User talk:Jfeen

May 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Summarizing in Abridged Quotation. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
Your changing the argument for deletion of a {{ProD}} template that you did not place, especially when you oppose the deletion, and are the nearly exclusive author of the contested article, is a serious breach of good order in WP procedures, and common sense should have made that obvious to a responsible editor.
The limited time that your two edits with that effect persisted is something of an ameliorating circumstance, but please take this warning to heart, and edit more conscientiously in the future when disagreements about article tags are involved, and still more so when you have a dog in the fight, as is the case here.
--Jerzy•t 01:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Jerzy, the tag said that I could remove it if I did not agree; however, I did not remove the other tags because they did not have the same subscript. If you don't believe this, you can go and check the history.
Jfeen (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

You should consult Help:Archiving a talk page, which unless i am mistaken will counsel you to reform your practice of blanking others' remarks from this talk page.
--Jerzy•t 01:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Jerzy, Wikipedia guidlines state, unless recently changed, that I can do as I please on my talk page. If you are refering to the Summarizing in Abridged Quotation talk page, then you are mistaken--I did not delete any discussion there. If I am mistaken about my talk page being my own, then I apologize in advance.
Jfeen (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Summarizing in Abridged Quotation

An article that you have been involved in editing, Summarizing in Abridged Quotation, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summarizing in Abridged Quotation. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.
--Jerzy•t 04:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

SAQ-related matters

On Talk:Summarizing in Abridged Quotation#Original research? you wrote the following at 04:03 & 04:26, 7 May 2010, which as you suggest is appropriate here but not there:

Jerzy, firstly, I don't understand your agressive behavior--it seems unfounded; secondly, I don't understand your prose--it is incoherent and ungrammatical (and does unprof'l mean unprofessional? And what are you referring to concerning payment? And what is "66"?); thirdly, comments not related to the article shouldn't be posted on the article's talk page but rather my or Robofish's talk page; fourthly, I don't understand why you have reason to believe I'm not who I say I am; fifthly, are you saying that uncopyrighted material isn't to be cited? If so, that's ridiculous and entirely contrary to the idea of free content, and even not the case according to APA, Chicago Style, MLA, or any other professional manual of style.

I'm going to refactor it below, in case individual parts need further comment.
--Jerzy•t 09:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• [1] "...I don't understand your agressive behavior--it seems unfounded."

I hope you don't mean "unfounded" as in unprovoked, since User:Robofish has made 35,000 contributions spread over more than 4 years, and you popped off threatening to have them banned (or was it de-admin'd?), without knowing that they are not an admin, and without having any idea of what additional behavior guidelines apply to admins -- based apparently on the wisdom you've accumulated in the last month with your nearly 300 edits.
Your judgment that i was aggressive is vaguely stated, esp. as i was behaving in several modes in mutual close proximity. The most aggressive IMO was dealing with your so-called signatures, which create havoc for audits of talk page integrity; in that regard, pay attention to 4 below, find the tilde key (probably to the left of 1/! and "above" the "Tab" key -- i.e., between it and your monitor). The character looks like this: ~
or as shown in a graphic on the right side of the Tilde page. Always use it to sign your talk and other discussion contribs. Eventually you'll learn how to use the edit history and the {{unsigned}} and {{undated}} templates to fix others' screw-ups or frauds.
--Jerzy•t 09:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Jerzy, yes, in fact, I do: I understand that Robofish has made many contributions, but I have seen many of these and they are not impressive--it is quite easy to make unsubstantial contributions and be thought of as remarkable when the contributions aren't detailed. However, this is beside the point; my main concern is that you somehow suggest that because he has participated longer that he is more valuable--this is against all commonsense, and if you disagree, then I have no means of changing your mind. And clearly, you have taken offense to everything I have said for some odd reason; I'm not sure what it is, but perhaps it is a bias toward those new to Wikipedia--this is obviously the wrong attitude. Again, if you disagree, I suppose you will not be persuaded because you have, for some reason, been given authority over other users, and, hence, are seemingly under the impression that this status makes you de facto correct.
Jfeen (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have neither commented on nor alluded to either your value or Rf's. But you don't seem to grasp how superficial is your grasp of WP procedures, and how likely it is that your differences with Rf reflect your own ignorance and Rf's probable (and predictable) grasp of them.
  If you're going continue here, you should, among many other tasks, read ADMIN and learn that i've exercised no authority over you, and that the reason for admin status amounts to a community judgment that the user receiving it is a good risk for executing (reversible) page deletions according to WP's procedural standards, and making sparing use of blocks on user accounts so that reversing blocks, when their judgment turns out not to be supported by the consensus of admins, doesn't become burdensome or contentious.
  My confidence about my judgment on the matters we are discussing, which are very dependent on WP's institutional experience, has nothing to do with my admin status per se (tho the paucity of disagreements abt admin actions that i have carried out over the last six years in, as it were, the project's name, do provide some objective basis for my confidence that i understand most aspects of the project, and that your objections to my statements reflect in substantial part your ignorance of those matters).
  --Jerzy•t 09:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  

