All New: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Orphaned: 500 1001 1501

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.)

• In /Top Arc LoPbN (9K, 2004 Jul 16)

• In /Top Arc AC Dilog (14 KB, 2004 Jul 16)

• In /Top Arc J Admin (9 KB, 2004 Sep 3)

• In /Archive 00 (~ 20 KB, 2004 Feb 26 Thu (UTC))
  • 1 Non-Native Speakers and other Topics of Hopefully Continuing Interest
    • 1.1 Note to non-native speakers of English
    • 1.2 Good Advice to Anyone
    • 1.3 "As of"
      • 1.3.1 as of 2003
      • 1.3.2 Reply
      • 1.3.3 Infinite monkey as-of
    • 1.4 Grammar & Usage Quibbles
      • 1.4.1 "Not to mention its being hard... "
        • 1.4.1.1 Wise use of sentence fragments
        • 1.4.1.2 The problem of "its"
        • 1.4.1.3 The gerund problem
        • 1.4.1.4 Articles?
      • 1.4.2 Like vs. As
    • 1.5 Pascal

• In /Archive 01 (14 KB, 2004 Feb 26 Thu (UTC))
  • 1 Verbose Disamb Page Soviet
    • 1.1 Bolshevik Understanding
      • 1.1.1 Soviets - frame 1
      • 1.1.2 Soviets - Frame 2: A reply about Soviets
      • 1.1.3 Soviets - Frame 3 - Jerzy again
    • 1.2 (Temp) Deletion of Soviet
  • 2 Re: Family-name-first Names
  • 3 Intel 4004
  • 4 IFF
  • 5 Old Miscellany
  • 6 Nation-State
  • 7 List of people - Response from Paul (User Rfc1394)

• In /Archive 02 (15 KB, 2004 Feb 26 Thu (UTC))
  • 1 Cut and paste move
  • 2 Contributions on New Topics
    • 2.1 Mangled History
    • 2.2 Why My Your Heading Here Headings|Why My "Your Heading Here" Headings
  • 3 Die Walküre
    • 3.1 New Miscellaneous
    • 3.2 Welcome back
  • 4 In Use msg
  • 5 Brianism
  • 6 Battery disambiguation
  • 7 Polar something
  • 8 Yeti disagreement
  • 9 List of people by name
  • 10 Kylchap
  • 11 Extro
  • 12 Sandy (?)
  • 13 Senate
  • 14 Request for Comment

• In /Archive 03; 2 increments (15 KB total, as of 2004 Sep 3 Fri (UTC))
• 1st increment: 10 KB, 2004 Sep 3 Fri
  • 1 Whining
  • 2 Copyvio
  • 3 VfD move
  • 4 N-CONUS
  • 5 Paczki
  • 6 Cleanup
    • 6.1 Cleanup Sigs
    • 6.2 Cleanup Doubling
  • 7 Vote Clarification
  • 8 Diode bridge diagram
  • 9 VfD
  • 10 Sigs
  • 11 Mislead
• 2nd increment: 5 KB, 2004 Sep 3 Fri
  • 12 MediaWiki:Sandbox
  • 13 Talking dirty
    • 13.1 Blowing Rock (sex)
    • 13.2 Urolagnia
  • 14 Sysop help available
  • 15 Re: Were
  • 16 Re: Cleanup
  • 17 Thanks [re broken heading, probably on VfD]
  • 18 Hi back
  • 19 Steadicam
  • 20 A reversion regarding time zones
  • 21 Angela & Angela

• In /Archive 04 (~ ? KB, 2004 Mar 27 Thu (UTC))

[moved to User talk:Jerzy/Top Arc LoPbN Jerzy(t) 04:24, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)]

Hey, I moved the article without any difficulty. Don't know what was up with that. john 05:01, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The reason you couldn't move it was because List of people by name: Ste needed to be deleted first. Unless a page redirects to the same page that are you are trying to replace it with (and always has done - you can't just edit it to make it a redirect there), then you need to delete a redirect before you can move something into its place. Anyway, it should be ok now. Angela. 09:01, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)~

...I couldn't write any more myself since I have no reference material other than thirty-year-old, wait, make that forty-year-old recollections of playing with the language for a few days.

IF possible, what I would most like to see added to this article would be just a couple of examples of what the language looked like (an example of a simple macro expansion), and perhaps a brief explanation of the difference between \ expansion and \\ expansion. (Or was it / and // ?).

Noted by Jerzy(t) 04:54, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC), the above 2 'graphs have this history entry:

19:55, 2004 Mar 22 Dpbsmith (Nice to see TRAC article getting filled out...)

Hope you're watchlisting me now, and that i don't need to look at the history to know how to reply to you in the absense of a sig, but i'll try to remember to do so if you don't reply soon.

