User talk:Some jerk on the Internet/Nuts and bolts


Recent reference additions

You recently added references to Uptown Consignment which are linked from http://proquest.umi.com. When I attempt to access these links, I receive a denial notice (you are not authorized on this server). Is this a private server to which only certain users have access? If so, the link should not be included as a reference (although the reference is still valid, as it gives sufficient detail for a user to find the article if they have the desire to do so). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been wondering about how best to handle this, actually. I accessed the two articles through a library database. I provided the Proquest url because that's what MLA (6th edition anyway) calls for, and with the hopes that if another user attempted to follow the link, and happened to have access to the same database, would be taken, if not to the articles themselves, at least to a point where they could search for them. Is there a protocol on WP for indicating that articles were accessed through subscription databases, and not via the open web? Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
That isn't necessary. While it is desirable to have references online, it isn't necessary. The fact that you could verify that the article was published in a certain publication on a certain date means others can verify it to -- if only by going to the Hartford library and searching their archives. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Why don't you request rollback? Wayne Olajuwon chat 21:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd never considered myself to be editing at a level that would warrant it, but I guess it wouldn't hurt to ask. Thanks for the suggestion. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I think your request will succeed because you have a lot of vandalism reverts lately. Wayne Olajuwon chat 21:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Rollback and reviewer granted

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've also given you reviewer rights; see WP:REVIEWER and Help:Pending changes for more information. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much. I shall endeavor always to use them on behalf of the forces of good. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you try Huggle? Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't download to the computer I do most editing on, or I'd try it. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
You should try to download Huggle at WP:Huggle/Download. Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You could try Igloo, it runs right from your browser. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 17:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip; I'll look into it. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Igloo works well, but it will only work with Firfox or Chrome. I've been using Lupin's Anti-vandal tool at work, so you might give that a go. --TwistOfCain (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Igloo

How's Igloo? WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's working well for me. Every now and then I get some lag issues and have to close out for a spell, but overall I like it quite a bit. some jerk on the Internet (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow!

Igloo better than Twinkle?Cracked acorns (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've never used Twinkle, so I couldn't say. I've had really good luck with Igloo, however. In any event, it seems that none, or at least very few, are better than ClueBot NG -some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Level 4im vandalism warnings

Hey there! I've just deleted 92.30.52.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s edits as they were grossly offensive. Just to let you know, when it's an edit like that, you can jump straight in with substing {{uw-vandalism4im}} rather than starting at level 1. Additionally, you might consider finding an admin to remove grossly offensive comments, as it was luck that I came across it (I watchlist one of the other articles they hit). I'm not actually sure whether that sort of thing goes to WP:ANI, but I can't see any harm. GedUK  10:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Some jerk on the Internet, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Wipsenade (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy tagging

Hi. Thanks for tagging Andrew Insley just now, but after you tag a page for speedy deletion, please copy to the author's talk page the warning which is generated for you on the speedy template, towards the bottom. Otherwise the newbie author doesn't know what's happened, thinks he pressed the wrong button, and often just puts the article in again. Also, if it's a new contributor who has never had a Welcome message, it's useful to give one before the speedy warning - it makes it less BITEy, and gives useful links that may help him do better next time. {{subst:firstarticle|<article name>}} is a good one. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips; will do in the future. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and your good wishes for the project. Cheers--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Lev 4 warning

Hi SJ, this should be a level 4 warning as they have 3 on the same article before it today. Is GLOO misfiring?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been working fine for me as far as I can tell. I had three or four vandals today for whom it cycled all the way from Level 1 to Level 4 & then reported for blocking. I'll keep an eye on its behavior as I continue patrolling the new edits, and see whether the anomaly you noticed (good eye) recurs. Nice looking user name style, by the way. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) (Wiktionary version)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) (Commons version)


Can you check this page?

