User talk:J.smith/archive02

Note: This is an arcive. New messages should be left on my talk page and not here. Thank you, ---J.S (t|c) 17:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks

Creating another account for useful purposes, as encouraged is not really regarded as sockpuppetry. In my opinion it's not encouraging anybody to create another vandal account to evade the block, seeing as it states clearly useful contributions. — FireFox (υ|τ) 10:45, 23 April 2006

In most cases, probably yes. But you're forgetting, these users are indefinitely blocked, meaning that they are 99.99% likely never to be unblocked. So if they wish to make useful contributions, creating another account is the only option, and we encourage that. — FireFox (υ|τ) 10:49, 23 April 2006

That's not what I'm trying to say. Yes, anyone who wishes to be unblocked can put the unblock template on their page, but indefinitely blocked users are blocked for a reason and aren't very likely to be unblocked. Users aren't blocked indefinitely always from a community decision. The decision could be made by the ArbCom, or an individual administrator. We are not encouraging vandals to create a new account and continue vandalising, we're encouraging them to create a new account if they wish to make useful contributions. Anyway, there is a 10 user throttle on the number of accounts that can be created from one location. — FireFox (υ|τ) 11:01, 23 April 2006

Templates

You showed confusion as to what we want with templates and all on Wikiproject Paranormal. I really think that we just need unique ideas to make our templates much better Mahogany-wanna chat?

Re: SS guide mirror...

Err... why are you linking to a mirror of wikibooks instead of directly to wikibooks? They are exactly the same, except one has a banklink from starsonata.com and the new one dosn't. Seems like there will be a fork of content.. and not nessessarly a happy one. ---J.S (t|c) 06:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to recent policy changes videogame guides are no longer welcome on Wikibooks--see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games#This is only a recent policy change for more. Therefore I'm moving the guides, not mirroring them. The mention of Wikibooks is so people know what happened to the Wikibooks guides. Of course this is still all happening under the GFDL; any contributors unhappy with the new arrangement are welcome to fork a copy of their own. This is merely to save the originals from deletion; a deadline will eventually be set, and anything still remaining after that time will be promptly deleted. Garrett^Talk 07:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 21:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Zacarias Moussaoui

I am pretty sure bureaucrats can't delete individual edits from the edit history. We have to delete all of the edits and only restore the good edits. I ran into edit conflicts with another administrator, but it is all resolved now. Deleting the entire article for a few minutes was necessary to remove the edit history. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on PS2pcGAMER's talk page were extremely incivil. Please note that he was acting in good faith and he was in fact doing what he was supposed to do. Pepsidrinka 05:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gen Lag

Just wanted to update you that I've added some references for the behavior outlined in the Gen Lag article you marked for deletion. If you still feel the article is worth deleting, I understand, but being a new term, it is my opinion (and just that: opinion) that it's worth bearing out. The phenomenon is real, it's just a matter of whether the term is adopted. I would greatly appreciate your opinion on this matter. Thank you! --Dorkmaster1 23:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your reply - Gen Lag:

I appreciate your information greatly. I do understand what you're saying. Hopefully we'll see Gen Lag come into common vernacular soon enough, but regardless, I thank you for taking the time to give me the info you have. Have a great day, and thank you for what you are doing for Wikipedia! --Dorkmaster1 14:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

1) John Doolittle is non-notable 2) I think it's fairly obvious what Mhking's goal here is 3) don't threaten me.

132.241.246.111 06:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmmmmmm

fair enough 132.241.246.111 06:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to my User page

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page!!

Sparsefarce 21:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary

Thank you for the advice - I had assumed that adding deletion tags were self-explanatory, but will now start adding a comment in the summary. ॐ Priyanath 00:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aztec god

Circeus' comment copied from my talk

If you don't mind me butting in, I found references for a character named châlchiuhtlatônac, a name associated with châlchiuhtlicue or châlchihuitl îcue, which seems to be the proper name of the aztec water goddess. Châlchiuhtlatônac is apparently the aspect that presidesover first births. Circeus 23:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source to the article, the one I used in its writing. I can't vouch for its accuracy beyond that. Tuf-Kat 00:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At any rates, there doesn't seem to be any good confirmation for the *tonal ending. If the *tonac one is just a title, it should be redirected anyway. A google for "Chalchiuhtlicue" shows that there is actually a wiki page I hadn't spotted, but "Chalchiuhtlatonac" shows mostly spanish result. Circeus 13:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting that it was three years past the Wikipedia article? It says right at the bottom, created on August 5, 1997, and not modified since -- that was before Wikipedia existed. That's the same source I used on all such articles. And there's nothing wrong with citing non-English sources anyway. Tuf-Kat 23:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm afraid I don't have any English ressources. English stuff about Nahuatl is not exactly easy to find. You might want to try asking User:Magnuspharao, but I think he's left wikipedia. Circeus 17:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doolittle

