User talk:Jorm

I had to edit your user page. Stop being a modest bum and at least include a line about your creation in your User Page. I mean, it's something that deserves recognition! Infested-jerk 23:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... If the other appearance wasn't noteworthy, than this one certainly won't be. Unless Nexus War somehow gets a full article in a gaming magazine somewhere in the next two weeks, I don't think the article can be saved at all. I may just have to save the current content and re-install it when the game receives more coverage. -- Kirby1024 15:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As with other entries that are on the cusp of satisying the criteria what I'd recommend is start the entry in your

sandbox and we can all offer advice and scare up some other sources. You can also ask some of the AfD voters to look it over and see if they have any input so if they are happy then you already have some consensus before making it live which means it should avoid deletion. I do think there was some misunderstanding about the mention of the article in the computer magazine and I don't see a big problem if someone were to scan it in and throw it up on Photobucket for people to check (it still fits under fair use) or just scan in a couple of the most relevant ones. I think this should mean it'll be in a solid form when all the sources are in place. (Emperor 12:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC))[reply

]

I have been avoiding working on the page due to a conflict of interest. However, Kirby1024 has been managing the page, afaik.--Jorm 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Just a note to say the entry has been recreated again. (Emperor 03:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The basic information is at

]

Article Feedback

Hey Jorm, re: this, thanks for the information. I find this very interesting, so instead of filling up the article talk page, I thought I'd come by here. I'm just turning this over in my head and have several questions. What is going to be done with the information received from this tool? Is there a list somewhere that shows all the articles that are using the tool, with their current ratings? I can see several possibilities with this. If this were rolled out throughout Wikipedia, we could have a list of "highest rated articles". Sort of like a Featured Article from the Reader's point of view. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Featured Articles, but the process in it's current form relies on what editors think of the writing, following all the Manual of Styles and quality of sources and such. There are a lot of hoops to jump through to get an article featured and perhaps what our editors think makes "Wikipedia's best articles" is completely different than what our readers believe makes the best articles. What are your views on this? Tex (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this discussion over to my Foundation account's talk page, so that it's more official and all. --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've built some Wiktionary scripts recently for improving the usability and editability of the English Wiktionary (which will hopefully be enabled by default at some point), switching the layout to a "tabbed" interface with each language section being placed in a separate tab, and adding expanding side boxes with editing options next to definitions. (Enable-able here, source here and here (alternative version of the second script here)). Maybe you could take a look at the scripts and give some suggestions about how they could be improved? Since no one in the Wiktionary community (afaik) knows much about usability, tools designed entirely with the input of Wiktionary regulars will probably end up not very usable for newbies, so it would be really great if as much of the designing as possible was actually put in by a real designer... --Yair rand (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this conversation to my work account.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have entered some derisive discussion about the AFT tool (it's true I hate it), and seeing as you have also worked on WikiLove (it's true I love it), I feel compelled to give you a cheeseburger. This cheeseburger lasts indefinitely and can be consumed at anytime. If you are a vegetarian, I will gladly eat this for you. talk) 08:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply ]

Shalom, in case you do not see it over there. Ciao Catfisheye (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For being a fantastic driving force behind our efforts to recruit, teach, and keep new editors, and being willing to hit the occasional oldie with a (nerf!) brick if they're biting too hard, I hereby award you this barnstar. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note for you on your WMF userpage. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jorm
this is

)

You know what is funny?

I was at your user talk page, and the banner with your letter came up at the same time! :)

]

Heh. Serendipity.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before being repeatedly eaten alive by you in UD I think I sold you my soul, and used to follow your journal on gaijin when I was a kid.(BTW your fucking old) Anyway thanks for replacing Jimbo's creepy dead-eyed staredown banner, all the best. 174.52.155.125 (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For attracting so much attention to the fundraising campaign that we've been slashdotted. PhnomPencil talk contribs 10:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing so many people to a website's fundraising page that it collapses under the weight? If that's not deserving of a barnstar, nothing is. PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 10:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

★★★★★ HAPPY BIRTHDAY ★★★★★

File:BirthdayCake4300ppx.jpg

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy birthday Brandon :D —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 7:23pm • 09:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Have this one instead :P HurricaneFan25 16:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jorm,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon! Who should come? You should. Really.
	The San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon will be held on Saturday, March 17, 2012 at the the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco! Participate in editing subjects about women's history and beyond! Workshops will also be hosted. New and experienced editors of any gender are welcome! We look forward to seeing you there!

Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

cherry blossoms

.

• Metrics are out from week one. Week one showed that the need for Teahouse hosts to invite new editors to the Teahouse is urgent for this pilot period. It also showed that emailing new users invitations is a powerful tool, with new editors responding more to emails than to talk page templates. We also learned that the customized database reports created for the Teahouse have the highest return rate of participation by invitees. Check out the metrics here and see how you can help with inviting in our Invitation Guide.
• A refreshed "Your hosts" page encourages experienced Wikipedians to learn about the Teahouse and participate. With community input, the Teahouse has updated the
  Your hosts
  page which details the host roles within the Teahouse pilot and the importance that hosts play in providing a friendly, special experience not always found on other welcome/help spaces on Wikipedia. It also explains how Teahouse hosts are important regarding metrics reporting during this pilot. Are you an experienced editor who wants to help out? Take a look at the new page today and start learning about the hosts tasks and how you can participate!
• Introduce yourself and meet new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. New & experienced editors to Wikipedia can add a brief infobox about themselves and get to know one another with direct links to userpages. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, they'll surely be happy to feel the wikilove!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username

]

Help debugging a javascript for the Muhammad article?

Hey Jarm. As you probably know, lots of people are distressed by the images on the Muhammad article. In the upcoming RFC, we propose allowing a functional hatnote that, upon clicking, would hide all images on the page.

There's a very basic script I wrote to do this, User:HectorMoffet/OfferToHideImages.js which works okay for me, but reportedly isn't working for the one other person who tried it out. I've created demo screenshots, but it's not like the real thing.

1-- is there a 'simple fix' that would allow most RFC responders to be able it out for themselves?

2-- more broadly, can you just reassure us at the RFC that this functionality IS feasible and that it could be easily implemented if a consensus for it forms? --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xhGoS-_ltU&feature=related Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.159.177 (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

• Teahouse celebrates one month of being open! This first month has drawn a lot of community interest to the Teahouse. Hosts & community members have been working with the project team to improve the project in many ways including creating scripts to make inviting easier, exploring mediation processes for troubling guests, and best practices regarding mentoring for new editors who visit the Teahouse.

• First month metrics report an average of 30 new editors visiting the Teahouse each week. Approximately 30 new editors participate in the Teahouse each week, by way of asking questions and making guest profiles. An average of six new questions and four new profiles are made each day. We'd love to hear your ideas about how we can spread the word about the Teahouse to more new editors.
• Teahouse has many regulars. Like any great teahouse, our Teahouse has a 61% return rate of guests, who come back to ask additional questions and to also help answer others' questions. Return guests cite the speedy response rate of hosts and the friendly, easy to understand responses by the hosts and other participants as the main reasons for coming back for another cup o' tea!
• Early metrics on retention. It's still too early to draw conclusions about the Teahouse's impact on new editor retention, but, early data shows that 38% of new editors who participate at the Teahouse are still actively editing Wikipedia 2-4 weeks later, this is compared with 7% from a control group of uninvited new editors who showed similar first day editing activity. Additional metrics can be found on the Teahouse metrics page.
• Nine new hosts welcomed to the Teahouse. Nine new hosts have been welcomed to the Teahouse during month one:
  Mono, Tony1, Worm That Turned, Writ Keeper, and Nathan2055
  . Welcome to the Teahouse gang, folks!
• Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	You are... WPPBH (WikiPedia Programmer Brandon Harris)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AndrewN talk 08:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your comments on IRC. Sorry if I seemed ungrateful. I'm not at my best at the end of a long day when I'm still dealing with problems. I appreciate that you were being helpful. Pine✉ 20:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tea Leaf - Issue Four

Hi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!

• Teahouse pilot wraps up after 13 weeks After being piloted on English Wikipedia starting in February, the Teahouse wrapped up its pilot period on May 27, 2012. We expect this is just the beginning for the Teahouse and hope the project will continue to grow in the months to come!

Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!

• What you've all been waiting for: Teahouse Pilot Report is released! We look forward to your feedback on the methodology and outcomes of this pilot project.
• ....and if a pilot report wasn't enough, the Teahouse Pilot Metrics Report is out too! Dive into the numbers and survey results to learn about the impact the Teahouse has made on English Wikipedia.
• Teahouse shows positive impact on new editor retention and engagement

• 409 new editors participated during the entire pilot period, with about 40 new editors participating in the Teahouse per week.
• Two weeks after participating, 33% of Teahouse guests are still active on Wikipedia, as opposed to 11% of a similar control group.
• New editors who participated in the Teahouse edit 10x the number of articles, make 7x more global edits, and 2x as much of their content survives on Wikipedia compared to the control group.

• Women participate in the Teahouse 28% of Teahouse participants were women, up from 9% of editors on Wikipedia in general, good news for this project which aimed to have impact on the gender gap too - but still lots to be done here!
• New opportunities await for the Teahouse in phase two as the Teahouse team and Wikipedia community examine ways to improve, scale, and sustain the project. Opportunities for future work include:

• Automating or semi-automating systems such as invites, metrics and archiving
• Experimenting with more ways for new editors to discover the Teahouse
• Building out the social and peer-to-peer aspects further, including exploring ways to make answering questions easier, creating more ways for new editors to help each other and for all participants to acknowledge each other's efforts
• Growing volunteer capacity, continuing to transfer Teahouse administration tasks to volunteers whenever possible, and looking for new ways to make maintenance and participation easier for everyone.

• Want to know how you can lend a hand at the Teahouse? Become a host! Learn more about what makes the Teahouse different than other help spaces on Wikipedia and see how you can help new editors by visiting
  here
  .
• Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is really encouraging to new Wikipedians.

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username

]

The Tea Leaf - Issue Five

Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

• Guest activity increased in July. Questions are up from an average of 36 per week in June to 43 per week in July, and guest profile creation has also increased. This is likely a result of the automatic invite experiments we started near the end of month, which seeks to lessen the burden on hosts and other volunteer who manually invite editors. During the last week of July, questions doubled in the Teahouse! (But don't let that deter you from inviting editors to the Teahouse, please, there are still lots of new editors who haven't found Teahouse yet.)
• More Teahouse hosts than ever. We had 12 new hosts sign up to participate at the Teahouse! We now have 35 hosts volunteering at the Teahouse. Feel free to stop by and see them all here.
• Phase two update: Host sprint. In August, the Teahouse team plans to improve the host experience by developing a simpler new-host creation process, a better way of surfacing active hosts, and a host lounge renovation. Take a look at the plan and weigh in here.
• New Teahouse guest barnstar is awarded to first recipient: Charlie Inks. Using the Teahouse barnstar designed by Heatherawalls, hosts hajatvrc and Ryan Vesey created the new Teahouse Guest Barnstar. The first recipient is Charlie Inks, for her boldness in asking questions at the Teahouse. Check out the award in action here.
• Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania! The Teahouse was a hot topic at
  Sarah and Jonathan presented the Teahouse during the Wikimedia Fellowships panel. Slides can be viewed here. A lunch
  was also held at Wikimania for Teahouse hosts.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username

]

The Tea Leaf - Issue Six

Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

• Teahouse serves over 700 new editors in six months on Wikipedia! Since February 27, 741 new editors have participated at the Teahouse. The Q&A board and the guest intro pages are more active than ever.

• Automatic invites are doing the trick: 50% more new editors visiting each week. Ever since HostBot's automated invite trial phase began we've seen a boost in new editor participation. Automating a baseline set of invitations also allows Teahouse hosts to focus on serving hot cups of help to guests, instead of spending countless hours inviting.
• Guests to the Teahouse continue to edit more & interact more with other community members than non-Teahouse guests according to six month metrics. Teahouse guests make more than twice the article edits and edit more talk pages than other new editors.
• New host process implemented which encourages anyone to get started as a Teahouse host in a few easy steps. Stop by the hosts page and become a Teahouse host today!
• Host lounge renovations nearing completion. Working closely with Teahouse hosts, we've made some major renovations to the Teahouse Host Lounge - the main hangout and resource space for hosts. Learn more about the improvements here.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds said that you might want to see this photo. The FPC nomination just finished. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Endeavour_silhouette Pine^✉ 07:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was right. Thank you!--Jorm (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you hover above a page title a tooltip should appear with the message: "Click here to rename the page". If you click it the title should turn into a textbox, so you can enter whatever text you want to enter, press enter or click on "Rename" and the page is renamed. To confirm you see the "postedit" confirmation message with the text "Page renamed".

Another option is to display a new combobox (for the namespace) and textbox (for the pagetitle) at the top the &action=edit pages if the user has permission to rename the page.

A checkbox with the option to move the associated talkpage as well is probably a good idea. They (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good talkpage. Demonstrative, simple, straight-forward... this should do nicely. -— Isarra ༆ 19:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Wishlist.

Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:

• We’ve added badges! Teahouse awards is a pilot project to learn how acknowledgement impacts engagement and retention in Teahouse and Wikipedia.

• We’ve got a new WikiLove Badge script that makes giving badges quick and easy. You can add it here. You can give out badges to thank helpful hosts, welcome guests, acknowledge great questions and more.

• Come join the experiment and let us know what you think!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here

Thanks again! Ocaasi 02:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

great coding talk) 21:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply ]

]

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive comments. --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VE doesn't work well at all and this FLOW stuff is way more complicated so what should we expect? I know you're just following orders from WMF and Jimbo and they are all worried about editor numbers, but losing one long term editor is worse than getting 20 newbies, most of whom will be gone in a year anyway. The real root of the problem isn't the interface, but the ever worsening way editors are treated on wiki, which WMF doesn't do a darn thing about. PumpkinSky talk 20:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take up your concerns with @Mdennis (WMF): or @Okeyes (WMF):.--Jorm (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask them to join in here. PumpkinSky talk 20:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, feel free to take this conversation to their pages or the general

WP:FLOW page; I doubt this will be a constructive conversation for me, so I don't need to be involved. This is my personal account, anyway.--Jorm (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• PumpkinSky: my first thought on this is that if you think you can divine the intentions, motivations and goals of a person or a project by looking at contextless, year-old slides, you're out of luck. My second thought is that if you are genuinely interested in finding out what Jorm is planning, what bits of it might actually come into effect (as opposed to merely being in a Wikimania presentation), and have any of your questions answered, you need to fix your attitude. We're staffers, not robots; when you come in going "This is clearly an attempt to turn wiki into another Facebook. If I wanted to play on Facebook I'd go get a Facebook account. This will go over even worse than Visual Editor; it's got disaster written all over it." our willingness to engage with you plummets. Come and engage me, or Maggie, or Brandon, when you can show the same decency to us you'd be expected to show to any other editor. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Think outside in. Please consider how things work in the "real world" rather than making iterative changes on the current Wiki model. There are a lot of screwy things on Wiki (people editing each other's talk, no avatars, ability of anyone to edit a user's wall, etc.) Every other site (linked in, forums, facebook, diet sites, etc.) has the opposite. And that is BS to act like we're all serious and not social.

Making changes to the Wiki layout and code and such is really the one "lever" that the WMF can use for making change. You can't reorganize the moderation structure, change article formats, even the damned MOS. But you have control over the software. Think of the new users and be open to the huge real world.

Also think of the functionality. Why should a user page or a talk page have the same structure as a collaboratively edited article?

Or look at how poorly talk pages are used for reader feedback (they work OK for article development by hard core users...but some ability to chat back and forth with the real "customers" is not really there. For some reason, no one clicks on there...they just don't. Maybe if you had another window (old "article talk" became "article construction talk" and have a new one for "reader feedback" (and make it easy to edit, like a forum). Yeah, there would be some overlap, but right now...there's just NOTHING. Maybe getting direct feedback and discussion with real readers (not been here since 2004 regulars) would make people who write articles feel more energized, or affect how they write to improve it (e.g. cleaning up the mess of math project people), or even by engagement...leading to some readers (hopefully the better ones) deciding to get involved. But this para is just idle ideas.

TCO (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Just change stuff and act apologetic when the regulars scream. (Yeah, be open to real usability issues and learning from bugs and all that. But some of the static is just the same crap you hear whenever someone changes the background color on a message board. Risker crying about the edit button moving without consultation was a hoot). Oh...and I'm trolling, but I mean it too.

Another test, yo.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm, please do not keep undoing these changes. I find your censorship politically motivated and against Wikipedia rules. If you disagree with the changes,, follow Wikipedia rules and open a discussion. If I am wrong and am violating Wikipedia rules, let me know, but here is nothing defamatory in the statements I added. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerappelle (talk • contribs) 02:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC) I do know that Assange is not a US citizen, please stop the harassment(or the sarcasm). Maybe it is you who needs to get the facts straight, and stop the politically motivated censorship. A US dissident means a dissident from the US governemnt. Please point out the citations on the other dissdents, and I will provide many similar citations on the people added. Three different, unrelated users have made those chnages (I am the third one and do not know the other two). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerappelle (talk • contribs) 14:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a request to look over this issue, since I strongly believe it is about censorship, not Wikipedia policies. This is the Wikipedia page where i put my complaint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Jorm Jerappelle (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm, FYI, in case it's archived before you log in next, the ANI thread was closed with a warning to Jerappelle about adding unsourced information. —C.Fred (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jerappelle (talk · contribs) opened an ANI thread about you, evidently without notifying you. I'm doing so here. CtP (t • c) 15:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread Hello. There is currently a discussion at

]

FYI

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Page curation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's premature to semiprotect SantaCon? The IP user has returned. His/her last edit was vandalism, though I marked the revert as "good faith." I expect this is not over. Coretheapple (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple: It's not over, and I think semi is probably appropriate right now. I'd do it, but my bits aren't community granted. --Jorm (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't know. Well, another IP dropped by and was constructive. If the blanking continues I guess I'll go to RPP. Coretheapple (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; my powers are staff-granted, and I'm not allowed to use them for volunteer work (encyclopedia building).

With the new IP editor being constructive, I think we can to wait. If the vandal keeps coming back, we can investigate it further. --Jorm (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now this[1] Coretheapple (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I predict

WP:BOOMERANG.--Jorm (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Filed an administrator complaint that Coretheapple has violated these rules: 3 reverts in 24 hours, citing non neutral sources, vandalism by deleting neutral content, rewriting the entire article as slanted negative commentary based on opinions. Coretheapple repeatedly deleted charity section and referecnes to santacons outside of new york city. Jorm reverted the article to the staus stated above which violated numerous terms of service of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C07A:25C0:CC23:3F82:60AC:138D (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Best wishes
	for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it's not that bad in Oakland - 60F right now - but I was just in Hawaii last month and I'm wishing I was back there.--Jorm (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

60F is misery. I'll gladly take 85F in Manila :) Kaldari (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	<--- here it is
	for you EdSaperia (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	Dynamic speaker
	Had me in tears of laughter at Wikimania, which is a good thing! talk) 12:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply ]

Might a recording be somewhere at https://www.youtube.com/user/WikimaniaLondon/videos ? Best.

U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Or posted on YouTube, for example? Thanks.

U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@Biosthmors: I only know it being on Livestream, here. You'll have to create a LiveStream account, I'm afraid.--Jorm (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. We met at Wikimania 2012 and I just saw you said you left WMF on that talk page. I hope you have a good transition. When you get a chance, maybe you could comment about when Wikipedia might get a quasi-permanent facelift (if ever). I've been hoping that Wikipedia would get a facelift like

]

Any ideas? I saw this comment, which I sympathize with. It reminded me of my post here. Thanks.

