Talk:Jesse James Garrett/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Criticism Section

  • Doesn't public reaction to the Ajax article belong on the Ajax page, rather than this one? Unsigned comment by anonymous T-Moble user 208.54.15.1
  • JJG has many critics. One need only do a google search to find this out. Its only right that this criticism be reflected in the wikipedia. Sleepnomore 15:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Modified some of the language to be more neutral in point of view. Jesse James Garrett is a relative unknown in the business apart from the term AJAX that is now widely used. Several parts of the topic included language that glorified Jesse James Garrett well beyond his status in the business. Please provide other arguments and proof here if you disagree. Sleepnomore 13:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • In spite of your overarching hatred of the term Ajax, Sleepnomore, I think that the information in the article speaks pretty clearly to Garrett's notoriety. First of all, Garrett published a book that's been influential within both the web design community and the much larger information architecture community (reviews: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]). Second, he's written essays for online design publications that reach thousands of users; Digital Web Magazine alone has nearly 750,000 unique visitors a month ([7]), and is widely considered to be a daily read for people in the web design and information architecture community. Third, his article about Ajax undoubtedly reached notoriety, something reinforced by the vitriol you've displayed on the issue. And lastly, throughout your rants against Ajax here, there've yet to be others to come out and claim that Garrett is an unknown in the industry, because it's a laughable notion. So I guess this is all my way of saying that your criticism of Garrett himself is far, far away from reaching the bar of ubiquity that's required to make it into an article here on WP. (Oh, and I love that in your edit summaries, you steadfastly claim that deletion of your criticism is vandalism, when it's a much more tenable argument that it's your criticism itself that's the vandalism.) Jason 15:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Despite what you may feel about his accomplishments, Mr Garrett still has critics. It is only appropriate in the name of a neutral point of view that Mr Garretts article represent both viewpoints. I only claim vandalism of the page based on the fact that each time the sections are deleted, so is the talk page. Its an obvious attempt to remove any evidence that this side of Mr Garrett exist. Sleepnomore 01:44, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • This is just tilting at windmills. I've cited sources for my viewpoint, and you have yet to do anything of the sort; your only "citation" is an exhortation that "one need only do a google search." So do that search, find reputable claims of criticism of Mr. Garrett himself (note that that's not criticism of Ajax, but of Mr. Garrett, since this article is about him), and provide those citations. Let them be peer-reviewed by all of us here. But until you do that, I'll continue to remove your criticisms; without citations and support by others, they're baseless. Jason 13:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • And now I see that again you've reverted the page, re-adding your criticism without replying to anything here. This is the very same behavior you've railed against others for doing. You again called my deletion of your criticism section vandalism -- despite your claim above that the only reason you have called it vandalism in the past is that people deleted the talk page whenever they deleted your criticism. This time, I clearly added justification to this talk page for my changes, but instead of replying, you again reverted the page and called it vandalism. I'm not sure what more I can do; I've tried reason, and I've tried discussion, to no avail. Jason 16:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
        • My sincerest appologies. You've vandalized the page so many times without so much as a talk, I simply reverted without looking at the history. Obviously this was an error on my part. Your attempt to make it sound like you've been reasonable falls on its face as this was the very first of SEVERAL attempts to wipe the history from this page as well as the criticism. I've addressed your comments in thread form here so please see my responses. Sleepnomore 19:38, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • The only changes I've made to any page on Wikipedia, I've done logged in as myself and attributed as such on the correct Talk pages. So please don't accuse me of making all the prior changes; that wasn't me. As I've shown here, I'm more than willing to work through proper methods of resolving disputes, and I'm not one to blank pages, anonymously or otherwise. Jason 20:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment, in light of my request for a third opinion: It's clear from your contribution history, Sleepnomore, that you have a problem with AJAX; your repeat edits of that page show your feelings, as does your attempt to start a JAXASS page (subsequently VfDed). I certainly don't claim that you don't have the right to your opinion on the subject of Ajax, but to let that spill over into this page -- that of the author of an article coining the term Ajax -- is a disservice to Wikipedia. I've asked a few times for justification and/or citations for your criticism (other than that it's clearly your dearly-held belief); point out published criticism of Garrett (valid criticism, something that's separated from weblog banter), and I'd be happy to relent in my insistence that this page remain clean of innuendo. But please don't continue silent reversions and readditions, because it does nobody any good. Jason 17:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Considering that you've only tried once to resolve this issue after continually vandalizing and ignoring comments I've left here, you'r arguments are a bit flat. I sincerely appologize if I did in fact revert the last time without looking at the history. After seeing this habit so many times I simply assumed the same had happened yet again. You are right to call me out on that and its my duty to appologize. Now, appologies aside, lets get a few things straight. I'm not arguing the validity of this article. I'm not stating that it shouldn't be here. The items you've cited as evidence of Mr Garretts fame arguably grant him the priviledge to have his name recorded in encyclopedic fashion. I've not given Mr Garrett a VfD message. I've simply provided balanced data about his status. The criticism I've added relates to his naming of Ajax, so any argument made against Ajax itself as a marketing ploy are valid criticisms of Jesse James Garrett. Despite that fact, there have been numerous criticisms made to both Jesse James Garrett and his company, Adaptive Path, for claiming an 'ancient' technology to be new. I'm not going to cite the criticism repeatedly as I've told you my main source and even the keywords used. You can do your own homework and prove that no citicism possibly exists for Mr Garrett since you are the perpetrator who is deleting content. The burdon of proof is on you. I've nothing wrong with your editing the criticism to a NPOV if you feel it somehow unfairly slants the article. The fact is that the criticism exists (I'm living proof, and we wouldn't be having this discussion if it didn't exist). Wikipedia is not your marketing tool to promote Mr Garrett. This is a place for factual information -- good or bad. Sleepnomore 19:38, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
          • See above -- I have never once made a change to this or any page while not logged in as myself, so please don't make accusations that I've done otherwise. Likewise, I'm not a marketer for Mr. Garrett, only someone who has worked in the field long enough to feel qualified to contribute to his article and to the debate surrounding it. (Any implications that I am otherwise are resented; again, please provide evidence before making accusations like this.) As for the criticism section, your opinion alone does not warrant an entry in Wikipedia, for the same reason that, say, my hatred of Jessica Simpson doesn't let me put a section on her page saying that she's a fraud. Instead, the feeling embodied by your opinion needs to be backed up by evidence and reason -- and it's nobody's job to find this evidence, or provide this reason, but your own. (In fact, as the community ethic here at Wikipedia so goes, it's our job to do the opposite -- check articles and remove baseless opinion from them until such opinion is backed up by evidence and reason.) So, in your own words: "This is a place for factual information", so again, please provide factual basis for that information and I'll back off. Jason 20:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
            • You've already outed the fact that it was you that deleted the pages the other times based on your comments here. "This time, I clearly added justification to this talk page for my changes, but instead of replying, you again reverted the page and called it vandalism.". I'm not going to attack the merrits of your skills as this isn't the appropriate forum to do that. It is all-together rediculous that a well-known opinion of both Ajax and Mr Garrett's coining of the term are neccessary to provide that opinion. However, since you are insistent, I'll provide at least five instances from technology professionals that I know of: [One], [Two], [Three (my own)], [Four],[Five]. If you want more, you'll have to do your own work. Sleepnomore 15:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
              • Seriously, I again take offense at your accusation that I'm making anonymous, sockpuppet edits. Read whatever you want into my words, Sleepnomore, and think I've done anything you want to think I have; my only mistake appears to have been to try to apply reason and logic to this conflict. This here -- this debate, this entire process -- is why I've been so shy to participate in the Wikipedia in the past, and why I have yet to be convinced that this is anything but low-yield and high-noise. The fact that a persistent user with a huge grudge and a bit of free time can continue to pollute the waters makes the commons useless. Jason 22:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Dispute

