User talk:J.smith/Archive06

Spam whitelist

I think I'm going to drop a note on Meta about this and ask someone to be e-mailed about it. It's only a matter of time before someone tries this... Grandmasterka 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That'll be better than what I was going to do. Thanks! Grandmasterka 22:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:WHITELIST

Hey J.smith, I suggest that we not modify the title, but instead use the templates {{done}} ( Done) and {{not done}} ( Not done). This will allow existing links to titles (such as link#section to not be broken. By the way, great idea on trying to knock this one down... I've been recently the guy who has been adding alot of these on to the blacklist... so if you see me say something, but not accept and or decline something, thats because I likely added the link on the blacklist to start with... and I don't want to have any issues with conflict of interest. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I did manage to bribe another editor into archiving what has been done ;). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaving a bunch of comments without saying they are done or not, I'm leaving that up to someone else. ;) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Ah, ok. Thats cool. further information is always useful.

I guess I can use the {{done}}/{{not done}} from now on. I was just making things up as I went along. :) Good point about the sections... I was borrowing an idea from WP:AN/3RR. Now that it's a much more reasonable size it's not really that important. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

artnet.de link whitelisted

Thanks for that - great work you're doing there Johnbod 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Online video game rental

You were the deleting admin for online video game rental (log), which appears to be in the process of being re-created (whether intentionally or not I can't yet tell). Just thought it might be something you'd want to know about. - David Oberst 04:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Serafin blocked

Is Serafin blocked from editing ? --Lysy^talk 21:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Youtube

Hi J.smith. Just saw your message in Talk:4′33″#YouTube_links regarding YouTube videos. There's a very interesting video of 4′33″, performed by the BBC Symphony Orchestra, which was I broadcasted, and I think offered as Real Player download at the time. What's Wikipedia stance on these kind of clips? The video is in here Cheers. AxiomShell 10:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:SilentHunterIIIbox.jpg

Image:SilentHunterIIIbox.jpg is replaceable by a more free image. Granted, it could never be freely licensed under the GFDL, a CC license, etc. because the art itself is copyrighted, but it could be replaced with a non-promotional image. Please consider putting the tag back in. --Iamunknown 00:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam Whitelist

Hi, you added two of Voltaire's blog entries (on MySpace) to the whitelist for me, so I have just come to say thanks. However, I am not great with how URLs work, and I am not a MySpace user, and you picked me up on adding a 'userID' or something to the URL. Basically, what I am asking is, would it be possible to put his whole blog on the whitelist, or would I have to request individual unblocks every time I want to use an entry as a source? Thanks. J Milburn 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the myspace ID is your personal number. I learned that the hard way when trying to view the link you sent. No problems.

Well, MySpace has a retarded linking system. I can't just whitelist one blog without whitelisting every blog on myspace. So yeah... just keep sending the requests over. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, will do! J Milburn 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

JimmyTrump79: Broken promise?

Hey, I think JimmyTrump79 is editing anonymously to avoid a re-block. Check out Special:Contributions/68.42.62.185; that user is adding the same attendance info that JT had been adding repeatedly. I thought you and I should discuss it before we take any action, but I think a re-block of JT is in order here, since he has gone right back to the behavior that got him blocked in the first place. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He did it again, twice today. I've reblocked JimmyTrump79, as it seems obvious to me that it's him (it would be a strange coincidence for a vandal to show up and make the same edits right now, no?), but I'm listing here to keep you in the loop. Let me know if you disagree. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate you keeping me in the loop on this. I haven't had a chance to review their edits so I don't have any objections yet. However, the way you describe it, it sounds fairly rock solid. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

March Paranormal Project Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Paranormal WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. InShaneee 05:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt AfD #13

Hi J.S. - I was cleaning up the Daniel Brandt AfD #13 and noticed that the reasoning you provided does not include a vote. You may wish to add a Keep vote. -- Jreferee 01:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the wikipedia AFD. It's not a vote, It's a forum to share opinions and build consensus. I have shared my opinion and have chosen not to sum it up in one word. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Katana

Its really hard to read Japanese upside down. Why are did you display the picture of the Japanese writing upside down?

The one on the right hand-side the first three characters (from the bottom up) are: Thousand-Autumn-Rain

The fourth character is illegible as it is punched out with a whole.

Most of the rest seems to be names of people. Takada, Fujiwara are names that I can read. Its not like it says anything in Japanese (like a sentence or a poem), as its all chinese characters.

You should ask someone who is familiar with antique Japanese art in general or old Japanese swords in particular. Sorry I am not of much help. Naerhu 14:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know the pictures were up-side-down until someone pointed it out. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfAB

Thanks for your vote of support. I'm really at a loss as to what to do here; I really don't have many diffs to cite as to my actions, and honestly, I don't want to make this an indictment of Worldtraveler if I don't have to, either. I've never been in this sort of situation in my almost two years here, and I must say that I am quite frustrated. At the time of this writing, two of three Arbitrators have voted to accept, so Arbitration seems inevitable.

I really don't want to do this, but I'm really afraid of the alternative more. Should I be unable to edit following this, or should I simply feel that leaving the site be the right thing to do, is there any way you might be willing to take up the monthly maintenance of WP:PARA? I'm sorry to impose, and I hope this is just paranoia, but I do feel it would be best if I prepared for just such an eventuality. --InShaneee 01:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thank you, that means a lot. As I said, there's no need for you to worry about that right now, but regardless, I was planning to put up an 'Administration' page detailing the monthly maintenance chores and how to go about them, anyway. --InShaneee 01:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel Bryant 23:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!

Thanks for the help.--Nirajrm ^{talk ||| sign plz!} 14:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		To J.smith for diligence in the tireless battle against Spam on Wikipedia. --Hu12 17:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 17:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow! Thank you much! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa

Just wanted to say a thanks for commenting on my Rfa, and I just wanted to say that I didn't comment on my Rfa with regards to your comments because I didn't feel it was right to justify my actions, but since its over now - I'll comment directly to you. The copyvio concerns were serious, and they were only highlighted to me in the Rfa, I thought because I had attempted to source the copyvio's in, it was OK and although I acted in good faith, I now realise that this was wrong and I'm so sorry for what happened, everythings sorted now, I've gone right through my contribs and there have been no other ones. Please be assured that these actions will never occur again and I promise I won't abuse the tools. I hope that we can put this behind us now, and work together in the future. Cheers again Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations)

There was an edit war at Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations). That's why I protected. All pages you fully protect are default protected indefinitely, and are unprotected once the edit war is over, or when someone requests and provides valid reasons for doing so. Thought you might want to know, because I was a bit confused when you gave a list of situations when to apply full protection indefinitely. Nishkid64 14:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikipedian64

Unblock him if you like, I don't mind. I suspect he's learned his lesson now. I wouldn't have minded him having the sockpuppet (I have one) but if you read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Sockpuppets you will see why I blocked the sockpuppet. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CN

To give a quick answer to the unique purpose of the board, no other venue is a readily accessible place for discussing and archiving community bans. Try hunting through the WP:AN and WP:ANI archives to cite some particular community ban discussion. It's maddening. When WP:CEM gets off the ground WP:CN will have more to do, but at present it serves its purpose nicely. In a broader sense it can serve as a location for community decision making in situations where no better venue exists. Not every user knows what those options are, so sometimes it acts as a point of referral. The board regulars have been diligent about referring mistakenly posted threads to WP:RFC and other venues. Durova^Charge! 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've always wondered why WP:RFC couldn't serve purpose of discussing community bans... The discussions always end up being massive. *shrug* but whatever.. if people find it works then I'm not gonna rise a stink over it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

sandbox page in mainspace

I've moved your "subpage" of Electronic voice phenomenon to User:J.smith/Electronic voice phenomenon/Temp, since the article space doesn't support subpages any more, and to avoid it showing up in special:uncategorizedpages, and such like. Alai 19:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

From the Li Hongzhi talk page

You said:

Please mark Talk:Li_Hongzhi/Edit_request_2007-02-14 as an archive. The GFDL requires that we keep an detailed history for any edit we make. ---J.S

Agreed, but I'm not sure if I should do that. Also if I should do that ... how can I do it :) ? --HappyInGeneral 09:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Critical Material from Li Hongzhi page

Mr. Smith: I wanted you to know I've just done a posting on the Falun Gong Arbitration Evidence page concerning a deletion you did on the Li Hongzhi page at the request of Happy in General. [1] Specifically, I have asked the Arbitrators to make a ruling on the deleted sentence concerning Li's award and honors. The sentence is based on reputable published sources and IMHO should be allowed to stand, since all it does is report that there is some debate about the significance of these awards and honors. Certainly there is no libelous content in that sentence. I'm doing this cross-post because I am not sure whether you are aware of the evidence page for this arbitration case. --Tomananda 22:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi J. Smith

I just noticed that you have made major changes based on the request of one editor, Happyingeneral. This edit is impropriate in so many ways. First of all, other editors on this page have not been informed about this version. Secondly, there is a mediator on Falun Gong related pages, your edit bypassed him. Third, there is an arbitration case open for the edit conflicts on Falun Gong related pages. Lastly, some of the material you deleted is perfectly appropriate. For all of these reasons please undo the changes you made and let the conflicts be solved through the proper channels. Thanks, --Samuel Luo 06:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This stuff was only brought to my attention recently by Samuel. Although I am not an anti-FG person, I find it worrying that you'd approve an edit request on which nobody else made a single comment. Moreover, a biography is aimed at being specifically about the person and should not be set at a criticism-free level. Sure, there shouldn't be libel or slander, and the page does need modifying, but not in the way HiG has suggested. Procedure also matters as much as content, as I'm sure you're well aware of.

I.E. Let the consultations and debates take place before editing unilaterally. After all, that's what the pro-FG side has been ordering the anti-FG side to do (and based their entire ArbCom case on) so the least that could be done is 'vice versa'. Jsw663 07:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well consider this[2], the change of the page was done at 16 March and at 14 February, I added the following:

I read both the Li Hongzhi page and the Biographies of living person policy and I notice several things that are not in accordance with this policy on the Li Hongzhi page, so I started making a draft here: Talk:Li_Hongzhi/Edit_request_2007-02-14.

This shows that there was no communication for more then a month. I would ask that since the page is protected the proper channel is to provide clear short diffs with the required changes, just like when making a draft with all the changes that you want to make to that page. Also have it public and give it enough time for discussion. This way there is the possibility to discuss and get consensus on the changes. Thank You. --HappyInGeneral

Umm I'm confused. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi and Mediation

Wow, this is awkward. I am fairly sure we have interacted outside of this mediation. However, the mediation is currently on hold due to the Arbitration Committee proceedings.

Perhaps, if mediation continues after the ArbCom reaches a decision, and you are still involved, I can find another mediator to handle the Li Hongzhi part of the dispute. Knowing you, and therefore liking you a bit more, I am afraid I could not be neutral whilst you are involved.  : )

Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 13:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the warm sentiment. :) I'm not really involved in the dispute other then stumbling into it via an edit-request, so no worries. I guess that does make me involved... dammit! hehe... All I'm trying to do is offer a structured forum where the editors can discuss the topic without the urge to stray into personal issues. I hope it works! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Arbitration will probably take awhile, so I guess we'll see where the chips fall.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

blacklist touregypt

An FYI - Looks like you forgot the remove this site when you stated on the talk page that you were going to remove it. I was looking for the diff so I could mark the white-list request closed. :) J.smith 06:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Err, I did See http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eagle_101&diff=548359&oldid=548356 . It works for me. Are you sure that you waited long enough before re-adding the site? The blacklist does take some time to propagate. Eagle 101 06:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. if there are problems, let me know :)

Oh, I see. I was looking at \btouregypt\.net and not \btour-egypt\.net. Threw me off. Thanks for the clarification! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

bowiechick talk page

I wasn't completely sure how to handle notices added to discussions, but I figured someone would let me know if I did it wrong. Thanks. However, I also wasn't clear what you intended by the changes (that link to the history), so I changed it to a normal archive link, and archived the original linklist text (if it was intended as "assigning homework", I'm not sure if that was efficient). At some point, if that linklist project becomes active again, it might be better to have a tag to display a box that can be inserted instead of posting comments. Thanks again. x 15:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

DRV overturn

Responded on my talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 02:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry regarding deleted article (MARC_Research)

Greetings. I’m hoping you can help me with some information. Recently, an article about M/A/R/C Research (which was started by user Dscannon), was tagged for speedy deletion as described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dscannon . The URL for the original article prior to deletion was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_research
Dscannon is no longer associated with the organization.

We would like to take whatever steps necessary to reinstate the article and resolve any issues that resulted in its being tagged for deletion.

What would you recommend? Should we start over, or start with the content Dscannon provided and attempt to resolve any issues that resulted in its deletion?

Any insight you can provide would be most helpful.

Thanks for your time and attention. Tfsummers 22:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem with the original article (Formerly found at M/A/R/C Research was that the article was written as a way to promote the business. As an encyclopedia we try to cover all topics from a "neutral" point of view. To that end we largely prohibit editors who have a "conflict of interests" from creating article.

How do we resolve this issue with your company having an article on wikipedia? Well, there are a few ways you can go about doing this. One... you could wait until an uninvolved editor makes a new article. A quicker option would be to create an article yourself and request a peer-review of the article and asking an unbiased wikipedian to post the article for you.

If you wish to create the article yourself, I can point you to the policies and standards that apply.

Thanks for understanding,

---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's most helpful. I have a few questions, but I'll start with one. Am I continuing the dialog on this topic in the appropriate place? Thanks. Tfsummers 21:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a centralised place for this yet, but the peer review section might sufise. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That actually answered one of my questions, which was how to initiate a peer review. And yes, if you could point me toward the policies and standards that you mentioned in your previous post, that would be helpful as well.

And one last question (for now, I think) Is the peer review a place where I might find an unbiased Wikipedian who might post an article that passed peer review? And how is that done? Would one typically tap an editor who responded to and participated in the peer review?

Thanks. Tfsummers 14:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you could simply mention that your looking for someone to post it for you after you post the peer review.

Here are the basic policies any quality article will pass:

• Wikipedia:Attribution - There is a way to verify everything in the article
• Wikipedia:Notability - The subject of the article is noteworthy enough to include here.
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - The article is written from a neutral point of view... In terms of both tone and content.
• Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content - The content is released under the GFDL or under the public domain.

I hope that helps. Give me a ring when you get everything ready and I comment at the peer review. Thanks! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been most helpful. Thanks for the information. Tfsummers 16:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Warrington map... wrong?

I've replied to your message on Talk:Warrington. but I reproduce it here for your convenience:

If you mean the map on the article whose talk page this is, then I don't see any problem with it. It is a unitary authority abutting the northern boundary of the shire county of Cheshire, and that is where it is shown on the map. However, if one could see the actual message in which the complaint was made, perhaps my own lingering bewilderment over the nature of this complaint could be clarified.

 DDStretch  (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The email was only two lines and I gave you all the information It contained. Sorry I don't have any more information to clarify the request and thank you for verifying the accuracy for me. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OTRS

Which ticket, please? I am an OTRS newbie, forever losing things. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Michael Davis publisher.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Michael Davis publisher.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I substed the tag since I needed to play with it a bit. Go away bot! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

username

Hi, I realized that you have blocked this user, who's username I thought was too long, and that you have confirmed it.(You sent the user the {{Usernameblocked}} template, which I thought is used in cases where the user is still invited and allowed to create a new account, but you also blocked the account creation on the block log.)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot to add that I changed mine recently.User:Wikipedier->User:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your right. I screwed up the block. It should be good now. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(editconflict) Wow, that was fast! Thank you so much!--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 21:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Boris Allen

 Note that your friend Boris Allen has been banned.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.232.69 (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Forgot

 You have obviously forgotten that you have ever taken action favourable to banned 

Boris Allen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.232.69 (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

 See "User talk 81.158.206.83", where you took action favourable to Boris Allen. Note that I use twenty different 

computers. Boris Allen has been banned for trolling, double editting, supporting vandals, sock-puppetry, etc.

Hmmm

Thought you might want to see this. John Reaves (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I didnt realize you were an admin *quivers* dont block meeeee! Can you speedy close the mfd please?

Please ignore this message, the user has repeatedly placed {{helpme}} on his Talk Page to request speedy deleion of MfD's. Tellyaddict 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to ignore someone just because they are new and don't understand every little practice on wikipedia. Infact, I plan to do the compleate opisite of ignoreing them. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam whitelist - what do you think?