Wow, i have no idea what you mean by

the difference between \ expansion and \\ expansion. (Or was it / and // ?).

and i wonder if one of us was using a non-standard implementation. Could the slashes reflect a difference between dialects; hmm, wait a minit, nothing to take back, but i was about to say

/ vs. (

but now i want to say

/ vs. #

Does than ring any bells? One and two were, i think, expansions that get rescanned immediately and the other not; i don't find the terminology i'm about to use familiar, but think its a sound one reflecting necessary implementation: # or ## controlling whether the expansion is inserted in the working string to the left or right of the "expansion cursor". (I'm a little uneasy about that, bcz i think this cursor jumps around as the interpreter pops nested functions off the stack, and i can't picture that process at the moment.)

I bet i have some serious TRAC code around somewhere, in a box of tab-paper (including the TRAC pretty-print program that i built on top of someone's (hmm, Leonidas Jones's) paren-nesting-display program).

Hmm.

#(DS,howdy,Hello(,) World!)##(howdy)

How's that look? -- not the most trivial implementation, but IIRC the minimal interesting one.

OK, i looked at the comma that's now parenthesized, and i want to say

Active function

#(DS....

Inactive function

##(howdy)

Protected function

(,)

Any bells?

--Jerzy(t) 20:41, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)

danakil
Hi, Jerzy. I'm glad you noticed this change as I had to do it on purpose to draw somebody's attention. Let me explain. A local admin (User:Stan Shebs) did just the same thing with the NGL article, whose original (and still sole) link was to the NGL programming language. I noted that we should wait until there were actual articles for the potential other meanings, but he reverted me rather unpolitely (Don't even think of undoing another TLA disambig page again - deleting other people's additions like that is called vandalism around here, and can get you banned. Stan 17:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)). This is not the first issue that several of us in the prog lang context have had with him (please refer to Talk:List of programming languages#on editing existing valid references to prog langs). In any case, would you please consider fixing NGL just as you've fixed TRAC? Wish you a good day. — danakil 03:12, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)~

• • Thanks, Jerzy. Commenting on your points:

I do not recall having described Stan's position, as far as I can see, I limited myself to offering links to the relevant discussions.

I am not counting you on my side, as I don't want to have a "side". I only asked you if you would consider doing with the NGL article the same thing you had just done with the TRAC one.

I am not here to socialize, but nevertheless, I have remained cool and respectful while a couple of others haven't (see User:Stan Shebs first comment to me, above on this page, he hadn't even taken care of checking out whether or not I had written any content articles). Outside of those two people, the interaction with my Wikipedian colleagues has been very rewarding.

No. I have not gotten myself into the position where I can't/don't-want-to defend my own work: the edit I made to the TRAC article is perfectly valid under the light of my reasoning that there should always be a disambig page for prog lang names that refers to the base article named along the [LangName programming language]] pattern. The only thing left to do was to immediately create one of the other 'TRAC' articles. So I stand behind my actions.

Thanks for the time you take to look upon the situation. Of course I know there is no assurance. And, in fact, the NGL article issue is not a big deal at all, rather, the problem I see is that sysops are supposed to show more tactful/neutral behaviour than the one I've been experimenting.

I am not looking for trouble.

No. I had already read most of the documents you mention before I joined Wikipedia as a named member. Besides, I believe I am making a significant number of positive contributions in the area of programming languages and, also, in that of the mesoamerican natural languages. It is not a month that I've begun to edit, and I'm currently ranked 618. Plus I have created a good number of prog lang related articles and practically re-built the Category:Programming languages.

Don't worry about me feeling let down: I won't. I'am aware of the rights/limitations of sysops.

Thanks again for your kind attention. Have a good day. — danakil 05:04, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

tk
J, Regrettably, I have no phone booth into which to duck and change into SuperWPian. For reasons I've never quite understood in detail, I am logged off on occasion, generally without my noticing. Any edits thereafter are indeed ascribed to some IP addr or another. Since I haven't bothered to keep track of any of this, I suppose I could convert all those 'forcibly anonymous' edits to me.

As for the data structured quality of TRAC, this was based on my memory of TRAC from some decades ago. It is unusual as languages go, not only in its particular history and very close identification with CM, but also in its approach to programming. Including self-modifying code. Among the aspects I rememberd was this LISPish perspective, and when I encountered the language list, I put TRAC in with LISP. You are of course, free to move either to some other rubric. Given the multidimensional ways it's possible to classify such languages, no single classification is likely to be satisfactory to all. ww 15:48, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[Moved to User talk:Jerzy/Top Arc AC Dilog by Jerzy(t) 05:34, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)]

I just wanted to say THANKS for the pointer for some Indonesian maps with their silly province borders show. When I have time I'll produce something I can put on Wikipedia from them :)Daeron 19:27, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

While i did some editing that related to that place (or the location, somewhere adjacent, of the highest mtn described as in Oceania), and i remember trying to interpret some maps in that context,

• it must have been months ago,
• i know what .tar is , but have never had access to means of manipulating .tar files that i can recall,
• i don't recall whether the maps were in the article i edited; if not, i simply found either them elsewhere on WP or via Google, and deserve no credit, and
• if you are suggesting i expressed some opinion about political boundaries, i'm pretty sure you're mistaken.