  • I removed the disputed section from criticism after citing proof of what the criticism was about and that criticism was abundant on the web -- not just the act of one person. Additionally, there was no information added to this talk page to support the dubious claim. Feel free to re-add the dubious claim once you find evidence to support the fact that criticism doesn't exist. - Sleepnomore 18:25, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • User has once again added a dubious mark on a section without providing evidence or making a claim whatsoever in the talk page. Reverting. - Sleepnomore 21:11, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yet again user added dubious mark without justification and copyright material on the page. - Sleepnomore 21:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wrong. The so called copyrighted material was surrounded by quotations (thus the little marks "" around them) which was an attempt to show that the links you have provided do not constitute evidence of anything but ridiculous ranting. My personal favorite? "this "AJAX" buzzword makes me want to puke" Do you see the quotation marks? Do you see that it links to the site where it came from, thus giving proper credit as a sited source? Do you see that it pretty much sums up the complaints of the author? Do you see that it is, in fact, a prejudical remark that has no business being counted as evidence of legitimate criticism? How come you are the only one who decides what can be done and what can't here? Do you own wikipedia or something? Personally, I have never seen anyone act so arrogantly. Thank you, Jason, for keeping a level head. I am having trouble doing so. Jesse is a friend of mine, and I am finding this whole thing ridiculous. This guy has no legitimate reason for his complaints. Thank you, Paul, for the link to Sleepnomore's book. Perhaps someone will give him a taste of his own medicine. Michael
  • I'm still unconvinced that there's sufficient criticism of Mr. Garrett himself to warrant a complete section on this page; the POV of your own criticial link aside, two of the other links were mainly criticial of the term Ajax, and the other two links were to general root websites without any clear indication of which posts were relevant to the debate. For now, there's a criticism section on the Ajax page itself that I've pointed to in the more concise section here. Jason 22:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The links added today, to support the Criticism section, are to mainly to posts to articles, and are prejudicial and parsimonious (not to mention pugilistic!) It seems some people don't like the word, and they are attempting to take their frustrations out on a wiki. This is not a forum for criticism per se. An encyclopedia is a forum for information, not how people feel about said information. - Keiko
      • I have to say, the entire Criticism section is, at the very least, quite dubious. After reading what is on this talk page, and the transparent criticism linked to in the parent page (I should mention the "criticism" is hardly anything but puerile ranting), it appears as if someone, perhaps a wiki administrator, dislikes Mr. Garrett and is blatently obvious in his attempts to discredit him. The dubious mark should be added back to the Criticism section until the dispute is settled. - Jinsei
  • This all has my eyeballs rolling. Personally, I happen to agree with the criticism that is not inflammatory, what little there is of it. But does it warrant an entire section dedicated to it on someone's personal page? No, I don't think so. The criticism on Slashdot was in the proper place: in posts made to the article. Yes, the criticism exists. As I said, I am one such critic. No, it is not deserving of the kind of attention Sleepnomore is giving it. From what I can tell here, it is YOU, Sleepnomore, that is taking a personal (perhaps obsessive) interest in creating this so called Criticism section, and it is YOU that has taken up some sort of personal crusade against Jesse Garret. What you are doing is just plain wrong. Try turning the tables for a minute. How would you feel if someone made a personal crusade against your own work, if they made posts on criticizing your books and dedicated web pages to revealing you as a fraud, when, in fact, as it is here, the claims were basically unfounded? Or perhaps they had cause to criticize you calling yourself a "software engineer." I happen to know a few mechanical, electrical, and aerospace engineers that actually take issue with such a title. What exactly do you think you are engineering? Electrons? Magnetic fields? The title is a product of marketing, an attempt to give credence to a field by calling it engineering, when in fact that field has nothing to do with engines, machines or structures. You should take a step back while you still can, before someone starts with you what you have apparently started with someone else: a meaningless battle for notoriety. You are not helping anyone, and in fact, in the end, you are hurting yourself. After seeing what you've done (JAXASS, etc.) it'll be a wonder if anyone ever takes you seriously again. Shame on you. Paul
