User talk:Ju66l3r/Archive 2

&#32;Archive &#32; &#124;&#32; Archive &rarr;

Hoxsey
I'll give it a look. When I created the article, there was no corresponding article that I could find using the search function so I figured I'd create it as it's in the news.--Rosicrucian 23:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see this was a later creation merged in. Got it. Parsing it now.--Rosicrucian 23:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Reads pretty smoothly. A good synthesis of the two articles. Kudos.--Rosicrucian 23:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for fixing the formatting of my nonination to delete an article. I've never nominated an article for deletion before and wasn't sure I did it correctly.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hopelessly left-wing
The same-sex marriage article is hopelessly POV. --68.45.161.241 18:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you need to AfD it independently. ju66l3r 19:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * POV fork, it seems that everything on Wikipedia that deviates from the Left-wing party line is a NPOV violation. Listen, I didn't write any articles seeking to get around the NPOV rule, and I disagree that what I did constitutes a POV fork.

The NPOV rule is meaningless because all I have seen it mean is Left-wing views only. That's not a neutral point of view, and because English speakers outside of the U.S. are generally more liberal than Americans is not good enough reason in my book to let this go.

Besides, I figured that's what User:Fireplace wanted me to do with this little ditty:" this main article shouldn't be used to track a long dialectic in the pro/con arguments.") If the main article shouldn't be used for pro/con arguments, and the other sections of the article have separate sub articles, why not this one? --Pravknight 03:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you don't believe that people are editing out of a good faith effort to keep articles neutral. I know that sensitive and contentious articles that I have had a major role in editing seem to end up better off through good discussion and working things out on the discussion page.  This is not going to be the case though if you continue to approach the editing process feeling as if it's an "us vs them", "right vs left", or "religion vs new world bias".  It's also biased to edit from the stance that non-Americans are not editing out of good faith to keep a neutral point of view.
 * You're also incorrect to claim elsewhere that NPOV is not applied to Left-wing views in articles. I  edited what I thought to be a particularly strong article on the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, but its neutrality was quickly questioned.  After good discussion with many outspoken editors from the political right (in support of the bill), I and others helped to introduce a stronger "Pro-bill" counterpoint to my edits against the bill's over-reaching agenda.  The result was a stronger article.  My advice would be to build a consensus on your suggested edits to the original same-sex marriage page.  But unless you are willing to seek consensus (and not just demand that what you write is always NPOV) then you'll always be looking for concession rather than consensus and there's no place in Wikipedia for that approach.  You may be happier editing one of the less neutral wiki instead if you don't see where I'm coming from on this.  In the meantime, your article is a valid example of a POV fork and so I (and others according to the AfD discussion) feel that it should be removed.  ju66l3r 05:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think the people are interested in consensus on homosexuality, but rather they seem interested in pushing a pro- argument and censoring other arguments that would undermine their worldview. That's the problem.