I actualy wasn't sure if it was worth mentioning either.

thanks for telling me why though. 132.241.246.111 19:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from øWaldo

Thanks for visiting my page on Wikipedia! I hope you like my artwork and will go and see it at my home page!! Everyong on the planet can have the images, that's why I put tehm here so I could share my pictures! THey keep on about my license stuff and I did not even want any when I first loaed them but they deleted them so I add the license suff! It's OK - I PROMISE - for them right NOW! they can use them ALL THEY WANT - THAT"S WHY I PUT THEM THERE! so they can see that I'm contributing both my time (I don't have too much time left) and money to Wikipedia!!! SO! I promise: "IT"S OK TO USE MY IMAGES AND EVERYONG CAN USE THEM ALL THEY WANT!!!" (I just want them to be able to see my artwork on my home page too!) That's why I put my home site there on the license information 0waldo.com! Thanks and have a fun weekend!!!! 0waldo 20:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess then you better just delete everything too because that is what happens here, so I guess please just delete all the pictures ok? Can you delete my user page too? I'm kind of tired and don't want to thing about what to put on them anylonger... Thanks. Waldo.

I'm sorry if I did not show that I wanted your help!!! Thanks for the nice offer but they deleted my stuff and it is not good here anyway! Have a nice weekend!!! 0waldo. 0waldo 23:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user page.

Thanks for arrange my own page. Much appreciated. I will call you If I make my own page messy, or need any help for spelling, grammar mistake. Anyways, Cheers~!! Daniel5127, 03:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I checked my page 2weeks ago, you organized some messy things in my page. I wanr to say Thank you. Daniel5127, 04:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Childwithdimples.jpg

In case it was confusing, I'm the one who nominated this image for deletion for being a possible copyvio, not the one who uploaded it. I copied your comments to that user's talk page so s/he will see them. The user seems suspiciously reluctant to provide the required info, but I guess we'll find out if s/he does in the end. --Icarus 05:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Noticeboards

When exactly are you adding this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Vegita (talk • contribs)

Already done. ---J.S (t|c) 05:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tone's RfA thanks

Dear J.smith/archive02 — Thank you for your support on my recent RfA. It succeeded with a final tally of 46/2/3 so now I am an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the new tools, but please let me know if there's any anything I can help you with in the future. And please correct me, if you spot I make a mistake. Thank you again. --Tone 00:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Blnguyen's RfA

File:Atlanticpuffin4.jpg

Hello J.Smith. Thank you for your full support and gracious comment at my request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation. You can see me in action and observe what then happened as a result. If you need admin assistance, feel free to ask me. Naturally, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out. I look forward to working with you in the future, hopefully as an admin. In the meantime, enjoy the sunny Californian summer. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Hi. Thank you for supporting my Heinen's article. I just find it ridiculous that everyone must judge it against such harsh criteria. My article isn't advertising anything. I'm not trying to gain support of anyone. My article is informational and if granted I plan to add much more. We're not talking about a company that owns one store. Heinen's is a chain and is a highly ranked supermarket that competes very well with other larger supermarkets. Bluebul1989 23:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)bluebul1989[reply]

Titles of persons

"Dr. seems ostentatious for Ph.Ds (isn't obvious that an astrophysist, psychologist or scientist has earned some kind of Ph.D."

No. It's part of there title. If you were to talk to them you would be expected to use it. ---J.S (t|c) 16:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, J.S., I think you mean "their title", or "his/her title" or something. Can you move this comment to the talk page of the article you were talking about? I made similar comments in more than one page recently. Thanks ---CH 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

I moved your comment to Talk:List of UFO researchers so others can comment. ---CH 22:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the replaceing comments, since they were personaly directed to me. ---J.S (t|c) 23:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.Smith, take it easy, we just had an edit conflict over at Talk:List of UFO researchers. I did not ignore the substance of your comment in my reply there, OK? ---CH 23:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heinen's

I do not feel that vote lobbying is within the spirit of AFD and therefore will not be changing my vote, but I think the fact that the store has 19 locations is more notable than having 2000 employees. -Drdisque 23:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I judged the article based on the way it is written. The way it is written DEFINITELY fails WP:CORP. If you want me to rejudge the article based on new information, then that information should actually be ADDED to the article. -Drdisque 23:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heinen's

There is nothing wrong with the way the article is written. It is very neutral and solely informational. And if you were to read my latest argument, you would understand that Heinen's had already been cited within Wikipedia and had already been provided through a link on the Supermarkets in the United States article.

