User talk:Jauerback/Archives/2010

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

New article

After working on what I thought was a new article, I found that you had deleted a previous version. I've copied my version with some external links that I will using as references here. I didn't want to maliciously re-create the article. May I have your opinion of my version's chances of avoiding a CSD? Thanks Tiderolls 18:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know how long you'd be offline, so I sought some help and "finished" the article. If you think my re-creation too hasty please leave a Talkback on my page. Regards Tiderolls 20:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
On a cursory glance, the article looks great. I don't think you'll have any problems with it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jauerback. You have new messages at Neptunerover's talk page.
Message added 16:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 16:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Drew Peterson

Just a quickie ~ with this edit you put back vandalism that had been taken out. Not to worry, i've corrected it now. Rhyd. (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for catching that. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

I moved the warning to the talk page of the user who engaged the dispute. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

The warning is meant for you. Continue the edit war, and you will be blocked. It doesn't matter who "engaged the dispute". You are part of it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Wait a second. I just realized what you did. Don't leave comments on other people's talk pages with my signature on it. If you wish to leave a warning, then leave it, but don't use my signature again. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"useful"

Please tell me how fixing an incorrect page is not "useful". And why you are so incredibly arrogant as to use your admin privileges to simply block me to prevent me to making edits that you, for no coherent reason, oppose, and so hypocritical as to accuse ME of "abusing me editing privileges".Heqwm2 (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You were blocked for edit warring which is an abuse of editing privileges. No where did I mention "vandalism". I take this back, apparently, I used the wrong block template. Clicking the "abuse of editing privledges" is a link to WP:VANDAL. For that, I apologize, but not for the block itself. Have a great day. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User Heqwm2

Hi,

You recently blocked this user for one week for edit-warring. Almost immediately after the release of the block he has returned to the same articles, warring with the same edits. If you get a chance, could you take a look at this? I would file a longterm abuse report, but the process is so time-consuming that I probably won't be able to get to it this week. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on them. I left a message on their talk page. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 22:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi. Thanks for the attention. One question: how is adding a book title to references "advertising?" Scenario: someone looks at a Howard Hawks or John Wayne entry on Wikipedia, then goes to the library to get the referenced book for more extensive and solid information. No money exchanged. No book sold. Just help with someone's research. Advertising? Soapbox? Promotion? No. Another question or request for help: how can I correct some of the misinformation on some entries and use a footnote without getting attacked for promotion or advertising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VinceStone (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, please don't block me

Please, I beg you, don't block me, I was just tryin' to create a page for the Lost and Found Band. I'm sorry. Robert LeBlanc (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Johnny Depp Thing

That's just a joke, right? Robert LeBlanc (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, you tell me. Unless you're looking for a reason to get blocked, lose your socks. This will probably be the last chance that you're given. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My block

