Talk:Jesse James Garrett/Archive 1

message: * Doesn't public reaction to the Ajax article belong on the Ajax page, rather than this one? Unsigned comment by anonymous T-Moble user 208.54.15.1
* JJG has many critics. One need only do a google search to find this out. Its only right that this criticism be reflected in the wikipedia. Sleepnomore 15:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
* Modified some of the language to be more neutral in point of view.  Jesse James Garrett is a relative unknown in the business apart from the term AJAX that is now widely used. Several parts of the topic included language that glorified Jesse James Garrett well beyond his status in the business. Please provide other arguments and proof here if you disagree. Sleepnomore 13:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: *I removed the disputed section from criticism after citing proof of what the criticism was about and that criticism was abundant on the web -- not just the act of one person.  Additionally, there was no information added to this talk page to support the dubious claim. Feel free to re-add the dubious claim once you find evidence to support the fact that criticism doesn't exist. - Sleepnomore 18:25, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
* User has once again added a dubious mark on a section without providing evidence or making a claim whatsoever in the talk page.  Reverting. - Sleepnomore 21:11, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
* Yet again user added dubious mark without justification and copyright material on the page. - Sleepnomore 21:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
** Wrong. The so called copyrighted material was surrounded by quotations (thus the little marks "" around them) which was an attempt to show that the links you have provided do not constitute evidence of anything but ridiculous ranting. My personal favorite? "this "AJAX" buzzword makes me want to puke" Do you see the quotation marks? Do you see that it links to the site where it came from, thus giving proper credit as a sited source? Do you see that it pretty much sums up the complaints of the author? Do you see that it is, in fact, a prejudical remark that has no business being counted as evidence of legitimate criticism? How come you are the only one who decides what can be done and what can't here? Do you own wikipedia or something? Personally, I have never seen anyone act so arrogantly. Thank you, Jason, for keeping a level head. I am having trouble doing so. Jesse is a friend of mine, and I am finding this whole thing ridiculous. This guy has no legitimate reason for his complaints. Thank you, Paul, for the link to Sleepnomore's book. Perhaps someone will give him a taste of his own medicine. Michael
* I'm still unconvinced that there's sufficient criticism of Mr. Garrett himself to warrant a complete section on this page; the POV of your own criticial link aside, two of the other links were mainly criticial of the term Ajax, and the other two links were to general root websites without any clear indication of which posts were relevant to the debate.  For now, there's a criticism section on the Ajax page itself that I've pointed to in the more concise section here. Jason 22:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 

message: Since Sleepnomore has insisted on justifications for edits, I'm posting one here for the edit I'm about to make, which is the same justification I posted two days ago.  I'm unconvinced that there's sufficient criticism of Mr. Garrett himself to warrant a complete section on this page; the clear majority of the criticism is against the term Ajax, and the remainder falls into inflammatory and dubious weblog posts that don't elevate to the level of discourse required for encyclopedia-like inclusion.  For now, there's a criticism section on the Ajax page itself which might suffice, and I've left a sentence in giving note to the criticism that surrounds the issue. Jason 01:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. The article, to me, looks like. The reason why I kept the Slashdot link is that I heard of Slashdot and many things get discussed about technology over at Slashdot. I removed the other blogs, since, blogs are inheriently POV and cannot be considered as a reliable sources (de facto policy, since blogs can be used as ranting posts by people who might be unqualified, and most blogs are not notable enough for mentioning or inclusion). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Unlock Editing 

message: With Jason doing a good job of editing the article on Jesse James Garrett, the majority of the discussion (if not all of it) on this talk page seems to be now irrelevant. Does anyone see anything wrong with archiving this discussion so future discussion is easier to see? - Sleepnomore 19:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
:Go ahead and archive it. No problems with me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. --Sleepyhead 19:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Ditto -- archive away. Jason 20:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive?