User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2005

WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses
Hey Jeffro77! I noticed that you've been active on the Jehovah's Witnesses pages. Would you like to join WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses? Just put you name in the participants list and comment on the proposed structure. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the Team!
Welcome, Jeffro77! Looking forward to reading your contributions. Evident 14:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Grammar comments
This is to inform you that I appreciate the grammar-related comments you leave in various places (this sentence seemed kind of plain unless I added the "This is to inform you that" part, and I got this little parenthetical aside as a bonus).Tommstein 10:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 

Restoring order to Andrew G's talk page

 * User_talk:JackofOz/Archive2

No, I can't say that boredom was behind my action. (However, that you felt it appropriate to spend time querying me about it might say something about what you've got on your hands at the moment.) Wikipedia policy is to put all new topics at the bottom of the talk page. I was simply supporting and reinforcing that policy. If you think it's an unnecessary rule, you're welcome to propose a policy change. Wikipedia is many things, not the least being quietly and calmly correcting the mistakes of others. This was the first time I'd visited the page for some time, I noticed the new topic had been placed at the top, so I thought it perfectly appropriate to put it where it belongs. Yes, you're right about the subject matter of my query no longer being relevant to the text of the main article, so why not just delete it. I could have done that too, I suppose. However, I claim credit on my user page for all new talk pages that I initiate, and I wanted that post to remain as evidence of that, for the time being at least. This was a question of principle, first and foremost. Cheers, and I hope you get up to lots of mischief today. JackofOz 23:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Note that 'putting all new topics at the bottom of the talk page' is a Wikipedia guideline, not "policy".--Jeffro77 03:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again. What you're saying is really an argument for trawling through all talk pages on Wikipedia and removing debates about any issues that have now been resolved, and leaving only current debates.  That is obviously absurd, as there needs to be a record of previous queries and debates to stop people from reinventing the wheel about questions that have already been answered or about issues that have been settled.  Maybe nobody ever commented on my query explicitly, but the fact that those words no longer appear in the article means my suggestion has been implicitly and probably sub-consciously taken up.  You may deny that my query had "substance", but I refute that.  If this and other problems were not there to begin with, why was it necessary to "rewrite" the article?   My query is not and never was "meaningless".  It ill behoves a fellow Wikipedian to converse in such a pejorative manner.  JackofOz


 * An obscure 2-word question with no context, no currency with the article, and no replies does not qualify as 'debate'.--Jeffro77 03:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You say that you "... could easily go trawling for articles that don't yet have talk pages and put trivial comments just to claim the talk pages as some kind of trophy, but it would be of no benefit to anyone." I absolutely agree.  And if I had done that here or anywhere else, I'd be guilty of ego-self-massage for its own sake.  But that is not where I am coming from, so your comment is mis-directed.   Anyway, thanks for the chat, it livens up an otherwise pretty ordinary day.  Cheers JackofOz 02:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Now you're just being nasty. I've tried to keep this at a reasonable level, but it seems you're intent on dragging me down.  Well, I ain't gonna play that game, fella.  (1) Re "revered statesman": Have you never heard of the | Rules of Brainstorming? The principle of non-judgmental acceptance of all contributions equally, applies every bit as much here. (2) You doubt the motivations for the cut-and-paster, do you?  Kindly explain how you have such an insight into this person's mental processes.  And you also doubt they saw my query at all, do you?  Fascinating.  You seem to have inhabited this person's body and mind - quite a feat.  That is just a judgmental personal attack on me, with no basis in reality.  Did you spend your Christmas wishing your family and friends peace and love?  When, exactly, did you turn the peace tap off and the random vitriol tap on?  And why? Or did you just wake up on the wrong side of the bed today?  Your first message referred to doing things out of boredom.  Well, that's the stage I've reached with this exchange now, I'm afraid.  You may have nothing better to do with your time.  I do.  Goodbye. And good luck - it appears you're going to need it.  JackofOz 06:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * (Following is the actual post which JackofOz above refers to as being a "nasty" "personal attack". If anyone else agrees that it was a callous "judgemental personal attack" on Jack, please let me know):
 * You asked why it was necessary to rewrite the article. If you refer to my comment on the Talk page, you will see that the reason for rewriting the article was that someone had done a cut-and-paste from a website, the content of which is copyright, and cannot be used on Wikipedia. "Revered statesman ??" under the heading "Revered statesman??" is hardly something of value to be kept for posterity, and is not the same as retaining record of valuable debate. I doubt that the person who did the cut-and-paste from the Australian Idol website did so simply because they read your comment on the talk page, if they even saw it at all.--Jeffro77 04:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * (The personal 'counter-attack' that JackofOz above launched against me was amicably resolved.)--Jeffro77 03:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Your last message ended with "Peace". I went to see "Joyeux Noel" the other night. In the spirit of peace in the midst of otherwise pointless hostilities, let me also declare a New Years truce and down arms.

