|
User talk:J.smith/Archive06
Spam whitelistI think I'm going to drop a note on Meta about this and ask someone to be e-mailed about it. It's only a matter of time before someone tries this... Grandmasterka 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey J.smith, I suggest that we not modify the title, but instead use the templates {{done}} (
artnet.de link whitelistedThanks for that - great work you're doing there Johnbod 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC) You were the deleting admin for online video game rental (log), which appears to be in the process of being re-created (whether intentionally or not I can't yet tell). Just thought it might be something you'd want to know about. - David Oberst 04:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Serafin blockedIs Serafin blocked from editing ? --Lysytalk 21:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC) YoutubeHi J.smith. Just saw your message in Talk:4′33″#YouTube_links regarding YouTube videos. There's a very interesting video of 4′33″, performed by the BBC Symphony Orchestra, which was I broadcasted, and I think offered as Real Player download at the time. What's Wikipedia stance on these kind of clips? The video is in here Cheers. AxiomShell 10:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Image:SilentHunterIIIbox.jpgImage:SilentHunterIIIbox.jpg is replaceable by a more free image. Granted, it could never be freely licensed under the GFDL, a CC license, etc. because the art itself is copyrighted, but it could be replaced with a non-promotional image. Please consider putting the tag back in. --Iamunknown 00:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Spam WhitelistHi, you added two of Voltaire's blog entries (on MySpace) to the whitelist for me, so I have just come to say thanks. However, I am not great with how URLs work, and I am not a MySpace user, and you picked me up on adding a 'userID' or something to the URL. Basically, what I am asking is, would it be possible to put his whole blog on the whitelist, or would I have to request individual unblocks every time I want to use an entry as a source? Thanks. J Milburn 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
JimmyTrump79: Broken promise?Hey, I think JimmyTrump79 is editing anonymously to avoid a re-block. Check out Special:Contributions/68.42.62.185; that user is adding the same attendance info that JT had been adding repeatedly. I thought you and I should discuss it before we take any action, but I think a re-block of JT is in order here, since he has gone right back to the behavior that got him blocked in the first place. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
March Paranormal Project NewsletterThe March 2007 issue of the Paranormal WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. InShaneee 05:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Daniel Brandt AfD #13Hi J.S. - I was cleaning up the Daniel Brandt AfD #13 and noticed that the reasoning you provided does not include a vote. You may wish to add a Keep vote. -- Jreferee 01:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
KatanaIts really hard to read Japanese upside down. Why are did you display the picture of the Japanese writing upside down? The one on the right hand-side the first three characters (from the bottom up) are: Thousand-Autumn-Rain The fourth character is illegible as it is punched out with a whole. Most of the rest seems to be names of people. Takada, Fujiwara are names that I can read. Its not like it says anything in Japanese (like a sentence or a poem), as its all chinese characters. You should ask someone who is familiar with antique Japanese art in general or old Japanese swords in particular. Sorry I am not of much help. Naerhu 14:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
My RfABThanks for your vote of support. I'm really at a loss as to what to do here; I really don't have many diffs to cite as to my actions, and honestly, I don't want to make this an indictment of Worldtraveler if I don't have to, either. I've never been in this sort of situation in my almost two years here, and I must say that I am quite frustrated. At the time of this writing, two of three Arbitrators have voted to accept, so Arbitration seems inevitable. I really don't want to do this, but I'm really afraid of the alternative more. Should I be unable to edit following this, or should I simply feel that leaving the site be the right thing to do, is there any way you might be willing to take up the monthly maintenance of WP:PARA? I'm sorry to impose, and I hope this is just paranoia, but I do feel it would be best if I prepared for just such an eventuality. --InShaneee 01:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel Bryant 23:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks a lot!Thanks for the help.--Nirajrm talk ||| sign plz! 14:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Spamstar of Glory
Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 17:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
My RfaJust wanted to say a thanks for commenting on my Rfa, and I just wanted to say that I didn't comment on my Rfa with regards to your comments because I didn't feel it was right to justify my actions, but since its over now - I'll comment directly to you. The copyvio concerns were serious, and they were only highlighted to me in the Rfa, I thought because I had attempted to source the copyvio's in, it was OK and although I acted in good faith, I now realise that this was wrong and I'm so sorry for what happened, everythings sorted now, I've gone right through my contribs and there have been no other ones. Please be assured that these actions will never occur again and I promise I won't abuse the tools. I hope that we can put this behind us now, and work together in the future. Cheers again Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations)There was an edit war at Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations). That's why I protected. All pages you fully protect are default protected indefinitely, and are unprotected once the edit war is over, or when someone requests and provides valid reasons for doing so. Thought you might want to know, because I was a bit confused when you gave a list of situations when to apply full protection indefinitely. Nishkid64 14:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC) User:Wikipedian64Unblock him if you like, I don't mind. I suspect he's learned his lesson now. I wouldn't have minded him having the sockpuppet (I have one) but if you read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Sockpuppets you will see why I blocked the sockpuppet. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC) To give a quick answer to the unique purpose of the board, no other venue is a readily accessible place for discussing and archiving community bans. Try hunting through the WP:AN and WP:ANI archives to cite some particular community ban discussion. It's maddening. When WP:CEM gets off the ground WP:CN will have more to do, but at present it serves its purpose nicely. In a broader sense it can serve as a location for community decision making in situations where no better venue exists. Not every user knows what those options are, so sometimes it acts as a point of referral. The board regulars have been diligent about referring mistakenly posted threads to WP:RFC and other venues. DurovaCharge! 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
sandbox page in mainspaceI've moved your "subpage" of Electronic voice phenomenon to User:J.smith/Electronic voice phenomenon/Temp, since the article space doesn't support subpages any more, and to avoid it showing up in special:uncategorizedpages, and such like. Alai 19:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
From the Li Hongzhi talk pageYou said:
Agreed, but I'm not sure if I should do that. Also if I should do that ... how can I do it :) ? --HappyInGeneral 09:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Deletion of Critical Material from Li Hongzhi pageMr. Smith: I wanted you to know I've just done a posting on the Falun Gong Arbitration Evidence page concerning a deletion you did on the Li Hongzhi page at the request of Happy in General. [1] Specifically, I have asked the Arbitrators to make a ruling on the deleted sentence concerning Li's award and honors. The sentence is based on reputable published sources and IMHO should be allowed to stand, since all it does is report that there is some debate about the significance of these awards and honors. Certainly there is no libelous content in that sentence. I'm doing this cross-post because I am not sure whether you are aware of the evidence page for this arbitration case. --Tomananda 22:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Li Hongzhi and MediationWow, this is awkward. I am fairly sure we have interacted outside of this mediation. However, the mediation is currently on hold due to the Arbitration Committee proceedings. Perhaps, if mediation continues after the ArbCom reaches a decision, and you are still involved, I can find another mediator to handle the Li Hongzhi part of the dispute. Knowing you, and therefore liking you a bit more, I am afraid I could not be neutral whilst you are involved. : ) Thanks,
blacklist touregyptAn FYI - Looks like you forgot the remove this site when you stated on the talk page that you were going to remove it. I was looking for the diff so I could mark the white-list request closed. :) J.smith 06:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
bowiechick talk pageI wasn't completely sure how to handle notices added to discussions, but I figured someone would let me know if I did it wrong. Thanks. However, I also wasn't clear what you intended by the changes (that link to the history), so I changed it to a normal archive link, and archived the original linklist text (if it was intended as "assigning homework", I'm not sure if that was efficient). At some point, if that linklist project becomes active again, it might be better to have a tag to display a box that can be inserted instead of posting comments. Thanks again. x 15:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC) DRV overturnResponded on my talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 02:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Inquiry regarding deleted article (MARC_Research)Greetings. I’m hoping you can help me with some information. Recently, an article about M/A/R/C Research (which was started by user Dscannon), was tagged for speedy deletion as described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dscannon . The URL for the original article prior to deletion was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_research
Thanks. That's most helpful. I have a few questions, but I'll start with one. Am I continuing the dialog on this topic in the appropriate place? Thanks. Tfsummers 21:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
That actually answered one of my questions, which was how to initiate a peer review. And yes, if you could point me toward the policies and standards that you mentioned in your previous post, that would be helpful as well. And one last question (for now, I think) Is the peer review a place where I might find an unbiased Wikipedian who might post an article that passed peer review? And how is that done? Would one typically tap an editor who responded to and participated in the peer review? Thanks. Tfsummers 14:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You have been most helpful. Thanks for the information. Tfsummers 16:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Re: Warrington map... wrong?I've replied to your message on Talk:Warrington. but I reproduce it here for your convenience:
DDStretch (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
OTRSWhich ticket, please? I am an OTRS newbie, forever losing things. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC) License tagging for Image:Michael Davis publisher.pngThanks for uploading Image:Michael Davis publisher.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images. For more information on using images, see the following pages: This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
usernameHi, I realized that you have blocked this user, who's username I thought was too long, and that you have confirmed it.(You sent the user the {{Usernameblocked}} template, which I thought is used in cases where the user is still invited and allowed to create a new account, but you also blocked the account creation on the block log.)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Oh yeah, I forgot to add that I changed mine recently.User:Wikipedier->User:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
(editconflict) Wow, that was fast! Thank you so much!--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 21:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Boris AllenNote that your friend Boris Allen has been banned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.232.69 (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC). ForgotYou have obviously forgotten that you have ever taken action favourable to banned Boris Allen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.232.69 (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC). See "User talk 81.158.206.83", where you took action favourable to Boris Allen. Note that I use twenty different computers. Boris Allen has been banned for trolling, double editting, supporting vandals, sock-puppetry, etc. HmmmThought you might want to see this. John Reaves (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC) HiI didnt realize you were an admin *quivers* dont block meeeee! Can you speedy close the mfd please?
