User talk:Jmlk17/Archive15
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
NPWatcher
Thanks! michfan2123 (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
And thanks from me too! --ukexpat (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Adopt Me
Hey! I was wondering if you could help me reactive two pages I've been working on. Are you interested? Jamierush (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)jamie
- Hello there Jamie! Unfortunately, I am not exactly the best editor around here to adopt anyone at this time. I am often away for days at a time, and I know that there are many more editors who are around a lot more than I am, who certainly are much better at their editing than I! But thank you for asking. :) Jmlk17 20:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users
Please reconsider this. Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users or give them a time out. Moon Daddy (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I second the block and the subsequent decline of unblock. It's customary that any admin who cames across the unblock request can review it. Snowolf How can I help? 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- On what grounds do you think the user should continue to be blocked? Moon Daddy (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- A 12 hour block for ignoring warnings and still continuing to vandalize is not exactly a punishment. I didn't decline on basis of exacting punishment, but rather to simply enforce the 12 hour block that was put in place for a good reason and cause. Jmlk17 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- As I said elsewhere, I did not see the created articles, and so I will drop this. Sorry to interject. Moon Daddy (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- A 12 hour block for ignoring warnings and still continuing to vandalize is not exactly a punishment. I didn't decline on basis of exacting punishment, but rather to simply enforce the 12 hour block that was put in place for a good reason and cause. Jmlk17 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- On what grounds do you think the user should continue to be blocked? Moon Daddy (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I think one of the users has a problem with this RfC and decided to eliminate the information. If another RfC decides about the sources being not useful/valid, of course I will respect the consensus, but for know I think it does not seem reasonable to delete this, so I reverted the cuts. I don't want to go into a revert war, as it is silly. Thus, I would like to kindly ask you to have a look at the history and consider action/inaction, if you find it appropriate. take care Pundit|utter 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hey there. Kudos to you for avoiding the edit war! I've watchlisted the article for some time now, and while I do agree with you for the most part, I do see where the other user is coming from. My suggestion as this point is to continue the working dialogue you have going with them, and see if you guys can work something out. I must admit I am quite pleased to see you guys at least walking about the issue, as far too many people just edit war and get pissed off when situations like this occur. If all else fails, arbitration, protection of the article, etc. can be done, but let's exhaust other means first shall we? :) Jmlk17 22:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Request for protection - Pee Wee's Playhouse
Four minutes after you declined my initial request, this page was vandalized again. There's no real argument here, there's no dispute that the program has an independent video release and multiple Emmy-award nominations, which by every reasonability notability test is sufficient. I would ask you again to protect the page, and ask you to take action againt User:TTN for vandalism. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- There have been 16 edits so far this year. We try and keep protection for pages that are getting out of hand. Jmlk17 23:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Take a look at the history again. It's the repeated vandalism, over weeks, that should be the issue. I hope you're not really saying that there has to be a meltdown before action is taken, or that two vandals outweigh one honest editor. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Jake.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jake.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jusjih (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC) As I saw you fully protecting that image page while untagged, I have decided to change to semi-protection while nominating the deletion. If you have a very good reason to fully protect it again before deleting the overwriting uploads, I will not object, but the image name is too generic.--Jusjih (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. Jmlk17 05:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Does that mean no image can have that name? I was not aware that generic image names were brought to deletion. But I don't know much about image rules. the_undertow talk 05:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
May I ask why you have deleted Ethiopia's next Top model entry?
User talk:Mayalld & SNOWOLF seem to display knee jerk reactions that lacks tack and simple politeness, it should be apparent to all You “ADMINISRATORS” that I am new and simply trying to communicate with them. But they obviously let their “Power” get the better of them.
But that is not the issue here if AMERICAS NEXT TOP MODEL EXHISTS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Next_Top_Model and is considered OK and 33 other international version also exist, why is ETHIOPIA’S NEXT TOP MODEL not ok? Kindly explian what is the Difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.121.165 (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- The difference is that there is no such thing as "Ethiopia's Next Top Model". Jmlk17 23:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
My attention was drawn to your Speedy Deletion of this article by Alex Mullers talk page. I added some comment there. I would regard the article does meet notability guidelines. CustardJack (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Is there anything notable about the company? Jmlk17 23:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe there is - as per my comments recorded above. There was also a deletion log from 12 months where the result was keep. I have continued researching the company and the Servis Quartz range was the first waching machine to be controlled by micro processor. I'd be interested in your reply. I'm not sure whether or not just to go ahead and recreate the article (with references) or what? CustardJack (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for semi-protecting this article. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Commonspot page
Hi, I noticed you visited the page yesterday and performed a minor edit, but did not comment on anything. Does that mean that the page is ok now? I didn't remove the tags at the top as I hoped you would after you reviewed the page.
