This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jusdafax. 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.
Please add new messages to the BOTTOM of the page by starting a new section heading by clicking the "new section' tab above. Also: note that I will likely respond to new messages here, so please watchlist my page. If I leave YOU a message, I'll watchlist your page. Thanks!
Welcome to another month and another fresh talk page. Like it says above: Please add your new thoughts, praise, complaints or whatever else is on your mind AT THE BOTTOM in a new section, or join in existing discussion by posting at the bottom of the section you are interested in. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! Jusdafax07:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
First complaint of the month
Incorrect. He is not yet the First Minister for Wales, not until at least 9 December 2009, when Rhodri Morgan will step down. Incidentally, he is still the Counsel General, was not the First Minister when he had that position, and Rhodri Morgan was never his predecessor in that job. So, respectfully, YOUR edit was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.57.177 (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I see that now, my apologies. I'll revert (if have not already) and remove the warning you got. By the way, please use the 'new section' tab at the top when starting a new comment on a talk page, and don't forget to sign with four of these (~). Best, Jusdafax18:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
First off, please use the 'new section' tab when making a new comment, and please sign with four of these (~). You change your signature in the 'my preferences' tab at the very top of the page. I just shopped around looking at peoples signatures 'till I found colors I liked, then copied and pasted them. It can be a bit tricky but is instructive about coding when you figure it out. Have Fun! Jusdafax18:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
First off, kindly place new material on a talk page at the bottom by using the 'new section' tab, and don't forget to sign your post by typing 4 of these ~ signs.
I just reread your statement. With all due respect, it's my view that it is more suited to a blog than an encyclopedia. You cite no references, which is required for material of the sort you seek to add to the article. For more please read WP:RS. Now, for all I know, everything you say is the truth, but the point is, it must be referenced to be able to be a part of Wikipedia. (There are exceptions in Wikipedia, notably plot summaries in works of fiction.) Since you care care enough to write on my talk page, I see you are concerned and not the typical type of vandal I deal with. I will remove any of my warnings, and ask you to consider what the encyclopedia would look like if we let people post unsourced material. If you can find sources to back up what you say, and reference them in your editing, then you stand a good chance of having your Wikipedia edits stay as a part of the article. My best wishes, Jusdafax18:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the help, I am new to editting Wikipedia, as you can probably tell. I updated the page with citation and such, could you give me any feedback if it was editted poorly. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.160.135 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, welcome to the convoluted world of Wikipedia editing. Much better. I see a misspelling or two... I'm not sure the references cited actually uphold your content, but you have at least made a start. You might consider trimming the wording a bit to comply with WP:POV and WP:NPOV; the latter is one of the core values of Wikipedia, and if you are challenged or reverted, it might be on those grounds. If you can find a local paper that has an online edition with a description of some of the shortcomings you describe, it would make your case stronger. Remember, citing an online blog doesn't count. Best, Jusdafax00:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Saw your edit here and I got curious. When do people get added to it? What do they have to do to prove that they're reliable? Just curious when I got placed on that (roughly, anyway), but damned if I'm going to break my browser searching twenty thousand revisions for the exact date. >.> --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds22:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Good question. I have no idea when I was put on the list myself, or how it works. Btw thanks again for your help above, I just reported the dude and requested serious action. Jusdafax22:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Block evasion? That would seem to imply it is someone editing from a different account, which makes this affair highly interesting. I'll look into it. Jusdafax23:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Jusdafax! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice.
I have cited the United States Chess Federation, they are a reliable source for USCF ratings. Please try discussing edits instead of reverting them and making accusations of 'libel'. The fact of the matter is Root's rating has dropped several hundred points, and the source for that fact is quite reliable. 68.191.222.229 (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
First of all, please start a new discussion, as I request at the top of this page, in a new chapter heading. I have created a new chapter heading for this subject.
Having taken a look at this issue, it appears to me that you are wrong, since as I noted in my original edit summary her current rating is listed at 2025. I also had asked in that same edit summary for further discussion on her talk page, which you utterly failed to do, prior to your several edits to the page. Now, you chide me for not "discussing edits", which I find both ironic and questionable. Frankly, given the wording and tone of your edits to Ms. Root's article, you appear to have some strong negative POV regarding the subject of the article, who I don't know from Adam. This is a WP:BLP issue, and it appears to me that your edits constitute vandalism. Please discuss this further on the Alexey Root discussion page. Thanks, Jusdafax21:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Could you tell me where you have found information that her current rating is 2025? I know her rating is 2000, as stated on the USCF website, at the links I have provided in the article. I believe you are confusing FIDE ratings with USCF ratings. I do not appreciate your hostile attitude and presumption that I am attempting to vandalize. If you feel I am inserting POV into an article, then you should try to edit the facts so that it is NPOV, instead of merely deleting facts which are merely being obtained from the USCF. 68.191.222.229 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC).
Furthermore, you do not seem to understand the concept of a 'floored' rating. Please read the ELO article before assuming that I am simply vandalizing a mathematical topic. Should you not assume good faith? There is nothing 'POV' about observing that Root has consistently performed for many years at a sub-expert level, and one need only examine her USCF rating history in order to see that. Her rating is currently 2000 because it is not allowed to drop below 2000, but even with a rating of 2000 this is a major decline from her peak performance, and it is simply objective for the article to point out that she is no longer playing at her former level. 68.191.222.229 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC).
Again
Well, it appears you've been busy on my user talk :) Thanks for the help. I owe you one...or more...lol See ya 'round Tiderolls00:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
My pleasure, I found that one a challenge: an IP-changing vandal who was absolutely determined to hit your page. I just stayed on Huggle and knocked him down over and over. Best wishes, Jusdafax01:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Re:Ute Rathmann
No. I have had several cases when an expert tries to rewrite a WP article, but because they a newbie, their edits look like vandalism. It is so easy to warn them instead of blocking. Blocking would repel them from WP forever. I'm watching the editor. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't that sure about Ford / San Anselmo
Hi -
I wasn't sure about Ford's current status on the council - thanks for fixing that.
It's kinda difficult to find out who lives or lived in San Anselmo, too.
Thanks,
Marc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Salvisberg (talk • contribs) 19:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I see that you are looking for folks to comment on the idea and I am admittedly late to the discussion, but it seems to me that term limits are the perfect solution. However, when such an obvious solution if evident but not being pursued there is normally a reason. Has this already been suggested? J04n(talk page)22:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge. Term limits isn't a bad idea, in my view, but it may be outside the scope of the current project, which is to give an alternative/last appeal to those concerned with a problem administrator(s). We involved largely feel this proposal gives the community another way to deal with the issue of 'admins gone bad', and a reverse Rfa is now possibly in the final weeks of polishing. To get back to your suggestion, you may want to bring it up at the place you saw my notice: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship or perhaps the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Best wishes, Jusdafax22:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I've got to run, but the quick answer is no: (i) the article is underdeveloped and we need someone to expand it. A good chance some of it will be done by an anon. (ii) vandalism is localized there to certain IPs. They are to be warned and then blocked - I can help there. Semi-protection is for when vandalism comes from all directions. That said, if it escalates again, please drop a short note - short-term protection (a few hours - a day, or so) is well possible. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Assuming you are serious (if so, forgive the question) your grammar and spelling are very poor, and you have no sources for your additions. You will notice I did not give you a vandalism warning, as you don't seem to be a vandal, or at least a type I am familiar with. Jusdafax23:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Gigs. I'll be refocusing on this issue in the next few days. I found Uncle G's comments from October highly transformative, and am rethinking the matter. Jusdafax19:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know...
Hey, this is user:750n3. I was just letting you know that I am also user:tommak95 and I just wanted a new user name. Since I changed my user name I am redirecting my old user page to my new user page, so yeah. Just letting you know.
Hi, Wondering why my Nova 91.9 FM edits keep reverting back, and I get a warning on them. Was updating shows for 2010, and was about to put references in (including press releases etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.171.82 (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
It appears my edit crossed, and I have undone the edit and my warning. Not sure how it happened, but accept my apologies. Best wishes, Jusdafax05:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank YOU for participating. I think enough safeguards are in place to ensure no abuse can happen should we enact this. The guy who wrote the template for 'Community de-adminship', Uncle G, is MIA, or we could both thank him for coming up with a pretty good proposal. Thanks again and Happy Holidays! Jusdafax01:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
If you want to know what the old-school Wikipedia was like, just look in the archives. Very few doors are closed to you if you can see deleted histories. Start with the first ArbCom people, the first admins, the old humor archives. It was a very different time. Kyle Barbour13:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
This might sound strange, but I haven't been making these contributions. I even have an account (i'MSKYHiGH) here anyway which I use to edit with. I didn't even know who Sepp Blatter was until ten minutes ago! Plus I'm a bit more articulate than the person who has been making those edits. Can someone else edit with my IP address or something like that? It's really not me.
