User talk:JDG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

archive1/ archive2

Contents

[edit] User categories for deletion

A word of advice. Adding "The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space." to a large number of UCfd debates is not helpfull, and will probably hinder keeping some user categories that should be kept. --Bduke 09:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"A word of advice" - I like that. Have you noticed that three individuals (Dmcdevit, ^demon and Horologium) are leaving identical DELETE messages on even more entries than I am? I'm just trying to even things up a bit. Somebody has to do something, as these Deletionists are running wildly over the whole project. Wikipedia's role in the world is to be a Compendium of Everything, no matter how trivial. Sadly and ironically, this insight is quite rare among Wikipedians... Have you left words of advice for the three listed? JDG 14:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm getting tarred with the "identical deletes" brush, even though every single one of my entries is composed individually after consideration, and unlike some of the editors (on both sides) I actually !vote to keep some categories, delete others, and merge still other categories. Yes, most of my !votes are to delete, because most of the categories under discussion serve no function other than socialization, in my opinion. Unlike you, I actually LOOKED at all of the categories in which I voted, noted categories that have only one or two members (or NONE, in a couple of cases) and looked for appropriate target categories for merges for a few. There are a lot of cats in which I did not !vote, because I don't have an opinion one way or the other. If I was the mindless automaton you describe, I'd vote the same way in every single category. Extreme inclusionism is just as deleterious to the encyclopedia as extreme deletionism, or extremes of any of the other flavors of editorial preference; I look for a balance, and occasionally change my mind, when presented with substantive evidence. And Wikipedia is not intended to be a "compendium of everything", it is intended to be an encyclopedia, which is why some stuff gets deleted.Horologium t-c 15:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so you're an extreme balancer. Really, I'm not just playing with words. You probably admire the ancient Greek admonition "Everything in moderation", which I've always found absurd and self-contradictory, as one would then be practicing moderation to an extreme. Again, this is not word play and it goes to the core of the difference between us... You are wrong that "[Wikipedia] is intended to be an encyclopedia", or rather, you're correct that that was the original intention and that most still latch onto that word when they must label this crazy thing-- but the fact is that it has been a CoE for quite some time now, and the sooner everyone from Jimbo on down understands this, the sooner we can resolve all these thousands of disputes that spring from this erroneous idea of the project's raison d'être... You admire yourself because you look at each cat and weigh the issues before you !vote (what's with the exclamatory, man?). Well, sorry, but I don't find this too incredibly admirable. My position is consistent: non-encyc space should only be subject to the lightest regulation, as a matter of principle. This principle, by extension, would leave all of these user lists intact, simply because they are in non-encyc space and one or more Wikipedians want them. So I am being perfectly thoughtful and consistent by leaving carpet Keep votes, particularly as an offset to people of opposite conviction (and so necessarily wrong, by my lumens)... Nope, this idea of universal balance isn't something I can hold truck with. In the New York and Chicago of the mid-1800s there were a number of divided camps regarding the kinds of buildings that would be allowed. New technology had made previously unthinkable heights possible. One group said "Nothing above 4 floors". Another said, "Nothing above 6 floors", and so on basically in two-floor increments up to 20 or even !22 floors. And one group... one group said "Nothing below our imagination!". Now, Horologium, if our ancestors had adopted your (I'm sorry, but your name begs for it) Horrible Logic, and carefully sifted "the evidence" to arrive at "a balance", they would have built cities capped at the median of the heights advocated by these numerous groups-- probably something on the order of 8 floors. This is where your "moderation in all things" philosophy lands you: in 8-story "skyscrapers" and ugly sprawl all over the planet (or, in Wikipedia terms, ugly endless arguments about what to include and exclude). The answer is to build as high as you possibly can, whether it be buildings or Wikipedias. Our ancestors finally woke up to this and nearly all joined the "Nothing below our imagination" camp, which corresponds to today's Inclusionists of Wikipedia, and we have gleaming cities kissing the sky, holding out the hope that the human contagion will not spread to choke the earth, but will stack itself vertically, sparing the rest of creation from the devastation of our horizontal spread. Come, join us, and the whir-hur-uh-urld will be as One. JDG 16:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
