JayHenry | Opuses | Chimpmanzee | Boxes | Commons | Talk | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Just thought this little article would interest you. Take care. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 00:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
...a corollary to your eminently reasonable suggestion is that admins who block Giano (or his sockpuppets) are not summarily haled in front of the Arbitration Committee. As an aside, we really do need to collide under better circumstances. Ever edit railway articles? Mackensen (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jay, I was wondering if I could list your guide User:JayHenry/chimpmanzee to the Template:ACE 2008 guides template? MBisanz talk 20:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
If you have concerns, please ask a question. Jehochman Talk 20:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sinestro Corps War is plenty academic! The usage of colors to represent different emotions and the emotional spectrum is very Jungian, it's got parallels to the War on Terror, the metaphysical implications of fear versus willpower, the literary constructs... Of course, that's all OR so I guess it doesn't matter. But still! -- Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 20:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I stumbled across User:JayHenry/chimpmanzee. The protracted policy dispute I was involved in was over no original research. I had my own opinions, but I stayed involved in a long frustrating and circular process in an attempt to try and find some solution addressing most concerns. It was very exhausting and frustrating. I admittedly did not behave as well as I should have, in my own view. I took a wikibreak to cool my head and have since generally avoided becoming overly entangled in policy disagreements. If that is not a sufficient reminder, I can provide some relevant archive links and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Cheers! Vassyana ( talk) 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I like the well-thought out views expressed on User:JayHenry/chimpmanzee that you've posted. I think you've done a good job in evaluating the candidates. Nice work!
In addition, while you yourself are not a candidate, I would easily have endorsed your candidacy, had you decided to run. I think you have the right judgment for ArbCom, and would be an excellent arbitrator. Best wishes. Acalamari 00:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
E-mail heading your way. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but I very much believe the current "culture of secrecy" is misguided. I simply believe in respecting confidences. I regret your comment. Sam Korn 22:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. You said in my recent unsuccessful RFB here, that wanted clarification as to my reason for "wanting to help" and I never responded to that before I withdrew. So let me get to that now. You mentioned that "we have dozens of backlogs that need worked on" and "If you [Useight] just want to help because we need helpful tasks done then there's lots of places to go do it, and it won't matter if you [Useight] have a fancy title."
Why don't I go work on the immense backlogs? Mainly because they are extraordinarily tedious and, over time, I would get bored or worse, burn out completely. Since this is a volunteer project, we all edit in areas we enjoy editing. For example, I'm helping with articles about NFL seasons, see User:Useight/NFL Project. Many, many NFL season do not yet have articles (upwards of 400 when I began), but I'm churning my way through them. Does this come with a fancy title like NFL-Article Connoisseur? No, I do it because I enjoy it. Same with the areas of RFA and CHU, I happen to enjoy working there and there happens to be a title attached to some of the functions. I cannot do those functions, but I enjoy clerking at CHU and archiving SNOW-ed RFAs. I'm going to continue doing them because I like that sector of Wikipedia. As for the huge backlogs, on rare occasion I do show up to categorize a few of the thousands of uncategorized articles, but because I don't enjoy it, I don't do it very often or for very long. Well, I've said my piece, so I'll get off my soapbox and back to other stuff, I just wanted to clarify why I want to help in the realm that requires bureaucratship. Useight ( talk) 03:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jay. Just thought I'd let you know that I clarified my answer on the science question. You can still oppose, I'm not forcing any change of heart, just pointing it out. After all, technically I should've gotten it right the first time. Wizardman 19:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your kind words, JH. I agree that your supportive note at TTDYK was excellent, and I'll never grow weary of blessing you for it. Have yourself a happy little holiday too. Scartol • Tok 13:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
To you too. Thanks for your kind words, but the irony is that a fair few of my friends are accountants and economists, and I was able to ask them about bank runs and panics when you were working on 1907, and was proudly boasting that I had a small role in r-w'd the page. I have no idea where you are coming from re: your "antics", I just dont get that at all. WP is a collebrative community, we work together and of course friendships come from that, and friends goof around. So what. If others want to be cut and dry, thats their problem not ours. I've come accross some fairly seriously capable and intellegent and witty people on WP, and interacting with ye is one of the largest reasons why I spend so much time here. I'd consider you amongst the first rank. Right up there with these guys [1] [2].
Well thats my Love, Actually credit spend! Take care. Oikel ( talk) 13:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. "An excellent editor" was generous and appreciated. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 17:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about slouching on that. I've been getting into finals and my normal method of actual "content" editing (As opposed to drama or project editing) of sitting down with source in hand for 2-4 hour blocks doesn't accord well with that. I've also realized that my grasp of the terminology and fundamentals wasn't enough to summarize this into a featured article so I picked up a copy of Stigum's Money Market. I'll be up to speed in a few weeks. Protonk ( talk) 03:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jay. Thanks for offering to help out with a DYK rules rewrite. I've jotted down a few thoughts at User talk:Olaf Davis/DYK rules - see what you think. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 11:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm dropping you a line to let you know that I have clarified my position and reasoning regarding devolution at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Vassyana#Devolution. Please take a look over it and let me know if I can clarify anything further. Addressing your specific stated concern, I believe devolution shields admins less than ArbCom-imposed broad solutions, making it more difficult for "tendacious admins" to act without consequence. For example, discretionary sanctions imposed by ArbCom, for better or worse, permit admins to act in situations with a considerably greater amount of impunity and protection than "regular" actions. Simply setting an example in a particular case and encouraging the community to resolve similar cases leaves further administrative actions subject to "normal" scrutiny and recourse. If you still disagree, please know that I respect your opinion and your well-reasoned opposition. Be well! Vassyana ( talk) 04:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The Dr Pda instruction sheet says that the device should include blockquotes and other quotes, but cannot: ""This method is not perfect however and may include text which isn't prose (eg in navboxes), or exclude text which is (eg in Cquote, or prose written in bullet-point form,"
The Readability program does include the blockquotes. That is why I was saying that one was the more accurate of the two in a prior conversation. Politizer's comment is completely misleading, because Dr Pda supports WP:SIZE's definition of what prose is, which includes quotes and blockquotes. I hope that helps explain things. Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey there JayHenry, apologies for not answering you sooner. Your comment was not at all intrusive or unwelcome; as I said on the ACE page, I welcome all discussion. The reason that I was holding off on replying is because I was trying to formulate my thoughts to express myself most clearly. I suppose the distinction that I want to make is that I do not feel that article writing is the be-all end-all of WP participation. This project is big enough that we can have people that specialize in article writing and some that specialize in policy-making or technical aspects. It's simply not fair to have requirements for positions on what is ultimately a volunteer project. While I realize the argument that this might create a disparity between two "classes" of editor, even the little bit of editing in mainspace that Deskana does (yes, it averages out to be poor, but he does it in groups of several edits at a time) clearly shows that he knows his way around and can function. As pointed out by Majorly, there were other factors involved there as well.
Regarding WJBscribe, I think it was honorable of him to bow out if he felt that he wasn't going to have enough time to fulfill all his roles, but I'm not seeing how that supports your point; obviously ArbCom is a very time-consuming and draining job, but I trust the candidates to have considered this before throwing their hat into the ring. Will realized that his RL constraints would not allow him to perform at full capacity, and so he withdrew. I have no problem with that; in fact, it's good that he withdrew rather than getting elected and then realizing his time limits. Glass Cobra 06:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, I don't have oversight and I was never part of Mediation Team. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello JayHenry, wanted to drop you another quick note to make sure that you weren't offended by my delay in answering you. If you'd like to continue our conversation, I'd be happy to oblige. Glass Cobra 21:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in
my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! |
JH, I see you covered my back on the 6RR case. Thanks. My bias against current news stories in finance is confirmed by my experience on the Bernard Madoff article, people just get carried away, but at least there were no market predictions involved. Thanks again. Smallbones ( talk) 17:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Can't think of a better song to wish a Celoieth mispelling Scotch and Irish confusing Outriggr supporting -indvidual- such as yourself except to say Slainte. Ceoil ( talk) 22:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
(meant global pan-religious not unitarian)
PS: Got a favour - up for a difficult map with 9 subspecies and some overlapping ranges???? Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!
Dear JayHenry,
Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.
Kind regards,
Majorly talk 21:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Good day
I am not sure if this would be the correct place to place this.
Could you please help to perform a peer review on the South African Scout Association article. Thanks in advance. -- YiS, Jediwanna be 13:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout all the trouble back there, JH, i now see the errors of my ways Sweetnorbert ( talk) 05:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Jayhenry, I know you will know the answer to this -- is it kosher to copy "official bios" from show websites (online or TV) to wikipedia or other wikis? If you don't know, I'm sure you'll know where I should go look? Thanks. Milowent ( talk) 06:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).
