User talk:Jaysweet/archive 3

Archives:

• July 5th, 2007
• March 10th, 2008

Orphaned comment from Kiberlain

Hi there ! I would like to know why you put Emerchantpay at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emerchantpay. EmerchantPay is a EU based payment gateway and merchant account provider with business and support units located all over the world. I do believe the current article meets the requirements, article contains just facts, NOT an advertisement. there's a reference and press release on the bottom . thank you ! Kiberlain (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous IP who doesn't understand the difference between disagreement and disobedience

You think Wikipedia should permanently ban people for vandalism?? I don't think so. I have reported you to the Wikipedia admins for you to be taken care of because you are not doing what Wikipedia wants you to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.45.122 (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no reason to report me for anything. (Of course, I can see from your contribs that it was an empty threat, as you have done no such thing anyway) I'm not sure where you are even getting that from.

I believe that accounts should be permanently banned for blatant vandalism much quicker than they actually are. (2nd offense in my opinion). However, I also understand that this is not Wikipedia policy, and I am firmly committed to abide by Wikipedia policy.

A strange thing about living in the adult world is that someone can disagree with a policy and yet still support the body that enacted the policy, and can still abide by the policy strictly. A check of my contributions to Wikipedia will show an impeccable record of policy-adhering vandal patrolling, consensus building, and article cleanup. I absolutely resent the fact that you are threatening to report me for my opinions, while you remain complaint ignorant of my actions.

I have replied on my Talk page because I want a record of this in case anybody else has such an egregious misunderstanding of the difference between opinions and actions. kthxgbye --Jaysweet (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal balls and every single news agency in the world

Please note that I made my changes about David Patterson AFTER every single news service on New York Cable and broadcast television announced that Spitzer will be resigning at 11:30 AM today. As of the time I made the changes (like everyone else), The governorship of David Patterson wasn't speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericl (talk • contribs)

David Paterson

I've returned the fields to the infobox of David Paterson as the Succeeding field is designed to be used for incoming officeholders, see Dmitry Medvedev. --Philip Stevens (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

I have no clue what you are talking about. --Gonezales (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Uconnstud that he put under the wrong section

Did you even look at the refernces that I included for David patterson?? Uconnstud (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look next time. I actually placed four references on the talk page. One is his official website. Uconnstud (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

because this is a group contribution and project. i added a number of references as well as told everyone to chill out. that is why the page is under semi protection. Uconnstud (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After Uconnstud continued adding a bad faith 3RR warning to my page, Colfer2 wrote..

Uconnstud put the same erroneous warning on my talk page too. Colfer2 (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a clear 3RR on that page, this is one of them.[1] --Gonezales (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't. Count the reverts. Also, Gonezales, will you please stop reading my Talk page and responding to other people on this page?? If you want to talk to them, talk to them on their Talk page, not on mine. kthxbye4ever --Jaysweet (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2] [3] [4] You must have a strange way of counting to not count three reverts in 24 hours. --Gonezales (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uconnstud is using an anonymous I.P. to make the same edits now. See: 199.3.218.137 (talk · contribs). - Colfer2 (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed warnings

I am fine. thanks for the information on [5] Uconnstud (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help?

[6] This was the first study that came to mind. Granted it's about physicians' impressions, but presumably the consumer is affected as well. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an interested observer of the homeopathy circus and all its offshoots, I found this question and thought I could offer some anecdotal yet somewhat well-placed observations. I have no rigorous scientific evidence (i.e., anything peer-reviewed), but you might like to know this.

I know several people who either previously or currently work in US pharma, both brand and generic companies, in the quality control areas, the labs that verify what they're putting in the bottle is the same as what the label says. They all say that while the products are nominally identical (that is, when the label says they should be, they all have paperwork to prove it), everyone points out that the technical competence of the technicians at the brand companies is significantly superior to those at the generics, probably due to better compensation/benefits/etc (or so they say). They also all say that they believe the analyses of the brand folks quite a bit more than the generic folks, for that reason. While no one has told me that they know a case where the generic product was systematically different than its label, they all would prefer to take brand. Perhaps not surprisingly, the brand folks were universally vehement in this, while the generic folks were all over the map on this, from "yeah brand's probably better but whatever" to "no way I'd take our stuff with the people back there doing the work".

They also pretty much agree that the USFDA knows this but won't admit it, unless you consider their claim that generic labs get audited a lot more as an implicit admission. I personally put less credence on these last couple of points as it is hearsay about hearsay, although it is all plausible. So I guess the point is that while in principle the products are indeed the same, in practice they may be different, although I offer no proof. Hope this helps. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I usually reply on other folks' talk page, but since I'm addressing two replies, I'm replying to both of you here.

Thanks very much for the stories and info! The abstract that ScienceApologist linked to also noted that there is a lot of variance in both FDA bioequivalency standards, and in professionals' opinion of how effective those bioequivalency standards are (the abstract was referring to proscribing doctors' opinions, while Baccyak4H's anecdote was referring to pharma QA people's opinions -- interesting that both had a similar type of variance in opinion). I still harbor a lot of skepticism, but it does appear that at least for some drugs there may be a meaningful differences. The abstract talked about some drugs having a more "narrow bioequivalency," which is a term I don't fully understand, but it appears that maybe there is something to brand drugs in certain cases after all.

This is sort of not what I wanted to hear, since my prescription insurance is total crap, hahaha... If I want brand name drugs, I basically pay 100% of the difference between brand and generic. Which I can't really afford most of the time. So maybe I didn't want to know after all, hahaha!

