User talk:Jerzy/Codex Sinaiticus & Jerzy


 *  (This approach to Wiki-talk (using two templates) is an experiment; i've so far imposed upon a number of colleagues with it, who have responded thru it (even without this 'graph) well enough that i can describe it as "working" (though an otherwise angry one nevertheless described it as "ridiculous"). My hope is that it will slow the growth of my talk page, make my archiving simpler and more timely, and thus make leaving talk for me less burdensome (especially for slow-pipe colleagues) than it has been for too many months. I cordially invite discussion of it (or one-shot comments, from those who prefer).)

''If you add to this discussion, most other participant(s) won't be nearly as quickly aware of that as they would, if you had also edited their respective talk page(s). (A link to the corresponding section of each is at their corresponding "*" below, and your updating the edit count and editing-time-stamp range there also gives that participant further information. But no one other than i has done so yet.) For my own notification, i've started a list that i can check via "Related changes" more often than i am willing to check my Watchlist or "My contributions", tho of course that is still less often than "You have new messages."''


 * 3 msgs, 03:42 thru 19:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 03:42, 3 August 2005 C
 * 19:35, 3 August 2005 J
 * 19:56, 3 August 2005 C


 * 2 participants: Jerzy·t·c·*; Codex Sinaiticus·t·c·*.
 * general topic(s): Interaction of these two in context of Noah's Ark Cats
 * relevant reference(s): Talk:Noah's Ark

Codex Sinaiticus wrote, at 03:37 & 03:42, 3 August 2005, on Talk:Noah's Ark, in relevant part,
 * I would like to remind anyone who may be new to wikipedia to read the guideline policy: Assume good faith. [copied here by Jerzy·t 19:35, 2005 August 3 (UTC)]

_ _ Before offering you any opportunity you care for, to clarify your unexplained ref to WP:AGF, it may help clear the air if i clarify what i have already said. I intended no inference to be drawn, from my use of the word "vandalism", about my holding any opinion of your intentions. In fact, IMO i was clear that i was using "vandalism" in a sense where the vandal's intentions are irrelevant, since i specified the overt acts constituting it (destruction of information) without any suggestion that intent makes any difference. I trust a careful examination of the of the context of your remark will satisfy you that i have, to the contrary, been scrupulous in not saying anything inconsistent with good faith on anyone's part. In particular, you should note that i took issue with User:FestivalOfSouls's characterization of User:Jayjg as "POV", when i said "PoV or not". _ _ I cannot ignore the fact that you were responding to my post when you mentioned AGF. I am satisfied with saying, as it were, "Hey, your sidearm just fired; sure glad you didn't hurt anyone! You probably should engage the safety on it, though." Which neither requires a response from you, nor makes it unwelcome. --Jerzy·t 19:35, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what I happen to think is what I happen to think, and I also advise you that I have every right to express what I happen to think freely on any relevant talk page. You may as well learn to live with it happily, or not, but there isn't much you can do on that point.

I am certainly not a vandal by anyone's definition of the word. If you wish to dispute with me or any other sysop, or for that matter, anyone at all, there is already a mechanism for such a process; but do be advised that they do not look kindly on those who would waste their time for the sake of mere quarrelsomeness. Codex Sinaiticus 19:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)