User talk:Javsav

Reguarding Your Recent Edits
I have looked at the history of your Userspace there has only been one edit move from User:Riff Johnson. it appears that The only edit he made move was a comment about WP:NPOV policy, which was a correct statement. so your statement no attempt to research the situation whatsoever, if you had you would realise he also has added a lot of stuff to my user page. is completely inaccurate. and redarding the fact that the vandalism was on a user's page and not on the mainspace means nothing. there are countless vandals who only attack user pages.

The edit to my talk page
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! and Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Betacommand 05:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

responce
I now understand that the edits were joking. but at the time it appeared to be vandalism I will remove the warning. Betacommand 19:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Your Comments
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. please do not make personal insults. Betacommand 19:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

user:Riff Johnson
no problem. just a qick reminder watch your comments, some of them that you left on my talk page was very inappropriate. Betacommand 14:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

some of them was (sic) very inappropraite???

qick (sic) ??? Javsav 15:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Request to remove personal comment
Would you please remove the comment about me you made on Daniel Olsen's talk page? Moriori 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your experiment
Thank you for experimenting with the page Pholcodine on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Deon555|talk| e | Review Me! :D 07:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Editor Review/Deon555
Please don't make unproductive edits to other people's reviews. Thanks, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Saying, "you are bad" is not what the review is for. It is to help editors know which areas he/she needs to improve. Saying "You are bad" does not help an editor know which area he needs to work on. If you think he needs to improve in a certain area, say so but try to be constructive. That should be easy, for someone with such a high IQ. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken and retracted. I misread your comment on his talk page. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your statement was, "You are bad." This is not a review: it is simply a personal attack and of no help to an editor seeking to improve. I have deleted your second comment, which repeated the first. If you continue merely to attack the editor, you will be blocked. Preferably, consider what part of the the editing you consider bad, why you consider it bad, and, crucially, what steps the editor can take to improve that area. If there is more than one area, then detail them separately, or, if there is general advice, then again frame that in a way that will help the editor to improve. The aim of the review is to provide a supportive response for people that need some objective insight and assistance. Tyrenius 10:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've checked your contributions and you don't seem to have that much experience of wiki, so please read up on WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, also WP:AGF, chill, be friendly, and happy editing! Tyrenius 11:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Omg, i'm real sorry; but i dont think that my *accidental* actions warrant this kind of behaviour, especially targeting my IQ? I was using a VP-like tool which is mega fast, idle for 10-15 seconds are ur session times out and logs off. I am really sorry for any damage i may have done, but at the end of the day, all you would have to do is Revert my changes, and ur done. I hope you read WP:NPA. Thx --Deon555|talk| e | Review Me! :D 11:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You wrote this to me on my talk page, "Why did you feel the need to meddle with an issue that was already resolved?" Now when someone is doing their job, which I am as an admin, to enforce policy, that's rather a derogatory thing to say. The issue was not resolved, as I had to remove another statement where you'd repeated your first attack. You also wrote on my talk page, "you continued to peruse my contributions in an attempt to further harass me." This might seem like an obvious truth to you, but it is not. It is, however, another personal attack. You obviously have strong emotions, as on your user page where there is a message since 18 July, "I loathe you" (which I advise you to remove). People aren't out to get you, and I'm not out to get you. I was looking at your contributions in case you were new, and I didn't want to be too harsh if you were, so it's actually the exact opposite to what you had interpreted it as. That's why I left my second note above. I was giving you an excuse, letting you off the hook a bit, making allowances that you might not be familiar with certain Wiki protocols. However, you are telling me that I'm mistaken and that you are an exprerienced and knowledgeable editor. If this is the case, then then allowances don't have to be made in the same way. Perhaps you could let me know which applies. Tyrenius 16:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Retard barnstar
Highly inappropriate. I've removed it. -- Samir  धर्म 07:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can share your comments on the Administrators' noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Retard barnstar -- Samir  धर्म 07:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How do I put this nicely. Stop trolling.  -- Samir   धर्म 07:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree it was inappropriate, I am going to have to go against the grain and say that it was indeed funny :) - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Somtimes poor taste is quite funny.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Rabeprazole2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rabeprazole2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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. 17:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Given up?
Hi Jav, so you've given up on Wikipedia? Ozdaren 08:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You edited the PAC article. There can only be one Javsav. Also you said hi on the Da Costa squillions question on the SPSC page? How's home life? Ozdaren 12:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Funkoars.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Funkoars.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 71.176.83.93 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

