This is an archive of past discussions about User:J.delanoy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I got a message saying changes I'd made to an article on "Alan Hervey" had been reverted - but I made no such changes. In fact there doesn't seem to be a article on "Alan Hervey". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.76.248 (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
That's probably because you're on a dynamic IP and got it after the person who *did* do it was warned; the warning does not apply to you. The article was deleted two days ago, by the by; the edit was made on the 14th January. -Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori)11:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
FYI:Panasonic DMP-BD30K was posted on Articles for deletion
єmarsee(Discuss) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Just a quick question... I'm sure you didn't mean any harm, but why did you revert her/his edit of my talk page. There's no vandalism in there as I can see. Also, you interpreted her/his last edit of Alexandre evans as a vandalism. This page is objectionable, I know (that's why I proposed it for speedy delete), but adding a biography of a person (even if he wrote it himself) is no vandalism. Is it? Thanks. Peasantwarrior (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Could you please take a look at this users current contributions see:- Users talk page. They are getting too profane and offensive to allow the IP to be able to edit uncontrolled; EG: 3 attacks today on the Joe Howard, Jr. article. Prior blocks and multiple warnings have no effect. Could you consider an indefinate anon block (educational/ school block) or at least a minimum of 12 months until the current individual moves on to another target? the six vandalism edits today have been reverted. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, the IP has not made any edits in 4 hours, so I don't think a block would really do anything at this point. If he starts again, you can make a report on WP:AIV to get him blocked. J.delanoygabsadds16:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Oops - I went ahead and blocked for another year (IAR and all). The vandalism returned nearly immediately after the last year block expired. –xeno (talk)16:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I noticed your name on the list of admins willing to grant rollback, and since I have seen you active in vandalism fighting on several pages I have watchlisted, I thought I would request rollback from you. I revert vandalism, usually to watchlisted pages, manually and believe rollback would be a useful tool. Checking my history will indicate I have never been involved in any edit war, and have no intention to use rollback on anything other than blatant vandalism. Thank you in advance for considering my request, whether you decide to grant rollback or decline my request :-). TheSeeker 4Talk16:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!
I appreciate you granting me the rollback tool. I will certainly contact you if I have any questions and will edit manually in any situation where vandalism is not obviously vandalism. Thank you again. TheSeeker 4Talk16:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
A question about reverted edits?
Hello, I was just wondering why you reverted the edits that I did on the Beach Blanket Babylon page. I was trying to help expand the information about the show, and was just about to add more notable BBB alumni, and noticed that the edits had been reverted. Belladonnab (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Belladonnab
I don't have a home computer but use the school computers a lot, my problem is that these computers can be accessed by any student and so most are blocked from adding to wikipedia (same thing happens to library computers) what should i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.245.183 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
please review the Bay Area Street Hockey article again
To be included in Wikipedia, a subject must establish notability. To do this, the subject must receive non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. The other article you linked to does this. Images do not have the same criteria for inclusion as articles do. J.delanoygabsadds23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello
I am surprised that u reverted my edit. I thought that it was very constructive and it informed people about some of the uses of this breed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habibirox (talk • contribs) 05:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism
Hi. Just saw the edit you reversed at Split Airport on the recent changes page. Surprised you didn't block the account, given that username? Casey65 (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Would it be prudent to put a range block on the IPs that kept vandalising the above page? They circumvented final warnings by using slightly different IPs. Plus this user is probably a sock from one of those IPs seeing as after a final warning was issued they created that account and the first edit was to vandalize the school's page. Best --DFS454 (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The range is (surprise) registered to the school, and this is not the first time the entire range has been blocked. I blocked it until September 2009. And I also blocked the user account that you mentioned. J.delanoygabsadds19:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I am removing the poster from Wikipedia, because WE created it and it cannot be legally distributed or posted. We have never legally released it, and it was obtained and being used without our permission. Please feel free to contact me to discuss this urgent matter.
Jhod Cardinal Distribution Manager Insight Film Studios 604.623.3369 ext 209 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.77.66.130 (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.77.66.130 (talk)
Hi was working on a new page rap group I like called DGAF and I received a deletion notice. I got all there info directly from the record label website and there own personal myspace site. So, I was wondering what I did wrong or misunderstood in the directions on wikipedia. Please let me know. I put some time into it and just don't want it to be a waste. Thank you. JointStature —Preceding unsigned comment added by JointStature (talk • contribs) 02:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Kris Allen
I wrote this article, it was immediately deleted, I requested the admin restore it, he did and I revised it. Because of American Idol contract issues the family wanted it deleted, so I did.....only to have you reverse it. Can you please delete the article completely?
MusicianMuse (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Liberty High
The new, unsourced additions to Liberty Senior High School are getting out of control. Most of the claims made on the page have no source whatsoever, and the ones that do are improperly cited. I noticed that you have edited it before and would like to know what to do. Rather than revert multiple times, I have attempted to contact the anonymous user and discuss it on the talk page, but to no avail. Please help out if you can. Thanks. --DerRichter (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Who are you?
First of all, who are you to tell me what to do? You do not know me. Second, knowledge is a useless thing; there is no point of learning what happened hundreds years ago. Even articles that cover things still around today are useless in themselves. People need not know these things. This website was created to be an encyclopedia. Not a history book. Or a book on Harry Potter characters. This site is useless as an encyclopedia. Radiolabel2009 (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
1) I am an administrator here. You vandalized a page, so I warned you. You don't even have to be an admin to warn people for vandalizing.
