User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Archive10
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Now, don't get us wrong: Jefferey O. Gustafson, the Administrator with the blank user page, is a bit of a dick.
He picks fights like a drunk construction worker at a bar..." [1]This is the tenth talk archive. See the main archive index here.
Don't add to this page (not that you can, actually). For the active talk page for Jeffrey O. Gustafson go here.
Random message
What do you know about FRL and facilities granted by the French governments to make inappropriated modifications ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.216.21.218 (talk • contribs).
Wakka wakka wakka
Per this admin's request, I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you. Observe:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts
--GordonWatts 07:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I do not consider myself a party to any such RFAR mainly because there has been no conflict between us. Indeed, all I did was express an opinion on the community noticeboard, and we have otherwise never directly interacted. I have never blocked you, reverted you, edited an article you've edited, or used any administrative action in any way whatsoever against you or anything related to you. And even if there was such a conflict (which there is not aside from difference of opinion), the conflict resolution process between us has not been followed. I have expressed my opinion and will not be punished for doing so, nor dragged into what will likely be a needlessly long, excruciating, large winded, and poorly formatted RFAR. Thus, all future correspondence from you will be ignored and I will not otherwise interact with you (as I was unlikely to have anyway). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Request an account
We need to discuss an appropriate way to handle names that already exist. I've been removing them and e-mailing the users in question to pick a new username. Replying on the Request an account page is an issue, because most of the editors of that page overwrite other people's requests as it is, and more text can only make it more confusing. Ral315 » 22:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- My issue with that is simplicity- most people who can find the username change page know what they're doing; most anons don't. I can see people screwing up because they accidentally hit
[instead of{, etc. Half the time they can't even add their own information without overwriting someone else's information... Ral315 » 01:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Dwight Gustafson
I removed the AfD from Dwight Gustafson. The many hits that you've noticed have largely been plagiarized from this article rather than the other way around. A few months ago when my wife noted a a couple sentences about DG in the local newspaper, she said, "That sounds just like you." The reporter had changed only a few details from the Wiki article and actually made his bio less correct in the process. Gives the phrase "reproduced widely" a whole new meaning--John Foxe 13:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Incorrect, you removed the Prod - you are not permitted to remove an AfD, which I have just initiated. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- As creator of the article, I would have appreciated it if you had notified me when you did so.--John Foxe 11:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
FYI
I removed what appeared to be vandalism from your userpage and replaced it with the {{userpage}} tag for identifying it as a userpage. You can do what you like with the rest. Hope that is alright. Smee 08:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
- Thanks. I've redeleted my page. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Whoa, how do you redelete your own page?? Smee 09:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
- Oh, nevermind. Smee 09:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
- I was going to say Magic! but I guess you figured it out. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hehe, just weird to see an Admin w/out a userpage, but oh well. Later... Smee 09:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
- I was going to say Magic! but I guess you figured it out. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, nevermind. Smee 09:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
- Whoa, how do you redelete your own page?? Smee 09:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
Thank You
Thank You for recovering my user page Whlee 14:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Imposter
Done. G.He 17:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
NPA means NPA even if the member isn't in the best community regard at the moment
There are numerous ways of expressing disapproval of a person's behaviour that are constructive, helpful, and not in violation of our behavioural codes. This was not one of them. Based on your comments you obviously believe the Wikipedia administration should possess high ethical standards and judgment. Might I remind you that avoiding rash words is an important part of both? --tjstrf talk 12:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. Understandable enough to feel distinctly less than charitable right now, but why kick a man when he's down? I don't think much of invented credentials either, with a long history of diploma mills on WP behind me, but now is a time for biting one's lip and not pouring petrol on the flames. Jimbo's statement may turn out to be the equivalent of a minister having "the Prime Minister's full confidence" (read: Pickfords will be round at ten), or it may not, but it's hard to judge in the heat of the moment. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I re-read my comment, and while I feel that it is an accurate assessment of the situation, and calmly reflects my concerns with that user and managerial issues with the foundation, ultimately the comments will be pointless in the long run and could be interpreted as incivil. Unproductive commentary that can be seen as a personal attack are just as harmful as intentional incivility and for that I was wrong and I have removed my comment. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Thank you. --tjstrf talk 23:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I for one am glad to see a certain irreverance and openlipped view from inside the Wikipedia staff. I, like many casual Wikipedia readers, came to the crash-scene to check what the drama was all about. Naturally the first impression I get is that "all hell has broken loose, we have nursed a snake at our bosom", as if someone flashed their boobs at sunday sermon. Browsing on through various pages I came upon your input, which may be a bit rash, but certainly plausible by "walks like a duck"-standards. So anyway - that one input gave me back some trust in WP again. As long as people like you go for the core of the matter and ignore vanity and irrelevant jargon I think it'll do just fine.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.67.252.30 (talk • contribs).
