User talk:J.smith/archive05


 * Note: This is an archive. Please do no edit this page. New messages should be left on my talk page and not here. Thank you, ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 20:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Royal Wedding
The YT guy asserts the film is PD and I don't know why. Can you work it out? Thanks --Spartaz 07:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like it is really under the public domain. Apparently MGM simply forgot or simply chose not to renew the licence sometime in the 60s. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 05:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. How did you find that out? (so I know how to do it myself next time). --Spartaz 06:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the article said it is, but didn't have a source, so I did some Google searching. Found it mentioned a few times on various websites. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Talkheader
Hi, when adding new banner templates to talk pages, please keep the talkheader at the head of the page, the first template in the list. Not to be a pain about it but it really makes a difference in getting anon users to sign their posts. Thanks! -- Stbalbach 15:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

UoP RfM
Thanks for your comments. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here, and I'm beginning to wonder why on earth I ever allowed myself to become embroiled in a debate over the minutiae of WP policy in such an obvious case. N6 21:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL comments
I responded to your comment in the WP:EL talk. Thought I'd send you a message since there's a lot of traffic there and it's easy to miss something =) N6 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, I have it watchlisted. (I've already replied, btw) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I started T. --Spartaz 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, cool. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Gideon Coe
Hi,

You removed a link to a YouTube video in Gideon Coe's entry on Wikipedia. As the writer, copyright holder and one of the performers of the song featured in the video, I have no problem with it being featured on YouTube or linked to from other sites. I've reinstated the link. Thanks. Mr Twain 00:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the above, when I wrote the section below, I explored it further. I do not think the YouTube link is legit. Has Mr Twain released it as fully open source? If not, I think we should not link to it. I doubt thay just giving permission is enough, but I'm not too sure about external links and copyright, so I'm not going to edit it. --Bduke 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it dosn't need to be opensource or GDFL... it just needs to be up on YouTube legaly. I'm not 100% sure it is, but I'll take Twain's word on it for now. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Resource Exchange
This seems like a good idea. However I am inclined to wait before adding the tag to a large number of scientific journal articles that I know about or created, to see whether the project gets more support. Also have you thought through the possible merge or confusion with other projects that were discussed on the talk page? However, if you want to add the tag to some journals, look at those in Category:American Chemical Society and Category:Royal Society of Chemistry or in the various lists such as List of scientific journals in chemistry or those for other disciplines linked from List of scientific journals. There are very many articles on scientific journals. --Bduke 02:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Smosh
Could you please review smosh to see if the youtube links in it are okay or if they should be deleted. Thanks, CRouleau 04:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. (delete this when you've read it) -CRouleau 22:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Re. EL in Sig
The link is located on WP, but I don't think there is any way of linking as a Wikilink as it contains code.js?username=Havok Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up though. Havok (T/C/e/c) 17:29, 9 January 2007 (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 18:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just in case you're curious as to why you have received this list, User:Foundby added your username to the SuggestionBot request list. AZ t 21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

RFI for Aylahs
Hi J.smith. I noticed that you handle other RFIs, so I'm hoping that you can help me. On January 8, User:Trueblood786 submitted an RFI about me, but instead of placing it in New Requests, he immediately put it in the Under Investigation section. I added my comment to his RFI, but not wanting to create the wrong impression, I left where it was and hoped that an admin would put it in the correct section. However, so far the issue hasn't been corrected.

While I do not agree with the RFI against me, I do believe that the process must be followed. I'd appreciate if you could look into this and correct the situation if it is warranted. Regards -- Aylahs (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed that you moved the entry to the correct section. Thank you for taking care of this. Regards -- Aylahs (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wikipedia-On-Adwords.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Wikipedia-On-Adwords.JPG. The image description 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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 fair use images 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

FTL barrier broken?
Hello. I was visiting the Extraterrestrial hypothesis talk page when I stumbled across your assertation that the supposed 'speed of light' had been broken in an expiriment involving electromagnetism. This intrigued me. Could you point me toward someplace that I can learn more about this expiriment? -Toptomcat 03:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

H4xx0r unblocked request
See note at User_talk:Mackensen. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

At it again
I am starting to sound like a broken record, but 131/Serafin has been at it again, 3RR violations and personal attacks, in numerous edit summaries calls his edits "reverting TRROL activity" then in discussion page [] he says "TO ALL: I think those guys who are not Polish or German should voluntarily withdrawal from the argument. They do more harm to the question than both interested parties, I mean German and Polish, would like to see. I already have in my mine one particularly TROLLING individual. AS>" all of those edits he calls trolling are edits by me, to the previous version that all other people dealing with him have added to compromise with him. We try to compromise and add things he says into the article, but he just then adds everything else which everyone agreed was unacceptable.

