User talk:Jersyko
Contents |
Myfortress
Why are you removing all the links to myfortress.org? Articles are allowed to have external links that are critical of the article. These pages simply list quotations by the individuals. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-1 23:10
- We worry about the verifiability of our articles, not of other sites. External links are allowed to be controversial. Just look at a controversial article, you'll see external links split into two different categories (pro and con). The sites are unlikely to be very factual in either case, and more likely to spout opinions, but they are still allowed to be external links. In any case, the Myfortress site lists numerous quotations by the individuals, which can be useful. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-2 04:32
Adrian
Oh, I am sure the hulabaloo will be tremendous... and I would just like to point out that wikipedia was one of the first internationally read website to break the news. :-P -Dozenist 15:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know. I was wondering what was up with the sigs as well. -Dozenist 17:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Wonderful. The sigs work great now. -Dozenist talk 00:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Adrian Rogers
Why are you insisting on including reference to a one-time "slavery" comment that was obviously taken out of context? That does not at all define who Adrian Rogers was, as all that knew him can attest. If this reference has to be included, there should be a reference to a rebuttal as well. - (unsigned anon)
- I responded on your talk page, but i'll reproduce my response here:
- Hi, thanks for your comment. While I did not add the slavery quote to the Adrian Rogers article in the first place, I do think, after some consideration, it belongs in the article. While the quote is taken out of context, as quotes often are, I think the contextual issue as it has been presented is not very relevant, as I explain on the article's talk page.
- I am all for offering evidence in the article that Dr. Rogers was not, in fact, a racist or a supporter of slavery. I think the article does indicate, in the sentence following the slavery quote, that Dr. Rogers was not a racist or a slavery supporter, but more could be added. I'm vaguely familiar with a story about when Dr. Rogers was fairly new at Bellevue and told some deacons, who were contemplating not allowing African-Americans to join the church, that he would resign in protest if they decided to ban blacks from the church. I would love to see something about this in the article, assuming that it's true and a source for the story can be found. If you can find verification for this story, and can add something in the article about it in a neutral point of view manner, I, among other editors, would welcome such an addition, i'm sure. - Jersyko talk 22:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough. In response to Dr. Rogers comments about resigning if the church didn't allow African-Americans to join, I have heard as well. I will try to obtain a quote from an eyewitness to the incident. (Sorry if I didn't respond in the correct manner on editing this page, but I am obviously new here.) - (unsigned anon)
Tooth development
Why thankyou for your comments on the article. To adequately cover the topic, as I am sure you would guess, the article needs to be a lot longer, and the use of these pictures will be very helpful. But it is going to have to be something that develops over time. Histology is not my favorite topic (as I am sure that is how it is with most people), and so hopefully I can overcome my distaste for it and keep editing. As with the tooth enamel article, you just let me know if there are any confusing statements, and you are always welcome to edit my work... we are on wikipedia, you know. -Dozenist talk 02:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Give me a couple of days. I'll let you know when. There are just some minor things I want done before it being sent to peer review. -Dozenist talk 00:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Profane, Insulting Entry
Please remove the redirect you put up for co#! su!@^$^>" fa)#!^
I am sorry someone called you that, but it still doesn't make that established English. If a term is not yet established in the English language, it doesn't merit a page here. thanks. Jazz1979 19:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about, I have certainly not created any insulting articles with profanity in them (or redirects for that matter). Take a look at my contributions if you aren't convinced. You must have the wrong person, please make sure you get your facts straight next time, or you might wind up falsely accusing a user of something he or she didn't do again.- Jersyko talk 20:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)- Ok, i think i know what you're talking about, this redirect, perhaps? I did my best to explain why I made the redirect in my edit summary, but it seems you weren't persuaded. I meant no offense by creating the redirect, and I'm dismayed that you took offense as such. However, please realize that the article is about the slang use of the word "faggot", and the redirect is a somewhat common, albeit derogatory, slang use of the same word (like i said, a vandal used the term on my talk page and created a dead wikilink to the phrase, prompting me, before deleting said phrase from my talk page, to go ahead and make the redirect). I think the redirect is appropriate, given the subject matter of the article. If you diagree, nominate it for deletion and we'll determine this by consensus of editors. Thanks. - Jersyko talk 21:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Roy Buchanan
Young Man,
If there is some reason you feel that the edits on Mr. Buchanan are inaccurate, then you are invited to correct the facts.
However--reversion to a previous version--which erases ALL edits--effectively categorizes said updates as 'vandalism', as I believe the convention goes in this forum.
I've seen Roy; I knew Roy; I feel as much a guardian of his talent as you. So kindly do not--IMO--abuse the privelege afforded to us in upholding his memory. Feel free to truly EDIT. I can take it.
Many thanks!
--A 50 year old AOL member; guitarist for 42 years. Buchanan fan. - added by 152.163.100.8
- This is a response to your message on my talk page about the Roy Buchanan article. I would like to direct your attention to the following Wikipedia policies: no original research and neutral point of view. While several of your edits could probably be a nice addition to the article if rewritten, the edits contained (1) ebulliant praise for Mr. Buchanan and (2) your personal impression of his work. I hope you see how these edits are not in the spirit of neutral point of view and no original research. I would ask that you rewrite your edits to the article keeping these policies in mind and remove any edits that you added that you do not believe can conform to the policies. Also, I would invite you to consider that many Wikipedians are neither young nor male when interacting with other users. - Jersyko talk 04:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
No sir;
I present FACTUAL information, not impressions. It is, of course, YOUR privilege to edit --edit NOT erase entire contributions-- sections you feel are 'non neutral'.
