User talk:Dookama/Archive 1

Bestiary of creatures in the Final Fantasy series
I deleted this because while there were no typos, it's very highly unlikely someone will search for it, and there was nothing linking to it. R3 has been extended to cover implausible redirects in the past, though if you really want it back, I can restore it and list it on WP:RFD, though I doubt it will be kept there. --Core desat  16:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * With reasons like that, I'm afraid I can't do that. File a deletion review if you want. --Core desat  17:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Jimbo Wales
Warning template removed by Hersfold after discussion below.


 * I referenced what I added, actually -- it's in the Times article that's already on the page. Near the end of the article, you'll notice the line "The site was described by Wikipedia contributors as "softcore pornography" or "erotica"." I don't see how it's unreferenced there. The way I worded it didn't describe the quote as fact, either.  It simply stated that it had been described as softcore pornography by some. Maybe I'm just not understanding the rules here, though (I'm new). --Dookama 19:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The following is a copy of the post made on Hersfold's talk page. Ah. Ok, then, I apologize. I'll remove the warning template I added to your talk page. I'm still not too sure about adding that information into the article, as it could be interpreted as an attack despite the referencing, but I'll leave that up to you lot to debate. Sorry for the misunderstanding, and for not responding on your talk page. I'll go remove that template now. Hersfold (talk/work) 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy
Greetings, thanks for writing. Have a look at Avoid self-references. There is surely other material of a self-referential nature that needs removal from the article. 22:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is an article about a controversy, not a place for meta content (essentially content about the project). If there was an article about the creation of those policies/guidelines then such an article could be linked but linking directly to them is a no-no. 22:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: reference addition to Jimmy Wales
Actually, no; that's not a usable source for the claim "Wikipedia contributors have described Bomis as "soft-core pornography" -- the Times article was quoting from the Wikipedia article you inserted the claim into. Effectively, this is a circular self-reference-- akin to claiming "Wikipedians refer to the United States as Talebanesque" because some random person made the assertion in a Wikipedia article, and a media source quoted it. It's still a weasel-worded claim.-- LeflymanTalk 20:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To reiterate: it's a weasel-worded claim to say "Wikipedia contributors have described..." and source it to an article which is quoting the same claim you wish to make. That's referencing yourself. It's entirely inappropriate and only serves a non-neutral purpose. Find some source other than some nebulously attributed "Wikipedia contributors" who have made the claim -- otherwise it must be removed.-- LeflymanTalk 23:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you feel it is belittling to point out why something is not appropriate to an article. I see such insertions of unsourced negative claims in biographies as attempts to inject personal opinion and attack the subject of the article -- in this case, Jimmy Wales. The only constructive advice I can give is that per WP:BLP all such statements in biographical articles need to be carefully worded and have strong verifiable support (not a single haphazard self-reference), or they should not be there at all. Let's be clear: when writing about someone's life, particularly someone who's been targeted for inappropriately contentious commentary, we must be careful and deliberate in making even casual claims. Wouldn't you want and expect the same level of care to be applied if someone were to write a Wikipedia biography about you? I suspect you wouldn't find it acceptable for those who might dislike you (for whatever reason) to insert their opinion of you into what amounts to a "publicly-accepted" version of your life. -- LeflymanTalk 00:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you take a read of Avoid weasel words -- the term is not belittling; it's the long-standing guideline of why and how not to use unattributed statements to present a non-neutral POV.-- LeflymanTalk 01:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, my apologies that you feel my responses aren't helpful, and that in your eyes, I have been "biting the newbie". Please understand that while some terms used on Wikipedia may seem esoteric or derogatory, they are a form of jargon that become clearer the longer you are on WP, and the more time you spend checking out the WP:POLICY pages. Regards, -- LeflymanTalk 01:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wales' statement about Bomis is already in the article; there's no need to repeat it. -- LeflymanTalk 15:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You asked about two separate things: a claim about how some "Wikipedians" refer to Bomis; and another as how Wales describes it, which is already in the article. Frankly, I'm confused why, as a self-professed new editor, you have such a continued interest to insert claims of "soft porn" into the Jimmy Wales article. -- LeflymanTalk 17:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I view your subpage version as an unnecessary and detrimental fork of the article. I'd recommend it be removed, and the discussion take place in the open at Talk:Jimmy Wales. Regards,-- LeflymanTalk 05:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Joka1991
That is not a good idea. It just gives the vandals the go ahead to continue. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

beard
Beard Liberation Front, SqueakBox 01:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia community trivia
Please discuss this on the talk page first instead of just adding it back in. -- Ned Scott 02:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Moved to the right place! TimVickers 23:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Another Thanks!
Thanks for letting me know I had placed my complaint about the Falun Gong arbitration decision to ban me on the wrong page. Yes, it was intended to be a message to Jimbo Wales and it is now on his talk page. --Tomananda 20:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sailing
This edit is hilarious. In fact, as you might have gleaned from the article, the race around the island was just something casual we did one afternoon. It was hardly a "triumph". I am quick to speak about it, I guess (Fast Company says so!), because I think it is funny. But in general I have no sailing "triumphs"... I have never entered into any sort of formal sailing competition.

Judging from the history of your edits, you seem to have an agenda of some kind about the article about me, always looking to include strange trivia. I wonder if you would be interested to simply ask me some questions directly.--Jimbo Wales 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy revert
Hi Dookama - I notice that you undid a redlink repair that was made in this article, with respect to Seth Finkelstein. As background, subsequent to the Essjay controversy article's development, Wikipedia has determined that Seth Finkelstein is of little enough notability to have an article against his stated wishes, and thus it is unlikely we will be writing another one for quite some time until he becomes significantly more notable. Would you mind terribly if I remove the redlink? It's not a big enough deal to edit war over, but no doubt someone will remove it eventually. Risker (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note, there are some weird "third rails" at Wikipedia (Larry Sanger was a really big one in working on this article), and I didn't want to give the impression I was working against anyone on this point. Risker (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)