User talk:JDG/archive1

Learn more about this page

I doubt that NYC is the worlds financial capital. Consider e.g. that London dominates trading in foreign exchange and metals, eurobonds and European equities.

Well, if Hendrix covered those other songs, someone should tell Dylan about it--he commented once that he found it odd that Hendrix covered only one of them, since they agreed on so much.

On further thought, he may have said that before the "new" Hendrix albums came out--whasn't "watchtower" the only Dylan song on Hendrix' original three studio albums (and, well, I guess we could include Band of Gypsys also)? --KQ

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Nice job on the Bob Dylan page. --User:GWO

Nice image of Philip of Macedon. Thanks! Tbarron 21:51 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

(Tweaks. If you edit any of these changes, be sure to have good reasons or they'll be edited right back.)

That sounds a little defensive, as an edit summary. Are you having problems with people editing your changes without good reason? Martin 21:13 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the Race article? An anon user is making some changes you may not like. --mav

Thanks for seconding my advice on the race talk page -- and for reitterating the point with more clarity and grace than my own attempt, Slrubenstein

I know it took some time (some time ago) but I am glad we reached the point where we could appreciate each other's contributions and work together. I share your views on the race page, and like you have little time and energy to work on it. But my sense is that what it most needs right now is some re-organization. It would be nice if someone else gave it a shot, but I am sure one day one of us will make a start, and the other will help, Slrubenstein

Hi JDG, Any news on the copyright status of that Sperm Whale image? Thanks, Pete 13:02, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

On Five Points .... from The Perils of Prosperity, by William E. Leuchtenburg, we have

In 1920 "Scarface" Al Capone, a New York hoodlum from the Five Points Gang, moved to Chicago and set up an empire in alcohol, gambling, prostitution, and drugs. By 1927 he was operating a $60 million business ....

But I'll modify the article slightly. Change it if need be -- I'm not a New Yorker, and am a bit out of my domain here. -- user:dino

Race

Why did you revert my edit? All I did was combine two sentence fragments and tidy the disambiguation block. --mav 04:42, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

December

On the Race:Talk page, you wrote: "I don't understand why you consider this as necessarily so damaging to the concept of human subgroups summarized by terms (race, sub-type, ethnic group, whatever)."

That you now realize you don't understand what I've been saying is definitely a sign of progress! It leads me to hope that you will take the opportunity to re-examine your previous interpretations. (It's as though at some point, you started "seeing red" rather than seeing what was actually being written.)

Your first remarks on my edits were fairly complimentary in several respects, so I invite you to reconsider your later less complimentary remarks. In fact, since the "Talk" page seems to be freely editable, please consider erasing the unnecessary insinuations etc. Peak 04:23, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That's a good one, Peak. I think you know I understand what you've been saying-- what I'm fuzzy on is the twisted logic supporting it. But that it is twisted, I'm pretty certain.

I don't think I started 'seeing red'. I'd describe it more as 'annoyance', mostly on SLR's behalf. I tend to be pretty free in both criticism and praise and find it to be a more honest and productive approach than the sort of studied understated reserve which is the fashion on campus today. You're a good writer, and that's a statement that carries built-in substatements about intelligence and knowledge. This particular episode was unlucky because your additions happened to break the flow of an article already recognized for excellence. Now the article incorporates much of your material without violence to the flow, and it's a better article. JDG

(Moved from main user page) JDG:

Thanks for your comment about NYC. I had not read the NYC article. I simply feel that many nations are their-own-nation-centric and that is it not at all clear to me that the claim that NYC is the financial capital of the world will withstand examination. Being a brit and having lived in Tokyo, London and NYC I know that London has a depth and breadth that is staggering eg it dominates European equity trading and international f/x (foreign exchange trading. I don't know where the various figures that would bear on an accurate comparison might be found. Any analysis would have to be multi-faceted eg comparing f/x, eurobonds, insurance (eg Lloyds),banking, equities and total numbers of people employed in financial services.