--Jadger 03:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm keeping an eye on the page. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 16:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

He is getting very aggressive and aggravating in his edits, continuing to call me a troll, and making edits that can only be seen as vandalism []. this edit here [] can only be seen as vandalism, the article is referenced with a reference section at the bottom of the article, he has been reverted from that dozens of times now.

also, another example User_talk:131.104.218.46 of his personal attacks on me, while not specifically naming me, it is pretty obvious he is meaning me as all his edits after mine are described as "revert TRROL"

please do something, he is very disruptive and is aggravating a number of users, all of whom are trying to solve the problems. perhaps block him for longer to show that what he is doing is wrong and that it will be punished, or protect the pages he is editing until he is forced to compromise on the talk page.

--Jadger 01:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 131 also uses another anon IP User_talk:216.171.96.18. he has continued the same actions [] and even has started removing other user's discussion on the talk page [].




 * --Jadger 00:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, his edits to Germany article can only be viewed as Vandalism [] and he is constantly being reverted. I don't think anyone can find a edit of his that hasn't been reverted.

--Jadger 01:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OMG, if there is any reason to block this user, just check out his contribution history Special:Contributions/Serafin Special:Contributions/131.104.218.46


 * --Jadger 00:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Block Evasion Special:Contributions/207.245.84.70, the edit to the JPGordon userpage is clear enough to prove it.

--Jadger 03:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, sockpuppet user:Arudra

--Jadger 03:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

He is still evading your block Special:Contributions/168.213.1.132

--Jadger 00:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

He is still evading the block, but atleast now he is not edit warring on articles (only because they have now been protected with his edit being the last before the page protect). I would like to direct you to User_talk:Philip_Gronowski/Translation_of_Polish which is a translation of his Polish conversation with a fellow editor. note the additional sockpuppet Ptak now, and the pretty worrying statement "You can rest assured that I will be doing everything to close as many articles as I can." If this does not warrant a more severe block I don't know what does, he is simply here to be disruptive.

--Jadger 19:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is getting old. Let me know if any more pop-up. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 20:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

He's talking on the discussion pages again, with one of his old IP addresses (you had blocked it for 3 days, but his main user for 1 month). I don't see any harm so far as the articles are still all protected, but no one wants to keep them protected, except him. Special:Contributions/131.104.218.46

--Jadger 04:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Whats the IP address? This crap is hard to track when I'm doing other stuff. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

131.104.218.46 is the IP, and here User:202.167.254.68

--Jadger 00:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

and again, personally attacking me on the discussion page of Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II 219.66.235.103 Special:Contributions/219.66.235.103 and violating his block yet again.

--Jadger 07:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

not only attacking me now, but also user:Richardshusr, who was acting as a good mediator. still on Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II, Richard was highly offended by his remarks here. Is there any way to block him? as it seems he has random IPs.

--Jadger 06:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

back to using one of his previously blocked addresses again.

--Jadger 04:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Should his other IP addresses not be blocked for as long as his user one is? the one he uses most is not blocked and he is using it to abuse wikipedia and personally attack me. He is also thus evading his block. just check out Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II.

Also, please check out User:Xx236's comments on that same page, such as where he starts flaming me, stating: The discussion here isn't between Poles and Germans, but is caused by a Canadian Prussian. OR ''Would someone neutral ask Jadger to concentrate on the article rather than on me and the Prussian glory? Xx236 14:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)'' I never personally attacked him, I countered his "points" and might have been uncivil, but I repeatedly asked him to stop but he kept attacking me. Talk to either User:Lysy or User:Richardshusr and they will tell you I have been doing a lot more to resolve the disputes on the page and get it unprotected than either of these disruptive editors have.

--Jadger 04:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you need an admin who is more versed in the history of that area. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Onions References.
our booking agency has published several reveiws about performances, you can find them at gojangle.com

Sickanimation.com has posted reveiws on their music and cartoon board about us

The Local Newspaper, The Spokesman Has posted an informative review about who we are and what we do, although they do not have a website.

every venue that we have played has written a review or reccomendation for future reveiws, i belive Schubas.com posted it a while ago, but im not sure how long ago it was, so i'm not postive it is sitll up.

thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ballsdeep123 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the info... I tried to find a website for The Spokesman... Is their website spokesmanreview.com perhapse? I couldn't find anything relivent in their archives, so maybe it's the wrong paper.
 * I didn't see anything on Schubas.com.... google didn't see anything either . Looks like they clear off the front page fairly often and don't keep archives. :(
 * I tried to find something about the onions on Sickanimation.com. I wasn't able to find anything there.... the site was running realy slow for me too.  Was having a hard time navigating at all.
 * Unfortunatly all of those sources are fairly trivial... even the newspaper. All those sources would be fine for building an article at some point, but they don't do much to establish notability. We need something more... something bigger. Something like a few articles in a major newspaper or major online website. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 05:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things
Hi there. My removal of the link in this article has been revered by. Would you mind providing a second opinion? Thanks --Spartaz 16:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ta. --Spartaz 16:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you get a chance to look at this yet? --Spartaz 06:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit history for Alt.games.final-fantasy
Mr. Smith, I noticed you deleted the above article based on the outcome of an AfD vote. That's fine, but I was wondering if you could provide access to the previous edit history of the article, since I would like to transwiki it to a more appropriate venue. I can pull up the last revision of the article via Google's cache, but the history is not available in the same manner. Thank you. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. I've got what I needed from the article, so feel free to remove it again at your leisure. And thanks for your help! – Sean Daugherty (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

NOR
So if this counts as "original research", then how can anybody ever be have an uncredited appearance in any show/movie. By definition, watching the show would then fall under "original research" and thus, be inadmissable. In this case, because Stacy wasn't very famous yet, it's virtually impossible to "officially" confirm. Meanwhile, it's obviously her on the screen. --Billywhack 06:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

RFA
...Wow. I wasn't expecting that, and I'm extremely pleased and flattered that you would offer - but to be honest, after this mess is cleared up I see myself taking a very long Wikibreak as I'm close to burnt out. Thank you anyway, though. :)

I'm bound to be back sooner or later, as I love Wikipedia - perhaps if I change my mind in the future I could ask you to support me then? Vashti 09:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

YouTube
I just want to ask why a link to YouTube violates copyright policy. Talk to me 14:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just happened to notice a comment on this page: Talk:Jeremy Glick (author). I didn’t put any YouTube links in (or have any deleted), I was just curious why it was considered a violation. I’m not complaining or anything here (there’s a first for everything) Simpsons contributor 15:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So the copyright violation is on the part of YouTube (or at least its users)? Ok then I get it. Thanks. Simpsons contributor 15:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Tutorial5 on the Spam Blacklist
Thank you for your comment over there. I just had a quick question, though... does your adsense comment support the addition to the blacklist? The truth is, it isn't the content of the link that I disapprove of so much as how they keep adding it back without comment. If you think it is a good site, I'll let it stand and drop the issue. It is entirely possible that the person who keeps adding the link is furious with me for removing it, but doesn't know how to use a talk page. --Mdwyer 17:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit split on that issue....The website seems ok and even tho it has the max AdSense, they are using three small unintrusive units. I don't think it should be blacklisted, but I don't feel strongly either way. What is the article? I can semi-protect it for a while. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ping and while we're at it, Frozen shoulder could stand to have the same protection. --Mdwyer 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You already third time interrupted my work
You already third time interrupted my work. This time you even did not bother to give any example supporting you action. I consider you as my personal enemy since you arrogantly repeat you activity on me and do not consider questioning as adequate solution. I will report on you and process any possible way against you as you are overuse administrator power. It will be forgotten appreciate if you withdraw you block and become discussion. Serafin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.127 (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

User talk:Serafin
Hm. Y'know, when I go to the trouble of warning an editor for a particular offense, it sends an odd message if another admin immediately blocks the editor for the same offense. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Serafin again? Olessi 19:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (unknown, but edits similar articles)
 * (signs as "AS")
 * (signs as "AS")

A note...
You said: "Hi Yamla, I'm contacting you in regards to this: edit. Please, in the future, don't insult editors... especially while acting as a representative of the administrative authority on wikipedia."