We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza ( on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, how are you? Since you were one of the main editors in bringing Javan Rhinoceros to FA status, I was wondering if maybe you could please review Camel, which I have just brought to peer review with the hope to get ideas to eventually give it a GA candidacy. Thank you. -- Fish-Bird ( talk) 17:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in
my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith ( talk), 22:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
Denbot ( talk) 22:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi JH, I'm after a favour. How easy would it be to turn this File:FlyingQuirinalJPG.jpg into a clicky map as we did at Winter palace, also it needs some numbers that stand out on the rooms, but each time I try to add then they become blurred, becasue the package only lets me do text in the plan form not the 3D - all suggestions welcome! Regards Giano ( talk) 15:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza
|
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.
There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 22:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology ( C)( T) 08:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
I've posted a general apology in my withdrawal statement at the Oversight election page, but I felt that as a contributor you deserve an individual apology too.
It was not my intention to let the election begin without a statement, but an IT gremlin "ate" my first attempt at posting there some hours before the election was to begin and then unforseeable RL issues prevented me from getting back to it until too late. Thank you for your consideration and sincere regrets for wasting your time. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi JH, first of all, profuse apologies for not getting back to you earlier, I've had one or two local and minor difficulties in my new role as a BLP (or whatever they call it) author, far more complicated than architecture, as the people that rule that area seem to have all sorts of strange rules, which seem to echo my late lamented Granny who used to say "if you can't say something nice don't say anything." Sadly, her biography of Attila the Hun proved to be an easy if short read, but sadly not a best seller; anyway I digress - I seem to be improving with the program that did the Quirinal plan, perhaps I was too ambitious choosing a huge palace to start with, I have completed two floors of Belton House here: File:BHouse2.jpg and File:BH1Trial.jpg, could they be converted to a clicky map without numbers, just so the mouse mices over the rooms - what do you think? I think it is much more easy for the lay person to relate to this sort of plan, especially if we have a proper foto immediatly above or below. Giano ( talk) 19:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm told thou are not like other men. If so would you mind moving She Dwelt among the Untrodden Ways (but dont you worry yor pretty little head why) to She dwelt among the untrodden ways. ta. Ceoil ( talk) 22:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Loves Art! (February 27) The Smithsonian American Art Museum will be holding a Wikipedia Loves Art! meetup on Friday, February 27 from 5-7 pm in the Kogod Courtyard. This is a photography event involving Wikipedians, along with Flickr users and others, to generate content for Wikipedia. Come share your experiences, meet the other teams, and take some photos! While RSVPing isn't necessary drop Jeff Gates an email if you're planning on attending so he can get a head count: gatesj (at) si.edu. There also is a signup list here, along with detailed information. The museum is conveniently located across from the Gallery Place-Chinatown metro station. DC 6th Meetup (March 7) The DC 6th meetup will take place on March 7th at Pizzeria Uno's at Union Station, one level up from the main floor. The meetup will start at 5pm, and people usually stick around there for several hours. You can RSVP at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 6. |
This has been an automated because you your name was on the
invite list.
BrownBot (
talk) 16:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I am interested in starting am Ernest Hemingway project to improve content related to his life and works, and have proposed the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Ernest_Hemingway_project. Please share your thoughts there! kilbad ( talk) 16:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi JayHenry. While exploring the User talk pages of editors that are alumni from UCSC, I somehow came across your name. I'm doing a research project at UCSC about Wikipedia editors and I see that you're very active member. I would really like to speak to someone like yourself with a long history of activity about your thoughts on Wikipedia. Please let me know if I might be able to do that at some point.
Thanks for your time. Rodomontade ( talk) 18:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Awesome Jay—if it works for you I'll just use my talk page as the forum to get to know some things about your experience on Wikipedia. Rodomontade ( talk) 20:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way, is it okay to just post questions back to you at my talk page? I don't want to litter yours up. Thanks again. Rodomontade ( talk) 23:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This might interest you. I'm not overtly involved with it, I did a little clean up before GA. Would be nice to see such an iconic song reach FA. Kind regards. — R 2 14:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Issue 29 - March 2009
| |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 17:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
New York City Meetup |
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 19:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
or shall I ask someone else. I won't hold it against you personally if you're flat out (though woe betide you if you ended up here... ;) ) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, Jay. Long time no talk. I hope this message finds you well. I just completed the redrafting of another Balzac article, and I'd be honored if you'd be willing to have a look. No rush, whenever you're able. Thanks in advance! Scartol • Tok 12:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox. |
Hi JayHenry. I can't recall if we've had any real interaction prior, but I decided to stop by and say hi, and also to ask a question.
JayHenry, have you ever considered submitting a request for adminship? Recently it has come to my attention that you do not have sysop access, and I have to admit I am more than a little surprised. I had always gone under the assumption that you already had the tools. You strike me as somebody who would know how to use the bit responsibly; you are a thoughtful and rational editor and even when I disagreed with what you said, I had always been left with the impression that whatever you had said, you had the best interests of the project in mind. I think you would be an excellent admin.
I am not willing to nominate at the moment, as I am on a WikiBreak and have limited internet access, however if you've ever been interested in going up at RfA, you can be assured that you will have my support. :) Master&Expert ( Talk) 09:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 22:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my
"RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (
Ceoil,
Noroton and
Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read
Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
why the interest? & why the rapid response? Lx 121 ( talk) 17:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
hi; i got your reply x2; thanks for the rapid response. ;) i'm aware of the circumstances of the case & found them pretty appalling.
here's my concern:
imagine it's 2 years from now, or 5
noob admin
they are involved in something where the case of !! is mentioned.
they go to check his userpage...
as preserved, the userpage leaves the impression that !! was banned for sockpuppeting. without some kind of explanation, anyone unfamilliar with what actually happened is going to think it was a routine sockpuppet ban, & draw the wrong conclusions, which might affect subsequent decision-making on their part.
unless we have some other, better way of preserving the record, a tagging note seems like an apopropriate measure.
i note that no one is faulting the note's accuracy.
sorry you didn't like the wording; i was trying to be diplomatic, but have inserted a trimmed version.
as i said, i'm open to revised wording, or some other way of clarifying the page's meaning. but left as-is, it is egregiously unclear to anyone who doesn't know the case, & it should be made clear.
this was a fairly major error of judgement by the blocking admin. if that point isn't clearly understood by someone who refers to this page, it invites the possibility of repetition.
"those who do not know history, are doomed to repeat it"
(also user:Durova should never, ever, ever be allowed anything other than basic editor-level access to wikipedia again. she's lucky she wasn't banned!)
Lx 121 ( talk) 17:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
i note your latest revert. the problem with "as he left it" is that anyone who checks the page for any reason, & does not know the history of the case, will simply think it was a sockpuppet ban. what happened there will come up as a reference in future discussions, inevitably. someone who doesn't know the facts of the case, & goes to look up the userpage, will not understand, & might concievably make bad decisions, based on that misunderstanding. if that person happens to be a noob admin, so much the worse.
&, with respect, you still haven't told me where my note is either a) inaccurate, or b) a violation of WP.
Lx 121 ( talk) 18:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I had the pleasure of reading your thoughtful oppose on my RFA. Thanks a lot for that, it made me feel really warm inside. I slave away on Wikipedia for three years solid and what do I get? A big slap in the face. OK, the gist of your comment is fair enough. But I'm curious - what are these alleged "vendettas" at RFA? I'm not a little kid - I don't keep enemies lists, and get my own back on people if I disagree with them. Your "slow to think" comment was particularly insulting too - are you implying I'm mentally retarded or something? Was I that bad as an admin, that you had to leave that utterly hateful rant in the way you did? I received a lot of constructive criticism on that RFA - most people had the courtesy, manners and politeness to present it without belittling me, or making me look like a complete imbecile. "His antics, tantrums and vendettas at RFA are a decent part of what makes RFA such a miserable environment" - no, what makes RFA a miserable environment, are insulting, hurtful, and vicious comments like the one you left me. Free from any kind of diffs, of course. I am one of the people who try to make RFA better by attempting to deal with such horrible comments, that cause people to be put off ever trying for adminship. I am not someone who makes it a miserable environment.
