User talk:Jabrwock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you the same Jabrwock who's a GP contributer? --Bakkster Man 16:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The same. :) Jabrwock 16:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Blanker

You know the anonymous user who blanked out the rebuttal for Thompson's "Pixelante"? He's done it at least twice. I reverted it the last thime he did it.--Vercalos 00:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re. Jack Thompson

Hey Jabrwok! Just wanted to commend you on the edits you're making over at Jack Thompson. You're making huge improvements to an article that was suffering some inherent bias problems. You're doing a lot of work i would be too lazy to do! Keep up the awesomeness! Melander 22:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I certainly think the man is a twit, but I also know that an obviously opinionated article won't help people to understand just how much of a twit he is... His actions speak for themselves, and if we can write a better article, people will realise that on their own. Jabrwock 22:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Monicasdude

Think we should report Monicasdude to the admin?--Vercalos 07:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah, only if he does it again. Maybe he was just flipping through pages under something like "Pages that are too long", and decided to slap a flag on them. It's only vandalism if he does it repeatedly. Jabrwock 14:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
So he has to do it to the same article multiple times? He did it to all the Jack Thompson subarticles.--Vercalos 20:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I did move all the sub-articles at once, so they would have shown up on the "recently moved pages" as a batch. As long as he doesn't do it again, I don't see a need to report him. Jabrwock 22:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I was reverting both. See my post on the talk page, when I initially posted the new version of the article, about the quality of sources expected for it. If they're not as good or better than a decent mainstream newspaper, then they're probably not good enough. --Michael Snow 17:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not restricted to print media. For example, I'm fairly confident that the CNN/Money column appeared only online. But in case of questions, it's up to you to establish why a source is credible and should be included. Forums and blog comments are right out, but niche online media that clearly have an agenda with respect to Thompson also have to be treated with great skepticism. --Michael Snow 17:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The "Modest Proposal" thing is currently in the "See Also" section, which is probably as much as it warrants if there's no more mainstream site that picked up on it. Thompson has been doing lots of things for over 15 years, so in order to remain manageable the article needs to have some perspective on what's important, instead of being used as a vehicle to promote certain things as more significant than they really are. Favoring mainstream sources in the basic article about him is one way to accomplish that. --Michael Snow 18:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive Jack Talk Pages

Can you Archive Jack's article Talk pages again? Some of the conversations from yesterday aren't really needed as they are mostly complaints, and its getting kinda long with us hashing out details on the article. If you can just weed out the dead stuff from yesterday. --Tollwutig 19:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)