User talk:J.smith/Archive07

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed deletion of Spiritwalker: Messages from the Future

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Spiritwalker: Messages from the Future, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Spiritwalker: Messages from the Future

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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Sticky Parkin 23:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Extreme points of India (geodata)

Thanks, If you find any-others I've missed LMK ASAP Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow question

There is a Question placed on the computer reference desk, I think you you might be able to help answer it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#World_of_Warcraft_question Thanks - E 69.62.151.224 (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of David Sereda

I have nominated David Sereda, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Sereda. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

New straw poll

You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — talk 23:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Final version

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — talk 21:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Computer_sporadically_turning_on

Hey there. Just thought I'd follow up in regards to the issue I was having. It did indeed turn out to be a power supply issue. I appreciate your insight. Best regards. --Chasingsol(talk) 03:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh good... that seemed the most likely. And the cheapest to replace, too. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


Thanks

– Elliott  has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!


Dear god, the spam burns... oh so painfull!!!! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Derby Owners Club

Is it necessary to keep adding websites that have illegal information on how to defraud arcade games in this section. i.e. jwpitts and hu12 users are spamming. Please add this to the wikipedia spam. Also, is it a viloation of the Wikipedia guidelines to promote a website that encourages defrauding arcade games?

The following is an example of how to utilize technology to create cards which are not created by the arcade game itself. I can tell you that any arcade operator in the business would frown on such publications.

http://doc.rbcb.net/forums/Resource.Section/view/83/ http://doc.rbcb.net/forums/Resource.Section/view/84/ http://doc.rbcb.net/forums/Resource.Section/view/85/

Allowing this website to exist on Wikipedia without being entered into the spam category is beyond words. This website has openly spammed and edited wikipedia, publishes information on how to defraud the game and you allow this? What the hell are you thinking? I am sure that NAMA would not approve.

Marking with timestamps so archiving works. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Kitties!

File:Catcron.gif

– Elliott  has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. And don't feed him too much corn!

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Marking with timestamps so archiving works. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for removing the scripting code in my monobook. I can login again! But, I'm still going to use the Anti-Vandal tool.

I love entei (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at 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.

(I love entei (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

No problem. If you need anything else give me a holler! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Pie!

File:Pie.jpeg

– Elliott  has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Marking with timestamps so archiving works. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I just found it laying around=

– Elliott  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}}!

Marking with timestamps so archiving works. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, J.smith. You have new messages at Pknkly's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Do you think the use of a link to YouTube is appropriate within the article for Aaron Downey? Seems ok to me. However, I would appreciate having your opinion. Pknkly (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:8 steps towards sars prevention (retouch).jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:8 steps towards sars prevention (retouch).jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Permission for the use of © in unification of user name

That is... wierd. I don't see an existing account under that name. Try creating a new account with your normal name. If it errors out, let us know what that error is. Depending on what the error is there might be away to get around it. --J.smith (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello J.smith, I have decided to our talk here so you can have a direct link to my account in the signature: Sara©SF (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC) This is my user name in pt.wikipedia and en.wikipedia. I had a diferent user name and changed to this one, so now I'm having a lot of trouble because my account is no longer automaticaly unified. Further more, when I try to sign in with my name Sara©SF, as it happend in Commons, I get the message of invalid caracters "©®". I had this problem before and asked a portuguese admin to help. It's a big loss of time to be all the time loggin in and out from one account to another. Please answer in my talk page so I can see it faster. Thanks. Sara©SF (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice

You might to be able to contribute to a thread at ANI. See User:Fujsmith.--The LegendarySky Attacker 05:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what I did to get my own special vandal... heh, oh well. I'll check out the ANI thread. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Torch Relay

If you have some time please provide us with an input at this RFC on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article and this Merger Contest. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

hat

http://www.henschelhats.com/breezer.php — I got mine at Berkeley Hat Company on Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley, California. —Tamfang (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh cool, thanks! It really is a great hat. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Albert Stubblebine video on YouTube

