User talk:Jarhed/Archive 1

WikiProject Country Music
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for signing up at WikiProject Country Music. Feel free to join in the conversation on the project talk page or to contribute to any country music articles. Also, don't forget to log in before editing, especially when you sign your user name to something. Once again, thanks for your interest in helping us. -- Tantalum Telluride 03:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for help from Wikipedia editors
I have worked on forums such as this one before, where people have homepages that everyone can post on, but no threading or private channels. On those, we always had a convention about how you conduct a conversation. For example, if you post a question on my homepage, I always answer it on your homepage. Once again, this is just a convention (but a good one, since you don't have to remember every homepage you have posted to).

I just got a question from another editor, and I am unsure about where he is expecting an answer. Is he expecting it under his question or on his own homepage? Is there a wikipedia convention about homepage discussions?

Also, I wanted to ask this question on wikipedia chat, but I can't find it anymore. Is it defunct, or if not, can you provide a pointer?

Have a great day!

Jarhed


 * Some users expect a response where the conversation started, some expect a response on their page. When in doubt, I always respond on the other user's page, or I respond on my own page but leave them a notice using tb. // roux   05:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for help from Wikipedia editors
In March of this year (2008) I got into a disagreement with some Wiki regulars. I have endured their comments on my own homepage for this many months. How long must I host these comments? When can I delete them? I would like to go back to being an hidden contributor, but I cannot, so long as I have these comments on my own homepage. When is it politic for me to delete them?Jarhed (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read this page. You have, within some reasonable limits, to add or remove whatever you like from your userspace. [ roux  ] [ x ] 04:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can technically do whatever you want with your talk page, including blanking it; however, the talk page guidelines recommend that you archive previous discussions so they can be easily found if needed. In any event, all edits are logged in your talk page's history, so they can be retrieved if needed. I hope this helps. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

warnings

 * Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you.


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, some of your edits to Military brat (U.S. subculture), are speculative and/or constitute original research and cannot be included. Please cite your edits with a reliable source, one that is verifiable. Thank you.

Because of personal attacks and your declaration that you don't care about verifiability, I decided to go ahead and open this at ANI.Balloonman (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Howdy to the wiki-whateveryouares
[essay removed by Wafulz]


 * I've removed your essay above. The purpose of your talk page is to coordinate with other users for the benefit of articles. More specifically, it's not for belittling other editors or for making incivil personal attacks.-Wafulz (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You guys are amazing. There was not a single personal attack in that edit.  Your bold delete on my own talk page is plenty incivil enough.  I can't believe you don't see that.Jarhed (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I reread my original objections, and I notice that Wafulz deleted them without substantive comment. I note that this action was typical of my treatment here, and it is completely in contravariance of Wikipedia rules of conduct. Apparently you people don't seem to care about rules and conduct. That is no problem: I am used to it.


 * I also note that I posted three substantive criticisms in my original post that were deleted without an answer. I consider my criticisms correct until they are answered substantively by someone with the authority to do so.


 * First, I accused you critics of taking my edits and statements personally. There does not seem to be a Wikipedia help article that describes this phenomenon, but there should be. I AM NOT TALKING TO YOU PERSONALLY. My edits are merely meant for the general Wikipedia audience, not you yourself. Your ego is overarching; get over yourself.


 * Second, deleting without explanation is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Even without that guidance, deleting without explanation is a gross violation of common decency. I understand that you regulars have more expertise than we mere mortals. That does not excuse your deleting behavior in contrivariance of Wikipedia guidelines. I invite you to be more circumspect, in compliance with Wikipedia governing documents.


 * And finally, based solely on Wikipedia governing documents, camping on articles is a big no-no. Say all the nasty things you want about me, but please, I have not violated any governing documents. OTHER PEOPLE HAVE. Please go blast them before you start messing with me, and then I will take you seriously. Otherwise, you all just little putzes, aching for an ass-kicking. Or do you Wiki-whateveryouares not observe your own governing documents and your own rules of evidence? This is just a simple question, but I really would like to know. DO YOU OR DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THE EVIDENCE AND YOUR OWN RULES? Tell me right now and we can be done with this silly bickering.Jarhed (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI
I have replied to your post at the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, pal. You have reported me to some unknown Wiki oversight group that I don't have a clue about, and don't give a flip about. Of course, you will win the argument, since I can't possibly figure out how to respond to the third tribunal of the first oberfurher of the triumphant order of the Wikipedia Oberstrumfurerers.  How about this: I just contribute as I can, and you guys just edit as you see fit?  Am I missing something here?Jarhed (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