  • Honestly, I understand your point. People hate having their bad side shown in public. If someone dislikes my books, they are free to post a bad review on the book, and some have already with previous books. That's their right to do so. I don't make anything from my books, so its not that a bad review would sincerely make a difference. I've had someone post reviews where I was slammed and called names before. While their criticism was a bit immature and unfounded, it existed non-the-less. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Whatever your feelings are on what level of credence to give to blog entries, they exist and are proof of another side of a story. Put your emotions aside and realize that's the job of Wikipedia -- to provide a neutral point of view -- one that depicts everyone's feelings on the subject. I suppose you would have done well in pre-war Iraq. You would threaten to take action against someone if they didn't comply with your wishes. You would squash any bad publicity about yourself and your entorage and replace it with flowery speeches and pictures of kids giving you hugs. Removing this section is a rediculous request. While you are at it, go remove the criticism section from Michael Moore, Bill Gates, and Bill Clinton or anyone else you like. I tell you what. You tell us how you think the rest of us should use Wikipedia just so we know exactly what you have in mind. Obviously, the entire wikipedia community has it wrong. Your threats are received, and honestly, they don't scare me and I'm anxious to see you do your worst. - Sleepnomore 14:27, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not sure if you are directing this towards me... me the one that has already done my "worst," which is to say, I took the liberty of adding a Criticism section to your own wiki. And, hey! Low and behold it has been removed! And not by some neutral 3rd party that saw it as ridiculous and unfounded, but by you, which simply lets us all know that you are a hypocrite. The job of the encyclopedia entry IS NOT to "depict everyone's feelings on the subject." What you are talking about is an Editorial. Do you understand the difference? Michael
      • Actually, this was not removed by me, and I wasn't even aware that it was removed. Additionally, I can see that you added "criticism" to my talk page and someone else removed it before I even saw it. This is a continued attempt by you to threaten someone into removing honest criticism of Mr Garrett. Once again, I really could care less what you say about me. If you want to make an article about me that is nothing but criticism, I'm all for it. Let the criticism fly and I'm sure I'll find it as entertaining as the rest of your antics thus far! - Sleepnomore 00:59, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Seriously, Sleepnomore, this is over the top. Every time you revert someone's edit of your criticism section, you tell them to take it to the talk page. I did that yesterday, editing the section, removing your falsely-attributed quote and your biased link to your own critical weblog post, and you reverted the page even though I had explained myself here. Since then, others have agreed with me, and your reply is that you use Wikipedia differently, and you're "anxious to see you do your worst." And then to top it all off, you convinced someone to lock this page. It's time for an RfC, methinks. Jason 01:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm all fo ran RfC. I would venture to say that anyone who looks at the issue will see that you and "Michael" aka Catmistake aka anonymous IP have gone over the top in vandalising and making threats. I welcome some third party intervention in your behavior. - Sleepnomore 00:59, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • You think? lol Someone needs to shut Sleepnomore down. This guy is a menace. Sarah 18:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Page Unlock Proposal

Sleepnomore appears to have proposed an unlocking of this page, something I can agree to under the terms that he expressed in that comment. That is to say, to be clear: I'm completely in agreement that the anonymous users coming in and repeatedly deleting content wholesale without so much as a word of explanation is wrong. But in the case of this page, that is not entirely what has happened; while there were anonymous users coming in to do so, there were also users like me making real, factual, and bold edits to the page trying to keep it NPOV while also acknowledging other views. And while I originally felt that there was absolutely no place for criticism on the page, I'm now willing to say that a sentence or two acknowledging and clarifying the focus of the criticism might be fine, but it needs to stay NPOV and needs to refrain from perpetuating falsehoods like nonexistent quotes and links to weblog posts by the editor embodying a particular point of view. In that vein, I edited the page two days ago, and feel that despite them being reverted rather quickly, those edits would stand up to these precepts well. Heck, I'll even happily help Sleepnomore revert wholesale vandalism-via-silent-deletion, but no matter what, I strongly feel that what cannot continue to take place is the continued reversions in the name of vandalism prevention without any exploration of whether actual vandalism is occurring. Jason 22:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The page was locked because of the constant removal of the Criticism section (which is all what is taking place at articles relaxing to Ajax, diff [8]). There is also a proposal to unlock that page too, but I am not sure how that is even going. But, once I locked the page, the annons who keep on wanting the criticism have not come out here and talked on why they want it to be removed. And once I unlock the page, I bet you the same crap that took place that caused me to lock it in the