 * I'll keep that in mind. I should probably just have left that user alone.  However, I had just declined unblocks on several other similar usernames that this editor had created; he clearly was trying to waste our time, though this did not justify my response.  --Yamla 02:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments
thanks for your comments. Travb (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Serious spamming
JS, I wonder whether you might consider a permanent block on this user: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. It is true that he has not yet responded to a first warning but the scale on the spamming he has done is so great that it is impossible to assume any kind of good faith in my view. Since you are the only sysop who does much on wikispam I thought you were the best person to think about it. --BozMo talk 11:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * btw I think it was Nposs not Hu12 who found this guy and needs the praise but I could be wrong: the conversation on WP:AN probably ought to reflect that. My money is on him surfacing at 00:00 UTC and writing nazi all over my user page (since I did the warning) --BozMo talk 19:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh... I we want to make sure the right person gets credit. Mind making a note to that effect in the AN thread? Naw, I don't think he's going to attack you.  I get the feeling that this guy is a professional.  He will melt away and resurface in 6 months with a whole new slew of websites. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 19:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone has done a perm block anyway. I was looking to some abuse after your comment about people calling you a Nazi: might be just in time for my RFA... --BozMo talk 19:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My mistake it was Hu12. I should have checked the log before shouting my mouth off. --BozMo talk 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * hehe... J.smith's second law: Show me an admin who has never been called a Nazi and I'll show you an admin who isn't doing thier job. :) Maybe I'm just getting cynical. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Michaelas10
If User:Michaelas10 will just LEAVE ME THE HECK ALONE (instead of officiously intruding himself where he isn't wanted) -- especially now that he seems to have finally achieved his apparently deeply-cherished goal of incorrectly slandering me into indefinite futurity as one who allegedly "advertised"[sic] an AFD -- then there will no more occasions for confrontation. AnonMoos 08:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Serafin again
I listed some more IP addresses that User:Serafin has been using. He has toned the disruptive editing, but he is still editing while his main account is blocked. Could it be possible that he is unaware that his usage of IPs as sockpuppets is in violation of our policies? Olessi 17:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The Blog looks totally fake to me
Why would someone who has her own domain, janedark.com, with blogging dating back years, suddenly get a blogspot page, with nothing on it but a handful of phrases that happen to support otherwise unverifiable claims on a Wiki page. That stretches AGF way past the breaking point. Fan-1967 18:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jane Dark
was created at 22:55, on 21 January 2007. It had never existed before. I AFDed it at 04:34, 22 January 2007. One wonders how many people would have added the article to their watch list at that point. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No idea. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dumb question
Redirect just means if someone searches for A they are redirected to B, right? (Is there ever a merge without redirect? I'm not concerned with JD, but with understanding AfD.  So if I ever vote on anything again, I will know what my vote means. :-)  I guess specifically, I want to know, is there a difference between "merge" and "merge and redirect" or are they the same thing?-Cindery 23:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perfectly valid question... Yes, a redirect automatically forwards someone to a different page. You can create a redirect with the code:  Yes, a merge can be done without a redirect, but that's fairly rare. (typically, if an article closes as "merge" the old page title gets redirected) A "Merge and delete" means that the person doesn't think the redirect would be useful to people searching for the article... but in this case it would be quite useful for someone searching for Jane Dark to be sent to the right article.
 * Just to confuse the issue a little more, sometimes a debate can be closed as "redirect" witch means that there wasn't anything worth moving to the other title. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Grazon blocked again
After the one-month block on 132.241.246.111 expired, Grazon returned using that IP, again made edits which included much POV-pushing, and was reported. Another one-month block has been placed on 132.241.246.111. —12.72.69.82 07:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Response
Hi, a response has been posted at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks Rfwoolf 06:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment re: Lightbringer
I was actually surprised to see this on the admin board, as it wasn't at any involved party's instigation that I know of, and while I note your support, I'm not so sure why it was "reluctant". I would think that 200+ sock accounts, 29 RFCUs, sockfarming, open proxy abuse, an ArbCom case, his own LTA page and Wikipedia shortcut (WP:LB), and a year and a half of POV-pushing edits on one subject with no desire to open a dialogue whatsoever in that time should be more than enough to show that a user is a persistent problem user with no chance of becoming a positive contributor to Wikipedia. MSJapan 17:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment
Yes, I udnerstand that the individual edit counts disapear once a page is deleted, thats why people like Janejellyroll focus on deletions more than edits. My grievance is that it is alot easier to delete than to correct or to assist new editors and that people like her delete more than they repair. Especially new articles.--Sand Squid 18:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok so maybe she is not interested in becoming an admin. I really dont care what her hopes & dreams are. And yes I understand that individual edits dissapear once an article is deleted. My point is that she & too many people like here are so quick to nominate & delete articles whose history demonstrates a pattern of constant improvement. Apparently the other Admins & editors here have thousands of hours available to delete but not one minute for guidance.

Does it really matter what my article was? It is gone & the damage is done. As I have said on other talk pages, it was not a long fall from gnome to troll--Sand Squid 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand why I am bitter about this. It the article truly deserved to be deleted then so be it. I am bitter that I was working so hard on it and I think it was obvious that I was constantly improving it but it didnt matter. Once the deletion ball started rolling, it was a done deal. This was not an article about a trivial subject. Granted her fans are probably in the hundreds, maybe thousands, but she is very well known in the punk-rock and grindcore scene. How else would she have been able to attract the the well known personalities such as Dave Navarro, Lloyd Kaufman or member of GWAR to her show?