Spam whitelist - what do you think?At User:Eagle 101's request, I have gone to various editors seeking a consensus on this discussion, as I personally know the artist whose site it is - therefore, there is a small issue of WP:COI. Please take a look and leave your thoughts there.--Vox Humana 8' 23:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC) I am trying to investigate a complaint on WP:COIN. I don't understand the allegations, but maybe I'm just thick. What is going on with this article and User:Pollyfodder? Feel free to email me, or leave comments at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Break.com. Thanks. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 08:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC) thanksfor the Barack Obama picture Tvoz |talk 18:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
ErnhamPoint taken. In fact point already taken before you repeated it. Mark83 15:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
ThanksThanks for the warning. Always appreciate my mistakes being pointed out. All the best. Alun 01:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC) RFAR/ParanormalUnless you are a party to the editing dispute, your statement should be added to the talk page, not the main case page. Thanks. Thatcher131 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Some talk on the Li Hongzhi pageI've noticed that you recently engaged in trying to resolve some disputes on the Li Hongzhi page. If you don't mind, I'd appreciate your opinion on a comment I made a few days ago concerning the validity of a certain section of that page. Just scroll down to the bottom of the talk page, and you'll see it. Thanks! Mcconn 15:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC) banned?Hello, You have banned my account, M.posner, as a supposed sockpuppet first of "WatchDog07", and then of "someone else" (you did not state whom). Could you please e-mail me? I'd like to get this resolved as soon as possible. I only have 1 account and the only time I posted under an anonymous IP address was once before I created my account. I also would like to know who I'm a supposed sockpuppet of. Needless to say, this is completely bizarre to me. My preferred e-mail address is idlehandsdistro [at] yahoo [dot] com Thanks, 200.106.68.57 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
200.106.68.57 01:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello again: I think you shall find that all of these claims are false as you look into the issue further. Marxian Lurker, for example, is clearly not me, nor Akliman, nor Annejaclard, nor is he even on the same side of the edit war that took place. 200.106.68.57 01:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Hi J.smith, this user argues that he/she is not a sockpuppet, and is requesting to be unblocked. Can you possibly run a checkuser case if you don't agree, to technically prove the answer either way? If the case is confirmed by a checkuser, then that will prove your point that the user is a sock, and if the case shows unrelated, then the blocked user is innocent of sockpuppety.(Unless that was already done, or you think the evidence is significant enough.) I'm suggesting to open a case, to assuming good faith in the user.--U.S.A. cubed 02:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
removing a block noticeYou didn't say that I shouldn't remove a block notice from my page. If you look at my user page you will see that I routinely clear the page as it allows me to have a clearer view of the page. I don't think there's anything wrong with that and I don't think that you should assume bad faith because of it. I am not protesting the block as a "time out" - for all concerned - under the circumstances is probably a good idea. - anonymous
Letter to youDear Sir, I've written a letter to you and loaded it onto my talk page [7]. I look forward to your response. v = 0 22:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and another questionDear Sir, Thank you for your quick response. I've asked a follow-up question, that I hope you will answer, on my talk page. v = 0 03:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the help on my userpage!Can you do one more thing? Can you make my userboxes in a scroll window please? Plus can you make a scroll window to here please? Oh! look what I found! WikiMan53 t/a Review me! 11:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review for Template:User no GFDLJust thought you'd like to know: A template you participated in a Tfd for (Template:User no GFDL) has subsequently been speedily deleted, and is now under deletion review. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 16:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Please acknowledge receiptPlease acklowledge reading the above including reading the section referred to above on the TSSI talk page. Do I need to file a formal complaint concerning the presence of the meatpuppets who were solicited by Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs)? Of the three meatpuppets identified by Kliman - Alan_XAX_Freeman (talk · contribs), M.Posner (talk · contribs), annejaclard (talk · contribs) - the first has written (on his user discussion page) that he is appealing the ruling concerning his being a sockpuppet and the 2nd was only given a 48 hr. block because you did not have at the time the unimpeachable evidence and confession of Andrew Kliman himself that Mike Posner is in fact Andrew Kliman's meatpuppet. I can provide more evidence, if required. Frankly, I don't understand why Kliman wasn't blocked on Friday since he is the puppetmaster. I guess it must have been an oversight. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Ok? Getting people blocked is not a tool for you to gain an advantage in a debate. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Edit WarHi, I am reporting an editor who is engaged in edit-warring. HappyInGeneralhas done about 34 reverts on ([8]) page alone in the last two weeks. He and I were warned on May 1st. [9] I have refrained from editing that page, but HappyInGeneral has continued edit warning. In ignoring the warning and 3RR rule, HappyInGeneral has declared himself an edit warrior. If he is not punished for this behavior now, no one will care about Wiki rules any more. The edit warning on that page is mostly about a provocative and contested image added by HappyInGeneral. Many editors have rejected placing this picture in the intro. In trying to reach a compromise with him I created a section call “Abuses against Falun Gong practitioners” and placed this picture there. But HappyInGeneral deleted this section and moved the picture back to the intro thus starting a round of revert war.[10] --Samuel Luo 06:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Li Hongzhi talk againHi! I'm requesting your intervention again. Sorry to trouble you. Please take a look at the recent section on the Li Hongzhi discussion page regarding the "interviews" section. I've provided what I believe to be clear and undeniable reasoning for the removal of that section, but I know that without acknowlegment of this by an admin or uninvolved party every attempt to remove it will continue to be met with a revert. I request that you please take a look at what I've said, and at the section I'm refering to, and post a comment in response. I don't like troubling people like this, but I don't know what else to do at this point. Thanks! Mcconn 04:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Bolton SchoolPlease will you restore http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolton_School&oldid=124111896 because it isn't libel its just funny. If you cant put it back into the history section can you put it in WP:BJAODN so we can all have a laugh at it.
Action Requested Again in Relation to Meatpuppets and PuppetmasterAfter you unblocked Alan Freeman and gave him very explicit instructions on what he can and can't do, he has twice intervened in the TSSI discussion over matters of substance and procedure rather than just grammar, spelling, etc. I ask that he, along with user M.Posner, be indefinately blocked as meatpuppets. Andrew Kliman admitted to soliciting them
on his user talk page and both Posner and Freeman have behaved in a singular fashion to support AKliman. Both have intervened in discussions with the single purpose of backing the edits of Andrew Kliman on the TSSI page and, in the case of M. Posner, also the David Laibman page. This is unacceptable and in violation of WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. You told me that you were looking into this question, but that was a (relatively) long time ago and they have been very disruptive since. I also strongly urge that you have sanctions against Akliman for soliciting meatpuppets and other offenses. It is grossly unfair for me to be expected to respond to 2 meatpuppets and I puppetmaster as if they were 3 individuals. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs) I have sent you a private message regarding this request as I think a calm discussion will benefit more from this approach. Happy to consider your suggestions: Alan XAX Freeman 17:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Solicitation of funds by one editor from anotherPlease see the comments of 'you-know-who' on the TSSI talk page today, especially point #3 where an editor demanded, as a precondition for filing for mediation, that I place $10,000.00 in an escrow account of his attorney! What is the Wikipedia policy that concerns the solicitation of sizable financial sums by one editor from another in an edit dispute? Or, is there no formal policy because something so outrageous has never happened before on Wikipedia? Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
My continuing quest for mediationDear Sir, please see my talk page for my response to your comment. justice-thunders-condemnation 14:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sir, please see my new message for you on my talk page. justice-thunders-condemnation 04:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC) phoenix art center2007051710013003 It's basically resolved at this point. If he continues disrupting on wiki, he can be dealt with in the typical manner. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
New policy1. I have acted on the advice of another Wikipedia administrator and decided to implement WP:SHUN in relation to you-know-whom. 2. Recent events have forced me to reevaluate the situation and I have concluded, since there is evidence to the contrary, that I need no longer am required to assume good faith on the part of you-know-whom. This is, as you know, allowable under WP:AGF. 3. You-know-whom has not apologized - to the Wikipedia community or myself - for his demand that funds be placed in an escrow account for him to re-file for mediation. Indeed, he has defended that abusive and malicious action. When he blanked the page, he did not express regret or admit fault. Instead, he wrote "blanked para because I was compelled to, under threat of being blocked". This is another example of bad faith. 3. Because of the above, I will no longer respond to you-know-whom on article talk pages. I reserve the right, of course, to revert articles for the purpose of expanding content and restoring valid information which was improperly deleted and legitimate tags which are necessaary to alert Wikipedia readers. 4. Please ask you-know-whom to stop making baseless, absurd, and personally insulting claims against me on his user talk page. I don't think that I need respond to those claims directly but I do want to note for your benefit that a) I had the right and I believe I acted in the best interests of Wikipedia when I alerted several editors of the Yale Economic Review article that you-know-whom proposed - without explanation - putting an advertising tag on that article; b) the tags which I placed on the TSSI article were legitimate and referred entirely to the content of the article; and c) the expression "New Orthodox Marxists" was originally put into the article and referenced with a reliable source by none other than you-know-whom. 5. You-know-whom says above that he continues to want mediation. I have seen evidence (behavior inconsistent with desiring mediation) from him. In any event, if he wants mediation, then he should re-file for mediation without imposing any (ridiculous or otherwize) demands and ultimaturms on this editor. Watchdog07 11:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
VANDALISM OF RFC/ECON PAGE BY ANDREW KLIMAN!Andrew Kliman twice deleted a RFC which I wrote concerning the use of the expression "New Orthodox Marxists" in the TSSI article. He then went on to delete two other RFC's which I wrote. In deleting the RFCs which I authored he - of course - left his own RFCs in place on the page. The RFC process is an important component in the overall process of dispute resolution at Wikipedia and Kliman's continuing attempts to suppress attempts by this editor for comment from other Wikipedians is a direct frontal attack on the whole Wikipedia community. Accordingly, I ask that Andrew Kliman be indefinately blocked for these continuing, repeated, and malicious acts of VANDALISM. Watchdog07 12:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
"BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUE"!Andrew Kliman's latest slap in the face of Wikipedia was to edit WP:SHUN so that it now says that "diificult editors" can be asked questions to "reveal" the "motives" of those other editors and as a "behavior modification technique." Enough is enough. This is obviously a cynical ploy to re-write guidelines in an effort to HARASS WP:HARASS this editor. Kliman then went on to say on the TSSI Talk page that the wording of the WP:SHUN allows him to press me on answering his absurd, demanding, and agrresive questions. The only "modification technique" which will work against him is a permanent block. Watchdog07 23:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I saw your note to Librarygurl, and thought that I might mention to you that Grazon has been actively editing as a set of anons. Also, I gave Librarygurl the URL for his 'blog, so that she could after all ask him whatever she might. —SlamDiego 09:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC) NewcommersI don't feel I am bitting the newcommers at all.--James, La gloria è a dio 02:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking over his edit history, I am reasonably sure that Burntapple is a sock-puppet of Grazon. —SlamDiego 18:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC) I posted to An/I: Burntapple, sock-puppet of Grazon. —SlamDiego 20:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Cool Cat MFD on DRVWikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 30#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat -- Ned Scott 05:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC) cite encyclopediaHi, you changed the {{cite encyclopedia}} template before. Could you address this: Template_talk:Cite_encyclopedia#Space_needed? Thanks! --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Still at ItLater in the day after Burntapple discovered that he'd been blocked, this edit, restoring an edit previously made by Burntapple, was made from 71.143.18.160, which is within one of the ranges of IP numbers from which Grazon is known or believed to have been editing anonymously. There's a fair chance that Grazon will have created yet more named accounts with this IP number. Is there, within the rules, a way of checking for named accounts created from that IP number at about the time of that edit? —SlamDiego←T 09:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC) I understand that it wouldn't have been proof in any case, and I understand the concern to maintain the established protocols of privacy. I did think that it was possible to have a system that flagged a new editor for greater scrutiny, based upon such a pattern. —SlamDiego←T 09:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC) you cannot assume thatthat is not fair! that IP adress is shared and just because one account was used for vandalism, does not mean that the whole IP adress should be blocked again. That is really unfair because the whole point of being able to edit wikipedia again is for another chance. and i am sorry that one account was used for vandalism, but this one was not and will not so i do not see the logic. --Salnjm 22:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC) First of all that is not what happened, the IP was blocked, once the block time was up, accounts were created and lets not forget that this is a shared IP so I was not the only person who wanted to get an account, so I am sorry that the other account with the name MrLeftyisacunt was made for vadalism, but this one is not. And the edits agaisnt the user Mr. Lefty were made on an account, not on the IP, so why did you block the IP? It is not the IP which should be blocked, it is the Mrleftyisacunt account. And i understand that by blocking that account, I was autoblocked. It is not fair for you to block the IP. And also, I am on a different IP right now so thats how I am editing. --Salnjm 23:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC) wait...I'm looking at the block logs for me and the IP adress, and i do not see that you blocked me...I'm confused, am I still autoblocked on the other IP until tommorow or is the autoblock gone? --Salnjm 23:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Griffith Quarry, CABefore I made the edit, I checked the database [19] to make sure Einbierbitte 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpgAs so ordered by DRV, Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg is again nominated for deletion. Please see the debate at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 4#Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg. Regards, howcheng {chat} 21:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Question about Wikipedia ethicsIf an editor published a private e-mail by another editor - without that editor's permission - on an article talk page, what Wikipedia policy would that highly unethical action be in violation of? See the talk page of the David Laibman article. On that page, you will see that an editor (Akliman) included a private email from another editor (Jurriaan). Watchdog07 13:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
UserpageCan you please create my userpage with the old code you used please? With the about me and useful wikipedia links ect. Thanks! SuperBall53 01:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
RenamingI'm not familar with OTRS - how do I confirm that - can I? Is there anywhere that says you have OTRS access? (I'm trying to see how I would get some evidence). We generally have a policy that only the user can ask for a renaming to stop people being renamed maliciously. I understand this is a different issue - it's just one we've not had before. Also please don't put Any in the template as it means we have to change it all manually. Not using the template would be more appropriate in this case. Thanks Secretlondon 22:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
shortened title: DRV of XcelleryOriginal title: An editor has asked for a deletion review of Xcellery. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hi, according to the instructions, I hope I'm doing this correctly. I believe you were listed as the admin who deleted the [Xcellery] article. I recently updated the article in User:CambridgeBayWeather/Sandbox and at CBW's advice, I submitted it to be reviewed for Undeletion. Regards, --Gsalelanonda 22:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: SmeagainHey J.S, I blocked Smeagain for sockpuppetry, but omitted the details at the time. If you take a peek at the user creation log[20], you can see that Smeagain made the attack account Louiilouii, which was used for 4 edits.[21][22][23][24], none of which are at all welcome. From what I can gather, he is also the owner of the account Boyleharry(blocked by Rebecca), and possibly others. I hope this helps. --Michael Billington (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC) YouTubeJ.S., did you use a template for messages like at Talk:Al Gore's Penguin Army video#YouTube links? If so, is it still around? Thanks, Iamunknown 05:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
User talk:GrazonIt very unlikely that Grazon will ever be unblocked... he abused wikipedia to support his own agenda and promote his own political ideals. Along the way he violated many different policies: WP:POV, WP:SOCK, WP:V and many behavior related policies and guidelines. Why would you want someone so disruptive to be unblocked? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Everybody needs to have forgiveness. Some much more than he does. For example, check User:Haggawaga - Oegawagga. Randalph P. Williams 13:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Dorus Rijkers, one of H.O's articles, was a DYK-article, and is B-class. It was a great article, and eventually appeared on the main-page. On his userpage (for which User:Phaedriel gave him a star, which she can claim), was a list of articles made by him, and they were all quite good. This way, I think he deserves a second shot. Agreed? Just take a closer look at his good deeds; not just those bad ones. Randalph P. Williams 13:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
William M. Conelly's BlockRe: Denial of unblock for User:Devil_Ray: Look man, did you even look at who posted what on that page? You went ahead accused me of being uncivil. ("Continued incivility will lead to extended blocks. Please review WP:CIVIL.") There is no way what I wrote could be considered uncivil. Conelly deletes peoples comments and then he blocks people who object to his deleting of other peoples comments, then he accuses THEM of being uncivil? Would you LOOK at the history please and pay special attention to the signatures. [25] [26] I wrote exactly this: "Deleting another editor's comments that you disagree with is not acceptable behavior. This page is designed to settle questions that are debatable. Fair and honest debate cannot take place if editors are permitted to chop the bits that they don't like out of the record. Please refrain from deleting other's comments." Where do you see any incivility there? Conelly deleted my above comment from the talk page then he blocked me. Is deleting my comments okay? Come on man, what do we call people who go around deleting other peoples talk page comments. Go ahead... you can say it. That is what he does. And he is an Admin?? What's wrong with this picture? When is somebody gonna make this guy shape up? You're an Admin aren't you? Do something. --Devil Ray 15:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
My BlockFirst thanks for unblocking me.. Second could you look at the two articles that me and the other administrator were argueing about and explain to me how I can put those references in? Also can I list Spanish Wikipedia article as a source? Callelinea
Late messageHello J, thanks for the message. I am a bit surprised by its late arrival, but nevertheless, wisdom is appreciated. It is one of my shortcomngs; I do not suffer fools easily. Having worked on articles for several years that appear to engender rather consistent vandalism, controversy, and highly POV edits, I admit that I am not too patient with some editors who have a constant axe to grind. The editor in question has a one-horse issue and he rides it into the ground and forces all to meet his/her rather skewed perceptions. They only seek to be offended or to take offense. I view her/him as unhelpful to Wikipedia. The support that was shown her/him resulted in feeding their feeling of being "right". Unfortunately, this only resulted in my being attacked on other articles as a racist; the articles are not ones that I had previously edited. Editing Wikipedia is not a right to be enjoyed by all; it is strictly a priviledge. Those editors that are only seeking a personal blog should be encouraged, if not forced, to enjoy that passion by starting one. Other editors that are committed to improving articles should be encouraged. Please understand that I am not prescribing intolerance for new editors or those who simply do not know better, but I do support blocking indefinitely those editors who do not forfeit their axe and soapbox. I have wasted enough of your time and unfortunately, unlike you, I have not shared any wisdom. I will strive to do better and possibly on talk pages I will eventually be able to give up pushing the buttons of those who so obviously are screaming for someone to push them. Happy editing! --Storm Rider (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Anarkali pageI just saw your comments on the Anarkali talk page. A few youtube links have been added to it once again. They are videos to different portrayals of the historical figure in various films. Do you think that they should be removed or not? Thanks! Mhassan85 06:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Hi WikiMan53 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Administrative action requiredI hope you had a good weekend. I enjoyed the time off. I ask that read the section which I wrote today on the TSSI discussion page, in particular the section on meatpuppets, and then take administrative action against Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs). Although his was an egregious violation of policy ( WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT ) and although he has been in my opinion guilty of incivility, edit warring and tendentious editing, I ask that the block against him be only for 48 hours. I make this suggestion in good faith in the hope that this entire matter can be resolved amicably in a manner which results in a much improved edit which will finally conform to the Wikipedia policy on neurtrality WP:NPV. If there are other sysops who have been considering the TSSI dispute, I ask that you pass along this information to them. Thx in advance. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs) RespectSure, I can be patient. I wanted to know what, if anything, I needed to do procedurally. I don't want to appear "demanding" or "condescending" but I ask that you please consider the following: you wrongly accused M. Posner of being a sockpuppet of Watchdog07 and later apologized to him but not to me. You also inferred wrongdoing on my part by saying that I claimed to be a member of sysops. I did not. I simply claimed to be a member of the groups listed on my user page. Perhaps that doesn't qualify as administrative in the technical sense but those committees would be considered to be administrative in the more generic sense. I certainly appreciate that this whole situation with the TSSI and David_Laibman pages must be an unwelcome administrative mess from your perspective. But, I believe that I have treated you respectfully and I respectfully ask that you please reciprocate. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs) Intent to revertI intend to revert the TSSI page to a black-and-white factual edit. I will do so tomorrow unless I receive a specific request not to do so by a member of sysops. The current edit simply can not be permitted to stand as it is in violation of virtually every Wikipedia policy, as I have documented at length on the TSSI talk page. As things stand, when I attempted to put quotation marks around a quote, Andrew Kliman reverted the page again. This is unacceptable. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs) Your recommendationThank you for your recommendation: as I indicated above, unless I receive a specific request from a member of sysops not to do so then I will revert the TSSI article tomorrow. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs) The Anti-Christ's Latest ActionSee Akliman's Akliman (talk · contribs) latest action: the multiple tagging of the pluralism_in_economics article. Someone needs to tell him that it's not funny. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
You misunderstoodThe editor in question used "the antichrist" to describe HIMSELF: indeed, that's how he SIGNED his edits. You can see for yourself if you look at the history of his page. He referred to himself on his own user page as (real name), then "aka the antichrist".
Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Intent to Revert TSSI article to stubI have offered a number of compromise proposals recently which were rejected or ignored by Andrew Kliman. Now, he has taken away the neutrality tag and and others I placed on the article. Yet, clearly as anyone can see from the 'talk page' the neutrality of the article is disputed. I have explained at length - dozens of times - what is wrong with the biased article. He shows no sign of wanting to compromise. He has acted as if the article belongs to him. After weeks of discussion, I believe that the only thing that will get him to seriously discuss the article is to revert it to a black-and-white factual article and then discuss expanding it. I asked you to do this some time ago and you asked that I be patient. Now, I am informing you in advance that I am going to revert the page and I ask that you then place a temporary LOCK on the page. If that happens, we might begin to see some progress. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Violations by M.Posner & friendsM.Posner reverted the TSSI article. I ask that his action be reversed because it was a) the action of a meatpuppet acting on behalf of a puppetmaster and b) a violation of the 3-revert rule since, according to an arbitration ruling referred to in WP:SOCK, a meatpuppet and a puppetmaster are considered to be one (1) person. I think the record is also clear that he was a) solicited to be a meatpuppet; b) has consistently and unapologetically supported the edits and comments of the person who solicited his presence; c) intervened in the discussions in an unhelpful way; d) acted in concert with his master to revert the article to a non-neutral edit in violation of WP:NPV. On another matter, I intend to revert the article to stub. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)
Reply to your commentI replied briefly to the comment you left on my talk page. I will not go over the history of who wrote what when and the record of who has or has not displayed good faith as that will not help resolve the dispute at this time. So, I hope you will understand why I will not give a lengthy response to your comment: I am more concerned about resolving the dispute than explaining my perspective on the history of the debate. In any event, I wish to thank you for your concern and express my appreciation for your good faith efforts. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs) ANI research and commentsHi. I was a little taken aback to see this edit of yours in response to a complaint on ANI. Offering an opinion based solely on the complaint itself isn't that likely to be of help. There are many invalid and self-interested complaints on ANI, and, well, the people who did look up the context of this one seem to have thought it one of them. Perhaps you would consider using the ANI time that you have for fewer, but better-researched, comments? I hope you won't be offended, but take this comment of mine in the benevolent spirit in which I intend it. Bishonen | talk 13:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC). I noticed you already had a discussion with PierreLarcin on the Rotary International page. I draw your attention to the fact that an arbitrage has been opened concerning this contributor here. Feel free to bring your contribution to the case. Best regards --Bombastus 22:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC) FYII have posted a new request to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grazon. —SlamDiego←T 07:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC) The outcome of the checkuser was “Likely”. I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done with that. Perhaps little more than giving it some weight in some future decision about Dcker. —SlamDiego←T 01:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC) ResponseI take very serious issue with anyone saying that the Native Americans, most of whom that speak English actually refer to themselves as Indians, were not the first people in America. The atcitle you pointed me to is unconvincing and flies in the face of all reputable history and archiology. As to the other point, the noble savage, I will tell you that the Houma tribe does not have a history of war with any other tribe or with the white man. Period. Some of our neighbors suggested that the Houma tribe declare war on the U.S. as a symbolic gesture in order to spead up the currenlty unjust status of non recognition of our rights but is was thuroully voted down as all acts of violence are completely outside the normal and accepted ethical and moral conduct of our Nation, the Houma Tribe, and always has been. I mention all of this but really this is not the real issue here. Storm only said those things to me as a way of creating a personal insult. He does not have knowledge of what he is talking about and is clearly wrong. The only and sole reason the said anything about any of this was to create personal insult against me. I doubt the actually believe any of this and if he does that would only be futher indication of his ignorance. The said it as a personal insult and now is surprised that I took it as a personal insult. Most Racist know full well that what they are saying is wrong and misguided and the only reason they use words like Nigger or any other racial insults is simply to be insulting. The real issue here his Storm's very aggressive attempt to not have accurate and historical information about Joseph Smith Jr. put into the article about that man's biography. I have raised legitimate questions about the possible racism or non racism of Joseph Smith Jr. that should be addressed. After all, the page on Martin Luther had to address his very negative statements about Jews. Even the Page on Jesus addresses what some consider to the negative aspects of his teachings. All Storm is really trying to do here is irrationally protect the reputation of Joseph Smith Jr. on Wikipedia. He thinks that he can run off someone that raises valid historical questions. If Smith wasn't a racist or was it really doesn't make a difference in my personal life but that I can improve the article by adding truthful and important information. It is highly likely that Smith was in fact a racist and this is a matter of Historical fact. The truth is the truth is the truth. Certain aspects of the Mormon religion have retained some of these elements of racism. If this is so because of a teaching from Smith then they obviously don't think it to be wrong so why won't they include it in the article? If Smith wasn't a racist that would be a remarkable fact that would definatly worrent inclusion in the article considering the past actions of the Mormon Religions and the time and place that Smith lived his life. He would then be in effect the only non racist person of that town at that time. This information is completely valid to include in the article since Smith did found a religous movement and the personal thoughts and beliefs of Smith guide the actions of Mormons to this day. Another point is the fact that Storm is trying to force everyone to believe as fact what in reality is not fact. Historical and empirical FACTS clearly show that the Indians were the first people to come to the Americas and there is Zero evidence that the Israely population said by the Mormons to have come to central America ever came. It is a matter of Mormon Religous idiology and faith that they came and I would not question his right to believe in his faith but the history is against him. He believes that the Israelis came because he wants to believe it but I beleive what is historical fact and it should only be historical fact that goes into a WIKIPEDIA article. Storm whats me to believe that my people weren't the first one's here because his church lied to him and he believed them. Also, note that is it just happens that the Indians weren't the first people here it really doesn't change history. Who was here when Columbus arrived, Indians. They can find or fordge whatever skellotons they want. The living people at the time of Columbus were Indians. The only reason to even say that the Indians weren't here or weren't first is not because it is true because no one knows. The only reason to say it is to formulate a personal Insult. So, he wanted to personally insult me and I do indeed take it as a personal insult. He wants to spread racism on Wikipedia. My question to Wikipedia is will Wikipedia allow his actions. If so they you are an accomplice. So please let me know, does Wikipedia support Racism? If so then you really shouldn't mind if I self exclude myself since you already think that I am just an uneducated savage that is only good dead, Right? You also won't mind if I tell everyone else just so all the other minorities won't go an bother you anymore. Please let me know what WIKIPEDIA decides.--Billiot 02:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Well J. I suspect you were unaware of what you were getting into when you began to interact with this editor. Given his renewed personal attacks on me, see here, I have put a 3rd level warning for personal attacks. I am making you aware of this because you will have the easiest time blocking her/him when they proceed to retaliate for being warned. As you know this is not the first time this editor has attacked me on articles that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. I request that his/her edits be monitored closely and s/he be blocked at the next occurrence of a personal attack. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
ResponseGo ahead and block me. What I said was true. All of it. I am not hiding anything about what I believe and what I said and the same can not be said about Storm Rider who knows full well the I have already stated that I will not respond to him anymore and I take it again as a personal insult that he would dare post on my talk page. So, by all means, BLOCK ME. Let Wikipedia's decision ring clear. I won't even challenge it. I welcome it. If Wikipedia has a problem with people not tollerating insults to their race them you must do your duty and Block me. That action will tell me everything I need to know about this site. --Billiot 10:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC) CivilityI think that you were quite correct in taking such action and enforcing the guidelines. However I understand that Wiki operates a principle of civility. The use of "Do not, I repeat, DO NOT...." is unecessary and lacks manners and therefore simple courtesy or civility.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Association_of_Schoolmasters_Union_of_Women_Teachers" Redshelly 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Red Shelly
ShystieHi. Why did you delete the page on Shystie? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shystie&action=edit brob 02:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Electronic voice phenomenon rewrite projectHey, I noticed you were a frequent contributor to the Electronic voice phenomenon article and I thought I'd let you know that I'm proposing a rewrite project for the article. I thought you might be interested in contributing to it. Currently the article seems to have numerous dispute problems including POV issues and I thought I could get it to at least a Good Article. You can see my proposal on it's talk page here Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon. There are a few questions I'd like you to answer first though. If you have any questions about it you can leave me a message. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Re: Dragonfly CMSHi, in fact there are no clear notability criteria for software (WP:SOFTWARE is still under discussion), and while I would have heartily deleted it as a PROD or voted Delete on an Afd, A7 only applies to people and companies. I thought a software with quite a base of users (I checked the number of people who registered on their website) shouldn't be speedy deleted. But beside this procedure issue, I have no problem with this article deleted and I won't DR it. My personnal stance on CSDs is that we should apply them strictly when there is a shadow of a doubt. -- lucasbfr talk 11:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Leggett & PlattYes, I was working on the assumption that's where it came from. But give them credit, at least they didn't just delete the whole section and hope no-one noticed. --Escape Orbit 20:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Anon you unblockedAnother anon. See the original AIV report: [27]. I saw the talk page discussion. Since he had removed one notice from ClueBot and some of his edit summaries sounded like attacks, his behavior did seem like a vandal's. Apparently that was not the case. Thanks for the unblock. Daniel Case 06:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC) MartinBotYour recent edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Knight Rogers (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use the sandbox. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 00:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
