User talk:Jpgordon

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived. Archive #1 Archive #2 Archive #3 Archive #4 Archive #5 Archive #6 Archive #7

For older history, check [1] as well as the archives.

Steven Soderbergh

Hi, you've just deleted an edit I did to the Steven Soderbergh page, and IMO your justification is just not up to snuff. You say that the table is "real hard to read -- a lot harder to glean information from. The list is easier". Well I happen to disagree completely. I personally find the table is a lot easier to read and gives more information more quickly than the list which I found appaling, or else I wouldn't have spent hours making said table. For you to delete such an edit based solely on your personal opinionis in my mind, contrary to what Wikipedia is all about. I will however refrain from reinstating my edit until you have a chance to reply. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it's exactly what Wikipedia is about. We're all editors, and we're all equal here as editors. Your opinion that that table is a userful addition is as valid as my opinion that the table is difficult to read, difficult to use, and aesthetically unattractive. That's why the guideline WP:BRD -- bold, revert, discuss -- is useful. I'll happily engage with you on the article talk page about this, should you desire. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 12:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jpgordon...

In the Danny Elfman article you reverted my edit of an "ska" band to a "ska" band. My question is: do you say the names of the letters when saying "ska" = ES KAY AY, or do you say it like the word "scat" without the "T"? Cheers, Shir-El too 15:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

More like "scar". It's intermittently popular in the UK (big in the early '60s and early '80s). Definitely "a ska band", not "an". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup, exactly. It's not an acronym or anything. Of course, looking at ska would have shown just that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Vrghs Jacob (a master sock) is back!

Hello Sir,

User:Vrghs jacob is back and is again using multiple socks to:

1. Broadcast his personal opinion using Wikipedia.

2. With some accounts he's violating copyrights, with some putting up notable articles for deletion, putting irrelevant tags to articles, making unconstructive edits, plagiarising, reverting constructive edits by others, swearing and calling them vandals while he's the one who's vandalising Wiki.

3. He's using multiple accounts and uses them to interact with his other accounts as if they're used by different persons, a pretence he's been using ever since he was caught for the first time.

4. He loves to edit pages from the Government of India particularly Indian Revenue Service.

5. He claims to have an MBA from IIM Calcutta and PhD from Nanyang and on the top of it, has cleared Civil Services Exam with an All India Rank of 67 and joined CRPF (no one in his stable mind would do that, if he gets that high rank, since CRPF officers are stationed at extremely remote places fighting naxals and terrorists). No scholar or admininistrator/bureaucrat has so much time to sit all day on Wiki.

6. The made up name of his doesn't show up in google results.

KSince you've been dealing with this sick, demented mind, I thought to inform you. I tried to open an SPI case before this, but he got away with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Uncletomwood/Archive

I know he's the one, I can smell him from a mile. I shall continue to blow his cover until he's gone for good.

Please have a look at Indian Ordnance Factories Service. He's saying that IOFS officers are trained at National Academy of Direct Taxes! Why would they learn taxation? Thay have NOTHING to do with taxation. I added citations from the official website of the President of India, LBS National Academy of Administration, IISc Bangalore, Times of India, Metal & Steel Factory, IIMs (Indian Institutes of Management) at Ahmedabad and Indore which he reverted. How can revert citations from these sources? Instead, he should be putting references to back his claims about NADT which he has not! On the other hand he has accused me of being a sock and a vandal and has semi protected the article.

Notice plagiarism at [[2]] which he totally copied from [[3]], It was his previous sock.

Please take time to lead the investigation thoroughly since edits made by editors like him take time to be rectified and until then many readers get misinformed. Please don't let him know about the investigation until a check user is complete as he would try to evade like he did before. Hoping that the truth shall prevail. Thanks! I think signature was necesaary, sorry! --117.219.227.60 (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Delaware

Hey man, I see you merged the Delaware in the American Civil War article. Now I understand your reason for doing that, but I have to ask-

If I manage to find some more sources and string the article up a bit, could it become an article again???

Thanks, Themane2 (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's how it could. Expand the History of Delaware#Delaware in the Civil War section, and if gets large enough to deserve its own article, it will get one (and probably someone else will do it for you.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

CU data note

Given your comments here and here, could you update Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mahek faldu/Archive? Nice of them to confirm via autoblock note that they're socking even without needing CU involvement:) DMacks (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Where grudge holding vandals come from

See [4]

Rejecting an unblock request by saying something that essentially boils down to TL;DR is understandable given how long of a read the request is. If I were you, I wouldn't read it either. I admit even as I'm writing this that I haven't even skimmed that person's first sentence.

But you shouldn't reject it without reading. You could pass it to someone else. Or show that you tried to. There are people who are willing to read something written for them, considering they believe other people's time is worth as much as theirs, and other people spent much more time writing. If this person spends all the time writing it, it's something meaningful to someone, and people who see themselves as equals will be at least interested in what that person thinks is meaningful.

Everything you did was understandable. You ain't wrong. But any human you do this to will be upset and maybe one day be a real vandal to Wikipedia--you know, like those famous ones.

We all go into these last ditch peace attempts sometimes in our lives, and beat the dead horse when we shouldn't. And we're all lucky when we did it, that no one took the opportunity to throw a slap in the face. Because that could happen to anyone, and make him/her resort to a vendetta.

This is where grudge holding vandals come from. 119.57.31.233 (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, except the wrong part. Grudge holding vandals come from a primary desire to be destructive rather than constructive. Asking someone to please read instructions on how to be the latter than the former is hardly what creates vandals. Bad parenting is probably the main cause. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if you do believe they weren't normal people to begin with, which may one day be verified true or false, there's no reason someone will vandalize Wikipedia, and only Wikipedia, if he/she being bad is the only factor. The point is, whether it happens depends on how Wikipedia's people behave. If you didn't have to say TL;DR and close the request, well 119.57.31.233 (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)