User talk:Jerzy/Phase 06

All New: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Orphaned: 500 1001 1501 - - (Generated (using "subst:") from 06:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC) revision of user-Jerzy-talk generating template User:Jerzy/Fresh Talk Page, based on 3 January 2009 revision of User talk:Jerzy plus dynamic transclusion of User:Jerzy/Past Archive Phases, minor typo fixes, and a new link.)

Wikipedia:Babel

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

de-2Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse.

Search user languages

Rough Overview of this Page

1. Welcome to the Page for "Talking" to Jerzy (Talk-Page Front-Matter)
   1. About Communicating Here
   2. Note to Non-Native Speakers of English
   3. Links to my Discussion (User-talk page) Archives
   4. Detailed Table of Contents of whole page
2. Messages to Jerzy and Dialogues with Him

Welcome to the Page for "Talking" to Jerzy (Talk-Page Front-Matter)

Communicating here

Leaving me a message

The end of this page is always a good place to leave messages to me, and for most users, by far the easiest ways of doing that is:

1. You probably have simulated file-folder tabs (not "browser tabs") at the top of the box enclosing the text that you are reading from: rectangles a little taller than one line of text, with the fourth tab from the left reading something like "+" or "+comment". Click on that tab -- or here.
2. Fill in both the single-line edit pane with the title or subject of your message.
3. Type your message for me into the larger edit pane below it.
4. As the last line, type

   --~~~~

5. Click on the "Show preview" button, and proofread what is displayed.
6. If changes are needed, make them and repeat the the previous step (and then this one).
7. Click on the "Save page" button, making your message a new "section" on this page.

Leaving followup messages

If you previously left me a message on this page, and now you have more to say on the same subject, follow this link to this page's Table of Contents. If it hasn't been too long, you should find the section with the previous message from you, and to its right a link reading

[edit]

1. Click on that "[edit]" link.
2. Confirm (perhaps by previewing) that it's the same section as before.
3. Type type more below the old message in the larger edit pane (below the preview, if any).
4. As the new last line, type

   --~~~~

5. Click on the "Show preview" button, and proofread what is displayed.
6. If changes are needed, make them and repeat the previous step (and then this one).
7. In the small edit pane below the larger edit pane, type a few words summarizing what you're adding (and preview and revise if appropriate).
8. Click on the "Save page" button, replacing your previous message a new longer one including it.

Guide to the Rest of This Page

The remaining material consists of

• A warning about a highly idiosyncratic aspect of my grammar
• Help finding things that were previously on this talk page, but have been moved

  (These are some people's top priority, but most will prefer to jump to the Table of Contents, or add a message at the end.)

• A Table of Contents listing every section currently on the page
• A number of sections each containing either messages from on editor, hopefully each on a single topic, or a two-way discussion

Note to Non-Native Speakers of English

Years ago, i got stuck in my brain the idea that there's something wrong about modern English singling out the first-person singular pronoun to be spelled with a capital letter. So i spell it without the capital -- except at the beginning of a sentence, or when i'm not the sole author. If you follow my example, native speakers will just figure you're ignorant of the basics.

(I also say the above, and a bit more, on my User page.)

Links to my Discussion (User-talk page) Archives

"Phases" of my Talk Page

The remainder of this section is dynamically transcluded from my "Past Archive Phases" page.

These phases can be used not only for their text, but also for verifying the date & time when specific edits occurred and what registered or "IP" user at Wikipedia made the edits, via each phase's edit history.

• Phase 10's future content is currently being accumulated at User talk:Jerzy, from discussions starting on or after 2009 August 1 (or expected to continue from before that date), and will be copied to the subpage Phase 10 at a later date.
• The Phase 09 page covers discussions active during 2009 July.
• The Phase 08 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 21 (at noon) -30.
• The Phase 07 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 16- 21 (at noon).
• The Phase 06 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 1-15.
  • Progress report: (I got lazy; i should have cut Phase 6 off in mid-June due to high volume, but here it is mid-July.)
    I think i won't have "to break the pattern" after all, instead splitting the history (and content), with hindsight, at the points where i would have if i had had foresight abt the volume of upcoming discussions! Phase 06 (temporary) is not a phase, but a work space: i moved the talk page there to start accumulating new discussion on the newest User talk:Jerzy page, and now am in the process of undeleting portions of the temp to provide both the edit history and the content (after removing excess) of several new phases. I'll continue to update this template to provide current guidance, mostly a little ahead of actual implementation. Some archived content will temporarily be available only to admins, at times when i'm fairly actively working on this process.
• The Phase 05 page covers discussions active during 2009 May.
• The Phase 04 page covers discussions active during 2009 April.
• The Phase 03 page covers 2009 February 1 through March 31 discussion-starts; although the voluminous discussion concerning a dispute resolution process is mentioned and linked (and "included by reference") from the point at which it originated (on the talk page that has been renamed to Phase 03), its content is at my Proofreader77 subpage.
• The Phase 02 page covers 2009 January 1 through 31 discussion-starts.
• The Phase 01 page covers 2008 September 1 through 2008 December 31 discussion-starts.
• As to Phase 00 (in the sense of the remaining period talk page's existence):
  • Discussions started from 2006 February 20 to 2008 August 31 are covered, as to both editing history and content, by the Phase 00 page.
  • Discussions started from 2003 Sept. 3 through 2006 February 19 have their discussion content in the "Topical" and "Mixed-topic" archives linked below (directly and via a date-range-organized index pg, respectively); their editing history is presently part of that of the Phase 00 page.

    If the material were more recent (or if interest is shown) that page history could be subdivided using administrator permissions, producing at least a corresponding separate history for each of the two phase 00 periods just described. The process could certainly be extended to reunite the presumably non-overlapping "Mixed-topic" archives with their respective edit histories. Doing the same for the "Topical" archives would surely be more onerous, and if there are duplications of these discussions in the "Mixed-topic" archives, one copy of the history would have to be manually assembled by copying from the DBMS-generated history pages, and pasting to an ordinary content page.
    

Notes re history irregularities.

Mixed-topic Archives

These are more chronological than my Topical Archives listed in the immediately previous section, exhaustive (outside the "Topical Archives" topics) for the periods they cover but (presently and probably permanently) cover only through 18:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC).

• User talk:Jerzy/Archive Index

Note that the Mixed-topic Archives are content-only archives, and the page history entries of the corresponding individual contributions will be found as part of the page history of User talk:Jerzy/Phase 00.

Topical Archives

These include nothing newer than 2004, and each concerns one area of interest, sometimes oriented toward an article or articles with the same subject matter, sometimes otherwise connected.

• TRAC Programming language (6.7 kB, 2004 Nov 8)
• Carleton College (9 kB, 2004 Nov 6)
• Wikipedia Categories (9 kB, 2004 Nov 4)
• Turkey (often re Armenians) (19 kB, '04 Jul - Oct)
• Jerzy as Administrator (16 kB, '04 Sep- Oct)
• Dialogue with Adam Carr (14 kB, 2004 Jul 16)
• List of people by name (14 kB, '03 Dec - '04 Mar)

Note that the Topical Archives are content-only archives, and the page history entries of the corresponding individual contributions will be found as part of the page history of User talk:Jerzy/Phase 00.

TABLE of CONTENTS

Access to Most Recent Entries of ToC

(If the page gets large, it's easier to scroll back up into the ToC from here than to scroll down thru it from its top.)

Messages to Jerzy and Dialogues with Him

Archiving Work in Progress

"Dig we must."

The presence of this section indicates that any discussions that i consider still active have been temporarily exiled to an archive page. Please be patient; they will reappear here.
--Jerzy•t 17:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think the discussions that are still not reflected here will progress no further.
  --Jerzy•t 18:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  

Multiply-named section American warning"> American"> American warning">

Former Titles of the Section that This Section Concerns:

Talk page work

Talk page work > American warning

This section still awaits testing as the target for the following lks to titles that were formerly on this talk page:

• User talk:Jerzy#Talk page work
• User talk:Jerzy#Talk page work > American warning

User talk:Jerzy#Talk page work > American warning and

User talk:Jerzy#Talk page work .3E American warning.

[[User talk:Jerzy#American warning]]

[[User talk:Jerzy#> American warning]]

[[User talk:Jerzy#Talk page work > American warning]]

[[User talk:Jerzy#Talk page work > American warning]]

User talk:Jerzy#> American warning

Details, and the removed material from that section and its successor, are now at User talk:Jerzy/Proofreader77 DR.

Notices:
I hereby give due notice that i place the following reasonable constructions on the apparently widely accepted statement that i have seen on at least one project-space page, to the effect that msgs removed by a user from their own talk page may be presumed to have been read by them:

1. Archiving a talk page, with a link to the archive, does not constitute "removal" in the sense intended in such statements.
2. Removing the text of a discussion on a talk page for stated good cause, stating that cause, stating that it is to be considered as "included, by reference, as part of" the page, and providing a lk to it on another WP page, does not constitute "removal" in the sense intended in such statements (nor for that matter is it equivalent to "archiving", FWIW).