U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@Biosthmors: I don't think you're ever going to see anything like this, sadly. Winter was my last thoughts on this - there's even a prototype you can play with - but it never got traction at the levels required for developer support to be granted to it. With the recent re-org and the directions that the Foundation has expressed that it wants to go, I don't think it's something that will be in the cards for a very, very long time, for a whole host of reasons.--Jorm (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm: You have vandalized the Santacon page. This is a warning that you've been reported to Wikipedia moderators. Please refrain from vandalism and non neutral edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C07A:25C0:958:FF54:A330:3A5F (talk)

Obviously a warning you can ignore. See Talk:SantaCon#Vandalism --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN - He's harassing me on Facebook now, which is fun. It sounds like he tried to start an AN/I but I can't find one.--Jorm (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Empty threat. I get those too. "You have been reported to the admins." Uh, okay. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb and dumber think alike. Jimmy Wale's lapdog, hipster long haired, scowling poster boy Jorm graces an ad begging for money to keep Wikipedia afloat. Its hardly public TV or radio. Jorm, NeilN and a tiny group of thought police moderators censor Wikipedia article content with impunity. Its not what you write, its who you know that determines if an edit is immediately censored. Moderators are free to totally ignore every Wikipedia rule. Independent thinkers, editors and dissenters to Wikipedia's cult like sheep thinking are banned and blocked. Wikipedia and its moderators/administrators have zero integrity, reliability, accuracy or respect. The moderator censors are a joke.

It was hatted, then unhatted. This argument just then became dumb. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've got trouble. With a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for Pool! Hipocrite (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration enforcement request has been filed about you here. Galestar (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, this is funny. And sad! But more funny.--Jorm (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you accused me of vandalism for inserting a bit of information along with the citation? Jrmypatt (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you were inserting "and James Bond" with this edit and since you were that sloppy I decided to undo all of them in a row because I didn't care to parse out what else you'd broken.--Jorm (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_M._Esquivel

this writer's page was written by his girlfriend, please mark it for deletion as well. It is less notable than Ulises Farinas — Preceding unsigned comment added by UlisesFarinasGirlfriendofCartoonist (talk • contribs) 21:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jorm - thank you for reaching out! Could you please give me feedback on the parts that seem promotional? I will edit myself but any better criticism/insight would be great. Thanks! Drakeballew (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said that my article is inappropriate. I ask you: why? I will bring it back for variety of reasons, the first is that you didn't say why you want it to be deleted. Krull The Eternal (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Something Rotten! , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on

]

I absolutely will, if you like, though I daresay you're probably more than capable of doing it yourself (you have an impressive number of edits for an account so young, and I salute you!). It's late here for me, so I'll look at it tomorrow: I need to get a grasp of what needs deleting, as it were, and I'm not able to do that right now.
Honestly, I'm quite pleased with how this entire thing rolled out. It's situations like this that let me think I'm not wrong to have faith.--Jorm (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: done!--Jorm (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this useful. I figured he may delete his harassing post after the heat got turned on at ANI and had that site archive the page. 208.76.111.246 (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't edit the

]

It's always good to feel wanted! --Jorm (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jorm, my apologies for being snippy with you at AE. Obviously we have different views on what should happen with that particular request, but I'm confident that we both want a resolution that is best for the encyclopedia. I'll be striking a portion of my comment shortly. Sorry again, and I hope to be a better model of collegiality next time our paths cross. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries! Apology accepted, but it wasn't necessary. --Jorm (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Someone saying "Wikipedia has an official opinion on Gamergate: hatemovement" complete with mocking tells me a few things. 1- the treatment of Gamergate is clearly biased and uneven. 2- the person who made an edit to my account after you is the one who needs to be blocked. 3- the current rules around Gamergate make insigtful and balanced edits to the article almost impossible. The net result of all of this is an article that is biased and incorrect and repeats a one sided coverage of the whole issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro. I set you the sanctions notice; it's up to you if you want to commit suicide-by-arbcom. Leave me out it.--Jorm (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jorm, I happened to see your Undo of this edit where you caution the editor not to removed sourced information. However, it looks like the information was not actually sourced, and in fact had a Citation Needed tag. I'm not going to revert at this time, but BLP pretty clearly states that unsourced information that is challenged (which is was, by the editor you Undid) or likely to be challenged should be removed until consensus to include is reached. Perhaps you have a different perspective? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what happened. You're right, so I've self-reverted. I'm . . . extremely . . . suspicious of that particular editor. They automated their way to 500 edits and then immediately started editing the contentious stuff, which is a pattern we've seen before (and blocked people for).--Jorm (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that clears things up. Some suspicion is good, given that there are actual off-wiki attempts to manipulate our content, but be cautious not to let suspicion turn into paranoia. I've seen quite a few editors who have gone down that road, and it doesn't benefit anyone. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But yeah, that admin probably should not be acting as an admin on that page. Sigh. [2] Artw (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Artw (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you would, please retract your comment about me at the RfC. What I "know" is that the draft may be imperfect, but summarizes the reliable sources far more faithfully than the mainspace article. Rhoark (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree with you, and you know that this is true, and you know that it is a not-uncommon opinion about your draft.--Jorm (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to clarify that I know what your opinion is, that would be perfectly acceptable. As it is, you seem to be implying that I am operating in bad faith. Rhoark (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm using a mobile device and I would like to use the Athena skin. Is it possible ? Thank you. — Sincerely Issimo 15 12:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry, it can't be.--Jorm (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are partially correct about "Software Engineer" ... There are various fields of study to lead there. Journalism and political science are not those. And a person cannot just say they are a software engineer with nothing to back it up other than a tweet about taking computer science classes at age 13 and "It's true!" ... Quite frankly, that's absurd. --SVTCobra (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a software engineer. I don't have a degree in software engineering. You'll be hard pressed to find someone who will say that I am not.

Honestly, I don't understand why ya'll have to go about trying to denigrate Brianna. It's stupid and childish, and you guys look stupid and childish when you do it.--Jorm (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jorm. I am not part of any "y'all" or "you guys". I am just a person who recently started reading about GamerGate and all that. As such, I naturally visited the related WP pages. I saw unsourced information and corrected it as I normally do for any page. You can see my edit history. 10 years of it. To my surprise, Brianna Wu took to Twitter within an hour (maybe 30 minutes) and a shitstorm (the likes of which I have never been involved in) took off. I even visited Wu's own website before I removed the term "software engineer". She's CEO and lead developer. So I concluded it was unsourced. I have no motive to denigrate her (childishly or otherwise).

Indulge me, if you would, Jorm. As a software engineer, do you have a degree in a related field? (Information systems, computer science, information technology) Do you hold certifications in the software that you are a specialist in? (Microsoft certifications, Java certifications, C# certifications ... you know).

Thanks, --SVTCobra (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SVTCobra: I do not believe you in any way that you are "just reading about Gamergate". You're running the playbook, bucko. If you're not one of them, you're definitely doing their dirty work, which, in my book, makes you one of them.

I do not have a degree in a field related to software engineering but I have been doing it professionally for over twenty-five years.. When you get paid for writing code, you're a "software engineer". I defy you to say otherwise and not be laughed at by any real programmer.

You don't need to reply. --Jorm (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, chum (since we are on familiar terms). Twenty-five years is a long time. You pre-date a lot of the formal university-level programs for sure. In my own 20+ year career I have pre-spec'ed many programs with flow-charts and what was needed from them. I have never encountered a programmer who insisted s/he was an engineer. And that includes external programming consultants. BTW, you neglected to say if you have any certifications.

Now that we've got the "old timer" talk out of the way, what playbook am I running? Are you seriously considering that I am a GamerGater??? Did I create my account more than 10 years ago for this? Did I make over 20,000 edits on Wikinews for this? I removed unsourced information from an article. I do this often (or semi-regularly). Frankly, the experience of touching the Brianna Wu page has been scary. --SVTCobra (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a reliable source has been added, so case closed. FWIW, I think it's pretty sad to spend your time looking for ways to attack Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu via their Wikipedia articles. Surely there are better things to do around here. Kaldari (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-11-26/Op-ed. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did I hurt your feefees?--Jorm (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I stopped caring about what [redacted]s write on the internet back in the days of USENET. On Wikipedia, I just run through the same old boring routine revert/warn/ANI that either leads to them stopping or being blocked, all without any real emotion other than boredom. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you. Unwatching this page now per

WP:IAD. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

You sure did seem to care, though, so I think you're lying.--Jorm (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unbeknownst to you, discretionary sanctions were lifted per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Amendments. Somehow, it was a quiet news; search it at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ignore the sanctions, then, I guess. --Jorm (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I added another DS banner about BLPs, though the DS on Gamergate are quietly gone. No need to notify me about DS which I notified. George Ho (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My fault. I apologize for ignoring the DS notice. --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declining something is not the same as not doing something --Distelfinck (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

−

article. Comment on content, not contributors. +

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.33.194.74 (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INFOWARS DOT COM — Preceding unsigned comment added by H. Abedin (talk • contribs) 04:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - What's not neutral about this edit?

]

I reinstated the section, but made it slightly more neutral. Not sure why it was removed, seemed mostly fine, and it was quite notable, too. Jdcomix (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you made it less neutral by applying more coverage to the opinions and actions of garbage people who don't even need to be mentioned there. --Jorm (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you're actively trying to undermine the neutrality of the article by calling the opposing people "garbage people". And yes, they DO need to be mentioned because it's more neutral. Neutrality doesn't work like what you said; you need both sides of the argument covered. Jdcomix (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't need to show "both sides" when there aren't sources that say there are "two sides". There was a woman. She had harassers. No one reliable things that the harassers had any real merit to their claims. Conversation over. You can go away now. --Jorm (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to help and start a dialogue, but thanks for at least acknowledging me. Jdcomix (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm, if Benjamin and his friends are transparently harassers, it should be be evident enough to our readers from his actions and own words what transpired. Quoting Benjamin and Sarkeesian's reactions are our best defense against slant. These accusations coming from you make it difficult to have a level conversation with you. I know you can do better.

talk) 23:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, all available evidence suggests that Jorm isn't capable of doing better. He has his cute little phrases like "cool story, bro" and "talk to someone who cares", and by cutting and pasting those phrases he avoids having adult conversations with those who disagree with him. Your best strategy is to simply ignore him. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to go have a discussion with someone who cares.--Jorm (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey buddy, why did you delete the new section I made, on top of making an arrangement so that no ones can see it in its history?Filmman3000 (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was such an egregious violation of

WP:BLP that it needed to die with far, and so much so that an oversight-capable administrator thought it needed to die even further. I didn't delete it from the history.--Jorm (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I read your reply real fast, thought about it, and realized it's something that should be more in the reviews of her show (currently a re-direct page), or probably as sub section of reception. As I re-read your reply and find the word egregious is extremely far fetch. As it is true or are the reasons people put forward, that she stole footage from other YouTuber, mis-reviewed two games, footage of her saying two completely different thing, and also she didn't accomplish her kickstarter promise(something I didn't get into). The result is an extreme backslash or one may argue that these are reasons people use to go after her, which I think both are valid in a relevant article. So in your opinion what do we do with that information? Regards.Filmman3000 (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm not going to argue with you or anything. I could give a fuck about the opinions of gamergaters. But I'm just going to warn you that if you re-add content that an uninvolved administrator thought was egregious enough to purge, you're gonna get blocked. And probably very quickly!

Go with whatever god you answer to. --Jorm (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jorm, I am currently reviewing my entire path on Wikipedia. I realize that this edit of mine was very stupid. At the time I was consumed by a lot of YouTube crap. A while back I figured that political/controvertial articles were a no-go zone for me. Best wishes.Filmman3000 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit pretty much proves my point, thanks.—Chowbok ☠ 06:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —Chowbok ☠ 06:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Brandon, I think that you know that I hold you in very high regard. I would like to get together for lunch or dinner sometime soon, to discuss how I can best contribute to the free knowledge movement in years to come. Thank you for your support. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would absolutely love that! Let me know the next time you're around Oakland; my treat. I work from home every day except Mondays, when I'm in San Jose. Live by the lake. I also want to talk more about Cleveland, circa 1968 - 1972.--Jorm (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jorm. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as

.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users
  - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks! --Jorm (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jorm,

You are correct to point out I've made too many edits on this page today; I hope you can forgive a newb to Wikipedia editing.

As far as I can tell what I originally edited on this page was legit -- I cited existing information already present further below on the same page to justify my edit. As I understand, when you are deleting information on this page you are supposed to cite your reason for this. I didn't see you do this so I have nothing constructive to work with in the editing process.

Tomorrow once I can edit this page again I'm happy to take your editing justifications into consideration and add more detailed analysis and facts from the public record.Joeparsec (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The way Wikipedia works is "Bold, Revert, Discuss". You were bold in your edit, that is good; step one. I reverted you (because there's a long-standing consensus against your edit), which was good; step two. Your next step is "discuss" and that means "go to the talk page of the article (not my talk page)" and either join an existing discussion there about the topic at hand or start a new one.

I apologize if I came across harsh; the article itself is one that is subject to a lot of "drive by brigading" by people who don't want to bother learning how to edit the encyclopedia collaboratively. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. --Jorm (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great, thanks for the pointers and bearing with me while I figure it out.Joeparsec (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joeparsec, I'm glad y'all had this conversation, and I hope it was helpful. Drmies (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is typical of the crap that you simply must stop writing. It isn't helpful, it subliminally enforces your obvious POV, and it is incredibly irritating, as plenty of other people have already told you. Why not go write some stuff outside the general Gamergate topic area for a while and reacquaint yourself with the wider workings of Wikipedia? It isn't as if you made a good job of it while you were actually working for the WMF but now that you are unshackled from the happy-clappy crowd there is no need to persist in it. - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the silly type of response I expected from you. You never, ever, seem to explain or say anything constructive, merely insert your hippy-culture verbiage into discussion. Not for much longer, I predict, because it isn't helpful to improvement of the project etc. I predict that your days here are numbered unless you do in fact start contributing in a constructive manner. Just having a tattoo on your arm doesn't make you anything special, although if you must have one then perhaps snide would be more appropriate than courage. - Sitush (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, fuckwit. You say "bro" in SF, we say "fuckwit" in Manchester. No offence intended, as I presume you didn't intend offence either. Just a language divide, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

❄️📙,👨‍💼--Jorm (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, if you choose to go to ANI and seek sanctions for Jorm's behavior, let me know. I think there is enough there to merit at least a warning and possibly a short block, with progressively longer blocks if he continues this sort of behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you were quite right to make this edit to the article, but leaving an edit summary which just reads 'no' , makes it confusing to see what you've done when it appears on a watch list. I know it can be tempting to leave a tongue in cheek summary, (as I'm probably guilty of also), but I'm going to try to remember that the summaries are for all the editors involved in contributing to that page, and not a comment to the person who made the edit.

What's funny here is that you came to lecture me about editing Wikipedia and didn't sign your post. I feel your point, and I thank you for your enthusiasm. --Jorm (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's cute how you say things like "I don't care at all about you" and yet you still have my page on your watchlist! You can feel free to never, ever post here again, Guy! I won't mind. You don't have to have me on your watchlist! You can let go of all your frustrations and fears!--Jorm (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro. Although your wording is ambiguous, having seen the quality of the programs you write, I will assume that you are incapable of clarity, and so I will take the above as a request to stay off of your talk page, which I will, of course, be glad to do with the usual exception of required notifications. Unwatching the page now. Closing thought: by my calculations you have roughly a 30% chance of your life depending on work that I performed whenever you fly on a commercial airliner. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Patriot Prayer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro. --Jorm (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to drag you into this.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do your worst buddy.... I see you are some sort of director with wiki Delete my account..... There are no pages to save..... But don't threaten me either intellectually for embarrassment or physically..... Your courage tattoo does not impress me.

Is on a 1RR restriction, self revert Darkness Shines (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Man, that sucks for you. Well, in 24 hours you can make your changes again, and this time you can actually use a non-misleading edit summary.--Jorm (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jorm reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: ). Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you break the restriction on the page, you last reverted about 9 hours ago, self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tornado chaser. I noticed that you made a comment here[3] that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! To you, too!--Jorm (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jorm. No fancy template, but just wishing you happy holidays and all the best for 2018. BTW, the solid bronze barnstar you gave me in London is on the top of our Xmas tree! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jorm reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: ). Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little surprised to find that you readded a source that clearly doesn't support the text. Saying that it is "consensus" doesn't make it right. Disappointing. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to open a discussion on the talk page before jumping headfirst into a contentious article. Maybe try that!--Jorm (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is contentious about abiding by the most basic principles of honesty? Uou see that as controversial? Which policies support misrepresenting what's in sources? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try and make sense of this. Can you explain in your perspective what happened here? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberpower678: Looping you in on this. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee:What happened was this, in order:

1. Someone new to the article made changes to the lede that went against long-standing consensus as to what was there. The lede of that article is a hotspot and no one edits it without discussion.
2. Someone else added an infobox right after. I don't care about that over much, but w/e.
3. I went to undo the lede changes. Wikipedia gave me the "can't undo" thing, so I decided that I'd roll back to the last "good" version of the lede and then add the infobox changes in a separate edit (so that the infobox changes were separate, and could be reverted or discussed independently - which is, in my opinion, smart). I even used this edit summary: "We're going to roll back to here first to get to the version that has consensus; I'll add the infobox back in my next edit."
4. Once I restored the correct version of the lede, I added the infobox back in with this edit summary: "Re-add infobox (I don't think the article needs one, but I'm not going to fight about it.)"
5. Darkness Shines then rolled back both of my changes (my first revision, and then the re-add of the infobox), with the edit summary "No consensus for crappy infobox.", which would lead one to think that the infobox was what he objected to. It is just a co-incidence, I'm certain, that he also rolled back to the non-consensus version of the lede (which, by the way, is the way that DS wants it and has been fighting for for months).
6. I then thought, "okay, no infobox, that's fine, I don't care, but we don't keep those lede changes". So I reverted back to the "good" version of the lede, which wouldn't have the infobox. Ostensibly, this would be what Darkness Shines wanted (and at this point the article was at status quo)
7. Rather than talk to me, of course, DS immediately went to the Edit War notice board, where witty banter ensued.
8. I got a notice that I was blocked.

So basically by bringing the article back to the status quo, here we are.--Jorm (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) Ok. So. Jorm may have made two reverts, but there isn't a reason to suspect that DS was trying to revert this part of the article [4]. Two weird things were happening at once and in media wiki it is hard to separate them. Can we just tell him to be more careful in the future and chalk this up to a limitation of the platform? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a very clear and logical explanation of your edits, Jorm. I encourage Coffee to reconsider the block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This is what happens when the consensus required restriction is not included... — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: Thank you!--Jorm (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, and I know that editing Sarkeesian's article and other GamerGate stuff can be frustrating because of the high number of trolls and vandals and SPAs and whatnot that they attract, but comments like "Go away, little troll." are really unhelpful. They're not going to deter a legit troll, but they might just turn away a good faith editor. I'm sure you're familiar with CIVIL and AGF, so I'm not going to link them. But I don't think it's too hard to fight trolls while also staying in policy. Cheers, -- irn (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just left a comment on her talk page. Would like to hear from you over there. Film Atom (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Light_Foot_Militia <---- Can this page be deleted due to inclusion of inaccurate and false information? (I am the regiment commander and founder of the TLFM.) Ericrahnh (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)ericrahnh[reply]

Well, I suppose the first question is "what is inaccurate here?" I don't know anything about this page or thereof, but it appears to be sourced. I'm not sure of its notability, but I'm not sure of the importance of that, either.--Jorm (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I indeed looked up "miniscule" and "minuscule" in a number of references before embarking on making changes to articles.

