User talk:J.smith/archive04

Note: This is an arcive. New messages should be left on my talk page and not here. Thank you, ---J.S (T/C) 05:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


RFC for Devilmaycares

I usually try to assume good faith, and say something nice in my RfC comments (try to see both sides, usually) but I just spent an hour going through nearly EVERY edit this guy has made. Every one is suspicious, POV-pushing. He has been here months and has made no substantive additions to any article. He has spent his time gaming the system to keep his POV edits around (see my comments on the Dennis Rader edit. VERY sneaky.) Anyone who spends THAT much effort doing what he is doing, while never making any worthwhile edits, should have attention brought upon him. Plus he is unrepentant. If he had made a mea culpa, and ceased his actions, I would have probably not been so critical, but he continues exactly the same actions, after acknowledging the RfC. I did not bring it up, but if you look at his early edits, he "springs like athena from the head of zeus." He knows how to use wikipedia tools like an experienced editor from the first. I have a sneaking suspicion he has been doing this before, and this is the latest sockpuppet... --Jayron32 05:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Grazon. Except for 12.72.69.26 and for 75.13.99.82 (each thus categorized by 132.241.246.111 who is on the list, and who is plainly the same editor as is Devilmaycares), some or all of these editors are clearly the same. They follow the same pattern of edits and write the same sorts of edit summaries in the same voice. —12.72.73.41 08:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His preöccupations are an odd combination: He wants to ensure that vituperative language is used to describe serial- and mass-murders. He seeks to erase unfortunate facts about Democrats, hates Republicans, takes occasional swipes at Libertarians. He is evidentally hostile to LGBT folk. And he is keen to defend Christianity and to attack its opponents. —12.72.73.41 08:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


An analysis of contributions: (October)
Contributed on the same day (12): 2 6 9 10 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 30
Devilmaycares only (4): 7 18 19 31
Grazon Only (7): 1 4 5 13 14 15 24
Well, I guess that doesn't tell us anything. ---J.S (t|c) 17:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis 2: Editing the same articles
I checked the last 1000 edits for Grazon and compared them against the entire list of contributions from Devilmaycares (about 200). Devil's edits ranged from September to October and Grazon's from July to November. Of articles that Devilmaycares edited more then twice only 1 of them was edited by Grazon: "John Doolittle".
However, both Grazon and Devilmaycares edit the same type of articles: Biographies and politically related articles. I find it unusual that their editing has crossed only once. Another interesting detail: Neither edit talk pages often. ---J.S (t|c) 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Any analysis might benefit from awareness of a later-deleted acknowledgment by Grazon that he editted as 132.241.245.49 (California State Univeristy at Chico). It is a rosetta stone, linking Grazon to an ISP, showing that this ISP assigns fairly persistent IP numbers, and of course providing more data on nature of edits.
However, even if you pore over all this carefully, and build a careful, solid case, you really should not expect the admins to follow it; you will almost certainly be dismissed or ignored. Further, understand that Cravenzonmaycares will probably lay low (or lower) while you're trying to shine a light on his activities. —12.72.68.13 09:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Grazon blanked his talk page. I reverted the blanking, tacked a transcription of his subsequent remarks onto the bottom of the talk page, added a warning about the blanking, and moved the puppeteering tag to his user page (which he cannot edit). —12.72.70.78 00:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that attention needs to be paid to edits by anons at the IP numbers that I noted, especially at 132.241.246.111 (which I rendered in boldface above); looking at the history of its edits, it is plain that the number is persistently assigned, and it is extremely unlikely to be accessed by any other editors. —12.72.70.78 00:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, indeed, 132.241.246.111 is back. Grazon's earlier remarks show that UC-Chico assigns some IP numbers persistently, and the history of edits for 132.241.246.111 conform to a single-editor pattern, and to that editor being the same as Grazon. —12.72.72.118 14:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not realy sure what I can do about it. He wasn't banned from the project, just blocked. ---J.S (t|c) 18:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't see that it would be your responsibility to do anything about it in any event. However, he is under block, and this editing is block evasion. (Indeed, when an account is blocked, there is usually a temporary autoblocking of the IP number most recently used by that account.) —12.72.68.243 01:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the auto-block works, but it seems to have not done it's job I guess. ---J.S (t|c) 01:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for a while it did. But the admins will not give a long-term (let alone indefinite) block to 132.241.246.111 unless they are persuaded that he is always Grazon. I think that if he remains relatively quiescent then it would be hard (and unnecessary) to persuade them. If he gets revved-up again, then they may block it and also file a complaint with UC-Chico. —75.18.113.152 05:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think right now the situation is as good as it's going to get. If he makes a new account and keeps his nose clean we'll never hear of him again. If he makes two new accounts and starts over where he left off we'll notice and do all of this again. ---J.S (t|c) 06:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IP number has been blocked for 1 month, as a result of a report filed at AN/I. —75.18.113.152 06:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, cool. ---J.S (T/C) 06:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Somebody is in a bad mood. Eiyuu Kou 20:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:YouTube

You said at Template talk:YouTube: "It's also not ok to link to copyrighted material. (see WP:EL) That seems to be more then 60% of the links I reviewed." Actually, I'm having trouble finding any acceptable links. Could you point me to some of the 40% that weren't problematic? I think I'm considering proposing this template for deletion, but that might not be a popular solution. Dmcdevit·t 22:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching this from the sidelines but I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one who would support you removing all the links automatically and leaving the editors on that page to replace them only if they were subsequently proved acceptable. Otherwise, it's a lot of work going through them manually. Cheers --Spartaz 16:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there was a clear consensus that the links had to go we would have the community behind their removal. --Spartaz 17:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so but I wouldn't know for sure. Maybe Dmcdevit of Guy would be able to point in the right direction. --Spartaz 20:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. The main problemseems to be that not only should we not link to those sort of blatant copyright violations, we shouldn't link to media content that isn't properly sourced and licensed, (even if it looks plausibly free or used with permission), since there's no way of knowing its status. That seems to be just about all of YouTube. It's probably time to brainstorm a good solution to the problem. In the meantime, I stuck a wikified list of all of the links as of the last database dump at User:Dmcdevit/YouTube links, so any dedicated soul can sort through them, though it'll take ages. Or better yet, since they're linked, anyone can use AWB to go through them semi-automatedly. Dmcdevit·t 00:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can think of a way to properly alphabetize that list, I'd appreciate it. Rather than your talk page approach, I started going through the list and removing inappropriate links mtself. (I started at the beginning of the alphabet, too, so I may have just doubled our efforts without realizing. Apologies for that.) I put some explanation of how I was doing this at User:Dmcdevit/YouTube. Dmcdevit·t 08:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube in the article about the 2004 Madrid explosions

I think that the youtube links from this article are wikipedia kosher.

Please read my argumentation at Talk:11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings.