Hmm. I'd suggest going to an admin with this. I'm interested and would like to be kept informed. Would you like the warning pulled? Jusdafax00:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
If it's a dynamic IP, then yes, someone else can edit with it; that's why usually there's a caveat after the warnings that says "if this is not you, please consider making an account"; I'm not sure what triggers the caveat to appear sometimes and not others; possibly Twinkle. -- SoapTalk/Contributions00:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I've logged in now anyway so it shouldn't be a problem any more. I do have a dynamic IP, by the way. Thank you both for your assistance! (: ~ I'MSKYHiGH (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Do other people use the computer you work on? By the way, it helps to let me know what article you refer to, as well signing your posts. Thanks. Jusdafax15:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Your spelling would argue against your characterization of the school, assuming you are a student. Your edits are simple vandalism, but perhaps I could convince you that adding content to Wikipedia is more fun than damaging it? Best, Jusdafax16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
My mistake. Huggle asks you if you want to tag the page for speedy deletion, but it doesn't say what the reasoning will be. In the future I'll use the correct template. Thanks! Jusdafax16:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
An encyclopedia does not make point of view judgements. You are likely to be blocked or banned if you keep trying to put yours into the article. Can you back up your contentions with WP:RS? That is the major issue here. In hopes you gain insight, Jusdafax17:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
A chance? Absolutely, but I think it will be somewhat close. And the longer we wait, the closer it will be.
I think a lot of !voters will feel, if 70/80 is good enough for a Rfa, it should be good enough for a Cda. I said on the project page, and I repeat here, that I was originally for 60/80, but the level of hostility to Cda as seen in the 'Motion to close' is now well documented. I truly believe it best that we finalize the project and present it to the community pretty much as is. It's not that I'm running out of gas on Cda, it's that I think the time is now, for a host of reasons. I appreciate your interest and concern, and please know that my current views have evolved over the months of debate, and (yes I just looked it up) over 100 contributions to this process. Best wishes, Jusdafax19:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
And thanks back atcha, Ben. Your note means a lot to me, as I have much admiration for your quarterbacking (to use a North American football term) of the players of this process. I see myself as more of a cheerleader, actually! Taking a deep breath, with best wishes, Jusdafax21:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I actually did not see your last two comments here until this very day. That'll teach me not to just look at the bottom of the page for fresh stuff. The orange banner was there, but coincided with a new post, so I missed this. In light of what has happened, perhaps it is just as well. Jusdafax18:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that this is how you give someone a barnstar. I have never given out a barnstar on Wikipedia before, so I will just follow the procedure that I use on other wiki. By the way, do you think that you could rollback just a little bit slower? Joking of course, although it seems like half of the time I try to undo something you have beaten me to it. Great job! Ajraddatz (Talk - Contributions) 16:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Much obliged. I'm actually a lot slower than I used to be, but I appreciate the kind words and good humor. Many thanks, and best wishes! Jusdafax16:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You didn't need to put a message on my talk page, I do check my watchlist ;). It is so weird, I edit Wikia and am use to having my 15,000 or so edits follow me around. Here I'm not even autoconfirmed, and have 60 some edits :S. Anyways, you earned that barnstar no matter what my experience is :) Ajraddatz (Talk - Contributions) 16:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Frank Conroy edit...
Good afternoon. I am an instructor at a public high school and was using this page as a teaching example. The changes that were made were only used to demonstrate the potential problems of using Wikipedia as a reliable, reputable source of information (given the changes that can be made to most entries). There was no intent to present false information on a long term basis and I had started the undoing of the change as soon as it had posted.
My apologies for any perceived intent on our part to deceive any reader.
Hopefully what you and your students discovered is that a determined team of volunteers work around the clock to detect and often instantly revert the efforts of vandals. I myself sometime spend hours each day doing so. Your 'teaching example' merely means that those like myself must work all the harder; if every teacher were to do so, the results would be catastrophic. Therefore, I confess to annoyance with the concept of a teacher showing students how to vandalize Wikipedia, whatever your motives. You should know better than that. Jusdafax19:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Frank Conroy...
I should know better than what, exactly? Than showing them that with an entry, such as Frank Conroy, which has no references or source whatsoever there might be problems with the information that is contained therein? I hate to tell you this, given your esteemed status as "editor," but if there is no clear sourcing for this entry that, at the best, this is some random joe in a log cabin in mississippi that is determining what should or should not be listed here. Are you an expert in Conroy? Can you validate the information that is in this specific entry, other than cross-referencing it with the information that was already there? Are you an expert in literature? Who are you, specifically, to be the individual that determines what is or is not valid?
Additionally, since Wikipedia is "open" to editing by other people, this creates specific issues that have to do with bias. Why do you get to determine what is or is not appropriate for this entry? What standards do you use to do so?
My example provides my students with a clear example of why Wikipedia must be read with extreme care, not only because of the possibility of editing the information from anywhere but, even more so, because of a silent cadre of "experts" who get to determine what is or is not "true."
I in no way feel any sorrow about what I did to the Conroy entry (and about whom I know much, much more than you do) or that I made you (a supposed "expert") take your valuable time to correct our addition (which we were changing anyway).
Your lack of contrition and overt hostility aside, have you considered that you might use your time more constructively by teaching students to usefully edit Wikipedia? You might start by sourcing the Frank Conroy article, since you state you are knowledgeable with him and his work. The goal of Wikipedia, which will never be complete, is to give people everywhere all the knowledge available to mankind for free. Why not teach your students something positive, instead of negative: that adding information to an article is more edifying and enjoyable than vandalizing it, for whatever reason. By the way, you can start by signing your posts on talk pages, as clearly requested in bold type when one edits, with four of these: (~). In hopes you see your way clear to at least consider my arguments with an open mind, Jusdafax21:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
From looking at the results of the poll so far, there is very little support for a 'two-phase' poll at an RfC. As for the 'consensus margin', I say again that 70/80 is the middle ground between those who want more and those who want less. The fact that 70/80 is the current rough guidline for the bureaucrats to "promote" people to adminship makes a Cda with the same 70/80 to deadmin effectively a reverse RfA, whatever additional provisions are tacked on. The selling point: If it takes 70/80% to make an admin, it should take the same to de-admin. Some people on either side will !vote against Cda because they think 70/80 is too weak/strong. Let 'em. I predict there will still be a goodly majority who see Cda, and 70/80, as a good idea. How big that majority is at present is the only question now, in my view. Obviously, if a decent supermajority !votes yes on Cda, it will become policy. Best wishes, Jusdafax18:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify - VOTE 3 (the 'two-phase RfC?' option) was only added to the poll to appease Jehochman, who threw his toys out of his pram. My personal 'first phase' (on deciding the 'consensus margin') ended up being this actual poll itself, of course.
You know what I think of the reverse-RfA argument - I find it utterly disingenuous. CDA is nothing like a reverse RfA. I believe in consensus, not tricking people into voting for what only some people think is the most-likely passing result. 70/80 would constitute a false sense of 'fairness' anyway - it will be so easy for admin to 'game', that I don't think people will want to risk all the work involved (and risk vindicating the admin too). And I don't think it will concern admin in their day-to-day lives at all. None of the net benefits of CDA (all the good things about it) will emerge unless it is a do-able thing, and a genuinely fair thing too. For you to want 60%, yet propose 70%, is extraordinary to me. Why don't you just fight for what you believe in? Matt Lewis (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
To be blunt, because I think a final proposal with standards to de-admin that are less than the standards to pass an Rfa will fail to gain consensus. I'll be even more blunt: I find that it is your conduct as a self-admitted latecomer to the Cda process that is 'extraordinary'. You have had to be warned several times by Tryptofish to cool your rhetoric, which opens those of us Cda supporters, who have patiently and with calm demeanor debated respectfully on this topic, to charges that Cda backers are arrogant, etc. It's my own view that you have done significant damage to our cause. I actually have to wonder about your real intent on the Cda page, at this point. You have very often been deliberately off-putting, to say the least.
Now you come to my page to lecture me on my morals! You seem to be looking to pick a fight where ever you go. You need to cool down, and think a bit more about your posts before you send them. I ask you to not rush to combat my words, or the words of others, further, and instead request that you take a break, and let all this be. Cda or no Cda, life (and Wikipedia) goes on. Jusdafax00:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Why did you comment here if not for me to reply? Morals matter, and you can't win these things without them. You were days from failing CDA, by pushing it through to RfC without any consensus at all. It would have been eaten for breakfast. I've kept the page in check so people can come and vote - it's a thankless task, but I've stuck my neck out and done it. To say I'm giving you a bad rep is ridiculous - I've only combatted the trollish comments and the cynical dissent (and no-one has gained any head of steam on that count), and have properly engaged with the many other people the draft page would never have seen at all, had I not created the poll. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
So, this is all about you. Unbelievable. You really need to get over yourself. I now ask you what I have never asked anyone else in over two years of Wikipedia editing... stop poisoning my talk page with your self-important dreck. You are not welcome here. Jusdafax06:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Advice re multi-username entity
Hello Jusdafax- We've had some common cause on several IP vandal talk pages, and I wanted to ask your advice on how to proceed with an issue. I suspect that one person using multiple usernames is repeatedly adding the same questionable material regarding one topic, gemmail. The edits are on that article and Stained glass#twentieth century. Here is a post that will lay it all out: Talk:Gemmail#Marcmaison.2C_aka_Antoine_delorme.2C__aka_AzitaS.3F. This entity's activity is making improvement of WP material on this small topic much more tedious than it needs to be. I don't have time now to wade through all the guidance on whether I should report a possible sockpuppet, ask for a CheckUser, or notify an admin in some way. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks in advance. Erictalk15:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I am quite flattered to be asked, and I thank you for considering me for advice. To perhaps state the obvious, it appears you should start by reverting edits that are clearly spam as you find them, give warnings as appropriate, and report multiple violations at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism which I have found is the single best resource for getting vandals blocked. I use Huggle, as you may know, myself, to report there. In addition, you might ask your question on the talk page there, as admins and others who know a great deal more than I do are on hand to advise you re: the more complex checkuser/sockpuppet issues. Sorry if this seems a bit simplistic, but it is indeed what I'd do myself. Best wishes with this one, and to you always, Jusdafax17:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome... it could be both, of course. Hoping the talk page I mention above, should you choose to ask there, brings clarity. Jusdafax19:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi jusdafax, I have moved the article and therefore also moved the template {{chemicals|class=stub|importance=low}}, I now removed the template and left a note there... :-) --Triple5replace user (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I wrote some "cultural context" for the "bhabhi" article, which some fairly anonymous user deleted and you reverted. You might be interested to hear that since then it has been vandalised with some juvenile comments, then deleted again.
I've had pretty much the same problem with a similar section on cultural context in the "Savita Bhabhi" article. On 12/20 at 17:19 "Defender of Torch" proclaimed it "original research" and deleted the whole section, even though most of it was quotations and links. No discussion, no editing to remove or improve whatever he thought went beyond the links, just bam! It's gone.
Given the nature of the material I'm suspecting censorship. Defending the honor of Hindu women, that sort of thing. Obviously I beg to differ. I think the sexual politics of South Asian extended families are as valid a topic for discussion as sexual politics in the West, and that folks from other cultures ought to be able to get information on why a sister-in-law or brother-in-law would especially be a sex object of sorts in that part of the world.
So what do I do now? Can you help?
BTW, "Jovianeye" also reverted a deletion of my stuff in "Bhabhi", so I'll post on his talk page too. Just so we don't all bump heads. LADave (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I actually remember making this revert from two months ago. It rang true, even though it was unsourced, so I went out on a limb and reverted it. Unfortunately for you, "Defender of Torch" is closer to how Wikipedia actually works than I was. So, first off, you have got to find a source to back up your words. That's the big first step.
Material properly sourced under the standard provisions of WP:RS can still be removed for various reasons, but if someone is reverting or removing your materisl if it is properly sourced and not just your POV or original research, then you have the right to revert back and firmly request subsequent changes to your work be discussed on the talk page of the article in question. To paraphrase an old joke about the army, there is the right way, the wrong way, and the Wikipedia way... and if you want to build an article along the lines you suggest, the WP way is the only way. "Defender of Torch" is just following the rules on original research. Study them as well as the link to reliable sources I give, and then find something to confirm your statements! Best wishes, Jusdafax00:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I think my material was properly sourced, with the possible exception of the very last paragraph. I'd like to get your opinion, so I've taken the liberty of appending what "Defender of Torch" deleted below. Two references stopped working below. One is to http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/india/090430/indias-first-porn-star?page=0,1 and another is to Charu Gupta (2001) Sexuality, obscenity, community: Women, Muslims, and the Hindu Public in Colonial India. (New York:Palgrave) pp. 151 ff (which you can probably find in Google Books). LADave (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Cultural context
-
Bhabhi literally means "sister-in-law" in Hindi and related South Asian languages. It carries additional meaning in the context of extended families where adult brothers, married and unmarried, live with their aging parents along with wives who marry into these families. The relationship between an unmarried younger brother and his older brother's wife is traditionally very close, and men frequently receive advice from their bhabhi.[1] The younger brother is the natural recipient of the older brother's wife's affection because he his the only male in the household with whom she can talk freely.[2]
-
-
The writer Rabindranath Tagore explored this theme in the story Nastanirh which may be based on the writer's actual relationship with a sister-in-law who committed suicide when Tagore married and presumably distanced himself. Satyajit Ray's film Charulata was based on Tagore's story.
-
-
As a contemporary newspaper article puts it,
-
-
Nearly all societies in the world have only two categories of relationships –taboo and non taboo. However, Indian society has a third group between the two – the joking relationship. This special category provides room for light flirtation and involves the relationship between devar-bhabhi, jija-saali, samadhi-samadhan, etc. It recognizes that the interaction between two set of people can neither be completely sexual nor non sexual. Flirtation has therefore been socially legitimized within an extended household and, in case of a slip up, the genetic pool remains unsullied.
-
-
Containment of deviancy first and thereafter its assimilation has been the special feature of the Indian ethos. It takes care of the needs of an individual by creating that space within a system, which, ironically, appears to be an unbending steel frame to casual observers. [2]
-
-
-
Within the Indian extended family, a bhabhi is an ambiguous object of desire, neither wholly legitimate nor illegitimate. Savita Bhabhi may not literally be a sister-in-law to any of her lovers, but "bhabhi" is also used euphemistically to figurtively locate another man's wife within this ambiguous moral space.
Thanks, LC. Rightly or wrongly, it seemed to me it was time to pound the table. I appreciate your kindness, and wish you the best! Jusdafax21:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
That entreaty not to give up goes for me too. I suspect I've been trying your patience by coddling the ditherers for so long, but I'd rather do that now, than have "no" !votes later, and I think we've just about gotten over the hump. Cheers! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Update: Sorry Trypto, but Cda really looks dead to me. Matt has muddied the water so much that many people will vote against Cda just to get back at him. Frankly, I'm tempted to do the same. I can't work with him, and as you may have noticed, have banned him from further comments on my talkpage, which makes him the only person on that list. Hope you can understand my extreme reluctance to have much more to do with this project under the current circumstances. Jusdafax20:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your message at my talk, and then I saw your comment at the proposal talk, and that led me here. Thank you for the very kind words at my talk, much appreciated. As for Matt, I feel your pain. But CDA != Matt. (In fact, CDA != any editor, me included.) Don't let the ugliness of the sausage-making give you indigestion (what a lousy mixed-metaphor, this CDA thing is ruining my literary skills). Anyway, you know what I mean. I'm doing what I can to move it on to RfC, and once that happens, I truly believe it will pass (and the sausage making will disappear as too-long-didn't-read). And I hope you will join us in passing it. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I really want to be proved wrong re: the simpler the better, so in short I hope you are right no matter what the final decision is on percentages should it go against 70/80. As I say, I continue to think the best plan is to present this as a 'Reverse Rfa', because otherwise I believe you lose a lot of !votes when people question why the percentages should be different than a Rfa.
Despite my above-expressed extreme repugnance for what has happened in the past few weeks, it is unlikely I would vote against Cda. My best wishes to you, today and every day! Jusdafax21:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
This is just a suggestion, nothing more, so feel free to take it or not. This might be a good time for you to get actively involved again. I'm pulling back. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Many good faith edits tried to restore the information manually and many sites were already recovered. I've been working on the case and think the recovery is done.
Please, can you double-check the article ? It would also be good to standardize the list of sites. The vandalized one were on a model and the one re-added by people are on another. I'm not that good for this kind of work.
Thanks and be careful when doing your anti-vandalism fighting,
Sorry, and thanks for updating me on this. The issue of multiple vandalism is something I try to take care of; this one got past me. Will look at the article. Jusdafax14:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
A few more Off2riorob problems
FYI: due to new and unfounded sockpuppetry and stalking accusations and an interesting BLP discussion, I've begun a section at ANI on Off2riorob. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Update: I don't think I have much to add at ANI. The user has learned from previous experience how to game the system, in my view, and of late has become an expert in skirting the edge to avoid sanctions. Please do keep me informed of any future encounters or developments here. Jusdafax20:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
My sincere apologies. I had not seen the coding for that template before! I'd revert but it has already been done. Thanks for giving me a clue. Jusdafax14:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Nothing personal ...
Hello Jusdafax,
This afternoon, I founded O4E's challenge about anti-vandalism. The challenge asks for the recovery of at least 10 different types of vandalism. I posted a list of some of the recovery I did. One of the type is sneaky vandalism, defined as cases hard to find / missed by others. I gave a link to the recovery of The Thinker and noted that you missed it. I do not want to diminish the great work you are doing and I considered the fact that an expert like you missed it as a proof that it was hard to find. I prefer to tell you instead of you finding it another way or me hoping you would not find my description.
Hello! I would like to cooperate with you, and indeed I have offered to do so. However, I would very much prefer you take your action on February 26. Perhaps you missed my note?
