User talk:Jake Wartenberg

• Categorize: WP:UBLP
• Check new BLPs: WP:NEWBLP
• Participate in AFDs: BLP AFDs
• Help resolve content issues: WP:BLP/N
• Monitor recent changes to BLPs: BLP watchlist
• Remove BLP vios: WP:BLPFIX, Unsourced statements, All unreferenced BLPs, BLPs lacking sources
  Possible vandalism or libelous edits, as detected by edit filters 39 and 189. Removal of Category:Living people (filter 117)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I noticed you made it in the top 3000 of prolific WIkipedia Editors! In fact you are at rank 3000 at the last update. I hope none of it is vandalism and keep up the good work! Cotten134 (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Block User:Dan56, please.

Sorry for interrupt, User:Dan56 change into a fake and unsourced music genres on others such as John Mayer's Heavier Things, Continuum and Battle Studies (actually his albums are blues rock and pop rock, kind of, but suddenly changed to pop music); and P!nk's The Truth About Love (her latest album is actually pop rock, dance-pop and dance-rock, but suddenly changed to pop and pop punk). Block him with no expiry set (unlimited).

P.S. If someone needs unblock him, just don't unblock or just reblock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofpyrus (talk • contribs) 14:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Why did you delete the page of Durga Prasad Kachroo

It is very unfortunate to know that Wkipedia till stood for the reason of adding up eminent personalities and giving up information about them. Infact wiki has been one place to found the long lost literature scholars too. I found it very dis ambiguous that, my efforts to create page about a long lost scholar who needs world recognition, are failed by deletion of the page created by me, about 'Durga Prasad Kachroo'. Very unfortunate. I need an answer for this, as you are playing with the sentiments of the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preetibhagat (talk • contribs) 10:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the speedy and move at Braille Patterns. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 02:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Syria page

Please revert DIREKTOR's edit before your change of protection level as to restore the article to status quo. Sopher99 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the pre-edit war version is this one, the one as of 14:53, 24 March 2013, and without Israel in the infobox.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It'd be really great if we could generate some discussion before the protection expires. Could one of you file an RFC? ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out! We've tried RfC and DRN with little outcome. The three editors who insist on adding Israel to the infobox have been trying to do this for months. Incidents similar to this one have happened before, but things usually cool down after a few days.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Replied on my page. -- Director (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Concerned

Please be aware that DIREKTOR is not the victim he tries to make himself out to be. The Syrian civil war is a polemical issue - the most polemical international issue right now. He has it in his mind that "mainstream media" (that being reliable news networks In North America, Europe, Austrailia and Japan) are completely biased in their reporting, and whether he realizes it or not, he believes that any user that repeats their reports or expresses any hint of sympathy to the conflict should be regarded as a suspicious user. Now I have gotten into soapbox debates with User:Funkmunk plenty a time, and so after reading these debates DIREKTOR is entirely convinced that my only goal on wikipedia is to push a view, particularly in favor of the opposition/rebel side. However personal views do not influence my input on wikipedia. Fact-checking, sourcing, and determining proper weight does. Sopher99 (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to draw your attention to this section on DIREKTOR's talk page. I think he may be right, that for a little while today it did seem like some progress was being made through edit warring. There were several edits you made which did not revert his additions in full. Do you agree that there is a potential compromise here? ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

After I made those additions he raised Lebanon and Turkey into the same column section as the SNC. My revision that I first made is the only acceptable solution if we are going to go so ridiculously far as to include Israel. Sopher99 (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you described the revision in question as "not a bad step towards compromise." Would you be willing to accept this until there is a consensus for something else? ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I would. I'm just not sure Sopher99 and the others feel like they should compromise like that anymore, now that they had their own version back up and protected. -- Director (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Futuretrillionaire and Sopher99, what do you think? I will immediately lift the protection if you both agree to this. I'm sure all three of you agree that it would be incredibly gratifying to make some progress on this issue after so long. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If the infobox looks like this, where all the border clash countries are kept to one section of the box, and explicitly stated border clashes and their respective dates, then yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&diff=546779284&oldid=546778964 Sopher99 (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree to the unnecessary dates for each individual border clash, I do not like the weird double line divider. I do not like the fact that Israel, Turkey and Lebanon are listed together as allies(!?), and I do not like the fact that Turkey is unnecessarily listed twice in that version of the infobox (once more in the collapsible box). But I would agree that the inclusion of Israel is the primary issue, which makes the version much more acceptable in my view. Like I said, its not a bad step towards compromise. -- Director (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

