![]() | 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. |
I was just about to add a "Who Says" Single art but I see you did and cleaned the place up thanks a lot man -- Cjones132002 ( talk) 05:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for editing that last entry on Michael Ignatieff. I undid my own revert because I was unsure whether it was indeed vandalism or part of the included material from the book referenced. Thanks again ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N. contribs 03:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I still have a comment there that has been removed? Off2riorob ( talk) 19:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm worried about the precedent of one user conducting an edit war landing a page in indefinite full protection, with his tags in place. This wasn't a wide ranging edit dispute, it was one editor with an agenda battling against every other editor on the page. user:J aka justen ( talk) 19:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear fellow rollbacker :) ... While the intent is understandable, the tag is truly a {{POV}} tag ... {{NPOV}} is a redirect because of common dithering about, um, intention. Obviously this is of earthshattering importance and we must begin to edit war—very slowly—about it. LOL Cheers. (No response necessary for trivialities) -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
... the letters of a name are erased on a computer screen until there is just a huge letter J (Men and Black! lol no joke, just this moment)
... and in a corner of Wikipedia a profoundly wise collapse is performed.
Good work, J. ;) (smiling, but not joking) Proofreader77 ( talk) 05:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
(TOP SECRET/SINGLE-LETTER EYES ONLY:)
|
---|
Psst ... Resignation of Sarah Palin was created around the time I arrived for my second tour of duty of current-events wrangling the Sarah Palin article (my first was the weekend of the kos rumor—which, by the way, I verified was false by communicating with an Alaskan news photographer whose photos had been used to assert the rumor) My first SPCEW2 episode-defining action ... was opposing a(Wikilawyering and ANI-oft-dramaqueening) five-year WP veteran's belligerent insistence that they could describe/summarize from the WP:Primary transcript of the speech. The editor's inaugural edit (of this period on this page) was roughly: While Palin gave X (editor summary from PRIMARY), the media (SECONDARY) said Y (which I reluctantly reverted—because I wanted to clarify the SECONDARY vs PRIMARY issue with an undo, i.e., signal: "Don't do that" ... but with edit summary with carefully/non-aggressively-worded rationale). I was rather insistent on the matter (on the talk page), and the offending paragraph found itself traveling to a newly-created article (where I did not care). lol SO, I (like a god? lol) helped breathed life into the article I kept away from ... BUT, I do know what it ought to be ... HOWEVER that version must await book-level analysis (rather than media-level coverage) to take shape ... and perhaps even some adjustment to the usual idea of what an article about a speech might be (which would include the possibility of sourced rhetorical analysis). While I am not a fan of Palin, her rhetoric and style are effective ... in its way ... and that way is fine for its audience and purpose. BOTTOM LINE: I do have a thought that that "speech" is precisely the kind of speech that would deserve its own article—when we do it right. (Which can't be done yet. But there's no rush. And no compelling reason to delete in the meantime. AND if it turns out she is truly a flash in the pan ... THEN, of course, delete.) Selah. (no response necessary) Proofreader77 ( talk) 16:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC) |
Epilogue: The illuminati smile :-) -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 08:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I was acting out of boredom more than anything else ;). Well done on the article, it's looking good. TastyCakes ( talk) 14:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate your explanation of your lack of assumption of good faith before I take this issue to WP:ANI Chuthya ( talk) 18:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
[1] My comment doesn't make any assumptions about your intentions, only the effect of calling for recall at that point. No allegations, then, just a prediction. Closing the discussion was probably the right move. Nathan T 14:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Scapegoat redux. user:J aka justen ( talk) 04:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC) |
---|
![]()
|
![]() | 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. |
I was just about to add a "Who Says" Single art but I see you did and cleaned the place up thanks a lot man -- Cjones132002 ( talk) 05:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for editing that last entry on Michael Ignatieff. I undid my own revert because I was unsure whether it was indeed vandalism or part of the included material from the book referenced. Thanks again ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N. contribs 03:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I still have a comment there that has been removed? Off2riorob ( talk) 19:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm worried about the precedent of one user conducting an edit war landing a page in indefinite full protection, with his tags in place. This wasn't a wide ranging edit dispute, it was one editor with an agenda battling against every other editor on the page. user:J aka justen ( talk) 19:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear fellow rollbacker :) ... While the intent is understandable, the tag is truly a {{POV}} tag ... {{NPOV}} is a redirect because of common dithering about, um, intention. Obviously this is of earthshattering importance and we must begin to edit war—very slowly—about it. LOL Cheers. (No response necessary for trivialities) -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
... the letters of a name are erased on a computer screen until there is just a huge letter J (Men and Black! lol no joke, just this moment)
... and in a corner of Wikipedia a profoundly wise collapse is performed.
Good work, J. ;) (smiling, but not joking) Proofreader77 ( talk) 05:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
(TOP SECRET/SINGLE-LETTER EYES ONLY:)
|
---|
Psst ... Resignation of Sarah Palin was created around the time I arrived for my second tour of duty of current-events wrangling the Sarah Palin article (my first was the weekend of the kos rumor—which, by the way, I verified was false by communicating with an Alaskan news photographer whose photos had been used to assert the rumor) My first SPCEW2 episode-defining action ... was opposing a(Wikilawyering and ANI-oft-dramaqueening) five-year WP veteran's belligerent insistence that they could describe/summarize from the WP:Primary transcript of the speech. The editor's inaugural edit (of this period on this page) was roughly: While Palin gave X (editor summary from PRIMARY), the media (SECONDARY) said Y (which I reluctantly reverted—because I wanted to clarify the SECONDARY vs PRIMARY issue with an undo, i.e., signal: "Don't do that" ... but with edit summary with carefully/non-aggressively-worded rationale). I was rather insistent on the matter (on the talk page), and the offending paragraph found itself traveling to a newly-created article (where I did not care). lol SO, I (like a god? lol) helped breathed life into the article I kept away from ... BUT, I do know what it ought to be ... HOWEVER that version must await book-level analysis (rather than media-level coverage) to take shape ... and perhaps even some adjustment to the usual idea of what an article about a speech might be (which would include the possibility of sourced rhetorical analysis). While I am not a fan of Palin, her rhetoric and style are effective ... in its way ... and that way is fine for its audience and purpose. BOTTOM LINE: I do have a thought that that "speech" is precisely the kind of speech that would deserve its own article—when we do it right. (Which can't be done yet. But there's no rush. And no compelling reason to delete in the meantime. AND if it turns out she is truly a flash in the pan ... THEN, of course, delete.) Selah. (no response necessary) Proofreader77 ( talk) 16:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC) |
Epilogue: The illuminati smile :-) -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 08:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I was acting out of boredom more than anything else ;). Well done on the article, it's looking good. TastyCakes ( talk) 14:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate your explanation of your lack of assumption of good faith before I take this issue to WP:ANI Chuthya ( talk) 18:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
[1] My comment doesn't make any assumptions about your intentions, only the effect of calling for recall at that point. No allegations, then, just a prediction. Closing the discussion was probably the right move. Nathan T 14:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Scapegoat redux. user:J aka justen ( talk) 04:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC) |
---|
![]()
|