There are in fact articles in Wikipedia that address the spelling. I'm confident that, as merriam-webster.com asserts, "The adjective minuscule is etymologically related to minus, but associations with mini- have produced the spelling variant miniscule. This variant dates to the end of the 19th century, and it now occurs commonly in published writing, but it continues to be widely regarded as an error."

Despite its age, I view this spelling as an error, and I believe it is still widely regarded as an error. Since Wikipedia is so frequently quoted in print, I felt it was an improvement to the body of content to remove instances of a spelling that is widely regarded as an error.

I checked each article I modified, and in fact added /sic/ as a clarification on those instances where a review or source material showed that it was accurately quoted.

However, since you are concerned enough to reverse these edits, I will correct other errors that are less prone to debate.

Trvth (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When editors make non-vandal or seemingly constructive edits, I believe they deserve the decency of having a reason given for reversion, rather than single word interjections such as "no". For example here you deleted The Times as a source. And here you inserted a highly questionable claim into the article without as much as an edit summary. 92.13.136.69 (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No.--Jorm (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo your reverts at

]

You may want to learn how to count.--Jorm (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits in the above article shows numerous problems, including inserting unsourced text, removing sourced text, non-communication and edit-warring. 79.67.92.178 (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now you simultaneously avoid communication while removing valid inline templates [5]. 79.67.86.81 (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Care to address the issues raised or just blindly reverting based on

]

There are already many discussions about the sourcing on the talk page. It's fully sourced; go there, not here. --Jorm (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To highlight in the lead that some incels also happen to be racists is as stupid as to write in the lead of the article on homosexuality that left-handedness is a bit more common among gay than among straight people. Textbook case of POV pushing and red herring.Miacek (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, go have the discussion on the talk page with all the other people who achieved consensus that it stays. Not with me.

As to my opinions about "incels": I don't think that anyone is "involuntarily celibate". It's a stupid term made up to allow dudes who have no interest in developing any game to foist the blame for their failures onto other people. I normally wouldn't give a shit, but it so happens that the echo chamber they created allows for the worst parts of our world to fester so what would normally be considered a bunch of whiny misogynists have become murderous misogynists. And I won't let them whitewash that away.--Jorm (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"And I won't let them whitewash that away" - Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. Says someone who has started 100+ articles and performed 13,000 edits. Miacek (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you have no reason to delete my attempt to correct an article which is clearly biased. Delete it again and I’ll find the appropriate moderators to resolve this. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free, pal. I think you'll discover that the end is not going to go the way you want it to.--Jorm (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe

]

You, of course know this (just read your biography). It’s easy to let emotions run in overtime over hot button issues; I remember a comment on ArsTechnica where someone pointed out that a regular contributor who normally posted good stuff would get bent out of shape over #MeToo issues (This was during the Nolan Bushnell controversy). Samboy (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, even if Dykstra did contact her ex months after the probably abusive relationship ended, this is no evidence that the relationship was *not* abusive; I have known women who still loved and wanted to be with their abusive ex months after they finally had the strength to end the relationship (this is in relationship to content on Chris Hardwick). I wish the Hollywood gossip rags would not imply otherwise. Samboy (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. I mean, I know what you're talking about, but not why you're talking about it with me; I saw your revert, and I agree with it.--Jorm (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that I made this edit which I explain on the talk page. Probably belonged in a new section, oh well. Samboy (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In total, forty-five people have been killed in five events since 2014 by people who may be considered incels."

You reverted my edit, in which I removed this vague unexplained calculation from the Incel article.. I was under the impression that unreferenced bits of information should not be included in Wikipedia. Can you point me to the rule that says otherwise? Amin (Talk) 23:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the talk page of the article, not here. The statistic is referenced, just not in that space.--Jorm (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link me the reference then? Amin (Talk) 23:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the article talk page, not here. I'm not going to do work for you, but someone else there may be willing. --Jorm (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested additional attention @

]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly notice that you are implicitly using your credentials here to avoid communication, bully people around, and edit war without going to the talk page. Willwill0415 (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to learn how Wikipedia works.--Jorm (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't edit the actual article; I'm not above the blue lock yet. So, do you mean that I should stop asking questions about it in the talk page? IMO that's a little bit backwards but I'll heed your warning. Thanks for telling me about it. --Linkfan321 (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit in this area - at all - it is required that you are notified that there are sanctions before anything happens. It's prophylactic. Basically you can't ever say "no one told me that this was bad to do". You've been told. Read the notice.--Jorm (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having never interacted with you, I am at a loss to understand how you reached this conclusion [7]. Do you really think that AfDimg a game using taunting language, because an editor uses it in discussion, is civil behaviour? I don't understand how you could form the impression you did by looking at actual diffs. Newimpartial (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may want to work on your self-awareness there, pal, if you think that you were the person who was in the right. In all of your diffs, I only saw someone trying to be civil, and it's you who ended up looking bad. Anyways: You're not going to change my mind by hounding me here. You can feel free to remove my talk page from your watch list.--Jorm (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't on my watch list, but in parting, may I suggest that you read the essay

WP:GAMES. Newimpartial (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

That's quite possibly the least self-aware thing you've said in the limited time you've been on my radar. Wow.--Jorm (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that perception seems to me to be all surface, no depth.

Look, I can recognize - and have, repeatedly, and have given diffs in my ANI filing - that I get inappropriately riled up when trolled. That wasn't a subtext of the filing, it was a conscious counterpoint that I acknowledge. But I think I've shown that Chetford deliberately engineered that response in his consciously misleading and provocative comments, and I've given evidence for that. Just because I hope that he was trolling me doesn't make me unaware that I was allowing myself to be trolled. Sheesh. Newimpartial (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You would do yourself a lot of good if a) You would actually get Chetsford's name correct; b) Stop making assumptions about their gender or motivations; and c) stop sea-lioning everyone who thinks you're in the wrong. Please don't return; you've only managed to cement my opinion of your work.--Jorm (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why my ^{[citation needed]} tag was removed from the Controversial Reddit communities page? A citation was needed there. Do you disagree with that sentiment? If you fail to provide a reason by 01:15 I will have to restore the ^{[citation needed]} tag. RussianAfroMan (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of "black pill" ideology doesn't need to be cited. It's secondary text and is discussed in the incels article.
Don't threaten me again.--Jorm (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one was threatening anyone. I don't see why you felt that way. You're lucky I found where that was sourced from because if I didn't then there would have been further grievances between me and you. Next time, can you read someone's edit summary before reverting their edits? Also, if you can't be bothered reciting sources or providing new ones then don't remove ^{[citation needed]} tags. They're there for a reason. RussianAfroMan (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jorm. Regarding the dispute: I am assuming that you're unfamiliar with the standards required of

]

Joey Gibson (political activist)

Hey Jorm. I might be new to this but I'm pretty sure Joey is now divorced (willing to find out more later)and that without proper citation on Haley Gibson it is very easy to confuse the two with Haley Adams who is frequently seen with Mr.Gibson at his rallies. --Moredps (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Moredps[reply]

You will need very strong sourcing for that edit, and I'm not sure that the Adams detail is significant enough to warrant inclusion in a BLP.--Jorm (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think at the very minimum you should put a citation needed on that part of the page, given that again those are two different people, nobody knows who Haley Gibson is because she is not a public person, Haley Adams is more renown in the public eye especially given her recent launch of the #himtoo movement,If you think it would be more appropriate to put this kind of page in the patriot prayer section of the wiki or the proud boys section I'm willing to do that. (there are at least 2-3 prominent and public figures in patriot prayer that have not been written yet) --Moredps (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you found the case soon after I made it myself, but here is a link to it, i need to link it for a diff for the case, thanks!Willwill0415 (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jorm, the recent arbitration case request has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

grievance? Aspersions against editors? What are you even talking about? 93.36.191.161 (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't understanding what you were saying and doing. Try to explain yourself next time and try to reach other people out, before and instead of assuming their bad faith and deleting their comments, which are both against the rules. By the way, try to read objectively what it is written too. My comment was a answer to GorillaWarfare example of a person named "Molly" being someone unworthy of being used as a reference, as she (NOT me) explecitely said. Therefore i wrote that "Maynard is no random Molly like the one you use in the example" and therefore is worth citing. I didn't know Gorillaware was a she and was called Molly. I know only now because i tried to understand why you confusely said i was offending anyone and now i know. So i have deleted the reference to "Molly". Yet it is in a very bad faith to assume that it was some kind of personal attack, as the message as it was before wasn't offensive at all and was clearly using the same example of that user. Hope it clarify the matter. As i said, next time just ask for a clarification instead of presuming bad faith. Bye 93.36.191.161 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On September 29th, 2018, I removed a section of this page. My reasoning was that the sources listed were politically motivated and biased in themselves. These types of sources should not be allowed, especially when listing "controversial" items. The sole reason the section I removed was listed is purely a political reason; otherwise other Subreddits would be listed for identical reasons. --Derbyt (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works, especially with regards to sourcing. If you have an issue with the section, start a discussion on the talk page. I encourage you too read the links about our policies that I left on your talk page.--Jorm (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View? or Verifiability? The sources listed (at least for the SLPC listing) are undoubtedly in violation of the Verifiability section on Questionable Sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derbyt (talk • contribs) 20:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't in violation. If you have a problem with a specific source, you can bring it up at

Reliable Sources Noticeboard but spoiler alert: You're likely to be turned away.--Jorm (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

Hi Jorm,

are you reading your emails? I have written you twice in the last couple days, with no response!

--Distelfinck (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not conduct any Wikipedia business via email because it is not transparent. I reverted you because citations don't need to be in the lede, and twitter is a shitty source, especially in this case because it's a primary source. It being there before doesn't mean it should automatically go back.

I really don't give a shit, though, so go with god.--Jorm (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Ridiceo (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Assume Good Faith" is not a suicide pact. You're not here in good faith, buddy, so stop trying to weaponize it.--Jorm (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on Wikipedia to improve an article, not to cause trouble. Please assume good faith when commenting on other editor's work. All I ask is that you don't assume I'm editing in bad faith. Thank you. Ridiceo (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe you. You don't have to return here; you won't change my mind.--Jorm (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed material from

, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written pursuant to

]

Hey, look, you were wrong! The stuff was in the sources all along; you just didn't look. Feel free not to return to my talk page.--Jorm (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's now how I see it and the fact that the text I objected to stayed out kind of supports that. This could have been resolved if your comments on the talk page were constructive like Softlavender's.

talk) 23:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

That text is going back; the only reason it's there right now is because it got locked before it was reverted. Again. --Jorm (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please stay off my talk page. You have nothing to offer me.--Jorm (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Thanks! You too!--Jorm (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about that?

Take it to the article talk page, not my talk page.--Jorm (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not. People started harassing me there last time.

The aftermath section is way longer than anything else in Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.

Okay, first: you need to learn how to sign your posts. You can easily do this by adding --~~~~ to the end of your comments.

Second: My talk page is not the place to discuss article things. It simply isn't. There will not be consensus reached here because this is not the article. I am only one person; you are only one person; two people who disagree cannot create consensus. You need to get the input of other people who edit the article itself.

Third: I don't know what you mean by people harassing you; that really shouldn't be happening. I believe you're trying to work in good faith, so if anyone is harassing you about your content, that's an issue and one I'll fight against. However, you have to work within the consensus system, and not simply ignore it. If you're just ignoring consensus, that's not good, and people calling you out on it isn't harassment.

That said: open a thread on the article talk page. State what the change you want to make and why. I'll respond and give my reasons for the revert, and other people can chime in. You'll want to link to the diff of your original edit (which is here for your convenience) so that other people can easily see what you're trying to do. Note that an argument that is based on "other articles do it" will absolutely not fly anywhere; that's not how Wikipedia works. You want to have a measured reason why you feel that the detail is necessary beyond that, since it may be that the excessive detail doesn't belong in the other articles, too.--Jorm (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm, happy New Year! Make brave edits, and every day in 2019 is a good day accomplish so! Cheers.

]

Happy new year to you, too

Tsumikiria! --Jorm (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

fixed, plus

i know how to do a signature now AndInFirstPlace 02:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC) in the future, though, please be mindful of WP:BITE — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace (talk • contribs) 02:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you clearly do ‘’not’’ know how signatures work, or else SineBot wouldn’t be signing your posts for you. Just click the little signature icon or type —~~~~ ×--Jorm (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{

}}

Huh?--Jorm (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[8] I might be wrong, but it looks to me like you broke the three-revert rule. The instructions on the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring said to paste the link I included if I wanted to report someone. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 04:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong; it's not considered a "revert" to fix edits left by someone who got blocked for edit warring. But you do you, pal.--Jorm (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank for the clarification! I am not super familiar with these sorts of proceedings, my bad. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 04:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a (very) brief description of Flow's early days at

]

Hey Whatamidoing (WMF)! I took a quick look over that, and it's not correct about Flow at all. Flow had nothing to do with LiquidThreads or its codebase. Here's a couple things:

• First, Isarra did some user research about this while interning as part of the Google Summer of Code. She wasn't deeply involved in the project otherwise. She'd be fun to talk to about that.
• LQT was an attempt to make structured talk pages and was ultimately very simple. LQT was really just a shit-ton of talk pages with wrapped connection logic and no workflow logic.
• Flow was a ground-up restart that was intended to address the actual use cases of talk pages, rather than just slapping some structure around talk pages. Flow was designed as a modular workflow system first, of which discussions were one of the workflows. This wasn't well-understood by the community; most people couldn't get past the idea of "talk page replacement" and never bothered to actually see how a workflow system would help them to their jobs better.
• An important design principle for Flow was that it would be adjustable and adapt to work in any wiki project, not just the English Wikipedia. I feel that this was a big confusion for people, because they saw design patterns for things that they didn't use and thus didn't see the value in them. For example, small wikis don't have arduous processes for article creation, so forcing the enwiki process on them didn't make sense. This was a lesson learned from the Curation Toolbar project, which was unfortunately implemented to be English only.
• Some people in the Foundation leadership got cold feet and pulled support from the project. I'm fairly certain that an astute reader can fill in the blanks as to who made those decisions and why. None of those people are still employed by the Foundation.
• Internally, some decisions were made about resourcing that I think were the reason the project ultimately was killed:
  1. I was pulled off the project for reasons never adequately explained. This was basically the death-knell for the project because, at the time, I was the only person in the design team who knew anything about how Wikipedia worked, especially about talk page systems and the workflows of various projects, so institutional knowledge was pulled from it.
  2. Some people thought that limiting Flow discussions to shallow nesting was a great idea (literally because "that's the way Facebook works"). This was, and remains, a shit idea, if only because Wikipedia discussions aren't Facebook threads. Ironically, this decision turned Flow into exactly what the community feared it was going to be: an ill-thought attempt to enforce modern, sloppy, "social media"-like features onto what needed to be non-frivolous and useful.
  3. Rather than focus on required, important features (like the fact that Flow needed to be cross-wiki from the beginning), focus was placed on bullshit interactions and visual design.

I still love the project. I honestly feel that it could have become something great, and I'd work on it again in a heartbeat. Sadly, I do not believe that the WMF has the sand to actually do anything to improve the projects at all, ever, so we are where we are.

Hope this helps. I can talk/rant in much greater depth if you want, but I cannot guarantee that everything I have to say makes the WMF look good.--Jorm (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. What do you know about the plans for LQT3? Were you around for that? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatamidoing (WMF): I was; it was my project. There were no real plans for LQT3; it never rose to the level of a "real" project because about 2 weeks into the thinking behind it I realized that LQT was insufficient for what was actually needed (a workflow system), so it was shelved. The codename was vaguely used as a way to talk about "next generation" discussion for a time, which is where a lot of confusion may lie.

By the way, LQT2 wasn't really a project either, for that matter: LQT2 was mostly bugfixes and minor enhancements. It was a project I was on until management pulled the plug and refocused resources (read: me) on some other projects that never, ever saw the light of day but took up a lot of time and drama, such as Article Creation workflows (which served as the genesis for my ideas around Flow), Moodbar (a pet project of an executive), and the Personal Image Filter (which was a reactionary project that was never going to happen, ever).--Jorm (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm, you are under no obligation to make the WMF look good. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, because I am well past giving a fuck. Sometimes I wonder what I accomplished there at all, if anything, and I get a little bitter.--Jorm (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You accomplished awesome stuff. I'm not interested in reputation buiding here. I'd much rather have straight answers that I can trust that an effort to make any person or group look either good or bad.

It's that transition from LQT3 to Flow that interested me when I was drafting: LQT simply couldn't do what was needed, so LQT3 was dropped and Flow was born. It sounds like describing LQT3 as having been "planned" is an exaggeration, so I should change that. (Or you can. You know where to find the Edit button.  ;-) It sounds like it would be helpful to explain the shift from "just talking" to proper workflow support. Do you have a favorite example/use case for that?

In re shallow nesting, I thought that a lot of effort went into that. But I think that "here's a way to replace the duct tape and bubble gum that is AFD" would have been far more compelling than any level of nesting. (I know. You can't have AFD if you can't post a comment. But something that would make this utterly pointless is what I still want.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatamidoing (WMF): Regarding "shallow" nesting:

• I can say that I put a lot of effort into determining how shallow or not the nesting should be. I remember a long conversation with
  Godwin's Law
  about it: "As the number of nesting levels a conversation has grows, the likelihood of one participant saying 'fuck you' approaches 1."
• I was present for the decision to remove deep nesting and the "amount of effort" the decision took was about 10 minutes of debate (mostly with me) and no research. The justification was literally this:
  • Deep nesting confuses people (untrue, and no evidence was provided to support this claim)
  • Everyone uses Facebook and is used to it (also above)
  • It will be more attractive to new users (possible, but I don't buy the argument)

It was overall a blatant disregard for the actual problems that were attempting to be solved, which is like "design 101". But then, most of the design team at the time was only interested in either making toys or arguing about fonts, and not actually doing real design.

Note also that decision was made by people who did not edit or use Wikipedia except as readers. The kind of designers who though that the watchlist was an overly complicated bookmarking system (this is why the watchlist on the mobile site is absolutely useless).

Regarding Workflows: It was both AFD and ArbCom that brought me to the idea that we needed workflows (Flow) over conversation (LQT). The crux of it was a realization that a "conversation" is also a "workflow". There are defined rules to conversations, even if we don't think of them that way. To this end, I started looking at what a "post" actually was, and modifying the definition.

The intent was that a "post" could have a variable "type", those types being things like:

• Wikitext blob - a "normal" post of undefined length
• Enumerated Value and Wikitext Blob - a typical AFD type discussion post, where there's a value selection (support/oppose/comment/whatever) and then a possible text clip of a defined (or undefined length) that may or may not be required. So, a community could say "for these kinds of discussions, we only want these possible values (support/oppose/comment) AND the post cannot be made if the selection is "oppose" without also including a comment, of a maximum length 200 characters"
• Permission specific posting - "only admins can respond in this section", etc.

Support for post filtering was also a thing (so that ArbCOM could view the discussion without comments by uninvolved jabronis, etc.) or you could hide people who were trolls, etc. It had designed support for marking comments as helpful or unhelpful and then the ability to auto-hide comments to unregistered users if the ratio between the two was too low, as an attempt to help protect unsuspecting users from long-time trolls who liked to throw around the c-word.

Flow also had designed support for filtering on "what I haven't read" and there was a whole system for "subscribing." You could subscribe to pages (like watching a talk page) or users (if you wanted to watch their posts, like with a newbie or a vandal), or you could subscribe to processes (like, "users asking for help" or "users requesting unblock").

Closing discussions wouldn't require you to know what {{atop}} was. Dropping DS notices would have been trivial. Marking users as ignored. etc.

Is this discussion happening on Meta and thus may be multilingual? Let's attach translations to posts in various languages, so if you don't speak English well you can view a German version provided by a volunteer.