Like I said, if it remains deleted or is restored matters little to me anymore. I won't spend any effort on rewriting it. I've found a new way to entertain myself with Wikipedia.--Sand Squid 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism :-D

This is alot more satisfying than creating or repairing an article someone else will delete. There are those who create and those who destroy. Since I apparently cannot create, I will destroy. Or at least annoy.--Sand Squid 19:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Cite_encyclopedia
Thanks for making the change! I also like the italics for the quote; it helps make it stand out from the actual reference. I don't see anything broken in instances where I've used the template — Bellhalla 21:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Template_talk:Cite_encyclopedia. In short, the italics for the quote is inconsistent with the other citation templates, and I think it should go. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 19:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Officeholder
I'd like to thank you for the recent changes you made to Template:Infobox Officeholder, it has cleared up several problems on many pages. There is however a very minor mistake on the template that I should have noticed before. In three places it says "In office since" ( In office since ) but it was decided in a recent discussion that the term "Assumed office" ( Assumed office ) should be used instead. As I said, it's a very minor mistake. Would it be possible for you to correct it? Thank you again --Philip Stevens 09:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put a copy of the altered code here. Philip Stevens 12:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment solicited
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BenBurch

Thanks!

DRV
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dave Wills (wrestling). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --W.marsh 04:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Pendant Productions
I accept from the tag on your User page that you are an Admin on Wikipedia and as such have the power to resolve Deletion calls, could you do me the courtesy of showing why you resolved the deletion of the Pendant Productions against it's inclusion? In the article On_notability it admonishes admins to "explain in detail how the subject either satisfies or does not satisfy those criteria, including what research was done to determine this"

Your closing notice says ... "# Delete - I don't see any indication that -any- reliable secondary source have articles about this subject, and I don't see any indication that Pendant Productions passes any measure of notability in WP:CORP" i don't think that qualifies as detail, nor does it tell us what research you have done. Admitedly the BBC and Canadian radio articles seem to be archived, but are you perchance saying that the following are either not reliable or not secondary sources?... http://www.ktdrfm.com/

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/multimedia/multimedia.php?topic=radio-kal

http://www.scifisite.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=2064&hl=pendant+productions

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=9490

How about the fact that they scored the cover of "Hailing Frequencies Open" Issue #15/ or that they were one of the two featured Audio Dramas in the January "LIEF Erikson"?

I write under the nom de plume of Kirok of L'Stok and have been published in "Communique", the newsletter of Starfleet international, the largest fan club in the world, and in "Hailing Frequencies Open" (membership 5,300+) where I write a regular column on Trek fan productions. I am in charge of their Fan Film directory (a misnomer: we include most forms of fan prodction including audio drama) and chats. Under my real name I am supervising editor of Sci Fi Studios magazine. I also created the article on Wikipedia about Star Trek fan productions.

I am an independant, expert opinion. Pendant Productions are one of the two seminal groups in their field. If they are left out not only will Wikipedia be the poorer, with a gap in this field, but you will have done the public in general a diservice - unwittingly I'm sure - by what appears to have been a poorly researched decision.--Kirok of L&#39;Stok 10:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your inquiry. I have already looked at all of those sources...
 * In every notability guideline on wikipedia we have a standard definition of "notable" plus a few more for specific areas. The most basic guideline is "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."... I took that line from WP:CORP, but you'll find a similar line in WP:BIO and WP:BAND.  Each of the sources above as far as I can tell are either 1. Trivial, 2. not reliable sources (per WP:RS) or not independent of the subject of the article. Ktdrfm comes close, but unless I'm mistaken they are rebroadcasting their content, right? That does help, but alone it's not enough.
 * If you feel I made a mistake in my decision I will be happy to discuss this further or you are welcome to bring it up in deletion review. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, what did you classify the cover story on HFO under? No animosity here, just trying to work out what your definitions are so that I can advise the Users concerned as to what type of source you will deem suitable. And no, to the best of my knowledge the material broadcast on Ktdrfm has not been on the air before, this is what makes it so ground-breaking. It has major ramifications for other fan productions: if they can do this then it opens the way to fan films to be broadcast on community TV.