- I was going to say that was Brandt, but the IP comes out of Sweeden. Odd. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Antipixel
You deleted the article Antipixel for reasons of Notability. I'm having difficulty understanding how those interested in starting a new article are to have it hold if they do not themselves have enough expertise to bootstrap the initial publication. You guys at WikiPedia have really put ego in front of what this site was built on... I am referring to the wiki in case you are having difficulty following.
Wiki's are a foundation for collboration and the distribution of knowledge. If each article were perfect at their initial state, why would you need a wiki?
By the way, I didn't create Antipixel... I just spent 30 minutes offline creating the necessary content to proxide referential integrity to the article, however, cannot publish my changes since you deleted the document. And no, I have just enough time to target this message to you, but not enough time to go through arbitration with the committee and read through a ridiculous amount of text covering the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tipster (talk • contribs) 06:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
- Hello. We have standards of inclusion which the subject of your article does not meet. Thank you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough on the standards... however, I did not create the article. I was working to correct the article and provide the necessary standards. The document was created some time ago. Your timing was coincidental. Thanks.
Disekt
Why do you keep deleting my page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aeternumrecords (talk • contribs) 17:08, 3 March 2007.
- First, it is not your page. Second of all we have standards of inclusion for subject of articles, as well as more specific standards for bands, standards the subject of the article you submitted failed. Thank you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The article that I submitted does in fact meet the standards for bands. The article was removed before it was even finished. Can you tell me exactly why you claim that this unfinished article supposedly does not meet your specific standards?--Aeternumrecords 17:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. So not only does the subject of the article plainly fail our notability guidelines, but I just did a search of your submitted text, and come to find out, what you wrote is a blatant copyright violation (aside from violating NPOV and Attribution policies). Thank you so much for bringing that to my attention. If you submit anything else that violates our policies and procedures, you may face a block from editing. Again, thank you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I personally own the copyright to all of the text and photo's contained in this article. How is that a violation of Copyright? Also, how can you say that this article fails your notability guidelines when, for one, the article was not complete and you did not have all of the information, and two, there are many references to this band and its members all over wikipedia and the bands and its members releases are carried by major and large independant labels and distributors whom are clearly listed all over wikipedia? Also, the members are members and former members of several bands contained on this site.--Aeternumrecords 18:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- To your second question, Google and experience. Additionally, none of the band members, the supposed major indie labels, or their bands have any articles anywhere on Wikipedia, and only two articles (both gigantic lists) point to the Disekt page.
- To your first question, even if you did own the copyright, it is difficult to prove. But, lets assume good faith: its your material - then you are acting on behalf of the band which violates our vanity and/or conflict of interest guidelines. Even ignoring that, the submitted material is utterly and completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This is not a fan site or promotion tool, but an encyclopedia with neutrality policies that statements like this fail misserably:
-
- "Disekt creates seething dark electronic music with an edge, combining dark atmospheres and harsh breathy vocals paired with driving percussion. All of these elements combined make for a unique sound which is entrancing on CD and boils over live."