It's a pity that people got wrapped up in "but mah signuhture!". So it goes.--Jorm (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the signature thing. I remember that. It didn't irritate me nearly as much as the guy who kept telling people that Flow wouldn't support math equations, even though it already did.

Is this better? (Note that I'm not trying to hide your role at all; I just don't necessarily want to be the one who paints a target on your talk page without you agreeing to it first, since there are still a lot of misconceptions floating around about that product.)

The central discussion is on mw.org, but the real discussions are all over the place, including in at least one Discord group. See mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up for the current list. Feel free to sign up your own group.  :-D Any place you want, any movement-aligned people you want, and the only practical requirement is that you bring me (well, them) a summary of the discussion when it's over. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatamidoing (WMF): That edit is much closer, but I'd also include a chunk about it being multi-lingual and cross-wiki, because that was an important part of it. Flow was supposed to allow you to view all conversations you followed across all wikis without having to visit them individually, as well as being in the language you chose.

I don't mind being mentioned by name or having people come and talk to me about things. As can be seen: I still clearly believe in the Mission and the Projects, and volunteer my time actually doing things, so I'm willing to help (fun fact! I'm the only member of the design team who works on WP without being paid for it). I'm willing to come and talk to people and I'm willing to share vision and ideas, but I'm not overly interested in spending a lot of time working on a "new" feature or discussions about it for three reasons:

1. I already designed what I think is the correct path, so I don't know what more I could do other than tweak what I came up with
2. I think that asking the community what they want through a request for comment type system is the exact wrong way to go about solving this problem. Never ask people what they want. You have to watch what they do. People lie. Observations do not. People have agendas. Observations do not.
3. I don't believe that the Foundation will actually pull the trigger and do anything meaningful or useful to address communication and discussion, even if ideas come from it.

Again: more than willing to help, but I got burned pretty bad before, so consider me candle-shy.--Jorm (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's alright if I intrude a bit. Jorm, would it be possible to get a copy of the prototype linked in [9] working again? It would be neat to see what your vision looked like (I probably played with it at the time, but don't remember anymore). And, I really appreciate your comments here. Legoktm (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lego, you are more than welcome to intrude any time! Regarding that ancient prototype, I may still have the source somewhere, likely in one of my private git repositories, but I am leery about unrolling it and hosting it on one of my own machines. Lemme do a look and see what I have. It's very hacky, mind. I seem to remember part of it being dependent on actual time for some of its fakery.--Jorm (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't gotten that page updated yet, but now I have a new question. It works like this:

• Everyone (allegedly) hates infinite scrolling.
• Everyone hates having only part of the Flow board visible (by which they mostly seem to mean "accessible to the Find feature in my web browser").
• Everyone thinks the current archiving system is clunky. (I mean, really: we have to run a bot to manually copy individual edits to a different file, and if you want to find a discussion that was archived a while ago, you have to run a separate search, and – well, I'm preaching to the choir.)
• Nobody with any brains wants to load even the last year's worth of WP:ANI, much less everything that's ever been posted there.

So my question for you: How did they decide how many threads to load, before I get the click-here-to-load-some-more button? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatamidoing (WMF): I was not involved in that decision. I know who was, and I would not have gone with that solution at all. Here's some thoughts:

• Each of the infinite scrolling objections I had been presented with I had ways around (and faith that it was the right solution). The problem more complicated than any of these issues taken singularly, which seems to be the way that folk like to do it.
• People assume talk pages are flat files or they assume they're forums or they assume they're more like books and they will shout loudly that they are absolutely, in no way shape or form, like "Facebook". These people are wrong. Talk pages are exactly like Facebook and Twitter in that the following is true: They are streaming conversations and are rarely, if ever, considered "permanent". They are ephemeral and context-driven, and very often that context is "time".
• People think pagination is the only solution when they think of the system as being "static". Talk pages aren't static.
  • However, talk pages are not like Facebook or Twitter in that their archives are of importance. There seems to be an impression that changing the way we view data somehow lessens its importance, which I personally do not understand, and typically ascribe to "fear of the new thing".
• People who think "just load everything so I can control-f" are privileged to live in a part of the world where bandwidth is cheap.
• With complicated mental models - especially regarding a system (talk pages) - that has multiple, varied use cases, let alone user expectations - the solution to all things is multifold. The way I intended for navigation to work was built around the confluence of several mechanisms:
  • Infinite scroll for your "feed" until all entries had been caught up with, then switching to chronologically-based pagination.
  • Automatic archiving (as a thread is no longer interacted with, it auto-archives. There's no flag needed. It's just ... further in the history
  • Direct, permanent urls to all parts of a post: the primary and all replies and sub-replies (and eventually translations)
  • A robust search system (which is how I expected most navigation to work). This helps eliminate the "find" problem because if it's well done it replaces.
    • Searching something like ANI would be smart filter and keyword usage.
  • Affordances (buttons) to "just load everything" for people who wanted to do that.
  • Being able to disable infinite scrolling as a preference (this is a no brainer, and we would have needed to do it anyway because another important thing was "must work without javascript", and pagination is the fallback there)

Anyways. I could write a book about all this.--Jorm (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd read that book, but (for once) I'd probably rather watch a series of presentations from you. And get to ask questions.

I'm glad to hear that the click-here-to-load-some-more button isn't integral to (or even a part of) your vision. As a more immediate question, I wonder if it would be less annoying if I encountered it less (e.g., load twice as much before asking me to pay attention to that button). It's only a factor at mw.org for me, but the frwiki Teahouse regulars might also appreciate it. I'll think about whether to phile a Phab task.

Volunteer-me would like to ask whether you happen to like re-designing Main Pages. w:ht:Paj Prensipal/Sandboks (three comments on the talk page) is another thing I didn't get done last month. The main goals are: nothing that requires regular updates (no DYK, no In the News, and the Featured Article might stay up for a year), and not being needlessly painful to readers. The local technical capability is: we can copy and paste pretty well. Are you interested? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was no logic to the number that I was involved in. I was planning to run some experiments within a range once we got to there; I had always assumed it was going to be something like "Load 30 threads at initial load, and then continue loading 10 each on scroll, until you hit 150 threads and then dropping to a static button", with some extra rules around shit like "well, if there's only 160 threads, don't bother dropping to a button" but I also expected to do some testing to find the optimal numbers once it worked.

There's another thing, too: it's likely that we could have just avoided it entirely, even for _giant_ archives. We could pull a metric shitload of threads as unformatted JSON and simply not draw them until needed, and then in "archive" searches would be blinding fast (because it would be searching memory rather than an https API).

It feels like the current limit was suggested by someone who thinks of talk pages as an email inbox, rather than a stream.

I have redesigned main pages in the past! In fact, Meta still sports huge parts of my design for it. I wouldn't mind doing it but I am not interested in the politics behind such discussions, I think. Enwiki's main page is terrible (boxes inside of boxes inside of boxes inside of boxes and all using these weak colors that remind me of improperly toasted white bread). I can only empathize with constraints its designer had, one of which is the fact that Vector is terrible and ugly in and of itself.

(When are ya'll going to make an initiative to push Timeless? It's a far, far superior skin in nearly every way. It's super usable on mobile and using it on mobile means you don't have to encounter the mobile front-end's wretched implementation of the watchlist!)

Anyways: I can take a look at it, though I clearly don't speak the language. Could I do a design in English and have it localized? --Jorm (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak the language either (or French, which would also be helpful), which basically means that you cannot possibly do a worse job than I have. Most of the (few) people there can read English, so translations should be feasible.

So far, my efforts have mostly involved trying to remove stuff that's obviously not wanted. I don't really know what ought to go in it. There should presumably be a Featured Article slot. Maybe some sort of basic "hey, we have some contents" slot? (Although at enwiki, the various Portal: namespace links to general subjects don't get very much traffic, so maybe even that isn't important – but how else would we tell new readers that this is the sort of stuff they could expect to find?) Maybe a big search box, since that what's people actually seem to do on the Main Page? We reduced the sister links a year or two ago down to a small set, and I think that helped.

If it were sufficiently generalizable, and used relatively few templates or other complicated things, then it's possible that it could be used as a model for other small wikis. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading some comments about communication tools, and I thought that this one might interest you:

Flow: lorsque l'on veut contacter d'autres contributeurs, c'est très rapide et c'est facile de répondre. Par contre dès qu'il y a plusieurs personnes qui interagissent, je n'arrive pas à voir au premier coup d'oeil quelle personne répond à une autre. L'autre soucis que j'ai avec Flow, c'est comme son nom l'indique qu'il est conçu pour afficher un flux de discussion, lorsqu'on cherche un ancien sujet en se disant "Ah, ça me rappelle quelque chose dont on avait parlé il y a quelques temps", c'est usant de scroller jusqu'à arriver à la discussion voulue. Pour résumer mon avis sur Flow, c'est un bon outil pour des questions/réponses, et on a besoin de ce genre d'outil pour certaines pages comme le forum des nouveaux et qui mériterait d'évoluer pour s'adapter aux cas d'usage de WP:Questions juridiques, WP:Atelier graphique, et d'autres ; mais pour des débats ou discussions il est contre-productif. (from Yodaspirine at frwiki)

You can add this to your collection of what people think the name means. :-D Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All I have to confirm this is a screenshot of a conversation I had with Max this morning. His name is not John Maxwell Landis. I asked him to confirm, and he told me his name is not even Maxwell. Where or how do I submit this, rather than just having you sigh and revert the changes. I've never had an error like this in submitting a Wikipedia change in the past.

Thanks for the help. (User:BFalvey7 13:10, 25 February 2019 (EST))

I'm sorry, but that's not remotely a reliable source. You'll need to find a publication or another 3rd party reference for that change.--Jorm (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me where it is cited that his name is John then, because that's not cited either. Seems to me that the person directly telling me that information on a page about them is fairly reliable. (User:BFalvey7 14:14, 25 February 2019 (EST))

Please do not send me email. I do not conduct Wikipedia business via email as it is not transparent.

You're going to need to declare a conflict of interest about Max Landis, I'm afraid, as you've indicated you are personal friends with him.--Jorm (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BFalvey7 is right on the issue, however: There was no source for "John Maxwell" either. So you were introducing unsourced information just as well as them (except "John Maxwell", beyond being unsourced, also appears to be wrong). When someone complains that a piece of information in a

BLP is wrong, before reverting them you should check whether that piece of information indeed is wrong (or at least unsourced); if neither version comes with a source (such as what name Landis was born with), removing that piece of information outright is better than opting for the unsourced information we had first. Huon (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

Seriously I used to work in website development and I'm looking at this "Gab Dissenter" feature and going there's only two ways this works: 1) the comments are ONLY visible to people who have installed the plugin (which is still super problematic but it's at least legal) or 2) A massive, grossly illegal, hacking scheme. I'd be willing to also consider 3) It's a total con-job and none of this will work outside their sandbox. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot option 4: It's just a shitty Reddit Clone. Simonm223 (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's option 1. You need to have the extension to see the comments. This technology has been done before. They didn't do their research because I think the previous thing got sued into oblivion because someone posted a bunch of child porn links on a major site and they went after it under brand fraud or summat.--Jorm (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jorm, I'm trying unsuccessfully to update the Climax Blues Band website that reflects where they are today but the content keeps getting rejected.

As a comparison I looked at Eric Clapton's Wikipedia page: In August 2018, Clapton announced that he had recorded his twenty-fourth studio album, Happy Xmas, which consists of blues-tinged interpretations of Christmas songs, with the album released on 12 October.[123]

Eric Clapton also has a recent photo from May 2015 but again we seem to have a problem changing the photo from 1974 to 2019.

Please tell me what's wrong with the text and changing a photo that represents who the band are for the last 6 years? Rob Musicmatters2 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Musicmatters2: You are unsuccessful because you are a) not reading the edit notices of the editors who are reverting you, and thus not learning; and b) not opening discussions on the article's talk page, like you should.

My talk page is not the place to discuss this. The correct place is on the talk page of the article. I will not discuss your proposed edits here, and neither will anyone else. You need to open a discussion there, or you will continually be reverted (actually, probably not: one more revert and you'll be in "edit war" territory and will likely get blocked instead).

I suggest also that you learn how to use talk pages. You posted this at the top of my page and I had to refactor it down.--Jorm (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before reverting a fellow editor, kindly open up a discussion to cordially discuss the merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estarski (talk • contribs) 16:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read talk pages before making bad edits. That's the discussion.--Jorm (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Estarski, permission and reviewing of talk page is not required to make edits. Reverts should be explained not just arbitrary. Again advise reading

Wikipedia Civility--0pen$0urce (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I invite you to not respond to anything you didn't open on my talk page, 0pen$0urce. In fact, you can stay away from here, if you please.--Jorm (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, let me know if you have any questions about

Wikipedia Civility, a must read --0pen$0urce (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

Please don’t just arbitrarily remove a npov check tag and proclaim”drive-bye” that is not wp:agf and my claim of not assuming good faith can be supported by no entry on the talk. Also the talk page is rather lengthy and there is a perception any edits whether cited and encyclopedic are being reverted or removed is they show the subjects military service as related to Vietnam claims in an unfavorable light. This article is a great candidate for npov at this juncture. Already has been talked at great length. Thanks!0pen$0urce (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Contentious tone. Please comment content. I don’t need permission from a small group of individuals to make edits. Where’s all this consensus? Where was consensus to remove my earlier edits? Just wow. Yeah we don’t want that POV tag, because may invite others into the discussion.--0pen$0urce (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) Please learn to use a talk page. Don't open threads at the top of them! 2) Don't talk to me about article stuff on my talk page! Discussion about articles belongs there, so other people can get involved. 3) Consensus is clearly against you, but feel free to continue edit-warring. 4) Cool story, bro! --Jorm (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1)Please learn to be civil towards other editors, guidance can be found here

civility article, shelving that bossy(using exclamation points)tone and again you're not in charge here "bruh". --0pen$0urce (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I'm 0pen$0urce. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you.0pen$0urce (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

lrn2wikipedia. You came here. --Jorm (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I got a strongly worded message because I asked why the incel article is so dehumanizing. If this doesn't stop I will report a hate crime (England & eu) . And we well see how long you keep your account and freedom.

Thanks :7) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mraids (talk • contribs) 17:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. I left you a discretionary sanctions notice. Your threat here, though, may very well get you blocked. Have fun!--Jorm (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm massageing you as I reserved a strongly worded message because I asked why the incel article is so dehumanizing. This will stop right new or my next action will be to report a hate crime under

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003

Thanks ;7) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mraids (talk • contribs) 17:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above user (not Jorm) has been blocked per

WP:NLT. Carry on. --Jayron32 17:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks!--Jorm (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the talk page is not a forum begs the definition of a forum!!!

The purpose of my post was to state that the information on the page is improperly organized. In particular, prejudicial information appears in the part of the article most presented to readers, especially when the article is displayed out of line to the hit list by a search engine.

I called for the information from the SPLC to appear further into the article, under the heading "relations with other groups", and be removed from the initial paragraph.

How the heck can people discuss anything about the article's structure or contents, given your "not a forum" comment!!! HiTechHiTouch (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind, Jorm. He doesn't like discussion, only strict control. One of the reasons why he can't intelligently respond to my questions on why the phraseology on the Proud Boys article give Undue weight to a single source when that source's claim isn't, itself, supported. All Jorm can do is say that your claim is not constructive. It is, unfortunately, further evidence of the bias present on Wikipedia. Krakaet (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Cool story, bro?" THAT'S your response? Nice way to show leadership. You are demonstrating his point about bias. You objectivity is so compromised that you can't see the obvious problem with this, despite many different objective references, you claim there isn't any. Here, have an objective reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-fascism Socratesone (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Socratesone: Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is doomed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Socratesone (talk • contribs)

Also a very cool story.--Jorm (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit to

]

Because you need to discuss that before making the drive-by tag. Please use the article talk page, not here.--Jorm (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks.

talk) 18:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

MrClog (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you templating me with this when an identical notice is still visible on my talk page?--Jorm (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And who are you, anyway?--Jorm (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

awareness criteria. (2) I am seriously confused about why you're asking who I am. --MrClog (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I've never interacted with you at all, nor have I seen you on any page I watch. You're out of the blue here.--Jorm (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm, I happened to see the edit warring at Men Going Their Own Way and thus gave the involved users this notice (if necessary). I still fail to see any relevance to that question though. --MrClog (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrClog: I think what Jorm is saying is that, in February of this year, you arrived at Wikipedia for the first time, fully knowledgeable of esoteric aspects of Wikipedia editing, at a level of which shows a user who immediately, with a brand new account, suddenly had years of knowledge. This is evidence that you are not new to Wikipedia as of February, 2019. Furthermore, that you are this knowledgeable of Jorm's involvement in articles about GamerGate, when he has not since you joined Wikipedia, edited such articles, shows that you are familiar with him from a time much older than your account. That means you created this account to mask your earlier involvement in Wikipedia, for whatever reason. That's not allowed. If you have an established identity at Wikipedia, it is expected you do not try to mask that identity. So, when he asks "who are you", it is expected you reveal exactly that. Failure to do so will only make it clear that you are trying to hide your behavior. --Jayron32 16:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet investigation or retract your accusation, please. Thank you. --MrClog (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't say that you had knowledge of how the Mediawiki software works, because you were involved in a non-WMF wiki, I said that you had knowledge of Wikipedia, it's internal politics, esoteric behavioral policies, and particular quirks of English Wikipedia, that only a person who had been involved in English Wikipedia for some time, would understand. I'll ask you one more time: under what prior guise were you, before 3 months ago, involved in Wikipedia with? --Jayron32 16:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AOBF. The fact that I have apparently acquired knowledge so quickly isn't punishable. --MrClog (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for that information. Carry on. --Jayron32 17:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is an edit removing a false claim "Not constructive" ? MGTOW is NOT on the list of "hate groups" from SPLC https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map/by-ideology

He who controls information controls the masses

No.--Jorm (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 01:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove your unrelated comment from the ANI discussion. This is a straw man argument. I already removed the comment you were referring to in less than 3 minutes, and nobody noticed it. stop making it such a big deal. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 01:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No.--Jorm (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

]

Do not call editors Nazis like you also did here. wumbolo ^^^ 14:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks, man. Ducks.--Jorm (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you recently locked a discussion about Gab. My question is why does this article include a particularily inflammatory phrasing on the first line of it. You have locked the discussion with "If the OP wants to challenge the legitimacy of the New York Times, they can do so elsewhere," with no ability to respond. If you read the thread again, I hope you will notice this part, which is the summary of my complaint: "I'm not making a claim that they are not reliable; I'm saying that for extremely inflammatory claims to be put on the first line of an article, it should probably have more than one source, and if it for some reason absolutely must be there, we should probably not be using an organizations real or imagined enemies. This conversation can grow to be fairly long, but I suppose I would ask, why is the onus on me to prove why an inflammatory statement based on one source shouldn't be in the first line of an article about a website? Isn't that backwards?" As I now have no way to find the answer to this because you locked the discussion, I will bring the question to you, more clearly emphasized. Put clearly, even if the NYT is the most authoritative and trustworthy source in the galaxy, why does the article for Gab have a highly inflammatory clause about what it's been described as in the first line of it? Is there precedence for this? Can you show me a well-thought-of article which has a similar tone in the lead? I haven't found anything like this in the area I normally focus on - Chinese history. I did check Hitler's, which didn't. If this is normal I'd like to start adding this kind of stuff to leads. Thanks Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to read this wall of text, so I'm just going to say "cool story, bro."--Jorm (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have closed my discussion about word choice on the Gab article. The summary was that extremist is not a slur and that the discussion is ridiculous. I find this odd when Wikipedia itself clearly identifies extremist as a contentious word that is usually used as a prejorative. For reference, Wikipedia calls the word

]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 2606:6000:6004:2C00:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

could you please let me know the reason of revert? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cornstein

What the reverted text has to do with Mr. Cornstein?