I would also like to point out that WP:CORP does not deal with how an article is written but rather with what an article is written about. -Author of Heinen's stub Bluebul1989 17:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)bluebul1989[reply]

My RfA

Thanks

J.smith/archive02, thank you for participating in my RfA. Unfortunately, a great number of oppose voters felt that I lacked experience, and a consensus was not reached (the final tally was 30/28/10). Perhaps I will try again in another few months when I have a few more edits under my belt. If I do, I hope I can count on your support. Thanks again! Cool3 talk 20:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

No sh*t?

What county? 132.241.245.245 22:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

location

• *sees Vital Stats*

doh!

BTW any paranormal activity in Nevada county other than the down town ghost stories? 132.241.245.245 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

paranormal

I said outside the downtowns but Mt. Saint Marry's always did give me the creeps what did you hear? 132.241.245.245 22:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

chirotalk

Hello J.smith, Thank you for the recommendations on improving the Chirotalk article. I've added some additional references showing the site's linkage history and am entirely open to additional constructive input on improving it.

I think the article now meeds the noteriety criteria due to the mention in "The Chiropractic Journal".

Please let me know if you have any more suggestions and hopefully it can be taken off of proposed deletion status. Abotnick 01:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Regarding your comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chirotalk, what is the significance of the website being hosted on proboards.com. Just wondering? Thanks! -AED 03:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

I was wondering the same thing AED. Chirotalk is volunteer and using a free host just keeps the cost down.

JS-thanks for moving the link. Please do suggest any other improvements that you may think of. My goal is not self promotion, just to explain the site and I am open to a NPOV.Abotnick 12:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TWS

J.S - I recall that you had stated in the past that you had a conversation with Thewolfstar... don't know if you have been following, but this person continues to 'cause drama' - See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Metrocat sockpuppet. Maybe you can chime in with some helpful insight? KWH 05:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don;t they ask before they act? Ext. Links

I was told to put them there, I just decided, fuck it, I am not wasting more time, you have the links, you do the damn reaserch (in general).

--G-Spot 15:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You admins need to research and scruitinize your own changes or each others.

I added the election related links, it had no primary relation to me, since I was largely shunned by the press. Except in a decent commentary or two.

What do any of you know about this election? What is your expertise that is reater than mine?

--G-Spot 15:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back

I'm back, but my sig is all SNAFU-ed. 66.82.9.58 02:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chirotalk Deletion

Abotnick has twice today tried to delete the AfD template from the Chirotalk page. He has also tried to change the outgoing link to his forum site to have very "spammy" link text - something that he has been warned about previously. I have reverted his edits twice thus far. Anything that you can recommend doing? How much longer until the article is in fact deleted? Levine2112 21:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting attention to old AfD's

Just slap a {{adminbacklog}} on it next time. The Bat Sign... :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the individual page itself, I guess. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Nightmare of 100's of Millions of 2-line bios?

What exactly is the nature of the administrative nightmare you mentioned? Seems to me that 100's of millions of unread and unlinked short bios would not cause an administrative load, or at least, should not. And all the work proposed deletion is a non-trivial administrative load that could be significantly lightened by a very tolerant low threshold for inclusion. snug 21:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your note on my page... I'm glad to respond to the first two arguments you made. I think a prominent argument for deletion comes from the notability criteria, and the criteria for notability are themselves a vestigial remain of the era when paper encyclopedias had to fit everything into a package that a group of targeted consumers could afford. So I see all arguments for notability as flowing from a past when resources were tighter, and so the proper counterargument is Wikipedia is not paper, which is a reminder that resources are no longer tight like they were when notability was developed as an encyclopedic threshold. I do, however, support the Wikipedia policies of NPOV, no original research, and verifiability. I think that these policies contain a significant threshold in them, that would eliminate some of the articles you are anxious about... your big toe would have to be covered by some third party, like a newspaper or a TV station that is widely available and thus verifiable. Of course there is a whole different discussion about what sources are sufficient to make a verification, and where is the line between primary sources and secondary sources.... primary sources tend to be associated with original research. snug 19:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, I think you pass the threshold for inclusion. Why not? The disk space is available, and you might go on to do something even more notable than you have already. snug 20:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, disk space is cheap enough that we can have all these discussions that go on and on and those get committed to disk... you are way more notable than these discussions are. Value to me is that Wikipedia becomes more encyclopedic the more (NPOV, verifiable, not original) information it has; in fact, the more careful information, the more trustable Wikipedia becomes. As it is, so much deletion is going on, that I wonder if Wikipedia has significant bias of omission. snug 20:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, both the NY Times and LA Times archives back to the 19th century are totally searchable and online now. The formulation by a human of a little article is encyclopedic, but in the far distant future a program might do it well, and the result would be way more useful than the scanned archives. I think an encyclopedia with an entry, well documented and sourced, for every person that ever lived would be terrific! When there are yottabytes and exaflops available for nothing, say 10 years from now, why not? I hope you don't die, but I think you are easily notable enough for inclusion. snug 20:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Luke D. Moore looks verifiable to me (but not verified).

