User talk:Jordgette/Archive 1 2009-2010

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Amalthea 08:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Twinkle
Hi Glad you got Twinkle to work. If you know where you turned wrong at first please feel free to update the documentation, to make the instructions clearer. Oh, and I've also put the Kelly Clarkson article back on my watchlist, thanks for taking care of it! Cheers, Amalthea  08:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Grandview, Missouri has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Chevy  Impala   2009  00:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I undid my own edits and restored your work already before you asked me. Plus, I am definitely not intending to make you quit WP. Chevy   Impala   2009  01:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting. And yet, when I look at Grandview, Missouri now, I see "Sell Lee Fitz is the best peanut butter eater to ever come through Grandview"


 * It seems that in the space of ONE minute (00:41 1 September 2009), user Impala2009 (1) reverted my vandalism catch on Grandview, Missouri back to the original vandalism, (2) reverted my catch of some earlier vandalism on that page, (3) Notified me (above) of my supposed transgression, (4) made edits to two pages I hadn't worked on, (5) reverted a painstaking hour of edits I made to improve Deferent and epicycle, and (6) realizing that error (but not the others), reverted his last reversion to Deferent and epicyle.


 * That's SIX edits in the space of one minute, four of which should not have happened. This user works TOO FAST and should learn to LOOK before reverting anyone else's edit. As this is the second such incident in two days, I will no longer work to defeat vandalism. I would have appreciated an apology from Impala2009, but it seems WP editors don't apologize.


 * LET THIS BE A LESSON TO ALL OF YOU SO-CALLED "POWER USERS." LOOK BEFORE YOU CLICK!


 * Jordgette (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from screaming in ALL CAPS also. See WP:AGF -- Chevy  Impala   2009  01:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I made the mistake on accident – everybody makes mistakes. Chevy   Impala   2009  20:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate the note. -Jordgette (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Draft on Joe the Plumber
I like it! Chevy  Impala   2009  15:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Fail-safe theory
I would really consider it unlikely that anyone would build a skyscraper with explosives in the concrete, without this being reported in the media. Also, the potential economic gain doesn't seem so big as to motivate the owner of a building to keep that secret and to bear the associated costs and risks. In contrast to the other hypotheses (gravity-driven collapse and nano-thermite/explosives-induced destruction), however, this hypothesis would fully explain the almost complete pulverization of the concrete, which, for me, is the most inexplicable of all the known facts about the September 11 attacks. Do you have any sources about this theory, other than this one? Cs32en 01:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit, I haven't gone looking for sources. It's just something I heard about somewhere and I figured it was probably mentioned in various places; perhaps it hasn't been.
 * Of course it's unlikely. But it's more likely than shape-shifting reptiles, isn't it? -Jordgette (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't seen any of these creatures yet. I have been on the WTC top and didn't smell any TNT, though, either. ;-)
 * The article covers a subject where WP:RS sources are not really abundant, and so editors have probably looked in most places where you could find them, at least on the internet. Peer-reviewed papers and subscription-based news would be promising places to find further WP:RS sources, and it's always possible that some reliable piece of information is buried under the huge pile of internet pages on 9/11. Sometimes customized Google search helps, and there are some lists of newspaper URLs on the net that you can use for this. Unfortunately, the number of URLs in a single Google Custom Search engine is restricted to 5000. It would be good to combine such custom search engines to be able to cover more news sources. Cs32en  02:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Collapse of the World Trade Center
Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any other tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 21:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What information would that be? I didn't add any information to that article that I can recall. If this is about Van Romero, I removed non-neutral language from the paragraph, but I kept the actual quote because it's (a) possibly historically significant and (b) well sourced. That paragraph has since been removed by a third editor. Can you be more specific in telling me what I did wrong? Or, if you made a mistake, would you mind retracting your notice above? Thanks. -Jordgette (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the needless warning – I was mistaken about the nature of your edit. The software made it look to me as if it was a bulk addition, but on closer inspection, I see it was a perfectly good edit. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 22:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Bold
There are two new replies to your query at Wikipedia talk:Be bold. Just a heads-up because you asked quite a long time ago (in Wikitime...) so might have already unwatchlisted ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories in NIST article
THe video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtKLtUiww80&feature=PlayList&p=2055FDA21A5D8C1D&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=15 is by NIST and clearly states that the collapse of WTC7 was IMPOSSIBLE as described in the commission report. This is fact and MUST be here. How much is the Government paying you to continue the lies and deceipt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil1 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place to impose your personal opinion. And it doesn't matter what someone's YouTube video says. This material does not belong in this article, period. If you look around at the history of 9/11 Wikipedia articles, you'll realize you are in the small minority and will not win this battle on WP. So please stop vandalizing and try doing something constructive. -Jordgette (talk) 07:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Lazy"
On my talk page, you wrote: Regarding Biocentrism, I looked briefly and couldn't find the discussion you mentioned. But I find it highly doubtful that the compromise you mentioned included missing closed parentheses, extra spaces, unnecessary ellipses, etc. Here's an idea: Rather than saying "some of that looked good but sorry" and undoing five minutes of work with a ten-second revert, maybe I can interest you in taking a moment to see what edits you do accept, and then making those changes to improve the article? Is that too much to ask? I know, that takes more than ten seconds. But in being lazy you just made the paragraph look sloppy again.

