User talk:J~enwiki

Archives

2005 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2006 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2007 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2008 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2009 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2010 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2011 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2013 January February March April May June July August September October November December

Chirotalk

I noticed recently that Chirotalk has started its own self-promoting article on WP. I nominated it for deletion. As someone who has recently edited the chiropractic article and discussion pages, I thought you might want to chime in with your thoughts here.

Native American imagery on 4H

Hi Justen,

I wanted to let you know that 4H is not a camping or scouting organization. Although some clubs support camp outings, it is not common. The page has been categorized as a Category:Non-aligned Scouting organizations but this is dubious and I will probably discuss removal. The camping section needs to be edited as well. Have you considered other pages for the Native American section?

Tim Hortons

Hi. I don't really agree with your removal of the reference. Not a big deal. I was not the editor who added the note, but feel that it is not trivia and should remain. Your main concern can be adequately addressed with a fact tag (which I have added). I suspect that the section on old signage may have to be removed at some point soon as I doubt a proper reference will be found, but I also suspect another editor will soon find a source for the rest of it. As for your suggestion that it is somehow a non-sequitur to use the references section, we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree. Since you are initiating a change that another editor disagrees with, your next step as per WP:CON is to seek consensus on the article talk page for the removal of the reference. Skeezix1000 19:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am well aware of WP:OWN. Personally, I do not typically believe that anyone that disagrees with me is guilty of offending WP:OWN, but it seems you have a different view. To each their own.

I was well aware of the content of your previous edit. I simply disagreed with it, as all of the concerns you had raised could be dealt with through a fact tag. You claim the content is trivia, but then you have edited the article (twice) to elevate it to its own paragraph in the introductory section of the article. Whereas I believe it is valuable content, I don't share your apparent view that it needs to be more prominent, with its own paragraph (in the introduction no less).

I believe that footnotes are very well suited to this type of content, and specifically for this situation. It isn't isn't that it "must" be a footnote, as you put it, but rather that it is a far preferable treatment than your two solutions (first, to delete the content entirely, or your second solution to add it to the article introduction). It is a snippet of information that would fit awkwardly elsewhere in the article, and it really relates best to the company name, which is introduced in the lead paragraph and the infobox (really, the footnote could go in either place).

You say "Really at a loss for words here... ", but that's really unfair. You have not pointed to any policy, guideline or precedent which would suggest that the use of a footnote here is inappropriate, so I am unsure as to why you are so perplexed that someone might actually have the temerity to disagree with you. In fact, Wikipedia guidelines suggest that this is an appropriate use of a footnote. WP:FOOT states: "Footnotes are sometimes useful for relevant text that would distract from the main point if embedded in the main text, yet are helpful in explaining a point in greater detail. Footnotes are also often used to cite references that are relevant to a text."

You disagree with the use of the footnote. Fine. But since it has been in the article for some time (it wasn't me who added it), another editor disagrees with your edit and you have no policy or guideline that suggests the use of the footnote is inappropriate, WP:CON suggests that your next step is to seek consensus for the change on the talk page. If other editors agree with you, great - make the change. But in the meantime, please refrain from suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you must have a nut loose. Skeezix1000 20:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to read WP:OWN, because you appear not to understand its purpose or intent. It isn't intended to browbeat other editors who disagree with your views. It is particularly ironic that you seem intent on making this accusation against another editor, when you are the one who is insisting on a change to the article, despite having no policies or guidelines in supoport of that change (in fact, the one guideline that has been raises suggests the opposite), and you seem to have little regard for the comments I have made. The last thing I will say in response to WP:OWN is "people who live in glass houses...".

You need to step back, understand that other editors can have valid reasons for disagreeing with you, and focus your comments on the content, rather than on baseless accusations of misconduct. I would be happy to discuss this with you once you are able to engage in a discussion on the merits, rather than throwing around warnings and other nonsense. Skeezix1000 11:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't debate this anymore with you. I don't have the energy to deal with an editor who is incapable of having an adult discussion over the content of the article, but seems intent on making baseless accusations ("ownership issues", "revert war", etc) and posting condescending tags on the talk pages of other users. I eliminated the tag because you had already made the accusation, and the tag simply went beyond the bounds of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. And, please, stop telling me that I have not looked at your revised edits. I will say it one more time: just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean that they have not read your edits, nor does it mean that they are in violation of WP:OWN. It is rich that you are citing WP:OWN, given that you seem intent on bulldozing anyone who disagrees with your view.

I have explained why the use of the footnote is appropriate. I believe that the articles you have cited represent a different situation entirely, and I do not believe that the use of the footnote represents burying content (the guideline states otherwise). However, I just don't have the patience to go into any further detail, and to discuss the merits of our two positions, because you are clearly not interested in having that discussion. You win, I give up. This has been tiresome and thoroughly disagreeable. Skeezix1000 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not you have the energy to "deal with" the fact that you exhibited some pretty clear WP:OWNership issues, and that you (and I) were progressing an ongoing revert war, you should really probably recognize that saying another editor is "incapable of having an adult discussion" is pretty far outside the boundaries of WP:CIVIL. In any event, best of luck with your corner of Wikipedia. I'll try to steer clear of it in the future. (Perfect illustration of the need for WP:OWN, no?) Justen 13:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)