User talk:JavierMC/Archives/2009/April
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Dreamhost
Hi JavierMC, can I please ask you to visit the Dreamhost article. Last year you reviewed it for an BIAS and OWN violations. The problem still persists. I believe it will be entirely evident when you review the history. Thanks. 69.120.56.33 Superherox (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is clear to me that you are allowing SPAs and obvious socks to color your view of my editing process. I ask you to base your opinions of my editing on my complete record. The quality of my edits is high on every article on my watchlist, and DreamHost is no exception. If you have a specific complaint about my technique, take it to WP:ANI or some other appropriate forum, but do not use an article talk page to make sweeping comments about my editing. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do not attempt wikilawyering techniques on me. They do not impress me in any way. This is not my first day of participation on wikipedia. What is clear to you is essentially the same narrow perception I encountered when I reviewed the editing of DreamHost. I have not followed your editing on any other article on wikipedia, and do not intend to do otherwise. My comments are only related to what I percieve at DreamHost. The problem is that other editors have shared the same perception and like an alcoholic refusing to admit that a problem may exist, he/she simply lash out instead of taking a serious account of their actions and seeing that others are trying to help. I'm pleased that the quality of your edits on all the articles you particpate are high. I'm only sorry to see that the ownership of the DreamHost article is still active after so many months. I'm not a CLIENT of theirs and never have been. I could not possibly derive any benefit, percieved or otherwise, from my uninvolved comments on the article editing. Too bad that does not exist for all editors of said article.JavierMC 00:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely the wikilawyering from this editor is frustrating and formidable. The weight of your opinion made a difference. Thank you JavierMC. Superherox (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do not attempt wikilawyering techniques on me. They do not impress me in any way. This is not my first day of participation on wikipedia. What is clear to you is essentially the same narrow perception I encountered when I reviewed the editing of DreamHost. I have not followed your editing on any other article on wikipedia, and do not intend to do otherwise. My comments are only related to what I percieve at DreamHost. The problem is that other editors have shared the same perception and like an alcoholic refusing to admit that a problem may exist, he/she simply lash out instead of taking a serious account of their actions and seeing that others are trying to help. I'm pleased that the quality of your edits on all the articles you particpate are high. I'm only sorry to see that the ownership of the DreamHost article is still active after so many months. I'm not a CLIENT of theirs and never have been. I could not possibly derive any benefit, percieved or otherwise, from my uninvolved comments on the article editing. Too bad that does not exist for all editors of said article.JavierMC 00:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- (after ec) - How do you perceive ownership issues in my editing of the article, but do not see the same problems with the disruptive SPA? Why the double-standard? Your recent reversion of my edit indicates your acceptance of his POV-pushing, and you failed to justify your arbitrary reversion on the article talk page (claiming "ownership" in an edit summary is not sufficient). Please explain this stance. Please respond on my talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Stating "Rv agenda-driven edits" in an edit summary, just because you feel it is agenda driven, does not make it so. Furthermore, the continual lambasting of every edit other than your own as some conspiracy against DreamHost by disgruntled past clients and for you to summarily discount a source as unreliable simply because you think so, does not make it so. Because many entities have both good attributes and negative ones, does not bar the inclusion of these attributes in an article when a reliable third-party source can be found. If the source is not in contradiction to wiki policy and/or guidelines concerning sources, then the source should be allowed. If variables can not be readily assesses as to a sources viability, then requesting more "eyes" to the source for consensus is therefore necessary, not summarily dismissed by one editor. This is the course of greater consensus building and the tract easily taken. To do otherwise, smacks of ownership issues and can not and should not be accepted in the wiki environment.--JavierMC 02:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I answered on my talkpage because, well, like I stated at the top of my talkpage, that's the way "I" handle talk.
- (after ec) - How do you perceive ownership issues in my editing of the article, but do not see the same problems with the disruptive SPA? Why the double-standard? Your recent reversion of my edit indicates your acceptance of his POV-pushing, and you failed to justify your arbitrary reversion on the article talk page (claiming "ownership" in an edit summary is not sufficient). Please explain this stance. Please respond on my talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
InPrivate at AIV
AIV helperbot has put your reports of InPrivate under mine, as it shows up as a double entry. 78.34.150.30 (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
InPrivate has been indefblocked, so nevermind. It's still worth keeping in mind though, since you repeated your report of InPrivate four times, which AIV helperbot merging each of your reports with the prior existing report I had made. 78.34.150.30 (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Huggle reports vandals to AIV automatically based on userpage templating, so the reports at AIV were possibly addemdums showing additional vandalism by the vandal. Took them long enough to block him/her and they left a mess to clean up for sure.JavierMC 04:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, ok, didn't know Huggle can report automatically. In that case, nevermind once more. :P G'night. 78.34.150.30 (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)