To you both: To be brief, I think there comes a time when one has compromised enough. With all due respect to you, I strongly disagree that the current draft can be saved, but if you do indeed think so, as you continue to indicate, by all means do as you must. Barring any good reason not to do so, I will be opening a RfC on the original Uncle G proposal in the next half day or so. I do not believe this hurts the chances of anything being adopted. It is simply a request for comment on a proposal I see as superior to the current one, in many ways. I don't feel threatened, no. I do feel I am doing what I believe will be right for the project, after much mature consideration.
The RfC page WP:RfC puts it very simply: "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
Who are you, Gandalf the Grey? It is not for you to say "there comes a time when one has compromised enough, puff puff puff". Your always unabashed refusal to waste time accepting the 'the human frailty' of WP:consensus is certainly 'Tolkienesque' (the old Right Wing Tory). This is not a male fantasy, and some people see Wikipedia as being more advanced than a mere "experiment". Seriously - people are employed by Wikipedia, and countless people put their lives into it. Wikipedia is not a dice roll, or some kind of fantasy where the hero has to ride to war to do what's 'Right' (whatever the peasants may think). Matt Lewis (talk)
How can you have so little interest in debate? All I did was strongly disagree with you in pushing CDA in early Jan and you ask me not to visit your talk page again. As a consequence, I've only commented here this once since that time. The reason is to say that Wikipedia is simply not an 'experiment' any more - it's been around for years now, and ranks no.1 in Google for most subjects. It's a serious place, and CDA is as about as serious a matter as you will find on Wikipedia. My view has only ever been to match that level of seriousness, with equal time, thought, consensus and professionalism.
Hopefully I won't need to post here again, but if you are going to do something as dramatic as run ald old version of CDA at your own RfC, asking me to keep away may not then be such a "simple request" alas. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Behold your Partner, Kim and Trypto, and see the face you uphold as the champion of Cda. Contrast this attitude with Ben MacDui, my choice for hero, who wisely states on his user page: In an anonymous on-line world, it's better for your long-term reputation to be polite and wrong, than rude and right. If wisdom and civility is the way to sanity, it's my view that Cda went crazy about six weeks ago. Jusdafax14:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Jusdafax, I consider you to be my partner too, even though we disagree about this particular point. It's Wikipedia, not team-against-team. Thank you for thinking about my request. I'm sure you and I will be working together in the future. All the best, --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I have made edits to the revised version that, in my opinion, make it ready for RfC. Of course, I can't predict whether others will keep on holding it up. Please consider taking a look at it, and consider whether you might push for it to go forward instead of the Uncle G version. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I have looked at the new latest version(s). Trypto, you have obviously put a great deal of effort into this latest push. But for me, there are differences between the Uncle G draft and the current one that we are unlikely to resolve. I intend to move forward with the Uncle G version. I see it as the better one. Jusdafax23:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome. If you had told me two months ago that we would be in this current state, I would not have believed you. Jusdafax00:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I normally wouldn't ask this, and feel free to turn me down, but might you consider reverting Matt's last reversion at that page? Just asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
You did this here before, but this time I've caught you red handed. You really have never read WP:Policy, have you? Jusdafax - if you now revert a proposal you have openly washed you hands of (and not edited for a long time) because Tryptofish asked you to be his meatpuppet, then you have both committed a blockable offense. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict, added to original) 'Fraid not, for the simple reason that the act would embroil me with a problem I have determined some time ago as a No-win situation. Indeed, as illustrated by this latest series of outbursts by Mr. Lewis, the problem is not unlike that propounded by Gresham's Law. May I, in turn, ask you to help and support my own effort? I understand it would be a painful reversal for you to go back to square one with the Uncle G draft, still, can you not see your way clear to seeing, as Ben and I do, that something good may yet come of it? Jusdafax00:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't know how long this will last, but thanks to another editor, the revised page that I've been favoring is presentable again. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I just read Mr. Lewis' latest outburst on GoodDay's talk page, and we can add GD to the others who are too disgusted to work with Lewis. Which begs the question: how many others of good will have taken one look at the shambles Cda has become, and decided not to get involved? This has devolved into a full-fledged fiasco, one that shames and degrades Wikipedia itself! Jusdafax03:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
@Jusdafax I got one response on twitter (of all places) from someone who said CDA turned them off wikipedia entirely even. :-/ We definitely need some sort of closure, I agree with that much. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Clarification: Matt did not drive me away. I can't keep up with the discussions there, I'm apparently making mis-informed posts. The continous infighting & refusal to be flexible on the part of some editors, has also ticked me off. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I again want to say I'm sorry to Jusdafax for asking, in anger at Matt, for him to revert Matt. I was just plain angry, and not thinking at my best. Anyway, I think that Kim has made a very good point just above, and I want to second it. Jusdafax, please accept my encouragement to go forward with your RfC. I'm saying that principally because I believe it may bring more editors to pay attention to what is, I firmly believe, still the real proposal that needs attention, fever swamp though it may be. (On the bright side: maybe if everyone gets turned off Wikipedia entirely, then there won't be any administrators, and thus, no need for CDA!) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I had taken a few preliminary steps to starting my announced RfC before this latest absurd eruption of dramatics. Regardless of details, a great deal of damage has been and is being done, in my view, to the integrity of the Cda process. Indeed, much of the rhetorical action of late is as bad as the activity of the problem adminsitrators Cda seeks to correct!
To me it is just common sense to use Uncle G's original proposal as a start-over point. I intend to do so in the very near future. I ask all parties to think carefully before posting further. When in doubt, stand away from the computer and do something else for a while before you hit the 'enter' button... please. Jusdafax18:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Things may be changing, and perhaps you might want to consider the possibility of waiting just a bit longer and seeing what might happen. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree. To be utterly open about my process, I wrote the above, went to Ben MacDui's page to see what developments there were there, and discovered the Matt Lewis thread at ANI. I made my comment, as you saw, and then told myself to take my own advice and walk away for many an hour. I am continuing to stand by. Jusdafax11:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. If a couple more of you oppose, I switch my vote, because if you folks think it's not right, it just won't stand. Given that it's trailing fairly badly at the moment, it's lookin' dead anyway. Please keep me posted as to further developments... I only ask as someone who was involved in Cda the early and middle going. Jusdafax07:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I tried to make it clear that I was opining oppose as an editor. As a crat, I'm neutral on the issue. I believe that as a crat we are already trusted to juge consensus, and this would be a logical extension. As an editor (and no other "hat") I personally prefer ArbCom taking care of it, although I've been suggesting for what seems like years that ArbCom should have a special subcommittee to expedite these issues. I wouldn't want to mislead anyone, sorry if I wasn't clear. -- Avi (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Well said, and thanks for taking the time to explain, which I truly appreciate.
My personal concerns in promoting Cda stem from several unpleasant experiences of admins who, with carefully borderline arrogance, exert 'ownership' of articles or groups of related articles. As I see it, the conduct of this type of admin is craftily designed so that a group like ArbCom would laugh off or otherwise cautiously reject attempts by inexperienced or powerless editors to complain and get effective results. This type of admin games the system, in my opinion, by burying the concerns of the 'noob' editor with a flood of overlapping rules and guidelines that cannot be refuted without painstaking and time-consuming study, and ultimately discourages further participation in Wikipedia editing.
This is why I have devoted considerable time to this Cda project, at least until the final regrettable stages. Unfortunately, as can be seen above, my hopes were limited at best, and now we have what very much looks like a failed RfC. I think the not-inconsiderable vote in favor of this current patchwork version of Cda, despite being a minority at present, pretty accurately indicates the sentiment of those with experiences or concerns like mine. The famous statement by Jimmy ("no big deal") is no longer true, many feel, and a class of tenured "super editors", whose ranks are increasingly difficult to join, creates resentment in the larger community. I urge you to carefully study the supporting and some of the neutral votes, many of whom eloquently argue that something is very wrong with the current Wikipedia system.
The next stage may be to call for admin term limits, or some other form of accountability for administrators. I believe this must happen for Wikipedia to be a user-friendly place that is at its heart a truly open institution. Needless to say, abuse of power is an established human trait. Rightly or wrongly, many editors call for a change, and it appears that this issue will continue to be a major thorn in our sides for some time to come. With all due respect, I think your concept of a special subcommittee of ArbCom, while appearing reasonable, wouldn't be effective. I am more than willing to be proved wrong, however.
