User talk:Jkelly/Archive03

Explination (sic) deletion
you deleted one of my explinations nad i want to know why —Preceding unsigned comment added by FiresAtMidnight (talk • contribs) 23:17, February 27, 2006

Thanks
Thanks for your welcome &mdash; I'll be trying to ease myself back in slowly, and not overdoing it. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protect AfDs
No, I wasn't saying "Yikes, someone semi-protected it." I was more saying, "Yikes, this AfD is verging on being out of control, should we semi-protect it?" It was an honest question about policy and procedure. I am not sure it has been discussed before (SemiProtecting AfDs). Sorry for any confusion. -- LV (Dark Mark)  22:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, kind sir or ma'am (I'm guessin' sir). I didn't even see your comment a few lines above mine about semi-protection. I see where the understanding took place. I had just come from the AfD page after a few ECs and was saying Yikes about the AfD, not the suggestion of SP. I am sorry. See you around, my friend. -- LV (Dark Mark)  22:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Death Metal
Thanks - I really didnt want something so trivial to become an arguement. Its nice to have an admin support your revert.

I think I found the rule:

What should not be linked to
# Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming. (Opes 03:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Policies
Hi, thanks for your note. I appreciate it. I've seen these debates about the misuse of policies, but have never paid them proper attention because no one has ever done it to me, which is why I'm somewhat at a loss now. But once you're on the receiving end of it, you realize how destructive it is. As to what would be useful, I'm not certain. I'm going to write to Jimbo about the fair-use issue, because to some extent he is the one who has let slip the dogs of war, almost certainly not realizing what's being done in his name. More generally, and in the longer term, it would be useful to add something to each of the policies that they are not to be used as weapons, but it would have to be carefully worded so as not to open any loopholes. In terms of what's useful right now, I hope no one else is threatened with a block over the issue of the images related to Gmaxwell, though I see one of the images in question has now been deleted out of process. But for the time being, I must admit to having lost my enthusiasm for editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

adams bio
hi!

I left a message for Mel and noticed you had edited it. can you tell me if the bio i posted on his page is acceptable to place on the Adams page or not? thanks v much

michelle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle1 (talk • contribs)

adams bio2
hi

i understand completely. just for the record, the piece was commissioned for a recent anthology and as i understand it, it is owned by the artist. i will check with dave marsh, and get back to you on this. thanks

adams bio3
hi,

i've received a positive confirmation back from Dave Marsh that the piece is distributable on the web and there is no copyright issue.

can i proceed to replace the musical history piece that currently exists and edit that onto the trivia page?

thanks for your advice

Michelle1

adams bio / copyright
Hi JKelly,

i left a message for you before i pasted the bio up on the site. I work for Mr. Adams and we commissioned the piece and have spoken to the writer and have his blessing to distribute it on the web. Wikipedia is the only place we want to place it. Tell us how to proceed. We'd like this on your site!

Thanks

michelleMichelle1

Comic book covers
I didn't put them there. Dyslexic agnostic 19:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, and I archived while I was at it. Thanks for the tip. Dyslexic agnostic 19:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Christianity edit
Hi, I take your point, but no, I don't think it's "at least as POV" as it stands in the article. For one thing, it doesn't state as fact that the Christian God is God. One of the changes I reverted was the insertion of "their" into "The belief that God is a single eternal being". As it stood before that anonymous edit, it just said that Christians believe that God is a single eternal being. That's allowing for the possibility that Christians could be wrong. To say that they believe that "their" God is a single eternal being carries the implication that Christians accept that their might be another God who isn't a single eternal being. Also, I don't think that "Many churches believe that worship is important to usher in the Presence of God" is stating that the Christian God is the true God.

Secondly, you used the word "unmarked", and I think that's significant. I think that linguists would normally agree that a marked choice in language is "making a statement" far more than an unmarked choice. For example, if you say the normal, unmarked "How old are you?", there's no implication that your addressee is old: he (or she) could be three or four. But when you deliberately deviate from that and use the marked form "How young are you?", you are making a statement. I felt that the insertion of "their" before the word "God" was suggesting something, perhaps even in a slightly sarcastic way.