I really am very sorry about the signature; I thought what had to be done was a basic copy and paste of another person's signature, delete their name and fill in yours, and then change the time and date to as close to what you thought it was--I didn't know it was as easy as three, four, or five tildes. I guess this taken quite seriously here, but if you have my IP adress and my login, then administrators should really rig Wikipedia to automatically generate a signature via the user's login.
Jfeen (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• As a matter of policy, the association between user acct & the IPs that have been used to edit via that acct (which is information needed by the server) is knowable only by the acct holder and a very small number of users who have WP:CheckUser status; the CheckUser-enabled users (IIRC, not all of them are admins) use the corresponding facility only when they judge it is necessary, which is usually in response to a report of suspected WP:sock puppetry (which is a very serious matter).
  As a technical matter, however, what you suggest is unworkable bcz

1. your password would no longer be needed to cause edits to be attributed to you, and every friend who borrowed your connection to edit WP, or edited WP from a library or 'Net-cafe terminal that you had edited WP from, or via wireless hot-spot you edit thru, would get their edits attributed to you, and
2. even if you restricted your editing practices to avoid that, there are many IP numbers that are shared at the access provider's discretion among users: dial-up and perhaps still AOL are examples, and tho there are mechanisms for determining whether a specific IP num is subject to that possibility, my impression is that some providers let the records get out of date or altogether neglect setting them accurately.

However, there is a facility offered at log-on time that is appropriate to use when you log on from via a terminal that is secure against use by others than yourself. (You may want to research the mechanism, but my impression is that it's based on internet cookies, which seem with my OS to not be shared among OS accounts.) Checking the box in question means you remain logged on to WP for, IIRC, 30 days or until the next server reboot. You can tell whether you are logged on by consulting the row of links at the right end of the very first line on every, or virtually every, WP page, immediately after refreshing that page; if one link has your acct name displayed and links to User:Jfeen, you're logged on and all you have to do is use the 4 tildes. (There are other indicators by which i recognize what my login state is, but you'll learn more about them than i can remember by experimenting; i simply notice them as previously seen but exceedingly rare, and log on again without conscious attention to the particulars. Oh, probably the most visible one is that if you've selected a non-default "skin" in your prefs, you'll see the default skin when logged off.)
--Jerzy•t 09:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

