User talk:Jc37/Archive/08

Memorable comments from discussions I've been in:

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

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

User talk archives

I cant see a link to your user talk archives. Could you add one so people can easily find the previous discussions hosted on your talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The links are on User:Jc37. For convenience, here you go: Talk sub-pages : ) - jc37 02:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfD bot

I responded to your comment at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 51#RFD/W. --Cyde Weys 17:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Legoktm (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

User_talk:My76Strat/Archive_8#Your_RfA

You and Scotty both left kind messages on the candidate's page, and I wish that both restore his spirits. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so as well. Thank you for the note. - jc37 19:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Colonial people

The discussion has been opened again on Category:Colonial people. Your comments/ideas on the issue would be appreciated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. - jc37 22:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work at looking to "arbitrate" a compromise by the way. Hm, I wonder how that skill could be put to wider usage ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Kbdank71 20:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A start

Here's a few...

It takes a while to find a good place to grab, and sometimes there isn't a good place - I'll look at the others you mentioned when I have some more time.

I don't think the shot of "BJ riding away on the motorcycle with the closeup obscuring "some stones" exists, but it damn well should do - I may have skipped over it or you may be better at dreaming the movie than they were at filming it, I'll look again later. You had me convinced, but I didn't see it in a quick fast forward...

I'll probably just watch the whole thing with a beer or three tomorrow or day after, now I've found it - seems like a plan, it's outstanding viewing...

Enjoy... Begoon ^talk 05:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Election results

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012#Results

User_talk:AGK/Archive/75#Well,_while_we're_waiting

User_talk:Kbdank71#Results

Hey man

Sorry to see the results of the elections did not go in your favor. I voted for ya! :) Better luck next time, if you decide to try again. BOZ (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you : )

And - Wow. You and bunch of other people. I expected far worse and all things considered, I am actually very happy with the results : ) - jc37 20:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It requires a special kind of (mildly insane) dedication to have even considered running. Thanks for stepping forward to help the project, Jc37. — Coren ^(talk) 22:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nod, and so it was repeatedly suggested to me by others who I had asked about their running, before I was nudged into it myself. And thank you. I hope it was helpful. - jc37 22:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jc37 sorry for the results. I did support. Good luck for the future. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 02:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, and thank you for your support. (Reminds me of Bartles & Jaymes : ) - jc37 02:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I voted for you as well. Oh well. Next time perhaps.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(orange user talk bar was surprising timing) - Anyway, perhaps. I dunno yet if I want to again. But since it's a year away, I have plenty of time to decide. Regardless, I do appreciate the support. In my experience at RfA, support is typically not given lightly. - jc37 03:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You stepped up and jumped in when it looked like there wouldn't be enough choices for the community to have a real choice, and had the guts to stick it out once everyone else jumped in. I think those are admirable traits and worth noting. I do think you will be happier on this side of the iron gates. I can't imagine you with the shackles of Arbitration, having to limit your participation in the real work, for fear of recusal or involvement. Like a caged bird. Besides, there are too many worthwhile projects on this side of the fence that benefit from your attention to detail. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very kind of you to say. Though I will admit that I don't view arbcom in that way, I find your metaphors interesting, and worth thinking about... - jc37 03:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hahc21

I gave you my support too (Although that was obvious in my guide) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and thank you : )

If you don't mind my asking, what were the the determining factors for you? While several others placed me at neutral, as you did initially, how did you decide I wasn't evil incarnate or at least clueless about policy, etc., as several others seemed to? - jc37 04:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought you'd never ask. Actually, I have seen that you are a user that is always willing to improve the 'pedia, and that you are very knowledgeable in many aspects of it. A new mind willing (and able) to bring changes is what ArbCom was (and is) needing in these rough times, and my best bet for that change was you (and Worm). Most of the other candidates (with the exception of Worm, which, in his own merits, is a very bright and welcoming addition to the committee, and Yolo and Count for obvious reasons) were already related to the committee, and they were keeping the status quo approach of it. Yes, I saw several good proposals, but none of them were going too far from what is established now: they weren't taking risks. Maybe people considered you were too dangerous for the job, but I believe that clueless about policy is a no-no. You're an administrator, and administrators are not clueless about policy, and less one like you, who is constantly involved in policy-related stuff (as far as I've seen). I remember when I saw your name for the first time, it was a long time ago; you were proposing something at the village pump that (if I can completely recall what was it about) didn't make it, but it was a clever proposal. Since then, I have a sincere trust in you. I guess that, what happened, is that community thought you may not be ready for the existent committee, although the fact that you achieved more neutral votes than opposes and a 35% of approval is a sign that people were inconclusive about your proposals but not completely against them. My experience in ArbCom elections statistics tells me that being successful at first is hard, and Worm can tell you about it. You only have to polish yourself, and you will be successful ina not too distant future. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, out there in the world outside Wikipedia - Nod there really is such a place : ) - I've so often seen people being aggressive and adversarial and negative and so on when in a store or other business. When I encounter someone is doing a great job, I like to let them know, and find a comment card or some such to let others know as well. There is so much negativity and selfishness out there, I think a bit of reinforcement of the positive is a good thing. I've tried to follow that on Wikipedia as well, though I'm sure I don't do it as often as I perhaps should.