2) If knowledge is useless, how are you now sitting on a computer reading this message? Your computer did not just randomly appear, and all the things necessary to create and sustain it (plastic, electricity, etc.) were invented because people learned how to do them. In addition, your food, clothing, heat, shelter, and even ability to read and write are a direct result of knowledge. You say knowledge is useless, and yet you yourself are taking great advantage of the collective knowledge of humanity.
3) History is relevant to today's world because even though circumstances and technology change, people are always the same.
4) You are correct that there is no information on this website that cannot be found elsewhere. However, there is no place on Earth where this much information is included in one place, and so easily accessible. You are also correct that people do not need to know about Harry Potter. However, many people enjoy reading about him, so there is no harm in including information about the subject. Wikipedia is not limited by size, since it is all on a computer, and if you don't like Harry Potter, just don't read the article about him.
5) People do need to know about many of the things included in this project. Science and mathematics form the foundation of our civilization. Literature and art stimulate creativity and improve mental depth. They also help to make life enjoyable. History teaches us about how we came as far as we have, and it also serves as a warning not to repeat the same mistakes our ancestors did. Also, as far as an encyclopedia "not being a history book", I invite you to open the "U" volume of Britannica or World Book and look at their article about "United States, History of the". It seems that these printed encyclopedias serve to refute your argument.
6) The usefulness or uselessness of anything is subjective. However, considering that Wikipedia's servers respond to more requests than all but 7 websites on the Internet, I would guess that the vast majority of people would disagree with you. Of course, you are free to believe what you wish, but if you think Wikipedia is worthless, why are you reading it? And why did you create an account? J.delanoygabsadds15:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
1) I dont know how to answer this; as you seem to have threatned to block me should I answer it.
2) I was simply reffering to the rather useless collection of random articles such as character pages from unknown shows, books and movies.
3) People have need to hear about how many wives Henry VIII or what happened the year 1202. Unless you like it; if so please do so.
4) I am sure fans of Harry Potter know enough.
5) Ok, you got me at no. 5
6) This website seems to take pride in its large status. May I ask how the editors would react if the internet shut down? How would you feel reading non editble dictionarys again? I myself have read encyclopedias and think of them as garbage. I was born in Costa Rica, where we did not read books or go on wiki. We did not even go to school. We turned out fine and I challenge you to find an example of my country's stupidity. (You are probably going to say im an example, lol) Radiolabel2009 (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Um, can you provide a reason? The entire dispute involves nobody providing a reason for restoring this content. I'm arguing that it's trivial information... it has no more place in this article than a list of every famous person ever convicted of homicide belongs in the murder article. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what did I do wrong? I was merely correcting everyone that Shawn Lonsdale was not an hero. Scientology obviously killed him, but, hey, if you wish to make articles on these fine Wikipedias inaccurate, be my guest. -Raziel (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Why are you deleting references to Ian Schrager going to jail for tax evasion? He was partners with Steve Rubell in opening Studio 54 and both of those pages talk about their arrest, conviction, and incarceration for cash skimming and tax evasion, and the material is cited and referenced to the New York Times. I can understand why he might not want the info out there, but I don't understand why you do not? 74.68.152.245 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The next Connecticut Wikipedia meetup will take place sometime during April 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please list on the meetup page whether or not you can go. Also please contribute ideas for topics and dates! Hope to see you there! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Greetings & thanks!
Greetings J.delanoy - have been meaning to pop in here to thank you for being out there and willing to "push a few extra buttons to help maintain this encyclopedia", but seem to waste spend too much time just gnoming around. Anyway, thanks & cheers!--Technopat (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC) PS - If no-one else has got round to doing it by now, could you castle for me?
Okay, who is this user and what did he do. I have a friend of mine at Post Oak Middle School, Virginia that whats to create an account. However you have blocked the create an account. Can You please undo It. Thanks!
I am on here because we keep trying to update the Safety Glass Movie file on Wikipedia and a few editors keep putting it back to incorrect information.
Safety Glass is an Insight Film Studios production with Nasser Entertainment. When it was in trouble a year ago, Insight's owner/producer Kirk Shaw stepped in and took it over from some US partners. This was not a Brightlight Production. I spent a year of my life on this show and would appreciate not having my updated information on Wikipedia replaced with miss-information. Further, the poster that someone is putting on here is not approved by anyone and was an internal rough idea of a poster; the cast has not signed off on it and we are legally responsible to ensure final approved artwork is available.
Please help us ensure this service is an accurate one.