In light of each of those constructions, and the statement that follows this paragraph, i note that (altho i at least skimmed large sections of the former text before my statement to the effect that i did not intend to give attention to further additions to it), i do not warrant myself as having detailed knowledge of what i read, nor sufficient knowledge to place what later portions i have since noticed into any meaningful context. I thus declare any inference that i am informed about the material in question to be abusive and unfounded.
I have removed from this talk page the text of the section most recently titled "Talk page work >American warning", because its length approximated 26.5 Kb, rendering impractical normal use of the talk page without neglecting the long-standing request to avoid letting pages approach or exceed 32Kb in length. It is, however to be considered as included, by reference, as part of this talk page. For perhaps a few days, it can be accessed on my archive at User talk:Jerzy/Phase 03#Talk page work .3E American warning, and i will alter this section accordingly, when that material moves from that archive page to its own page.
--Jerzy•t 08:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• The removed material is now at User talk:Jerzy/Proofreader77 DR.
  --Jerzy•t 18:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  

Re: Your threat to ban me over a minor quibble in the David Barstow article

Please assume good faith next time. My edit was basically correct. Note in the article, "By whom were these "ties to companies" undisclosed and for whom did these deeply conflicted retired generals pose as "analysts"? ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and Fox -- the very companies that have simply suppressed the story from their viewers. ". I don't mind that you changed the wording a bit to use less controversial language, but your strong-arm scare tactics are neither appreciated nor warranted. Esn (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In hindsight, the previous wording was indeed a synthesis of information. But as far as I can tell, synthesis is not considered vandalism on Wikipedia ("any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia"). My mistake was being clumsy and posting the natural conclusion that I came to from reading the article rather than merely the symptoms that it described. However, for some reason you immediately assumed that my intention was malicious and threatened to ban me over it. I find this unbecoming of any Wikipedia editor, particularly an administrator, and I would like an apology. Esn (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Do what you wish. I really, truly don't have time for a long quarrel right now; it's exam period over here. If you do decide to push for my banishment, I hope that my good record of contribution over the past four years will count for something with other editors. Esn (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

While this matter is closed, a colleague has made reference to it in #User:Demcaps, below, and even tho that matter is also closed, i am exercising an excess of caution by keeping this section on my talk page until the other is archived according to my normal archiving discipline.
--Jerzy•t 17:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Demcaps

Hi there. I noticed you reverted a message left by User:Demcaps on WT:NOR, saying it was a forgery, and that you've also blocked the user indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. I didn't see any evidence that Demcaps's contribution was a forgery or that it violated any policies, and I didn't see any warnings left on his talk page. Could you please point me to where this user was reviewed, whether it was by CheckUser or some other means? I'd be interested in seeing what happened. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• The timestamp is not only backdated, it was a two-contrib (doubly-dated) markup copied from another contribution. The only thing that is clear is bad faith, but one effect of leaving it could be to suppress response to trollish interpretation of NOR long enuf for bot to slip it into the archive as something no one objected to. If you want to extract a plausible excuse from the user, then see that the absurd proposal is thoroughly debunked at the working end of the talk page, be my guest.
  --Jerzy•t 22:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  

Okay, I see the two times in the timestamp, but (1) I don't see how the proposal is all that absurd, honestly - it may be misguided, but rather than biting the guy, why not respond to it explaining why it isn't a good idea? (2) I don't see how, even if the post was copy/pasted from somewhere else (could you point me to where the original was?), that it constitutes vandalism, much less an indef-block for being a vandal-only account. And (3) I noticed in a different conversation that you appeared to give a different user (User:Esn) a Level-4 (final) vandalism warning without any lower-level warnings while you were in an edit dispute with that user, and over an edit he appeared to make in good faith.

Remember WP:AGF - it's core to our work here. I'm not convinced that Demcaps was vandalizing WP in any way, unless he was trying to get around a block placed on another account, and in general we don't mark vandal-only accounts until they show a clear pattern of abuse. A single edit doesn't seem to establish a coherent pattern.