You are deleting cited content and you appear to be in an edit war. Discussions about this should be on the article's talk page, not here.--Jorm (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I am fairly new to all this wiki stuff (long time listener first editor). I tried to explain in the edit's comment, what I thought is relevant and I even tried to include WP references to support my original edit, but the contributor just kept undo my work. 3 days later (today) s/he undone it again. Now you undone it too. Sure, I have comments on the talk page too, sorry I didn't know I should not contact you here.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/regime) Does it actually justify calling the Hungarian gvt: "Orban regime"? At any rate, what does it have to do with Mr. Cornstein?

Please let me know if WP become a "my way or a highway" org and no others can contribute just the few chosen, then I wont waste my time. I believe, I've only edited 1-2 articles, ever, so I can live without any further involvement in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.44.110 (talk)

Please, take this to the article talk page, not here.--Jorm (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) He has taken it to the talk page; I think he's waiting your reply. I don't think you need to rush to give one though as I've replied myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there you aren't seem to be this active, except to "undo", so that is it then. thanks anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.44.110 (talk)

Do you actually have a point that can be addressed? Because you're totally not convincing. --Jorm (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think ultimately the accusations of political bias go to both of two places. 1) It's a waste of time, and 2) The Article clearly exemplifies the exact opposite of what the explicit text says. Anyone concerned with issues regarding corporate censorship, abridgment of free speech rights and disproportionate representation would see all they need to see by reading this Article, and so while explicitly serving the interests of one group, it implicitly serves the interests of another. I would prefer this to not be the case. I would prefer that the same standards that apply to other controversial Articles be applied to this one, and patiently wait for that to occur, while I slowly learn and grow in proficiency as a Wikipedia Editor. I point to the deafening silence in the section asking whether or not there is any legitimacy to Gab's claim of free speech (without quotes), as well as the lack of involvement or "educational instruction" from the approximately 20 well-experienced Editors that have been involved in the Article in the past. Read an Administrator's statement once about "letting them fight it out" (regarding a different Article), and assume that idea is also true here. There are rules to this "fighting", and I do not know them, hence caution, which I advise to anyone else that cares to get involved. (Roll Tiny Tim "tiptoe through the tulips") Tym Whittier (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was my response, and it was my 2nd. Decided account preservation was more important than telling the truth, so I'm dropping this here instead of in the Talk Page on Gab. The real response starts with "Even If". Even IF a person thinks they are accomplishing something by pushing the POV of the Article to one particular direction, it is having the exact opposite effect on the interested and aware Reader, as it confirms a very long list of continuously stated and openly discussed beliefs on places like Gab (and not Twitter, Facebook, etc...). We do this all day long and every day. What we don't do is structure our discussions to fit within the rules of Wikipedia, which I am aware exist for a long list of very good reasons. Not an anarchist, or a "down with the Establishment" revolutionary. There is a long history of "unintended consequences" as well as a long history of institutional blindness on the part of the ideologically possessed. "You're doing it wrong", is the meme. Once I realized this, the temptation was to actually GO with it, and from the strategic perspective help push the Article even further. Decided not to do that, for two reasons. One, I personally trust Wikipedia for the most part, and I would be pissing in my own well, and two I'd be pissing in everyone else's well. So, the result of that little "thought experiment" was to take solace in the fact that you're all doing it wrong, and it's having the unintended consequences of exemplifying exactly what we're not allowed to talk about, and make the decision to remain committed to the fundamental ideals and "pillars" of Wikipedia, to learn them, to exemplify them through my actions and maybe teach them to someone else. This is, with regard to Wikipedia, who I am. Whatever that standard is, whatever those standards are, I intend to exemplify and implement it, and there's little to nothing any detractors can do about it. It's safe. In the short term, it means being willing to back down, to lose, to perceive flagrant violations of Wikipedia Policy occurring on a regular basis, to remain grounded, not "fly off the handle", to be careful of what I choose to make mention of, and what I choose to ignore, to pay attention, to learn what knowledge is there, particularly that which is placed right in front of me, to remain as "collegial" and "professional" as possible and to remain focused on one of my core ideals, which is that Leadership is by Example. FWIW and IMO, you should constructively engage with me. You might discover there's a lot more "there" there than you even suspect. They made the 1st Amendment for a reason, and this is it.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I told you before that I'm not reading your giant screeds.--Jorm (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate, because I feel like if we understood each other better, that would facilitate a greater sense of "collegiality" among us peers, which would then help increase collaborative editing, and build consensus, particularly in the Article on Gab. I would read your "screeds", if you posted any, with great interest. Also this: TL;DR "It can be misused as a tactic to thwart collaborative editing or a stoop to ridicule." Tym Whittier (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be very fucking clear with you: I do not and will not associate or "collaborate" with people who enable white supremacy to flourish. I've read some of your Gab posts. I know exactly who you are. I'm not ridiculing you. I'm directly saying that your actions and editing patterns are an attempt to enable white supremacy.

Do not return to my talk page.--Jorm (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Streisand effect. "People who enable white supremacy to flourish" are the strongest enemies of white supremacy. E.g. the terrorist attack Christchurch mosque shootings happened because Nazis were disenfranchised by those who oppose "people who enable white supremacy to flourish". wumbolo ^^^ 19:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I'm clear, are you seriously blaming the shooting on the "disenfranchisement" of Nazis? I hope I am incorrect, because I find it difficult to believe someone would type something so stupid and put their user name on it. Gamaliel (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What a stupid thing to say, Wumbolo. Just asinine. You can go away, too.--Jorm (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as "Nazi-shaming". all right wing ideologies, whether fascism or just hypercapitalism, operate on the premise that disenfranchisement is a good thing. You can't oppress minorities if you have issues with disenfranchisement. You can't further enrich the already wealthy without disenfranchising minorities through financial isolation. It's, quite simply, counterintuitive. The argument is patently disingenuous. --rm 'w avu 03:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm, deleting another user's Talk page comment about the problems with an article violates WP:Talk_page_guidelines. Please review those guidelines.

Additionally, deleting all the "official websites" from the external links for an article about an organization is vandalism. Please do not do it again. NCdave (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jorm: That's extremely disrespectful and dismissing of you to say. Now is not the time for jokes. X-Editor (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jorm: At this point, you're just trolling. Stop. X-Editor (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a cool story, bro! You came here, so I don't know how I am the one trolling you, but here we are.--Jorm (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jorm: Saying "Let me be very fucking clear with you" to Tym and saying "What a stupid thing to say, Wumbolo. Just asinine. You can go away, too" to Wumbolo are very clear violations of WP:CIVIL. Please be respectful towards other editors. X-Editor (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ANI. X-Editor (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Cool. Story. Bro. --Jorm (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm, please do not be so condescending to editors who you disagree with. My goodness, you've been on Wikipedia forever and worked for WMF, you know better than to do this. Please do not be so dismissive. It's simply not an effective form of communication and is disruptive. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero intention of providing aid and succor to those that enable white supremacy.--Jorm (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know the rules, this was constructive edit to bring the article in line with Wikipedia policies. Do not revert my changes or include un-sourced statements unless you get concensus. You cannot just add whatever you want to an article and tell ME to get consensus. You must get it before the unsourced inflammatory statements are added. Galestar (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your discussion about this limited to the article talk page.--Jorm (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am replying to your comment on my talk page about this, as you requested: "If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ". Hard to tell what you want??? Galestar (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some advice for you: don't leave patronizing messages on other editor's talk pages asking for them to reply on your talk page... if you don't actually want messages on your talk page. Galestar (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very good at pinging people inline, find it doesn't work well so wanted to poke you here. I mentioned you on [10]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galestar (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When are we doing our tussle in Golden Gate Park? Do you think your boss at the video poker place will make accommodations for this event? Cool story, bro-mate! (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look an anonymous threat from an anonymous person that I'm supposed to respect or something. I'm certain a page watcher will figure out which incel or white supremacist you are a sock of and do the needful.--Jorm (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered rude to template regulars. Thought you should know, kid.   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How wonderful. An Ex-WMF employee with a penchant for templates... Probably a penchant for canvassing as well. Thanks for the laughs.   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Men Going Their Own Way shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

heh.--Jorm (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! You got one too; Awesome. I was looking forward to sharing the love but it seems I'll need to save it for another time.   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promethean, I hereby invite you to stay off my talk page.--Jorm (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the text below that you deleted from Gab's "Talk" page, and provide some justification for your remarks that the below is a "conspiracy theory", when it's obvious that my point is that the assertion that the human quality of "hate" can be measured by counting certain words is a "conspiracy theory", which I explicitly state in the text below. You've made a regular practice of deleting my text in the "Talk" pages, with weak, little or no explanation and the only explanation I can come up with is that you are "tendatious" in your editing by trying to force the Article on Gab to reflect a single ideological perspective, or narrative. Further, your manner is abrasive, unnecessarily conflict oriented and you seem to put little to know effort in helping "newcomers". Nor do I see much effort on your part to actual improve the Article on Gab. Rather, you seem to function as an idealogical "gatekeeper" or "enforcer". I wish this were not the case. I have made several overtures to you in order that we may be "collegial" and work together on this Article, however you seem to prefer to remain heavy-handed with your tendency to suppress any kind of open conversation and unwilling to allow other viewpoints to be enunciated. But that's not the primary purpose of this note. It's just "background" in case there is some kind of Administrative review. My primary objection here is that asserting the existance of the "conspiracy theory" that "hate speech" can be measured by "hate words" is junk, pseudoscience, and rather than respond to this assertion directly, you've "mirrored" the accusation and turned it into a "conspiracy theory" in a thinly veiled effort to enforce an ideaological narrative. I'm willing to go to "ArComm" over this, so I advise caution in your response.

":::::I have a problem using that source for anything in the Article. First, where did the funding come from, and why the funding? For all we know, Twitter hired a bunch of international nobodies to do a "hit piece", which is supported by my second objection, which is the entire concept of "hate words" somehow magically contain an intrinsic quality of "hate" (junk science assertion #1), and that somehow, the number of hate words, or the ratio of hate words, or the comparison of the numbers and ratio of hate words can somehow be used as a reliable metric for this junk science pseudoterm "hate" (junk science assertion #2). As if you can boil-down human emotions to their basic molecules and separate them out and count them. Do we have "love words"? "Fear words"? "Angry words"? Who makes the determination of what words are "hate words" and what words are not? How do they arrive at this determination? Are there any double-blind studies? Can they replicate their results? Have they tested their theories on laboratory rats? What did they use as a control for their studies? Who would even pay for such a study, anyways? It almost certainly has a political and/or economic agenda, unless you believe there's an invisible magic money tree that just mysteriously grows cash to pay for such a (stupid) study for no particular reason. Has anyone ever studied rap music for it's "hate content". and compared the number of hate words in that musical form to, say for example, country music? Is rap more hateful than country music? How do either of those compare to Classical Music? What was Bach's "Hate Index", and should his music be censored for being "hateful"? They say the tritone is "the devil's interval". Maybe the next step is to start censoring music with too many tritones, as being "satanic". I can say a whole lot of really "hateful" things, and not use a single hate word, and so can everybody else. Further, with all the virulent "anti-conspiracy" watchdogs around this Article, this is absolutely the very definition of a conspiracy theory. Let's see some learned and academic research supporting the idea that measuring the "hate word content" gives any kind of meaningful information LONG before including this stupidity in an encyclopedia.Tym Whittier (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)"[reply]

Tym Whittier (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not reading any of that. Learn to use paragraphs.--Jorm (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autocorrect has become my worst enema. 😊 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, my fningers could be terorists for al the spelning mistakes they mke.--Jorm (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually, my assumption of good faith on behalf of Wikipedia-kind will pay off. Today is not that day. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks, man. Ducks. They go quack.--Jorm (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Amazing work on Center for Immigration Studies Britishfinance (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Britishfinance! I think we all make a good team!--Jorm (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Do you think that the suggestions on the Talk Page re improving how these kind of articles are handled would help? Britishfinance (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

btw, I'm borrowing your "cool story bro" for my next sealioning interaction. Britishfinance (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert contributor by any means, but you are, and seem to be professional and reasonable, so I am wondering if you wouldn't mind giving me advice.

I posted a comment in the Proud Boys talk section regarding citations used to justify the term "neo-nazi" on the wiki page. The articles used to cite it, excluding the opinion pieces from politically charged sources, are being used incorrectly.

E.G. citation [11] a Washington Post article that claims the FBI considers the Proud Boys a hate group. This was later followed up on by the FBI and they confirmed the FBI does not consider the Proud Boys to be a hate group. The follow up article correcting the citation is left out and never corrected on Wikipedia. I started the talk section, to see if this could be corrected and I was going to follow up as per your instructions with the proper citations, but now I wonder if it's even worth it because because SummerPhD and a couple other contributors are more invested in leaving that label on there and silencing anyone who wishes to present opposing evidence.

My question is, should I even bother? Is the article currently hijacked to the point where anything conflicting with their political opinions rejected? It seems to me if I gave them an FBI report invalidating these claims they would be able to reject it by misusing Wikipedia Rules that were created for the exact opposite purpose.

I also want to add, I am not a member of, nor am I affiliated with the group in either way. I am just an avid reader of Wikipedia, and I hate to see all of these articles on politics turning into dumpster fires.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoohunglow (talk • contribs) 12:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Proud Boys are Neo-Nazis though. So yeah: unless the sun starts darkening the sky, I think you're going to be wasting your time trying to get that removed since there won't be any citations that prove your point, at least from reputable sources.

As a side point, it's always confusing to me when people who have not affiliation with these types of groups are really concerned about labels like "neo-fascist" and "neo-nazi". It's almost like you do have an agenda.--Jorm (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of neo-facist, and to respond to your comment, I don't have an agenda, I am just annoyed with hyperbolic labels being thrown on anything related to right-wing politics, if you consider than an agenda then I guess it's frustration.

It reminds me of this German comedy "Er Ist Wieder Da" where Hitler comes back from the dead and joins the Green Party. Obviously the Green Party was not created to be a neo-facist organization, but due to the actions of its members it deteriorates into a state where it literally is the new Nazi party. Maybe that's the case with the Proud Boys, I remember hearing about it early on and it was a fairly benign group. But like anything else when you have enough people in it it turns into something else. I know there are/were a lot of members who were not Nazis, but after Charlottesville it came to light certain members attended who clearly were racists. Either way, I am not wasting my time with it anymore, it seems like a lost cause anyway, it's like the UKIP of fraternal organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoohunglow (talk • contribs) 00:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I (and I think most people) are concerned, if a group showed up and marched at Charlottesville, they're Nazis. End of story. I can't think of a more accurate term for groups that are ideologically bent on the extermination of other groups, can you?

So no, I don't think it's hyperbole. I think it's accurate.--Jorm (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the majority of RS do not refer to them as fascist or neo fascist (you may want to address the point on the neo fascist talk page about the word having little to no academic standing.) WP is supposed to accurately represent the majority of RS opinion. Furthermore, the experts on labeling hate groups- SLPC and ADL whom frequently throw around the fascist label do not use it to the describe this group. The reason may have something to do with Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, and the proud boys being neither authoritarian or interested in dictatorial power. Not all right wing hate groups are fascist and unlike the other objectors or proponents-my proposal to use the SLPC description is a harsher way of describing them but unlike fascist is not factually inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:B86B:1C9F:5778:9BFF (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look ye upon the giant, barren field of the fucks I give about your thoughts on the SPLC.--Jorm (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and interestingly when punched into a search engine- groups that are ideologically bent on the extermination of other groups, first hit nazis second hit islamists third hit communists

It undermines your credibility when you dismiss expert RS material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:B86B:1C9F:5778:9BFF (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fresno State rescinds job offer after candidate lies about Black, Cuban heritage https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/education-lab/article245836520.html

Nice source bro

and Hosang says that they approach fascist, not that they are fascist.

Nice misquote bro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2461:5DFD:6A2C:87C5 (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't condone Michael's actions in the last 24 hours, removing his picture from the article in retaliation is rather disruptive to the article itself and I'd suggest against doing it again. I've now reverted it (although I kept the other edit taking out the bladesmith claim intact since I'm not sure that's covered by any source). --letcreate123 (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool that you think that but a photo of a dude with a "gun" who just threatened a bunch of editors isn't kosher so you know it's going to the bin.--Jorm (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I'd agree, but

the image upload policy. --letcreate123 (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Gab neutrality

Hi Jorm, I added a section to the talk page here. Please weigh in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gab_(social_network)#Neutrality_issues

Thanks!

Alexgleason (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jorm, can you please take another look at the talk page and address my comments? I wrongly assumed you were conceding the point since it has been 2 days since your last response.

I would also like to point out that we did not form consensus for the inclusion of this newly added line. Consensus works both ways and I am putting in an active and timely effort trying to form consensus with you. I ask you to please do the same for me.

I'm not advocating that we say Gab is a beautiful place with rainbows and flowers, just that we remove an excessive subjective statement by a third-party. It's just one sentence that I think is in excess. My goal here is to preserve the encyclopediatic tone which I think is not well served by the inclusion of that statement.

To give an example, imagine on the page for Coca-Cola we include a statement from Pepsi saying "Coca-Cola has been accused of murdering union organizers. Also, Pepsi is more flavorful and better in every way." The point has already been made with the first sentence, while the second sentence is a self-promotion.

I'm not trying to twist the article into conveying Gab falsely. We all know what Gab really is. I just do not think we should be shamelessly promoting a competing product on the page. It's not relevant to the point, and the point is strong without it.

Thanks! Alexgleason (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think the point is softened by your proposed change, and I'm not sure it's necessary.--Jorm (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the point is softened. The goal is

WP:NPOV. Do you agree with my Pepsi/Coke analogy? Why or why not? Alexgleason (talk

)

No, I do not agree with your analogy. I really don't see much point with this discussion; you want the language softened, I and others do not. Convince them, and allow the consensus discussion to continue (these things take time).--Jorm (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a former WMF employee, are you sure it's appropriate for you to participate in high-stake community discussions declaring what a user can or cannot do with WMF actions? If you are sure, don't you think it would be better to add some kind of disclosure to that purpose? Nemo 10:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a former WMF employee, I can't see how there can be any COI, and Jorm's entitled to state his view as much as anyone else. Acroterion (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was over four years ago and you're just looking for a problem. Back off.--Jorm (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to apologize for my comment in Floq's RfA that I "for once" agreed with you. That was unnecessary to include. My only interaction with you that I can recall was to post a message on your talk page asking you not to be so dismissive of editors with different points of view, a comment with which you disagreed. I guess I wanted to indicate in the RfA that I agreed with you on the point you were making even though we were not like-minded editors. But, as I said, it was unnecessary to say and I did not intend it to be a slight of you. I hope you will accept my apology. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: - no worries, and no need to apologize. I mostly was thinking that (as near as I can tell) you and I actually agree on most things, which was what I found curious.

Regarding the comment above: I want to point out that the folks I was being dismissive to were either A) a white supremacist who had been making deeply offensive posts about myself and others on other sites or B) those defending that person. Person A has been star-chamber banned by Arbcom (likely for those or similar postings) and persons B and B2 are topic banned for their behavior in that area. I don't think you disagree with me in sentiment; you're just a nicer person than I am.--Jorm (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps help me start finding concensus for a rewritten lede? I believe my attempt, if not good enough to pass outright, should be an OK starting point for the discussion. Are you inclined to agree or do you think my changed version is inherently flawed?

In any case, I'm really not sure what to do from this point as I'm rather clueless on how the process works. I'd appreciate your help!