John Stamos
I reverted your edits to John Stamos. I know the edit did not say that he did those things but even the allegation that the pictures showed that needs to have very good sources. Neither of the 2 sources currently in the paragraph say anything about what the pictures showed. Just putting the allegations there can cause harm.  GB fan  talk 04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, those sources didn't say that but this one: http://www.nypress.com/blog-6897-john-stamos-will-perform-with-beach-boys.html does.Javsav (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV discussion about Chiropractic
I think you might be interested in the discussion about Ernst's paper and how to incorporate it into the introduction here. Ocaasi (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's more discussion going on, this time about whether/how to incorporate sources which address the underlying/specific claims made by Ernst. Talk:Chiropractic. Ocaasi (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your continued participation (actually, you were here before I was). Just one note,  please be careful about reacting with strong language towards QG.  It a) won't help b) takes the focus away from our argument and c) makes you vulnerable for a sanction if this winds up requiring outside help.  Rather than try to force QG's hand, let's just keep bringing in editors to make substantive points to advance the draft.  I have also notified "skeptics", and I want their honest opinions, so long as they are willing to discuss the issues.  Ocaasi (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't been checking the article for the last few days. I did get my main change through, which was to get attribution for Ernst in the introduction.  I'm not sure how much more I'm going to push the edits back, although it's kind of tempting.  Frankly, it's difficult to get a good read on policy when it gets shoved around so indiscriminately.  I think there is an argument for WP:MEDRS and WP:WEIGHT, I'm just not sure it's possible to actually discuss the issues with QG.  There's always the option of bringing in an outside editor for a third opinion WP:3O or WP:Mediation, or to try and resolve it through WP:Wikiquette noticeboard or at WP:RSN, the reliable sources noticeboard, or through a WP:RFC request for comment on the page.  We'd have to really narrow down the issue, because right now it's quite lengthy and I don't think outsiders would have an easy time getting the gist.  I'd rather not address editor's tactics and just focus on the claims, get some outside opinions, and go from there.  Again, on Wiki, it's almost never worthwhile to attack back at someone, because if they're right, you're screwed, and if they're wrong, it won't help.  And, other editors will back you up once they see what's happening. Ocaasi 14:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Australian federal election, 2010
--~Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?

Great!Javsav (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic mediation
It looks like this is quite a problem, I have created a mediation cabal request to help us move on with the issue on the article: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-23/Chiropractic. Please consider participating once the case has been accepted by a mediator. --Anon 08:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Evolution of the Eye
This link pertains to the information you're looking for. --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why use external links when you can use internal ones? ;) Evolution of the eye. - Soulkeeper (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! the first link was actually better because it explained more of what I was after Javsav (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
Please discuss any major changes to the article Homophobia on it's talk page (before making the change to the article). Second, the wording used makes it seem like original research or speculation: "Some people... " which brings up many questions such as "Which people?" "When did they say this?" "Why did they say this?"

So, please join us on the article talk page to discuss this. And please read the header of the talk page as well (where it asks that any substantial change be discussed before inserted).'' RobertMfromLI User Talk/Contribs 12:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
So how exactly does one go about permanently fixing the obviously biased interpretation of the ernst review? The fact that this was even published under the title of systematic review is a mystery...and only verifies the idea that the literature is still highly biased against chiropractic. This review is clearly nothing more than a list of case reports...there must be some way to make this evident in the article without QuackGuru being allowed to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.208.87 (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Chiropractic. 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am discussing these on the talk page with QuackGuru at the moement. He is reverting without discussion. Please see Talk:Chiropractic


 * Sorry but you have confused me with another editor. I did not remove the attribution in the text you added to safety. See Talk:Chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation at Talk:Chiropractic
I've removed your disparaging comment at Talk:Chiropractic. Our BLP policy is clear: I must caution you against restating that comment, and warn you not to repeat such actions in future. Violations of BLP are a serious matter, and may lead to a WP:ANI report and the possibility of you being blocked from editing.
 * "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies"

I'm sorry I have to state the above in such strong terms, and I hope you will accept that in the spirit in which it is intended, that is to bring to your attention a policy you may not of been aware of. --RexxS (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oversight
If there are any of your comments that you believe would be better completely removed from public view (including the page history) – because of revealing personal information for example – admins are able to delete particular revisions of a page (see WP:REVDEL), and oversighters can remove the material even from admins' view (see WP:OVERSIGHT). If you should ever wish to make use of those, the procedures are outlined at WP:Requests for oversight. Hope that may be helpful --RexxS (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Image Deletion
A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

All files in category Unclassified Chemical Structures listed for deletion
One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it/them not being deleted. Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of MGA73 (talk) at 18:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

File:Pinafore.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pinafore.jpg, has been listed at Files 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. Stefan2 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Pac building.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Pac building.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 12:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Widowspeak2.jpg


The file File:Widowspeak2.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)