Just-watch

Welcome!

Hello, Just-watch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Thanks for the barnstars!

By the way, you're the only user I've ever run into that has welcomed him/her-self. --Nemonoman (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually like this version of the Meher Baba article you worked so hard to bring about. It should be FA. Just-watch (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I went through the FA process with Taj Mahal, at that time a pretty good aritcle, which was listed as a GA by 3 different workgroups, and was the basis for 3 FA articles in different Wiki-translations. Not only was the process a complete waste of time, I and other editors were insulted by the reviewers. Purposely. Some reviewers suggested the article was not even a legitimate GA. Two editors quit WP in the course of the review (I was one). I have lost all faith in Wikipedia's peer review processes, and only worked on Meher Baba because it will be the first article on the man seen by many web surfers. I don't want to let it completely deteriorate, like for example Aurangzeb. But anyway, thanks for the THOUGHT behind this. I take it as a great compliment. In pracitcal terms, however include me out.--Nemonoman (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The easiest thing a person can do on Wikipedia is go around writing insulting reviews, acting like a genius on talk-pages, and sticking tags all over pages. I have this funny picture of someone walking around Calcutta hammering signs in the ground next to starving people that read "Soup kitchen needed here!" Then as the missionaries rush to set up a kitchen the person with the signs in hand gloats that they did that. It's true that sites that get left alone rather quickly go to seed. But as you say so truly, anyone that heard of a master and went to look him up in the 21st century -- is going to go straight to Wikipedia whether they intended to or not to get their info -- cause frankly with Meher Baba all the other links just lead to stores selling stuff and you can't figure out who in the heck he was or if he's alive or dead? So you wind up going to Wikipedia out of desparation. LOL I just read that the new Kindle [1] by Amazon comes with access to a free 250,000 word dictionary and Wikipedia for looking things up -- they refer to it as "the world's most exhaustive and up-to-date encyclopedia" which is actually a fact strange as it seems. So we're stuck with this imperfect confusing new democracy headache. I now see why people get attracted to dictatorship. I hear you and won't expect you to be working except occassionally. But I saw that you were working your butt off for a week up hill against some really disingenuous "help." It was inspiring to watch but a little heart breaking. But you definitely did what most couldn't. Just-watch (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I may need to send back one of those barnstars, or both. --Nemonoman (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. They'll always be in your talk page history. You can't take back good deeds. Having looked at several Indian guru articles I see none of them are GA. Yet several are very well written. So I think what is going on is very sinple. The western people (those who are provincial and untraveled and think the west is some kind of appex of reason) frankly don't believe in eastern spirituality. So any sympathetic writing about eastern masters must be made up by brainwashed children abducted into cults. So anything is suspect. And on this convoluted logic the articles are always suspect and almost never moved up from B or C. In other words it's simple ignorance of the larger world that includes the east and their type of nonmaterial thought. So given that they are just prjudiced and it is nothing to do with the articles themselves (but more their content) then you can see that any heart break over trying to win approval for the article quality is a waste of time. Notice that all the work you did only caused the article to be demoted to B. From the talk page history I see this result was anticipated in some earlier discussions about FA. So I suggest letting the perception issue (GAR) go. But do as you see best. Chears. Just-watch (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You may have noticed that I have a beef with the GAR process. I have history. Lookup Taj Mahal GAR, and in particular follow the thread where Jooperscoopers took it. GAR is a bunch of self-appointed WikiPolizei judging whether existing GA articles should be delisted for failing to meet a new and constantly changing set of criteria maintained only by them and judged only by them. The criteria are vague, self-referential and self-contradictory, and the process is haphazard, undocumented and unappeallable. That is to say, you can't get the delisting decision reviewed or revoked: you can ONLY nominate the now delisted article as GA. It may then immediately be again rated a GA -- which is done by subject matter experts in the workgroup -- and immediately be again delisted by a GAR editor.

