User talk:Jorgenev

MISC

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #289

WT:RFA

I don't necessarily disagree with your closing of that conversation but I am not sure what you mean by the comment you made. Could you explain it please? --John (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, John. I guess my word choice of "nasty" was not the best. It was just that it seemed like everyone, starting with me, was jumping all over WFC and I guess I felt kind of bad about that. Given that nothing constructive was beeing accomplished I though it would be gentlemanly to try to sweep that all that all away into the bin. JORGENEV 09:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes perfect sense. --John (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Rollback Template

can u explain this edit...? Edit 1. Ald™ ¬_¬™ 08:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to make the template nocat compliant (meaning that passing |nocat=true would suppress the category). I messed up thought and you were right to revert me. I have redone it correctly now. JORGENEV 23:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The conservatism of Wikimedians

• News and notes: Largest ever donation to WMF, final findings of editor survey released, 'Terms of use' heavily revised

• In the news: Uproar over Italian shutdown, the varying reception of BLP mischief, and Wikipedia's doctor-evangelist

• WikiProject report: The World's Oldest People

• Featured content: The weird and the disgusting

• Arbitration report: Senkaku Islands closes; administrators authorized to place articles on discretionary sanctions

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment and HTTPS switchover completed, but developer help now needed with new projects

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of We are the 99% for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article We are the 99% is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We are the 99% until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Nightmares Fear Factory

I'm posting this message on your talk page because I noticed that you've recently created the new article Nightmares Fear Factory-- The information is presented clearly and is easy to understand. It would be great if you could also upload a picture for the related article Howl-O-Scream (San Antonio). Amy Z (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of We are the 99%

The article We are the 99% has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The slogan "We are the 99%", which recently only originated from the Occupy wall street movement does not need its own article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

• News and notes: Arabic Wikipedia gets video intros, Smithsonian gifts images, and WikiProject Conservatism scrutinized

• In the news: Why Wikipedia survives while others haven't; Wikipedia as an emerging social model; Jimbo speaks out

• WikiProject report: History in your neighborhood: WikiProject NRHP

• Featured content: Brazil's boom-time dreams of naval power: The ed17 explains the background to a new featured topic

• Arbitration report: Case requests on ethnic strife and a WikiProject declined, Abortion case stalls but topic bans look to be lightened on amendment

• Technology report: WMDE renew investment in Toolserver, first offsite backup programme of Wikimedia begun

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Concern about your coverage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism

Hi. This project has become something of a snakepit, see the project talk page. I don't think it's wise for the Signpost to become the mouthpiece for one of the main adversaries. Lionelt can of course represent himself, but not the other members of the project. This is what you are now publishing here:

“ . . . an active WikiProject was nominated for deletion last week. . . . concerns over bias soon surfaced and appear to be at the root of the deletion request. . . . The issue of bias was mostly sidestepped with the critics of the WikiProject being directed to dispute resolution processes. . . . Lionelt, the project's founder, will continue to stand in its adamant defense, offering on the project's talkpage a toast to its members for their perseverance, prefaced by a public address:

I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to the Community for their support of this amazing and special group of editors. The attempt to delete the project has been soundly and decisively defeated. . . . The consensus is that charges of activism, advocacy, and vote-stacking are baseless and without merit. The future of this project is secure. It has been said that whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger. This assault on the project will indeed strengthen us. . . .

”

I hope you will consider withdrawing this item. --Kleinzach 04:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There were many voices in the MfD, many concerns. The friction continued to the project's talk page where, again, many voices were heard. It is undue emphasis to give Lionelt the bully pulpit with such a hefty quote. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That quotation was selected (by me, not Jorgenev) because it was a remarkable reaction to a remarkable debate, not to endorse any point of view; both the prior and subsequent text of the story made clear that there was no unanimity on questions of whether the club's existence and the behaviour of its members was appropriate nor on how it ought to proceed. I can't speak for Jorgenev, but I personally have no strong feelings on the issues, and speaking as managing editor, nor would I tolerate any sort of craven equal time principle; we report what is noteworthy. Skomorokh 12:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Given that the article is also being criticized for being to anti-WP:CONSERVATISM, I am going to take this complain that it is too pro-WP:CONSERVATISM as evidence that it was pretty neutral. JORGENEVSKI 22:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm only here since you linked to and mischaracterized one of my comments. I didn't say that the article is anti-anything. I was simply saying that your reporting is irresponsible. You should've talked to Jjrj24 before quoting him on a page that would be distributed to hundreds of talk pages. Due to the Signpost's high visibility, that quote might have an extremely negative effort on Jjrj24's reputation. As I've said, Jjrj24 is an inexperienced users who needs some guidance (ie. he or she needs to be told what's he or she is doing wrong). In order to be a responsible reporter, you need to consider the consequences of your actions. WP:NEWBIES. My other comments on the page are meant to provide the other side to what Silver_seren, not you, was saying. Your article is fairly neutral, but I consider your quoting of Jjrj24 to be careless and a form of unintentional victimization. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost reports on what happens and that quote was referenced repeatedly in the MFD. The chance that people are even going to go to the source of the quote is low and the chance that people are going to care is even lower, so I see no harm in using the quote given that it is notable. JORGENEVSKI 01:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost published a text by Lionelt in which he referred to himself in the third person — a self-endorsement then re-echoed by the Signpost. That's not journalism. If you are going to report, then by all means report, making it clear who is saying what. --Kleinzach 02:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Such as by clearly attributing the quotation, which was contextualised with a direct link? Please be serious. Readers aren't cretins. Skomorokh 02:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Skomorokh. JORGENEVSKI 03:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. Can we clarify one thing: who wrote and edited the piece on WikiProject Conservatism? --Kleinzach 03:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I started it, Skomorokh finished it, Tony1 copyedited it, and I endorse the work of both of them. JORGENEVSKI 04:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, in that case I shouldn't have jumped to the conclusion that the main antagonist (Lionelt) had written (the whole of) it himself. I misunderstood this celebration of your article. My apologies — participation in the Conservatism project is not improving my sense of humour! --Kleinzach 05:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)