User talk:Jd2718

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello Jd2718, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! Alphachimp talk 02:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting help
Getting along
Getting technical

[edit] Merritt/W.Cross sign

It's actually at a very unlikely location - at the junction of Chapel Street and Forest Road (Route 122) in New Haven. Presumably, northbound Rt 122 leads you to Route 63/69, which connects to the Wilbur Cross, and southbound Rt 122 leads you to Rt 34, which also connects to the Wilbur Cross (not the Merritt!). Just saw it a couple of weeks ago anfd thought it was unusual. --Polaron | Talk 00:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's going on with the CT page?

Any clue as to why people keep revising that cities & towns section? Seems like you're constantly doing an revert. mikemillerdc 21:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You're not doing anything wrong at all! BTW, if you see any other tasks that you think we should do on the CT page, go ahead and edit the to-do list at the top of the talk page mikemillerdc 16:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Late reply

Hi! I guess you could try to follow the dispute resolution process. That's always a good idea. You could also read WP:NPOV, or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek and Turkish named places) (the latter of which isn't an official policy). When dispute resolution fails, the next step is mediation, but I don't think we're there yet. ;-) Cheers, Khoikhoi 21:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Southeastern Connecticut AFD

You should probably be aware that there is a Southeastern Connecticut Regional Council and is an official region. See here for more. --Polaron | Talk 20:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The regional councils are grouped such that towns with similar demographics are together plus there is a functioning (but weak) regional government so I think it these regional councils provide some semblance of civic identity to its residents. They also roughly correspond to transit and school districts. I'm willing to contribute significantly to creating proper region articles if that is the consensus. However, in my opinion some regions might be better off grouped together into metro areas e.g. Greater Hartford and Gold Coast. --Polaron | Talk 17:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Lieberman

My pleasure. Good Luck with the article! -- Avi 05:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lieberman

"His career has been marked by a willingness to cross the aisle and put principal before party," reads like a campaign commercial to me. A neutral point of view should include neutral points of view about the political parties themselves, I think. The phrase implies that Joe Lieberman is better than other Senators (who follow their parties more closely) because of his "principles." If there was a direct quote of someone saying as much, that's one thing, but I think it reads too much like an endorsement of Lieberman, which would violate an NPOV. Bridger 22:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'His career has been marked by a willingness to ... put principal before party.'

Your idea of a proper article introduction is quite different from the mold I'm accustomed to dealing with in other politicians' articles, I must confess. His history, as a politician, in elections is much more pertinent for introductions than vague phrases such as the one quoted above, or "he can appear conservative on social issues."

Most U.S. politicians support Israel, and while Lieberman's vocal leadership on the issue is certainly something for the article to cover, support for Israel in and of itself is not noteworthy among U.S. politicians. Italiavivi 01:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion and experience that "politics lead" paragraphs as you demonstrate them are unnecessary, and often undesirable, in politicians' articles. I would note that most politicians' article leads stick with service and election history, as well. Please, don't remove Lieberman's service/election history again. Italiavivi 12:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom questions

Hi Jd

I've answered your questions Thanks for taking an interest. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


By the way thanks for the "petty vandalism" ;-) Paul August ☎ 20:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply EOM

[edit] Arbcom elections table

Thank you. I was just about to do that and you saved me the trouble. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on the arbcom table. I was glad to help out, though I hope the end result winds up assisting rather than hindering good judgment by the voters. Meanwhile, your userpage has me puzzling; I'm a geography buff, and I'm working hard to come up with "five countries that no longer exist." :) BTW, will you be coming to the New York meet-up next month? Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
What is "BTW, will you be coming to the New York meet-up next month?" this about?
And, USSR, GDR, FRG (or whatever Berlin was part of), Yugoslavia, and I miscounted (not so hot for a math teacher, esp one teaching combinatorics just now). Maybe I counted West Berlin and West Germany as 2, even though I only passed through the latter. Jd2718 04:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's only three: the combination of the two German states was accomplished by the accession of the states of the GDR into the FRG, so the Federal Republic of Germany still exists. See here if you're curious. More importantly, see Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Newyorkbrad 04:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: edit counts. Just about everybody who's running for ArbCom is on this list, Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. -Will Beback · † · 00:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I'll put the link at the bottom of the table for now. Thanks for that. (And sorry to but in to the conversation). Carcharoth 00:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hillock65

Hmmm how odd. That should fix it now :)  Glen  20:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

You are right about the NPOV tag.. I think I misplaced it, other tags should have done the trick.. As for the research, I really don't know what to say since many Turks have only heard about this following a conspiracy-theory scandal that made waves on the Net in a bunch of "impartial" web-sites. I don't even know if there is serious research that can be done about this. I mean, it can be true, along with nearly all other conspiracy theories, but I have yet to come across a serious academic paper, either on a political or an anthropological level, on this.. What do you think? Cheers! Baristarim 15:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re : Candidates Voting

Indeed. It only serves the mere purpose to "peer pressure" candidates into voting apathy. - Mailer Diablo 22:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It looks like he has decided to revert all my comments on it. Given history this is definitely not a good sign. - Mailer Diablo 22:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith ... I am not trying to peer pressure anyone into anything; I want to know if they are going to vote for fellow candidates or not, because that will affect how I make up my mind about who to vote for. That is the point of the question and answers, of course. Also, I do not see that this has anything to do with "Administrators open to recall" ... heck, I didn't even comment anywhere in that discussion you just linked. --Cyde Weys 23:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I thought you should know better than this, for you have spent so much effort in getting rid of divisive matters. I see this no different from asking on RfA the question : "There's an admin recall category, it is in the spirit of good admin candidates, what do you think of it...?". Please reconsider your question. - Mailer Diablo 23:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

I am a relatively new user. I got involved following the ArbCom elections as a crash Wikieducation. And it has been. Today, however, another editor acted, I believed, badly, but in my attempt to call him on it, I seem to have set off a minor Wikipisssingmatch, which was not my intention.