Feel free to disagree, of course! Cheers, AnnH (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Commons images
Hi, Thanks for letting me know about using images from Commons. I didn't know that. To answer your question, the Vivien Leigh image is the only one I've done that with. thanks Rossrs 00:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

friendly reminder
Dear JKelly,

Just a friendly reminder -- don't forget to put the premature 3rr notice on your buddy's pages.

-JFAS

Dear JKelly,

I know the AGF policy, but thanks for the consideration in pointing it out to me. I didn't intend for "buddy" to be a sign of bad faith. You voted for jpgordon for arbitrator, but for all I know you guys might really dislike him.

I still hope you will remind jpgordon about 3RR on his talk page. He is a very quick reverter and might accidentally do it someday. By the way, my first addition of content would not typically be called a "reversion" as far as 3RR is usually interpreted.

-Justforasecond 00:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This Charming Man FAC
I believe I have addressed all your concerns regarding the This Charming Man featured article candidacy. If you could, please look over my changes and see if you might change your vote now. Live Forever 21:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...
yeah, it's really hard for me to control my temper with that person. Thanks for the warning; I'll let other people pitch in there. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Image talk:Dylan jams with campbell.jpg
Thanks, I left my 2 cents. --Admrboltz (T | C) 01:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Alexander the Great
Hi Jkelly; I wanted to request the removing of the image of Alexander the Great on the Greek people article. As you probably know, whether the Ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe or an independent group is very controversial among Greeks and Macedonians, and it is still disputed by international historians. Wikipedia itself has noted in many articles the banning or the warning of discussing the ethnicity of the Ancient Macedonians, like in the Alexander the great article and the articles in the Wikipedia History website dedicated to Alexander the Great. Thus, Wikipedia knows it cannot choose Alexander's ethnicity, I don't see how Greeks on Wikipedia can. As you can see, there isn't a picture of Alexander the Great on the Macedonians (ethnic group) article for the same reason. There are many famous Greeks in the world, from ancient philosiphers to modern day businessmen, so it will be very easy to replace Alexander the great in the Greek people article. Sincerely, Macedonia

adams bio copyright follow-up
hi,

I have done as you requested and written to permissions.

i understand we are going to get attacked by other editors! lets see how we get on!

can you revert back to my changes? i'm not sure how to do that. many thanks for your time and patience!

Michelle1

Thanks! :)
Tjank you for taking that away! I forgot all about it. Tcatron565

A note
You're right that my comment on Articles for deletion/Robin Artisson was a tad harsh, but please keep in mind that almost all (if not all) keep votes on that page are from the article creator (who is quite possibly the subject himself) or his sockpuppets which are evading a 3RR block. I guess I'm not in a charitable mood. See also the discussion, such as it is, on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Robin Artisson. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

And one for you!
And a happy new year to you too! (And I hope it really is happy, meaning for one thing that today's schedule doesn't call for three meetings, all in a second language, one chaired by you when half-asleep.) - Hoary 02:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Fighterforfreedom
Good spot, so much for assuming good faith at a glance looked like a simple mistake. Notice User:Zoe has indefinitely blocked him now. thanks --pgk( talk ) 19:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Cookie Monster Metal
Are you an idiot? You honestly think that is more than an attempt to troll? Not to mention the fact that "This kind of vocalising is distorted by use of the throat, unlike traditional singing technique which discourages it, due to the nature of the vocals detractors of the movement often label this style "Cookie monster metal" should be two separate sentences.

What's going on here?
I'm new to Wikipedia. Reading through the Introduction, it looks like the writing equivalent of open source software, of which I am a great fan and contributor. I've spend two days studying the format and guidelines. I'm confused by the need for so many rules here and even more confused when I see one editor apparently punishing another editor? I can't imagine something like this going on in the writing of open source software. If we don't like something, we simply don't use it.

What has me really perplexed is the basis of your punishment of some editors. You obviously have a problem with edits to an article, but the reason you give for bans is that you suspect them of being "sockpuppets." Why the lie? If you are kicking these people out because you don't agree with their edits, why not list the real reason for expelling them?