My judgement seemed, and seems, clearly stated; no apologies. And you know, as well as I, that "behaving in several modes in mutual close proximity" makes very little sense--there's no need to feign a large vocabulary here, and there's even less room for it. I didn't know how to correctly use signatures--those seem extravagently arbitrary, but I will, hopefully, sign accordingly from now on as I just yesterday configured My Preferences respectively. Also, you seem committed to thinking I have some odd motive behind editing Wikipedia, as if I really thought doing so was real "vandalism"; I have no motive; I was simply interested in this kid's work--it seems like an insanely simple solution for liberal education, and I got to know of him because he too is interested in Andrew Chrucky, and, by some odd happenstance, has a very similar pen name to my user name. If you don't believe this, then I suppose we could somehow rig up a three way call, but even then, you might have your doubts. Or maybe this isn't what you're getting at--I'm not sure.
Jfeen (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• No apologies were expected, but the statement of your judgment was non-specific, so i don't know what behavior of mine you found aggressive, and your confidence that you were clear is irrelevant. I had hoped for something i could respond to, but i no longer care to in any case.
  More to the point, however "arbitrary" our needs re sigs may be, or seem to you, our care about attribution is primarily about either the legal requirements of GFDL, or not spending half our time separating careless record keeping from forgeries intended to harm the project. (And no matter how valuable you may be to WP, you're not yet in a position to grasp the nuances of the project that our collective insights from 9 years of institutional practical experience provide.)
  However arbitrary, as well, your attention to what appears, i believe, between the heading beginning "Editing ...", and either "Preview" or the edit pane, on every talk page you edit, namely

This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).

(some formatting and lks were lost in the copying) would have sufficed to navigating that abitrariness.
I was not aware of appearing to attribute a motive to you, and don't have an interest at this point in your motives, beyond my observation that you intentions seem good, with the problems stemming from ignorance, overconfidence, and impatience, that can shade into recklessness and thus (depending on effects) a need to be treated as vandalism, even in the absence of bad faith.
--Jerzy•t 09:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• [2] "I don't understand your prose--it is incoherent and ungrammatical (and does unprof'l mean unprofessional? And what are you referring to concerning payment? And what is "66"?)"

A. It was aggressively colloquial, largely in an effort to lighten the tone.
B. Of course.
C. Professional is a poor way to communicate "thoro", "conscientious", "responsible", and other concepts, especially since its two core senses are (1) belonging to a trade whose practitioners traditionally are self-employed and collectively police their individual work-related conduct, and (2) getting paid for something that others do for free, whereas WP is aggressively amateur in nature. You were throwing the word around as if you are committed to professionalism and your colleagues here are not, and the joke i was making was to the effect of "What, are other editors getting paid? No one told me i was a professional, and now that i know, i want my share of the money. I'm not convinced i'm responsible for it not going over for you.
D. 66 is the first quad of the IP address that you used for making two edits on Talk:Summarizing in Abridged Quotation . Learn how to read that page's edit-history page, and things should start to be clearer to you.
--Jerzy•t 09:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Jerzy, (A) how is aggressive behavior ever an effort to "lighten the tone"? That sound inane. (B) Why do you abbreviate? If it's really difficult for you to type fastly, then I can send you a couple links to some free sites for learning how to type. If it's for some means of character, then you should know that it's objectively unattractive. (C) No, it's not; you understood what I meant. And you seem very concerned about money--perhaps you're wasting your time on Wikipedia; it promotes free content. And administrators are 'supposed to be committed to professionalism--they are editing the world's largest encyclopedia. (D) I don't really understand, but thank you.
Jfeen (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• It should be evident to you from the accompanying responses that i don't require an apology from you, for that 'graph, to continue behaving collegially toward you. If you're looking for an apology from me, you should expect disappointment, especially as you are making that seem more absurd as we discuss this matter. Please cease wasting our time and effort by pursuing the subject of my behavior toward you.
  --Jerzy•t 09:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  

• [3] "... comments not related to the article shouldn't be posted on the article's talk page but rather my or Robofish's talk page"

In this case, i judged that the deterioration of the tone meant that some meta-discussion had to take place where it would be seen by those who see that talk page. The discussion was in trouble, and the trouble had to be identified clearly as being out of the ordinary, lest they be alienated or encouraged to imitate you. But you are right abt the general principle; in particular, this discussion with you is necessary, and everything i said to Rf was intended for third parties, since Rf doubtlessly understands that ignoring your abuse if fine.
--Jerzy•t 09:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Jerzy, I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop calling my comments and actions "abuse" and "vandalism"; this is entirely not the case--I have every seeming right to combat authoritarian individuals with the same tone and vernacular they use in wrongly accusing me of such and such. I guess that you likely won't, but I'm sure that, with a little more communication, we will end up settling, at least some, of our misunderstandings.
Jfeen (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• [4] "I don't understand why you have reason to believe I'm not who I say I am."