No seriously, thanks to both of you for the info. Very interesting! --Jaysweet (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's an article that Wikipedia needs: Bioequivalency. And here's a good source to start with: [7]. Anyone want to help me in writing a new article? Of course, there already is an article on the subject. Silly me. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh drat, and I had already written a stub. hahaha...

michael jackson

Sure ok, ive been working really hard on it recently, ive merged everything that needs sending elswhere, ive sourced all citation tags, resolved all the pov tags and cut it down to just over 105,000 bytes. I think however the lead needs a re write. It was so much better a few months ago. Realist2 (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict

And thanks for taking the lead on this - the only way for things to resolve without escalating is for a third party (or two) to try and sort things out, so your stepping up to the plate is important.

Things to watch out for: the mutterings about consulting with other bodies and resolving this separately is sailing awfully close to WP:LEGAL, which is a serious issue and the reference for the quote seem to violate WP:RS as it is a self-published source (and if no one else has bothered reporting on it, that would suggest questionable notability).

The ironic thing is I have edited the entries for the A-Team and Mr T (and the now deleted A-team in popular culture) as well as starting the Mr. T comic entry where I red-linked the Chris Bunting one and put it on my watchlist. While it would have been legitimate for me to check the contributions of an editor who was making suspicious edits (which would have been well on the right side of wikistalking and something that should be encouraged) I didn't even have to do that - they were all on my watchlist (and as 99% of their edits have been on those 4 entries before branching out to graphic novels, which I'd also previously edited, there has been no need to follow him ;) ). Oddly something similar happened in real life - someone came up to me in my local and accused me (jokingly) of stalking him and when I started looking out for him it was more like he had started accidentally stalking me (he'd started going to the pub I'd drunk in for decades and got on the same train in the mornings I had been using for years - he just got on the stop after mine). Funny old world.

Anyway thanks again - hopefully your work on this will help sort things out. (Emperor (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

"Vanispamicrufting" - I'll try and remember that!!

There are exceptions to the self-published guidelines, like a creator discussing their influences on their own blog (I made sure to doublecheck on this with the Project first ;) ) - which I've used in places like this: Stickleback (comics). However, I think the current quote does infringe on this and added to the concerns about the very focused (and aggressive) editing I think we could do without it (even overlooking the fact it adds nothing).

Anyway in think FoF has pretty much finished what they set out to do - there aren't any other entries they can sneak a mention of Chris Bunting's Mt. T graphic novel and Mohawk Media into (although I did think that before they moved on to graphic novel, so I could be wrong). We'll see. (Emperor (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Shanoman

I unblocked him, as I see now that he has not been warned sufficiently. He may not have even noticed. BTW, I always inform the user after any block. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BV edit

Hi, I saw that you placed 'BV edit' on your user page, what does this mean? I was just interested thats all. BTW, just want to tell you when this user vandalised Founding Fathers of the US and you gave that person a further warning, it has now been blocked for one whole year. You can see it here Do you think this was the right thing to do? The user who did it (i told him about it) gave that IP address a block for a month in February and it obviously didn't work. Given its a school IP address do you think it was the right idea? Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Do you have any experience of reviewing articles for GA/FA ? Realist2 (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its not about the MJ article, that will never get to FA. Its about the Thriller album. I nominated it for GA, a review was done but the review was rightfully deemed of poor quality, trust me the reviewer was a tit. The article was readded near the top of the nomination page. Could you look at the Thriller talk page and perhaps review it properly. Ive waited a long time and worked very hard on it, the reviewer acted terribly and I would like to know. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure the Thriller album, not the single lol. I might be paranoid but everytime something michael jackson related is nominated, really wierd stuff happens, who's ever heard of a terrible review on wiki. Realist2 (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for your huge paragraph on my talk page goes im sorry you had to write all that. The article is still GA but i would love it to be FA. Since its last failed nomination for FA i have reduced the size or the article by 17,000 bytes while sill managing to include all this info on thriller 25!!! Ive cited all tags and sorted all pov tags. It is in better condition now than when it was last up for nomination. I agree some what on the lead, it needs a complete rewrite. Ive asked for help on this and hopefully ill get some replies after the easter holidays. As for sources they HAVE to be there, anything that is positive about jackson is removed unless sourced. That is something that just needs to be put up with. Realist2 (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism report

Just so you know, I've moved the recent report you made at WP:AIV to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist so that the links can be blacklisted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Man" vs. "person" edits

I think you are being unusually oppresive in regard to my editing these words. I am not trying to cause any sort of harmful vandalism to Wikipedia (which saved my ass in college more than a few times), but only to deal with the excessive political correctness which pollutes the pages of this fine website of information. I don't think my edits are causing any real disruption, so please understand my position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semperfi76 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my apologies for that edit, which did cause disruption. It won't happen again. But I do stand firm with the rest of my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semperfi76 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DougsTech vandalism fighting

You might want to take a look at his edit history and his talk page before you decide what you suspect and don't suspect. I don't care as long as he leaves me alone to edit, but what seems to be going on and what is going on are not closely related. As I suggest, you might want to take a closer look at his edit history and talk page, specifically the number of mistakes and the number of apologies, and the number of careless uses of his "blacklist." --Blechnic (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just worry that it seems so okay to jump all over other editors on Wikipedia. CVU should not be on of the places where it is okay. Antagonizing vandals is probably what they want. Ruthless politeness, on the other hand, will bore people to death and send them seeking other, far more interesting, venues for their play time. If you revert someone, post an edit history saying why, if they ask why, tell them. I'm okay with doing articles now and then, as I'm irritated at the low quality of some of the virus articles returned with google results. There are some good ones though. I might stick with IP edits, though. --Blechnic (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOO

Thanks for the chuckle. Cheers, Joe 04:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

Made a lot of changes to the MJ article. Almost all sources are formatted now. Realist2 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thriller will go up for FA soon, its not far off now. Im trying to get this picture thing sorted. The article now has 2 pictures of jackson with "white" skin so i cant see why he's still harping on. He's clearly trying to look for the worst ones possible. He added a picture to the humanitarian section that made jackson not look good. I looked at the AOL site it came from. He could have used the next picure which was more relevant to the issue and didn't make Jackson look ugly. He deliberately choose the ugly picture. He has an agenda as the admin put it, and we wont let it happen. ;-) Realist2 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK what do you think about it now, all sources are reliable, formatted, numbers are formatted correctly, brought it down to 97,000 bytes (it used to be 125,000 without the Thriller 25 stuff!!!). Im thinking of going for FA now. My only concerns are the finances section, its way too long and you would need a degree in business studies to understand it. What you think. Realist2 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think ANY of these can be easy fair use?at top. We really need some on his dance and fashion. I found some. What you think. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 13:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spotting (cannabis)

In that case I would recommend you try finding citations and editing to improve quality instead of just gutting the article. Dirtyfilthy (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Criticism of privileges

Over three or more days I have noticed you unfairly dealing with contributors to the Spotting article, I would go as far to say that you are excercising covert vandalism. If users are abusing the article or you, do not take it out on the article with rampant section deletions, nomination for deletion and ad hominem attacks on the contributors (see the AfD talk), you have not once added references or acted in good faith towards this article. You have only abused the contributors and attempted to have all edits reverted.

Spotting is widely apparent in New Zealand culture and there is no room for your opinionation on Wikipedia. You should at least research a subject before nominating it for deletion. It took me 2 minutes on Google to find sources of it's mention in media and cultural significance which proves you do not care for the Wikipedia processes in the first place.

The original reasons for nominating the article for deletion have been appeased so, I hope to see you acting reasonably from now on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.28.159.215 (talk) 19:29, April 20, 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that part of the reason the article is so much better and well-cited now is exactly because I gutted it a few days ago to take out all of the how-to sections, original research, and unsourced cruft. After that, everything that got put back in was well-sourced. Sometimes when an article is just too screwed up, gutting it is the only way to continue. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping cool

When working with other editors, you should attempt to remain civil. This applies in AFD discussions, as well as on article discussion and user talk pages. Attacking other editors (whether directly or through sarcasm) not only makes you look bad, but also makes the viewpoint you're supporting look bad. A good rule of thumb is to not edit while frustrated, tired, hungry, or intoxicated. Take a wikibreak for a couple hours, instead. If you still feel that something needs to be said, you should attempt to say it in a distanced, neutral fashion. I hope that didn't upset or offend you. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 18:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about keeping cool, im going to blow a blood veasle if someone vandalises MJ again. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont this rabble know im trying to get it up to FA? lOL. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you spare 30 minutes, ive done some work for the FA, he just wants what ive done copy edited by a third party. Im asking for your assistance. Its not too much, fancy it?Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sections are;-

• A)However Jackson's dancing, particuarly from the years 1987-1997, has been noted as[122] and even criticised as, highly sexual or even violent, in the case of "Black or White". Other music videos such as "Bad" or "In The Closet", as well as live performances, show Jackson grabbing or touching his body and crotch. The action, described as choreography, gains a mixed reception from both fans and critics, with TIME magazine describing it as infamous.[123]

• B)The entire "Themes and genres" section.

• C)Jackson began his solo career making sound financial choices, as illustrated in 1984 when he paid for and created the Thriller music video as his label was not in support of releasing the third video from the album. They were already happy with its success, so Jackson funded the project himself, recouped the loss later, making significant profit.[153] In 1985, he purchased The Beatles back catalog as well as thousands of other sounds for $47.5 million.[154] In 1988, he made his $17million (now worth $100 million) purchase of property near Santa Ynez, Calif., that became Neverland and in 1989 he earnt $125 million from album sales, endorsements and concerts.[155] [156] The early 1990s saw Jackson sign a renewed $65 million recording contract and sold the rights to his Dangerous world tour for $20 million, both of which were record breaking deals.[155][157] Forbes placed his annual income at $35 million in 1996 and $20 million in 1997 even though his commercial peak had ended several years prior.[155] Sales of his solo recordings royalties and revenues from concerts as well as from endorsements, merchandising and music videos have earnt him $500 million,[155] while his 1985 music catalog is potentially worth billions of dollars.[158]

However recent years have seen Jackson come under reported financial difficulties. His troubles began in 1993, when he settled a child-molestation lawsuit for $15-25 million which would also see his future earnings dip substantially.[155] Jackson was seen spending large amounts of money at a time, as evident in 2003 when he spent $6 million in a single shop.[155] - of the finances section.

Try so see that the sources are formatted correctly for these sections too, i believe their quite good but there might be blips. Cheers.Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great first edit, you might want to add that he generally touches his entire chest/torso area not just his crotch but not too bothered. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous is by far his best album, unfortunately america didnt warm to it as well as his previous bad or Thriller. It is by far his best piece of work.Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both to be honest, latter albums would have better lyrics and more attention would be paid to production and sound quality. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The priorities are these issues ive mentioned, hopefully then i can turn someone to support (once you have done these three issues let me no). However if you want to carry on after that i would appreciate it. If it has a sufficient copy edit it will be FA. I appreciate your support, its hard doing it alone. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should say conflicting. Other than that if you think that area is good, cool by me. Aside from those three sections i told you about their havent been other specifics given, other than copy edit. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i think A and B are ok now. C is the next part, the money issue. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding, one thing, please clarify that he earnt the $125 million in the single year of 1989. THAT WAS A SINGLE YEARS EARNINGS. CheersRealist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah its very confusing, but looking at it, even if jackson was spending huge ammounts and his earnings dipted how on earth can he not only be poor but in debt. Where is all the money going? I had to chuckle recently. Apparently Jackson is $300 million in debt, this is also the approximate figure he has raised and given to charity. Lol, if he had kept his money to himself he would be fine now, lol, its as if he "sacrificed" himself. Ha Ha Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having some food, will be back within the hour, please continue if you can. Cheers,Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit, its good. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave it, im unsure and its not the part i wrote. Going for food now, 4o mins. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cheers, ill weight for more feedback and let you know. Cheers. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, i want to include a picture to the article, for the physical appearance section. Can you do convincing fair use rationals? Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this, you might be able to see how significant it is straight away. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 20:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The middle picture is always black and white, the outer pictures have been altered to match it. All three were professional shoots. I was always under the impression that if it was something wiki needed it couldn't be an issue. Aside the colour change of the outer pictures they are all authentic. All the pictures are taken at the same angle and show his changed over 20 years. Is it a no go?Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 20:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution meaning? When / where it was taken?Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 20:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an original colour version of one.hereRealist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 20:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im positive only the colours of the outers changed. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 20:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ill look into it, could you copy edit the early career and off the wall eras next, they are areas i rarely visit so they might have major issues. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 03:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, bulgaria, when you finished vandal swotting, can you manage some more copy editing?Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

early career and off the wall eras please. Dont worry ill be near by, im just looking for sources for something. Lol, look at my user boxes. For free speech.Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, omg, ive seen really offensive christian ones but i never complain. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you finish early career and off the wall? Ah 2 people wont budge unless its copy edited. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 20:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah he wants the private life to come first, im not happy about that, as half the article is private stuff, you would read tones of negative stuff before you get to the career. By the looks he will accept me putting it inchronological order. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i pulled MJ, there wasnt a consensus to i withdrew it. Never mind. It really needs further copy editing. If you can help i would appreciate. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so a recent picture is a no go, we need the atributions, inwhich case i will look for more pictures that give the attributions at the bottom. That picture that you think we have a shoot with, cool, but its probably of the least benefit to the article ironically. We already has a pic from that era. Ill let you look into it more, and sort it when your free, ill add more pictures to the list, see if anything new i add has a hell in chance. Also someone has managed to upload picture from flickr onto commons seen here.Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 14:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson pictures

What did you find out in the end? Ive added a few more pictures, some with those atributions. Can we give something a go? Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, im thinking this one is a top priority,[8], its quite old, 1996, its live, shows is altered appearance, shows his costumes, shows the crotch grab, and has an attribution. Its got th whole package. I would make it a priority. Also im sorry to hear about your misfortune. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 14:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its good, ill try adding to the talk page. When will we know if we can add it to the article? Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added, looks cool, can you think of a better caption. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not his mugshot, we arent allowed to use the mugshot apprently anyway. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An admin got involved with the mugshot issue, firstly there is a consensus on the talk page that we dont use it, second the last mugshot of him was deleted[9], third apparently it would only be suitable on People v. Jackson. Anyway, i an say 100 percent its not his mugshot, lol. Why not look at my pictures again, is there anything else there you think can use? Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something a little easier [10], a fair use rational, it already has one for the smooth criminal article, the lean is famous and is mentioned in the MJ article. What you reckon? Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the picture needs a new rational for every article it is used on, i could be wrong though? with the lean and the cloths, its a bonus to the article. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, lets take it one at a time lol. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Jaysweet! 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. β^command 03:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not vandalise "A Close Shave"

If you look at the following link for the iTunes version of A Close Shave and watch the thirty second preview, you will find that I am correct.

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewTVSeason?i=271636854&id=271636332&s=143444 172.159.117.134 (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My little brother did that thing to the Tony Romo article yesterday. Sorry about that. 172.159.117.134 (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters = reliable source

Would you consider reuters a reliable source for album sales? Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No someone else has, hes crazy about sources, its good faith obviously, but hes really uptight about it. Could you leave your thoughts on the Discipline (album) talk page. Cheers. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn that picture issue sucks completely. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 20:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lamest edit wars GTA IV

I would add a link to the definition of the word Balkanized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8bitJake (talk • contribs)

I added a link to the article on Balkanization.--8bitJake (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CE

Hi, I was wondering if you could do a copyedit of my personal favorite song of all time, Like A Rolling Stone. I think it'd be really helpful before I start to work on it. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

List of best-selling albums worldwide, could you help me with this article. I need to go through it removing dubious sources and replacing them with fact tags. Its a long list so i could do with your help. I had the article on semi protection but when we have finished the fact tags im going to ask that it be removed, in the hope that these ip adresses can be useful and find good sources. When i get the semi protection removed, could you put the article on your watch list, checking any figures / sources are reliable when these ip addresses add them? I want to get the article to FA list standard. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, good, im just concerned for the next FA, they are bound to check the pictures and see that dispute. They might request it be deleted to get FA. I want it to stay it an amazing shoot. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 14:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be wise, if it comes to the FA review and the requirement is that i remove the picture, ill do it in a heartbeat. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 14:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, ive never been lucky enough to go to one of his concerts, it might be a case of carry on looking on flickr until we find one thats good and doesnt a press attachment. Im not really familiar with copy right rules their quite complicated, a possibility would be a music video still, or a concert that was in the public domain such as his superbowl performance in 1993. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have concert DVD's at home. I have his Dangerous world tour (1992), MTV awards (1995). I dont believe i have the equipment to upload stills onto my computer tho. Would it be possible to user stills already on the internet and argue that because they are already available on DVD the loss of profit would be minimal. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiz, kid, i can try that. What would be better the tour or the MTV performance? Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, ill get to it, it might take a while though, remember the picture has multiple purposes so i need to look for one that shows as much as possible. That whats so great about the last picture, it has the change in appeareace, cloths and crotch grab all in one. Ill take my time and get it right, until then you keep bitching about how good the current picture is lol. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, ive been giving it a go and its not working. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

Whoops. Thanks for fixing that one for me. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a doofus

Oh, for heaven's sake, please try to act in a reasonably adult manner and avoid bad jokes such as those made by DontCallThisHandBad (talk · contribs). I suspect you were also the socks hitting Talk:Alexander the Great with parodies of Irish and Chinese nationalists claiming Alexander as theirs. That was reasonably amusing, I'll give you that, but you're not supposed to do this sort of thing. Try Uncyclopedia instead. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

I would like to nominate you for adminship, would you be interested? Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 05:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i looked into all that stuff above, some of it was very funny, i mean, BAD Jaysweet!!! I hope you will reconsider the offer in the future. Yours Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like we gonna need another picture, where to start hey?Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have concerns about any nomination of adminship on you, since your name is reminiscent of a controversial user with an apparent reputation for tendacious wiki-lawyering and abuse of position. Such concerns will not prevent my future dealings with you being collegiate, however. PR^talk 09:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PalestineRemembered,

Firstly, I don't know who you are talking about, but it's not me. It is painfully ironic that you are judging me because my real name is vaguely reminiscent of a completely different person, after you got so upset at me when I suggest that maybe your user name might attract extra attention.

Secondly, I already said I didn't want to be an admin right now, and didn't think an RfA would succeed even if I did. So this comment is completely unnecessary and uncalled for.

Thirdly, based on your contribs and block log, I'm not sure I want you commenting on my talk page. Any future comments will be removed. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR, your views mean close to nothing. Im fully aware of your history. Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 14:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia

Do you know much about this topic? Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a lookRealist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 14:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbing lol, did you read those links, looks like "synops" were going to revolt against the cult leader. Do you think it would go nicely in the conservapedia artice. --Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MJ Picture

Michael jackson attended the public funeral of james brown in 2006. Could we use a picture from that, even if we dont know who took the picture, it was called a public funeral. --Realist^2 ('Come Speak To Me') 07:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning is unnecessary

Hi, thanks for the reminder about 3RR, but I am fully aware of the policy and do not violate it. It is frustrating that various editors have a history of simply reverting any and all changes I make to that article regardless of their value, which seems to be a coordinated plan by certain ones hoping to prevail simply by the power of coordinated reverting, but hopefully sane editors like yourself will go through and look at the edits and restore any and all that are reasonable. DreamGuy (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Thanks for the comment, I left a comment on the noticeboard also. cheers--Langloisrg (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisp2k5 and 3RR

I'm not sure if you saw this thread in AN/I, but the IP might just be yet another sock of the banned user User:Hdayejr. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too familiar with the edit war there, however check out this peculiar edit to the IP's talk page here. This appears to be the same sort of stalking/harrasment that has been going on for some time. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly's image comments on 'Quantel' article

You mentioned that I should not delete 'Can be replaced with free image tags'. User Kelly keeps on flagging the images in the Quantel article two years after have been added and two of the images cannot be replaced anyway due to age or access to area to take pic! One image dates from the 1970s and the other would require trespassing to reproduce... —Preceding unsigned comment added by BackStagePass (talk • contribs) 20:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquettes case

I have started a case here. I know your involved with this page a lot, i would appreciate your imput as i respect your decisions on such things. here. Cheers. --Realist^2 (Come Speak To Me) 16:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, that wrestling comment made my eyes water. So funny. He received a warning but since he breached half a dozen policies i thought it was a tame resolution. I just cant stand bigotry. Im keeping an eye on it, the detective that i am, any slip ups and its reported. I originally reported it to fringe theory lol, seeming as he has a fringe theory and all. --Realist^2 (Come Speak To Me) 17:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i know your right, im going to moniter this though. At some point "Enough is enough". ;-) --Realist^2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also MJ's been out and about. here, why am i never there with a camera? ;-( --Realist^2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think these comments made by an administrater best sum up how tired we are with his behaviour. Realist^2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice speech on CadenS page, i think you summed it up fairly. Realist^2 (Come Speak To Me) 14:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MJ man

Lol, i left a message on the MJ talk page, i was hoping it was the real deal, then i read his user page, DICK. --Realist^2 (Come Speak To Me) 22:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help me understand

Jay, I'm fairly new as a Wikipedian. Could you please tell me what you mean by "rm FWIW"? What does it stand for? As for your comments towards me, I'm sorry but I see them as a personal attack. The only thing that is prominent on my user page is the wrestling bit because I'm a member of that project. What is this second thing that you point out as being prominently displayed on my user page? Help me out here so that I can understand where you are coming from. Thanks. CadenS (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

like 10%

Lol. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Warning

I see your point. May I ask though, why no warning was given for the other users incivility? It is an alarming trend I have noticed on this site that the person who reports a dispute "first" ends up getting off without so much of a warning, yet the person who does not report ends up getting warned. Grant broke policy as well, and his policy violations warrant a talk page warning too. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

