Removed begging? |
No edit summary |
||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
Why are you deleting things from my talk page that don't concern you? --<small>[[User:JD_UK|JD]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JD UK|talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/JD UK|email]]</sub> 12:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC) |
Why are you deleting things from my talk page that don't concern you? --<small>[[User:JD_UK|JD]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JD UK|talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/JD UK|email]]</sub> 12:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
:If you've got the time to make endless reverts to other pages, I'm sure you have the time to answer my question. --<small>[[User:JD_UK|JD]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JD UK|talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/JD UK|email]]</sub> 12:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:43, 1 June 2006
Archives: June 2005-May 2006
Please note that I will reply to any messages here, and not your talk page, in the interest of not splitting up threads.
'Obivious' nominations
Hey, been working with you and some others on the BB7 pages, just thought that with the hideous table of nominations (something out of a powerpoint presentation from hell) that boldifying the nominees wouldn't actually do any harm. You said it was obvious who was nominated from the table. Took me a while to work it out, that's why I did what I did. Is it that big a deal? I think making the most relevant thing on the whole page bold seems fair enough. But then again, it's Big Brother and I've got a life outside all this jazz. But I'm curious to understand why it's such a bad thing to make the most significant item of interest bold. Budgiekiller 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I appreciate your changes - but with the current discussion about colours going on, I don't think making it bold will make it any clearer - if anything, more confusing. You may want to bring it to the talk page, though? -- cds(talk) 21:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, to be fair, I'm not that fussed. I just wanted to know who was nominated and it took me some time, and I'm the Universe expert in powerpoint etc. (!) so for it to take me a few seconds to find the answer just made me think it needed some highlights. Anyway, it appears that the current tide of events has taken precedence, as you said, so I'll let it slide until the yelling has calmed down. I'll bring it up some other time (or just subversively keep changing the page like an IPvandal using a variety of IP addresses until someone forgets to revert.... [sneaky laugh])...! Budgiekiller 21:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: response to helpme
Hi, thank you for helping me. I will write you a note saying the story (short, I promise), but I just have to go run an errand and will be back soon. Thank you for helping. : ) Veritasophia 23:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
-I looked at this after I wrote it...soooo sorry it is so long. You can delete it after you read it, so it won't clog up your talk page.-
Ok, I decided not to go out after all. Here is the story: I am not a frequent wikipedia user, but I am interested in education, so I edit articles about universities, usually putting statistics about academics and programs (for example, the percentage of professors with doctorates, info I found useful when deciding which university to attend, that sort of thing). I am also mildly interested in fashion and society (haha, I am a girl, it is just fun, I know it is silly). So last night I was looking up someone, and found there were whole categories abotu socialites. Haha, this sounds so silly now that I write it, but anyway I was reading about people and I had just been reading in a magazine about Lauren Hosty--I thought her story was sort of cute, so I made an article about her, just for fun. So then today, I was adding something to Trinity Western University's article, about an internship program I think is cool, and I guess "Ardenn" had TWU bookmarked and immediately deleted what I had written. So we were talking about it, and I was saying I think it should be on there etc, and then he starts changing all sorts of stuff from what I had written about other universities. It would take too long to go into all of it (you can see on the talk pages about the sort of thing he didn't like, basically if I wrote anything negative (not innacurate or biased, just a negative fact) he would challenge me on it and make me get the web address etc). So then on my "watchlist" is shows that my little article about Lauren Hosty was marked for deletion. Yup, him again. :( I tried saying that that was not nice, that it is clear he was only doing it because he was mad at me for the university thing (I mean honestly, he's interested in politics and universities and then all of a sudden decides to check up on a mildly famous canadian socialites? It is impossible to prove, but totally illogical, and incriminating on his part given the time in between). So I try to say that, but nicely, and literally within 4 minutes there are 4 other users voting to delete it. This is why I need help: It is absolutley illogical that these 4 other random users (him too) would suddenly be interested in deleting this article, expecially given that Ardenn's arguement was that no one cared about Lauren Hosty so she shouldn't be on wikipedia. Haha, it is just so silly! My point is that, yes, socialites are kind of a silly topic (probably not worth mentioning in a printed encylclopedia) but there are pages and pages of socialite articles, and I was saying that unless he is willing to argue with all those authors about how they shouldn't be on it because it is stupid, then he should leave this one alone. Especially considering that he seems to be attacking my pages in particular just because he didn't like what I wrote about some university.
