User talk:Jgp/Archive2

Going away, reason for archiving

As per what's posted on my page, I am going on a semi-Wikibreak. The bulk of my contributions will consist of my Super Sentai episode titles translation project--outside of that, I will generally not contribute to Wikipedia. Once I finish my episode titles project, I will likely embark on a full, indefinite Wikibreak.

Since I will be staying out of discussions for the time being, I have archived my talk page to suit that. jgp (T|C) 03:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sentai episode project

I'll post the status of my Super Sentai episode titles project here:

Overall progress: 100%

(note: "done" doesn't mean I won't revisit it later--for example, Boukenger is a series in progress, and I may go back to others to improve translation quality and look for other mistakes)

(note 2: not all of this is entirely my work - Magiranger already had episodes up when I covered it, but I improved on the translations and romanisations, and many other series' had some English titles, but I added Japanese text and romanisations, as well as improvements to the translations)

Dionyseus

Hi, Jgp. User:Dionyseus seems a little upset (he reported you to WP:PAIN), and I think it would have been better not to have used the word "lying" to him. At the same time, I'm going to tell him that it's a bit sensitive of him to call your posts personal attacks. Your point about who tends to quote WP:AGF made me laugh, I'm afraid--you're absolutely right, though the way you put it might be a little extreme--I expect it has happened that a legitimate user has cited AGF. Sometime, somewhere. Dionyseus may well have used it sincerely, but I hope he takes it to heart that throwing it around will make a bad impression. Have you come across WP:AAGF? A little something for the legitimate users. :-) Bishonen | talk 02:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC).

As I said before, I'm tired of all the stress this dispute and some other have been causing, so I'm backing off from all of this. I'm pretty much only going to work on one project (which has nothing even tangentially to do with this dispute), which I started before this mess happened, and when it's done, I'm going to go into full-Wikibreak mode, at least for a while. Thanks for attempting to resolve this, though. Btw, I've not seen WP:AAGF before, but I like it. And that comment about people who cite WP:AGF was inspired by one of the signs to take a break listed on WP:ABF (it's towards the middle of the list)--by that point, his actions reminded me of that. jgp (T|C) 11:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Intel Core 2 microprocessors

I have reverted your change to the table formatting. My version was more compact, kept models with the same official name in the same table, and avoided having multiple links to the same term/abbreviation. Dgies 21:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's ugly, it looks fucking horrible, and _no other table_ does this crap. jgp ^T_C

You've reverted me twice now and I've reverted you twice. I have posted the two versions for 3rd-party discussion on the talk page. Both of us must now refrain from further reverting or we will be in violation of the Three-Revert-Rule. Leave it as-is and let other people decide. Dgies 02:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Semi-protections

Recently, at my request, you semi-protected some pages due to recent vandalism. Now, those vandals are attacking two other, related pages: Choujuu Sentai Liveman and Kamen Rider BLACK. Could you take a look into possibly semi-protecting them? Thanks. jgp ^T_C 08:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I've semi-protected those two. —Mets501 (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Your bad-faith warning and mischaracterization of my actions in your edit summaries

Your POV warning on my talk page was in bad-faith and completely unwarranted, so are your mischarectizations of my actions in your edit summaries. Here's the unencyclopedic sentence I removed: [1]. You then claim that the removal was POV, and then you "re-add" the sentence but it's not really a re-add, you completely changed it to something that it encyclopedic: [2]. Please refrain from further mischaracterizations. Dionyseus 06:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore I'll ask you to please refrain from posting your unwarrented warning on my talk page, and please stop pretending to be an administrator. [3] Dionyseus 06:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No, they are legitimate warnings. Removing warnings from your talk page is vandalism, and it has been reported. One does not have to be an administrator to post warnings, and I find your claim that I am pretending to be an administrator to be defamatory. jgp ^T_C 06:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA

I am filing a Request For Arbitration about your continued personal attacks against me. Dionyseus 08:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a very strange definition of "personal attack". Oh, and please do file an RfA. jgp ^T_C 08:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide your statement under 'party 2'. [4] Dionyseus 09:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom

You know, Dionyseus is already currently involved in an Arbcom. I also found him very POV, with extreme use of wikilawyering. What more, I've found he has a strong tendency to make edits against consensus. It's a bit late in the process, but I'd still appreciate your comments [here]. Also, if there are others involved in your dispute with Dionyseus, I'd appreciate if you'd give them word of the current Arbcom review. Thanks. Danny Pi 12:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I see you are still trying to look for support against me, Daniel. Jgp might want to review the case, which appears to be closing soon. [5] Dionyseus 12:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, my personal opinion of his...editing style aside, I'm not terribly comfortable getting involved in ArbCom cases I'm not a part of, and I'd rather avoid doing anything that might be construed as wikistalking. However, I'll look over the page, and I might comment if I have anything relevant to add. Also, thanks for that last tip. jgp ^T_C 12:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mention wikistalking, I'm wondering if what Daniel is doing is considered wikistalking. Dionyseus 12:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is between the two of you is between the two of you. The question of whether or not Daniel is wikistalking you is irrelevant to my talk page. Please take this somewhere else. jgp ^T_C 13:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Jgp: There are sections for other users. The case was raised regarding Dionyseus's conduct, although it has focused on my contact with him, I think additional perspectives would only help. Furthermore, I'm happy to point out that it was I that invited your opinion, so you're surely safe from being accused of Wikistalking. Danny Pi 12:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrongly Accused

Jgp, Hi! In regard to your posted warnings copied herein-below, this is to let you know that 202.163.208.49 has NEVER vandalized any of your pages! This is the first time I've heard of your pages identified below. I have never visited these. I have absolutely no knowledge of or interest in the work you do in another space within Wikipedia. I'm an individual who mind's my own business, no one else's. Please make sure your findings are accurate. Thank you and best of luck in your search for the real culprit.

---

User talk: 202.163.208.49 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Chikyuu Sentai Fiveman, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. jgp TC 15:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Kousoku Sentai Turboranger, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. jgp TC 04:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Regarding KRK

You made a statement saying that the Rider Count research was original research, but it is not the kind of opnionated original research. It is hard proven fact that was even stated in the series. Its undeniable how many episodes they appeared in, and it is also unarguable that the information given is incorrect. 20000+20000 = 40000, but was never published. Its just fact. The fact that Hibiki only had 4 Riders within more than 5 episodes is also fact. It is based exactly on the information given in the show.

However, the piece of trivia can be left out for now, until something more refined can be made. Thanks for reading. Enjoy your day. :) Floria L 19:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Boukenger

Could you read up on what myself and Filadelfio have been talking about concerning moving the article and see if you agree? Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Xeon: Core Duo Vs. Core microarchitecture.

Hi. I notice that you removed my clarification in the Xeon article because you felt that it was unnecessary. You may be correct for some set of readers of this article, but the reason I put the clarification in there was because it was not at all obvious to me. Is there a reason to expect that the casual reader would understand that a "core duo" does not implement the "core microarchitecture?"

I started reading the Xeon/Pentium/Core/Itanium set of articles about three weeks ago while trying to evaluate the current state of the Intel server world to plot a course for my company. I am computer professional. I have been using Intel processors since the Intel 8080, purchasing on average a new home computer every 2 years. My company has been using Pentium and Xeon servers for at least 5 years, so I believre I am at least as knowledgable as the typical reader of the Xeon article.

Perhaps together we can find a better place to make the "Core Duo" versus "core Microarchitecture" distinction.

Thanks. - Arch dude 18:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

False claims of vandalism

Can be seen as uncivil, and I ask you not to describe my actions (which are clearly not vandalism) as such. Moreover, knowingly adding links to ED despite the ArbCom ruling can be a blockable offense. Please remove the link yourself and demonstrate your willingness to abide by the community's rules. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No. As Burke put it, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Furthermore, I would rather not be associated with a project that condones removing links regarding simple associations from one's userpage. For the record, I've read bits of ED, and I find large parts of it to be sickening, but I find Wikipedia's censorship to be even more sickening. jgp ^T_C 20:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way. Such conduct will not result in a 'triumph of good'... it will result has resulted in your indef blocking. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what? Fine. <expletive attack removed> I don't want to be associated with a censorship project such as Wikipedia. jgp ^T_C 21:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

While it's always sad to see someone leave the project, it's much worse to see WP used to facilitate attacks on individuals. WP is an encyclopedia and observance of rules defining acceptable conduct are a core requirement of successful collaborative editing. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny thing is, I don't even like ED. I found much of the site to be hate-filled, sickening, and personally offensive to me. But that shouldn't be a reason to remove a link simply stating an affiliation from someone's own userpage. There are plenty of other sickening sites linked on Wikipedia, and I don't condone removing them. Since I'm in a quoting mood, I suppose the quote that's usually misattributed to Voltaire is appropriate here: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Wikipedia links to goatse mirrors. That's pretty sick. Links to it shouldn't be censored. Wikipedia links to the website of the American Nazi Party. That's both sickening and hate-filled. As disgusting as it is, links to it shouldn't be censored, and I say this as a person of Jewish descent. Wikipedia links to Fred Phelps' sickening, hate-filled trash, but links to it shouldn't be censored. jgp ^T_C 21:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I don't want to be unblocked. I'm done here. I just thought I should explain my position in a bit more detail. jgp ^T_C 21:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