I have donated thousands of hours of my time to open source coding. As a published writer, I think I could do a lot of good here as well, but I have to know if this encyclopedia is for real. What is going on here? --KIMP (spewage) 22:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Great Ape Project
Hi JK, I saw you deleted the Great Ape Project logo? Can you say why? It is their logo and it was being used in the article about them. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, in case my query looks abrupt, it isn't. This is an entirely non-aggressive query about an image. Just making sure that's clear. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, don't worry about replacing it, JK. I asked another editor for his opinion and he said that maybe the image next to it on their website is actually their logo. There are two images together at the top of their page, one on the left and the hands on the right, and it's not 100 per cent clear which is the logo, so I'm going to write to ask them. But thank you for offering! SlimVirgin (talk)  01:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'll e-mail them and just make sure that it is. I'm pretty sure that both images are their logo. If it isn't, I'll delete it. Sorry for the trouble. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.
It wasn't just Wikipedia, though. This last month was absolutely insane in all respects. --FuriousFreddy 05:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on the Death Metal page
Hi,

Deathrocker keeps adding nonsense to the Death metal page, masking his edits as reverts of vandalism or minor edits. Please do something about this.

Thanks


 * Thanks for dealing with this issue! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.222.12 (talk • contribs)

Deleting edit history?
I have been notified that somebody has been using my computer details/address to edit the page about Craig Gannon. I don't know why or how this has happened but ebay and other accounts have also been tapped into. Apologies for any confusion and I would appreciate info on how I can delete the edit history on this page.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.132.43 (talk • contribs)

Vanadal - 67.71.0.20
Not sure why you'd give 67.71.0.20 a level 1 warning on Canadian federal election, 2006, after I gave him a level 2 warning on Canada a couple of minutes earlier; especially given that it is clearly vandalism. I upped it to a level 4 warning. Nfitz 18:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point, though as his first edit was to replace a section of the Canada article with "Stephen harper SUCKS", I felt that although technically he is correct :-), that under the guidelines it says that "If the edit is clearly vandalism, consider starting with test2", which is what I did. Perhaps jumping straight to test4 was overkill, given that his second edit was a bit more tame.  I'll downgrade it to a test3. Nfitz 19:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ouch, one warning an then an indefinite block for User:HerrPatrick!. I'd almost say that's overkill. At least his was amusing, with some intellegence behind it: "Recent Discovery from the Hubble Telescope indicates that the first manned flight to the Moon was not done in 1969 by America but in 1942 by Germany, Research uncovered by photos as well as recently translated radio-transcripts indicate that the construction of the Deustchland Lunar Base occured from the years 1942-1944. Another manned lunar expedition is required in order to validate this recent shocking discovery. "! I'd have said that is much tamer and original than "Stephen harper SUCKS". To each his own I guess! I'd sure like to see some indefinite blocks for all these partisan vandals of the Canada pages since the election. Nfitz 21:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation/User:JDG
Would you be interested in taking a look at this report (from me, of course)? I don't see anything in the 3RR rule which allows one free revert if you're reviving an old dispute, especially when previously deleted text (deleted by 2 different editors) is reinserted verbatim. Monicasdude 03:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Now what?
Now what? The recent change you linked to was a public domain pic of Ghandi. Administrators have deleted images left and right on my userpage. What is it now?-- Mike Nobody  ¿   =/\=  03:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with publicity stills?-- Mike Nobody  ¿   =/\=  00:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Not at all!
I perhaps answered to quickly, I continued to review the user's contributions, and have crossed out a comment of mine, and added an other. I still believe a user can and should be allowed the opportunity to reform, (I was kind of thinking along the lines of a reformed vandal). In all honesty I should have looked at the block log and seen that the user had had blocks of 1 week and 2 weeks before hand. And I do appreciate the comments very much thank you! Knowledge Of Self | talk  04:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In case you are not aware of it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AdelaMae/Neopagantasks

Thought you might be interested.

