User talk:Jæs

Archives
2009 October November December 2010 January February March April May June July August September October November December

Hello! Please feel free to leave me a message below, or send me an email via Wikipedia. If I have left you a message or a response, please respond on your talk page. Once you do, your response will show up on my watchlist, and I will be sure to follow up with you. Thanks!

Maclean's

Many of you make it seem like I'm the problem. Sit back and think. You are obviously the problem. Any criticism from Charest is always removed. I was explained that there wasn't a secondary source. I then cite a secondary source and I am told that I am being "disruptive". How am I being disruptive? There was no secondary source, so I add a secondary source. And what do you think...? Let's find other ways of getting rid of Kidman Wheeler. Please be fair! The Brian Segal comment was removed for the very reason that you wanted the Charest comment removed. Segal's comment comes from a primary source, which is not sufficient. We need a secondary source. So now you will roll your eyes and say I'm being disruptive? It's YOU who is disruptive. You don't care about sources (when it serves your purpose). You just make up excuses to write whatever you want to write. How is that within the purpose and spirit of Wikipedia? Kidman Wheeler (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I admit that sometimes I don't note to myself exactly who it is that changes my writing. But as for what many of you call "editing war", I know that the word "offensive" was removed from the Vivienne Poy quote. After removing it, the sentence just didn't make sense anymore. Charest's quote was removed many times. At first there was the ostensible reason of not having a secondary source. When secondary sources were added, it was still repeatedly removed. Anyway, peace!

Oh, and if you're wondering about my motivation, it's simple. Charest criticized the magazine. I believed (and still believe) that it was important to present this. That's it. Wikipedia users can decide on their own whether Charest is right or wrong. I don't care. Kidman Wheeler (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edits made to Archives

Jæs: You might be interested in this edit and this revert. — SpikeToronto 07:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this revert, I wasn’t aware that we could unarchive at ANI. I thought that, once archived, one had to start a new thread? In any event, you might also want to look at this discussion here. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 01:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S.  I think it’s a good idea what you did. I like it. I just wasn’t sure one could do it. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 01:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up regarding the edit. If no action was taken on the original item, it's not unheard of to unarchive it if the matter is still unresolved. Certainly User:Kidman Wheeler should not have edited the archive to add comments there, but I think that his comments should be preserved and discussed. That's all notwithstanding the fact that there have been a few issues that have been taking up nearly all the oxygen in the room at the noticeboard, so who knows if anyone'll take notice this time around. We'll see. But, thanks again for letting me know. jæs (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think what you did was more logical than what I did. Your action will preserve Kidman’s comments, as they should be. And, if anyone gives you any guff, that’s your justification. I think that if you propose what remedy you seek, what it is you want form ANI, it might give the participants there something to work with. I don’t want people to think that this is a content dispute, which it is not. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 02:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I could not keep my mouth shut. Sorry. — SpikeToronto 22:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It’s back in the archives now (see here). It’s more complete now. — SpikeToronto 22:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I see. It looks like User:Kidman Wheeler may have given up their campaign, in any event. Perhaps if they return they'll be more willing to adhere to our policies and guidelines. jæs (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Washington Post

Hi. Just to clarify, you agree that the WaPo piece is a news article by a reporter, rather than an opinion piece, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but a "report" on opinion and speculation (however widespread or later debunked). The almost completely dissolved barrier between editorial and news (on the left and right) makes it exceedingly difficult for us to deal with content like this. I tried to include very basic phrasing (in one case, the same, in fact, that we'd afford to the "suspect" in Tucson) to indicate that this was speculation, not fact. It's not perfect, but I can see this is a runaway train. jæs (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I won't edit your edit, for now, and we'll see how it develops. But I think the WaPo reporter was simply stating a verifiable fact: both sides have maps like that. The links to the democratic maps were given by Kelly and me at BLPN.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My edit is not sacred. If you believe any of the language I utilized dilutes the accuracy of our representation of the source, you can feel free to modify that change. In retrospect, I see now where "said to be" may not be necessary. I'll go ahead and modify my edit to remove that. jæs (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Ironically, that sentence might stay in the article longer with "said to be" in it, but I support your removal. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin

Why no Palin picture?

Do you object because we should concentrate on the shooting and not have any pictures of un-related person commenting or part of the controversy.

If so, check _____ Yes

If you check yes, I will agree with you.

However, if you check no, I will disagree with you... _____ No, Palin is bad and we must do everything to get rid of her picture anywhere. Madrid 2020 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but no game. The photograph was inappropriate, and I'm sure you can reason why. jæs (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Elite Model Management

I am not familiar with the the term "refspam". Is ibscdc.org not a reliable source? I don't know if it is or not, but if your contention is that it's not you should make that clearer. Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see wp:refspam, or the report at wp:wpspam. It is almost certainly not a reliable source. In the best case, they've created a type of tertiary business "case database." In the worst case, they've spammed Wikipedia to increase their PayPal revenue. (Your article was, if I recall, the only one where someone not related to IBSCDC added the reference. In all the other cases, it was someone apparently related to the "school" that went through Wikipedia adding links to their site wherever they could.) jæs (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin articles

Just a heads-up if you plan to be editing at the Palin articles - they've been on community probation for quite while. I'd recommend taking a quick glance at the terms at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation.   Will Beback  talk  07:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been editing the article for quite some time, so I am familiar with the article probation. But, thank you for erring on the side of caution in make sure I was aware. jæs (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've followed Kelly's practice. She's made the largest number of notifications. I don't know if her actions have been based on a personal POV, but if you're concerned then I suggest taking that up with her.   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on your contribution list, it appears that you are editing Palin-related articles aggressively. The ArbCom case's probation terms make clear that certain behaviors are especially unacceptable in that topic. I am not contemplating applying any formal remedies against you, and am simply alerting you to the necessity to follow the highest standards of Wikipedia behavior on that topic.   Will Beback  talk  01:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote before, it's just a heads-up. There's no threat or impending remedies.   Will Beback  talk  09:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)