first place will cause me to lock it again. I think more discussion should take place before I or others might even think about unlocking it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I understand your point, but don't get how additional discussion will prevent anonymous people from continuing to behave badly, or prevent logged-in users from making reverts in the name of preventing vandalism while never checking to see if what they're reverting was actually vandalism. So as a solution, I'm hopeful that being more reasonable about the proposed criticism (not deleting it, but also not giving it an entire section or providing inflammatory links) will satisfy all sides; that's why I proposed an edit similar to the one I made two days ago. I again stress that this isn't something that we should take our time deciding, though -- the page is locked in a particularly bad state, one which includes a pointedly biased link and a false quotation, both of which are Bad Things. Jason 23:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
While having links to every single bit a critcism is a bit of a overkill, I just think three references of people behind reminded that Ajax, in various other forms, have been around before Mr. Garrert started calling it Ajax. Plus, what do yall even consider a false quotation. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think you are on to something here! Maybe Wikopedia, as far as any individual, living or dead, or any subject, for that matter, should have a mandatory "Criticism" section, with every single possible bit (no pun intended) of criticism that is internet-available linked to... (Just as is current for JJG right now)... I think this would appease Sleepnomore... .
Then again, perhaps we should leave Wikopedia alone in this regard, and only have Criticism sections available, for individuals, when criticism is actually part and parcel with the individual... (still can't believe George W and M$ don't have criticism sections) , and maybe, perhaps, define better what is vandalism... to include adding a criticism section to that criteria (when, of course, none is warrented, as in this very case).Michael
To address each in part: (1) what you talk about is not criticism of Mr. Garrett, but criticism of the term Ajax. I'm fine with that criticism being represented here at Wikipedia, but not on the page about Mr. Garrett. Instead, on his page, it'd be fine to mention that the term he created caused controversy -- but for Sleepnomore to be the one writing that, and then to link to his own site in support (link #4 in the current incarnation of the page), is disingenuous. (2) The current page has the following in quotation marks: "a new class of dynamic web applications", and the quotation is a link to Mr. Garrett's Adaptive Path article -- but the quotation does not appear anywhere in that article! In fact, that quotation does not exist anywhere in the world except here on Wikipedia. (Go ahead, Google it.) My edit from two days ago was, in part, to remove that quotation, but it was reverted as vandalism. (3) I'm not sure who you are referring to by "y'all"; I'm the only one who's talking, and I speak only for myself. Jason 00:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
When I use "yall," I mean everyone involved. However, if a majority of the criticism is over the program itself, is there a possibility we could merge both articles together? As for the comment that there is no criticism sections on both Bush and Microsoft articles, Microsoft has their own page of criticisms, see Common_criticisms_of_Microsoft. Bush's criticisms can be seen at articles about his first term, second term, and also at George_W._Bush#Public_perception_and_assessments.) Once we have come up with a decision, I can unlock the page. However, I think that the Ajax and JJG's article could be merged into one. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with a merger; Jesse James Garrett's article clearly shows that he's notable even without one whit of Ajax involvement. He's written one of the seminal IA books, and is published well beyond his Ajax article; in fact, his individual Wikipedia article was created in January 2005, prior to the publication of the Ajax article, and did a good job of justifying its independent existence. So on that point, again I strongly object to a merger. Interesting to me, though, is the fact that the controversy across both articles appears to provide justification for merging them, because instead, I see it as evidence that the same user holds a very specific grudge against Ajax, and furthers that grudge by generating false criticism on both the Ajax page and on the page of the person who coined the term, Mr. Garrett. (Exhibit #1 of this was the user's attempted creation of a JAXASS page devoted to disparaging Ajax, a page which was quickly VfDed in a community discussion that saw it as a transparent attempt to mount even further criticism.) I continue to reiterate that it's not like I have a particular horse in this race, except to feel that I know the information architect/web development space well enough to qualify as pretty knowledgable, and that continuing to allow the criticism to eclipse the two independent subjects (Ajax and Mr. Garrett) is a disservice to the space, and to Wikipedia itself. Jason 01:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for seeing my humor... and thanks for the info (whew!). Anyway, I have to disagree with merging the pages. (This is a bad comparison, but...) Does the guy that coined the word "Internet" have a page, and Internet have its own page? Michael
