User talk:Jersyko/archive9

Image:Religion importance

Sakhalin is part of Russia and needs to be highlighted on this map. It is the island above Japan and to the east of mainland Russia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.95.37.150 (talk • contribs).

Reverting edits as vandalism

When you reverted Copyright to the 15:49, 17 April 2007 version by RadiantRay, you didn't revert vandalism. You reverted a thoughtful restructuring by an anonymous user who even provided descriptive edit summaries (and a small addition by some other user). You may not agree with their edits, but simply reverting them as alleged vandalism is inappropriate. I'm sure it was a mistake, but it would be nice if you tried to clear up this issue with the affected editors. Rl 17:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I noticed that the IP had removed a large chunk of text and failed to realize that the IP thereafter moved it to a more appropriate article. I self-reverted. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Edwards

Don't just revert. You are suppose to discuss on articles like that. Listen to the experts. They have logical information. I didn't mean to say you are no good cuz you're not a doctor, but the doctors' advice for the article is good.Annalissette 01:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC) If you're going to accuse me, accuse me.Annalissette 03:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC) I assume good faith so I am not accusing you despite what i think

Sorry

Sorry, I guess I got carried away responding to his spam argument. I should have examined what eas posting. Zantaggerung 13:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet question

A question on User:Annalissette who you blocked indefinitely as sockpuppet. Was this confirmed by Checkuser? I had left the editor a 3RR warning, as John Edward's page was on my watchlist, but I'm not at all familiar with the history of the banned user nor was I previously award of the edit conflicts leading to the edit war. — ERcheck (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your decision; rather, I was curious as to what brought you to the sockpuppet block, as you'd made a comment on Annalissette's talk page about going to WP:SSP. — ERcheck (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Bellevue Edit

Hello Jersyko, I spoke with Mark Dougherty personally today. I happened to be in the meeting when he made his announcement. That is my reference, however due to the controversy I must remain anon. How would I cite that? I am still pretty new and learning my way around. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chryslerfan (talk • contribs).

Possible Citation

Jersyko, Thanks for the info concerning the Bellevue edit. I do not know if this link could be classified as a reference or not. This link is to a letter from Bryan Miller who currently chairs the Deacon board at Bellevue. This letter is posted at the Saving Bellevue website. here is the link to the letter. [1]Thanks for your help! Chryslerfan 16:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta Journal-Constitution

See Talk:The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. --Zpb52 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Banned ?

Hello, I was cleaning up the adoption center... going through all the adoptees and came across User:Dereks1x. Has he been banned ? I ask because although its been stated on his page, I see no "you have been blocked indefinably" box on his pages. Thank you, please respond on my talk page so that I may take him off the adoption list or find him an adopter. thank you for your time Matthew Yeager 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Move

I believe I am unable to move the article crown and bridge to Crown (dentistry). Can you please do this as I just remade the bridge article and removed most info (I believe) of bridges from crown and bridge article. Thanks. - Dozenist talk 16:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

By your logic, bottlehead never mentioned your name, therefore I must be Derek (that's your initial conclusion). Why don't you, as prosecutor and judge, sentence me to the electric chair? I haven't researched Derek but some of the KCtoday comments that I read make some sense. The reality is that my Obama comments make sense, even more sense than my comments about the cow (in another article), which hasn't raised so much fuss.Lawman8 20:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

enforcer

You seem to ban a lot, like KCtoday and anna-something (mentioned above). If you are going to ban me, just do it. I am not for it but it seems to be coming. If you do, I request that you allow me to place a statement of protest. I don't depend on wikipedia for a living. I have a real job.Lawman8 20:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sendai virus expansion

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm not too keen on walking yet without some help. (I was the guy who did the Memphis water deal.)

My question: would it be cool with you/admins/Wikipedia in general if I were to expand the Sendai virus page and make the Sendai disease page?

Talk me on my talk page, if you'd be so kind. -EarthRise33 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How can I delete an image that I posted without ensuring that it was legally permissible according to the copyright? (Sendai-facilitated_erythrocyte_fusion) -EarthRise33 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Done! Would you look over it when you have a minute? And do we have any Wiki communities of biologists who might be willing to swoop in and check out the article for blatant mistakes? I have a zoologist helping, but that's about it.

