Powered by
Share this page on
Article provided by Wikipedia

Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days

Detailed traffic statistics



Sorry about that -- I corrected it, as I'm sure the editor must have, and as, perhaps, Fitzgerald may have wanted, prior to reading the note.

After reading the note, I fell into a downward spiral of philosophical arguments around Wikipedia policy and spelling that sapped my will to live, let alone return to change it back. I am glad you have it the way you want it! -"Kieran ("talk) 20:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"Wolfshiem" was the spelling present in the first edition of the book. "Wolfsheim" was a second edition and later change. The change by the editor was deliberately to obfuscate the Jewish name to avoid potential allegations of anti-Semitism. I do not recall at the moment anything about how Fitzgerald felt about the change (or even if he was aware of it) but viewing "Wolfsheim" as just a "corrected" spelling of "Wolfshiem" is false. In fact it was the reverse as the original spelling is a proper Jewish name while the latter is just invented to avoid being associated with a real name. Using the later edition spelling alone would gloss over an important and interesting aspect of the book's history.
When you edited this page, there should have been a "red page notice here saying it's best not to split the discussion into two places. If whatever editor you used did not display this, please let me know because there's a bug. If it did display and you just skipped it, it's kind of the same problem that occurred with your Gatsby edit. "Jason Quinn ("talk) 07:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd literally never seen that before, and pretty much glossed over it -- the interface is pretty busy. It does, indeed show up, so no need to worry about bugs in your non-standard code.
And seriously, this kind of sarcasm and shirtiness is exactly why Wikipedia gets accusations of elitism and exclusivity, and new editors often feel deeply unwelcome. Please reflect on your attitude, as I feel that it is being actively harmful to the project as a whole. -"Kieran ("talk) 19:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
What I wrote is generously informative in explaining lingering doubts you seemed to have about the correctness of the Wolfsheim edit. It appears you are upset because I suggested you may have an issue with hastiness. My comments were not sarcasm nor were they ill-tempered. So I reject your claim. I do, however, expect editors to actually read stuff before they edit. You seem to think that WP:CIVIL requires us to never critique other editors habits. It does not. But now you accuse me of being unwelcoming to newcomers and harmful to the project and you have made me "shirty". I have welcomed many many users on Wikipedia and very often go above and beyond to offer them help and assistance... far above what most Wikipedians do, very likely including you. Since you accuse me of being bad for the project regarding new editors, find me ONE instance of me "biting a newbie or stop making unfounded accusations. Regardless, I point out that you are not a new user, and even though I avoid it too, I have no ethical issue being blunt with long-term users if need be. Perhaps in the future be thankful when offered constructive criticism rather acting with thin-skinned indignation. I see no further benefit to this discussion. "Jason Quinn ("talk) 20:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey[edit]


Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up "here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all "massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, "SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ("talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

""Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Jason Quinn. Voting in the "2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review "the candidates and submit your choices on the "voting page. "MediaWiki message delivery ("talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years![edit]

""Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
"Five years!

--"Gerda Arendt ("talk) 07:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

""Editors Barnstar Hires.png The User Page Barnstar
Your user page is so good, it has just been plagiarized. 718smiley.svg "~ ToBeFree ("talk) 16:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
) ) WikipediaAudio is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the WikiMedia Foundation.