concerns about use of twinkle reply

Hi there. I am very sorry about this and the thread at WP:ANI is correct in a way I have used twinkle and because I am not with it when using twinkle I have gone back to the twinkle page and I have read the page very carefully so that nothing comes up like this again. ILoveFran (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:ILoveFran just gave someone a level 3 warning for removing speedy deletion tags, which doesn't appear to have happened. No offense intended to the user who adopted them, but ILoveFran probably requires a hands-on approach (see User:Bjaco18, their other adoptee). I also note that ILoveFran apologised, but answered none of your questions. Can we re-open that ANI thread? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a very advanced user and I am a Lawyer and also a programmer who programmes in machine code. I allso graduated from Oxford university with a first class degree and also scored 100% on my law tests. So yes I do know what I am doing. I can programme anything that is needed which is why I have mediawiki installed on my laptop. ILoveFran (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I previously said I am currently tied up with the law suit that I am putting together. And seen as you have no seniour authority please refrain from telling me what I can and cant do on wikipedia. I am very aware of what the policy is and I know what to do seen as I am a lawyer and qualified programmer so I know how the scripts work so please dont tell me what to do and not to do. ILoveFran (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this person is no lawyer... it's a trolling kid who can barely spell. Thanks for following up on this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I'm sorry that my comment at ANI upset you. It wasn't intended to be a reflection on you or your actions. I had mistakenly assumed you were an admin and would eventually block the user before too much more mischief ad occurred. Had I known that you were not, I would have pressed at ANI for someone to block the user. It was my mistake. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stepping in

Hi Jaysweet

Thanks for stepping in when you did. I've been trying to make sense of user:4-d don's massive preachy posts, but it's like a GRE reading comprehension test gone bad. The references are all over the map and the logic flow... well, doesn't exist at all. In any case, I don't have the IQ to join the dots. And the way I see it, I shouldn't have to. The talk pages are meant to discuss the logistics rather than the ideology of an article.

Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - You're hitting the nail on the head. Just check this guy's posts for yourself to know what I'm talking about. A "yes//No" question to him inevitable results in a retelling of the lliad, along with the complementary cheap shots at other editors, and venting at Sahaj Marg in general. The pattern is your's to see in his history. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

That was uncivil to you and I'm sorry. I meant that the template was insulting rather than that I was insulted by you personally, but how I phrased it was ambiguous, so I am at fault. As for the comment on the etiquette page, that editor has a bit of a history of temper tantrums. I don't like people who stamp and cry first and then check their facts later. Sorry to offend you, a mere bystander. Bradley0110 (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And I don't remove typed comments from rational people, positive or negative. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Inventions in the Islamic world

What about the comment "I would like to help, but I must warn you that an attempt to put facts here may lead to you been called a conservapedia reading conservative. I have tried to put things right in the past but these efforts are quickly undone by organized members of WP:ISLAM. They even object to using a quote supllied by them if it goes against their agenda. Oxyman42 (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)"? I almost removed it but I'm exhausted (up at 4am for some reason) and my judgement may be faulty and I'm not quite sure what to say if challenged. Sorry to be a pain.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't want to get involved with that headache while I'm trying to figure out what to do about a Urantia believer who has accused me of wikistalking and vandalism (after warning me a few weeks ago for violating [[WP:3RR] when I'd only made one edit that day, the edit before that being over a week before).--Doug Weller (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Jackson picture for JJ wikiproject

Hi there, im starting up a Janet Jackson wikiproject, seen on the JJ talk page. We are looking into potential pictures for the userbox. Userboxes must have a free image I believe. At the moment JJ only has 1 free image, the one on the front of the article. Its not a great photo so we would kind of find it annoying on the userbox. Anyway we have another Free image of JJ from commons, seen here. The only problem is, an identical picture to this one was previously deleted off commons, as you can imagine we dont want to put it on the userbox only for it to be deleted again at a later date. I was hopeing you could again help me determine if this picture is here to stay or not and hopefully we can take this to the appropriate venue for discussion. Your thoughts are needed and appreciated. Keep in contact. --— Realist^2 (Come Speak To Me) 22:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers please do, you could ask that photo guy again, the one you asked about the MJ picture. Im sure you can see my concern, putting it up as a suggestion if its blanked later, ;-/ --— Realist^2 (Come Speak To Me) 14:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, have you been able to dig up anything regarding this, i completely forgot to catch up with you. Cheers. — Realist^2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My constructive edits

I get what you say about my edits not being constructive even though I find the extent of the lecture rather amuseing, one thing though. How am I sugesting people in WP:ISLAM have a secret agenda? The agenda is open and blatant it is called WP:ISLAM FFS! Oxyman42 (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glowing speech

I don't think I've had anyone speak about me on Wikipedia such as you have here. While Oxyman42 seems sincere and competent, he's a bit lacking in tact. I hope he comes round. Frotz (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I wanted to thank you for taking the time to read through my contribs and post your assessment. It's a difficult subject matter, and the support was very much appreciated. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More thanks, and request...

Thanks for helping over at the sosuishi-ryu page. Much appreciated. Incidentally, I am taking a hiatus, and it seems that Bill has taken to posting anywhere and everywhere on the discussion page. Would you mind reverting it or perhaps, assisting in how to format? Mekugi (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee Russ, since you've been asked by Jay not to delete opposing views, you want him to do it for you?

Jay, Would you please reread Mekugi's last post on his Wikiquette Alerts thread? I'm uncertain about how that ended. It seemed that Mekugi was willing to drop his complaint as long as everyone agreed that he was "right" all along..... RC&RB (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little help?