I'm going to undo the block and keep an eye on the user. If you object to my action, please request a review. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Jerzy was referring to copying only the timestamp from the next message, not copying a whole message. Perhaps the remedy should have been just correction of the timestamp and leaving a note on the user's talk page? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, that's pretty much exactly what I did before BobK left this comment. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• My love just managed to blow away my nearly completed response, trying to show me Sacha Baron Cohen's butt. I'm afraid i don't have the patience to reconstruct it civilly at the moment, but you're not being ignored.
  --Jerzy•t 03:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  

Fortunately (or unfortunately?) I saw the video before it got yanked off the internet. Eminem looked like a deer caught in the glare of two big fleshy headlights. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• KS,

_ _ As to your point 1, YMMV on the word "absurd", but it was not its content that made me treat the contrib as vandalism; the low quality of the idea was just frosting on the vandalism cake. I would not have said "absurd" if the content had been quotes from the benevolent god-king, but i would still have called it vandalism if it had had a forged timestamp, and probably have taken the same action in the case of single-edit user. YMMV, but IM considered judgment, "respond[ing] to it explaining why [the proposal, to which my actual response was irrelevant] isn't a good idea" would feed the trolls.
_ _ As to your point 2, i hope BobK's comment clears up the misunderstanding in your stated premise. Without repeating any of the terms about whose applicability YMMV, are you really asking me to explain why i construed

entering a contrib,
appending one's own username, and
completing the sig line by pasting in a nearly day-old timestamp featuring bold face and two times

as non-rebuttable evidence of bad faith and intention to disrupt WP?
_ _ As to your point 3, unless you were ignoring AGF sufficiently to already be on an RFC track, your reference to my action twd a different user was off-topic and thus a PA; i recognize the sequence Esn or ESN, but i don't intend to reacquaint myself with that situation under these circumstances.

_ _ Perhaps i was obtuse in preceding "be my guest" with "If..." and a statement of what i would regard as responsible behavior. My intention was to tell you that "[I would not] object to [your] action".

--Jerzy•t 04:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then: (1) You and I obviously have different opinions on what's considered a vandalistic talk post. I based my opinion of whether it was vandalism or not on the accepted definition of vandalism in Wikipedia's policies. That, my friend, did not have anything in it that I could see violated any policies. (I also do not believe the comment was trolling. I could see how it would make sense to someone who hadn't thought it all the way through and/or wasn't familiar with all of WP's core policies.)

(2) Yes, in fact, I am asking you to explain that. You indef-blocked a user with what in my view was an extremely tenuous application of vandalism policy; you seem to have ignored the blocking policy in conjunction with WP:AGF by calling that user a vandalism-only account when he had only one contribution and no other evidence that there was a longer pattern of abuse going on involving multiple accounts; and I further questioned the validity of your actions based on other history I happened to notice while I was acquainting myself with your user talk page. Additionally, I can very easily see how copying and pasting your timestamp from a previous comment could have been an honest mistake - if the person is a new user unfamiliar with the ~~~~ signature method, he may have copied another timestamp and intended to change it to reflect a current time, realized he didn't know what the correct time would be to put in (or he may have simply forgotten), and thus he ended up with what you call a "forged" timestamp. (I disagree with your use of the term "forged", btw - it was copied. It would qualify as a "forged" signature if he had also put your name on his comment.)

And (3) I brought up the exchange with Esn because I noticed a one-sided conversation that user appeared to be having that looked confrontational. To get more context, I went to his talk page, where I saw that you had given him a level-4 vandalism warning as the first and only warning. I then traced through the conversation history and looked at the history of the page where the content dispute was going on, to see what might have sparked that warning and the animosity that appeared to follow it. Given that, I came to the conclusion that you were showing a pattern of calling other editors' edits "vandalism" when in fact you had an issue with the content of their contributions. IMO, that is the "good faith" conclusion - I also considered the possibility that you were being malicious, but that would be assuming bad faith. Do you see the parallel here? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 10:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• What i see is fundamentally that you

  continue to quibble about my use of the term forgery by refusing to engage my explanation of my use of it, thus treating your opinion of how the term should be used as gospel, and my use of it as bad faith;
  continue to quibble about a peripheral factor that i have said i mentioned merely as an aggravating circumstance, and
  continue attempting to widen, and (since you simply gainsay everything said about the core matter) to shift, the discussion to a separate matter that you should not have taken up.

The following may be an important point: you said

I also considered the possibility that you were being malicious, but that would be assuming bad faith.