When someone says something that you know can't possibly true, your cognitive task is to figure out what ther is that it could be true about. By not logging in, or not noticing you got logged out, "you" didn't become someone else, but you got two identities as far as the logging of "your" edits goes, and your knowing who you are doesn't help anyone else. You aggravated the problem by ignoring the constant reminders to sign talk contribs using "~~~~", trying to fake it with your local time when the edit histories are coded in UTC (including faking time stamps within the same edit that were 24 hours apart), and defying all efforts to correct your screw-ups.
--Jerzy•t 09:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Jerzy, what wasn't true? (Also, every task -- sensorimotoric or otherwise -- is a cognitive task--no need for excess verbiage; you are already impressive enough). I don't understand why you think I was someone else. These "constant reminders" weren't constant; I've received only one from you--that's it. I faked nothing; as aforementioned, I thought this is how it was done by others; apologies. I did not "defy" anything, as I was not explicitly told to "correct" anything.
Jfeen (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• It wasn't true that you're not who you way you are, and you made the error of assuming i was saying something absurd just bcz you don't see what i was talking about. You're doing the same when you pick out one meaning for "fake", and deny that that meaning applies. And you've picked words like "defy" and "correct" out, in the preceding 'graph (or "abuse" and "vandalism" in yr response to point [3] above) from the preceding days-old discussion, as if expecting me to respond to your dissatisfaction with them out of context. That will just leave you frustrated, if only bcz you've convinced me that trying to clarify them to you would be a bad cost/benefit tradeoff.
  --Jerzy•t 09:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  

• [5] "... are you saying that uncopyrighted material isn't to be cited? If so, that's ridiculous and entirely contrary to the idea of free content, and even not the case according to APA, Chicago Style, MLA, or any other professional manual of style"

Yes, that's ridiculous; why are you attributing it to me? I would hope it's not bcz i said lack of copyright is irrelevant to the OR and MADEUP issues.
--Jerzy•t 09:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Jerzy, that is exactly why I am attributing it to you--it is entirely relevant to the MADEUP and OR guidelines. I'm sorry, but why would you feign ignorance on this issue? You were clearly wrong, unless I sorely misunderstand your direction. If so, apologies.
Jfeen (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• You indeed sorely misunderstand, and again, i find trying to untangle that for you to be a bad cost/benefit tradeoff.
  --Jerzy•t 09:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  

• Lastly Jerzy, what is your real deal with having become so offended by my small contributions? Is it really because I'm new to Wikipedia, that I didn't know how to sign my edits, or because you think it's original research? Or is it because I, supposedly, offended your friend? I'm entirely open to honesty, so don't feel shy about telling me the truth; I'm just interested--every administrator I've seen has a panoply of very poor contributions about things irrelevant to academia like sports or the mayor of their hometown. It seems like the minute something of importance comes up, they become very scrupulous, completely ignoring the fact they their contributions were of little to no importance. Of course, it is undeniably the case the articles become something like an infant to their creators just like any work, but it seems like articles not written by administrators are targetted, and that this is an exclusive crowd. If this is seriously the case, I can just go back to grading papers in my spare time. And, seriously, thank you for all the clarification--I actually do appreciate it despite our tones.
  Jfeen (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  

• Practically every time you open your figurative mouth, you display misunderstandings that must be grounded in ignorance of WP. You've gotten an unusual amount of hand-holding, which your excessive self-confidence appears to have made ineffective. I don't pretend to know whether you're now, or will become, suited to WP or not, and i doubt you will find that out soon -- nor at all except with more patience, better listening, and not expecting such intensive attention from any colleague.
  --Jerzy•t 09:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  

Speedy deletion nomination of Recon (band)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Recon (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited Most Precious Blood (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hardcore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Frontandbacktuple.JPG

The file File:Frontandbacktuple.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Tuples.JPG

The file File:Tuples.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)