User talk:Jmfangio

This is important...

readability collapse

Jmfangio, please e-mail me. Believe me, I've something very important to tell you that I can only tell you via e-mail. Please. Ksy92003(talk) 04:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have an email I'm comfortable using for this - do you know of another way to communicate? Also, i am begining to collect "evidence" for the ArbC i'm involved in. I amd doing so at User:Jmfangio/sandbox. If you view there you will see some "evidence" i have collected that involves our previous dispute. I am using it only as a reference now as I want to eventually explain to people how two other editors were able to move past a dispute, and quite peacefully mind you. Please understand that it is only in a temporary holding place and will only be used as a "balance" - it will not be used to implicate or insinuate anything against you. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the privacy issue. I'm not sure if it's something that I should actually say here, but I feel it may help the situation. I'll only tell you about it here, as opposed to e-mail, if it's your wish. It would help the situation I feel, but it's still not something I want to make public unless the person I'm directing the message towards is aware of it. So it's your choice if I make it public here or not.

As far as the evidence you're developing in your sandbox, I think it is a good idea to collect evidence about a prior dispute as to how you were able to resolve it to show the steps you're taking to try to solve this one. Ksy92003(talk) 05:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is in regards to the arb case - you are more than welcome to make comments but i will neither encourage your or discourage you from that. If you have something you would like to add - you can do so at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson. If you feel it is something i would not take in the best way - i can assure you that i know you and i are working toward putting a bad relationship behind us. If it is horrendus - we can alwasy refractor and just move on :-). Glad you understand regarding "your evidence". Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing I have to say is that Chrisjnelson sent me an e-mail some 30 minutes ago, and it was... well, for lack of a better word "inappropriate" towards you. It has nothing to do with me, but I was the recipient of his e-mail. He used the type of language that I could never condone using (I'm a born-again Christian) and I believe would be offensive towards you if you knew it. I think that is all I really need to say for now, but will give you the specifics if necessary. Ksy92003(talk) 05:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to disclose that on the ArbC. I've been called worse by a lot more powerful people. I don't know what the "rules" are about posting specific email comments here on wiki, so i would say just do what you feel is appropriate. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really my place to enter an ArbC discussion? I mean the issue between you and him was before you and I even encountered for the first time, so is me giving any background information allowable in this case? Ksy92003(talk) 05:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally up to you, perhaps the clerk User:Daniel can give you more advice as this could be viewed as a conflict of interest. Be well and please feel free to chat about the content with me until your head explodes :-). Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe your last sentence gave me a slight chuckle. I'll go talk to Daniel just to see if I could divulge this information. Ironically, the first time I ever encountered Chrisjnelson was when he and Yankees10 (talk · contribs) were both making personal attacks towards each other on Talk:Reggie Jackson, remarks I believe are still there, and I intervened to quell the dislike towards them. So don't feel that any personal attacks you feel are made towards you are "special treatment" for you. He hasn't made any towards me, but I have witnessed him making some towards other users far before you even registered as a user. I won't release the specifics of this e-mail unless it is allowable. Ksy92003(talk) 05:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If i felt it was "me" that was really the problem - i'd have bailed a long time ago. If i felt that this was directed at me because I was truly the problem - i'd react differently. It appears though that this type of situation has popped up with several other editors, many of whom have a very different editing style than i do.

It is because of these interactions with others that i have been steadfast in my position. It is because this behavior has extended far beyond our interactions that I do what i do. People will (and rightly so) point to the uncivil statements i have made toward him and the violations of 3RR and such that i have been guilty off. I make no bones about it - i did that. It was however, done only after extensive attempts at dispute resolution failed to help and after careful consideration of WP:IAR. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)

I've left a comment at User talk:Daniel#Jmfangio/Chrisjnelson, and will await a response from Daniel before taking any further action of this manner. Also, Chrisjnelson does know that I would tell you of this, as I told him in an e-mail, which he replied to in a similar manner such as the original. So I wouldn't expect Chris to deny what I'm telling you and Daniel, and I've the proof to back this up, should it be required at any time. Ksy92003(talk) 05:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, just handle this as you see fit. I'm not terribly concerned about what he has said about me on a personal level (i've heard worse). I am only concerned about how this affects the community. This is why there is an arbitration case against us. I have read the statement at D's page -although technically i did "forgive you", it has been a joint effort on both of our parts. You were as much a part of the "patching up", so perhaps a better way to say things: We found a way to work past our problems. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't want Chris to think that he can e-mail me things just to get out of trouble. If he says something negative to me about somebody else, I feel that I have the responsibility to tell that person. I don't want Chris to take advantage of me by e-mailing me what he can't normally say, so for me, that's a huge part of this. I know that something he says to me about somebody else shouldn't play that huge a part in this ArbC, but it could be quite helpful evidence to especially support the WP:CIV and WP:NPA statements you've made. Ksy92003(talk) 05:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make a friendly suggestion? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, what is it? Ksy92003(talk) 05:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would either not give out any personal contact information - or create an account specifically for this type of thing. That way, if you are uncomfortable continuing discussions with people - you have an easy way to drop and run so to speak. Taking this type of abuse from people is an unnecessary burden. Again, if you feel that this interaction is something you want to address with the community on a broader scale - you can look at the RFC and ArbCom case that are currently running. Seperately - you can report this to WP:ANI.