Are you sure you meant to leave that paragraph here?

--Jerzy(t) 03:27, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

Sorry for the language difficulty ;-)
It was months ago Dec9, on Talk:West_Papua
"tar" is an Australian term meaning "Thank You" or "Thanks"
You pointed to a URL (web page), since removed. But I've still been able to access the map in question, so Thank you for pointing to where it was, I would not have known of it without the message posted on the West Papua page.
I said "silly province borders" only because I've been unable to find such a map for so long (first looked for them years ago).
The right "Jerzy"? I don't know, the person used that name and you looked settled in so I thought there was a good chance that it was yourself that had both the good luck of finding the map, and the courtesy to mention it on the West Papua page.
P.S. Tar files are a Unix thing, yes anything ending in .tar .tar.gz .tgz .tar.gz .tar.bz2 should be a tar or compressed tar file. If you have problems with one I can convert it to a Dos/Windows zip file or the like if you like. No problems.
Daeron 05:44, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good morning. I've moved List of people by name: Bo-Bq to List of people by name: Bo as you requested. I'll leave you to sort out redirects. Angela. 06:43, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Nice work listing Wikipedia:Cleanup on itself. Made me chuckle, and sadly it has a lot of truth to it. The thing has grown out of control. --Ed Cormany 05:03, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

[Moved to same heading within User talk:Jerzy/Top Arc J Admin. --Jerzy(t) 18:13, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)]

Hello,

I noticed that you are a contributor to US road pages. I noticed that pages about interstates have a heading called 'Number of miles'. I want these pages to have metric equivalents and that heading does not make sense with km. It should be something like 'Distance' or 'Length'. I notice that there are a *lot* of road pages and they are very non-metric. Is there a place to discuss the issue of standard headings etc?
Bobblewik 18:58, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Apologies for writing on your 'user' page rather than your 'talk' page. I took your advice about looking at projects and the closest that I could find was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Highways

So I posted my question there. Does that seem to you to be the best place?

Thanks.
Bobblewik 19:01, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I knew there was a direction specified, and the dice I checked at the time had 1-2-3 in clockwise direction. Now I checked my backgammon dice (of 3 makes) and they all have 1-2-3 in counter-clockwise direction, so I think we can safely assume that counter-clockwise is correct. Zocky 11:29, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a simple case of vandalism. Just revert it and keep an eye on it. RickK 03:35, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

[Deleted at this point: identical copy hdg and text just above, except date is instead 03:32, 27 May 2004 (UTC).
--Jerzy(t) 06:25, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

Someone made a mess by moving the Sandbox, I tried to fix it. If you had the sandbox in your watchlist, you got the page where it got moved as well. No bug there. Dori | Talk 17:05, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jerzy, someone recently used IASO as an abbreviation for "is a sockpuppet of". I wouldn't be surprised if it means something else too. 8^) Hope that helps, Wile E. Heresiarch 19:08, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

t
Thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Clan of the Dead Goat Gunshop. I've replied. Andrewa 14:10, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Replied again, and also fixed the problem, thank you. Andrewa 01:38, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jerzy, got your message re reversion. =)

Definitely, I don't mind the (re)change and I am not one to "write for the enemy." I like the "just the facts" attitude and feel like I have tried to do that here (although it is very tempting to assert one's opinions in Wiki, that wouldn't be conducive to a good encyclopedia).

Just as a background and given only in the spirit of information-sharing, the two changes I made are both in regards to the Hawaiian pidgin language (also Hawaiian Creole English), I believe. The majority of Filipinos who migrated to Hawaii from the early 20th century up to now are Ilocanos for primarily economic reasons (early Dole pineapple plantation politics), constituting up to 80% of the current Filipino population in Hawaii and according to the current census, making Ilocano the top ESL needing teachers in Hawaii. In linguistic terms, I made the changes because the term "Filipino" actually is a recent phenomenon. It is a "new" language invented based on Tagalog, the language of the Philippine capital. This is layered with politics, but in the context of Hawaiian Creole as an article on a distinct language in Wikipedia, "Filipino" would not have much of an impact historically and linguistically to the development of the language, one that spread across the Hawaiian population in the early 20th century.