I was more than willing to work with the other editors for a consensus on what I wrote, but I didn't get the sense they were willing to consider worldviews that went against their own. I work in the journalistic world in America where we take pride in ensuring all key arguments and counterarguments are presented. The postmodern way of thinking only allows its own orthodoxy, and in many ways it is every bit as intolerant as the medieval world.--Pravknight 18:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that media and politics have started a slide towards entrenching around extremisms when people discuss an issue. But from my personal experience here at Wikipedia, I see a lot more reasonable editors with good approaches to neutrality for the sake of building a solid resource (albeit I have not edited many homosexuality-related articles yet).  I still assume good faith in most editors and I did so for your article (I searched the history because I was certain you were hoping to portray what you believe to be good info but unfortunately starting a new article in this case is not the approved way to go about it.  Good luck in working to better the articles that interest you in the future.  ju66l3r 22:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Law
Just a small comment on the old wiki version of 'law' that you stated was clearer and better. The old version was wrong in assuming that all law jurisdictions share the common aim of justice. Indeed, many politicians, monarchs, dictators etc have used the law to subvert justice. For example, it would now be widely accepted that anti-black laws and law-makers before the civil rights movement in the US did not aim to reach justice, but rather aimed to facilitate their own racist ideals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardss (talk • contribs).
 * Simply because the creator of the law does not share the same conclusion as to what is "justice" does not mean that the system is not in place to satisfy the creator's determination of justice. You claim that it is now widely accepted that anti-black laws and their creators did not aim to reach justice and only furthered racism.
 * Wouldn't you agree that now we also put in place laws to kill animals that harm humans? Imagine a time in 200 years when we could communicate with an animal and learn that animals were harming humans only because of lack of communication and abuses by the human "victim".  We would instantly ban the killing of these innocent animals that harmed humans (after all, it'll be shown that the human was at fault some of the times once we can get the dog's side of the story).  Does this mean that right now our laws are not setup to seek justice given only the knowledge that we have at this time (vicious animals must be stopped to seek justice for the victim and prevent future problems from occurring)?
 * This hypothetical is just to try and demonstrate that current law by even well-meaning individuals attempts to reach justice but not knowing the future may be eventually seen as just as incorrect as those of anti-black laws. Law systems made for subjugation are still seen by their creators as accomplishing justice, albeit the creator's definition of justice may be cruelly twisted from our own.  That's just the way I see it though and why other editors may not so a consensus will determine which way the article goes.  ju66l3r 16:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your Archive
I re-archived your talk page archive and noted it in the link above. Make sure the next time you make an archive you put it as a sub-page of your talk page, not in the main namespace. Cheers! -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 22:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought I had double-checked all of those things, but I guess I had missed something.  ju66l3r 15:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism
Hi Ju66l3r. Just wanted to thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page! It was coincidental that I was notifying the anonymous user that their vandalism of content on the Lyse Doucet article had been removed when they vandalised my user page. Thanks for spotting it! Wikiwoohoo 18:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I just happened to be looking for a way to test out my newly installed popups javascript and saw an IP edit on a userspace page (which usually leads to vandalism for reversion).  ju66l3r 18:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up AFD's
Regarding this, I know you meant well, but it's a bad idea to "clean" AFD discussions, since they may be relevent somehow, even if you can't see why at the present time. (|--  UlT i MuS  00:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Take tit-for-tat stuff to user talk pages. There was nothing relevant to the worth of the article in the dialogue you were both having.  I have a feeling that it will be hard enogh to stay on task in that AfD with what seems to be a particularly stubborn set of users than to allow them free reign on the AfD page, too.  ju66l3r 00:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, it doesn't belong there and is better suited for User_talk. But AfD is AfD and you have to alow the discussion to take place however it does. If you don't, you're killing the point of having AfD at all. (|--   UlT i MuS  00:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing non-relevant discourse from the discussion of the article doesn't some how kill the point of the AfD. The AfD is for discussing deletion of the article.  If that material is there and untouched, then the discussion is fine and unharmed.  If someone vandalized the AfD with obscenity or spam, it would be removed.  In the context of the AfD, the text is nonsense and should also be removed for being on par with other forms of discussion vandalism (and at least not responded to, even if it is left on the page).  ju66l3r 00:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

katharine harris
When you say I can't read the page, or the comments, you ARE being incivil. that you feel a need to brign it to my talk page with more incivil behavior doesn't say anything better about you. that you offer to get a bunch of other editors on the page sounds like you're trying to intimidate me, or make me feel excluded, i'm not sure which. Eithe way, more editors would be GOOD, not bad, and I would welcome more voices who understand that Wikipedia is about facts, and not about twitchy semantics about 'vote' vs. 'one's two cents'. I genuinely find your immediate and continuing reaction to an editor who opposes your view to show that you are insecure about your views, and unwilling to actually work to make the pages better. ThuranX 05:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * None of this (other than your agreement that other editors are going to be necessary moving forward) is true and there is ample evidence in my contribs (to articles like Great powers to Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 to NOSSA and so on) of my ability to work civilly with other editors on a very wide range of topics and editorial situations. I didn't say you couldn't read the page/comments in any way.  My comments on your talk page are anything but incivil and my comments on the article discussion page have always been about your reasoning for your viewpoint and not about your opposition to my viewpoint.  When this entire ordeal is put into context of all of the other editors' comments on your user talk page, I think you are sometimes misguided in your passion for discussing your article improvements with others.  I doubt this will ring true with you, but I put it out there given the overwhelming evidence of editorial conflict you seem to attract to which I have now also been a party.  ju66l3r 05:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

USA, pffft
You're country is stupid making stupid conservative laws!! 58.163.131.185 15:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My country has a procedure for determining the worth and intelligence of its legislation. That system isn't perfect, which then requires other checks and balances to step in and correct the mistakes.  You'll notice a very similar procedure is available here to correct when someone vandalizes an article.  ju66l3r 15:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess America and liberalism go together like oil and water. 58.163.131.185 15:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ohh I get it now! The Bill is only concerning institutions who receive Federal funding. Still sucks though. 58.163.131.185 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV
The edits you reported were not obvious vandalism. Try WP:ANI. I've removed your report. alpha Chimp laudare 04:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This user is unrelenting in their POV sniggling and other garbage edits like now has started adding garbage like "citation" requests for an acronym on Windows Live Messenger and adding the word "controversial" to the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 article. I started a WP:AIV section...but geez, it's starting to spread... ju66l3r 05:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not going to get any resolution posting that here. Sorry man. alpha Chimp  laudare 11:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't even give me that crap
Are you kidding me? Look for one I accidently deleted the info on the o'reilly page, which I apoligesd for.

For two, I added it in the discussion page why it should not be deleted, untill somebody responds to my post on the Discusssion page, it will say removed, is that clear? -The Bird —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.97.150 (talk • contribs).


 * As per your addition to the talk page, you intentionally deleted the AfD notice from the top of the Bill O'Reilly controversies article. That is not how AfD procedure is handled.  Once AfD is placed in good faith, the process must be carried out so that consensus can inform an administrator as to whether the article is kept or deleted.  If you have an opinion based on Wikipedia policy, then add it to the article's entry at the AfD section of the website.  This is why it should not be deleted and continuing to do so is vandalism.  ju66l3r 05:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, fine, fair enough.

How do you explain my "ainti gay remarks" that were deleted without reason? Again, untill somebody says something in the discussion page my info WILL be left in the article, in this case. The anti gay remarks. -The bird —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.97.150 (talk • contribs).


 * I was using one of my saved edit summaries and forgot to add that the section you added for "anti-gay" remarks was unsourced/unsubstantiated. You need a source for something like that, especially when editing something pertaining to a living person otherwise Wikipedia runs the risk of libel (as per WP:BLP). ju66l3r 05:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah you want a source? Alright then here is your source
- http://mediamatters.org/items/200512090016

If you STILL don't believe it, feel free to watch the video. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.97.150 (talk • contribs).


 * Thank you. That's exactly what's needed.  I imagine you've already added the section back, so I'll pop over and check on the reference formatting to get everything squared away.  Also, please be sure to sign discussion/talk pages with 4 tildes ( ~ ) after you finish your comment.  It helps readability and lets others know where you finished your thoughts.  Thanks.  ju66l3r 05:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny, after he sources his info he still gets banned......
It turns out, that even after showing TWO admins the info he needed he STILL got banned from an admin named Glen. He told me through MSN...Now I knew that wikipedian's admins were not the BEST on the internet, but after hearing this you guys have to be the most sick, vile people i've ever heard in my life. You all she be ashamed of yourselves, and put the anti-gay remarks back in the article, now that you have the info you need, since some jackass blocked him EVEN after he had the info he needed. Again the text was the following:On the December 8 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly offered a Factor jacket to radio "shock jock" Howard Stern. After Stern said, "I won't wear it, but I will give it to a crack whore" and handed it back, O'Reilly told him: "I'm not having this on some lesbian somewhere. It's not going to happen."

and the source was - http://mediamatters.org/items/200512090016 Dragong4 05:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * He didn't follow instructions. I can't help that.  I've already included a non-copyright violating version of the text and sourced the material correctly.  It wasn't his only mistake tonight and he kept moving too fast for anyone to help him in a reasonable amount of time.  Best he can do is ask for an unblock or just take a breath, walk away for a short time, and come back when the current ban is completed with a fresh outlook on improving Wikipedia.  Sorry.  (...and if you are he but logged in to avoid the anon ban, please be aware that using a sockpuppet is also against wikipolicy and if someone were to checkuser your account and match the IP, you could permanently lose the account and have the IP banned permanently.  I'm not saying you're not telling the truth; I'm just trying to provide you with the consequences if you aren't).  ju66l3r 05:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember to "subst" please
When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:test&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. - Gl e n 07:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're going to have to be more specific than that. I almost always use subst.  ju66l3r 18:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