(slight outdent to separate from comments above and below) First off, you are misconstruing the meaning of my username (badly) if you think it has anything to do with either horrible or logic (although the second half does have the same Greek root as logic, it is used in a significantly different sense). Second, you are using a rather singular definition of Wikipedia, since you apparently believe that everyone else, from Jimbo Wales on down, is misinformed as to the purpose of this project. Perhaps you should re-evaluate, because it is more likely that the error lies in your perception, rather than that of all the others. Third, I don't always believe that moderation is a good thing (cf the second half of Barry Goldwater's famous quote, with which I agree; however, moderation does have its place, and extremism does have its flaws). Fourth, ignoring all the rules results in anarchy, not freedom; some structure is necessary in any organization (hence the name) or collaborative effort, and runaway categorization for the sake of categorization hinders efforts to keep Wikipedia from becoming a chaotic mess. Horologium t-c 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Deletion debates should be based on policy, not what you think should be policy. To vote based on what you think Wikipedia should hold as policy borders on WP:POINT. And you need to explain how these categories, when they serve no collaborative purpose, don't violate WP:NOT#SOCIALNET or WP:NOT#MYSPACE. And what the hell do you mean by CoE? Morgan Wick 17:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Holy Cow, in Googling for my own earlier definitions of CoE, I came upon http://en.citizendium.org, Larry Sanger's vision of Wikipedia! I had no idea he had started his own fork. The intro sentence is "The Citizendium (sit-ih-ZEN-dee-um), a "citizens' compendium of everything," is an experimental new wiki project.", which is hilarious, because Larry makes Jimbo look like an uber Inclusionist... I'll get back to you on the proper definition of a CoE. As for your other points, sorry, but I cannot take them very seriously. If one feels policy has strayed far from what is best for the project, one is left with no choice but to lobby for correction. This is only a violation of WP:POINT to those who are "disrupted" by the mere expression of opinion. In fact, WP:POINT should be one of the first out the window. JDG 17:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Nothing's stopping you from writing a Wikipedia essay or proposed policy. But trying to barge your opinion into debates when your opinion is based in changing policy goes against the whole spirit of the debate sections and falls under WP:POINT. Morgan Wick 18:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but by way of explanation - the ! prefix comes from computer science, in which ! is, in many languages, the NOT operator. So, for example, x != 3 would be read as "x is not equal to 3." So "!vote" (pronounced, I suppose, "not-vote") is shorthand indicating that we're in theory not actually voting (though in many cases, of course, we are). Actually, now that I read that back, it just sounds confusing. Sorry to clutter your talk page. MastCell Talk 17:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No prob, Mast. It gets lonely cluttering my talk page all by my self... I originally thought he was doing the boolean NOT, but in some cases it would have meant I "not-not-not vote", so I dropped that theory. Then I noticed another user (User:Blast_san) has a "!vote" on that page. Either he's clued in to Horo's thing, or he's being humorous too.. Maybe they mean "Bang Vote", but mean "Bang" to be Bold. JDG 17:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's not "my" thing, since I adopted it after seeing the convention used throughout the xfD sections. I quickly understood the meaning of the concept (I'm not a programmer, but I have some familiarity with programming conventions, after 15+ years of working with automatic test equipment of various sorts). It's just a subtle way of reinforcing that AfD is no longer VfD, as it was back when you were a Wikipedia newbie. Horologium t-c 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. My comment at the top finally brought in a rush of comments. My point was that adding the same comment to a whole lot of debates does not help your cause. I added it after I added an argument for keep, that was specific to that particular debate, just after your general comment. I suspect that the admin closing the debate will respect my comment and ignore yours. Finally, I agree with others above. If you do not like the policies of WP, argue on their talk pages. Doing so at XfD is just disruptive. --Bduke 22:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You guys are so super-duper sensitive. Why are you "disrupted" by words on a screen that contain no threats or invective? I mean, it's not a matter of your having to grow thick skins-- you just need some skin. And I ask you again: did you leave words of advice for the Deletionists also leaving bot-like votes? JDG 03:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It's disruptive because most of the people there are discussing the merits (some arguing to keep and some arguing to delete, with a preponderance of the latter) and then you throw a temper tantrum because you don't like what some people are saying. If you had actually contributed a substantive comment, instead of what amounted to spam, nobody would have said anything. And while it wasn't mentioned in the project page, there *is* a discussion about the sudden upsurge in deletions on the talk page, as well as an entire comment thread on Dmcdevit's page at User talk:Dmcdevit#WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose., in which he is taken to task for the identical verbiage in his nominations (so yes, there have been comments left with the "Deletionists"). Horologium t-c 04:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] God thread on WP:ANI