At User:Eagle 101's request, I have gone to various editors seeking a consensus on this discussion, as I personally know the artist whose site it is - therefore, there is a small issue of WP:COI. Please take a look and leave your thoughts there.--Vox Humana 8' 23:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Break.com

I am trying to investigate a complaint on WP:COIN. I don't understand the allegations, but maybe I'm just thick. What is going on with this article and User:Pollyfodder?

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

Feel free to email me, or leave comments at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Break.com. Thanks. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 08:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks

for the Barack Obama picture Tvoz |talk 18:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I don't understand. The original image that we had, of Obama in front of the Capitol, is from his official Senate website http://obama.senate.gov/about -- why do you say that this is not a usable image? I don't see anything on those pages that says otherwise. PLease leave an explanation more than "copyvio". My understanding was that pictures on official government sites are usable. Thanks Tvoz |talk 17:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - isn't it odd, then, that the Obama official Senate site (not his campaign site) continues to use the picture? But I suppose perhaps the photographer gave permission for that use. It's strange though, as I did think anything on an official government webiste is in public domain. Tvoz |talk 18:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ernham

Point taken. In fact point already taken before you repeated it. Mark83 15:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And sorry if the above seemed a bit abrupt. I agree my last few edits were ill-advised, however I believe I showed admirable restraint in dealing with the user in question over many months (he deleted it all, you would have to look at the history). I put up with many many abusive messages and many edits being labelled as "vandalism" when all but Ernham agreed they weren't. In summary I got no credit for trying to work with him, pointing out where he was going wrong and pointing out WP policy; in contrast I got very quickly jumped on for "taunting". Best regards Mark83 18:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the warning. Always appreciate my mistakes being pointed out. All the best. Alun 01:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

RFAR/Paranormal

Unless you are a party to the editing dispute, your statement should be added to the talk page, not the main case page. Thanks. Thatcher131 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Some talk on the Li Hongzhi page

I've noticed that you recently engaged in trying to resolve some disputes on the Li Hongzhi page. If you don't mind, I'd appreciate your opinion on a comment I made a few days ago concerning the validity of a certain section of that page. Just scroll down to the bottom of the talk page, and you'll see it. Thanks! Mcconn 15:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

banned?

Hello,

You have banned my account, M.posner, as a supposed sockpuppet first of "WatchDog07", and then of "someone else" (you did not state whom). Could you please e-mail me? I'd like to get this resolved as soon as possible. I only have 1 account and the only time I posted under an anonymous IP address was once before I created my account. I also would like to know who I'm a supposed sockpuppet of. Needless to say, this is completely bizarre to me.

My preferred e-mail address is idlehandsdistro [at] yahoo [dot] com

Thanks,

200.106.68.57 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OOPS, I just realized that there is a more formal process for requesting unblock. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. I would still appreciate an e-mail, however.

200.106.68.57 01:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you also operate the accounts of User:M.posner User talk:Akliman, User:Annejaclard & User:Marxian Lurker... or they are editing on your behalf. Either way the same rules aply. I am currently in the process of blocking all of the account indefinably and then I will figure out which is the main account (I'm assuming M.posner) and then reduce the block to a simple temporary block for edit waring and puppetry. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello again: I think you shall find that all of these claims are false as you look into the issue further. Marxian Lurker, for example, is clearly not me, nor Akliman, nor Annejaclard, nor is he even on the same side of the edit war that took place.

200.106.68.57 01:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

M.posner (talk · contribs)

Hi J.smith, this user argues that he/she is not a sockpuppet, and is requesting to be unblocked. Can you possibly run a checkuser case if you don't agree, to technically prove the answer either way? If the case is confirmed by a checkuser, then that will prove your point that the user is a sock, and if the case shows unrelated, then the blocked user is innocent of sockpuppety.(Unless that was already done, or you think the evidence is significant enough.) I'm suggesting to open a case, to assuming good faith in the user.--U.S.A. cubed 02:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and why are single purpose accounts considered sock puppets?--U.S.A. cubed 02:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess you might as well ignore this message, being that the unblock request has been declined, anyway, and the declining admin. aaying that the he was acting suspicious. I thought that how suspicious should stop someone from assuming good faith, and that the case should have been opened before blocking.--U.S.A. cubed 03:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had logged off for the night. (I was tired and needed some sleep.)

I have given M.posner the benefit of the doubt with only a 48 hour block... however, edit waring is inexcusable as well. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

removing a block notice

You didn't say that I shouldn't remove a block notice from my page. If you look at my user page you will see that I routinely clear the page as it allows me to have a clearer view of the page. I don't think there's anything wrong with that and I don't think that you should assume bad faith because of it. I am not protesting the block as a "time out" - for all concerned - under the circumstances is probably a good idea. - anonymous

(comment moved from user page ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC))

Letter to you

Dear Sir, I've written a letter to you and loaded it onto my talk page [7]. I look forward to your response. v = 0 22:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and another question

Dear Sir, Thank you for your quick response. I've asked a follow-up question, that I hope you will answer, on my talk page. v = 0 03:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on my userpage!

Can you do one more thing? Can you make my userboxes in a scroll window please? Plus can you make a scroll window to here please? Oh! look what I found! WikiMan53 t/a Review me! 11:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		To J.S. For his great code work everywhere and especially on my page. Thank you! WikiMan53 t/a Review me! 11:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hehe... thanks a bunch. :) I don't actually know how to do the scrolling windows, but if you can point me to a userpage that uses them I can figure out how to steal the code. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:User no GFDL

Just thought you'd like to know:

A template you participated in a Tfd for (Template:User no GFDL) has subsequently been speedily deleted, and is now under deletion review. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   16:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please acknowledge receipt

Please acklowledge reading the above including reading the section referred to above on the TSSI talk page. Do I need to file a formal complaint concerning the presence of the meatpuppets who were solicited by Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs)? Of the three meatpuppets identified by Kliman - Alan_XAX_Freeman (talk · contribs), M.Posner (talk · contribs), annejaclard (talk · contribs) - the first has written (on his user discussion page) that he is appealing the ruling concerning his being a sockpuppet and the 2nd was only given a 48 hr. block because you did not have at the time the unimpeachable evidence and confession of Andrew Kliman himself that Mike Posner is in fact Andrew Kliman's meatpuppet. I can provide more evidence, if required. Frankly, I don't understand why Kliman wasn't blocked on Friday since he is the puppetmaster. I guess it must have been an oversight.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Why don't you hold your horses while I try to work out the situation?

You never got back to me about this situation. With the passage of time, these matters (re meatpuppet and puppetmaster) have not improved. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Ok? Getting people blocked is not a tool for you to gain an advantage in a debate. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'm really getting tired of your demanding and condescending tone. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit War

Hi, I am reporting an editor who is engaged in edit-warring. HappyInGeneralhas done about 34 reverts on ([8]) page alone in the last two weeks. He and I were warned on May 1st. [9] I have refrained from editing that page, but HappyInGeneral has continued edit warning.

In ignoring the warning and 3RR rule, HappyInGeneral has declared himself an edit warrior. If he is not punished for this behavior now, no one will care about Wiki rules any more.

The edit warning on that page is mostly about a provocative and contested image added by HappyInGeneral. Many editors have rejected placing this picture in the intro. In trying to reach a compromise with him I created a section call “Abuses against Falun Gong practitioners” and placed this picture there. But HappyInGeneral deleted this section and moved the picture back to the intro thus starting a round of revert war.[10] --Samuel Luo 06:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a revert war going on, which I don't like, so please help me clarify a few things by commenting on my contributions.

The Suppression_of_Falun_Gong page:

- I think that this contribution is essential: [11] because it's well sourced and very relevant to the page. Please review and let me know what you think.

Also the tags are necessary because the current version of Suppression_of_Falun_Gong [12] is hijacked by the POV of Special:Contributions/Samuel_Luo a Falun Gong critic who is proposed for being banned [13], also you may observe that the contributions of Special:Contributions/Pirate101 and Special:Contributions/Yueyuen are only imitating Samuel Luo's behavior.

A few questions:

1. Is the information well sourced?
2. Is the information relevant?
3. Do we have consensus on that page?

My opinion regarding these questions, and please let me know if I'm wrong.

1. +
2. Basically if the material is well sourced and relevant it should be in that article.
3. If the article is not on consensus than there should be tags presenting that.

As far as I see it, I'm acting according to the wikipedia rules and spirit, where Samuel is not, he is even removing tags that show that the article is disputed.

Also please note that there was a legitimate section for this on this page [14] however this was deleted: [15]. Abusively and repeatedly [16].

Also please review this section of the evidence page: [17]

PS: Note that this is question is here for more then a month now: [18]

I would really like more input on this issue, which would be also very much appreciated. Thank You.

--HappyInGeneral 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to arbitrate the content on that page. Shame on both of you for engaging in an edit war. HappyInGeneral, the existence of sources DOES NOT MEAN IT MUST BE INCLUDED IN A PARTICULAR ARTICLE. The inclusion of content should be discussed and negotiated not "enforced" as you are trying to do. You are as much to blame for this dispute as Samuel Luo. It takes two to tango, as they say. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 11:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi talk again

Hi! I'm requesting your intervention again. Sorry to trouble you. Please take a look at the recent section on the Li Hongzhi discussion page regarding the "interviews" section. I've provided what I believe to be clear and undeniable reasoning for the removal of that section, but I know that without acknowlegment of this by an admin or uninvolved party every attempt to remove it will continue to be met with a revert. I request that you please take a look at what I've said, and at the section I'm refering to, and post a comment in response. I don't like troubling people like this, but I don't know what else to do at this point. Thanks! Mcconn 04:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bolton School

Please will you restore http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bolton_School&oldid=124111896 because it isn't libel its just funny. If you cant put it back into the history section can you put it in WP:BJAODN so we can all have a laugh at it.

Funny or not, this is an encyclopedia. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Action Requested Again in Relation to Meatpuppets and Puppetmaster

After you unblocked Alan Freeman and gave him very explicit instructions on what he can and can't do, he has twice intervened in the TSSI discussion over matters of substance and procedure rather than just grammar, spelling, etc. I ask that he, along with user M.Posner, be indefinately blocked as meatpuppets. Andrew Kliman admitted to soliciting them

No, I merely informed them that the article had been messed with. I didn't solicit. Not my style. justice-thunders-condemnation 18:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's what Andrew Kliman wrote on his user talk page: "When I overhauled the article and notified some colleagues, they were pleased with it. When 'Watchdog07' then started attacking the article, I notified them again. A few (Alan XAX Freeman, Annejaclard, and M.Posner) decided to help defend the article". I think the wording of WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT, as well as past practices at Wikipedia in terms of dealing with similar situations, indicate that this did indeed consitute solicitation of meatpuppets. Moreover, they have behaved as a bloc with one making proposals and the others chiming-in in support of the proposals. And, whenever I have made proposals they have similarly responded as a bloc in unison against my proposals. Especially important, according to policy, is that this was done in the context of votes and an effort to impose a false sense of unanimity and "consensus". Indeed, they even wanted to impose a model of consensus where someone could not block consensus. Furthermore, when Alan Freeman volunteered to be "facilitator" of the discussion he clearly knew the context that he was solicited to engage in the discussion and had joined Wikipedia with the express purpose of seeking to "defend the article", i.e. support the article as written by Andrew Kliman. That was manifestly bad faith. I didn't file a formal complaint for violation of WP:SOCK because you assured me that you were working on the situation. I interpreted that to mean that you were investigating the situation and would get back to me. For that reason I was patient. After hundreds of messages and a continuing pattern of a united front by Akliman/AlanXAXFreeman/M.Posner in which they refuse to seriously consider my objections (to the point where AKliman absurdly and counter-factually suggested that I objected to only two parts of the article!!!), I appeal to you to do something about this situation. What I think should be done is to a) declare Posner and Freeman meatpuppets; b) have sanctions against AKLiman; c) reduce the article temporaily to a black-and-white factual article; and d) charge Akliman and myself with the task of seeking consensus one paragraph at a time on expanding the article. Watchdog07 Watchhdog07 (talk · contribs)

on his user talk page and both Posner and Freeman have behaved in a singular fashion to support AKliman. Both have intervened in discussions with the single purpose of backing the edits of Andrew Kliman on the TSSI page and, in the case of M. Posner, also the David Laibman page. This is unacceptable and in violation of WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. You told me that you were looking into this question, but that was a (relatively) long time ago and they have been very disruptive since. I also strongly urge that you have sanctions against Akliman for soliciting meatpuppets and other offenses. It is grossly unfair for me to be expected to respond to 2 meatpuppets and I puppetmaster as if they were 3 individuals.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

I have sent you a private message regarding this request as I think a calm discussion will benefit more from this approach. Happy to consider your suggestions: Alan XAX Freeman 17:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog, Alan has not violated our agreement. My intention was not to have him banned from the discussion - only editing the article. I'm sorry you misunderstood. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. I have no intention of responding to any comments he may write on the TSSI talk page. As far as I'm concerned - for reasons I've articluated elsewhere to you - he doesn't exist. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

As M.poser is infact a meatpuppet as well, I will require him to follow the same rules as Alan if he wishes to maintain involvement in the article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, as a side note, there is no requirement that we count the opinions of "meat puppets" when determining consensus. I don't think ignoring him is the right answer, but I'm not you and I'm not involved in the discussion over the content. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Solicitation of funds by one editor from another

Please see the comments of 'you-know-who' on the TSSI talk page today, especially point #3 where an editor demanded, as a precondition for filing for mediation, that I place $10,000.00 in an escrow account of his attorney! What is the Wikipedia policy that concerns the solicitation of sizable financial sums by one editor from another in an edit dispute? Or, is there no formal policy because something so outrageous has never happened before on Wikipedia?

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Excuse me; to ask for an escrow account in the hands of a third party simply cannot properly be called solicitation of funds. This statement violates WP:Harass. Readers should indeed check out my explanation of why the escrow account is advisable. justice-thunders-condemnation 00:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To J. smith - I have temporarily withdrawn from the discussion on the TSSI and related talk pages pending a response from you to the message I sent above concerning a demand by another editor to place $10,0000.00 (ten thousand and xx/100 dollars) in an escrow account as a pre-condition for him filing a request for mediation. In temporarily withdrawing from that discussion, I am not signally conscent with what that person has written on the talk pages or an unwillingness to engage in discussion with others at a later time. The fiinancial demand of the above editor is of such a nature that I ask that the heaviest possible penalty be levied by you against that individual. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

My continuing quest for mediation

Dear Sir, please see my talk page for my response to your comment.

justice-thunders-condemnation 14:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir, please see my talk page for my reply to your response. justice-thunders-condemnation 15:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir, thank you for your response. Please see my talk page for my reply. justice-thunders-condemnation 22:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir, please see my new message for you on my talk page. justice-thunders-condemnation 04:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

phoenix art center

2007051710013003

It's basically resolved at this point. If he continues disrupting on wiki, he can be dealt with in the typical manner. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

New policy

1. I have acted on the advice of another Wikipedia administrator and decided to implement WP:SHUN in relation to you-know-whom.

2. Recent events have forced me to reevaluate the situation and I have concluded, since there is evidence to the contrary, that I need no longer am required to assume good faith on the part of you-know-whom. This is, as you know, allowable under WP:AGF.

3. You-know-whom has not apologized - to the Wikipedia community or myself - for his demand that funds be placed in an escrow account for him to re-file for mediation. Indeed, he has defended that abusive and malicious action. When he blanked the page, he did not express regret or admit fault. Instead, he wrote "blanked para because I was compelled to, under threat of being blocked". This is another example of bad faith.

3. Because of the above, I will no longer respond to you-know-whom on article talk pages. I reserve the right, of course, to revert articles for the purpose of expanding content and restoring valid information which was improperly deleted and legitimate tags which are necessaary to alert Wikipedia readers.

4. Please ask you-know-whom to stop making baseless, absurd, and personally insulting claims against me on his user talk page. I don't think that I need respond to those claims directly but I do want to note for your benefit that a) I had the right and I believe I acted in the best interests of Wikipedia when I alerted several editors of the Yale Economic Review article that you-know-whom proposed - without explanation - putting an advertising tag on that article; b) the tags which I placed on the TSSI article were legitimate and referred entirely to the content of the article; and c) the expression "New Orthodox Marxists" was originally put into the article and referenced with a reliable source by none other than you-know-whom.

