. The topic was then left alone by the editor who had a problem with it. This is as it stood. And in my opinion still does as noone has raised an issue with it, just reverted it based on things that didn't happen. As i said many times before, i invited them to talk about it on the talk page, they didn't. I would happily be part of any discussion on the topic. There is no discussion. JFitch (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is enough to see that you didn't engage in discussion since the recent block: You continued to try and get your way through persistent editing even though your changes are obviously disputed.
- Did you look at teh talk page? Did you see that I do talk on that talk page. There was indeed a discussion about it as you have asked for. Nobody has added anything to the disussion. If someone would have made a point there i would have gladly responded to it. JFitch (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, you continuing to revert on that issue was improper: You knew that it was still disputed, and that it wasn't going to be resolved by reverts and edit summaries. The only constructive way forward from there, in particular once a situation has escalated to ANI and blocks, is for everyone to stop reverting and begin a talk page discussion to reach a consensus. Not doing so is edit warring (The three-revert rule is only one minor aspect, and nobody is entitled to a number of reverts per day). Amalthea 17:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- If there was an ongoing discussion then you are right. There is no discussion. There are no objections on the talk page. How can i be editing over something that is dispute if noone has raised any issues on the talk page? There is nothing said anywhere. The last thing to be said against it was october last year. Thats the discussion and where it was left, with the image as it was. I was part of that disussion. Now it get's changed and i simply change it back. When changing back I even invite them to comment on the talk page. Yet they don't. It is for situations like this that 3RR is there. I can agree with you that had there been a discussion in progress then you would be right. I see no discussion, if there was i would be part of it. I see no reason as to why I should have been blocked the first time, niether did other admins who commented on the issue. Now i see no reason why i should be blocked now. JFitch (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- You've seen the reverts, you know who made them. Don't claim you didn't realize that your change was disputed, and that at least one editor says you are editing against consensus. If you think that consensus does not apply, make your case. Amalthea 17:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- If there was an ongoing discussion then you are right. There is no discussion. There are no objections on the talk page. How can i be editing over something that is dispute if noone has raised any issues on the talk page? There is nothing said anywhere. The last thing to be said against it was october last year. Thats the discussion and where it was left, with the image as it was. I was part of that disussion. Now it get's changed and i simply change it back. When changing back I even invite them to comment on the talk page. Yet they don't. It is for situations like this that 3RR is there. I can agree with you that had there been a discussion in progress then you would be right. I see no discussion, if there was i would be part of it. I see no reason as to why I should have been blocked the first time, niether did other admins who commented on the issue. Now i see no reason why i should be blocked now. JFitch (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Jfitch (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Requesting an admin to look into the matter as saying "All it takes is glancing at the edit history of the relevant articles" is incorrect. It is a lot more complicated than that. I'm not suggesting that the particular admin has to look into it as i'm aware that will take time. But if not willing to do so how can you possibly make a judgement on it? My points are made above. I have more than once stated i am willing to discuss the issue. I want it resolved. JFitch (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You need to more clearly read WP:EW, and most specificalyl WP:BRD. If you make an edit, the simple fact that it is reverted means it is not accepted...it is therefore 100% up to you to start a discussion in order to obtain WP:CONSENSUS to add it. Merely re-adding it is edit-warring, pure and simple. To come off of a block for edit-warring and then to immediately restart the edit-war was a poor choice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.