The following site actually mentions Ilocano as a substrate to pidgin, as well as, Tagalog:

http://www.hku.hk/linguist/program/contact6.html

That was my main reason for changing the words. I'm a scientist and a writer by profession and hobby, and so I offer factual articles in Wiki with as clean (English), as unbiased and as scientific as I can get them. Didn't mean to step on anyone's toes. =) I just knew I shouldn't have ventured to Hawaii! --Oavcacananta 08:25, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No problem your change my "discovered" to "interaction" on the Hawai'i page. I never did like that "discovered" concept, which is why I stated it as a mutual thing; but your wording is even better - Marshman 02:14, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jerzy, what has happened to you? You came here with such an open mind and tremendous promise as an editor and administrator. You've turned into a "jerk"—I apologize, I do not like to call people names, but your actions on the Hawaii pages are certainly bordering on that. Your only argument seems to be that "Hawaii" is (in your mind) the correct English spelling; despite the many arguments that have been pointed out to you on the Talk:Hawaii page that dispute that. Not wanting to expand your mind, you just go in and delete everything that a lot of good people have spent their valuable time making (in their POV, yes) correct. Does it not occur to you to consider that there might well be lots of persons in Hawai‘i and elsewhere who are English speakers and use Hawai‘i, not Hawaii? Is such arrogance as you are clearly displaying what you want to project as an admin? - Marshman 20:39, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Always happy to discuss; not sure what you want to discuss here, though. The edit I made restored an edit which had been reverted on suspicion of being made by hard-banned user Michael (which, in my view, it almost certainly was not). It moved a link to Soviet Union to the right place, it clarified a link to federal government of the United States (don't see much need to shorten it to "federal", though it's a minor point, admittedly, and I wouldn't mind if you changed that back) and removed a notice that it was listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup (because it isn't listed there at all). Have I missed something? --Camembert

Hi Jerzy - absolutely no need for you to apologise--you've been perfectly polite and I really appreciate you taking the time to explain the situation. I apologise myself if I came across as a little brusque - I was editing rather late last night and may not have been at my best.

The only reason I (re-)reverted Guanaco's edit was because he was chasing down edits by Michael (whose edits, as you may know, are generally reverted on sight) but was also reverting some other people's edits by mistake, including some rather useful ones--this one appeared to be one of those. The problem is that Michael uses AOL, but lots of other people also use AOL, so just because such-and-such an IP address is being used by Michael now doesn't mean that all other edits from that address in the past were also by Michael--they could have been by thousands of different people.

In this particular case, I noticed the Soviet Union link had been moved further up the article (which I knew was good) and that the Cleanup notice had been removed (which appeared to be good, though I realise now there was more to it than there seemed)--the "federal" edit seemed about 50/50, so I reverted back on the assumption that the edit did more good than harm. If I'd had a bit more time, I would have looked into the Cleanup situation a little more deeply, but I was in a bit of a rush.

As for what to do now: your plan seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I'm going to make the edits you suggest (do take a look to make sure I've done what you intended). Thanks again for explaining, and good luck in keeping the article in good shape. All the best--Camembert

Hi, Jerzy: Regarding Michael Johns, I have done some work on this (and many other wikepedia articles) over the past few months, and--based on your comments, I made some further revisions to it. I think it is in reasonable, even good shape. Maybe you have a wikipedia colleague who could look it over one final time in the event I've missed anything, but the Bush issue is now clearly addressed and the article is pretty much void of POV. Would appreciate if you would accept my decision to thus remove it from cleanup status. Thanks. --Rob.

Nice point on noun, but I get suspicious of words which end with "-ize". Let me know what you think of the change (I've had Canada on my mind lately). Mackerm 05:56, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

--

I apologize if you thought I was "censoring" your previous edits on my talk page. Your comments didn't appear to be anything that was asking for a direct response from me. I made it clearer that discussion of my name was at a specific place, and I restored the one and only non-name comment that I had previously deleted. I thought this was what you were asking me to do, but I must have been wrong. --CrucifiedChrist

Thankyou for your message on my talk page about a redirect with which I had inadvertently created an endless loop. See Talk:Dick Clarke if you want to read a description of the intentions behind this foul-up, and how I have fixed it. Please don't worry about the rather intense tone of your message - I quite understand your desire that Wikipedia should be perfect. EdH 20:17, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jerzy. I didn't mean to offend you or anybody else with my tone or with the things I have said regarding the order of names in Mt. Ararat article. I am still not sure if I offended you, but if I did please accept my apologies. I had the impression you expect me to respond, but I really do not know what part of your comment you expect me to respond, so I decided I would post here and give you a chance to post to my talk page if you want me to write back. ato 18:27, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jerzy,
First I have to admit that it is very hard for me to write about the (alleged) Armenian Genocide for various reasons:

• I do not have enough information. Being Turkish, I was preferentially exposed to one side of the argument. Even though I try to read the other side, it would be ridicilous if I claimed impartiality.
• This is a political issue. Most of the information out there is politically biased and it is hard to seperate facts from speculation. This is valid for everyone but the people who lived through those times, and those people are either close to their death or already died.

