User talk:JeremyA/Archive03

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 25 July 2005 and 7 October 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See How to archive a talk page.)

Thank you. JeremyA (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Previous archive page: User talk:JeremyA/Archive02.
 * Next archive page: User talk:JeremyA/Archive04.

Thanks for the help
Thank you for the image uploading help on the blue Buick. I am very used to ignoring case sensitivity in a Windows environment, so it did not dawn on me that an uploaded file would be case sensitive.

I went back and looked at the instructions and could not find where it says anything about case sensitivity. Needs editing in my view, but I do not know where. BuickGuy 04:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation Protected
Dear JeremyA,

I just saw that you protected the sub-article of World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation. This article was done as an sub article to avoid an Edit war of the article about Genseiryu. Mario Roering made an NPOV article and made sub articles for both organizations. One for GKIF and one for WGKF. The last time Peter Lee from Denmark started editing the article of WGKF telling stories which are his opinion and not facts. You protected the article this early morning after he changed it according to his point of view. I wonder if it wouldn't be more fair to protect it after the people from WGKF edited the article according their side of the story. In most cases Mario changed the article and took a very neutral point of view in this article. He didn't insult somebody and he took the effort to write a NPOV. But anyway he is punished this moment. Maybe you can arrange that the article written by Mario can be the article protected, seems more fair and logic. I hope you consider this. Best regards, --TenChiJin 06:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JeremyA"

Thanks
Thank you for reverting my user page. :) - Mark 05:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ian Lustick
Since you speedied this article (which I never had the chance to see), I'd like to point out that I am recreating it. There are very clear cases of teenage vanity and advertisement which are allowed to run their course on VfD, so I think speedying this after about an hour on VfD was a bit overzealous. Lustick certainly seems notable enough, and I think being a full professor at a major university is a claim to notability that precludes speedy deletion. The previous article was apparently speedied because of blanking by the author, but that may well have been a reaction by some newbie to the VfD nomination. Uppland 13:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Requests for comment/12.144.5.2
I've seen you have some issues with Louis Epstein before, so I thought I'd invite you to comment on the RfC I've set up. He's crossed the line into edit warring over the em-dash thing. &mdash; Phil Welch 01:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Karate
Dear Jeremy, could you please do something against the vandalism and insulting language of Peter Lee, who keeps writing offensive and slandering texts about me in the summary of karate! Peter Lee claims to be learing Japanese, but he doesn't understand shit about it (or he denies the text). The site Genseiryu Karatedo tells clearly (maybe you know a Japanese administrator who can prove this!) on its main page: このホームページは、創始者・祝嶺正献の承認の元に活動している唯一の正式団体である「玄制流空手道本部」のホームページです. Meaning just as much that this is the ONLY official Genseiryu Karatedo Honbu homepage as approved by the founder Shukumine Seiken ("創始者・祝嶺正献"). "玄制流空手道本部" means 'Genseiryu Karatedo HONBU'. "正式" means 'official'. The rest of the text on the main page talks about copyright of the name Genseiryu (with special exceptions to certain people). There's no doubt here whatsover that this site IS an official site to the Genseiryu Karatedo HONBU. Peter Lee keeps deleting this, because he doesn't acknowledge this honbu, but is thus vandalizing the article. Maybe a minor thing to you, but a big thing for the practisioners of the original Genseiryu. Also, the reverts Lee makes are accompanied by summaries with smearing texts with my name in it. Is this allowed on Wikipedia??? Please act accordingly! Thanks! -- Mario R 08:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hoyland Nether
I'm no expert on the area around Barnsley, but from what I can make out, the name is now seldom - but occasionally - used (the alternative "Nether Hoyland" seems to have entirely fallen from use). It doesn't appear on any current maps I can find, but refers to what is now the central area of the town of Hoyland, which originally consisted of several villages - the various Hoylands. I would suggest merging it in to our sparse article on Hoyland. Warofdreams 13:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Evidence
Dear JeremyA, This message I have sent to Splash. Best regards,--TenChiJin 17:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC) Dear Splash, I can deliver some proof about items that are claimed on the Genseiryu site. Only I want them to be treated confidential. They are at the moment translated by an official translator from Japanese to English. I will sent them, after the translation is ready, to JeremyA who already tried to mediate in the conflict about the Genseiryu article. Best regards,

Genseiryu
My original interest was in stopping the fight-by-edit-summary with the hope that a talk-page discussion would be more fruitful. But as soon as MarioR realised that I wasn't going to advocate his cause over the other, he went completely quiet; I've only managed to extract one slightly abusive message from the anon (presumably Peter Lee). Evidently, we have acquired a fight from the Dutch wiki where neither side is presently allowed to continue the war.

I had also considered offering to write the article myself: but I didn't manage to persuade anyone to make their case. I suppose with material from both sides, an NPOV article could be constructed, but I wonder whether it would be the 'right' NPOV or whether it would be repeatedly re-NPOV'd just as the current offerings are. It appears you are about to receive confidential materials. I'm not sure how they can be usefully incorporated into a public article short of simply making a judgement call about "the truth" &mdash; which would seem unlikely to fix anything. Perhaps the two current articles should be merged and a section or two added describing the dispute(s) between the two schools of thought, with careful presentation of both sides of the dispute.

I am not sure what kind of more draconian action might be available. File a user-behaviour RfC? Can a third party do that? Can a third party file a user-behvaiour RfAr, or would the arbitrators just reject it? I suppose we could forcibly list the issue at RfM, but given the progress so far, I'm not hopeful of success there. -Splash 20:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Jeremy (and Splash)! First of all, I understand what you did with removing the part about "the 'other' Genseiryu style" (on WGKF), however I don't believe you fully understand the importance of this part of text, but I blame myself for that (since it came not out the right way in that part of text). I have now tried to explain it on the talk page, and I have rewritten the text in a way that it now must be clear that this is important information for a full understanding of the reasoning behind the establishment of the WGKF. I sincerely hope that it's now clear. Please, let me know if you do/don't...
 * Secondly, I want to set something straight: Splash writes here that "neither side is presently allowed to continue the war". There IS no war on the nl.wiki, because this Peter Lee has been banned for one year, because of the exact same behaviour he has been showing on the en.wiki all along! So why are you still defending him? He made perfectly clear to everybody he is not willing to contribute to Wikipedia, he wants every article regarding Genseiryu removed (deleted and blocked) and he shows absolutely no sign of willingness to talk to me or anybody else connected to WGKF. Besides that, how much evidence do we still need to show you that this person is not who he really is and is nothing but a fraud, a teacher of a so called McDojo???
 * I myself have tried to write an NPOV article, even now I try to rewrite sentences in a different way as much as possible, just to stop this pointless edit war, started by Peter Lee. But Peter Lee said himself that nobody is allowed to talk about Genseiryu besides himself, so he keeps changing everything to his own POV, which is totally way off and only functions to destroy our organization and to promote his teacher's book... I hope the evidences that TenChiJin sent you, will shed some light on the situation and you will start to realize that there IS no "middle course". Although the WGKF might have made some mistakes, their story comes close enough to the real story! Do you really think that WGKF (including myself, sensei Konno, and others from WGKF involved in this conflict) would have been invited to the celebration of 55 years of Genseiryu/40 years of Taido, where the Shukumine family was present as well, if they would have been spreading lies?!? (See also here (scroll all way down): ). But nobody of GKIF was invited there!! There was no Kunihiko Tosa, there was no Peter Lee, actually, to our knowledge, there was absolutely NOBODY of GKIF present! Think about that fact!
 * Thanks again for all the time you are putting in this complicated and specialized subject... -- Mario R 12:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. FWIW, I think your current course of action is appropriate. -Splash 01:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Sometimes I do get a little bit carried away however. Not hard to believe regarding all the insults and name slandering I have to endure from this guy (Peter Lee)... But, I will try to work as much as possible in a Wikipedia way and listen to all the advice you, Peter van Londen and JeremyA gave me... -- Mario R 15:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Responded to your Critical Mass post
Thanks for alerting me to your talk on Critical_Mass. I responded. Michaelbluejay 20:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting
Thank you for reverting the vandalism made on my user page. —M ESSED R OCKER (userpage) (talk) 02:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