Much thanks for everything. -EarthRise33 23:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There's a (slightly amusing) thread about you on ANI. Check it out. :-) Grandmasterka 08:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

no objection

I trust your judgment in this. Tvoz |talk 16:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Should we submit Dereks1x for an IP check? It seems that at least two of his socks used IP addresses from different bits of the country which seems to indicate open proxies. I'd imagine more would be underlying. It might also be able to identify some of the socks for this user we haven't identified yet. --Bobblehead 18:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

this looks like a fishing expedition, and I expect an apology when it turns up negative. WP:AGF a little why dont you and dont WP:BITE. Hempbilly 19:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fishing, gosh, where have I heard that accusation before? · jersyko talk 19:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I would like an apology once your allegations of my sock puppetry turn out to be wrong. And I can guarantee you they will. Hempbilly 19:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You exhibited an exceptional grasp of Wiki-markup in your first ever edit to wikipedia. You already seem to know about several policies and guidelines (even their shortcuts), though this is your first day here (NPOV, AGF, BITE, etc.). May I ask how you were able to do that? · jersyko talk 19:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing in Wikipedia is not like building a homemade fusion reactor. The code is quite simple, I use the preview button to review syntax errors, and I have edited other articles anonamously for several months. Hempbilly 19:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Will you provide your anonymous IP? · jersyko talk 19:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Will you? If I gave up my IP you would know where I work, and how dumb would that be? Hempbilly 19:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I submitted the IP check.[2] Wonder how it'll go. Last time I submitted one it went into the round file of oblivion. --Bobblehead 20:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

May I ask why I've been blocked? I noticed that an administrator (User:Conscious) has obviously had his account compromised (deleting the main page etc.), and had blocked several established users, three of whom I unblocked. What, exactly did I do wrong here? I also would note that I checked AN/I, and there was no thread yet on Conscious, which I was about to start when I was blocked. · jersyko talk 18:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Was my fault, it was all a bit confusing. We're good. Now you have a fun block log for yourself. :) --Jimbo Wales 18:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you delete my account?

I have a really bad reputation and people keep bothering me about it, I have made second accounts, blanked my talk page, and many other things but I can not get rid of it. Can you delete my account so I can create a new one and start over? I would really appreciate it if you did because I want to start over new and have a better reputation. User:Daniel Chiswick 9 May, 2007.

Note the user's personal attack on me[3] and his sockpuppet case: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel Chiswick (2nd). I'd appreciate any action on that page. Thanks. Gdo01 01:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you know it was at you? Jesus Christ Gdo01 leave me alone, you are like a stalker or something. I am trying to improve my reputation by deleting my old account or by having people like you leaving me alone. Is there a policy for stalkers on wikipedia? Because you NEVER leave me alone and are always bothering be, it is really annoying and petty. User:Daniel Chiswick 9 May, 2007.

I have not violated any policy on WP:HAR and have fully gone by the book on enforcing the rules here. If you look through my contributions to earlier sockpuppet cases, you see that I truly abhor the existence of socks, a policy that is seldom enforced or investigated until it gets bad. Enforcing the rules is not petty and you frankly have brought it on yourself by somehow thinking that Wikipedia did not have rules preventing people from circumventing blocks. Anyway, your request cannot be done since Right to disappear says you can only change your name. All your contributions will remain to anyone who wants to see them. Unilaterally acquiring another account can be done as long as you abide with the legitimate purposes stated on WP:SOCK. Further, I will say you cool off, disparaging me and my enforcement of the rules will not help your case. Gdo01 01:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Watching my every move is harassment, maybe not according to wikipedia but it is still harassment. I am very new at wikipedia and I make mistakes and people like you are not very helpful and are extremely annoying by stalking me. Just leave me alone Gdo01, stop stalking me, stop talking to me (Unless I vandalize something), and just leave me alone. I did not know you could not have more than one account, big deal, I am only 16 and very new at wikipedia but I get it now, so will you just leave me alone? Please? It would be much appreciated. User:Daniel Chiswick 9 May, 2007.

