User:JDoorjam/Archive04

Please click here to leave me a new message.

(Stolen from Redwolf24, who, in turn, stole it from Linuxbeak.) For the sake of continuity, I will respond on my own talk page to messages left here.

Two things

1) Sorry I wasn't there to help at your VfD. See My talk page.

2) This may sound a bit rude but its not meant to, its just a piece of Wikiquette. Do not remove things from your talk page. (i.e. my welcome.) You can always make User:JDoorjam/Archive01 and post old discussions there. thanks,

Redwolf24 22:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Nikki Hemming

I have rewritten this article in order to establish notability. I would be grateful if you could have a look and see what you think. Capitalistroadster 05:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Mark H. Pritchard

Restoring the NPOV edit on Bush

Re:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&action=history

Thank you for restoring the spirit of my:(NPOV about the petro/oil issue which has come to the debate on Bush's policy(s) in Iraq.) It please's me to see that you saw through the ruse when the NPOV about the petro/oil issue on the Bush page was taken out shortly after.. only because someone somebody somewhere.. did not like the implication(s) if any that it might bring upon George Walker Bush our 43rd U.S. President.

best regards, Cathy (Cathytreks 21:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bush Sydney J. UK Optometrist/Researcher/Inventor: Introduced Cardioretinometry December 2002.

Please revisit the discussion. Uncle G 12:06:31, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

Cornell and Western Union

Hi! Regarding the last edit where you have included that Cornell was the founder of Western Union, I think it's much more appropriate and accurate to put that he was a founder or co-founder. Or even better, some statement like, "He was a pioneer in the telegraph industry who was instrumental in the founding of Western Union" would be nice. Perhaps that's a little too weaselly, but it avoids taking sides in what I believe to be a more or less ambiguous and unclear situation. Let me know what you think. I think it's best to avoid overly antagonizing people. --Chan-Ho 13:13, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Another thing: I think the source I found and you cited in your edit is not really appropriate in the article. It was meant to show the anon that yes indeed some reputable source did construe the historical facts in a different way than the anon does. But I don't know if I really would agree with the Columbia Encyclopedia. A more careful analysis would be required (e.g. how large was each company before the merger, how important were Cornell's telegraph lines in terms of location, etc.) in order to conclude that one side was the founder and the others were just add-ons. It might be that the proper conclusion is that it was a stand-off and both sides got exactly what they wanted in which case it's not justified to pick either Cornell or Sibley as the founder. --Chan-Ho 13:22, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I wholly agree; let's do it. JDoorjam 13:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Language choices

"a band is a type of ensemble -- no difference between the two words should be implied" - I don't agree with you there, the two words have very different connotations. Few if any of the groups listed on the a cappella page would consider themselves an "ensemble" - they're pop groups or bands. "Ensemble" may be dictionary correct, but in practice seems overly formal. (I didn't change it back, I just wanted to reply to your comment -- I'm new to editing wikipedia and trying to get a feel for how these things go.) Snackwell 14:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. I agree with your contention that "ensemble" is overly formal -- what do you think of using the word "groups"? I also agree with what you said about a lot of those groups thinking of themselves as bands, rather than "ensembles," so I would suggest an expansion of the article to talk about modern a cappella. It might even make sense to talk about the change from more classical, formal groups to what I've largely heard referred to as vocal bands in its own article. I can probably crank out a paragraph and/or a stub for vocal bands, but if you're up to the task, you should definitely plug that info in. Again, welcome to Wiki! JDoorjam 15:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! I agree that the a cappella page could use some tweaking to differentiate between classical and modern. I'll take a stab at it -- I'll start writing and see if it feels like a para in the existing article, or a new page. Snackwell 15:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Done. As you suggested, I just added a bit to the main a cappella page -- no need for a separate vocal band page when contemporary a cappella already exists. I also added external links to some of the big organizations. And again as you suggested, I changed the header to "groups." Here's a question -- should this page really list groups like it does, when there is a category for a cappella musical groups? Snackwell 15:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

See my changes (and similar changes to collegiate a cappella). JDoorjam 16:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the cleanup. One last tweak from me -- added 'contemporary' link to the See Also. See you around. Snackwell 17:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Harvard: Thanks.

A definite improvement. Thanks. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ohio State changes

As I said in the edit, I agree with most you've done except for the ranking (which I edited). The section on noted programs (linguistics, political science...) needs improvement and I thought I would see what you thought. It needs referenced, though I would prefer not to string together various rankings that are less widely circulated. Any ideas? PS - Your edits to Public Ivies are very good. Rkevins82 23:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! The way this has been handled on other, similar pages is through linking with footnotes to articles that make reference to the assertion being made. Not everything has to be a ranking; just finding a reliable source that says "X department is really good" should be enough if you put in a link [2] like so. Sorry if I was overly hasty in deleting swathes of OSU -- in trying to fix NPOV stuff I often get a bit overzealous. Cheers, JDoorjam 23:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Southern Ivies

JDoorjam, did you redirect the Southern Ivies article? That article had been put up for a vote, and the consensus was "keep". I may be misunderstanding your role in that, but if you did delete it that seems very unfair. (unsigned comment by Vandy)

I did redirect it. The consensus was not keep; there simply was no consensus. The article, IMHO, should be deleted. I set up the Redir a while ago and no one seemed terribly kerfuffled by it. I wasn't trying to be sneaky about it; I left a comment explaining what I did and why. To be frank, the only reason I didn't AfD it is because there was already a deletion log in that name space. JDoorjam 12:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandy, redirecting is not deleting. AfD outcomes don't carry any special weight regarding what should be done with an article that is kept. Redirects, merges, etc. are ordinary edits that don't require a sysop's intervention and are hashed out just like any other edits, on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Deletions can be accomplished only by a sysop and are irreversible by non-sysops, which is why they get special treatment. You can happily edit-war with JDoorJam and flip the article back and forth from a redirect to an article just as you can with any other edit... or you can talk and build consensus, just as you can with any other edit. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Blazed a different path

I don't know whether you're joking, or whether you don't understand that literal meaning of "blazing" here isn't to set fire, but to mark a trail by with light-colored patches by chopping bark off trees; hence, figuratively, to pioneer. I agree with you that it's unnecessary embellishment... Dpbsmith (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, yes, that was a joke. Hyperbole seems to be an effective method of highlighting puffery (and Jefferson the arsonist is an amusing mental image). Especially on that page, there is a lot of very small, systematic embellishment creep -- the best example off-hand is at Public Ivies, actually, where User:Uris switched from language that implied U.Va. was copying Dartmouth, to neutral language... back to the old language but in U.Va's favor this time. After I changed it, he put in more language implying U.Va's superiority, at least in terms of a timeline, this time in a parenthetical. I end up being pickier than I like to be... but otherwise both U.Va. and Public Ivies will become property of the U.Va. alumni association. JDoorjam 16:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There's "embellishment creep" on every university page. The thing that's particularly annoying is that it is contagious. AFAIK the first university article to mention Washington Monthly's rankings wasMIT, just possibly because MIT ranks first on that list and fifth or sixth on a lot of others... now Washington Monthly rankings are showing up everywhere.

The commonest objection to removing any of it is that "well, [rival] university's article says this..." Dpbsmith (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I must guiltily say, letting your alma mater off the hook, that I believe I started the Washington Monthly rush, actually -- I put Cornell's #4 ranking up the day before the mag came out (I have a friend who works there). This was about when I realized I couldn't be a conflict-of-interest-free editor of that page. JDoorjam 17:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record you have, perhaps accidently, misrepresented my actions on that page. First I said the buildings at UVa "echoed" some of those I have experienced at Dartmouth. That was me. Then I removed it when I started to doubt it wasn't the other way around. After I researched it and realized that the UVa buildings were built first, I used "predate", which is factual and neutral (compared to "echoed" that I used in DARTMOUTH'S favor). Uris 18:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed that you have a tendency to present facts as skewed toward U.Va's favor wherever that is possible, including here. This is an example of where the age of the place was completely irrelevant but seems to have been included because it was an opportunity to talk about U.Va's age. I have no doubts whatsoever that you edit in good faith; however, your edits are quite prone to U.Va. boosterism, a point I was trying to make earlier. I have never seen you intentionally add something to Wikipedia that was false; indeed, much of the content I've seen of yours has been not only factual, but pertinent and interesting. I have, however, seen many edits of yours that were clearly from a non-neutral standpoint, and especially at Public Ivies, have seen edits that seemed to have little actual bearing on the subject, and were there simply to call attention to the accolades of your alma mater. JDoorjam 19:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, I inserted the "irrelevant" part about age in Dartmouth's favor to no objection. Only when I realized that UVa's buildings were older and made the wording more neutral did you object. Also, we are all prone to this phenomenon here, as your edits are probably similar regarding your own alma mater. You seem to be very defensive about the public nature of Cornell's contract colleges, for instance. Your wording related to Cornell is always positive and not entirely neutral.