User 63.19.135.105
In the last couple of weeks, the devs made a change such that a blocked user can still edit their own user and talk pages. In this case, since the person/s behind this IP only cares about editing the user talk page, the block was disappointingly ineffective. You have to protect the user talk page too. FreplySpang (talk) 03:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * See also Blocked users can edit their own talk page. --cesarb 04:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Jeremy. Good work:  you blocked the "Luxembourg", aka "Mississippi" or aka "Fake Places in North Carolina" vandal (.  He will almost certainly log out and back on with another 63.19 IP.  He's been one of the most persistent vandals around for the last couple of months; Curps, for one, likes to range-block him for an hour or two at a time.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Jeremy, thankyou very much for removing the vandalism from my user page. Rje 15:19, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

What to do?
Well, what you list is almost exactly what I attempted too, although you had more success than me. Just before you began doing it, I was considering reverting on-sight any edit which was a revert with an abusive edit summary. I've left you to do that, although I would have stepped in if I had been awake and the 3RR looming.

Like I said on the various talk pages, I'm sceptical of the value of taking this particular dispute to RfM since what both of us have tried has been almost completely fruitless. I think, however, that we should probably go to RfC before RfAr or there's a good chance the Arbitrators will reject a third-party case on those grounds. Will they even hear a 3rd party case? So how about we file both article and conduct RfCs simultaneously (although the article one ought to be redundant, it will do no harm) and give them a few days to see if anything comes of it? I have some diffs and commentary I can give to both RfC and RfAr, although the bullk of the evidence will necessarily come from the articles' histories. I gather you have quite a bit of other material that you or may not be able to offer. RfCs often just give an alternative forum for the scuffle to be conducted in without attracting any outside attention but that, in this case, might be better than war-by-edit-summary. -Splash 20:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Crikey. What is it? I'm not sure I've come across the device of making a minor change specifically for the purpose of an abusive edit summary before! We probably do have enough to go directly to arbitration, but I guess RfC is appropriate first. Meantime I'll go ask a hypothetical question on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. So, obviously I'll certify an RfC, and I don't mind writing it but do you have vastly more stuff to contribute to it than me? -Splash 20:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know that I am writing that RfC at the moment. It is very tedious; I can't fathom how some of the more...uh...something...editors can bare to file one of these so regularly. I'll post it once I'm done (in a while), but it will need input from you. In particular, I can't find the link to the page at nl: where Peter Lee was banned for a year, and am not sure whether to include the VfD-tag stuff early on. I'll drop you a line once it's posted.-Splash 22:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Update: I'm still working on it. Pity they don't make RfC into FAs, because this would qualify. As a heads-up, it particularly needs any evidence you have of failed dispute resolution from your talk archives, which I haven't the energy to go through in detail. I've extracted some from Mario's and Peter's pages, and the articles' talk pages, but I don't know what may have happened here in isolation. -Splash 01:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I feel like putting myself in the washing machine after all that dirty laundry. Your signature and evidence are needed here in the usual 48 hours. Note that I have been through both users' talk page contributions, so what I don't have is any of your attempts to fix things, outside of those listed in the Evidence section. -Splash 02:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. RfCs are not good things. I knew that before, and I'm sure of it now. Anyway, now that it has jumped through the various hoops, I'll let the editors in question know that it is open for their responses. I'll use Lee's main talk page, and that of the article. I'm reluctant to stick the message on a bunch of anons' pages in case they are used by others in future. -Splash 03:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In digging out the evidence, I remembered about GKIF which appears not to be part of the dispute. Do you know why this is, and how it fits in? Or just ignore this per WP:BEANS. -Splash 03:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, that last email is cause for encouragement. There may be a way ahead after all. -Splash 03:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Mario tried to make an NPOV article. One part for all organizations and 2 sub articles to avoid an edit war and to let every organization tell their story on their sub article. Mario decided to stay off the part of GKIF. Probably he sticked to this decision. This also shows the right intention off Mario although his last action was not a good choice. But this action is easy to understand if you are attacked and insulted continously. --TenChiJin 20:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