Hello, I was wondering if you could check this page, Plank Hill, and see if you think it is notable. I believe it should be merged with the Eau Claire, Wisconsin page. I am trying to get more thought from other users before I put a move label or a deletion label on the page because I do not want to discourage the author from using Wikipedia.Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


Hello, Some jerk on the Internet. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

how to upload pictures

out research group and i are working on the daphnia lumholtzi page and will be done with editing in a couple of day. after editing it wont have any citation problem.

I have a question on how to upload a picture from other website. i'd appreciate the help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimayazdanpanah (talk • contribs) 02:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nimayazdanpanah. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the image upload process. I can point you to this help page, which hopefully you can get some good information from. If I can track down a better source of information or help, I'll let you know. Good luck, and welcome to Wikipedia! --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Martha Graham

Hi there. I've gone ahead and requested semi-protection for this one. The Polish IPs got annoying in the end and there's also been quite some unfriendly IP activity before. De728631 (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good move. Thanks. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: 94.xxx

I gave that guy a Level-2 earlier for doing the party thing twice. Did he post it again? The edit has been removed so I can't see what he did. If he did do it again, it's best to just inform an admin to block that IP. If someone wants to edit from that IP, they can just get an acct. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall exactly what the edit was; it was clearly vandalism, though, and I reverted it with Igloo, which usually works fine for me, but does seem to very rarely leave warnings in the wrong order (this is the second time someone has noticed and mentioned it to me. When I monitor the recent changes with GLOO (or sometimes now with Huggle, since that works better on my laptop), it's quite uncommon for me to step in & raise warning levels or hand-report persistent vandals. The machines seem for the most part to do their tasks well as far as that all goes. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I am using Twinkle, I think, and they are probably not compatible with each other. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


User talk:Jpr127

The user is adding links to pages on the website of the Autry National Center, a reputable museum of the American West. While it's possible to disagree over whether the links are useful or not, I don't think it's correct to call them vandalism, which refers to intentional damage to the project.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it now, I think you're right. I watched this user add links to many articles and was troubled by it, but since they seemed to be relevant and the museum reputable, I let them go until it looked like the user intended to link out from any firearm-related article, at which point I began to question his/her intent. I think the reverts to the user's last two edits were called for, but in retrospect I should have done them manually, and left a personal message on his or her talk page, rather than letting GLOO do my dirty work. Hopefully I haven't discouraged the user from making further edits. I'll go remove the canned templates and leave a explanatory message now. Good call. Mea culpa. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt reply. I was actually truing to encourage the user to slow down a bit, but he probably hasn't noticed either of our messages. No worries.   Will Beback  talk  03:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"While it's possible to disagree over whether the links are useful or not..." All of the links are to a museum site that contains detailed information and high quality images. How is that not useful? I linked to all articles that were relevant to the Colt revolver. I certainly think firearms is relevant, as that article contains a lot of information on revolvers, especially Colt. I must confess that I do not know why that was deemed not relevant. I would strongly encourage you to look at the content of the link if you have not already done so. It is a thorough examination of the revolver by a museum. All of the information on that site has been proofed by R.L. Wilson, the foremost firearms author in the country and someone who is referenced repeatedly on Wikipedia. The linked site also contains a great deal of information on the difference between single and double action mechanisms, i.e. triggers. Maybe I should have linked directly to that section. My apologies. Again I think the link was relevant. I understand why linking a lot of things at once can look suspicious, but everything I linked met the requirements of Wikipedia. It was not spam. Thanks. Jpr127 (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Me again. I looked at the article on firearms again and counted 19 references to revolvers. I am really having trouble understanding why the link to one of the largest and most informative sites on the Colt revolver was deemed not relevant. Again, I encourage you to look at the linked site. I would really like to add the link back to the firearms article. Please let me know if you object to this and if so why. Thanks to you both. Jpr127 (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've replied on your user talk page.   Will Beback  talk  18:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Will has explained why the link should not have been first for the firearms article. I understand and apologize for the error. But again it certainly relates to firearms. The link is a complete history of the revolver. Despite its title it is not limited to a certain time or place. I want to add the link at the end of the external links section for firearms. Any objections? Thanks. Jpr127 (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I added the link to firearms at the end. The link is to a site that provides detailed information and images on revolvers, a very important aspect of firearms. The entire history of revolvers is covered in the link. It is not about just a specific time or place or even a certain type of firearm. It is all inclusive. And I would like to point out that the first link that you apparently had no problem with is about modern firearms. I do not see how the link I added is any less relevant. Thanks. Jpr127 (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The link was removed again. I am confused and disappointed. More importantly, this is a serious loss for the Wikipedia community. If you removed it again, I strongly encourage you to compare the link I added with the current links available. Again, a serious loss for the Wikipedia community. Jpr127 (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


