User talk:Jerry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jerry (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)

This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jerry.

I am the user formerly known as Jerry_lavoie

Archives User talk:Jerry/Archive 1:Through January 2007 User talk:Jerry/Archive 2:Current Archive

To leave me a message CLICK HERE.

Or feel free to email me at: jerry@lavoie.com. Please be sure to preceed your message below with "==Section Heading==".

Please end your message with four tildes (~~~~), to append your wikisignature.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jerry/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

,

Anonymous comments left on this talk page are automatically signed by HagermanBot. If you do not wish to have the bot mark unsigned comments left by you, you may follow the instructions at opting out.

User Messages to Me:

Contents 1 Re: Infernal death (band) 2 Mccoy pottery 3 Barnstar 4 Reply 5 Welcome to VandalProof! 6 Thanks for the welcome. 7 User:Jamespeter19 8 Miscellaneous 9 C. S. Lewis links 10 RE: Choking game

[edit] Re: Infernal death (band)

Hi, there's no need to remove speedy tags from articles that are also at AfD. It speeds up the process if those articles are also listed at CAT:CSD (hence why I tagged it as well as commenting in the AfD). WjBscribe 02:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If the speedy process already ran its course without resolution, then the AfD should clear it up. If it did not have a chance to run its course, then the AfD was premature. The excessive taggage is unpleasant to readers. The encyclopedia IS for readers. Read User:Shanes/Why tags are evil Jerry 02:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It was speedy tagged after being nominated. The point being that if another editor after the nominator decides that it meets a speedy criteria, he is not bound by the decision to AfD of the nominator. An admin reviewing the speedy tag can then either delete the article or leave it to the AfD if he doesn't think a speedy criteria is made out. And deleting unencyclopedic content is more important than tagging aesthetics. Any deletion tag will pretty much ruin the encyclopedic feel of a page for the reader anyway. And you agreed this one was a speedy candidate... WjBscribe 02:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As you say, I agree to speedy deletion. What I object to is three (3) separate tag templates being placed on the article. The first one, the AFD, the second one, the Speedy, and a third one, a "another editor has expressed concern..." we could pile-on tags a mile high, and it does not really improve the process, it only serves to a) bite a newbiee who may have added an article that does not meet notability criteria out of ignorance, b) confuse the reader, and c) make wikipedia deletion processes look chaotic and ugly. The speedy deletion of the article seems certain, based on the AfD, and it does not harm anything for it to stick around while that process continues.... not a problem with WP:LIVING, or any other really urgent "lets start a forest fire to burn this thing" issue. Jerry 02:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The tags all provide information for the admin who reviews the article. They tell him that (a) an editor was concerned about the notbility of the subject, (b) an editor nominated the article for deletion and (c) that an editor believes it meets a speedy deletion criterion. All of those seem important bits of information and more important that the aesthetics of an article that is bound to be deleted. Note that deletion tags are not mentioned in the essay (User:Shanes/Why tags are evil) you refered me too. Please only remove speedy tags if you believe the speedy deletion criteria is not met. WjBscribe 02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

<tab reset>Well, I can see we are not likely to agree on this one. The spirit and intent of the essay clearly apply. If you just scan it for the words you'll not see them, but if you understand what the essay means, then you'll see that the tags inturrupt the encyclopedia browsing experience, and are certainly unnecessary. The AfD all by itself clearly addresses all concerns that suggest the article should be deleted. Additional commentary can be provided in the AfD, or the article talk page. The admin who needs information before closing the article deletion would most certainly read the AFD comments. All pertinent information can be placed there without placing an undue burden to the reader of the article. Jerry 02:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I think we'll have have to agree to disagree here :-). I think the essay omits deletion tags for a reason. And that deleting articles through CAT:CSD is the priority over AfDs (as it saves editor time in reviewing the article and commenting on an unecessary AfD). You disagree. Fair enough, its not as if there's policy on the matter... WjBscribe 02:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Shanes has made a comment about his take on my question about this discussion here. Jerry 16:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So I see. You didn't exactly present our disagreement neutrally... I don't plan to get into a discussion about the merits of New Page Patrol versus WP:BITE problems. Nor now the article has been deleted can I see how long after its creation each tag was placed. WjBscribe 17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I regret that you state I did not present our discussion neutrally. My comments on his essay talk were twofold in purpose: to ask him if his essay applies to what we talked about, and to begin a dialogue about future content for his essay. For that reason, additional context was added intentionally. I did provide a link to our actual discussion, and asked him to read it, so I did not feel it was necessary to recreate a faithful duplication of it on his page. I was not asking him to decide which of us was "right", just asking him if stacking of templates associated with wikipedia deletion procedures and maintenance tagging was also among the things he was describing in his essay. Jerry 17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Here's the catch. AFD trumps PROD, so an article that is on both gets discussed via AFD. Other than that articles that are (1) speedies or (2) copyvios can be deleted regardless of circumstances. Indeed, articles on AFD are not infrequently speedied and discussion closed. Borderline speedies that are on AFD should be discussed there, and borderline speedies that already had an AFD discussion resulting in a keep (or lack of consensus) shouldn't be speedied. >Radiant< 08:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Some articles suffer from tag overflow; this is generally an indication that something is Really Wrong with the article. I don't see how it hurts anything (except that the tags themselves are overly large and in need of pruning). Also, it's quite common to add {{cleanup}}-related templates as a result of an AFD. >Radiant< 11:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mccoy pottery