- You already have your myspace page, you do not need to use Wikipedia to advertise your little band. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I dont appreciate your condescending attitude. I have followed the guidelines of wikipedia in regards to this article. This article is no different than any other article listed on this site about this type of band. This band has releases thru and distributed by major labels and bands on major labels as well as important large independant labels. Its members are in and have been in prominent bands contained within this website. I followed a link and added information as outlined and suggested by Wikipedia. If this site violates some "vanity" clause, then you need to remove 99% of the band and music articles found on this site. This is not an advertisement. It was to be a comprehensive article about a band. The sort of article that makes up this entire site. What makes this page any different than the many other pages contained on this site that I have been a member of or labels I have releases by? How could you possibly know enough to remove this article without enough information? As I stated before.... this article was not even completed.--Aeternumrecords 19:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the Disekt page that was deleted; I'd like to believe that you were placed as an admin for Wikipedia because you displayed some level of fairness and a willingness to make sure that Wikipedia is a place that contains relevant information. I can understand and respect that, and I know it's a huge undertaking given the Wiki's size.
I'm requesting, as someone who knows the artists, and putting aside your unnecessarily condescending comments about them and their group, that you give the artists a chance to rework the article in a neutral way. I can see how the single line that you chose to quote would be outside of a neutral and informational statement, but assist us in understanding the other specific items of infringement which caused you to flag down the article so that those items can be changed as well. I'm hoping that you aren't going to take the "not my job" stance on this and will actually promote fairness on Wikipedia by providing what would take at most ten minutes of effort in trying to resolve this.
If this isn't possible then I believe pursuing arbitration, as I see is possible on Wikipedia, is the next step. BeSinRadio 20:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, arbitration is not the next step in the dispute resolution process. You're not even close to that point yet. Take the issue to WP:DRV. Also, please stick to just one account. We don't take kindly to sock puppets and if I see both accounts editing the same thing, one will get banned. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Sir, I apologize for not fully understanding the process, thank you for clarifying it for me. I clearly didn't fully research this issue before I chose to get involved. I would like to say though, that I'm not anyone that has been involved in this process prior to this point and am prepared to provide you with anything you request to prove that point to you. BeSinRadio 20:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
-
Awakening (Song)
I noticed u blocked Awakening (song) because it has been said that that isn't a radio single by Switchfoot. However, according to the bands footsoldier site footsoldiers.bandfarm.com, the single is being released this month, including a music video. So, could u undelete it? Sorry for any inconvenience I caused. If it helps, I wont mess with it anymore either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joberooni (talk • contribs) 07:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
- I undeleted. Then I went to the website you mentioned above, and found no mention of the song. So I redeleted it. Sorry. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's the link. [2] Thanks Joberooni 20:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- At first I was going to say no, but some thorough Googling has churned up some recent (48 hours) independent sources of at least a video shoot, if not a single as yet, but I'm comfortable undeleting at this point. However, if the single proves to be insignificant in the long run, it may still face deletion in the future. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much! If you want a definite source for the video shoot, their myspace blog has it in there. Titled: "Freezing Our Tundras Off." Thanks again!
Jiahu Flutes: Chinese fair use tag
I believe the picture of the bone flutes is under fair use according to China Copyright Law.
Please see here the definition of the word "comment":
"1. a remark, observation, or criticism: a comment about the weather. 2. gossip; talk: His frequent absences gave rise to comment. 3. a criticism or interpretation, often by implication or suggestion: The play is a comment on modern society. 4. a note in explanation, expansion, or criticism of a passage in a book, article, or the like; annotation. 5. explanatory or critical matter added to a text. 6. Also called rheme. Linguistics. the part of a sentence that communicates new information about the topic. Compare TOPIC (def. 4). –verb (used without object) 7. to make remarks, observations, or criticisms: He refused to comment on the decision of the court. 8. to write explanatory or critical notes upon a text. –verb (used with object) 9. to make comments or remarks on; furnish with comments; annotate. ".
Writing an article on Wikipedia, is a remark, an observation, an interpretation, a note, an annotation, an explanation, a rheme, a communication about the topic. So using this image is commenting something per definition #1, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8 and #9 of this word.