While repulsive, Goatse doesn't seek to identify users by their real names to promulgate real-world attacks upon them (I don't see it as encyclopedic, though). And while my record of opposition is clear to Nazism, the American Nazi Party is encyclopedic. I would oppose efforts to delete either from WP. I fully support links to whatever content is encyclopedic. ED is not. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, I would support removing links to the attacks themselves. If someone wrote "Click here to see the truth about MONGO", and linked that text to his article on ED, I would fully support removing the link and blocking whoever posted it (and even though I have a very strong opposition to MONGO's attitude, that article was one of the nastiest things I've read, and the personal information posted was downright creepy). But all Schmucky was doing was stating his affiliation, and linking to the main page (which is pretty standard practice as far as stating affiliations goes). jgp ^T_C 22:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be an entirely rational approach, if the content in ED were verifiable. But a link one day to a perfectly harmless (if insipid) page on ED could the very next day be to a page with an attack. ED's willingness to promote the MONGO attack page to the home page is a clear indication that a link to any page on that entire site cannot be trusted to remain consistently 'safe' from possibly harmful attacks. I hope you'll reconsider and rejoin the project, and attempt to work within the community's rules to help WP to remain as 'censorship-free' as it can, while protecting editors from malicious attacks. There's always a balance to be struck when human beings are involved. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, since this discussion has been rather civil, let me first apologise for the statement I made a few hours ago (the one you removed)--that was made in haste and anger, and since we're being civil, I've realised that I didn't really mean it. As for the rest...I can understand your point. I don't agree with the blanket ban, but I can see your point about striking a balance when it comes to real people. Another thing, however, is that disallowing the linking of pages that aren't attack pages is a very slippery slope--should we ban linking to Google, since ED attack pages can be found easily from Google (hint: Google for wikipedia admins without quotes, and an ED attack page will be in the top 10 search results -- and yeah, go ahead an remove this parenthetical if you feel like...I won't revert it)? As for rejoining, I'm not sure--you make some good points, but I...just don't know, especially with all the bitterness around now. I'll consider it. I will say, though, that if I'm unblocked, I won't bother re-adding the links, but that's mostly because I know it won't work. jgp ^T_C 22:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Parentheticals aren't the kind of thing one should remove from WP - it would be disastrous! :) As far as blocking links to Google, I see that as an argument 'ad absurdum' (again, with no offense intended). If Google had a 'WP admin identification tool', there might be a case for it... but since it's the #1 Search Engine in the world, I'd call it notable enough to be useful here on WP. As far as the bitterness goes, I agree that there is an acrimonious tone to a lot of this discussion, and that is very distasteful to me. In any case, I do wish you well, whatever your decision, and I'm grateful for your civility and this good-natured discussion. Honest thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for restoring a link to Encyclopaedia Dramatica in violation of the arbcom ruling on the subject. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what? Fine. <Expletive attack removed> and your love of censorship. jgp ^T_C 21:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked you since you indicated above you won't re-add the link. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the unblock, tho I'll probably be immediately going on a wikibreak. Though I did notice one thing that probably needs to be cleared up:

{unblock-auto|1=67.187.108.60|2=Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Jgp". The reason given for Jgp's block is: "violation of arbcom ruling concering ED".}

Cleared this. There are no autoblocks, so you should be able to edit now. Mangojuice^talk 17:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'm still getting an autoblock error... jgp ^T_C 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any autoblocks, and the autoblock search tool isn't working. I am sorry.  :( User:Zoe|(talk) 18:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it cleared up on its own... jgp ^T_C 21:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

Join us :D—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No biting!

Please don't bite the newcomers! This comment seems a bit harsh for what looks like a good faith edit that is simply a content dispute. --Dgies 20:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

He's not new. I've had a run-in with him before. He's got a history of making changes against all logic and consensus. jgp ^T_C 21:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, he's not new, just had an empty talk page. Still, I don't see any preexisting consensus on that particular edit, and it looks reasonable, if debatable. Please assume good faith. --Dgies 21:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)