• I don't think an article that is NPOV, based on secondary sources, not original research, not copyrighted, on every person that ever lived would violate the mission of Wikipedia. On the contrary, I think that precisely is the mission of Wikipedia. I you have reference to direct contradiction by Jimbo or other founders, I'd be interested in seeing those references. I think the more prominent argument against including everyone is that it would be impossible to do a good job verifying the info and insuring the articles were succinct and encyclopedic in format (which to me means succinct and well written). But actually, in the delete discussions, well-referenced succinct and encyclopedic articles are now often up for deletion, which is actually contrary to the mission of Wikipedia, IMO. snug 13:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I can see how a phonebook for Wikipedia is pretty clearly out of policy. I had opined that that could be useful... I've trolled 30-year old and 50-year old phonebooks for info, as well as other directories, but I see now that is clearly not the mission of Wikipedia. However, `some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety' is something I interpret to allow the thresholds I am comfortable with, which are very, very low, as long as there is some secondary sourcing. I suppose the secondary sourcing is the ultimate threshold, and from my perspective, the only impediment in the policy you quote to everyone who has ever lived having an entry. snug 18:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben_Burch prod

I just hope nobody contests it. BenBurch 21:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and - 93! BenBurch 22:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody children de-prodded the page. Listed it for AfD BenBurch 04:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll STFU. BenBurch 18:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help! Now, if the same folks would stop with their antics over at Democratic Underground. I initiated an RFC there, and they are now fighting with the editors who showed up for that. I've resolved to try to stay away from it now. BenBurch 17:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goldfish

Do you really think the how-to list should be deleted? I just thought the article would seem very skimpy without it. QuizQuick 16:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I agree. I think wikipedia needs to start a WikiProject on Carp-family fishes. Do you have any suggestions for what kind of sections I can perhaps add? I'm think about including "Goldfish anatomy" in there, but that's similar to the anatomy of most other fishes, so that might seem a little redundant. QuizQuick 16:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a good idea to link to a general fish-anatomy and describe how goldfish differ from other fish. ---J.S (t|c) 16:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ND article

Hi J.S! Thanks for your feedback on the Natasha Demkina article. In sourcing the comments from Pravda.ru, I tried several methods during my sojourn to properly attribute material from it. Starting every sentence with "According to the Russian tabloid...," seemed to be a bit of overkill - so I settled on the standard citation format. Are we sure that it actually is a tabloid and not a more reputable source of news? How is that judged? I'm trying to find other sources, so if you run across any... :) Thanks! Dreadlocke 00:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Askolnick didn't just remove information from a presumed "tabloid," he also removed information pulled from the Discovery Channel website [1] which produced the CSICOP-CSMMH test and documentary - Askolnick's own baby! He uses the same Discovery Channel site for his own references - but then claims the difference is that he is citing the documentary and not the site. A pretty fine distinction to make. My other concern is to make sure that I haven't made the article too POV - from either side. Dreadlocke 02:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW

Hi,

There are many notable Wikipedians who despise WP:SNOW altogether (talk to User:Badlydrawnjeff about it sometime); I am not one of those. However, it is an essay, not policy, and I can assure you that it was absolutely never, ever meant to apply to speedies. Just because something looks suspicious to us, it doesn't mean that our view is certainly correct. Five days in a deliberative forum can uncover all sorts of interesting evidence, and result in a much-improved article. So, yes: if PROD is removed, then AfD it is. It isn't terribly hard, and it ensures all content gets a fair hearing before we throw it out. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rotary

I've been advised that it may be worth considering a WP:RFC/User to sort out the situation on Rotary International. Would you be willing to co-sign one of those?Bridesmill 23:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User conduct; there have already been 3 RfC on various aspects of this page in the last 3 months, all called for by the user in question, all with similar results, all with no change in the user's position.Bridesmill 01:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Misza13's pile!

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page. Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm. Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

User:Azmoc

I dissagree with you about his motovations and at single figure atricle edits I question the title wikipedian.Geni 21:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warned

I've left a final warning for 86.115.8.174. Please let me know if there is any more incivility. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE

Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. (Simonapro 21:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]