Please also see the definition of the word "archive":
"1. Usually, archives. documents or records relating to the activities, business dealings, etc., of a person, family, corporation, association, community, or nation. 2. archives, a place where public records or other historical documents are kept. 3. any extensive record or collection of data: The encyclopedia is an archive of world history. The experience was sealed in the archive of her memory. –verb (used with object) 4. to place or store in an archive: to vote on archiving the city's historic documents. "
Writing an article and store it on the server of Wikepedia, is a record of document, a public storage of data. Specificly, the dictionary quoted that the encyclopedia is an archive. So using this image is archiving somthing per definition #1, #2, #3 and #4 of this word.
So I strongly believe it falls into "fair use" of Chinese law and should not be deleted. Dongwenliang 14:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Eh.... no. I'll stand by interpretation, thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- So you just don't give any explanations and quote any wikipedia policies and just delete the picture by no reason? The flutes are one of the most important discoveries at Jiahu site, by denying fair use condition, are you suggesting every article on wikipedia is the description or commenting of the picture in the article? For example, today's feature article "Battle of Ceresole", there is a map image in the article, if we use your logic, the whole article should be talking about this map, not the battle itself. So it is inappropriate to completely separate the flute image with the Jiahu site, because these flutes were unearthed at Jiahu site.Dongwenliang 22:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thanks (x 1,000)!
Hi Jeffrey - I truly appreciate your kind words and great gift. As far as pro-wrestling articles go, several biographical articles (like Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan, Mick Foley etc.) can be featured b'coz there is a growing amount of biographical literature. Events such as WrestleMania, etc. can also be featured. Ostensibly, a team effort on part of editors like us and Lid, who did some awesome work with CM Punk, we can produce more FAs. Rama's arrow 15:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
My name
No. I am one user. I use the name to represent Tenacious D Fans as such. Should I change it? Tenacious D Fans (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have started the process. Thanks. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sorted. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted images
I noticed you deleted (IMHO correctly) the images Image:I-695.jpg and Image:Stafford (1969).jpg as replaceable fair use. (Frankly, I'm not even sure any fair use applies to copyrighted maps, at least not according to the tag they're using.) I thought I'd let you know that the same user has reuploaded identical images to Image:I-695a.jpg and Image:Stafford (1969)a.jpg. I've tagged those images as {{db-repost}}; I'm not sure if there's anything else I should do to help. -- NORTH talk 01:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! I've redeleted the images. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I support your block of Clayboy
But I think it is really really obnoxious and unbecoming of an admin not to have a userpage.--Jimbo Wales 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jimbo. I appreciate your comments, and respect your views on my user page, and I apologize if I offend. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I intended to block the user myself, but in order to avoid any potential wheel warring, ended up seeking clarification from the ArbCom first. Unfortunately, they didn't get back to me and then throughout the following week and a half I was hospitalized and out of commission. Anyway, glad someone else got around to it and am pleased to learn of Jimbo's endorsement. Keep up the good work. El_C 11:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Copied from Jimbo's Talk Page
I support administrators having user pages
But I think it's really obnoxious and unbecoming of important people such as yourself to use language like "obnoxious" and "unbecoming" on fellow administrators, especially those that choose to be different! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 06:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Dear God, with all the Essjay stuff and Jimbo is remarking about he thinks it is unbecoming for an admin not to have a user page? The priorities are a bit misplaced. I wonder, would my user page be too sparse for Jimbo? I'm almost tempted to delete mine in protest. Really, right now of all the things to worry about, this should be very far down on the list. JoshuaZ 06:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for the perspectie Jeff. JoshuaZ 14:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Jeffrey wins. Thanks for the dignified response. And just curious, why do you NOT have a user page? It just seems obnoxious to me, but perhaps you have a good reason.--Jimbo Wales 14:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- While I've never explained the full reasoning, I have admitted that it's a mixture of a few things, part personal aesthetic, part desire to reject vanity, and maybe to be different, I guess.... Ultimately, though, Jpgordon described the bulk of my feelings on the matter far better than I ever could with this post to AN/I during a discussion about my red link from a couple of weeks ago. Like I said at the time, I have no desire to be obnoxious or annoying, and I apologize if it is interpreted that way. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Don't fret it Jeffrey. What seems obnoxious to me is spouting "love" and intimidation simultaneously; and I don't think you are doing that. 64.229.64.59 22:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
So why not make the homepage a redirect to your User talk:? It would serve the same purposes stated, it saves readers an extra click when heading to your User talk: page, and it avoids the double-take when they see the "This page has been deleted and protected to prevent re-creation" message. (on the more general point, I agree that User: pages are often just an interstitial when most visitors are probably wanting to head to your User talk: page instead) --Interiot 23:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Or maybe make your sig point to your talk page. Or don't. It's a good filter for people who'd rather be fussing than improving the encyclopedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
And, if anyone is interested...
