User talk:Jc37

CAT (talk)

Motion

Memorable comments from discussions I've been in:

I flipped a three-sided coin, it came up "no consensus". --Kbdank71 (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2006 (From a talk page discussion)
Outline my position, which is actually built on a big pile of marbles in a game of kerplunk and the straws are slowly being pulled - Hiding (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2006 (From an edit summary)
While the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may be useful for other XfD discussions, it isn't as useful for CfD, due to a commonality of consistancy due to prior consensus. The guideline WP:OCAT is an excellent example of this. And the same seems true for WP:ALLORNOTHING. - jc37 17:12, 9 April 2007
Due to a what of what due to what? Please rephrase for us simple folk. Picaroon 01:23, 12 April 2007 (From a WP:DRV discussion.)
I think I was more involved with the fiction MOS when it was started than I am now, I have kind of given up on those sort of pages, no sooner do you get it all straight, have a few drinks to celebrate, put the chairs on the table and start mopping up than a whole new crowd walks in ready to get it all straight again. - Hiding 21:03, 2 November 2007 (from a talk page discussion)
But in my experience, every talk page of XfD closers seems to be filled with vehemence about disagreement of a closure. Nice to know that you've managed to (mostly) somehow avoid that. ("somehow" - you'll have to loan me your special medallion sometime : ) - jc37 00:11, 6 March 2008
It's a medallion of troll-protection +4. I looted it from a [contentious] AfD along with a masterwork ban-hammer +1, a mop of template sweeping, and 103 gold pieces. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2008
Enjoy reading this text in context : ) (From a talk page discussion starting on 23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

WikiProject Council • WP:CMC • WP:M-E • WP:SW • WP:MoS
A N/I • BN • RfA • RfAr • RFPP • DRV • MRV • VP

Happy First Edit Day!

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry!

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

★Trekker (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer. :) BOZ (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Jc37 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy Wikiversary!!

And here's to many more! (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 14:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

P.S. I am so sorry for the lateness! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding another editor you have interacted with. The thread is Dustfreeworld's editing of project-space pages. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:POV railroad. — Newslinger talk 16:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"undo recent edits - please don't edit other editor's comments"

You started a new topic but not as your own subheader. I did not change or edit your post in any way, I just broke it out as a section of its own (with a stub remaining so nobody would wonder where it went).

You reverting this is tantamount to saying "I insist on using your subheader for my other topic" and graciously /s allowing me to "feel free to restore your own comments" pretty much tells me I must start yet another thread.

Please reconsider. People edit other editors' comments all the time for administrative purposes, like I did. Please don't tell me you insist on using the subheader I started for your purposes, when it is clear that means a derail of the topic I intend to discuss.

While I have your attention: you previously reverted me with the edit summary "rv - section header uses diffuse", as if that wasn't the very thing I wanted to discuss. By posting this message, I want to be clear that I expect you to engage on talk (and on topic) before you revert me further. In short, if you want to keep the "diffuse" term, you need to discuss. So far, however, I see no on-topic participation from you except reverts, which have forced me to exert some measure of good faith to avoid considering them obstructive.

Please take this into consideration. In short, I am willing to ignore the past if I see you engaging in good faith.

CapnZapp (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't care if the discussion thread is split. There are many ways in which to split a discussion without editing another editor's comments. However, when you edited Marcocapelle's comments, you violated WP:TALK. Don't edit other editor's comments. There was no reason to edit their comments in this case.

Second, this isn't a battleground, so use of terms like "hijacking" or "obstructive" is concerning, to say the least.

Third, a discussion, is a discussion. You don't "control" a topic. Any editor may join in any discussion and share their thoughts.

Fourth, the discussion concerning the use of the term "diffuse" appears to be ongoing, and at the moment there does not appear to be consensus for your change. The term has been stable on the page for a long time. As there is no deadline, I think we can wait to see the results of the consensual discussion before changing the long-stable term. - jc37 19:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First off, no the discussion isn't "ongoing". There hasn't been a single comment I consider on topic since; only discussion related to Marcocapelle's (different) idea. Your revert probably didn't help, and my longer post cannot even be seen currently. Second, you might not care the section is "split" (your term for what to me looks like a derailed thread) but I obviously do. I still consider "abolish non-diffusing categories" a much more appropriate section header for what you and Eppstein are discussing.

So now I'm asking you: Do tell me what I am allowed to do in order to have a discussion about the terminology without it being intermingled with your and David Eppstein's unrelated discussion.

I could start a new talk section and move my own comments there to maintain a coherent thread, and rename the one I originally started to "abolish non-diffusing categories" but honestly; that would be a lot of work that ends up pretty much indistinguishable from what you have already reverted. I certainly won't waste my effort if you're going to revert my effort a second time, but I'll do it if your sole point of objection is precisely "Don't edit other editor's comments." CapnZapp (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]