By the way, the Deepak Chopra link is dead so I'm removing the quote. I expect that you won't revert it just because I didn't clear the edit with you first. -Jordgette (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at what I think is the talk-page section you're referring to, I don't see a lot of argument about any of the things I changed. I see that the paragraph was proposed and re-proposed until there was consensus. So, does that mean the paragraph can never be changed again, even to fix typos? I wasn't aware of this Wikipedia policy....

If you do take a moment to restore some of my typo fixes, then I request that you consider what actually was and was not discussed on the talk page. -Jordgette (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Worth a read: wp:CIVIL.- Sinneed  21:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In regard to this deletion, wp:dead links would provide useful guidance.  is a tool I find very useful.  I, too, killed many, many dead links before an "older" editor pointed me to the "dead links" document.-  Sinneed  21:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Making large-scale edits all at once places later editors in the situation of either reverting ("throwing the baby out with the bathwater"), editing in detail to fix things, or leaving as-is. Each of us makes a choice, and clearly mine was not the one you would have made.  I understand, and I am sorry you don't approve. -  Sinneed  21:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

On my talk page, you wrote:
 * Fair enough...when I have some time later, I'll go through the discussion, and then I'll make individual edits to the paragraph to clean it up (again). I will do my best not to go against the consensus that was established, so in return I ask that if you choose to revert any of the edits, you'll reason fairly and appropriately in the edit summary. Please understand that I'm trying to improve the article in good faith. I hope my judgments won't be disregarded simply because I wasn't party to a discussion four months ago.


 * In my defense, though, I've made large-scale cleanups to many paragraphs and articles in the past, and this is honestly the first time someone has unilaterally wiped away my work with one click. As an actual (print) editor for many years, I really do not like seeing multiple typos re-introduced to anything after spending time to fix them. I hope you can at least understand why I protest. -Jordgette (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

First, I would say you need no defense, you do good work: As I said in my wp:edit summary, in that one edit I see good work mixed in with what I saw as work I could not support. The failure, as you pointed out, was mine: In an ideal world, I would have made the edits in detail. There is a strong minority that argues that revert is a Bad Thing and should be done only for vandalism. I can't agree, but I see their argument. It hurts to be reverted.

As to checking the archives, personally, I prefer to wp:Be Bold as you did, and make changes I think need to be made... then if someone chops them, I either do it over without running afoul of the other opinions, or explain and do it over, or just wander off. :) Most talk page histories are filled with unreadable fluff, sadly.  Reading them before editing the 1st time I find unproductive.  WP doesn't work by "Mother may I?" it works by "This is what I did."... wp:BRD - Bold edit... maybe get a Revert... Discuss.  You boldly edited (and it resulted in improvement to the article... the link works now, I think), I reverted, and we discussed.