I had not noticed your warning about posting links to YouTube when I installed a link to General Stubblebine's video yesterday. In any event, the link was promptly removed by an administrator who goes by the name Dougweller. I wrote him as soon as I realized that he had removed both my link and the text that I had written. I haven't heard from him since so perhaps you would be kind enough to tell me what the policy is exactly about writing what I did. Everything related to 9/11 seems taboo here on Wikipedia. It seems that the only things allowed are disparaging comments about people who are guilty of nothing else but seeking the truth, whatever it may be. On the discussion page of Talk:Albert_Stubblebine, Cs32en proposed adding a paragraph that put General Stubblebine's research into goatstaring in a more proper perspective than the text that is available online right now and which seems geared to discredit him as a kook. Shouldn't wikipedians avoid subjecting people to ridicule, especially when it is not warranted? I find all this very disturbing. Cs32en proposed adding his text on November 11. An unnamed editor agreed with him on the very same day but nothing has been done since. Perhaps Cs32en has forgotten about it. Can I put that text in its proper place myself or should we wait for Cs32en to do it or, if you prefer, could you do it yourself?

Below, you will find the message I had written to User_talk:Dougweller yesterday and which has remained unanswered:

I notice you deleted the text I had appended to the paragraph dealing with General Stubblebine's testimony in the documentary "One Nation Under Siege". I find it very unfortunate that you deemed it necessary to also remove the link to the YouTube document I copied it from. I am not at all familiar with all those copyright concerns, although I know they do exist. In this particular case, I doubt very much that the copyright owner would object to having someone linking a Wikipedia article to a YouTube excerpt from his movie. He could more understandably object to YouTube distributing the video than for someone just linking to it. It seems to me that since he doesn't seem to object to the video being freely accessible on YouTube, it is very unlikely that he would object to someone merely providing a link to the publicly available document on YouTube.
That being said, I fail to see why the phrase mentioning that "he states that a Boeing 757 airplane could not have crashed into The Pentagon on September 11, 2001" was allowed to remain. What is the logic here? That information comes straight from the video. Why did you delete his views about the free press having become very expensive since 9/11 and kept intact those about the Boeing at the Pentagon ?
Is it because I faithfully transcribed what he said word for word? If that is the case, would it be acceptable to mention his thoughts if I summarized them in my own words?

I will be posting this message on the Talk:Albert_Stubblebine page also to ensure that it gets answered as soon as possible and to keep other wikipedians abreast of what is happening to Albert Stubblebine's page. For the record, here is the paragraph I had written yesterday and which was a literal transcript, word for word, of what was said in the latter part of the video. I'm quite willing to edit it if that's what it takes:

He went on to say: "We pride ourselves with a free press. I do not believe the free press is free anymore. It's very expensive. It's very expensive. And the press is saying what they have been told to say about this. Now, do I have proof of that? No. But I believe that what is being... what... certainly the stories that we're told about all about 9/11 were false. I mean you take a look at the buildings falling down. They didn't fall down because airplanes hit'em, they fell down because of explosives went off [inaudible] demolition. Look at building Seven, for God's sake." Oclupak (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