Could you please let me know what else needs to be done to get the tags removed? I think the page satisfies all conditions now.
Thanks Egerasimidis (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- It honestly does look good to me now. It should be fine! Good work! :) Jmlk17 23:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, thank you. It seems that it's now became required. One thing that I'll never understand is why do I miss everything that happens on my own user page XD Snowolf How can I help? 00:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Lol, it happens! :) Jmlk17 00:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Same here: there have been time my userpage has been hit with mass vandalism, and I wasn't online at the time. :) Acalamari 00:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
|
Thanks for your support at my request for adminship, which passed today with 42/0/0!
I would like to thank Wizardman for nominating me, Jmlk17/Archive15 and everyone else for their support and comments. I'll continue with contributing to the encyclopedia's content (hopefully writing an FA here and there :) and will help out with admin-related tasks which you just entrusted me with. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask! |
xtw
why did you delete this i did work hard on that summary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusokittay94 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand how you can see that, but to me any many others will see "xtw" noteable
- Still, that's not the point my friend. "xtw" is not a notable group in the whole sense, thus, is not entitled to an article here. My apologies. Jmlk17 05:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok that explination reassures meJesusokittay94 (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok now i see the discredit of it being local interest thus not being notable thanks for explaining, other admins aren't as nice. Jesusokittay94 (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I now agree with you now that i know Jesusokittay94 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
for protecting Tokyo. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm
You attract some weird geezers! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Must be your hippie-looking beard :) — DarkFalls talk 11:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hey Jmlk17, I just wanted to thank you for your support at my RFA. I will work hard to make Wikipedia just a little cleaner, so feel free to come and ask me anything if you ever need any help. Thanks again!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 19:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
a thank you note
|
Thanks for participating in my RfA! | |
| Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been outstanding, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
- Excellent! I'm pleased you have taken the positive sides! Hope to see you around soon. Jmlk17 21:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Having some trouble..
I was told to submit defense of a speedy deletion tag on my entry by putting it on the pages talk section. The page, however, seems to already have been deleted! It was tagged as a political commercial for a non-notable person. However, it was for Diane Hamby. She is running for Congress in the 5th District of North Carolina. There is a primary race and her opponent, Roy Carter, has an entry here. Not sure why HE is more notable? Perhaps because his entry says he is the Democratic Candidate, while he is not. That will be determined at the polls in the primary. Diane's entry had several internal links to her primary opponent, the Democratic party, and to the incumbent. I tried to externally link newspaper articles but was unsuccessful and going to leave that up to another user from the state party willing to help add to the entry.
How do I get this entry put up again? should I wait until after the primary? If so, Roy Carter (North Carolina), needs to be removed immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrmccrady (talk • contribs) 02:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
sorry
Having some trouble above was me
Vrmccrady (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
My Rfa
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 05:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Triazolam
Before you unleash the copytext that is the sandbox, please use some commmon sense and you will notice that it was an accidental deletion of text 80.4.121.125 (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Ouch! I was half asleep there. Well caught. --Tony Sidaway 10:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hah, no worries! I've ended up on the wrongly-deleted side a few too often myself. :) Jmlk17 19:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Problem with warning templates
I want to run this thought by some of the admins who monitor AIV before I present it more widely.
