User talk:Sj/Heat

Russell

About - Pierre_Salinger_Syndrome - The Russell affidavit is from a recent suit: [1] NOT the document circulated in '96, but by the author of the document that was circulated. [posted by 208.199.82.216]

You should add informative links like that to the pages in question, not on my talk page! Clarke's FOIAC press release is relevant to the article on TWA Flight 800, for instance. [2]
I didn't see the date at the bottom of that affidavit. However, the repetition of the first 17 items in the last page of the affidavit is odd, and familiar; I would appreciate it if you could find a version of the old email that was passed around, so the differences could be observed. It wouldn't surprise me if this were a copy of that old email, signed by Captain Russell in 2003. +sj+

pitts edit

awww man, why did you have to kill the sutherland part of the pittsford new york page. Its almost true... (SHS) hmmm, strangly familiar......

awww, man, why'd you have to go exaggerating facts? I went back to add in a little dig at Sutherland for being the 2d-best school in Pittsford -- and stopped to check the "25th" ranking stats. Turns out you guys were only 33rd! That's the kiss of death. WP can have cute local color (which everyone can recognize as such), but it can't have misleading facts, otherwise people will stop using us as a reference. +sj+


Nic QP, by Tann

I am mystified at your comment in the Quickpoll, SJ. Why did you suggest that Nico and I "go to arbitration" when there is nothing to arbitrate? I have never been involved with that article, save only as a disinterested observer who saw one user (Nico) mindlessly reverting against the whole 'pedia community - count the number of other contributors he reverted there, there are lots! The only issue at stake is whether we, the Wikipedia community, are prepared to tolerate users who revert, revert, revert to their own point of view. I neither know nor much care about European politics. It is the community who has an issue here, an issue to do with Wikipedia norms and deciding whether we want to put up with endless edit warriors or not.

(OK, since posting the Quickpoll I now have an issue with Nico's personal standards of truth in consequence of his grossly untrue comments about me on various pages, but in the final anlysis, that's not something I plan to worry about.) Best -- Tannin 11:43, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah! That's what seems to be an issue for arbitration... I too am angry with users that waste everyone's time; it just doesn't come across well when the person bringing up a case/poll is so emotional and verbose, since then it looks like a private dispute. I should go emend my comment to point to RfC, anyway; that's what I meant. +sj+ 18:22, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

conflict resolution contributions deleted

+sj: I noticed your name on the member advocates page, and think you might be interested in some goings on at a talk page discussing some new bureaucratic proceedure. A few editors are attempting to delete comments at the bottom of this version of that talk page: [3] The edit history reveals a typical string of complaints by some usual suspects claiming they don't take people seriously if they don't know them. Where I come from, we assess written works on the merits of its content, not on our individual likes or dislikes for the author.

At any rate, the policy discussed there seems to infer an emerging politic in which users are supposed to beg other users to rush to their defense when challenged. This seems childish and generally unrelated to the goal of creating an accurate encyclopedia, but it is worth a try. Would you be so kind as to review the comments that have been deleted and use your reputation to advocate for their retention by posting the GFDL licensed comments under your user nameas a second-hand contribution? I would do that, but this is my first edit as user:doorman, so I doubt I would find much appreciation among a crowd that claims to be an open group but that aggressively attempts to discredit new faces whose work encourages some element of self-examination. Doorman 22:47, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

172: In need of community support

I'm in need of community support. --172

I don't really know who you are, so I can't tell if your "vote" at RfC/172 was made in good faith or not (in most other cases, I do know). If it was, I'm guessing you don't understand what this conflict is about. VV 11:41, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Any advice would be much-appreciated. As of now, I have no idea how to avoid this problem. 172 12:42, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice; I'll take it (see [4]). BTW, should I write a note on my user page explaining why I'll be avoiding meta discussions? 172 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think it was somewhat successful. +sj


blankfaze: Falcon K. and RfA

Not a reason for removal;

  • Sure it is. "Nominations may also be removed early if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship." The "current voting" (1/5/1, no activity in two days) made it clear that there would be no consensus to grant adminship.

In conclusion, I'm not going to fight you on this. Have it there if it's that important to you. But it doesn't really belong there, according to me, the numerous people (including numerous admins) I asked beforehand on IRC, and...

Genital Integrity, VfD

Never move a whole page by CNP. Use templates to avoid the problem. [smile] TIA, yr colleague, Jerzy(t) 22:07, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

Whew! I sure hope we can get you to run our admin boot-camp when we set one up; it seems as though you were born to it. +sj+ 09:07, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

--Jerzy(t) 06:31, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

Tnx, 1st & foremost for your continued civility while (in hindsight, quite properly) holding firm against my pretty strong pushing. (And of course tnx for info too obvious and numerous to enumerate.) I withdraw my pushy request, as it's now clear the problem was not in what seemed the obvious area.

[Drops a handul of hair in the wastebasket!] Your comments welcome if your interest is not already exceeded. [smile]
--Jerzy(t) 19:20, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring those two discussion pages. I'll try to do some more clean-up tonight. By the way, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the deletion process. Thanks. Rossami

Issuance of apology

After a long and hard period of penitence, I feel I must formally retract this statement:

<< notice of general violation message >>

This message was way out of bounds for an average wikipedian, and it was also just plain stupid, as well as patently idiosyncratic. I feel I should have stepped back and looked at the bigger picture far more in advance before responding. I have subsequently ceased that "general violation" crap.

As a measure of full disclosure, I have nominated myself for adminship, which requires a larger margin of tolerance than what you observed from me. I offer you an opportunity to respond to that request. Consequently, if you feel that this offer of an apology is inopportune or illegitimate, then I will respect that. If IMeowbot is still active here, I will offer a similar apology to him/her. Denelson83 06:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thank you for the heads up, and for the disclosure. I don't know enough about your other contributions to weigh in on your RfA, but certainly would not oppose your adminship on the basis of our last interaction. +sj +