P. S. I accidentally clicked on the "thanks" button for the undo. Just wanted to clarify it's not me being passive aggressive. HoboDyerProjection (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You opened an RFC. You need to wait for the results of that before you can make a bold edit that adds your whitewashing, I think, or accept/announce that it's malformed. What you should do is open a new section saying "This is what I think the lede should say, and why. Be concise in your description. Don't do anything dumb like say "The EFF isn't a reliable source so it has to go." Be aware that removing all of the content about how they supported 8Chan and stuff is a complete non-starter simply because that is what most of the reliable sources talk about - which means it's quite literally the most important thing about the company (for now). You will be better served by trying to be deeply honest and not trying to "save their image", which makes you look like you're here with an agenda.--Jorm (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of whitewashing is completely uncalled for. I think you're being needlessly combative towards me.

To be completely frank, you're giving me the impression that you have reverted my changes without actually taking a look at it.

• I did not call the EFF a bad source, I responded to an editor who said that and I told them I would try to replace it with something better it if they believe it isn't suitable.
• My rewritten lede kept almost all of the text referring to alt-right, extremist and terrorist groups but changed the ordering to a chronological timeline. Only a few sentences were actually changed at all.
• There was no whitewashing whatsoever. Everything was properly cited with reliable sources, although as has been discussed, one of which could be deemed to have an agenda. But that source was only used to provide a nuanced text, using direct quotes made by an organisation that supported Cloudflare's policies.

Criticisms aside, thanks for the advice about finding concensus. I will do that soon. HoboDyerProjection (talk)

I actually hadn't meant that you thought the EFF was a bad source, but trying to point out that other people want to do that, and caution you against that kind of behavior/decision. Apologies if I didn't word that well. And I suppose I shouldn't have said "your whitewashing"; that was unfair.

I see, uhm, a lot of this type of thing, and the patterns are always the same, and it all blurs together. However, you do need to open a conversation on the talk page; that's the "D" part of "BRD".--Jorm (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were just some strange kinda spelling bee dude - didn't know you were famous! Not sure how I ended up on your UP, but I can easily visualize that tattooed arm holding the handle bars of a Harley. Oh, and I pinged you at a discussion at The SignPost as it is about a topic for which you appear to be well-versed. ~Biker chic 13:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme: Hah! I'm far from "famous", I think. Flash-in-the-pan. I take it you're into motorcycles? I've never ridden one on my own - only as a passenger. I could never justify purchasing a bike given my other transportation needs (either a commute I would never want to do on a bike or a complete lack of a commute).--Jorm (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reduced to riding a scooter. 🛴 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hope my last response at the SignPost didn't scare you off. I have more questions for you. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

What? Not at all. I must have missed it, if so. Point it out to me, please? Also: why are we whispering? --Jorm (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

👉🏻 Diff. We're whispering so we're not overheard by a ^{( Buttinsky)} until we get the particulars worked-out. I'm wanting to propose something for the WikiConference in Boston in November, and I'm thinking maybe you could help me put something together. Shhhh...^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does the no response mean you (1) don't have time, (2) are not interested, (3) my text is too small for you to see without special glasses, or (4) you forgot what this discussion was all about? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shit! No, it means, "this was on my to-do list and has slipped my mind!" but also I think maybe I could use some more direction as to what it is you're looking for.

My comment about the c-word was basically saying that when a culture permits misogynist, racist, or homophobic language is not going to be able to retain or draw in large percentages of folk who fit the demographic of the language's victims. And saying "get a thicker skin" or "it means something different in England" or any other kind of apology doesn't make the offense or damage any less real, nor is it acceptable if one wants to have a functioning society. This is not the only reason the gender gap exists, but it is part of it.--Jorm (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I also had a slip. Uhm...would it be better to take this discussion to a subpage or possibly email where great minds can collaborate without nearly as much slippage - at least until we have something viable to propose - such as a graph showing average longevity of proficient editors (male vs female vs short-lived-drive-by-editors-my-dad-deserves-an-article types), and possibly valid reasons for the noticeable gender gap in our admins, and why their numbers are also falling, and why we need editors to create the pool of potential admin replacements, etc.? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm - not sure if I need to ping you on your UTP but it’s pretty long, and I didn’t want you to miss my post. Back to our Boston discussion and you helping me a little (don’t want to scare you off with more work). The presentation you gave about editor retention - is there a way I can see it? I’m thinking maybe presenting something along the line of “A gendered perspective” or something along that line. I haven’t done any surveys, etc. - I’ve lived it, so you could say it’s “hands-on” experience or from a female perspective it might be “hands-off”. Your email isn’t enabled so I’m limited to discussing things here, but if you have anything you can send me (my email is enabled) that you found useful back when you made your presentation for editor retention, I would be very appreciative. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme: Hey! Yes, email is probably the smart play; I normally like to do WP work in public but I expect that talk pages will be shitty for this (I use my email inbox as a "to do" list). My email is disabled because ... Well. I was on the banner once. However, my address isn't a secret: bharris atATat gaijin dotDOTdot comCOMcom. As to seeing presentations, it depends on the one? Some are archived, others not. Various Wikimanias were hot messes with regards to saving recordings; others were genius. But also: Some I gave multiple times, and may have been recorded elsewhere. So send me an email with what you're looking for and I'll see what I can do.

(also i refuse to archive my talk page as a protest for how talk pages are shitty technology)--Jorm (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thx. It’s after midnight here, so it will be later in the afternoon before I get around to making a list. Oh, as for long UTPs - I am an EEng UTP veteran - your UTP is a piece of cake. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had simply removed one low-quality source - We still have many higher quality sources affirming the connection between Gab and the alt-right!!!! People keep restoring this poor study (and it's included redlink to an organization I never heard of) back into the page when we clearly have better studies already referenced on the page!!! I don't want to edit the article again since this would cause an war

Mfernflower (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should open a discussion on the article's talk page and bring that up there, then. You made a change (bold), you were reverted, and now you must discuss. That's the "D" in "BRD".

Regardless, my message on your talk page was a simple discretionary sanctions alert, and everyone gets one of those who edits in that area.--Jorm (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reverting user is somewhat partial to edit warring so I simply agreed to not edit the page anymore. They did sort of leave a sarcastic message in the "discussion is closed tag" Seems nobody can agree on how to word politics!! Mfernflower (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have supported my ban however would we be able to discuss your reasonings and both sides on here so we can see each other’s sides in a civil way thanks.

Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read the discussion. I support the topic ban. There's nothing more to do here. Discussion about your actions should continue to happen in that thread, not here. It is inappropriate for you to canvas me here.--Jorm (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the discussion has been closed so I can’t, all I want with people is a peaceful conversation with people about the issue - it will only lead to improvements. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm able to help you other than to say this: You should drop the stick, accept that you are wrong, and try to understand why you are wrong. This conversation does you no credit.--Jorm (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is "nah" really enough of a reason to revert something? MaximumIdeas (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah! ^{Sorry, couldn't resist, but I didn't revert in case levity was a "nah, don't do that!". Atsme} _Talk 📧 22:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MaximumIdeas - absolutely. You were already reverted; I was re-reverting you. --Jorm (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, you guys are so much against the spirit of Wikipedia. You do you, I guess. MaximumIdeas (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And are you sure that "protest" encompasses violence? Would you put the same on a violent right-wing organization's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumIdeas (talk • contribs)

Protest can, indeed, include violence, but you made that change specifically to blackwash the statement, which is, I think, bad faith. So. You were reverted! You should also learn how to use talk pages.--Jorm (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Nice to meet you ~
	~ Thanks ~ Very nice to meet you ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you, too!--Jorm (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eg [11]. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doug Weller, that is quite literally the dumbest fucking rule I have ever seen on this site. Folk like that dude just delete their warnings constantly; do you think he cares? At all? Does anyone? Like all things with Mediawiki, it's a pain in the ass to see if someone has been given an alert in the past year. I think you should be able to give them as many times as possible just so that we can be absolutely fucking sure. Dumb rule. Just stupid.--Jorm (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shows up in the logs and on the talk page when you click the first time you save. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd missed the note on the talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries!--Jorm (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...had to self-revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, pal! Sometimes you get the bear and sometimes, you know. You do good work.--Jorm (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jorm

Thank you for calling my attention.

I will be more careful moving forward.

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problems!--Jorm (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think of you from time to time. I hope that you're doing well. ↠Pine (✉) 05:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pine: Why, thank you for your kind thoughts! I am truly flattered.

I am doing well! Or as well as one can be in our Times of Early Trials. My family and friends are mostly well; I am fairly at peace. I'm trying to do my part for the Mission still.--Jorm (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jorm, that's good to hear. It's nice to see you around. --↠Pine (✉) 06:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This encylopedia needs all kinds of editors who comply with its policies and guidelines. Especially useful are editors like Jorm who are willing to delve into highly contentious topics at the ragged edges of popular culture and extremist politics. Please excuse me, Jorm, for pinging you to your own page. Thanks for what you do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, thank you for your kind words! You're one of my favorite people, and it is always good to hear from you.--Jorm (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nor did I even imply that, because the idea of murder is ridiculous. It probably was a suicide; all I said was that the Winnipeg Police haven't issued a ruling yet, which will no doubt be suicide based upon his sister's public comments.

Thank you. -Phone Charger (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implying that Zoe had anything to do with his death and intimating that the police are thinking of her as a subject of interest - without a source at all - is doing exactly that.--Jorm (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only implication is that Zoe's recent allegations of abuse, which led to the termination of his employment, in such close temporal proximity to his death, may well have been a contributing factor in his suicide. I don't believe I was intimating that the police considered her a suspect (which would be ridiculous, in my opinion). If I was unclear then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Thank you.

-Phone Charger (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say I will not be accepting any silencing or bullying from the likes of you on here. I removed bias from an article, I got a reversion from an obviously corrupt editor with an agenda (had male feminist in his about page, reverted an edit re that so should have been keeping his fingers off since it's clearly a subject he can't be impartial on) and now I see you polluting my talk page with your intimidation. you can go straight to hell, it doesn't matter how passive-aggressively you phrase it, I know cult-like behaviour, bullying and outright intimidation when I see it and I'm seeing it right now. I've been on here since the start, and I will not bow to anyone pushing an ideological agenda who has been climbing the greasy pole. Hideki (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jorm. I responded to your reply here. I'm still not sure what is happening here. There's a chance I'll end up with egg on my face for not realizing something silly but at the moment I'm still stumped and I'm thinking it's not a problem on my end. The offending HTML appears to be a DIV inserted after the page footer, which is highly irregular. I'll tinker with it for a while by using another browser and update in the thread with whatever I learn. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still have no idea what's going on. The only page that trigger Facebook Container is Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-09-30/From the editors (not the talk page, which I may have been unclear about when I wrote "this page"). Actually Facebook Container itself says "No Facebook trackers detected" but for some reason it is inserting the "badge" it uses to flag an element

<div class="fbc-badge js-fbc-UID_1 fbc-badge-small fbc-badge-share fbc-badge-prompt-align-top" style="z-index: 202; left: -12px; top: -5px;"><div class="fbc-badge-fence"></div><div class="fbc-badge-tooltip">Facebook Container has disabled this button and blocked Facebook from tracking your visit to this page.</div><div class="fbc-badge-prompt"></div></div>

that it thinks is a tracker (this was the code I thought was suspicious but I now believe it is inserted by the plugin). I still don't know why the code is inserted by the plugin and the badge doens't seemed to be attached to any element so it ends up rendering in the upper left of the page. Maybe it's a bug in Facebook container itself. I'll let you know if it turns out to be more than that. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason QuinnThis is interesting. I went back looking on the pages and couldn't find any trackers or html that might trigger one, so I agree that your plug-in (or a different one) may be inserting the code for you. I'm actually interested in this, so yeah: keep me updated, please.--Jorm (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	wikipedia made me write something here. -- FariedNawaz (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's a Faried! Thank you!--Jorm (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you blank Talk:List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019? Removing all active discussions at once seems excessive. Dimadick (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't blank it; I undid a single undo of an archive. Was it the only discussion? --Jorm (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm, that link is dead--that whole thing seems to have folded. Not worth edit-warring over. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let it go.--Jorm (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of the source is open for debate, for the record I provided an archival link. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How come you chose to engage Katfactz after their second unblock request? The threats made and behavior done were a clear indef block... I am just curious is all as I don't think anything good came out of it. In any case its over, I was just sorry to see the attempted outing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, who I am isn't a deep secret; I'm just not hip to people who attack me in one moment attempting to be informal with me in the next. I engaged because I am going to give folk like that exactly zero leeway.--Jorm (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Requesting block review: Katfactz". Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Word. I responded there. I think you’re in the right but I wasn’t outed. --Jorm (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do not categorise list articles by all the issues dealt with in the list. Categorisation works on the defining features of the article. Please do not start an edit war. Discuss this in the talk page. Rathfelder (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you want this discussion on the talk page? You're the one edit warring, btw. When two people revert you, it's time to take a look at what is going on!--Jorm (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate

you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

Who do you think you are? Alex Devens (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{friendly talk page stalker) Jorm tells you here – he even gives a photo. Britishfinance (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am someone who has no idea who you are or why you are on my talk page.--Jorm (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? this ring any bells, asshole? Alex Devens (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jorm! All the warmest wishes for this seasonal occasion, whichever you celebrate - or don't, while I swelter at 27℃ (80.6℉), and peace and prosperity for 2020. Hoping that you'll join me for a cool beer in Bangkok in August when it will be even hotter! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you mean by citation, can you give an example of another article, I added the reference, who is the person who says this, to which organization he belongs, what else do you want. I put this into what this organization really thinks, that MGTOW is the male feminist is something almost irrelevant to them, mainly they criticize it for being a group of "most virgins going their own way", "repellent losers" that encourage to others to join them, that's what the Pick-up artist community does not talk of them of feminism separatism that practically doesn't mention it either on their websites or in their interviews. We are going to put what this community thinks of them in their respective section, and not change it just because some people do not like it--BrugesFR (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing this, I figured this would give you a chuckle. Maybe wenyan‑lang will become a blue link someday. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That is ambitious and I applaud him for that. --Jorm (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Technical Barnstar
	For your invaluable help with b} 18:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

Hey, thanks!--Jorm (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Half Barnstar
	For the excellent User:Headbomb/unreliable. Harrias talk 19:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woo! Thanks!--Jorm (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A very minor note about this edit, which you may already know (if so, please ignore): technically it's a CSS selector rather than a regular expression. Good work on the script! isaacl (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I do that. I don't know what I was thinking. Thanks!--Jorm (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you, or anyone, to lock down a site so that no one else can edit incorrect statements?

Just because you don't think Intelligent Design is science does not change the fact that it uses the same scientific processes that Darwinian Evolution does.

Correct it or open the page on Philip Johnson and any other like pages that have been secured in order for those of your belief cannot independently influence readers.

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to help people find truth, not agendas. Starvger (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jorm, I opened an ANI at

]

Antifa - "left wing" label

Hi, I just thought i'd let you know that antifa is labelled as "left wing" on their own wikipedia page too. So it's not incorrect to use the label "left wing" in the Andy Ngo article. There is already a consensus that Antifa is a left wing group. I'll undo your revisions because you haven't given a reason as to why Antifa should not be labelled as "left wing" but to avoid this turning into an edit war, please let me know again if you're not seeing eye to eye with me and we can then discuss -

]

You're inserting the text in a way with an attempt to sway the political balance of the statement. Always inserting "Left wing" in front of things is a conservative propaganda tactic, and I'm going to continue to revert that kind of bias from creeping in.--Jorm (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ^_^, I didn't know it was not a reliable source, anyway, you could always explain yourself a little bit further on what is reliable and what is not. "Not a reliable source" is not that helpful and makes of Wikipedia a waste of time ^_^ Cheers. --CoryGlee (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to say "this is not a reliable source" any more helpful than "this is not a reliable source". Feel free to educate yourself about reliable sources.--Jorm (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, no worries regarding the collateral damage. I don't see a BLP issue in the content you removed, though. VQuakr (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about Jeanine Pirro - trying to insinuate/state a connection to ultranationalism.--Jorm (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. It was enough word salad I must have just skimmed over that part. Thanks, and happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Jorm. Hope you're doing well. I'm writing to you about your revert on my addition. I just wanted more information rather than just a "Nah." I came here because I didn't want a immature

]

You didn't add; you removed. Context is important, and in this case that context is valuable. We don't need even more fuel for "but white people can be targeted by racism, too" bullshit. That's the context. --Jorm (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea. I want to give it some time to see how it goes, but if it looks like it's going south, I would have some backup ideas to see if we can get consensus for something. One idea I had was to change the logo from white to black. Here's hoping we can get something larger and more impactful than that though. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey that's pretty great and simple! I want to get something heavy-heavy happening, too. Fortunately, I have some experience in that area so I know what we'll need, and I've been thinking down that way already. What we will want is a full page design banner. I have done one before, but I honestly think we should get a black artist to design one, and then massage to what is needed. I can make the WMF connections easily enough (and they'll want message input). Where would be a good place to start discussions about practicalities, do you think?--Jorm (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics Lab which has people skilled in graphic design but probably more hit or miss for this. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

This is great information and thank you for it but it looks like nothing will happen. I apologize for wasting your time.--Jorm (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never a waste, thanks for trying. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is his partner on his wiki. They're partners @ Wikidata. They are together since 2016. Why did you remove it?

You need a source. I don't care if it's on Wikidata it needs a source. Discuss this on that talk page, not mine.--Jorm (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You removed it. A source for what? The wiki already mentions they have a relationship since 2016. It has been like that for ages.-- Ts6facts 22:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Building the Wikimythology Award
	The Topic Ban Fairy (with a side order of NOTHERE) is a valuable addition to Wikipedia's mythology. SummerPhDv2.0 17:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Thanks!--Jorm (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jorm, you just reinstated a lot of text that is sourced to an unpublished book, that I had reverted: [12]. You didn't leave an edit summary. Is there an explanation that I don't see? Per

]

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

Dear Jorm,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

]

cool story, or is it?

(Redacted) Chris Troutman (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: Neither you nor Jorm are acting remotely appropriately here. Please stop. --Yair rand (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You guys keep coming to me. You don't have to. You can leave me alone and never bother me at all, and then you don't have to see me say "I didn't read your rancor." You can do that, too, Yair! It is something inside of your power.--Jorm (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False. PackMecEng (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman, you do not get to leap to speculation about the psychological or emotional states of contributors, especially ones who are otherwise in good standing. That is totally inappropriate. Please do not do that again. I have redacted the offending opening. I am also formally warning you to take it down a notch. El_C 22:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, IMDb thinks Ocean's Thirteen is set on the 4th of July according to the keywords, so...

IMDB isn't a reliable source. I just watched it like 3 months ago and if it was set on the 4th of July, it wasn't obvious or part of the plot.--Jorm (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Epa101 (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh brother.--Jorm (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not permissible to engage in

]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me why determining a template is placed incorrectly is "not a reason to remove the template"? [14] OrgoneBox (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you help me understand why you felt it necessary to remove the recent comments on the Black Lives Matter talk page? I don't think they should have been removed, as I don't believe they violated any of the talk page guidelines -

- and it's my understanding that talk page comments should not be removed unless they clearly violate one of those guidelines.

I understand that race is a heated topic, and I believe it's important to discuss these issues in a respectful, civil manner. In that light, I worry that your labeling of opposing arguments as "white supremacist" is unfair and unproductive. I hope maybe you'll reconsider and restore the previously deleted comments. Thanks Stonkaments (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Stonkaments: The IP was using talking points that ultimately go back to white supremacists and based on bad math. They were also dishonestly using sheer numbers on one hand and percentages on the other (and furthermore ignoring the context of those percentages).