Hey. Can I get you to help me out in getting Mdsummermsw to actually get moving on the resolution of the "Stalking and Harassment" front in Wiki Alert? It's been almost a week, I've checked and the user has been on editing all day for several days since, and I've posted on their talk and the Wiki Alert page asking for their decision and am receiving no acknowledgment whatsoever. They've had plenty of time to "consider" this very easy solution to our problem and respond. At this point it's apparent it's just a deliberate attempt to be petty. If I was to go ahead and remove my comments again, they would instantly revert my edits, therefore their resolution process should be just as urgent. I want my comments on that talk page and the sock spa and all of that deleted, and I shouldn't have to keep waiting and waiting while this user "considers" it (i.e. prolongs it to maintain "power"). Could you give them a nudge for me? Please and thanks so much I appreciate your time. LBear08 (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for your help but that user is just unreasonable. He/she would prefer "winning" and stalking to peace and maturity. Oh well. Thanks anyway. LBear08 (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wise advice!

I found this post very useful to me personally. (And found this relevant as well: The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality. If a troll gets no response to their spurious edits, then they can hardly be considered a troll at all.) Thanks for your wise words. Renee (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

Sounds fair, I will try and back away a little bit after the current nominations come to rest. I have to say though, SportsMaster rubs people the wrong way though so I appreciate the warning. He is EXTREMELY difficult to work with unless you look for a third opinion. Besides myself other users like User:UWMSports (even more so than me) in the past have constantly asked SportsMaster for his plan on how he would like to expand his articles to Wiki standards. 95% of the time he completely ignores the question and simply deletes it off his talkpage. He also reverts any constructive edits to pages he has a WP:COI with whether its a text edit or a merger, stub or cleanup tag. He ignores the fact Wikipedia is a collective effort by anyone who chooses to help in good faith. Therefore without an opinion from him on how to clean up certain articles I and other users have no choice but to nominate articles we deem fit for an AfD (seems to be the pattern anyway). It's the only way I can get a third, fourth, etc party involved to look at the work. Obviously he cannot delete an AfD once its been exposed. SportsMaster goes from ignoring people to reporting people who disagree with him. He has also reported people for things he does himself. He reported UWMSports for imforming others about an AfD vote, but then later did it himself. I hate ruffling feathers, but I also hate letting non-responsive people just have their way. Hence why I've been looking for third opinions.

And just so you guys know, I only nominate when I'm absolutely sure an article should be deleted, therefore I don't have a grudge to settle with SportsMaster. It's not easy to get people to agree with you because most people who vote have ties to the subject matter as they are watching the page. Look at Pioneer Conference. Two of the guys who voted, User:Frank Anchor and User:JonRidinger are both from Ohio where the issue lies as you can tell by their userpages. With that being said, I do respect the overall result of the AfDs. I think I've only re-nominated something once because the condition for its keep was for the article to be improved, but it wasn't over a four month period. It isn't vandalism or anything of that sort. I don't change the article unless consensus says too. I just try and generate discussion about certain articles. I'm really not looking for a high delete rate on my AfDs, I'm just looking to see if my opinion is valid. When I lose an AfD the particular page only gets stronger. SportsMaster or whomever should be happy. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi! I thought I'd let you know I've reverted some vandalism on your userpage: [11]. Regards, :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 12:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a barnstar

In deference to your request. :) I did want to note, though, that even if I have never been personally involved (that I remember) with WP:WQA, I value the work I've noticed you doing there and appreciate that you take time to do it. You seem to be good at speaking straightforwardly but neutrally to the heart of the issue. So, kudos! No barnstars for you! :) (I understand your point with regards to Barnstars. Generally, I'm for them; I've gotten some that mean quite a lot to me, but also some that...don't. I've also seen them handed out for abysmal reasons. So, still, no barnstar for you. But peer approval nevertheless. :D) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Case regarding banned sock puppeteer

Regarding user:Hdayejr, and your recent post at his most recent sock case:

Struck my request above to keep this case open, as per a conversation I had with R. Baley. Future "simple sockpuppetry" by Hdayejr will be reported to ANI. Thanks, and feel free to close! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. I reported a recent sock to AiV, but the IP was not blocked, and I was simply told to go to SSP.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 07:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about you on AN/I, about your comment.[12] --Blechnic (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk edit

Sorry for the deletions in the talk section. It was not intentional. I am not very familiar with Wikipedia. I'll read a tutorial before editing again. 91.121.122.57 (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzmetlacker

When you get a chance, would you also be able to fix this kind of problem? I don't know if you caught it or haven't got around to it yet: [13] Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? 19:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. My favorite trusty admin, Wknight94, is doing some of this work also. Well, ya know, we needed some excitement on this dull, dreary Friday afternoon, yah, shoor, yoo betcha. :) Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? 20:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it?

you talk to me about the bot deleting the audio, I still dont get it. could you explain further. also, was i supposed to upload the audio using the upload file thing? it keeps calling the audio images inmstead. would that mess things up?--Ritzbitz00 (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for Prestonwood Baptist Edits

Jaysweet,

Thank you for your quick response to the vandalism that was occuring on the Prestonwood Baptist Page. As you can see this has been going on for some time now and was getting out of hand. I proceeded with what sounded like some suggestions from you on the talk page so if you have a second to look over the new page and offer any input I would appreciate it. Johnb316 (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prestonwood edits and users making Wiki a PR machine

Jaysweet, a few things: 1. What was confusing or odd about the term "minister to married adults" describing Joe Barron in the Prestonwood Baptist Church article? I'm not dying for this to be in the article, but I want to understand why you objected to this. His position within the church was "minister to married adults." That was his job title, and in a church this size, saying that he is a minister is both confusing for people who don't understand that the church has so many ministers, and lacking information for those who do. Again, not a big deal - I just want to know if I didn't understand something about how this should be properly edited.

