User talk:Jersyko/archive6

Is this a game you are playing ?
Dear Jersyko, I fail to understand your comment about not reaching a consensus on the dental amalgam controversy page, especially since I did raise the issue clearly on the talk page and, after being twice interrupted by Dozenist who felt the urge to interject on a different issue, I specifically asked to resume the discussion on the topic at hand.

However after about two days waiting for a reply, I assumed that, after reading WP:EL which appears to be clear about non-reliable links that should be removed from WP, you did not object to the reasons I gave so I went ahead and removed the link. As I pointed out the issue is not about what you and I may think about the other links in general but about verifiable and credible information that is currently available about the quality of the information posted on QW. Also there is the issue of the title of the QW article in question which is very sarcastic and accusatory, providing further support to the conclusion of the review. I was under the impression that you agreed to have a well documented, referenced quality article.... Did I misunderstand your intention ?

One more thing, I am not the one who is reversing edits without prior discussion on the talk page. Finally it should be noted that some editors are nitpicking at the article, posting tags to items supporting the risks posed by amalgam but doing very little to find such references or making edits with a one sided view. It is easy to nitpick but another matter to provide a constructive contribution. Dr. Imbeau 06:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Jersyko. Shall I expect a reply ?? Dr. Imbeau 05:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability
I don't think you're in to userboxen, but I saw your comment on the talk page of WP:N talk page, and thought you might like User:Chris is me/Notability hurts for a userbox. -- Chris   chat   edits   essays    14:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Refs
Jersyko,

I've been having some difficulty using the best footnote system -- that is, the one that lets you cite the same source several times and that then gives "a, b, c, d".. Would you mind taking a look at the little article I've written in which I've tried to fix this problem? It's in French, but it's just the ref system that needs help. If you could just fix it, then I'd be able to do a diff and see what I needed to do differently. It's in my sandbox. Thanks! -- Zantastik  talk  06:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration relating to WP:NNOT and Radiant
Hi, I just put together an arbitration case at Requests_for_arbitration. The case is about some users who have been abusing some guidline and proposal pages (including WP:NNOT and WP:STRAW). Since you've been involved with NNOT (and might have even witnessed the stuff I talk about), I thought you might be interested in giving your comments. I would greatly appreciate your input. Thanks! Fresheneesz 05:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

suggestion
You wrote, in Harold Ford, Jr. (and possibly other places), "Of the four polls released since September 25..." The problem with that, imho, is that as soon as the next poll gets released (and a new one was released today -- Middle Tenn State), the statement becomes out of date. Can you reword it somehow. -- Sholom 20:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suppose the relevant articles really need to go through each of the recent polls and present the results. My summary from earlier was just the result of laziness.  You're right, and I'll fix it. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 20:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Vlaams Belang
Thanks for your input at Talk:Vlaams Belang. I changed the article accordingly. What do you think ? --LucVerhelst 07:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

SCV article and Formal Mediation
Unless I am given a valid reason to do otherwise, I shall promptly submit the Sons of Confederate Veterans article and the disputes regarding same to formal mediation. I am quite displeased with the treatment of the above article, especially the most recent changes. I am also quite vexed by the cavalier and assuming attitude displayed by certain editors. --Black Flag 17:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Was your mischaracterization and distortion of my prior comments unintentional? I never stated that I would not discuss the issue(s) here. I unequivocally stated that issues should be resolved on the Talk page, and that said issues should be resolved prior to the publication of material in violation of WP:NPOV.--Black Flag 19:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Laromlab
FYI, I have nominated this article for deletion; I noticed you had edited earlier. You can discuss it at Articles for deletion/Laromlab --Aleph-4 09:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not continue reverting SCV artcle
Will Beback had the courtesy to move this section into a draft page, so that we could discuss and re-edit. I object to your mulish and aggravated refusal to cooperate with these efforts, and consider same to be a violation of Wikipedia good faith policies. --Black Flag 21:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Will moved the subsection before the RFC responses started rolling in. There is clear support for the inclusion of a subsection on the factionalization in the article, as multiple third parties have said that they consider the original subsection to be neutral. I'm still waiting for those "opposing" sources. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I will examine the various "versions." Time permitting, I will attempt to document sources for SCV and/or opposing views, over this coming week end. As has been stated, the larger issue is non-neutrality. Any pretense on the part of any party that 'such is not understood' appears disingenuous.  --Black Flag 21:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[quoting Jersyko, to Verklempt:] "The Atlanta Journal Constitution source you added to the article is excellent. After this stuff blows over, it should be readded to the subsection.  We should take it one step at a time, though, and I might have to file another RFC on it (obviously, it will be supported)." &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 22:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Afterall, the AJC** is a well-known non-biased source, with exemplars of “neutrality” such as Cynthia Tucker. [hysterical laughing heard in the background]--Black Flag 23:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)(** The Atlanta Journal is known locally as the "Atlanta Urinal").

