User talk:Jarkeld/archive 1


Vandalism

Just a head's up, someone vandalised your userpage and I've reverted it. Most people like to know. arienh4(Talk) 20:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

My recent edit to Muhammad did not add commentary or my own personal analysis. I stated a fact--which was already listed in the citations section of the article. Doing so did not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and therefore did not breache the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Lacarids (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My edit of The Forgotten

My recent edit of The Forgotten (2004 film) was not a test or vandalism as you suggest. I saw the film on cable and it was said the boy died in a bus crash rather than a plane crash, so I edited the article to reflect that "fact". I see now that this was a change for the TV version of the movie. 75.162.83.4 (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands

I've noticed that you are also reverting the edits on this article. I have requested help here. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where you have requested help, having followed the link above. RashersTierney (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The help request was for a different matter. It has since been archived here. Jarkeld (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for answer. Seems to be a lot of it about. RashersTierney (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the recent wave of problems originate from 6 IP's from Morocco. They could be related to a banned sockpuppeteer (Historian 19 (according to an edit summary from User:Van_helsing). Jarkeld (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense. The Dutch/Irish connection rang a bell. Thought it another puppet-master but they could be one. What happens now? RashersTierney (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I've left a message at Van Helsing's talk page asking for advice as I haven't dealt with a situation like this before. Jarkeld (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
How come this vandal has not been closed down? RashersTierney (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Hello. When you patrol new pages, all articles that you have looked at should be marked patrolled, whether you marked them for deletion or deemed them acceptable, unless you are not sure. This saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thank you. Intelligentsium 00:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Recreate those pages!

Recreate those pages!--75.139.111.113 (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Which pages? Jarkeld (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Ashley carter

Hello Jarkeld, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Ashley carter) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! decltype (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. My reasoning behind the G1 csd tag was the repeated sequence of the same short text.
I'll use A7 from now on for this type of page. Jarkeld (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Frankflood.jpg

Hi Jarkeld, as you will see from this discussion, extensive efforts are being made to resolve this issue. It appears that the 'original' web-captured image is no longer extant, and the editor who uploaded a copy to Wikipedia does not remember the source. Because of the difficulty of replication, and until promising sources have been exhausted, could you possibly delay the deletion process for a short period? Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think you've got the wrong person. I can't remember having anything to do with this picture. Jarkeld (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
You're quite right. Sorry for troubling. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
No trouble :) Jarkeld (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

hello sir.

hello , that was not vandalism, the article i revert is twice longer and more detailed, if u see (tag:references removed) its only because the references of the long article are different from the current one :-) thank you :-) 41.249.85.30 (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi,
You and several other seemingly related IP's (21.249.xxx.xxx) have been reverting to an old version of this article. :You are reinstating text removed/edited in collaboration long ago. This is considered vandalism. Please stop. :Jarkeld (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


Yes but this version is clean from copyrights of that old one's sockpuppeter41.249.85.30 (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Please state your case on the talk page. This kind of mayor revising should be discussed before implementation. Jarkeld (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does everyone Wikipedia pick on me?

You're not the first one, but it would help if you and all the other Wikipedian Editors stop picking on me.--Red Wiki 21:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

Well, if you start making articles about notable subjects and/or provide sufficient proof that the subjects of the articles are notable then there won't be any reason to slap a CSD on them. Jarkeld (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


Twinkle

Regarding this edit: I highly doubt the previous entry was intended to be vandalism. The section in question only references (as of now) the episode's use of the song "Poker Face", and the edit appears to be the user regarding this an an appropriate title of the section. Just a friendly reminder in case you scope for vandalism to South Park-related articles in the future. Thanks. :) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I acted a bit too hasty in this instance. I'll be more careful in the future regarding South Park related articles. Jarkeld (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Overriding the page name

Thanks for the trouble. Since it is cosmetic only, I suppose that wikilinks would still have to be entered as "[[1.1.1-Propellane|[1.1.1]propellane]]", right?.

In that case, I think it is better to leave it as it is now. Masking the true name of the page has little benefit for the readers but is likely to make life more miserable other editors. (But perhaps there is a template for a warning "The title of this page should be [1.1.1]Propellane but is 1.1.1-Propellane for technical reasons". I recall seeing such thing in some computing article, only can't recall which one...) All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved text from userpage

please help me set up a PAGE FOR MY AMATEUR FOOTBALL TEAM SPORTING REBELS PLEASE............... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportingrebelsfc (talk • contribs)

Non-constructive editing

In what sense is writing on something that has historical connections to an evil Dutch past non-constructive?

Gitzwart (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your changes as they seemed to be negative & non-constructive. If what you are saying is true, please provide reliable 3rd party sources. Jarkeld (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

CSD + books

What other methods could I use to delete the page. It is clearly not suitable for Wikipedia.-Regancy42 (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought that it would be included under the general notability clause of the CSD. How do I use PROD or AFD?-Regancy42 (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright. I doesn't seem like they're going to challenge it though. -Regancy42 (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Hunted"

Please feel free to delete the page called: The Hunted"

Though it was and is an historically significant piece of work, as you will notice, there is a typo with a set of quote marks at the end of the title for which you took notice. So, it must be re-created.

Thank you for noticing this and for deleting it!

00:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)~Taram00:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Taram (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Folks Theory copy/paste

I believe you were correct in deleting the {{copypaste}} tag that I placed on the article "Folks Theory". I checked the "sources" link on that site's article on Folks Theory and sure enough, it led me to a page called Wikipedia New Pages. I should have noticed that before I tagged the article. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

page move

Glad you caught that so quickly! Pretty sloppy of me… — eitch 05:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, and then I put that at the top of your talk because I clicked 'edit' for the top section instead of the page. The problem here is clear: it's my cutting down from hours and hours of editing each day, in the good ol days, to max a couple each month; I've lost the muscle memory. Moral: never hamper a WP addiction :P — eitch 05:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Glad to have been of assistance. Jarkeld (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)