Next time you consider opposing someone, please bear in mind there is a human being on the other end, and that your insulting, vicious and abusive remarks may actually have an effect on the person you are talking about. I'm not something you might find on the bottom of your shoe - I'm a human being, please treat me with a shred of respect, instead of talking to me as though I was a piece of crap you trod on. Thanks, Majorly talk 19:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, JH.. Long time no talk. Hope you're well! I just wanted to make sure you saw this, from The Onion: New Terminator Movie Brings J.D. Salinger Out Of Hiding Cheers! Scartol • Tok 11:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The WikiProject Novels Newsletter
Issue 30 - June 2009 | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
After making a recent onwiki criticism of some of our powerdrunk superusers, one of the WikiGods deigned to email me. "Worried I'm planning a coup detat? :)" read the entirety of the email. I guess our dear WikiGod thought this all a joke, albeit one best made in secret. It's sad if unsurprising that as a user's power increases so does their poisonous appetite for secrecy ( sigh...). For posterity, here's my response:
One of my favorite quotes -- it shows up sometimes on my user page -- explains (if you're interested; apologies if not) part of my philosophy:
"It is very comforting to believe that leaders who do terrible things are, in fact, mad. That way, all we have to do is make sure we don't put psychotics in high places and we've got the problem solved."
I don't believe that you (you being superusers in general, rather than you specifically) are bad people with bad intentions. The fact, I believe, is this: Wikipedia is badly governed. It's not, in my opinion, governed by bad people. One reason is the community's naive belief that if we don't put psychotics in high places, we've got the problem solved. I think we don't. More is necessary.
I believe there are straightforward ways to obtain good governance, and they are in fact the very principles of good governance adhered to by the outside world, honed by history, proved through observation after observation. Checks and balances, separation of powers, etc. The foundations of free societies and just governments, the regulatory requirements of corporations, the underpinnings of nearly every successful organization.
Every well-intentioned but failed elite hierarchy in history has told itself, "Well, yes, those are good principles in general. But we have no ill-intentions, so we needn't worry about it. It's not as if we're planning any coups d'etat :)" When this too is inevitably pointed out to them, well... I can more or less guess your response... there's a lesson in that famous Santayana quote ("those who cannot remember...") for me too: I'm not going to change any minds just by pointing it all out.
For posterity, I'll note the response was, indeed, "..." -- in other words, I was ignored. -- JayHenry ( talk) 03:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I was the user who e-mailed JayHenry. If I would have known JayHenry would have preferred the discussion on-wiki, I'd have been happy to post on his userpage. I viewed the e-mail as personal, not "job" related. As for my lack of a response, Jay, having read your e-mail, I was not sure how to respond as I think we have vastly different understandings of what is going on here, and I am pretty certain you would not agree with how I see things, and I do not think it is my place to try and convince you of my position, as it is no more valid than yours. I did not watchlist your userpage (a mistake I have since rectified), so I did not see your disappointment in my lack of response. Very well, for what it is worth, I shall respond although I am certain we will continue to agree to disagree.
Santayana was a brilliant philosopher, and his quote deserves the widespread repetition it has. However, it can be easily misused. Let me bring a more complete quotation (emphasis addes is my own: famous portion is underlined):
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted; it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in whom instinct has learned nothing from experience. In a second stage men are docile to events, plastic to new habits and suggestions, yet able to graft them on original instincts, which they thus bring to fuller satisfaction. This is the plane of manhood and true progress. Last comes a stage when retentiveness is exhausted and all that happens is at once forgotten; a vain, because unpractical, repetition of the past takes the place of plasticity and fertile readaptation. In a moving world readaptation is the price of longevity. The hard shell, far from protecting the vital principle, condemns it to die down slowly and be gradually chilled; immortality in such a case must have been secured earlier, by giving birth to a generation plastic to the contemporary world and able to retain its lessons. Thus old age is as forgetful as youth, and more incorrigible; it displays the same inattentiveness to conditions; its memory becomes self-repeating and degenerates into an instinctive reaction, like a bird's chirp. Limits of variation. Spirit a heritage.
Not all readaptation, however, is progress, for ideal identity must not be lost. The Latin language did not progress when it passed into Italian. It died. Its amiable heirs may console us for its departure, but do not remove the fact that their parent is extinct. So every individual, nation, and religion has its limit of adaptation; so long as the increment it receives is digestible, so long as the organization already attained is extended and elaborated without being surrendered, growth goes on; but when the foundation itself shifts, when what is gained at the periphery is lost at the centre, the flux appears again and progress is not real. Thus a succession of generations or languages or religions constitutes no progress unless some ideal present at the beginning is transmitted to the end and reaches a better expression there; without this stability at the core no common standard exists and all comparison of value with value must be external and arbitrary. Retentiveness, we must repeat, is the condition of progress.
Santayana, from what I understand, is discoursing on the need for retentiveness and how the past forms the seeds of the plastic future, until such time as the individual loses the ability to change due to the calcification of age and habit, for lack of a better term. Santayana does not endorse change for change's sake; au contraire he requires the transmission of the "ideal identity" from one generation to the next, one which can find a "better" expression as it were. Therefore, using Santayana to express a desire for change in and of itself, in my opinion, does not capture the essence of what Santayana was trying to express.
Be that as it may, we may have a more fundamental difference in understanding. You seem to believe that there is no separation of powers in wikipedia, and you include within that broad rubric of powers diverse tools such as CU, OS, bureaucrats, etc. My understanding has always been that to view those as "powers" is a misunderstanding. Using the government of the US, as to which I believe you were referring when you discussed separation, there are three distinct units: The legislative branch, entrusted with the power to make and change laws, the executive branch, entrusted with the day-to-day running of the government, and the judicial branch, entrusted with interpreting the existing laws. What are the wikipedia analogues? I posit that the equivalent to the Judicial branch is ArbCom, the executive branch is the entire admin corps, and the legislative branch is everyone who opines at the pump or the talk boards where policy is discussed and debated. To consider checkusers, oversighters, and bureaucrats as part of the "government" of wikipedia is a mistake, I believe. Checkusers are no more than the "special detective" unit of the wikipedia sysop corps, who specialize in uncovering sockfarms and sockpuppeteers. Oversight is no more than the on-wiki unit charged with protecting individual privacy. Bureaucrats are just that, paper-pushers that in general rubber-stamp community consensus (regarding RfA/B/BAG/BOT) and change names. The "mystique", for lack of a better word, comes from the rare times (see Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion) that they are entrusted in identifying the community consensus. In those times, I guess they could be considered judicial, although they are not interpreting wiki policy. Perhaps "pre-accepted binding arbitrators" would be a better term.
In a nutshell, and I apologize for the extreme length, I would say that the governmental separation of powers paradigm is not truly applicable here. A checkuser has no more special powers than any other editor in wikipedia; their use comes in identifying sockfarms—that's it. The fact that a checkuser says something at WP:ANI should mean nothing more than if the person were a regular editor. The same with the other "hats" as it were. What may be contributing to the conflation of issues is that the tools are not common, and usually given to people who have earned a significant deal of trust in ArbCom (appointed CU/OS), the community as a whole (bureaucrats), or both (elected CU/OS's). People whose behavior, edits, and overall wikipedia interactions have allowed them to earn that trust, may have their opinions valued based on who they are—the hats that they wear are indications of the underlying trust that they have earned, not the causes of that trust—well at least they should not be.
Is there a potential for abuse? Of course; there is also the potential for every doctor or nurse or policeman or fireman to become a murderer, G-d forbid. Does that mean we should not allow policemen to be volunteer firefighters, or prevent nurses from being police officers? I do not think so. Similar here, I do not think the potential for abuse indicates the need to move to a system which has distinct inefficiencies. The fact that separation of powers makes for the best form of government we know is, in my opinion, inapplicable to the janitorial and support roles here in wikipedia. The proper lessons need to be learned from history; making inappropriate syllogisms and inter-disciplinary connections is not, in my opinion, learning from history but ensuring that the new expression is inferior to the old, to use Santayana's language.
Let me leave you with another quote from Santayana (emphasis added is my own):
The whole machinery of our intelligence, our general ideas and laws, fixed and external objects, principles, persons, and gods, are so many symbolic, algebraic expressions. They stand for experience; experience which we are incapable of retaining and surveying in its multitudinous immediacy. We should flounder hopelessly, like the animals, did we not keep ourselves afloat and direct our course by these intellectual devices. Theory helps us to bear our ignorance of fact.
— George Santayana, The Sense of Beauty
At this point, the algebraic expressions that represent our respective experiences have driven us to create different theorems to describe the workings here; I hope I have clearly stated where I disagree with your expression, and should you be interested, I look forward to your analysis of mine. -- Avi ( talk) 02:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello. The Coordiantor Election has begun. All members are encouraged to vote by the deadline, July 28. To vote simply add support to the comments and questions for.. section of the member of your choice.