I am sooo very sorry for making this so long; I didn't think it would take that long to write. Please don't be frusterated with me. I just don't know what to do. I said that I would appreciate him keeping me acountable about not being biased with the university articles (my whole purpose with them was keeping facts accurate) but that he shouldn't use his frusteration with me to delete my other articles. :( I am so upset. If you don't have time to help today, that is fine, and thank you for helping at all. It's just, it makes me never want to go on wikipedia if people are going to be so mean. Thank you sosososo much. Veritasophia 23:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, firstly, as said before, you shouldn't take the AfD personally, and the reason there are 4 others quickly jumping in is merely becasue a lot of people (myself sometimes) who look at all the open AfDs and vote on those that stick out.
- As for the other user following you around, I'm not sure what to do about this. I'll chat to a few people about it for advise. For the moment, I know it's hard, but try to assume good faith :)
- I hope you don't leave Wikipedia over this - it's mostly good, I promise! I notice you have got help elsewhere - together, I hope this situation will get sorted. -- cds(talk) 23:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I got your message. How should I show you the links? Should I copy and paste the actual link, or just write with []'s the name of the page? Veritasophia 00:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- If it's diffs, then you can put the full link in single square brackets, or the article itself you can put in double square brackets. -- cds(talk) 00:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here are the main ones: Trinity Western University Laurentian Leadership Centre Melvin H. Smith, Q.C. University Canada West If you look at the history pages for these, you will see that I will have written something, and he'll delete it without asking for clarification or asking in the talk page if it is true, etc, and then I'll write something about how it is true, and not biased, and put it back, and he'll edit it again or put a tag thing on it saying that the "article is full of POVs and problems" or a tag for it to be deleted or that it needs verification (the Melvin Smith one). I am all for things being accurate (of course! that is why I do most of the university edits to begin with, so that the true information is there) but he seems to be going after all my edits in particular, and not asking me for verification first.
My parents just came home and we are going to dinner now, so I can't write anymore for now, but if you look at my contributions list, a lot of those will have edits by him after mine. :( I am so upset that this is such a problem, and I really appreciate you helping me. I *want* to write on here and do my little edits and make sure everything is accurate, and (as much as you can trust me) I promise that I would not lie on purpose or make things up. But for some reason he is just mad at me, and like you said "following me around". And regarding the whole Lauren Hosty thing, it really isn't a big deal, but the principle of the thing: he is just deleting it to hurt me. I was reading about wikipedia vanity, and from what I can tell, as long as it is not written by the person or their family or whatever, and is *mildly* interesting, then it is ok to have an article about something that is not *super* widely known. It says that lack of fame is not the same as vanity. That might be what is going on, that he just thinks it is irrelevant, but it is written by a neuatral person who thinks the article person is cool, in which case I think it is ok to keep it. I hope this makes sense. I will check back later. Thank you for your help and for reading all this. It is very late where you are! :) Veritasophia 01:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- It looks like a lot of this has stemmed from simple misunderstanding. Certainly I feel the redirect should've been discussed first. I think if you still feel there needs to be certain information included, you should take it up on the article talk pages. As for the user following you, I think he means no harm in it, and is only trynig to keep the place tidy. I hope this doesn't discourage you! -- cds(talk) 01:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Personal attack?
Why is everything I say that concerns something you do a personal attack? Stop deleting what I have to say; the article you keep posting on my talk page says you shouldn't delete peoples' comments, only the attack; or something along those lines. You're just deleting the whole thing. JD 00:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's fine if you feel that the content should stay, nobody's saying you can't give your opinion on things. However, you can't link an action to a user: if they put an article up or AfD you should vote on it, rather than say "ffs they've put it up for AfD!". This is seen as a personal attack. Just comment on the content rather than the person, and we'll all be fine :) -- cds(talk) 00:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- There is so much I would just love to say to you, but I'm worried I could be breaking one of your precious Wikipedia rules, and you are not worth my being banned. If you want to sort things out, reverting things immediately is not the way to go about doing things. And just for the record, I didn't comment on the content because it's not the content I have a problem with; it's the course of action you chose to take. And also, the ffs was not aimed at you, and if you see that as a personal attack, that's not my fault. JD 00:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Notice
IN THE MEDIATION CABAL; Case: 2006-06-01 JD UK and 9cds
To: 9cds
You are notified that a case, in which you are named as a party, has been submitted for mediation. Your response to the other party's claims is hereby requested. Please post your response in the discussion section of the case page. The case page is at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases
/s/
Geo.plrd 01:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC) , Mediator; Cabalist of the Mediation Cabal
Clarification of Notice
This is to clarify the notice, on the case page 2006-06-01 JD UK and 9cds you edit the section labelled Discussion, and put your response there. Geo.plrd 02:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Removed begging?
Why are you deleting things from my talk page that don't concern you? --JDtalkemail 12:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)