Thank you.Randroide 08:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avcon-Youtube

That video was made by one of the main head people of Avcon - SectorX (i was talking to him about it via msn and avcon forums). It was made to show how Avcon went, and is a good video for showing first timers, what it looks like. Could you, if you do anything, leave the video alone, or at least change NOT the link, but the text to something better? Cocopopz2005 11:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Alain Prost YouTube

I can understand where your coming from. But my objection to this is that most of the links are those are from the 1993 season Official review. Anyway, like you, feel free to use to my talk page.--Skully Collins 12:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that. Too busy complaining instead of getting something done about it. Once again, sorry for any interruptions.--Skully Collins Edits 15:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the sockpuppetry you've been investigating

The most appropriate place for that seems to be Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and/or Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. If the two are engaged in policy violations (Block evasion definately counts), the people at RFCU can access the IP addresses used by those users, and if the suggestion is they are the same, appropriate sanctions can be made immediately.

Generally speaking, WP:LTA serves as a mass-read/parsed, not often updated list of warnings for perusal, not a place for requesting action. WP:ANI is good for general cases and discussion, but in this case RFCU or SSP is definately the most appropriate. If you want I can give you some more help on the subject. 68.39.174.238 03:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC) (PS. A reply on my talk page is requested, I'll see it faster. Thanx)[reply]

According to WP:RfCU, evasion of blocks and revert warring with sockpuppets are block grounds for using CheckUzer to see if there exists a link. I suggest you move the text you posted to LTA and ANI to your evidence page and format it for submission as a RFCU entry, specifically, trim the narration out (How you came to look at various logs, etc). I've made an attempt on the subpage "/DMC&Grz"). Also, a little more research might help. I note that one was blocked for revert warring. If the sock started up right after that, especially on the same articel, that's DEFINATELY grounds for either CheckUzering or blocking. 68.39.174.238 04:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that block of DMC for "repeated vandalism" is a community block. 68.39.174.238 04:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's a little confusing (The RfCU discription). I'll do something about that someday. Thanx anyway. 68.39.174.238 04:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blitzball: Youtube

Yay!!!!! Finally some common sense! I always disagreed with the Youtube link. Renmiri 16:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have AWB but can get it. I'll be glad to help Renmiri 16:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can start on your list from the bottom (Z articles) and meet you in the middle ;-) Will that help ? Renmiri 17:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Now what"

First of all, I suggest a post to ANI linking to the CheckUzer case and giving a brief explanation and requesting a block for the sockpuppet and possibly a block for the master account for the violation. Also, you might ask the CheckUzer who ran the check if they can give more information about the IPs listed in the sockpuppet category. They may not be able to do so, but it's worth asking. 68.39.174.238 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wheee!

User:Alkivar has blocked both indefinately for their puppetries. 68.39.174.238 17:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube effort duplication

Perhaps my comment a few days ago wasn't clear, but it looks like the duplication has continued. I and a few others have been actively removing YouTube links from articles, while you've been adding notes to talk pages. For instance, the links were removed from an article at 11:32, November 11, and then you posted to the talk page at 01:00, November 12, 2006. It looks like most of your recent additions have been duplication of effort. I prefer removing the links directly since most of these pages are not actively maintained, or the people who watch them mey not be inclined to take down inappropriate links they added themselves. Perhaps you could direct your effort towards the removal of the links, as outlined at User:Dmcdevit/YouTube links. Dmcdevit·t 01:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have a bot which I can use to do this, so you don't need to do it and can focus on removing links. --Rory096 22:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not calling you a Nazi directly, I was referring to the general state of the so-called "free society" in its never-ending quest/battle to quell any use of "copyrighted" material without giving due diligence to fair-use. Your sweeping tags of every single page that includes a youtube link is not the best way to go about the problem. While a large percentage of links are probably to copyrighted content, there is some youtube material that is valid for reference purposes and to backup statements made in articles. I take great exception to the removal of the youtube video that was on all your base are belong to us. I have been watching this article for the last few months. The article is most in need of a direct link to the subject in question, provided by an un-baised 3rd party source, or housed directly on wikimedia servers. Without this, it is very difficult to describe the subject of the article or for anyone to understand why the article exists in the first place. I believe the video itself to be fair use for several reasons, which I mentioned on the articles talk page. If we cannot rely on fair use to accurately reference articles, then I don't know why wikipedia even exists. --Mattarata 23:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeti

Like you I just bumped into ths again after a bit of a break. You did a good job of bringing a different mind to the problems of ths article. Much appreciated as I didn't have to do anything. The chap has a track record (just looked) of being aggressive, so thanks again for the clarity. (Gowron 21:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]


I've gone through my small library of books and put in all the requested citations (you were right to ask) concerning the tiny segments that I've written. I've used the <ref> tag with some success, thanks for the pointer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gowron (talk • contribs)

Hello again. This is probably the last time I'll put in information on this article. Have had a go at rewording, as you suggested, to make it less bold. I've put it in quotations and cited the earlier book. I'm stopping adding comments to the Yeti discussion page and the Yeti article, as I'm feeling persecuted, not by you though. Cheers. (Gowron 10:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

advice

thanks for the advice about the username. i'm trying to get it changed. but nobody's approved or denied it yet. but hopefully when they do my username'll be "idon'texist". Idon'texist 21:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umdhlebi

perfectblue had a point about the cryptid article saying that only animals were cryptids and i removed all the plants from the list and placed on them on a seperate list in the "cryptobotany" section at the bottom of the cryptozoology article.

but should cryptobotany have its own article or should cryptid include more than just animals or is it all fine the way the way it is now. i mean what if there was a "Man-eating Fungus of Mobile" would that be crypto-fungusology? and some cryptids if they existed and we found them, we could just as easily find out they're not actually animals. So is it really useful to call something an animal, plant, etc., when we've never actually studied it? What do you think? Idon'texist 22:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

???

i think your talk page is too crowded or something, nothing under the yeti section is showing up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idon'texist (talk • contribs)

nevermind its working now.Idon'texist 21:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: vandal warning...

I used {{test1a}}.--digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 00:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Fixing old links...

thanks. would'nt mind if ya did that.Idon'texist 01:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. looks it got them all . . . Idon'texist 12:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello

hello mr J smith i seem u have some skills here on wiki also i like wikipedia, this place has got articles that many other sites wish they hadTu-49 23:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Re: UFO guy

Good call on UFOs real or not. Wish I'd thought of moving it to user space, I didn't mean to come off bitey. --Swpb talk contribs 00:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is that a dis or something?
and um.........do u have any aircraft articles i could write?Tu-49 00:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All he is saying is that I did a good job and he didn't want to seem like he was being rude. I don't realy know much about aircraft... so I can't help you there. ---J.S (t|c) 00:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well he didn't comedown rude next time however, alert me about why my articles put to deletion is messed Tu-49 00:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete your question

== PaidyMaly - Sock-puppet? ==
Hi, I wanted to know if PaidyMaly was also your account? The rules do allow for a second account but only under certain circumstances. The accounts would need to have a notice on the userpage about being connected and they shouldn't ever be used for gaining an advantage in a content debate, AFD, RFA, etc. Check out WP:SOCK for the rules. ---J.S (t|c) 20:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC) - Copied from page history of User_talk:Gowron[reply]