When we revert vandalism by someone who already received a level 4 warning, any other warnings make it seem like, "Oh, we didn't really mean it when we said that was your last warning," like the parent who says, "This is the last time I'm going to tell you" five times before taking action. What about something like this:[1]. I'd like some feedback on this as a possible template for non-admins to use when they revert past a level 4 warning. Thanks. Doczilla (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. Of the handful of AIV-experienced people I checked with, I got 4 yeas and 3 nays -- a majority favoring it but certainly not a consensus. Of course, something like this doesn't have to appeal to everybody. I guess I'll run this by people who check the talk page for the Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings. Thanks again. Doczilla (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- At the suggestion of User:Master of Puppets, I've opened the discussion up at WT:AIV#Past-last_warning. Thanks again! Doczilla (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
If you would please unprotect the Bobby Lashley page.he has stated that he is leaving wwe and wwe has taken his profile off of thier website.Bleek25 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
wwe has now put all of his merchandise on clearance.i think that it is pretty clear that he is not coming back.Bleek25 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know why you reverted my edit on that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oore (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Because you have provided no response, I have undone your revert. Oore (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Computer Troubleshooters
Hi, I was working on a page about Computer Troubleshooters of Knoxville, but it was deleted. Could you help me get it back so I can add to the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmoore622 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but from what I saw, the company lacked any notability. Jmlk17 05:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Damn you!
Surreal Barnstar
|
The Surreal Barnstar | |
| For beating me to the block at least four times today....bastard. Trusilver 20:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC) |
RfA thanks
I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your comments, which I will take on board. I look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
RE: Whoa
Yeah, that guy was fun. BTW, ready to lose tomorrow? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, not really. :) Jmlk17 04:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know I put in a case about this yesterday at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ctx1. -Djsasso (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Colorado Avalanche game color coding
Hey, could you take a look at Talk:2007-08_Colorado_Avalanche_season#Game_result_color_coding for me? Thanks. EvilCouch (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Just saw your speedy tag to Bargo rural fire. I considered it when I tagged it for notability/sources, but there was a hangon at that point, which I thought meant it had been already speedied. Whoops Travellingcari (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Eh, I did speedy delete it myself a little while ago, and the editor recreated it. Sometimes I prefer to not redelete some articles, and simply tag them for another admin to toss in an opinion on. :) Jmlk17 05:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Got it, I missed the re-creation amidst the history noise. I had just seen a hangon tag. There's a spat of recreation lately, including EnCase, whose orginal deletion I'm still trying to find. Travellingcari (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that tip, gives me a rough spot to look for it. Want to get an idea of the issues raised then apart from the notability and likely COI present now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 05:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_September_7? Not showing for me, but I'll go a day or so in each direction. It can't hide forever :) Have a good evening Travellingcari (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Dude, I've declined speedy on this one. Looks reasonably notable / asserts it sort of thing. WP:AFD? Suprised to see it was you nominating and not just hitting delete, or where you looking for a second opinion? Pedro : Chat 09:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Second opinion sorta thing actually. I appreciate the review though buddy. :) Jmlk17 09:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry Jmlk - this DHMO chap has been wiki-stalking me across the 'pedia and now he comes and desecrates your user page too..... Indef Block I say Pedro : Chat 09:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Lol! ArbCom ban perhaps... Jmlk17 09:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- *wipes tear* dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Lol! ArbCom ban perhaps... Jmlk17 09:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I declined your A7 tag on Bea Gonzalez as notability was clearly asserted. Assuming its veracity, I'd expect it would be kept at AfD too. I had to triple check though when I saw it was you - is there something I'm missing here? CIreland (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, I understand. Was just seeking a second opinion sorta deal. Jmlk17 09:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
speedy deletion
please see Talk:Deutsche Tolkien Gesellschaft. I have recreated the article. I invite you to also restore the edit history you deleted. dab (𒁳) 12:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
What should I do more????? It was resended to info-en@wikimedia.org, now I only try to change name of article posted by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayslipper (talk • contribs) 16:49, February 1, 2008
- The permission is fine, but that is not the issue at hand my friend. How exactly is this system notable? Jmlk17 23:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- You mean that copy isn't notable? --Dayslipper (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- The article and topic in general. Jmlk17 00:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure that article and topic are notable. Compare both articles. That one on wikipedia is with links explaining a lot of terms, and furthermore I will do translation to another language.--Dayslipper (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- ...and it supports creation of Self-cooling keg (in present very popular) and another inventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayslipper (talk • contribs) 00:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- The article and topic in general. Jmlk17 00:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- You mean that copy isn't notable? --Dayslipper (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't look notable to me. I'm gonna keep it on watch and AfD it if it doesn't improve... just a heads up. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- No worries at all... I was sorta figuring it would come to that eventually. :) Jmlk17 00:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
speedy deletion of BirdNote?