UPDATE: For a number of reasons, I will no longer comment further at the RfC/Cda page. I have also removed it from my watchlist. I will respond here to comments. Jusdafax08:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
American Idol (season 9)
JUGSFAX - I do not appreciate you deleting things i have edited just because YOU think they are not first, what i added was contrevrsoy so it was necessary. Believe it or not you are not always right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oracle 45 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I'd appreciate you 1) Making a new section when posting for the first time on a new topic 2) Signing your posts 3) Spelling my name correctly (though it appears deliberate, I can't be sure) 4) making an effort to spell and use basic sentence structure and 5) moderating your tone. Yours was a borderline edit, and as soon as I made it I regretted not giving the proper Edit summary. However, it is unsourced original research, so I leave it as is given your breathtaking hostility. I had intended to remove the warning Huggle placed on your talk page, but I'm going to leave it for now per your comment's attitude. Happy to talk further if you can manage basic civility, dearie. Jusdafax22:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. It was a error on my part. I never intervene in another language than mine and I limit myself to the translation into French because I fear too much to make mistakes. Yesterday I was very tired (I am old and sick) and I did not pay attention. Excuse me. Gustave G. (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleting poor page
I've tried to make the Alpha generation platform article better, and don't think I've really succeeded in getting it all the way to good.
It seems to have started off life as a promotion for some firm in this space, and once I deleted the puff, there was little left.
My instinct is to delete it, but I've never done this before and I guess this is the time for me to understand how one does this without it being vandalism.
I have looked at this carefully several times. My apologies for not getting back to you faster. To be frank, I remain confused. I'll ask wiser heads than mine about it. Jusdafax18:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
My edit to Julian calendar
Can you help me here, please? I carefully sourced my contribution before filing it. Can you please point out to me where it is unconstructive and I'll see if I can fix it. Also please note that the revert was done by a contributor who has a history of trolling my contributions. Thanks. 195.195.89.70 (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted my edit and removed my warning from your talk page. The issue appears much deeper than I first surmised. Best wishes, Jusdafax18:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Nelly Furtado
Hi, can you have a look at Nelly Furtado page? The issue is that she has dual nationality and there is always some one with the most amazing arguments to deny it as you can read in the discussion page. This issue comes from 1997 talk page and is still going on although references are provided. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.248.249 (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
You may have the impression I'm an admin, but I'm just a vandal fightin' editor. I must say this is a content dispute that has me scratching my head. I'll take another look when my eyes are rested. Jusdafax20:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you!
You recently made a correction to the Criss Angel page by deleting something that was wildly untrue, and it was very much appreciated. I am a newcomer to Wikipedia and I would like to make some corrections/additions. I understand that the most effective way to do this is to justify and -- whever possible -- provide citations for what it is I'd like to accomplish...Can you add any other advice to a Wiki virgin?
(I hope I did this correctly!)
Thank you!
Brendaobrenda (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
While I appreciate your kind words, all I did was pull out the 'Merry Easter' vandalism from that article, so I suspect you have me confused with someone else. As far as editing advice... try the tutorials that are found on the main page, and also watch how other editors do coding to get those all-important references and citations into the articles. I am not above copying a reference from some other article, putting the right infomation inside the coding (while deleting the old), and pasting it in. Don't forget to explain your edit in the edit summary box, and always use the 'Show preview' feature to catch errors. If someone reverts your edits and you don't agree, take it to the talk page, as edit wars can get you blocked. Best Wishes, always! Jusdafax21:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Wimbolden
Of course. Ctrl+f the article for "the championships", but it appears there is no etymology for it. I am pretty sure I put in an edit summary, did I not?174.3.98.20 (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
As you can see, I have put it back the way it was. I have learned a couple things out of this, so I thank you, and best wishes. Jusdafax17:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Unless I'm blind I gave an explanation. It was in the interests of fairness. Really and truly this WP thing is a McCarthyite operation.Rosebank2 (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
As I see it, you can't blank talkpage statements and say you are doing it because someone blanked something else. Two wrongs don't make a right. I have no idea what the issues are here, I'm just reverting vandalism, which your edit appears to me to be. Strongly suggest you refrain from this type of action in your own self-interests. Best wishes, Jusdafax17:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
sorry
yo sorry man i am dum i thought i was on the discus page. sorry i caused trouble, on the wiki i use we had chats on discus page but it seems lik on the real wiki is mor like jst info. sorry dude my bad.
Xylogirl07
Xylogirl wasn't vandalizing the talk page by blanking it. The computer is on a shared IP address, and she was only clearing the talk page. I did it myself, and I would ask that it stay that way. Thanks. 65.246.161.26 (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok. However I strongly suggest that Xylogirl107 (who, in fairness, I see very seldom edits Wikipedia) use edit summaries when blanking pages, which saves everyone time and effort. I will leave the warning as a reminder of this unless the user asks that it be removed. Thanks. Jusdafax19:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't edit Wikipedia very much, and I haven't really taken the time to study every spacific nuance here, but the point is, I deleted the talk page with good intentions, not bad ones, and I would prefer not to have warnings on my page for something that was not done intentionally. Thanks. Xylogirl07 (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, will do. But just so you know... Edit summaries are a very important part of the Wikipedia editing process. It just takes a couple words, and helps those of us on vandal patrol quite a bit. Thanks, and best wishes, Jusdafax08:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :) It's mainly because I want users, even vandals, to feel they'll never be denied the opportunity to communicate, no matter what. If they want to bash me, as long as they don't vandalize anything else, I don't have any issues with that. If they dump some of their anger on me, they might not dump on something/somebody else, less inclined to ignore it, on here or in real life. After all, save for the time spent putting unsigned templates, it hardly does any harm to keep it there ;-) Best regards, SnowolfHow can I help?16:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. I find after months of vandal fighting that I'm a lot less tolerant of them messing with my page, and never miss a chance to send them packing with another warning on their record, which often means they will be blocked that much sooner. Needless to say, I leave any sincere messages on my page, even if they are harsh or hostile, as long as they are not just obvious vandalism. I admit making the call there can be a bit problematic. Jusdafax16:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the grammatical error I corrected escaped you . . .
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to Trader Joe's has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.
I have no emotional stake in has/had issues. The meaning is clear either way; however, if you prefer past tense in the sentence, shouldn't the next sentence be the same? I see it is not, so it reads oddly, at least as I see it. As I near 35,000 edits, I have learned to avoid this type of discussion, as I believe there are better uses of time. I will suggest you register an account however, as 90% or so of the vandalism I revert comes from IP address. If you would like the warning removed from your page I will be happy to do so at your request. I suggest you also sign your posts, a basic Wikipedia courtesy. I also strongly suggest you use edit summaries; had you done so in your original edit, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Best wishes, Jusdafax22:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence refers to a time period in the past; hence it uses the past tense. The second sentence refers to a time period in the present; hence it uses the present tense. I can recommend a couple of good grammar books, if you like. It seems to me that your time reverting such changes and issuing vandalism warnings about them is not well spent. And you obviously haven't learned to avoid discussion about such things. Perhaps 90% of the vandalism you identify comes from IP addresses. Whether the edits you revert are actual vandalism or false positives is another matter. Further, it doesn't mean that 90% of all vandalism comes from anonymous editors, just that 90% of your reverts are of IP addresses. This could just be a reflection of your bias. I can also recommend some good books on statistics and logic. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Still reads oddly, in my view. I repeat the obvious: had you used an edit summary, we wouldn't be wasting time. As I see it, there is logic, and there is common sense. At least you have now learned to sign your posts. That's good! Best wishes, Jusdafax22:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
"885. [Undue assumption of superiority.] Insolence.
I'm afraid I'd have to agree, since your lack of a sig seems studied. I think you have become only the second person I have asked to withdraw from my talk page. In short, you have worn out your welcome. Jusdafax07:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
GAC Death
Hi JDF - A word on a balancing addition that needs to be made to your recent addition to the GAC article regarding the death issue. I like Connell just fine and have always admired his writing - but he's not a professional historian, and the book has some serious flaws both in recitation of fact and in interpretation. Because he is a WP:RS, I cannot (nor would I) revert the suggestion that GAC died at the ford, but as I edited into the LBH, this is highly, highly unlikely. The complete native account of this part of the battle - a part that Connell does not cite - is that the buckskin-clad soldier or officer was remounted though badly wounded. Impossible for that to be GAC. He had two and only two wounds on his body as you note, a bullet hole in his temple and and one just below his heart. Both Godfrey and the regimental surgeon with Terry's column determined that either of these wounds would have been instantly fatal.
What this means, of course, is that had GAC been killed at the ford - and if it was he who was shot, he was instantly dead - then the supposedly disintegrating battalion staggering without his leadership would have had the presence of mind to haul a corpse on horseback several hundred yards to near the top of the ridge where it was found. The disintegrating command due to GAC's death early in the battle is a theory that must be handled and presented with extreme caution. Joseph WCB is one of the few Lakota who actually put GAC that near the river. Just how close the column ever got to the river is still a matter of intense debate, and the archive on the LBH page shows some of this. As I am also sure you know, several officers of the 7th, including Tom Custer, Yates, and Smith also wore buckskin regularly and likely on that day.
As an aside - looking over the sources - IMHO the article is way too dependent on Michno and Connell and does not utilize Utley, Wert, or Ambrose enough. Part of the reason for this is that before you stepped on board, there was an agenda-driven editor who wanted to convert both the GAC and LBH articles essentially to summaries of Michno, who while his work has added greatly to the overall understanding of LBH is far from the last word on any LBH topic. Balnce as you know of course is the key, and I think the death at the ford theory in the article needs both to be softened a bit and to have the alternative refutation of it included.
