User talk:Jacrosse

Hello, Jacrosse, and

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

PS: Please dopn't delete material without giving an explanation. Also, please always use the edit summary to explain your edits. Thanks, -Willmcw 05:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Willmcw mentioned, its preferred that editors use Edit Summaries when editing. It makes it easier for other editors if, when going through the edit history, there's a nice little message telling them what each edit did. For example, if you view the history of this page, you'll see my edit summary for this edit was "added coment on edit summaries." Just something to keep in mind. jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 15:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia operates on consensus and every editor is expected to describe their edits using edit summaries and to discuss disputed edits on talk pages. Please do not re-write articles and then override other editors' concerns without participating in a consensus-building effort. -Willmcw 22:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia operates on consensus and every editor is expected to describe their edits using edit summaries and to discuss disputed edits on talk pages. Please do not re-write articles and then override other editors' concerns without participating in a consensus-building effort. EdwinHJ | Talk 18:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop writing and rewriting the 100% false tidbit on Leo Strauss' "gay orgies"--GregRog 17:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The info is not very relevant to Toga Parties in general, and is not relevant to Animal House in the slightest. If you insist on keeping that passage on Wikipedia please add it to an article on the book or Anne Norton (create the article if need be), and put a link under See Also or something of that sort under Toga Parties. The fact that you keep adding it to the articles its on, despite the fact that you are the original author of that info and that nobody else has expressed support for the info in its present state on the discussion page besides you, is really a sign of bad faith. The info is neither relevant enough to the articles nor notable enough to warrant the nuisance it has become to deal with it.--Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 19:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond at Talk:Socialist_Party_of_America#Reversal_of_meaning. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have edited again without responding explicitly, although I take your edit summary as an implicit response. I think you have the chronology wrong. Please see Talk:Socialist_Party_of_America#Reversal_of_meaning. An explicit response would be greatly appreciated. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacrosse, I have asked you more times than I care to count to please participate on the talk page. Do not continue to ignore other editors concerns and objections. On the Wikipedia:Etiquette guideline page it states quite clearly:

• Work toward agreement.
• Don't ignore questions.
  • If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.

I see from other comments on your talk page that other editors have had similar concerns with your participation on talk pages and your edit summaries. Please make a good faith effort to discuss your changes. —thames 23:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacrosse, why would you re-insert the copyvio content after being specifically warned that it needed to be rewritten/paraphrased, or permission obtained from the author? I don't understand your behavior. —thames 18:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Pursuant to

Regarding [3], what did I just say about being civil and refraining from personal attacks? I know being in an edit conflict can fray on your nerves, but it's best not to make it worse with ad hominems. Be the bigger editor. —thames 22:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [4], what don't you understand about the rule don't make personal attacks? —thames 16:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you have replaced the opening paragraph -- which had been agreed on the Talk pages -- which something rather contentious. I have reworked your addition and restored the agreed text. Please reply on the Talk page before making further changes. I notice that you've done this before - in rather a short time. Let me know if you'd like to talk this over... --DuncanBCS 09:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacrosse, I'm sure that your cut was accidental, but you have removed, for the second time, text that I restored recently to the article on Permanent Revolution. This text was agreed, after a long discussion on the Talk page. The purpose of the talk page is to help contributors to agree on changes by consensus. I asked you to use the Talk page to discuss your changes, but you have simply made a comment that you consider some text to be esoteric, and have deleted it without waiting for a reply. I suggest you re-read the Talk page and see that there was some confusion in the article, which the agreed text aimed to resolve. Please do not cut this text again until your view reflects consensus on the Talk page. I have restored the text you removed. --DuncanBCS 19:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have restored the section on neoconservatism for which you offered no supporting sources. As there are still no references to support that addition, I have removed in while awaiting references. --Duncan 10:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and respond to the message I left on the Toga party talk page. --Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society

Please respond to the message left by the mediator on the Toga party discussion page as well. J. Van Meter 16:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Ross, I wrote the following on the talk page of Animal House.

"The quote about Leo Strauss should be looked upon as vandalism. Having checked page 62 of Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire, I can now report that the book reads, in relevant part:

"...Cornell had been the site of a particularly ugly scandal involving sexual harrassment—of women. These acts had, however, been eclipsed by the persistent rumors of homosexual rites and rituals among the Straussians: of orgiastic toga parties and gay little reenactments of the Symposium. These rumors were enhanced by [Saul] Bellow's Ravelstein. Despite the recurrent rumors—even among Straussians and their sympathizers—I don't believe the toga parties. [emphases added]

"Thus the editor who has been adding the paragraph on Leo Strauss is wrong on several counts. They were rumors, and the book suggests no connection—as in none—to Animal House. I'm sorry, but I cannot believe that adding this paragraph was a good-faith error, since the text of the book by Norton, as we can see by the quoted excerpt above, supports the paragraph not at all. Hydriotaphia 19:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)"