Hello!
I worked with "Master of Puppets" to improve the BirdNote page. It's not a club. It's a two-minute radio show -- similar to *Living on Earth* -- dedicated to education and conservation of birds and their habitats.
What do you suggest?
Thanks,
Ellen Blackstone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellenb127 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ellen, I have checked it all out, and received a few emails regarding the article, and it appears as if I made a mistake in regards to the deletion. Jmlk17 00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
About "Auteria" page deletition
Mr/Ms Jmlk17, PLEASE give me couple of minutes to finish the page, and if it does not satisfy your requirements _then_ delete it, okay? I am working on it at this very moment, and more content will come. I also explained in my talk why I think that page deserves to be there, and linked from the relevant page where other MMORPG games are listed. Kind regards. (DejanLekic (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC))
Yahoo protection
Hi there. This is solely a policy question, totally not a complaint. According to WP:RPP, you were the protecting admin on Yahoo. The reason that the user on RPP asked for semi-protection was that the upcoming Microsoft acquisition would bring the vandals a-runnin'. True enough, and the admin in question looked amenable to a block til they discovered you'd already covered it. Yet more often than not, on RPP, I see "we don't pre-emptively protect articles" cited as an admin's reason for declining protection under such circumstances. So...which is right? Or is it grayer than those admins make it sound--like, "we USUALLY don't, but..."? I saw this, and it was just an interesting issue for me. Thanks!!!Gladys J Cortez 01:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right! We don't preemptively protect articles, but with Yahoo!, I took a look at the history of the page, and recently, there was a big jump in the amount of junk and vandalizing IP edits, hence my protection. But a wonderful question. :) Jmlk17 02:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Cool...thanks!Gladys J Cortez 02:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry; couldn't help it :) - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
"Rye Seronie" deleted
--RyeSeronie (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
First off I would like to say that I love the vast amount of information available on Wikipedia With that being said I would also like to state my UTTER DISGUST with some of its moderators. WHO do you people think you are deciding who / what has significance or not. This is supposed to be a vast source of information, not a "Vast source of junk I can find on an Encarta 95 CD!"
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.
WikiMedia Website
You blatantly delete an article, with no real cause you just hide behind the "It failed to state its significance" but no clear explanation of what wikipedia considers significant. The simple fact of its existence should be significant enough to be included in what is supposed to be 'the sum of all knowledge', but then again I guess wikipedia has adopted the FOX News method of "Fair & Balanced".
- Thanks for the uhm, attack my friend. :) On the "simple fact of it's existence" being enough for the notability, could you imagine going through the Britannica and seeing billions of random people who are not notable, but included only for existing? No way. Wouldn't happen. If you need further explanation, check out WP:BIO, and you can get the whole biased issue out of the way. Also, might want to check out WP:COI as well. Best of luck! :) Jmlk17 21:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Article on Charles Fehrenbach, Priest
I logged on to find you had deleted my article on Charles Fehrenbach earlier today. The reason I created this one paragraph summary with the basic biographical facts was that, in another Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemptorists)which mentioned the subject (under "Famous Redemptorists") as the author of a book, I was invited to create a page with this title since there was a link to a biography on the "Redemptorists" page but no information there.
I have two concerns: 1) How can one Wikipedia page list the subject as "famous" and another one paragraph biography explaining be deleted because he isn't significant? 2) I don't understand how someone who is already mentioned in Wikipedia (and, I might add, not by me), can be a candidate for "speedy deletion" with no discussion? As you know, once a page is deleted, there is no room for discussing the issue.
While I might agree that there could be articles which are so evidently trivial that they would hardly be worth a discussion, it seems to me that if Wikipedia is inviting readers to write articles on a subject because they are already mentioned in another article, there should, at a minimum, have to be a decision by more than a single person that the article is inconsequential and subject to deletion.
This is particularly important because, once the article is deleted, there is no record of it elsewhere and no way for anyone to debate the merits of the decision, other than the editor and the author.