→ ''' P . Mac Uidhir''' (t) (c)  18:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

US music
Hey, response at talk:Music of Minnesota, and thanks for the support on the FAC page. Just in case you're interested, I'm probably going to be putting music of the United States on peer review soon. At the moment there are no pics or audio samples, but if you have any comments on the content, please do, especially ideas on how to cut down on the overall size. Tuf-Kat 04:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Reason for deleting comments from Talk:Clash
The comments were appended to the end of a paragraph that I wrote in (I believe) a deliberate attempt to make it look as though I had written it - this would seem to indicate that it's a troll. Either way, I don't like it appended to the end of my paragraph since it undermines the point I was making. 195.194.199.50 19:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your Nth edit
Greetings! Thanks for your comment on my RFC. By the way, how did you determine your 2000th edit, etc.? Curious, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Section for formatting
Thanks, although it still wasn't enough! I archived recently, and so the table of contents has only a few sections, so my new archive box (I copied the idea from User:Quadell) tips over into the first message.

By the way, I saw your reply to my question on SlimVirgins page (about what the Benedikt XVI and Benoît XVI were for). Thanks. At first I gazed blankly at it, but then I remembered that I had seen the word "skin" in "my preferences". I went there, and experimented with a few different "skins", and saw that I did get the direct links to articles in other languages. However, I decided to keep the default skin that I had already been using. Cheers. AnnH (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada
Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk page formatting
You welcome. I would like to ask you something. I know it is funny, but I still didn't find out how to make a link to some section when I'm writting an edit summary. Can you help me? Cheers! Bitola 17:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I tried several times to make an arrow link in the "edit summary" field and eventually succeeded with the following: → Testing.
 * I don't know if that is the right way and I didn't achieve the fading effect of the word "Testing". Regards, Bitola 18:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I was looking for. I knew it is going to be simple, but when you don't know something, it is always difficult. Thanks for your time! Bitola 11:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The Red Sox Userbox
Before anything is said, i'd just like to say that I have no ill will towards you in regards to the reverts, to be honest, I'd rather not edit war in regards to this at all, but the way things went last month in regards to this stuck in my craw.

Several editors just enforced their will in regards to this. Without discussion, without mediation, just straight out of the blue bullying other users(see Slim Virgin for another instance) and breaking multiple other policies in the process.

On this one, I have a potential alternative I can probably get within a week or so. On some others, I can get permission or suitable alternatives, but i'm not going to remove those icons until I can get them, and especially not if intimidation is the method of change here.

Thanks, I hope we can close the last chapter of the Userbox Wars on a civil note, I wish I had done this earlier, but I figured it was too soon after the maelstrom for people to discuss this rather than react on emotion.

I guess i'll see you tomorrow in regards to the edits. Karm a  fist  22:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Being bewildered...
What's been going on at Macedonia (Greece) and why has only User:Makedonas been 3RR blocked. The other user, User:Macedonian876 reverted 4 times to his yesterday version (that's not counting the sockpuppets) within a few hours and vandalised User:Makedonas's userpage after having being informed of the 3RR yesterday by me. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Here are the block logs:
 * --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

