User talk:Jagz: Difference between revisions

Hi, I notice you've been editing since September and no-one has been thoughtful enough to give you the official welcome yet! So...

Welcome!

Hello, Jagz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- Francs2000 17:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for this oversight, Jagz. This is the first time I have used the POV-check template, so this purely PEBCAK on my part. Apologies again, I will correct this. Thor Malmjursson 02:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Thor's pet yack[reply]

I'm going away, but if the restructuring is redone, go ahead and revert if it you disagree with it. This is a FAC-- edits this major shouldn't be done without a strong consensus. --Alecmconroy 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the current format. I have removed the sub-sub-headers, assuming that this was the source of your comment about if being "divided." Any other concerns? --NThurston 20:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alecmconroy and Jagz--First, congrats again on the fine job you did getting Boy Scouts of America membership controversies to FA status. I noticed it's had lots of edits lately and looked it over. I'm concerned about it possibly in the future losing it's FA status as things like a section with a bulleted list, poor punctuation and formatting, and loosely joined facts have crept in. I can help with formatting, refs, and such if you like, but as I am not an expert on these controversies, I would likely be of only limited help on the prose part. Let me know if you'd like me to help. If you care to repsond, leave a msg here on your page. Rlevse 02:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can start by explaining to NThurston that an article isn't supposed to have bulleted lists, etc. --Jagz 02:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jagz-- good work trying to clean up some of the recent edits. I'm sorry I wasn't around more to help out. I tend to think that even your new suggested organization isn't as good as your original organization, and I suggest a revert. Obviously, if you yourself like your new organization better, then I won't be quite so emphatic on that suggestion. But if you like your original organization better but just did the new organization as a way of compromise, then know that you don't need to feel like the recent edits compel you to reconsider the organization. Quite a large number of people liked your old way of organizing things, and if you and Rlevse still like the old way too, then the "burden of proof" is 100% on those who want a change, and I suggest ya'll just revert back until such time as you and everyone else is convinced that a change is warranted. Conversely-- I have a lot of faith in your judgement, and I haven't looked at the reorganization as closely as you-- so if you DO feel that NT is on to something and you understand where he's going with it and strongly agree, then please feel free to not take my own impassioned pleas for reversion too seriously-- I trust your judgement, and if you do now think there was something majorly wrong with your original formulation, then i'm sure I will too once i've the rationale fully explained to me. --Alecmconroy 06:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still like the old way better myself. The main reason we care about the loss of funding is that, presumably, it's a form of opposition to the policy-- people pulling their support of BSA because of the policies. If it's not a form of opposition and doesn't have anything to do with the membership controvesry, then it's not really part of the this page and it's just a minor budgetary issue that the main BSA page should handle. But I think the loss of funding _is_ a form of disagreement with the policies. The cited sources for that paragraph certainly are of the opinion that the loss of funding was a form of opposition, and no one's disputed that claim as far as I know. --Alecmconroy 06:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! We did it. You did an EXCELLENT job on that page. After TEN months of excellent contributions, you no doubt deserve a barnstar, and just as important, deserve to not be a red-linked user anymore. :). --Alecmconroy 11:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't make sense with that title, then it shouldn't be in this article. The article is about opposition to the BSA's policies regarding their membership. --NThurston 19:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing that comment. It was unfair and uncalled for and I respect you as a hardworking good editor. The Youth section being separate will be an improvement. --NThurston 20:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new paragraph!! --NThurston 00:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to make that first paragraph more neutral. --evrik ^(talk) 17:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After lots of NPOV problems, I have recently done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. I don't know if you know much about Opus Dei-- I still don't actually know that much about them, but you strike me as a fair, honest judge of articles, and I have no clue what your religous point of view is, which makes you an ideal candidate to serve as a fresh pair of eyes. Could you look over the page and comment on whether the rewrite is an improvment and maybe help out in the ensuing discussion? I'd like it to be my next FAC. --Alecmconroy 16:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should have moved the original International Scouting problems and controversies and made that a redirect. There is no need to speedy delete. You have also lost the history. --Bduke 01:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it now. --Jagz 01:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, but why does Scouting problems and controversies redirect to Souting? A mistake? --Bduke 01:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to move the original article to "Scouting problems and controversies" but that name was already in use by the second article I created. I moved the second article to a nonsense name but it did not free up the name "Scouting problems and controversies". I came up with a new article name so I could move the original article. --Jagz 01:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you can just ask an admin to speedy it, as nobody but you have edited it. You can of course edit the redirect from Scouting problems and controversies to Scouting controversies and concerns rather than Souting. --Bduke 02:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Scouting problems and controversies" was in use for just a short time. You can redirect it if you want. --Jagz 03:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Souting was deleted. I'll request that "Scouting problems and controversies" be deleted also. --Jagz 03:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The para you just added to this does not have the ref in proper format, it's not consistent with the others, and you left your see also link to the same article in. This is especially not desireable when an article is a FAC. I've fixed this for now, but please be aware of these things in the future. Thanks. Sumoeagle179 12:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to fix the external jumps in the BSA controveries article. When non-FA stuff like the occurs to much, someone will come along and FARC it. Rlevse 10:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to it soon. --Jagz 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed those but there are some new ones I have to fix soon. --Jagz 13:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try insulting me because I was removing the 404 link. If, after the website comes back up again, you want to add it - please do.