5. You-know-whom says above that he continues to want mediation. I have seen evidence (behavior inconsistent with desiring mediation) from him. In any event, if he wants mediation, then he should re-file for mediation without imposing any (ridiculous or otherwize) demands and ultimaturms on this editor. Watchdog07 11:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You know whom deleted an RFC authored by this editor, which I then had to restore. The reason he gave was bizarre and ridiculous in the extreme.To put it mildly, his deletion was highly improper. Watchdog07 06:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

VANDALISM OF RFC/ECON PAGE BY ANDREW KLIMAN!

Andrew Kliman twice deleted a RFC which I wrote concerning the use of the expression "New Orthodox Marxists" in the TSSI article. He then went on to delete two other RFC's which I wrote. In deleting the RFCs which I authored he - of course - left his own RFCs in place on the page. The RFC process is an important component in the overall process of dispute resolution at Wikipedia and Kliman's continuing attempts to suppress attempts by this editor for comment from other Wikipedians is a direct frontal attack on the whole Wikipedia community. Accordingly, I ask that Andrew Kliman be indefinately blocked for these continuing, repeated, and malicious acts of VANDALISM. Watchdog07 12:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION TECHNIQUE"!

Andrew Kliman's latest slap in the face of Wikipedia was to edit WP:SHUN so that it now says that "diificult editors" can be asked questions to "reveal" the "motives" of those other editors and as a "behavior modification technique." Enough is enough. This is obviously a cynical ploy to re-write guidelines in an effort to HARASS WP:HARASS this editor. Kliman then went on to say on the TSSI Talk page that the wording of the WP:SHUN allows him to press me on answering his absurd, demanding, and agrresive questions. The only "modification technique" which will work against him is a permanent block. Watchdog07 23:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please create a user-conduct WP:RFC if you have problems with the user's conduct. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to this suggestion on my user talk page Watchdog07 (talk · contribs). Basically, I have to ask: what's the point in writing another RFC for him to delete? He has already repeatedly deleted my RFCs - one of the most serious possible offenses that an editor could make to the integrity of this community- and what has been done about stopping his continued violations of Wikipedians? I fear that if Wikipedia can not stop such flagrant violations by Kliman of its integrity, then the whole project may well be doomed. Watchdog07 23:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Grazon

I saw your note to Librarygurl, and thought that I might mention to you that Grazon has been actively editing as a set of anons. Also, I gave Librarygurl the URL for his 'blog, so that she could after all ask him whatever she might. —SlamDiego 09:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Newcommers

I don't feel I am bitting the newcommers at all.--James, La gloria è a dio 02:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know bad edits made in good faith is not vandalism. Will you give me an example of an edit where I treated a good faith edit as vandalism? That is not what I am try to do BTW. Peace:)--James, La gloria è a dio 03:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I assume it was in good faith but if you look at User talk:75.67.72.195 the person had many warning before I even warned him and when someone has that many warnings it is usualy common sense to think that it was made in bad faith. See what I'm saying sir? Peace.--James, La gloria è a dio 03:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've left a smile on 75.67.72.195 to let him/her know that I was not trying to be mean or anything. Have a nice week and God bless:)--James, La gloria è a dio 20:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for letting me know. I am trying to get better and am at least fixing my mistakes. It is not like others are really having to. Have a nice week and God bless.--James, La gloria è a dio 22

22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Burntapple

Looking over his edit history, I am reasonably sure that Burntapple is a sock-puppet of Grazon. —SlamDiego 18:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted to An/I: Burntapple, sock-puppet of Grazon. —SlamDiego 20:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool Cat MFD on DRV

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 30#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat -- Ned Scott 05:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

cite encyclopedia

Hi, you changed the {{cite encyclopedia}} template before. Could you address this: Template_talk:Cite_encyclopedia#Space_needed? Thanks! --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Still at It

Later in the day after Burntapple discovered that he'd been blocked, this edit, restoring an edit previously made by Burntapple, was made from 71.143.18.160, which is within one of the ranges of IP numbers from which Grazon is known or believed to have been editing anonymously. There's a fair chance that Grazon will have created yet more named accounts with this IP number. Is there, within the rules, a way of checking for named accounts created from that IP number at about the time of that edit? —SlamDiego_←T 09:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it wouldn't have been proof in any case, and I understand the concern to maintain the established protocols of privacy. I did think that it was possible to have a system that flagged a new editor for greater scrutiny, based upon such a pattern. —SlamDiego_←T 09:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

you cannot assume that

that is not fair! that IP adress is shared and just because one account was used for vandalism, does not mean that the whole IP adress should be blocked again. That is really unfair because the whole point of being able to edit wikipedia again is for another chance. and i am sorry that one account was used for vandalism, but this one was not and will not so i do not see the logic. --Salnjm 22:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all that is not what happened, the IP was blocked, once the block time was up, accounts were created and lets not forget that this is a shared IP so I was not the only person who wanted to get an account, so I am sorry that the other account with the name MrLeftyisacunt was made for vadalism, but this one is not. And the edits agaisnt the user Mr. Lefty were made on an account, not on the IP, so why did you block the IP? It is not the IP which should be blocked, it is the Mrleftyisacunt account. And i understand that by blocking that account, I was autoblocked. It is not fair for you to block the IP. And also, I am on a different IP right now so thats how I am editing. --Salnjm 23:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

wait...I'm looking at the block logs for me and the IP adress, and i do not see that you blocked me...I'm confused, am I still autoblocked on the other IP until tommorow or is the autoblock gone? --Salnjm 23:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

BUT it had not made any new vandalism edits since the block expired! So how is fair that you re-block it a day later when no edits were made using the IP!--Salnjm 02:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Griffith Quarry, CA

Before I made the edit, I checked the database [19] to make sure Einbierbitte 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg

As so ordered by DRV, Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg is again nominated for deletion. Please see the debate at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 4#Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg. Regards, howcheng {chat} 21:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia ethics

If an editor published a private e-mail by another editor - without that editor's permission - on an article talk page, what Wikipedia policy would that highly unethical action be in violation of?

See the talk page of the David Laibman article. On that page, you will see that an editor (Akliman) included a private email from another editor (Jurriaan). Watchdog07 13:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming (on my user talk page) what I knew to be the case. What are you going to do about the ethical violation and the person responsible for it? Watchdog07 12:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses on my talk page. I asked a follow-up question there. I'm still not clear about Wikipedia policy on this.

You mentioned spanking. Is that an option? Watchdog07 13:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Only if it's a woman and she's cute. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hear what you're saying, but the person in question is male (as anyone would recognize from his general demeanor) and not at all cute (unless you think that short, balding, obese, middle-aged men are cute).

Speaking to the point you made on my user page, I will readily admit that the interaction would seem to outsiders to be among middle school boys who are mis-behaving. That's not far from the truth.

The truth is that this dispute began because someone (I'll let you guess who) tried to use Wikipedia to push his propaganda and bully and abuse others. Someone (I'll let you guess who) didn't like that person's bullying and aggresiveness and wouldn't be intimidated. This was a perfect recipe for a never-ending cycle because the bully doesn't want to stop bullying and the person resisting the bullying won't allow himself to be intimidated because that would embolden the bully and result in aggrevated bullying of others in the future. I realize this isn't a political or theoretical description of the differences in perspective, but it is the truth.

Someone (maybe you can guess who) wanted to break off from this exchange sometime ago because he found the other editor's tactics to be so repugnent and offensive and he said that he would implement WP:SHUN as a reasoned response. That didn't work as the aggressive editor even went so far as to try to re-write WP:SHUN!

In writing the above, I do not expect any action on your part and if you consider the above to be uncivil, then you have my permission to delete this entry. I just thought you'd want someone to tell you what this exchange has really been about. Watchdog07 16:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

Can you please create my userpage with the old code you used please? With the about me and useful wikipedia links ect. Thanks! SuperBall53 01:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok and could you block Suresure please? He is really disruptive. Thanks! SuperBall53 12:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, he is blocked. SuperBall53 12:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Renaming

I'm not familar with OTRS - how do I confirm that - can I? Is there anywhere that says you have OTRS access? (I'm trying to see how I would get some evidence). We generally have a policy that only the user can ask for a renaming to stop people being renamed maliciously. I understand this is a different issue - it's just one we've not had before.

Also please don't put Any in the template as it means we have to change it all manually. Not using the template would be more appropriate in this case. Thanks Secretlondon 22:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone listed under the Meta page of the OTRS team will be happy to confirm the email for you: Meta:OTRS. Mindspillage is a well known member of the OTRS team and I'm sure she will be happy to confirm the rename request for you.

Oh, I'm sorry. I just didn't know what naming system you guys used in cases like this. Let me know and I'll change it to anything you want. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As no-one has commented on Wikipedia_talk:Changing_username I've done it as a right to vanish and deleted the user/talk pages and redirects too. Secretlondon 17:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

shortened title: DRV of Xcellery

Original title: An editor has asked for a deletion review of Xcellery. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Hi, according to the instructions, I hope I'm doing this correctly. I believe you were listed as the admin who deleted the [Xcellery] article. I recently updated the article in User:CambridgeBayWeather/Sandbox and at CBW's advice, I submitted it to be reviewed for Undeletion. Regards, --Gsalelanonda 22:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Smeagain

Hey J.S, I blocked Smeagain for sockpuppetry, but omitted the details at the time. If you take a peek at the user creation log[20], you can see that Smeagain made the attack account Louiilouii, which was used for 4 edits.[21][22][23][24], none of which are at all welcome. From what I can gather, he is also the owner of the account Boyleharry(blocked by Rebecca), and possibly others. I hope this helps. --Michael Billington (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

YouTube

J.S., did you use a template for messages like at Talk:Al Gore's Penguin Army video#YouTube links? If so, is it still around? Thanks, Iamunknown 05:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It was just something out of my own user space. I don't even remember if I saved it... You can use my wording if you like. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Grazon

It very unlikely that Grazon will ever be unblocked... he abused wikipedia to support his own agenda and promote his own political ideals. Along the way he violated many different policies: WP:POV, WP:SOCK, WP:V and many behavior related policies and guidelines. Why would you want someone so disruptive to be unblocked? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Everybody needs to have forgiveness. Some much more than he does. For example, check User:Haggawaga - Oegawagga. Randalph P. Williams 13:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not only is there no evidence that he will stop his behavior, he's been abusing the system SINCE he was blocked. Continually. He continues to violate the rules and game the system over and over and over. He's had 5 accounts blocked. This user has -never- shown any interest in improving the encyclopedia. Forgiveness is possible but not while he continues his behavior.

When was your original account blocked? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Dorus Rijkers, one of H.O's articles, was a DYK-article, and is B-class. It was a great article, and eventually appeared on the main-page. On his userpage (for which User:Phaedriel gave him a star, which she can claim), was a list of articles made by him, and they were all quite good. This way, I think he deserves a second shot. Agreed? Just take a closer look at his good deeds; not just those bad ones. Randalph P. Williams 13:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the User:Haggawaga - Oegawagga case - I was speaking about grazon. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

William M. Conelly's Block

Re: Denial of unblock for User:Devil_Ray: Look man, did you even look at who posted what on that page? You went ahead accused me of being uncivil. ("Continued incivility will lead to extended blocks. Please review WP:CIVIL.") There is no way what I wrote could be considered uncivil. Conelly deletes peoples comments and then he blocks people who object to his deleting of other peoples comments, then he accuses THEM of being uncivil? Would you LOOK at the history please and pay special attention to the signatures. [25] [26]

I wrote exactly this:

"Deleting another editor's comments that you disagree with is not acceptable behavior. This page is designed to settle questions that are debatable. Fair and honest debate cannot take place if editors are permitted to chop the bits that they don't like out of the record. Please refrain from deleting other's comments."

Where do you see any incivility there? Conelly deleted my above comment from the talk page then he blocked me. Is deleting my comments okay? Come on man, what do we call people who go around deleting other peoples talk page comments. Go ahead... you can say it. That is what he does. And he is an Admin?? What's wrong with this picture? When is somebody gonna make this guy shape up? You're an Admin aren't you? Do something. --Devil Ray 15:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll highlight the incivility I've seen from you:

• "Clean up after troll" (edit summary)
• "clean up after troll" (edit summary)
• "Blocked by Troll" (edit summary)

Those three edits were clearly violations of our civility and no personal attacks policy. Also looking at your history I see some inappropriate edits as well:

• In this edit you restore content on the talkpage that is -clearly- inappropriate according to our talk-page guidelines.

"Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." (emphasis mine) This edit and this edit are both keeping with talk page guidelines and the removal was entirely appropriate. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

My Block

First thanks for unblocking me.. Second could you look at the two articles that me and the other administrator were argueing about and explain to me how I can put those references in? Also can I list Spanish Wikipedia article as a source? Callelinea

Please eliminate any reference to any blog and/or wikipedia websites - that would be a good start. Also, review our guideline on WP:RS and justify why each link falls within that guideline. Since I can't read Spanish I can't really do much to help. :( ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Late message

Hello J, thanks for the message. I am a bit surprised by its late arrival, but nevertheless, wisdom is appreciated. It is one of my shortcomngs; I do not suffer fools easily. Having worked on articles for several years that appear to engender rather consistent vandalism, controversy, and highly POV edits, I admit that I am not too patient with some editors who have a constant axe to grind.

The editor in question has a one-horse issue and he rides it into the ground and forces all to meet his/her rather skewed perceptions. They only seek to be offended or to take offense. I view her/him as unhelpful to Wikipedia. The support that was shown her/him resulted in feeding their feeling of being "right". Unfortunately, this only resulted in my being attacked on other articles as a racist; the articles are not ones that I had previously edited.

Editing Wikipedia is not a right to be enjoyed by all; it is strictly a priviledge. Those editors that are only seeking a personal blog should be encouraged, if not forced, to enjoy that passion by starting one. Other editors that are committed to improving articles should be encouraged. Please understand that I am not prescribing intolerance for new editors or those who simply do not know better, but I do support blocking indefinitely those editors who do not forfeit their axe and soapbox.

I have wasted enough of your time and unfortunately, unlike you, I have not shared any wisdom. I will strive to do better and possibly on talk pages I will eventually be able to give up pushing the buttons of those who so obviously are screaming for someone to push them. Happy editing! --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now I understand the reason for the comment. I reviewed the editors recent edits and found the motivation. Undoubtedly, this is a very sad, bitter, self-absorbed individual. I can only pity him/her. Though I appreciate your edits to help them understand the validity of my comments, I am not hopeful you will be successful. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Anarkali page

I just saw your comments on the Anarkali talk page. A few youtube links have been added to it once again. They are videos to different portrayals of the historical figure in various films. Do you think that they should be removed or not? Thanks! Mhassan85 06:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi

WikiMan53 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Administrative action required

I hope you had a good weekend. I enjoyed the time off.

I ask that read the section which I wrote today on the TSSI discussion page, in particular the section on meatpuppets, and then take administrative action against Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs). Although his was an egregious violation of policy ( WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT ) and although he has been in my opinion guilty of incivility, edit warring and tendentious editing, I ask that the block against him be only for 48 hours. I make this suggestion in good faith in the hope that this entire matter can be resolved amicably in a manner which results in a much improved edit which will finally conform to the Wikipedia policy on neurtrality WP:NPV.

If there are other sysops who have been considering the TSSI dispute, I ask that you pass along this information to them. Thx in advance.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Respect

Sure, I can be patient. I wanted to know what, if anything, I needed to do procedurally. I don't want to appear "demanding" or "condescending" but I ask that you please consider the following: you wrongly accused M. Posner of being a sockpuppet of Watchdog07 and later apologized to him but not to me. You also inferred wrongdoing on my part by saying that I claimed to be a member of sysops. I did not. I simply claimed to be a member of the groups listed on my user page. Perhaps that doesn't qualify as administrative in the technical sense but those committees would be considered to be administrative in the more generic sense. I certainly appreciate that this whole situation with the TSSI and David_Laibman pages must be an unwelcome administrative mess from your perspective. But, I believe that I have treated you respectfully and I respectfully ask that you please reciprocate.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Intent to revert

I intend to revert the TSSI page to a black-and-white factual edit. I will do so tomorrow unless I receive a specific request not to do so by a member of sysops. The current edit simply can not be permitted to stand as it is in violation of virtually every Wikipedia policy, as I have documented at length on the TSSI talk page. As things stand, when I attempted to put quotation marks around a quote, Andrew Kliman reverted the page again. This is unacceptable.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Your recommendation

Thank you for your recommendation: as I indicated above, unless I receive a specific request from a member of sysops not to do so then I will revert the TSSI article tomorrow.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

The Anti-Christ's Latest Action

See Akliman's Akliman (talk · contribs) latest action: the multiple tagging of the pluralism_in_economics article. Someone needs to tell him that it's not funny.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

You misunderstood

The editor in question used "the antichrist" to describe HIMSELF: indeed, that's how he SIGNED his edits. You can see for yourself if you look at the history of his page. He referred to himself on his own user page as (real name), then "aka the antichrist".