We can scratch out the dates, and we can put Border clashes and incidents: Sopher99 (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No, disagree to another pointless heading - "border clashes" is in the note next to necessary faction entries, and that's a standard format that's perfectly fine with me. I generally disagree to lumping Tukey, Israel and Lebanon together based only on the extent of their involvement. These factions are not associated. -- Director (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Cross-border incidents , or we put a line between each of them, but thats just getting awkward, but I can accept it. Sopher99 (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, disagree to your adding another heading - its just another means of somehow "distancing" Israel from the SNC that's beyond how the template is generally used. And again, I disagree to lumping them together at all as they are not mutually associated. The reason its awkward is because its unnecessary. -- Director (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No I mean not lumping them together (putting lines between them) is awkward. But if you want to put lines between them, then okay. Sopher99 (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That corrects one issue, but creates another - the awkwardness of such a setup. What is your objection to moving Turkey up below the SNC? They have been their loudest, strongest and most generous supporter, and have engaged the Syrian government with their own military numerous times. If I'm not mistaken - the SNC is actually in Turkey. That move would also eliminate the need for a double listing of Turkey. -- Director (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Has to explicitly say border incidents. Lebanon can't go there as the official government has no direct support to them. Sopher99 (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That's agreed. There's no question that Turkey's listing requires a (border incidents) note. As for the Lebanon.. perhaps they can be moved just below the Mujahideen, separated by their line? I'm not married to that, though.

While we're at it I'd like to thank Jake for allowing us to use his talk for this :) -- Director (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Lebanon hasn't responded to bombing of its territory, so the country isn't involved at the state level. It has an official policy of dissociation. That non-state actors from that country have joined the fight doesn't change that. FunkMonk (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I care about is whether the military of the country took part in the conflict (that is to say, engaged in some kind of combat with one or more of the factions). Is that the case? NPOV is simply writing that infobox as all others on this project are written. -- Director (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There have been a few clashes between the Lebanese army and insurgents who crossed the border.[1] FunkMonk (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm. That would mean it should go to the left-hand column rather than the right. Frankly, I'm not familiar with Lebanon's role in the war.. it seems like a topic for thorough discussion, can we take it one at a time? -- Director (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I just chimed in when I saw the countries being thrown around. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Futuretrillionaire, do you have anything to add? -- Director (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Syrian army shelling has killed lebanese civilians multiple times [2] [3] To which Michael Suleiman condemned the shelling, and threatened to take it up with the UN, meaning Lebanon is against it. Sopher99 (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but to list the Lebanon as a state among the combatants we'd have to have some kind of involvement on the part of its military (and a source like the ones for Israel would be nice as well, but I won't insist). Either way, let's not get into that here on JW's talk. -- Director (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have lifted the protection. You are all expected to adhere to 1RR, with no exceptions. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I see only 3 users involved in the designing of the "compromise" proposal here. What's the rush? Please wait for the other editors (including me, Baboon, Jeancey, Sayerslle, and Darkness Shines) to respond to the proposal before implementing it. Until everyone has responded and there is a consensus to the proposal, the pre-edit war version needs to be restored, and I recommend the article to be locked until then.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't have the opportunity to comment before I lifted the protection, but if you are addressing me, I didn't implement anything, the other involved editors did. The original protection was only for 24 hours, so it would have expired by now, had I not lifted it. I would not feel comfortable leaving the article indefinitely protected until a formal consensus is reached, considering that this is something has proven to be nigh impossible to achieve in the past. I think the best course of action is for you to voice your concerns at the article talk page. I encourage you to temper your expectations, as the other users have shown a willingness to compromise that is quite commendable. If your request is something other than "remove Israel from the infobox" you may find them quite amenable to it. Hopefully you all can find a middle ground that leaves everyone equally dissatisfied. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Soffice.exe

Soffice.exe wasn't an article, it was a disambig. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I was going too fast. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 03:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Syria Infobox issue

I need to inform you that there is an issue where editors have been arguing over the positioning and presentation of the Syrian infobox despite my attempts to promote a middle ground (neutral lead infobox with competing governments in the Politics and Government section, similar to Libya in 2011) in wake of dramatic changes to the state of politics in Syria. I refrained from making any more moves until an administrator can advise me on what to do next to resolve the dispute. Dear sir, can you please advise on how we can solve the Syrian infobox issue before it gets worse? Thank you. --Marianian^(talk) 12:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I have made the editors working on that page aware that they are under a 1RR restriction, and that seems to have stopped the edit warring for the moment. Other than that I guess I would suggest expressing your opinion at the current RfC on the talk page. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That RFC was about Israel's involvement, so I had to start a fresh one (and consolidate all separate discussions about that). Sorry. --Marianian^(talk) 06:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to apologize; I thought you were talking about a different article. I hope the RfC is successful. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 23:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion?