Since I have no involvement in that article and don't know anything about the topic I don't really have much to add to the discussion. I haven't even seen the movie :( ... All I can say is that "Wikipedia:Verifiability" is everything, and "truth" is not something we are equipped to pursue. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In case you are interested, here is a link to the banned video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E Oclupak (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the source is dubious (anonymous uploader to YouTube) the source is unacceptable for such a controversial topic. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the logic here. The important thing should be what the General actually said. Can anyone doubt that General Stubblebine actually said what we see and hear him say? Of course not. I don't claim that there is any proof that he is right. He could be wrong. But no one can dispute the fact that what we hear him say is actually what he said. If, for some copyright reason the video cannot be linked to — which I would find most unfortunate — at least we should be able to summarize in writing the essence of his thoughts. The article is about General Stubblebine. If the content of the video can bring some information to the page, do we have to dismiss that knowledge just because we don't know where the video comes from? Oclupak (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source we need to rely on reliable secondary sources. A home video uploaded to YouTube is a non-reliable primary source. Since it's non-reliable we can't be sure the video hasn't been doctored or been taken out of context, etc. We are not equipped to fact-check like a newspaper so we can't even make the judgment call. It would be origional research - something that is also not permitted. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to realize that maybe Wikipedia is not for me as I am increasingly aware that what are called "reliable sources" are full of lies. The BBC, the NYTimes, CNN, FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC, they are all promoting the official propaganda. Sure, they are accurate on many basic facts but the message that they convey is a lie. Journalists are merely spokespersons for whoever runs the governments and the corporations. These past few years have been full of examples of the media leading gullible people into believing untruths. That's how a majority of Americans believed at one time that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in planning the attacks on 9/11, and quite a few still do even today. The press never displayed any great effort at dispelling that misconception. That is why I say the press is misleading and unreliable.

A few weeks ago, I saw in a "truther" blog that Mohamed ElBaradei had said: "Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East given the nuclear arms it possesses." I couldn't believe it was possible that the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) could have said such a thing and I suspected that the "truther" blog might have stretched the truth a little. So I went looking for "reliable sources". Remarkebly, I could find only one, in a press release of the China News Agency. I read the release carefully. It was true, he had really said that. I found that pretty amazing. I was curious then to find out what spin the world press would put on the story, how they would interpret and comment this surprising statement from someone who should be specially careful about neutrality in those matters. To my amazement, to my complete bewilderment, I couldn't find any other source. Not a single one. I checked to see if the URL was a hoax. No, it seemed genuine. It appears that for some reason all the major newspapers of the world found that that news item was uninteresting. Or, more likely, they were waiting for instructions from Washington or Tel Aviv as to how to deal with that unsuspected story that had popped up out of the blue and caught them unawares. I was then tempted to make a bold move and I posted something pretty controversial on Mohamed ElBaradei's page. That was one of my most courageous acts yet on Wikipedia. I posted the exact quote and held my breath as I expected an editor or an administrator to delete it in a matter of minutes. It never happened. It is still there.

That taught me the lesson that when I behave like a good little boy and obey the rules, everything else behaves as it should. So I can attest that it is true that there is no censorship on Wikipedia. If you can source it, they'll publish it. However, I find that the "reliable sources" do not behave like good little boys. They cherry pick the news that they allow us to see. The news that interests me sometimes never makes it in the "reliable" media. Most people still don't know that a third building fell that day. A building that was not hit by an airplane. Never mind the controlled demolition claim, the fact that a 47 storey building collapsed due to office fires never reached the public. And at freefall speed, in its own footprint. When one saw the video for the first time, it looked unreal. Apart of the fact that it was linked to a terrorist attack, it was one of the most bizarre collapses of a building that was ever recorded on film. If only for the aesthetic purposes of the building coming down gracefully and symetrically, it could have been shown over and over. Yet, it was barely ever shown, until quite recently. I personnally learnt about it 3 or 4 years after the event and still today most people I meet are ignorant about what happened to Building 7. That says a lot about the reliability of the press.

On wikipedia, if I know something happened, I am not allowed to say so until some "reputable" organisation reports on it, otherwise it would be called "original research", which is unacceptable. I understand the reasoning that a home video uploaded to YouTube may be an unreliable primary source. But more and more, it seems, only "unreliable" sources cover the real news, the important news. The 9/11 Conspiracy issue is a perfect example of that. To contradict what I just said, I must report that the government run and managed CBC TV network last week aired a 9/11 documentary which was somewhat earth-shattering because, as many many viewers commented, for one of the first times in North America, a fair and balanced documentary had been presented on MSM. Actually, it was mostly biased in favor of the Official story, but so much less than usual that it broke new ground. You can take a peek at some of the comments at http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/discussion/2009/11/the_unofficial_story.html. A great number of them praise the CBC for being so daring. The video itself is available on YouTube but I tried, unsuccessfully, to link to it in Wikipedia.

