User talk:Jtrost

[edit] Do we need to have some arbitration?

You were the only one to object to my edits. You said to take it to the talk page. I have done so. You have not responded there. I also note that you have reverted other edits. So you know, simple reverting without discussion is considered disruptive. With unexplained reverts, it appears that you are going contrary to WP:OWN.

If you request a discussion, then you should discuss. If you do not discuss, there can be no discussion.

I feel that you have been aggressive and unfair. Do we need to go to an arbitration or RfC? --Blue Tie 14:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm asking that you please be civil and assume good faith, and not jump straight to arbitration when someone disagrees with you. I replied to your comment as soon as I could. Unfortunately, I do not have the luxury of time to visit Wikipedia every day. Regarding the issue at hand, discussing changes to the Lost template is something that is always done regardless of the size of the change. If you take a look through the history there's discussion about just about every change, big and small. You should have discussed adding Lostpedia before adding it, per the status quo. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 23:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. If you point to an example of incivility I would like to apologize for it.

Although you do not have the luxury of time to visit wikipedia every day, you had sufficient time to revert my edit within minutes and without an appropriate comment. A comment to describe why there is an objection is appropriate, not just reverts. Incidentally, contrary to your assertion of seeking discussion first, the idea on wikipedia is not to discuss first and then edit but rather to edit first and then discuss if there is a problem. If you are interested in learning about that as the wikipedia method, I can direct you to a number of comments in policy, guidelines and essays.

And that was the approach I originally took... in good faith. I specifically requested an explanation, you simply reverted and told ME to take it to the talk page... you never gave one word there to explain the problem. So, while I did originally exercise good faith, I did not see it in return, but rather a somewhat aggressive and confrontational stance.

I used the word "arbitration" loosely to include RfC or Mediation. I have the feeling that you have taken some sort of special ownership and, even in the paragraph above, you are apparently applying and enforcing your own set of rules to that page, contrary to wikipedia policy and guidelines. I am perfectly willing to exercise good faith if you have not done that, but your actions so far, have been in that direction. If that is the case, (and you would know best how you feel about things) we should not take a great deal of time fiddling with a discussion that will not go anywhere -- just bring in other commentators right away. Do you disagree or do you think a discussion will lead to a resolution without that? Test your own mind and feel out whether you feel inclined to compromise or not -- you are the only person who has objected.

On that note, I have replied to your reason on the talk page. You reason seems to be unsubstantiated, given that the area of the nav box is "Miscellaneous" and the link was to a wikipedia article. --Blue Tie 00:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International broadcasters

Hello Jtrost, I was hoping you'd be willing to comment at Talk:Lost (TV series)#International broadcasters. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 00:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Vaughan

Nick Vaughan has been renominated for AfD --Kevin Murray 21:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:LostDVD2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:LostDVD2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New WikiProject Illinois Collaboration Division

Hey, saw you were a participant in the Illinois WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rousseau

Per this edit, the character meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, AfD the article if you wish, however you have no consensus to redirect. HTH HAND. Matthew 14:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)