... here is some older discussion about my user page originally from AN/I, Archived Here.
Red Links
(refactor)
Note this this user has no user page. Axiomm 22:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that's because he himself deletes it from time to time. Rightly or wrongly, admins do sometimes do that. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- From time to time? It's been redlinked consistently since May '06. The only reason the log is so bloody large is because I keep having to redelete vandals and well meaning fools. And nothing says I have to have a user page either, rightly or wrongly. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I was just explaining for the user asking, why you don't have a user page. From time to time is a generic term that certainly encompasses "often". I did not comment on whether you should or should not have a user page in answering the question. Sorry if I gave offense, it was not intentional. But now that you mention it, while I agree there is no firm requirement, I do think it's reasonable to expect an admin to have something on their user page, however small, that users can find when they have questions, rather than being redlinked, and the user's remark that one wasn't there seemed reasonable to me. That's just my opinion, I'm not claiming it is a generally held sentiment. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Having a redlink userpage instead of a redirect to one's user talk page is pretty much done just to annoy people, much like voting oppose in every RfA and so on, but there's no actual policy against it... so he can continue, if he really likes annoying half of Wikipedia over something so petty. --W.marsh 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Saying "he's being annoying" isn't incivil, especially if the claim is supported, which it was. --W.marsh 23:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't think it's uncivil. Actually, I think it's pretty accurate. Why can't he just have his user page being a redirect to his talk page? The redlink is just annoying and makes it harder to contact him. --Cyde Weys 02:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- First, I my redlink is not to intentionally antagonize or annoy people, and I take offense at that. Second, I have never bought into the ridiculous claim that it makes it "harder" to contact me. Honestly, two clicks instead of one (and just one click if you're savvy)? While we do have our share of idiots, most Wikipedians are not as lazy or stupid as you seem to think. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If you want people to stop ascribing your actions to malice, perhaps you could stop referring to fellow editors as "fools" and "idiots."
- Out of curiosity, why do you prefer to maintain this red link? You're entitled to, but why is this something that you want? —David Levy 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It's not the biggest deal in the galaxy, but I have always considered maintaining one's username as a redlink to be inappropriate for an administrator. Newyorkbrad 23:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
(outdent) It serves no useful purpose to not have one, and it makes you less approachable for many users. I know I often check out userpages before leaving messages, and I rather doubt I'm the only one. While you're not required to have one, I do remember your personal policy statement that we should stick to best practices at all times, even when it's not mandatory, or something to that effect.
That said, oddly, I support Jeff's desire/right/privilege/whatever to have the thing redlinked. I've certainly defended having a transcluded .sig for quite some time (including to the developer that wrote the code to prevent people from doing that), which some people find annoying, and I think the instant matter is a good example of why everything not mandatory is not prohibited.