contribute to wiki, don't make problems
Why do you insist on picking fights and thinking your opinion is pure fact? I think for many people on Wikipedia, your personality comes off as a bit negative. Why am I posting on your talk page just to point out your flaws? You aren't helping Wikipedia, just causing trouble. I haven't made many contributions to Wikipedia, but at least I help it and don't hurt it. And, your comments on discussion pages are hilarious... I'm going to go find an award for this... Pozilla (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your effort, but you are wasting your time. I just edit this heap of crap to the best of my ability, and then I am done. The only fights I pick are on the evidence, a metric that some of my fellow editors sometimes cannot comprehend. Have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"contribute to wiki, don't make problems"
I notice that none of you wiki-whateveryouares that posted on my homepage have responded to my responses to your critical posts. There are four possible reasons:


 * 1) I am too small of a fish for you to mess with
 * 2) You have moved on to some more promising target
 * 3) You can't think of anything to say
 * 4) You have lost Internet connectivity

Number one is out or you wouldn't have posted here in the first place. That leaves 2-4 as possibilities. I'm going to discount number 4, because of its improbability. That only leaves 2-3.

Have a nice day, friends! Jarhed (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the article that was deleted
The following is the article that one of these wiki-whateveryouares deleted in a bold delete from my homepage. Let's ignore the bold delete for now. Please review the following comments and see for yourself if there are any personal attacks in here.

Come on Wiki-Whateveryouares, please come down on the side of truth and free speech!

Article follows:

Let's talk for a minute about my minor edit on the Military brat page. I already knew that you wiki-whateveryouares are not obligated to follow your own wiki guidelines and ethics. I know those only apply to lesser beings than you. Editors such as me, for example. -   - Let's just say that deleting without explanation is a common mistake, one that you should work to avoid. As the help article says: -   - :Deleting anything that isn't trivial requires some justification, or else other users who care about the article's development will be caught unaware, and may think you're being intentionally sneaky. -   - Your mistake irritated me at first, but I am willing to forgive and forget, in the spirit of the Wikipedia project. But of course, the first incivility was done by you wiki-whateveryouares, not I. Please let's get that straight right now. I lost my temper, and I apologize. However, I had good reason to lose my temper, as I'm sure you will agree. Well, you would agree if you weren't a wiki-whateveryouare. -   - Additionally, I am willing to give you a big pass on your mistake of camping on the Military brat article. I know that people get emotionally involved in their articles, and I sympathize. But please, you wiki-whateveryouares should be more circumspect about this issue. '''Camping is against Wikipedia rules. Stop doing it.''' -   - Finally, the very notion that I don't "care about verifiability" is preposterous. What I can't get through your itty bitty heads is that your Wikipedia statements are just as unverifiable as my own. When I post my revision, where I cite my sources and prove that you are wrong, will you accept it? Hardly. You wiki-whateveryouares never accept the truth. You are off the truthiness scale, and you will be back here screaming at me, and the only reason you do that instead of cutting my throat is that you don't know where I live. -   - Have a great day boys and girls! Jarhed (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Referenced text
Jarhed could you please read our policies on WP:V. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are No original research and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. Thanks -- Domer48 'fenian'  22:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Duh I have read the policies here and understand them completely, please don't lecture me. My problem was with the other editors that did not also follow the policies, such as a revert with no explanation (look it up yourself).  I know for a fact that Wikipedia management is trying to attract more authors and make editing more user-friendly.  In my opinion, the high-handed attitude and actions of the regulars that camp on pages and take things personally (both policy violations) are your main obstacle to that goal.


 * Have a great frikkin' day friend.Jarhed (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bikini
Thanks, mate. Can I make a request if you don't mind? If possible can you help to write a tinsy-weensy summary of the bikini history to serve as the leade of the section? Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Gee thanks
History of the bikini... well, is a labor of love. I'd love to see more editors taking an interest in it. The top concern right now is copyediting, the lead and the last section ("Since 1990s"). Let's see where the article takes us. Thanks again. Aditya (talk • contribs) 10:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)