Ooops! Sorry - I just noticed that you started a section on the GAC page where I should have placed the above. Perhaps I should move it over there... Sensei48 (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Please feel free to, with my complements. I agree with the gist of your comments, and as I note on the GAC talk page, I feel my new section can clearly be added to. I believe that the new section will allow for multiple viewpoints, and will hopefully provide the 'missing link' that will enable the three authors you mention, and perhaps a few more, to enhance what is known, and not known, about the actual circumstances of Custer's death. Thanks for your kind words and progressive thinking on how to improve the GAC article after your long involvement. Even after reading well over a dozen books on the subject, I feel a strong need to continue to study the mass of existing literature to become a better contributor on this complex, controversial topic, which is why I have been going so slowly. See you on the GAC talk page, and again, many thanks. Jusdafax04:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I hated to decline your speedy on "Tiny mon", but had to, as A7 only applies when the topic is a "real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content". Imaginary critters on one episode of a cartoon don't fall in that list. I wound up installing a redirect to the appropriate season of Johnny Test instead.—Kww(talk) 00:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that was one where as soon as I clicked A7 I started having doubts. My apologies - Of course it should have been G1, patent nonsense. Can I renominate the page? By the way, grats on being handed the mop. Jusdafax00:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Just letting you know that Malke 2010 is removing the religion paragraph from the Karl Rove page since you were previously involved in the discussion. You should undo it and contribute to the discussion again.Chhe (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It isn't canvassing since Jusdafax was already involved in discussing this exact same issue regarding your removal of this same paragraph.Chhe (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I have my own reasons for not getting involved in the Rove page at this time, but that could change. In the meantime your respective block logs (Chhe never, Malke's latest just a few months ago) tell an interesting story. Thanks for the heads-up, Chhe. Jusdafax04:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, block logs do tell an interesting story. One is gaming the system and baiting newcomers while the other is not.Malke201015:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Malke, since you choose to present yourself on my page, consider this advice: Learn when to walk away. You will be a better person and a better Wikipedian for it. Jusdafax05:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... I see you have been blocked twice more since my comment. Malke, you really need to learn to take good advice. Jusdafax13:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
(Shouting)
HEY MAN, IM STUCK, NO IDEAS FOR AN ARTICLE TO WRITE ABOUT IS COMING TO ME. COULD U GIVE ME SOME INTERESTING FUNTOPICS TO WRITE ABOUT. AND WATS THAT COMEDY PAGE WHERE U CAN MAKE FUNNY ARTICLES. PLZ HELP MEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Superjoesh (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
pLEASE PUT IT ON MY HOMEPAGE SOO I DONT MISS IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superjoesh (talk • contribs) 23:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you please hold off the article just for a bit; I'm working with the (new) user in IRC, helping them fix things. They edited not logged in, and they'll make mistakes, but we'll get there.
No problem. I reverted due to what appeared to be the removal of legit links, though it seemed there were quite a few. Happy to remove the warning if you wish as well. Jusdafax15:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; I removed it; the user hadn't logged on so I changed it to a big 'please log in!' instead. They intended to fix up the el's, which actually should be refs; I've been explaining to them how to use references.
Hey, i got a warning from you about this. i have had a couple of warnings from other people but have not been making these edits. someone is posting stuff up thats not mine, how do i stop this? thanks Burnyouwithmycandle (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone else (can't remember who, or where I heard this) was recently discussing this same type of wiki-identity theft. I'll ask around. You didn't give your log-in information to anyone, I assume... Jusdafax22:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Clay Buchholz
Clay Buchholz' nickname has been Dirty since he threw a no-hitter 2 seasons ago. i just added it back because somebody removed it for no reason. im a die-hard redsox fan, i've lived in boston my entire life. --Dangerouslaser (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
First off, a minor point. Please start a new section for new entries on a talk page. I have modified your entry accordingly.
So, Wikipedia works best when editors put a comment in the 'Edit Summary' box. Had you done so, I would not have reverted your edit. I will let your edit stand, however you have another problem: lack of sourcing. If you have a source that meets the needs of WP:RS I suggest you add it to the article to back up what appears to non-fans of your team as a dubious content addition; otherwise, your addition can be reverted by other editors. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here. Best wishes and happy editing. Jusdafax17:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
That Barry, Larry or whatever his name is keeps on coming, can you protect this page? Not sure why he is after this one, because it a reasonably obscure species. Thanks Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for paying me the complement of assuming that I am an admin - but I am not. I can put the page on my watchlist and see what I can do, however. Best wishes, Jusdafax12:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I followed Cluebot's revert. Cluebot reacts to what appears to be wholesale content deletions. I am an experienced vandal fighter, and have observed Cluebot is right over 99% of the time. However, a careful look shows you are quite right; I offer my apologies and will undo my revert and your warnings. That said, I'd like to note that had you entered even a few brief words as to your intent in the 'Edit summary' box, we would not be needing to talk about this matter. I encourage you to always do so in any Wikipedia editing, but especially in a context where vandal-fighters could misunderstand your intent. Best wishes! Jusdafax14:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
An IP editor undid Justdafax's edit, thinking it was also vandalism (the editor clearly should have looked into it a little deeper). I undid the IP's edit and have also added {{copied}} tags to the origin and destination talk pages. Regards, P. D. CookTalk to me!17:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Edit summaries
I DO read edit summaries, but "undoing my revert" is a meaningless edit summary that says nothing. Please use edit summaries to clarify why you are making a change or reverting. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It says, obviously, that I made a mistake. Therefore it means something. Your undo was wrong, and you had the information to avoid the error. Hope you have the ability to learn from your mistake. Case closed, in my view. Jusdafax18:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Your over-the-top reaction was wrong. Hope you have the ability to learn from your mistake and write clearer, more meaningful edit summaries in the future. Case closed, in my view. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Another I'm-always-right-type who has to have the last word on my page. I'd like to, with regret, formally request that you refrain from any further posts on my page, as they will henceforth be reverted as vandalism. Good luck and happy editing! Jusdafax20:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Let me say that I clearly understood Justdafax's intent, as indicated both in the edit summary and an examination of the recent diffs. Anyone reverting another editor should investigate the diffs. P. D. CookTalk to me!20:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
it is a notable landform in richmond, california, there is a series of articles on the area. there is a reliable source as to the name. these geographic articles are common and isolating this one for deletion would be unfair. i haven't even finished writing it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanetwork (talk • contribs) 20:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) First off, please sign your posts with four of these ~, thanks. Ah I see you have on your second post.
Your reference is the City of Richmond subpage website for a proposed casino which may or may not be enough under WP:RS. I will stand by and see what else you come up with.
I should add that I've lived nearby for decades and this is the first time I've ever heard of it. The photo, I will say, seems to add to your case. Add a 'hangon' as the template suggests and put your reasoning (including solid refs) for keeping the article in the article's discussion page, is my best advice. Good luck! Jusdafax20:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for mistaking me for an admin, but I can't block anyone as I am pretty much a plain ol' user. I did look up the IP's edit history to see what was up, and I notice they are already blocked. Happy editing! Jusdafax14:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I wouldn't be making such ridiculous changes to the "Plymouth-Canton Educational Park" page if the serious changes I repeatedly tried to make would be left as is.
Todd Turfe is not a figurehead for our school, and anything otherwise is a lie.
The last paragraph is obviously an attempt to further his own ego.