I didn't try to unblock myself because it would have been pointless since it was only for a day. However I really don't believe the block was fair because one I wasn't warned sufficiently(I noticed Ibaranoff was not blocked for his instigating of the war and multiple reverts) and two because why should I be punished for putting sourced content such as Kid being nu metal into articles. While you are most certainly a qualified administrator, I believe the block wasn't right. I didn't do anything to the hurt the encyclopedia. RG (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess this warning wasn't clear enough. I'll try to do better next time. You and Sugar Bear need to knock off the edit warring on not only the Kid Rock article, but all the other articles that you're edit warring over. You're both bound to get blocked eventually, but I'm not going to follow you guys or get involved in your dispute. You need to come to a consensus on the whole genre thing and stop reverting each other's edits. That's what constitutes an WP:EDITWAR. That's why you were blocked, because, yes you were disrupting the encyclopedia. Click on the link for edit warring and read it carefully. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not actively trying to revert RG's edits simply to contradict him. He's very off in his behavior, ettiqutte-wise. I left him a message detailing where he might be considered to be "hurting the encyclopedia" by adding content that was not sourced, changing genres against consensus, reverting against sources, arguing with other editors, and he removed my message, claiming that he was "removing uncivil comments", which is untrue, but I'm not going to undue this action, being that it is his talk page, and if he wants to ignore me, yourself, and any others who warn him about toning down his behavior, that's his prerogative, but I strongly suspect that he's headed for a block here. I don't think that this kind of behavior provides a very healthy environment. I do not welcome being attacked by someone who does not want to collaborate with any other editor. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC))
Ibaranoff this is not your conversation here, please do not interrupt a private event that does that not involve you or your attitude. Now getting back to where I was, it was not an appropiate warning. Jauerback, you were kind enough to put this directly on Ibaranoff's personal talk page, I receive no such warning from you. And with the Kid Rock conversation no one other than me and him were showing up to debate the topic and that started about a month ago. No one showed up nor was anyone going to show up to discuss the nu metal tag. It's frankly unfair and I've had a really tough week this week. A family member passed away four or five days ago and it's been a living hell. I really wasn't in the mood for this. Well anyway have a good day sir. RG (talk)20:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
RG, sorry for your loss, but quite frankly, that is more than a sufficient warning. Perhaps you two should start an WP:RFC or post something at WP:RSN for help. Maybe even WP:3PO. Continuing on your current course of action is bound to get one or both you blocked again. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my family, still I don't believe that one little notice that wasn't even on my talk page was enough. Regardless what's done is done. I know for fact that the sources I was using for Kid Rock were reliable(I listed sources from MTV, Rolling Stone, Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal,and books called Nu-metal: the next generation of rock & punk by Joel Mclver and Somebody Scream!: Rap Music's Rise to Prominence in the Aftershock of Black Power by Marcus Reeves citing him as nu metal on the talk page), but "Sugar Bear" just didn't want the "useless catchphrase" as he calls it getting into anyone's infobox. Take care. RG (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
RG, you didn't list any reliable sources. You listed a source that said that he wasn't a performer of the genre. And you are not allowed to dictate who can and cannot comment on any issue relating to clear etiquette breaches. As Jauerback stated, sorry for your loss. But the environment here that you've created is not a pleasant one. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC))
Jauerback, RFC was instigated. Others cited the guidelines RG went against. He refused to listen. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC))
Can you please just leave me alone Ibaranoff? This conversation did not involve you. Why do you feel the need to make everything about you? I asked you politely to please not but in on this conversation. This was just me talking to Jauerback about my block, okay. Apparently just as you refuse to read the sources(see his numerous edits on the list of nu metal bands page especially the most recent and various other articles) you also refuse to read the title of this section. You are being for what it's worth a cyber bully. I say have a nice night to you, I say you have done good work with the Muddy Waters albums and all I get is "RG your personality sucks", "RG you and Baz are fools", "You're a child", "You just want to d*** me around." and all the rest of that harassment. I still haven't even gotten a simple, little apology. Talk to your friends or juggalos or whatever they call them, alright. Rubbing salt in the wound is not productive. Comment on the content not the contributer. "If you ain't got nothing nice to say..." I may not be perfect, but I certainly don't need to be attacked on a daily basis here.
Getting back to where I was before, Jauerback I am really sorry this conversation had to play out on your talk page with "Sugar Bear" here getting me completely off topic and that last comment of mine above was suppose to be my last on this section. In the end my belief on the block was I can't change the past. I was blocked even though I believe it was unjust. You have your opinion and I have mine. I think it was ill warned you don't. Let's let bygones be bygones, fair enough? Good night sir. RG (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
So, wait, you think you get to dictate where I can and cannot post, insult a group of people you've never met, and still call me a "cyber bully"? Sorry, your logic is ridiculously absurd. No wonder you were blocked. (Sugar Bear (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC))
You do realize that we are having an argument on someone's talkpage, right? Jauerback please feel free to remove any of this including my comments at any time. "So, wait, you think you get to dictate where I can and cannot post" this was a personal discussion not an article and this had nothing to do with you. You came here to add insult to injury, which isn't constructive. "insult a group of people", who did I insult? I asked you talk to your friends. People you have common interests with and well make you happier. Frankly it would be better for the both of us. I very much doubt you want to send every other day signing on to your account and start arguing with someone who shares little in common with you when you could be enjoying yourself with the people who you can relate with. If we both just ignore each other, problem solved. "No wonder you were blocked", coming from someone who has been blocked on multiple occasions that doesn't mean much. Now can we please just let this die? RG (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

