User talk:Jwy/Archives/2009/January

AfD nomination of Oak Knoll School (K-5)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Oak Knoll School (K-5), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oak Knoll School (K-5). Thank you. —W. Flake (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your Hilbert edit + Stegner

re Hilbert: I too wondered what was meant by the edit, but figured that the proof is a non-constructive, reductio ad absurdum, that Hilbert was famous for. I didn't want to edit something about a proof I know nothing about . . ..

re Angle of Repose: I'm reading Stegner's biography by Philip L. Fradkin, and last I night skipped to where Angle of Repose comes into the discussion. I wish I'd met Stegner. I was at Stanford when he was busily writing in the hills above the campus. I took a creative writing class from Nancy Packer (she's mentioned a number of times in the biography). She recommended Angle of Repose to me, and I've read it twice. I really liked Crossing to Safety, too, and have loaned the book out a number of times to friends. After I finish reading the bio I'll take a look at the wiki article -- I'm quite surprised to read that there's controversy concerning his use of the historical materials . . . . Stegner is quite clear that the family gave him clear use of the material, and that the novel is based the lives of a real couple. Stegner didn't pull punches, as was clear in Crossing to Safety. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Reporting spammers

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam --Orange Mike | Talk 01:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

DAB

I'm not sure if you caught my last mistake on a DAB page but I can see the policy intent now. I'll spend some time familiarizing myself with the MOSDAB some time soon. Right now I just wanted to say thanks for the well explained edit summary.--OMCV (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. The best way to thank me is to continue with good edit summaries yourself! (John User:Jwy talk) 18:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

DAB

I'm not sure if you caught my last mistake on a DAB page but I can see the policy intent now. I'll spend some time familiarizing myself with the MOSDAB some time soon. Right now I just wanted to say thanks for the well explained edit summary.--OMCV (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. The best way to thank me is to continue with good edit summaries yourself! (John User:Jwy talk) 18:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Candice Wiggins

I don't know about the sock puppetry, but I am still in assume good faith mode with User:Julianster about the Wiggins photo. The .jpg.jpg version, of which the one you just deleted was a copy, does have an attribution to a Flickr account which I believe means it falls under the appropriate copyright. It looks like Julianster may be learning. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I don't have a problem with a newcomer who is learning, but when multiple accounts are used I get very suspicious. Regardless of the status of the Candice Wiggins image, I have no doubt this person has used multiple accounts and has received numerous warnings about adding images inappropriately. He added an image on another page that was clearly a copyright violation. When I left him a warning, he tried to tell me someone else had logged into his account. If he'll stay away from these kinds of behaviors there won't be any problems in the future, but I wanted to make sure he knows someone is watching all of his accounts. Ward3001 (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Thanks (John User:Jwy talk) 23:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Leslie

I came across this page and am troubled by both your history of editing it, and your reversions of material I added. You seem to have taken ownership of this page, and are ignoring attempts to reach consensus on the talk page. You do not get to personally decided how long material should be, and a paragraph on one of the events she is most famous for is clearly not overlong. I personally feel the whole article could be longer, but that's my view. You seem to be editing out criticism, even where sourced. It doesn't matter that it was "an hour of her life", only how significant that hour was. By Leslie's own account, and her coaches, the event is still brought up today, and was very significant for both. Ron Artest's actions in the Brawl were considerably less than 1 hour long, but obviously deserve alot of air time. In summary if you revert this again without some kind of talk page consensus, I am going to have an admin come to deal with this. It's very questionable behaviour.JJJ999 (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Btw, I am not the only one who feels the article should be longer, the rating the independent article was given on the talk page indicates that too, noting this article is only a "start".JJJ999 (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• A slight apology, in that you did not sign a comment on the talk page I thought was from someone else that clearly is critical.JJJ999 (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Whitman

When I looked at the article contribution history, I used the revision history statistics tool and it didn't pick up on your edit the first of January, all it showed me was the last couple days. I may have jumped to conclusions on the tag-teaming, and if so, I apologize. I don't jump in and only take one person's side on this article, I really try to comment honestly from my perspective and I've not always agreed with Victor, or with Sherurcij for that matter. Victor and I have bumped heads over it in the past, but we seem to have an amicable relationship. I know there is a long history there between them, so I always try to keep that in mind. However, I have to say that until recently, Sherurcij had left the article alone. Sometimes, Victor's work needs some buff up for style and WP guidelines, but in general, he finds some relevant content and if one keeps after him, does a good job. (I'm saying this knowing he's going to read it, btw). Anyway, if I misinterpreted what was going on, I apologize. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. The history between them was the reason I left the note on the Whitman talk page saying what it did. I'm not much good, however, at being a peacemaker. :) Regards. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)