Here are his exact words from his user page dated 4/24: "Hi. I am Akliman, aka Andrew Kliman, aka the antichrist" Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

It also came up as a topic of discussion in the TSSI talk page. It's not a personal attack on someone to call the person by the name that he has used to describe himself.

I replied briefly to your lastest comment on my user talk page. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Informal comment- Do you like movies? Our recent exchange reminded me of a scene from "The Meaning of Life", a Monty Python film. Setting - a dinner party in the oh-so-British countryside. A loud knock at the door. Hostess says "Come in". A loud knock again. The hostess says "Come in. The door is unlocked." In walks someone dressed from head to foot in a black robe with hood (looking somewhat like "Darth Vater") Hostess introduces everyone to the newcomer and then says "I don't believe you said what your name is". The stranger says loudly: "I AM DEATH - THE DESTROYER OF WORLDS!". Hostess replies calmly, "Well, it's so nice to meet you Mr. Death. Please have a seat and join us for dinner". No offense intended, but you reminded me today of the hostess. I just thought a little humor might help to break the tension. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Intent to Revert TSSI article to stub

I have offered a number of compromise proposals recently which were rejected or ignored by Andrew Kliman. Now, he has taken away the neutrality tag and and others I placed on the article. Yet, clearly as anyone can see from the 'talk page' the neutrality of the article is disputed. I have explained at length - dozens of times - what is wrong with the biased article. He shows no sign of wanting to compromise. He has acted as if the article belongs to him. After weeks of discussion, I believe that the only thing that will get him to seriously discuss the article is to revert it to a black-and-white factual article and then discuss expanding it. I asked you to do this some time ago and you asked that I be patient. Now, I am informing you in advance that I am going to revert the page and I ask that you then place a temporary LOCK on the page. If that happens, we might begin to see some progress. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Violations by M.Posner & friends

M.Posner reverted the TSSI article. I ask that his action be reversed because it was a) the action of a meatpuppet acting on behalf of a puppetmaster and b) a violation of the 3-revert rule since, according to an arbitration ruling referred to in WP:SOCK, a meatpuppet and a puppetmaster are considered to be one (1) person.

I think the record is also clear that he was a) solicited to be a meatpuppet; b) has consistently and unapologetically supported the edits and comments of the person who solicited his presence; c) intervened in the discussions in an unhelpful way; d) acted in concert with his master to revert the article to a non-neutral edit in violation of WP:NPV.

On another matter, I intend to revert the article to stub.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Reply to your comment

I replied briefly to the comment you left on my talk page. I will not go over the history of who wrote what when and the record of who has or has not displayed good faith as that will not help resolve the dispute at this time. So, I hope you will understand why I will not give a lengthy response to your comment: I am more concerned about resolving the dispute than explaining my perspective on the history of the debate. In any event, I wish to thank you for your concern and express my appreciation for your good faith efforts. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

ANI research and comments

Hi. I was a little taken aback to see this edit of yours in response to a complaint on ANI. Offering an opinion based solely on the complaint itself isn't that likely to be of help. There are many invalid and self-interested complaints on ANI, and, well, the people who did look up the context of this one seem to have thought it one of them. Perhaps you would consider using the ANI time that you have for fewer, but better-researched, comments? I hope you won't be offended, but take this comment of mine in the benevolent spirit in which I intend it. Bishonen | talk 13:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC).

User:PierreLarcin

I noticed you already had a discussion with PierreLarcin on the Rotary International page. I draw your attention to the fact that an arbitrage has been opened concerning this contributor here. Feel free to bring your contribution to the case. Best regards --Bombastus 22:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI

I have posted a new request to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grazon. —SlamDiego_←T 07:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The outcome of the checkuser was “Likely”. I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done with that. Perhaps little more than giving it some weight in some future decision about Dcker. —SlamDiego_←T 01:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Response

I take very serious issue with anyone saying that the Native Americans, most of whom that speak English actually refer to themselves as Indians, were not the first people in America. The atcitle you pointed me to is unconvincing and flies in the face of all reputable history and archiology. As to the other point, the noble savage, I will tell you that the Houma tribe does not have a history of war with any other tribe or with the white man. Period. Some of our neighbors suggested that the Houma tribe declare war on the U.S. as a symbolic gesture in order to spead up the currenlty unjust status of non recognition of our rights but is was thuroully voted down as all acts of violence are completely outside the normal and accepted ethical and moral conduct of our Nation, the Houma Tribe, and always has been.

I mention all of this but really this is not the real issue here. Storm only said those things to me as a way of creating a personal insult. He does not have knowledge of what he is talking about and is clearly wrong. The only and sole reason the said anything about any of this was to create personal insult against me. I doubt the actually believe any of this and if he does that would only be futher indication of his ignorance. The said it as a personal insult and now is surprised that I took it as a personal insult. Most Racist know full well that what they are saying is wrong and misguided and the only reason they use words like Nigger or any other racial insults is simply to be insulting.

The real issue here his Storm's very aggressive attempt to not have accurate and historical information about Joseph Smith Jr. put into the article about that man's biography. I have raised legitimate questions about the possible racism or non racism of Joseph Smith Jr. that should be addressed. After all, the page on Martin Luther had to address his very negative statements about Jews. Even the Page on Jesus addresses what some consider to the negative aspects of his teachings. All Storm is really trying to do here is irrationally protect the reputation of Joseph Smith Jr. on Wikipedia. He thinks that he can run off someone that raises valid historical questions. If Smith wasn't a racist or was it really doesn't make a difference in my personal life but that I can improve the article by adding truthful and important information. It is highly likely that Smith was in fact a racist and this is a matter of Historical fact. The truth is the truth is the truth. Certain aspects of the Mormon religion have retained some of these elements of racism. If this is so because of a teaching from Smith then they obviously don't think it to be wrong so why won't they include it in the article? If Smith wasn't a racist that would be a remarkable fact that would definatly worrent inclusion in the article considering the past actions of the Mormon Religions and the time and place that Smith lived his life. He would then be in effect the only non racist person of that town at that time. This information is completely valid to include in the article since Smith did found a religous movement and the personal thoughts and beliefs of Smith guide the actions of Mormons to this day.

Another point is the fact that Storm is trying to force everyone to believe as fact what in reality is not fact. Historical and empirical FACTS clearly show that the Indians were the first people to come to the Americas and there is Zero evidence that the Israely population said by the Mormons to have come to central America ever came. It is a matter of Mormon Religous idiology and faith that they came and I would not question his right to believe in his faith but the history is against him. He believes that the Israelis came because he wants to believe it but I beleive what is historical fact and it should only be historical fact that goes into a WIKIPEDIA article. Storm whats me to believe that my people weren't the first one's here because his church lied to him and he believed them. Also, note that is it just happens that the Indians weren't the first people here it really doesn't change history. Who was here when Columbus arrived, Indians. They can find or fordge whatever skellotons they want. The living people at the time of Columbus were Indians. The only reason to even say that the Indians weren't here or weren't first is not because it is true because no one knows. The only reason to say it is to formulate a personal Insult. So, he wanted to personally insult me and I do indeed take it as a personal insult. He wants to spread racism on Wikipedia. My question to Wikipedia is will Wikipedia allow his actions. If so they you are an accomplice. So please let me know, does Wikipedia support Racism? If so then you really shouldn't mind if I self exclude myself since you already think that I am just an uneducated savage that is only good dead, Right? You also won't mind if I tell everyone else just so all the other minorities won't go an bother you anymore. Please let me know what WIKIPEDIA decides.--Billiot 02:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not about ignoring evidence. The evidence in unconvincing and may actually point again to the skeloton belonging to a real Native American who would be called by the Native Americans of today as an Indian. The point of all of it that Storm's opinion was not founded on scientific or any other evidence. It was founded completely on a desire to create and make public a racial slur. Storm does not know anymore then anyone else the exact movements of peoples in ancient pre-hisotry. All he really wanted to do was insult my race which he was successful in doing. I therefore yeald to his desire and take offence at what was clearly meant to be offensive. I shall now reiterate my question to WIKIPEDIA, do you stand for this and allow this or not. If you do then I and every other non White person in the world has no business on this site. Or am I wrong?--Billiot 03:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that when Storm dicided to make known his hatred for Native Americans, he did so by going completely off topic from the dicussion at hand. The Topic at the time was the possible racist writings and interpretation of writings by Joseph Smith Jr. Storm posted this racial slur purely to inslut me in the hopes that I would go away and not improve the article. If this is allowed for followers of Smith then I fully intend to go and remove any potentially negative information about every Catholic, Louisianaian, New Orleanier, French, Cajun, Houma, or American Indian People. I will then also have to remove any negative information or interpretation of Jesus and the Apostles. Either Wikipedia deals in Facts or not. They will allow Storm's actions or not. If it is true that Wikipedia is only allowing Storms actions because you agree with Racism then I won't have to remove any information but I will publish to the world these sentiments so that no non-white person in the world will have their HUMAN RIGHTS given to them by GOD violated by reading in good faith the RACIST and Negative and NON FACTUAL information about their race on Wikipedia.--Billiot 03:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well J. I suspect you were unaware of what you were getting into when you began to interact with this editor. Given his renewed personal attacks on me, see here, I have put a 3rd level warning for personal attacks. I am making you aware of this because you will have the easiest time blocking her/him when they proceed to retaliate for being warned. As you know this is not the first time this editor has attacked me on articles that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. I request that his/her edits be monitored closely and s/he be blocked at the next occurrence of a personal attack. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's basically not even worth responding to Billiot at this point. It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with a fanatic. I am just amazed at his point of view - I never imagined there were those who so militantly defended the "noble savage" mentality. Then again, I guess every group has it's "fringe". ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You may not have the luxury of ignoring him/her. You seem to be his go-to person of choice. This is one of the shortcomings of Wikipedia. As editors we strive to give all editors a change, often times repeatedly. The problem is that not all editors come from a position of anything remotely similar to neutrality. When attempting to provide understanding for their position, it is too quickly interpreted as support and we get a runaway editor. In this instance, he is breaking numerous rules and may need to be blocked. I am watching his edits because he is attacking me. I have warned him, but warnings should more appropriately come from a third party. Of course, we are all racists and can't possibly be neutral now. It may be a losing cause. I am sorry you got tied up in it, but I am confident you can handle it. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats why they give me the big fancy blockhammer. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Response

Go ahead and block me. What I said was true. All of it. I am not hiding anything about what I believe and what I said and the same can not be said about Storm Rider who knows full well the I have already stated that I will not respond to him anymore and I take it again as a personal insult that he would dare post on my talk page. So, by all means, BLOCK ME. Let Wikipedia's decision ring clear. I won't even challenge it. I welcome it. If Wikipedia has a problem with people not tollerating insults to their race them you must do your duty and Block me. That action will tell me everything I need to know about this site. --Billiot 10:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Civility

I think that you were quite correct in taking such action and enforcing the guidelines. However I understand that Wiki operates a principle of civility. The use of "Do not, I repeat, DO NOT...." is unecessary and lacks manners and therefore simple courtesy or civility.

Due to concerns over accuracy and WP:OTRS Ticket#: 2007041710015772, I have removed all unsourced material from this article. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT add any material the does not conform with wikipedia's policies includeing (but not limited to) WP:ATT, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Association_of_Schoolmasters_Union_of_Women_Teachers"

Redshelly 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Red Shelly

Point taken... I'll watch myself a bit better next time. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Shystie

Hi. Why did you delete the page on Shystie? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shystie&action=edit brob 02:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It sounded like a publicity piece. Also, it was likley a copyright violation of some kind. I wasn't saying there can't be an article... just that the article as it was was unacceptable and that it qualified for deletion under our speedy-deletion criteria. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Electronic voice phenomenon rewrite project

Hey, I noticed you were a frequent contributor to the Electronic voice phenomenon article and I thought I'd let you know that I'm proposing a rewrite project for the article. I thought you might be interested in contributing to it. Currently the article seems to have numerous dispute problems including POV issues and I thought I could get it to at least a Good Article. You can see my proposal on it's talk page here Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon. There are a few questions I'd like you to answer first though. If you have any questions about it you can leave me a message. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dragonfly CMS

Hi, in fact there are no clear notability criteria for software (WP:SOFTWARE is still under discussion), and while I would have heartily deleted it as a PROD or voted Delete on an Afd, A7 only applies to people and companies. I thought a software with quite a base of users (I checked the number of people who registered on their website) shouldn't be speedy deleted. But beside this procedure issue, I have no problem with this article deleted and I won't DR it. My personnal stance on CSDs is that we should apply them strictly when there is a shadow of a doubt. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Leggett & Platt‎

Yes, I was working on the assumption that's where it came from. But give them credit, at least they didn't just delete the whole section and hope no-one noticed. --Escape Orbit 20:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Anon you unblocked

Another anon. See the original AIV report: [27]. I saw the talk page discussion. Since he had removed one notice from ClueBot and some of his edit summaries sounded like attacks, his behavior did seem like a vandal's. Apparently that was not the case. Thanks for the unblock. Daniel Case 06:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

MartinBot

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Knight Rogers (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use the sandbox. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 00:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How amusing... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:81.197.77.202

I'd like to know why I've received this message from you: "Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kim Komando, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed." If you take a look at the Kim Komando history, you'll notice that you did not infact revert an edit by me but instead an edit by someone else to a previous version, which was done by me. I wouldn't have problems with messages like these if the case actually were as stated in the quote. 81.197.77.202 06:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Your right... I've stricken out the comment on your talk page. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Advise Me

What do you mean by Kudos.Thanks.Kaystar 06:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have mentioned number of places wikipedia and credited a few of the Users who have downloaded the images. My regards for your concern. Thanks.Kaystar 12:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tom Clancy - The Sum of All Fears cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tom Clancy - The Sum of All Fears cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dang vandals... oh well, tis fixed now. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Resource Exchange

Please have a look at the talk page of the Resource Exchange. I need your approval for something. Key to the city 10:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Tom Slemen

Ah. I was under the impression that Zardos was vandalizing the article by removing that particular section. Sorry about that; I am inexperienced at patrolling recent changes, and I will check the talk page next time before making assumptions of bad faith. Enam Esru 14:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Carol Kaye

Dear J.S. I responded on the talk page, but let me just clear some things up here. The bassland reference was already there, I did not add it, I simply put it into template form.

I've never heard of this person before, until I was asked to watch due to editors removing this section from the article while I'm doing Recent Changes patrol, so I have no opinion either way. I looked into the talk page, and into the page history, and indeed, there is an ongoing reverting issue with two sides reverting the other. Since I didn't know the issue, I did some research on my own to see if this section was even valid, and if perhaps those removing it were doing so rightly per WP:BLP. I found that this dispute, does indeed exist. I re-worded the section to be clear that the article is not saying whether the issue is true or false, but simply that the dispute exists. I am fully aware of what WP:RS is, and the majority of areas this dispute appears on, are not reliable sources (forums etc). The Wilson and Alroy's Record Review is borderline, I agree, but it at least illustrates that this issue is known about (aside from that other site that was already listed and people were arguing about, lol). The newswireless.net site has a section called "blog", but this reference seemed to be in the "news" section, and again, just verified the dispute, and did not state who was right or wrong.