The answer is no!. I do email other people if I need some other opinion. This I have done on many, many occasions for more details and information. You could be the alter-ego of Davkal? I think NOT but it will cross peoples minds, back to the Yeti again. I have appreciated your comments in the past and would work with you to provide a clear way out of this. (Gowron 21:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Nope, I'm not a sock of Davkal. :) I just wanted to ask you personally before some kind of WP:RFCU proceedings goes on. ---J.S (t|c) 22:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whats a sock? Anyway its cool I've been called worse, I'm tryiing to contact my "circle" of friends which take in Scottish, English and Welsh, to find (if possible) who is supporting, if that is so I can't fault them or you. More importantly are you willing to work as I am?. (Gowron 23:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
A sock is something I put on my foot! Oh...err... I mean, in the context of wikipedia a sock is what we call some-one's "other" account. Vandals, malcontents and other disruptive users often create "sock-puppet" accounts to try to force thier side of the issue.
Inviting your friends here to help improve the article is fine. Inviting them here to take your side in a debate is not. That's called "Meat-Puppetry"... basically a real person who is willing to do whatever you want.
Unfortunately I don't really know much about the Yeti so I won't be able to add much content. I think my skills are best used as a moderator on the talk page of the article. I may ask either of you guys to re-explain your side of an issue to help me understand the situation at and and then offer my advice based on that.
You sound like quite the expert on the subject on Yeti. I'm glad to have you on the article. Often disputes like you were in can drive people from the project...It happens too often. I'm glad we were able to avoid that. ---J.S (t|c) 23:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roswell

Hey, just wanted to say that I hope you're not pulling out for good when we're so close! I know Moriori is a bit...difficult to work with, but he's not making any edits to the page aside from making demands (and if he wanted anything enacted to the effect of 'adding a zillion fact tags', there'd be no consensus, anyway), and really shouldn't effect the last bit of work needed to be done anyway. It was your idea to extend it in the first place, and you're one of the best people we've got on the job! Anyway, regardless of what you decide, happy editing! --InShaneee 00:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Thanks for the reformatt of my comment on theother bob. Brian Boru is awesome 00:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

If I could work out how to load your list into AWB I'd have a go at helping you but I'm unlikely to have any time for this before friday as I'm in Esbjerg Tomorrow and Sweden Wednesday & Thursday and can't load AWB onto the work laptop. Give me some pointers and I'll happily help out when I'm back. --Spartaz 21:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - no great rush, I'm not going to be able to do anything before Friday anyway. :)--Spartaz 21:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be around this week if you can help me with this. :) --Spartaz 19:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all set up but I'm only seeing talk pages. Any reason for this that you can think of? --Spartaz 20:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it now. I'm doing K. I seem to be missing the odd link but I'm doing a manaual search on each page as well to be sure. :) I'm sure its my fault - not your instructions. I'll let you know how far I get tonight. --Spartaz 22:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stopping after Lev Yashin. Rather apposite given the amount of time I have spent over the years at Dynamo Stadium. There is a statute to him by the main gates. I'll try and find time for some more tomorrow. Cheers --Spartaz 22:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crzrussian inappropriate rollback on noticeboard

Can you review again? I made some responses. See also this revert of RS info: [1] This is getting to be abusive. Can you take a look in a little detail? Please?Kiyosaki 07:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them. Please review this. I beg someone to look into it. Seriously. These are not good-faith rollbacks and they appear to violate the spirit of everything I read on the Help:Revert page regarding the way admns. should do things. Please help me. Thanks.Kiyosaki 02:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom or Great Britain by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 20:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on Reality shifts

I greatly appreciate your taking the time to look over the reality shifts article. I agree that it needs rounding out, and this is why I am hoping to get some contributions from others in the field who may have something good to add. The term 'reality shifts' is showing up in several books, movies, and even role-playing games, with a fairly cohesive sense of what's being described, although I agree that at first glance, the nature and scope of the shifts can seem large, as they do involve the spacetime fabric of our very existence. Cynthia Sue Larson 22:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!

Hehe. Since you indicated that you thought I ought to send out thank you's following my RfA despite my stated intention not to, I figured I'd ignore my rule and give you one anyways. —Doug Bell talk 19:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube and the DMCA

I have some understanding of the DMCA, and am a Federal copyright consultant and have been for nearly twenty years - I understand copyright, and no Wikipedia editor is uninquely qualified to know the actual copyright status of any given piece from reading the YouTube description. The mechanism for resolving copyright issues is there, and should not be on Wikipedia by editors. There is an assumption being made that material violates copyright, and I radically disagree with that premise, particularly when there is a specific legal federal mechanism to deal with it. You appear to have, for example, deleted all the video links from the Miles Davis page. I could care less how vigilant you or anyone else may have felt YouTube was or is in deleting material, that is their responsbility, not Wikipedia's. Tvccs 21:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: YouTube and the DMCA
Wikipedia's policies have always been more on the side of caution then the law requires. There are a number of reasons for this. First of all, it reduces the chance of a frivolous lawsuit even-more. Secondly, it is bad for the reputation of the project if we simply wait for a C&D order before we remove material/links. Thirdly, if Wikipedia ever does end up in a lawsuit over copyright infringement it is helpful to be able to show that we make an active effort to remove infringing material as we become aware of it. In the end this is equally about the law and the philosophy of the project. ---J.S (t|c) 22:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tvccs"

While I appreciate your explanation, I also think it serves as a convenient cover for a philosophy of guilty first, and considerable arbitrary behavior as a result under that banner. I work with lawyers galore on copyright issues and have for decades up through the Supreme Court of the United States - and although this "lawsuit protection" rationale is bandied about with considerable frequency on here, I challenge your or anyone else to produce an actual pretext for liability for Wikipedia for linking to a YouTube page - my own opinion, especially under the provisions of the DMCA, is that liability is essentially non-existent and those that proffer it as a rationale are trotting out a red herring in defense of an overzealous protection of copyright that is grounded in neither fact nor law. One of Wikipedia's greatest weaknesses remains inexperienced editors who would rather edit the content of others than make their own significant contributions in far too many cases - chopping away at content should be a last, not first, resort. Tvccs 22:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Link Page

I seem to be generating a lot of heat and not much clarity so I'm going to stay away from there unless there is a further allegation of personal misconduct. Virtually every link I have deleted was a blatant copyvio and I'm still waiting for examples of valid links to help me understand the objections. As/when you come across something, can you draw my attention to it. It would be helpful. Thanks and sorry for any trouble I have caused. --Spartaz 05:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind giving me your opinion on these links?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_dancing#Video_clips - Not sure about these because of a lack of sources and its not very clear what they are supposed to show. Would be grateful for a second opinion. Thanks --Spartaz 19:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. I tagged the article 'sources' as it all looks like original research but there are enough relevant google hits to suggest the dancing actually exists. I'm too old and too uncool to assess such things. :-) --Spartaz 20:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More trouble on WP:EL