Alright, first of all, admins cannot "delete" user accounts. I can delete a user page/talk page if they comply with WP:CSD#U1 or if the user invokes the right to vanish as mentioned above. Second, I would not delete a user page/talk page under right to vanish if the user has a sockpuppet case pending, as is the case here (see the exceptions to the right to vanish). Finally, this conversation shouldn't be happening on my talk page. Please talk to each other. · jersyko talk 02:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ellielancaster

I know I have been blocked but I was wondering if I wanted to upload articles on websites proving that chewing sugarfree gum is beneficial to oral health. I am not promoting any brands only the articles. Please can you confirm why these articles would have been removed ie, from Oral hygiene? UserEllielancaster —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ideaslondon (talk • contribs) 09:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Adminship

Hi, Jersyko. Yes I have thought about running for admin and I actually would love for you to nominate me. I have not run until know because I have not been that active in WP policy debates with the vast majority of my contributions coming from wiritng articles. But I suppose if I don't get elected the first time I can always run a second time (right?). So, yes let's take chance-go ahead and nominate me. Thank you and happy editing, Signature^brendel 21:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again- I have answered the questions on the admin nom page and have enabled my e-mail. I may revise my answers a little later on, but the page is ready to go. Thanks again, Signature^brendel 04:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear editor Jersyko: Speaking of adminship, in reference to your suggestion back in April, I have decided that I do not want to be considered for adminship at this time. Thank you for thinking of me as a possible candidate for that responsibility. I might change my mind in the future. I have not been active in project pages. As you may know, much of my editing has been restricted to legal-related articles, especially tax-related articles. I would like to obtain additional experience before asking other editors to consider me for adminship.

Also, I saw somewhere a while back that at least one admin had resigned adminship for "security" reasons. Can you tell me what kinds of "security" problems a person would have as an admin (other than the recent example of someone trying to figure out your password to gain access to admin's powers)? Yours, Famspear 18:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: I am in the process of revamping my user page. I am deleting all reference to my work experience and my educational and professional credentials, as an experiment. As you may know, I have a semi-standard speech that I give when someone brings up his or her own credentials (or mine for that matter) on the talk pages of Wikipedia articles to bolster their own arguments, or to attack me or other editors. Like most editors, I almost never bring up my own credentials in the talk pages for articles, discussing credentials only when some other editor first mentions them after discovering them on my user page. Now, at least for a while, the few users who tend to want to do this won't have that information (unless they really make the effort to dig into my history, etc.). Yours, Famspear 18:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jersyko: Thanks for the information on security in Wikipedia. Your comments highlighted another point for me: my deletion of the references to my credentials on my user page actually ties into the security issue as well. Some time in the past few months I received what could be construed as one indirect death threat here in Wikipedia -- one that was specifically related to my simply having a certain credential (a credential of which you are well aware).

Getting back to adminship, another reason that I don't want to be considered just now is that I want to make sure that if and when I am nominated for that responsibility, I will have the time to respond adequately to any questions Wikipedia editors might have in the vetting process. I thought things were going to slow down for me in the "real world" -- and they did for a few weeks -- but it seems like it's getting worse again. Yours, Famspear 20:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ready

Yes I am ready. Please post it, thank you! Signature^brendel 19:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Builttospill.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Builttospill.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ellie Lancaster - Oral hygiene

Dear Jersyko,

Thank you for your response.

I do not work for Wrigley's but for an Oral health care program that Wrigley supports. Oral Healtcare Programs (OHP) have been working with global dentistry professionals and associations for the last 25 years. One of our programs aims for 2007 is trying to increase the awareness of the clinically proven positive effects of chewing sugar free gum, especially after eating and drinking when brushing is not possible. It is important people know this so they can chew sugar free gum and protect their teeth during the day when they do not have time to brush. Many people do not even brush their teeth 2 a day.

We are not trying to put chewing sugar free gum in the same category as brushing and flossing. I apologise if it previously looked like I was. If I were to rephrase my statements would we be able to upload our articles on the positive effects of chewing sugar free gum.

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Many thanks and kind regards,

Ellie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ellielancaster (talk • contribs) 13:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia isn't for PR campaigns, Ma'am. Please stop promoting your organization through Wikipedia, or else you will be blocked, per the warnings that have been placed on your talk page. There is an ongoing conversation here you should read. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 03:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Snowolf cabal

Lol, actually I'm just trying to help wikipedia by focusing on RfA noms rather then, for example, vandal reverts ;-) We definitively need more admin, don't you agree? «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting on Edwards

Why did you vert the link to the vid08 video catalog?

69.226.192.243 23:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the site meets both criteria 3 and 4 for "what should be linked" on the page you sent me to regarding external links. If you could be more specific on why the link is not appropriate, that would be very helpful.

