User talk:Jimeffindandy

re: Helical scan
Hi there. In that case, it is because of all the images stacked at the top. If you click edit this page and look at where the images are specified, they are all right at the top. I think you can fix the problem if you place one image under each header. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad you got it figured out! It sounds like you found a help page that was useful, but you can also ask questions at Village pump (technical). There are lots of technical people lurking around there who are usually pretty quick to answer questions. Of course, I don't mind answering questions but I might not be as fast as the village pump. Good luck! --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Irreparably broken
1/10/11 - I don’t believe you can help me.

Can you fix what’s broken? Are you even interested in doing that? See the commentary on my user page. Jimeffindandy (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed the defamatory content that you wrote on your user page, and will remind you about our civility and npa guidelines. Is there something else specific that you would like help with?   7  05:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The microcosmic problem, as I told Spike, is that Tim Shuba redirected the SEG page, destroying it, high-handedly overriding the consensus on its discussion page, and shooting gnats with his elephant gun. I can tell, already, that you will confirm his conduct, and that there is no point in even opening a dispute, which, even if I were right, would be a lot of wrangling and teach you nothing. Y’all deserve each other. You can retire, tonight, shaking your head and saying to yourself about me, “Just another crackpot! What a good job I’ve done saving Wikipedia from him!” when all the while, all you’ve done is alienate a potentially valuable contributor. Mine was a voice of reason, maintaining the NPOV of the SEG page.


 * I spit on you and your civility and npa guidelines that you so selectively enforce, and would use to beat me down, here, when all sorts of vitriol remain on discussion pages throughout WikipediA. I read your talk page. You are the poster-child for the problems with WikipediA. How can you help if you’re part of the problem instead of the solution? Instead of trying to fix what’s wrong, you labeled my content defamatory and removed it as though I were the problem. You can blind yourself, all you want, but you can’t make truth untrue. You may have succeeded in censoring me on that one, small page, but the content you excised, and this, has been saved, and you never know where it will show up. Jimeffindandy (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Tardy
Good morning. I am very sorry for the tardiness of my reply; as you no doubt have noticed, I have drastically curtailed my involvement here in recent months. I suspect my reasons are very similar to yours, although I've been here since 2005 or 2006.

The content development process is different now, almost like a foreign country to me. It used to be that lots of people would add content, almost indiscriminately, and then subject matter experts would come clean it up, remove the detritus, add sources and links, etc. Not so any more. People "own" articles and revert contributions of anyone they don't recognize. You were doing good work on SEG, but then something occurred which is indeed high-handed and some might say ham-fisted. However, it's part of a trend I've seen here in the last year or two, not to fix things which are broken, but to nuke them completely or chase off anyone interested in working on them.

Interestingly, you've also experienced my other issue just above, and that is the incredible double-standard and selective enforcement of policies in place. The people in power now don't understand the difference between playground name-calling and strong rhetoric, the latter of which most significant scholarly progress is built on. Administrators here used to be simple janitors, given extra tools to perform maintenance tasks. Now, they believe themselves to be authority figures or that their opinion somehow trumps that of non-administrators.

In the end, I probably have gone to the crapper with the rest of it, as you say. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer be able to have them marked as minor by default. For more information on what a minor edit is, see WP:MINOR or feel to get in touch.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)