Thanks for working on and improving the temp version of the Shroud article. I think it's now getting reasonable, and as I said, I won't stand in the way of a FAC nomination unless anything major changes.--Eloquence *

McCrone

The issue isn't whether McCrone's conclusion is the definitive word on the subject. The issue is whether there's any support for your assertion that the "majority consensus" is that McCrone was wrong. What I see from the college newspaper article is: (1) Olin disagrees with McCrone. She "conducted her analysis with the Smithsonian Institution" but this article doesn't mention the "team" or the "crew" (your terms). At any rate, even if several people collaborated, I don't think it would be accurate to count one study as establishing "the majority consensus" just because several people worked on the study. (2) Tully says Olin's work is strong evidence but isn't conclusive. (3) Clark agrees with McCrone.

On that record, I don't think it's incumbent upon me to find some additional authority backing McCrone. The available evidence just doesn't support any claim of "consensus". The article's summary of the Vinland Map dispute is accurate as it stands: "As was the case with the Shroud of Turin, other scientists were involved in studying this object, and some of them reached conclusions that differed from McCrone's." JamesMLane 01:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad that my humble little talk page was the occasion for your ego booster! :) Seriously, I didn't wanted to join in with Wetman's criticism of you, but (maybe I was too decorous in doing so) I didn't want to slam him too hard, either. I do think you've contributed a lot to the Shroud of Turin article. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, so you have a perfect right to prioritize your time and devote more effort to fleshing out one side of the issue. Perhaps the recent spate of activity has produced more balancing information from the skeptical side. Unfortunately, I haven't even been able to look at the new version, and don't know when (or if) I'll get to it. Best wishes to those of you currently involved in editing it. JamesMLane 21:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cultural and Historical background of Jesus

I appreciate your supportive comments concerning the discussion of this article. Belive it or not, I have never been more frustrated. I know you and I have had our differences but I never doubted your knowledge or intentions. I must say, I just don't know what to do any more.

For what it is worth I'd be happy to know what you thought of the article itself, Slrubenstein

Thanks for your comment on my page! Your encouragement means a lot to me, especially now, Slrubenstein ANd thanks for your honest and aposit comment on the article talk page! The contrast between their attitude and yours really reveals very starkly what is at stake in terms of wikipedia community and process. Slrubenstein

Try to keep in mind what a POV machine actually is, and the fact that from ANYONE's point of view, NPOV is in the opposite direction.

Cultural and historical background of Jesus - Compromise discussion

JDG;

Slrubenstein has said he will not further discuss compromise unless others are involved. Would you care to read or comment on Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus#Compromise discussion? - Amgine 20:19, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sunday, Sunday, Sunday! Come to NYC... +sj +

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Shroud image

I re-uploaded the image, this time including the {{PD-old-70}} to make it absolutely clear that it is out of copyright. Thanks. Mpolo 11:27, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Library of Congress & Copyrights

I've come across a couple of images that you uploaded from the Library of Congress and noted as "public domain" with a {{PD-USGov}} tag. Please be aware that much of what the Library of Congress holds is not in the public domain. See the Legal Notices page at the LOC for more information. Thanks for your contributions. Kbh3rd 03:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright

Discussion moved to Image talk:Autorecessive tay sachs.gif#Copyright.

Messup?

What's wrong with your edits to FAC page? It looked OK to me. One thought: make sure your refresh your cache to see the changes on this page. Leave me a message at User Talk:Vaoverland if you still need help after doing this, and please give me some details about what is wrong. I'll try to help. Vaoverland 08:35, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

They look OK now. That refresh thing on this particular WP page throws me off. I thought it might have zapped you too. My Carl G. Fisher just made FA tonight, so I am happy. Glad you got it straight. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 09:11, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

My family was originally from Hoboken, and oddly enough I wrote the very short article on John Jay Gould I, the son of Jay Gould. John Jay Gould III is connected to me by marriage. He married into the O'Malleys, the same ones that owned the Brooklyn Dodgers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Featured template

Please talk about the change rather than forcing your views. Go to User talk:Violetriga/statusdevelopment or Template talk:featured and discuss your objection. It is very easy to change the text (which I believe is an improvement) and the new style works better when coupled with other relevant templates. I've reverted once again and will see any further enforcement of your viewpoint as bullish and a bad faith edit. violet/riga (t) 10:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm really not very happy with you trying to threaten action against me - that is not the way in which I would expect people to react to an attempt at improving something. I suggest you tone it down somewhat: "you still have a chance to avoid discipline" is not something you should be saying to someone making good faith edits.