Vid08 23:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have a COI about my own site, and yes I would like people to participate. I'll wait for others to post links if the community feels that the resource we create is worthwhile. Of course I'm biased, but I strongly disagree with your assertion that what we're building is "not a particularly unique or useful" or that "merely an aggregation of links" is somehow less valuable than other kinds of content. It is the links and their organization is that is the most interesting part of what the web is all about. Volunteer moderated, non-commercial content is exactly what we're doing - and we are meeting a need that no one else is doing now. Hopefully in a few weeks we'll have enough content and momentum to make it onto Wikipedia pages.

Vid08 00:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x again

What?? I'm the sockpuppet master now? You must be devastated that Dereks1x is no longer claiming you are the master and that I'm your puppet. Heh. Anyways, I created a new IP check request for Dereks1x's 3 latest socks.[4] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Harumph. I feel so left out. Tvoz |talk 19:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? We're all socks of one another. · jersyko talk 20:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We could use our Tvoz account to file the next checkip request. I'm sure that will bring her some love. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'm sure there will be an opportunity to do so, soon enough. Yay! Tvoz |talk 02:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

entirely different topic

Where's the best place to post a request for administrative oversight of a series of articles? Not asking you to do it (unless you are a major glutton for punishment - you do enough political candidates already and this one is a real bitch) - but I couldn't figure out where this kind of request gets posted. It's about Ron Paul and the associated presidential campaign article - there are a number of yahoos there who aren't - shall we say - in touch with the fine points of wikipedia editing, like no edit summary explanations, repeated reversions, posting wildly POV and/or irrelevant stuff, etc. A few editors are the voice of reason, but I think it's reaching a point where some more seasoned folk might be helpful. Really not volunteering you - but thought you might know someone who could be interested - some newly minted admin who isn't overwhelmed, or the like - or where I could post a request. thanks J. Tvoz |talk 04:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not the vandals that are the problem, unfortunately, it's the fanatics who don't get what 3rr or consensus mean. If it gets really out of hand I'll post something on the noticeboard - I thought there might be a place where underworked or newbie admins come to find things that need tending, becuase possibly the iron hand of a wikipedia lord will scare the infidels into submission. Thanks for the pointers Tvoz |talk 20:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

VK35

I just blocked VK35 (talk · contribs) because he is a sock of banned user Dereks1x. Some of VK35's arguments regarding "censorship" of banned users aroused my suspicions, and a checkuser confirmed via e-mail that VK35 is using the same IP range as Dereks1x and his other socks (he was certainly not editing from Singapore, as he claimed).

Somehow, VK35 was able to edit for about a month and a half, rack up over 1,000 edits, and con his way into a RFCU clerk job. I don't know how much damage he has done, but I'm about to start undoing, reverting, and otherwise destroying his edits where possible per WP:BAN. Any help or advice would be appreciated. · jersyko talk 03:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, you just sign up for the RFCU clerk job and that's it. And he only signed up yesterday. —Kyриx 03:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

VK35 (talk · contribs) has recently entered an extremely contentious situation involving the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder article as a representative of the RFC cabal. First, how do handle this situation? Second, how do I get another representative to get involved, since this article does desperately need a non-bias third party representative. Thanks for any and all help. Shoessss ^talk

My concern about clerk volunteers. Tvoz |talk 09:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

VK35

I think you made an error here. I have reasonable confirmation that this user is a real physician.--Jimbo Wales 20:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Whether VK35 is a physician wasn't related to the reason for the block, nor was I even aware that VK35 was making such a claim. Responded at your talk page. · jersyko talk 21:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you restore VK35's edits which you reverted in many articles and talk pages, such as [5]? In the first place, it wasn't at all clear why you made those reverts, and you didn't explain in the edit summaries. Such unexplained reverting is quite disruptive to those concerned articles. Also, i'm still puzzled why VK35 was blocked; does the so-called "email" explicitly confirms that VK35 is a sockpuppet? I look forward to a satisfactory explanation of your action as an admin.--Vsion 22:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please unblock

Please unblock my user talk page. As a sign of good faith, I will not engage in conflict with you or seek to embarass you. In return, you should show good faith and stop trying to attack me, whether directly or by questioning anything related to me or the unblock. The question of a physician was not the central issue but there were other issues that do not appear online because of privacy concerns.VK35 20:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody else did it for you.
You wrote on Jimbo Wales' page "I'm very curious as to what these "other relevant issues" regarding me might be. Please let me know. I'm certainly willing to discuss them on Wiki, and I will be happy to rebut them."
You have the luxury of writing the above message. Consider what would happen if you were blocked and could not express that statement, much less rebut them.VK35 00:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in knowing what the other "relevant issues" are as well. Tvoz |talk 08:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why revert Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Supreme_Court_cases?