This is not a straightforward case, as you might be thinking. Because genocide happened before does not automatically mean all allegations of genocide are true. I of course acknowledge some of them are true. There has been discrimination against muslims, in particular against Turks, for a long time in Europe. This is still going on in many European countries, just check the arguments given by some political parties in Germany againt Turkey's joining European Union. The information being fed by the Christians about the Christian/Muslim affairs can be far from fair. I can back these words up.

This being said here are my thoughts. I am sure I will regret going on record about this issue, and will probably refuse to discuss it much further. Even if I have more things to say, I might choose silence.

I will concentrate on events around 1915, as my knowledge of other events is even less. First of all, there are the following undisputed facts:

• There was an order of immigration given by Sultan of Ottoman Empire but Ittihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti was in power. For sake of argument I will refer to them as Young Turks. They are the ones responsible for the order.
• Many Armenians died during this period.

The question is then whether we call these events a genocide. To answer this the following should be answered:

• What was the reason for the immigration order? In particular: Was the reason to get rid of Christians/Armenians, based on their religion/race?
• What were the other reasons for Armenian deaths?
• How does the death toll compare with the loss of other ethnic/religious groups under same/similar conditions? Could these be results of the war in the region?

Which of course leads to more "pragmatic" questions:

• Is there any responsibility of Republic of Turkey?
• Even if there is no direct responsibility on its part, should Republic of Turkey acknowledge that the events took place qualify as a genocide and issue an apology since it is the direct descendant of Ottoman Empire and arguably benefited from the outcome of these events?

This is how I would approach the events, but I cannot answer the questions I pose, because of the reasons I mentioned. Let me try to partially answer some of them though. I will of course present a mostly Turkish point of view.

First of all, we need peace. Turkey and Armenia should stop being hostile to each other. History is history, today is today. Without peace, we cannot resolve anything, we certainly cannot resolve this issue.

It does not make sense that the immigration order was given on solely the Armenians' race or religion. They have been living in Ottoman Empire for a long time, there must be additional reasons. The reason is that the Armenians were 1) supporting the enemies of Ottoman Empire at that time, and 2) were trying get independent and in the process attacking the Ottoman army as well as the Turkish and Kurdish villages. Looking at it now, it might look as a noble cause "independence", but at that time Ottoman government must have felt something should be done about it. Note that, in the parts of modern Turkey where these uprisings happened, Armenians were not majority. I will not try to answer if uprising or support of enemies justifies an immigration order. But if this was the reason, the term "genocide", in my opinion, would not apply.

There was a war in the region, and a lot of people on all sides (except maybe the British which was definetely a side) died. Yes, a lot Armenians died, during those times. There are Armenian churches in eastern Turkey, which are empty now. The people who used those churches are either driven out or killed. However, there are also mass graves in eastern Turkey, full of people killed at those times, allegedly by Armenians. Turkish villages were emptied as well. My own father's grandparents had to leave eastern Turkey, to escape from the Armenian gangs' harassment. I honestly do not know if Armenians were targeted for their race or religion, but there was a lot friction in that region. If they were targeted as such and this was all a coordinated effort by Young Turks, how come the British could not evidence for these charges against any of them for two years while they were kept in Malta? Some people claim that the British were making these up to remove influential politicians from the picture, and there was no planned mass murder, hence no genocide.

Whether Republic of Turkey should accept responsibility and apologize. This I can answer firmly: No. First, we don't know what really happened. Even the events of Musa Dagh, which is maybe the most celebrated piece of Armenian propaganda, are not clear. An Armenian who lived through those times says "there was no fighting" but historians say otherwise. I say we do not know. Second, "Countries do not apologize". You should know this as an American. Do I approve such policies? "no". Would I apologize if I was head of state of Republic of Turkey? "no". Why? This brings me to my third reason: I am afraid this will turn into a holocaust industry. I do not want the borders of Turkey to be disputed (which you seem to accept as natural) or to pay monetary compensation for things done in Ottoman era. I would not accept any comprimise on any other issues either, so Republic of Turkey would be forgiven.

Again I will repeat, we need peace. If you want to make a comparison with other events, how about this: From beginning of 19th century to beginning of 20th century, 5 million Turks were killed in and another 5 million were driven out of Europe. Should we shout "genocide!" as well and blame the European countries, or shall we come to peace with each other? Where will hatred take us? Whereever it is, I don't want to go there.