3 users are standing:
Regards, Alan16 ( talk) 19:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for the laugh in this link, and for reverting that mess by that IP. Yes, these vandals and often IPs in general put in funny or just plain foul crap most of the times, don't they? Mainly, I get annoyed or angered by this stuff, but it is sometimes a good laugh. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
To Mr. JayHenry,
Your services as Chief Financial Officer to Godriggr are no longer required, as of July 4, 2009, due to the impending bankruptcy filing. You signed away all rights to human legal recourse in your contract: there will be no severance package or golden parachute. You are considered an unsecured creditor of Godriggr, ranking below Ceoil and SandyGeorgia.
Thank you for your services to Godriggr, and enjoy your fourth of July. Please find enclosed your "day", which has no value in bankruptcy proceedings.
JayHenry's Awesome Wikipedian day is April 20. |
Regards, Outriggr ( talk) 05:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I clarified my answer a bit to that question you were concerned about. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 21:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with everything except the part that read "[he] can disagree strongly without being disrespectful (a skill I lack)." I consider you to be a very tactful editor. I mean, you're a very individualistic so I'm sure you've left some people with somewhat sour opinions at times, but I certainly don't feel you've ever lacked respect for anybody. But then, that's my opinion, I suppose it may be a bit overbearing of me to bring it up. =) Master&Expert ( Talk) 16:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I draw your attention to the last bit It isn't just inclusionism/exclusionism either: it's highly unlikely that anyone that strongly disagrees with members of this council on any topic will ever be invited to join the council. That's my real concern: it really doesn't matter where the imbalance is, this structure will make it more and more imbalanced over time. People don't tend to think "I want to invite someone that disagrees with me on things" when they select additions and replacements.— Kww( talk) 03:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
Again, thank you for making this event a success! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 02:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
How's the markets? Smallbones ( talk) 17:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry it took me a long time to respond. I don't have any sources to recommend, it's out of my field. Now that I've looked closer at the article, it looks terrific to me. CRETOG8( t/ c) 22:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Jay - the Jackson Davis article has been nominated for deletion again. You spoke up the 1st time, so I figured you may want to weigh in. The proposer seems to have nominated a raft of webseries related content for deletion. -- Milowent ( talk) 22:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 02:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The Business and Economics Barnstar | ||
For tirelessly improving the quality of Economics articles on Wikipedia. LK ( talk) 18:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC) |
I've just noticed the good work you've put in on the various articles related to Recessions. Nice work! LK ( talk) 18:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, off-hand I don't have any good leads about pre-1900s recessions. However, have you looked in the free 1911 edition of the Britannica? You can view the text here. best, LK ( talk) 18:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like our effort of a few months ago to sabotage Ceoil's finances [6] has backfired. [7] In retrospect, who wouldn't 'invest' in a penny stock that gets to stay on the NYSE indefinitely and when everything about it is backstopped by the government. Eventually the gamblers will run it up. Godriggr would be displeased, but he Forgives (even though that's in your portfolio). Cheers, Outriggr ( talk) 23:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Markus Brunnermeier, my first new article in a while. It's kinda workmanlike, but the subject matter is perfect for you. If you haven't read this guy's papers on insider trading, predatory trading and investors pushing bubbles, you might like to. Sort of like Akerlof with more math (on that note the akerlof article is in a sorry state...maybe I should work on that) Protonk ( talk) 06:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I know you know I'm just a thick, bloody, fucking potatoe farmer; but tone down, please, your things when we are in the company of ladies. Humbly, Ceoil ( talk) 22:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Re "find someone..." [8] -- I do! Bwahaha. I can send you my article in Journal of Depression & Economics if you like. ("Double-blinded trial of SSRIs in ameliorating feelings of guilt associated with quantitative easing by American crony capitalists") Outriggr ( talk) 03:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You would be glad to know that a new wikipedia ad has been created by
Srinivas to encourage users to join
Chronicles of Narnia Task Force. You can display that ad on your user/talk page too using the following code: {{
Wikipedia ads|ad=190}}
Wikipedia ads | file info – #190 |
-- Alan16 ( talk) 10:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The August 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16 ( talk) 17:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey there JH.. Long time not talk. I hope this note finds you well. I've recently whipped together an article about a novelette by Honoré de Balzac, called Z. Marcas, and I wonder if you'd care to have a look. I haven't decided whether I'll take it all the way to FAC or not, but I figure it can't hurt to have a few sets of eyes over it in the meantime. (Obviously your thoughts on its suitability to FAC are most welcome.) Cheers! Scartol • Tok 20:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear JayHenry, my edit, with an edit summary "Lewis Carroll was first and foremost a mathematician", was certainly not silly. There are a number of reasons why I made this edit. Below are the reasons:
I made my edit based on those two reasons. His article may be located at Lewis Carroll, but it starts with "Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (pronounced /ˈdɒdsən/) (27 January 1832 – 14 January 1898), better known by the pen name Lewis Carroll ...". Have a nice day! AdjustShift ( talk) 15:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your input on the JLR talk page. Any advice on how to make the awards section into a list? -- Zoeydahling ( talk) 02:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI. This RFC is based on, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses which you participated in. If you already have commented at the RFC, my apologies for contacting you. Ikip ( talk) 00:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Irbisgreif ( talk) 22:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, saw your comment at Fractional-reserve banking. To explain what's going on, the article is under attack from a series of anon-IP fringe conspiracy theorists. Will appreciate it if you help keep an eye on it. Thanks, LK ( talk) 02:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that you, with 12,225 edits as of Sept 9, do not quite measure up to me, with my current 12,238 (in "my preferences"). And you've hardly been active since the 9th, so we know this holds. Sorry, old pal, but I've got to move on. (If it's any consolation, you have more talk page watchers (cf. SandyGeorgia's talk for a link); but so does everyone else, so...) But I've got to get back to editing: there are 110,000 articles that need a reference tag. When I'm done I'll be in 35th place! Outriggr ( talk) 01:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Can I play, too? Protonk ( talk) 01:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, are you still keeping track of the above FLC? Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
My library just delivered "Business cycles and depressions: an encyclopedia" by David Glasner, which I had asked them to get out of the archives. It's sitting on my desk now. Let me know if you need something out of it, like a specific page scanned or something. LK ( talk) 08:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikis Take Manhattan
|
WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.
LAST YEAR'S EVENT
WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.
WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.
WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!
REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.
WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:
FOR UPDATES
Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.
Thanks,
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at
Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: [10] Did you find anyone yet? It's not my usual sort of thing, and I'm not here as often as I used to be, but I could certainly use a new project. I can't guarantee Featured List status, and I certainly understand if you'd rather work with folks you know better. Just thought I'd offer, though. Kafka Liz ( talk) 22:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, just one for now. About these "47 recessions" - since not everyone agrees on the number, is there some way we could qualify this, as in "47 major recessions", "47 reported recessions", or "According to the NBER (or whoever), there have been 47..."? Kafka Liz ( talk) 18:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Re DaBomb87's page, are you serious? You're one of those "I thought he already was one"! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations Jay. Delighted to see it was promoted. Ceoil ( talk) 21:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
New York City Meetup |
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 03:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. I've been a bit busy IRL, grading term papers and stuff, and as you may have noticed, my wiki life is all taken up with mediation and disputes. How about this, I scan the TOC and Index of "Business cycles and depressions: an encyclopedia" and email to you, and you tell me which pages you would like scanned, and I will scan and email those back to you? If that sounds good, drop me a message on my talk page, and I will scan and email to you. LK ( talk) 08:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, in case it isn't clear, don't leave your email address on my talk page. It's usually not a good idea to post your email anywhere on the internets, as that leads to much junk mail. I'll email you using the 'E-mail this user' link on the left side of the Wikipedia screen. Best, LK ( talk) 08:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm usually here and on top of things on that page. Nice to see you're still here! Wildhartlivie ( talk) 07:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
[11] The "lead, follow or get out of the way" comments (I think I know what you are referring to) surprised me as well, at least in intensity and the evident disregard for the opinions of others. That attitude is a problem; progress is slow on Wikipedia, but radicalism isn't the solution. In any case - some folks around here treat quis custodiet as the refrain of the conspiracy theorists, but it's a reasonable concern. I believe that having a diverse group of people as election monitors would mitigate the risk of shared insanity leading to a corrupt outcome, but it looks like enough people weigh things differently that secret balloting for ArbCom is unlikely. Nathan T 19:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
JayHenry | Opuses | Chimpmanzee | Boxes | Commons | Talk | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Just thought this little article would interest you. Take care. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 00:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
...a corollary to your eminently reasonable suggestion is that admins who block Giano (or his sockpuppets) are not summarily haled in front of the Arbitration Committee. As an aside, we really do need to collide under better circumstances. Ever edit railway articles? Mackensen (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jay, I was wondering if I could list your guide User:JayHenry/chimpmanzee to the Template:ACE 2008 guides template? MBisanz talk 20:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
If you have concerns, please ask a question. Jehochman Talk 20:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sinestro Corps War is plenty academic! The usage of colors to represent different emotions and the emotional spectrum is very Jungian, it's got parallels to the War on Terror, the metaphysical implications of fear versus willpower, the literary constructs... Of course, that's all OR so I guess it doesn't matter. But still! -- Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 20:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I stumbled across User:JayHenry/chimpmanzee. The protracted policy dispute I was involved in was over no original research. I had my own opinions, but I stayed involved in a long frustrating and circular process in an attempt to try and find some solution addressing most concerns. It was very exhausting and frustrating. I admittedly did not behave as well as I should have, in my own view. I took a wikibreak to cool my head and have since generally avoided becoming overly entangled in policy disagreements. If that is not a sufficient reminder, I can provide some relevant archive links and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Cheers! Vassyana ( talk) 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I like the well-thought out views expressed on User:JayHenry/chimpmanzee that you've posted. I think you've done a good job in evaluating the candidates. Nice work!