  • I'd like to know exactly what offends you about it. JuJube 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I just explained it, briefly, on that page. JDG 17:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black on black violence

Hey, your Nuclear Energy userbox was messed up by a guy who changed the color of the radiation warning symbol-- he turned it black & now it disappears into your black background... But u may wanna take this oppty to create a different NE box. We supporters of nuclear energy aren't too keen on having the radiation warning symbol as a symbol for the technology. One reason I'm for N Power is that, if new plants are finally built in the US, it will radically cut down on combustion of fossil fuels, leading to reduction in greenhouse gases, cutting down on global warming etc.,. Maybe a closeup of the distinctive curved lip of many Nuclear Power plant cooling silos, with birds perched on the edge.. you get my drift. JDG 16:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of User:Disavian/Userboxes/Nuclear Power ? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I like that. I like that envirocraze green, as Nuclear Power actually helps the environment more than all the stuff they support put together. JDG 19:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Che Guevara personal attack

Since you have commented there without addressing my concerns, I am requesting you apologize and explain your continued personal attacks in that talk page.--Cerejota 12:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you not see my apology?? JDG 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You mean the one in which lump me with other editors I have nothing to do with and again repeat the original slander? Are you serious?--Cerejota 01:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't repeat my original statement, which was far, far, far, far short of slander. If you are this over-sensitive in real life, I will say an atheist's prayer for those close to you, as they must need to tiptoe about in your presence and strictly edit all that they say for fear of offending you deeply with something most people would wave away with a laugh. For instance, they might innocently mention you in a list with two or three others who have this or that in common with you and suddenly you jump at them, complaining bitterly about being "lumped with others", as if that is a horrible thing. I will not apologize again to someone who cannot accept sincere apologies. JDG 05:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Again you misrepresent. I am not angry at being lumped together with people I have things in common with. I am angry at being lumped with people I obviously had nothing in common with, and don't even know. Please stop misrepresenting me.
In the context provided, your apologies are not understood as sincere, but if they where, what is wrong with a clarification? --Cerejota 04:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Dylan‎

The Bob Dylan article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shroud of Turin nominated for Featured Article Review

Shroud of Turin has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. PeterSymonds | talk 19:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Scram (disambiguation), User talk:R9tgokunks

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 18:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

R9tgokunks-- I've been a Wikipedia editor from before you even knew how to goosestep. To include original German words in a short disambig sentence on the U.S. slang term "scram" is like insisting on a paragraph detailing the development of aluminum in a short description of the toaster-- it's going back generations to include info everyone knows is implicit. Your deutschemania is leading you down the primrose path to another l-o-n-g block. JDG

[edit] Are you still around?

No edits within the last month...are you still managing your illness? 20:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nytimes sago mine2.gif

Thank you for uploading Image:Nytimes sago mine2.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)