User talk:Jbmurray/Archive 13

AfD nomination of Scroogle

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Scroogle. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scroogle (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

I would like to formally apologize for the misunderstanding over User: Aestrella's edits. I did not recognize User: Stroppolo's edits as a test page, nor did I see the CSD tag. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will be removing the notice from User: Aestrella's talk page along with a formal apologize to her also.  IShadowed  ✰  19:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, no problem. She was making something of a mess of things, but was fairly clearly a good faith contributor trying to start their first article (in this case in part by importing a template from WP:NOVEL, I think. So yes, it was formatted all wrong and the edit history was confusing. But you can get a sense from this as to what she's trying to do. I know, it may take a little time to work it all out. But that's the situation for a newbie, too, trying to figure out how to start a page! Anyhow, yes, it'd be nice if you dropped her a little note to apologize and explain the misunderstanding. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thank you for doing this, good job. Thanks, I do try, even though I make a fair amount of mistakes.  IShadowed  ✰  20:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes

Thanks. I hadn't thought of that, but of course you're right. Oops. Moreschi (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Rambles in Germany and Italy

Now for something uncontroversial and scholarly. :) Care to do a peer review of the above work, by Mary Shelley? Awadewit (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

- Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You should probably get the edit oversighted, I suppose. (I have no idea how one goes about doing that.) I also realize my edit summary was a mistake, as it drew attention to what I was trying to eliminate. On the other hand, my sense is that there are plenty of people who now know your real name, so perhaps it's not worth the bother. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the whole instilling of the sense of "why bother" and the distress/despair is an obvious component to situations like the above. Otherwise, no one would mention such things. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Checking the whole edit...

finds more things that don't fit. I'm fanatic about checking the page's recent history to see what else might have gone into the pot. ;-) Shenme (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha, I missed the pussy! I did see the "They like beans in Boston" and it amused me sufficiently (and surely, in any case, it's true?) that I left it in. Thanks for following up in any case. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Funny how sometimes one runs across an edit summary on the watchlist that one just has to double-check... :) EyeSerene^talk 21:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Good to "see" you here, Mr Serene. Hope all is well with you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, all's good both personally and over at my little wikiworld, and I hope the same for you. Glad to see you're still around and active; two rounds of student educational projects hasn't driven you off! I'm assuming there's nothing planned for this year (I've not noticed anything, anyway). EyeSerene^talk 11:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Wikipedia Watch

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Wikipedia Watch. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Watch (5th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Here

I was wrong and made a mistake. I have made it clear multiple times, but I will post it again. Can you drop it now? Or is there some other reason to continue to obsess over this minor point? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, as far as I'm concerned it's dropped. I added my 2c. only because I was originally involved in the incident. I wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise, and that's the first and last time I expect to comment on it.

Meanwhile, the main point is this: there are indeed now a series of editors who are set on bringing you down. But in fact it would be rather easy both to get them off your back, and also (now that it's come to this) to get ArbCom on your side, if you merely concede a little earlier and a little more graciously on certain points.

To put this another way: it would be rather less fun or interesting for them to prove you wrong if you were willing yourself to admit that you could be wrong, or if you were able to walk away from a fight, a little sooner.

This is not gaming the system. It is merely a pragmatic fact of the kinds of interpersonal interaction that constitute Wikipedia.

To put this yet another way: what point is there having right on your side when you are surrounded by people who want to dredge up past instances where you were wrong and conceded belatedly and in bad grace? You will have your hands completely tied, and be followed by people who are simply looking for where they can catch you out.

