This is an archive of past discussions about User:J~enwiki. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Wiki-mu-sports.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. fuzzy51003:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
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. Skeezix100019:54, 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. Skeezix100020:19, 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. Skeezix100011:44, 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. Skeezix100013:38, 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?) Justen13:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care! --But|seriously|folks09:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Username
I long assumed that User:J was taken soon after usurpation began in earnest in late January—when I wasn't particularly active—and so I never considered that it might be available until I happened upon SLG a few days ago and learned that it was as-yet unclaimed. I headed to CHU/U straightaway, only to find that you'd beaten me there by one day. Congrats, then, as it were, on the new name, which I suppose you deserve if only because, having been born in West Virginia, you have suffered enough... :) Joe03:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Wireless revolution
At least one good thing has come from the whole SLG mess, and that's my discovering your talk page! Your "wireless revolution" section intrigues me; may I snipe it for my own nefarious purposes? :) - U06:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hah. Mess. That almost seems like an understatement! But, of course, the wireless revolution, and any part of it, is yours for the taking. I'd be intrigued to see what you do, if you want to share when you're ready. :) Best, j talk 06:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Green_Dot_Discover_Card.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast14:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but no, J. This isn't a personal issue with Alison as I've said both privately and publicly that I believe she acted in good faith. But the procedures that lead to this situation stink!!!
The absence of a case at RfCU didn't really throw a wrench into anything, as had I not kicked up a stink via my own blog, which was then picked up on Nicholas Whyte's blog, my request for unblocking would have been rejected and I would have been permanently banned from wikipedia. The internal grievance procedures do not work, particularly as like most other wikipedians, I have little experience of life beyond editing main namespace pages. The blocked user page with advice on what to do next is confusing in the extreme.
Additionally, let's say User:Dmcdevit was around and did present a case on RfCU, based on my sharing a workplace dynamic IP with a large number of other users. I see no evidence that anyone in the wikipedia Admin community would have argued in favour of reversing the block, regardless of the evidence to the contrary from my own edit history. I wonder how many other legitimate Wikipedia users have been blocked, permanently for the same reasons, never to return? Simply sharing an IP address once in a while with a WP:DICK is not grounds for banning.
Thirdly, the lack of a reference at RfCU shouldn't have thrown a spanner in anything. It should have ended the matter there and then. No evidence, even when presented by a trusted user, is still no evidence. At that point, the block should have been removed instantly, and had I then gone on to act like a troll or a sockpuppet, I'm sure that would have been noted by the community and appropriate actions taken.
Finally, and this is where people might perceive personal criticism, and I apologise for that, from my perspective it seemed no admin was prepared to undo the work of another admin. Alison was reluctant to undo what Dmcdevit had done. Arwel and others were not prepared to undo the work of Alison. Dmcdevit's non-evidenced, non-present, word as a trusted and respected admin counted for more than mine as a suspected sockpuppet. From the outside, that's where people get ideas about an admin cabal.
I have neither the time nor the patience to be an admin, but I'm glad other people do and I'm not trying to knock anyone down. But it seems like people are so wound up from the daily battles with trolls that they shoot first and ask questions later, and then cover for one another. Add to the fact that raising the issue on ANI got my IP instantly blocked for a 'self-confessed block avoidance' and you can easily see how people get paranoid. Then people who back me up get IP blocked as well. Sorry, but that's lynch law!
How do we stop things like this happening again? That's what interests me now. Gerry Lynch00:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm very grateful for your reply on the VP page, it didn't appear to be monitored much, looking at the history, so I was concerned my post may go unseen for a couple of days. I hope you do not mind me bothering you via email for the issue. (I was just being a girl and freaked out that I broke something, lol). So, thank you very much for helping me and explaining things. I've been around for 2 years, but never really delved into the inner workings of things, there are a ton of things I'm unfamiliar with, and don't know anyone to ask about them, lol. Ariel♥Gold06:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Smile
Lights has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Cheers,Lights00:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kl4m. I actually do have plans to make userboxes for Bell, Rogers and Fido, and Telus. Should be in the next few days. I'll drop a note on your userpage, then, if that's good. Take care. j talk 22:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Image:Bob_Ulrich.png
Replaceable fair use
Thanks for uploading Image:Bob_Ulrich.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C10:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Hi, J, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, GiggyUCP04:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