If you feel these should be removed, or the entire section removed, feel free. I'll stop watching the page. I was simply trying to put this into neutral format, to stop the edit wars, as I was requested. My apologies for any confusion, or if you think I'm trying to push some view, because I honestly don't care either way, it just seems that it is valid to remain in, because the dispute does exist. ^Ariel♥Gold 18:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read my reply again, lol, I think perhaps you're seeing something that's not there, and that most certainly was not intended. I am not sure why you say I made "threats". That is a very serious word, and I really am unclear where you get that from. I said I was asked to keep an eye on the article, which I did, and that I was trying to help, but that I had no interest either way in keeping or removing the section, so I had no reason to argue about the issue, and that's it. I didn't threaten anything, so I'm really unclear where you get that idea. Either way, I have no issues with your concerns about the sources, and told you you're free to remove the one you questioned if you want (the other, as I said, I did not add). I was leaving it in your hands to take care of as an administrator, fully trusting that you'd do what you thought was best, and I was fine with that. Honestly, I'm sorry if you somehow read that as something it wasn't, but I truly don't get how you think I was threatening anything, but I most certainly was not. ^Ariel♥Gold 03:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh is that how that sounded? Oh, I'm so sorry! That's just me saying "honestly, it doesn't matter to me at all, and now that there is an administrator here keeping an eye on things, I can free up some watch list space, yay!" lol. I'm really sorry for the misunderstanding! ^Ariel♥Gold 04:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions regarding a ban notice

Hey JS, you recently unblocked my account from an indefinite block (which I sincerely appreciate). I was wondering if, now that I am unblocked, I am allowed to remove the "Known Sockpuppet" and the "Indefinitely blocked" notices from my user page. Many thanks, --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 00:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I would recommend leaving some kind of note about your previous use of that account. For the sake of transparency, ya-know. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Idiotic upload page

Regarding a picture of mine that you deleted, it was well within my rights to use that image, yet it is wikipedia's upload page's inane complexity that caused the trouble. I would appreciate it if you would undo your deletion of File:NumberingSystem.jpg and recognize that I was granted FULL and COMPLETE permission to use this picture on a FREE LICENSE. At the very least provide an opportunity for the author to edit it. Thank you. NMThai 12:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit complicated. You chose a license that said "Only non-commercial or educational use of this file is permitted." - since wikipedia is mirrored all over the world we don't permit that an image with a "non commercial" or "wikipedia only" license. If I un-delete it for you, what license would you want the image to be placed under? Here is a short list of appropriate licenses: Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Decline on Template:Remove the empty one

The template is currently empty, has always been empty, and was meant as some sort of joke. Is there a better speedy template I should have used? Or because it's been around for more than a little while, should I have done the long-term votes for deletion, instead of a speedy? Thanks! Gscshoyru 17:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The template is not an empty article. Your use of the tag was inappropriate. Please send to WP:TFD. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I figured, even though it wasn't an article, that since no general criteria or template criteria for speedy deletion fit, that the only one that made sense was no content, even though it wasn't an article. But I suppose it is inappropriate, as it isn't an article. Is there really no criteria for speedy deletion of empty or useless templates? There should be. Either that or no content should be part of general criteria, not just article. But thanks for explaining. I'll put it up at TFD instead. Gscshoyru 17:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so it's here. Vote if you wish. Gscshoyru 18:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank You! Thank You! Thank You!--Angel David 17:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't thank me, I doubt it will survive TFD. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

SrCl2•6H2O

Hi. Take a second look to that page. See that all the content is already in [[Strontium chloride] in more detail. Moreover, SrCl2•6H2O is orphan and it's obscure to have a redirect with the chemical formula of a Chloride. I checked many of them and there is no other redirects of a formula. This is only in special cases, e.g. [[H2O]. -- Magioladitis 17:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't endorsing the article - I was just objecting to your speedy deletion tag. Your the one who blanked the article and created the redirect and then nominated it as a bad redirect. Thats an inappropriate use of the speedy tag. WP:PROD would have been more appropriate. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

ok. Maybe I had to nominate it immediately for speedy without fixing it first a little bit. But, I wanted, in case speedy is not appropriate, to have the redirect page instead of the duplicated article. I think, in fact, I did two steps in one. In any case the article shouldn't remain since there is a better page containing all the info already. Thanks. -- Magioladitis 17:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A redirect seems fine to me. Redirects are cheep anyway. You could nominate it at WP:RFD perhapses. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Survivorman

Thanks for fixing the reference on Survivorman. I wasn't able to find the old archive. I'm glad that you found the digest. I couldn't find it, but I guess I was looking in the wrong places. I knew that the forum post was not such a good idea, but it was the best I could do at the time and I didn't particularly want to see the reference deleted. The whole incident is probably not that important in the long run, but with the furor over at Man vs. Wild, I figured it would be better to leave it in. -- Gogo Dodo 18:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Starsonata-small-banner-logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Starsonata-small-banner-logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Was used in a now deleted article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ss palaceattack.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ss palaceattack.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Same as above. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 09:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hobobill235

I guess I'm too soft! Should you wish to block indef. please do so, you'll have my full support. Pedro :  Chat  13:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on the guys talk page to show I concur. thanks JS. Pedro :  Chat  13:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocking User talk:194.81.161.150

Please could you make this a softblock in future? Your block blocked my user account - I'm now logging in from home! I sent you an email but i'll repeat myself here in case this is a more convenient medium for you.

We're looking into identifying those responsible for the vandalism but in the meantime please appreciate that your block has caused collateral damage...

Thank you

Ewen 16:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked in this manner intentionally. Sorry for the inconvenience. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Were there registered users using this IP for vandalism then? The college should be able to trace them if so. Ewen 08:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The type of vandalism made me leery of users creating socks to get around the block. I set it to 31 hours so it would be blocked until the weekend. If I was going to do a soft-block I would have blocked for a much longer period of time. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I reckon a soft block would work - the twits at the college who vandalise WP anonymously are unlikely to bother setting up an account. Have user accounts been created from the college and then used for vandalism? Not being an admin I don't think I can check, but I'd predict that the answer is 'no'.

Next week I'll know if our IT wonder-workers can trace those responsible. I'll let you know.

Ewen 07:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have access to that kind of information, unfortunately. :( ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL discussion

Hi, J -- Could you respond to my most recent comment in the WP:EL Talk page when you get a chance? Unfortunately I'm dealing with a very belligerent admin on this issue, and I want this discussion to be as thorough and complete as possible. Thanks, RedSpruce 01:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Why have you deleted Henry Sever? There was nothing wrong with it, or was there? Harland1 13:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because "It is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject." You can recreate it if you want, but please make sure it cites reliable sources so it doesn't get deleted again. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Arch Coal

I just read a fascinating discussion of an article on Wikipedia that you created apparently (or copied from a free content source) and Jimmy Wales deleted but was later restored. Did this really happen? Did you honestly not have a conflict of interest of some sort with the Arch Coal company? If the post is true, it seems like Mr. Wales was being really hasty and vindictive for some reason, and nobody really called him on that? Anyway, I for one would appreciate your side of this story, even though it was a year ago. --Earthboat 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that story posted by "thekohser" is misleading. Thekohser was banned a while back to thekohser's unacceptable behavior on the project. Thekohser still holds a grudge and loves to latch onto any story that can be twisted to defame wikipedia.

Yes, I started the Arch Coal article. Yes, Jimbo deleted the article. No, I have no conflict of interests with Arch Coal. But the truth is we were at a point where we (as a project) weren't sure how we wanted to deal with editors who have a COI. Jimbo learned that the author of the story, mywikibiz, was paid by Arch Coal to write the story. Jimbo wanted to put a stop to paid editing so he deleted the article and blocked mywikibiz. I felt at the time that the article if judged on it's merits satisfied our inclusion criteria. I took the article to deletion review and the deletion was eventually overturned. Jimbo gave his blessing to the deletion review and stated that what he wanted - a community review of the article. Jimbo was acting in what he felt was the best interests of the project. And I think he was as well. The Arch Coal debate eventually lead to the formulation of WP:COI and WP:COIN as we know them today. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That site is full of people gnashing their teeth over the fact that they've been banned from Wikipedia; only a handful of the contributors there have routinely displayed well thought out and reasoned criticisms of Wikipedia. I wouldn't include thekohser in said handful.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC) [28]

I understand your point of view, J.S, but according to my background reading on the subject, you got a few of the premises incorrect. First, Jimmy Wales encouraged the mywikibiz editing to be done off-site, which it seems it was. Is that what happened with the Arch Coal item? Did you copy it from a non-Wikipedia site, or did you create it? This Kohs person, while spouting a bit of venom, does make the point that the Arch Coal "client" wasn't even a client. No money was involved in the construction of their article. (Which I'm still confused, is that was you pasted into Wikipedia, J.S?) It sounds to me that a number of Wikipedia editors or admins have come to a judgment about editing that might be done by paid encyclopedists, but they're making their evaluation on false assumptions. More clarification would be appreciated, as I try to form a stronger opinion. thanks!!! --Earthboat 20:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to keep yammering, but I'm also seeing that WP:COI existed long before the Arch Coal dust up came along in October 2006. At least 200 edits were already done on WP:COI before your creation of Arch Coal. And, Wales' comment about the "mutually beneficial" agreement with Kohser also came well after at least 150 edits to the original WP:COI policy. Are we to assume that he didn't know about WP:COI when he said it would be okay with him to edit GFDL articles for payment, just as long as they started off-site? This is fascinating!!! --Earthboat 20:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I said "as we know them today". WP:COI was a little known backwater page before the Archcoal/mywikibiz nonsense. The whole episode started the dialog that created a greater awareness of the issue. It was latter brought up by the wikipedia scanner issue and a few newspaper articles.

Look, are you just here to troll my page? I'm getting this whole "I'm gonna getcha and tattle to my buddies" vibe from you... and I'm not really keen to play that kind of game.

Oh, I notice you forgot to copy one of the comments from this conversation to my page... I have included it here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not here to "troll" your page, although it does seem that Isotope23 is following me around since the TrekNation discussion. What I gather from all the evidence is that Mr. Wales told Mywikibiz that he could create GFDL content off-site, and it didn't matter if he was paid for it or not, and if indipendent editors like yourself thought the content was worthy of Wikipedia, of course it could be copied into Wikipedia since it was GFDL. Then, for some reason, Wales did a complete 180 and set out to block Mywikibiz and any content that come from him. Then everyone was made to believe that the Arch Coal article was paid for, even though it wasn't, and therefore that was a VERY BAD THING, and then the WP:COI was enhanced to include that line of reasoning, all set up under a false premise. If that bothers you and I'm a troll for coming to that conclusion, then that's fine. I won't write again on your talk page. --Earthboat 15:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems your trying to bait me into something. "Troll" was a bad choice of words and I apologize for that. Jimbo blocked mywikibiz because he failed to live up to his end of the bargain. Also, your assuming that Kohser was being truthful about the Archcoal article. I posted it under the assumption that it was paid for and I did my own research to verify that nothing glaring was being left out because of that. Jimbo felt it was tainted with COI, read like advertising copy and acted accordingly. I took it to DRV and Jimbo gave it blessing to restore it if the community felt that was the right thing to do (No, before you get the wrong idea, I didn't seek permission, I simply informed after I started the DRV - Jimbo rarely interferes with the community). Eventually DRV (sorta) sided with me and it was restored. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to bait you. I think you've cleared up just about everything I was wondering about this situation of paid editing. The only point of confusion I still have is how MywikiBiz "failed to live up to his end of the bargain". How so? --Earthboat 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It was something to do with how his articles were making it up on Wikipedia. I was much less involved with that situation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The FreeSwitch Debacle

JS: First thanks for more clearly explaining the Notability issues... it appears the talk page has been locked for new users so I apologize if this is the wrong location for this. I wanted to pass along this article http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061016.gtfrontlines16/BNStory/ another mention of FS while only in passing it does show that the media is aware of the project. Please advise if this is the type of thing you are looking for. --Silik0nJesus 09:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This would fall under "trivial" coverage... dosn't provide much in terms of establishing notability. Is in indicator that the busness might be on the cusp of reaching notability however. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Solar power

What a consensus of 1-0 isn't good enough? There are also the proponent and the author and if you count the author of the other version, all of whom abstained from voting, that still makes it 3-1. 199.125.109.41 19:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Gone with the Wind

I appreciate the concern you voiced in your message to me. I do take civility seriously; the nature of my messages, including the most recent, on the article's Talk page reflect my best judgment about how to effectively deal with this particularly clever troll. He has succeeded in luring several productive editors into squandering considerable amounts of time and energy. The nature of my comments was designed not only to affect his future behavior but to highlight that behavior in a memorable way for other editors who might be tempted to waste more time and energy dealing with him.—DCGeist 19:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

While I can appreciate the "tuff love" aspect of what you are doing, you run a very serious risk of looking like a dick. At some point incivility becomes disruptive to the smooth operations of wikipedia, and as you are aware, other then diplomacy there is only one tool available to admins to end a disruption. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And as I am not an admin, I have to apply a different decision-making process in deciding how to deal with the major disruption caused by this anonymous troll. Risking looking like a dick is intentionally part of the method I concluded would be most effective in this case. I was blocked a month and a half ago or so not for being a dick, but for completely losing my shit for particular circumstantial reasons--the reference is irrelevant to this case. Using the tools I have at hand (i.e., words and that's all), I have engaged in a focused, clear-headed response to a troll--a response that incorporates a measured amount of incivility--in order to address a serious case of disruption. I appreciate that you disagree with my judgment in this matter. I remain convinced for the time being that my judgment is correct. If you disagree strongly enough, then you should now move to have me blocked if you believe that's appropriate.—DCGeist 20:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion if I may ask about the Mutates

Since the section for Mutates is deemed unworthy of an article, would adding the Gargoyles Clone Clan be appropriate, since they are associated with The Mutates? 74.61.186.169 00:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost... not sure what your talking about. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In the Gargoyles Character section, they include entries on a Gargoyle Clan consisting of Clones. Those clones have strongly associate with the Mutates. So I was suggesting to move the Clone entries to the Mutate section to expand it. Would that be ok? 74.61.186.169 02:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you think Mutate (Gargoyles) needs to be deleted. It covers a particular group of characters. And character groups don't stike me as a violation of any rule. As the discussion on that page mentions, it would only make the List Of Gargoyles Characters too big in content. 71.115.192.199 07:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia to enter the waters of what is really more appropriate for a fan-site. I think a brief description in a larger list would be fine... And, in fact, the page does violate some of our rules. See WP:V and WP:OR. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The information happens to be vaild. It came from Greg Weisman's page Ask Greg, and if you can't trust the producers own words, then I feel for you. The problem is that some spammers were using the links to the site in their vandalisim resulting in wikipedia banning the links to said site. It seems to me that banning usage of a website just because some spammers messed up is a violation of the good faith policy. 71.115.192.199 19:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not that I don't trust the procurer... it's just that it doesn't satisfy our policies for citations and verifiability. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And how are we suppose to link to a website that's banned from use? Because that's where most of the controversal info came from. 71.115.192.199 19:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter... it's not the kind of content we should be including here anyway. It's much better suited to a fan-site or a guide of some kind. We need our articles to talk about the subjects in a way that deals with how they subject interacts with the real world and not try to summaries in-show events or storyline. Also, this conversation really should continue on the AFD debate page. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Content? Now you're making it out to be a porn site. I assure you, the banning of the site was due to a few spammers.

What bothers me about it is your comment on it: "I just don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia to enter the waters of what is really more appropriate for a fan-site." It seems to me that your reason for deletion is more a personal preference than for the good of Wikipedia. Not all of life's problems can be solved by deleting them.