Your edit 15:24, 23 May 2007 Jersyko (Talk | contribs) m (15,999 bytes) (Reverted edits by 217.126.10.242 (talk) to last version by MZMcBride) reverted what looks like a useful resource. Before I revert it back, I want to know if there is a reason it should stay off that project page. davidwr ^09f9(talk) 00:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the anon user's string of contributions adding the same external link to multiple articles, I considered the addition of the link to be spam. If, after examining the information contained at the website, you find it would be a useful, unique resource, feel free to add it back to the SCOTUS project's page. · jersyko talk 00:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas v. Green

I am starting a new article that was red linked. Rather than be mad at Jimbo Wales and his decision, consider helping out in this article. If you want me to struggle with it, I'll happily work on it myself. I'm sure you can add some wisdom to it.VK35 18:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If you "edit this page" you'll see the infobox. There are some parts of the box near the end that I don't know enough law to fill out. VK35 18:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

See my talk page responding to your question. Even if you don't edit my McDonnell Douglas v. Green article, if there is something wrong with it, let me know.VK35 19:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

First:What's trolling? Second:I am enhancing the knowledge of the people who are mislead. Third:I am sorry for my rudeness.

Really, I appologize for my rudeness. There is very little I hate more than rudeness. I get caught in the moment and I just act stupid. 66.218.13.39 02:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Harebag

Responded on your email. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

From Mimich on marriage amendments to U.S. state constitutions

Your opinion on Talk:List_of_defense_of_marriage_amendments_to_U.S._state_constitutions_by_type. --Mimich 11:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

you are more brave than me. I condensed a lot of Ron Paul polling (it was way too much), but you just got out the big axe and whack!Pipermantolisopa 12:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

response to your comment on my talk page

You say mediation is premature. I don't know what happened. Before I thought Tvoz and I were on friendly terms then whack, it looks like Tvoz hates me. Tvoz calls it edit waring but who changes it back: Tvoz! So I backed off and looked up how to resolve disputes and it mentions mediation. I'm willing to talk with a mediator and try to get things resolved. Since you didn't like the wording of the mediation and since I'm the one who wrote it, I'll change it. Thanks. Pipermantolisopa 05:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Crystal Mines.PNG

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Crystal Mines.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Exodus game.PNG

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Exodus game.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Julia Allison

Dear Jersyko,

My name is Josh Zumbrun and I am a reporter for the Washington Post. I saw that you protected the page Julia Allison from editing. Someone falsely claiming to be me has been inserting potentially libelous statements into the article for Julia Allison. You can easily verify from my IP that I am an employee of the Washington Post (I did not make the other edits from this IP). Please respond via e-mail here which should more than verify my identity. This person has claimed to be me: Special:Contributions/70.17.89.33. Would you please block this person from editing Wikipedia. I consider this identity theft to be serious. Please respond via e-mail.

Thank You,

Josh Zumbrun

Done for one week. I will be watching the page to make sure the IP address doesn't vandalize anymore. If the incident is serious enough after the protection expires, the block may be elongated longer. Miranda 21:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Menace beach.PNG

This file may be deleted.

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:When_You_Land_Here.JPG

I have tagged Image:When_You_Land_Here.JPG as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. BigrTex 03:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

John Edwards tax pledge

I'm scratching my head about the "political suicide" thing, because many Democrats running for statewide office sign the pledge. Many Republicans don't. It's not a strictly partisan thing. I think it's an interesting addition.--Gloriamarie 08:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Steve Gaines (pastor)

I'm pleased to see that you merely modified my last correction, rather than deleting it outright; say what you wish, but it is vandalism to delete factual statements in favor of the incomplete, biased interjections of others. The historical philosophy of Bellevue Baptist Church, as articulated by her former pastor, the late Rev. Adrian Rogers, is not in dispute, and the facts of it are not open for debate. Bellevue is, and has been, a pastor-led congregation with congregational approval, rather than one of congregational "control" as sought by a relative handful of anonymous contrarians.