  No, I didn't include it. I excluded a few of diffs of Peter Lee's on the basis that they were messages to and about users not party to the RfC. They appear to be directed at editors who dropped out of the fight early on, and I am unsure of their procedural applicability although I reckond they'd be ok in an RfAr. However, on reading that particular one more carefully (I looked at soooo many), I see it does deal with the other party, and so I will add it. -Splash 03:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That link you are looking for is now in the archive of "Stemlokaal": . Again, hope to be of a little help... -- Mario R 23:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I have prepared but not filed separate RfCs if such is insisted upon widely. I was personally rather disappointed that anyone supposed they could adequately deal with 150+ diffs in a single dismissive sentence, but there we go. The price we pay for policy. I am deeply sceptical of the value of separate RfCs in this case: I hope, perhaps futilely, that a new forum for them to jointly talk in will be useful. Separate RfCs wouldn't achieve that. In any case, both could comment in each others, and most if not all outside views would have to be duplicated in large part. If the community insists on separate RfCs, I propose we give them a matter of days to succeed or fail and then proceed directly to Arbitration. We can point out to the Arbitrators the cackhandedness of RfC if that happens. I personally see no value in presenting this to Mediation since the parties must agree to it, have indicated that they will not (as shown by the diffs), and have not responded to informal mediation. But that is just my personal opinion. Bedtime. -Splash 05:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, so. It's been more than a week of RfC. Mario has responded, Peter Lee has refused, we have outside views from nl: and from here. I did ask Mario if he would suggest a way forwards, but he hasn't edited significanty since then. What shall we do? Unprotect and see if everything resumes? (Thanks for the strong support by the way; I'll do proper thank-yous at the end of the week.)-Splash 18:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your earlier message disappeared inside another one and I didn't notice it when I pressed "last diff". Ok, yes, I suppose unprotecting and holding our breaths is next in line. Range blocks on those IPs look ok at the moment, and I guess someone will shout if they're hit by it. There's a page full of instruction about range-blocks somewhere around... -Splash 00:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

How tiresome. Do you think it's at all interesting that those edits were at 4am his time? I know I edit at that kind of time, but I'm fairly sure that's more the exception than the rule. He's 'edited' late before, I suppose. Anyway, I'll revert if he carries on. -Splash 13:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Separate filings
Please see this discussion on Splash's talk page, as it addresses both of your concerns. Acetic Acid 07:39, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

SuperShadow VfD
Greetings: pawing through the SuperShadow edit history, I noticed you've edited the page in question before. I thought you'd want to know it is now the subject of a Vote for Deletion, at Articles for deletion/SuperShadow. If you want, you could stop in there and cast a vote. --Maru 22:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Sheffield Neepsend
Your excellent contributions to the Sheffield Central article prompted me to look over our related articles. Where did you find the information on the earlier elections? And do you whether Neepsend was really abolished in 1955? Although that date is given here, it seems suspiciously soon after creation, and no other Sheffield constituencies were altered until 1983. thanks, Warofdreams 16:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the strong support on my RfA. I was very pleasantly surprised to see so much support throughout the week. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. It does beging to appear that the Genseiryu Wars, if not over, are calming down which is a relief. Hopefully, we can avoid RfAr. Anyway, thanks again! -Splash 23:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you so much for reverting vandalism to my user page:

I, V. Molotov, hereby give you this Wiki Defender Barnstar for defense of Wikipedia against vandalism.