Has anyone with higher authority suggested deletion of the site? 71.115.192.199 20:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not share your point of view in the deletion debate? My opinions are based on how I read policy and my opinions are in line with the majority on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See also our essay on fancruft, our guideline on how to write about fiction and our guideline on how to evaluate Notability. Once you have reviewed those essays and guidelines you'll see where I'm coming from with my nomination and you'll be able to make a more persuasive counter-argument at the deletion debate. However, I'm no longer going to engage in this conversation on my talk page... it is counter productive. Porn? What are you talking about? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Spamming a reliable source is still spamming

Re: [29]. This editor's behavior is clearly spam and is inappropriate per WP:SPAM and WP:NOT#LINK. Sorry if I wrote the report in a manner where it could be interpreted that the links are low-quality. --Ronz 16:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If the links improve the quality of our article then WP:SPAM should be ignored per WP:IAR. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess we disagree. More importantly, I don't see any evidence that 24.148.22.105 made any effort to increase the quality of the articles. His sole contribution to wikipedia is to add 22 britannica links to 22 different articles. --Ronz 20:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think Britannica has any need to spam wikipedia? Without that I'm left with assuming the user meant to be helpfull. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think employees of Britannica might spam Wikipedia, thinking that they'd benefit from doing so. Just look through COIN and WPSPAM to see the problem occurs regularly. --Ronz 22:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to test: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. test warning ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Playing with twinkle. Nice. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:209.254.12.73

Hi, regarding your earlier decline [30] to block User:209.254.12.73, why were the maintenance tag removals not obviously vandalism? As far as I can see, removing {{fact}} and {{originalresearch}} templates when they are clearly needed and nothing has been done to address the issues, while having been warned not to do so at least twice, is fairly unlikely to be anything else. What else could it be? I've had this exact problem before, with User:207.74.196.20 (who incidendally, despite being a from different area of the US, had identical editing habits as regards editing the same articles, most edits being altering link-piping, never using edit summaries, never editing his talk page, and of course a refusal to leave maintenance templates alone as well as appearing just seven days after the previous was blocked), and to be honest it bothers me a little that it's left to me to clean up after these people/this person when what they're doing is clearly vandalism. It took about three months to get him properly blocked last time due to being a shared IP, and I must have made a hundred reverts and/or manual re-inserting of templates over that period, not to mention sifting through all his edits to find them. To be honest I can't really be bothered to do all that again, but if I don't who will? He'll just carry on as before, due to rarely being reverted by any other editors. Sorry to go on a rant, but I hope you can see that this is an irritating situation for me. Miremare 21:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The two accounts you reported ("71.3.217.217" and "HavenBastion") has a total of three edits between them. What do you expect an admin to do with that? I looked though 209.254.12.73's recent edits and I see alot of good faith edits. Give me diffs because I'm not willing to any more fishing for you. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Damn it I've made an embarrasing mistake - it wasn't you who declined, and those users you mention weren't who I listed. I've obviously got confused with all the edits on the AIV page and complained to the wrong person for the wrong reason! Um... apologies for that, I'll go take my whining elsewhere and try to wake up a bit. :) Sorry again, cheers, Miremare 22:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, meh... lol... I didn't even look at who made that report. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed notice from noticeboards

Hi, with all due respect this user has done nothing but vandalize. I wish you would at least have told me you were going to do nothing as vandalism policy is not my specialty. I will now dutifully (and painstakingly) start to document all the vadndalism. thank you for your support in preventing vandalism. Benjiboi 16:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No one has attempted to make any kind of contact with the user. The messages on the talk pages, while certainly inappropriate, are not clear vandalism. If I were to see some kind of request to cease and then this behavior continuing then I would have no problem blocking. Feel free to bring it back to me if circumstances change. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Benjiboi 17:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

MediResource

User:MRI has recreated his spam at MediResource. I've listed it for AfD. Corvus cornix 21:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unhelpful edits to Microsoft

Hi J.smith, I'm retired, but I am just stopping by to apologize for the unhelpful additions I have made to the Microsoft article.(Which you removed here) I realize now that some of the content was not written in a neutral tone, and the other content was (apparently)unnessesary.(I replaced Paul Allen with Paul Gardner Allen, USA with United States of America, etc.) Please accept my apologies.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was a very long time ago. What prompted this apology? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just looked at this diffs/changes, and most(if not all) of those edits mine.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 16:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the apology. Thank you and good luck, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"rm {{db-author}} - please take to RFD"

In case you didn't notice I did that already. But since I realized that it can only be done once, I decided to use the speedy tag.

How am I gonna do that? I remember last time I tried to re-nominate it. TheBlazikenMaster 15:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

CSD should not be used as a way to bypass RFD. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You already explains that, but why are you advising me to take it to RFD if I already tried? I mean the edit summary you used, I don't get the second part. TheBlazikenMaster 23:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the edit summary before I saw you had taken it to RFD already. I don't have the ability to update old edit summaries - please accept that my most recent comments will always take precedence over earlier comments. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

why?

im confused you removed a photo and article about "the gray kid" i have his permission to use his image...i am confused i was trying to help the community and you deleted stuff i did not write and the article? please help me understand why you did what you did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aperture disaster (talk • contribs) 02:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Photos must be released under an appropriate license. "for non-profit use only" or "for wikipedia only" is not acceptable by wikipedia standards. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

but why did you delete the whole stub? That image is public domain. Anyway you can repost it without the image until we square away the legalities? -- sorry i am new and don't know how to sign ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aperture disaster (talk • contribs) 06:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know - I've deleted thousands of images&articles here on wikipedia. Can you give me the exact title of the article so I can take a look? I can always undelete it if it made a mistake. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it. ^{undelete link}. I deleted it because I felt that it satisfied the deletion criteria outlined in our "Criteria for speedy deletion:#7." That criteria says, in part:

"No indication of importance/significance. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources."

If you think I'm wrong, I'll be happy to undelete it and nominate it for our "Articles for deletion" procedure. That will give it 7 days and the community will decide if the article should be kept or not. Another option is that I can undelete it and move it into your user space so you can bring it up to standards. Up to you - let me know. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that for me, First off i don't think you are wrong. I think its a case of i am new and need to do my wiki homework. I'm not sure what to do, i am quite new... I would gladly take any suggestions.I just don't want this artist to loose an existing page because i added a image i think its unfair to other users, I just wanted a face to go with the name so i emailed the artist and he gave me that image for public domain - maybe i jumped the gun a bit before learning all the policies of wikipedia. It was not my intent to break the rules, I frequently use wiki to start when researching and would like to continue. Wikipedia has become a valuable tool for so many to learn and get a place to start from. Thank you for doing what you do i imagine its tedious going through that many images and articles. Again any suggestion would be appreciated--Aperture disaster (talk)(did i get the signature right?) —Preceding comment was added at 09:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No no... my deletion had nothing to do with the image. The best thing you can do now is start hitting the books - so to say. If you can find some news articles about "The Grey Kid" then those can be used to write a new and better article that won't end up being deleted. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

indef blocking of IP addresses...

Your indef blocking of those IP addresses is a little be concerning. Would you mind if I reduced them to a 1 week block with the same terms? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I have no problem claiming lack of experience when it comes to blocking IPs. For future reference, since this appears to not be a static address, what would you suggest to do about repeat evaders? - jc37 02:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Medium-term blocks to start with. 1 week to a month. Indef blocks of IP addresses a re a big no-no - especially since most internet users shift IP addresses on a semi-regular basis. I would never recommend blocking an IP for more then a year - and even then only in the most extreme cases of abuse. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Phil Lim

I can assure on my life that there's no Philippine Basketball Association player called Phil Lim. I suggest to re add {{db-bio}}. All contributions from Tapia 15 are all hoaxes. --Howard the Duck 03:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take your word for it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you also do the same for Krislam Junsay and Tomas Avancena? Thanks. --Howard the Duck 03:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing links

Please only remove links to articles deleted because of a lack of notability. If there is potential to create a good article on a topic, such as Perkins and Will, it is extremely useful to preserve the red links to encourage the creation of such an article. Warofdreams talk 00:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Block

Could you possibly look into blocking 205.158.148.67 he seems to be a severe repeat offender but has only been blocked once for a short time. Thanks Harland1 14:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That IP address is part of XO Communications. It's very likely part of a large pool of dynamically assigned IP addresses and blocking it would likely not impact the person vandalizing. In the future if you need a quick response to react to a vandal who is activity vandalizing I would recommend WP:AIV. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 11:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks will try WP:AIV in future, isn't this rather a weak point in the anti vandal defences? Is there any thing that can be done about stopping it at all? Sorry to bother you. Harland1 16:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it sure is. Not much can be done however... it's a week-point on the internet in general. Thankfully the volume is fairly low so the R and I of R,B,I apply. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Openwork

Hello Wondering why you deleted my entry on Openwork? It's the first time I've submitted anything to Wikipedia and may well have omitted some technical/formatting steps. If so could you please advise me on how to do this properly.

Assuming you deleted because of the content I would appreciate a response to the following: It was not written to promote Openwork and I don't believe it contravenes the Wikipedia terms and conditions. Currently, a search for 'Openwork' results in a link to a write-up on Allied Dunbar. Although there is a convoluted trail connecting Openwork with Allied Dunbar; the business model, majority of personnel and general industry environment is very much far removed from that heritage and therefore not relevant. Hence, I felt it only fair, and relevant, to submit a current and brief description of the Openwork entity. It's not written in an advertorial style, merely a factual description. Furthermore, I don't see how my entry can be considered advertising especially when compared with the extensive write-ups on other FS companies, such as Norwich Union. The NU write-up actually refers to a "novel type of auto insurance".... How does that not constitute blatant advertising?YomaBristol 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It looked like advertising. Can you find some independent sources to verify what is being said in the article? Newspaper articles, etc? I can undelete the page if we can find some sources for the article. Let me know, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:.Runewiki777/real secret page

Could you restore that page? It's my hidden page. I added an extra period to make it impossible to find using Special:Prefindex. Please. Could you? 76.15.75.198 19:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, im using my ip so people can't find my hidden page using my contibutions. Oh and I am user Runewiki777.

By using the page, the extra period makes it look like the page is under the userspace of "User:.Runewiki777". That account doesn't exist. Sorry, thats a violation of user-space policy. Why not edit articles instead of worrying about some silly game? I just had to remove huge chunks of LGBT movements in the United States as a violation of copyright policy and it would be really cool if someone could re-write those sections from scratch with reliable sources. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

LGBT movements

Left a question for you at WT:LGBT - thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

emial request...

{{helpme}} Hay... can someone send me an email? In an attempt to improve my personal email response time I've made some changes to how my g-mail accounts forward and I'd like to verify that it's working now. Thanks! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Per your request, I've sent you an email via Wikipedia. —— Ryan ^{(t)•(c)•(review me!)} 21:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, works fine! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome —— Ryan ^{(t)•(c)•(review me!)} 22:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Perkins and Will

There is a history only undeletion request here for an article that you deleted. Please consider responding to that request. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 16:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It was just advertising nonsense... what do you need it for? I have no problem undelete it for you, but I'm not sure I see the point. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I wrote an article on one of the buildings they designed, which is why I noticed the article's deletion. I was/am hoping to find enough content to write a decent (neutral/non-advertising/asserts notability/referenced) stub on them. As such, it'd be helpful to see what was there beforehand. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok done, User:Disavian/Perkins and Will. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you fix it to something worth using just move it back into article space. no problems. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

pinalta

Hello, You recently deleted my page pinalta. I would like to know what should i change to get it acepptable. Many thanks, Hugo Hugofg 19:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)hugofg

The article does not satisfy our inclusion requires. It falls under our criteria for speedy deletion "CSD A7". The article must explain why the subject is notable and provide evidence in the way of sources. Please see WP:N for more details on notability and WP:RS for more information on what kinds of sources are acceptable. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking

I see you are willing to unblock User:I already forgot based on his understanding of what he was was actually doing. I don't see that as a wise decision. Perhaps you would like to peruse yesterday's discussion on his 2nd evasion of his block where he clearly states his tactics are 'over the heads' of those who don't understand. Are you aware of his socks or his using socks during the same RfA which led him to the block? Did you contact the blocking admin about undoing this action? the_undertow ^talk 00:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Request

Would you take a look at Sylvin Rubinstein? I originally speedied it for copyvio - specifically this version (which has the speedy tag on it). I had a discussion (User_talk:DGG#Sylvin_Rubinstein) about the copy-vioness of it (and on the articles talk page. Having now had our (unfortunate) experience [ :) ] with the LGBT history article, should the Rubinstein article be deleted? It remains waay too close to the original for my tastes, but would love to hear your input. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a case of "delete and recreate". Sorry. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually okay with delete - I'm not all that sure he's notable to begin with. Should I put another speedy tag on it? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My block of Stefano

I have no problem with you reviewing my blocking actions, and I won't be offended if you disagree. But, you should be aware, that this editor has a very long history of incivility and contentious editing, and as you can see from this, there is an ArbCom case against him, and they are proposing a year's ban. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm more then likley to deny the unblock request at this point. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you didn't realize this, but your comment to Stefano asking him if he's heard of the Italian Wikipeida probably will be seen by him as trying to rub salt into a wound, as he's been banned from it.wiki for the same uncivil and boorish attitudes that he's showing here. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Much worse, the starting debate which lead to his infinite ban on it.wiki was on his poor sources and his continuous activity of doing original researches by comparing planes and deriving original conclusions often leading to moot points. Just as an example, his new g.91 attempted post is mainly based on two popular magazines. Some of their data are in contrast with those one of my books from Italian Air Force museum has, mainly on range. As you can imagine, original works plus unreliable starting data can lead to arguable results. Unfortunately, anyone who tries to discuss with him his points and his source reliability will face attacks and angrily responses, in some cases ending with direct insults of "apalling(sic) incompetence" or worse. --EH101 13:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Grazon

FYI: RfC: Grazon —SlamDiego_←T 09:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info... You have no idea how tired I am of that guy poping up over and over. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for supporting My RfA. Unfortunately, things didn't quite go well, and it was closed rather early. There were a couple of recent issues raised by some other editors that I think it's best to put a bit of time between. But I don't plan to go anywhere; most of the things I do on wikipedia really don't require any special powers anyway, so it's not that big of a deal (having the powers would've made things easier, though). I'll probably try again sometime in the spring. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that. My watchlist is pretty small, so in order to respond to this I need an example. If you know of a diff, please email me. Cheers Geometry guy 21:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an examples... I was only passing on a warning someone sent to OTRS. I thought you might want to pass it on to others you trusted in math and science related projects. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit

Hi J.Smith, as you commented and requested here [31], a consensus has been reached for the edit and no objections made. Since it's been about 10 days, I replaced the edit request. Thanks in advance. Buzybeez (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, cool. I'll look into it. Oh, please don't use reference tags on my talk page... I don't have a <reference /> section so they never resolve into anything useful. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, J. That was nice of you to take the time for the edit request. Really appreciate it. Sorry about the reference tag, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so still learning the formatting functions. Thanks again. Buzybeez (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Perkins and Will

I did not write the Perkins and Will article, but I have linked to it a number of times. I believe that the Perkins and Will firm has been one of the leading Chicago architectural firms for a half-century, and it meets the notability requirements. Phil Will, one of the two co-founders, designed a number of buildings on the Cornell University Campus. It has designed a number of the most prominent skyscrapers in Chicago, and through mergers, it has grown into a large international firm. (I don't work for them and am not shilling for them.) Please review: http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/Architecture/6/1306/Perkins_and_Will/Architect.php http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/Architecture/6/2390/Perkins_Will/Architect.php http://www.artic.edu/aic/libraries/caohp/perkins.html

Please consider undeleting this article. If necessary, lets submit it for review. Thank you for your anti-spam work, and for your reconsideration of this article.

If you feel the article needs editing to make it less "spammy," I am willing to help. Racepacket (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've already restored this article for someone to work on... you can find it here: User:Disavian/Perkins_and_Will. You might want to get with them to discuss how to improve the article. Whenever you feel it's ready for main space just move it back to it's original name. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Nothing florid, nothing fancy. Just thanks for the support. I'll try to wield the Mop-and-Bucket with grace and humility. --Orange Mike 04:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Needs assistance

Hi, I see you were involved in the blocking of User:Beh-nam not too long ago, I request that he be blocked indef again due to his disruptive behaviour who is and has been vandalising pages after pages of national leaders by falesly inserting that they were child molestor, slave owner, facists, etc.[32], [33] He's been vandalising Pashtun people and many other articles for a very long time.[34], [35], [36]

He keeps removing the official government website from Afghanistan/Hamid Karzai article [37] and usually placing over it anti-Afghanistan blog sites, this after an administrator (Future Perfect at Sunrise) has warned not to mess with again. [38], [39] If anyone adds images of popular Pashtun leaders in the Pashtun article he will revert the page right away, probably that he does not want Pashtuns to appear good in the eyes of others. He is ethnic Tajik, a Persian nationalist, and anti-Pashtun or Afghan as well as anti-Turk.[40] He has an unusual extended block history which includes 2 indefs for which he was allowed back on condition to stop harrassing or personally attacking another ethnic group.[41]

Same as all other vandals, he will never change and will continue with vandalising pages by writing all sorts of untrue things about leaders who are not from his ethnic group. He reverts everyone who fixes his vandalism without explaining anything.[42] Beh-nam is working closely with a banned User:Tajik (who is hiding under anon IPs that start with 82.xx.xxx.xxx which is confirmed by several admins including User:Dmcdevit‎ [43]) [44], [45], [46], and has User:Anoshirawan as his edit-war partner. He and his edit-war partner are going around changing the correct name Afghan (which is backed by the Constitution of Afghanistan, CIA world factbook, as well as all the government and media sites of the world) to a false afghanistani name simply because they like it. There is nothing that can be said to justify his actions, even if it comes from an administrator who knows him. Please ban this user indef so that the rest of us can have peace and finally fix all their vandalism slowly. I'm new so I don't know what to do.--Hurooz (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already directed this editor to WP:RFC after I removed his report to WP:AIV. cheers ^Khukri 17:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be moved to ANI. This isn't as obvious of a case that Hurooz makes it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Official thanks, slightly delayed due to post-RfA crash (who knew?)