After days of intense discussion, debate, and compromise a version of the infobox has been produced that seemed to be in accordance with the position of most involved users. It has been written according to a set standard (military involvement warrants mention), and in accordance with the numerous listed sources.

In the middle of an amicable effort to further perfect the infobox through study of available sources (this thread), User:Mikrobølgeovn indiscriminately rolled back all changes to the version you initially protected. To me it appears as though the user was clearly misinformed, and apparently had not even bothered to glance at the talkpage and review the massive efforts therein ("please address the discussion page before making such edits"?!).

Jumping at the chance, Futuretrillionaire immediately moved in to yet again WP:GAME revert restrictions to have his way (just as when he tried to have me blocked back then). The user restored the erroneous revert, and in "one fell swoop" made nothing of the immense efforts at compromise and standardization over the past several days. I am frankly appalled and thoroughly disgusted at what I perceive is deliberate and malicious disruption. I suppose I too should probably have reverted to some ancient version clamming there's "no consensus" for any of the changes between.

That's my view anyway. Oh and both Futuretrillionaire and myself technically breached 1RR with this [4][5][6][7]. I myself completely forgot about the previous tiny revert, but I probably would not have been able to stop myself anyway from reverting Mikrobølgeovn's terrible misinformed rollback. Either way I'm not prepared to just let this vandalism go. As an admin previously involved in this would you be interested to intervene in some way? *ties blindfold, lights cigarette* -- Director (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I am also dismayed that edit warring has started up on that page again. I don't really see what I can do to intervene at the moment, though. I will continue to watch the article—I'm afraid that's the best I can do. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 23:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Casio watches

Can you please provide the rationale for deleting the "List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches"? Is it because of consensus based on heads counting, or is there something appliable in their arguments that is based on policy? Diego (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking me to do here. We've both read the discussion, so I really don't think it's necessary for me to summarize all of the arguments that were presented. I did find the nomination, which cited BLP concerns, to be particularly convincing. I think that some of this content could be reincorporated into the Casio F91W article. If you would like, I would be happy to userfy the page for you. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I was asking which arguments you thought were supported by policy. The concerns about BLP were because the article when nominated had a large amount of primary sources, but all those had been removed from the final version so they shouldn't be a concern anymore; in particular not because of WP:BLPPRIMARY, the only policy mentioned by Nick-D. Everything in the list was referenced to reliable sources, and the "attempt by Fladrif to address BLP concerns in 2011" was again reinstated and included. Given that all the concerns from the nominator have been addressed, what's exactly the problem with BLP that lead you to delete the list? Diego (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the sourcing had been fixed, although I should have. I've asked Nick-D for his input. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 04:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jake, I expressed several concerns when starting the AfD, of which the BLP problems were only one (if I thought this was fixable by reverting to Fladrif's version I would have fixed it) so Diego's suggestion that all my concerns had been addressed is not correct - if this had been the case I would have withdrawn the nomination. Most of the editors who voted to delete the article did so after Fladrif re-removed the material sourced only to primary sources, so there seems to be no reason to disregard their votes, especially as many of the votes were clearly motivated by concerns over the notability of this concept which was one of the issues I raised in the nomination statement (none of the references linked these people together on the basis of the watch type) as well as concerns over this being a WP:COATRACK. Moreover, no-one actually voted to keep the article - Diego was the sole editor who didn't think it should be deleted, and he wanted to merge its content into another article (a position which attracted no other support). As such, your closure of the discussion as 'delete' was sound, and there was no other policy-based option available here given the clear consensus was to delete the article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A merge is a !vote to keep content, and it was the only one based on policy in the whole discussion. I suggested the merge precisely to avoid the concerns of it being a coatrack, even if WP:COATRACK is not policy; and my concerns that a deletion would go directly against WP:PRESERVE were ignored; closing admins are supposed to assess the strength of arguments, not the number of votes; if the multiple similar opinions didn't include arguments, the discussion should be closed as no consensus - specially if the "per Fladrif" and "per nominator" were based on the PRIMARY argument, when the primary links had been corrected. In particular I cared about the summaries of the arguments given by the numerous newspapers included in the right column of the table; those would have been a nifty addition to the Denbeaux article and didn't have any BLP problem, but are inaccessible now that the content has been deleted. This is why deletion is considered a last resort and articles should instead be fixed by editing whenever possible. Diego (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Come on, Diego, lets get real here. There were 10 deletes and one merge. Many policies and guidelines were referenced in the discussion, so it's not just a headcount. Just because you don't agree with the other side doesn't mean you can just dismiss them. The only reasonable way of interpreting the consensus was "Delete". Let it go. (My apologies to Jake, for hi-jacking your talk page.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd still would like anyone to explain how the final version of the page had problems concerning BLP, since nobody has provided an answer to that question; and why we can't reuse the well-sourced elements from the newspapers. Diego (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the fact that the sourcing issue had been corrected is in dispute anymore. I did miss that initially. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And yet, the deletion decision was based on that? Is there a way to recover the well-sourced content and merge it somewhere else with proper attribution? Diego (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you still thinking of merging it with Seton Hall reports? Was there any information about the watches in the reports that article covers? Otherwise, I can't see how that would be appropriate. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the "Detainees' profile" section covers Denbeaux's mention the Casio watch and olive-drab clothing cited as evidence of enemy combatants. The descriptions by newspapers of instances of those mentions would be a contextually relevant expansion. Diego (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've userfied the article per my original offer. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your time. Diego (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at the Administrators Noticeboard