Hi, you took pains (thank you!) to revert these, Chris G 3 hours before that did the same with these. The destination of the former was: HẦ6 6 E R?, of the latter: H Ấ6 6 ER ? Any idea what is going on? A couple of these pages are showing on my watchlist, so if you need help of some kind, count me in. Dc76\talk12:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm using a script Mr Z-man wrote, so it's really not that difficult. But thanks! Anyways, the reason why they show up more than once is because someone is using a script to vandalize. They apparently just enter a list of pages they wish to vandalize, and a list of pages they wish for the script to move the pages to. J.delanoygabsadds13:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it really so simple to vandalize? What did it prevent them to enter a list of 1,000 articles? I thought one needs to be an established user to be allowed to perform page moves. Does that still require a min number of edits and days? Anyway, if you have the tool and it's easy, fine. But how do you ensure there is always someone with the tool online to undo the vandals? Dc76\talk15:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Answers, in order. Yes it is that simple. There is a throttle; non-admins can only perform 6 moves in one day. Yes, you do have to be an established user to perform page moves. You have to have a four-day-old account with ten edits. We don't have any way to ensure that someone is always on, but there are a lot of people who patrol this sort of thing, and it would be very strange if none of them were on. The person who is doing all the page-move vandalism lives in the Pacific Time Zone, so he usually is active just as ~half of America is going to sleep en masse. But Australia is wide awake, and some early risers in Britain are just getting out of bed. So, for the most part, we have all 24 hours covered. Besides, ClueBot and AntiAbuseBot can revert page-move vandalism, and they never sleep. J.delanoygabsadds15:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking him. I was so busy at emailing the edits he made to the oversight mailing list because of that user. And also, why did it take so long to block him? Thanks. Techman224Talk02:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Normally, when someone does that, they only do it once, and doing that once is not a blockable offense, IMO. Also, it is not a good idea to talk about oversightable edits onwiki unless you do so in a mannor that will not allow others to easily discover who you are talking about. J.delanoygabsadds03:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Yea, this is the first time I've seen a user doing this so many times. I've seen users doing it multiple times (like 2-3 times) before but they would block more quickly. Techman224Talk03:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I was considering closing this AfD as a "snowball speedy keep/move", but I would need someone to move the page from its current spot to KAAI. If I close the AfD, would you moving the page? - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 8, 2009 @ 05:25
Well, maybe not a clear snow, but with the one user changing his edit from "delete" to "keep/move" it is pretty clear where it is going. :) But I will give it another 24 to 48. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 8, 2009 @ 05:36
Hey Dude....gave the process another 24 hours and another "Keep/Move" was added, so I think it is pretty much as close to snowball keep/move as it will get. Do you think closing it now would be kosher and then let you do the moving process? - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 9, 2009 @ 05:26
You were offline (or busy with something else) so I closed it and went to WP:RM and had them move it. All is well now :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 9, 2009 @ 06:45
It adds a box to the left side of the screen, above the toolbox. If you click on the expand box button, it shows the 25 newest articles, updated every 5-10 seconds. The articles will be highlighted if they have not been patrolled yet. NuclearWarfare(Talk)17:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Greetings J.delanoy - have seen that you're online and would like to ask you to have a look at Blossom Dearie. Recent activity has been saying she's just died - without references - but now an editor has referenced a forum (All About Jazz, which is, in principle, a forum with repute) with what looks like a decent write-up. As of 15 minutes ago, neither the BBC nor The New York Times carried the story. What is to be done under such circs.? Thanks.--Technopat (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
User talk:204.209.209.129 shows this IP address has committed vandalism many times. I have reverted vandalism that this user is responsible for, and this user has been previously banned from editing Wikipedia. Please make this a indefinite ban because this user has abused the Wikipedia edit system over 20 times. Thanks Griffinofwales (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you undid one of my edits to Stevie Wonders page. I was looking up something for him and noticed someone had placed a line about as a child he was known for sexual acts and raping but is now known for his alcoholic behavior. I deleted that, you put it back up, and I re deleted it. Just wanted to let you know since you had asked if we revert one of your actions to let you know. Thanks
No problem, just thought that comment was a little out there...lol
I am confused by the blocking policy. I thought it was policy to post a block notice on user talk pages, especially IP users as a different user logging in using that IP may have no idea what a block log is and seeing only a final notice might not understand why edits are being block or for how long they will be blocked. Please see User talk:71.117.182.211 a user that you have recently blocked. Dbiel(Talk)04:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I was recently notified about a page about an organization that has a name which violates a copyright law. The name is owned by a different organization. If I have a reference, would it be WIkipedia-legal to delete the page on the organization which infringes on the copyright?
Thank you
Kb3mlmsk (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
For Wikipedia's purposes, copyright infringement only refers to images and significant (more than a couple of sentences) bodies of text. You cannot prevent people from writing the mere name of something, even if the name is copyrighted. J.delanoygabsadds03:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't wish to start an edit war, but Atilim Borlu has added massive amounts of information irrelevant[3] to the article. He/She has done this without any consensus on the talk page. I feel this has bogged down the article and diverted it from what it should say. A small example of the information added by Atilim Borlu;
The Persian Campaign Autumn of 1914; Theodore G. Chernozubov and his Persian Cossack Brigade has been in the region since 1906. General Tovmas Nazarbekian was transferred to the Region.[1] Out of the 20,000 Armenian volunteers who responded to the early call (1914), only 7,000 were given arms at the time, because the Russian authorities distributed 24,000 rifles to the Kurds in Persia and in the district of Van.[1] The Russians forces in Persia, not counting indegionious Persian Cossack Brigade, had only one brigade of Russian troops under the command of General Nazarbekoff and one battalion of Armenian volunteers scattered throughout Salmast and Urmia.[2] On December 11, 1914, Ottoman preparation for the Persian Campaign began with the Enver Pasha's order to form of a provisional force.[3] I Expeditionary Force (XI Corps before war) assigned to Chief of Intelligence Lieutenant Colonel Kazim Bey (later Lieutenant General Kazim Karabekir).[3] This force was structurally self sufficient, capable of independent operations, and supplemanted with the 7 and 9th Infantry Regiments, a cavalry detachment, a field hospital, a transportation unit, and an intelligence section, a mountain howitzer battalion of two batteries, a telegraph section, a field batery, equipment repair battalion, a replacement depot and transportation assets.[3] Before even reached to the operational zone, it was bombarded by the British Royal Navy at Aleppo and suffered its first war casualties.[4] On its way, the original plan scraped and it assigned to the Third Army on January 10 because of the disasterous battle of Sarikamis.[4] For the Ottoman Empire Persian Campaign began without I Expeditionary Force. The only force available, and even remotely near the Persian frontier, was the Van Jandarma Division. This paramilitary formation was lightly equipped with artillery and machineguns, and was only suited for internal security functions, rather than for an invasion of a neighboring country.[4] Van Jandarma Division assumed the role of keeping the road to Persia open (or vice versa for the Russians), which pass through the Kotour valley (Kotur Pass). Van Jandarma Division assumed it's role on December 1914. I Expeditionary force would arrive in the vicinity of the city of Van on March 23, 1915.[4]
I saw you deleted the article per my CSD and then restored it, obviously the speedy was incorrect as I didn't notice the claim about being a county-level judge among all the other badly edited stuff :) My apologies for that. §FreeRangeFrog05:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Your contribution to that page was negative, unsourced libel. Regardless of whether it was true, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Even if it were true and verifiable, it wouldn't belong on that page, but rather on a separate page for that individual. 17:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear! I don't know how, it must have been copied from an earlier copy, I had the heading as build-a-boob. Sorry about that, was (as I imagine you guessed) not my intention and did not show up on my diff. I have problems with this company but am not out to vandalise Wikipedia.