I am fully aware of the 3RR (as you clearly were not) and know about gaining consensus. I also know about wikipedia:be bold. I do not need consensus to alter a template such as that. This project is supposed to be collaborative - your edits have been negative and not worked towards a solution. If you don't like something about a change that's been made then you shouldn't unilaterally revert it but update it to your personal suggestion or discuss it with the person that made the change.

You and one other person reverted the changes. RoyBoy asked (in a much better approach) why I'd made the changes. If you looked at User talk:Violetriga/statusdevelopment you will note that there were positive comments about the idea and I therefore decided to implement. You seem to think you are representing the masses when I'm afraid you certainly are not. You said "ask people what they don't like about your version", well I have and it's been liked by many - if you allowed it to remain in my suggested version it would be easier to get feedback and work towards a compromise. violet/riga (t) 12:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Please talk about the change rather than forcing your views." I don't have a lot of free time to introduce debate on wholesale changes made by someone else. The existing template is as it is from a consensus process. It's your project and it's your job to sell it. I did "talk" about why I did not consider your version an improvement, but I was pressed for time and confined my comments to the edit summaries. Your version had grammatical errors and I do not like it aesthetically (the latter is obviously subjective, but no less so on your part). I explained this and the only other people to comment directly on your version both shared my view. If you were editing in good faith you would have taken this as your cue to amend your version and seek at least one supporting comment from a fellow editor. Instead you tried to revert your way around the objections and when you came up against the 3RR you attempted to institute a reversion tag team by asking User:ContiE to join the reversion fray (she/he very responsibly stayed out of it).

"I'm really not very happy with you trying to threaten action against me.". I'm not here to make you happy. I'm here to improve Wikipedia. These "threats" you refer to were simply my stating that you are not above the 3RR rule. All expressed opinions were against your version. You tried to bull it through anyway. You lost. It makes you unhappy. Sorry, I'm not too moved.

"I am fully aware of the 3RR (as you clearly were not)". Another bad faith potshot. But think about it. I try not to spend my time on Wikipedia embroiled in tit-for-tat disputes like this and so I'm not well versed in all the little tools people can use on one another. I prefer to research and write (and my efforts form the core of more than a few standout Wikipedia articles, including 3 FA). There seems to be a trend among new Administrators, as if they relish the push and pull of online dispute more than the bedrock activity of article writing. Reflect on this and perhaps you'll be slower to vaunt your knowledge of dispute resolution rules. Excessve involvement in disputes, saving changes to templates with no support and, in this case, going so far as to solicit a revert from a 3rd party when you have reached 3 in 24 hours, are, I believe, easily grounds for a review of Adminship. But, barring more bullying and conspiring from you, I won't pursue it. I have an article to research. JDG 17:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your attitude, to be honest, has been very poor. You seem to be forgetting a key part here: I do not need consensus to change the template. I changed it and if you had a problem with it then it was up to you to present ideas why you think it is wrong and work towards a compromise. Reverting a change should be the last resort, and the way you've gone about all this is simply pathetic. I will be reverting back to the new version as soon as the 24 hours is up, and I expect you to follow proper wikiquette and suggest improvements rather than revert again. violet/riga (t) 18:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and as for your attempts at an attack on me ("trend among new Administrators" etc.) I think you'll find that I have plenty of excellent article edits behind me and am trying to improve this place, rather than reverting the good faith edits of another user. violet/riga (t) 18:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is very tiresome. You say "I do not need consensus to change the template." What? This is a collaborative project. Edits, when disputed, are by their nature in need of consensus. And the consensus here is very plainly against you. You are being petulant and, especially after trying to create a revert tag team, have no place insulting my attitude. If you pick up the revert war at X o'clock I will launch a fullscale effort to revoke your Adminship. It's a little unlucky for you because you're just the latest in a line of cavalier new Admins who have run across my path, but action must begin somewhere. Until then, JDG 18:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that threat is just laughable, and calling me a "cavalier new admin" is somewhat amusing. You also do not seem to understand how this place works. Edits are made and then discussed - they do not have to be done the other way around. Just because you don't like a change doesn't mean you have the right to undo it. violet/riga (t) 18:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Laughable", "Pathetic", "Amusing". Do you think you're winning debate points with this kind of thing? You're telling me I don't know how things work here?? I was one of the handful of people building this place in early `02, years before arrogant whippersnappers like yourself began pouring in and positioning themselves for Admin roles, primarily for ego reasons. My advice is to log out of WikiP, take in a change of scenery, maybe make some dinner, then come back and address the problems in your version already discussed by myself, RoyBoy and OldakQuill. People here, especially people who devote themselves to writing instead of squabbling, don't have the time/energy to exhaustively debate every little proposed change on Talk and Project pages. We have used Edit Summaries for our discussion and that is all the discussion you have needed to know your changes as they are will not stand. "Just because you don't like a change doesn't mean you have the right to undo it." What? Of course I have the right to undo it, especially when two voices are with me and none are with you. When you made your change you in effect undid the work of the previous template creator. Did you have the "right" to do that?... This has reached rockbottom. No more replies from me until you pick up your revert crusade (and hopefully, for your sake, you'll think better of it). JDG 18:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can't help but try and attack people, can you? I suggest that you're the one that needs to calm down. Perhaps you could point me to what was said negatively about the new one... let's see...