Have fun. ato 04:23, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on the Scientific American article! I happened to go through Miami airport last week, on a conference trip, and bought myself a copy. It may be a month or more before it shows up in bookstores around here...Jorge Stolfi 04:30, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hiya! I was wondering if you noticed any weird behaviour from the system when you made those edits to WP:VFD earlier? Because your 12:11 edit "Logamnesia — Add to this discussion - +=== July 7 === blw it" caused a doubling of the whole page, and then your 12:18 edit "pre-ToC: + 7th; rlk 1st to /Old" caused another one!!

Did you hit any edit conflicts? I notice that you were moving some section headers around, thought maybe that we could be onto a clue here as to what causes the page-doubling? —Stormie 02:04, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

You, sir, are an asshole. Because I'm too lazy and too busy to get in some petty war over a signature, I will remove the link that you have a problem with. However, you are still an asshole. Don't ever mess with my (or anyone else's, for that matter) signature again. It's not your place. I'm not quite sure how you made admin, going around doing rude, unilateral, agregious shit like that. blankfaze | •• | •• 14:16, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Now that I've cooled down a bit, I want to apologise for calling you an asshole. I was very offended, and took action very offensively, as such. I mean, how would you feel if I went around, changing your signatures? But anyway, I should have cooled down first. I sincerely apologise. blankfaze | (беседа!) 14:51, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just noticed this in my Whining section, before archiving it:

It's because I had a broken header on my talk page. It said ==Meta===, which is half recognised as a header and messes up all sections after it. Angela. 04:13, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

You wrote "Rem Hdgs in template: <!-- FOR TECHNICAL REASONS, headings must NOT be placed in templates -->".

[ Jerzy(t) has added clarifying <nowiki> to quote of his edit summary (from a "VfD/" quasi-template page, and to which he (or possibly orthogonal) added comment markup from the edit), making the comment markup visible w/o editing.]

What exactly is the technical problem (I'm being curious, not contentious). -- orthogonal 05:09, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On Template talk:VfDFooter, you suggested that the silence means we should add the anti-ad language back to the footer. I'd rather wait a while longer. The instructions are much too clumsy right now. I've already made my case for why I think the ad language is overkill. Let's both take a few more days to see if we can drum up any more interest in discussing the point. Thanks. Rossami 15:13, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I like it. And I'd never found WP:RFC before. Thank you. Let's do the collaboration on the talk page. I'll start a draft there (unless you already have). Rossami

Hi. I'm back from work and am thoroughly relaxed now though I'm still maintaining a wee break till maybe Sunday.

I think these things need to happen occasionally because it forces discussion around policies that for whatever reason are not working as well as they could. Unfortunately somebody has to complain and somebody has to be complained at and in this cicrumstance I was the latter. But I'm not the type to harbour ill feelings towards others.

So yesterday I got down to some editing rather than sysoping, tidied up Tyburn, created Chidiock Tichborne, got it listed on Template:Did you know and then had a good night's sleep. And now I'm bright as a daisy and feeling happy. No ill feelings at all!

Graham ☺ | Talk 11:55, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I guess that I was trying to do a lot of things, and didn't really think this one through. You were right to revert that edit. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike Storm (Talk)]] 21:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please take a look at Talk:Partisan and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CVA. Halibutt 09:32, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

I simply thought you might be interested since you participated in the discussion some time ago. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:47, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

I am fully aware of how protecting works. I'd rather intended to point out that this dispute is well behind three-reverts rule, and does not point to anything useful. Besides, I believe that while protecting, admins are not allowed to revert article to pre-controversion version since often initial version was controversional to some party. In this case omittal of Polish forces can even be in protected version, since it is not so much material as in Home Army. Przepla 09:20, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jerzy, I don't why why you are so kind to CVA while being so harsh to e.g. me. You wrote that "clearly offended no one but a small and explicitly recruited cadre of apparent nationalists)." when CVA said that

"Unfortunately we can?t find anyone with the time to provide you with an education. All your exaggerated claims quote Polish sources which is to be expected and is quite typical for Poles. The Polish sources are typically exaggerated, selective, and, predictably, exceptionally bias in favour of Poland. i.e. everything they ever did had to be the best or the greatest and/or the world owes them a great debt?"

You;ve wrote that his position is well-reasoned when he ducked any discussion, he simply stated his opinion and retreated. Note that his behaviour was earlier than remarks of Halibutt and mine which resulted from irritation. Second, let me add that, contrary to CVA, we are ready to talk, discuss, and ready to change our mind, that we are NOT changing CVA user page, and that it was CVA he accused US about vandalising his talk page earlier, only because we posted there simple polite question for discussion.

