Jump to content

User talk:Jessintime/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
start archive
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 16:41, 22 October 2024

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hi Jessintime! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Jessintime (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Instant ramen as Comfort food

I take it you do approve instant kind of ramen as a kind of comfort food. I would like to see an elaboration of yours, please. Sincerely, the person who deleted the mention of instant noodles believing such a quick-hack of food fails to meet the criteria posed by the very idea of comfort, yet now aware of the paradox of how expensive it is to be poor in USA due to a flurry of attacks on one's budget known as "hidden fees". 2A00:1FA0:150:79DE:178F:DF88:DA84:C8AA (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Brady retired number

Don't want to edit war, so I'll ask you here, do you have a source saying they're "jumping the gun"? Because I couldn't find anything from a reliable one. ULPS (talkcontribs) 19:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

See People, MensJournal, PFR, Pro Football Hall of Fame ULPS (talkcontribs) 19:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Neither NFL.com [1] nor the team itself [2] refer to the number being retired. Ditto ESPN [3] CBS [4] Boston.com [5] NBC Sports Boston [6] Yahoo [7] Jessintime (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jessintime: Those sources don't support the argument you're making. @ULPS has provided sources that state the number is retired, while your sources have no mention of the number being/not being retired. You'd need more recent sources which state the number is not retired. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Can I ask why you think the Patriots wouldn't mention his number being retired? That seems like a pretty big deal. The Patriots have also posted the entire ceremony online. Maybe you can watch it and point out the part where anyone refers to his number being retired. Jessintime (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
You'd have to ask them, we cannot answer on their behalf. What's clear is that reliable sources state that his number is retired while we are unable to find reliable sources that state it is not. To be clear, I'm not going to watch through the video, as you suggest, to pinpoint an exact moment. We have reliable sources that state it's been retired, so the onus is now on you to prove that it is not. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

Friendly notice

Hey.

Just so you know, I've mentioned you in at WP:AE in relation to the conduct of another editor. You've done nothing wrong and you don't need to contribute there. I just wanted to let you know you'd been mentioned. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. Jessintime (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

Hello Jessintime,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

casting aspersions

[8]

What appears to be happening is that one editor (Joy) has muddied the waters by commenting more than 20 times with long screeds.

I'd appreciate it if you would not cast aspersions against me in the future. Instead of dismissing data-based input as "muddying the waters" and "screeds", try instead ot apply the spirit and letter of WP:CONS and actually try to understand your fellow editors.

Perhaps it wouldn't be necessary to ask so many questions if others would adhere to our standards of structured discussion and explain their reasoning up front, as opposed to posting terse assertions, which is way too common. --Joy (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you deny that you commented 20 times in one discussion? That level of bludgeoning is not acceptable and, whether intended or not, clearly muddies the water. And do yo really think being patronizing is much better than whatever offense you think I committed? ~~ Jessintime (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
The idea of WP:BLUDGEON is about repeating the same ideas in the discussion and make the discussion worse. I made a point of adding new and varied arguments and data points, which seems to have improved the level of discussion, as at least some people responded by elaborating their own points.
It's hard to answer the claim of being patronizing. Is it inherently patronizing to tell you to read some policies and guidelines so you don't aggrieve people? --Joy (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes it is. It's also patronize to tell a closer "please do better next time." 22:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC) ~~ Jessintime (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry that you feel that way, but even at the risk of sounding patronizing I'm just not going to tell that you you're free to ignore Wikipedia policies.
Indeed one of the conventional duties of an admin such as myself is to make sure everyone follows Wikipedia policies; in a case where I'm involved I will not enforce them, but that doesn't mean I'm not supposed to inform people about them.
With regard to what I said to Station1 there, likewise, I thought it was a fair bit of criticism, because I elaborated it well, before writing that sentence. My point there was to implore them to change for next time, with the express intent of making it clear I don't want to bludgeon this closure process, but encourage them to take a different, better approach in the future.
Thanks for listening :) --Joy (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
This will be my last post on this topic, but since you're keen to point to WP:Consensus, I should remind you that policy page specifically warns against stonewalling with a pointer to WP:STONEWALL. Thanks. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, we could see continuing to argue after many others gave up is stonewalling, but we could also see many others posting a brief opinion and going away with not much else as stonewalling, too. Let's try to all do better next time :) --Joy (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Archive 1