Supporting comments for you:

User:RoyBoy was talking about an old version of the template (01:54, 29 Jan 2005) - that's one less person backing you up
User:OldakQuill used the rollback function without any comment

Supporting comments for me:

Raul654: "this sounds like a good idea"
Bishonen (on Wiki-EnL): "I was just admiring your templates yesterday, and thinking they look great!"
ContiE: "with a consistent look like this it looks really good IMO"

I think that shows more support for the change than against it. No, it may not be supported by a full poll but I do make that 4 to 2. Why can't you just let it stand and try and work with me to fix the problems you think exist? violet/riga (t) 19:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I support you wholeheartedly JDG. It's a pity to see Violetriga causing trouble for yet another good faith and conscientious user. It is not on to accuse you of bad faith when you clearly take time to provide a long reasoned answer to all points thrown out without thought to you. " I expect you to follow proper wikiquette" ... this is just not on. Rather you are correct in saying she needs to "hold up the mirror". This admin is a totally overbearing editor who takes up so much time on trouble caused by her attitude to reasonable editors. She started a talk page for me when I clearly left it red/uncreated as I do not want the time and trouble of maintaining a talk page. Yet she deletes as a "right" other people's contributions and always wrongly marks them as "minor" edits. I, as you also say, do not want to waste time in this way. I want to edit in the little time I wish to spend here.

I filed a RfComment page about her. It was deleted without a "speedy delete" warning template added and without the simple explanation expected in such cases so that it is not even listed on the Deletion log. Other people take the small trouble to do that so why not the deleter of my RfC page? I "wonder" who deleted it. Here is a partial copy (but it is missing the evidence I attached, and was attaching...it takes time, on the full deleted version). If you start a new RfC I will support it.Kreen

Thanks, Kreen. I suspected this wasn't her first tussle. But I can't believe I let myself get dragged into this. What a time waster. I'd much rather let it drop, but if she keeps punching I guess I'll have to pursue it. See you then, perhaps. JDG

JDG, I'd just like to bring to your attention that Kreen's RfC was entirely spurious — noone certified it, and six users opposed it. One user commented that Kreen is likely a sockpuppet created to harass Violetriga. Certainly, since joining Kreen has done very little on Wikipedia other than file an RfC and make (completely bogus) accusations of 3RR violations. Regarding the template design: personally, I preferred the old one, but it's really not worth edit warring over. Perhaps we can have a (preferably friendly and good-natured) vote, competition or discussion about it? — Matt Crypto 15:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Although I don't want to get into a slanging match I must point out that Matt Crypto has been very exercised about my comments that I have made here, and it is he and other of Violetriga's supporters, rather than me who have been aggressive in this matter. With accusations of bad faith and various insults about me. But my interest is pointing out the behaviour of Violetriga to others and letting them deal with it if they wish, rather than spending ages online on slanging matches that are an unwanted trouble to me. My RfC wasn't spurious but seriously meant in good faith for the reasons I gave in it. Five not six users opposed it. It was deleted before I could finish adding the evidence. Perhaps no one supported it because they did not know about it. If I had had time I could have let people know on their pages about it. I have done little on editing? Users do what suits them, and in any case since my first edit was to comment on Violetriga's editing style, having seen it on pages I was interested in, they've given me little time for much else, if I am to answer their comments. I don't intend to spend much online time here, just a little. All my edits had explanatory notes attached for all to use, why should I have given her a special note on pages edited by many? And I had no intention of getting my head bitten off by her. I already saw she was like this and merely drew this to people's atttention.Kreen