Tapadh Leibh (Thank You)...

...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.

I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.

If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me.

If you hate RfA thankspam, please forgive me. I promise I won't block you in retaliation for deleting it ;-)

And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?

Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)

Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫
This RfA thanks inspired by Neranei's, which was inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.

Good luck Kathryn NicDhàna with the new mop. If you need anything from me, please let me know. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Question in regards to an edit you did

I am the President of the NLA-I (National Leather Association International) and I worked very hard on putting information on the page that exists in your Encyclopedia. I just looked at it again and you have removed all of my edits. I assure you that the information was absolutely correct. Is there a reason why you removed it? I admit I am not familiar with Wikipedia usage but I did research the rules on the site. Can you give me some insight on your reasons for edits. I want the information updated but I am not going to do it all over again only to have you remove it once more for a policy reason.

Thanks for the help, You can email me at kcexodus@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcexodus (talk • contribs) 04:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Derby Owners Club

J Smith -

Thanks for your dilligent assistance in removing spam from the Derby Owners Club page in Wiki. I am an administrator of a site dedicated to this game http://doc.rbcb.net. A couple of former members of our site decided a few months ago that it would be "fun" to continuously vandalise this page here, and one of them has lodged complaints against me as well. I have tried somewhat to keep the page clean, but do not know much about Wiki protocol. At any rate I wanted to say thanks for the help.

Jwpitts3 09:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to OTRS & undisclosed content, complainant, text or rationale, for USA PATRIOT Act

The article USA PATRIOT Act has been reduced in size from 219K to more or less 144K, by pushing the history of the law into a separate article USA PATRIOT Act history. This should satisfy your interest on the size of the article for now.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Loudounrides image

Thanks for clarifying. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Anna Slotky bday

Dear J.smith, thank you for editing the correct birthday on the article Anna Slotky. I assume it might be in relationship to an email which she sent to wikipedia indicating that the 1979 date is incorrect. It didn't take long, but the same anon IP has again edited the article back to the 1979 date. Previously the article was semi-protected for a week. That ended today and the date was changed the same day. I am not sure what the next step is. Bstone (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Economiccrimesunit

I seem to be playing catch up on this on. I reported his name to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention where it was declined and recommended to be sent to WP:RFCN. When I reported it there I went back to his talk page to notify him and saw the discussion there and that he had already been reported over at WP:ANI. So I deleted my enter at WP:RFCN, had some dinner and came back to see people had already weighed in. Seems it is being taken care of now. Time for dessert. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 01:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete Patrick Naughton?

Hi. Why did you delete Patrick Naughton? I cannot see why anyone would consider one of the creators of Java to be of "minor notability". What were the privacy concerns? RussNelson (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In cases where notability is very borderline I try to give the benefit of the doubt to the subject's requests. Being involved with a notable subject doesn't necessarily impart notability. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Money Merge Account

I take issue with your deletion of this topic... the topic was created specifically to provide unbiased and factual definition / information in the public domain about a financial fraud scheme... in general "merge accounts" and specifically "money merge account". The topic while not perfectly written, was factually correct and cited with references spanning multiple countries and continents.

There was repeted vandalism of the topic, (full and partial blanking) in an attempt to convert to advirtising by salesmen of theses schemes... however, that is not a valid reason for deletion! (rather it is reason to undo the vandalism and evidence that the topic is contemporaneous).

It seems from your contribution list that your are a frequent deleter, however I believe that you have erred in this instance, and that your stated rationalle (below) shows that you didn't understand the topic.

"20:02, 14 December 2007 J.smith (Talk | contribs) deleted "Money Merge Account" ‎ (CSD G11: Blatant advertising: ==Description== Most homeowners realize they will pay about twice the purchase price of their home on a traditional mortgage—a mortgage that will take about 30 years to pay off. The Money) "

Please undo your deletion. If you wish to contribute in a constructive manner, I suggest that you can work to prevent the vandalism of this topic "money merge account", and in general prevent the removal of valid information from the public domain. Economic Crimes Unit (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

my apologies... it was Uncle G whom is the serial deleter, not you. However, there unjustified deletion is still at issue.

"23:04, 23 March 2007 Uncle G (Talk | contribs) deleted "Money Merge Account" ‎ (Blantant advertising for a product, written in the first person and addressing the reader in the second person)

Economic Crimes Unit (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm actually the most recent person to have deleted the page. You can check this in the deletion log if you wish.

I have several reasons for wanting to delete that article. First of all, half of the time it was up it looked like a sales brochure. The other half of the time it was full of unsourced accusations. Neither situation is within our policies. The other major reason why is that this product doesn't seem to satisfy our criteria for inclusion - mainly notability. There doesn't seem to be any kind of secondary media coverage of the product nor does the company offering the product have an article on wikipedia either.

I understand your concern... warning people about an issue that is important to you - however, wikipedia is not really a good venue for this kind of information. We are constrained by the expression "verifiability, not truth". You can read more about this here: Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you wish to appeal my deletion further, you can do so at the Deletion review page. A group of editors will evaluate my decision and decide if it was correct or not. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So, repeated vandalism by blanking or disruptive edits truning pages into blatant advirtisement, is a reason for deletion? That seems completely non-sensical!

Rather, it is both prima facia evidence of contemporaneous content that that is "notable". Further, secondary media coverage was included, specifically: references to bankrate.com, The Miami Herald, Yahoo Finance, Australian securities comission, trade magazines, various financial blogs, and estemmed professors of finance... all been included (though a few had been lost to vandals actions). If you had wished to edit the content and inprove the tone of the article, then as you know you were free to do so.

I also disagree with your after the fact justifications as factually FALSE. I have diligently worked to undo repeated vandalism... and as I monitor the page, I know that 95% of the time it was independand, fair, and encyclopedic.

If you don't want to admit you made a hasty or thoughtless mistake, then fine... but don't make it worse rationalizing after the fact. Simply say, mea culpa, but that you have no intention of undoing the effective vandalism that you did! Congratulations with this administrator's help Vandals 1 : Wikipedia and people everywhere 0.

Economic Crimes Unit (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't try to make this personal. Lets keep this discussion civil, per wikipedia's policies. Also, I would appreciate it if you didn't create straw men out of my points.

All of the sources I see referenced in that document (on a version dated 14 December 2007, before someone turned it into a sales brosure) are either non reliable sources of information (See WP:RS) or reference to "mortgage acceleration" in general. Like I said, the company that sells the product, United First Financial, doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. Like I said, if you wish to have others evaluate my decision then there is a venue that provides that function on a regular basis. As I see it right now deleting the article was the best solution for Wikipedia.

Before you peruse this further, I would like to encourage you to peruse our policies a bit... especially Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thank you, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you concern is NOW source validity... then that's fine, and I agree legitimate to some extent. However, this is now reason #3 or #4... in series. If that was your origional concern, then I believe you should have addressed that to start, rather than the comments that you made perviously.

And, I will add it was you who first made the personal comments, acquisng me of making threats! (which is false) Those are fighting words!... and that is extremely uncivil and personally attacking. I will read civil and perhaps you should read it as well civil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Economiccrimesunit (talk • contribs) 18:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

funny how it is specifically stated in Civility item #4 that it is Un-Civil to make "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (cite as WP:ICA)". I am guilty myself a bit, I admit an apologise. Are you willing to do the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Economiccrimesunit (talk • contribs) 18:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear that the issue is whether an article that is verifiable and not original research can exist here. Since those are intentionally not speedy deletion criteria, being the sorts of things that one pair of eyes is not enough to determine, and can only be safely determined at AFD, I suggest that I undelete the article, restore the most recent version by I80and (talk · contribs), and take it through AFD.

Economiccrimesunit makes a good point. The speedy deletion notices do remind us to check articles' histories before speedily deleting things. The fact that articles could otherwise be speedily deleted after being scribbled over by a vandal is exactly why that reminder has been present in one form or another for several years. So let's just use the correct process and run this through AFD, so that many pairs of eyes get to look at the verifiability and original research issues and discuss the sources cited. Uncle G (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncle G, there is an OTRS ticket involved as well. I think DRV would be the best option as the article can be reviewed in that venue without the necessity of having to restore it. However, if you feel AFD would be the best option, then do so.

Economiccrimesunit, Is it impossible to have more then one reason to take an action? I mentioned my two justifications in my very first reply: Neutrality and Verifiability. I feel at this point it would not be productive to continue to discuss this with you directly. I would like to have a discussion about the article and it's contents and you keep attacking me personally. Feel free to take this to DRV or wait for Uncle G to restore and AFD it. My actions are not irrevocable and my peers will judge them. Either way, I won't respond to you on this talk page further. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

J.Smith you started the uncivil acqusitations and name calling... feigning elsewise is transparent, and does no one any good. Also, your deletion comment makes no reference to the either of the 2 comments above... you stated "blatant advirtising" and some gibberish about "Most homeowners realize they will pay about twice the purchase price of their home on a traditional mortgage—a mortgage that will take about 30 years to pay off. The Money" I personally think both of these comments show you made a hasty decision, based on incomplete understanding. If you are willing to admit that, then debating the merrits of the issue, as you should have first done instead of deleting the entire topoc, would be constructive and lead to better content on wikipedia. I am open to a legitimate honest reposeful discussion, on the merits, if you first drop the bs. Endogenous Pillar of Babel (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Rose Whipperr

Hi, this might seem a bit random, but this article doesn't seem to be notable. I'm only asking you this, because you edited the article back in 2006. Vilaskes (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. I just reverted some vandalism. Might want to send to AFD? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia

Hi. Please do not delete whole sections of an article or works in an article without checking over the history of the article on talk pages. There has been much debate over this article and its boy counterpart where most of the discussion is. Tony (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Tony

When you have had a chance to review the talk pages of this article, you may well conclude that your deletions are completely appropriate. Indeed, it is not inconceivable that you will come to the conclusion that the entire article should be reviewed again for possible deletion. A number of us think it is a hopeless mess, as currently conceived and organized. Thanks for taking an interest in an article that has been problematic for some time! SocJan (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just copied the Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse in Fiction article to a sandbox at my user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SocJan/Sandbox , giving it a new title along the lines that have been suggested and a far less POV introduction. Have a look, see what you think. I have removed only a bit of the annotations, so it still remains technically very OR. Feel free to attack it further; that's what sandboxes are for.  :) SocJan (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

W. Thomas Smith

I've restored deleted information from this post under "Beirut controversy" which you removed because there was no source. I've now provided the sourcing. Also, the author of the Huffington Post article where this information is found is Thomas B. Edsall, a professor at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. I've added that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickydell (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for finding a source. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure

Looking good so far. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 17:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Openserving

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Openserving, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Openserving. Argyriou (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Openserving

An editor has nominated Openserving, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Openserving and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tom Clancy - Rainbow Six cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tom Clancy - Rainbow Six cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tom Clancy - The Teeth of the Tiger cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tom Clancy - The Teeth of the Tiger cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse

Have you been aware of the existence of this recently-created page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_books_featuring_pedophilia which duplicates much of the content of a page you have shown some interest in editing? SocJan (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tom Clancy - Rainbow Six cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tom Clancy - Rainbow Six cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Brieferhistoryoftime-cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brieferhistoryoftime-cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Aleister Crowley - The Equinox of the Gods cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Aleister Crowley - The Equinox of the Gods cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Query: Triberocker

I requested a checkuser on Triberocker. The outcome was “likely”. But I see no indication from his blocklog or from his talk page that action has been taken. I read on RfC that “In most cases, any block or other action based on the outcome will not be taken by the checkuser-people or the clerks. Instead, you will have to do this yourself.” but I'm not an admin.

Whom or what should I contact to seek some further administrative action?

(I queried Metros, since he'd had previous dealings with Triberocker; but Metros seems to have become inactive just before my query.) —SlamDiego_←T 22:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Looks as if you're inactive too. Okay. I'll take this elsewhere. —SlamDiego_←T 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

YouTube links

Ah...I was about to post over at VPP, but I see a comment of yours on the ASIMO talk page that indicates you may be able to answer my question. I've looked all over the place for guidance on when to yank YouTube links, my opinion is roughly: "Does anyone think that we should use a video for something that could be just as well demonstrated with 1-3 images? Images are a lot easier to patrol, are less likely to be used to advertise, are a lot more "encyclopedic", and lower bandwidth at both ends. I am planning on bringing up the discussion for any article I patrol where people have posted links to YouTube video that have been deleted for being promotional." - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I just ran into that Dank55 guy a couple days ago, small cyber-world huh? I saw you post saying "99% of youtube videos should be deleted." Really? I mean it makes sense that for the most part YouTube links are terribly unencyclopedic, but I mean if it's the official YouTube account of the person/band or whatever and the video portrays something being described in the article, it would be useful to have the link. I'm not sure I could argue encyclopedic, but as far as being useful as to the reason someone is reading the article in the first place. Is there some giant YouTube link removal going on? I would support that, but are there debated criteria for it posted somewhere? Leopold Stotch (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

John R. Allen

Hello, I see you deleted the article for John R. Allen. I believe that was an article for the US Marine Corps brigadier general John R. Allen, and as far as I can tell, Wikipedia generally hosts articles for flag officers and I think that general tendency is a good idea for a few reasons. First, as a general rule, I think it is very useful for current events and journalism to have standing records of flag officers as they're almost by definition in policy-making positions. Secondly, since virtually all flag officers are in positions that could have historical significance, it seems useful to keep their records at least beyond the 25 year sunshine law on classified information, so at least 25 years beyond their retirement. Third, it breaks a number of lineage strings that Wikipedia maintains. For example, at the bottom of Admiral Charles J. Leidig's page, we see he was the Commandant of Midshipmen, and he was preceded by John R. Allen, and followed by Bruce E. Grooms. But General Allen's bio is missing, so we can't follow the thread backward to find who preceded *him*, and whoever preceded that person, and so on. His bio is in the public domain, and I could at least write a shell of one myself, as I used to work for him, and Admiral Leidig, and Captain Grooms. What was your basis for deleting this article? Niels Olson (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

By the by, I'm somewhat suspicious of the stated CSD basis for deletion, because I'm pretty sure I've looked up his page and found it before, when I was working for him. Has the page been deleted multiple times or was that an erroneous CSD?Niels Olson (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Turnerzworld??

Hello You deleted my page Turnerzworld. How is this blatant advertising, it was a legit article on a legit company?? 60.238.75.14 (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolution near (?) on how to entitle Tony Sandel's lists

Please visit Talk:List_of_works_portraying_adult_attraction_to_young_males#Requested_move, on a discussion page to which you have contributed. The article's principal author has accepted a proposal for a new title that may put to rest objections dating back to late 2006. Your input in the next few days could help establish a consensus. SocJan (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

LongPen

I see you deleted the longpen article. I was wondering why, and what i can do to avoid such deletion in the article i wish to write. You cited blantent advertising as your reason, which is unlikely due to Unotchit (the makers of longpen) not having a version for sale yet, and units that are available have huge costs, and anyone who would be learning about it on wiki would not be the type of person interested in ordering a unit. I say this assuming the previous author was an employee of unotchit, which is doubtful for the previous reasons.

please advise on things to avoid when writing on this subject. thanks, Jean-Pierre Jepetto (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Threadleaf giant hyssop

I just created an article about this plant and included your photograph. Thanks! --Xiaphias (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Needs Deletion

Can you check out Mark Mcguire? I think this page needs to be deleted. It's history reveals that it serves no real purpose. Thanks a bunch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.64.224 (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a redirect, and I fixed it so it again is a redirect. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-visit CarMax page?

