User:RenamedUser jaskldjslak901/Archive11

Sockpuppet blues
Take a look at this: User talk:Westernriddell &mdash; Deckill e r 02:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Bad claims of fair use
Because doing image-tag sweeps of the GA list is a nightmare (I tried to "medicine and biology" once and think I found a copyvio or bad tag on almost every single article :-/) I have been double-checking all the recent nominations recently... if we get tougher during GA reviews we won't end up having to do such horrendous "sweeps"! Anyway, I noticed two very blatant copyvios on Winston Churchill and Ayn Rand. Could you make sure you check the image tags when you review an article? All you have to do is click on all the photos and check that (1) there is an up-to-date image tag (not one that says "don't use this image tag! Instead use..." (2) it corresponds with the picture, (3) if it's "fair use" there must be a written, article-specific rationale. Image:Ac.eisenhower2.jpg is actually an Associated Press photo - so that's a big no-no (they guard their copyright very jealously). There's an out-of-date image tag. It's claimed as fair use but there's no rationale. In fact, I can't imagine a good rationale, since it's used to illustrate an article that has plenty of images already. Image:Ayn rand stamp.jpg is a stamp picture - if you read the explanation in the image tag, it can only be used as fair use to illustrate the stamp, not the person on it. Also, it lacks a fair use rationale. So, I'm going to tag the stamp as fair use disputed and take the Churchill picture to WP:COPYVIO. If you can make sure you double check the image tags when you review an article, you'll be saving a lot of work later (it's easier to spot these things at review and fail the article, requesting its editors to sort it out, than it is to have to go through the delisting procedure once they are discovered...) TheGrappler 03:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good spot on Duke. As for the Churchill pic: it ain't fair use if there's no rationale! Also, check over at WP:Fair use if you're ever in doubt, the image examples/counterexamples are really good. This one fits perfectly in the counterexample: "A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo. If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. Muhammad cartoons), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles." Being historic does not make something fair use - however, if it being used to illustrate a particularly important event (not really the case here, it's used to illustrate Churchill) and there are no free images, then a slightly dodgy case of fair use might arise (that's probably what was going on in the photos you are thinking of). Usually that won't be an issue, because such a photo may be iconic in its own right - but then the image should only be used to illustrate an article about the image itself, if that makes any sense to you? TheGrappler 04:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

gangsta rappers
I noticed you considered putting it up for CFD. I would support this, and I think it would succeed. After all, List of alternative hip hop musicians was deleted (the only reason Category:Alternative hip hop musicians hasn't been is that I'm sorting the articles out into other cats first). Peace, --Urthogie 15:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Tupac Shakur
I updated the featured article candidate Tupac Shakur, to reflect yours and other reviewers' feedback. Thank you.SqlPac 17:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The source is in the Thug Passion page.

Anonymous users
Please do not revert edits by anonymous users without (giving) a reason if it's not clearly vandalism. This is in violation of wiki policy and could lead to a ban. --62.251.90.73 22:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

although he did admit that to believe his wife will burn in hell for her believes. I reverted because it looks like vandalism, at the most it needs citing, please see WP:CITE before you add it again. I was right to revert info like that. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 22:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you would have any more experience on wikipedia you would know that 99% of all edits is without a source. Besides, i'm not only talking about my edits, you reverted usefull changes by other anonymous users without giving a reason aswell. Do not try to make this only about my edit.
 * Last a quick google would have easily provided you with sources of my edit. You're just blatantly reverting anonymous edits without even trying to be constructive. Removing even obvious info from wikipedia without sources would cut it's size 99%
 * Please also see WP:CITE --62.251.90.73 22:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I know what I'm doing, the 2 other links you gave me is obvious vandalism, the first link was a almost complete blanking of a article and you should see the revert, and the second one is obvious vandalism, adding cults to the scientology article, a article that is always vandalised and by a user who has a history of vandalism, please add sources to those very obvious claims like the Mel Gibson article as any other user would basiclly do a revert, most likely with rollback. Not all the info needs sources by the way Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 22:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How is puting Scientology into Category:Cults vandalism? That a user has a history of vandalism is no excuse if the edit you are reverting is a valid one. WP:CITE says information without sources may only be removed if challenged, it should not be removed by default. That's the reason not all info needs sources. Please comply with wiki policy. --62.251.90.73 23:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The second one may have been a mistake as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=48572768&oldid=48572750 was the prior edit by the same user like 3 minutes before, anyways it was POV and should have been removed and would have probaly been reverted by another user using bullshit, still the edit you made, it's was too obvious that anyone could have though of that has vandalism. Sorry if that made you upset --Jaranda wat's sup 23:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