I intended none of what I wrote here as a negative about your editing, only explanation of why I saw the edit as not one I could support. All the best, and happy editing. You may safely reply here, as I will watch for any further reply, or you are of course welcome on my talk page. :) - Sinneed  22:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm sure we'll work it out. I have been hesitant to make typo edits separately where I see more than one, because I feel like making a half-dozen successive minor edits clogs up everyone's watchlists, but perhaps I should rethink that. -Jordgette (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to make many, many small edits. Some folk officially hate that I do. Mildly OT link: user:Sinneed
 * A middle-ground idea might be to make the typofixes in a single "cleanup" edit... actual changes to content in another. The content edit will be more at risk of disagreement, and it is painful to re-do the little fixes.-  Sinneed  22:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sinneed, I made most of those edits individually, skipping a few that were dicier or less necessary in my opinion. Revert whatever you feel necessary. -Jordgette (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Bill Simmons and Jersey Shore
Thanks for adding a mention of Jersey Shore (TV series) to the Bill Simmons page. --Domeheid (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Bias in editing of WTC 7
Jordgette, you are making an accusation of bias and delusion without responding directly to the issues at hand. It is not adequate for an editor to dismiss as "conspiracy BS" anything that does not fit their worldview, or their understanding of life. It's not anyone's fault that what one of New York's most notable developers, and a person with direct personal knowledge, said about what we agree is one of the most important events in modern American history; our role is to fairly evaluate the facts, and to determine what they imply or add up to. Just because you think that "pull it" meant get the firemen out of the way does not mean that's what it means, and the fact that you're not willing to consider any alternative interpretations speaks directly to you being the one who is attached to a particular narrative that that one statement potentially shatters. I have not studied the history of the page to see what you've deleted in the past, but I am aware that there have been issues raised by others about your edits with respect to this topic. All of this concerns me deeply. You are veiling in a kind of skepticism a refusal to address vital questions that are inherent to this topic. Dioxinfreak (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I did respond to the issues you raised, directly. I am sorry you were unsatisfied by my reply. Now, the way Wikipedia works is we look for consensus. I have stepped aside and asked that other editors weigh in. However, if you look at the archives for the discussions on the article, you will see that these kinds of attempts have been generally unsuccessful, and certainly not because of me. There are already WTC "alternate conspiracy" articles in Wikipedia, and the consensus has been that that's where these speculations belong, not in a factual article on a real building. Believe me, you are hardly the first conspiracy theorist to get upset and frustrated over Wikipedia's policies. -Jordgette (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You did not. You did not, for example, respond to my query about your comments about how the video does not exist, but meanwhile we're discussing a quote from the video. Are you suggesting that there is a conspiracy to put a fake Larry Silverstein quote on the Internet, disguised as a counterfeit PBS documentary and trick everyone into buying into an alt hypothesis? Dioxinfreak (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You claimed, in your first comment, that "there is video tape of the landlord authorizing a controlled demolition." No such video exists, period. -Jordgette (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a bold statement, considering that we are discussing a quote from that a video purported to be that. You can only say that "no such video exists" if you blank the interpretation that does not suit you. Our task, as I see it, is to fact check and understand this quotation by Mr. Silverstein, shown on video that we have apparently both seen, on the topic of the collapse of WTC7:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said you know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Even if you don't agree with the definition of "pull it" that does not dismiss the existence of the video. This is getting very Alice in Wonderland.

Dioxinfreak (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't own Wikipedia, so if you feel so strongly about this issue, tell you what -- go ahead and edit the article however you see fit. Put in a new section about a video that shows Silverstein admitting on TV that he authorized a secret demolition. I guess we'll just have to see what happens. (I won't touch it.) p.s.: Don't forget to include a reliable source on your interpretation of the quote. -Jordgette (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Zeitgeist
Hi. Direct quotes are not necessary, let alone two of them. But if you're going to include one, there should be justification for it. Michael Shermer never reviewed the film, nor addressed what he thought of its accuracy. He made a passing mention of it in an article that was not about that film, but about postmodern relativism. Including quotes should be done only when a paraphrase is not sufficient to convey the information. To include two, and to devote one them to a statement that wasn't even about the film, except in terms of an oblique, minor mention of it, is overkill. Please don't stick quotes in articles unless a summary/paraphrase of the material is in some way insufficient. If you're going to include quotes in that article, it should at least be for people who were actually talking about Zeitgeist as the central topic. Nightscream (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't stick the quote in there. I would prefer that you remove Shermer altogether, or insert some context. The way it is now offers no information. Seriously, does this sound like it belongs in an encyclopedia:
 * "Professor Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptics Society, mentions Zeitgeist in an article in Scientific American on the postmodernist belief in the relativism of truth in the age of mass media."
 * You have whitewashed the quote by removing all context. Why not either insert some context or remove the Shermer mention altogether. Thank you. Jordgette (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In the first place compromise is not something that only one side of a conflict works towards. That's why the word compromise begins with "co", denoting the mutualism at the heart of its meeting. I have no problem with doing my part towards that, though.