References

This is yet another wikipedia semantic/formatting issue. All these articles were tagged as unsourced and with that tag are subject to deletion. Some people are even proposing speedy deletion. With at least IMDB, these articles do have sources. I am making an effort to remove the tags and make the bots recognize there are sources in order to save these articles of important people. I will honor your request not to change external links into references.OsamaPJ (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As has been already stated on your talk page, IMDB is NOT a reliable source. Also, not only are you adding empty reference sections, but then you're still removing the unreferenced BLP template, which is not accurate. However, thank you for stopping. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

your removal of a personal attack

I feel my restoration of the personal attack was entirely appropriate. First off the attack was directed at myself, and my intent was to reply to it. Second, it shows that the whole thread was started by a troll in bad faith. While I'm quite tempted to revert you, I'm here, instead. There are a host of trolls that haunt me and the pages I edit. I have a history you may not know. It this point in my wiki-career, one of the services I provide is as flypaper for a large selection of the trolls that infest this site. The ones too stupid to not out themselves this way, at least. Rather than revert me, how about reviewing the other edits by that IP and determining if they need reverting. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 02:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

nb: just saw this tweak. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 02:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I now see that you've been reviewing the IP edits, too. Pleased to have met you. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Re User:71.213.224.55

Hello Jauerback
This editor, who you reverted on Julia Child, came to my attention when they made "test edits" on Fess Parker changing his birth/death date to absurd numbers. They did it 4 times in a row then reverted them all (one at a time). When I followed their trail back I found one edit at Jeanne d'Alcy from ≈8½ hours ago (07:04, 19 March 2010) that still needed removal. Diff, they also made a mess of Ray Charles, again changing dates, Diff, also stopping his photo displaying.

I gave them a Lvl 1 warning for Jeanne d'Alcy, 2 for Ray Charles, and bumped it to Last Warning for Fess Parker. Just FYI, and to ask have I wasted my time as this is their only (& likely last?) edits on this IP address?
Regards and Happy Vandal Whacking! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll watchlist the IP, but it's not entirely fair to stack warnings onto their talk page for edits that were done prior to a previous warning. If they continue with the same pattern, feel free to report the IP to to WP:AIV. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your attention. Feel free to delete any warning I gave them you think is excessive.--220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Meetup and update

Last fall you indicated that you continue to be active with WP:CHICAGO. If you continue to be active please update your active date at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, we are planning a Chicago Meetup. If you will be able to attend the meetup from 10:30-11:45 a.m. on Saturday May 1, 2010 at the UIC Student Center West, please sign as an indication of your intent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Lefty

I think there needs to be a discussion about this user's behavior. I'm afraid the matter is not resolved and won't be without an RFC. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if an RFC is necessary at this point. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

The anon user you blocked vandalized another article. --DrBat (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, he's vandalized several articles. --DrBat (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I'll try to keep an eye on the IP, but it looks like they've only made one edit today, so that's not enough for another block - as it could easily be a different user than was blocked before. If I miss some future vandalism today or I'm not active, feel free to report them to WP:AIV. Be sure to give the user proper warnings, otherwise they won't be blocked. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice block and tackle

on user:Kennyavance. Too bad we can't get the same performance on vandal-only IP's. SBHarris 18:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Intentionally Editing Wrong

Hey, Jauerback. I was wondering how do I e-mail or contact an executive of this site about a user who has been editing wrong on purpose time and time again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evolution590 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to contact an "executive". Have you tried discussing this issue with the user? If so, and that has failed, you can try a number of different avenues, such as dispute resolution and then perhaps an WP:RFC. Or it's really problematic where it might need administrative action, you can post at WP:ANI. Good luck. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A present for you :)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For all the great vandal-whacking you do. I noticed you a lot when I was clerking AIV and your name seems to crop up in the block log a huge number of times. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


Great work here! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on Tribute act article

User IP 60.226.50.72 has continued to post non-existent Status Quo articles on the Tribute act article and I've already warned him once. Please block him ASAP. Thanks. - Areaseven (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, unfortunately, this is slightly more complicated than that. Please read WP:VANDALISM. If the IP is indeed currently vandalizing over the course of a day, and you've sufficiently warned them, then report it to WP:AIV. Keep in mind, the definition of vandalism is important, because it looks like you're having a content dispute with the IP, which is much different than "vandalism". A single warning doesn't suffice either. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2

Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

.