''In religion and sociology, a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its separate status may come about either due to its novel belief system, because of its idiosyncratic practices or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture.'' (Cult) Scientology fits all conditions listed in the description of cults. From both points of view. Mind if i place it back? --62.251.90.73 23:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I do not register with wikipedia because the reason I love wikipedia so much is that anyone can edit it, and there are more and more people looking to change this, and as a way to oppose them i keep doing non-vandalism edits without a login. Even on controversial subjects. I hope this will make people see that anonymous users can contribute just as well as normal users. I try to make people quit reverting anonymous edits that are not vandalism without a reason by discussing it with them. I think the main reason for wikipedia's success is that anyone can edit it. --62.251.90.73 23:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please stop reverting what is put on keith dorney. I know the man and everything i put about his saab and tending land is 100% true. So id appreciate it if you could leave it alone

VandalProof 1.1 is Now Available For Download
Happy Easter to all of you, and I hope that this version may fix your current problems and perhaps provide you with a few useful new tools. You can download version 1.1 at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Let me warn you, however, to please be extremely careful when using the new Rollback All Contributions feature, as, aside from the excessive server lag it would cause if everyone began using it at once, it could seriously aggitate several editors to have their contributions reverted. If you would like to experiment with it, though, I'd be more than happy to use my many sockpuppets to create some "vandalism" for you to revert. If you have any problems downloading, installing, or otherwise, please tell me about them at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs and I will do my best to help you. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject hiphop announcement
--Chubdub 14:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Easter!
Everyone else seems to have stolen all the good Easter pictures and stuff, but I wish you a Happy Easter all the same. — FireFox • T [16:05, 16 April 2006]

Thanks
Thanks for the welcome. I hope to be able to contribute :)--Xilog 22:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hey thanks it looked like a major blanking. Thanks again and happy easter.-- Dakota ~ 23:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Master Jay's RfA
Hey Jaranda, thanks for your support at my recent RfA. If you have any concerns, drop me a line here. Regards, -- Jay  (Reply)  02:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict
Thanks Jaranda. I messed up with that diff. Thanks again.-- Dakota ~ 02:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use
What does "a free image can be created of the subject" mean?

Blocked for 8 hours
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Three_6_Mafia. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Three_6_Mafia). Stifle (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You have been unblocked, as your reverts did not qualify as a 3RR violation - they were simple vandalism reverts. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. Stifle (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for Princess Peach, I didn't bother with CITEs since I just cleaned up all the text. Do you have any comments on it? Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 18:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm fixing that problem now. I just came across and decided to fix it. Thanks again, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 21:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Blanked pages
Can you please point out where I have blanked pages?

Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Cel es tianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to like Featured Articels...
Can you check out New Jersey Supreme Court? I've done some work on it and want to know if I've missed anything needed for a good articel, or done anything really egregious that needs to be fixed. Also, if it's mostly OK, can you file a peer review on it (Since that invoves creating a page, grr...). Thanx regardless... 68.39.174.238 02:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I didn't know you were supposed to number the refs... 68.39.174.238 21:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 77 Vandalism
I was just fixing the vandalism to that page at the time you made your reversions. However, my corrections were a little different: I didn't just remove the false claims, I corrected them. If you are okay, I'd like to add these corrections:


 * "The newspaper the San Francisco Gate incorrectly stated in an article on April 16, 2006 that specific images of a plane crashing into the Pentagon had been made public. Those specific images had not been made public, and the Gate issued a retraction here. The Gate did not retract its story stating that evidence existed of a plane crashing into the Pentagon, and in fact, while no images exist of the moment immediately before and immediately during the time the plane hit the Pentagon, evidence exists and has been released that indicate it was a plane which hit the Pentagon, including images of plane parts in the wreckage.