 * Second, I never said I had a problem with mentioning the Shermer article. I was quite clear in my communications with you and in my edit summaries as to why the version you previously favored was not a good editorial choice, and it had nothing to do with mentioning that article, in and of itself.


 * That said, I think your most recent revision is a lot closer to a reasonable paraphrase that affords that article its proper weight. I tweaked it a bit to get the paraphrase a bit more accurate. Let me know what you think. Nightscream (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks fine. I apologize if I got a little bent out of shape, but edit-warring is a problem for everyone (including myself). I would have preferred if you or someone else had tried to paraphrase the quote at some point, rather than just cut it again and again, which was clearly the easier option (as was my repeatedly adding it back in). That was my point about compromise. Anyway I'm glad it worked out. -Jordgette (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

How not to think when you deal with Wikipedia
You removed the section in Discussion that was published from Shrodinger' cat article. So you decreased the value of the article about Shrodinger's cat on Wikipedia. Great job! The reason I removed your comment is not that I have anything against you. It is this one. The reference at the top was at first Alex Peter "The Existence and Role of Quantum-state Noise" which you are referring to in your comment as something "I do not know who Alex Peter is so this is only your opinion". However, that explanation, which you wrongly think is purely mine and never seen by anyone else, is from the article that was published so by Wikipedia, it can be there, even more because it is in Discussion section. Once I gave a strict reference to the article, which has no name "Alex Peter" in it, your comment did not have any sense any longer, because if you read a new version of the section and then your comment it is out of the logic. Not only that you removed that section which I put a lot of effort into, you go into commenting another section on top of my comment. Don't forget that this all is happening in Discussion section. If I use your way of thinking I could place a comment after the someone's question saying "watch out! this is the question of only this guy and nobody else has ever asked it before". All I can say is that your behavior is very immature. Please find other way of dealing with your problems of self-esteem. Wikipedia is not that place.

The problem now is that I can't undo your mess and I do not have time to write again that section, neither I want to try to retrieve its previous version which I have to tediously check anyway. If I ask you why you did it, you would not be able to answer the question. Please, deal with your frustration in some other manner and leave published and verifiable sources were they belong - to Wikipedia. Especially, you changed something you just felt necessary to change. I am quite surprised that you have done a job of Sherlock Holmes to discover who Alex Peter is. You should spend your time better. Just to complete your investigation, Alex Peter is a pen-name. As soon as the article is published under the real name I changed the reference. I hope you can congratulate yourself on your effort for deleting something that some people spent three decades in building. I hope I was clear. Stay away from your premature opinions about anything and even worse acting on them.

You said in your comment "I do not know who Alex Peter is." For goodness sake, do your really think you know every publisher in the world, or even worse that only those you know are worth having their comment on Wikipedia?

I will not mark this action of yours as vandalism at the moment. Next time, I will. Aperisic (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to be new to Wikipedia. I apologize if I offended you; that was not my intention. However, what you did was improper in my opinion. A better option, rather than deleting my comment (which I imagine was embarrassing to you, as I exposed that you were trying to insert your own original research into Wikipedia), would have been merely to add a note that your ideas had been published elsewhere. Instead you chose to rewrite the history of the discussion page so as to remove your own dubious actions. This isn't appreciated, nor is attempting to call my edits "vandalism," when it was you who was trying to cover your erroneous tracks. But that's all I have to say about it. Better luck next time. -Jordgette (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)