Hello, you dropped by the CarMax page last summer and commented on some unsourced information. Can you please swing back by and remove what you feel is subjective or too "insider-ish"? I don't work there, but I am very familiar with the company. A lot of this content seems irrelevant and not in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I've tried removing it but an employee user keeps adding it back. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.188.70 (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a large whack at it, but a second review would be welcomed. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Gogo Dodo

Hey,could you please help me?The User:Gogo Dodo recently deleted an article regarding supermodel/songwriter Amber Rives as it was badly written and contained false information,they have now protected the article for the last several weeks and someone,such as myself,who would like to add information about her cannot do so.Are they allowed to do that?Asia'h E (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel that your misrepresenting your case to me. I'm sure your aware of... Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amber_Rives... since you responded to the AFD. The article wasn't deleted because it was full of "false information" - it was deleted because there was no indication why that article would pass our notability guidelines. You can read more about the speedy deletion proceadure here: WP:CSD. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ss palaceattack.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ss palaceattack.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete away - the article that this image was for has been deleted for some time. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm Sure that It's Grazon

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grazon#Grazon 5 —SlamDiego_←T 11:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Thatcher has said that the final determination is to be behavioral, I have submitted Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Grazon. —SlamDiego_←T 11:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Roger Miret

Hey J.S.
During a bit of anti-vandal patrolling last week I had cause to trim out a load of junk from Roger Miret. So much junk, in fact, that I was almost at a loss for what was rubbish and what wasn't. It appears that over the weekend you were tasked to kill the page altogether. Seems fine to me (although if you could give me details of the request that would be useful (on a purely nosey basis)), however the page has since been recreated and the same two editors are having a field day with it. I'm cautious to begin trimming out crap again if the page just needs deleting, so thought I'd have a chat with you as you obviously have had dealings with this in the past. The main question is; kill (again) or cure (if that's possible)?
Cheers
OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 12:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem - thanks for helping. Someone claiming relation to Roger e-mailed us to compin about outright falsehoods in the article. When I checked it out I noticed that the article was little better then nonsense and was entirely unsourced. Since really nothing was salvageable deleted it. A good article on this person is likley posible, but it would require some actual sources instead of nonsense. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. I'm really not in a position to rewrite this (not really knowing the subject), but I can certainly tell nonsense when I see it. I've not had much experience of actually deleting articles and don't really want to blank the page unless there's a better way of doing it... but at the moment a small group of editors are piling that article space full of rubbish. This is really where my editing experience runs out, so can I ask what you think is a good plan for this? AFD it? OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 09:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice! Thanks for doing that. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 07:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Btw, the uncanny prediction in your note to User:StevenGiovanni came true. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 13:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it happen too many times. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

UAA report

That won't be necessary. If you don't think its problematic then I won't contest it. I'll admit that when I first saw it, I thought of GODLOVESYOU plus a few extra characters. I would have found that more disruptive. Thank you for notifying me. — _Maggot^Syn 03:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

May contain nuts

No where near as funny as your The Truth, but does it deserve to be deleted? -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I just speedily deleted the inappropriate redirect, but I will not involve myself with the MFD discussion that it taking place. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Lenovo battery

Thanks for your response regarding my battery question. Do you think about a year a half would be the useful life of the battery? I hope not--but at least then we would know whether it's old vs. defective. Thanks for all your help. (Please reply on your page...I'll check back here). --24.211.242.80 (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen batteries fail in a year. I've also seen them last much longer... it depends on how much use it gets. If you check the warranty on the battery, add a few months you will get a good guess on it's minimum lifespan. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all your help. Actually the batter seems to be improving :) --24.211.242.80 (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Stick it in the freezer for a few hours. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Micronations/Micronation convention

Do you know of any place where this can be seen by a larger field of people? Thanks ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 09:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the village pump would be an excellent choice. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My user page

I noticed you altered the protection of my page regarding something "offsite". Can I ask what this was or is it admin only business? As I'm sure your aware me and my work has been attacked all day and now people are making accounts after me User talk:Realist2hasaids. — Realist² 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently so, today has been totally wasted, I planned to do a lot of work, instead I have a headache. — Realist² 19:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, will do. — Realist² 19:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Diary of a Camper

Heya, you might have missed it, but this is today's Featured Article. I don't think the vandalism here is intensive enough to warrant a semi on it. I've reverted to the move protection. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that. Thanks. I was just responding to some off-site problems. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection request

I'm still under attack, could you protect my sandbox please, I'm trying to use it in peace. User:Realist2/sandbox and the sandbox talk page (I use both as sandboxes) — Realist² 19:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me too it. Sorry I wasn't as quick. :D ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Regarding your post. I'm afraid you have a misconception as to what's really going on here. A simple glance at the talk pages of the two articles being messed up by the meatpuppets reveal a fanatical, single minded racist and revisionist invective that is characteristic of the adherents of militant Khalistani terrorism (the same people who carried out the most vicious terrorist attack prior to 9/11. The essay WP:TIGERS clearly explains the conduct in this case. It is not expected that any meaningful debate will occur, and legitimate editors are not required to collaborate or concede to fanatics anymore than editors of Nazism are expected to concede to Nazis. These extremists want to "promote the truth", but wp is not about the truth. it's about representing scholarly consensus views on the subjects of the article, which these terrorists are not interested in doing.Goingoveredge (talk) 06:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Add: I see that a similar Sikh militant revisionist campaign was underway in Chittisinghpura massacre [47] and it was handled unceremoniously by well-established editors (the Sikh trolls were swiftly banned and the article kept at the reliable version). A similar situation is required here. Racist trolls who hatemonger in talk pages] are not productive editors who should be swiftly banned.Goingoveredge (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You are expected to not conduct edit/revert wars to push the issue. Engage the usual chain of dispute resolution and don't disrupt the wiki with your antics. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Rep

Seems like my message was not clear. What I contested was the way of handling the situation, being rude is just sidenote that comes along. Indiscriminate blocking of all accounts without much research of issue at hand is not very helpful for wikiepedia. I should have been blocked if I was continuing reverts without discussion. I did not do that. In fact, if you note the time the issue was brought to the admins noticeboard, user: Goingoveredge's revert was left intact by me. Additionally, that editor was invited to have discussion multiple times via his userpage and on the discussion page of the article. Why ban me then? Does reporting "edit wars" automatically include the reporter for block? I don't think this is wikipedia policy.

You can note that user: Goingoveredge is still continuing reverts unabated and without discussion. There seems to be 2 sock-puppet accounts created for this purpose yesterday by this editor that need further investigation.

Cheers, --Roadahead (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

user: Goingoveredge once again

Since you are somewhat aquainted with the editing of this user I thought to bring it to your notice his continued stubborn approach. Please check here: [[48]]. --Roadahead (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by Goingoveredge, Kindly Help.

This is regarding Goingoveredge's Vandalism in Khalistan movement and Hinduism and Islam

Respected sir/Madam, this editor do not care for any Wiki rules, normal ethics, he has deleted other editor's complaints from his own talk page to hide his acts from the greater Wikipedia community. You had even blocked him once.

This user is continuously deleting wikipedia Temples (Deletion 1), (Deletion 2) while ruthlessly avoiding all my requests to see an ADMINISTRATOR.

Please note that I did not add the text in question, and I did not add the teplate in question either. I had even started a discussion to resolve edit war between respected Wiki users User: Tripping Nambiar and User: Singh6. This discussion helped as well, but now this user Goingoveredge, has jumped in with ruthless edits and he is not willing to participate in any discussion either.

Kindly pay your attention and stop Goingoveredge from doing vandalism, I am simply trying to protect wiki rules. --Beetle CT (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read this post by an admin regarding this matter[49][50] to give you an idea as to the lunatic trolling practiced by these guys.Goingoveredge (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This matter has got nothing to do with the post being highlighted by Goingoveredge where I have endorsed some other user's views, Kindly check even few of my edits+edit summaries and Goingoveredge's ruthless edits. Kindly assist.--Beetle CT (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Goingoveredge has again deleted a wikipedia template without getting help from wiki administrators. Kindly protect wiki rules--Beetle CT (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC filed with user: Goingoveredge in subject

J.smith, you were involved in blocking user: Goingoveredge for edit wars and then later warning him on his non-constructive and name-calling edit-comments Here and Here, but he still continued it with un-constructive name calling comments here and deleting messages left on his talkpage here. This user still continues his edit-wars and does not participate in discussions constructively, therefore, an RFC has been filed HERE. Since you have earlier experience with this editor, you are requested to provide your feedback on RFC page to arrive at consensus. --Roadahead (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 18 Fingers of Death!

An article that you have been involved in editing, 18 Fingers of Death!, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/18 Fingers of Death!. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Schuym1 (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject California roll call

Hello from WikiProject California!

As part of a recent update to our project main page we are conducting a roll call to check which members are still active and interested in working on California related content. If you are still interested in participating, simply move your username from the inactive section of the participant list to the active section. I hope you will find the redesigned project pages helpful, and I wanted to welcome you back to the project. If you want you can take a look at the newly redesigned:

• Main Page
  
• Talk page
  
• Cleanup listing
  
• Template list
  

As well as the existing pages:

• Assessment
  
• Article Worklist
  
• Deletion sorting
  

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, and add it to your watchlist, if it isn't already.

Again, hi! Optigan13 (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OSS

Then why did he (and the USPTO) tell me otherwise? *shakes head* Whatever. OK....since everyone is on a deletion kick this weekend, let's stop and think. Couldn't just changing the F-URs make everyone happy? Easier than deleting and having to reload the pictures with new F-URs? - NeutralHomer • Talk 18:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

...and obviously Wikipedia has, once again, deleted something without first thinking about it. Second time this weekend....sad. - NeutralHomer • Talk 18:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand and I owe you an apology. The whole Nielsen/OTRS thing has me a little upset and I snipped at you. That was uncalled for and I am sorry.

Would it be possible to use this patch instead until we can find something that is owned by the US Gov't? - NeutralHomer • Talk 18:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies and clarification

A huge oops about my resistance to your note about the GNU license note on my talk page. There are three images already in the article from a different source. After I signed the release to the SFPL and sent it back to them I have not heard from them again - yours was the first indication that they had submitted it.

SO - I feel like a prat, and I apologize. However, there were three images associated with the SFPL. I was planning to download them from this site, and the ones I wanted were the first (Harvey Milk in 1957), the ninth (Harvey Milk in front of Castro Camera in 1973), and the tenth (San Francisco Gay Freedom Day 1976). So now is the time to get creative. I either need to re-license the photos as free due to the subject and photographer as dead, or ask the SFPL to rewrite their release. Which would be easier to do, and would pass through Featured Article Candidacy? --Moni3 (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Ancient computer...ancient games

What sort of Linux games could I run on my computer? --AtTheAbyss (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Each distro comes with a bunch of them... but just do a Google search for "Open source game +linux" and you'll have more then you can handle. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks bro I'll check 'em out when I have the chance. I owe ya one. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Hoser

Hi there, I've found some peer-reviewed publications that discuss Hoser's work. Could you take another look at the article and the AfD discussion? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright

A discussion came up of using this image on the article Barack Obama. I do not happen to advocate the usage (on purely aesthetic/informational grounds), nor does a consensus, or even majority, on the article talk favor it. So what happens with the specific image is basically moot.

However, in the course of the discussion, User:Bobblehead claimed that the image was a copyright violation. Looking at image page, I see three things of note: (1) The image is claimed to be PD-USGov-Congress; (2) Someone (probably Bobblehead while not logged in to the commons) put a Speedy-Delete tag there today; (3) The image has been at the commons, not removed, since April 1, 2008.

In the discussion, Bobblehead claimed that this image was deleted by WP:OTRS ticket 2007041810014021, and that you were the deleting editor. It's hard to get any information about these details out of that editor, for some reason. In particular, I'm very curious about how I might discover what actually happened with the image and how this outcome was determined. Well, also why the image has been where it is if it was actually deleted a year ago (I suppose someone could have uploaded it a second time).

My interest in this particular image is fairly academic, since as I say, it will not be used in the near future either way. But at the same time, I had have very frustrating past experiences with images being deleted over the years. I know the copyright concerns have become accentuated in the last 2-3 years, and I've uploaded images over a considerably longer period. In particular, it's a bit hair-pulling when images that I created myself, and released as PD or GFDL, are deleted because of alleged copyright violation. In several cases this has happened, and nothing I can seem to do on the image page seems to prevent or slow the deletion process. I guess there's some secret mojo of finding exactly the right copyright template and description to prevent overzealous deletions... but what it is is non-obvious. Likewise for some additional images that were not self-created, but were still obvious fair use in the way they were used.

I'm venting my frustration a bit. I do not think you have any involvement in any of the deletions that I've been disturbed by. And I'm also not trying to revisit some other specific image that was annoyingly deleted. I am hoping that you might give me some small insight into how the heck a regular (long-term, frequent) editor can even figure out what the process for image deletion is, and how one can possibly demonstrate appropriate license or fair use. LotLE×talk 00:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That ticket was from April 18, 2007. Someone e-mailed us claiming to own the copyrights to a particular image. I removed the image from the article with this edit. The image was named Image:SenatorBarackObama.jpg at the time. I do not recall exactly what that image looked like, but the image description information page had no information about the source. Since I had no information to the contrary I took the e-mailer's word on it. The same person replied to my e-mail claiming that the image we used to replace it Image:Barack_Obama_portrait_2005.jpg was also his. Volunteer Nv8200p responded to that ticket and deleted that image as well. Looking back at that history, there was simply a PD-tag with no source information.

The image in question, Image:BarackObamaportrait.jpg documents the source adequately. It is possible that the image is not in the public domain, it seems unlikley. I just tried to call the Obama offices, but they are apparently not open this late. Tomorrow, during regular business hours give the press office a call. Ask them if the picture is public domain. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

According to your comment here, you have already contacted Obama's people and confirmed the photographer's ownership. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm.. I'll call them again anyway, just to make sure the situation hasn't changed. I didn't recall that I had spoken with them already. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do. It's a fairly decent image that used to be the lead image on the article and I wouldn't mind seeing it being used somewhere on WP. The main reason I remember the ownership claim was because when that image disappeared as the lead image there was a minor edit war over its replacement. I also wouldn't expect you to remember all of the details about the image.. I'm sure you work quite a few OTRS tickets and this was just another one in your queue. Could you update the OTRS ticket with the result of your contact of Obama's people? My editing on WP has been trailing of lately, so not sure I'll be around the next time the image makes an appearance. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll add a note. I should have done that last time, but I guess I'm a slacker. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeking advice on the edit waring that is occuring on the "Curt Bramble" page

You are obviously much more experienced than I am at wikipedia and so I'm wondering if you would give me some advice. As you know, there are some serious editing wars and sockpuppetting going on at the "Curt Bramble" page. I can see how at least some of the edits could be biased and so I have tried to make them less so. I also have pleaded with the person or persons deleting the edits to work with the rest of us to find a consensus instead of just deleting the information, but they have shown no interest in doing anything but removing every single edit that doesn't make the subject look flawless. The most blatant example is the edit they keep removing that explains who gave the Senator his legislator of the year award. Do you have any advice how I can stop this war without just giving the individual complete control of this page to use as their own campaign website. Perhaps, I'm wrong but I belived there are some important edits that will show there are two sides to every story but they are being removed. Any ideas or help you can give me would be greatly apreciated. Thanks. ReasonableRepublicans (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor you were having issues with has been blocked... or at least a number of their accounts have been blocked. WP:DR has some great advice on how to resolve this kind of issue. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket 2007122210004268

The OSS Society of McLean can assert ownership all they want, but when it comes to a logo that was taken from the CIA.gov website, which last check was owned by the US Government and not the OSS Society....the OSS Society's OTRS ticket has no standing on something (being a website and all information on it) owned by someone else. I request that Image:OSS seal.jpg be restored posthaste. Thank you...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 30, 2008 @ 03:55

After a little searching I found the image in question here on this article on the CIA website. No note saying the image was owned by anyone is listed on this page, hence the OSS Society's claim of ownership falls into question. I will give the OSS Society of McLean a call tomorrow as they are close by and will once and for all find out who owns this image. Right now, the OTRS ticket is in question and I have reloaded the image. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 30, 2008 @ 04:06

The federal government uses a lot of copyrighted works by permissions and they are under no obligation to make a distinction between public domain and copyrighted unless the copyright owner requires it.

To add to that, the OSS never had an official seal. This seal was invented by the non-profit after the fact. I've checked my background on this and I have no been able to find anything that contradicts their claims... and, everything I can find supports it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikimapia, Googlemaps and georefimprove

Links to Wikimapia were commented, because they are some concern as to whether Wikimapia's usage of Google imagery meets Google's terms. It's a seperate issue from the one about linking directly to Google.

Also, I note you have reverted the removal of georefimprove on some pages, can I ask why?

In a number of cases this was not placed solely in relation to the Google/Wikimapia issues.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You've made a huge mess and I'm trying my best to clean it up. Since the the googlemaps link is fine in most cases the georef tag isn't needed as a result. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Which mostly seems to have been cleared now, Thanks. The issue of Google Maps is still under disscusion elsewhere though :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, strike that last comment, and request support in checking back edits 11:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)