Having said that, your latest modification is accurate, since it does not dispute those facts, but rather notes that some members of the church have referenced them. It appears to be a satisfactory resolution; thank you for your consideration in this matter. Mike Bratton 20:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama image

Man did I see that coming. Certain articles simply do not welcome contributions, and this is obviously one of those. His smile is better in the picture I posted, it doesn't give an absurd closeup of his face; I don't see what the problem was. (Mind meal 04:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Its all subjective, you are right. I was just saying that I knew it would be reverted quickly, and in retrospect don't know why I bothered. Politicians have folks checking this place constantly to make sure nothing out of their control happens. That is all. There are certainly more flattering photos of Obama out there. I am just suspicous is all, as everything is controlled in the political arena, and there are sympathizers and foes when it comes to political editors and their choice of subject. Anyway, off topic. POV on both counts, true. (Mind meal 15:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

last warning

Why r u giving me a warning for putting the truth in an article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prezdavid115 (talk • contribs)

The truth? Or The Truth™? · jersyko talk 14:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfB

Thank you, Jersyko, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions. Most sincere regards, Húsönd 23:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Obrigado, Jersyko, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3). Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd 23:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

Feddhicks

Well, I'm glad to see that we're back to being socks of each other again.[6] I was getting awful lonely editing from only one account. But thanks for the block, saves me from creating the RFCU I was going to start this afternoon. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, an open letter to 3 of you

To Feddhicks - Jersyko and Bobblehead have also written harsh messages to me so I occasionally see what they are up to. I see that Jersyko has blocked you which results in him gaining advantage in an ongoing discussion/dispute.

I am willing to consider, but not guarantee, your suggestions for articles. I will not be a proxy and put your edits in articles for you, but if you see a good link, e-mail me (awikiuser at hot mail, rarely checked) and I might incorporate the link with my own editing ideas. A warning, though, I am not particularly interested in Mr. Obama, unless you can point to some Singapore related issues, such as a visit there to see the President or Minister Mentor. I am more interested in the Danish official, Mr. Schmidt.

To Jersyko, Bobblehead, and Feddhicks - I am willing to consider an informally mediate resolution of this dispute. I have previously successfully informally mediated disputes such as in Missouri, Gibraltar, and a few others. I have so far never been unsuccessful in bringing a dispute to a resolution.

If any of the parties does not want to mediate, I won't push the idea any further because I am only interested in facilitating agreement, not forcing it. VK35 23:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not interested in mediating a dispute with a banned user *when I'm not even involved in any content dispute at the article*. Bye bye! · jersyko talk 00:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I put this [[7]] in case you don't want me and want someone else. If you want neither, just put "disagree" and the matter will be closed. Again, I am only interested in facilitating agreement, not forcing it.VK35 00:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I received your message in not wanting to be part of informal mediation. It was just an idea to try.VK35 00:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: I was not trying to informally mediate the article, just the FAR. Still, I assume your answer is the same. VK35 00:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I took your name off the formal mediation request so Bobblehead can say if he wants it (either informal with me, informal with someone else, or that formal request). VK35 00:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Cease

Please cease all efforts to attack me. I saw your RFCU request. VK35 00:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

response

After all, you're the one that contacted me requesting mediation with the banned user's sock. Not the other way around. · jersyko talk 00:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the secret RFCU not published, you claimed that I was. So even if true, the determination of identity is wrong per Jimbo Wales.VK35 00:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Conspiracy theorist, eh? :) —Kurykh 00:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh.. Dereks1x sock cleanup is always a messy business. It's also good to know that I was run up for being a Dereks1x's sockpuppet again.[8] I didn't notice that. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Missed me again. Sigh. Tvoz |talk 02:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Some Saudi diplomat reportedly told or was going to tell George Bush to live his life separately while he would do the same in response to some Israeli/West Bank/Gaza dispute. Perhaps, this is the best way in the quest to improve the encyclopedia. Tvoz and Bobblehead usually read everything I write so they'll see this, too. Good luck. VK35 18:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Confused by the most recent Dereks1x case

Why is VK35 not being banned if the IPs are a clear match? Italiavivi 01:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)