Therefore, i feel offended. You treated CVA lightly and dismissed all things he did, while treated us as childish etc for things MUCH less offending that CVA's actions. I am curious why? Have you not been following the discussion and read the diffs provided by Halibutt? I feel that you have judged me too hard and I would be happy to hear from you either explanation why you think CVA behaviour is OK while mine is not, or admission that you were too fast in judgement. I am ready to accept that I am wrong but I wonder how you will be able to prove it? Szopen 11:21, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I have indeed denied myself the cheap thrills of following that discussion in detail. I don't think either CVA or their critics warrant my full attention, so i am unlikely to satisfy your expectations.
• I wouldn't make the same kind of generalization ("typical of Poles") that you attribute to CVA, nor do i think that one is particularly valuable to the discussion even if true. But i do think that
  • relying on one country's self-reporting, where it is clear national vanity is at stake, is inherantly unsound,
  • saying so (even if some hasty generalization is involved) is not denigration of a culture,
  • nothing said about a culture (as opposed to supposed genetic limitations of the corresponding population) is racism, and
  • anyone's focus on what someone else thinks of them or their group suggests their insecurities are more significant than anything about them that might be more interesting.
• Therefore the broad "forest" i see, largely disregarding the many insignificant "trees" ("who started it" is the last thing i'm interested in!) that show lapses and limitations such as insensitivity on each side, is of one basically sound approach and one desperately compromised one.
• I'm not interested in proving anything to you. Verbum sap, and if what i'm saying isn't persuasive, why are you wasting your time on me? While i haven't actually decided not to respond further to you, please
  • don't assume we are in a continuing dialogue, and
  • don't construe it as an insult if and when i stop responding.

--Jerzy(t) 15:15, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

Jerzy, i don't want You to think that i am not respecting You or Your contributions to wikipedia. The only reason i've reacted on Your talk page is that i felt that Your comment on CVA contra us dispute was totally unjustified. I felt that You are judging CVA and us differently and couldn't understand why. Maybe it's because of cultural differences: In Poland, when you talk to sometone, ask him for defining what's his problem is and his answer is "I won't discuss with You because you will be wrong anyway and I know better" is not considered a sign of maturity, rather of arrogancy. And that was reaction of CVA: he was politely asked to define what he considered major partisan movement, and his reactions was, in short, that he won't, because we will be wrong anyway.

Saying that, i understand that You are not interested in cheap chat, and i just wanted to say that i feel you shouldn't take part in discussion and judge before You will get familiar with it;

I hope i haven't wasted too much of Your valuable time. I consider this discussion to be ended, but - though i don't think it really disturbs you - i think you are simply unable to admit that you made error in judgement. Szopen 09:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

St
Hi Jerzy, got your message about closing VfDs..

As a freshly appointed admin, I decided to help reduce the size of the VFD page by closing off some 5-day-old entries, and, not being sure of the exact process, I read Wikipedia:Deletion process. It makes absolutely no mention of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old (which I'd never heard of before), it just says (paraphrasing) at the end of the VFD period, determine whether the consensus is to keep or delete, add the header and footer to the discussion page and link it from the article talk page (if you're keeping) or Wikipedia:Archived deletion debates (if you're deleting), and remove the listing from the VfD page (emphasis mine).

So I think some editing to Wikipedia:Deletion process is in order. :-)

Now that you've brought VfD/Old to my attention, I'll help out with clearing things out there. Although I may not be that much help, since I don't intend to touch anything that isn't completely clear-cut in its voting until I'm more experienced at this. —Stormie 23:22, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

p.s. I'm not sure what you mean by "what reason is there for the confusing and less efficient practice of closing and perhaps taking action before midnite, unless you are going to reduce the excessive size of VfD by getting the entries off VfD?" — the two I closed (The Meritocracy and Tips for New Poker Players), I actually removed from the VfD page before I closed the debate & actioned the delete (see [1]). —Stormie 23:42, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jerzy.. it occurred to me after I posted that p.s. that maybe you had VFD opened up from before I edited it, such is life. As for the instructions on Wikipedia:Deletion process, I'm happy to have a stab at clarifying them—I'll drop you a note when I've done so, so you can have a glance over the page and make sure it all (a) makes sense and (b) accurately describes the desired procedure. Cheers! —Stormie 00:52, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've revised Wikipedia:Deletion process. It didn't change much, just explained the VfD/Old situation, and copied in a little bit from Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators to remind people to pay heed to redirects and links when deleting a page. Hope you like it! —Stormie 03:47, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I already knew MSIE sucks ;). I'm just teasing of course. It is of course unfortunate that Microsoft does not see the need to follow the Unicode character standards that it itself helped shape. Also, I am a bit suprised that after Microsofts latest security hole anyone is still using their browser at all. Who am I kidding though, people will continue to use their products Ad nauseam, even if they were/are inferior. Anyways, enough of that rant. Download Mozilla Firebird! I used to be stuck using MSIE, but I'm so much happier now! Tabbed browsing is godlyness! Take Care. — マイケル ₪ 02:31, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC) (or as you know me box box box box squigly)

[ Dainamo tk ]
Jerzy, I am almost speachless as to your efficiency and excellent administrative judgment in the actions you have taken concerning moving and presenting the above discussion. Well done and thank you. Dainamo 11:41, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[ JML]
Your comment about a redirect with no history makes me think that maybe I could do this myself without fouling things up, but I'd rather play safe.