Please see the section entitled Inappropriate YouTube deletion example (not sure how to get a diff to it. You are accused of making an incorrect deletion and a federal case appears to be ensuing. Jesup notified me of the section but apparantly forgot to mention it to you :rolleyes: --Spartaz 21:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your removal of the YouTube link. I agree it might be a possible copyright issue, but the DVD the interview is from is only available in Japan, making verification for anyone in the US and Europe pretty difficult without it. I think the lack of availability warrants the link. If you disagree, do you have some other solution? I am a proponent of sticking to copyright law, but I want hard to find sources to be available too. - Mgm|(talk) 11:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ns

I'm done with L. I'll start on N tomorrow if I get time (all been a bit intense and I need more rest and less wiki). :) --Spartaz 20:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Can't complain - I have to pay for mine :-(. isn't it a tad early? --Spartaz 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got as far as Nicolas Anelka and decided to give up. Rather appropriate really. Hopefully some more tomorrow. --Spartaz 19:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with N. How are you getting on. Should I do O or P next? --Spartaz 07:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC) OK, I'll start on the Os and you can do P when you are done with M. --Spartaz 07:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD - Thank you

Thank you for your advice re John Monaghan. I`ve followed the steps you have suggested.----Renrenren 19:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Dear J. Smith

I am the alleged sockpuppet, which I deny. I stand by the quality of my edits which you are free to peruse if you choose (except the page I created for Joyce Kulhawik) Please also review my correspondence (Thatcher 131, Shell Kinney, Isotope123, Alison, or attempts to correspond without success (Demiurge, the one who deleted my edits and made the accusation against me refuses to respond to my attempts to resolve this that I left on his talk page).

Apparently the evidence against me consists of the fact that I have a good vocabulary and used words which no one else apparently has ever used (Luddite and canard) and the fact that my interests (especially gynecological cancers; my father was an obstetrician) somehow coincided with those of one of the millions of people who utilize Wikipedia.

Are you an administrator? If so, please help me resolve this matter or my first day will be my last. Isotope123 said to Assume Good Faith, but no one beside him (and he's not an administrator) is doing that.

I should be judged on my edits, not someone else's.

As for the edits that were deleted I have copied and pasted them for you (see below): 17:01, 29 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Ovarian cancer (→Notable women with ovarian cancer) 16:59, 29 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Ovarian cancer (→Notable women with ovarian cancer) 16:56, 29 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Dawn Upshaw (→External links) 16:43, 29 November 2006 (hist) (diff) List of notable breast cancer patients according to survival status (→Alive - Dawn Upshaw added) 16:39, 29 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Dawn Upshaw (update re breast cancer) 16:32, 29 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Operation Flavius (update) 16:29, 29 November 2006 (hist) (diff) List of notable breast cancer patients according to survival status

Thank you for your time and attention.

P.S. -Could you get back to me with a definitive response as to when (if) I will be allowed to resume editing, and when the edits that were deleted by Demiurge and the page created for Joyce Kulhawik (deleted by Shell Kinney) will be restored.

Dear Sir: Thank you for your kind wishes. I am not a sockpuppet, much less am I doing any of the things you mentioned that are prohibited (although sockpupeteers, you stated, are not prohibited "per se", which I find very interesting as this is the reason that Demiurge used to delete my edits and get the page I created deleted by Shell Kinney).

I don't want to make edits that are going to be deleted. I don't want to waste my time or get my hopes up unnecessarily, so I respectfully decline to take that portion of your advice. The sockpuppet notice has not even been removed from my talk page yet!!

Please can you help.

Thank you in advance. Mikijaniec 20:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't want to waste my time on Wikipedia, particularly given what appears to be a striking lack of checks and balances to protect people from false accusations. Thank you again. Mikijaniec 20:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to leave you a note - I'm not deleting his edits because its a sockpuppet account, but because its a sockpuppet account of a banned user. Banned users are not permitted to edit, even if they make new accounts. Shell babelfish 20:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I'd have to strongly disagree with your interpretation of the banning policy. It very clearly states that edits by banned users are not allowed, regardless of the merit of their edits. This particular user has not taken time off and returns to the behavior that led to his ban with each sockpuppet he creates. If you are concerned about his ability to edit, you may wish to discuss having the ban reviewed. Shell babelfish 21:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, all I did was speedy delete one article that was tagged by another user. I haven't gone in and reverted bunches of content or changed anything else the account has done. Since the account later protested his innocence, I asked an administrator or two more familiar with the case to look at it and block if they determined it to be the same sock. If not, I'll be undeleting the one article. Shell babelfish 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

helpme

Hi J.smith, I thought i hadn't saved the helpme template (only previewed). I decided more immediate action was needed, and I found an admin in #wikipedia on freenode. FYI, I found a user (User:Dhwani1989 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) who was running a bot process that was doing massive damage (probably out of control) -- the user didn't seem to care; he was blocked moments after I asked someone to look at it on freenode. Thanks so much for getting back to me! /Blaxthos 01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closes

According to Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions, non-admins can't close as 'delete': "Non-administrators generally should not close "delete" decisions even if they are unanimous. Only administrators have the ability to actually delete the target article, so they will have to re-check for a valid AfD in any case.". I'm quite experienced as a non-admin closer myself, so I have some experience with the guidelines. On the other hand, I take them with liberal helpings of IAR; I have closed withdrawn nominations with no delete !votes as 'speedy keep' before, even though some parts of the process would seem to contradict this (other parts support this). I've also used {{db-afd}} before (if you check its history, you'll see me updating it to work on other deletion debates); using it to close as 'delete' is pointless, because the admin doing the speedy will have to check the XfD anyway to see if it was a delete and therefore might as well close it themselves, so its main use is when the admin's placed a closebox on the debate but somehow forgotten to actually delete the page in question. --ais523 08:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A thread about this has developed separately on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. --ais523 12:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Changed to anon-only

The block parameters were changed to anon-only for the remaining 4 days. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals IP

Thanks for your help with vandals at 170.148.10.46. I added a template to the top of their page, so perhaps that will help. Besides, here I am at my work, so I'll cut them some slack--but not too much. Scoutersig 16:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks mate, I've got to run. I'll leave my query in place and see what answer is forthcoming over the weekend. If I have no satisfaction on Monday morning then I'll drop a note on WP:AES.

Regards LittleOldMe 18:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind

i found them ;-) thanks anyway!

