User talk:Jigsaw

Wikinews is not Wikipedia

They are separate organizations to a large extent with different people. As a piece of advice: referring to Wikinews as Wikipedia isn't going to make people here likely to listen to your arguments. JoshuaZ 00:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have a doppelganger who's running around trying to protect Dragonfiend, I have a hard time believing that they aren't rather similar to each other, or at the very least there's an awful lot of 'kissing cousins'. I'm sure you'll forgive me if I see you as a Wikipedian first. Jigsaw 01:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If you mean me personally then you are certainly correct; my ties to Wikipedia are much stronger than my ties to Wikinews. However, for many of the people here that isn't true. For example, Brian has no more than a handful of edits to Wikipedia but is one of the most productive editors at Wikinews. In any event, if you are trying to get people here to listen to you, conflating this project and Wikipedia will not help your goals. JoshuaZ 01:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to determine if Jigsaw isn't just a sock puppet of Rob Balder or at the very least a good friend who occasionally uses the same IP. An interesting set of responses from him to say the least.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.134.92.121 (talk • contribs)

Umm. A) Who is Rob Balder. B) Why do we (wikinews) care (if he is not using a sock to manipulate community will, or other devious things, I don't care). C) Why did you post this in the middle of another conversation, almost to make it look like someone else wrote this comment. Basically whats the deal with this comment. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A. A vocal critic who the user Jigsaw defends and acts and seems to act as proxy for.

B. Someone in citation on one of the two articles Jigsaw has participated in.

C. Human error, for which I apologize

Trying to lessen the impact Jigsaw/Balder's war on Dragonfiend may have. The entire process has become factionalized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.106.195.235 (talk • contribs)

So let me get this straight. You feel that by randomly accusing Jigsaw of doing stuff your not sure if he is doing or not, that will lesson the disputes he is engaged in and stop the sides of the disputes from essentially diliking each other? Bawolff ☺☻ 00:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, What?! . . . If you need proof of my identity, I have my own webcomic previously mentioned further down on the talk page, so I'll be glad to reference it again - Last Resort, which unlike Rob Balder's Partially Clips (a comic I don't even read on a regular basis), actually has drawn artwork instead of clip art, and a significantly different writing style to boot.

Furthermore, I HAVE worked on several other articles besides this one; it just so happens I started working on (and assertively defended/enhanced) this article first because I happen to like Schlock Mercenary and picked up on the story from there; I have an several-years-older Wikipedia account, but I needed to create a new one for Wikinews, hence my relative 'youth' here.

As I have stated previously, I have a definite interest in webcomics, hence my stances thus far. I am by no means a 'sock' of Balder's or anyone else, and furthermore I am highly offended that you wish to compare me to him; my mouth is significantly cleaner, for starters. --Jigsaw (Talk) 15:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Dragonfiend, as far as I'm concerned, is merely the biggest target around for the uninitiated to pick on. My analysis of DragonFiend's edits so far seems to indicate that the only webcomic she actually cares about is Fetus-X, a comic that next to nobody actually seems to heard of even WITHIN the affected populace, and yet it's one of the top 10 pages she focuses on (based on the number of edits, according to WikiDashboard). I can only conclude that Dragonfiend does not, in fact, 'hate webcomics'; she just loves Fetus-X and hates everything else that could prevent it from being seen as a 'unique snowflake', if you will. I know I should WP:AGF, but Dragonfiend's behavior in this regard makes me wonder if she has her own stake here. --Jigsaw (Talk)

This from someone who so vehemently denied my comments as merely circumstantial ad hominem [argument]. I mistook these IPs for yours 216.75.183.127 and then traced those IPs back to another forum R. Balder waxed "poetically" on and smelled a rat. Balder's entitlement post where he seemed to threaten some kind of paper tiger style lawsuit against wikipedia offended me greatly and I'm sorry to bleach you with the same chemical but the argument ran together there. To clearly state my position in all of this, I don't think Dragonfiend actually did all that much wrong, and I think under the circumstances the people who have moved to return deleted articles have done everything right except in the burning in effigy of this editor.

15:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Jigsaw, there is a strong anti-Wikipedia bias here at Wikinews, one I find unproductive. Perhaps if you did not pursue what seems like an SPA agenda and stuck around, tried to write some more articles besides just the one, you would be enlightened to how they are different. --David Shankbone 02:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

First thing: I would have appreciated you explaining what an SPA was to begin with. As you (and a few of your colleagues) have been quick to repeatedly point out, I am not familiar with Wikipedia/Wikinews in general, although I do have an (older) Wikipedia account. I am, however, familiar enough with a few niche wikis to know what I'm doing.

Second thing: The level of hostility here is not making me want to edit any more entries, especially seeing the treatment I have received over my efforts on this one. This perceived hostility is probably also making me push harder on this article than I would otherwise, but it certainly doesn't give me any better an impression of how Wikinews or Wikipedia is run. I can and am a worthwhile contributor to other projects, and simply put, if I feel that the heavy-handed actions of a few moderators and other users effectively silences a motivated, interested influx of new, passionate users... then obviously wikinews already has enough contributors that my efforts are neither needed nor wanted. Jigsaw 17:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, and I apologize for any perceived hostility. What is the point of the article? --David Shankbone 17:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The article over here is about a co-ordinated protest of Wikipedia's Notability Policies by the webcomics community (which I am a part of), and I am deeply interested in making sure that not only does the article come to light, but that some acceptable, accurate, achievable, and most importantly consistant standard of Notability comes into effect on Wikipedia about which webcomics can be posted there or not.

While I will admit I have my own reasons for seeing this come to light (my own comic, Last Resort, among other things), I find the entire incident to not only be a hostile environment to new editors and fans interested in further promotion of their fandoms, but also part of a disturbing trend towards Deletionism on Wikipedia in general, which is one reason among many that I haven't exercised my Wikipedia account in some time.

Call me a SPA if it seriously makes you feel better, but I'd hope that I have a certain level of expertise in this that you take into account. Besides, even on the SPA article itself, it says there's nothing inherently wrong with being one (especially for users with a certain field of expertise), and new users have to start somewhere. Jigsaw 17:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I support the publication of the article - I think it looks fine. --David Shankbone 18:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; glad to be a little more enlightening. (Also, hope you dun mind my reordering of your last message to make the thread a little more legible, since you put it in the middle of my last remarks.) Jigsaw 18:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jigsaw, I haven't seen any hostility to you here. Responding to your comments, disagreeing with you, politely giving pointers, and politely explaining when you might not have good understanding of the general context are not "hostility". If there was a specific comment that was hostile, please consider this to be an apology on behalf of the community. JoshuaZ 17:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Jigsaw, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these!

• Wikinews:Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
• Wikinews:Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced

Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews:

• Wikinews:Introduction - overview of the site
• Wikinews:Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
• Wikinews:Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
• Wikinews:Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
• Wikinews:Contents - the contents page.

There are always things to do on Wikinews:

• Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
• The front page lead articles often need updating
• Developing stories need finishing and publishing
• Discussions need your input
• Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
• And of course, stories need writing!

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Excellent username, by the way. Anything to do with Saw? Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 22:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons, yes. ^_^ Jigsaw 00:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sticking around?

Well, you seem to have felt there was a little hostility here... We have a mix of people, some who are very much Wikipedia supporters, some who are a little wary of the project and others.

I'd hope you see the fact that we got the webcomics article out the door in pretty good shape as an indication that this is a project where you can work.

So... I'm inviting you to stick around and try your hand at a few other articles, even if all you do is add an extra paragraph here and there with a source to back it up. As you saw for Webcomics, we allow original research - as in this case that can make our project a little more colourful and unique. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I second that. --David Shankbone 20:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I made up my mind to stick around the minute I saw this thing hit Slashdot. That made me feel so proud. ^_^ I was actually looking for what to do about my userpage... I know David's page is pretty spiffy, but I dunno if there's special userboxes for Wikinews the way Wikipedia does, or exactly what's going on here. -- Jigsaw 02:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. There isn't really much in way of userboxes here (Basically the irc template, and the accred reporter template. Otherwise they're just hard coded into the page) There are some old categories such as category:Live in North America and Category:Interested in Health, but no one really uses those anymore. Happy userpage making. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)