User talk:Jayzel68/Archive2

Mosque FAC Comment

I've replied to your comment in the Mosque FAC. joturn e r

Hurricane Katrina

You pretty much undid all of your edits by blindy reverting. I'm trying to get a conversation at Talk:Hurricane Katrina of what to add to the page, as there were objections to the objections you brought up at WT:FAC. Unnecessary rhetoric at the talk page and at WT:FAC doesn't advance your cause much, though, so try editing and helping to solve them instead. Tito xd^(?!?) 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

04:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Reponse to your comments on FAC

Hi, on the nomination page you stated: "When you respond, please do not whine and nash your teeth. It will not help you get this named as a featured article. And it can be one if you actually try. Look at spoo] for tips"

First of all with the kinds of responses i'm getting It's very hard not to get pissed off. I'm controling my frustration here but the people who respond are truly the toughest bunch of people ever. I can't belive that one of them actualy wanted to delete the article. If you were in my position you would be just as pissed trust me. Now, you said that it can be one if I acutaly try. Trust me ive been trying. I worked on this article for 8 hours today. Ive read spoo 6 times now. What does it have that I don't? I don't see it. I have included all known information on the subject on mine. The refrnces on the page are the only ones that exist. How could i possibly add more? Tobyk777 07:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Welcome to VandalProof== Thanks for your interest in VandalProof! You've been added to the list of authorized users, and feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page if you have any questions. AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torchic FAC

Thank you for supporting Torchic's FA nomination, I'm sorry for any hurtful feelings I may have caused you. If you have any further notes on how this could be improved, please leave them on the nomination page. Cheers, H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 23:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof 1.1 is Now Available For Download

Happy Easter to all of you, and I hope that this version may fix your current problems and perhaps provide you with a few useful new tools. You can download version 1.1 at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Let me warn you, however, to please be extremely careful when using the new Rollback All Contributions feature, as, aside from the excessive server lag it would cause if everyone began using it at once, it could seriously aggitate several editors to have their contributions reverted. If you would like to experiment with it, though, I'd be more than happy to use my many sockpuppets to create some "vandalism" for you to revert. If you have any problems downloading, installing, or otherwise, please tell me about them at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs and I will do my best to help you. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Freeh

Hello and compliments on all your contributions, your additions to the Louis Freeh article in particular. I see that you have been barnstarred for your work on improving citations, something badly needed in this project. These days I'm very keen on the idea of "Featuredifying" articles - if you would like to collaborate on one, please let me know, I'd love to work with you. Regards, Paul 15:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Hi! I see you've been to Hungary. I'm hungarian. :) BTW what are your exact plans about FA procedure? A committee? In what kind of form? I'm curious about it because I try to improve hungarian wiki's FA procedure as well. There I've established a system where we can vote for which featured article should appear on the front page. NCurse_work 15:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Jayzel68, your contributions to Wikipedia have been most valuable and you are rewarded with this picture gallery...

Image:Tickle me elmo.jpg Hope you return soon... Addhoc 16:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Turkey

