User talk:Justin W Smith

=Changes reverted

Hi, i see that many of the changes i proposed have been reverted. I appreciate that removing a paragraph could be controversial, but I think it is unfortunate that merely because someone wrote something first, it has priority. I can understand that if I was merely deleting contentious material with no explanation, that might warrant reversion. But i was careful to list my reasons. A simple reversion removes any chance of debate. :( Anyway, I appreciate all your work. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.172.138 (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No one person owns an article. An article is always written by consensus among its editors. Wikipedians like to debate, it's part of the culture. :-) Jwesley₇₈ 07:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your views on the changes i am attempting to make. The paragraphs i removed, while indeed very large were extremely poorly constructed and unrelated tothe topic. its a contentious issue, but i do think we need to keep the article focussed on its subject. Cheers.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.172.138 (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Cheers for noticing that. Tresiden (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Anita Dunn

Just to be clear, my allusion to edit-warring wasn't directed at you. While I haven't agreed with your edits in the article, I do greatly appreciate your efforts to achieve consensus through discussion. Sorry to (inadvertently) offend. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

AFD

The discussion has been closed. Read the header--no further discussion on the AFD page. You've already made the statement on Julian's user talk page; it should not be added to the AFD page after the discussion was closed. Please self-revert your edit to the page. Horologium (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the note!

From what I understand, Julian's an extremely precocious young man who, for all I know, may have gotten just about all he could from contributing on the project......of course WP will lose a tremendous asset should he retire!↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 21:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And I was probably a bit too hostile toward him on this "Fox News" matter. At times, WP can be a very hostile environment. It is hard to always assume "good faith". In any case, I'm sure Julian will succeed in whatever he (she?) spends his time on. Jwesley78 (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't seem very hostile. However, from a glance at his user log, it looks like this whole issue is the one that may have depressed him.

I !voted to support his close of the AfD so don't feel so bad. (Oops! not tryin' to make you feel bad! lol)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing but if I was going to try some armchair analyzing(?sp) here, I'll bet Julian isn't used to having his judgements second guessed much and is surprised at the small crowd of folks who, in this one single instance, happen to disagree with him -- maybe? I dunno.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I posted this on Jimbo's page (and if Jimbo ignores me -- so what! {smiles})↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 22:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha! Very nice. I hope he responds! Jwesley78 (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, that would be kul if he did! (BTW, coincidentally, I'm going to have to go cold turkey w/regard to by coming to Wikipedia allallallthetimetimetime myself. (I've loved it, but gotta figure out something else to do with my passing moments. I'm sort of an all or nothing kind of guy, unfortunately!..... )↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 16:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Julian explains.

"[...] I admit that my break was, among other reasons partially in response to my overall feeling that no-one is genuinely interested in this project anymore. So, when I return, I intend to start taking measures to re-instate the feeling of a community, where one's work is appreciated and editors are respected by fellow users, even a the risk of making an utter fool of myself... ¶ Sorry for the rant."

('Tho that's not much of a "rant," by the standards **I'm** used to, at least! ^{:^)})↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 16:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

MOS: linking within quotations (Anita Dunn)

Linking Unless there is an overriding reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.

hello, Jwesley78. i think Anita Dunn's statement is the ideal place to put links inside a quote for Bill Ayers and ACORN. the overriding reason is that neither is mentioned previously in the article, and the reader's interest would certainly be piqued. i don't see how any link would "clutter the quotation", change the quotation or mislead or confuse the reader. Kenatipo (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't have strong feeling on this either way. I feel it is safer (especially on a "controversial" section of an article) to stay very close to policy (i.e., MOS:QUOTE). I won't object if you add the links back in. Here's what I'd suggest: 1) Add a section on the talk page about "links within Dunn's quotes". 2) Add the links back into the quotes, and in the comment mention the section you added on the Talk page. And if this topic becomes contentious, the links might be removed again. Jwesley78 (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hello Jwesley78, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 17:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning: Jwesley78's abuse using Twinkle and repeated violation of talk page policy and [WP:CIVIL]]

Warning. If you continue to vandalise pages on Wikipedia, make inappropriate edits or personal attacks, including inappropriate or offensive edit summaries, or continue to cause problems in other ways, you will be blocked from editing indefinitely. 98.248.113.11 (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you reverted an edit I did, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Groupon&diff=324924439&oldid=324884252, and inappropriately marked it as vandalism in your edit summary. Non-neutral - Ok, that's arguable, though I provided positive and negative information, and the article was more or less free of negative comments, even though its subject is controversial. Vandalism? Certainly not. Well-sourced? Yes. Accurate? Yes.

It violates neutral point of view: WP:NPOV Jwesley₇₈ 21:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your continued labeling of my edits as vandalism is a clear violation of [WP:CIVIL]. Final warning. I invite you to truly engage in a responsive discussion at Talk:Groupon instead. --98.248.113.11 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

You undeleted comments I deleted from my talk page. Leave my talk page the fuck alone. I'll delete stuff from it if I want to, as I'm entitled. You are strongly urged to not post to it again either.--98.248.113.11 (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--98.248.113.11 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A friendly note

Hello Jwesley78, I noticed that you've been a bit aggressive in your attempts to mark 98.248.113.11 as a vandal, both by reverting their edits as vandalism and then reporting them to AIV. I hope that the conclusion to the report that you made will be the last of it unless the IP starts engaging in behavior that clearly violates WP:VAN. I'm an editor with rollback privileges just as you are, and I know that I have to be very careful to not bite the newbies or use automated tools to revert good faith edits, because the rollback privileges can be revoked at any time by any admin for even an honest mistake if that mistake can be considered disruptive or might make an editor feel harassed. My point isn't to chastise you, I understand why you felt that the edits were vandalism (and I have stated my objection to the edits on the Groupon talk page. I just wanted to help you avoid losing rollback for making honest mistakes. If you can, just leave the IP alone, if they misbehave I'm sure someone else will step in. Thanks! -- Atama頭 20:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I really am trying to be fair with this IP. I'm doing my best to not lose my cool. :-/ Jwesley₇₈ 20:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)