User talk:JPMcGrath: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 1

I have put her in Category:Washington Post journalists.

I think categorizing journalists by some of their past papers is debatable, but I added her anyway. Maurreen (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong disagreement with that, but I noted several former journalists in Category:Washington Post people, so I tried to be consistent. One solution would be to create separate "current" and "former" categories, but that might be overkill. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is potential for some "former" cats. A few weeks ago, I started a cat for former NYTers.

But later I saw that those are at least discouraged. Maurreen (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with either. I just want it to be consistent. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly, but do you think it would be worthwhile to start a larger discussion, maybe at Talk:Journalist, to determine which way to be consistent? Maurreen (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism would make more sense, since the issue does not really apply to the Journalism article. But then, the issue does not apply only to journalist categories. For example, Carly Fiorina is in Category:Hewlett-Packard people, Robert Reich is in Category:Harvard University faculty, and Ozzy Osbourne is in Category:Black Sabbath members. So maybe it would make more sense to take up the issue at WT:Categorization of people -- JPMcGrath (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the discussion would be most appropriate at WT:Categorization of people. When we do it, we might also address freelancers and the like. Maurreen (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion here. Maurreen (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Though in some of the pages you mention my participation is limited (or in the past in one of them). Magidin (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it was deserved because of the accumulation of good work across multiple articles. And it's never too late to recognize a job well done. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Gun laws in the United States (by state) was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 15:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Request for mediation concerning Gun laws in the United States (by state), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 00:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rapier (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JPMcGrath, this message serves as a formal warning regarding your editing and talk page behavior on Gun laws in the United States (by state). As you know, you were reported to WP:ANI with accusations of tendentious editing and content warring. While I don't see much evidence for a high level of tendentious editing, it is clear that there is local consensus and you are editing against it. You are welcome to seek wider community opinion by asking for a third opinion or even a request for comment, among other various methods. The warning I am issuing you is to hopefully prevent a WP:BLOCK of your editing privilege. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and thoughtfully consider your next steps. Sincerely, Basket of Puppies 00:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the charge is reasonable, and would like to respond to it. I do not see any mention of this at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Where should I respond? — JPMcGrath (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI threads are automatically archived after 24 hours of inactivity, but may be restored for further discussion. So, I've un-archived the thread, back to where it was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious editing by JPMcGrath on Gun laws in the United States (by state). Feel free to respond there. If no one says anything for 24 hours it will be archived again. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—slakr^\ talk / 17:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

JPMcGrath (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I do not think this is appropriate. I was reverting the article to the status quo before Mudwater instigated an edit war. Immediately following an RfC that showed no consensus to remove maps from Gun laws in the United States (by state), Mudwater removed the maps and continally did so when reverted. I chose not to edit war and tried to discuss it with him. After he stopped replying completely, I re-added the maps. This led to a claim of tendentious editing at ANI, which was dismissed. I again returned the article to the status quo ante and warned Mudwater that I would report his edit warring. In response, this claim was made against me.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I do not think this is appropriate. I was reverting the article to the status quo before [[User:Mudwater|Mudwater]] instigated an edit war. Immediately following an [[Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Proposed removal of all maps|RfC]] that showed no consensus to remove maps from [[Gun laws in the United States (by state)]], Mudwater removed the maps and continally did so when reverted. I chose not to edit war and tried to discuss it with him. After he stopped replying completely, I re-added the maps. This led to a [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646#Tendentious editing by JPMcGrath on Gun laws in the United States (by state)|claim]] of tendentious editing at ANI, which was dismissed. I again returned the article to the status quo ante and warned Mudwater that I would report his edit warring. In response, this claim was made against me. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I do not think this is appropriate. I was reverting the article to the status quo before [[User:Mudwater|Mudwater]] instigated an edit war. Immediately following an [[Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Proposed removal of all maps|RfC]] that showed no consensus to remove maps from [[Gun laws in the United States (by state)]], Mudwater removed the maps and continally did so when reverted. I chose not to edit war and tried to discuss it with him. After he stopped replying completely, I re-added the maps. This led to a [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646#Tendentious editing by JPMcGrath on Gun laws in the United States (by state)|claim]] of tendentious editing at ANI, which was dismissed. I again returned the article to the status quo ante and warned Mudwater that I would report his edit warring. In response, this claim was made against me. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I do not think this is appropriate. I was reverting the article to the status quo before [[User:Mudwater|Mudwater]] instigated an edit war. Immediately following an [[Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Proposed removal of all maps|RfC]] that showed no consensus to remove maps from [[Gun laws in the United States (by state)]], Mudwater removed the maps and continally did so when reverted. I chose not to edit war and tried to discuss it with him. After he stopped replying completely, I re-added the maps. This led to a [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646#Tendentious editing by JPMcGrath on Gun laws in the United States (by state)|claim]] of tendentious editing at ANI, which was dismissed. I again returned the article to the status quo ante and warned Mudwater that I would report his edit warring. In response, this claim was made against me. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}