I am particularly disturbed by the refusal of GAR editors to collaborate or even inform. They just delist, often without notice. Those who can, edit; those who can't, critique; those who can't critique join the GAR team. They give themselves barnstars for the number of GAs delisted in a shortt period. They are sloppy and sarcastic, and they literally drive good editors away. See Jooperscoopers as an example. Some are well-meaning, but in most cases good editors have gone elsewhere, leaving the yahoos to their own private games.

I made a vow to create a defensive bulwark around the Meher Baba article. We've come to a common view on why. I vowed to take the effort wherever it led until I had established the strongest defences I could. The trail has led, oddly enough, to GAR. And if I may wonder aloud -- there is an ironic justice that Meher Baba, who despised hypocrisy, has led his editors into that nest of smugness. They have raised Wiki-vandalism, literally, to an art. Maybe one will wake up. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

For those who enjoy irony, Wikipedia supplies a handful. For one, there is an ironic upshot to the disingenuous and childish behavior you describe at GAR. This 'higher standard' for GA (basically now what was once and still is in other languages FA) is having the effect of causing any stagnant articles to continue to strive to emulate printed Encylopedias or even suprass them. For a time, many article editors rested on their lorels due to a GA stamp and no longer tried to make improvements that took a lot of work and weren't much fun. Now what is interesting is that in the case of the Meher Baba article (and this is why I thought you needed some Barnstars for going through hell) had you not been there to suffer through Jossi's Calcutta sign posting exercise and build all those soup kitchens, the article would have wound up telling 6 billion people that Meher Baba died in a cave 100 miles from Bombay. I'm not just saying that. That's what would have been printed as a fact with a golden-gilded citation next to it. I make a lot of jokes about how outside of Wikipedia you can't tell if Meher Baba is alive or dead. But without your effort, this "GA improvement" would have led to something even worse than missing information -- FALSE INFORMATION. So the irony is that without the nut-cracking effort you made to build a bulwark, the "new improved GA criteria" would have made that article go to seed -- perhaps for a very long time. I read that Baba once wrote or said or spelled on his board that all that is good in this world comes about as a result of intense suffering. Can't remember where I read that. Anyway, the final irony is that at this moment (as far as I last looked) that article is reasonably factual and reasonably clear of mean-spirited vandalism and signposts. Just-watch (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I respect Jossi for raising his concerns on the discussion page. I respect him more for making an effort to improve the article by digging up his own sources independently. I respect that he noted which precise wordings seemed to him to be opinion rather than fact-based, and that he tried to adjust the wording to provide a more NPOV. He rolled up his sleeves, and God bless him. I have no problem with Jossi or editors like him, and I wish there were more of them. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

One more thing on that subject of comparison and relative criique. Take a look at what passes as an article in Japanese and Russian. And there isn't even an article in Italian. You yourself are holding the English speaking world to a standard higher than any on Earth. Most folk just don't care. Maybe that's why Meher Baba said nice things about America. It seems he said America and England had more energy -- that needed to get directed. God he was he right on both accounts. Just-watch (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As for Jossi rolling up his sleeves after just planting posts took me by surprise too. And I have to hand it to him, he did find some good material. I'm only glad that you were there to correct him on that one famously wrong news wire. Just-watch (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind, and not so kind words. It is my experience, paraphrasing your teacher (which I respect), that best articles come about as a result of intense debate and friction. I am glad that the article is now better than before, and be able to withstand the scrutinity of passing-by editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Jossi, I was feeling very bad for Nemonoman as he gets stressed and works very very seriously and hard when he does and is extremely honest. [2] And I felt you were being too hard on him with all the posting. Also Nemonoman I think is the original editor and besides Taj Mahal he has put more into these than any other. I agree that stones rubbing together become smooth. You are right I am a passer-by, but this has become very interesting. As I said above I think the article is very good and I think GA is rather trivial since most users don't even know about these back-door quarels and concerns. Just-watch (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

See here...

this discussion. Help appreciated--Nemonoman (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)