Apologies
Sorry if my comment in AFD seemed a little harsh, it was not my intention at all. Themindset 22:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support of my RfA, and especially thank you for the kind words describing your direct experiences with me!

Atlant 22:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's been a week now that I've been an administrator and I'd like to take this moment to once again thank everyone who supported my RfA, and to let you all know that I don't think I've screwed anything up yet so I hope I'm living up to everyone's expectations for me. But if I ever fall short of those expectations, I'd certainly welcome folks telling me about it!


 * Atlant 14:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Just a quick thank you note for reverting my Userpage and an article I'd created after somebody I've upset with VP2 decided to try and exact revenge. Many thanks. AA Milne 00:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

WHY
why did you remove my add. about soulseek legends? those users are legends. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.231.137.163 (talk • contribs).

Tony Alamo
Jersy, I saw your edit reverting mine on the TA page. I've made a sugggestion on Talk:Tony_Alamo. Wake 19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Drini 22:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Recently_created_admins. Warmly,  Durova  21:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

hey
why did you take away my post on that board? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheSoundofTheStreets (talk • contribs).


 * Because Wikipedia is not a messageboard, it is an encyclopedia. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 16:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

hey
LOL....yes yes...but cant it be used for humor also? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheSoundofTheStreets (talk • contribs).

HEY!
so...is that supposed to be the funny version or something?

well whatever heh...

do you have myspace? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheSoundofTheStreets (talk • contribs).

I would just like to know...
Why my contributions to the Democratic party (USA) page were delted when they wre completely true and verifiable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian71490 (talk • contribs).


 * "Pro-choice" and "Pro-abortion" are not one and the same. Settler 00:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. I reverted your change because of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, in addition to Wikipedia's verifiability policy and reliable source guideline.  I hope you see how saying "Most members (of the Democratic Party) also embrace the murder of innocent unborn children" without a source does not adhere to these policies and guidelines.  In any event, the characterization of the issue (using words like "murder" etc) automatically casts doubt on its neutrality.  Please consider these policies when editing in the future.  Thanks. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 00:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Corker and Ford
I think we both know where we're coming from here, and I certainly do respect how much you've contributed. However, I think that these pages are about people who are notable for things other than thier current Senatorial bids. By mentioning what seat they are running for and not the candidate, I think it better serves Neutrality. I say we strike the opponents names and leave it to the senate race page. If you want, we can do a discussion.

Thanks, I'm actually a Chattanoogan and I work for the Corker campaign. I try to avoid making extreme edits because I am obviously biased. I will give it a shot, please feel free to review it for neutrality. Glad we came to an easy agreement on the names. I just have too much Anarchist in me to let that kind of thing through, haha.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by StayinAnon (talk • contribs).


 * Hey Jersyko, what are your thoughts on placing a semi-protect on the Tennessee and Virgina Senate articles?--Scribner 01:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Will do.--Scribner 01:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
My bad i aint know u cared so much about it i promise not to do it no more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superman4life4ever (talk • contribs).

Barack Obama
Dealing with some edit friction here from an unexpected source. Let me know what you think. --HailFire 22:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I know about citing sources. I actually mentioned that over dinner with friends tonight. I was talking about some entries on Wikipedia I had made, and than I was like: "Ah $@$#, I forgot my citation!" =) All is well now, I added it. Bleu`dove 02:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

RFC
I consider your blanking of my RFC comment to be vandalism, at best. Please do not do so again, or I will respond accordingly.--Black Flag 19:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * . . . and you need to read the Rfc rules, which say "Do not continue the debate here" and use the date stamp only, NO signatures. I added a link to the RS#Exceptional claims to the description. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 19:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming template changes
Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit WikiProject user warnings and harmonisation discussion pages to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 15:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I approve this comment
On his commercials, Bob Corker likes to say, "I'm Bob Corker, and I approve this message."

I died a little inside reading that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StayinAnon (talk • contribs).