This needs to be said, so that it's off my chest. Drawing on the small number of disagreements I have had, in order to make your point, while ignoring the huge number of harmonious relationships I have for the most part, was very unfair. We all have clashes with others from time to time, but that doesn't make us inherently prone to conflict. I could probably go thru your talk page and find similar instances of heated disagreements. But I wouldn't stoop so low. And, moreover, I would never preach to you about not taking things too personally. If your name Jeffro77 is an indication of your birth year, I have a son who is around your age, so I've been around the traps just a little longer than you. I've learned that you just don't preach to people, it doesn't work. Particularly from a younger person to an older person. Very bad form.

That said, though, you've probably got a point that I can take things too personally and get offended too easily. Guilty as charged. But, damn it, what was I expected to do when over the course of this exchange you said things like:


 * "Were you particularly bored at the time?"
 * my query was "meaningless"
 * reference to lack of "substance"
 * "trivial comments"
 * "hardly something of value", and
 * not "valuable debate".

I understand the difference between a person’s behaviours/actions and the person themselves. Technically, you’ve attacked my words, not me personally. But it’s asking a lot to be bombarded with an array of such comments, and to remain aloof from it. I know all too well the power of "mere" words. A bigger man than I would have been offended. To the extent that I was personally offended, it was a personal attack regardless of the intent. However you have apologised for any offence, and I accept that. JackofOz


 * See JackofOz's talk page for a discussion of these expressions in the context of the original comments.--Jeffro77 03:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This whole stupid episode started when I dared (shock, horror !!) to uphold the policies and rules of our beloved Wikipedia. I had made an entry on the Talk Page, and a later editor made an entry but put it at the head of the page, rather than at the foot. I corrected the order, as I was perfectly entitled to do. That is all. That should have been the start and end of the transaction.

If I hadn’t bothered to do that, none of this argy-bargy would ever have happened. You would not have contacted me out of the blue to discuss the merits or otherwise of my "revered statesman" query, this day-long debate would not have occurred, and we’d all be a whole lot happier. JackofOz


 * The 'later editor' was me, regarding a copyright violation by a previous editor. Despite the Wikipedia guideline (not "policy"), it seemed that current information about a copyright violation was more important than a confusing question with no current relevance to the article.--Jeffro77 03:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the moral of all this is. I'm tempted to say, leave sleeping dogs lie, even if it means allowing the policies we all struggle over to be ignored. But I'm a policy guy, in my work and in my heart too, I suppose, so that can't possibly be the answer. Any suggestions? JackofOz 10:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jeffro77. Let bygones be bygones.  JackofOz 13:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Jeffro, having had a night to sleep on this, I think I now know what the moral of this is. Conversational humour does not always translate well in writing.  It depends a lot on knowing the non-verbals such as voice tone and facial expression, which of course we simply don't have in writing.  With people who know each other, a lot can be assumed.  But when the talkers are strangers, a degree of circumspection is called for.  I fully accept now that "Were you particularly bored at the time?" was meant in jest.  Unfortunately it didn't come thru that way to me.  I took it as unnecessarily sarcastic and it antagonised me right from the start.  If that had been left off, it would have been a much shorter exchange between us.  So, while I'm meditating on not taking things too personally as my NY resolution for 2006, you might want to have a think about this too.  Any off-hand remark that could be taken the wrong way would be best left out.   Have a great year, mate.  Cheers JackofOz 02:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, conversational humour doesn't always get through in text format. Therefore, users should try to bear in mind that other users (including myself) generally post in good faith, and posts should by default be taken in the best possible way to avoid conflicts of this nature.--Jeffro77 03:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)