 * The Judicial Watch group in Washington, D.C. has filed suit against the Department of Defense for withholding a video which the DOD purports to show the moment of impact. The Judicial Watch press release is here . Note that Judicial Watch does not deny the existence of the tape, nor does it deny the fact that American Airlines 77 flew into the Pentagon. In fact, Judicial Watch, in its own press release's words, "seeks the information in part to help put to rest conspiracy theories that a government drone or missile hit the Pentagon rather than the hijacked United airplane." (Emphasis added.)


 * Please advise.JCaesar 00:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Allowed
I am allowed to use the admin template if I want. I am sorry but I am still stressed from losing RFA. And here is the template.


 * No, you aren't. And just to clarify here, user has been warned for disruption. NSL E (T+C) at 06:46 UTC (2006-04-25)

9/11 AfD
J, Could have been a lot more sensitive to creator of the Raymond York page, given that their username has York in it, and this is basically their only contrib. Like, a note on their talk page would have been very good. You're a very experienced contributor, I shouldn't have to tell you this. Maybe leave a note yet. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: 67.8.26.41
In the Miami television articles that were edited by the above IP user, he mentioned that they transmit to Key West. While I don't doubt that, my reason for the edits were that the Miami stations don't (and, to my knowledge, have never) ID themselves as "Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-Key West". Last time I checked, Nielsen still calls it the "Miami-Ft. Lauderdale" DMA. That is unless things have changed since the last time I was in South Florida. Rollosmokes 18:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, I was just about to post to the notice board. I had no idea he was a known troll, or I wouldn't have wasted so much time with him over the last couple of days. Tom Harrison Talk 01:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Image cleanup
Hi Jorge. As you know, lots of people here know nothing about copyrights. Accordingly, it's a good idea when removing problem images to leave a message for the user on their talk page, on the image page, or, preferably, both. The hope is that they'll educate themselves on policy before continuing to upload. Striking-out improper tags — like  on Image:Reggiebush.jpg, which is for promotional posters of events — and adding or  is helpful too. When an image could be fair use in some article, but not the one you removed it from, also consider adding below its fair use tag so that it can be expeditiously deleted. Oh, and keep up the good work! All contributions to removing copyright viotations are important; these are just extra steps. Cheers. ×Meegs 00:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA nom
Sorry for responding so late, and thanks for offering to nominate me for administratorship. I decided to give myself a little time to think about it, and have decided to accept such a nomination. Hopefully, even if such a request doesn't succeed, I hope that I can still use comments to improve myself. Regards, AndyZ t 01:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

rfa
I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  19:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

A note on 2006 NFL Draft players
You don't have to make stubs on every single one, as many of them will most likely never play in the NFL. IF you feel they're necessary, then you can keep creating them, but they may very well be nonh-notable within a year's time. --Wizardman 22:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Could you at least add a bit of content to all of these substubs before creating a more? It seems like you're creating them just for the sake of creating them. ×Meegs 02:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

 R o  gerthat  Talk  04:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Choosing Belgrade
Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 07:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team

re: 3RR Warning
Hi, regarding the 3RR warning you sent me, I appreciate your quick action. However I have only made two reverts thus far. Here and here. The first posting of the (disputed) tag does not constitute a revert as it was a first post. You will note that I've placed a clear rationale for placing the (Disputed) tag on this page and that the individuals who have reverted my tag have refused to attempt to resolve on Talk. I believe I have acted in good faith, but I will ensure that I do not violate 3RR. --Digiterata 02:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have any interest in Template:MLB
please join the current discussion at Template talk:MLB. As a member of WikiProject Baseball your opinion is particularly valued. Thanks. 66.167.139.143 08:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

