User talk:JBKramer/Archive/Aug06

Thank you for your suggestions

I feel it is inappropriate for you to be posting on my advocates page. If you have something to say to me, you may put it directly on my page. I would also appreciate it if you would read the disscussions before challanging trival facts that are easily verifiable on wikipedia.

Carbonate 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart

Hi, are you in effect commenting, as Supreme Cmdr is possibly Derek Smart, this is a matter for ArbComm or the foundation? Addhoc 12:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am saying the issue is rife with peril, and as such is an issue for ArbComm or the foundation. JBKramer 12:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I personally could add my name to your outside view, if the wording was slightly different. In my understanding, the issue of whether Supreme Cmdr is Derek Smart would be a Jimbo, ArbComm or foundation matter. Otherwise the RfC hasn't really proved significant unilateral wrong doing by Supreme Cmdr. Anyway, thanks for your reply. Addhoc 12:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I've fallen off the face of WP in recent weeks, but I wanted to try and clarify a few points you brought up on the RFC. These are all points that have been extensively discussed on the article talk page, so I wanted to try and condense some of it for you. SC has a habit of derailing discussion of specific policies, so it can be a bit difficult to glean from the talk page itself.

• Confusion of WP:RS with WP:EL - All material which could not be referenced on an appropriate source was excised after the first page lock. Nothing within the article text is currently based, solely, on information from the werewolves site. RS does not apply to material within linked sites.
• WP:EL as policy - EL, while a useful reference, is a style guide and not a policy. Furthermore, multiple components of EL, in addition to being debated on that page's talk, are actively contradictory to external link inclusion concensus in what I would describe as the bulk of WP articles. Specifically, point #2 under normally to be avoided "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)" This is so widely countered by any number of featured articles and other concensus-established pages as to be rendered almost completely nonsensical.

I hope you'll take the time to pore over the bulk of past discussion if you choose to remain involved there (I myself am much enjoying being forced away from the conflict by outside events). Additionally, SC himself could very much use an influence not belonging to someone he regards as his enemy, he continues to misunderstand many core WP concepts (he's still laboring under the mistaken belief that the page will be "done" at some point, and permanently locked) and will not accept the friendliest advice if it comes from someone who has clashed with him at any point in the past.

Thanks.

Fox1 (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"...the article page associated with this talk page..."

Is it really appropriate to use {{high-traffic}} on user (talk) pages? The phrasing, and other contents of the category, are highly suggestive that it's for mainspace pages. Then again, I'm not quite clear what the purpose of the template in the first place is: monitoring for vandalism? Alai 21:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more a back-pat, some vandalism awareness, and added to your talk page as a little bit of levity. Remove if you want, of course. JBKramer 13:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: RFC

I understand that RFC is the normal place for content disputes. At first, I did not see this as a content dispute; it was apparently discussed somewhere (Kelly still hasn't shown me where), but I didn't know that. To me, it looked like one user unilaterally going through and moving perfectly good text from some articles to other, horrendously-titled articles, leaving no evidence of the previous text's new locations, and with apparently misleading edit summaries (such as this one). Can you understand why I was alarmed and wished to get some additional eyes on the problem? Powers ^T 17:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you got involved in this. Kudos on deciding to walk away. Would that simple mistakes were more easily forgiven. Powers ^T 18:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"AGF"

If you want to work on the articles, withdraw the AfD nominations. Their sole purpose is to try to force the hand of your opponent in a content dispute. In lieu of making combative deletion nominations, I would instead suggest an article RFC as a more appropriate venue for such discussion.

It is my experience on Wikipedia that people who wave the AGF flag are almost invariably not acting in good faith. I thank you for your confirmation that your AfD nominations were, in fact, in bad faith, and hope that you will therefore do the right thing and withdraw them. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, Kelly. An editor complains that you're tossing around accusations, and you respond with "Thanks for confirming that you acted in bad faith"? I don't see that the Afd noms were combative, but your attitude here certainly is. Go take a nap or something. Friday (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Um?

I couldn't help noticing that you seem to be getting into somewhat of a dispute with User:Kelly Martin over the issue of the Eeyore article; I don't suppose I could perhaps help you out a bit, maybe reach a mutually acceptable situation?

I've found that it helps to know that there's an administrator "on your side", if you will. DS

Okay, good. Firstly, I'm going to admit that I'm not precisely certain as to what the dispute is - there are far too many things going on in various corners of the project for anyone to know everything, after all - so could you give me a brief overview of the dispute? Thanks. DS 20:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't sweat it

Don't sweat the bizarre accusations leveled at you. The editor in question has an unfortunately long history of being rude and turning small issues into major problems. You did nothing wrong by nominating articles for deletion, given that your opinion was that they should be deleted. Friday (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In progress

I've been examining the situation, and there's two separate issues: interaction with other users, and merits of articles.

Controversy pops up in the weirdest places on Wikipedia. I once settled a vicious dispute about whether the biography of Mao Zedong should mention the Battle of Luding Bridge... but I also dealt with an equally vicious dispute about the history of the golf tee.

Kelly Martin's dealt with more than her share of jerks in the past, which perhaps makes her a bit overprone to perceive ill will where none is intended.

I do think the Pooh article needs fissioning to properly distinguish the Disney Pooh from the original, but you're quite right in that the current nomenclature is an abomination.

