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[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[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[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[reply]

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

The basic information is at WP:LOGOS. Most people are unwilling to license the use of their logo under GFDL, although I am not sure of the exact interaction with trademark law. The use therefore must qualify as Fair Use by our standards, which requires the formulas given at that page to be followed exactly (and the use of a low resolution image). You cannot give permission for use in Wikipedia alone--it's meaningless, because our content is as a whole licensed under GFDL and anyone can copy it. If this isn't enough information, the best way to deal with difficulties is to simply go to the talk page for WP:Copyright and ask. All the experts and would-be experts hang out there. DGG (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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[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[reply]

Moving this conversation to my work account.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[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. TimL (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Hi Jorm
this is Nipas (aged 49) from Monza (Milan, Italy). Please, I need your help to solve this pdf print problem: 2 or 3 column aligned on pdf prints. None had been able to solve the following problem: output pdf prints containing fixtures' tables for soccer championships (older ones in this sandbox) (new ones in my new fixtures' tables) are always displayed on 1 single column despite normal (2 or 3 horizontally aligned) on printers' outputs. New tables had been a successful resolution of main problem (3 columns calendars are wider than the normal A4 paper sheet so that larger team's names are devided into two lines) but when I saw other users linking several championships in a single book I noticed prints were impossible by a saved pdf file because a 15 days calendar was printed on 6 pages (5x3 + 1 = 3 days per page). Is there a way for fixing it or I have to change the first line instructions of each table ?. Even a third part help will be very much appreciated. Thanks a lot in advance, Nick. Nipas (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.33.168.157 (talk)

I was at your user talk page, and the banner with your letter came up at the same time! :)
File:Sametimesameperson.png
Eta-theta 00:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

• 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 here. Sarah (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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[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: Chicocvenancio, Cullen328, Hallows AG, Jeffwang, 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 here. -- Sarah (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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[reply]

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 here. Sarah (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 Wikimania this past month, where editor retention and interface design was heavily discussed. 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 here. SarahStierch (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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[reply]

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

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

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[reply]

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

WP:FLOW and File:Wikimania - 2012 - Athena Project.pdf. 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. PumpkinSky talk 20:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

ANI thread Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding abuse, censorship. Thank you. —Jerappelle (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Might a recording be somewhere at https://www.youtube.com/user/WikimaniaLondon/videos ? Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ((U))) while signing a reply, thx 20:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or posted on YouTube, for example? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ((U))) while signing a reply, thx 20:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[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[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 mw:Athena at some point soon. I remember seeing an article in the mainstream press that demonstrated a very professional looking design that reminded me of Athena. Best wishes with your new direction. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ((U))) while signing a reply, thx 19:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any ideas? I saw this comment, which I sympathize with. It reminded me of my post here. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ((U))) while signing a reply, thx 20:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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

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

The discussion on Talk:Something Rotten! about merging it with Something Rotten! (musical) has since been finished. I'm unsure on how to add the archive tags on it so if possible, could you do it? --☣Anarchyte☣ 07:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[reply]

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

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

You don't edit the Gamergate controversy article much but I heard you felt left out so here is your notice! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Happy New Year!

Jorm,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

Rhoark has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding ((subst:Kitten)) to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with ((subst:Kittynap))

I appreciate your concern that the GG article not exacerbate harm; no one's trying to do that. Keep your cool and we can reach a revision that satisfies everyone.

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[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[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[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[reply]

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

Hello, Jorm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jorm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

− Please refrain from making personal attacks as you did at the Gamergate Controversy article. Comment on content, not contributors. +

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry - What's not neutral about this edit? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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[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[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[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[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. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

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

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

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

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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 patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• 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[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

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[reply]

Hello, Jorm. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]

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

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

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating the one-revert rule currently in effect on the page Patriot Prayer, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~)). If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

How does this even make sense? At the end of the sequence, the result was the same as if I had just reverted the one edit I wanted to. This is a bad block, and Darkness Shines escalated immediately to the Edit Warring mode rather than talk to me or assume good faith. Jorm (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accept reason:

ArbCom: This is what happens when the consensus required restriction is not active, this sanction will be lifted from the record. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

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

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

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

Please undo your reverts at Involuntary celibacy. You are way beyond 3RR. --2600:8800:1300:16E:6882:46D1:1667:450A (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Care to address the issues raised or just blindly reverting based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT [6]?Miacek (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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[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[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[reply]

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

While I believe Chloe Dykstra’s account, we can not write as if the story is true until reliable sources say it is true. Please read WP:PUBLICFIGURE where it specifically addresses the requirement to use wording like “Allegedly”. Samboy (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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

I have requested additional attention @ WP:ANI due to your recent edit here. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

It isn't on my watch list, but in parting, may I suggest that you read the essay WP:SEALION? It encalsulates nicely the strategies available to civil trolls. The simple assumption that because I used the word "incompetent" N times, while Chetford went to great lengths to ignore evidence, denigrate the subject matter, and construct misleading arguments at AfD, that I am the UNCIVIL one, just shows how easy it is for civil trolls to win their WP:GAMES. Newimpartial (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

Hi Jorm. Regarding the dispute: I am assuming that you're unfamiliar with the standards required of biographical information: that high-quality sources are required, that content must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies, that poorly sourced or otherwise contentious material should be removed from an article while it is under dispute, and that the burden of proof rests on those seeking inclusion. Also, you must have overlooked the discussion I started on the article talk page. Please join the discussion. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)MoredpsReply[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[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[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[reply]

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

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