And as SandyGeorgia and others have said, you have been offered many lifelines. Take some of them! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And, in my opinion, one of your strongest lifelines was the "consistency in deliberations" argument: they offered mentorship to Mattisse even though they found her disruptive. Your approach (a failure to show any remorse or willingness to accept criticism or change your approach) is giving the arbs every reason to rule differently in your case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, that statement is exactly why I get bothered by some of your actions. Unlike you, when Mattisse harassed me I was willing to stand up for her because no one else did. You attack me for having no remorse, when you have shown very little from what I have ever seen. I go out of my way to protect people when no one else will, even if those people have hurt me in some manner. You can claim I don't apologize, feel remorse, or any such things. The Arbitrators know that is completely wrong. I am bothered by the fact that you would extrapolate the above while bringing up something that was completely ended back in April 2008. Will you feel remorse over that? No, you wont. I wont hold my breath for an apology either. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You may consider it important to "stand up for [someone] because no one else did"; I consider it important to be consistent in how one views disruptive editors who otherwise make good contributions. Blindly standing up for people won't advance the goals of the Project or the needs of the community. I have to be consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You have stated some of the meanest things I've ever seen someone say on Wikipedia when discussing Mattisse. If that is your understanding of consistency, then I am glad I am inconsistent. I stand up for people because they deserve someone to stand up for them. I will not sit idly by when people are treated like shit and dehumanized. That is not acceptable and it is not right. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, let me repeat what I've suggested to you before: please take a break. Think before posting. Reflect a little. Or just go out for a walk, do something that's unconnected with Wikipedia. You are really not helping yourself here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"what point is there having right" I'd rather die with integrity then live with sin. The path you suggest is to dehumanize others, to gang up on others, and to commit things that I feel are just awful. I don't care for these games, and I don't care for people who play these games. I wont hide that fact, nor am I ashamed of admitting it. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and let me say, should by some strange chance it not be obvious, that I am not in the slightest suggesting that you "dehumanize others," "gang up on others," or "commit things that [you] feel are just awful." Not at all. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent:) Two points. First, SandyGeorgia is not "attack[ing]" you, she is trying to help you. (As indeed, am I.) The fact that you take her advice as an attack is rather worrisome. Second, the principle that you'd "rather die with integrity then live with sin" is in many ways a noble one, but it certainly doesn't fit within the spirit of Wikipedia. You are effectively casting yourself out. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We are trying to help, Ottava. If you don't alter your approach, sanctions look inevitable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I stated time and time again that I did not want you involved. Your "help" instead has led me to being further harassed. No one should be treated in that way, and I have made it clear how I feel about your actions and you persist. You don't care about me, let alone what I state. Please leave me be. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think everyone in this conversation is determined not to sacrifice his/her integrity for the sake of a project like this. I personally will never nominate an article for a review process if I did not think that it was accurate and that it adhered to WP policies and the review process criteria, and I would never deliberately introduce errors. However, my thinking the article is just right does not necessarily make that thought true, and being incorrect does not mean I have less integrity, just that I have room to learn and improve. There are articles on this project that I think do not meet WP policies, and I have spoken up (often quite loudly) to make sure this is known. This doesn't mean that my changes always stick (WP:BRD), and I sometimes leave conversations out of frustration or cannot make others see my point of view. As long as I have done my best to ensure that my point is known, my integrity is intact. And for me, integrity is also in how I treat people. If I treat others poorly in pursuit of being "right", I've failed. And when I fail, it is my responsiblity to make amends, through apologies when necessary and by learning from those mistakes. This is all we are trying to say. One doesn't have to be proven "right" to keep one's integrity, and being proven wrong doesn't mean you've lost it. Karanacs (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, Jbmurray made it clear that I shouldn't have questioned you or SandyGeorgia about what I thought was inappropriate (the stance on what "comments" means) because it would have been politically expedient for me to do so. I have already apologized for the manner in which I treated you, but I still believe that it is unfair to find out that all of my comments were taken as something very different than what I intended them to be taken as. There isn't a discussion of right or wrong here. It is a discussion of not stating your opinion when you believe there is a problem simply because it is in your political interest. I don't care for politics and I would rather be punished for that then to not voice my concerns when I see something as being wrong or unjust. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs's wisdom

I think everyone [here] is determined not to sacrifice his/her integrity for the sake of a project like this. I personally will never nominate an article for a review process if I did not think that it was accurate and that it adhered to WP policies and the review process criteria, and I would never deliberately introduce errors. However, my thinking the article is just right does not necessarily make that thought true, and being incorrect does not mean I have less integrity, just that I have room to learn and improve. There are articles on this project that I think do not meet WP policies, and I have spoken up (often quite loudly) to make sure this is known. This doesn't mean that my changes always stick (WP:BRD), and I sometimes leave conversations out of frustration or cannot make others see my point of view. As long as I have done my best to ensure that my point is known, my integrity is intact. And for me, integrity is also in how I treat people. If I treat others poorly in pursuit of being "right", I've failed. And when I fail, it is my responsiblity to make amends, through apologies when necessary and by learning from those mistakes. This is all we are trying to say. One doesn't have to be proven "right" to keep one's integrity, and being proven wrong doesn't mean you've lost it. Karanacs (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver

Hi JB. Congratulations on your RfA. I was wondering exactly how busy you are these days? I'm sure quite as you are nearing the end of the semester, but perhaps your students (your participation included) would like to take their new found Wikipedia experience and take a look at the article Vancouver. It was once a featured article and displayed on the main page, but in recent years has lapsed and was demoted from featured status. It would seem a shame that with the 2010 Winter Olympics fast approaching that the Vancouver article will soon become one of the most viewed Wikipedia articles, and it will not be in the shape it deserves. Possibly even something the FA Team might be interested in? I wanted to get your thoughts on this. Mkdw^talk 09:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

P2

		WikiProject Vancouver
		You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

Suggested changes to Monty Hall problem

You are invited to join the discussion at talk:Monty Hall problem#Changes suggested by JeffJor, Martin Hogbin, and Glkanter. Rick Block (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

AfD nomination of Google Watch

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Google Watch. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)