User talk:JacobH

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

For urgent matters
I'm mainly active on the Dutch wikipedia, head for my talk page there for urgent matters. JacobH (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Melody Amber chess tournament
This is not self-promotion. Please don't confuse listing a series of books on the tournament with respected grandmasters as co-authors, with self-promotion. Regardless of who the other author is, those books should be mentioned on that article. Carcharoth (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please leave each other alone. JacobH, what you did on User talk:99.142.61.100 is stalking, which is blockable if you continue to do this. Guido's warning on that page was correct, and everyone may give warnings, not only admins. Your post was way out of line. Fram (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree everyone can give a warning, but a final warning is something else. It's not up to all users to decide wheter or not there will be another warning, a really final warning. It's a fact Guido den Broeder is blocked on the Dutch wikipedia, but I agree that it wasn't appropiate to mention in there. Next your accusation of stalking. As long as Guido den Broeder is filing claims against me withouth giving me a notice, like here, I feel perfectly happy to follow his steps. JacobH (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes a non-admin can give a final warning too, provided it is given as a progressive sequence of warnings; in this case there had been prior uw-vandalism1, uw-vandalism2 and uw-huggle3 so use of the uw-vandalism4 was appropriate. What Guido den Broeder can't do himself is then block that user, but instead would need file a report at WP:AN/I for an admin to act. You need to read WP:STALK 'If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter.' The above implied WP:Stalk to their participation is also unacceptable - I strongly suggest you appologise and A nice cup of tea and a sit down :-) David Ruben Talk 12:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a very interesting structure with those four warnings, didn't know that. I'm sure you'll understand that keeping an eye on Guido den Broeder's contributions isn't strange when you find your name by surprise on some accusation list as I mentioned above. The comment on Guido's warning was of course a reaction I shoudn't have done. JacobH (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of BinckBank
A tag has been placed on BinckBank requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. WWGB (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Relax dude. It appears to be a bank, that is correct. Use google. JacobH (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't consider it unreasonable to nominate for speedy deletion a short stub with no references. The onus is on the author to establish notability with references . Wikipedia also recommends that an article not be moved to article space until it is ready . As for causing "more work for other contributors" I have not had any complaint from the closing admin that the nomination was inappropriate. Finally, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages . Regards, WWGB (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's unreasonable to tag a fair article with the speedy deletion tag when there's so much results on google on the subject. Furthermore, you wished to stick with the speedy deletion tag after refs were added - that's a matter of foolish pride or reluctance to admit mistakes. Your harassment of users like on the talk page of BinckBank is not very productive either. Change your attitude, my friend. JacobH (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)