My Editor Review
Hi, I just started an editor review at Editor review/Jersey Devil and am trying to get feedback on my edits. Feel free to leave a review or comment. Thanks and bye.--Jersey Devil 19:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
I recently made a fool of myself and reverted the figures on Tennessee United States Senate election, 2006 to incorrect ones. I am sorry and, seeing as I intend to police this site (as you seem to be also) until the election is over, would like to "clear the air." Please accept my apologies. Stealthound 23:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries! I realized exactly what happened when I looked at the data a second time--you (and at least one other editor, it seems) got the columns and rows mixed up. And I'm glad you're watching the article as well. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 23:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Quit censoring my entries
Please stop censoring factual entries. Do some research and editting instead. By no means is your work up to wikistandards. The entry on Obama is becoming worthless, as you keep removing entries that do not read like Obama PR. --Jbpo 19:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User Page Layout
I see that your userpage looks pretty neat and clean. I know HTML, CSS, and Javascript. Wikipedia seems rather... poorly put together when it comes to editing pages to say the least. It could be done so much better imo. Is there a guide on Wikipedia to laying out a page? I want mine to look somewhat like yours, but these characters they use to represent certain actions don't make any sense whatsoever. Thanks for you time. Bleu`dove 05:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti vandal bot
thanks for editing that back on the Evangelical page after the bot reverted it i was trying to figure out how to edit that back myself in a better way i have no idea why the bot reverted that back —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.20.207.29 (talk • contribs).


 * Hi. i'm the same person from directly above ^^^ I figured i'd comment from here ( i guess i dont sign on as much as I should) but i saw my own IP talk page and apparently there are more than one person using that IP address to make changes in wikipedia (given that I dont know anything about soccer or much about Age of Empires III) well, anyway, thanks.  PS- is there an easier way to revert an edit in cases like that, like a button?  or do i need to just copy and paste from the old entry that i want to revert to?
 * thanks  Joetheguy 16:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration?
Hey Zan. Are you interested in collaborating to bring this article to presentable status (I know you're busy with your translations, so if you don't want to, I understand)? It has had a cleanup tag since April. Just glancing at it, I can think of perhaps half a dozen specific things that need to be added. I'm sure you can think of even more than I can. So how about it? :) &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am interested. I'll do a bit this afternoon, as a matter of fact. -- Zantastik  talk  22:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Obama Talk
As always you are the voice of reason on these political pages. I will now find other things to occupy my time.Jasper23 23:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayson Blair
(my original comment) ''Hi Timelist. I noticed several of your recent edits related to perpetrators of journalistic fraud and wanted to comment on them here. I think your edits create POV problems in the relevant articles. For instance, in this edit to the Jayson Blair article, you inserted phrases like "the magazine still trusted Blair" (without attribution or reference) in place of "Blair continued to cover critical stories for The Times" (which, I believe, everyone can agree to). Obviously, some of these articles suffer from a general lack of references. However, I hope you understand why I would think that the change I've described above inserts a point of view into the article where one did not exist before. Additionally, adding "consistently conned, duped, and fooled, the editors of the paper on a myriad of important news stories over a span of several years" in several articles not only creates POV problems, but also is very hyperbolic, a tone which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Thanks. j e r s y k o talk · 00:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)''


 * How is saying that Blair "consistently conned, duped, and fooled, the editors of the paper on a myriad of important news stories over a span of several years" hyperbolic? He wrote something like 600 stories for the paper,  many of them on extremely important events like Iraq and major police police investigations?  Why are you trying to minimize the seriousness of journalistic fraud?  That's the problem with democracy. Nobody values the truth and nobody reports the fact that lies have been told. Instead we use euphemisms like "fabricates" or "journalistic fraud". I believe the truth matters. Timelist 00:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You disagree that using words in succession like "conned", "duped", and "fooled" is hyperbolic? The three words have very similar definitions and appear to be used in succession merely to highlight the gravity of the acts instead of provide meaningful content.  You said "Why are you trying to minimize the seriousness of journalistic fraud?" on my talk page.  Please assume good faith regarding fellow Wikipedians--my intent is that Wikipedia adhere to neutral point of view and take on an encyclopedic tone, not to minimize the importance of journalistic fraud.  Finally, it is your point of view that "Nobody values the truth and nobody reports the fact that lies have been told. Instead we use euphemisms like "fabricates" or 'journalistic fraud'".  Please consider that one's point of view should not guide one's wikipedia contributions, as Wikipedia must maintain a neutral point of view and is not the place to advance a particular viewpoint.  Thanks. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 00:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all battles are worth going to war over. Do you honestly disagree that Jason Blair conned the NY Times? The term fabricate is equally POV because it implies intention to mislead and no one can get inside Blair's head but him. Timelist 01:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