I would appreciate if it were removed, as I actually have respect for my former highschool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krackalacka (talk • contribs) 19:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Im not really sure what's going on here. Krackalacka's early edits seem to be vandalism, but I agree that the section should be removed and I tried to remove it myself but it seems that an intervening edit caused my edit to only remove a few sentences. —Soap—19:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I've pulled the section out as unsourced under WP:RS. Krackalaca, please do not vandalize Wikipedia pages to make a point; it is the fast track to a block or a ban. And also please sign your posts. Jusdafax19:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, you may not know this but User:75.2.209.226 was warned about uncivil behavior at Wikiquette alerts about a month after you had a negative interaction with him/her (the "I can recommend a couple good grammar books" exchange). Unfortunately for everyone, 75 has not stopped this behavior. I'm taking this to the next level by putting together an RfC, which has about 20 diffs of various policy/guideline violations. Please take a moment to look at my draft at User:Noraft/Sandbox/5, and add your endorsement in the "Other users who endorse this summary" section, since you were the target of uncivil comments. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!23:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, the IP user came to my page twice and I failed to notice the second time that I had already banned him from my page! I banned him again as the record shows, and will happy to endorse your RfC, as both incidents left a bad taste. I strongly feel this user needs a good long timeout, seeing as there are multiple other examples of them not playing well with others. Thanks for the heads-up, Jusdafax23:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I still need a second person to certify the RfC, so feel free to contact him/her and "try to resolve the dispute" based on what you see on my RfC draft, if you'd like to help certify. That user has decided to start editing my pages, having copyedited two or three that I've worked on in the last day, and is engaging me in an edit war on a current FAC (nice, huh?). ɳorɑfʈ Talk!23:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not uninvolved, as 75 followed me to the page George Armstrong Custer and did the same type of thing at that page, which they had previously not been noted as editing. I remember considering taking 75 to ANI but decided to wait (I have never started a notification at ANI, actually) and see if more examples of this behavior came my way. I think it would be of interest to see examples of 75's editing in previous wiki-incarnations, since they admit to having edited under other IP's. As I see it, 75 is already clearly in violation of WP:BATTLE and WP:TE, and since another case I was involved with of this same type came to light recently, perhaps I could point you towards admin Toddst1 who can hopefully bring fresh, unbiased eyes to this troubling case. I found him to be fair yet firm, and could possibly make the need for a RfC moot. Best wishes, Jusdafax00:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
To be blunt - I don't wish further contact under any circumstances with this user... aside, of course, from any testimony I may be able to give in support of corrective measures. Jusdafax00:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm having trouble getting someone else to certify. I know this guy is going to be a jerk if you contact him, but if he is, he'll just get blocked. Won't you please consider doing that so this person will stop sucking time out of everyone around him? With all the diffs it took me four hours to put that AN/U together. Please reconsider. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!00:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you take the material to WP:ANI instead? I honestly think it would be a more appropriate place for this matter. I'll be happy to give my side of it there briefly as well. If you absolutely can't see your way to that, and truly can't find a single other person to certify, then I'll contact this character, but the whole idea gives me a serious case of the creeps. ANI is in my view the best place, where the community at large can examine the issues. Best wishes, Jusdafax00:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Apologize
I apologize for the unconstructive editing I did, but that was an outburst I couldn't restrain. I can't stand that! How can any mentally sane man give a nice ending to the life of a sadistic madman! Urgh... how I wish I could just delete that from my mind forever! I wanna forget the existence of Hellsing!
Anyway, I won't make vandalism anymore. I just hope you can understand my reasons. Bye.
93.150.22.10416:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Disruptive editing to make a point is never a good idea. Better to just walk away, otherwise you get warnings and blocks. Jusdafax15:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Question regarding changes being counted as vandalism
Hello. Can you explain why editing the St. Anne's Catholic School page to ensure a more balanced article constitutes vandalism? According to Wikepedia: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. This edit is not in anyway attempting to compromise Wikipedia. Rather the opposite. The section being removed is not intended to be a neutral viewpoint, rather it is an attempt to bring the reputation of the school into disrepute by positioning a minor, 1-hour incident into the school's century-old history as something significant.
I did try to explain this (briefly) during the edit, but you have said I did not explain changes. Perhaps it got lost.
I first noted another vandal-fighter previous to me had reverted your deletion. I next observed your first edit summary was tagged by a bot for "section blanking", with no additional material. Your second revert cited "insignificant relevance", your third cited "biased reporting". I looked carefully at the source provided, and concluded after both viewing the video and reading the article that the "controversy" section reports on a reasonably notable event that is sourced.
The section you keep entirely removing is, as I see it, worded with moderation so that it reports in a few sentences, from what I consider to be a neutral point of view, on the protest at the school. As I understand Wikipedia's editing requirements: reverting information of this type, especially repeatedly, is considered vandalism. If you wish dispute the matter, you should take it to the article's talk page (found on the 'Discussion' tab) to make your case. I should add that I have never heard of this school previously and am entirely uninvolved. Best wishes, Jusdafax17:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Can I ask if you saw tonight's episode of Britain's Got Talent? If the answer is yes, why on earth have I just received a warning for posting the truth. Can i strongly suggest that you go onto youtube and watch Stevie Starr's 'regurgitation' of the mobile phone at the end. He clearly put it into his mouth - yet you consider what I write about him on here some sort of vandalism? Please justify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.27.22 (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
First off, please sign your User talkpage posts with 4 of these ~, thanks.
Next, I did try to give you a clue by not giving you a talkpage warning on my first revert, choosing instead to give the milder "Reverted addition of dubious unsourced content" in the edit summary.
Bottom line: It doesn't matter what you saw or I saw, that's called WP:OR and is reverted. Can you back up your assertion with a WP:RS? If you can, you can source the article and add your material based on the source. This is a very common problem in Wikipedia, and if you can learn how this place works, you can become a contributor. Please be advised that much if not most unsourced material on high-profile topics like television shows is reverted quickly. Best wishes to you, Jusdafax21:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jusdafax. This is just a friendly reminder that when a user blanks their own article it is not vandalism but falls under CSD G7. —Tommy201015:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Again- this edit is not vandalism! Please take caution when a user blanks an article. Check to make sure they did not create it by seeing if there is 1. not already a CSD template, or 2. if the article is not established. —Tommy201015:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope, I disagree. The user removed a speedy delete tag. The fact that he was the page creator has nothing to do with it, as I see it. Best wishes, Jusdafax15:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Re: Liv Tyler
Yeah, that comment doesn't belong in the lead, that's why I moved it to the Personal life section; I removed it from the lead, but not from the article. The lead is supposed to summarize the entire article, in case you didn't know. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)15:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
(Answered on ThinkBlue's talk page.)
Thankyou for the welcome and kind words, old man!
This wikipedia editing experience has not just stimulated my information junkie erogenous zones, but it is also *FUN!* to banter with real people in the process!
I feel like I am back in the days of my Deep Throat exchanges with Bob Woodward. Yes, I am the real Deep Throat. The other guy was a hack. I mean, yes, he provided SOME info to Bob, but it was mediocre and frankly boring. Bob often got confused in the shadows of that parking garage, since we both went by the alias "Deep Throat" and equally spoke with a cryptic tone of the tongue.
Hello Jusdafax. Since you have made over 1,400 reports to AIV, would you like me to nominate you for adminship? Please leave a {{talkback}} on my talk page (my watchlist has over 1,600 pages). Thanks! --TheHighFinSpermWhale22:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the offer, which I am honored by. I have responded cautiously to similar suggestions of the sort recently[5] on the grounds that I need a bit more seasoning in the content department, and so on. But please rest assured I am supremely flattered to be considered, and will think over your offer further. With best wishes, Jusdafax00:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
In the middle of editing an entry, I accidentally saved one of the changes without explanation. You not only reverted that change, but deleted all the information I added on the specious charge of vandalism. When I redid the edit, with explanation, you again reverted on the charge of vandalism. Don't jump the gun. I realize this is well-intended, but the result of your edits is that you are vandalizing the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.96.205.194 (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
First of all, please sign future talk page posts with four of these ~, thanks. Otherwise the bot has to do it for you, as you see.
Removing sourced material is considered vandalism, and the edit history shows that an editor prior to me already reverted your removal of a sourced paragraph. You reverted him, I reverted you. I disagree that your edits are vaild, and as I say on your talk page, your edit summary which states that this is a "minor controversy" and not notable appears to me to be your point of view. (It is true that you corrected a spelling mistake in the middle of this, thanks for that. That was why I undid that edit, as my edit crossed with yours there.)
You are welcome to contest the material you deem unsuitable on the Avi Bell talk page, which I recommend over further reverts. Again, I reject your notion that I am in any way the vandal here. Best wishes, Jusdafax14:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The editor prior to you removed all edits I did -- not only reverted the removed paragraph, but also reverted to eliminate added publications and to reintroduce a typo. I started correcting, and within a minute you had diverted. I am not accusing you of bad faith or deliberate vandalism. I am not trying to make accusations the way you just did. I am saying however, that you are a little quick on the trigger. You should revert only in the case of blatant vandalism, which is not the case here. Next time please talk first, instead of acting and then demanding that everyone else plead their case with you on the discussion page. I reject your notion that changes by others must be discussed first but your reverts do not. You are welcome to review the history of edits and justify on the discussion page your claim that my edits constitute vandalism.89.96.205.194 (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I have added proper indent coding to distinguish your comments from mine.
It is quite true that User:Wikitanvir reverted all your edits in one burst, including the "publications added". Arguably, that is a mistake, and I see you have taken the matter up with them on their talk page. But Wikianvir reverted your removal of a large well-sourced paragraph, and your edit initially had no edit summary. To Wikivantir (who I don't know and have never talked to but appears to be a reasonably experienced Wikipedia vandal fighter) I assume this was a red flag. I think your mistake was right there - you need to start this kind of editing with an edit summary. You reverted him with a comment that the sourced material you want to remove is a "minor controversy" and not notable. Really! It looks like some very well sourced material to me, including the Jerusalem Post and The New Republic. That to me was a red flag, and why I deem it, rightly or wrongly, vandalism.