In addition, while you yourself are not a candidate, I would easily have endorsed your candidacy, had you decided to run. I think you have the right judgment for ArbCom, and would be an excellent arbitrator. Best wishes. Acalamari 00:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
E-mail heading your way. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but I very much believe the current "culture of secrecy" is misguided. I simply believe in respecting confidences. I regret your comment. Sam Korn 22:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. You said in my recent unsuccessful RFB here, that wanted clarification as to my reason for "wanting to help" and I never responded to that before I withdrew. So let me get to that now. You mentioned that "we have dozens of backlogs that need worked on" and "If you [Useight] just want to help because we need helpful tasks done then there's lots of places to go do it, and it won't matter if you [Useight] have a fancy title."
Why don't I go work on the immense backlogs? Mainly because they are extraordinarily tedious and, over time, I would get bored or worse, burn out completely. Since this is a volunteer project, we all edit in areas we enjoy editing. For example, I'm helping with articles about NFL seasons, see User:Useight/NFL Project. Many, many NFL season do not yet have articles (upwards of 400 when I began), but I'm churning my way through them. Does this come with a fancy title like NFL-Article Connoisseur? No, I do it because I enjoy it. Same with the areas of RFA and CHU, I happen to enjoy working there and there happens to be a title attached to some of the functions. I cannot do those functions, but I enjoy clerking at CHU and archiving SNOW-ed RFAs. I'm going to continue doing them because I like that sector of Wikipedia. As for the huge backlogs, on rare occasion I do show up to categorize a few of the thousands of uncategorized articles, but because I don't enjoy it, I don't do it very often or for very long. Well, I've said my piece, so I'll get off my soapbox and back to other stuff, I just wanted to clarify why I want to help in the realm that requires bureaucratship. Useight ( talk) 03:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jay. Just thought I'd let you know that I clarified my answer on the science question. You can still oppose, I'm not forcing any change of heart, just pointing it out. After all, technically I should've gotten it right the first time. Wizardman 19:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your kind words, JH. I agree that your supportive note at TTDYK was excellent, and I'll never grow weary of blessing you for it. Have yourself a happy little holiday too. Scartol • Tok 13:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
To you too. Thanks for your kind words, but the irony is that a fair few of my friends are accountants and economists, and I was able to ask them about bank runs and panics when you were working on 1907, and was proudly boasting that I had a small role in r-w'd the page. I have no idea where you are coming from re: your "antics", I just dont get that at all. WP is a collebrative community, we work together and of course friendships come from that, and friends goof around. So what. If others want to be cut and dry, thats their problem not ours. I've come accross some fairly seriously capable and intellegent and witty people on WP, and interacting with ye is one of the largest reasons why I spend so much time here. I'd consider you amongst the first rank. Right up there with these guys [1] [2].
Well thats my Love, Actually credit spend! Take care. Oikel ( talk) 13:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. "An excellent editor" was generous and appreciated. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 17:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about slouching on that. I've been getting into finals and my normal method of actual "content" editing (As opposed to drama or project editing) of sitting down with source in hand for 2-4 hour blocks doesn't accord well with that. I've also realized that my grasp of the terminology and fundamentals wasn't enough to summarize this into a featured article so I picked up a copy of Stigum's Money Market. I'll be up to speed in a few weeks. Protonk ( talk) 03:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jay. Thanks for offering to help out with a DYK rules rewrite. I've jotted down a few thoughts at User talk:Olaf Davis/DYK rules - see what you think. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 11:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm dropping you a line to let you know that I have clarified my position and reasoning regarding devolution at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Vassyana#Devolution. Please take a look over it and let me know if I can clarify anything further. Addressing your specific stated concern, I believe devolution shields admins less than ArbCom-imposed broad solutions, making it more difficult for "tendacious admins" to act without consequence. For example, discretionary sanctions imposed by ArbCom, for better or worse, permit admins to act in situations with a considerably greater amount of impunity and protection than "regular" actions. Simply setting an example in a particular case and encouraging the community to resolve similar cases leaves further administrative actions subject to "normal" scrutiny and recourse. If you still disagree, please know that I respect your opinion and your well-reasoned opposition. Be well! Vassyana ( talk) 04:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The Dr Pda instruction sheet says that the device should include blockquotes and other quotes, but cannot: ""This method is not perfect however and may include text which isn't prose (eg in navboxes), or exclude text which is (eg in Cquote, or prose written in bullet-point form,"
The Readability program does include the blockquotes. That is why I was saying that one was the more accurate of the two in a prior conversation. Politizer's comment is completely misleading, because Dr Pda supports WP:SIZE's definition of what prose is, which includes quotes and blockquotes. I hope that helps explain things. Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey there JayHenry, apologies for not answering you sooner. Your comment was not at all intrusive or unwelcome; as I said on the ACE page, I welcome all discussion. The reason that I was holding off on replying is because I was trying to formulate my thoughts to express myself most clearly. I suppose the distinction that I want to make is that I do not feel that article writing is the be-all end-all of WP participation. This project is big enough that we can have people that specialize in article writing and some that specialize in policy-making or technical aspects. It's simply not fair to have requirements for positions on what is ultimately a volunteer project. While I realize the argument that this might create a disparity between two "classes" of editor, even the little bit of editing in mainspace that Deskana does (yes, it averages out to be poor, but he does it in groups of several edits at a time) clearly shows that he knows his way around and can function. As pointed out by Majorly, there were other factors involved there as well.
Regarding WJBscribe, I think it was honorable of him to bow out if he felt that he wasn't going to have enough time to fulfill all his roles, but I'm not seeing how that supports your point; obviously ArbCom is a very time-consuming and draining job, but I trust the candidates to have considered this before throwing their hat into the ring. Will realized that his RL constraints would not allow him to perform at full capacity, and so he withdrew. I have no problem with that; in fact, it's good that he withdrew rather than getting elected and then realizing his time limits. Glass Cobra 06:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, I don't have oversight and I was never part of Mediation Team. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello JayHenry, wanted to drop you another quick note to make sure that you weren't offended by my delay in answering you. If you'd like to continue our conversation, I'd be happy to oblige. Glass Cobra 21:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in
my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! |
JH, I see you covered my back on the 6RR case. Thanks. My bias against current news stories in finance is confirmed by my experience on the Bernard Madoff article, people just get carried away, but at least there were no market predictions involved. Thanks again. Smallbones ( talk) 17:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Can't think of a better song to wish a Celoieth mispelling Scotch and Irish confusing Outriggr supporting -indvidual- such as yourself except to say Slainte. Ceoil ( talk) 22:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
(meant global pan-religious not unitarian)
PS: Got a favour - up for a difficult map with 9 subspecies and some overlapping ranges???? Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!
Dear JayHenry,
Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.
Kind regards,
Majorly talk 21:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Good day
I am not sure if this would be the correct place to place this.
Could you please help to perform a peer review on the South African Scout Association article. Thanks in advance. -- YiS, Jediwanna be 13:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout all the trouble back there, JH, i now see the errors of my ways Sweetnorbert ( talk) 05:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Jayhenry, I know you will know the answer to this -- is it kosher to copy "official bios" from show websites (online or TV) to wikipedia or other wikis? If you don't know, I'm sure you'll know where I should go look? Thanks. Milowent ( talk) 06:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).