Why did you delete Erica Beck? just wondering... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolnoodles (talk • contribs) 03:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As the deletion log states, the article was deleted because of WP:CSD#A7. There was no indication of notability. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Steve & Buzz.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Steve & Buzz.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Broadview Security

The source I provided was a reliable source. Perhaps forum posts aren't technically considered "reliable", but the information presented is in fact true. That forum post was made by an experienced security technician who has worked on Broadview systems. Destin (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no, that's not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Please read the link about reliable sources here or left on your talk page on what's considered a reliable source. In short, it has to be published material from a fact-checking source, such as a newspaper or magazine. A forum isn't anywhere near considered "reliable". Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

WP Images and Media in the Signpost

WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Images and Media for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

  • I can not even imagine how petty and arogant someone must be to block someone that has contributed so much to wikipedia in the past because of a very minor technicality. Although I assume it would be easy for him to abide by your request, there must be a reason he does not. It is because of people like this blocker that chase off very valuable members of our editorial community. He may not be appealing because of the disgust he has, related to wikipedia's emboldening of power to some that can not seem to see the value in a very capable and knowledgeable contributor.--Craiglduncan (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Is there a way for me to appeal to someone with higher authority on Handicapper's behalf?--Craiglduncan (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to start a discussion at WP:ANI, however, you really should familiarize yourself with all the facts before you go throwing accusations around. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

edgar flores

the information i edited comes from my personal relationship with the living person. all published sources that your information comes from are no longer accurate. i checked the BLP page and the verifiability standard makes the edits i am trying to put through difficult to impossible. because you are a far more experienced editor, i ask you: how do we work through this impasse? Little red one (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what you're describing is original research, which is against Wikipedia policies -- especially in regards to biographies of living people. So, you'll have to find a published, reliable source that has this information in it to add it to the article. Finally, it sounds like you have a clear conflict of interest, so you may wish to avoid the article altogether. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Harrison Ford

Thanks for reminding me why I never edit Wikipedia anymore. The source for the Harrison Ford thingie was "Skywalking: The Life and Films of George Lucas," by Dale Pollock, Page 151. You can check it yourself by searching through the book on Amazon. But what's the point of fixing it now? Why would I bother? Some screwball like you will just come along and undo it, so I'll just leave the page as it is and everybody will just have to do with a less informative page than they might have had. Thanks! Off to other pursuits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Plop (talk • contribs) 15:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So, instead of just sourcing it properly, you came here to complain that I pointed out your mistake? I think the latter took more effort. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but I've been looking through your changes. They're not about the quality of the entry: they're about spite. For example, with that Harrison Ford thing, you now have the source. So why haven't you gone back to the page, unreverted it, and added the source -- since the missing source was supposedly the issue? Simple: spite, the same principle that governs most of your other edits. Colonel Plop (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings about removing your unsourced edit. Feel free to continue going through my edits and drawing your own conclusions from them. In this case, it's about an unsourced entry to WP:BLP. I'm not going to cite any source that I haven't seen myself, so me reverting my edit and adding the source isn't going to happen. So, if it makes you feel better to continue coming up with excuses for your lack of effort for a simple citation by blaming me, go right ahead. Have a great day! Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't "hurt my feelings" by making the change, nitwit. Rather, you reminded me what a crock it is to edit Wikipedia these days. Further, now that you have the source and petulantly refuse to do anything, you've clarified the nature of your "contributions," the lion's share of which have been negative and destructive. It seems like you never add anything of your own; for the most part you restrict yourself to an unvarying diet of deletions and reverts. If you were really interested in improving pages, you would have gone back there and unreverted your revert. But instead you refuse to, proving my point. I'm not sure why you spend so much time on Wikipedia, but it can't be from an interest in improving pages or the encyclopedia as a whole. Lastly, it's not necessary to invite me to look through your changes. There is nothing you can do to prevent me from doing so. Colonel Plop (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, lay off the personal attacks. Since you obviously don't care for me much and you feel slighted about your edit being reverted, you should feel free to report me for all of my negative and destructive contributions. Or if you just want to continue to rant on my talk page on the evils of Wikipedia, what a waste of time it is, and how bad of a person I am, that's fine as well. You keep doing your thing and I'll keep doing mine. At least one of us is being productive. Take care. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:69.218.77.179