BTW they have a branch in Cambridge, UK now (in the Grand Arcade. I was tempted to research overseas (i.e. non-US) operations but have other fish to fry. If they are in Cambridge I assume they are also elsewhere in the UK but a list of locations seems hard to come by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 05:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I've been checking my past contributions (many of which were edited out..) but I noticed someone deleting and editing (through an IP address) with little to no justification behind the matter. After getting 2 warnings from another Wiki user for vandalization, he edited his talk page to say "Cops suck cocks :P" Which I promptly reverted for inappropriate content. The user is User talk:99.153.29.112
And I just thought you might want to take a look at what he has done just in case. I dont have much experience, so i figured you could help.
1. Im a registered member of Wikipedia since 2006 and i dont need your "welcome".
2. The changes that i made to to Stop-Loss were justified.Tiger Trek (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
There has been a recent change to Pascal's Law, which was, in fact, vandalism as you described. One of the edits included a person's proper name. Would you so kindly please remove that name from the log and the history? Further vandalism WILL NOT occur.
I would be opposed to that. He's not abusing the unblock template, he's merely blanking the talkpage, which he is permitted to do. Useight (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I have seen dozens of admins on countless occasions restore block notices, with the explanation you are not allowed to remove them. I have seen multiple talk pages protected for that and I'm sure you have too. Landon1980 (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've seen blocked templates that say do not remove this notice while blocked. I suppose these need to be changed if this is not the case. Landon1980 (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Could have been, and I could very well be mistaken about seeing that in a block template. I guess I thought that after seeing so many admins tell blocked editors they cannot remove their block notices, and declined requests for unblock. Landon1980 (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Niazi notables
Hi! I just recently recieved an email from a certain user on the article List of Niazi people, which are only notables. He is stating that many of the users on the article hold a government position, but they are still not considered noteable. I've searched multiple policies, but I can not find were the fine line is if their are noteable or not. I was hoping if you could help me make my decision. Thank you once again! Please message me if you have an answer. Renaissancee (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi J, how you doin today? Anyway - I stopped by to say "You're faster than that damn Cluebot thing when it comes to vandalized pages (I was doing lupin filtered changes). Then, I got to reading your page, and the new page script. Very cool - good stuff - so much easier than going through the links and all. That is all - carry on. ;) — Ched (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've been enjoying using Twinkle to revert vandalism and I think I've now got the hang of it. I'd like to move up to Rollback, if you think I'm ready. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been able to log in my account as Mattis. I do not understand why it was blocked. Could you please help unlock. Thanks --Mattis 11 (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes vague
Of course its vague. First 100 days of what power? And what is the meaning of including words I can find in no dictionary and - what is more - what do you mean by removing genuine flaggings of these ignomalies? Are we all to assume that Barack Obama is known by every individal in the world? Or why is he given special treatment which violates wikipedia's policies on recentism? Are you an administrator or an ordinary user? Please act like one or the other and stop assuming bad faith when it comes to IP addresses who are willing to help.
I didn't mean to step on your block. The user hadn't been blocked a moment before, and I clicked through without reading the page. Rklawton (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure the last one was block evasion (not that it matters). The first IP was from SA. The second was from Norway. We may end up needing to page protect a few pages. Rklawton (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, he said that he was blocked, so that's why I went with that. But as you say, it doesn't make any practical difference. I was hoping I could get a rangeblock in, but apparently some forum or something is encouraging attacks on us. J.delanoygabsadds17:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
William Van Ness Bay
On the William Van Ness Bay page, it says, in the fourth paragraph, "Bay was elected to this position in 1863 and served until removed by Governor Fletcher in 1865," but it does specify what position he was elected to. What should I do? Should I put a reference tag and hope someone will clear this up? I cannot find what position he was elected to on other sites.