I would appreciate an answer to my concerns. Significance is a fluid concept and having decisions made by a single person, as I'm sure you can see, could be capricious based on that person's interests. For example, I would find the article on "Paul Lambert" (a guard in the Canadian Football League) of less significance than one on an author whose book has been in the current publisher's catalogue for many years--but then that probably reflects my lack of interest in the CFL. Certainly, I could give many other examples from other fields, none of which were "speedily deleted."
My contributor name is Wmflanagan (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)wmflanagan and today is 2/2/08Wmflanagan (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC). Thanks.
Thank you
I appreciate the Barnstar. Corvus cornixtalk 22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Kroenke
Article names should be by a person's common name (i.e. Tom Brady vs. Thomas Brady). In this case, Kroenke's cmost commonly-used name is Stan. Pats1 T/C 23:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Nash Rawiller
As a courtesy I am letting you know I have removed the {{db-bio}} tag you placed on the above article. The subject is clearly notable. Should you wish to see this deleted please take to AfD. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 01:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
taking booty
Hi Jmlk17,
I think that was a normal part of war and was acceptable back then particularly in the nomadic culture. In fact, many people were fighting for booty, fewer because of faith. And Muhammad did not disapprove it, he was a man of his time. Would you please let me know if I change it back to booty? Thanks very much..--Be happy!! (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sure thing... I just looked up Booty on here, and saw the nautical term definition. Booty is definitely more than alright with me. :) Jmlk17 01:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks very much!! Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Of course... I went ahead and undid my own edit just now. Jmlk17 01:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! There are more glaring examples of acceptance of cultural norms by Muhammad. In fact, many of the Islamic rulings were in response to the historical and social contexts in which they originated. And with the changes in the social structure these have become problematic for many Muslims. Examples include the punishment such as stoning, etc etc. In order to resolve that a minority of Muslims have come to believe that the eternal part of the message of the Quran is its underlying religous principles and values. Once distilled from specific texts in the light of the socio-historical background, these principles and values should find new expressions in modern societies. But this approach is not accepted by the majority of Muslims.
- To get booty in the war might be another example of cultural influence. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I understand! I was just curious about whether or not the word was correct in this instance. Jmlk17 02:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I realize that my comment was kind of irrelevant. sorry! --Be happy!! (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I understand! I was just curious about whether or not the word was correct in this instance. Jmlk17 02:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Of course... I went ahead and undid my own edit just now. Jmlk17 01:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks very much!! Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Muhammad
Nope, he's not. I honestly think he has the worst argument yet, and is at the same time possibly the most persistent. Except maybe for that Faraz Ahmad guy. Zazaban (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Very true... Jmlk17 04:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I see you're active
Do you mind deleting a page to get rid of a revision with a phone number for me? I came across it on RC patrol earlier but the admin I contacted before bed was sick and didn't take care of it. I will link the diff if so. Dureo (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of 铁行渣华
I'm not sure about the deletion of this article – yes, it was in Chinese, but it wasn't patent nonsense. I was about to tag it as {{notenglish}} as an automated translation of the text gives:
P & O Nedlloyd is P & O Nedlloyd's Chinese name. Rail line from Java and the merger of the two companies, has been incorporated into the Maersk. P & O Nedlloyd in China's Shenzhen, Shanghai, Qingdao, Hong Kong has office. The number of employees to more than 700 people. Shenzhen Office of the final address is: Shenzhen at the Lo Wu Business Centre.
In fact, we already have an article on P&O Nedlloyd. What would (should, I guess) the deletion criteria for this article have been? — alex.muller (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Help!