And when listening to/interacting with others as an admin, and honestly even as an editor, on Wikipedia it's become almost necessary to have a thick skin as it were ("water off a duck's back"). But I'm of course human. And I have to say it feels good when someone says such positive things. I've re-read the above several times now, and I just wanted to say I appreciate your comments. Thank you very much. - jc37 05:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome :). We learn from our mistakes, and we all make mistakes, but asking for the head of a person or reaching premature conclusions for their mistakes is not the way to go (Yes, I have read the case about Bishonen and I was very interested in community's reaction to Jclemens' and Elen's debacle). Communication and understanding are the most valuable ways of resolution, and usually, we go and avoid them as long as we can, which is a big mistake. That said, I hope you are having a good time editing, and I expect to see you soon again in the future. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday wishes

Merry Christmas!!

For all you do!! Have a wonderful HOLIDAY!!

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas!

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

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

Be well, be happy and be safe!

Hope you are having a great holiday season and that the new year brings great comfort and lasting joy to you and your family!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello Jc37! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg

Have an enjoyable New Year!

Hello Jc37: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Belated Happy New Year with a Toast!

float	Here's a toast to the host Of those who edit wiki near and far, To a friend we send a message, "keep the data up to par". We drink to those who wrote a lot of prose, And then they whacked a vandal several dozen blows. A toast to the host of those who boast, the Wikipedians! - From {{subst:TheGeneralUser}}

~TheGeneralUser (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at ~~~~~

~TheGeneralUser (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A Very Happy (belated) New Year to you Jc37! Enjoy the Whisky ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiablilty policy discussion

I understand that you have a lot of experiance with working on policy pages. I wondered if you could look at the discussion that took place on the talkpage of Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. There was an extensive discussion in regards to changes that some felt were needed. After a long discussion a bold edit added some text that appeared to have a good consensus although refining took a few more steps. After a discussion of the removal of some wording it seemed to have reached an almost natural end, until this morning when an editor who was helping refine the text after the bold edit reverted it all back to the form berore the discussion. Could you read through the discussion and see what you feel is the consensus of editor and if there is any version that should be in place or if you feel the right move is to leave it as it was prior to the bold edit and subsequent refinements (before the whole discussion itself).--Amadscientist (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, that editor was me. I've commented on the talk page in question. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JC37 may well agree with you Typtofish, or may not even want to get involved. But I sought their assistance as they would be an uninvolved admin eye....and are not on any side. Heck....I may get a wet trout for the whole thing.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. But no need for a trout, I understand where you are coming from, just wish that it didn't blow up so much. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(several edit conflicts later : )

I gave it a quick once over, and I'll take another look in a minute, but I think I'll leave my admin hat on for this. (Which also means I, as you note, won't be picking "sides".) Atm, I don't see much of a consensus yet, though the discussion appears ongoing. And several of you have agreed to give this some time. Which I think is a laudable agreement as it follows the spirit of "There is no deadline". - jc37 23:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like--Amadscientist (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again!

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert

Appreciate your comments in the RFC/U. I don't know my way around there with the whole process, but I wanted to say my piece. :)Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RRA

Impervious

How are you? I thought of you, - look for "pain" on my talk, taken from literature ;) (second occurence, quoting the first) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notices from Nightscream

Edit warring on Scott Allie

Hi. I've decided to call for a consensus discussion regarding a matter being discussed here, but in the meantime, could you look through the discussion, and the related edits, and let me know if you agree that SPhilbrick's behavior (reverting the article instead of calling for a consensus discussion, while stating, "it would be nice to have a larger number weighing in" and "I don't see any way any reasonable person can conclude that there is a consensus in favor of the first photo") constitutes edit warring? If you agree, can you offer a polite word to him as an uninvolved admin? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Bill Biggart