PS I discovered that Macedonian876 was right - I was researching during my long absence. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're a good administrator you know - almost endless patience :-) We must all seem like nationalistic barbarians to a sophisticated westener such as yourself. That kind of attitude has lead to the negative sentiments associated with our region (Balkans). We're not all like that you know (I hope I'm not) - that nationalistic attitude is very powerful over here though, that is what triggered WWI: Serbian nationalism. Keep up the good work - we need modarators like you :-) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the Americans. User:Macedonia (living in Canada) is far more extreme than User:Bomac (living in Skopje). Have you seen his talk page, with the land claims to Greece? How about that attampt of his to merge List of Macedonians (ethnic group) and List of Ancient Macedonians? When he added a userbox to Bomac's userpage, saying "this user is in favour of an united Macedonia" (and showed a (FY)ROM) extending from Serbia to the Aegean, Bomac removed it. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Allies (band)
The word seminal was not chosen lightly. It is an agree-upon norm. Let's put it to a vote. You start the vote and I'll get other subject experts to disucss it. Then you and Mel Etitis can do the valuable work of editing information about other bands that you know nothing about to decide whether what is written there is verifiable and referenceable, or not. I am trying to accomodate others ignorance in the field, but if you want proof, how do I know that you're JKelly? Just because you say you are doesn't make it so. How do you know that I am who I say I ma. I understand the premises used in Wikipedia and I understand the conern of using a term, but I have no reference material and will return with someone who does have some for the article in question. --Walter Görlitz 19:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, there are two separate issues:
 * whether I understand neutrality and that articles and statements must be ferifiable. Yes I udnerstand them and on the issue of this band, I don't make the statement lightly, but will seek community consensus--which is one form of verifability of a topic--on the point as to whether SCB is a seminal force in CCM or not. I sugegst that the editors watch the debate on the Allies talk page.
 * One of my complaints with Wikipedia is that people who are not domain experts can alter pages created by domain experts because they feel it represents a non-NPOV when they themselves don't know for sure. It is one thing if two experts say that there is non-NPOV. It is another thing when someone who knows nothing about the subject suggest that. This is a case of the latter. Yes. The facts need to be verified. The fact that you state that Wikipedia:Verifiability has nothing whatsoever to do with editors is nonsensical. If there were no editors, there would be no articles and no need to have a policy on verifiability. It is when admins who know nothing on the subject and state that the topic needs to be verified seems completely laughable.
 * I'm leaving the page as it is as it does not detract from the topic of the derivative band--their history speaks for itself. I will however begin a debate outside of Wikipedia and bring the results back to the group and I trust that the admins will accept a community of experts on the topic. In the mean time, I'm going to read some facts outside of Wikipedia and leave the creation of rules and guidelines, and the pages related to them to those who care about them. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz 21:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Talkartoons
The page was moved through a series of strange moves to/from Fleischer Talkartoon Series. Can you move Fleischer Talkartoon Series to Talkartoons so that the page history can be restored? --FuriousFreddy 20:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * All the other titles the page was moved to properly redirect to Talkartoons. Only Fleischer Talkartoons Series and Talkartoons need to be touched. --FuriousFreddy 20:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! --FuriousFreddy 20:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Question
Hey Jkelly, thanks for your civility during that little issue the other day. I'm still mulling whether or not to continue with it, but the biggest issue now in regards to it is the incivility of a few people who disagree with my actions.

Ultimately, this used to be a big deal to me, but it isn't really anymore -- I'm going head down to Fenway Park in the next week or two to take a picture of it for the Red Sox userbox (a free image is always better than a fair use one if you can get it), the Democrat userbox is a moot point once I get the written permission of that DNC friend of mine, with the logic behind that available at my and Kim Bruning's talk page, but the last thorn in my craw here is the sociocracy userbox. I made that, so I could csd it, but to be honest, I don't want to give satisfaction to those who are incivil, although i'd like some kind of constructive end to this dispute.

What do you think here? Karm a  fist  02:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Freudian slits...
Hi Jkellly... thank you for reverting my amendment to the Freud page. Just my little joke... --James Kemp 00:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I do indeed enjoy uncyclopedia, in small doses. Yet I prefer the little spin-off you've got running here :) --James Kemp 00:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy Fun Troll
Thank you for being quick on the stick with that. Cyberdenizen 00:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

kozani's Ben
I didn't take that photo, but I like it very much too. Under this clock I waited for many-many dates. This season its nice too because we have a lot of snow:)--Makedonas 00:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My, what a big edit count you have...
Hello JKelly! I am 30 years old, single, and enjoy every opportunity to read your over 3,000 edits. I find your intellect astonishing, and frankly very sexy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warhammer (talk • contribs)