—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-21 09:51Z
In answer to Jeffrey's question "why?": (1) because it's distracting to have completely unnecessary redlinks (the least important reason, but still true), (2) because it suggests (incorrectly in your case, to be sure) that the user has not yet fully engaged with the community, and (3) because it misleads people not familiar with you into underestimating your role on the project. The latter concern is not a purely theoretical one, I will add, although it is complicated to capture just how without violating the "all contributors are equal" ethos we rightly have here. A couple of months ago, in discussion of one of the controversial Philwelch blocks which occurred at a time when he had a deleted userpage and a redlinked username, it turned out that Phil had tried to explain policy on something to the editor, and the editor had disregarded the explanation because, in substance, he assumed that anyone too inexperienced to have created their userpage yet was unlikely to be a fount of policy experience and advice. The editor indicated that had he realized the person making suggestions was an experienced editor and admin (the former being as important as the latter, really), he would have reacted very differently. So other than being different for the sake of being different, why do it? Newyorkbrad 11:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For me, it basically boils down to the fact that he's doing something that people are saying "Hey, this annoys me" and it wouldn't effect him to change it or let someone change it, but he says "No, you can't make me, I am going to continue annoying you because I can." And yeah, he can. We all could do a lot of things that annoy eachother but aren't technically against any rule. Thankfully, most of us don't. --W.marsh 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Again, you blindly misinterpret my intentions. It should be reminded that everyone has the right to have (almost) anything in their user space deleted. I can because we all have that right, not just because I have the ability to. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- In spite of the fact Jeff (inappropriately) supported a ban on me (probably didn't read all the facts) -AND in spite of the fact that he reverted that "you all need to get a job" comment just a few minutes ago (a perfectly legitimate, if slightly insulting comment) -I support his desire to use his User Page in whatever way he wants -so long as, like, he isn't threatening, cussing, or slandering. You people all need to get a life -and leave Jeff alone- duuuude! Talk about a major waste of time on such an unimportant matter- man oh man...--GordonWatts 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- There is explicit harm: this annoys people and makes it slightly more difficult to contact you. There would be explicit benefits: it would stop annoying people and make it slightly easier to contact you. You're under no obligation to create a redirect to your talk page, but I wonder why you choose to exercise this particular right. —David Levy 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Isn't that exactly what I said? I never disputed that you had the right to do it... it's that many people have come to you and said it annoys them, and you won't change it. You don't care that you're annoying a lot of good editors. If you're going to do that, I have "the right" to point it out. --W.marsh 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think he has the right to not have a user page, which includes not having a redirect to the talk page as a user page. But why not just have the link in the signature be to the talk page instead of the redlinked user page? Unless the intent is to show people that there is no user page. Leebo86 16:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm suddenly tempted to delete my own userpage, except it would have the confusing side effect of improving Wikipedia's aesthetics. Even some arbcom members have pretty red links. A userpage is an editor's expression of his or her currently preferred Wikipedia personality. Sometimes editors prefer that to be a tabula rasa: "make of me exactly what you will"; or, alternately, "My edits stand on their own". Or possibly, "you people have nitpicked my userpage sufficiently that I'm not going to bother having one." Given the way self-expression on user pages is over-scrutinized here, I can understand that point of view. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- A redirect to one's user talk page is totally harmless, though. A lot of people find a redlink userpage annoying. --W.marsh 16:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Oh for the love. Jeffrey's attitude, responses, and style may not benefit the community, but if anyone is "annoyed" by his lack of a userpage, they need to grow a thicker skin. Seriously folks, this is the Internet. Wikipedia is not censored for a wide array of things, and one of them is annoyance value.
Eleanor Roosevelt rightly observed that no one can offend you without your consent. The same goes for annoyance. If this is getting to you, think about why, and what you can do to temper your reaction. It is not the responsibility of the universe to shield you from all vexation -- you will encounter many annoyances in life.
A user can do anything they want /w their userspace within policy; users are not intended to be cookie-cutter homogenized mutually substitutable apparatchiks.
Please, let's give this a rest. Thanks. —Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-22 00:17Z
On the point first raised, of it making Jeff any harder to contact: I think that would be a very good point if he had no link at all, to either talk page or redlinked user page (as I raised recently for unrelated reasons at WP:SIG), and a half-decent one if he only had the redlink. However, as he links directly to his talk page (and actually, to both), I don't really see any substance to that. Personally, I'd have a distinct preference for admins (specifically) having user pages, and I recall this arising as an issue in some RfAs. Beyond that, I'm not sure there's much of a "so what", as clearly Jeff is aware of several people's such preferences, and as been noted, it's not against policy. However, it does seem extremely pointless to have a link to the lack of a user page (unless the point is to annoy people, or to make a "I deleted my user page" 'statement', or something along those lines, to speculate freely). Perhaps he might consider de-linking the user page from his signature, while he chooses not to have one. Alai 01:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
About your deletion of the Ambrella (Marigul) logo.