Could you block User talk:69.218.77.179 so it cannot edit its talkpage? It is spewing at the moment. TIA ----moreno oso (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away for a bit and didn't see this until now. It looks like another admin took care of it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
No problems there, we're all human and need breaks or time out for other things. Chances are, the other admin has your talkpage on Watch because the block was pretty quick and timely. ----moreno oso (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

VPC

— raekyT 00:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Matt Gutierrez

I highly suggest using Rotoworld and/or ProFootballWeekly for transactions rather than waiting for an official announcement from the team since most team sites take a while to update. Cheers and keep up the good work,--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I jumped the gun too quickly on that revert. I revered once I found a source, but you already added one. Sorry about that. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem, it's understandable.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

your deletion of my edits

Well, this is very interesting to find out about WIKIPEDIA! Supposedly, everyone has the right to edit, create, delete whatever info. Now I have edited 2 times a section that should not even belong where it is, and I have CORRECTED a false statement about another person (J. Soring). This person in question HAS always maintained his innocence, which is a FACT, and second, the decision of the person the page is about (Mr Cuccinelli) and the VA. governor was indeed highly controversial and scandalous (never happened before in US history and is subject of ongoing diplomatic and judicial deliberations). Now WHO has the right to DELETE those facts?? Is there a thought police or big brother(hood) within Wikipedia? Seems to be so! How come that within 5 (five!) minutes some people come out of the woodwork and UNDO my edits? And who are you, for that matter? Wikipedia claims there is no central auditor or editor, so why would you have any say-so over me or anyone?Papanoel2010 (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

N.B. OK, although it took you not even 2 minutes to delete my editing in question, now you don't reply anymore even after hours later. Please identify yourself and who or what gives you the right to edit anything.Papanoel2010 (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Perhaps you should just take some time to learn about Wikipedia before you continue to edit. In fact, that would have been a great idea after your edits got reverted the first time. An even better idea after your edits were reverted the second time by another editor. And a fantastic idea now that they've been reverted by a third editor (me). But, no, you've chosen to complain about each one of us rather than getting a clue and realizing that it might be you who is wrong. The thing about your "facts" is that they may indeed be true, but Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability (click on the that link and read for yourself). You need to find an original source (e.g. newspaper, magazine, trade journal, book, etc.) that has published this fact (or even opinion in some cases) otherwise you're just stating your own opinion, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Finally, your edits were a bit POV, and Wikipedia has a strict policy of maintaining a strict neutral point of view in its articles. So, in any case, please drop the stick and stop assuming bad faith of other editors. Finally, I'm just an editor just like who (with admin rights), but I don't work here, so I'm not online every hour of every day. If you read my talk page above, I may not respond to inquiries right away. Best of luck. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Brian Urlacher

Given the extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brian Urlacher, can we get a fair consideration at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Brian Urlacher.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea Boi

Hello you took away my edit of Victor Cruz being #80 and you said i had no evidance. well, he is currently number 80. so how does it feel to have that mouth shut? you NEVER come after me AGAIN buddy. how does it feel? seriously? how does it TASTE to know you are only one thing! and that's WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickhall263 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you might be right, but you need add sources to back up your claims. Either way, it's nice to see you've acted really mature about this. Also, please limit your editing of my user pages to my talk pages only. Thanks. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well i need a way to dance, so suck it.

P.s. Victor actually told me himself at the practice. What do I have to do to prove it? Record him?!? LOL yea son

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes

The pending changes trial has ended, so you probably ought to remove the pending changes protection from Caillou, and restore the semi if you think that's appropriate. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I forgot. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

RiP!: A Remix Manifesto

Hi, I hope you won't mind my posting this explanation on your Talk page, given your status. I saw that you had cleaned up the external links at RiP!: A Remix Manifesto, per WP:ELNO. Two the removed links were to co-producers websites where the article subject was being streamed in its entirety, albeit with multimedia plugins that are discouraged under ELNO, as I think was your objection. One of these links, at the National Film Board of Canada, is still working. I do see that Wikipedia:ELNO#Rich_media does allow for such links where "deemed appropriate," provided it is accompanied by "an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the relevant content." I do believe a link to the film from an article about the film is an appropriate use, and so I have restored this link, with an advisory that this link "Requires Flash." I hope this answers your concerns. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jauerback/Archives/2010&oldid=1146434289"