Alright, that's good but shouldn't there be some sort of mention in Foreign Relations section? This issue has soured relations between Turkey and many countries, the latest to be France and Argentina (the latter for the 2nd time). It may also be a roadblock between acceptance of Turkey in the EU as once proposed. Part of the reason why Turkey and Armenia do not have diplomatic relations and do not even have their borders open is because of the Armenian Genocide. If you check my links, it may also damage US-Turkish relations which is a big NATO friendship and Turkey is doing all it can to stop an Armenian bill from being considered in Congress. Fedayee 19:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive approach :)) Baristarim 19:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take it upon myself to remove it. I was the one who merged them under the foreign relations section in the first place. I just said that I was going to look at it. There were concerns in the talk page that the There was a vandal attacking the page non-stop for the last 36 hours, and I didn't have the time to work on this. The version where I merged the sections under foreign relations is the more appropriate version. Any country article is prone to relative unstability :) I had reverted to the FAC version in the past [1] before I merged them under foreign relations. I simply cannot be everywhere all the time!! If there need to be improvements, they can be discussed in the talk page. Cheers! Baristarim 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to the original version [2], and later reverted myself to User:Kilhan's version with a note that I would take a look at it again very soon. I had been leaving constant notes on the talk page. In any case, all I want to say is that other users can keep an eye on the article as well. That's not bad faith. I am sorry that you feel that way however. I merged the contents here [3], much earlier. Working to address the concerns on the FAC is excluded from the stability criteria. Otherwise how can the edits be done? Vandal attacks are also excluded, there is not much I can do if someone decides to attack the page with four sockpuppets right on New Year's Eve.Baristarim 20:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, if you can please keep an eye on the article as well. The actual version is a shorter version of what I had merged last night. It should and will stay that way. Please also try to understand that I am trying to do my best in the midst of the holiday season trying to address the concerns in the FAC to the best possible way. The Armenian genocide is mentioned both as how it relates to the AR-TR and TR-AZER relations, as well as in a historical perspective. Baristarim 20:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really nice.. There are Turkish users who are accusing me of being an agent of George Soros [4], and others who accuse me of not acting in good faith. I am simply trying to improve the article.. When I had said I was going to take a look at it soon, I meant it. That's not bad faith. Look at this [5].. Do not confuse efforts to try to find a solution to improve the article with bad faith. You could have given me some more time, or leave a note to my talk page, or simply try to fix the article yourself. The article is not my property you know :)Pff... Happy new year anyways... Baristarim 21:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, however I left an edit summary where I said that I was going to take a look at it soon. I know exactly what you mean about future vandalism. I left a note at fedayee's talk page. As far as I am concerned, I have no more modifications to the article. So if someone reverts, please let me know. I had removed the anon's delete and the addition of a weird source [6] while work was in progress to address the FAC's concerns. Personally, I also thought the inclusion in the history section looked out of place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baristarim (talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Turkey

(i accidentally hit save before i finished my comment :))

I understand, however I left an edit summary where I said that I was going to take a look at it soon. I know exactly what you mean about future vandalism. I also left a note at fedayee's talk page. As far as I am concerned, I have no more modifications to the article, I really would like to move on - I spent nearly one month on that article. I was going to do some work on the exec of Saddam, but not so fast apparently :) So if someone reverts, please let me know. I had removed the anon's delete and the addition of a weird source [7] while work was in progress to address the FAC's concerns. Personally, I also thought the inclusion in the history section looked out of place. However I tried to revert edits that were not in line with talks at FAC or talk page [8]. I have been getting some hate email too because of that edit, so I am really trying to find a way out and keep the article away from edit warring. I was not happy with the middle sentence in the foreign relations bit where it dwelled too much on details of what happened when, so I took it out as well. As far as I am concerned, people can follow the wikilinks and learn more about the subject there. If people want to work on those articles, that's where they should be working. I am aware that the article might be some attract-fly, but the latest version is the most concise and matter-of-fact way of putting it IMO. I personally cannot do it any better. You are not obliged to change your vote at all. That's not why I put up my post. If it fails, I will renominate it as is, that's not a problem - i have time :) But just know that I have been doing all sorts of reverts, merges, notes on the talk pages of many users and articles. It is not easy work. As I said, keep the article on your watchlist, let me know if any deletes have taken place - now or in the future. Cheers Baristarim 22:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B movie

Not sure you were planning to return to the article and its talk page, so here's my response to What the!?:

"Duped?" By whom? In what manner? The article was nominated by Andman8 on December 22. At that point I had been the primary contributor to the article for the preceding two or three months. Once I realized it was nominated, I soon began working on it intensively to (a) respond to the comments raised in the FAC and to (b) raise it to the comprehensiveness necessary for FA status. That extensive work was ongoing when you supported the article for FA-hood on December 27. Further work was all done in the same spirit as the work happening then: broadening coverage, bringing in more hard data, making descriptions more precise, adding better sourcing, tying historical periods together, giving more detail on Poverty Row studios, giving more detail on relevant promotional and exhibition practices, discussing all crucial persons, adding helpful and informative images, etc.