Thanks, Kreen. I suspected this wasn't her first tussle. But I can't believe I let myself get dragged into this. What a time waster. I'd much rather let it drop, but if she keeps punching I guess I'll have to pursue it. See you then, perhaps. JDG It certainly isn't. And since I wrote on your page she has revived on her page an item from back in 2 March: "Unpleasant users. It's quite common to come across some really unpleasant users." Further evidence of her liking for combatitive behaviour. She has a habit of editing others' talk page, marking paragraph deletions of others' work as "minor" and other things. I stand by what I say. She is a user that enjoys combatting with people, is overbearing and rides over them, and then makes complaints about them. But if people let her continue to create unecessary trouble there's little one or two people can do about it.Kreen

First of all, thank you for your kind words, JDG. But looking at this discussion, I think both of you should calm down a bit first before you continue to discuss. JDG, why don't you add your opinion to User talk:Violetriga/statusdevelopment, stating why you don't like the idea of him/her. At that page, pretty much all comments are positive, so I can understand that he/she was bold and changed the templates accordingly. If you object to the change, it would be best to add your arguments calmly to his/her subpage, where the discussion should take place.

As far as I understand this issue, you simply don't like the design of the new template. As you said, that's of course subjective, but that's also not the main point of the change. The point is to have some standard for all these talk-page templates we have, so they don't look more or less random anymore. You can see some examples at Violetriga's subpage. So, do you object to the idea as well, or just the realization of the idea (the design)? If it is just the latter, then maybe we could hold a contest for the best design for the new idea or something like that. --Conti|✉ 18:51, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

ContiE, my objections were both textual and aesthetic. I also think uniformity for templates is a good idea. She seems unable to distinguish support for the idea from support for her particlar wording and design. I have no doubt whatsoever that others would have nixed her design had I (and the two others) not already done so and that a contest of sorts will probably be needed. I'll be there for that. JDG

Well, so you like the idea. Great! :-) I think the idea hasn't gathered that much attention yet, but I also can't think of a single argument against it. So instead of moaning about the bad design, we could rather praise the very good idea and try to gather some creative wikipedians to create a new and good design everyone likes. --Conti|✉ 19:25, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Template change - a suggestion

Copied from User talk:Raul654

I like Violet's idea. Do you think it's a good idea to hold a poll/vote over the idea and if it passes have a design contest? This way both Violet and JDG get what they want. Overall look would be more consistent and JDG could suggest another look. And not in the least, we'd have a wider consensus. Mgm|^(talk) 19:58, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template standardisation

I still feel I'm right, but I'll step back and work for the Wikipedia:Template standardisation system. I hate revert wars (counter-productive) and still stand by everything I've done, but we're both too sure it our views for this. violet/riga (t) 12:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Further, I am sure you can see that my intentions were to improve what I saw as a failing. While you disagree with my implementation I do still think you've gone about it the wrong way - reverting a good faith change. Perhaps I've been hasty, but I advertised my proposal on the WikiEn-L mailing list, the Village Pump and the main IRC channel. You may check the contributions by Kreen to see that the account is indeed created to cause trouble for me. If you look at any of my 7000+ contributions you'll not that I have been in very few disputes. I hope you realise my good intentions, and am sad at your attempts to stop what I see as positive changes. violet/riga (t) 18:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I protest this person's repeated attempts to start trouble. Please note that half an hour after I wrote "my first edit was to comment on Violetriga's editing style, having seen it on pages I was interested in, they've given me little time for much else, if I am to answer their comments. I don't intend to spend much online time here, just a little." she again tries to stir up trouble. "You may check the contributions by Kreen to see that the account is indeed created to cause trouble for me." Not true. I found pages I was interested in, I saw that she was trouble, I checked and saw it was habitual for her to behave this way. I drew it to editor's attention. Any sensible person knows that someone could read a site for years before they decide to contribute, as I have done. "look at any of my 7000+ contributions you'll not that I have been in very few disputes. I hope you realise my good intentions," Again not true. Most editors do act in good faith, hence her standing out. I stand by my previous comments, and point out that I expect her to continue to try riling up trouble. If not with me then with users in general. After all what else is she doing in this case with JDG. It is her standard editing to rile people up. She must have her way in everything.Kreen