And on that subject, is it easier to gain admission to Cornell as a New York resident? Do NY residents pay lower tuition? Something about these facts, whichever way they are, probably needs to be included instead of glossed over as "Cornell is 100% private", which you always seem to want to leave it at and move on.

–Uris 19:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I want accuracy for my alma mater, but I wouldn't call it defensiveness. You're absolutely right, though: we're all prone to defending those institutions (and people and things and places...) that we care about. That's why I largely avoid editing Cornell: I know I'm biased.

I'm not sure, to be honest, whether it's easier to get in as a NY resident. In the contract colleges, yes, tuition is lower for in-state students. I want to leave it at "Cornell is 100% private" not because I don't want to mention the contract units -- shout it from the rooftops! -- but because the point of the "Public Ivies" page isn't about the peculiarities of any one college (sound familiar?), but is about comparing a specific group of colleges with another specific group of colleges, at least in the first paragraph. If you want to create a new section exploring the peculiarity of Cornell's arrangement with the State of New York, and can do so in a way that is in the context of talking about the "Public Ivies" and isn't already fully explored at statutory colleges and Cornell, both of which link off the Public Ivy page, I'd fully support that. I just think it weakens the impact of the article to go in the very first paragraph on a tangent about Cornell's administrative arrangement with NY.

Oh, I'd never suggest anything of the sort in the first paragraph of Public Ivies. That would just be silly. I am in complete agreement that the footnote is most appropriate. I hope you and other alumni do edit Cornell University however. Afterall, the rest of us probably don't know as much about the subject. Uris 20:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

<-------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, there's a whole gang of 'em who maintain the page. It's part of the reason I feel comfortable not trying to puff up the page -- I know there are plenty of alumni willing to do it in my stead! ;-) JDoorjam 20:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

Thou shalt not give Hitler posthumous victories.

Hi, I'm the article creator and I'd like to thank you for urging not to merge. Would you like to offer productive suggestions about the article now that it's nearly finished? I'm deciding which of several potential redirects is best for the main title and considering where to categorize it. Also, since you look like you know the subject, I'd appreciate content feedback. I've done my best to treat this sensitive topic in a balanced and tasteful way. Durova 19:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely; I'll take a look and add it to my watch list. I should mention that this will probably not be the last time it's sent to AfD; things with "Hitler" in them that people are not immediately familiar with tend to get a knee-jerk reaction like that; people assume there's some sort of hidden anti-semitic message. JDoorjam 19:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

In this case it was just a trigger happy new article patroller. I've been having problems with my computer and need to save frequently. The article was about two paragraphs long and had three references when it went up. Doesn't seem to have been a bias issue. Thanks for the advice. Durova 20:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Festivus

When you removed the example of Festivus out of the secularisation paragraph in War on Christmas, it made me very sad. I feel that it is an appropriate casual reference, but more importantly, it is funny. And humour is neccesary in articles such as that. Please be a good sport, and put it back in! --sansvoix 06:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. You could also check the talk section debate for that section too if you have time! Thanks.

I agree, Festivus is pretty hilarious. I disagree, however, that the War on Christmas -- or any article, really -- needs humor (humour?), especially given the naturally ridiculous nature of that topic. I suspect that what might come out of this is an article about the secularization (secularisation?) of Christmas, and on such an article, a mention of Festivus might make sense. Until then, IMHO, it belongs (beloungs? no, that's just ridiculous) where it is currently mentioned: on its own page. Cheers, JDoorjam 16:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

University of California, Irvine

While I agree that most of the edits you made to the article are a definite improvement, I'm afraid I have to take issue with your removal of the UCI related jokes. While I certainly agree that taken alone jokes are not encyclopedic, the jokes are notable in the context of shedding light on the student culture and attitudes at UCI and are discussed at length on the talk page along with references documenting their widespread use both among students and the surrounding community. -Loren 18:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool -- feel free to put them back. I was just being bold as I went through, but if there are references for 'em somewhere, slap the humor back in the article, throw in some links, and it sounds like it'd be good to go. Cheers, JDoorjam 18:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

University of Arizona

JDoorjam: Believe me, I greatly appreciate you taking the time to supply input on the UA article. However, by making such radical changes without first utilizing the article's discussion page, you are insulting many contributors (not including myself) who have taken the time to add citable information. It appears you are on a "rampage" and not working for the good of the community so to speak. Of course, exercise your editing judgment as you wish, but know that other people will as well. It is much better to reach an understanding BEFORE an entire overhaul of an article. I do appreciate your time. AZCactus1 00:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)