Is it really helpful to talk about being "duped"? Who "duped" you? Andman8? Me? How exactly were you deceived? You registered your support on 15:57, 27 December 2006. Compare the article then with its state less than 24 hours before [9]; look at the history and see the rate at which I was working at the point when you registered support. The article remained under FAC for two weeks after you registered support; when it was deemed by the administrator that consensus for FA status existed, the article was essentially in its current state. (After status was awarded, I [a] added two last images, [b] covered an additional, significant motivation for 1930s exhibitors to switch to double-billing, and [c] in fact, eliminated some old information that was weakly sourced and only trivially relevant.) You had all that time to weigh in again. It's difficult to understand how you could feel "duped."

If you have constructive criticisms, I'd love to hear them. It is a long article, but it's a very complex topic--covering a wide range of industrial practices and products; intricate relationships between art, commerce, politics, and broader cultural movements; a host of significant people in different occupations; major shifts in the entire field from decade to decade; and major complications in the basic meaning of the term and its various synonyms. You seem to feel that it is too long. How so? What, if any, places in the article do you think provide unhelpful and counterproductive detail? Best, Dan—DCGeist 06:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. I suspect you may feel that the article's length reflects some sort of self-indulgence. Hardly. As long as it is, it doesn't mention many of my favorite B movies--Carnival of Souls, God Told Me To, Panic in Year Zero, The Seventh Victim, Murder by Contract. It's entirely aimed at educating anyone interested in the topic in the import of the B movie, in its origins and the industrial context in which that occurred, in all its different permutations and various meanings, in the nature and the reasons for its many transformations over the decades, in the effect it's had on higher-budgeted filmmaking and vice versa. If there's anywhere in the article you think that purpose is lost, let me know. Best, D—DCGeist 07:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you've not only mastered inflammatory language ("duped") and the inability to apologize for it, you seem to be getting a handle on the Wikilawyering threat of Wikidoom. Though it's hardly relevant at this point in time, you can quote FA criteria up and down (some of it incorrectly, like your misinformed notion of "unacceptable" image use), but you can't think of a single thing to say that would improve the article, which is the purpose of all our efforts here. Why did I have a feeling you'd be too "busy" to provide constructive criticism? Way to support the project, buddy.—DCGeist 19:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, strange priorities, my friend. You're a lot more worried about that "little brown star" than I am. I just want the best article possible for Wikipedia's readership, something you still have not evidenced the slightest interest in—despite the fact that I sought your help (remember "If there's anywhere in the article you think that purpose is lost, let me know. Best, D") even after your initial claim of feeling "duped." I see now that "fancy shmancy hot air" is Jayzel-speak for "I continue to uphold the high standards the Wikipedia community has set for itself even though I have nothing positive to contribute."

I'll try to pare away the fancy-schmancy so you get it:

(A) I didn't nominate the article—without consulting me, Andman8 nominated it before I thought it was ready. That is evident from the entire history of both the FAC and the communication between you and me.
(B) You voted to support the article when all the evidence showed it was unstable.
(C) You complained that the article was unstable when all the evidence showed it had become stable.
(D) You continue to complain about being "duped," when any fool could see that "duping" would require the dupers to avoid expanding while the article was under FAC and then do their dirty work after the little brown star was awarded.
(E) You complain repeatedly about the article's length without ever having offered a single suggestion about what to do about it.
(F) You make an ill-founded comparison to articles whose summary style and compression rely on heavy-duty Wikipedia resources not available to B movie. When the poor basis of your comparison is detailed, you try to dismiss the entire exchange by catcalling the contrary evidence "fancy shmancy hot air."
(G) You continue to make up your own policies for fair use of images (17's not good for an article covering eight decades years worth of movies? OK—what's the magic number?).

Some standards.—DCGeist 07:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B movie redux

Those all sound like fine ideas. I've never been wedded to the C/Z/psychotronic business--that was all grandfathered in from an organizational standpoint. I'll get to the image sizing in the next couple days. I want to take off a week or two before grappling with the content of this beast again, but your proposals sound good. I'll take a crack at it and we can reconnoiter. Best, Dan—DCGeist 07:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Focus

What's your Wikipedia focus - national security, foreign affairs, and corruption? ~ Rollo44 04:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]