User talk:J.R. Hercules/Archive

Fair use rationale for Image:Carr_brothers.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Carr_brothers.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of '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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  22:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:Carr brothers.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Carr brothers.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  16:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wichita_massacre_victims.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Wichita_massacre_victims.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Carr brothers.jpg
J.R., I appreciate that you added the additional source info, but the Crime Library link doesn't show who the copyright holder is, and I can't find the photo on the Sedgwick County site. How did you determine that they held the copyright on the image? I'm sorry about this, but the information is required per the non-free content policy, item 10. Videmus Omnia Talk  00:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dandridge_and_Gray.jpg
I have tagged Image:Dandridge_and_Gray.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  05:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Treva_Gray.jpg
I have tagged Image:Treva_Gray.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  05:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tucker_baskerville.jpg
I have tagged Image:Tucker_baskerville.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  05:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Harvey_family_photo.jpg
I have tagged Image:Harvey_family_photo.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  05:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Carr brothers.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Carr brothers.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the 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. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)  Videmus Omnia  Talk  17:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please acquaint (or reacquaint) yourself with Wikipedia policies
Edit summaries such as this, this, and this violate core policies about civility and attacking other editors. This edit is quite definitely over the line, is libelous and will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Should you continue to engage in these sorts of behavior, you will be blocked from further editing here. Please concentrate on improving the encyclopedia with your edits, and not sowing seeds of dissension here. Thank you. Jeffpw 05:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I must say, I agree with Jeff on this one. Your personal attacks, and blatant accusations (see NAMBLA accusations) are FAR over the line, and do indeed put you in danger of being blocked, if someone should choose to report you. And for the record, you can not ban somoeone from leaving comments on your talk page. K. Scott Bailey 17:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I may and will leave comments on your page if I feel it is appropriate. I have alerted administrators to your edit summaries, and continued behavior will lead to your block. I do not need to be an admin here to comment on your incivility, and it is not wikistalking to check your contributions to make sure you stay in line with policies here. If you disagree, feel free to contact an administrator, or start a discussion on WP:ANI about it. I would be sincerely interested as to the community's opinion of your manner of editing. Jeffpw 19:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

R.E.M
I assure you it's not some sort of power trip. The reason I keep deleting that one sentence is because it's relatively unimportant and the reference you used (which is a bio on a music festival site) is simply not acceptable. WesleyDodds 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon
If you could leave a reference about why Lennon did not lose his MBE status after returning it, it would be good. Otherwise, it could be regarded as POV. --andreasegde (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Madonna (entertainer)
Please avoid personal and homophobic comments per No personal attacks. There is no need to call attention to self apparent idiocy, as that is redundant. Remove content when necessary and describe why in an objective manner. In this instance you could have removed the claims because they where uncited and unverifiable, which is a much stronger argument. See also: User talk:J.R. Hercules/Archive. Hyacinth (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you know Wikipedia's policy of neutrality? Saying that "Madonna has gained some notablility as.." is Biased Point of View. Please stop writing such things Vikrant 16:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikrant Phadkay (talk • contribs)

Hello

 * I noticed your work on the Dostoevsky article. Fantastic. I was wondering if you have this book.
 * An Intellectual Tradition: Dostoyevsky and Alex Solzhenitsyn In an elaborately researched monograph, Russian scholar and political philosopher, Nicholas Rzhevsky, unequivocally confirms that Dostoyevsky created a unique religious synthesis and conservative intellectual tradition in late nineteenth-century Russian history (Cf. his Russian Literature and Ideology: Herzen,Dostoyevsky, Leontiev, Tolstoy, Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1983)

and
 * ''Solzhenitsyn and Dostoevsky A study in the Polyphonic Novel by Vladislav Krasnov ISBN 0-8203-0472-7


 * If you have how do you see that it's content might be better incorporated into the Dostoevsky article? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR
Hello, J.R. Hercules. I'm a non-admin helper at the 3RR noticeboard. I believe you've stepped beyond the limits of the three-revert rule at Opposition to trade unions. Although you've been a Wikipedian for quite some time, I'm not sure whether you were aware of this rule. If you're quick, you can still re-revert your last change back to the way it was before you changed it, putting yourself back within the limits of the rule. If someone else reverts your edit first, you lose that opportunity, and you might be blocked from editing for a period of time. See the 3RR report at the 3RR noticeboard. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful edits
Hello. You've recently made a series of edits on economics articles. Some of these edits do not confirm to NPOV guidlines, and some involve the blanking of unsoruced matereal without instead requesting citations. Please avoid doing these again: especially deleting the same line a second time on a different page after references had been added for it on the first. Thankyou, Larklight (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello. Can you please discuss your additions to Opposition to trade unions regarding hitler on the talk page rather than simply adding them over and over. If not, your edits may be viewed as vandalism. Thankyou. Larklight (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hitler, thankyou
Thankyou for ceasing your unconstructive edits to Opposition to trade unions following User:HJensen's response to your request for comment. Please don't be detered from adding NPOV, properly referenced and relivant content to the article. Larklight (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism 27/05/08
Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Larklight (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
I was about to revert myself, after researching Talk page guidelines. Archiving, however, should be used for old discussions. Warning notices from that day are not old. Secondly, using vandalism warning templates do not imply administrator status- they are a reminder of policy. Larklight (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism 05/06/08
Stop adding Hitler to the introduction to Opposition to trade unions! It is very clear than everyone else thinks it shouldn't be there, as show by your own RfC. If you keep re-inserting you will in the end be blocked. Larklight (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism 07/06/08
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Larklight (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