User talk:81.197.77.202I'd like to know why I've received this message from you: "Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kim Komando, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed." If you take a look at the Kim Komando history, you'll notice that you did not infact revert an edit by me but instead an edit by someone else to a previous version, which was done by me. I wouldn't have problems with messages like these if the case actually were as stated in the quote. 81.197.77.202 06:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Please Advise MeWhat do you mean by Kudos.Thanks.Kaystar 06:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tom Clancy - The Sum of All Fears cover.jpg)
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Resource ExchangePlease have a look at the talk page of the Resource Exchange. I need your approval for something. Key to the city 10:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Tom SlemenAh. I was under the impression that Zardos was vandalizing the article by removing that particular section. Sorry about that; I am inexperienced at patrolling recent changes, and I will check the talk page next time before making assumptions of bad faith. Enam Esru 14:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Dear J.S. I responded on the talk page, but let me just clear some things up here. The bassland reference was already there, I did not add it, I simply put it into template form. I've never heard of this person before, until I was asked to watch due to editors removing this section from the article while I'm doing Recent Changes patrol, so I have no opinion either way. I looked into the talk page, and into the page history, and indeed, there is an ongoing reverting issue with two sides reverting the other. Since I didn't know the issue, I did some research on my own to see if this section was even valid, and if perhaps those removing it were doing so rightly per WP:BLP. I found that this dispute, does indeed exist. I re-worded the section to be clear that the article is not saying whether the issue is true or false, but simply that the dispute exists. I am fully aware of what WP:RS is, and the majority of areas this dispute appears on, are not reliable sources (forums etc). The Wilson and Alroy's Record Review is borderline, I agree, but it at least illustrates that this issue is known about (aside from that other site that was already listed and people were arguing about, lol). The newswireless.net site has a section called "blog", but this reference seemed to be in the "news" section, and again, just verified the dispute, and did not state who was right or wrong. If you feel these should be removed, or the entire section removed, feel free. I'll stop watching the page. I was simply trying to put this into neutral format, to stop the edit wars, as I was requested. My apologies for any confusion, or if you think I'm trying to push some view, because I honestly don't care either way, it just seems that it is valid to remain in, because the dispute does exist. Ariel♥Gold 18:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Questions regarding a ban noticeHey JS, you recently unblocked my account from an indefinite block (which I sincerely appreciate). I was wondering if, now that I am unblocked, I am allowed to remove the "Known Sockpuppet" and the "Indefinitely blocked" notices from my user page. Many thanks, --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 00:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Idiotic upload pageRegarding a picture of mine that you deleted, it was well within my rights to use that image, yet it is wikipedia's upload page's inane complexity that caused the trouble. I would appreciate it if you would undo your deletion of File:NumberingSystem.jpg and recognize that I was granted FULL and COMPLETE permission to use this picture on a FREE LICENSE. At the very least provide an opportunity for the author to edit it. Thank you. NMThai 12:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Decline on Template:Remove the empty oneThe template is currently empty, has always been empty, and was meant as some sort of joke. Is there a better speedy template I should have used? Or because it's been around for more than a little while, should I have done the long-term votes for deletion, instead of a speedy? Thanks! Gscshoyru 17:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Take a second look to that page. See that all the content is already in [[Strontium chloride] in more detail. Moreover, SrCl2•6H2O is orphan and it's obscure to have a redirect with the chemical formula of a Chloride. I checked many of them and there is no other redirects of a formula. This is only in special cases, e.g. [[H2O]. -- Magioladitis 17:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
SurvivormanThanks for fixing the reference on Survivorman. I wasn't able to find the old archive. I'm glad that you found the digest. I couldn't find it, but I guess I was looking in the wrong places. I knew that the forum post was not such a good idea, but it was the best I could do at the time and I didn't particularly want to see the reference deleted. The whole incident is probably not that important in the long run, but with the furor over at Man vs. Wild, I figured it would be better to leave it in. -- Gogo Dodo 18:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Orphaned non-free media (Image:Starsonata-small-banner-logo.png)
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ss palaceattack.jpg)
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hobobill235I guess I'm too soft! Should you wish to block indef. please do so, you'll have my full support. Pedro : Chat 13:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Blocking User talk:194.81.161.150Please could you make this a softblock in future? Your block blocked my user account - I'm now logging in from home! I sent you an email but i'll repeat myself here in case this is a more convenient medium for you. We're looking into identifying those responsible for the vandalism but in the meantime please appreciate that your block has caused collateral damage... Thank you Ewen 16:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:EL discussionHi, J -- Could you respond to my most recent comment in the WP:EL Talk page when you get a chance? Unfortunately I'm dealing with a very belligerent admin on this issue, and I want this discussion to be as thorough and complete as possible. Thanks, RedSpruce 01:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC) DeletionWhy have you deleted Henry Sever? There was nothing wrong with it, or was there? Harland1 13:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Arch CoalI just read a fascinating discussion of an article on Wikipedia that you created apparently (or copied from a free content source) and Jimmy Wales deleted but was later restored. Did this really happen? Did you honestly not have a conflict of interest of some sort with the Arch Coal company? If the post is true, it seems like Mr. Wales was being really hasty and vindictive for some reason, and nobody really called him on that? Anyway, I for one would appreciate your side of this story, even though it was a year ago. --Earthboat 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The FreeSwitch DebacleJS: First thanks for more clearly explaining the Notability issues... it appears the talk page has been locked for new users so I apologize if this is the wrong location for this. I wanted to pass along this article http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061016.gtfrontlines16/BNStory/ another mention of FS while only in passing it does show that the media is aware of the project. Please advise if this is the type of thing you are looking for. --Silik0nJesus 09:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Solar powerWhat a consensus of 1-0 isn't good enough? There are also the proponent and the author and if you count the author of the other version, all of whom abstained from voting, that still makes it 3-1. 199.125.109.41 19:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Gone with the WindI appreciate the concern you voiced in your message to me. I do take civility seriously; the nature of my messages, including the most recent, on the article's Talk page reflect my best judgment about how to effectively deal with this particularly clever troll. He has succeeded in luring several productive editors into squandering considerable amounts of time and energy. The nature of my comments was designed not only to affect his future behavior but to highlight that behavior in a memorable way for other editors who might be tempted to waste more time and energy dealing with him.—DCGeist 19:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
A suggestion if I may ask about the MutatesSince the section for Mutates is deemed unworthy of an article, would adding the Gargoyles Clone Clan be appropriate, since they are associated with The Mutates? 74.61.186.169 00:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
In the Gargoyles Character section, they include entries on a Gargoyle Clan consisting of Clones. Those clones have strongly associate with the Mutates. So I was suggesting to move the Clone entries to the Mutate section to expand it. Would that be ok? 74.61.186.169 02:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC) I'm curious as to why you think Mutate (Gargoyles) needs to be deleted. It covers a particular group of characters. And character groups don't stike me as a violation of any rule. As the discussion on that page mentions, it would only make the List Of Gargoyles Characters too big in content. 71.115.192.199 07:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The information happens to be vaild. It came from Greg Weisman's page Ask Greg, and if you can't trust the producers own words, then I feel for you. The problem is that some spammers were using the links to the site in their vandalisim resulting in wikipedia banning the links to said site. It seems to me that banning usage of a website just because some spammers messed up is a violation of the good faith policy. 71.115.192.199 19:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
And how are we suppose to link to a website that's banned from use? Because that's where most of the controversal info came from. 71.115.192.199 19:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Content? Now you're making it out to be a porn site. I assure you, the banning of the site was due to a few spammers. What bothers me about it is your comment on it: "I just don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia to enter the waters of what is really more appropriate for a fan-site." It seems to me that your reason for deletion is more a personal preference than for the good of Wikipedia. Not all of life's problems can be solved by deleting them. Has anyone with higher authority suggested deletion of the site? 71.115.192.199 20:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Spamming a reliable source is still spammingRe: [29]. This editor's behavior is clearly spam and is inappropriate per WP:SPAM and WP:NOT#LINK. Sorry if I wrote the report in a manner where it could be interpreted that the links are low-quality. --Ronz 16:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
October 2007