We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza ( on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, how are you? Since you were one of the main editors in bringing Javan Rhinoceros to FA status, I was wondering if maybe you could please review Camel, which I have just brought to peer review with the hope to get ideas to eventually give it a GA candidacy. Thank you. -- Fish-Bird ( talk) 17:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in
my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith ( talk), 22:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
Denbot ( talk) 22:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi JH, I'm after a favour. How easy would it be to turn this File:FlyingQuirinalJPG.jpg into a clicky map as we did at Winter palace, also it needs some numbers that stand out on the rooms, but each time I try to add then they become blurred, becasue the package only lets me do text in the plan form not the 3D - all suggestions welcome! Regards Giano ( talk) 15:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza
|
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.
There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 22:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology ( C)( T) 08:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
I've posted a general apology in my withdrawal statement at the Oversight election page, but I felt that as a contributor you deserve an individual apology too.
It was not my intention to let the election begin without a statement, but an IT gremlin "ate" my first attempt at posting there some hours before the election was to begin and then unforseeable RL issues prevented me from getting back to it until too late. Thank you for your consideration and sincere regrets for wasting your time. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi JH, first of all, profuse apologies for not getting back to you earlier, I've had one or two local and minor difficulties in my new role as a BLP (or whatever they call it) author, far more complicated than architecture, as the people that rule that area seem to have all sorts of strange rules, which seem to echo my late lamented Granny who used to say "if you can't say something nice don't say anything." Sadly, her biography of Attila the Hun proved to be an easy if short read, but sadly not a best seller; anyway I digress - I seem to be improving with the program that did the Quirinal plan, perhaps I was too ambitious choosing a huge palace to start with, I have completed two floors of Belton House here: File:BHouse2.jpg and File:BH1Trial.jpg, could they be converted to a clicky map without numbers, just so the mouse mices over the rooms - what do you think? I think it is much more easy for the lay person to relate to this sort of plan, especially if we have a proper foto immediatly above or below. Giano ( talk) 19:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm told thou are not like other men. If so would you mind moving She Dwelt among the Untrodden Ways (but dont you worry yor pretty little head why) to She dwelt among the untrodden ways. ta. Ceoil ( talk) 22:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Loves Art! (February 27) The Smithsonian American Art Museum will be holding a Wikipedia Loves Art! meetup on Friday, February 27 from 5-7 pm in the Kogod Courtyard. This is a photography event involving Wikipedians, along with Flickr users and others, to generate content for Wikipedia. Come share your experiences, meet the other teams, and take some photos! While RSVPing isn't necessary drop Jeff Gates an email if you're planning on attending so he can get a head count: gatesj (at) si.edu. There also is a signup list here, along with detailed information. The museum is conveniently located across from the Gallery Place-Chinatown metro station. DC 6th Meetup (March 7) The DC 6th meetup will take place on March 7th at Pizzeria Uno's at Union Station, one level up from the main floor. The meetup will start at 5pm, and people usually stick around there for several hours. You can RSVP at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 6. |
This has been an automated because you your name was on the
invite list.
BrownBot (
talk) 16:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I am interested in starting am Ernest Hemingway project to improve content related to his life and works, and have proposed the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Ernest_Hemingway_project. Please share your thoughts there! kilbad ( talk) 16:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi JayHenry. While exploring the User talk pages of editors that are alumni from UCSC, I somehow came across your name. I'm doing a research project at UCSC about Wikipedia editors and I see that you're very active member. I would really like to speak to someone like yourself with a long history of activity about your thoughts on Wikipedia. Please let me know if I might be able to do that at some point.
Thanks for your time. Rodomontade ( talk) 18:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Awesome Jay—if it works for you I'll just use my talk page as the forum to get to know some things about your experience on Wikipedia. Rodomontade ( talk) 20:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way, is it okay to just post questions back to you at my talk page? I don't want to litter yours up. Thanks again. Rodomontade ( talk) 23:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This might interest you. I'm not overtly involved with it, I did a little clean up before GA. Would be nice to see such an iconic song reach FA. Kind regards. — R 2 14:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Issue 29 - March 2009
| |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 17:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
New York City Meetup |
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 19:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
or shall I ask someone else. I won't hold it against you personally if you're flat out (though woe betide you if you ended up here... ;) ) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, Jay. Long time no talk. I hope this message finds you well. I just completed the redrafting of another Balzac article, and I'd be honored if you'd be willing to have a look. No rush, whenever you're able. Thanks in advance! Scartol • Tok 12:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox. |
Hi JayHenry. I can't recall if we've had any real interaction prior, but I decided to stop by and say hi, and also to ask a question.
JayHenry, have you ever considered submitting a request for adminship? Recently it has come to my attention that you do not have sysop access, and I have to admit I am more than a little surprised. I had always gone under the assumption that you already had the tools. You strike me as somebody who would know how to use the bit responsibly; you are a thoughtful and rational editor and even when I disagreed with what you said, I had always been left with the impression that whatever you had said, you had the best interests of the project in mind. I think you would be an excellent admin.
I am not willing to nominate at the moment, as I am on a WikiBreak and have limited internet access, however if you've ever been interested in going up at RfA, you can be assured that you will have my support. :) Master&Expert ( Talk) 09:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 22:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my
"RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (
Ceoil,
Noroton and
Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read
Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
why the interest? & why the rapid response? Lx 121 ( talk) 17:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
hi; i got your reply x2; thanks for the rapid response. ;) i'm aware of the circumstances of the case & found them pretty appalling.
here's my concern:
imagine it's 2 years from now, or 5
noob admin
they are involved in something where the case of !! is mentioned.
they go to check his userpage...
as preserved, the userpage leaves the impression that !! was banned for sockpuppeting. without some kind of explanation, anyone unfamilliar with what actually happened is going to think it was a routine sockpuppet ban, & draw the wrong conclusions, which might affect subsequent decision-making on their part.
unless we have some other, better way of preserving the record, a tagging note seems like an apopropriate measure.
i note that no one is faulting the note's accuracy.
sorry you didn't like the wording; i was trying to be diplomatic, but have inserted a trimmed version.
as i said, i'm open to revised wording, or some other way of clarifying the page's meaning. but left as-is, it is egregiously unclear to anyone who doesn't know the case, & it should be made clear.
this was a fairly major error of judgement by the blocking admin. if that point isn't clearly understood by someone who refers to this page, it invites the possibility of repetition.
"those who do not know history, are doomed to repeat it"
(also user:Durova should never, ever, ever be allowed anything other than basic editor-level access to wikipedia again. she's lucky she wasn't banned!)
Lx 121 ( talk) 17:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
i note your latest revert. the problem with "as he left it" is that anyone who checks the page for any reason, & does not know the history of the case, will simply think it was a sockpuppet ban. what happened there will come up as a reference in future discussions, inevitably. someone who doesn't know the facts of the case, & goes to look up the userpage, will not understand, & might concievably make bad decisions, based on that misunderstanding. if that person happens to be a noob admin, so much the worse.
&, with respect, you still haven't told me where my note is either a) inaccurate, or b) a violation of WP.
Lx 121 ( talk) 18:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I had the pleasure of reading your thoughtful oppose on my RFA. Thanks a lot for that, it made me feel really warm inside. I slave away on Wikipedia for three years solid and what do I get? A big slap in the face. OK, the gist of your comment is fair enough. But I'm curious - what are these alleged "vendettas" at RFA? I'm not a little kid - I don't keep enemies lists, and get my own back on people if I disagree with them. Your "slow to think" comment was particularly insulting too - are you implying I'm mentally retarded or something? Was I that bad as an admin, that you had to leave that utterly hateful rant in the way you did? I received a lot of constructive criticism on that RFA - most people had the courtesy, manners and politeness to present it without belittling me, or making me look like a complete imbecile. "His antics, tantrums and vendettas at RFA are a decent part of what makes RFA such a miserable environment" - no, what makes RFA a miserable environment, are insulting, hurtful, and vicious comments like the one you left me. Free from any kind of diffs, of course. I am one of the people who try to make RFA better by attempting to deal with such horrible comments, that cause people to be put off ever trying for adminship. I am not someone who makes it a miserable environment.