re User talk:LessHeard vanU
I have replied there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Andy Warhol
I've reverted your edit as you gave no explanation for it. Please use an edit summary or post on the talk page so that other users can understand why you have made the change. You also marked it as minor, which is incorrect, as it is a substantive change.  Ty  09:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your Edits to Scandinavia
I am sitting here editing as someone from Norway with one of my friends, who is from Finland and does NOT consider himself from Scandinavia, telling you how offensive your edits are. Our edits reflect not ONLY the talk page but the content of the page itself. Those INSIDE Norden who refer to Finland and Iceland as Scandinavia are largely tourist boards marketing to the outside world and primarily some people who tire of explaining the difference to outsiders. OUR edits made that clear. The previous use of the "passive voice" and ALL ENGLISH AND AMERICAN SOURCES to justify yours and others' attempts to make the usage equal to the REAL usage is OFFENSIVE to people from these countries. Of course, considering what you've done to nations and people around the world, this is no surprise. But you should have more respect for other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristianHarkett (talk • contribs) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Sarah Palin. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. ThaddeusB (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ronnotel (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Cars/power pop
A head's up to let you know that I restored the Cars edits-- please see the Discussion page on power pop for explanation and citations.208.120.7.152 (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

fluoxetine
J.R. I am a new user who read and agreed with your comments regarding fluoxetine. I had a similar suggestion on the paroxetine talk page. I found a good study on the subject here: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/164/7/1044 Mwalla (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)mwalla

Iceland, Friedman and neo-liberalism
You seem to have quite the interest in Iceland and neo-liberalism, however, I dont think either Milton Friedman or 2008–2012 Icelandic financial crisis is really a good place for criticisms of the type you keep adding. In the case of the Friedman article, criticisms tend to be of his whole body of work and school of thinking which is appropriate for a biography, whereas the information you added is a highly specific criticism better suited for Monetarism or Neoliberalism perhaps. Remember, Friedman wasn't the only monetarist or neoliberal nor was he involved in any of Iceland's economic policy decision making. His role there is merely that he gave a talk and inspired some of Iceland's future leaders. Laying the blame for Iceland's economic crisis in 2008 on a talk Friedman gave in 1984 is exceedingly dubious to say the least, and, in any event, is more of a criticism of neoliberalism, rather than Friedman himself.

2008–2012 Icelandic financial crisis article is a very technical one, you will notice nothing of politics or economic theory in that article. Consider the section you keep editing (causes): every other section deals with specific causes and effects: Icelandic banks upload debt, then cannot refinance, or the Krona becomes overvalued and suffers carry trading. These are are cold facts and the article refrains from editorializing. Your edits, in contrast, are vague and editorial in nature, "The nation is settling scores with neoliberalism", "number of writers have linked Iceland's woes ..", linked in what way? What neoliberal policies? Every other part of the article strives to explain specifics, your edits avoid real explanation. Moreover, look at the sourcing of that article, economic and financial journals, the IMF, economic oversight bodies, your sources, in contrast, are exceedingly weak, the huffington post? I could see that for reporting news such as "Iceland's banks have been closed for an extended period of time", but for analysis? Seriously, I would trust Alternet or huffpo for economic analysis as much as I would trust People magazine.

Also, I should warn you, you are over the 3 revert rule on both pages. Now, I dont see any value in running off to a notice board to report you, so long as you take the time to acutally discuss this matter rationally. Ive detailed some of my concerns on the respective talk pages, and some here, please take the time to consider what I have said. Bonewah (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Milton Friedman. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ''You have reverted the same edits to Milton Friedman 7 times now, well past the 3-revert rule. Note, it does not matter if you are adding material or deleting it, simply undoing another editor is reversion.'' Bonewah (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Milton Friedman
You have been blocked from editing for to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

{{unblock reviewed|1=I've already a) contributed multiple times to the articles' in question Talk Pages; b) added necessary justification of my edits in edit summaries; and even c) taken the time to request page protection for two articles. And for the trouble of reporting another editor who is engaging me almost step-for-step on at least two different pages {user: Bonewah}, I am given a block and deemed an "edit warrior". In short, I've actually gone out of my way to follow at least some part of recommended WP protocol -- hardly the mark of someone who is (in the words of the admin who just blocked me) engaging in "the very definition of disruption". Finally, while the rationale stated for applying this current block was for "continuing to edit-war against multiple editors on an article you've just been blocked for edit-warring on" (and I disagree with that assessment), the earlier block was not for edit-warring, but for violating 3RR {"31 hours for 3RR violation"). J.R. Hercules (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)|decline=You were clearly edit warring again, on the exact same article. I'm sorry if you're confused, perhaps you can read one of the links to our policy on this that you've been given several times? I'm afraid that your confusion indicates that you'll continue the same pattern of editing if unblocked. Kuru  (talk)  02:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)}}