 * I am focussing on the rehabilitation of the article rather than it's execution. I feel that their main mistake was to write an article on just Pendant Prod's alone and get classified as a corporation. I am tending towards creating an article on Star Trek Audio Dramas by splitting the current Star Trek Fan Productions article which is getting badly out of date and would be excessively bloated if all the new productions were listed--Kirok of L&#39;Stok 12:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "the material broadcast on Ktdrfm has not been on the air before, this is what makes it so ground-breaking" <- That could be the path to convincing others that the article passes notability standards.
 * I'm not entirely familiar with HFO, but if I understand it right it's a fanzine created by TrekUnited, right? Typically most people don't consider sources who don't have articles themselves to be indicators of notability. Not necessarily always the case, but fanzines tend to be considered "trivial" coverage.
 * No, HFO is a newsletter for an organisation which is over 5000 strong and growing steadily (verifiable on the forum homepage). The publication itself is citizen journalism not, if you will forgive my generalisation, the type of LitCon esoterica that generally wins the Fanzine Hugo. There is a certain amount of comment, it is true, but this is more than balanced by the original research articles. Yes, I read the arrant, outdated nonsense about fan fiction in the detail section of the Notability on fiction article. If Wikipedia are judging modern fan productions on this type of prejudice then it has serious ethical problems. Vanity productions do not include dozens of people and span as much as 10 years!
 * If you want to recreate the article I can restore it and place it as a sub-page of your user-space. That will let you work on it for a while. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you could do that then I will work on making it into a general article on either fan-made Audio dramas to include all players in production (the notability guideline accepted on the Trek fan production article) or specifically Star Trek although I think the former would be better (might even get an admin's critque before publishing). If at some future point in time the individual production groups gain enough notability to have individual articles then they can be split from this. Sounds Bushido?


 * I appreciate your willingness to be flexible on this although I still feel that the way that the new users, who tried to create this article, were handled in the original AFD (NB I am not talking about you personally) was lacking in explanation of the principles quoted and overly confrontationist. I feel that any person in a position of authority, as an experienced Wikipedian is, should be as much mentor as cop and that suggestion of options and improvements to satisfy Wki guidelines (even just links to help pages) would have served everybody's purposes better. By following guidelines the new users might have fixed the article and thus gained the position in the communal knowledgebase that it deserved and Wikipedia would have gained a suitable, stronger article with users who understand and will respect the system. Thank you for your help in this matter. Cheers --Kirok of L&#39;Stok 03:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Help over at CAT:CSD
Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Oh and if you're already working away on CSD please disregard this message; it's not meant as a slight against any hard work you're already doing. Cheers! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Serafin
I have added more information to Suspected sock puppets/Serafin, who has continued to evade your block through various IPs and has not appealed. Because of his flagrant evasion, I am prepared to block further incidents on sight for at least a week (based on your block of ). All of the IPs used so far have only been used by Serafin, as opposed to being a shared IP used by unconnected users. Olessi 20:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

February Paranormal Project Newsletter out
The February 2007 issue of the Paranormal 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. InShaneee 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hotlist
I have automated the process of doing wikiseek comparison. If you would get me a copy of your current hotlist I will be glad to run. The script takes about 1-5 hours per item, depending on how many hits wikiseek has, and a few other factors. (Plus I am throttling it big time, to prevent any load on wikipedia and or wikiseek). Cheers! —— Eagle  101 Need help? 08:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please reply on my talk page thanks! —— Eagle  101 Need help? 08:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Obiwanbot
Here, Bot requests, you weren't trying to put on a smilie were you? I don't think those can work on Wikipedia. - 8:05am, February 3, 2007

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MARY_GERGEN. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Mary Gergen is a highly regarded social psychologist with accomplishments at least as substantial as her husband, Ken Gergen. As she is mentioned on his page, it seems natural to link to a more thorough characterization of her career. I respectfully request that this entry be reinstated.

Many thanks for the help--this was my first submission!

Unwinnable
it seems the disruptive editor User:Prosfilaes has returned and despite warnings is revert-warring again. time to lock the page again?

Re: AIV
Sure, I'll remember that. I just got out of the habit when the bot started doing a lot of the editing on that page, but I understand how it would be helpful and I will remember from now on. Academic Challenger 07:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Gutenberg
Gutenberg does not produce PDF's - PD books can come in a number of formats: plain text, HTML markup, text->PDF, scan->PDF, audio. At least one example from each is acceptable as people re-use the material in different ways depending on their intended purpose and preferences. Just because there is a Gutenberg version is not reason alone to remove other versions. -- Stbalbach 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion request
Could you undelete User:Moe Epsilon/welcome for me. I don't know if I'm going to be using it a lot, but it seems like I had it transcluded in a lot of places that now just have a red-link. If you could do this, I would appriciate it. Thank you! semper fi — Moe  05:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! :) semper fi — Moe  05:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser
Requests for checkuser/Case/Damastakilla, inadvertantly revealed him as a sock when he was suspected of being a sock of another user. –– Lid(Talk) 07:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