Next time you consider opposing someone, please bear in mind there is a human being on the other end, and that your insulting, vicious and abusive remarks may actually have an effect on the person you are talking about. I'm not something you might find on the bottom of your shoe - I'm a human being, please treat me with a shred of respect, instead of talking to me as though I was a piece of crap you trod on. Thanks, Majorly talk 19:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, JH.. Long time no talk. Hope you're well! I just wanted to make sure you saw this, from The Onion: New Terminator Movie Brings J.D. Salinger Out Of Hiding Cheers! Scartol • Tok 11:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The WikiProject Novels Newsletter
Issue 30 - June 2009 | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
After making a recent onwiki criticism of some of our powerdrunk superusers, one of the WikiGods deigned to email me. "Worried I'm planning a coup detat? :)" read the entirety of the email. I guess our dear WikiGod thought this all a joke, albeit one best made in secret. It's sad if unsurprising that as a user's power increases so does their poisonous appetite for secrecy ( sigh...). For posterity, here's my response:
One of my favorite quotes -- it shows up sometimes on my user page -- explains (if you're interested; apologies if not) part of my philosophy:
"It is very comforting to believe that leaders who do terrible things are, in fact, mad. That way, all we have to do is make sure we don't put psychotics in high places and we've got the problem solved."
I don't believe that you (you being superusers in general, rather than you specifically) are bad people with bad intentions. The fact, I believe, is this: Wikipedia is badly governed. It's not, in my opinion, governed by bad people. One reason is the community's naive belief that if we don't put psychotics in high places, we've got the problem solved. I think we don't. More is necessary.
I believe there are straightforward ways to obtain good governance, and they are in fact the very principles of good governance adhered to by the outside world, honed by history, proved through observation after observation. Checks and balances, separation of powers, etc. The foundations of free societies and just governments, the regulatory requirements of corporations, the underpinnings of nearly every successful organization.
Every well-intentioned but failed elite hierarchy in history has told itself, "Well, yes, those are good principles in general. But we have no ill-intentions, so we needn't worry about it. It's not as if we're planning any coups d'etat :)" When this too is inevitably pointed out to them, well... I can more or less guess your response... there's a lesson in that famous Santayana quote ("those who cannot remember...") for me too: I'm not going to change any minds just by pointing it all out.
For posterity, I'll note the response was, indeed, "..." -- in other words, I was ignored. -- JayHenry ( talk) 03:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I was the user who e-mailed JayHenry. If I would have known JayHenry would have preferred the discussion on-wiki, I'd have been happy to post on his userpage. I viewed the e-mail as personal, not "job" related. As for my lack of a response, Jay, having read your e-mail, I was not sure how to respond as I think we have vastly different understandings of what is going on here, and I am pretty certain you would not agree with how I see things, and I do not think it is my place to try and convince you of my position, as it is no more valid than yours. I did not watchlist your userpage (a mistake I have since rectified), so I did not see your disappointment in my lack of response. Very well, for what it is worth, I shall respond although I am certain we will continue to agree to disagree.
Santayana was a brilliant philosopher, and his quote deserves the widespread repetition it has. However, it can be easily misused. Let me bring a more complete quotation (emphasis addes is my own: famous portion is underlined):
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted; it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in whom instinct has learned nothing from experience. In a second stage men are docile to events, plastic to new habits and suggestions, yet able to graft them on original instincts, which they thus bring to fuller satisfaction. This is the plane of manhood and true progress. Last comes a stage when retentiveness is exhausted and all that happens is at once forgotten; a vain, because unpractical, repetition of the past takes the place of plasticity and fertile readaptation. In a moving world readaptation is the price of longevity. The hard shell, far from protecting the vital principle, condemns it to die down slowly and be gradually chilled; immortality in such a case must have been secured earlier, by giving birth to a generation plastic to the contemporary world and able to retain its lessons. Thus old age is as forgetful as youth, and more incorrigible; it displays the same inattentiveness to conditions; its memory becomes self-repeating and degenerates into an instinctive reaction, like a bird's chirp. Limits of variation. Spirit a heritage.
Not all readaptation, however, is progress, for ideal identity must not be lost. The Latin language did not progress when it passed into Italian. It died. Its amiable heirs may console us for its departure, but do not remove the fact that their parent is extinct. So every individual, nation, and religion has its limit of adaptation; so long as the increment it receives is digestible, so long as the organization already attained is extended and elaborated without being surrendered, growth goes on; but when the foundation itself shifts, when what is gained at the periphery is lost at the centre, the flux appears again and progress is not real. Thus a succession of generations or languages or religions constitutes no progress unless some ideal present at the beginning is transmitted to the end and reaches a better expression there; without this stability at the core no common standard exists and all comparison of value with value must be external and arbitrary. Retentiveness, we must repeat, is the condition of progress.
Santayana, from what I understand, is discoursing on the need for retentiveness and how the past forms the seeds of the plastic future, until such time as the individual loses the ability to change due to the calcification of age and habit, for lack of a better term. Santayana does not endorse change for change's sake; au contraire he requires the transmission of the "ideal identity" from one generation to the next, one which can find a "better" expression as it were. Therefore, using Santayana to express a desire for change in and of itself, in my opinion, does not capture the essence of what Santayana was trying to express.
Be that as it may, we may have a more fundamental difference in understanding. You seem to believe that there is no separation of powers in wikipedia, and you include within that broad rubric of powers diverse tools such as CU, OS, bureaucrats, etc. My understanding has always been that to view those as "powers" is a misunderstanding. Using the government of the US, as to which I believe you were referring when you discussed separation, there are three distinct units: The legislative branch, entrusted with the power to make and change laws, the executive branch, entrusted with the day-to-day running of the government, and the judicial branch, entrusted with interpreting the existing laws. What are the wikipedia analogues? I posit that the equivalent to the Judicial branch is ArbCom, the executive branch is the entire admin corps, and the legislative branch is everyone who opines at the pump or the talk boards where policy is discussed and debated. To consider checkusers, oversighters, and bureaucrats as part of the "government" of wikipedia is a mistake, I believe. Checkusers are no more than the "special detective" unit of the wikipedia sysop corps, who specialize in uncovering sockfarms and sockpuppeteers. Oversight is no more than the on-wiki unit charged with protecting individual privacy. Bureaucrats are just that, paper-pushers that in general rubber-stamp community consensus (regarding RfA/B/BAG/BOT) and change names. The "mystique", for lack of a better word, comes from the rare times (see Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion) that they are entrusted in identifying the community consensus. In those times, I guess they could be considered judicial, although they are not interpreting wiki policy. Perhaps "pre-accepted binding arbitrators" would be a better term.
In a nutshell, and I apologize for the extreme length, I would say that the governmental separation of powers paradigm is not truly applicable here. A checkuser has no more special powers than any other editor in wikipedia; their use comes in identifying sockfarms—that's it. The fact that a checkuser says something at WP:ANI should mean nothing more than if the person were a regular editor. The same with the other "hats" as it were. What may be contributing to the conflation of issues is that the tools are not common, and usually given to people who have earned a significant deal of trust in ArbCom (appointed CU/OS), the community as a whole (bureaucrats), or both (elected CU/OS's). People whose behavior, edits, and overall wikipedia interactions have allowed them to earn that trust, may have their opinions valued based on who they are—the hats that they wear are indications of the underlying trust that they have earned, not the causes of that trust—well at least they should not be.
Is there a potential for abuse? Of course; there is also the potential for every doctor or nurse or policeman or fireman to become a murderer, G-d forbid. Does that mean we should not allow policemen to be volunteer firefighters, or prevent nurses from being police officers? I do not think so. Similar here, I do not think the potential for abuse indicates the need to move to a system which has distinct inefficiencies. The fact that separation of powers makes for the best form of government we know is, in my opinion, inapplicable to the janitorial and support roles here in wikipedia. The proper lessons need to be learned from history; making inappropriate syllogisms and inter-disciplinary connections is not, in my opinion, learning from history but ensuring that the new expression is inferior to the old, to use Santayana's language.
Let me leave you with another quote from Santayana (emphasis added is my own):
The whole machinery of our intelligence, our general ideas and laws, fixed and external objects, principles, persons, and gods, are so many symbolic, algebraic expressions. They stand for experience; experience which we are incapable of retaining and surveying in its multitudinous immediacy. We should flounder hopelessly, like the animals, did we not keep ourselves afloat and direct our course by these intellectual devices. Theory helps us to bear our ignorance of fact.
— George Santayana, The Sense of Beauty
At this point, the algebraic expressions that represent our respective experiences have driven us to create different theorems to describe the workings here; I hope I have clearly stated where I disagree with your expression, and should you be interested, I look forward to your analysis of mine. -- Avi ( talk) 02:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello. The Coordiantor Election has begun. All members are encouraged to vote by the deadline, July 28. To vote simply add support to the comments and questions for.. section of the member of your choice.