Thank you
- Thank you! - I am feeling somewhat swamped with a number of things on Wikipedia. I'm really glad someone came by and gave me a hand. Thank you :-) --HappyCamper 02:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That is nice to know! Thanks for that. I will drop by the other talk pages of those two users so that they know that others are on top of things too. Thank you. :-) --HappyCamper 03:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Macedonians
Hi Jkelly, I wanted to ask you a question. On the Macedonians (ethnic group) article, it is not allowed for the Macedonian attitude to be openly expressed on the article, no matter how many reliable sources or explanations are given. What I mean is that we can't even put that 200,000 Macedonians live in Greece on the number list (instead there's unknown) and we can't put that 200,000 Macedonians live in Bulgaria (instead there's 5000). Now, if we cannot express the Macedonian attitude towards Macedonians in their own article, what gives the right for the Bulgarian article to say that 1,300,000 Bulgarians live in the Republic of Macedonia? (in the republic of Macedonia, there are 2000000 people and 13000000 declared themselves as Macedonian) Without any sources provided, administrators are allowing this edit which implys that there is no Macedonian ethnic group and that they're Bulgarians. Only I have been reverting the edits of this unknown users and administrators don't seem to care. So why can the Bulgarian attitude be so freely expressed in the article in a way that looks like fact to readers, while the Macedonian attitude is denyed and replaced with attitudes of the opposite side? Here from you, Macedonia 05:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

image broken
Good evening Jkelly. It seems that the Image:Nomultilicence.png has been erased, so perhaps you should replace it (at your User page) with something like the Image:Heckert GNU white.svg and thanks because I've finally put that teplate in my page too :) talk to +MATIA 22:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

A request for help
Hi Jkelly! I know we have not worked so much together on Wikipedia, but I think at some point I may need some assistance. Are you busy with any projects in particular at the moment? --HappyCamper 06:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well...check your e-mail in a little bit... --HappyCamper 17:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm...or rather...just take a very careful look at my talk page (particularly the bottom) and let me know if you think you would be able to continue my style of problem solving...I am not at the point where I need to step aside, but it would be nice to know that if I ever needed to, someone can still take over. --HappyCamper 17:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, of course! There is quite a bit of activity on the pages I'm watching, which is quite nice considering that they're pretty obscure pages. Enjoy the day! --HappyCamper 00:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hannah Teter
I left your copyright violation notice up in my third round of edits. You can't simply leave the page blank! As of a few hours ago this page was linked to directly from the wikipedia homepage because of her medal win, and all it was leading to is a copyright violation notice. Any amount of text is better than nothing.

Don't abuse your power as an Administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivymike21 (talk • contribs)

Neopaganism
Hi there, could you please give me a more precise pointer to where the MoS talks about making bold "explicit cross-references"? I can't find any of that. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 08:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Neopaganism
Thanks - a comment like that is worth more than a barnstar. - AdelaMa e (talk - contribs) 07:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug
This arbitration case has closed. RJII is placed on personal attack parole, probation, general probation, and is cautioned regarding POV editing. Firebug is counseled that Wikipedia is a work in progress and that perfection is not to be expected. These remedies (where applicable) shall be enforced by a block of up to one year. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 08:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I really appreciate your opinion. Thanks! Bitola 12:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Of note regarding JKelly previous edits

 * Greetings! I thought you should be aware of this noticeboard incident relative to your edits here.
 * Because IPs can be dynamic, my message here to you may mean nothing however, based upon the history of edits and reverts the similarities to these two cases seemed too great.

Thanks!

Netscott 07:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dick cheney
I know this is to be a redirecet page however it currently opens when searched for and is libelous.Nmpenguin 16:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Gaelic Traditionalism
I was wondering if you wouldn't mind poking your head in over at Gaelic_Traditionalism and reading through the talk page if you have the inclination. In my opinion the two most recent editors do not have a problem with the article per se, but are being needlessly antagonistic because they object to the religious beliefs of Gaelic Traditionalists. Looking back through their edits elsewhere, they have made numerous negative remarks about "revivalists". I have no problem with the entry being critiqued, but I think if this is not nipped in the bud it will escalate into a full on edit war. WeniWidiWiki 16:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate your taking another look at how the discussion is going. It seems to be at an impasse. The requests for citations are going badly, with books being listed, but not actual writings that support the statements in question (which seem to be largely original research and personal opinion). Some participants seem to also be using the Talk page as a message board. At this point it seems to me the only solution is to break the article in two - one about the modern movement, another about the Irish historical one. Or to simply focus the article in question on the modern movement and either discard the material on the Irish political movement that inspired them or, if possible, integrate some of that historical material into other articles on Irish history. If this cannot be done, it's time to begin the ruthless editing, IMHO. Martin MacGrath 18:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Madonna (entertainer)
Why did you revert the copyright notice on this page? It is clearly a copyright violation, if you follow the link you will see this. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 22:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for coming to me. I've replied on that page (Talk:Madonna_%28entertainer%29). Thanks. Oran   e    (t)   (c)   (e)  03:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Glad to see that it's worked itself out. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't disagree with that instruction. I was under the impression your reversion had not removed all of the copyright violation. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Reculement
Part of me wants to put on the reculement article. The item is really a dictionary type thing (IMO) but also has the problem of not being published that I am aware of. Suggestions?--Vidkun 15:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed that you added a tag to this article without comments. I found your comments on the article's talk page and added a part of them to the prod tag. Thanks! James084 20:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