Thanks,
Kb3mlmsk (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
What is up with the deletion requests? I did not post anything that was false or misleading. Let me know what I need to fix :) Thanx --ASA2009 (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Question about revert notices
Hello! I have a question. When an editor reverts and edit that is obvious vandalism, is that editor required to put a notification on the talk page of the reverted editor or ip? In most cases I do not, unless the vandalism is truelly horribly and not stopping. I usually only revert vandalism by IP also, if that matters. I just want to make sure I am not breaking any policy in my actions. I have been doing it this way for as long as I have been here, but it just occurred to me that perhaps that is wrong way to do it. Thanks Charles Edward (Talk) 18:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
No, you are not required to, but it is best to do so. Leaving warnings lets other editors know that an IP or user account has vandalized, so they can increase the severity of the warning, or report/block them, if necessary. J.delanoygabsadds18:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Would you please take a a look at the article Munim Mohsin and then get rid of it. It's absolute nonsense with all kinds of rubbish being added. It was nominated for speedy and the tag was removed, then nominated for AFD and the tag was removed. Thank you. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
This barnstar is in honor of your depressing, unloved presence on IRC on Valentine's Day, 2009. Roses and kisses work for some, but you, noble Wikipedian, have important things to discuss on the internet with people you barely know who you'll probably never meet. Here's to you! FlyingToaster21:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I formerly had another account on Wikipedia, which I abandoned about one and a half years ago for personal reasons. I do not want to give the user name here. I would like to delete the pages and mark the account as abandoned, but I do not want to log in under that user name. Is there any way I can do this by private e-mail or some other means without a public record? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
That would be MediaWiki:Newarticletext. It has different formatting for different namespaces, so it doesn't look like what you think it does. Anyways, there's already a note underneath the "save page" button that says "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted.", so I don't know if adding a note above the edit box as well may be redundant. J.delanoygabsadds02:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't either. My thought is that making it up front and forward might lead people to actually notice it. It's disheartening to me how much copyright infringement makes its way onto Wikipedia. :/ I'm currently in a huge clean-up job on the infringement of one editor in my sandbox (I link because I think it's kind of jaw-dropping how long this has been going on. Or was going on. He's indefinitely blocked at the moment.) While cleaning one of his infringements, I've found out that the article he was adding it onto was already a copyright violation. Crazy! I don't get how people can think it's okay to just paste stuff here from other sources. I do understand when people try to rewrite, but don't grok how much rewriting is necessary. But just pasting? Thanks for telling me where to find it. I'll take a look and figure out if there's a good place to bring it up for discussion. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
On further reflection, it probably wouldn't help. It's everywhere. Above the edit summary box, below the save page button. People who violate copyright evidently aren't reading it or don't care. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, You recently placed a final warning on this anon editors talk page. The editor has to day continued to vandalise articles, by deleting a complete section of the Battle of Guilford Court House article. A quick check of all this editors previous contributions indicate this is a static account used for vandalism only. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't know. It was 10 days since the final warning, so I don't think it needs to be blocked now. I'll keep an eye on it, though. Thanks :-) J.delanoygabsadds03:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
In the article on Freyja under the heading FREYA the following text appears, which seems a bit weird:
"Freya: From Old Norse Freyja meaning "lady". This is the name of the goddess of love and beauty in Norse mythology. She claimed half of the heroes who were slain in battle and brought them to her realm in Asgard. It is an extrodinary name which is often used as british. My sister is called freya.By Georgia."
Anyhow, I'm a Wiki noob, but I thought to see that this text first appeared in your edit :/
Hi, he blanked the page after I blanked his text to make it into a redirect - I think he was trying to write a new version of an article, but hadn't found userspace yet. I've copied it into userspace for him, and given him a welcome box to help him. I don't think that what he was doing, or trying to do, was vandalism. DuncanHill (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Retaliatory reverts
As you know, Grawp sleepers make minor "edits" to break through the autoconfirmed wall. While this would seem harmless-the page moves are more focussed upon-would they not seem to be a form of less obvious vandalism in some cases? In the end, unnoticeable vandalism anywhere is worse than what is easy to spot. It seems that there are retaliatory reverts by Grawp ips in response when one tries to undo/revert the sleeper's contribs [5][6]. In general, it would probably be best for everyone to simply be more diligent with this. Also, perhaps a form of protection might be in order? ~ Troy (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear, dear, J.delanoy. Don't you have anything better to do besides mindlessly staring at your computer screen? Do you really use that program every single day because of your freetime? What if Huggle never existed? What would you be doing then, huh? You are getting these huge number of edits based off your gazing at the computer. Do you really consider yourself sort of a bot on Wikipedia? Do you have any friends? Perhaps you could be watching a movie or downloading pictures or even hanging out. But even if you did, do you really need to bring that laptop and mindlessly revert every day? Seriously, find other things to do. Thank you.
I can't say for certain what I would be doing. Most likely, I would be playing video games or something. I use Huggle because I enjoy it, and since I am studying computer science in college, staring at a computer screen is likely to be an integral part of the vast majority of my life. The future is affected by the present, and the present is affected by the past. The decisions we made yesterday set up the events of today, which in turn shape tomorrow. But, to paraphrase C. S. Lewis in The Last Battle, "No one is ever told what would have happened." J.delanoygabsadds05:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, since the last warning was given a week ago, I would probably issue a level 2 or a level 3 warning. If the warning had been more recent, I would say file a report to WP:AIV. J.delanoygabsadds05:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi J & thanks for stepping in on my talk page & replying to Jennifer. The article possibly now qualifies for a G7 speedy, however it is not absolutely clear cut that the original author could be considered the "only" author and I am a bit to involved to make a final decision. I've left a comment on the AFD with the diffs so if you (or one of your TPSs) had a moment could you take a look and delete/close if you think appropriate. I would normally just let the AFD run but it's clear that Jennifer is (understandably) a bit upset about the whole thing. Thanks a million, kind regards Nancy talk09:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I G7'ed it, although I'm not 100% certain that the other edits to the page were considered "insignificant". If either of the other two people who edited the article (other than to tag it for deletion) would like to contest the deletion, I will happily undelete the article and re-open the AfD. J.delanoygabsadds16:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I attempted to make a number of deletions of biased material from the Second Amendment article backed up by a book from Saul Cornel. The book in question is pro gun control and before its writting and printing he received $400,000 from a gun cotrol advocacy group. In my book getting $400,000 to push the gun control paty line makes it propaganda and not unbiased neutral mateial.