I spend 4 hours researching new york times and barrons articles trying to figure out why triad was always quoted for new issue meta-analysis. I included those references in the company data. You opinion is duly noted, and I'm sure that if you knew anything abou tthe finance industry (i spent 13 years on wall street), you'd agree with me, but .... more importantly .... is there any way I can get the text of that article back! Or is it gone forever? Maybe I need to describe more about the hostory of Triad's involvement with IPO meta-analysis? They're essentially one of 2 reputable companys that do this (renaissance capital is another), and are the only company that WSJ and others quote when writing this kind of article. I planned on adding renaissance as well. and then talking about ipo meta analysis, what it means, etc. Any way to get the text back? I can write the ipo analysis article first, but I was doing the companies first. Simultaneous (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, it's not gone forever. How about I restore it to a personal sandbox of yours, so you can work and edit it freely without anyone deleting it? :) Jmlk17 20:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! Simultaneous (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Page Protection
Hi...can that protection be extended to my user talk page as well? Whoever this is, they have done this before (I recognized the lovely message being left), but no idea who it is. :( Collectonian (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Bah
Break you now, my fist will allow... blah blah blah. Man, that guy doesn't give up. :) Jmlk17 07:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I just wonder where he gets all the IPs from. He must be driving around with a laptop. Dethme0w (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Muhammad(PBUH)
Luvmyth, feel free to post here anytime. :) Jmlk17 08:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Ya! so u were telling me the rules of Wikipedia. Alrite, i accept.
But is it really ok with Wikipedia to gain dissatisfaction of its readers even though they may be few in number??
you know if this goes on, maybe the Muslim countries will block Wikipedia. I like Wikipedia and dont want that to happen. Is it so strict in its rules that losing its viewers also would not bring any change in it???
Luvmyth aish (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, belief me the last thing I ever want to do is offend someone! But I believe (as do so many others), that one of the greatest things about Wikipedia is that it is free to have what it wants. The Internet is one of the last great free areas in the world offering free speech and ideals/ideas, and as such, the images are shown in their entirety. I am deeply sorry and regretful about the offense that the images cause to some, but why sacrifice the integrity of a website that offers the ability to collect the sum of all knowledge for religious rules and beliefs that do not agree? Please do not take my disagreements here as an insult or myself as rude (I do get accused of that a lot), and I do not intend it my friend. Jmlk17 08:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
See Jmlk, this argument is going pointless, why not you and us come to a compromise and do something in which everyone is satisfied??
Luvmyth aish (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Lol, Luvmyth, I know it's pointless my friend, but alas, I am unable to do anything myself. While I am an admin, the conversations have been had some time ago regarding the images and their permanence on the article page, and it seems set in stone. Jmlk17 08:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
so u mean arguing with you is useless and you cant do anything about editing the article??? You should have told me when we started this conversation!!!!
Luvmyth aish (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh man... I didn't want it to come across that way. :( But I'm afraid it has come down to an issue of censoring, and it seems to have been stuck on that. Jmlk17 08:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Ya, n u guys dont take the initiative in looking at it...
There's tons more thing that i can say, but when you have decided that you are not going to change anything...its all seems a flaw.
Luvmyth aish (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
or ATLEAST can u write the caption in bold letters that "This is only a depiction of how He could have preached and is no way relating to how He looked"...something like tat...??
Luvmyth aish (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- It already says "a depiction". I believe that is a fair compromise according to the basic rules around here. Jmlk17 08:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Fine! i get the point! wouldn't want to debate further on it!
Luvmyth aish (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
BRC
[2] :( dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know... I'll miss it. :( Jmlk17 09:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK, so I'm on AIM and IRC... dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Just been getting some odd emails as of late. Jmlk17 05:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Front for the Liberation of the Golan Heights
Before you deleted Front for the Liberation of the Golan Heights did you read the talk page? Did you respond accordingly? Chesdovi (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I always read the talk pages of articles before I delete them. Jmlk17 04:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- And the Front is not notable or deserve stub status because... Chesdovi (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the question is how are they notable? Jmlk17 04:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would have thought that a group created by Syria to co-ordinate attacks against its neighbour to reclaim territory would be quite notable, like Maluku Sovereignty Front? Or does it only become notable once they carry out an attack that makes the headlines in America? Chesdovi (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the question is how are they notable? Jmlk17 04:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- And the Front is not notable or deserve stub status because... Chesdovi (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted Alexis LaTour House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as being a foreign-language article existing on another Wikipedia. Actually, only the first paragraph or two of the article was in French (and was a copyvio). The remainder of the article was apparently okay. Since the article had some salvageable content, I restored the article and cleared the copyvio text.
I hope you don't mind, and I'm not out to wheel-war or anything. The user who's writing these, Harrisonlatour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), could probably use a little bit of coaching or something. Let me know if you have any disagreements with me restoring the article. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: NYT article
I just sent the article, oh well. What do you think of it? --Hdt83 Chat 09:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)