I know nothing about Avi Bell and never heard of him before today. I also have no opinions about Bell's stand on Middle East issues. That makes me an uninvolved editor with no agenda regarding this article. In light of the fact that you don't seem interested in discussing the substance of the issue either here or on the Avi Bell discussion page - mainly, exactly why you believe the material is "minor" and "not notable", I repeat standard Wikipedia policy: You need to go to the discussion page instead of reverting. Please also review WP:3RR to avoid a block. With sincere regards, Jusdafax15:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You do have an opinion on what is "vandalism" and that is what we are discussing here. After we get to resolution, I will be happy to go back to the entry itself and discuss the substance of the edits. I agreed already that it was a mistake to edit without explanation; in the single case, I accidentally hit the button before completing the summary. That said, it is exceptionally disturbing that you cannot admit that willy-nilly eliminating ALL edits in one burst is an error, and instead will only conced that it is "arguably" a mistake. It is disturbing too that you cannot acknowledge the problem of over-zealous self-appointed vandalism-fighters wiping out edits with false claims of vandalism. I am not looking for a fight with you. There is really no need for you to adopt this aggressive, condescending and imperious tone. I am sorry to see that you cannot admit your own errors, and are instead threatening me with a block (!) for actions I have not and am not contemplating taking. I will repeat to you the rule that you have refused to follow: You need to go to the discussion page instead of reverting. Do that next time, instead of reverting, making false accusations of vandalism, and then demanding that others follow the rules that you violate.89.96.205.194 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
PS I'm sure you know the difference between something being relevant and being sourced. You need to explain why you feel that the availability of sources automatically makes something notworthy.89.96.205.194 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You know, it's okay for you to admit every once in a while that you acted too quickly. Go ahead and try to apologize. It's healthy.89.96.205.194 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
We are having this discussion because of your edit to the article. You absolutely refuse to discuss the actual edit, and want to argue about the definition of vandalism and my intent. Enough. Please stay off my talk page, starting now. I will revert any further additions by you to my page as vandalism, which is my right.Jusdafax16:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Please delete my article on Mixing in the Bulk Chemicals
Hi, I recently changed that article to put it in a different heading and now this article is obsolate. Please delete it for me. Thanks. (TheodoreNg (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC))
I have moved your section to the bottom to place it in proper chronological order. Also, please sign your posts with four of these ~ or the bot will have to do it, as you see.
The edits you have made include a number of unencyclopedic adjectives - terms like "dismal" and "catastrophic", etc. Those terms are more suited to a blog than an encyclopedia, and since they show bias, that's why I reverted with a warning. Generally you will find that this type of edit - unsourced terms that really don't add much and appear to 'slant' the article - will be reverted by experienced editors. Jusdafax14:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
G7
I'm really getting sick of seeing you revert good faith page blankings on articles that were created by new users- it is biting. If I see you do it again, I will bring it to ANI. Stop. Tommy2010[message]15:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow Tommy! Pretty harsh threat since you have never brought this to my attention previously... care to give some examples? I sure would appreciate it. Jusdafax15:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Going back through my contribs for today, I see no G7 tags issued by me whatsoever, so I am increasingly confused. This is something from a couple days ago? If so, why not speak up then? Jusdafax16:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd knock off the sarcasm, seriously because I've seen this from you and only you about 3 or 4 times now. This was this morning, in fact right before I sent this. Examples- well they're (now) probably in your deleted contribs which is not hard for an admin to examine. But let's take a look shall we. Hold on Tommy2010[message]16:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah. The user removed a speedy delete tag. Sarcasm or no, I see you didn't respond to my last reply on this subject. Jusdafax16:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm a bit surprised about the hostility you are showing towards Jusd. here. He's not an editor known for intentionally seeking to wind people up and your warnings are provocative in the absence of evidence. I assume you are talking about sort of thing. Try to stay calm please, in both your interests. Leaky Caldron16:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, it doesn't work that way. If a user creates an article and they blank it, speedy or not- its a G7. Not a "I'm just going to revert this and give them a page blanking warning". Again, if you do it again, I'm bringing to ANI because it's 1. a misuse of rollback and 2. blatantly biting the newcomer. Tommy2010[message]16:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Nothing hostile? After you again threaten to take me to ANI? OK I am assuming this was triggered by my revert on Tatiana Giraud? The page creator blanked it after a speedy was placed on the page. I reverted, then you reverted me and put a G7 up. That what this is about? Jusdafax16:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, it's a misuse of rollback and biting. If the article creator is the main editor and s/he blanks it, it is not vandalism. Tommy2010[message]16:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
It's my understanding that if a speedy is placed on a page and the creator blanks it, that that requires a revert. It is also my understanding that there is nothing "good faith" about blanking a page with a speedy tag. I replied to your "Icomplete.com" message with my view, which you did not further reply to. And as for assuming good faith, you have issued multiple threats and insults ("misuse of rollback", "sarcastic") here. I continue find myself astonished at your hostility, for which you have already been warned about here by an uninvolved editor. Jusdafax16:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
1. There wasn't even a speedy deletion template on the page- so you got that wrong. (It was a PROD) 2. There is, actually, such a thing as a good faith blanking if the author has blanked the page (Read it for yourself- it says so right on the template- here. 3. I'm sorry I didn't reply to your message, it honestly slipped my mind 4. You've been here since 2007, so I expect users such as yourself to know better and to not bite new users. And the uninvolved editor stopped replying after I showed the evidence of my "hostility." Tommy2010[message]17:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, if I am the uninvolved editor, I went for tea and then spent the next 90 minutes mowing my lawn in the evening sunshine. I didn't leave because of any evidence presented here. I have absolutely no idea about the stuff at the centre of this dispute. My comment about Jusdafax is as justified now as it was then, I know him to be an editor of integrity and I felt that you were being hostile. I see you've been asked by another editor on your own page to calm down. Good advice. Leaky Caldron18:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
1.Yes, I see that the article Tatiana Giraud was a tagged as a PROD, not a speedy. I am wrong to have thought it was a speedy. So, in this case, I should have not reverted but instead just tagged it G7. I'm ok with learning that, assuming you are right. 2. In my experience some page creators use page blanking to get around having their articles deleted. However, after this, I will just tag them G7. 3. Apology accepted. Had in fact you answered my reply, in which I gave you my honest view, we would not have wasted all this time. 4. I'm afraid I can't be responsible for your expectations, as there are many things I frankly admit that I just don't know. When they come up, I would hope to be dealt with a bit less harshly by an experienced fellow vandal fighter!
As Leaky stated "He's not an editor known for intentionally seeking to wind people up", and that is a reputation I have worked hard to obtain. In my view, I honestly think this exchange shows that your "bedside manner" could stand a bit of tweaking. I would not have started this exchange the way you did, nor would I have used the terms you do, with someone who has clearly devoted substantial time and effort at improving the encyclopedia. Perhaps we have both learned something from this exchange. Best wishes, Jusdafax17:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Assuming I am right?? Your immediate sarcasm and lack of willingness to learn led it to come this far. You could have just asked 'what are you talking about?' but instead you went to sarcasm and jabs about me being hostile and then you jumped to conclusions and accusations about me waiting to speak to you about this. I learned nothing here other than you are the one who does not know about what G7 means. I originally tried to be nice with "friendly reminders" at the beginning but then you continue to claim things that aren't even true such as "there was a speedy template! = revert!" Ridiculous. You know what? Don't run for adminship because I'm just really disgusted by your biting and lack of clue. You should apologize to that user, not me. Tommy2010[message]18:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I just want to say I'm sorry if I was overly rude to you, but I get pretty annoyed when I message users about stuff like this and I get a feeling that they don't need correcting, which is the impression I got from this. Tommy2010[message]19:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Well... and I'm sorry if I come off as arrogant, which is not at all my intent. Again, there is a lot I don't know. We are on the same team, so let's get back to the effort we have in common! Jusdafax19:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Fine with me! I could use more hugglers at the moment. Just use the cute little yellow box with an X for speedy deletion templates- all I ever use is the G7 one (; Tommy2010[message]20:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I used to but have been branching out, with uh mixed success. Say, I also removed some comments I had at Leaky's page, just for full disclosure. Also, are you on IRC? I just got invited to a cool anti-vandal channel today, you might well be interested in this bunch. Jusdafax20:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
To be honest I have no idea what IRC is- I see it everywhere though. Isn't that just Special:Recent changes? I have a feeling no. Tommy2010[message]20:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
IRC is a chat group, and comes up in a special screen with different channels to talk in. It is a very helpful tool. Suggest a look at The Thing That Should Not Be's User page - I see you are familiar with it - where he discusses IRC. He already stated you would be welcome (I asked just now) so just leave a message on his talk page and he can get you going. Jusdafax20:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok. thanks! By the way
Tommy2010 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Many thanks for the cookie! This is getting funny... all's well that ends well. Chat with you on IRC! Jusdafax21:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
It all depends on which channel you are in. Some of 'em like Thing's with the bot reports and vandal fighter's comments are relevant to our own interests. Elsewhere, for example, I find Wikipedia-en can be of interest at times, but little better than the vandals themselves at others. But I'm glad you like it, consider it the best peace offering I could come up with! Jusdafax00:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jusdafax. 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.
