User talk:J~enwiki/Archives/2009/October

Who Says

I was just about to add a "Who Says" Single art but I see you did and cleaned the place up thanks a lot man --Cjones132002 (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe User:Rm w a vu uploaded the artwork, but I did remove the lyrics that had been pasted into the article. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Ignatieff

Thank you for editing that last entry on Michael Ignatieff. I undid my own revert because I was unsure whether it was indeed vandalism or part of the included material from the book referenced. Thanks again ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 03:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. I actually wondered, myself, whether it might be a valid edit, given that it sort of fit with the quote. It's good that you went out of your way to give User:172.162.251.253 the benefit of the doubt, even if he wound up coming up short, anyway. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Report

Hi, I still have a comment there that has been removed? Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not by you, I hasten to add, but I thought you might replace it for me. Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

I'm worried about the precedent of one user conducting an edit war landing a page in indefinite full protection, with his tags in place. This wasn't a wide ranging edit dispute, it was one editor with an agenda battling against every other editor on the page. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi J,

The protection isn't indefinite; it's for 24 hours. This will hopefully give everyone some time to hammer out a compromise on the talk page. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I realized just a moment ago I had misread the protection log entry. I should also note that User:Sandstein has blocked User:Scribner for a period of one week, which I believe likely resolves the dispute as there was a clear consensus amongst the other editors that the tags were inappropriate. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I did note the block by Sandstein. It doesn't look as if there's anyone else fighting for the tags. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Tag!

Dear fellow rollbacker :) ... While the intent is understandable, the tag is truly a {{POV}} tag ... {{NPOV}} is a redirect because of common dithering about, um, intention. Obviously this is of earthshattering importance and we must begin to edit war—very slowly—about it. LOL Cheers. (No response necessary for trivialities) --Proofreader77 (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right! Wikipedia has so many three letter policies, however, that I believed it necessary to promote a four letter one! (In all actuality, the edit was really just to give the sections some hierarchy.) You're right, though, that it is of earth shattering importance, and I do believe we should engage in pages of uncivil discussion here on the matter, if you'd be game.  :) user:J aka justen (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

After recently finding a link to this edit summary, I think I'm going to have to take lessons from that ip before attempting such a challenge. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! user:J aka justen (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

On a finer note to conclude ... orchestrating (or at least braving:) controversial flows is a thankless work of grace (or foolishness) ... Good work, J. (lol Men in Black!)Proofreader77 (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be right on the "foolishness" part! Once more into the breach, nonetheless... user:J aka justen (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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

[1] 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 ^T 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)