User talk:Jtdirl
Earlier comments are in user talk:Jtdirl (Archive 1) user talk:Jtdirl (Archive 2) user talk:jtdirl (Archive 3) User talk:Jtdirl (Archive 4) User talk:Jtdirl (Archive 5) User talk:Jtdirl (Archive 6)
Please leave your comments here:
Smart user page-pity you have to work by candlelight! I just dropped by from Tannin's talk page to show solidarity. It's not so much the errors we all make (I got my fingers burned on Finnish Language - background knowledge = I've heard it spoken), but the persistent attempts to impose a particular standard, which too often is the dumber version. Although the capitalisation debate has subsided, thankfully, I was speculating when writing crossbill how much sense sentences like female red crossbills are green like parrot crossbills or in Ireland common crossbills are rare would make.
The irony is that hard-working contributors like you, Tannin and me have come close to walking through the determination to impose uniformity throughout what, after all, is a voluntary activity, which we do for fun (at bit sad in itself, but still...) jimfbleak 15:40 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry for contributing to your angst over Droop Quota (though I myself never edited the formula...) - anyway, the current version seems OK to me... everything will usually sort itself out given enough time. :-) Peace, Evercat 16:01 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I've eavesdropped on your message to User:Evercat and felt I had to comment. I don't know if I'm one of the google nuts you're referring to, though I have used google as a defense on many occasions. I appreciate your work, and think that Wikipedia really needs dedicated contributors such as you who have the experience, knowledge, and resources to provide Wikipedia with good information; I agree in the strongest possible terms that google is not to be considered an authoritative source, but sometimes it's the only source of information I have that is available at my fingertips. Whenever I see a stub article that needs a bit of fleshing out, a spelling of a name that seems questionable, or an obscure term that needs a definition, google usually is quick to provide an answer. And yes, 99% of what it spits back is nonsense, but a trained eye can usually find the gem of truth among the garbage. I try not to put anything into an article unless I'm fairly certain it's correct, or at the very least, better than what was there before.
I apologize if I have bulldozed over any of your work; I make every effort not to do so, but it is Wikipedia policy to be bold, and I usually am bold if I see something that I think needs fixing. With cooperation, I don't see why conflicts can't be resolved with a productive outcome. I would encourage you to stay here and keep contributing! Of course, maybe some time away is what you need. -- Wapcaplet 18:39 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Glad to hear I wasn't one of your targets. I understand, and can relate to, your frustration. If you sit back and think about it, it's nothing short of miraculous that anything useful at all comes out of Wikipedia -- hundreds (thousands, even) of people all trying to edit the same articles at the same time, all with different perspectives and agendas, different ideas of structure, organization, presentation, capitalization convention. It's like 1000 chefs trying to bake the world's largest cake. It's a tower of babel! But damned if it hasn't worked. Somehow, it has worked, and the only thing I can come up with is that some magical percentage of the people who contribute here care enough about the project to work together despite their differences of opinion and perspective. The ones who have messed up articles in one way or another probably had the best of intentions -- and I think that the more experienced Wikipedians have some responsibility to take such edits in good grace, and with patience. All edits can be reverted, all mistakes can be fixed. No article can really be ruined -- if it truly gets trashed to the point of no return, it can always be reverted to an earlier good version, and the user who did the trashing (however benign or malevolent it was) politely corrected. The good version will, eventually, prevail. -- Wapcaplet 22:48 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me pointing this out, but you appear to have voted twice in the big "dates and numbers" debate -- for two different options. Was this intentional? Did someone else use your ID to vote? Deb 21:08 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Don't leave. I'm one of those arrogant idiots you referred to who was looking forward to working very closely with you. ChuckM 22:11 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Hi JT. I gather from various comments that the edit wars have been getting you down. I very much hope that you don't leave permanently as I for one very much value your contributions, and I've learnt a lot more about Irish history than I knew before, even though I'm only a £2 ferry ride and 75c return train fare from central Dublin (retired UK railway staff rates!). Take a break if you need one, but do please come back. Best regards, Arwel 23:36 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Am I the only one that takes vacations around here? No wonder people burn out and say they are going to leave. JT, I think it is time for you and you partner to take a nice relaxing trip somewhere and have some fun. I take as many trips as I can both with my partner (such as my recent Yellowstone trip) and not with my partner (I'm leaving for another field study to Yosemite National Park tomorrow). So maybe that is why I have never seriously considered leaving for anything more than a day or two. And each trip I take plenty of photos and write plenty of notes that I can update the corresponding Wikipedia articles.
That said I do sympathize with your current frustration but as Toby said all "damage" to any article is eventually fixed. Reverts are easy. But doing them right away doesn't always work - I've found that a few weeks of allowing the other person to cool off makes it possible to make the change you want and most of the time the other person either doesn't really care anymore or doesn't even notice the change. We also need to be tolerant of the different but completely valid conventions that different large dialects of English have. However, we do need to have documentation to back certain "conventions" up (such as the capitalization of mammal common names). So long as it is proven that a certain large dialect of English uses a certain convention then we should respect that (such as the two different date formats). IMO pushing for one and relying on a winner takes all approach for something like date formats alienates those people who use the other format (esp if the option getting the largest single share of votes gets only 30% of the total - that's evil!).
I hope this note finds you well - you and your contributions are much needed here. Our Irish history section was a sad joke before you cam along. :) --mav
You say it's slow right now? It's not slow for me, everything's happening in under 5 seconds. You want me to archive your talk page for you? -- Tim Starling 07:08 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Gave up waiting for a response :)
Re: Droop Quota, I'm perfectly happy for nothing that I wrote to appear in the final edit. I have no emotional attachment to this article. :-)
There's one thing I don't understand - your insistence that rounding doesn't happen. I've already asked a question that I think will settle this matter:
Suppose the Droop Quota gives a value of 5000.5 ; Does a candidate need to get 5000 votes, or 5001? This is a simple question, give me a simple answer. :-) Evercat 13:16 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Would you please provide the name of the person and the address for the Press Officer of the Late Late Show (Radio Telifís Éireann) so we can note it properly to protect Wikipedia just in case someone should question the copyright of [Image:Patkenny.jpg] you uploaded.