User talk:J~enwiki: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:36, 2 November 2009 editJ~enwiki (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,427 edits →No assumptions: You've done a lovely job with the photograph.← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:49, 2 November 2009 edit undoJ~enwiki (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,427 edits →No assumptions: Scapegoading, that's what you've come here for? Scapegoating, rather.Next edit →
Line 53:		Line 53:

	== No assumptions ==		== No assumptions ==

	My comment doesn't make any assumptions about your intentions, only the ''effect'' of calling for recall at that point. No allegations, then, just a prediction. Closing the discussion was probably the right move. ]] 14:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)		My comment doesn't make any assumptions about your intentions, only the ''effect'' of calling for recall at that point. No allegations, then, just a prediction. Closing the discussion was probably the right move. ]] 14:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
	:The conversation went on much longer, and became much deeper than I expected or intended. My goal was solely to be sure that ] was still open to recall; unfortunately, the discussion went where it went from there. I only wish it wasn't necessary to have had the conversation to begin with, but as I said, I believe the alternative is unacceptable. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 14:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)		:The conversation went on much longer, and became much deeper than I expected or intended. My goal was solely to be sure that ] was still open to recall; unfortunately, the discussion went where it went from there. I only wish it wasn't necessary to have had the conversation to begin with, but as I said, I believe the alternative is unacceptable. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 14:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
			{{{!}} <!-- Template:Collapse top --> class="navbox collapsible {{#if:\|\|collapsed}}" style="text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em;"
			{{!}}-
			! style="background-color: #CFC;" {{!}} Scapegoat redux. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 04:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
			{{!}}-
			{{!}} style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " {{!}}
			]
	::The next time you have a question about one of my edits, take it up with me. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 16:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)		::The next time you have a question about one of my edits, take it up with me. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 16:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
	::Echoing what Durova said, the same goes regarding me. ] 17:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)		::Echoing what Durova said, the same goes regarding me. ] 17:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Line 63:		Line 68:
	:::::It's very difficult to take someone replacing a serious conversation with the image of a goat as being rooted in any sort of sincerity; trying to discuss such an edit with such an editor would seem to be an effort in futility. Jake seems to have been persuaded that your edit belongs somewhere there, and you seem to have been persuaded that collapsing the discussion need not be repeated, so I think we've come as far as we're going to come in this conversation. But if you want to talk about "respect," my future suggestion would be to not collapse contentious discussions and label them with the image of a goat. "That's outside of site norms." ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 19:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)		:::::It's very difficult to take someone replacing a serious conversation with the image of a goat as being rooted in any sort of sincerity; trying to discuss such an edit with such an editor would seem to be an effort in futility. Jake seems to have been persuaded that your edit belongs somewhere there, and you seem to have been persuaded that collapsing the discussion need not be repeated, so I think we've come as far as we're going to come in this conversation. But if you want to talk about "respect," my future suggestion would be to not collapse contentious discussions and label them with the image of a goat. "That's outside of site norms." ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 19:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Actually, one in eight featured pictures at Misplaced Pages is my contribution. This is easy to determine from the top of my userpage. When I announce that something has encyclopedic value and a restoration is underway, you may trust that the message is genuine. Regardless, I have now asked you politely three different ways to refrain from altering my posts without consultation again. If you do not take that request seriously and the problem repeats, your actions will compel me to seek the opinions of other editors. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		::::::Actually, one in eight featured pictures at Misplaced Pages is my contribution. This is easy to determine from the top of my userpage. When I announce that something has encyclopedic value and a restoration is underway, you may trust that the message is genuine. Regardless, I have now asked you politely three different ways to refrain from altering my posts without consultation again. If you do not take that request seriously and the problem repeats, your actions will compel me to seek the opinions of other editors. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::You've done a lovely job with ~~the~~ ~~photograph~~. Effectively replacing a discussion with it, whether to add levity or to dismiss that discussion, is still an edit you should not have made, certainly not without the "consultation" you are here requesting (apparently but not in kind). I wish you well, Durova, but I don't see any further benefit to discussing this further here. If you feel a need to plaster over any discussions in the future with your featured photographs, I would certainly feel it appropriate to revisit the situation at that time, as you suggest. Take care, ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 04:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		:::::::You've done a lovely job with your photographs, nobody here is disputing that (so far as I know). Effectively replacing a discussion with a "scapegoat," whether to add levity or to dismiss that discussion, is still an edit you should not have made, certainly not without the "consultation" you are here requesting (apparently but not in kind). I wish you well, Durova, but I don't see any further benefit to discussing this further here. If you feel a need to plaster over any discussions in the future with your featured photographs, I would certainly feel it appropriate to revisit the situation at that time, as you suggest. Take care, ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 04:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
			\|}

Revision as of 04:49, 2 November 2009

User:J/Talk header

Saturn Corporation

Ok, I was about to revert those also by myself, its like crystallballing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Typ932 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 4 May 2009

Meanwhile on TNT (just now) ...