FMP
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Featured Music Project by signing up on the status page. What you'd do is sign up for one (or more) of eight categories, such as the discography or lead section. No more than once a month, you'd be given an article which is getting close to being ready for WP:FAC, and is only deficient in a few categories. You'd do what you can in your section (and, of course, anything else you like). If a couple of people specialize in each category, we should be able to take some concrete steps towards improvement on a wide range of articles. In addition, you can sign up as a "shepherd" to take articles that meet all the criteria through a peer review and (hopefully) successful candidacy. Tuf-Kat 04:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My chin is up
Thanks for your message. My chin is up. I wish I knew enough Latin to be able to respond in Latin, but at least I'm able to understand it. Some day, when I've finished other courses, I intend to do this and also this, just as a hobby. Anyway, nice to meet so many decent people on Wikipedia. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 16:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

MarkSweep
Hi, JKelly - MarkSweep has reverted the Kaiser Permanente page three times. Are you going to enforce the 3RR rule on him? --Pansophia 20:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:CSD
No, I didn't. I was making a template for one-word articles. If you know of some way I could avoid it appearing on WP:CSD, I would be happy to use that way. Bart133 00:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:3c14608t.jpg...
Do you even look before you run your delete tags? Its from the library of congress. That is why is says .gov I get the impression you editors are more detrimental to wikipedia then helpful. Everything listed on that site is free for public use.

JJstroker 19:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured Music Project
Hello, this is a request from the Featured Music Project. You have been assigned to work on Captain Beefheart, with the goal of making it meet the criteria in the Lead category. Once you have finished, please update the artist subpage. There is no formal review process, so if you believe you have improved the article to meet all the Lead criteria, simply remove that category from the subpage and update the article's entry on the status page. Do not update the revision id unless you have evaluated the article on each criterion. If you are not sure that your efforts are adequate to meet all the necessary criteria, you may ask for guidance on the article talk page and/or the FMP talk page. Of course, this assignment is not obligatory and there will be no repercussions if you do not complete it -- if you know you will not be able to do so, please leave a note at the FMP talk page so that another person can receive the assignment. Though there is no deadline, please aim to finish the assignment within thirty days of receiving this notice; at that time, you may receive a different assignment, and the article may be evaluated for the next step. Thank you for your work on this project. Tuf-Kat 06:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work on the Beefheart page. It's one I've been meaning to put some work into for some time but I've never changed much beyond the cosmetic level (like the last edit I just made). I'll have a look at it over the weekend, if you haven't already whipped it up to featured quality. ;) Flowerparty ■ 11:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have a point on that. I'm only actually assigning people to work on something once it meets at least five categories, so I think it shouldn't generally be a big problem since the article's already supposed to be in okay shape.  The Captain Beefheart thing was a mistake -- it didn't pass five categories, so I shouldn't have assigned it to you (I messed up putting it on the status page), but anyway, you've made some good changes there, so that's good.  Tuf-Kat 19:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

RFAR
I filed a request for arbitration for the naming conventions of the Macedonia related articles: RFAR. I have listed you as a party involved. Bitola 14:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Starship Troopers (Nomination)
Were there any other problems with the article other than that section? It was only added in the last day and I just got a chance to review it. Palm_Dogg 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI I pulled the paragraph and sentence you were complaining about until I could find citations for them. Were there any other objections you had, or would you consider supporting the page? Palm_Dogg 08:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