User:209.254.12.73Hi, regarding your earlier decline [30] to block User:209.254.12.73, why were the maintenance tag removals not obviously vandalism? As far as I can see, removing {{fact}} and {{originalresearch}} templates when they are clearly needed and nothing has been done to address the issues, while having been warned not to do so at least twice, is fairly unlikely to be anything else. What else could it be? I've had this exact problem before, with User:207.74.196.20 (who incidendally, despite being a from different area of the US, had identical editing habits as regards editing the same articles, most edits being altering link-piping, never using edit summaries, never editing his talk page, and of course a refusal to leave maintenance templates alone as well as appearing just seven days after the previous was blocked), and to be honest it bothers me a little that it's left to me to clean up after these people/this person when what they're doing is clearly vandalism. It took about three months to get him properly blocked last time due to being a shared IP, and I must have made a hundred reverts and/or manual re-inserting of templates over that period, not to mention sifting through all his edits to find them. To be honest I can't really be bothered to do all that again, but if I don't who will? He'll just carry on as before, due to rarely being reverted by any other editors. Sorry to go on a rant, but I hope you can see that this is an irritating situation for me. Miremare 21:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Removed notice from noticeboardsHi, with all due respect this user has done nothing but vandalize. I wish you would at least have told me you were going to do nothing as vandalism policy is not my specialty. I will now dutifully (and painstakingly) start to document all the vadndalism. thank you for your support in preventing vandalism. Benjiboi 16:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
User:MRI has recreated his spam at MediResource. I've listed it for AfD. Corvus cornix 21:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Unhelpful edits to MicrosoftHi J.smith, I'm retired, but I am just stopping by to apologize for the unhelpful additions I have made to the Microsoft article.(Which you removed here) I realize now that some of the content was not written in a neutral tone, and the other content was (apparently)unnessesary.(I replaced Paul Allen with Paul Gardner Allen, USA with United States of America, etc.) Please accept my apologies.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
"rm {{db-author}} - please take to RFD"In case you didn't notice I did that already. But since I realized that it can only be done once, I decided to use the speedy tag. How am I gonna do that? I remember last time I tried to re-nominate it. TheBlazikenMaster 15:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
why?im confused you removed a photo and article about "the gray kid" i have his permission to use his image...i am confused i was trying to help the community and you deleted stuff i did not write and the article? please help me understand why you did what you did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aperture disaster (talk • contribs) 02:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
indef blocking of IP addresses...Your indef blocking of those IP addresses is a little be concerning. Would you mind if I reduced them to a 1 week block with the same terms? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I can assure on my life that there's no Philippine Basketball Association player called Phil Lim. I suggest to re add {{db-bio}}. All contributions from Tapia 15 are all hoaxes. --Howard the Duck 03:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Removing linksPlease only remove links to articles deleted because of a lack of notability. If there is potential to create a good article on a topic, such as Perkins and Will, it is extremely useful to preserve the red links to encourage the creation of such an article. Warofdreams talk 00:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC) BlockCould you possibly look into blocking 205.158.148.67 he seems to be a severe repeat offender but has only been blocked once for a short time. Thanks Harland1 14:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
OpenworkHello Wondering why you deleted my entry on Openwork? It's the first time I've submitted anything to Wikipedia and may well have omitted some technical/formatting steps. If so could you please advise me on how to do this properly. Assuming you deleted because of the content I would appreciate a response to the following: It was not written to promote Openwork and I don't believe it contravenes the Wikipedia terms and conditions. Currently, a search for 'Openwork' results in a link to a write-up on Allied Dunbar. Although there is a convoluted trail connecting Openwork with Allied Dunbar; the business model, majority of personnel and general industry environment is very much far removed from that heritage and therefore not relevant. Hence, I felt it only fair, and relevant, to submit a current and brief description of the Openwork entity. It's not written in an advertorial style, merely a factual description. Furthermore, I don't see how my entry can be considered advertising especially when compared with the extensive write-ups on other FS companies, such as Norwich Union. The NU write-up actually refers to a "novel type of auto insurance".... How does that not constitute blatant advertising?YomaBristol 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
User:.Runewiki777/real secret pageCould you restore that page? It's my hidden page. I added an extra period to make it impossible to find using Special:Prefindex. Please. Could you? 76.15.75.198 19:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC) By the way, im using my ip so people can't find my hidden page using my contibutions. Oh and I am user Runewiki777.
LGBT movementsLeft a question for you at WT:LGBT - thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC) emial request...{{helpme}} Hay... can someone send me an email? In an attempt to improve my personal email response time I've made some changes to how my g-mail accounts forward and I'd like to verify that it's working now. Thanks! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a history only undeletion request here for an article that you deleted. Please consider responding to that request. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 16:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC) It was just advertising nonsense... what do you need it for? I have no problem undelete it for you, but I'm not sure I see the point. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, You recently deleted my page pinalta. I would like to know what should i change to get it acepptable. Many thanks, Hugo Hugofg 19:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)hugofg
UnblockingI see you are willing to unblock User:I already forgot based on his understanding of what he was was actually doing. I don't see that as a wise decision. Perhaps you would like to peruse yesterday's discussion on his 2nd evasion of his block where he clearly states his tactics are 'over the heads' of those who don't understand. Are you aware of his socks or his using socks during the same RfA which led him to the block? Did you contact the blocking admin about undoing this action? the_undertow talk 00:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
RequestWould you take a look at Sylvin Rubinstein? I originally speedied it for copyvio - specifically this version (which has the speedy tag on it). I had a discussion (User_talk:DGG#Sylvin_Rubinstein) about the copy-vioness of it (and on the articles talk page. Having now had our (unfortunate) experience [ :) ] with the LGBT history article, should the Rubinstein article be deleted? It remains waay too close to the original for my tastes, but would love to hear your input. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
My block of StefanoI have no problem with you reviewing my blocking actions, and I won't be offended if you disagree. But, you should be aware, that this editor has a very long history of incivility and contentious editing, and as you can see from this, there is an ArbCom case against him, and they are proposing a year's ban. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: GrazonFYI: RfC: Grazon —SlamDiego←T 09:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
My RfAThanks for supporting My RfA. Unfortunately, things didn't quite go well, and it was closed rather early. There were a couple of recent issues raised by some other editors that I think it's best to put a bit of time between. But I don't plan to go anywhere; most of the things I do on wikipedia really don't require any special powers anyway, so it's not that big of a deal (having the powers would've made things easier, though). I'll probably try again sometime in the spring. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC) ThanksThanks for that. My watchlist is pretty small, so in order to respond to this I need an example. If you know of a diff, please email me. Cheers Geometry guy 21:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
EditHi J.Smith, as you commented and requested here [31], a consensus has been reached for the edit and no objections made. Since it's been about 10 days, I replaced the edit request. Thanks in advance. Buzybeez (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I did not write the Perkins and Will article, but I have linked to it a number of times. I believe that the Perkins and Will firm has been one of the leading Chicago architectural firms for a half-century, and it meets the notability requirements. Phil Will, one of the two co-founders, designed a number of buildings on the Cornell University Campus. It has designed a number of the most prominent skyscrapers in Chicago, and through mergers, it has grown into a large international firm. (I don't work for them and am not shilling for them.) Please review: http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/Architecture/6/1306/Perkins_and_Will/Architect.php http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/Architecture/6/2390/Perkins_Will/Architect.php http://www.artic.edu/aic/libraries/caohp/perkins.html Please consider undeleting this article. If necessary, lets submit it for review. Thank you for your anti-spam work, and for your reconsideration of this article. If you feel the article needs editing to make it less "spammy," I am willing to help. Racepacket (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
ThanksNothing florid, nothing fancy. Just thanks for the support. I'll try to wield the Mop-and-Bucket with grace and humility. --Orange Mike 04:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Needs assistanceHi, I see you were involved in the blocking of User:Beh-nam not too long ago, I request that he be blocked indef again due to his disruptive behaviour who is and has been vandalising pages after pages of national leaders by falesly inserting that they were child molestor, slave owner, facists, etc.[32], [33] He's been vandalising Pashtun people and many other articles for a very long time.[34], [35], [36] He keeps removing the official government website from Afghanistan/Hamid Karzai article [37] and usually placing over it anti-Afghanistan blog sites, this after an administrator (Future Perfect at Sunrise) has warned not to mess with again. [38], [39] If anyone adds images of popular Pashtun leaders in the Pashtun article he will revert the page right away, probably that he does not want Pashtuns to appear good in the eyes of others. He is ethnic Tajik, a Persian nationalist, and anti-Pashtun or Afghan as well as anti-Turk.[40] He has an unusual extended block history which includes 2 indefs for which he was allowed back on condition to stop harrassing or personally attacking another ethnic group.[41] Same as all other vandals, he will never change and will continue with vandalising pages by writing all sorts of untrue things about leaders who are not from his ethnic group. He reverts everyone who fixes his vandalism without explaining anything.[42] Beh-nam is working closely with a banned User:Tajik (who is hiding under anon IPs that start with 82.xx.xxx.xxx which is confirmed by several admins including User:Dmcdevit [43]) [44], [45], [46], and has User:Anoshirawan as his edit-war partner. He and his edit-war partner are going around changing the correct name Afghan (which is backed by the Constitution of Afghanistan, CIA world factbook, as well as all the government and media sites of the world) to a false afghanistani name simply because they like it. There is nothing that can be said to justify his actions, even if it comes from an administrator who knows him. Please ban this user indef so that the rest of us can have peace and finally fix all their vandalism slowly. I'm new so I don't know what to do.--Hurooz (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Official thanks, slightly delayed due to post-RfA crash (who knew?) Tapadh Leibh (Thank You)...
...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral. I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally. If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me. If you hate RfA thankspam, please forgive me. I promise I won't block you in retaliation for deleting it ;-) And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you? Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!) This RfA thanks inspired by Neranei's, which was inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.