Take care, Molotov (talk)  21:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Future Constituencies
Thanks for the reply regarding future British constituencies. It will take a while to put all the seats up there, I think I'm up to G or H, so a while to go. Thanks also for putting up some new seat articles; that'd stop me from worrying when I create the link and note the active links :)

Cheers again doktorb 11:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:ChicagoWinter1.jpg
Just saw your picture of Lincoln Park in the winter. I recently moved from Chicago to a small city in Minnesota. There are many aspects of Chicago I was happy to leave behind: the traffic, the lack of parking, and so on. And yet I do miss it as well. Seeing your photograph definitely made me feel a bit homesick&mdash;in a good way. So I thought I'd pop by and say thanks. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh man, I used to dread those orange signs. I think I would have rather the streets just remain dirty! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent vandals
I could use an admin hand to step in where Fvw left off earlier tonight. Are you game? A quick look at my recent contributions should give you an idea of what I'm up against.&mdash;chris.lawson (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks much. Your help is greatly appreciated.&mdash;chris.lawson (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry
I didnt know i could get banned. Sorry i thought it was just for my screen. we didnt find out until now. my bad

Charlie Holder
I am a student at Georgia Tech and out teacher asked to post about something and I wanted to post about myself. The first time it was deleted because of "vanity" but I didn't intend it like that. The second time it was deleted by you because of "bio" and I was just wondering if bios aren't allowed or what? If that's the reason then that is fine. Is it possible for my teacher to see the deleted post if he were to go to where the post used to be? Thanks.

Charlie

Webdirectory/Links
You state that wikipedia is not a webdirectory. First, make a point by defining what a webdirectory is then, and what the function of wikipedia should be, since it is an ONLINE medium. The only PRO for Wikipedia compared to normal printed media is that it can link to pages on the internet. Mediawiki is developed with THAT in mind. Certainly up to the point where links are needed to illustrate the writing they are therefore necessary. What you do is simply boldly delete ALL links YOU personally don't find interesting or appropriate relating to the article. In that case you can do the exact same for about 10000 other pages in wikipedia, and I sure hope you will soon find yourself asking what the hell your plan in life is; To be helpful or to annoy people? Now the only thing I see you do is obstruct the sharing of knowledge and blocking information from the reader by blindly deleting carefully selected (and over the years collected) External links. I had a life once, now I have a mission: I will keep on putting them all back for the innocent viewer looking for info. 194.109.22.148 17:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Isle of May
Thanks for your comments on the Isle of May article, and for the pictures of the lighthouses &mdash; the one of Stevenson's lighthouse is particularly good. I have never been to the island myself, but having spent time researching it for the article I am very keen to get out there next time I am in that part of the country! Best wishes Jll 20:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Behavior therapy
I noticed that you redirected behavior therapy to cognitive therapy. While cognitive therapy is sometimes called "cognitive behavior therapy", my dictionary suggests that "behavior therapy" is another name for "behavior modification". Is this a more appropriate target for the redirect? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Who's RfA
Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Wikipedia the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?&iquest;? 20:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Newcomer with policy inquiry
I've recently joined Wikipeda as a editor of mostly technical articles and have been a bit 'fuzzy' about the policies regarding external links: Through observation I've noticed that edits containing external links to certain websites will get reverted by an admin. Most of the time it's software websites.

What is the specific policy being followed here? (confused) Frogtumor 03:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

User:203.144.9.73
I just reverted this anon's vandalism of the abortion article. I noticed you gave him/her a final warning on September 14th. I'm not sure what to do now. Thanks for your help--Shanel 01:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I actually forgot there that people usually have dynamic IP adresses.--Shanel 00:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)