... the letters of a name are erased on a computer screen until there is just a huge letter J (Men and Black! lol no joke, just this moment)

... and in a corner of Misplaced Pages a profoundly wise collapse is performed.

Good work, J. ;) (smiling, but not joking) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You brighten my day. :) I'll now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(sotto voce)

(TOP SECRET/SINGLE-LETTER EYES ONLY:)
Psst ... Resignation of Sarah Palin was created around the time I arrived for my second tour of duty of current-events wrangling the Sarah Palin article (my first was the weekend of the kos rumor—which, by the way, I verified was false by communicating with an Alaskan news photographer whose photos had been used to assert the rumor) My first SPCEW2 episode-defining action ... was opposing a(Wikilawyering and ANI-oft-dramaqueening) five-year WP veteran's belligerent insistence that they could describe/summarize from the WP:Primary transcript of the speech. The editor's inaugural edit (of this period on this page) was roughly: While Palin gave X (editor summary from PRIMARY), the media (SECONDARY) said Y (which I reluctantly reverted—because I wanted to clarify the SECONDARY vs PRIMARY issue with an undo, i.e., signal: "Don't do that" ... but with edit summary with carefully/non-aggressively-worded rationale). I was rather insistent on the matter (on the talk page), and the offending paragraph found itself traveling to a newly-created article (where I did not care). lol SO, I (like a god? lol) helped breathed life into the article I kept away from ... BUT, I do know what it ought to be ... HOWEVER that version must await book-level analysis (rather than media-level coverage) to take shape ... and perhaps even some adjustment to the usual idea of what an article about a speech might be (which would include the possibility of sourced rhetorical analysis). While I am not a fan of Palin, her rhetoric and style are effective ... in its way ... and that way is fine for its audience and purpose. BOTTOM LINE: I do have a thought that that "speech" is precisely the kind of speech that would deserve its own article—when we do it right. (Which can't be done yet. But there's no rush. And no compelling reason to delete in the meantime. AND if it turns out she is truly a flash in the pan ... THEN, of course, delete.) Selah. (no response necessary) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(TOP SECRET/SINGLE-LETTER EYES ONLY:)

Psst ... Resignation of Sarah Palin was created around the time I arrived for my second tour of duty of current-events wrangling the Sarah Palin article (my first was the weekend of the kos rumor—which, by the way, I verified was false by communicating with an Alaskan news photographer whose photos had been used to assert the rumor)

My first SPCEW2 episode-defining action ... was opposing a(Wikilawyering and ANI-oft-dramaqueening) five-year WP veteran's belligerent insistence that they could describe/summarize from the WP:Primary transcript of the speech.

The editor's inaugural edit (of this period on this page) was roughly: While Palin gave X (editor summary from PRIMARY), the media (SECONDARY) said Y (which I reluctantly reverted—because I wanted to clarify the SECONDARY vs PRIMARY issue with an undo, i.e., signal: "Don't do that" ... but with edit summary with carefully/non-aggressively-worded rationale).

I was rather insistent on the matter (on the talk page), and the offending paragraph found itself traveling to a newly-created article (where I did not care). lol

SO, I (like a god? lol) helped breathed life into the article I kept away from ... BUT, I do know what it ought to be ... HOWEVER that version must await book-level analysis (rather than media-level coverage) to take shape ... and perhaps even some adjustment to the usual idea of what an article about a speech might be (which would include the possibility of sourced rhetorical analysis).

While I am not a fan of Palin, her rhetoric and style are effective ... in its way ... and that way is fine for its audience and purpose.

BOTTOM LINE: I do have a thought that that "speech" is precisely the kind of speech that would deserve its own article—when we do it right. (Which can't be done yet. But there's no rush. And no compelling reason to delete in the meantime. AND if it turns out she is truly a flash in the pan ... THEN, of course, delete.)

Selah. (no response necessary) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Epilogue: The illuminati smile :-) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Savour your victory! user:J aka justen (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Nook references

No problem, I was acting out of boredom more than anything else ;). Well done on the article, it's looking good. TastyCakes (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

David Shankbone

I would appreciate your explanation of your lack of assumption of good faith before I take this issue to WP:ANI Chuthya (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've explained why your edits were unacceptable on your talk page, and I've just responded again there. I agree that it may be more appropriate to have the conversation at wp:an/i given the clearly problematic nature of your edits, and I would welcome your raising the matter there. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(Cross posting.) Per your suggestion here, I have raised the issue at the incidents noticeboard. You may wish to comment further there. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No assumptions

My comment doesn't make any assumptions about your intentions, only the effect of calling for recall at that point. No allegations, then, just a prediction. Closing the discussion was probably the right move. Nathan 14:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The conversation went on much longer, and became much deeper than I expected or intended. My goal was solely to be sure that User:Jake Wartenberg was still open to recall; unfortunately, the discussion went where it went from there. I only wish it wasn't necessary to have had the conversation to begin with, but as I said, I believe the alternative is unacceptable. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Scapegoat redux. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Poorly placed scapegoats only add to the drama. This is an example of a properly placed scapegoat. The next time you have a question about one of my edits, take it up with me. Durova 16:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Echoing what Durova said, the same goes regarding me. Lara 17:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Eh? I don't remember your "taking up" the collapsing of that conversation with me beforehand, Durova? As for your personal attacks on other editors, Lara, I don't plan to dignify them with any further response. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC) The discussion was already closed and archived, and it appears you did not have Jake Wartenberg's permission to revert anyone at his user page. Likewise with Lara: one simply doesn't go around blanking other people's posts on talk without discussion. That's outside of site norms. If you feel that someone's edit is inappropriate, please discuss it with them. Because if the edit actually is inappropriate, most experienced Wikipedians can be persuaded and would appreciate the respect of having the opportunity to undo it themselves. Durova 18:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC) It's very difficult to take someone replacing a serious conversation with the image of a goat as being rooted in any sort of sincerity; trying to discuss such an edit with such an editor would seem to be an effort in futility. Jake seems to have been persuaded that your edit belongs somewhere there, and you seem to have been persuaded that collapsing the discussion need not be repeated, so I think we've come as far as we're going to come in this conversation. But if you want to talk about "respect," my future suggestion would be to not collapse contentious discussions and label them with the image of a goat. "That's outside of site norms." user:J aka justen (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Actually, one in eight featured pictures at Misplaced Pages is my contribution. This is easy to determine from the top of my userpage. When I announce that something has encyclopedic value and a restoration is underway, you may trust that the message is genuine. Regardless, I have now asked you politely three different ways to refrain from altering my posts without consultation again. If you do not take that request seriously and the problem repeats, your actions will compel me to seek the opinions of other editors. Durova 04:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC) You've done a lovely job with your photographs, nobody here is disputing that (so far as I know). Effectively replacing a discussion with a "scapegoat," whether to add levity or to dismiss that discussion, is still an edit you should not have made, certainly not without the "consultation" you are here requesting (apparently but not in kind). I wish you well, Durova, but I don't see any further benefit to discussing this further here. If you feel a need to plaster over any discussions in the future with your featured photographs, I would certainly feel it appropriate to revisit the situation at that time, as you suggest. Take care, user:J aka justen (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Scapegoat redux. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The next time you have a question about one of my edits, take it up with me. Durova 16:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Echoing what Durova said, the same goes regarding me. Lara 17:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I don't remember your "taking up" the collapsing of that conversation with me beforehand, Durova? As for your personal attacks on other editors, Lara, I don't plan to dignify them with any further response. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was already closed and archived, and it appears you did not have Jake Wartenberg's permission to revert anyone at his user page. Likewise with Lara: one simply doesn't go around blanking other people's posts on talk without discussion. That's outside of site norms. If you feel that someone's edit is inappropriate, please discuss it with them. Because if the edit actually is inappropriate, most experienced Wikipedians can be persuaded and would appreciate the respect of having the opportunity to undo it themselves. Durova 18:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It's very difficult to take someone replacing a serious conversation with the image of a goat as being rooted in any sort of sincerity; trying to discuss such an edit with such an editor would seem to be an effort in futility. Jake seems to have been persuaded that your edit belongs somewhere there, and you seem to have been persuaded that collapsing the discussion need not be repeated, so I think we've come as far as we're going to come in this conversation. But if you want to talk about "respect," my future suggestion would be to not collapse contentious discussions and label them with the image of a goat. "That's outside of site norms." user:J aka justen (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one in eight featured pictures at Misplaced Pages is my contribution. This is easy to determine from the top of my userpage. When I announce that something has encyclopedic value and a restoration is underway, you may trust that the message is genuine. Regardless, I have now asked you politely three different ways to refrain from altering my posts without consultation again. If you do not take that request seriously and the problem repeats, your actions will compel me to seek the opinions of other editors. Durova 04:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You've done a lovely job with your photographs, nobody here is disputing that (so far as I know). Effectively replacing a discussion with a "scapegoat," whether to add levity or to dismiss that discussion, is still an edit you should not have made, certainly not without the "consultation" you are here requesting (apparently but not in kind). I wish you well, Durova, but I don't see any further benefit to discussing this further here. If you feel a need to plaster over any discussions in the future with your featured photographs, I would certainly feel it appropriate to revisit the situation at that time, as you suggest. Take care, user:J aka justen (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)