If you look at Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States#Racial_and_ethnic_categories, you'll see that white people make up 63.4% of the population and black people 13.4%. In other words, there's 4.7 times as many white people in America as their are black people. Even if we take at face value the claim that the annual number of deaths-by-police is three times higher for white people than black people, that means that black people are more likely to be killed by police. Statista says there's about twice as many white deaths as black deaths -- but there's about 4.7x times more white people than black people. Statista's reliability as a source (for this site) is questioned though, so going into more readily accepted sources, this article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Arts and Sciences and this Nature article both say black people are 2.5 times as likely to be killed by police as white people, while this New Scientist notes that in some regions black people are 6 times more likely to be killed. This Reuters article has a lot of interesting points as well.

As for citing percentages of arrests among white vs black neighborhoods, that's just as easily (if not moreso) an argument that black neighborhoods are overpoliced and more readily arrested over smaller infractions than of the (pretty fucking racist) insinuation that black people just commit more crimes.

Also, submitting a request for retraction is not meaningfully different from the authors retracting their work and

assume that you were merely restoring the IP's talking points as purely a procedural matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Those are all fair arguments − arguments that can and should be had on the talk page, which is why I object to the discussion being removed. Stonkaments (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Stonkaments: No, white supremacists see civil debate as legitimization or even as winning. Punch 'em and move on. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calling any argument or editor that disagrees with your viewpoint white supremacist is unfair and unproductive. Civil discourse is one of the pillars of Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars#WP:5P4 Stonkaments (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was anyone called a white supremacist? I wasn't aware that had happened.--Jorm (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: "No, white supremacists see civil debate as legitimization or even as winning. Punch 'em and move on."

@Jorm: "Coming in with "black on black crime" is white supremacist and I'm going to assume bad faith, yes."

I'll repeat my earlier request - could you help me understand why you felt it necessary to remove the recent comments on the Black Lives Matter talk page, given they didn't seem to violate any of the talk page guidelines? If you can't provide a satisfactory answer, or restore the deleted comments, I will look into filing a dispute resolution request to help us solve it. Stonkaments (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We👏do👏not👏give👏life👏to👏white👏supremacist👏talking👏points👏nor👏do👏we👏accept👏input👏from👏nazis. I don't know how hard that is to grasp. Feel free to open a dispute resolution ticket if you think it will go anywhere, but an Admin just told you that it won't.--Jorm (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a user posts white supremacist talking points... Ian.thomson (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stonkaments (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

🍿🍿 Here, one's for you. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’m just wondering what prompted you to put some sort of sanction on User Mikerrr. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't sanctioned anyone. I have warned them that they need to be careful when editing in articles associated with certain topic areas.--Jorm (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t sure, but I appreciate the warning. That user has been uncivil and not getting the point. I hope this stops now. Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's partly the point. Making sure they are aware of the possible set of sanctions is the first step towards them being sanctioned.--Jorm (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm, just to respond to your final comment, you call me "ill informed", yet you close your eyes and boast that you won't see the video. This is not a clip of someone talking for 60 min in a long winded manner, but actual 3 min video from the Church which was vandalized — you might not agree or care for that matter, but just so you are not "ill-informed" about the situation that's out there, or live in a bubble. --E-960 (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and a true story. Cheers. --E-960 (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. I didn't watch the video. I'm not interested in your drama. Go with whatever fairy-tale provides comfort to you.--Jorm (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is fair enough, but please refrain form commenting on Wikipedia pages on certain subjects if you are now aware of the issue, you are wasting people's time. Cheers. --E-960 (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm the one wasting people's time here, chief. There's no need for you to respond, but if you feel like you must get the last word here, feel free.--Jorm (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm, you are so COURAGEOUS, that tattoo really inspired you to be bold and tell it how it is. --E-960 (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your pending visit from the Topic-Ban Fairy.--Jorm (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courage bro, courage! --E-960 (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was just a tweak to make the grammar consistent, not a change to the meaning. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; I pulled the trigger a bit too fast.--Jorm (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way that the article appears without the word some is inaccurate and misleading. It is written in such a way as to omit the information that the Center for Immigration Reform are also scholars. That there are some scholars that disagree with the CIS does not give authority to their opposition.

RichardBond (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the article's talk page and get consensus there, please, not here.--Jorm (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[redact link to fascist website] read what the core values of the Proud Boys are Chrisburke123 (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what they say about themselves. They're neo-fascists. All the reliable sources say so. Discuss this on the talk page, not here.--Jorm (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Never mind. You just got topic banned, so you can't discuss it. Anywhere, including here. --Jorm (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I, too, am a bit suspicious of DotWhateverWiki's edits, as well as those by IndieQueenPDX, which seem to be almost entirely related to Logan Lynn. I've asked about their identity on their user talk page, and considered going to WP:COIN. A lot of the LL-related articles are way too detailed and promotional. I invite you to take a look and/or trim promotional content as you see fit, if you're interested and willing. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I see this behavior?--Jorm (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm, Contribution history. See all the LL-related edits. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DotWhateverWiki ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Word. I'll take a look later when I've got some time.--Jorm (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Notifying User:Drmies of this as well based on their comments at Talk:Logan Lynn. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thanks for your work on the Proud Boys talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you closed the discussion I can't very well add it there, but I came up with a different idea on how to search for a source on the subject. This looks a lot like what I saw. Anyway, when I looked more carefully I saw that they were discussing already whether to include such information.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My question to you is what fucking purpose does elevating a conspiracy theory like this serve? The only one I can think of is to propagandize his death into a "he deserved this because he was a bad person so the cops did nothing wrong". Is that your goal?--Jorm (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a category in the talk page for consensus on the far-right characterization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Three_Percenters#New_Consensus_Attempt_to_change_Three_Percenters_characterization_from_'far-right'_to_'anti-government'_in_lede TheEpicGhosty (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I posted was on topic for the talk page and an attempt to help a fellow editor. If its wrong to express personal disappointment about a topic then it certainly isn't commonly enforced. I hope you understand this. Although looking at your history you seem to have an issue with professionalism and appear to create or at least thrive in wallowing among the very problems wikipedia supposedly is against so I am not too optimistic. Which is strange for someone who puts themselves forth as an enforcer of this site. Go ahead and censor if you wish. I barely edit anymore anyway.

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jorm: In his edit summary Nfitz asks a valid question: why are we closing this while still editing? I only began reading Talk:Proud Boys yesterday, but I already have the impression that you are closing requests too quickly, and in some cases prematurely. Please restrain yourself in this regard and give other editors a chance to comment on answered requests. NedFausa (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Thanks for taking out the trash on the talk page, Jorm. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol cool story courageous warrior. --Renegade78 (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a Briton, I had no idea what a Harvard SAT score would be and had to read the entirerty of the attached ref to make sense of it. I assume other non-Americans would have this experience and perhaps too would Americans who haven't attended college/elite colleges. Further, it was cited. The existing ref which I left in place (the Insider) had the info. In any event, you have spent more time on the article and I will defer. Lord Law Law (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge their conspiracy theories and misconduct and you get threatened by their followers. Yeesh. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jorm. --Pudeo (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jorm. Could you please leave a statement at AE? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero: I learned long ago that I don't have to step into the ring whenever anyone invites me to a fight, so no, I don't think I'm going to engage with that cool story happening there. Jorm (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm, admins at AE are leaning towards giving you a warning but by avoiding making any response there at all, it looks like a warning would have no effect at all. I encourage you to make even a token appearance at AE which would indicate your willingness to receive gentle feedback rather than facing a sanction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, What, exactly would be the value of that? What possible thing could I say that would not either a) serve as some sort of fuel for additional rancor; b) Serve to muddy the waters, or c) Imply something that isn't true?

I'm really perplexed that that thing is open at all. I've been walking through my talk page, cataloging how many "cool stories" there are and why and I think people have a completely different interpretation of what happens.

The fact of the matter is that I simply see no need to engage with folk who come to my talk page in bad faith. If I don't respond, I get in trouble. If I engage, I get in trouble. So I shine everyone on. Would people prefer me to say "I will not engage with you?" It's the same goddamned thing. A handful of folk are infuriated that I won't listen to them yell at me.

So really I'm about to get a warning for that, or i'm about to get a warning for not being nice to racists and transphobes, or I'm about to get a warning for something I said about another user, which is a not uncommon belief.

So what's my benefit in responding there? Jorm (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, here it is. This is the list of times that I used this on my talk page. I never do this on article space, nor on any other user's talk page. MINE.

There are a total of 33 entries in this. Many are response to automated posts. Most editors are blocked or sitebanned or globally locked now.

• 2015.11.30 - In response to an automated "ArbCom Elections"
• 2016.03.29 - To John Pack Lambert, who came to my talk page angry that I left him a DS notice about Gamergate
• 2017.05.11 - In response to an anonymous IP who had been vandalizing the "Gamergate" page
• 2017.05.11 - In response to someone saying simply "INFOWARS DOT COM"
• 2017.07.03 - In response to Guy Macon, who for some reason likes to come to my talk page to start fights.
• 2017.07.14 - Angry user who apparently has a point to prove about... something... when their POV tag was removed. That went to AN/I; nothing happened.
• 2017.08.31 - Sitush decides to come and start a fight. I refused to engage. Guy Macon decided to get involved! I said it using emoji, which I thought was clever.
• 2018.09.24 - Darkness Shines, during one of their bad-faith episodes at Patrio Prayer. Note that Darkness Shines is now sitebanned for that type of behavior
• 2018.02.02 - Darkness Shines, again, taking me to AN/EW, for the same behavior that got them site banned.
• 2018.05.03 - An IP vandal who kept trying to rewrite the Incel article
• 2018.05.08 - A now-blocked user who also kept trying to rewrite the Incel article
• 2018.07.09 - Sleyece, who has very strong opinions about a target of Gamergate, Anita Sarkeesian. I don't rightly remember this little dust up but there's a typical pattern.
• 2018.09.07 - WillWill0415, an ideological warrior attempting to remove all instances of white supremacy from various articles. WillWill, my friends, is san fran banned because of his behavior.
• 2018.11.20 - Another Arbcom message
• 2018.04.08 - To someone named "0pen$0urce" who apparently took issue with me removing their drive-by tags on Nathan Phillips and wanted to start a fight.
• 2019.04.26 - Looks like a couple of folk who dislike that we use the Southern Poverty Law center and took issue with me removing excoriating forum posts and to tell me I "have bias".
• 2019.05.13 - Another blocked, bad-faith user
• 2019.05.21 - Another blocked, bad-faith user
• 2019.05.21 - IP editor upset about having their forum discussion closed
• 2019.05.26 - Some more folk mad about not being allowed to scream "bias" all over Patriot Prayer
• 2019.05.27 - Someone's angry that I told Wumbolo (now blocked and banned for being racist) to "go away" from my talk page. Liz expressed disappointment that I wouldn't engage civilly with them; I'm guessing that she didn't see or care about my response to her, which lies unanswered.
• 2019.06.02 - Galestar, an anti-feminist ideological warrior who still pops up from time to time. I tried being nice to them but they continued to pester me so I gave them the cool story.
• 2019.06.20 - Someone comes to my talk to be rude to me for dropping a template on them.
• 2019.08.22 - Someone is mad that I reverted their edit warring. They wouldn't give it up; decided to say that we were all against the spirit of wikipedia. They had a cool story.
• 2019.09.22 - Someone wants to yell at me for being in cahoots with corrupt editors who are male feminists and wanted to rant. It was a cool story.
• 2019.11.13 - In response to a bot edit.
• 2019.12.16 - Another blocked, bad-faith user
• 2020.03.23 - Someone is mad that they can't edit intelligent design to show that god is love or some shit.
• 2020.07.01 - Some came to my page and started shit and it was a cool story? I guess? The initial post was admin-redacted.
• 2020.07.09 - SMcCandlish, who wrote a horrible "humor" and I said it was disgusting. Lots of people said it was so; I got a warning from him and a DS notice b/c I his essay was transpobic.
• 2020.07.19 - I don't even remember what this was about even though it was this year. Ian obviously thought it was dumb, too.
• 2020.08.10 - Someone absolutely needed to get the last word in about some article thing about religion or someshit.
• 2020.10.01 - Someone is mad that they got NOTFORUM'd. Jorm (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm, I just want to say that I think you are doing a great job here on Wikipedia and I think admins at AE are not seeing the forest for the trees. People seem so wrapped up in a false sense of 'civility' that they forget what real incivility is like. I'm just a nobody and I know I don't have much clout around here but just know not everyone sees how you act as anything but defensible and appropriate. Valeince (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 00:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jorm: I'm not an admin and from what I'm seeing here I would never want to be but I want to say I agree with the previous two here, Bandersnatch and Valeince. I didn't see your response regarding me making an account last week but I'll take it under consideration. You're a good man, it's a pity wikipedia allows and even encourages sealioning behavior by so many people so often. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:61F1:70B1:3D7F:EDDD (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I just read the signpost bit that SmcCandlish decided to harass you over. I feel like puking. How did that transphobic hate-garbage not get them kicked off wikipedia??? 2601:2C0:C300:B7:61F1:70B1:3D7F:EDDD (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ohman. Ya'll are going to make me cry. Thank you, I appreciate it.--Jorm (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hello, Jorm. Pursuant to the report at AE, you are formally warned against continued incivility, personal attacks or aspersions in the

]

Really glad I engaged in this. Totally useful thing to do with my time. Jorm (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I read a whole bunch of the comments at AE but skipped around quite alot and somehow never gathered that this was all about GamerGate at its root, of all possible topic areas for official concern about insufficient etiquette and civility to come to bear. I did not think my opinion of this particular operation of the Wikimachinery of Justice could get lower. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 01:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. This was about behavior in the ARBGG topic area, which includes GamerGate and all gender-related disputes and controversies. It should not be contentious that the relevant incidents fall within this subject area, so I'm not sure what you're suggesting. And, Jorm, it brings me no pleasure to be the one to deliver this warning, it was simply the only realistic conclusion based on the feedback. I think it was fairly lenient, and you should not be resentful about it. I don't think your "participation" was to blame, if anything, it was your lack of participation that forced the community's hand here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I have nothing more to offer you. --Jorm (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for you to offer anything to me. I'm not asking for any response at all. I'm just stating the offer that is being made to you by the community. No further followup is required, it may be unfortunate but it is what it is. You're issued a warning, or reminder, or whatever you want to consider it as, and it's non-negotiable. It's lenient, it's relaxed, it's understanding, it's simply a minor check. It can literally be a minor speedbump that fades into oblivion, but if you and your supporters are going to become hostile about it, then it's all the more likely to present against you badly in the future. I don't think anything I said was harsh or crossing the line, I think I was downright sympathetic and friendly, but if you want to cast yourself as some sort of wronged crusader, I doubt that's going to help you. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: My second sentence above really just literally means that when I browsed through a bunch of the comments on the AE noticeboard related to Jorm, in no particular order, although I saw GamerGate mentioned I did not realize the scope of the matter was confined to GG (I think maybe I noticed it in the original report as the requested enforcement link, but I assumed it had expanded?), so I was surprised to see that as the fulcrum of the official warning. Checking back, I think I may have misled myself because the first comment I read was Liz's starting with Jorm has chosen to patrol some controversial articles... and hence thought a broader range of topics were involved.

The description of diffs and the comments there do not mention things that seem particularly egregious to me, especially not in the context of GG or the kinds of things transphobes say in gender-related articles; so I'm having difficulty accepting that the community's hand was inexorably forced into placing Jorm into “final warning” precarity here. (I'm sure you as the closer have done your job properly in carrying out consensus, though.) But I haven't read through every diff and link, I don't have an admin's perspective on enforcement of conduct rules, and I'm not trying to re-litigate the AE discussion here: I'm just expressing solidarity with Jorm. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 03:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My first barnstar ever, in fourteen years! Yeah, I guess I'm normally kind of a loner. And I should probably link to my talk page in my signature. Thank you so much! --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 02:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ohman, now I wish I could still hand out my real, physical barnstars and give you one!--Jorm (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now be the first to behold the ever-so-slightly-new signature you have inspired... everything doesn't quite line up on all the computers and browsers I'm looking at it from but hey, wabi-sabi, right --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 03:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Kyle Rittenhouse removed? He has been charged with the shootings. It was specifically mentioned in the articles cited. I am not going to engage in a constant edit war, but his name should be specifically mentioned.

Regardless of the 'truth' of the matter, we have a couple things at play as to why we don't put his name up, and they are: 1) the policy around Biographies of Living Persons, which means that we can't make statements in wikivoice about individuals in certain ways - in this case, declaring that the individual in question committed a crime that they have not yet been convicted of; 2) Glorifying the horrible, wherein fame is granted to a criminal because of their acts and the publicity around them.--Jorm (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per your recent summary, I believe The Forward is generally considered to be a reliable source. It's used in the Parler article and I've certainly used them elsewhere. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, yeah i dropped the ball on that one. Jorm (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jorm, by my count you reverted four times at

]

@

WP:RS. They've also continued on with personal attacks against Jorm [15], and then trying to accuse others of personal attacks and threatening to have people blocked [16]. It's to the point where the NumbersUSA article is now semiprotected in case the IP tries to get around their block [17]

.

Hopefully you or someone else can take a second look, this is getting a little out of hand. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on things, but so far I don't think they need blocking - they're not playing well with others, but it hasn't crossed the line (in my opinion) to blockworthy. If another admin disagrees with me they're welcome to block. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

You !voted a delete in an AFD you opened, I don’t understand, isn’t opening an AFD in itself a crystal clear indication that you want the article deleted? or am I missing something? Or is there a ruling to this effect that allows editors !vote in AFD's they themselves opened? Celestina007 (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007: One can start a discussion and then have their minds changed. Opening the AFD is "here is this article we should talk about"; making the !vote is me saying "And I think we should delete it." While you can infer my vote is delete because one typically doesn't open deletion discussions about articles they want to keep, they are still separate logical operations.--Jorm (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m following, one can definitely change their minds in AFD's, this is a first for me though, I initially thought there was a ruling to that effect. Okay then. Stay safe. Celestina007 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Each "Signpost" notice has about 5-15 "expensive parser function" calls. The limit per page is 500. You have 4 dozen or so Signpost messages, maybe more. That may be why you are "over the limit." Consider

]

Davidwr, Never. Jorm (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you reverted my edits, and I can understand why. I was manually reverting 2 edits made months ago which did not seem to improve the article. By undoing those edits, I was taking the article towards a NPOV with my first edit. The second was more a matter of the previous editor not understanding how nationality works. The original edits are [18] and [19], made by an editor who has made many useless edits, said preposterous things on talk pages and has been warned many times that "fixed grammar" is not an all-purpose edit summary. I'm in the process of reviewing hundreds of their edits while I wait for them to make one further edit and get blocked.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you reverted the following [[20]] without responding on the talk page. Before making the edit, I opened the discussion on the talk page.

Not a single person has questioned whether or not it belong in the lede, and several strongly pointing out it must be included. That's consensus as far as I can see. Feel free to disagree but perhaps in the talk page before you start revert warring. I'll assume you made a mistake and let you revert yourself02:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D (talk)

Is the Afro-Cuban-American descriptor objected to? I understand that there's an objection to removing the description of

]

Mikehawk10, I don't care about the Afro-Cuban-American descriptor overmuch (I don't think it's very relevant except as some sort of feeble attempt to white wash the group's deserved reputation as white supremacists, and I don't think anyone else is gonna buy that either), but his position as an informant is absolutely relevant. You should have done two controversial changes in separate edits. Jorm (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your reply. I've decided to open up a section on the talk page regarding this, since this appears to also be contested (if I am reading your comment right). —

talk) 07:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Mistaken edit warring notice?

Came across

]

Elephanthunter, Ah yeah, that was supposed to be a welcome template. Jorm (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:No_Nazis".The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:No Nazis.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--73.159.229.5 (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jorm, you revereted my edits on Victor Salva article without telling me a reason. I added information on that article and improved wording. could you get back to me please.