No-Shave November

No problem, I assumed you had the November article on your watchlist and were just drawn to it by the same SPA who was promoting it. I've chipped in on the AfD. --McGeddon (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


Reverted Change

Got a message saying 'my' change had been reverted on "Parrot". I don't remember making any such change, and have only just now created a Wikipedia account for the purpose of leaving this message.

Even if I were just forgetful, the change attributed to me is not one I would make. Puzzling.

Sanderson89 (talk)Sanderson89 —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC).

Your user talk page does not have the message, meaning that the warning Jerk left was on the talk page for your IP. That means that someone else using your IP made the change. In other words, your IP must be dynamic, and you can disregard the message. Calabe1992 14:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ben Willbond

Hi. I'm intrigued by the two references you provided today for the Ben Willbond article.

Dominic, Maxwell. "Laura Solon, Ben Willbond." Times, The (United Kingdom) n.d.: Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 8 Dec. 2011. Lawrenson, Edward. "Starter For Ten." Sight & Sound 16.11 (2006): 82. Associates Programs Source Plus. Web. 8 Dec. 2011.

Specifically, in which edition of The Times could I find the article to which you refer? What do you mean by Newspaper Source Plus and Associates Programs Source Plus? Thanks. Longwayround (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Whoops, the citation builder didn't pick up the date on the Times article. It was August 22, 2005. I'll add that to the reference I gave on the article. Newspaper Source Plus and Associates Programs Source Plus are two Ebsco periodicals databases that I have access to through my library. If you'd like, I'd be happy to email the two articles to you. Send me your email address via my user page, and I'll have the database forward the articles to you. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It's xxxx Longwayround (talk) 08:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Removed your obfuscated email address, just in case, and sent the two articles a couple minutes ago. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. On both counts. Once upon a time, I shared a room with the chap when we both lived in Moscow. Although we went our separate ways years ago, I do like to keep up with what he's up to. Longwayround (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

UWC USA

The text was truthful and had no bad or hidden intention.

If you are not able to refute each of the phrases, then please abstain to revert the whole text:

Until 1989 the school's rules did not allow alcohol, drugs and sexual intercourse in campus but those activities still flourished under poor dorm control and contraceptives freely distributed by the school nurse.

Abortion: the school never answered the accusation that a female student was carried in the school van to murder her unborn child (abortion is legal in New Mexico).

Currently, all UWCs in America and Europe use resources for endorsing homosexuality[1], abortion, euthanasia and other immoral behaviour. The UWC of USA has rejected applications of donors, alumni, speakers and/or professors who challenged those ideologies with scientific data.

Contraception is actively promoted through peer groups to prevent AIDS, in spite that a) all non barrier contraceptives are abortifacient[2] and b) all contraceptives have failure rates, and therefore in the long run, by a false notion of "safe" sex which leads to riskier sex, promote sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS or unwanted pregnancies (conception).

Theory of knowledge course is relativistic and doesn't endorse the search for truth. For example, it states that there is no objective natural morality.