Please stop re-adding your edit. It is untrue to the source and possibly libelous. Thanks in advance. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 18:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted the entry and references to the French Turn you've made over the last several weeks. I'm proposing that

You have deleted the merge and mergefrom tage I placed on these pages within hours of me adding them there. This is improper. The purpose of those tags is to invite discussion on the merger of those pages. I understand that you onject to the merger, however,I feel that it should be discussed. Please leave the tags on those pages for a week or two, while the discussion unfolds. --Duncan 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A bit more... Thanks for your comment. Can you take a look at the numbered points where I ask for references for the material you've added, perhaps over the next week? I have ordered Glotzer's book, but it may take a while for it to arrived from the US. In the meanwhile< I will go through the material I do have and add more references into
  Entrism and follow that. --Duncan 19:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please stop removing a tag from an article without discussing that action. Wikipedia operates by consensus. Your editing is very close to violating the 3RR, and if you continue you may be blocked for disruption. -Will Beback 21:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the tag. Since you have said that the merger can go ahead, I assume you deleted it in error. However, do recall that teg like these eist to stimulate discussion. --Duncan 14:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed merge and disputed tags from French Turn, commenting that the tags have been undiscussed for a week. On the talk pages, I had refrenced some material you had added, and that I suspect to be orginal research. I have asked if you, or anyone else, can support these additions. I am still waiting to hear is anyone that support theses claims. In the absence of prrof for your addition, a more appropriate action on your part would be to have been to delete the additions rather than to delete the tag that suggested the page is disputed. Please do let me know if you have references for your additions. If not, I will remove them. --Duncan 15:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ross, I've requested mediation for the neoconservatism article. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 06:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ross, you can find the mediation request

Please stop removing a tag from an article without discussing that action. Wikipedia operates by consensus. Your editing is very close to violating the 3RR, and if you continue you may be blocked for disruption. -Will Beback 01:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really should engage on Talk in the Harry Elmer Barnes, you keep deleting links and removing source information, and you have not defended your insert of the Rothbard reference. Also, please try to be civil, there is no reason to attack me personally. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been assigned to moderate the dispute on the French turn. See you there.

Mr Ross, I've been waiting now for almost a week. I'm incredibly interested in hearing your side, you obviously have something to contribute, but the other parties and i can't wait forever. Please post on the

Thesocialistesq 22:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. You mentioned that there was past mediation. Would you mind responding to my question here? Thanks, I appreciate it. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 04:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly deleted this tag: you are ignoring repeated requests to discuss on the talk page, abstaining from the mediation and, at this stage, your repeated deletions are vandalism. Please stop, and take part in the mediation.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Duncan 17:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider using the Talk page to win agreement. Deleting tags will not resolve this disagreement. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Duncan 17:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove NPOV, dubious, or other tags placed by editors. This is considered vandalism and may result in your being banned from wikipedia. Homey 01:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been repeatedly warned not to remove tags. You are blocked for 24 hours. When you return please respect the project's policiesand guidelines. -Will Beback 21:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

The <angle brackets> used to draw attention to excised text are, perhaps, something you are unfamiliar with. They indicate text that is not to appear on the page until the section meets Wikipedia standards. The section in question was, in the opinion of that editor, spurious and unsupported. From my readings, that judgement seems appropriate. If you have supporting and relevant references, please bring them to the Talk page. --Duncan 18:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Althought you agreed to the recent mediation process, you did not feel able to take part in it. It now seems that you do not feel able to abide by the outcome of the mediation, since you have repreated restored the deleted material. Is there some other way to resolve this dispute which you would be comfortable with? They are listed at

Jacrosse, your reversion on Max Shachtman was unwise. You removed a large amount of well referenced information, when your issue was with the section headings. Your concern could have been just as well addressed by changing Trotskyism to Trostky in those headings. Your revertions on topics concerning Shachtman seem to be a systematic attempt to protect your

Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes. Let me know what you think. We have to take one of these options. If you cannot work towards concensus or mediate your disagreements, then we will see you back in arbitration. You have a lot to offer Wikipedia, and it would be mistaken to work against Wikipedia's rules. --Duncan 08:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You have re-restored a section removed after the recent mediation, which you agreed to. We have discussed this issue for months, and I personally have reviewed hundred of pages of documents at your suggestions -- none of which support the deleted sections. I remain open to reviewing further references. If you have supporting references, please come to the Talk page to discuss them. --Duncan 18:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have now referred your case to the Arbitration Committee for their consideration. You can find the arbitration request at

Hi there. I don't think you could have noticed my comments on the talk page before you made that revert. Look at this diff [5]. I take the point that you are trying to make, but we cannot add these points in without credible supporting references. Have a good weekend! --Duncan 16:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Systematic and repeated reverts without any attempt at engaging in Talk has gotten you blocked before. Without progressing a discussion, this is not a content dispute. Your reverts will be seen as vandalism. This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Duncan 17:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been closed. The final decision is in the case page at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 14:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Richard Winger - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Gus Tyler - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]