Hi. Another editor who does not seem to understand that you cannot add material to an article that has nothing to do with that article's subject got into a prolonged discussion with me in which he argued why the material should be included for "context". In the article on Bill Biggart, whose notability is that was the only photojournalist killed while covering the 9/11 attacks, the other editor, Crtew, wants to include a list of all media-related deaths (not in the 9/11 article or a related 9/11 death list article, but in the article of just one of the victimn, Bill Biggart), because he argues, the passage that clearly states that Biggart was the only photojournalist killed while covering the event creates the false perception on the part of readers that Biggart was the only "media-related death" during the attacks. I tried to explain to him that this wrong, but he wouldn't budge. He agreed to a Third Opinion, so I called for one, and the person responding to provide a Third Opinion obviously agreed with me that that material does belong in the Biggart article. Nonetheless, Crtew reverted the article anyway, and is has now tried to start another discussion on the same issue further down on the talk page, completely ignoring Third Opinion, and the two other editors who have disagreed with him, which I believe is a blockable offense. Even if he wants to start a consensus discussion in order to open the matter up to more than three people, then he's still reverting during a discussion, which is definitely a blockable offense. When I criticize him for this, he accused me of being "disrespectful", and lobbing personal attacks against me by saying, " seriously cannot believe you are an administrator and you treat people like this", as if he's some kind of victim for merely being criticized for violating policy. I've warned him that if he does this again, he will be blocked from editing, but I need an uninvolved admin to keep an eye on him and do the blocking if it comes to that. Please advise. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you keep an eye on an IP policy violator?

Hey, Jc. I received this message on my talk page from User:173.248.212.69. I already warned him twice for such behavior. Can you keep an eye on him and block him in case he makes another violation? Since I was the target of his talk page message, I might be considered "involved". Thanks, buddy. Nightscream (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'd like your opinion

A question for people who commented in the RfC at "Probationary Period" and "Not Unless". (Or feel free to reply on my talk page, if you prefer.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you well

It occurred to me that I hadn't seen the insight of your thoughtful comments and I wanted to say hello. I hope that you are well, and that goodness and grace remain at your fore. My76Strat (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, jc, I'm glad this page is still on my watchlist and Strat made it pop up. I can't compete with his eloquence, but I can damn well echo his sentiments.

Where are you, and why don't you ever phone. Your mother and I have been worried sick about you. You never write, you never call, and you'll probably just show up wanting money or someone to babysit. It's not good enough.

That probably wasn't funny - so I'll just say that Hawkeye, BJ, Mrs. Klinger, the chicken and the rest of us hope you are well and happy. Weather is dreadful - wish you were here. Begoon ^talk 16:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both : )

I've been around, though mostly just as an un-signed-in reader of late for various reasons (though it looks like I'll be returning to editing more : ) That said, while I may not be able to see my watchlist when not signed in, I can at least see this page, so please feel free to drop friendly notices about anything you think I might be interested in : )

Thanks again : ) - jc37 22:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My notes

S'okay, I understand. One cannot just obligate another editor beyond the time available to them for Wikipedia, and luckily, the matter did not escalate beyond the messages that I reported to you. I'm grateful for your willingness to assist when possible. Have a great summer, buddy! :-) Nightscream (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Mrv

Template:Mrv has been nominated for merging with Template:MRVdiscuss. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old CFD notification

Hello; in January 2012 you participated in a discussion where it was decided that Category:Latin loanwords and Category:Russian loanwords should be listified and then deleted. These two categories have been listed at WP:CFDWM since the discussion was closed on 3 February 2012, but no editor has undertaken the task.
This message is not intended to suggest that doing this work is your job or that there is an expectation that you will do it. This identical message is being given to all participants in the discussion and is simply a notification of this fact and a reminder that if the contents of the category are not converted into a list, the category may be deleted without that list being created. Thank you, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grutness has done most of them, some recently. There is no deadline... – Fayenatic London 21:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, though I was thinking of proposing a deadline for listification of these. (Informally, a 60-day period for listification has been imposed in the past.) If no one wants to do these, there's really no sense having them kick around month after month, especially if there was unanimity that the category should be deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

additional

I agree with J Greb on the primary or famed statement a little bit so I am thinking about just putting "additional" being a substitute for "other". Kind of like on the Template:Green Lantern Green Lantern Corps section. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input in drafting potential guidelines

Hi. There are, at present, no particular clear guidelines for religious material here, or, for that matter, guidelines for how to deal with ideas in general, particularly those ideas which might be accepted as true by individuals of a given religious, political, or scientific stance. There have been attempts in the past to draft such guidelines, but they have quickly been derailed. I am dropping this note on the talk pages of a number of editors who I believe have some interest in these topics, or have shown some ability and interest in helping to develop broad topic areas, such as yourself, and asking them to review the material at User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion and perhaps take part in an effort to decide what should be covered in such guidelines, should they be determined useful, and what phrasing should be used. I also raise a few questions about broader possible changes in some things here, which you might have some more clear interest in. I would be honored to have your input. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New RfC

Jc and Oliver: I want to get to work on preparing a new RfC designed to deal with the problem that we're losing active admins faster than we're making new ones ... so the new RfC may or may not deal with tool use in general. Wikipedians seem to me to react to PC2 as if it's some kind of tool, so PC2 may or may not be part of the discussion. Are either of you interested in being closers in the new RfC? Would you like for me to put off even discussion about a new RfC until you two are ready to say something about the PC2 RfC? - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by city or town in Northern Ireland

Jc37, please take a little time to review how you have handled the closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 12#Category:People by city in Ireland.