You say that when dealing with a home video uploaded to YouTube, "we can't be sure the video hasn't been doctored or been taken out of context, etc." No one can dispute that. But one of the most famous sequences of the Iraq war, the toppling of Saddam's statue in Baghdad, will likely be, for years to come, THE classic example of a video which had been doctored and taken out of context. It gives the impression that a huge crowd was cheering when the statue was toppled and that angry Iraqis pounded on it with their shoes. The images were real, of course, but staged. The Iraqis in the video were the chauffeurs and Interpreters who accompanied the journalists and those they were embedded with (in bed with) on that errand, that day. The journalists who broadcast those images knew perfectly well that they were broadcasting an untruthful account of what had happened, that they were willing participants in a propaganda operation. Yet, only what is reported in their "reliable" publications is allowed to be sourced to, that is what I have a problem with. Pardon the long rant. Oclupak (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you said. However, wikipedia can't be the platform for that kind of social change. It would turn this website into a battleground and it would no longer be able to perform it's primary mission.
Wikipedia is an encylopedia. It's not a forum for investigative journalism. It's not a place for ideas to be promoted. An encyclopedia is boring. An encyclopedia is mainstream. An encyclopedia is the status quo.
I've seen if fairly often... someone comes to wikipedia with a very strong point of view and false expectations. They have the "Truth" and they want to convince others. They scoff at our guidelines because how could "Truth" be non-neutral? Why should things like "reliable sources" matter when he knows the "Truth"? Then they start to bump heads with other people. Either with people who believe a different "Truth" or with those who believe in the importance of our guidelines. Eventually something breaks. Maybe, they step over the line and violate one of the guidelines for behavior. Maybe they just refuse to bend... (Why should the "Truth" compromise?) In the end the result is usually the same... the person is asked to leave the project. I've seen this scenario played out dozens of times.... paranormalist vs skeptics, pro-choices vs pro-life, left vs right, Muslims vs Christians, atheists vs theists, business vs whisleblower... and every other possible scenario.
However... all is not lost. Conservapedia was founded by a wikipedian who felt that Wikipedia did not represent his point of view... his "Truth". Not only is "forking" allowed, it is encouraged. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Guy Goma

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Guy Goma. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy Goma (2nd nomination). 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello J.smith! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 944 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Micah Meisner - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  2. Kelly Tyler-Lewis - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Leila Waddell image

Hi, I didn't know about the image override rule, and thought that's what the 'revert' button was for (still puzzled, what is that for then?). I don't know how to move the image to a new file, could you help with that? Maybe it could be named Leila Waddell2 or something similar. Then two Waddell images could appear on her article page. The face photo seems to me the better one (personal preference) in that it is a portion of her photo from the Crowley period which she is best known for. Thanks, Aleister Wilson (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to put the revert tags back, just poking around the file to see if I could figure out how to rename the photo. Still haven't figured it out (was hoping there was a "move" button on it, but no). Aleister Wilson (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Revert is for doing exactly that - "reverting" back to a previous version of the file. It's often used to clean up vandalism or when someone mistakenly overwrites a perfectly good photo.
The image your uploading is a good one and I'd hate to see it not be used. Here's where you should start:
  1. Click on Wikipedia:Upload (you can find it to the left, as well).
  2. Select "An image from a website"
  3. Scroll down past the warning. I'd recommend pausing for a moment and reading them, but at this point it's fine.
  4. Choose a good "Destination filename:". Choose something other then "Leila Waddell.jpg". Maybe... "Leila Waddell Headshot.jpg". Accurate and descriptive is the key.
  5. Fill out the description the best you can.
  6. Choose the license "First published in the United States Before 1923". Since the image was published as part of the "The Book of Lies" (published 1913) we can be fairly certain it's in the public domain.
  7. Press "Upload file"
And then your done. Now both files co-exist! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tutorial, and I will study the How To's, but right now I'm lost amongst my lack of tech. ability. How would I tell the code/upload exactly which photo I'm uploading from a website, and from what website? Totally lost here. Would you please do this upload and then I'll study for future uploads. Thanks, and have a great weekend. Aleister Wilson (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, you 'rescued' the photo. I'm going to have to study uploading photos and graphics, thanks for the start on my limited tech and coding education. Appreciated. Aleister Wilson (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