International Baccalaureate's course on religion promotes syncretism and doesn't provide the elements to scientifically search the true religion[3].

Current UWC ideology is akin to atheistic masonry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof.Nazar (talk • contribs) 03:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've moved your comments to the bottom of my talk page to keep everything in chronological order. I reverted your edit because it appeared to me to be forwarding a non-neutral point of view, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. While you did provide references in your edit, they are not to what I would consider reliable sources. If you have neutral information that can be verified in reliable sources, I encourage you to add it. Your edit, in the form it took, did not to me appear to do that. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

following your suggestion, I'll correct the text to make it more objective and constructive, including the usage of the term "immoral": I'm new to wikipedia, is there any place you could review it before posting it?

What you could do is place the information on your user page (click on your username at the top of the page once you've logged in to create the page), and then request feedback at the Help Desk. I'd be willing to take a look at what you're written as well, but you might like the opinion of other editors than me. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

What to do?

[1] I was the one who put it up for speedy deletion as he showed it by blanking it. Suggestions on what to do? Dan653 (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner. I don't get much chance to log on during the weekend, so I'm just seeing your message now. It looks like the article in question has been listed as a part of a deletion discussion; the outcome of that decision will determine its ultimate fate. I'd advise letting the discussion run its course and leave it be at that. It looks like the probability is that the article will end up being deleted, which in my opinion is probably appropriate.
I'll write a message to the unhappy editor explaining things as best I can. I don't have anything at stake in any of this, so maybe that will help. Let me know if you have any other questions or input. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

North Shore Medical Center

Dear Sir

I just finished making edits to the North Shore Medical Center entry and when I went back to check it I found that my edited page was redirected to the original page.

I actually created both the edited page and the original. I am the webmaster for North Shore Medical Center. http://nsmc.partners.org/

Anyway, the edited page is more up-to-date, more neutral in tone, a tad more aesthetic, and has proper links in place. My intention was to override the original page I created some years ago since it was a bit of a mess and had broken links (we just launched a new web site was part of the reason for broken links).

How can that happen? What needs to be done? Does not make sense to have two versions for NSMC, which is why I tried to delete that redirect.

Jean Monahan

[email redacted]

I reverted the blanking of the page, which looked like vandalism. I apologize for the confusion as far as that goes; I don't believe you were acting with malicious intent, so that was an error on my part. As for the redirect business, I don't know much about that, so you might want to contact one of the other editors who's worked on the page. You can find them by clicking the "history" link. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


two of me

Hi, again...

Part of the problem from yesterday's edits was that I couldn't recall my original username and eventually made a new username and password. So potentially there are two versions of moi-même. Do you recommend that I try to amalgamate the two identities and if so, how shall I do that? I see years ago I signed in as jehane and not sure at the moment what my password would have been but I can probably figure it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean monahan (talk • contribs) 15:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Searching around, it looks like it's not possible to merge the two usernames or to truly delete the old one. I suppose technically you could appear to be a sockpuppet, though I really don't think that's what's going on here. The best advice I can give you would be to contact one of the bureaucrats who have administrative capabilities that I don't, and see what the best course of action is. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfair Warnings

Hello, today you gave me some sort of warning about an "edit" i made to wikipedia on the "Numan" article. The edit cited was definitely nothing to do with me and i'm sure if i thought vandalising wikipedia was a good use of my time, i'd manage to come up with something much funnier than calling someone a "poolish smelly boy who like to eat socks and children!!!". It's not really an issue, i just resent getting some sort of internet warning regarding things that have nothing to do with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.20.208 (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Consider creating an account to avoid confusion. Your IP address may be shared with someone else's.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 22:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


  1. ^ http://intolerant-tolerants.blogspot.com/2011/12/dear-lpcers-and-uwcers.html
  2. ^ http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kah/kah_03howpillworks1.html
  3. ^ http://prove-religion.blogspot.com/2011/12/scientific-proof-of-religion.html