Question in regards to an edit you didI am the President of the NLA-I (National Leather Association International) and I worked very hard on putting information on the page that exists in your Encyclopedia. I just looked at it again and you have removed all of my edits. I assure you that the information was absolutely correct. Is there a reason why you removed it? I admit I am not familiar with Wikipedia usage but I did research the rules on the site. Can you give me some insight on your reasons for edits. I want the information updated but I am not going to do it all over again only to have you remove it once more for a policy reason. Thanks for the help, You can email me at kcexodus@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcexodus (talk • contribs) 04:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Derby Owners ClubJ Smith - Thanks for your dilligent assistance in removing spam from the Derby Owners Club page in Wiki. I am an administrator of a site dedicated to this game http://doc.rbcb.net. A couple of former members of our site decided a few months ago that it would be "fun" to continuously vandalise this page here, and one of them has lodged complaints against me as well. I have tried somewhat to keep the page clean, but do not know much about Wiki protocol. At any rate I wanted to say thanks for the help. Jwpitts3 09:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Responding to OTRS & undisclosed content, complainant, text or rationale, for USA PATRIOT ActThe article USA PATRIOT Act has been reduced in size from 219K to more or less 144K, by pushing the history of the law into a separate article USA PATRIOT Act history. This should satisfy your interest on the size of the article for now. Loudounrides imageThanks for clarifying. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Anna Slotky bdayDear J.smith, thank you for editing the correct birthday on the article Anna Slotky. I assume it might be in relationship to an email which she sent to wikipedia indicating that the 1979 date is incorrect. It didn't take long, but the same anon IP has again edited the article back to the 1979 date. Previously the article was semi-protected for a week. That ended today and the date was changed the same day. I am not sure what the next step is. Bstone (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC) EconomiccrimesunitI seem to be playing catch up on this on. I reported his name to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention where it was declined and recommended to be sent to WP:RFCN. When I reported it there I went back to his talk page to notify him and saw the discussion there and that he had already been reported over at WP:ANI. So I deleted my enter at WP:RFCN, had some dinner and came back to see people had already weighed in. Seems it is being taken care of now. Time for dessert. GtstrickyTalk or C 01:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Why did you delete Patrick Naughton?Hi. Why did you delete Patrick Naughton? I cannot see why anyone would consider one of the creators of Java to be of "minor notability". What were the privacy concerns? RussNelson (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Money Merge AccountI take issue with your deletion of this topic... the topic was created specifically to provide unbiased and factual definition / information in the public domain about a financial fraud scheme... in general "merge accounts" and specifically "money merge account". The topic while not perfectly written, was factually correct and cited with references spanning multiple countries and continents. There was repeted vandalism of the topic, (full and partial blanking) in an attempt to convert to advirtising by salesmen of theses schemes... however, that is not a valid reason for deletion! (rather it is reason to undo the vandalism and evidence that the topic is contemporaneous). It seems from your contribution list that your are a frequent deleter, however I believe that you have erred in this instance, and that your stated rationalle (below) shows that you didn't understand the topic. "20:02, 14 December 2007 J.smith (Talk | contribs) deleted "Money Merge Account" (CSD G11: Blatant advertising: ==Description== Most homeowners realize they will pay about twice the purchase price of their home on a traditional mortgage—a mortgage that will take about 30 years to pay off. The Money) " Please undo your deletion. If you wish to contribute in a constructive manner, I suggest that you can work to prevent the vandalism of this topic "money merge account", and in general prevent the removal of valid information from the public domain. Economic Crimes Unit (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
"23:04, 23 March 2007 Uncle G (Talk | contribs) deleted "Money Merge Account" (Blantant advertising for a product, written in the first person and addressing the reader in the second person) Economic Crimes Unit (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Economic Crimes Unit (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems clear that the issue is whether an article that is verifiable and not original research can exist here. Since those are intentionally not speedy deletion criteria, being the sorts of things that one pair of eyes is not enough to determine, and can only be safely determined at AFD, I suggest that I undelete the article, restore the most recent version by I80and (talk · contribs), and take it through AFD. Economiccrimesunit makes a good point. The speedy deletion notices do remind us to check articles' histories before speedily deleting things. The fact that articles could otherwise be speedily deleted after being scribbled over by a vandal is exactly why that reminder has been present in one form or another for several years. So let's just use the correct process and run this through AFD, so that many pairs of eyes get to look at the verifiability and original research issues and discuss the sources cited. Uncle G (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
J.Smith you started the uncivil acqusitations and name calling... feigning elsewise is transparent, and does no one any good. Also, your deletion comment makes no reference to the either of the 2 comments above... you stated "blatant advirtising" and some gibberish about "Most homeowners realize they will pay about twice the purchase price of their home on a traditional mortgage—a mortgage that will take about 30 years to pay off. The Money" I personally think both of these comments show you made a hasty decision, based on incomplete understanding. If you are willing to admit that, then debating the merrits of the issue, as you should have first done instead of deleting the entire topoc, would be constructive and lead to better content on wikipedia. I am open to a legitimate honest reposeful discussion, on the merits, if you first drop the bs. Endogenous Pillar of Babel (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Hi, this might seem a bit random, but this article doesn't seem to be notable. I'm only asking you this, because you edited the article back in 2006. Vilaskes (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
PedophiliaHi. Please do not delete whole sections of an article or works in an article without checking over the history of the article on talk pages. There has been much debate over this article and its boy counterpart where most of the discussion is. Tony (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Tony
W. Thomas SmithI've restored deleted information from this post under "Beirut controversy" which you removed because there was no source. I've now provided the sourcing. Also, the author of the Huffington Post article where this information is found is Thomas B. Edsall, a professor at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. I've added that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickydell (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
SureLooking good so far. --Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 17:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Openserving A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Openserving, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the AfD nomination of Openserving An editor has nominated Openserving, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Openserving and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tom Clancy - Rainbow Six cover.jpgThanks for uploading Image:Tom Clancy - Rainbow Six cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tom Clancy - The Teeth of the Tiger cover.jpgThanks for uploading Image:Tom Clancy - The Teeth of the Tiger cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Pedophilia and Child Sexual AbuseHave you been aware of the existence of this recently-created page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_books_featuring_pedophilia which duplicates much of the content of a page you have shown some interest in editing? SocJan (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tom Clancy - Rainbow Six cover.jpgThanks for uploading Image:Tom Clancy - Rainbow Six cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Brieferhistoryoftime-cover.jpgThanks for uploading Image:Brieferhistoryoftime-cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Aleister Crowley - The Equinox of the Gods cover.jpgThanks for uploading Image:Aleister Crowley - The Equinox of the Gods cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Query: TriberockerI requested a checkuser on Triberocker. The outcome was “likely”. But I see no indication from his blocklog or from his talk page that action has been taken. I read on RfC that “In most cases, any block or other action based on the outcome will not be taken by the checkuser-people or the clerks. Instead, you will have to do this yourself.” but I'm not an admin. Whom or what should I contact to seek some further administrative action? (I queried Metros, since he'd had previous dealings with Triberocker; but Metros seems to have become inactive just before my query.) —SlamDiego←T 22:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Ha! Looks as if you're inactive too. Okay. I'll take this elsewhere. —SlamDiego←T 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC) YouTube linksAh...I was about to post over at VPP, but I see a comment of yours on the ASIMO talk page that indicates you may be able to answer my question. I've looked all over the place for guidance on when to yank YouTube links, my opinion is roughly: "Does anyone think that we should use a video for something that could be just as well demonstrated with 1-3 images? Images are a lot easier to patrol, are less likely to be used to advertise, are a lot more "encyclopedic", and lower bandwidth at both ends. I am planning on bringing up the discussion for any article I patrol where people have posted links to YouTube video that have been deleted for being promotional." - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
John R. AllenHello, I see you deleted the article for John R. Allen. I believe that was an article for the US Marine Corps brigadier general John R. Allen, and as far as I can tell, Wikipedia generally hosts articles for flag officers and I think that general tendency is a good idea for a few reasons. First, as a general rule, I think it is very useful for current events and journalism to have standing records of flag officers as they're almost by definition in policy-making positions. Secondly, since virtually all flag officers are in positions that could have historical significance, it seems useful to keep their records at least beyond the 25 year sunshine law on classified information, so at least 25 years beyond their retirement. Third, it breaks a number of lineage strings that Wikipedia maintains. For example, at the bottom of Admiral Charles J. Leidig's page, we see he was the Commandant of Midshipmen, and he was preceded by John R. Allen, and followed by Bruce E. Grooms. But General Allen's bio is missing, so we can't follow the thread backward to find who preceded *him*, and whoever preceded that person, and so on. His bio is in the public domain, and I could at least write a shell of one myself, as I used to work for him, and Admiral Leidig, and Captain Grooms. What was your basis for deleting this article? Niels Olson (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC) By the by, I'm somewhat suspicious of the stated CSD basis for deletion, because I'm pretty sure I've looked up his page and found it before, when I was working for him. Has the page been deleted multiple times or was that an erroneous CSD?Niels Olson (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Turnerzworld??Hello You deleted my page Turnerzworld. How is this blatant advertising, it was a legit article on a legit company?? 60.238.75.14 (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Resolution near (?) on how to entitle Tony Sandel's listsPlease visit Talk:List_of_works_portraying_adult_attraction_to_young_males#Requested_move, on a discussion page to which you have contributed. The article's principal author has accepted a proposal for a new title that may put to rest objections dating back to late 2006. Your input in the next few days could help establish a consensus. SocJan (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC) LongPenI see you deleted the longpen article. I was wondering why, and what i can do to avoid such deletion in the article i wish to write. You cited blantent advertising as your reason, which is unlikely due to Unotchit (the makers of longpen) not having a version for sale yet, and units that are available have huge costs, and anyone who would be learning about it on wiki would not be the type of person interested in ordering a unit. I say this assuming the previous author was an employee of unotchit, which is doubtful for the previous reasons. please advise on things to avoid when writing on this subject. thanks, Jean-Pierre Jepetto (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)  I just created an article about this plant and included your photograph. Thanks! --Xiaphias (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Article Needs DeletionCan you check out Mark Mcguire? I think this page needs to be deleted. It's history reveals that it serves no real purpose. Thanks a bunch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.64.224 (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Re-visit CarMax page?Hello, you dropped by the CarMax page last summer and commented on some unsourced information. Can you please swing back by and remove what you feel is subjective or too "insider-ish"? I don't work there, but I am very familiar with the company. A lot of this content seems irrelevant and not in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I've tried removing it but an employee user keeps adding it back. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.188.70 (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Gogo DodoHey,could you please help me?The User:Gogo Dodo recently deleted an article regarding supermodel/songwriter Amber Rives as it was badly written and contained false information,they have now protected the article for the last several weeks and someone,such as myself,who would like to add information about her cannot do so.Are they allowed to do that?Asia'h E (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ss palaceattack.jpg)
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm Sure that It's GrazonWikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grazon#Grazon 5 —SlamDiego←T 11:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Since Thatcher has said that the final determination is to be behavioral, I have submitted Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Grazon. —SlamDiego←T 11:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Roger MiretHey J.S.
