User talk:J~enwiki/Archives/2009/November

Closed discussions
It is not proper to unclose a discussion on ani when you don't like the outcome. Please don't repeat that. Toddst1 (talk) 05:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not proper to close a discussion when you don't like the topic. Reverting over it, when another administrator [since three] agrees there's an issue that needs to be addressed is particularly poorly considered.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pick a forum and rest your case.Toddst1 (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I've never posted on this matter in any other forum.  Not one.  Perhaps you should actually look into an issue and bother reading wp:parent before edit warring to close a valid noticeboard thread?  user: J  aka justen (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you've reopened the discussion. I do hope you'll take greater care in the future before shutting down discussions at the noticeboard.  I've taken the courtesy of striking your comments above.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not appropriate either. Remove what you want, but don't retract others' words please. Toddst1 (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you not believe it's appropriate for you to retract them? user: J  aka justen (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've retracted, then removed my comments on ANI about forum shopping after it became clear they were not material or helpful and unclosed the discussion after it became clear that it was more appropriate. However, it is still never appropriate to un-close a discussion you start when you do not like the outcome. Toddst1 (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry we disagree, but your close was clearly in error, and framing it as thought the matter was my "not lik[ing] the outcome" is disingenuous at best. Closing the discussion before understanding the situation and reverting to close again without bothering to dig even an inch deeper (or, better yet, discuss) was the mistake here, and I'm sorry it appears you can't see that.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Another request
Am endeavoring to avoid further conflict with you, so have made no formal complaints regarding your attempts to alter my posts here or the edit war you attempted with this post, but you are not welcome to "clerk" my user space. In light of past complaints this has the appearance of deliberate boundary-testing and provocative behavior. I am doing my best to maintain polite distance; please reciprocate. Durova 359 02:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously? It might be time for you to review wp:agf. I will, however, honour your surreal request to refrain from "clerking" your talk page. user: J  aka justen (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Todd Palin
Just so you know, the two edits you reverted as "vandalism" from an IP editor on Todd Palin last night weren't, they were good-faith and accurate (albeit unsourced) edits. Todd Palin preferred to be known as "First Dude", and there are tens of thousands of references in Google. The first page of search results for "Todd Palin" "first dude" includes hits from CNN, Salon, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, ABC News, and a bunch of other reliable, mainstream sources. I'm not going to change it back, but if it is re-added, I would recommend not being so quick to nuke it.  Horologium  (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (response, posted to User talk:Horologium) Who knew? I frequently open diffs in tabs and review them as I get to them, and I recall only seeing the first change, which was to alter the infobox to succession box from "First Gentleman" to "First Dude."  Not being familiar with the "in joke" (as I never am), it appeared to be quite obvious (although relatively harmless, all things considered) vandalism.  Thanks for the heads up, in any event.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Howdy!
Howdy!  I'm just so proud to be here! Thanks for dropping by. Please take a second to take a look at my little note above, which is also included as an editnotice for this page. If it makes sense for me to reply to anything you bring up here, I'll probably copy over your post and my reply to your talk page, and watchlist it and respond further (when appropriate) there. This way conversations will hopefully stick together. (And that's a Good Thing  !)  When I archive things posted here, I'll also archive the initial reply along with a link to the diff, so that folks can follow the conversation from there (if they'd like). If you have something quick you'd like to bring to my attention, you can also always send me an email right here via Wikipedia. I'll try my best to be quick to reply, in either case. Thanks for stopping by! user: J  (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Alex Jones Talk Page
Hi, what did I do that violated wikipedia policy on the Alex Jones page? You just mentioned me for on the "incidents" page. I did not destruct the actual wikipedia page and what i discussed on the talk page was polite, quick and straight forward and has to do with real issues regarding the fact that the Alex Jones page could certainly use some expansion so I see nothing wrong with what was posted on the talk page. The talk page is there for a reason so editors like ourselves can discuss and make informed descisions regarding the quality of wikipedia pages. If i did something wrong, fill me in as I will be sure not to make a similar error. Iscream22 (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Alumni sections on Booz & Company and Booz Allen Hamilton
I was asked for some help dealing with a disruptive IP adding "alumni" sections to Booz & Company. There is a similar section at Booz Allen Hamilton. The entries in these sections have references which don't necessarily confirm the association. I don't do a lot of editing on corporate articles and don't know if these sections are appropriate. Would take a look, if you get a chance? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)