User talk:JohnDoe0007/Archive 3

Re: Peter Schiff page
Hey, this is Screwball23. I have been working hard on the Linda McMahon page, and I have a strong interest in the Connecticut Senate election. I write to you because I saw some awesome editing on the Peter Schiff page and think you really know how to improve your articles. If you have time, give the Linda McMahon page a shot. I really would appreciate a fresh look.

Thanks! -- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 01:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words! I'll have a look at it and see what I might be able to contribute. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics census
Hello there. Sorry to bother you, but you are (titularly at least) a member of WP:WikiProject Economics, as defined by this category. If you don't know me, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, but an unqualified economist. I enjoy writing about economics, but I'm not very good at it, which is why I would like to support in any way I can the strong body of economists here on Wikipedia. I'm only bothering you because you are probably one of them. Together, I'd like us to establish the future direction of WikiProject Economics, but first, we need to know who we've got to help.

Whatever your area of expertise or level of qualification, if you're interested in helping with the WikiProject (even if only as part of a larger commitment to this wonderful online encyclopedia of ours), would you mind adding your signature to this page? It only takes a second. Thank you.

Message delivered on behalf of User:Jarry1250 by LivingBot.
 * Firstly, thank you for signing the census, and an apology if you are one of those editors who dislike posts such as this one for messaging you again in this way. I've now got myself organised and you can opt-out of any future communication at WP:WikiProject Economics/Newsletter. Just remove your name and you won't be bothered again.


 * Secondly, and most importantly, I would like to invite your comments on the census talk page about the project as a whole. I've given my own personal opinion on a range of topics, but my babbling is essentially worthless without your thoughts - I can't believe for one moment that everyone agrees with me in the slightest! :)


 * All your comments are welcomed. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shiny Toy Guns - Le Disko single cover art.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Shiny Toy Guns - Le Disko single cover art.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Schiff article
Per WP:3RR, there's more that can be done than reverting the text. I'm not sure how you justify your OR accusations, so I'd like to hear more about that on the article's talk page. BigK HeX (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Schiff
You have deleted information from the lead which you plainly acknowledge as being cited and reflects info which is detailed in the article body. I'm fairly sure there's nothing there's nothing in the WP:MoS to justify such a deletion, though perhaps you might care to elaborate on which directive from that guideline you are applying. The deletion of cited/relevant/neutral text can be considered disruptive, and I'd much rather we discuss how Wikipedia guidelines are being applied, than to have to leave any questions about whether there's disruption that requires any intervention. I've explained that my reading of WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVEL ask us to note any significant departures from majority views. Even the WP:MOS that you invoked to justify your edit, actually seems to reinforce my point. It specifically states that, "any notable controversies" should be mentioned. In any case, thanks for any attention you can impart to my concerns. BigK HeX (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the deletion of neutral text that is cited and relevant may be considered disruptive. Thanks! P.S. Also, please don't edit war. BigK HeX (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Frosty Heidi & Frank logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Frosty Heidi & Frank logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  03:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010
Hey JohnDoe!!! :-)

I know the Republican primary is over, and news on Schiff is becoming scarce, but I would love your help on the Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010 article. I saw you do some excellent work on the Peter Schiff article, and since you are familiar with the major players in the Senate race, you can give me a lot of added perspective. -- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 03:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Awesome! I'm actually a little curious if you know, because 3% was a pretty poor showing for Schiff. Do you know what he was polling at the time?-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 04:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll look back into it, but yes, he was polling much higher. He mentions a lot of details in that vlog used to cite my latest addition to that page. Also see here for the latest Rasmussen poll before the Convention. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Linda McMahon
I'm undergoing a major editing dispute with another editor on the Linda McMahon page. I want to get this moderated, reported, sent to a nonbiased third party administrator, just about anything that will help form a productive discussion on the issue, but I have no clue how to do it. You've had your share of rough editing battles on Peter Schiff, and I would like to know what could be done. It's really serious.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 02:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
In case you did not know, it is never OK to reintroduce an edit into an article multiple times, after it has been objected to by multiple people, as you did here: Doing so is considered edit warring, and is against policy. This is especially true for BLPs, as we must be extremely circumspect about what we say about living persons. Additionally, I would like to inform you that it is against policy for an editor to revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. This is called the 3 revert rule and is a bright line that should not be crossed. LK (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See here --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)