2. Several editors have literally been trying to use Wiki as a PR machine for Prestonwood Baptist and their minister, Jack Graham. They've been very disruptive on both pages, and more than a few editors have said so. They object to ANYTHING that has the slightest negative impact, even when it's true, sourced, and notable. Is there anything you/I can do about this? Any advice? It seems that most of the other pages I look at don't have such problems. I noticed that the "abortion" page has less disputes and edit warring than these two pages!

3. The Joe Barron story is a huge story regarding the church, and if you look at the traffic stats you can see major peaks when the stories have broken (he was arrested again recently). Since Wiki is an encyclopedia (a compendium of human knowledge) and more importantly here, is an ONLINE encyclopedia, allowing it to change with current conditions and give more or less information according to the notability at the time, don't you think the Joe Barron story deserves more space on the page? Romans9:11 (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response Jaysweet - see my response below:

Reply regarding Prestonwood Baptist Church

Thanks for your questions. I'll take them on-by-one.

1. Regarding the "minister to married adults" thing... I think you may have a point, we just need to phrase it differently. You have to understand that for those of us who don't frequent megachurches, it is not obvious that "minister to married adults" would ever be a job title -- particular because it is not capitalized. I took it to be some kind of weird apologist implication, i.e. like "Well, he only dealt with adults at the church, so he couldn't have been molesting children, and they were married adults at that, even further reducing the chances of hanky-panky." Since I found it confusing at best, and possibly an attempt at pov, I removed it.

So, seeing as how I misinterpreted the comment, let's see if it belongs in the article. I still feel this is sort of a rather high level of detail, so I am not keen on including it. However, I definitely see your point that he was one of many ministers at the church, as opposed to the main minister or something, and that is relevant to the story. My proposal would be to change "a minister at the church" to "one of the ministers at the church."

If you are really gung ho about including the job title, you need to be a little more explicit so that those of us who are not well-versed in megachurch organizational structure can understand what you are talking about, e.g. if you tried, "Joe Barron, whose job title was Minister to Married Adults, ...", I would find that a bit wordy but at least I would know what you were talking about :)

Ahh..I see. I wasn't seeing this from your perspective and you weren't seeing it from mine. You're right, it should have been capitalized. I'm not that gung-ho about having the description in there, but it does give helpful information to those who have an interest in the church. In a church that size, people want to know what kind of minister he was - was he a Minister of Music, where he really didn't have much of a spiritual oversight, a Media Minister, a Minister to Children (which would really have some implications) or, a Minister to Married Adults.

2. I don't see disruption by people trying to use these articles as a "PR machine", but I will keep an eye on it. Sometimes, the articles for borderline notable subjects like this kindof read like a press release, but I am sure with this scandal, enough attention will be paid to the article to get it to be more encyclopedic.

Take a look at the history of the Prestonwood Baptist Church page and the Jack Graham (Pastor) page. The editors involved are: 1. New, 2.) Disruptive, and 3.) Are not making any contributions to Wiki - just causing disruption (IMHO) If it was just me saying this, I might blow it off as a personal irritation and let it go, but I don't think these pages are going to make much progress with the Disruptors in place, and will likely run off contributing editors like myself who, at some point, will just go on to some other article.

3. In theory, Wikipedia's coverage of topics does not change with time, i.e. if something is a significant current event but will have no lasting historical impact, then Wikinews might cover it in-depth, but Wikipedia would not. In practice, though, this is not always the case, but we should strive not to load up Wikipedia with current event coverage (again, that's what Wikinews is for).

I personally feel that a sentence or two in the Prestonwood Baptist Church article is sufficient coverage for this event. My opinion is not the only opinion, of course. We should discuss this on the Talk page and see if we cannot reach a consensus. If worst comes to worst, there are dispute resolution processes and other mechanisms by which we can get additional outside opinions.

Interesting...you may be right about this. It would seem to me that a lot of Wiki's value would lie in it's ability to "flow" with the level of information that makes the encylopedia useful. If a page's existence relies upon Notability, then does it's content flow with the Notability of the content as well? Still, I'm just happy that the disruptive user agreed to nonbiased and balanced content so I won't demand a change but put it up for discussion to see what everyone thinks.

Take care, Romans9:11 (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For sending out messages to everyone about the discussion. It's greatly appreciated. And your note to me makes sense. I just feel ending discussions could make things unnecessarily longer. But what's done is done and we'll see what happens from here. --UWMSports (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of WP:WQA

FYI I have never edited any alternative medicine articles (that I recall), and I think I have only ever been in one minor content dispute with OM (and even then, I'm not sure if it was him or filll...poor memory). I didn't look into the reliability of the accusations from whatsisname, just assumed they were accurate going by my previous encounter and observations of OMs conduct generally.Restepc (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian Blue / Comfort women

Jay,

can you have a very close look at my edits, my discussion comments and those left for me.

I have linked to the first episode on my talk page.

No, I am not involved in an edit war. I have chosen to edit a contentious topic as an impartial third party. I know that.

But please look closely at what I am doing and not just kneejerk to other editors jockeying the system. Caspian wears his Korean sympathies on his sleeve. Fine. I am nothing to do with previous history with "2ch" individuals he notes.

I am working to clear up what has been flagged by the tags on the article, attempting discussion on both user and topic pages.

Thanks. --60.42.252.205 (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, I did because the identical revision of all three of you remove all of my work each time taking the article back to its contended form.

Many of my edits have been entirely copyedit based.

Be specific if you wish to raise comments. I have not challenged and am not challenging any of the major claims against the Japanese.

Allow my some time to finish working on it. --60.42.252.205 (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]