I reverted you because we don't name the victims of child abuse in articles, even if their names are public.--Jorm (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Paul Gosar, you may be blocked from editing. Grayinator (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grayinator, Feel free to take my reverting your vandalism up with the authorities. Jorm (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery, this is a test to see if this gadget still works. Jorm (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it does, but not everywhere. Jorm (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about going "full flamethrower" in that signature discussion. It's no excuse but it had been the end of a bad day IRL.

]

Apology accepted! For the record, btw, MediaWiki encodes usernames in UTF-8.--Jorm (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For Special:Diff/1025475059 and your other comments on that page. While my experience might bias me a bit, that is the single best comment I've read on Wikipedia. Or at least it's in the top three. Thank you for sharing your knowledge, and I look forward to focusing on the area of talk pages more in the future. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprisey! Thank you so much! I appreciate it!--Jorm (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re Special:Diff/1025854835: My edit uses the exact same number of slurs as the previous version, both still redacted as in the original tweet. How am I "inject[ing] slurs into the minds of readers"? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does one appeal? I'm just a lowly Wiki reader who makes the occasional edit. Seems mighty unfair to have these sanctions (whatever they are) imposed for bringing up an extremely valid point. So, how would I appeal these sanctions which have, in my opinion, been applied with a heavy and unaccountable hand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongoletsi (talk • contribs) 19:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mongoletsi: You are not currently sanctioned, to my knowledge. That was a warning message to let you know that you are editing in an area that has defined sanctions. It means that the area is watched heavily and if you are being disruptive in that area that sanctions will be applied, and swiftly, and that the severity of them are at the discretion of any administrator.

Your edit was controversial and you must obtain consensus for it. Trying to bully it through will almost certainly result in you being blocked. I can tell you right now, though, that there is extremely little chance of your edit sticking; 8chan is absolutely anti-semitic, and will likely always include that banner. Despite what you think or your gut thinks or you've been told on youtube, we follow what is true and verifiable. Jorm (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing up the DS question. I've been on Wiki a long time; I agree that we should strive for neutral, verifiable articles.

I consider the anti-semitism categorisation as bizarre; there's far more in the article about shootings, or Trump, for example. There's only one allusion towards anti-semitism, so question the rationale for the article being judged to be part of a series on anti-semitism. There are far more fitting categories. I'm keen to avoid slippery slope arguments, however I see one right ahead if we now categorise an article based on one mention alone, disregarding other more prominent categories.

I did attempt to obtain consensus for the edit; I created a section on the talk page. Who gets to decide if the edit is controversial? I argue that this article is miscategorised as as an article on anti-semitism, and this is the controversial edit, not mine.

As an aside, please refrain from ad-homs. Your wildly inaccurate assumptions about my information sources or how my gut "thinks" have no place on Wikipedia Mongoletsi (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the idea at Special:Diff/1026726084. Although, would it be possible to perhaps use a different example for a custom signature, like [[User:Jorm|Custom signature]]? I appreciate the sentiment conveyed, but as it's the first comment, it'll sort of sets the tone for the rest of it. And I figure the RfC's going to be a massive uphill battle anyway. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point. I've changed it. Jorm (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Not done for obvious reasons, being that this request assumes that words no longer have meanings." Good one. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any connection to

]

Nope, not at all. I mean, I program javascript and my enthusiasm for such depends on the time of day and how irritated I am that he decided every number should be a float, but that's neither here nor there.

Stop looking for a conspiracy. Open a discussion and actually talk about it. Jorm (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You undid my sourced edit just because was tagged minor edit. Let's be honest, it was such a nice excuse. Many of users doubt you are independent editor. You should respect to other users and read

]

I have no idea who you are, but your edits were suppressed by an admin. If you somehow feel that your anti-feminist bullshit deserves to be on Wikipedia, take it up with them. I for one eagerly await your topic ban and eventual block, since I know what kind of editor you are.--Jorm (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to my request that the Wikipedia BLM pages add mention of the co-founders' "Black Lives Matter Manifesto" is below...

Jorm: "Patricmcm please read the many, many, many archives where folk have come asking this (or a similar) question and are educated that the right-wing media "Marxist" claim is, in fact, not true, and is nearly always questioned and espoused by individuals who do not fully understand what Black Lives Matter is, what Marxism is, or both! Ke Akua Pū.--Jorm (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)BLM PAGE, May 22, 2021

You responded with the above to my request that Wikipedia address an apparent oversight on its "Black Lives Matter" page by the inclusion of the organization's founding document, "The Black Lives Matter Manifesto" of 2014. The Manifesto was authored and presented by BLM co-founders Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi, who within the document espoused the beneficial applications of Marxist training in the struggle against "systemic racism." One need not be expert on either BLM or Marxism to perceive that any public descriptor of the organization, such as a Wikipedia page, with no mention of its founding document would benefit by its addition, much as discussions of the American Revolution benefit from inclusion of the Declaration of Independence. As to the co-founders appreciation of Marxism as a defining philosophy, one need only glance at the co-founders' originating cry, "Black! Queer! Marxist!"  The above is simply illustrative, factual information, and has been referred to forthrightly on numerous occasions by the co-founders themselves. Some may view Marxist theory through a darkened lens, but its tenets have proven valuable for more than a century in regards to the ignition and growth of revolutionary ideals. Patricmcm (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read any of that. Have a good day! Jorm (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.--Jorm (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel the need to be a backseat enforcer for administrators? They are perfectly able to do their jobs without your input. Your rude comments on my page are not helpful nor appreciated. Mind your own business if you aren't going to be polite about it. No one wants your rude, unsolicited input on their talk pages. Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

k. Jorm (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok with consensus. But, why remove the fact tag? I have been reading and see many online forums that are black MGTOW members. BlackAmerican (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Jorm, but I assume he removed the "citation needed"/fact tag because the statement is cited. When multiple sentences are supported by one source, we put the citation at the end of the group of sentences rather than repeating it after each sentence. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why, and I think I said so in the edit summary. Jorm (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a portion from Donna Zuckerberg, but right above it you can see that she was used as a source. I only expanded on it. [21] BlackAmerican (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw you deleted the source of incel that I had. If you look in the history section there is a whole paragraph that is dedicated to it. [22]. Also why did you delete the gaycel? There is several published articles concerning gay incels. Thank you BlackAmerican (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source you inserted about the origin of the term has been wildly debunked. Discuss it at the article, not here. Jorm (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, the purpose of an Edit summary is to summarize the edit, not to engage in conversation with another editor. (But I'm sure you know that.) Best, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have a long history on Wiki... Why not help establish a consensus ?

instead of just ripping up my hours of hard work... I'm really sorry if I made a mistake.

But I will log off from Wiki until I hear back from someone with more experience with this website...

- OsagePizza72 (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider removing yourself from the Zoe Quinn article. You seem overly invested in it, and you've been squatting on it for so many years that you're likely not capable of overseeing it anymore. AWildAppeared (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro. Jorm (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, may I ask why my revision is being deleted? If their is a dispute with that line where can we resolve it. Thank you

Because you removed sourced content without any kind of discussion, were reverted, and then did the thing again. Discuss your edits on the talk page. I will revert them until you do.--Jorm (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link or a way I can access the talk page.

Hi! Reply-link has officially been superseded by mw:DiscussionTools, which you can install using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. DiscussionTools, developed by the WMF's Editing Team, is faster and has more features than reply-link, and it wouldn't make sense for me to keep developing reply-link. I think the Editing Team is doing amazing work, and look forward to what they can do in the future. Thank you for using reply-link over the years! Enterprisey (talk!) 06:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You rollbacked my revision on the ground that I used what you call « scare quotes » (here I go again) for the expression « systemic racism. » In this instance, the quotation marks were meant to indicate that the expression quoted appears as in in the text under discussion (the E.O.). That is a proper use of quotation marks. They can also be used for a number of other purposes, for instance to express doubts over the appropriateness of a term or the validity of a concept. These secondary and less formal uses should not displace the primary meaning of quotation marks, which is… to indicate that the delineated expression is a quote. In addition, your rollback did not just remove these scary scare quotes, but also the rest of my edits, which I believe added clarity (and better grammar) to the article. I would appreciate your providing a reasoned explanation for this action, based on your reading of the Executive Order. Thank you. Overpop (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are writing in the lede and it doesn't appear to be a quote. It appears to be you making fun of the words, and that they're ironic. Perhaps you do not understand the English language enough to understand this but the edit comes across as extremely partisan and bad-faith, and we do not truck with that here at Wikipedia. Jorm (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am admittedly new at this and welcome constructive criticism. Also, I am indeed not a native English speaker and I am aware that my style can at times be somewhat laborious. On the other hand, I hold a J.D. from a T14 law school and I have every reason to believe that I understand nuances in written texts better than most native speakers. 1.What do you mean by « it doesn’t appear to be a quote? It *is* a quote! From section 1 of the order: « Our country faces converging economic, health, and climate crises that have exposed and exacerbated inequities, while a historic movement for justice has highlighted the unbearable human costs of systemic racism. » The point of using quotation marks is precisely to show the reader that the expression does not come out of a hat but is used in the original document, which matters in this case because, like it or not, « systemic racism » is a loaded expression. This is why the use of the term in the order is significant. The summary would be lacking if it did not convey that information to the reader. 2. « You are writing in the lede. » Is that so? Wouldn’t the lede in this instance be the introductory paragraph? The sentence we are discussing is in the body of the article. In any case, why should there not be a short quote in the lede? 3. If you honestly believe that most reasonable readers would conclude that the quotation marks are meant to make fun of the words « systemic racism, » then I guess they should be removed. 4. In any case, there is no reason to roll back the rest of my edit. The current version is a poorly written attempt at paraphrasing the order, the author having seemingly been under the impression that they needed to change words here and there to avoid plagiarism. But the order is a legal text and plagiarism issues don’t apply. On the contrary, the original text can and should be quoted liberally.

Overpop (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only got to the second sentence of that before I quit reading. I'll start with this: No one on Wikipedia cares the slightest bit about what degrees you hold. They are meaningless here. Attempting to appeal to them as an authority will get you nothing but ridicule.

Second, putting scare quotes around two words is not a "quotation". A quotation is a sentence that is attributed to a human being, not cut and paste words from dry text.

I reverted everything at once b/c I saw nothing worth keeping at a glance, your edits were partisan, and from the fruit of a poison pen. They may very well be good eventually but in the context of your previous work were not.

I suggest that you a) Learn more English and its idioms; and b) NOT edit in the American Politics area, because I don't think you know the language enough to do so. Jorm (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

« A quotation is a sentence that is attributed to a human being, not cut and paste words from dry text. » Is that so? I suggest you consult a dictionary: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/quotation https://www.dictionary.com/browse/quotation https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quotation And to think that you have broad editing privileges… Wow. Unbelievable. Overpop (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to explain to you that putting quotation marks around two words is called scare quotes and not a quotation, especially in a lede, and especially in a partisan manner. I again suggest that you learn more about the English language. Jorm (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts on

. Furthermore, note that these are not drive by tags, as this article is a current project of mine to improve on (including finding sources for the tagged claims). See my previous edits and the talk page archive.

I have reviewed your contributions to this article, and came to the conclusion that you have quite a history of unconstructive edits, unpleasant summaries and show WP:OWN behaviour. I will once again add the tags you that you reverted twice, and I expect you to not engage in edit warring. If you want to remove the tags, find reliable sources for the claims.

Thank you and have a nice day. Pyrite Pro (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to let someone else deal with you. Feel free never to darken my talk page again. Jorm (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Over here. Thanks! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. You can remove it, though. It's your talk page. Jorm (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd give you the option of doing the right thing. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it, though? Jorm (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You recently reverted an edit I made that attempted to, and I believe did, clarify a poorly placed inline citation, asking me to go to the Talk page with it. I did that right away, explaining my reasoning. Would you please take a look at that and provide your thoughts? Cheers! Huskerdru (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, I checked the citstion, which supported only the quoted material, not the subsequent two sentences. With the citation at the end of the paragraph, it appears to source all three points made, two of which have no citation (the Victor Davis Hanson comment, and the "Arguably..." sentence re: Johnston dying on Day 1 of Shiloh. Huskerdru (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! This is re: Lost Cause of the Confederacy, not Origins of the Civil War... My mistake, sorry for confusion. Huskerdru (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You recently reverted an edit on this page I made that attempted to, and I believe did, clarify a poorly placed inline citation, asking me to go to the Talk page with it. I did that right away, explaining my reasoning. Would you please take a look at that and provide your thoughts? Cheers! Huskerdru (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Patriot Prayer, you may be blocked from editing. Sarstan (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro. Jorm (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

When Teri Polo is searched, this is the page that comes up. [23] What is a reliable source that can be used to update the birthdate and age? Thank you! 161.77.227.47 (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of one. That's why a reliable source is needed to add that information. The only way twitter could be used is if the tweet came from her account and that the account was also verified (and then it would fall into

WP:ABOUTSELF territory). Until a valid source arrives, we can't violate our biographies of living people policies. Jorm (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The tweet is from Teri's television show. The posted date was June 1, 2020. The link here also has a tweet regarding Teri's birthdate. [24] Thank you! 161.77.227.47 (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are reliable sources, I'm afraid. Google search results are not valid, and we've talked about how twitter isn't reliable, either. I'm afraid there isn't anything to do. You may have better results by starting a conversation on the talk page of her article so that other people can possibly find sources. Jorm (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I found a source that is reliable, in case you want to know. [25] Thank you for your help! 161.77.227.47 (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not reliable, either. You should read

WP:RS Jorm (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, I appreciate the response. 161.77.227.47 (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Associated Press reported her name. Either delete the whole Jewish thing or stop deleting her name. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a compromise version that doesn't actually mention her name. You certainly have no mandate to delete that, whatsoever. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want the goddamned thing in there at all. Why are you so obsessed with inserting it? It's not due. It's not going into the article. The talk page section is going to be archived with no action. Why are you fighting on this?--Jorm (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because now that I know the name, it's increasingly clear the original article author for CNN lied? Or lied by default by printing the Cruz comment without any criticism or doubt? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to ... what? Right a great wrong? Pimp your original research? Use someone else's tragedy as a stepping stone for some fucking agenda you have about a CNN reporter? What is your actual goal here? Jorm (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm, I have blocked you for one month because you have contacted me asking for this block. This is not a block for misconduct. It seems that you want to take a Wikibreak. That is fine. I will unblock you anytime you ask, and any other administrator can feel free to unblock you upon request if I am inactive, or I will be happy to provide clarification on request. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate it! Jorm (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brandon. I just wanted to express my personal heartfelt thanks to you for signing the letter. Best, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! I designed the thing; I think it's an important project, and it needs support. I wish I could have done more. Jorm (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer believe that the Foundation can achieve the Mission, so it will be pointless. Jorm (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jorm, don't know if you recall me at all, but you are someone for whom I have a great deal of respect, and so I thought I'd swing by to see if you were around/what you're up to -- and then I see this. I confess, I am intrigued; while I have my suspicions, why do you think the Mission can't be achieved? Penny for your thoughts, I guess, and all the best. Dumuzid (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Dumuzid - of course I remember you, and fondly!

To answer your question, this is a rant:

• There is no love lost between the Foundation and the Community. Neither seems willing to listen to the other.
  • (If anyone is gonna come and say "blah blah blah the Foundation broke the trust first blah blah blah" yeah yeah yeah stuff that up your ass I don't give a fuck, you're a hypocrite, don't come to me with it anymore)
• The Community automatically knee-jerk disbelieves anything said by the Foundation, about any research or points (c.f., the last time I tried to share any information, I was straight up called a liar by an administrator of this here place, who never apologized or received any sanctions, for it - the kind of language I would have been blocked for)
  • Which speaks to the overwhelming hypocrisy in the Community: some are censured, others are not, and the Community only listens to the loudest idiots who say shit like "Wikipedia has cancer" or make transphobic "joke" articles, and then get super snow-flake offended and threaten arbitration when called out on it.
    • Why in fuck would I - or anyone else - want to continue to engage with any of that?
• The Community is incapable of policing itself and the Foundation is incapable of policing the Community.
  • There are absolutely different rules for different classes of folk and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. As a former Foundation employee, I fall into the bottom of the lowest class, so I get to see it first hand. As probably the only one who did, ask me why so few former WMF employees continue to work as a volunteer! The answer may surprise you! (it probably won't).
    • "We didn't want you anyway blah blah blah" yeah yeah yeah prove my point for me
• The Foundation hasn't done jack or shit to actually solve any of the interface or process problems that have existed for decades - only attempted to apply band-aids or patches to a deeply broken system - and they do so with only cowardice, afraid to upset a handful of vocal Community members.
  • Everyone knows what needs to be done. They've known for a decade or more. I know they know, because I was there. Yet you're still stuck with this shitty Vector skin and shitty, barely helpful improvements upon it - and let's be very clear that Vector was designed and implemented by someone who never interacted with the the community, never edited and ultimately never used the product. Ask how the design for the "visual editor" went down, ask how many of those actually used or edited Wikipedia.
    • (Spoiler: the answer is zero. At one point they threw a token "Wikipedian" on the project, but they were just a yes-person about it, so what was the point of that? Waste of time, waste of money, who cares.)
• WMF trust and safety is a fucking joke. Ask me how many death threats I've gotten, or how many "Community" members have called my places of employment - even years after I've been gone - to try to get me fired for being "racist". DEATH THREATS were fucking ignored.
• A small handful of Community members are perfectly happy to allow literal Nazis to run a lot of conversations and no one sees anything wrong with that.
  • Woe betide you if you try to fight this because Wikipedia's bullshit rules are set up to enable bad-actors and punish the sentinels. I'm done with wasting my time on that.
• No one has any moral courage whatsoever and without that nothing is going to happen or change; this is just a death spiral.
  • Don't believe me, though! There are plenty of charts and graphs to show it to you!

This got away from me. I apologize. Jorm (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-emptively, for all the responses I'm not going to read: "Cool story, bro." Jorm (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also this: I think a lot of people - perhaps most - have either forgotten what the Mission is, or never understood it to begin with.

"To bring the sum of human knowledge to everyone everywhere for free" is an insanely radical, progressive, and inarguably political act. But further: it is not the Mission; it cannot be. It is a mechanism by which the Mission is achieved. The Mission is implicit in the goals of the mechanism.

"We're not political!" Bullshit. There is absolutely nothing more political than educating everyone. There is a reason that autocrats and MAGA deplorables don't want folk educated, why they don't want things like actual American history taught in schools: because education is progressive by nature, and progressive is political.

So fuck off all ya'll with the whole "we're not political". Politics is the art of society; you can't avoid it; the very nature of encyclopedias are radically political and have been for centuries. Jorm (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jorm -- first of all, agree entirely. Aristotle knew that everything people do is inherently political, but apparently people need more than two millennia to fully grasp that. And thanks for all of that; the rant is essentially what I was looking for. It's very much as I suspected, but you obviously have a lot more visibility into inner workings. That said, I would mirror almost all of these complaints in microcosm. I am terribly curious about the tension between the foundation and the community, as it is so far outside my Wiki experience, but I won't ask. I will say that it does sometimes feel like playing by the rules is ceding territory to those with less benign motives. I am also sorry to hear about trust and safety--it feels like that sort of awfulness is everywhere these days. I honestly don't know how transparency and safety can co-exist right now, and they're two things I highly value (though safety obviously wins). At any rate, I am glad you're around in some way. I pre-emptively apologize if this draws dissenting opinions, but approve of your answer. Have a great weekend, and thanks in general. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behold the barren field wherein I grow the fucks I give about their opinions: ___________________

It's all good; no need to apologize. I woke up and decided to choose violence. Jorm (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

Just gonna put this here. Jorm (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 December 2023