John J. Bulten (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
Please see [[WP:SYNTH]] for what synthesis means. I have reverted your change to [[WP:SS]]. Synthesis is the sticking together of bits which were never meant to imply something, not that the stuff doesn't exist. There is no need to reiterate that guideline in [[WP:SS]] and it is only there to effect a synthesis. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 01:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC) |
Please see [[WP:SYNTH]] for what synthesis means. I have reverted your change to [[WP:SS]]. Synthesis is the sticking together of bits which were never meant to imply something, not that the stuff doesn't exist. There is no need to reiterate that guideline in [[WP:SS]] and it is only there to effect a synthesis. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 01:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
:Actually, you didn't revert ''me'', you reverted the next editor. Given how widespread the misunderstanding is--that notability limits article contents--I think it appropriately belongs in [[WP:SS]]. While you're entitled to an opinion that it does not belong there, I would encourage you to not edit war to keep a reference to a relevant policy out... [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens#top|talk]]) 01:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC) |
:Actually, you didn't revert ''me'', you reverted the next editor. Given how widespread the misunderstanding is--that notability limits article contents--I think it appropriately belongs in [[WP:SS]]. While you're entitled to an opinion that it does not belong there, I would encourage you to not edit war to keep a reference to a relevant policy out... [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens#top|talk]]) 01:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
::J, this is now 3 reverts by Dmcq in 2 edit sets, refusal to discuss on [[Wikipedia talk:Summary style]] (please see), two edit summaries that I consider personal attacks, and unclear objection to a verbatim two sentences of [[WP:N]]. What should I do? Thanks. [[User:John J. Bulten/Friends|JJB]] 01:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:20, 27 May 2012
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Welcome, correspondents
If you're here because I deleted an article you think should be undeleted, please read this first and remember--Most of the time, I didn't write the text that appears in the deletion summary.
N.B. I don't respond well to either fawning or abuse. Talk to me like a peer, assume good faith, and you'll find I reciprocate in my helpfulness.
Functionary Assistance My ability to help as a checkuser, oversighter, or arbitrator in individual matters is currently limited by my positional and non-Wikipedia obligations. For non-trivial assistance, especially that which requires extensive consideration of private correspondence, you will likely get a faster response by asking another functionary.
Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...
Administrator Goals
Doing my best to improve the tiny little wedge in the top center:
Amendment
I've made a request to amend one of the findings of fact. I do not gain anything from it (or the speed with which it is handled), but other individuals or groups might. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have all the case, clarification, and amendment pages watchlisted, though, so a notification that you've filed something is unnecessary, although I see how you might have gotten that from my WT:AC/N post. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, although the notification was not merely that I've filed something (or at least, that was not the sole intention). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Random assertions
Please do not continue to make misleading assertions like "when he used his administrative privileges to do things like adjusting whitespace". You are supposed to be an impartial arbitrator, not making up additional assertions for the evidence phase, which closed a considerable time ago. Rich Farmbrough, 23:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC).
- You're speaking as if the case was still open--it's over and done, and I'm speaking in generalities, rather than referring to specific instances. I thought it overkill to refer to specific evidence, and did not intend what I said to be taken as a specific allegation, but rather a descriptor of the sort of edits that proved problematic. What would you prefer I substitute for what I originally wrote? Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols". Thank you. --Neuroticguru (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, but a) I don't consider myself all that involved, and b) it looks more like a user conduct issue than an actual dispute. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
your assistance please...
In August of 2010 you deleted the article Dirty thirty (Vietnam) as an expired prod. Unfortunately, whoever placed that prod didn't bother to leave a heads-up on my talk page, and I only became aware of the deletion now.
I request userification to User:Geo Swan/userified 2012-05/Dirty thirty (Vietnam) please. Geo Swan (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
FWIW a few seconds with google finds lots of replacement references -- nominator might benefit from re-reading WP:BEFORE [1], [2].
- I don't userify prods--I put them back in mainspace. You're free to move it to your userspace for work, but as of now it's back in mainspace. Feel free to commence upgrade work on it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Input
Look at One Sonic Society, and tell me what you think of it now?HotHat (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Looks substantially better than any of the previous versions, and sufficiently different that G4 deletion would be inappropriate. Keep up the good work! Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
FYI
Apparently Arm's politics are bubbling over onto Wikipedia a bit. Whee. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Armageddon has the most odd combination of drama and survivability I've ever seen. It must be 20 years old now, and it still keeps going... Surprised that sort of thing hasn't happened on-Wiki before now, actually. Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
how I think you should have done it
sent it as a notice to alert admins that such a thing had happened. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Meaning of synthesis
Please see WP:SYNTH for what synthesis means. I have reverted your change to WP:SS. Synthesis is the sticking together of bits which were never meant to imply something, not that the stuff doesn't exist. There is no need to reiterate that guideline in WP:SS and it is only there to effect a synthesis. Dmcq (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, you didn't revert me, you reverted the next editor. Given how widespread the misunderstanding is--that notability limits article contents--I think it appropriately belongs in WP:SS. While you're entitled to an opinion that it does not belong there, I would encourage you to not edit war to keep a reference to a relevant policy out... Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- J, this is now 3 reverts by Dmcq in 2 edit sets, refusal to discuss on Wikipedia talk:Summary style (please see), two edit summaries that I consider personal attacks, and unclear objection to a verbatim two sentences of WP:N. What should I do? Thanks. JJB 01:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)