Wiki policey agrees.
Please check Second Amendment discussion page to confirm accusation of bias in the author of deleted material. Check links provided in the discussion page for Confirmation. Also notice long wait from time of accusation to time material was removed supporting good faith efforts to satisfy any objection to the removal. Also notice all objections were in bad faith, one from a user who later hacked another bias issue to hide additional ties from this author to that gun control advocacy group and the other objection being plainy bogus.
For the minor edit - check the source article link to confirm case was not Second Amendment. By stating that the objection on Second Amendment grounds was "reserved" the judge is saying it was not "made",and hes NOT dealing/considering/ruling on it. It's legaleze but that is what the judge means.
Hi, did "you" use a bot to delete my apparent vandalism? Or are you a real person. Anyway, I think that Mayr's selective use of Wagner's ideas does indeed qualify for whiggish history. I have now supported it with references etc.
Nah, he's a real person. A real person with a high speed Internet connection using a third-party program to quickly observe the recent changes feed. Useight (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey
How are you long time no talk how are you doing.Thanks for the revert on my talk page the boces vandalism looks like its prob from the same ip who knows.
Thanks i just been super busy and college and stuff on my second semester and we finally got a break so i was like what the heck let me sign on lol :).Whats new?
You have recently left me a message informing me that "The recent edit you made to the page Victory Park, Chorley has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing." How exactly? I added a copyright infringement tag to the page because the text had been directly lifted from here.
Fetler (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
He removed one on the 14th for Neoseeker, but at the time I hadn't realized he was already "on probation" after being banned several times, otherwise I would have AIV'ed him then. (I thought he had removed one today but I was mistaken.) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Howdy, JD. How might Wdl1961 (talk·contribs) best be guided towards coöperative participation? There've been one or two good additions, but mostly bizarre, random and/or abstruse entries on various talk pages, moving or copying entire blocks of text from one talk page to another, and repeated removals of valid templates (e.g. 1, 2). I've put appropriate and sequential warnings on his/her talk page in case it becomes necessary to put in for a block, but to try and avoid that I have also repeatedly tried to engage and coach this user (e.g. here, here, and here), with no success. I think English is not this user's first language, or perhaps there's some other impediment to effective communication. Have you any suggestions for how best to deal with an editor such as this? Thanks! —ScheinwerfermannT·C16:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi J.delanoy,
Can you revert back to my changes on the University of St. Thomas - Houston page if go back and list the edit summary for each change? I am from the University's Marketing Communication's Department and am trying to make sure the information on the Wikipedia page is correct. The updates are accurate as I am referencing the 2009 University Fact Book. Thank you.
You are correct I did not make that change!!? I am making the changes from my office on campus, the same IP I am guessing that all the students use as well. Would creating a user name help make my changes creditable? Or what else do you suggest so that I may move forward and show my boss that my task of updating the Wikipedia page is complete. Thanks.
Well, the tool I am using undoes all consecutive edits made by the same user. I will change the article back to the version before the other person vandalized. That should will reinstate your changes. J.delanoygabsadds20:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I went ahead and created a user name for my department so any further changes from Marketing Communications will not be mistaken for vandalizing. --UST MarCom (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Resilient Barnstar
This took a lot of courage and your part, and I respect your for. Apologising is much harder than coninuing to argue a lost cause, but infinitly better for all involved parties. Good on you! :-) Pattont/c20:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
You grassed me up for vandalising an article about Charles Saxe-Coberg Gotha, I posted a message telling people to stand up against the monarchy, this is not vandalism, I was merely adding a new opinion to a phenominally biased site.
God sack the Queen (and the israeli government (because it is all Israels fault (not palestines)))
Um J.delanoy, you may have busted my other user, Pudge2 for vandalizm, if it was 'The Elling Woman' I was editing it because it said 'The Huldremose Woman'. I'd appreciate it if you unlocked the blockage. - User:They watch you
So, what you are saying is you have created a sockpuppet to ask for an unblock? - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 19, 2009 @ 23:18
Ok im soooooooooooooooooooo sorry no more vandilizing
Help
Hi J.delanoy, I ran across the article Taylor Fawcett using Twinkle, I reverted vandalism to last version by ClueBot, and it still looked like junk. I added a delete tag (Twinkle again) and clicked ok. I opened the article back up to double-check, and see it has a history - I'm not sure what to do at this point, and since you had edited the article in the past, I'm coming to you with the "What should I do" question. Thanks. — Ched (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Didn't look like you were online at the moment, I went to help desk to get it straightened out. Sorry to bother ya. — Ched (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Why the revert? Of the three changes made, one was a non-controversial elaboration of the legislative correspondence process, another was a removal of John McCain's book from the list of ghostwritten books (the change was documented and justified in the talk page) and the third was citation requests for assertions that Presidents Reagan and Kennedy had used ghostwriters. I was a little sloppy on two of the edit summaries, I'll admit, but I'd hardly call these unconstructive edits. 131.96.47.8 (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it OK for a user to deny an unblock request if they know that they will not be unblocked? I dont think so, but it their request was "lol" or "b!@#$", etc. would it be OK? α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210discovered elements ∞ what am I?22:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
If it's obviously vandalism, you probably could get away with it, but it may be easier to just let an admin do it. I personally don't see a problem with it. J.delanoygabsadds22:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm having some problems with an I.P user/Anon: 219.78.119.49. S/he keeps persistently harassing me, and reverting edits. Another user gave him a level 4 warning for disruptive comments and the person still hasn't stopped. On my talk page the person keeps leaving me taunting messages. What should I do? If I report the person, what should it be labeled as? Vandalism? In the history of my talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Papercutbiology&action=history and some rude comments he made against me in the history of fourth dimension article.
