User talk:JPelligrino

January 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khrystenn Asariah, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edit to the page Khrystenn Asariah appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to Khrystenn Asariah and its Afd discussion
I did not mean to imply anything. Rather, I said something explicitly: maybe you could get banned for tampering with an AfD discussion. You suppressed votes you didn't like, by deleting the votes and -- what's much worse -- leaving no notice anywhere that you had deleted them. If you'd said something about it, you might have gotten some slack as a newbie. Not saying anything about that move was simply a case of trying to game the system. And you also say that if you had really wanted to be "severe", you would have deleted all the comments. On what authority? Some rule you just made up on the spot for your own convenience? Wikipedia runs on policies and guidelines. You may be 74, and you may be a former skating coach and you may have seen Khrystenn work unappreciated miracles on ice. (We don't have any way to verify those claims.) But any 19-year-old, even one who is utterly ignorant of skating, who shows good command of Wikipedia policies automatically outranks you on Wikipedia, whether it's in editing Khrystenn's bio or any other article. It's just like in skating, actually: if you want respect, you have to show respect for others, and you have to earn their respect. The more disrespect you show, and the more ignorance you display (especially if you persistently display it), the harder it will become for other editors (clenching their teeth under WP:AGF) to veil their contempt. It's only human nature, after all. Yakushima (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, I was NOT trying to tamper with the rules. When I came across the page and made an honest attempt to educate myself on the policy, I thought the two votes went against policy, and It said on the page that any user may remove them. What I in fact meant was that if I had intentions of trying to tamper the system, I would have just swiped em all. Initially, I did not even know you had to say something about it? Where does it mention this? At 74, I clearly understand rules and policies, and apologized for my previous error upon immediate realization. I am not sure why it became harder for you, when I have made several attempts and asked several questions about getting it right. The only thing you did was blast me on all my efforts. Moreover, I made one last attempt in my last messages to see what needs to be done, and once again, even as the more senior editor you claim to be, you have not helped to answer any of my questions, have made no suggestions, etc. on the article (not that you are required to respond to), but you seem to have no problem responding through continuous run arounds and trying to pin anything weakness as a newcomer to this that you can find, all under an increasingly negative umbrella. Thanks a lot.


 * "I thought the two votes went against policy, and It said on the page that any user may remove them." One of the comments you removed was a simple statement of fact, based on WP:ATHLETE.  The other one expressed good wishes for Khrystenn's eventual notability -- under WP:AGF, you're supposed to take that at face value.  Neither can (under WP:AGF) be considered an unsourced negative comment on Khrystenn herself, just about her notability vis-a-vis Wikipedia standards.  And the removal of either should have been remarked upon, with the reason for removal, in the discussion itself.  You didn't even bother noting the reason for removal in your edit summary.


 * "Initially, I did not even know you had to say something about it? Where does it mention this?" Why should policy need  to?  By some coincidence, I was recently on the phone with a friend of mine who works with Down Syndrome patients.  I put a roughly analogous situation to her -- i.e., where opinions about a course of action are being canvassed, and somebody suppressed some of the opinions expressed even though they were about the course of action, not anybody in particular, and that same somebody voted twice against those opinions he didn't like, and without mentioning the suppression of opinion to anybody involved.  I asked her if her patients would take exception to such behavior if they'd been subject to it themselves.  "Of course they'd find a problem with it," she said, "they have your basic natural sense of human fairness."


 * "The only thing you did was blast me on all my efforts." On the contrary.  I have pointed to relevant policy over and over.  I have asked you to substantiate what you say.  Your "efforts" seem to be limited largely to making statements and edits that can't be substantiated, or that are shown to be wrong.


 * "... as the more senior editor you claim to be ..." I never directly claimed to be more senior, in that discussion. But it's objectively verifiable, from my thousands of edits, that I am.  Hit the contribs link for me.  You, on the other hand, claim to have had your account for years, but your first edit on record, dates from November of last year, when you added Khrystenn to the bio of a coach, as if she'd been one of his more important students. Yakushima (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

YAKUSHIMA: 1. For the last time on the deletion subject, I did not know I was supposed to mention the delete. 2. Additionally, I apparently voted twice since I attempted to further my previous comments and thought I had to place the "Keep" there again. This was prior to anyone else's "Comments" so I did not know the format. So lay off this minor issue already. 3. And you are wrong, you have blasted myself and Ms. Asariah's credibility with your rants and specifics and by delegitimizing my personal age/career/editing abilities as outranked by any less competent Wiki editor. (Personal attack ad hominem-something youre already quite familiar with, I see) 5. All I am doing here is trying to figure this out and make this work! I have asked questions and been contructive in my edits. So, if you cannot see that in all of the last comments I have made, that is your problem. 6. Lastly, I am done dealing with you. Perhaps you may find something more useful to do with your time rather than attacking myself and others. My suggestion: update your resume. -Jed JPelligrino (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "as outranked by any less competent Wiki editor." No, I said you'd be outranked by any more competent editor, even one who was 19 years old and knew nothing about skating.  As you would be -- Wikipedia is substantially meritocratic.  And an ad hominem attack, in case you've forgotten, is one based on the person, rather than the argument made by the person.  I pointed out that we had no way to verify what you said about yourself as a person -- that you were a 74-year-old retired skating coach with no vested interest in the subject.  So we had to evaluate your Keep arguments on their merits.  Your arguments, it turns out, had no merits: you simply repeated your claims, and never turned up any evidence for them.  Get some distance from the subject.  Edit something else, if you want to edit Wikipedia skater bios.  Start Richard Dwyer, a far more notable skater than Khrystenn ever was.  Shouldn't we be filling the big gaps first, if we want Wikipedia to be a credible source on the subject? Yakushima (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)