Min Sheng Bank

(moved from anouther section)
Hi Brookie... I too am curious why Min Sheng Bank was deleted. The bank seems to be real, even if operating under a slightly different name... [2][3][4] Your edit summary didn't really explain why it was deleted in the first place, so I'm a bit clueless on how to help this user. Just at a glance it seems like a good subject for an article... ---J.S (T/C) 21:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to recreate the article... Notable bank with tons of press coverage in Canada. I'm willing to work with the other user to make sure it statisfys WP:V/WP:RS/WP:NOR/WP:NPOV ---J.S (T/C) 22:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an effort is going to be made to re-do the article I have unblocked it for you - good luck! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 12:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your effort on this Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 09:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Report

I'm done with O. I'll be away tomorrow and Wednesday so probably won't be around to do anymore until Thursday at the earliest. Please can you drop me a line of where you get to so I know where to start then. Thanks --Spartaz 20:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, good luck. I'm not going to do anymore tonight. I thought it might be fun to work on an article or two instead. --Spartaz 21:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back. Grateful for a steer on what letter to start on next when you have a mo. NB I voted in your RFA. --Spartaz 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate the support. Just start up wherever you left off. I was busy working on other projects last night, so I didn't get a chance to remove any more. ---J.S (T/C) 19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<deindent> I have now started on P. Sobered up after my office party - what a damp squib :-( --Spartaz 20:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Brookie here - I've been impressed at your efforts - and as you don't seem to be an Admin - can I nominate you? Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 09:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be a good nominator but I second the suggestion that you should seriously consider an RFA. I have been particularly impressed by your calmness and openess to discuss contested deleted youtube links. --Spartaz 11:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow! Yeah, I'd love to get nominated. */me quietly hopes the You-Tubers don't notice. :) ---J.S (T/C) 16:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brookie would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Brookie to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J.smith. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
I'm glad that others seem to agree with my nomination! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 10:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Its going well. ---J.S (T/C) 14:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minter clip

Doesn't look like a copyvio to me, but a book promo with helpful content. If you're certain it's a copyvio then by all means delete it again, all I ask is that you be certain about it. Gwen Gale 13:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My TalkPage

I give you, permission if you wish, To help me make my talkpage cool like yours. Can you? WikiMan53 02:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dude! WikiMan53 03:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do my talkpage too? WikiMan53 03:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good but how do you make a box with all the topics? Respond on my talk please! WikiMan53 03:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You got it thanks. What does add archives here mean?
Thanks You, Are you still running for admin? I will support you! WikiMan53 T/C 15:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You're quite welcome. I hope that your RFA passes. Wikipedia needs more good Admins. Sharkface217 05:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EVP

I agree with you, some of the EVP editors seemed to be starting to get a little hot under the collar! When I saw the accusation that one of them was "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point" for simply removing material marked with a fact tag - I thought it was time to step in. Hope it calms down and they get something constructive done! Good luck with your RFA. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

I really want to be an admin, How will I become one? WikiMan53 T/C 17:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

How many edits have I made and how can I tell? WikiMan53 T/C 17:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks That helped WikiMan53 T/C 17:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{user new message}}

I added a {{user new message}} so it is easier for people to contact you. If you don't like it, go ahead and delete it

sorry

Sorry, I thought you would like {{user new message}} . It kind of helps people talk to you. Go ahead and respond on my talk

Did you not like it? Please respond WikiMan53 T/C 17:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Archive Box

Can you move my archive box to the right like yours is please? Thank you for all your help! WikiMan53 T/C 17:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

{{{1|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. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

WikiMan53 T/C 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WikiMan. I gotta get back to work, I'll be back in a few hours. ---J.S (T/C) 18:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! WikiMan53 T/C 18:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review request

Could you review Fraasrd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits - he continues to edit my talk page about my warning and subsequent block. I would just block him again for continue to be disruptive but feel a second (or third) opinion would be more appropriate. --Trödel 06:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - glad I asked you to review as I am having a hard time believing this is really a new user - I'll try to step back --Trödel 17:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The links to YouTube in the Smosh article don't violate any copyrights. I think the cleanup sticker should be taken down because that is where Smosh got famous and they put the videos up. Ngard039 16:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll remember that when I get there. ---J.S (T/C) 16:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

With a 98% positive outcome on your RfA, it looks like it is time to say well done! I'm sure that a Bureaucrat will be along shortly to issue you with a shiny new set of admin tools. If you have any questions about using them then please ask, as I would like to know the answers too! Regards and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a sysop!

Hi, J.smith/archive04, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop!

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on articles for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=
 PS Please add you name to WP:LA!

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And congratulations from me as well. I'm sure you will be a credit to the cabal cadre!
-) Spartaz 17:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
admin This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia.

Thanks

Thanks for deleting my talk page! Have a good one. President Rhapsody 23:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not abuse WikiProjects

As a member of [[Wikipedia: WikiProject Paranormal], I want to ask you to be very carefuly about inappropriate promotion on that project. Your notice about the AfD regarding the Tesla Effect was misleading and problematic. Please respond on my talkpage if you wish to discuss this. --ScienceApologist 00:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with the noticeboard, the problem is with including topics that are unrelated to the WikiProject (such as Tesla effect). --ScienceApologist 00:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith accepted, but if you are interested in the "paranormal ideas" that may or may not be associated with this term, you should have editted the article to that effect. The problem is with verifiability. If it can be verified that the "Tesla Effect" is used as a common idea in paranormal pushers, then we can have an article that starts with (for example) "The Tesla Effect is a supposed phenomena that paranormal researcher John Doe and Jane Smith have argued is responsible for ghosts causing hairs on the back of hands to stand up on end". Of course, you need to keep an eye very carefully on WP:V and WP:OR. As it is right now, the article is not any of the things necessary to justify either your vote or the inclusion on the paranormal noticeboard. --ScienceApologist 01:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is your point, you should definitely edit the article so it is clear that it falls in-line with the paranormal project. Then relist it at the noticeboard when it is clear how it relates to the WikiProject. As this is a wiki, you are more than welcome to edit an article during an AfD. I'll be watching to see if you can create an article that can satisfy the WP:V and WP:OR conditions, and if so, I'll gladly change my vote to keep. As it is, with my brief bits of research, I cannot find any consistent, verifiable definition that will allow a starting point. --ScienceApologist 01:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next time...It will not fail.

I see my stub "Emephilia" got deleted despite my valiant attempts to rescue it. No hard feelings (even though I do strongly believe my Logic and sources technically outflanked most, if not all, of the other comments). No matter, I'll submit it again, but next time I'll provide more sources, even diverse ones, and they WILL NOT be overrun by the closed-minded pubic! --XKrozz 04:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I willingly admit, In the dabate, I did not prove the concept was notable, which i will do next time. In that sense, I was defeated. And thanks for the welcome. --XKrozz 00:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cast an eye on the YETI

Hello again, its been sometime since I looked at the article. I have been gently colleting data of the last week or so and have "written it up". There are failry obvious problems with supplying so many citations, very much like writting a paper for a Microbiology journal, the list is far too long. So I was wondering if you could cast and eye of the additions and if you have any ideas about shortening the citationlist that would be of great help. Cheers (Gowron 15:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]


I am not a puppet, nor am I a vandal

This is a total abuse of power! I have made my first edit ever to wikipedia, and you blocked me and someone elses account whom you accuse of being connected to mine. This is a great way to build support for your website. I happen to agree with the edits TheLastStallion made, so I reverted to them. I am just editing according to what I know. If you don't agree, you should EDIT the pages, not BLOCK peoples accounts. Please unblock my account. The Real Jayne Cobb —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 15.235.249.70 (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]