World record progression 10,000 metres men
(moved World record progression 10000 metres men to World record progression for the Men's 10,000 m: fits other world record progression naming)


 * And how so? You actually broke the consistency. See Category:Athletics records (World record progression pole vault men, World record progression 100 metres men etc.). Now it can't be moved without a requested move, so you should've used the talk page. Prolog 21:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First, look at the category again. The mile run says "...of the mile run" (not "... 1 mile men").  The women's 100m is "100 m women" (not "100 metres women").  Finally, the marathon says "Marathon world best progression" (not even "World record progression marathon men").  Since there's hardly any agreement from that category at all, I did not take the naming from that category.  I used the IOC/Olympic pages as my guide. Each of their world record progressions lists "World record progression" then "Gender" then "Distance".  The article title should be a word or phrase that is easy to read and use so I concatenated these things with "for the &lt;Gender&gt;'s" to make a complete phrase in English.  You can use the link on the move page for help on moving a page to see what options are available to move the page back if you have such a strong disagreement.  It's not impossible to move it back and I think you'll find most people will consider the current title far more legible/usable.  ju66l3r 00:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not against the new title. But like I said, the one I picked was the most commonly used when it comes to athletics records, as 4/7 of the articles had it like that. So I don't see why you decided to move this article and let the rest of them be like they are. Now there is yet one more differently named article instead of at least 5/8 of them being named the same way. Also, are you sure the Men's in the title should be capitalized? I believe men's would be better and Google seems to agree with me. Prolog 09:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadn't moved the other articles because I wasn't sure how much I wanted to work on the section, but I didn't want to leave the page the way it was since it had come to my attention. If you want to work out a good naming schema for current and future articles, I'm all for it.  Is there a better place to get consensus on this than my talk page?  I'm all for something consistent and then moving the other articles (and fixing any redirects).  As for Men's vs men's, I can agree that my capitalization is probably not great.  As it was on the IOC pages, I tend to think of the event (from viewing track events live and on television) as being a Gender-distance type label rather than the gender's distance race...if you see what I mean (i.e., the race title is the "Men's 10,000m", not the men's "10,000m"), but I do see from GHits how others have it named so I could see moving it to de-capitalize the "M".  As I said, I'm willing to work towards a final solution and move all of the articles to that new schema, if you're interested in helping and finding out what the community feels about it.  I apologize for it being discussed now instead of earlier, I was bold at the time and have moved pages previously to better titles without complaint.  ju66l3r 15:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree to your points, and I think the current name is good (whether with Men's or men's). I'm not sure how to figure out a good naming schema either, but I added a note on the talk page of World records in athletics so let's take this there, although it might not generate much discussion. Anyway, thanks for you interest in the article. Prolog 17:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC with Myspaceaustraliandude
want to start one please? He won't budge on his position, claiming that my opinion should influence their article and that he/she doesn't need to compromise. -- Chris   chat   edits   essays    13:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * a;right, it's started. Please help! -- Chris   chat   edits   essays    13:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, if you agree with my summary, oculd you sign under my name as a party trying and failing to resolve the issue? If oyu do that, then the RfC will stay. Thanks in advance. If you have any diffs, it'd be great too. -- Chris   chat   edits   essays    13:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I will take a look to see what's up. As I said on the talk page, there are plenty of better articles for me to spend my time on when I'm logged in to Wikipedia.  So, as a result, I sorta let the MySpace article go to the dogs...when they want GA status or something, it'll finally ring the bell that they're really mucking it up.  ju66l3r 15:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * ok, now i just need you to sign right here so that I can get some help mediating my/your former dispute with australainman. -- Chris   chat   edits   essays    16:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. You may want to get the editor who sprotected the page initially and offered mediation to help as well.  He may be willing to endorse the RfC or provide other examples as to why he felt sprotection was needed.  ju66l3r 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit summary
That is good comedy. Thanks! William Pietri 04:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, you're welcome and thanks. I have no idea how I added a colon to the middle of "someone".  ju66l3r 04:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Wild card (sports)
If you agree that the reason that the NBA and the NHL don't use the term "wild card" is simply because there is no wild card teams in the first place then why are you fine with the article just the way it is? Ban ice hockey fights 23:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was being coy with you. I said that I agreed that the term wild card is not used as such for those teams.  I did not say that they no wild card teams.  ju66l3r 04:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)