Still working on it. DS 21:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good faith

It seems evident to me that your AfDs were offered in good, if misguided, faith, and I apologize for accusing you otherwise. It seems that I failed to observe Hanlon's Razor in this case. When I said that the changes could be easily reverted, that was not an invitation to do so. Making a bold change is acceptable. Reverting a simple change is one thing. Filing four AfDs without prior discussion in a situation like this is excessive and problematic, even more so because of the fundamental defects in AfD (that you, as a newish, inexperienced user might not be aware of).

I still think it would be best to withdraw the AfDs pending discussion in a more appropriate place; AfD is not likely to give this issue a reasonable discussion due to its fundamental flaws, and there is also a serious risk of an inconsistent decision. It would be better to continue the discussion either on one of the article talk pages or at an article RfC.

I am going to be out of town on a business trip for the next few days; I hope when I return that a more sensible discussion has developed to replace the forest fire that nearly erupted due to the inept way several people have responded to one editor's boldness. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add one additional clarification. The content forks are just that: content forks. They are not "POV forks"; the content is being separated based on whether it relates to Milne's Pooh or Disney's Pooh. They really are two separate entities, and discussing them separately makes a lot of sense given how divergent the two are. The same is true of a lot of other cases where a derivative work (e.g. a movie) has been made based on an original work (e.g. a book) and the author of the derivative has taken significant liberties. I take issue with your persistent characterization of a content fork as a POV fork; your choice to call it that is basically an allegation of misconduct, and I believe you should apologize for that implication. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You are an ass. Linking me to a page that calls me stupid? What worthless people exist in this world. Never speak with me again. JBKramer 12:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you're feeling bruised!

I brought cookies!

Hi there, JB! I saw that you left a message on the Esperanza Reach Out noticeboard saying you're quite bruised. I'm very sorry to hear that!!! If you want to tell me exactly what's happening, my door is always open. I'd like to assure you that your contributions to Wikipedia are very valuable and the community does need you! Everyone gets into a conflict every once in a while, but things always get better if you just give them time. :) I hope you feel much better very soon. Remember, if you ever need anything, please leave me a message! :) Srose (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: It's probably not the greatest idea to call an administrator like Kelly an "ass" and "worthless". While I don't agree with all of her decisions in this conflict (which I'm sure has made you feel bruised), it's always good to be the better person - which you were up until that comment, and it's clear to see why you snapped. Just about anyone would have! You might just want to drop the whole issue with her to avoid more bruises and scrapes. Ignore her comments for a little while so both of you can relax a bit, and so that you can recover from your bruises. Anyway, I hope you feel better very soon!! Srose (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

People keep coming here to tell me about how terrible I was to take being called stupid, or the scores of other invective thrown at me by Ms. Martin, personally, and responding in kind once. Do unto others. JBKramer 15:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Um

Hanlon's Razor doesn't necessarily mean that you're calling someone stupid. It merely points out that, if something goes wrong / feelings get hurt, then it's more likely that mistakes were made instead of malice having been executed.

There's always a backstory. There's always more details than you (or anyone) knows about. It's not necessarily done to be cruel, to be a jerk. DS 15:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If one cannot have a modicum of tact when specifically asked to have a modicum of tact, the they are not worth my time. I'm supposed to assume that when someone tells me their mistake was "assum[ing] malice when stupidity [would have] suffice[d]," is not yet another snarky dig at someone? Dream on. Of course, I'm not supposed to call big adminstrator Kelly Marin an ass - She's supposed to call me "inept, stupid, combattive, newish, inexperienced, and not acting in good faith." She, and you, if you're going to keep defending such inexcusable behavior, can rot in hell. JBKramer 15:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There's been bad behavior here, sure. But even when provoked, do not escalate the drama. Some people have a habit of poking users to get them to respond in kind, and then blocking them for incivility when they do. Don't fall into that trap. Friday (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you believe I have been poked, I suggest you take that up with the pokee. To date, I appear to be the only one that has done so.JBKramer 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a bit of history of trying to get Kelly to cut out the "angel of death" routine and be polite. No dice. She's been around a while, and a sufficiently large and/or vocal portion of editors believe this excuses her from our normal standards of civilized behavior. Personally I don't think anyone should be excused from our normal standards of behavior, even if they've been provoked. It's understandable when people respond to being bitten, tho. Your idea about ignoring her was right on. Wikipedia's not worth getting mad over. Friday (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not working. I arose to find that I was being called stupid on my talk page by someone I asked to either just leave me alone or apologize, and that two other people, one who wrote that they were "on [my] side," the other responding to me specifically asking for support, were telling me that I was in the wrong for calling the bearer of such tidings an ass. You think I want this to keep popping up here? I don't. I have a great answer to this whole problem. JBKramer 15:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I see you've removed all of your messages

I was typing a reply as you did, and here it is:

Sorry I didn't see your response; I'm used to people responding on my talk page so I didn't realize you had replied. I'm sorry if you feel that I'm not sympathetic towards you; I really am. I'd just like to remind you that by calling Kelly names, you're simply going to enrage her further and create more problems for yourself. If you want the conflict to end and her insults towards you to disappear, I'd suggest that you just ignore her and collaborate with other editors. The conflict will merely escalate if you continue to call her names. I have your best interests at heart; I don't want to see this conflict drag on. Sure, Kelly wasn't exactly polite, but that doesn't mean you have to be rude back. "Two wrongs don't make a right", after all. Kelly's heard worse comments and I'm sure that yours aren't having the effect you desire in any case, so it's best to just walk away. I hope you feel better soon! Srose (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)