I check your reason and you stated it was because the logo lacked a source, but does the fact that it was ripped out of a video from IGN count? Hero of legend 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure of the specific image to which you are referring (I've deleted a couple of thousand this week) but an IGN rip would certainly be a source if properly stated. However, the image would then fail fair use criteria and would be deleted anyway. You should probably find the website of the company that owns the logo and get it from there. Then it would be limited to an article about the product. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- What if I were to place this as the source?
-
- Ambrella logo, found in this video. Hero of legend 01:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Templates
I lefted a message on User:1ne's talk page asking for assistance to help me create templates for the Dragon Ball Wikia, such as [[User:Burdock/Title]] there. Could you help me out with making those templates? If you could, see 1ne's talk page for the comment I left for him If you wanna see me on the wikia, look for User:Burdock there. We really need administrators there and I wish to be one, so does another user, User:Wildyoda (on that Wikia only) to straighten things up there. This account I'm speaking to you right now with is not one I plan to utilize on Wikipedia; I'm only using it because User:Burdock seems to already be taken here. Thank you for listening, I'm anonymous
- I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I can't help as I am really not good at such things. Best of luck on your wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
User page
"If you would prefer not to have a user page, then it is recommended that you redirect it to your user talk page for the convenience of other editors." (Wikipedia:User page). This is a Wikipedia guideline, and not binding like a policy, but it seems to be a matter of courtesy to others. As an admin, I think that following guidelines should be expecially important to you. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I won't do the whole insulting "it's just a guideline not a policy" / IAR argument... And I could easily point to other policy points or guidelines that fit my argument (CSD U1, etc.)... It ultimately comes down to this: I don't want a user page or redirect for reasons that are important to me, and I don't have to have one. It's been ten months, I'm not the only admin with a redlink anymore, and I am just not changing my mind about this, sorry. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I can't imagine what deeply held principle could be involved, nor how it could override the principle of courtesy to others. Still, it's your choice; as a choice, others will judge you in line with it. If you're happy to be thought less of, that's your choice too. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I think less of you because, first, you're going against a Wikipedia guideline despite being an admin, and secondly, the vague suggestion of unexplained "important reasons" for wanting a blank User page is unimpressive (what does "important" mean here?). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Since this has come up again, I have to say your stance on this makes me seriously question your priorities. There's no benefit to the redlink, you just keep saying "I like it". The downsides have been repeatedly pointed out to you. Why do you place more importance on your whims than on what makes the project a better place? Saying "the rules allow it" and refusing to listen to reason are not the actions of a responsible editor. Friday (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Priorities? I am busting my ass deleting garbage, blocking vandals, and reverting vandalism. You... are bugging me about my user page. Yeah, priorities. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just let him keep it blank in peace if that's what he prefers, what is the big deal? El_C 16:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind changing your sig so it links more obviously to your talk page and not the blank one, then? What's there now isn't useful. Friday (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- My sig has always had a link to my talk page, in the <*>. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, obviously, yes... How could anyone miss that? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Dell
Why has my picture been deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.212.95 (talk • contribs).
- Are you talking about the Dell picture? There was zero fair use rationale and it was replaceable fair use anyway. Plus you have a history of vandalism on the article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
explanation please
Please explain your excision of my recent comment on User Talk:Zoe. -- Geo Swan 19:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- This does not strike me as a serious reply. -- Geo Swan 20:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Jeff's right. Leaving long diatribes trying to tell people that Zoe is not a vandal-fighter because of your experience, when that diatribe serves no purpose but to attack/discourage people, is trolling. If the dispute was ongoing and you had put it on WP:AN/I then maybe you would have an argument of relevance, though your tone could certainly have still used some work. --tjstrf talk 20:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for quickly reverting on my user page and then blocking. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Lisa Nowak
Heya, do you truly think "love triangle" is encyclopedic or whatever for a section heading? It seems so tabloid to me. Thanks for your input either way though. Gwen Gale 13:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Love triangle. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- As for the media reports, WP:NPOV#Undue weight and your analysis of the emails, WP:OR. Gwen Gale 13:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- BOGOF. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll go shopping then. Gwen Gale 14:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- BOGOF. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