I cite some examples that apparently led you to waste my time and discount an authoritative voice wantonly, IMO:
1) There is no evidence that the Rollings Stones EVER made an offer to Buchanan to join. At best, one may charitably call it 'alleged', as stated; 2) The TV show did NOT lead to a recording contract with Polydor. Buchanan was already UNDER contract to Polydor; had delivered an album of tracks BEFORE the show that was produced by Charlie Daniels--and was rejected by the label. Thus I 'neutrally' stated this as 'rejuvenated'; 3) It is stated explicitly from witnesses, as reported in AMERICAN AXE that Mr. Buchanan sustain injuries that could not be attributed to suicide, hence my addendum there. 4) Buchanan commonly told others (I heard it; and it is also indepndently reported in AMERICAN AXE-- that the Snakestretchers was a band name parody with a ribald allusion.
Do you want me to cite others?
If you wish to WRITE history that's fine. But don't pretend that you are in a position to Re-WRITE history.
I invite you to edit. Now the second said invitation so proffered.
Regards,
BUCK fan - 205.188.116.8
- I think, perhaps, that I was not as clear as I could have been in my response. Allow me to try again. I do not dispute the factual accuracy of what you have added to the article, nor do I accept what you have added as factual, either. The historical fact or fiction of what you have added is not the issue. The issue is that your additions to the article are presented (1) with nothing but praise for Mr. Buchanan (note the numerous use of adjectives in your edit, which is something that Wikipedia generally discourages because of the neutral point of view policy) and (2) as your own first hand impression of his music and person. Again, I invite you to take a look at these two policies and decide for yourself whether your edits adhere to the spirit of both. I do not mean to discourage your participation in Wikipedia, quite the opposite, I hope that you take a look at these and other Wikipedia policies and continue to develop as a contributor to this great resource. Thanks. - Jersyko talk 16:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
This assertion is spurious: If I am presenting FACTUAL information, then how is FACT to be construed PURELY as SUBJECTIVE PRAISE? The failing sir, is, IMO, in your understanding of the nature of the contribution.
You are allowed at any time to remove purely subjective material. The fact that you have not done so with the extant page indicates , IMO, your unwillingness to make your point in a valid way. I believe that your point lacks validity, ergo you fail to correct and instruct.
I note, quite compellingly, that you have failed to justify the reversion of the page. I presume this is because there does not exist a valid justification, and, IMO, such a decision was arbitrary. I do not presume it was intended to be capricious.
Go edit.
Regards. - 205.188.116.8
- Please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You continue to invite me to edit, yet you have added the praising, original research material back into the article in nearly identical fashion three times now. I have only reverted it once, another user reverted it another time, and, as of right now, the material remains in the article. I am certainly able to edit what you have written, and may do so. My ability to edit what you have written, however, does not excuse you from adherence to the two relevant policies, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, in your edits. Again, I encourage you to continue editing on Wikipedia, and also to continue to grow as an editor by reading about and adhering to these policies. - Jersyko talk 17:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I am happy to abide by the rules. You continue to assert that I have NOT done so. That is by no means evident. In fact, as best as I can tell, your statement is false. I request that you do not present an opinion as a fact. Thus, I invite you here, to take, say --3-- examples of my added text that you assert does not abide by said rules. Let's discuss them here. - 205.188.116.8
- Here are some examples that I see just after a quick glance: "a lively but fizzled effort to meet the quixotic pop market" (makes a value judgment as to the effort and the nature of the market); "he took a typical, if stereotyped, 'country' instrument and taught it to rock and cry the blues" (this is an example of original research, your firsthand opinion or observation, as well as POV); "Buchanan had the extraordinary ability . . ." (value judgment as to the ability, this type of observation appears many times in the article); "Regrettably, the smaller venues made Buchanan less accessible, although many of the live CD's after his death capture the unusual and electric excitement of his talent." (makes value judgments as to "regrattability" and his talent). Let me emphasize that I think much of the substance of what you have added to the article could certainly be a welcome addition, provided that NOR and NPOV are adhered to. Thanks. - Jersyko talk 17:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
IMO, this is an extraordinary example of self-interpretation and pedantry.
No; your opinions here do not constitute fact. It is remarkable how your opinion is at odds with other other extant entries. Examples...look at 1)Jimi Hendrix; Eric Clapton; Dick Dale; and so on.
You captured my attention. However, I leave you with the opinion that your concerns are not valid.
Next time you take an extreme measure, think before you act. A piece of sound advice.
Regards, 64.12.116.8
- I also regret that you've chosen to disregard Wikipedia policy, attack my opinion as completely invalid, and respond to my suggestions with mere empty rhetoric instead of endeavoring to adhere to Wikipedia policy. I offered substantive constructive criticism, and you have proffered no response other than to call everything I have said "invalid" and to personally attack me. If the other articles you have cited do, in fact, contain similar passages, they should also be edited to conform to the policy, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether your edits conform to that policy. I assume the user that left the above note is the same one that I have been dealing with in regard to the Roy Buchanan article, though the constantly changing IP addresses might mean that my assumption is false. In either event, such empty, rhetorical attacks on what I have said have no place on Wikipedia, or, I would offer, in other realms of life. - Jersyko talk 19:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)