snub tv
Just a trifle, only as it was my first article for Wikipedia I might have misunderstood something. The Snub TV article was scheduled for demolition because it was suspected of being a hoax. The subsequent deletion was then listed as uncontested. Two other users had contested this and had provided links at the foot of the article to other sites, including the BFC, which proved the existence of the show, and of the rare video compilation. Was this evidence not enough, or was there some other objection to the article which was not covered by the Hoax summary? Jacobmorrison 14:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Jacob Morrison

Vital informiation for newbie blackberry users remove
Dear J.smith

You seem to have removed a paragraph in problems section in an article about the Blackberry handheld device.

If I'm correct, I'd like to ask: Why?

I guess it might certainly have been written better, but the fact is it is true and a vital piece of information for newbie blackberry users, specially those buying from eBay or second hand devices. The information stated is in now way itended to taint the fine device that the Blackberry is (with subscription), it is just a fact that potential buyers must be aware of.

This is the paragraph in question:

GPRS function in original GSM Blackberry phones will on most cases not work, without (monthly) Blackberry subscription. This means that an original GSM Blackberry phone is not a true GPRS device. For example, it is not possible to use WAP without the subscription. People wanting both options should look for third party phones that offer Blackberry functionality. However the limitations are not likely to be hardware based, but depends on the firmware in the phone and the network provider. In summary, without the suscription the device is a primitive phone with SMS and limited PDA functionality.

Best regards, frragnarsson

Sword
Yeah, thanks, I was looking at the low res one : (.  freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  06:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an elvish dictionary?
Thanks for keeping a sense of humour when dealing with the nonsense!! Articles for deletion/Faidwen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SkierRMH (talk • contribs) 07:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Oh, hehe, thanks... I forgot about that one. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Block you reviewed
You recently reviewed an indefinite block at User talk:Sixty Six. Unfortunately, the blocking admin has just (within the last few hours) blown his top and said he is leaving. See User talk:Alkivar for his comments. I don't know if anything should be done about the block, but I'd like to ask you to review the situation again. I had looked at the unblock request earlier today, and decided that I didn't know enough to do anything. No urgency on my part, but since one aspect of the situation has changed, I thought I would point it out to you. GRBerry 04:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It dosn't realy change the facts of the case. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does. It's proof that at least one of the admins in question was not acting in "good faith", as you would put it. The first admin involved in this matter has also abandoned his post under fire, and the two others apparently refuse to respond to User talk:Sixty Six's attempts to resolve the matter. When you take into account his contributions, Sixty Six has the potential to be an exceptional Wikipedia contributor. Chasing him off because you admins don't want to admit that some of you have treated him pretty shabbily is really not the way Wikipedia should be run. All you're doing is making Wikipedia look like it's run by a bunch of jerks on a power trip! As Spike Lee would say, Do the RIGHT thing! 24.242.148.169 17:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sixty Six broke the rules over and over again and is completely unapologetic about it. He doesn't even acknowledge that his behavior was a problem.   I will not be pressured into unblocking him on the basis of ad-hominum and straw-man arguments. I'm willing to continue to discuss this futher, but know I will not overturn the a block based soley on the argument that "admins are on a powertrip" or other such nonsense. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 19:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if that attitude doesn't prove that at least *you* are on a power trip! "Straw Man" arguments, indeed! 24.242.148.169 20:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone just told me about this, I should comment that sixty six's history stems far back to when he edited as an anon. IP. If anybody is interested in hearing the full history I'll happily write it up, but frankly I do find it rather peculiar several anons. just pop up at times, and one user has only ever edited stuff related to sixty six. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a standard tactic. Claim your own innocence and accuse sockpuppetry. Have you ever stopped to consider that the reason many of us resort to the anon route is that we're concerned that you and Will will pull the same games on our regular accounts for defending someone who's refused to bow down to you? Oh, and didn't you retire from Wikipedia? 24.242.148.169 20:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I have not or have I ever, "retired" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your user page is shut down, your talk page archives are gone, and you're "Wikibonked", which essentially is the same thing as retirement. If not, then why shut down your user page? 24.242.148.169 22:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, continue to ignore the issue of Sixty six's behavior and continue to attack me. Yeah, that will sure lead me to think your right. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 21:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody has ignored that issue. His "behavior" wasn't anywhere near as bad as the two who started all this made it out to be, and it's really you that's being selective on your facts. You're refusing to weigh and balance his positive work against what's really nothing more than a childish feud. The fact that TWO admins have "retired" under the weight of complaints about their actions and their wrongful results shows that, at the very least, there's some serious doubt as to whether any justice was served. From what anyone can see, the only reason you appear to require Sixty Six to apologize for ANYTHING is to show he'll capitulate under threat of blocking. That is, by any definition, power tripping. It's an attempt to teach a "lesson" for reasons that are unnecessary, unprofessional and especially immature.
 * What's really surprising about all this is I've seen much of your admin work on Wikipedia. You really don't demonstrate this sort misjudgment in matters like this, which makes your vehemence towards removing the block all the more puzzling. He's done NOTHING anywhere near as bad as some of the trolls who the admins have to fight with on an hourly basis, so why are you ostracizing someone who's probably more of the project participant you ARE looking for? This really smacks more of a vendetta than any sort of administrative duties issue.
 * Oh, and for the official record, I'm not attacking YOU personally. I *am* taking major issue with your being far more pig-headed about Sixty Six's block than he deserves. 24.242.148.169 22:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mail
Please check your e-mail. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 15:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, will do. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please chime in if you have a view
There's an interesting experience going on over at WikiProject California, and WikiProject Southern California.