UAA reportThat won't be necessary. If you don't think its problematic then I won't contest it. I'll admit that when I first saw it, I thought of GODLOVESYOU plus a few extra characters. I would have found that more disruptive. Thank you for notifying me. — MaggotSyn 03:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
No where near as funny as your The Truth, but does it deserve to be deleted? -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Lenovo batteryThanks for your response regarding my battery question. Do you think about a year a half would be the useful life of the battery? I hope not--but at least then we would know whether it's old vs. defective. Thanks for all your help. (Please reply on your page...I'll check back here). --24.211.242.80 (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you know of any place where this can be seen by a larger field of people? Thanks ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 09:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
My user pageI noticed you altered the protection of my page regarding something "offsite". Can I ask what this was or is it admin only business? As I'm sure your aware me and my work has been attacked all day and now people are making accounts after me User talk:Realist2hasaids. — Realist2 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Heya, you might have missed it, but this is today's Featured Article. I don't think the vandalism here is intensive enough to warrant a semi on it. I've reverted to the move protection. -- lucasbfr talk 19:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Protection requestI'm still under attack, could you protect my sandbox please, I'm trying to use it in peace. User:Realist2/sandbox and the sandbox talk page (I use both as sandboxes) — Realist2 19:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
ReplyRegarding your post. I'm afraid you have a misconception as to what's really going on here. A simple glance at the talk pages of the two articles being messed up by the meatpuppets reveal a fanatical, single minded racist and revisionist invective that is characteristic of the adherents of militant Khalistani terrorism (the same people who carried out the most vicious terrorist attack prior to 9/11. The essay WP:TIGERS clearly explains the conduct in this case. It is not expected that any meaningful debate will occur, and legitimate editors are not required to collaborate or concede to fanatics anymore than editors of Nazism are expected to concede to Nazis. These extremists want to "promote the truth", but wp is not about the truth. it's about representing scholarly consensus views on the subjects of the article, which these terrorists are not interested in doing.Goingoveredge (talk) 06:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
RepSeems like my message was not clear. What I contested was the way of handling the situation, being rude is just sidenote that comes along. Indiscriminate blocking of all accounts without much research of issue at hand is not very helpful for wikiepedia. I should have been blocked if I was continuing reverts without discussion. I did not do that. In fact, if you note the time the issue was brought to the admins noticeboard, user: Goingoveredge's revert was left intact by me. Additionally, that editor was invited to have discussion multiple times via his userpage and on the discussion page of the article. Why ban me then? Does reporting "edit wars" automatically include the reporter for block? I don't think this is wikipedia policy. You can note that user: Goingoveredge is still continuing reverts unabated and without discussion. There seems to be 2 sock-puppet accounts created for this purpose yesterday by this editor that need further investigation. Cheers, --Roadahead (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC) user: Goingoveredge once againSince you are somewhat aquainted with the editing of this user I thought to bring it to your notice his continued stubborn approach. Please check here: [[48]]. --Roadahead (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Vandalism by Goingoveredge, Kindly Help.This is regarding Goingoveredge's Vandalism in Khalistan movement and Hinduism and Islam Respected sir/Madam, this editor do not care for any Wiki rules, normal ethics, he has deleted other editor's complaints from his own talk page to hide his acts from the greater Wikipedia community. You had even blocked him once. This user is continuously deleting wikipedia Temples (Deletion 1), (Deletion 2) while ruthlessly avoiding all my requests to see an ADMINISTRATOR. Please note that I did not add the text in question, and I did not add the teplate in question either. I had even started a discussion to resolve edit war between respected Wiki users User: Tripping Nambiar and User: Singh6. This discussion helped as well, but now this user Goingoveredge, has jumped in with ruthless edits and he is not willing to participate in any discussion either. Kindly pay your attention and stop Goingoveredge from doing vandalism, I am simply trying to protect wiki rules. --Beetle CT (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
RFC filed with user: Goingoveredge in subjectJ.smith, you were involved in blocking user: Goingoveredge for edit wars and then later warning him on his non-constructive and name-calling edit-comments Here and Here, but he still continued it with un-constructive name calling comments here and deleting messages left on his talkpage here. This user still continues his edit-wars and does not participate in discussions constructively, therefore, an RFC has been filed HERE. Since you have earlier experience with this editor, you are requested to provide your feedback on RFC page to arrive at consensus. --Roadahead (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC) AfD nomination of 18 Fingers of Death! An article that you have been involved in editing, 18 Fingers of Death!, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/18 Fingers of Death!. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Schuym1 (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC) WikiProject California roll call Hello from WikiProject California! As part of a recent update to our project main page we are conducting a roll call to check which members are still active and interested in working on California related content. If you are still interested in participating, simply move your username from the inactive section of the participant list to the active section. I hope you will find the redesigned project pages helpful, and I wanted to welcome you back to the project. If you want you can take a look at the newly redesigned: As well as the existing pages: If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, and add it to your watchlist, if it isn't already. Again, hi! Optigan13 (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC) OSSThen why did he (and the USPTO) tell me otherwise? *shakes head* Whatever. OK....since everyone is on a deletion kick this weekend, let's stop and think. Couldn't just changing the F-URs make everyone happy? Easier than deleting and having to reload the pictures with new F-URs? - NeutralHomer • Talk 18:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Apologies and clarificationA huge oops about my resistance to your note about the GNU license note on my talk page. There are three images already in the article from a different source. After I signed the release to the SFPL and sent it back to them I have not heard from them again - yours was the first indication that they had submitted it. SO - I feel like a prat, and I apologize. However, there were three images associated with the SFPL. I was planning to download them from this site, and the ones I wanted were the first (Harvey Milk in 1957), the ninth (Harvey Milk in front of Castro Camera in 1973), and the tenth (San Francisco Gay Freedom Day 1976). So now is the time to get creative. I either need to re-license the photos as free due to the subject and photographer as dead, or ask the SFPL to rewrite their release. Which would be easier to do, and would pass through Featured Article Candidacy? --Moni3 (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC) RE:Ancient computer...ancient gamesWhat sort of Linux games could I run on my computer? --AtTheAbyss (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I've found some peer-reviewed publications that discuss Hoser's work. Could you take another look at the article and the AfD discussion? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Image copyrightA discussion came up of using this image on the article Barack Obama. I do not happen to advocate the usage (on purely aesthetic/informational grounds), nor does a consensus, or even majority, on the article talk favor it. So what happens with the specific image is basically moot. However, in the course of the discussion, User:Bobblehead claimed that the image was a copyright violation. Looking at image page, I see three things of note: (1) The image is claimed to be PD-USGov-Congress; (2) Someone (probably Bobblehead while not logged in to the commons) put a Speedy-Delete tag there today; (3) The image has been at the commons, not removed, since April 1, 2008. In the discussion, Bobblehead claimed that this image was deleted by WP:OTRS ticket 2007041810014021, and that you were the deleting editor. It's hard to get any information about these details out of that editor, for some reason. In particular, I'm very curious about how I might discover what actually happened with the image and how this outcome was determined. Well, also why the image has been where it is if it was actually deleted a year ago (I suppose someone could have uploaded it a second time). My interest in this particular image is fairly academic, since as I say, it will not be used in the near future either way. But at the same time, I had have very frustrating past experiences with images being deleted over the years. I know the copyright concerns have become accentuated in the last 2-3 years, and I've uploaded images over a considerably longer period. In particular, it's a bit hair-pulling when images that I created myself, and released as PD or GFDL, are deleted because of alleged copyright violation. In several cases this has happened, and nothing I can seem to do on the image page seems to prevent or slow the deletion process. I guess there's some secret mojo of finding exactly the right copyright template and description to prevent overzealous deletions... but what it is is non-obvious. Likewise for some additional images that were not self-created, but were still obvious fair use in the way they were used. I'm venting my frustration a bit. I do not think you have any involvement in any of the deletions that I've been disturbed by. And I'm also not trying to revisit some other specific image that was annoyingly deleted. I am hoping that you might give me some small insight into how the heck a regular (long-term, frequent) editor can even figure out what the process for image deletion is, and how one can possibly demonstrate appropriate license or fair use. LotLE×talk 00:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Seeking advice on the edit waring that is occuring on the "Curt Bramble" pageYou are obviously much more experienced than I am at wikipedia and so I'm wondering if you would give me some advice. As you know, there are some serious editing wars and sockpuppetting going on at the "Curt Bramble" page. I can see how at least some of the edits could be biased and so I have tried to make them less so. I also have pleaded with the person or persons deleting the edits to work with the rest of us to find a consensus instead of just deleting the information, but they have shown no interest in doing anything but removing every single edit that doesn't make the subject look flawless. The most blatant example is the edit they keep removing that explains who gave the Senator his legislator of the year award. Do you have any advice how I can stop this war without just giving the individual complete control of this page to use as their own campaign website. Perhaps, I'm wrong but I belived there are some important edits that will show there are two sides to every story but they are being removed. Any ideas or help you can give me would be greatly apreciated. Thanks. ReasonableRepublicans (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
OTRS Ticket 2007122210004268The OSS Society of McLean can assert ownership all they want, but when it comes to a logo that was taken from the CIA.gov website, which last check was owned by the US Government and not the OSS Society....the OSS Society's OTRS ticket has no standing on something (being a website and all information on it) owned by someone else. I request that Image:OSS seal.jpg be restored posthaste. Thank you...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 30, 2008 @ 03:55
Wikimapia, Googlemaps and georefimproveLinks to Wikimapia were commented, because they are some concern as to whether Wikimapia's usage of Google imagery meets Google's terms. It's a seperate issue from the one about linking directly to Google. Also, I note you have reverted the removal of georefimprove on some pages, can I ask why? In a number of cases this was not placed solely in relation to the Google/Wikimapia issues. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
|
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
_2){kind=link}
