This page is an archive of my talk page. Please do not modify it. If you would like to comment about anything on this page, please use my talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Alert
Please do not spam my talk page looking for help on an issue because of a Wikipedia user category of which I am a member. This annoys me greatly, and I will usually not respond.
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.
Past discussions on my talk page may be found on the following archive pages. My personal talk page archiving policy may be found at User:Jdavidb/Talk archiving
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Reverted your image by mistake (don't think it made any difference though). Was busy reading the 'List of Protected Pages and clicking on stuff. Just in case you wondered what I was doing! Berry23:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
I noticed on your talk page that you are removing fan listing and stuff and on this article there are way too many links, i would delete them but I haven't really been here long so didn't quite no what to do. Could you please check out the article and tell me what sort of external links to remove. Thanks --Childzy17:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Hi, David. I've just seen your wikibreak notice, and want to wish you the best of luck in finishing your thesis. (I've been through it all myself, so I know what it's like!) Even more, I want to assure you that I'll remember you and your wife in my prayers in a special way as the end of August approaches. All is well with me, and I'll send you an e-mail some time. In Christ. AnnH♫19:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Thanks for your note to me on subst:-ing and making a User:Jordanelder/mytemplate. I didn't know that, and I'll make sure I do that in the future. I saw you've done that on some of your pages. --Jordan Eldertalk 21:41, Saturday, November 9, 2024 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Here you said "it's entirely likely that what he was 'warning' you about wasn't vandalism, either" and here you say "It was certainly childish and inappropriate" and "and I think it's pretty clear that the case is brought in bad faith." Unfortunately, I can't reply on Pudgenet's talk page because he deletes everything I post there, so I'm replying here.
This is the warning I gave Pudgenet. It's a standard warning, like you said. I anticipated problems due to it's vagueness, so I added this explanation 14 minutes later. The explanation links to Pudgenet's vandalism, in which he added the following paragraph, which mentions me, to the Perl article:
Further, the fact that people like -Barry- and Shlomi Fish keep cranking out nonsensical criticisms and no one seems to care anymore could be seen as a decline in the interest of Perl, although it could mean that Perl is so well-established that there's no point in shouting down the haters.
Pudgenet has called it a joke edit. This is more than a content dispute to me.
Also in my explanation, I linked to this edit summary, in which Pudgenet says "Removing useless content from a useless editor" referring to me.
Please assume good faith, especially when I'm unable to defend myself on the page where you're criticizing me. -Barry-23:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am. Please demonstrate good faith by rescinding the baseless RfArb against Pudgenet, or else posting links to specific diffs demonstrating violations of Wikipedia policies and cite the policies you mean, word for word, excluding any actions which he has recanted and/or apologized for. This is most certainly a content dispute. It would be erroneous for either you or Pudgenet to refer to edits made about this disagreement as "vandalism." Not a horrible offense, but erroneous nonetheless. All you do by trying to call it vandalism is add heat to the discussion and distract from the real points with a semantic dispute. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 00:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jdavib the real issue is not the content dispute. Barry unfortunately has decided to cloud what is a disciplinary RFP via. off-topic posting for a content issue for some reason I can't fathom. The charge in this case is Pudgenet is unable to control his emotions on discussions related to Perl. In earlier month this took the form of very hostile personal attacks. Lately it has become more serious and converted into sustained personal attacks as part of a campaign of harassment against Barry and attempted intimidation against other editors who have attempted to intervene to prevent further harassment. That's not a content dispute and it never was.
Further these were not simply violations of civility those violations occurred as part of a program of intimidation and harassment designed to undermine the effectiveness of wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. The issue is not that he violated civility but rather why he violated and how he violated civility.
I suggest you look at the evidence. What contributions has he made to Perl related topics other than edit warring and person attacks. Just go back through his record and try and find edits designed to enhance an encyclopedia.
The vandalism that occurred was petty and I don't even mention it in the list of edits. I really think you are judging Pudgenet based on his positive contributions in other forms rather than his trollish behavior on wikipedia. While I certainly would applaud an administrator such as yourself stepping forward and offering to mentor him, there has to be an acknowledgment of what he has in fact done. jbolden1517Talk01:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further these were not simply violations of civility those violations occurred as part of a program of intimidation and harassment designed to undermine the effectiveness of wikipedia's dispute resolution processes.
I'm sorry, but get real. This user has not even made close to enough edits for that to be the case.
He's made about 200 edits and about 2/3rds are some form of personal attack. How many does it take in your opinion 1000 edits, 10,000 edits? jbolden1517Talk01:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I certainly would applaud an administrator such as yourself stepping forward and offering to mentor him, there has to be an acknowledgment of what he has in fact done.
I'm not "offering to mentor," but if he thinks I can help him deal with the harrassment in any way, I'm happy to help him. And he has already admitted, apologized for, and recanted incivility. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 01:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
he has said vicious, cruel, truly awful things about to me on the board and in email. He has encouraged others to do so and has defamed my reputation. He has stood by those statement in full. There is no recant there. I've seen no recant of the things he said to Durin. I've seen no recant of the things he said to Barry. I've seen no recant of the things he said to Endomion. I've seen no recant of the things he said to Mipadi.... Where are these recants? Where are the attempts to rectify the damage to people's reputations? jbolden1517Talk01:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
That was part of my cleanup of the 4400 article. The 4400 article had some things wrong with it, and i corrected it. That "myth" was one of the things i found to be wrong with the article. It just doesn't belong in the article. So what if its a myth? The "ten percent myth" is used throughout Science Fiction. an example of this is found in the Fifth Race episode of Stargate SG-1. dposse19:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).
Jdavidb- my apologies. Your name appeared on a "history" list of editors and if a message was sent to you in error, please accept my apologies. I merely wished to have editors who had contributed to the article notified that there was a call for a change in the structure of the article. Bzuk 7:54 3 December 2007 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of my talk page. Please do not modify it. If you would like to comment about anything on this page, please use my talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