Some time ago, WikiProject California members had placed their project tags on all articles about California cities. Those tags have been in place for some time. Recently certain members of WikiProject Southern California, after discussion on that project's talk page (only), decided to remove the WikiProject California tags for (almost all) Southern California cities, and replace the tags with WikiProject Southern California tags - only.

That is, the WikiProject Southern California members didn't simply add the WikiProject Southern California tag to Southern California cities, the WikiProject California tags were completely removed. This was done apparently without consultation with the WikiProject California members.

We are gathering responses to the following questions on those projects' talk pages:


 * Do you have a view whether the WikiProject California tag should be removed from a large number of cities in Southern California?


 * Do you have a view whether city article for Southern California cities should have more than one WikiProject tag?

Please let us know if you have a view! Spamreporter1 16:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Movie footage
Dear J.S. do you know of footage ever being added, say mp4/wmv/mov, to a Wikipedia article? Cheers (Gowron 19:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Its not something common, but I think it could be done. Just not sure. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Analysis of Frater Xyzzy and Jefferson Anderson
Thanks for your analysis of the editing times of Frater Xyzzy and Jefferson Anderson. The comparison is interesting and illuminating. I might eventually have done it but was having some difficulty with the logistics. --Pigmantalk 06:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR Problem Postscript
Wow, reading over the board and the sorts of evil crap you guys have to deal with every day (Serbian hatred, anti-semitism, truly friggin' unhinged toads of sock puppetry), and I feel pretty stupid for even bringing my small concern to your attention. I guess I didn't realize the scope of some of the problems facing the admins. Please accept my humblest apologies, and extend them to the other admins. ...Still trying to wrap my head around the idea that anyone could still be perpetuating Serb-Croat hatred, as it destroyed their countries. Reminds me of that old Star Trek episode with the two soldiers who are of bisected color. Completely wasteful...Arcayne 00:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if you watch the admin noticeboard(s) you'll get to see the bottom of the barrel... you know the barrel, right? The barrel full of monkeys. You think the monkeys are bad? Take a look at what piles up at the bottom! ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 00:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Some people would rather live in a world of sh♠t than have the world see them work a shovel. You need any help, you let me know. I am working to build up some experience before applying for editorship. Any help I can provide will probably help me get more knowhow on how to be a better editor.Arcayne 02:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we can always use some help over at WP:WPSPAM (the spam fighting wikiproject.) ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 03:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment/L0b0t
I have opened a request for comment on this user regarding his labeling good faith edits as vandalism. You asked him to stop this here. I would appreciate your certifing this RFC if you think it is appropriate. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Atlantean Language Article
Could you please explain why you disabled those links on the Atlantean language article? You said they were "blacklisted". What did you mean by that?

Epigraphist 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Temper
I admit to losing my temper at having my edits called vandalism. It was innapropriate of me to call reverts of my not vandalism labled as vandalism as vandalism (parse that). They (the edits I responded to) were bad faith edits, and they were in violation of policy, and they were a serious blockable offense, but they were not with intent to damage. For that I apologize. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Atlantean Thank-You
Thank-you, J. Smith, for explaining the LangMaker block to me. I really appreciate you taking the time to both make the Atlantean article editable and explaining that move to me.

PAH-geh-sheh-nen, SIH-mith-toap.

Epigraphist 22:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)