Advantages of Lasers for Wireless Electricity Transmission is a long pending discussion on the WET talk page.
I think this is a great and sound technology to provide wireless power at large distances.
Please counter as to why this is not so?
Dear J.delanoy, The understanding of Lasers and Photo-detectors is based upon the Modern Quantum Mechanics. Both these phenomenon are not explainable using classical Electromagnetic theory. All of the other methods of Wireless Energy Transfer are based upon methods and techniques that lie within the framework of classical theory. It is quite hard for most people to grasp the principles of Quantum Mechanics which is observable only at the micro-matter level in nature. Or with experiments not common in nature.
But, application of Quantum Mechanics always produces true real world result. The technology of using Lasers and photo-detectors for Wireless Energy Transfer is one such sound and clear application of Modern Physics.
Could you please provide details on why you thought that "advantage of Lasers" is inappropriate for Wireless Energy Transfer page.
To add my two penn'orth-- I didn't see that section but I am not sure I agree with you. I work for a molevular modelling company writing computer software (www.accelrys.com) I do kinda know vaguely what you are on about. Lasers are not really part of quantum theory at all and quite well be described by classical physics, at least in the most part. I suppose if you go below atom level you would need quantum theory but not before then. The little buggers just bash off the walls of the glass and can't get out, not hard to describe physically.
BTW I have worked with laser and fibre optic guided weapon systems I am no expert but do vaguely know what I am on about.
That's good to know that you are closely linked with technology and science.
My main motivation comes because of recent highlight on Wireless Power sector. Most companies are trying to transfer energy wirelessly using methods of Electromagnetic induction and resonance that are quite straight out of Maxwell's equations. However, in Maxwell's equation there is no provision for band-gap in atoms upon which the whole concept of Lasers is based. Also photo-detectors would have to work independent of wavelengtha dn material of choice if it was not for Quantum theory. The concept of light quanta or photon is typically attributed to Modern Physics.
Check out my company's website at [5] This is not an advert but you can get a free copy and loads of information in the help text there.
This is not a commercial recommendation, just as a friend if you are interested you may find it helpful. The science goes above me a bit really I am just a techie.
As someone who has contributed to the Eugene O'Neill article, perhaps you would be willing to look at the (rather one-sided) discussion on that article's talk page regarding Emerson7's deletion of cited materials, Ah, Wilderness NOT O'Neill's only comedy. I would like to have a Request for Comment process initiated, but must have at least one other editor to have contributed to the discussion before an RfC can be started. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Templates I made
You may want to check out these warning "templates" I made:
User:Ched tried huggle, but found he could make enough mistake all by himself lol. per Julian, I'm just so glad we never use sarcasm here at WP. — Ched (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey J.
Quick questions: does this edit of mine help anything at all? Does is violate any policy or guideline? (I've looked, but haven't seen it) Maybe it's redundant in the sense that if someone who's not an admin actually tags it to AIV, it would be there? Your thought? — Ched (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
<-poke /* watching clock on the wall */ <user listening to "tick-tock, tick-tock*> (see above thread) - User J.delanoy so busy in Huggle that he's missing talk page comments ... lol. - wait .. wait... I'll find it -- User:Ched ... please see WP:NOTIMELIMIT— Ched (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
JDeloney sorry to bother you I am really getting into editing but some simple things are beyond me. How do I get rid of something on my watch list? Like your ta;lk page for example? (btw you can delete all the talk I have had with you).
I have tried help and all that I must be missing something obvious
I wasn't sure if you blocked this user due to my mistaken warning on the AIV page before I could remove it. Upon further investigation, the comment that I reverted (admittedly with Huggle) was just an angry reply to a good faith edit that was reverted by another editor on South Park Mexican. Although, looking at his other contribs, it seems that all of his other edits today were indeed vandalism, so the AIV warning was probably needed, just not the particular edit that i warned about... Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. I did leave a note on his page to create an account when he comes back... Pax85 (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Figures. I just noticed that his last edit before you blocked him was another piece of lovely vandalism. Wonderful database lag that I have today. Might as well disregard this whole message. :) Pax85 (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You've just speedy deleted the page Mothstorm that I created. I'm trying to sort out the mess that is this trilogy; I don't see that it's in any way advertizing. I intend to write some kind of plot summary, sort out the summaries in the other 2 (which look like copypaste), get a picture for this novel...sort the whole thing out. I've already fixed up David Wyatt.
I'm trying hard to improve the project here - I am in no way connected with the books, I hadn't heard of the things until earlier today when a fairly weak attempt at creating David Wyatt was speedied, and I decided to try and make a good job of it.
There's no advertizing at all going on here; just trying to get these books properly represented.
So...can I have the page back please, so I can get on with sorting the mess out?