An article was moved from Modeling (NLP) to Modelling (NLP), leaving a redirect. I think it should be moved back with a redirect where the article now is. I explained the background at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion#August 4, but it seems like it can take a while for anything to happen on that page. I noticed your expression of particular willingness to help with such situations, so I'm calling it to your attention. Thanks for anything you can do. JamesMLane 20:15, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for laying out the process in detail for me. That was exactly what I needed. I think I've moved the article, and even fixed the links, without causing any floods or earthquakes. I gather from your comment on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion that you can handle the administrative followup needed there, which would be great.

By the way, just in case you haven't come across it, one of my favorite articles on Wikipedia is American and British English differences. It's very useful when you need to get a handle on how something is "spelt" in Commonwealth usage. JamesMLane 23:49, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

B tk
Jerzy, thanks very much for your giggle-raising comments on "First Bible Stories" (which I nominated for deletion) on VfD. It was a relief to see somebody go on from my own figure-laden example of how a Barnes&Noble book would tend to get a high Barnes&Noble rating, because I was beginning to think it had killed all conversation stone dead. ;-) Bishonen 19:16, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Jerzy. 10 days on VfD is a long time, and the art in question hadn't been significantly changed since Manning's reverse-redir and copyedits. I'm not sure what you expect to happen by continuing to leave the VfD discussion up, though I understand it is an emotional issue for the participants. Feel free to explain your concerns on my talk page. Cheers, +sj+ 04:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) (after reading your comments on VfU, I have a slightly better understanding of what you hope for... but still no sense of how you will determine when it is appropriate to archive te VfD discussion.)

You're a fairly new admin, so I suppose you don't remember when the recommendation was that VfD-templates be deleted once the VfD discussion was over. I can live with the community decision, since then, to keep everything... but it wasn't because the GFDL requires that. Similarly, I agree that as long as one is preserving a large block of text with unsigned edits, it is nice to preserve its edit history; moving it to a Talk:foo/Delete page is a great solution. And again, this is for neatness's sake more than for legal reasons; a user leaving an unsigned comment, then set in amber and referred to by others, on a talk page about a piece of actual content -- is many steps removed from a copyright grievance; note for instance that the GFDL is content to have a list of [major] editors of a body of work for a given year, without any details of who contributed what where.

In any case, thank you for caring about these issues, and for fixing the things you see as broken. Wiki works best when editors are bold, and don't worry about pushing back on one another. +sj+ 08:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ps - why do you make 'routine dummy edits' to your own talk page? +sj+

I think my solution meets a nice midpoint. The article has changed substantially, and the article it was supposed to redirect to got changed to a redirect to it. However, since it should be Genital integrity and not Genital Integrity, I'm still hacking at it a bit. But I think the matter is basically settled. Oy. Snowspinner 21:24, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

A fresh reply awaits @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Nagarjuna. Sam [] 04:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jerzy. Thanks for explaining your dummy edits, and I'm glad we're on the same wavelength again about moves and deletions. I'm just writing to remind you to vote in the ArbComm elections on En: today. Raul654 and I are both running on platforms to make the AC fast and efficient, and I'd like to help it view its own infallibility with a healthy grain of salt. +sj+ 22:39, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

AC et al

Yes, you can vote more than once. Only your last ballot is counted. You should vote for every candidate you would like to see in office!

+sj+ 22:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

tk
I apologize for not getting to the edits on this right away. I am going to post them ASAP. I have removed the "inuse" tag from the article, though, because I shouldn't have put it up without finishing the edits right away. If there's some other detail I've missed, please let me know. Thanks for your note. ffirehorse 14:43, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Update: I just noted your comments at Wikipedia:Cleanup re coordinating clean-up, so I've reverted my changes to what was originally there. ffirehorse 15:27, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Would it be all right if I continue adding to this article? I am hesitant because it seems there was something else you wanted to add about it (I am referring to your comments at Wikipedia:Cleanup, but also to those you left on my talk page). If not, I will resume editing it. Please let me know. Thank you. ffirehorse 23:54, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It sounds like holding off on editing will save later confusion and stress, so I will gladly do so. ffirehorse 01:09, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I appreciate your letting me know about the situation. I definitely wouldn't say that you were interfering with any edits I was making. The changes I was making were certainly not anything that couldn't wait. ffirehorse 02:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have posted the respective replies at my Talk page. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:12, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

tk
Me too (except my talk page) :) anthony (see warning) 00:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

-- at0 04:46, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)