Hi! Violetriga has started an article about the template standardisation for the Wikipedia Signpost in the Newsroom. I'm likely going to edit it to focus a little less on the dispute, but if you've got anything to add, now's the time. Mgm|^(talk) 21:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

For your information: After nearly two weeks of the competition to make talk page templates more consistent the template standardisation vote has begun. Voting ends on 1 May 2005. violet/riga (t) 23:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dylan

I wasn't the one that added the material. I just saw your edit summary "Remove references to current instruments of choice.Muddies up the main point: his live act is going strong but his lasting fame will be as songwriter)" and looked at the diff. Basically you removed information because you didn't think it fit with what you wanted it to say. I don't even know if the information is correct, but if it is, figure out a way to work it in and correct the grammar, don't remove it because you don't like what it says. That is what it seemed like you did, so I added it back. That's all, no biggie. - Taxman 02:57, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

ClockworkSoul's Coffee Roll

Just thought I would drop you a line to let you know that I implemented the images fixes that you recommended. You were absolutely right, and I think that the changes brought about a big improvement. – Clockwork Soul 05:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Masturbation

Would you care to register an opinon on the Masturbation Talk page as to whether a full color photograph of male masturbation is suitable for that page? Thank you. Force10 21:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You lately wrote to a person living in Switzerland:

Really this is a pretty offensive form of ethnocentrism or cultural bigotry. Because your fallen country allows this stuff in supermarkets all the rest of us should follow suit.

As an administrator, I must remind you that ad hominem attacks, including and especially attacks on another user's country or ethnic origin, are prohibited on Wikipedia. Please keep your arguments to the point instead of making broad judgments of value on entire peoples or countries.

There are plenty of arguments that can be made on the question you're discussing without having to insult Switzerland or whatever country. Such kind of nationalistic arguments are rude, don't contribute anything, and only make everybody more irate. David.Monniaux 10:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I did not know the country he referred to was Switzerland. Then how come did you pass a judgment calling his country "fallen" without even knowing which country it was?

He and another user had already specifically "insulted" my country (saying its emphasis on "morality" was fake and cheap). Neither the words fake or cheap appear on this page. I read Rama's comments, and he just pointed out that the moral positions of the so-called "moral majority" of the United States are not much shared in other developed countries, and that trying to impose them on others showed US-centrism.

I do not see any moral judgment of value being passed on the United States. (I.e. calling a country "shitty", "fallen" or "detestable" is a moral judgment; discussing its morality is not a judgment of value.)

The term I used ("fallen"), while certainly not positive, is not really an emotional ad-hominem term. Yes, it is. ("Fallen angels" and all that.) It supposes that those countries are inferior in some moral ways.

I am getting sincerely weary of Administrators sticking their noses into small tussles like this. [...] Please learn this lesson and spread it among your fellow rookie Administrators I must say I'll decline to learn a lesson from irate and impolite contributors.

I'm personally sick and tired of people making broad attacks and judgments on other people's countries, "morality" or whatever. Such attacks are against official Wikipedia policy, and administrators have the duty to remind participants of those official policies.

Part of the function of Talk pages is to let editors blow off a little steam while they work toward consensus. Blowing a little steam is one thing. Writing derogatory stuff that is very likely to make people irate is another. This includes, for instance, people calling other people's countries "fallen", "immoral" or "decadent".

As for the "rookie": we obviously have different definitions of these words. David.Monniaux 16:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

You are talking to a long-standing Wikipedian whose work has been recognized through the years. You can heed my words or ignore them, but, seriously I think you should heed them. Arriving at consensus while maintaining incisive prose and presentation is not simple, it ends up being a very human process in which some emotion must come to the fore, occasionally. You are intervening in a very minor spat which is simply one of these occasions. You should not be. I notice this is a growing trend among Administrators, and its net effect is to divert time and energy from writing/research and into often silly dispute resolution. This is my advice. JDG 17:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Add topic