I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Hummer Team, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you think the report on Ross would be dealt with more effectively and appropriately? I have brought his involvement in directing his article content to COIN a couple of months ago, it was essentially blown off. On the other hand, ANI can be a, as I'm sure you are aware, bloodbath and waste of time as well. Thoughts? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi: I think ANI since it is NOTHERE more than just COI. Unless you can think of an admin who would be willing to make the call. I do not know whether community input it required for a NOTHERE block or not. Jbh^Talk 20:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done [1]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thought: If nothing happens with him block-wise or topic-ban wise, what if we just simply ignore him as much as possible? After all, editors are not obligated to edit, respond, or become involved even though someone with an overblown sense of importance makes demands about their BLP. What say you? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi: I am pretty much at that point. I will still respond to requests about BLP violations from him but I am done with trying to resolve his tweaking requests unless it is to help keep another editor from being steamrollered. There have been a lot of bad edits to his biography in the past so I do see where he is coming from but his total lack of respect for Wikipedia's content policies and inability to compromise on matters make his talk page participation problematic and stretches my personal levels of patience. That said I also essentially agree with your statement to him that Wikipedia is able to manage NPOV BLPs without the subject standing guardian - I would not put it in quite the same way you did but I have typed something similar into the edit box three or four times :) I very much hope he will stick to proposing sources and if he must propose a change he should use the {{edit request}} so it can be accepted of declined per COI rules. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 15:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly known for subtlety or diplomatic behavior as an editor.  :-) Even so, the overly harsh tone to my comments directed at him was intentional. It seemed like nothing was getting to him at all, so I went for something that would (hopefully) make an impression on him. He seems to think his self-importance and being a "celebrity" makes him invaluable to Wikipedia and his BLP. Which brings me to another point: his comments and behavior indicates he sees the bio as his and has no concept that it's Wikipedia's bio on RAR, not RAR's personally. I think he believes he has a right to control it. I've seen this happen before at a few other BLPs -- one that immediately comes to mind is the Dave Kerzner article and Sound of Contact. Kerzner came nearly unglued that a maintenance template graced the top of the page for quite a while, feeling it damaged his reputation. Fame, money, and published works cause one to feel entitled, I guess? Personally, I think he claims ignorance of policy as way to seem like an ignorant, humble nobody to be pitied. I think it's part of his act and professional skills of persuasion and manipulation. And, so far, it's been working for him with editors commenting at AfD and AN/I. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lede needs a bigger paragraph, not two. --George Ho (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: I am a bit busier than normal in RL but I will try to get to work on it in the next couple of days. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 14:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to know that I have spent some time reading the Wikipedia rules. In fact I printed them out and studied them carefully, noting them as I have gone along. This included disruptive editing, tendentious editing, civility, personal attacks, bullying, conflict of interest, other stuff exists, single purpose account, manual of style words to watch, neutral point of view, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, dispute resolution, weasel word and identifying reliable sources. These are all areas that at one time you and others have touched upon in comments at the Talk page of my bio. After reading this material I have a much more informed understanding of the Wikipedia editing process.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rick Alan Ross: Thank you for taking the time to do that. I believe that will help out a lot on the talk page. Wikipedia uses many words in a kind of jargony way so knowing how terms and concepts are used here is imperative. Early on I wrote User:Jbhunley/Common policy misunderstandings to help first time editors. It has no official standing but hopefully it sums up some of the key points the policies are trying to make. Maybe it will be of some help to you. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 17:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just printed out and will read and note -- No Original Research. Already have printed out, reviewed and noted other areas listed regarding misunderstandings.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JBH, I saw your ping at the harassment policy discussion. Don't have time right now to participate with that, but I did write a quick essay addressing what I think some of the issues will be: User:Brianhe/COI investigations and outing policy. Looks like it's not a good time right now to be the nail sticking up wrt outing. Eventually the COI issues will reach a boilover people will agree things will have to change. Maybe the next Orangemoody type case. – Brianhe (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]