I fail to understand why you reverted all my edits, which were explained as best I could, on the basis that I had not explained them, and wrote this on my talk page, without commenting on the talk page of the article, as asked.
I have not noticed your contributions to the talk page there - but I would be much happier discussing things there. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your swift response. I would be most grateful if you could help to enlarge and correct this article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
i left an edit summary
i left an edit summary before, explaining my action. i was reverted and accused of not leaving an explanation. i reverted him and explanined that i had an edit summary, it happened again, with the user totally ignoring the fact when i left a note on his talk page162.84.134.46 (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
that doesnt give the right for users to accuse me of not explaining either, instead of trying to talk properly and figure out whats wrong, and explain.
just because something is cited doesnt mean its encyclopedic. it reads more like the anthropological sectiosn of encyclopedia britiannicca in the 19th century, as it treated africans more like zoo specimens than humans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.134.46 (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
No it does not. It is a critical analysis of the physical characteristics of a specific group of humans. If you deny that there are distinct differences between what used to be termed races, you are either blind or are willfully ignoring your eyesight. And, as the text is neutral, well-written, and cited, the onus is on you to explain why the text should not be included, not the other way around. J.delanoygabsadds00:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi J.delanoy, I think above user is referring to me. I did leave the user a template message [7] but I didn't accuse user of not leaving an edit summary.
Part of the template message says ‘please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary.’, which is not quite the same.
The IP user then left me a message on my talk page, to which I responded. Unfortunately it has resulted in this
Please slow down and check your reverts. I've had to go through a few of your reverts which still had vandalism, and we all know we have to get almost all of it out, do we not? ;) Thank you, and keep fighting those vandals! Renaissancee (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Rollback rights
You are listed as one willing to give rollbacker rights. I frequently see your edits, and as most others looking at recent changes you use Huggle. I'm requesting rollbacker to be able to use that tool as well. I try to be careful but have made mistakes. When I do I try not to repeat them but instead learn from them. Thanks for your consideration. Jackfork (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey J. Since you were out "Huggleing" my Twinkle today - figured I'd just go edit a stub. Anyway, wanted to drop back and leave one bit of bling for your collection, sooo ... pick your poison, and I'll stop back later and ~~~~|sign it later. Good work (as usual) — Ched (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you :-) I don't really have a preference, and in any case I feel weird picking out my own barnstar. So if you want, just choose whatever seems appropriate to you. J.delanoygabsadds19:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism
Just got your message, although it was not me that did the vandalism. This is a shared IP for Nottingham's University's SNS as the talk page says. --128.243.253.113 (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Saying that if you follow the Bible you should stay home on Sabbath is not vandalism....it's what the Bible says! It also say shortly behind the Ten Commandments, and will the same intent to be followed, that a man who rapes a virgin has a new wife....look it up! Here's the thing: they, like every other religion, pick and choose what they want to follow and what bits maybe don't need to be adhered to. What makes the SDA different is that they are dead sure they have it right and while other religions are tolerated the SDA doesn't really think they're following God's will. If the SDA'ers are going to say "By the bible alone" then live like it and stop being hypocrites of the first order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.10.78 (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
For making the wiki "not suck" You could be out enjoying so many different things, yet you choose to "serve and protect" the wiki society we love. It's Appreciated :- — Ched (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, by the way - one part of a previous post was a serious question - does it help to put the IPvandal tag on an IP talk page when they get up to the 4th warning? I couldn't find anything that said not to, but I know when I do the AIV report, it's there to - so maybe it's redundant. Just curious. — Ched (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, could you see how many CSD's I have? Just want to keep track...as I'm not an admin, I don't have access to that information :/ Thanks for all the fish! Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk)14:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Assuming that you did not tag any pages for deletion manually and neglected to leave an edit summary, you have a total of 65 successful speedy deletion nominations. By successful, of course, I mean that the page is no longer with us. (takes off hat) I don't know if the speedy tags were removed and then prodded or something. Hope that helps. J.delanoygabsadds15:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/66.99.186.2 has vandalized numerous articles and has been warned up to a last warning. I was going to leave a warning after their last edit to Lois Griffin until I saw that you had just left a warning that disregarded the "Last Warning". Can you not block this IP because it may be shared by multiple users? Belasted (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I edited the page because I was frustrated, and I didn't want it to be an act of vandalism, but an eye opener.
I own MLB 2K8 for the Nintendo Wii. We, as Wii owners, were promised certain things like updated rosters by 2k Sports. One of the admins said he wasn't even AWARE that the console could go online, let alone put downloadable content up for it.
I felt like this was a slap in the face to us, who, because of hard times, the idea Nintendo has with the Wiimote, or whatever, bought a WII and no other console.
It's been able to get online since day one, the Wii Wikipedia article itself says so.
And I want the public to know that 2k Sports is really stupid when it comes to the Wii verison and to watch out for it, since they're going to have to spend $50 when it first comes out, and if they were ignorant to the previous installment, and lack of support, they may want to buy it for another console, like their PC. Or, boycott 2k Sports altogether and hope that EA takes the MLB license back sometime.
SO if I could, can I mention that anywhere in that article in a constructive way that would benefit more than just 2k Sports?
You have a lot of nerve instantly reverting my edit as "unconstructive" without explaining how it was "unconstructive." Punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.239.92 (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:J.delanoy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, J.delanoy. It seems I have fallen into something that could or could not be a content dispute. I need a neutral third-party, and you may fit that need. Please visit this section of my talk page to see some relevant messages regarding edits at South Park Mexican. Thank you for your time. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 16:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