Ok, I will stop with the merger idea. I will check Google to see if what the user wrote was a misquote and I will fix that. Plus, I will try to reduce the links in the critcism section, since I still think 6 links for one event is an overkill. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
And I found out where the misquote was from. Earlier in the article, the phrase "a class of dynamic web applications" appears. And, the user who wrote the criticism section, was trying to illustrate that the program Ajax, which is supposedly (and, I use this term because I do not know the facts or merits of each side) a "new class of dynamic web applications." While it can be rewritten, that is what I think what happened. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
No offense, but where does the quote "a class of dynamic web applications" appear in the Adaptive Path article written by Mr. Garrett? I honestly don't see it anywhere; it is truly an invented quote, even without the word "new" in it. I see that you've removed the quotation entirely, but my complaint still remains that it was a pejorative stab by the user who had a vested interest in displaying Ajax, and Mr. Garrett, in a bad light. Additionally, I really really don't want your edits to stand in the way of a real editing process; there appears to be a strong consensus on this talk page that there is no call for a complete, separate criticism section (only the original author feels it should agree, and everyone else who's weighed in disagrees). Only a revert to a version without the section -- either without any criticism, or my version from two days ago that wrapped it into the preceding paragraph -- or a page unlock will fix this. (I apologize for being so monomaniacal about this, but I want to make sure that an admin's circumvention of the page lock to make an edit doesn't signal that the rest of the page is fine -- because it certainly is not.) Jason 01:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Post-Unlock Editing

Since Sleepnomore has insisted on justifications for edits, I'm posting one here for the edit I'm about to make, which is the same justification I posted two days ago. I'm unconvinced that there's sufficient criticism of Mr. Garrett himself to warrant a complete section on this page; the clear majority of the criticism is against the term Ajax, and the remainder falls into inflammatory and dubious weblog posts that don't elevate to the level of discourse required for encyclopedia-like inclusion. For now, there's a criticism section on the Ajax page itself which might suffice, and I've left a sentence in giving note to the criticism that surrounds the issue. Jason 01:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and obviously, thank you Zscout370, both for listening to the discussion here and for unlocking the page. Jason 01:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. The article, to me, looks like. The reason why I kept the Slashdot link is that I heard of Slashdot and many things get discussed about technology over at Slashdot. I removed the other blogs, since, blogs are inheriently POV and cannot be considered as a reliable sources (de facto policy, since blogs can be used as ranting posts by people who might be unqualified, and most blogs are not notable enough for mentioning or inclusion). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Nicely done. Michael
    • Zscout370, I'll openly grant the relevance of Slashdot links to most discussions; I agree with you that Slashdot is more likely to represent a community's opinion than a single person's rant is. I'll just point out that the Slashdot link you maintained is a thread criticizing Ajax as a term, not Mr. Garrett as a person, and serves as the perfect example of how criticism like this belongs elsewhere, not on Mr. Garrett's individual page. I do hear you when you say that you're not invested in the specifics of this debate, though, and that's why I'm most thankful that you unlocked the page and allowed those of us who are particularly knowledgable in this field to continue whittling away at creating a better article. Jason 02:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I see what you're getting at now. What I could do is create a criticism section at the Ajax articles, or at least a sub heading like === Foo === and discuss the problems about the choice of name and other issues relating to the program. If y'all have any problems again, just let me know, y'all know where you can find me. While I do apologize for taking this long, at least the issue is resolved. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Archive?

With Jason doing a good job of editing the article on Jesse James Garrett, the majority of the discussion (if not all of it) on this talk page seems to be now irrelevant. Does anyone see anything wrong with archiving this discussion so future discussion is easier to see? - Sleepnomore 19:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and archive it. No problems with me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. --Sleepyhead 19:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Ditto -- archive away. Jason 20:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)