User talk:Gerardm

Welcome

Hello, Gerardm, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

I've removed the xenisucks.com link, per previous discussion on Talk:Xeni Jardin. Thanks for being bold nonetheless. --Christopherlin 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from edit warring and watch yourself on Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. --Christopherlin 21:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; forgot about that.--Gerardm 22:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xeni Entry

Gerard, your entry regarding criticism on the Xeni page requires more information than just the claim that criticism exists, and that 1 person wrote a removal bot for her entries. Can you provide a more NPOV entry, perhaps citing critical evaluation of her work, direct information from a critical source, etc? The Wikipedia idea is not to pursue personal likes or dislikes, but to provide information of a useful nature: what is important to me is important to me, but no one else really cares. CMacMillan 22:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think my entry is entirely from a NPOV; I have no bias/love for Xeni Jardin either way. As I have consistenly said, if it weren't for Xeni Jardin existing, the script and site would not exist. The very fact Xeni Jardin's work has prompted the creation of these two entities warrants exclusion. My only concern is what you call it; maybe criticism is the wrong word. --Gerardm 22:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pssst i replied to you on my talk page.. not sure if you'd see it or not. but seriously, if you're actually dedicated to this crap, why don't you try and balance out the article? err seriously, i mean it.. please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.15.224 (talk • contribs)

Hi-- we're discussing the unverified stuff you just added back to the Xeni criticism section on the talk page. Please come share your thought there. Thanks! Jokestress 07:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting up those citations. I'll discuss them with you there. I removed your grammar flame and sarcastic comments on the talk page per WP:CIVIL. You need to assume good faith in other editors. The reason Wikipedia works is that those sorts of comments aren't allowed. My only interest is stabilizing this article with verifiable facts. Jokestress 18:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please refrain from statements with the word "you" in them. They are almost always about the person, not the content. Thanks. Jokestress 23:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can only assume you are either a) stupid or b) a bully. The statement I made was directly for 'you'. Of course it was about the person, ie you. Duh. --Gerardm 00:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "you"

The following statements are disruptive and unproductive:

Is that the logic you work by?
Now *you* want to take that voice away because *you* deem their views to be non-notable or not substantive.
You make a mockery of the Internet and Wikipedia with your transparent attempt to hide any criticism of Xeni Jardin and quote meaningless Wiki guidlines whilst at the same time flouting them. Essentially being a bully who hides behind their keyboard.

As an exercise in maintaining the civility that is Wikipedia policy, try writing without using the word "you." This will resolve most of the confrontational and accusatory language on talk pages. That kind of stuff is fine on blogs and livejournals and what-not, but Wikipedia requires that editors be civil to each other. Save the rhetoric for other forums. That way we can focus on the article content, not the personalities or opinions of contributors. Please give it a try, and most of the unnecessary conflict will disappear. Thanks. Jokestress 00:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice of you to preach to me about being civil *yet* YOU decided to strike through what I had written on the discussion page. I say again; pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

Those statements are not disruptive and unproductive; they highlight prerfectly your attitude here. Also, where does it say on Wikipedia that I can not use the word "you" in discussions? --Gerardm 00:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting it as a way to move on and focus on the article's content. Please give it a try. Thanks. Jokestress 00:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case get lost. How dare you try to suggest that the use of the word "you" is somehow against the spirit of Wikipedia.--Gerardm 02:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the whole thing would be less confrontational if we all refrained from using the vowel 'e'. How about we give that a try? Perhaps if we make it wiki policy to not use the vowel 'e'? Dstanfor 19:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hoi,
Your name is rather similar to mine .. :) GerardM 12:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lampard photo

Hi Gerard, A while back I uploaded an image to commons that I had found on flickr. I just realized that you've got another another version of this image on your website, which is sharper than the flickr version. I was wondering if this sharper image was also licensed under the same license. If so, I'd like to upload that version to commons. Cheers, jaco♫plane 12:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it; it is the same photo but I have played around with it in Photoshop.--Gerardm 12:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]