Hello Jerry. I have seen you have replaced links I removed to non compling sites. I am aware we have had previous discussions about one of these. However you did not continue with your suggestion of further input, such as mediation. Please do not put these back. These sorts of sites are not acceptable by Wikipedia policies.ThanxTheriac 10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there you go again saying "Per wikipedia policies". I have repeatedly asked you to provide a relevant policy link and to state a specific policy. If you will review the edit history on the article in question, you will see that when you removed these links you were not logged-in. I had no way of knowing it was you again, as I did not know your IP Address. My last comment to you was that if you wanted to bring the issue to RFC we could, but I was unwilling to only include the link in the McCoy article, so as a compromise, I suggested not using any specific links, but rather just asking the question about the link inclusion policy. You never replied. As you know the policies do not say these links are not allowed in specific language; your interpretation and my interpretation of a rather vague policy are not in agreement. I will re-add the links, and if you still want them removed, we will have to bring the issue before RFC. Jerry 11:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		This is for being a very, very, very kind editor!!! Have a nice week and god bless you and everyone you know:) James, La gloria è a dio 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please comment on my talk page. I am also very lazzy so i do not check others talk pages where I commented. Also thanks for the barnstar you gave me in January!!! Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

It's protected until the edit warring parties have reached a compromise. Until then, you can use {{editprotected}} for any suggested changes you have. John Reaves (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I refuse to use edit protected. So if the warring parties never agree to compromise, then this article stays protected indefinately? That seems a horrible display of poor judgement or your part. I am disappointed in your decision. As editors exhibit uncivil behavior more and more of our encyclopedia will become broken if people make decisions as you have. I look forward to you changing your mind. Jerry 22:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Jerry! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the welcome.

Thanks for the welcome - Shaionara.

[edit] User:Jamespeter19

Thank you for reverting vandalism by this user. However, please do not use the "last warning" tags unless the user has been previously warned on the talk page. They hold no merit if the user needs to be blocked and if anything, make it harder to block them, since an escalating system of warnings is required. Its a lot of asinine red tape I know but unfortunately we have to live with it for now.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous

hi this is ertman92

--ratboy 18:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)me again how old are you

He didn't re-add it, I did. COPPA is under-13 only, so no "excessive personal information" is being divulged that could get us into legal trouble. Unless you're trying to claim that anyone under 18 can't post information about their ages, which is absurd. --tjstrf talk 18:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policies, and indeed my own policy for my talk page, can be more restrictive than COPPA. I cited Wikipedia:Youth protection, which does not specifically state an age, it just uses the generic term "child". The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier". ^[1] Since there is no useful purpose beneficial to editing wikipedia for his age to be posted on my talk page, I do not want it there. I believe this is a reasonable decision on my part, as it only pertains to pages in my user space. Jerry 18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

While I concede that, with the usual WP:OWN caveats, you are allowed to alter postings on your own talk page, I don't think posting a forboding message to his talk page was particularly helpful or friendly of you. Especially not one based on his being below the age of legal majority. UN definitions dealing with Child Exploitation laws aside, the standard definition for child is "pre-pubescent". Wikipedia has no policy at all on the issue, and even the current administrative agreement of asking the very young to remove personal data and offering to delete it from history for them isn't applied to 14 year olds. --tjstrf talk 21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There's simply no purpose for this user to post his age on my talk page. I never interacted with him before, and I do not want/ need to know that kind of personal detail, especially about a minor. As a single 30-something male US citizen, I have no business getting into conversations with 14-year old boys that start out with "Hi, I'm 14 years old"... sounds too much like a possible sting. I go well above and beyond the legal requirements of COPPA to ensure there is no reason to question anything. That is my choice, as it applies to my user space, and I stand behind it. Jerry 21:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

hi i want to talk to you--ratboy 17:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C. S. Lewis links

Hi Jerry. Thanks for you recent edits on the C.S. Lewis article. Can I suggest in future than you think twice before using gimmicks such as link suggestion tools? Many of the links added are not terribly relevant to the article, and some are totally inaccurate. For instance, James Lewis was not the father of C.S. Lewis, yet he is linked to him in the article. Context is the most important thing when deciding on links, and this is something only a person can do. Martin 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The tool is not automated in any way. It just makes suggestions that the user then checks as "yes" "no" or "not sure". I usually actually look at the linked page, unless it seems really straight-forward from it's title. I do not consider my editing using the online linking tool to be "a gimmick". MoS:L does not provide extremely specific guidance on what to link and what not to link, so I guess it is really a matter of preference (read: opinion)as to whether certain links meet the criteria of "relevant to the article" and "that a reader would want to follow". I certainly believe that after my edits the article was better off, and that it had less than 10% of its words linked. I understand you disagree with some of the added links. Feel free to revert them. As to the specific link for James Lewis, you are correct about that one being inappropriate. Perhaps a review of my contributions will show you that I do more good than harm, and the few errors which do occur are easily corrected when pointed-out. Thanks, Jerry 22:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jerry, thanks for the reply. I'm sorry if my comment seemed a bit harsh; it certainly wasn't my intention to cast aspersions on your ability as an editor, nor would I ever do so. I was merely pointing out the downfalls of the system you were employing. It's not something that would particularly appeal to myself, but if you feel it improves your productivity, I can hardly disagree with that.

Anyhow, I hope you didn't take any offence at my comment, and I hope we'll see you on the C. S. Lewis article in future. When the page was up for GA candidacy, all the other regular contributors seemed to be on holiday, so I had to work on it myself to get it up to the required standard. It'd be nice to have another pair of capable hands around the place! Take care, Martin 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Choking game

I wasnt addingnonsense to that page, i was merely adding a comment i thought should have been added. One ofmy friends died because of this stupid game, i just wanna make people aware of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.189.71.195 (talk • contribs).