Please explain why having an outdated link is good. --evrik ^(talk) 16:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never known you to miss an opportunity to not cooperate. --Jagz 18:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're the one adding 404 links to articles. Is it that hard for you to wait until you have good sources to cite? --evrik ^(talk) 19:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again. --Jagz 00:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I think perhaps the fact that Cheney did not graduate from his doctorate is noteworthy. Maybe needs backing up with a source, but it seems to fit with the content in that section. Just my thoughts? MackSalmon 23:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what was the reason, if it is even possible to find out the real reason? Maybe he was staying in school to avoid the draft. Maybe he quit because he was tired of it, romance intervened, money problems, got a good job offer, wasn't a good enough student, etc. Saying he started his doctorate but didn't finish seems to imply something but it just leaves people hanging without providing them with useful information. If he ever provided a reason for quitting, what he says may not be the truth. That being said, if it gets put back in I will not remove it. --Jagz 00:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed that I reverted your recent change to this page. If there is verifiable evidence that he "flunked out" of Yale, please feel free to add (and cite) it. However the absence of statements to this effect does not, in my view, support your removal of properly cited information about his recent honorary degree; the characterization of that degree as "useless" would seem to be a departure from NPOV. DagnyB 13:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I didn't reply to you sooner; frankly, I didn't know that you'd posted anything to your talk page, nor do I see it now. How did you notify me? My email, as a note, is sj_cohn@yahoo.com.

To be sure, one had ought to cite one's references when altering any Wikipedia entry, and particularly a political or religious one, given the potentially incendiary nature of such edits. Biographical entries, however, can be changed in ways that are slanderous, so I appreciate your concern. However, I would note that my two edits were within minutes of each other, and that the change was a simple one... as I recall it, one that merely removed a solecism.

As for said changes, I can substantiate them with references. Would you like me to send these references to your personal email, or will you permit me to post them with the references and review them on the page. Regardless, I'd suggest that neither of us get bent out of shape over this. Sidis was a considerable figure in the annals of genius; assuming that neither of us are, let's not take this business to seriously.

And I say that with sincerity. For me, life is too short for me to get my stomach in a knot over the veracity of Wikipedia's material. Much of it is WAY farther from the mark than that which you and I have shared here.

The better part of my references were, at any rate, the following:

--The Animate and the Inanimate, by William James Sidis --A letter from Dr. Abraham Sperling to Helen Sidis which said, "I visited Mr. McDowell at Greenberg publisher's [sic.] on Friday and received the material from your brother's manuscripts.... Mr. McDowell's comments on the manuscripts were these. Both of them he thought were rather scholarly and thus would not lend themselves to publication for popular sale. He suggested that you have some one or more of the outstanding scholars in the fields of philology and anthropology respectively read both manuscripts for the purpose of passing on their mertis and suggesting possible agencies for publication." --I'll have to look for the source of the information on the material Sidis wrote on transportation systems. One web site, which is only a second-hand source, said that, in reference to these guides, it was said in Sidis' time that "Several volumes, including two for the Boston area and one for the District of Columbia, are now ready to go to the printer, and several more are almost ready."

Also, I made no changes to the section on Sarah Sidis' education, of which I know nothing. I'd suggest you track down the author of this material, if it is not substantiated or is outright erroneous.

Best regards,

76.193.116.241 23:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Steve[reply]

I hope that you'll accept my apologies for omitting these sources; they are widely available in text and/or .pdf formats. As for the inferences I drew related to his state of mind and the genius that the breadth of his investigations represented... I stand by that assertion.

Oops. I just figured out that you and the user Chryen are not one and the same. It was he/she who fucked with my changes, and I see that you had similar problems. What did you do? Sidis deserves fair treatment in this huge online encyclopedia, riddled with inaccuracies as it is.