Update on Puppets and Vandals

I would appreciate it if my account was unblocked. I agree. The edit you referred to would be difficult to verify, and I won't edit in things that are so obviously unverifiable, but I will continue to edit, and if you don't agree with an edit in the future, please EDIT and not BLOCK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 15.235.249.72 (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Your unblocked for now. If vandalism continues I will forward the issue to the HP Abuse department. Blocking your ip address would limit your coworkers from editing wikipedia as well... and I want to avoid that. ---J.S (T/C) 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unblocking me. I doubt that wikipedia would want to block everyone from HP from making contributions and edits. I am not aware of any of my actions that would qualify as abuse. I reverted an edit I agreed with, then you went nuts, started blocking people (more than just me) and threatening me. Your threats seem quite extreme for a first mistake. The power of wikipedia is collaborative knowledge and editing, not block and threaten people you disagree with. It is good that wikipedia has people who are intensely interested in keeping quality high, but please direct that intensity toward improving articles, and away from the people who are the base of wikipedia.--The Real Jayne Cobb 20:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, J.smith! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am currently investigating whether there may be a bug where users with periods in their username are not recognized as being on the user list. Let me know if you are able to log on successfully. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prodego (talk • contribs) 22:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Well, actually I just broke VP for everyone (never happened before), and now you may have to wait a while... Sorry about that... Prodego talk 23:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on 3RR block of User:24.39.123.238

J.smith, if your comment means that other editors need to try to reason with this anon-IP, you will note that several editors have made multiple efforts to engage this person. S/he has never joined the Talk page discussions, and simply persists in reverting and editing the article in his preferred direction, totally ignoring the discussions and other editors. We welcome anyone's inputs - if they care to engage in civil conversation on the Talk page. Issuing legal threats, as this user has now done several times, even after being blocked, are not a good way to achieve useful collaboration. Crum375 23:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I am sure you had the best possible intention in mind. Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated. Crum375 00:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I'll admit to not having heard that law before, but I fully accept it. BTW, if you have expertise in AM, and want to help us as a rational and neutral person with specific AM knowhow, I am sure I speak for all of us on that page that we would welcome you with open arms. The dispute there is now in RfArb (not yet accepted, the initiator coming shortly out of a 48hr 3RR block), but when it's all said and done, having someone knowledgeable in WP rules, presumably straight as an arrow (as you'd have to be if you're an admin), would be invaluable. So please consider it - up to now we've only had on the AM side a tendentious single-issue editor who's yet to learn WP's rules after more than 6 months here, or anon-IP's like the one you've met today. Thanks, Crum375 01:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Konga dave

Hmm. Thanks a bunch for your help. Might be more trouble than its worth. I actually was shocked with the accidental fame. Oh well :) Thanks a gain for helping me with some questions. I learned a whole lot about Wikipedia tonight.

So basically that was the decison to delete it. LOL!

Funny thing, I didn't even know about it being deleted and people who were "Helping save it" (Sheesh! People shouldn't turn something legitimate into a circus for sure. ) Actually helped get it knocked off quickly before I ever even found out about it going away. WOW.

DW


konga Dave

Kongadave 03:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kongadave 03:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Kongadave 03:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finished P(ing)

Shall I just move right on to Q or have you finished M yet? Cheers --Spartaz 21:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Hope you are having fun! --Spartaz 22:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now into R. :)--Spartaz 07:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Ghost Preparatory School

== Your comment regarding the editing block for Holy Ghost Preparatory School, Bensalem PA ==

J_Smith, Is there anything I can do to quickly demonstrate that my request is bona fide? The alternative at the moment is to block the school's access to Wikipedia. The folks in charge here are very concerned about the potential of legal action, but also are concerned about the school's resources being used in any way to harm the reputations of innocent people.

146.145.221.130 19:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Sincerely, Tom Coughlin, Director of Information Technology, Holy Ghost Preparatory School, Bensalem, PA, 215-872-3300, tcough01@holyghostprep.org 146.145.221.130 19:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J_Smith: Thanks for working on this Tom 146.145.221.130 19:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Crew

Thanks for the heads up on switching to AfD; come to find out, the page had been previously deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston Crew. I switched to a speedy/repost template. --Mhking 22:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

I assume you meant something else, not 'alternative mediating'???
Actually we don't need any more mediation, as we now have 4-5 editors who generally agree on a single version, and we want to move forward to improve it further. I just thought that having the input of a real AM expert who is also an admin would be great to achieve true neutrality. If you believe both in WP's ideals and AM, then you should try it - worst case you'd keep us on our toes, and if you really follow WP's recommended path, we could easily reach consensus, with your very valuable inputs. But right now the case is in Arb, so we need to wait for that to clear up first. You may want to read the article in the meanwhile. Thanks, Crum375 06:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks! Crum375 12:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't edit the about me section

I can't edit the about me section on my userpage! There is no edit button! Please help me! WikiMan53 T/C edits 15:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Ratti Deletion

The reason I proposed the article's deletion was that the only article linking to Vince Ratti is the "Zolof and the Rock and Roll Destroyer" article. Meanwhile, the Vince Ratti article simply redirects to the "Zolof" article, essentially creating an unnecessary loop. Hope that clears things up.

User:Thelaststallion

Thanks for the help in dealing with this guy. He's back ([5] [6]), and he has a userpage now. You feature prominently. Figured I'd let you know. -- Jonel | Speak 13:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:29 the cat.JPG

Thank you for notifying me that you "denied" my CSD request on this image. I have put it up for WP:IFD if you care to comment. While I agree there is no direct CSD criteria for this, I think the spirit of CSD was met by my nomination, as it would be pointless and inefficient to come up with every conceivable CSD criteria, but, it will probably die in IFD so no big deal, just have to wait 5 days. Thanks again. --MECU≈talk 13:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: rv Yeti - Sorry...

That's OK, no offence taken. I included that link because it was the main source for the content of my previous edit - checking the Tibetan spelling for some of the terms in the nomenclature section - but I don't have any strong feelings about whether it should be included. It did look a little out of place next to the other references. Butsuri 23:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axino AfD template on it's page

Hey, noticed on the AfD's for Axino that you set it for keep. However the deletion template is still showing on the article itself. I didn't want to remove just in case, but thought since you were the one handling the closing of the AfD, you would be best to handle it. Thx Marcsin 02:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube RfC

I've filed an RfC over the YouTube link issue. Argyriou (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should down tools while this is being worked on? --Spartaz 21:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool --Spartaz 22:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from the discussion taken on this, I strongly suggest that you take down or blank User talk:J.smith/YouTube Linklist. Next time you believe there to be an issue of this nature, you should first seek consensus a suitable location such as Wikipedia talk:External links, and not take steps that could disrupt the wiki. --Barberio 13:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking this would stop encouraging people to delete Youtube links, and be taken as an indication of good faith and willingness to work with the community. --Barberio 16:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your methods *have* been brought into question. Continuing as you are is disruptive to Wikipedia, and a rejection of consensus editing. --Barberio 17:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Smith

I suggest you do not frighten others. In Polish was my private correspondence, beside you can be very mistaken interpreting Polish words. What is you problem any way, or rather you friend Jadger problem? Let me know. Now, if you started the discussion I request you apology for the accusation. At next you approach like that I will report on you. Andrew--131.104.218.46 19:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will report you for bothering others without foundation. If you do not know Jadger maybe you should investigate what he is doing. Beside, I am old enough and educated enough to value what is correct what is not. Please do not teach me, or give "good" advices when you have no idea what you talking about. Such action from you I consider as impertinence.