Disengaging with people here is a different story. Sometimes it is harder than one might think. Sounds familiar huh :-). I usually try to avoid people as much as possible when things like this break out, but then you get the situations when people seem to think it is rude if you do not engage them. It creates that "damned if i do, damned if i don't" situation - but it is what it is. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 06:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that would be the best thing to do. Unfortunately, going back on that right now won't do anything because now, Chrisjnelson already has my e-mail address. I don't think I should do anything with ANI or anything like that because of one e-mail, especially when there are a couple other steps being taken, and I think it'd be best to let those run its course and leave this out, unless it would help assist any of the actions being taken currently. I don't want to interfere with those processes yet.

Anyway, this is too much for me to think about at this time. I'll just wait until the morning when I hear from Daniel before really thinking about this anymore. I'm not so certain that this one e-mail is so crucial enough that something needs to be done about it right now, or any time extremely soon. I don't know what role Daniel plays in this; you referred to him as a "clerk" I believe, but I still don't even know what that means, but that doesn't concern me at this time. I'll wait for his response in the morning and take whatever necessary actions at that time. Good evening, Jmfangio. Ksy92003(talk) 06:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly understand - it will be nice if we can get back to the dates infobox discussion (i just created a subnav here so that I can start toying with the ideas expressed there. In the meantime, WP:CLERKS will help you differentiate clerks from others. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 06:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where should I answer? Your Talk page or mine?

Re: Hey
Thank you, sir! I actually already have hit you up for info, in a way, as I have been studying your User Page (or was it the Sandbox) for ideas. Pretty nifty. And, since I'm all over the place with Wikipedia policy, style rules, etc., maybe I should just ask you here: Is it standard procedure to answer on my own talk page or on yours? tharsaile 18:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll refractor chief! :-) Thanks for asking. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 18:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JMF, please do see my talk page. I'm getting a bit nervous. tharsaile 21:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:A rarity

Well thats just me ;) Its better to have some backing of some people (as is often inevitable that people complain). As 600 page moves having to be reverted wouldnt be a nice task! Oh, and then the ~600 talk page moves... I've made mistakes before, so I just try to be a bit more careful! Reedy Boy 21:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It never hurts to take your time with this stuff! Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 21:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the WikiProject. 18 pages that show as duplicates! Reedy Boy 21:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Lewis

I responded on the talk page--Yankees10 04:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Can you add Name to the infobox so it says, for example Steve Young instead of Steve Young (American football) in the infobox for the Template:Infobox NFLretired, I would do it but I dont know how to--Yankees10 22:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Milanovich

On 29 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scott Milanovich, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--JayHenry 18:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Question for you

Hi. Any user may comment on an RFA after it is launched (transcluded) on WP:RFA. Please await until Navou has done that. After he does, feel free to provide feedback. Regards, Húsönd 02:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 02:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

I just want to see if I could get your opinion on the recent dispute between myself and Chrisjnelson. The discussion was removed by Chrisjnelson from his talk page, so you'll need to recover it from his page history to view it. I'm not asking you to take sides or anything, but I would appreciate it if you could give your impartial opinion on our argument. You can just leave any comments here. Thanks. Ksy92003(talk) 02:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure i'm in the best position to offer impartial advice. If you have an editor who is outright disruptive and drives other editors away - you need to "pick your battles." For every contentious discussion i have entered into with someone, there are aften a large chunk of issues that i either over look or just don't address.

I wish that i could say go to the noticeboards or Dispute Resolution. But based on my recent experiences there - i'm not sure how much traction you will get.

I have not read through the gist of the recent dispute (and did not dig through CJNs talk page either) - but just stick to the spirit of the guidelines and policies and you'll be alright. Content is king.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 02:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you. It's just not right because he comes out and says that he's a better writer than me just because he likes his version more than mine... the dispute is about the introductions to an article, which if you compare you'd see are far too similar to create an edit war and content dispute. He comes out and slams me for something so minor. Ksy92003(talk) 02:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had continued run-ins with this user and I'm not sure I can tell you something you don't already know. I went and edited a few infoboxes for guys that were released and he promptly followed with contentious edits. It is what it is. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 02:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]