not an unhappy client

Hello I am not an unhappy client. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wstoke (talk • contribs) 04:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

hello

i am not an unhappy client. (04:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)) wayne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wstoke (talk • contribs)

You should be. You were ripped off. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Your input is requested

As you have recently edited Andy Martin (American politician), I am writing to request your input at the article talk page, sections Vexed and disputed are the ones which outline the current issue. Many thanks in advance for your time. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Hot Rod (rapper) re-started

Hi, J.smith - I've restarted a talk page you deleted - think it's uncontroversial, but just doing the right thing - --Shirt58 (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Xeno (talk) at 12:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC).

Well, that's unfortunate. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Titanic (album).jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Titanic (album).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Journey to the Sacred Garden cover.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Journey to the Sacred Garden cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, derp. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles deletion

Dear J.smith,

I apologize for the inconvenience, but have no other way than appealing for administrators’ help recover a deleted article.

I published a film article entitled Drits (Derivas), a film by Portuguese director Ricardo Costa. It is the second film from an autobiographic trilogy, Faraways. The article was kept untouched by several months. To my surprise, it was recently eliminated and redirected to the director’s page with no discussion. I undid the redirection, but saw the article was proposed to deletion. Reason: independent, verifiable, secondary resources. I argued that the article couldn’t have but primary sources (the producer’s ones) as it is an upcoming film, like many others listed at upcoming films. A film that has not yet been premiered or distributed may not be commented. Besides, none of the films so listed has ever been deleted or even contested.

At last, in discussion, user User:reddogsix proposed that the article should be renamed to Drifts (film) or similar, and at the same time put at the disambiguation page of Dritf this reference «Drifs, unreleased film by Ricardo Costa (filmmaker). I created a new page for the same article entitled Drifts (Portuguese film). As the semantic root “drift” seemed to be the problem, I replaced the article name to Derivas (Drifts) and published it once more with some improvements. As a result, the article was fast deleted and I blocked for three days.

In the meantime, a new article about the trilogy was published: Faraways, which was proposed to fast deletion as well by the same user, User:reddogsix.

Although unreleased, although having no reliable secondary sources, Drifts is unquestionably an outstanding film for its uniqueness and characteristics: autobiography, comedy, docufiction, metafiction in one. I guess that “outstanding” may be a synonym for “notable” in such cases and that articles like this shouldn’t be deleted without previous cared analyses: important information may be lost.

This sequence of interventions is clearly a personal attack by User:reddogsix, supported by two or three user friend. It has no other explanation. It contributes in nothing to improve articles quality. Mists article, which I created on 10 September 2010, is the latest example. The article structure was unreasonably modified, loosing clarity and useful content.

NOTE: sent to 30 administrators.

Thanks for your attention, User:Tertulius 21:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The General Principles of Astrology

The article The General Principles of Astrology has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Could not find any reliable sources. This is about a republishing of existing books, not something typically noteworthy or notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Micah Meisner for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Micah Meisner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micah Meisner until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jamesx12345 18:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dave Michaels (news anchor)

The article Dave Michaels (news anchor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article has zero reliable sources; fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 21:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Micah Meisner

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Micah Meisner, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Meh. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, J.smith. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi J.smith.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, J.smith. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, Administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — JJMC89 bot 00:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, I know i've been lazy! Don't worry, I still control my account. :) -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, J.smith. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Aaevp-think positively.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aaevp-think positively.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J.smith/Archive07&oldid=1211803980"