I see like that: some aggressive individual ask you for action and you knowing nothing about subject say: "If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked" So what is going on. Are you in position to understand any other person perception? I think you should. I was taught by my father: "first attempt to put yourself in the other person position." I attempted to understand Jadger, attempted to discuss with him. Unfortunately he shows so biased and aggressive attitude that I cut off - but you see I make the attempt. It cost me a reasonable amount of time, which I definitely and completely wasted, thus if you appear on stage with such frightening/bothering notes I ask you what are you doing? Andrew--131.104.218.46 20:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still I do not understand what you are taking about. But I forgive you, just for the good example. Have a good day, Andrew--131.104.218.46 20:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Doesn't seem like it. Then again, he's got pretty much nothing left to vandalize now. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leg Work

Hola, Please see here - obviously the vast majority are just blatant copyvios but this is a good selection of different types of removal. Probably bext to review them first before you use them. --Spartaz 21:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for the Unblock. In future I should just ignore those who anger me. The funny part, a contentious deletionist advised me of this yesterday. It seems obvious now that I should have just taken his advice. Thanks again. Alan.ca 07:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This probably constitutes a violation of his block probation. – Chacor 14:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB access removed

As some of the edits you've been doing with AutoWikiBrowser have been using faulty regular expressions, and are controversial, I've disabled your AWB access for the time being. Titoxd(?!?) 08:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here - did you get any warnings? I have droped Titoxd a note asking for clarification. Can he do this if you are an admin? --Spartaz 09:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its been restored. --Spartaz 09:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly, taking the opinion of a developer of AWB at face value at 3:00 a.m. local time. I probably should try administrating again at that hour, lol. Titoxd(?!?) 00:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Conduct RFC

Just a heads up that Cindery now has you and Dmcdevit in her headlights. Her talk page contains the offending text. I'd comment but she reverts me for harrassment. --Spartaz 21:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May interest

Hi. As the reviewing admin here, I thought that this could interest you. Redux 14:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have reinstated the block on User:Alan.ca. My reasoning may be found here. Regards, Миша13 14:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Spiritualism

Well, you guys wore me out, so I won't pursue it if you dig your heels in, but my request on the talk page still stands: if you wish to rate the article, then please leave behind your comments, so that your rating is helpful to those of us who actually do work on the article. Thanks. Anthon.Eff 14:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks J.smith, you are correct, I thought you guys were trying to provide something akin to a peer review. I ran an automated peer review and got some good feedback. The WikiProject Religion folks also left some good comments. As I get time, I will try to make some of the suggested improvements and the article may eventually be ready for the full peer review. I appreciate your constructive approach. Anthon.Eff 18:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Encyclopodia

Got recreated again. You closed the AfD so you might like to rapid delete it. --82.152.166.153 22:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies - perhaps it should be locked against recreation given the non-default searching of the Wikipedia name-space (I believe the template left there when locked redirects one to the deletion log). I created the article along the lines of Lexipedia; I guess this article should have identical criteria applied to it as to Encyclopodia. Edratzer 12:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fair use

Hi. I don't know what you were trying to do there, but it wasn't working out well. Jkelly 23:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You had inserted a vertical pipe in the link originally, making the wikisyntax render on the page. Jkelly 23:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowbot2

It's a good idea, but most administrators can't be bothered with having to go to a page and preview its undeletion whenever they want to check the protection status. Thanks though! Shadow1 (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Rossello Protection

  • I don't wish to endorse anyone's point of view in the dispute going on in the Rossello article, but I believe the article should be unblocked immedietly. It has been locked for far too long and the dispute does not necesarly require it to be locked since there is no clear and present danger regarding massive vandalisms or uncontrolable edit war.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 02:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're going to have to put a block on that page again. XLR8TION just did a wholesale reversal of a bunch of changes, including corrections to gross errors he made on over a dozen changes he posted, but noted the change as if it were a minor change. I restored the previous page but I'm sure he's going to come in again, attempting to start yet another edit war. You need to put a block on HIM, not on the page. Either that or make yourself responsible for watching over the page, because I'm getting tired of this crap. Flybd5 04:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk edit conflict

You added the comment just as I re-removed the question. Thus I'm moving your comment to the talk page. Sorry for the confusion. -- SCZenz 03:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad strategy at all, one that we may yet need in the future. -- SCZenz 04:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Roosevelt...

Important context for Teddy's use of that phrase; in this letter, he seems to be bragging that he was able to avoid using his "stick" by being cool and not listening to opposing arguments by certain "dishonest lunatics", as he calls them. -- weirdoactor t|c 20:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I had no idea! ---J.S (T/C) 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have another one (a quote that sort of changes when you know the context) like this, but I can't remember it at the moment. Meh. Might be time for more gingko. -- weirdoactor t|c 21:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting bit of historical context. ---J.S (T/C) 21:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It suddenly occurs to me, perhaps this makes the quote is even more applicable to the RFC in question? ---J.S (T/C) 21:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nixon

Could I ask you to mosey on down to the old prez's page and give your opinion on the two YT links. Both campaign vids and I'm uncertain about their copyright status. TVM and Happy New Year. --Spartaz 20:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that they are there without permission - the Democratic party probably owns the copyrights, and I doubt that "Waltisfrozen" is an official representative of the DP. However, it's possible that those videos have passed into the public domain, depending on details of copyright law with which I am not familiar. Argyriou (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unless there is a special loophole for political advertising or the democratic party released the rights then it wouldn't be in the public domain yet. I'm leaning towards removing these... witch is regrettable, since the links are so bloody useful. ---J.S (T/C) 21:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note on the talk page - should be a fairly high profile page so I may leave it a day or two to see what views come across. --Spartaz 21:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine, were in no hurry. Maybe there is a special circumstance that will let us keep it. ---J.S (T/C) 21:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's some rule about having to have actively made an effort to register for copyright before 1989ish, I think. So there's a possibility the Party didn't bother to register a commercial they didn't think they'd need again. But I don't know the details of how that works. Argyriou (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one! Good result. Spartaz 11:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Ridge Junior High School on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Desert Ridge Junior High School. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kicking222 11:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Questionable edit

I didn't make that edit. I only made my edits with my name signed on. --XLR8TION 18:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your original message:

Why was this revert made? ---J.S (T/C) 05:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