People don't understand what terms like fabricate mean and they have many definitions. Terms like conned are more precise. If you felt I used too many synonyms, that you could have delted the superfluous verbs, rather than reverting the whole thing. Wikipedia policy states that we should aim to IMPROVE edits, not revert them. Timelist 01:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen vocabulary tests where fabricate is listed as a difficult word. In addition, it has many dictionary definitions making it quite ambiguous. Why are you so passionate about fighting me on this trivial point? I don't understand. Timelist 01:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

But there are thousands of NPOV terms in wikipedia. Why are you devoting so much energy fighting our very trivial dispute? And why were you following me through different articles in the first place? There must be an additional motivation. It's okay to admit any personal agenda you might have. It just makes you human. Timelist 01:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply
I hope I'm actually talking to Jersyko, but I can't figure out how to relpy to someone who left a comment on my headline thing. I can only figure out how to make a headline. Mind helping me out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.Weirdo (talk • contribs).

Re: Incidents: Disruption, edit warring, and incivility
Your chat with User:Fix Bayonets! on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption, edit warring, and incivility has a familiar ring. Apparently all the trouble over Naming the American Civil War is my fault. There are exchanges on my Talk page, and I have just deleted a tendentious section on the so-called "War for State's Rights." We'll see how long it lasts.... -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

bob corker endorsements
corker has been endorsed by the papers that you keep deleting. they are accurately sourced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.158.133.72 (talk • contribs).

i once again added the papers that were removed. not that it matters much now as the election is nearing an end but an endorsement is a show of support. a line saying that a group does not endorse corker should not be under his endorsement list whether it is accurate or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.158.133.72 (talk • contribs).


 * Normally I would agree about a non-endorsement. This case is special, however, since we have one anti-abortion group saying they endorse him as a "pro-life" candidate, and another one refusing to endorse him and calling him a "pro-abortion" politician.  It was interesting enough for newspaper coverage, so it's certainly worth mentioning in the article. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 22:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Corker polling
Yeah its been raining for a while here, that's pretty much the final nail in the coffin for Ford, people are very excited at HQ. As for the polls, I'm afraid I don't know anythign about that, but I wouldn't give that report much weight.

Enjoy election night, even though we won Tennessee, the rest of the country has us worried. StayinAnon 18:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
 Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks! &mdash; Saxifrage

Humor, etc.
You might have noticed I got a brief block (8 hours) for my reverts yesterday. I think I've spent too much time on RC Patrol recently and was maybe a bit trigger-happy. Anyway, I'm glad you got a little chuckle out of the "embedded" humor on the Talkpage. I'm busy in RL right now, but I'll review the RfC in a day or two. Happy editing! --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Stuff
Jersyko, I just want to thank you again for telling me how to use the wikipedia edit and comment stuff. I was so confused. Although I'm being repetitve, thanks again.

User conduct RfC
Thanks for letting me know. As I am a member of the Arbitration Committee, I avoid User conduct RfCs, in case they later turn into ArbCom cases, but I appreciate your informing me about this. Jayjg (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Bob Corker
Thanks for completing the Bob Corker thing. I was bored so I did that. I'm a Democrat anyway and despise the Republicans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monbro (talk • contribs).


 * Believe me, I'm not a Corker fan, either. And Wikipedia is always a great cure for boredom. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Your audit trail comment about SFGiants
In the George Allen (U.S. politician) article, you reverted some vandalism stating: rvv - this user appears to be a normally productive editor, i wonder if his/her account has been compromised?). I think you intended this comment to refer to User:SFGiants, but what actually seems to have happened here is that SFGiants was trying to revert vandalism by User:Eixo, but they didn't catch all the vandalism. I don't think there's any problem with SFGiants or their account.

Unless you were referring to User:Eixo...

Atlant 00:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

jake ford
you're fast. i went to add the election results to the jake ford article but they were already there.

yay steve cohen! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sevenrings (talk • contribs).

Commenting on "Outside view"?
In the FixBayonets! case, is it expected that users certifying the complaint will abstain from commenting in other sections of the page? I have just now followed your lead on endorsing an "Outside view" of the complaint. -- Rob C (Alarob) 02:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User box
Sorry Jersyko, but I need some more help. I can't for the life of me figure out how to make a user box. If you could help me again, that would be great. --Mr.Weirdo 23:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)