You closed the discussion, but your closure did not mention removing Northern Ireland as a subcat of Ireland. And AFAICS, nobody who participated in the discussion supported that action.

You decided to do that after you closed the discussion, despite the lack of a consensus to do so, and despite the broader structure of Category:Ireland having subcats Category:Republic of Ireland and Category:Northern Ireland. That structure is replicated in scores of instances further down the category tree: see e.g. Category:Sport in Ireland, Category:Religion in Ireland, Category:Transport in Ireland, Category:Buildings and structures in Ireland, Category:Politics of Ireland, Category:Geography of Ireland, Category:Education in Ireland, and their subcats.

I can only presume that you misread the discussion, and failed to check other similar categories. Fair enough; mistakes happen. But even when this was pointed out to you, you edit-warred to sustain your removal of the parent category. I count 5 reverts by you, with nobody supporting you.

Even when your attention was drawn to WP:IRE-CATS, you still didn't back off. And despite all the subsequent discussion, you even left a note "warning" me that I was being disruptive for "undoing a close decision". That's silly: as I noted in my reply to you on my talk, I did not undo a close decision, and your actions were unsupported by anybody.

As you have pointed out, a discussion is underway at WT:IE#RFC:_Categorising_Northern_Ireland_under_Ireland. So far, the only editor who I can see anywhere who disagrees with the status quo ante is you; neither in the RFC, nor in the CFD, nor in the edit history of Category:People by city or town in Northern Ireland, nor at User talk:Fayenatic_london#Ireland_categories or in any of the other discussions do I see anyone supporting your view. That may of course change, because the RFC has a long way to run (unless it is WP:SNOW closed) ... but for now, you appear to be acting unilaterally as if you had a silent supervote at CFD. (I hope that's not your intention, but it is the effect).

But in the meantime, please can I have your assurance that you will let the status quo ante stand. Otherwise I will take this to DRV and/or ANI.

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support the above. I do find your edits on this matter to be out of character, and some of them – e.g. reference on my talk page to serious sanctions – suggest a loss of perspective. – Fayenatic London 13:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FL's comments about this being out-of-character. Jc37 is usually a million miles from the digging-in style which seems to be intruding here on jc37's usual equaminity. Bring back the old jc37! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BHG and with Fayenatic. To suggest that a discussion be opened, and then to ignore the opinions unanimously expressed in that discussion that your actions are inappropriate and against consensus, is not reasonable. Scolaire (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring them at all. I asked for the discussion. I'm looking forward to see that out of this will be a guideline for the future, as I noted at the start. I'm merely waiting patiently for the rfc to be closed.

From my perspective, I see a lot of well-meaning editors who have a perspective and who are impatiently skipping a step here to push that perspective.

If in the end the consensus supports your perspective, great!. But wait it out.

What's interesting to me is that while I really don't care, you all, by trying to revert a close, are seemingly trying to force me into a contrary position, when indeed, I really don't care how these are categorised. I welcome discussion, I asked for discussion, and I respect discussion.

If anything all of you should be thanking me for helping "nudge" you all to turn a proposed summary into what may now turn into a proposed guideline.

Oh, and this is the same jc37 who is a strong proponent for consensus. And for WP:AGF.

What happened to all of you?... - jc37 16:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we have a guideline. It's called WP:IRE-CATS. And we don't need to discuss it, because we all accept it. If, as you say, you really don't care, why are you fighting this lonely battle? You're not defending anybody's interests: nobody wants NI split off. If you're a strong proponent for consensus, why is it so difficult for you to accept an existing and long-standing consensus? And if you're a strong proponent for AGF, what about WP:AAGF? Nobody has accused you of trolling; we're just suggesting that in this instance your judgement is a little faulty and you're trying a little too hard to defend a faulty judgement. Scolaire (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If Jc37 doesn't really care, why is he edit-warring against a) everyone else involved, b) an existing guideline, and c) the status quo in all similar categories?

And why is he still peddling this nonsense about other editors "trying to revert a close"? The closing statement says "Merge, but split out Northern Ireland. That has been done, and nobody is challenging that decision.

The dispute at this stage is about how to parent the pre-existing Category:People by city or town in Northern Ireland. Nothing in either the discussion or the closing statement says that Northern Ireland should cease to be a sub-cat of Ireland. This is something which jc37 has taken upon himself to impose after the closure, and to edit-war against everyone else involved.

I had very much hoped that Jc37 would heed the warnings given by three editors here (two of whom are admins), but sadly that has not happened. Instead Jc37 has yet again reinstated his preferred version. This is blatant edit-warring, so I will take it to WP:3RR ... and because of Jc37's warnings to others, I will leave a note at WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]