Featured article candidates/Ike Altgens
With the understanding that I risk spamming, this FaC has been up for nearly two days with no comments. Did I do something incorrectly, somehow, or is it a simple case of a "don't know, don't care" response for a subject too obscure for anyone under the age of, say, 40 [grin]? TIA. :) Radio  Kirk   talk to me  17:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Concerns addressed, and thanks! :) Radio  Kirk   talk to me  02:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't find the answer anywhere, so forgive me for asking: if your concerns are addressed and it turns out you would now support this, can a FaC pass, 2-0, or should I withdraw due to a stunning lack of interest? Thanks. :) Radio  Kirk   talk to me  18:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My thanks. :) Radio  Kirk   talk to me  18:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Brett Favre
Hi there. You recently edited an image of Brett Favre I uploaded. I realized after I did it that it wasn't promotional. But you edited at the same time I was changing it. I'm still a little bit iffy on the fair use concept, so could you look at it now and see if it is acceptable? The image is called favre_headshot.jpg. Thanks! --Matterbug 17:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Moshe Sharett
Jaranda, please don't tag images so quickly. You tagged the above minutes after I'd uploaded it, and before I had a chance to enter the source; in fact, I got an edit conflict with you. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my page. --Nlu (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Never Mind
Never mind. I missed the formatting edit done by a bot and forgot that you'd made that comment earlier and thought it was more recent and thus in response to a more recent incident. Please ignore this comment. HUGE apologies. JCaesar 06:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania
The reason for creating a second article is that people keep trying to delete matter from the Lancaster, Pennsylvania article, claiming that it's only supposed to be about stuff within the city limits, and not all the Lancaster community. The new article eliminates all references to things outside the city limits (and since the city wasn't incorporated until 1818, most things prior to 1818). ClairSamoht 04:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Abuse by Malber
I am asking on your talk page because of abuse by Malber.

Someone said, "Please, SlimVirgin is one of wikipedia best admins and so is Will Beback." I'm curious your criteria for best admins. With all due respect to the two accounts, I hear nothing but complaints about them. There's a thread here about buying people's admin accounts that says (this is not my opinion, just what they say) if someone bought their accounts and did lots of POV pushing, banning of people they edit war against, general havok, and even vandalism that nobody would notice because the accounts do that. With all due respect to the two accounts, Will Beback even changed his name and then in his talk page archive he says that he did it because people hated him so much. What's the criteria for making them best admins? Again, these are not my opinions and nor are these; they're just highly google ranked. Just put "SlimVirgin" or "Will Beback" into google. a Will Result. The first things that aren't wikipedia or its countless mirrors are what come up.

Someone said, "Please, SlimVirgin is one of wikipedia best admins and so is Will Beback." I'm curious your criteria for best admins. I do not know them but I put their names in google and the first non-wikipedia and wikipedia results found a number of criticisms. Malber thinks that the two are too holy to mention that others criticize them so you can google yourself.

DyslexicEditor 19:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The above was a question to you. Below,

I think these edits by Malber explain things personal attack and two. Also User page vandalism and he was blocked for other personal attacks and again for talk page vandalism (which he still does) DyslexicEditor 20:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Will WP:ANI about him constantly blanking my comments on a talk page? I've always found them untrustable. DyslexicEditor 20:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still wondering how you rank those two admins as the best admins? Is there a system you use? DyslexicEditor 20:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry your burned out
I'm sorry your burned out. I wish a very restfull break and hope you will return to Esperanza someday. Please let me know if there is anyhting that I can do for you. :) -JCarriker 03:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Leaving's never good. I hope you come back at some point. —   nathanrdotco m  (Got something to say? Say it.) 06:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you're leaving, please come back soon. We will all miss you, all the best for your real life activities. --Ter e nce Ong 10:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see you're burned out. All the best. --Mmx1 19:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope you recover soon. And if you decide to return, it will be nice to have you back. --Ton e  20:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hope you decide to come back some day. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 14:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Deny recognition poll
(Note that this is a form notification.)

Hello Jaranda. Since you commented on the Deny recognition proposal, this is to notify you that a formal poll has been opened concerning it. If it is accepted, it will be be used as a launching pad to amend other policies such as the deletion policy; that page itself will be marked as historical, not policy. Feel free to reread the proposal and place your vote. // [ admin ] Pathoschild (talk/map) 07:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi ,

Thank you for supporting my RFA! Unfortunately it did not succeed mainly because most opposers wanted me to spend more time on Wikipedia. Thank you for your faith in me & looking forward to your continued support in the future.

Cheers

Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  )  09:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)