I have followed some very experienced editors for a month now, and I thought that knowing how they were voting would help me make my decisions (I still think it would), and was quite annoyed when I saw what looked like a push-poll being added to each page, and then the counterweight being deleted. However, these are experienced candidates, and each is independently answering "no, I will vote" "no, but I won't comment" "I will not oppose, but I will support" or "Yes, I will not vote" with the kinds of reasonable and responsible explanations I would expect from serious ArbCom members. That's as good as I'm getting, and it makes sense.

There has not been cross-discussion on the question pages until today; there should not be. (but jeez, how hard to insert a heading as a separator???)

And finally, I apologize for causing a ruckus and distracting anyone from the important election that will open in just a few days. Jd2718 01:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It's alright, don't worry too much or feel guilty about it. It definitely wasn't your fault. - Mailer Diablo 01:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do if something like this occurs in the future is to work directly with other users; you can do so via Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution. Try not to get others involved as all hell will break loose, as you have seen. But yeah, it wasn't your fault, so don't worry about it. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 03:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jd2718 :-) Your overall interest in the ArbCom election is a Good Thing! No worries about the above. Have a Great Day! Take care, --FloNight 12:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a bit of controversy before the vote is better than during the vote (when people will feel compelled to add little comments to their votes), and this election was bound to create controversies, and more are still to come I'm sure. NoSeptember 13:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Absolutely no apology needed, though as you can see, forest fires can spring up from seemingly nowhere. I think you were quite right to draw attention to this issue. Carcharoth 14:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Babi Yar

I left a comment at the discussion page, hope it helps.--Hillock65 05:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your vote against FloNight

I don't usually bug people about their votes, but you seem to be under the impression that FloNight has been an arbitration clerk for 3 years? She was appointed 3 months ago [1]; in fact, the clerk's office was only formed in January 2006. I do agree that too long an association with arbitration matters could produce burnout, but that's not the case here. Thanks. Thatcher131 16:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I could see sense in an argument that 3 years is too long for anyone to be exposed to the worst wikipedians on a daily basis; maybe make Arbcom an 18 month committment with 3 groups rotating at 6 month intervals. With the present set up I don't see enough difference between 36 months total service and 39 months to warrant a vote against. YMMV of course. Cheers. Thatcher131 17:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I have an idea. Would you be willing to support me if I agreed to end my term early by 3 months if you and the community wants me to do so at that time. I put that condition in because I wonder if you will want me to in 3 years. If you did, I would be willing to ask the community for feedback on the issue and then decide.
You see, I truly do not think that burnout will be a problem for me. In fact, I think that I will be less likely to have problems with stress related to the position because of my life experience dealing with difficult issues and difficult people. Most of my adult life (I'm 48 years old), I worked at very high stress jobs and learned early how to deal with the stress. Developing good coping skills to deal with difficult situations is an important life skill. The other factor is the low level of stress in my life now. Many Wikipedians are in the phase of their life where they are under stress from their schooling, starting their careers, starting their families, and so on. Right now my life is settled and I am not dealing with these issues.
Interested in hearing your thoughts on my above points. If you do not want to discuss it, that is okay too. Take care, FloNight 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think a commitment to consider ending your term in the middle of a year would be more disruptive than anything else. I would expect that three or four months of clerking, while providing experience with ArbCom processes, are no more likely to produce burnout than three or four months of any other intensive (but not necessarily ArbCom-related) role in the project. Plus, 2 3/4 years into a 3-year term, there is assuredly going to be someone any arbitrator has displeased with a decision urging him or her to leave, but that's hardly the voices that should be listened to.
As for Thatcher131's suggestion, I understand the reasons for the suggestion, but this ArbCom election process seems to be time-consuming once a year, let alone twice. If the current rate of turnover continues some change might have to be made but I don't think that is the one. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I see your point. I'm basicly trying to kick the can down the road and deal with it in 3 years instead of now. I honestly do not think that Jd2718 will still see this as an issue then. But if so, I think I can deal with the issue in a way that is not disruptive. ArbCom members leave the project on fairly long wikibreaks all the time. I do not see this being that different. Thanks for your thoughts, Newyorkbrad. I value hearing the opinion of the community on this matter. :-) --FloNight 17:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Jd2718 :-) I am looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts about this matter. FloNight 18:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: ArbCom Tally Stalled

So it has! Barely an hour and a half and I'm getting a message, do you guys just sit and watch it all day or something? The machine it's running on seems to have restarted itself for no particular reason; I'll have it back in a few seconds – Gurch 13:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reconsider

Okay, per Jimbo's comment I've reconsidered this. See here [2]. Since you brought this up I'd like your opinion on how to proceed from here, as the situation is at least midly confusing. Yours, (Radiant) 00:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Atlantic Branch

I just added two references. --NE2 01:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meetup NYC

Hey, just wanted to say hi and thank you for coming to the WikiMeetup in NYC this past weekend. —ExplorerCDT 04:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/d/2/User_talk%7EJd2718_3e6c.html"