Unfortunately Chyren does not like to leave edit summary comments, which causes difficulties. --Jagz 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-for outstanding long term work in improving and maintaining articles about the Boy Scouts of America.Rlevse 11:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Jagz 14:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a question on this talk page that you will probably want to see. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phips started a workshop for this article at User:Phips/workshop/DP-Scouts, I've added to it, we could use your practiced help! :) Thanks, Chris 02:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you may be interested in this for some article material...

<http://www.uuworld.org/news/articles/45487.shtml>

Scouting alternatives draw UU youth
Navigators and SpiralScouts offer inclusive programs

By Donald E. Skinner 9.21.07

Also saved here: User:Jagz/Alternatives

--(sidebar)--

RELATED RESOURCES

SpiralScouts. Earth-centered youth program sponsors 80 groups nationwide. (SpiralScouts.org)

Navigators. New York youth group offers alternative to Scouting. (NavigatorsUSA.org)

Work to Change Discriminatory Policies of Boy Scouts of America. Resolution adopted by the 1999 UUA General Assembly. (UUA.org)

Media Archive: Boy Scouts, Gays, Unitarian Universalists, and the Supreme Court. Includes media coverage of UUA's 1999 dispute with the Boy Scouts of America. (UUA.org)

Unitarian Universalist Scouters Organization. Officially recognized organization for Unitarian Universalists in the Boy Scout movement. (UUScouters.org) Rlevse 13:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a UU and a former Boy Scout, thank you for placing my contribution in a proper article and context. Unidyne 05:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been approved to upload Scouting articles to veropedia from wiki. I'm starting with our FA and GA articles. When I looked at the BSA controversies article, it had a tag about ref problems. Would you be interested in fixing this issue? Vero articles have be clear of tags indicating problems, have no broken links, be neutral, etc. They can't have FU images either--so I delete the FU images, upload, then put the FU images back in. Let me know when you're done give this one a good look over or if you are not interested. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article has a tag about unsourced statements and another about broken or outdated citations. I'm not sure why it has a tag for unsourced statements. Sorry, but right now I'm busy with another project so I don't have time to work on the article. I'll see what I can do when I have a chance though. --Jagz 01:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I leave in your capable hands. Let me know when done and I'll upload to veropedia. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R&I has been protected for a breather while we try to form some consensus as to the direction. In the interim we have set up a “sandbox” at: User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound. Moonriddengirl is a neutral admin who has set up the space where we can work on the text section by section; this allows us to have a talk page for the micro project. So far JJJamal, Futurebird and I have made suggested changes with additions in bold and deletions in strikeout. This section and its talk page is an experiment in trying to come together as a group on a focused area. If it works we’d like to approach Guy, the admin who has protected the page, to insert our work-product into the protected article and then take on another section. I would really like to get your feedback on this so that we can demonstrate a consensus. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 19:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether it's just the first paragraph or if the balance of this article is derived from other Wikipedia articles, but if it is, it should have an attribution note and link back to the source Wikipedia article, for GFDL compliance reasons. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  07:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a quote in the first paragraph without a citation. I added a citation. There are links to the main Wikipedia articles. I don't know what an attribution note is. --Jagz 14:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just the quote in the first paragraph, don't worry about it. For the future, let's say you split off "Article Y" from "Article X". You should attribute it by including a note at the foot of Article Y like this: "==Attribution== *The original version of this article incorporated text from the Wikipedia article Article X." That ties in the edit history to the new article so we remain GFDL compliant. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  19:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human intelligence controversies. You might want to join the discussion. --Kevin Murray 00:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please try not to do this I guess you meant it in good faith, but you should not edit others comments without their permission, even if it is done to correct spelling or grammar. Ciao, Brusegadi (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed someone's comment recently. What was the specific reason for it? --Jagz (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPG. It was way off-topic. We all go off-topic from time to time (I've had my comments removed in other pages!) but we should try to minimize forum-like behavior because it does no good. To be honest, I try to not be too involved in that page because it attracts passionate opinions. One side says "you are pc" and the other says "you are racist." Then we are in subjective ground and cant really move forward. Thanks for your spell-check revert and see ya later, Brusegadi (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the link.--Koncorde (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Race and intelligence in the United States, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence in the United States. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Brusegadi (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your edits to stereotype and race and intelligence constitute a cut & paste move, which is problematic with regards to copyright. If you move material from one article to another, you must note in the edit summary of each article what you are doing and link to the destination or source article. This is essential for GFDL compliance. Ordinarily on encountering such a situation, I would repair it and leave a note for your future reference. In this case, since I have pledged not to be involved in the creation of the article, I am reversing it only and leaving it to you to choose to redo it with necessary wikilinks if you feel the change has consensus. If you have any questions about how this is done, please let me know at my talk page. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have met the requirements. The vote on not having an article named "Race and intelligence" and moving the sections of the article to other articles won by a vote of 6 to 4. The article is way to long as it is. All that people are doing on the Talk page is writing and writing without taking action. It is time for action now. --Jagz (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my error. On his page it said he was 27 so I fixed it to 24. I should have noticed he was 24 by his birth and death date, whoops. michfan2123 (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The situation in that article has finally cooled off from useless discussion. Given that this is really inflammatory and easy to refute it is bound to ignite another round of endless pointless arguing. Since it was not directly aimed at improving the article I beg you to leave it out. Brusegadi (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus was reached before the Christmas-New Year break on how this article should be edited and what sort of scholarly references were required. You seem to be gleefully breaking this consensus and now expressing your own personal opinion. I wonder if you could please try to stop doing this? Writing a proper article would take a great deal of work, as Slrubenstein has indicated. Piecemeal addition of pseudo-scholarly facts from disputed sources is a hopeless way of allowing edits to this page to degenerate. Probably MRG will be asked to reprotect the page if things continue in this way. Saying Kevin "meant well" is intellectually dishonest and disingenuous on your part. I am sure you are quite aware why he made the revert. --Mathsci (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a template which you can add back so that is not displayed; displaying it, makes a different, possibly inflammatory statement, I do not think you would have any success with a case for "vandalism": instead I suggest you make yourself a nice cup of tea and calm down. The question here is about the procedure for editing this particular page, where a consensus was reached. I must admit that the practical aspects of rewriting the article are still somewhat unclear and I understand your possible frustration at the seeming impasse. By the way, as I've said before on the talk page, I'm happy to see the stereotype section bite the dust; I'm not quite sure that an unanswered suggestion on the talk page can be taken as tacit approval by all, but you can find my explicit support for your improvement further up on the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW would it not be possible to put some form of your template as the first template on the page of the article itself as guidance to new editors? Just a thought. Mathsci (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not design the template. It is a standard template and is meant for use on the Talk page. --Jagz (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is now fully protected again as requested. Mathsci (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are fighting a group of some the most effective blockers on wikipedia. The subject it really very emotive and goes to the heart of many peoples core belief systems. You are performing valiant work in the face of extreme personal attacks and I commend you. Try to ignore such attacks on your intelligence and competence and so on. The article as it stands is a shamble of POV and weasel words and fails to describe the debate in any coherant fashion, and this is by design. "importance, or lack of importance" must be the definition of weasel words. It is like it is writen by a teenager, with no understanding of language. Lobojo (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I really didn't know that. I mean, regarding your revert of my edit. But your sources look really damn good, so I guess it's for real. Still can't help feeling blown away by that. Thanks for the info. Unschool (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Washington Summit Publishers. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Not that it was when you created it, however I am following the rules of the tag. N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just started a neutral article. I didn't make any personal attacks, that was someone else. --Jagz (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Washington Summit Publishers, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Summit Publishers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note that your name is mentioned in a matter I referred to WP:ANI, here. Good day.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wasn't trying to include any new material, I was trying to prevent you from deleting relevant, sourced material that had been in the article uncontroversially for some time. Not sure why you'd confuse the two.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your Talk page. --Jagz (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been told on the R&I talk page, you really should knock off the personal attacks and the snide remarks (as evidenced there and in ANI). Then, you would have people less tempted by exposing your POV-pushing for exactly what it is. Sorry. Another alternative, if you don't like it, is to take a break from editing, at least that one article. From what I hear, you seem to be a good and knowledgeable editor of the Boy Scouts-related articles.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, stop pushing your POV and I'll stop consistently correcting matters.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, you seem to believe that you don't have to live by your own standards. I've pointed that out before. --Jagz (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jagz, I've been on wikibreak, but I've got a history of contributing to R&I, so I considered myself an editor for purposes of commenting. Hope this clears things up! --JereKrischel (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is good news. There is now a Religious Emblem for Unitarian Universalist youth. For more information take a look at http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=88667&p=5 Yours in Scouting-Phips (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. In this edit you are failing to assume good faith and are border line in breach of the site's civility requirements. Contributions like this are disruptive and constitute a disruption of wikipedia to make a point. Please review WP:EQ--Cailil ^talk 08:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]