I firmly believe that WP:AGF does not forbid editors to consider the possibility of bad-faith acts by colleagues. It's nice when that doesn't happen, but we're likely to do so nevertheless, and that's no real problem. The problem the policy is intended to address (and what it can address, in contrast to thots) is bringing those considerations into the discussion. Your AGF violation began when you raised a second interaction without giving good faith a chance to resolve the first. You compounded that violation quite substantially when you said "I also considered the possibility that you were being malicious, but...". While your considering that is no problem, it is none of my business, and part of AGF is that your mentioning it puts it into the discussion, and destroys the atmosphere where assuming good faith goes without saying.
I scrawled about 800 words the other night, intended to clarify for you the core of original matter you raised (the concept i initially labeled "forgery", and the basis for treating this case of it as unrebuttable bad faith), but i don't think it's productive to polish it up and include it. Rather, whatever merits your concerns about either of these actions by me might have, you have made yourself the wrong person to raise them, and someone else will have to, if those merits suffice. In my six years of carrying the mop and bucket and in my earlier editorship, i have been never been the object of an RFC, nor come close to initiating one, so i don't see much hazard to the interests of the project in simply telling you that i am rejecting your concerns, not on the merits, but because of your egregious methodology. This discussion is over.
--Jerzy•t 16:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

All I can say to that is that you have thus far refused to explain why you indef-blocked a brand new user on one single edit (a gross violation of blocking policy without further evidence that it was necessary), and you have refused to discuss another related matter about possibly abusive admin behavior. You may not have ever been the focus of an RFC before, but I think you've seriously opened yourself up to being one now. You have a mop to help keep things running smoothly here on Wikipedia. You're not supposed to bludgeon people over the head with it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Korobeiniki

Well, it was a fifteen minute job, so no big deal, but hey, I'm glad that NPR folks liked the translation enough to use it!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:39, June 8, 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert notice

Hi Jerzy. I am genuinely interested in resolving the dispute with you, but I don't see that it's currently possible one-on-one. I've asked for help through Wikiquette alerts, and I invite you to share your side of the matter. The conversation is here: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Hostility and assumptions of bad faith from admin Jerzy . — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Fisher (surname)

Re Talk:Fisher (surname)

Hello, my friend. I have left some messages on the above page, hoping you will respond. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette: To whom it may concern

_ _ I am abstractly aware of the practice of Wikiquette processes, and in that light, input on my interaction w/ Demcaps would be welcome here.
_ _ My interest in WP is in the text, not the social experiment (tho YMMV & i do not intend to denigrate the hopes of others for more widely valuable results from intents of that sort). Thus my hopes re Wq lie in improving my role in facilitating the growth and improvement of the 'Pedia.
_ _ For me, KS's input has been counterproductive overall, and progressively more so. (I do not, however, see their initiation of Wikiquette involvement as "poisoning" that process.) I believe i've done my part in improving our relationship by initiating steadfast benign neglect, and i'm cautiously construing signs of reciprocation. I hope the pointlessness of examining that interaction is apparent, but i'll do my best to go a mile or two if necessary, tho in that a well, KS should not be involved in the discussion.
--Jerzy•t 21:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I realize you don't really want to talk to me at this point, Jerzy, but the fact remains that you and I are in a dispute with one another, and I am attempting, in good faith, to resolve it and to understand your reasoning. I would like for you to come to WP:WQA and see the complaint I've left there, respond to it in good faith, and participate in an open discussion with other editors there. I cannot force you to do so, of course, but I think it would be the benefit of both of us and to the project if you did. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick update: I've agreed on the WQA page to drop the matter. If you wish to discuss it further, please let me know, but as of now I'll get out of your hair. Have a nice day. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Need Some Wikipedia Cultural Advice

If you don't mind, I would like to ask you for some Wikipedia cultural advice. I am a new editor (1.5 articles so far). While writing the SocialSense article I had the bad fortune of running into Flowanda. He has been accusatory and outright demining in his comments and communications with me. What do you do when an editor like Flowanda goes after you? Can you ask for a second opinion? And if so, how do you go about doing that? From the practical angle, is it worth debating with him (seems useless, because it looks like all of his arguments are about saving face)?

Best--PiRSqr (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'll take a look at that page & its talk page & see if the specifics elicit anything. But my capacity for dealing with disputes is never great, and spread particularly thin at the moment. In the meantime, i suggest you look at DR and EQ, and also follow beyond me whatever instincts led you to me, in case you need more leads.
  --Jerzy•t 04:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  

I appreciate the advise and pointers, I'll check them out. Regarding the dispute, please disregard it, it’s really not worth your or anybody else’s time. I hate confrontations (that’s not why I joined Wikipedia in the first place) and I don't want this to become one. Best--PiRSqr (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)