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Humblesnore (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: Embassy of Honduras, Ottawa

Hi. You closed an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Honduras, Ottawa, but there were more articles in there. I asked MBisanz about it, maybe you'd like to follow and/or comment (probably better there, to keep things in one place) Thanks - Nabla (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

AFD close

Could you undo your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Honduras, Ottawa? That article was already covered by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ottawa, but my close didn't apply to the discussion you closed. MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted my closure and left a note asking the closing admin to extend the AfD. Sorry all. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 23:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

PAK SHAHEEN CRICKET CLUB

Hi Jake. You deleted my new page 'PAK SHAHEEN CRICKET CLUB'. This was my attempt to establish some history for this club which lasted for over 20 years and which was an important part of the lives of those that were members and resulted in the sporting interests of the parents of two higly respected and important sports of the current generstion; namely Amir Khan (Boxer) and Sajjad Mahmeed (Cricketer). Both of their wikipedia pages were linked to this new page. Please reinstate the page and it will be expanded by the various interested members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaqoob (talk • contribs) 19:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jake. Thanks for your reply. Reliable sources are the following websites:

The original article listed some club members and the following are linked to the external websites which have been on the net for years:

Mohammed Arshad and Mohammed Yaqoob - www.khukh.net

Sahid Mahmood (father of Sajid Mahmood, England Cricketer - www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/17944.html

Sajjid (Shah) Khan (father of Amir Khan, Boxer) - www.amirkhanworld.com

Hope the above will enable you to reinstate the original article. You can add the external libnks or I can do so.

Given a few weeks I am sure members will add further info to justify retention of the article for the future.

Lifting the 1 revert rule

Can you please lift the 1 revert rule from the Syrian civil war page. The conflict about the infobox is long over. And as the Syrian civil war page becomes a more popular destination in recent days, other editors who are editing the page for the first time and don't know what there doing are making many mistakes that are difficult to deal with the 1 revert restriction. Sopher99 (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but this is not actually something that I have the power to do. All articles that relate to Israel-Palestine, broadly construed, fall under these restrictions. Perhaps keeping track of problems with the article on the talk page would be helpful in the short term. Otherwise, your best bet is to ask ArbCom. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. You put the 1 revert rule in the first place without no request to do so. Also this article has nothing to do with Israel-Palestine. Sopher99 (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion the article clearly falls under the sanctions. People have been arguing for months over Israel's role in the conflict, as you are well aware. Note that other articles that might seem only tangentially related such as Arab Spring fall under the same restrictions. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Syria Infobox dispute escalating to censorship, edit wars and such.

I'm sorry to inform you but you should check out the history of Talk:Syria and recent events. A user known as Eliastoma is attempting to silence my complaint about editors attacking my users pages and such. I don't think this can go on. Can you please escalate the infobox to arbitration if possible. Thanks but I am in a hurry, sorry if it looks rushed. --Marianian^(talk) 22:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)