3 users are standing:
Regards, Alan16 ( talk) 19:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for the laugh in this link, and for reverting that mess by that IP. Yes, these vandals and often IPs in general put in funny or just plain foul crap most of the times, don't they? Mainly, I get annoyed or angered by this stuff, but it is sometimes a good laugh. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
To Mr. JayHenry,
Your services as Chief Financial Officer to Godriggr are no longer required, as of July 4, 2009, due to the impending bankruptcy filing. You signed away all rights to human legal recourse in your contract: there will be no severance package or golden parachute. You are considered an unsecured creditor of Godriggr, ranking below Ceoil and SandyGeorgia.
Thank you for your services to Godriggr, and enjoy your fourth of July. Please find enclosed your "day", which has no value in bankruptcy proceedings.
JayHenry's Awesome Wikipedian day is April 20. |
Regards, Outriggr ( talk) 05:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I clarified my answer a bit to that question you were concerned about. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 21:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with everything except the part that read "[he] can disagree strongly without being disrespectful (a skill I lack)." I consider you to be a very tactful editor. I mean, you're a very individualistic so I'm sure you've left some people with somewhat sour opinions at times, but I certainly don't feel you've ever lacked respect for anybody. But then, that's my opinion, I suppose it may be a bit overbearing of me to bring it up. =) Master&Expert ( Talk) 16:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I draw your attention to the last bit It isn't just inclusionism/exclusionism either: it's highly unlikely that anyone that strongly disagrees with members of this council on any topic will ever be invited to join the council. That's my real concern: it really doesn't matter where the imbalance is, this structure will make it more and more imbalanced over time. People don't tend to think "I want to invite someone that disagrees with me on things" when they select additions and replacements.— Kww( talk) 03:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
Again, thank you for making this event a success! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 02:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
How's the markets? Smallbones ( talk) 17:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry it took me a long time to respond. I don't have any sources to recommend, it's out of my field. Now that I've looked closer at the article, it looks terrific to me. CRETOG8( t/ c) 22:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Jay - the Jackson Davis article has been nominated for deletion again. You spoke up the 1st time, so I figured you may want to weigh in. The proposer seems to have nominated a raft of webseries related content for deletion. -- Milowent ( talk) 22:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 02:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The Business and Economics Barnstar | ||
For tirelessly improving the quality of Economics articles on Wikipedia. LK ( talk) 18:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC) |
I've just noticed the good work you've put in on the various articles related to Recessions. Nice work! LK ( talk) 18:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, off-hand I don't have any good leads about pre-1900s recessions. However, have you looked in the free 1911 edition of the Britannica? You can view the text here. best, LK ( talk) 18:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like our effort of a few months ago to sabotage Ceoil's finances [6] has backfired. [7] In retrospect, who wouldn't 'invest' in a penny stock that gets to stay on the NYSE indefinitely and when everything about it is backstopped by the government. Eventually the gamblers will run it up. Godriggr would be displeased, but he Forgives (even though that's in your portfolio). Cheers, Outriggr ( talk) 23:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Markus Brunnermeier, my first new article in a while. It's kinda workmanlike, but the subject matter is perfect for you. If you haven't read this guy's papers on insider trading, predatory trading and investors pushing bubbles, you might like to. Sort of like Akerlof with more math (on that note the akerlof article is in a sorry state...maybe I should work on that) Protonk ( talk) 06:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I know you know I'm just a thick, bloody, fucking potatoe farmer; but tone down, please, your things when we are in the company of ladies. Humbly, Ceoil ( talk) 22:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Re "find someone..." [8] -- I do! Bwahaha. I can send you my article in Journal of Depression & Economics if you like. ("Double-blinded trial of SSRIs in ameliorating feelings of guilt associated with quantitative easing by American crony capitalists") Outriggr ( talk) 03:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You would be glad to know that a new wikipedia ad has been created by
Srinivas to encourage users to join
Chronicles of Narnia Task Force. You can display that ad on your user/talk page too using the following code: {{
Wikipedia ads|ad=190}}
Wikipedia ads | file info – #190 |
-- Alan16 ( talk) 10:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The August 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16 ( talk) 17:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey there JH.. Long time not talk. I hope this note finds you well. I've recently whipped together an article about a novelette by Honoré de Balzac, called Z. Marcas, and I wonder if you'd care to have a look. I haven't decided whether I'll take it all the way to FAC or not, but I figure it can't hurt to have a few sets of eyes over it in the meantime. (Obviously your thoughts on its suitability to FAC are most welcome.) Cheers! Scartol • Tok 20:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 02:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear JayHenry, my edit, with an edit summary "Lewis Carroll was first and foremost a mathematician", was certainly not silly. There are a number of reasons why I made this edit. Below are the reasons:
I made my edit based on those two reasons. His article may be located at Lewis Carroll, but it starts with "Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (pronounced /ˈdɒdsən/) (27 January 1832 – 14 January 1898), better known by the pen name Lewis Carroll ...". Have a nice day! AdjustShift ( talk) 15:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your input on the JLR talk page. Any advice on how to make the awards section into a list? -- Zoeydahling ( talk) 02:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI. This RFC is based on, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses which you participated in. If you already have commented at the RFC, my apologies for contacting you. Ikip ( talk) 00:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Irbisgreif ( talk) 22:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, saw your comment at Fractional-reserve banking. To explain what's going on, the article is under attack from a series of anon-IP fringe conspiracy theorists. Will appreciate it if you help keep an eye on it. Thanks, LK ( talk) 02:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that you, with 12,225 edits as of Sept 9, do not quite measure up to me, with my current 12,238 (in "my preferences"). And you've hardly been active since the 9th, so we know this holds. Sorry, old pal, but I've got to move on. (If it's any consolation, you have more talk page watchers (cf. SandyGeorgia's talk for a link); but so does everyone else, so...) But I've got to get back to editing: there are 110,000 articles that need a reference tag. When I'm done I'll be in 35th place! Outriggr ( talk) 01:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Can I play, too? Protonk ( talk) 01:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, are you still keeping track of the above FLC? Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
My library just delivered "Business cycles and depressions: an encyclopedia" by David Glasner, which I had asked them to get out of the archives. It's sitting on my desk now. Let me know if you need something out of it, like a specific page scanned or something. LK ( talk) 08:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikis Take Manhattan
|
WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.
LAST YEAR'S EVENT
WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.
WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.
WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!
REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.
WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:
FOR UPDATES
Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.
Thanks,
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at
Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 21:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: [10] Did you find anyone yet? It's not my usual sort of thing, and I'm not here as often as I used to be, but I could certainly use a new project. I can't guarantee Featured List status, and I certainly understand if you'd rather work with folks you know better. Just thought I'd offer, though. Kafka Liz ( talk) 22:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, just one for now. About these "47 recessions" - since not everyone agrees on the number, is there some way we could qualify this, as in "47 major recessions", "47 reported recessions", or "According to the NBER (or whoever), there have been 47..."? Kafka Liz ( talk) 18:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Re DaBomb87's page, are you serious? You're one of those "I thought he already was one"! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations Jay. Delighted to see it was promoted. Ceoil ( talk) 21:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
New York City Meetup |
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 03:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. I've been a bit busy IRL, grading term papers and stuff, and as you may have noticed, my wiki life is all taken up with mediation and disputes. How about this, I scan the TOC and Index of "Business cycles and depressions: an encyclopedia" and email to you, and you tell me which pages you would like scanned, and I will scan and email those back to you? If that sounds good, drop me a message on my talk page, and I will scan and email to you. LK ( talk) 08:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, in case it isn't clear, don't leave your email address on my talk page. It's usually not a good idea to post your email anywhere on the internets, as that leads to much junk mail. I'll email you using the 'E-mail this user' link on the left side of the Wikipedia screen. Best, LK ( talk) 08:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm usually here and on top of things on that page. Nice to see you're still here! Wildhartlivie ( talk) 07:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
[11] The "lead, follow or get out of the way" comments (I think I know what you are referring to) surprised me as well, at least in intensity and the evident disregard for the opinions of others. That attitude is a problem; progress is slow on Wikipedia, but radicalism isn't the solution. In any case - some folks around here treat quis custodiet as the refrain of the conspiracy theorists, but it's a reasonable concern. I believe that having a diverse group of people as election monitors would mitigate the risk of shared insanity leading to a corrupt outcome, but it looks like enough people weigh things differently that secret balloting for ArbCom is unlikely. Nathan T 19:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)