What do you mean by "whosesale"? I revised the article, corrected many typos, gramatical errors, and added citations. There is absolutely nothing questionable about my edits. --XLR8TION 19:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khaleel Mohammed

Hello ... the AfD for this was closed as no consensus, but the copyvio still remains unaddressed in any forum. --Dennette 05:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:131 again

Hello, Jadger here, hope you had a merry Christmas and Happy New Years. user:131.104.218.46 is up to similar things again, notably on Estimates_of_number_of_deaths_in_connection_with_expulsion_of_Germans_after_WWII for instance he keeps adding {{POV-check}} {{unreferenced|date=December 2006}} {{ future product }} despite the fact that the article is about a historical event, and is referenced, not to mention there is no POV check discussion on the talk page. He is simply edit warring now with a number of users, on the same four pages again: Jan Dzierzon, Estimates_of_number_of_deaths_in_connection_with_expulsion_of_Germans_after_WWII, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, and Recovered Territories. The difference being this time he is not bothering to talk or compromise on anything, since his block by RoyalGuard11 he has not editted on a discussion page or a usertalk page, he just keeps putting the same thing into articles over and over despite myself and many Polish users reverting him.

--Jadger 19:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked user:131.104.218.46 72 hours after investigating further. Jadger, I recommend you moderate your tone in your edit summaries and other interactions with frustrating users. Thanks... let me know if there are any other issues. ---J.S (T/C) 19:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

he is avoiding your block. now he is going by 131.104.218.102, still editing the same articles.

--Jadger 21:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-blocked. ---J.S (T/C) 21:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now as 216.171.96.18. Sciurinæ 22:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I like your userpage, you're very down to earth about who you are in the real world, leaving the admin template at the bottom, as if it is less importnt, which it is. Ta! frummer 00:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what your thoughts on this... I am an inclusionist because i see allot more content is getting into wikipedia then would be getting in any other true encyclopedia. One can say this is occurring because we have more contributors than any other encyclopedia or alternatively one can say this is due to WP:N getting lax and thus WP is too over-sized to be credible in chronicling importance. I think we are revitalising the idea of an encyclopedia in that so long it passes WP:N, WP:NEO and WP:V, it goes in and stays in. In this way WP seems to be gaining on Google per their mission of "organising the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". The advantage over Google is our user base. Google is only realising now how they can utilise their user base, i.e. Google Image Labeler. frummer 00:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)]. My point it, I think at some point Wikipedia will have to admit it is redefining/modernising the traditional sense/meaning of "encyclopedia". In fact Jimbo already is, check this [7]. frummer 00:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion

Rod Coronado - What do you think about the YT video in the external links bit. It doesn't seen to have a verifiable source to show copyright but its the kind of thing that would probably be considered PD by activists. --Spartaz 22:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The person who posted the video appears to have worked with the creator of the video on other video project. See here - the blog site is listed in the YouTube member's profile. Mark Karbusicky is listed at the end of the video, and as the co-producer of VegPorn. A search of YouTube for Mirha-Soleil Ross and Mark Karbusicky shows a couple of other videos co-produced. On the other hand, I'm at work, and had the sound off, so I have no clue if they've ripped off someone else's music. Argyriou (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look when I get home. YouTube is understandably blocked at work. :) ---J.S (T/C) 22:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to leave it. Spreading the clip seems to be perscicly the goal of that kind of documentary... but we would be better off if we could find a more official source. ---J.S (T/C) 03:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stratford Jazz

Why have you DELETED Stratford Jazz, a site for UK jazz enthusiasts? Who are you? How about someone choosing to delete your pages?

The Deletion Log states:

  • "06:29, 19 December 2006 J.smith (Talk | contribs) deleted "Stratford Jazz" ( (CSD G11))"
G11 stands for the eleventh general criteria for speedy delete, Advertising... You can check out WP:CSD for the full list. If you want to write a more encyclopedic version of the article, feel free. ---J.S (T/C) 17:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion statistics

I've said elsewhere that (IMHO) Wikipedia relies too much on gut feelings and opinions and too little on hard numbers. So I want to say "thank you" for having taken the time to do the analysis at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive270#Deletions, a statistical review of 24 hours. At some point I hope that people will think about the implications - over 2100 mainspace articles deleted during one day could be read as a huge quality problem, or as a huge drain of time, both of which might be addressed by changes in policy. We'll see - anyway, the first step is to get some hard numbers, and you've done a great job of that. John Broughton | Talk 22:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removing warnings

You've said "removing a warning from your talk page is not a violation of any policy." I've heard this over and over. Is there a guidelline to that effect? Is there a clear statement of that somewhere? And, if it's true, why is there {{Removewarn}}? Argyriou (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite hard to prove the negative:) That template was created two weeks ago, so I'm not sure how much it represents guidelines. No guidelines are being quoted, so it's hard to research the validity. ---J.S (T/C) 00:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

I have to object to your blind removal of YouTube links on articles. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Massive purging of YouTube links. Thanks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Week

The best existing proposal I can, in my own limited way, think of for the previously discussed "appreciation week" can now be found at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week#Wikipedia Week. Any comments or responses would be more than welcome. And I understand and respect your reservations about the timing. Unfortunately, I didn't myself choose the timing of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Day, and can't think of any other specifically wikipedia-related day out there. Badbilltucker 15:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clouds namechange

Thanks again for helping with the name page. The consensus seems to be that 'CLOUDS' should be 'Clouds' without the caps. I'm not yet well enough versed in Wiki techniques to do this change, would you mind doing it for me/us? Sorry to put upon you when you've already been so helpful! "Matthew.hartington 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

  • Sorry, an example of my waffling - I didn't make myself clear enough. The name you chose is fine, just the CAPS part. So it should be 'Clouds (60s rock band)'. Thanks again for taking the trouble to help with this. "Matthew.hartington 05:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Thanks for all that, and for asking if I need anything else - now you've let yourself in for it! I want to add some comments to other articles, but I'm unsure how to handle the citations to justify the inclusion. Should I try to incorporate the citations in the actual insert (rather difficult to make it sound sensible) or place a note somewhere at the foot of the article? Thanks again for your help! "Matthew.hartington 06:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Campaigning outside wikipedia

Would you please add {{not a ballot}} on this AfD? I think it's going in a wrong way. Maybe better question was that don't you think it's needed? Hessam 21:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Help

I am trying to add the following to FAC page, but its not working, can you try it please.

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Folding%40home}} --Foundby 06:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other people have not put it over there the ":" Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&action=edit&section=1 Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates? --Foundby 06:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Wedding

The YT guy asserts the film is PD and I don't know why. Can you work it out? Thanks --Spartaz 07:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R

I did R. Where did you get to last? --Spartaz 08:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

onions

I noticed you deleted The Onions before you gave anyone a chance to post notable references. There are enough of them to make this page valid and post worthy, this is not some garage band, it is legitimate and celebrated by notable 3rd parties. please allow krkberg to post the page back up uncontested