UC Merced
Hi, I have been editing the UCM wiki page and there is a comment on the page that is not of a neutral point of view and everytime I change it/delete it, Japer Paulson changes it back. I was wondering if you could look at it and put an end to our 3 week debate over the sentence. you can see what sentence it is on the discussion page. Rayana fazli 01:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

About portal:Macedonia
Hello. This portal represents a small part of the region of Macedonia (only FYROM). They can't monopolised this name - it should be renamed. The Greek and Bulgarian Macedonia have nothing to do with it. As it is written, it seems just like, it is refering in all Macedonian region.--Makedonas 03:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This portal name, insults all Macedonians in Greece, and makes problem bigger. STOP FYROM's PROPAGANDA IN WIKIPEDIA.--Makedonas 11:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Macedonia moved
Hi again:) I need a help of an administrator regarding the portal:Macedonia. Namely, Miskin for the second time moves the portal under the other name, regardless of the fact that consensus about that hasn't been achieved. Please help! Bitola 11:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What I can't understand is why you lot (namely Bomac) went back on his word here. I told him this would happen and he agreed that it should be at Portal:Republic of Macedonia or Portal:Macedonia (republic) (anywhere but where it is now). I am seriously considering a MFD renaming poll, all users bar the ethnic Macedonians seem to think it should be moved! If a consensus is formed for renaming it (or keeping it where it is as the case may be), then let it be so; why prolong the agony? --Latinus 11:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
How on earth do we insert pictures in a text and how do we control the size of boxes? Greatfull for any guidelines. Thanks Politis 18:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Quality and other things
I don't know what it is. Maybe it's the increased popularity of Wikipedia; I feel like a nanny at a daycare sometimes, cleaning up behind some of the anons and newbies (I know we're not supposed to bite them, but I end up biting my lip sometimes because of the frustration).

Speaking of newbies, I need your help fixing a common newbie problem. Someone apparently did a cut and paste move from Def Jam to Def Jam Records, and also from Island Def Jam Records to The Island Def Jam Music Group. Can you do BigBalla97 a favor move the history of the pages to their new namespaces? Thanks. --FuriousFreddy 00:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing that little problem (the Gerald Gardner page)

I didn't realize I was on the wrong wiki till after I clicked save. Sorry about the extra work.

Groberts27 20:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale - invisible text in articles?
On the voting page for the FA status for The Illuminatus! Trilogy, you mentioned how the "fair use rationale" hadn't been filled out yet. I've never encountered any article that includes the invisible text as is apparently now required per Image_description_page. Of course the information is always needed on the image page itself, but I've never seen it required in articlespace since one would imagine you just click the image and you're there. Is this a new policy? If it is I know of upwards of 600 articles that would need to be fixed. 23skidoo 19:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For cleaning up Talk:Christianity. Tom Harrison Talk 20:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

silly Vidkun, forgetting http
No wonder it didn't work right. Thanks!--Vidkun 02:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Images you deleted in American Pie (song) article
Every one of the images you deleted in the American Pie (song) article, including the photograph by John Filo, are images in currently existing Wikipedia articles. I noticed that you did not delete the images from the other articles --was this an oversight on your part, or were the images okay to display in the first place? (Obviously, you would have seen the other artices the images are used in on the image links.) Please explain. --Dkwong323 09:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Merging two articles about the same song
You're welcome! Extraordinary Machine 17:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For fixing my little issue with the vandalism request page ... MFago 03:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Illuminatus FAC
I apologize if this is a stupid question, but did you want a cite for Atlanta Hope being a mock version of Ayn Rand (I added one), or (and/or) for Atlanta Hope being a right-wing character? Шизомби 04:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

i had a stab at addressing your comments. most have now been done, BUT (1) i couldnt see what was wrong with the lead - it summarizes the article well. and (2), is the "cognitive dissonance" thing really an opinion? just seems like the right word to describe a story that throws multiple viable & contradictory viewpoints at you. Zzzzz 19:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)