User talk:Jpoelma13

Coronation Street characters
A little less zealousness and a little more looking before reverting edits please. I would be grateful if you could take the warning off my page. Many thanks. (212.74.97.195 (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

My user page
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page!! LeaveSleaves (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

re: August 2008
Replied on my talk page. Apparition11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please reply when you get a chance. I've cooled down now from seeing a warning template, but I still definately don't agree. Apparition11 (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on my talk page. Apparition11 (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One more note on my talk page. Apparition11 (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This will be the last time I bother you, My OCD won't let me let it go :) On my talk page I have detailed my reasoning for removing everything that I removed that you restored. Regardless of whether you agree with my reasoning, please read it, and reply to me if you believe that my logic was so far off that it deserved a warning. Thanks. Apparition11 (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I eventually deleted the warning after what I perceived as poor etiquette by you for not responding and ignoring it, but I would really prefer some closure to this matter. I have not only explained why my edit was justified, but also given multiple reasons why the template was in poor taste (one of which was actually submitted by you). It is clear that the template was improper for these reasons:


 * The most obvious is that if you read the template, it obviously was inappropriate for this case.
 * When a template does not properly describe the situation, it should not be used, per WP:Warn.
 * It was obvious that I deliberately made the edit.
 * I gave my reason for removing it in the edit summary (POV and not notable).
 * The biggest reason would be that the edit was justified.
 * Don't template the regulars

I have now restored it and request that you at least respond to these reasons that the template was improper, and rebut with reasons that it was proper. If you cannot justify the template, then please do the civil thing and strikeout the template. Thank you. Apparition11 (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I give up. I have made every effort to resolve this politely and respectfully, but you have not shown me the same respect in turn. I highly suggest that you re-read the five pillars of Wikipedia, as I believe your actions here have violated two of them. Specifically, you have shown very poor etiquette by not responding when I directly requested that you do so, and you apparently tried to punish me for being bold when you did not fully agree with my edit (although you did with a good portion). Instead of pursuing this any further, I will simply remove it again and forgive & forget. I just hope that in the future you will be more open to discussion and be able to concede a point when you have no response to it (which is my best guess based on your lack of responses). I also hope that you are a little less reckless with issuing "warnings" with edits that you do not agree with, and instead discuss these edits and work to improve the encyclopedia by both improving articles instead of leaving the status quo and not driving off good editors by leaving an impression that our community is hostile and close-minded. As I said, I am now done with this situation and just hope that you at least consider some of the suggestions that I have made. Apparition11 (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, thank you for replying! I'm glad the whole matter is solved resolved, and I can move on. Thanks again and happy editing! Apparition11 (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like you to restore the article I created for Eric Beecher. Your haste in flagging it for speedy deletion, I believe, was incorrect. Eric Beecher has been a significant contributor to public media debate in Australia - specifically Melbourne and Sydney. He is regularly sought by a range of media outlets for comment, perspective, insight and contribution to media and political matters. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtneycarthy (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice about Warnings
Hello again. I see that you have not been active to reply to my last post, but in the mean time, I thought I would give you a little advice. I will take your advice and be a little more thoughtful in removing content, and I hope that you'll in turn try to take this advice. I know that mean well, but you should be a little more careful in issuing warnings. I believe that you issued warnings twice yesterday that may not have been warranted and another where you were too harsh.

In this revert, regardless if the content was appropriate or not, you should not template the regulars. These templates assume good faith because it is quite possible that new users are are unaware of their disruption. Since established users will be aware of policies, sticking to "did you know we had a rule against this" mentality tends to be counterproductive in resolving the issue, as it can be misconstrued as being patronising and uncivil. In these cases, asking "why did you make this edit" would be more polite and more constructive, in turn helping to improve Wikipedia much more.

By looking at this user's contribs, it is easy to see that he is helping to improve the encyclopedia. Just by glancing at the edit, it does appear that he was simply removing content, but by looking more in depth at his contribs and intentions, it is obvious that what he was doing was not disruptive. He should have explained what he was doing in his edit summary, but with a little diligence, it can be seen that a warning was not appropriate. Again, in this case, asking "why are you making this edit" would have been more appropriate.

Although warning this user was totally justified, according to Template messages/User talk namespace, issuing more than one warning level simultaneously serves no purpose, since they did not get the first warning before you escalated to the next resort. If a user is in the midst of an obviously bad-faith vandalism spree, there's no need to warn them before temporarily blocking them; therefore, giving more than one warning level at a time really doesn't accomplish much.

Again, I know that you're here to improve Wikipedia and have done a very good job in doing so. I hope you take this advice, because issuing inappropriate warnings can drive good contributors away, which will only hurt Wikipedia. I would encourage you to withdraw the first two instances that I mentioned by striking them out. Remember, it doesn't take much longer to ask "why did you do that" than it does to use a template. Thanks. Apparition11 (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Revival Football Club
Hi there. I've replied to your hangon request at the above article's talk page. Essentially, it's a hoax, there is no such club, never has been, never will be. :) Ged UK (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Extra-Terrestrial Exposure Law
Wild, isn't it? I thought it must be a joke, so I googled the title and found confirmation of the law's existence. Maybe you misspelled it when you looked it up, or something. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Dogopoly
Before you revert edits look at what you are doing. I just removed a whole load of crap from that page and you then restored it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about being snippy. Take a look at Talk:Dogopoly/Archive and you will see the large amount of people that I was trying to deal with. Seeing the page restored, including attacks on editors did not make me happy. I realise that you were acting as you though best. Sorry again. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Biomass
Material was duplicated. Please look before you revert! Thanks. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 22:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tiptoety talk 20:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback may be removed at any time.

Rollback
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  22:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Amazon.com
You said: "(cur) (prev) 06:29, 26 February 2009 Jpoelma13 (Talk | contribs | block) (900 bytes) (Who include Amazon.com as reference if not for spam? Delete it.) (undo) "

Kindly refrain from using that rationale. Look up my account and you will know right away I am a long-time, multi-puropose user. I am no spammer.

Now, look at WP:SPAM - Spam, my friend, is all about intent. A sign of spam is a clearly promotional, single purpose writing. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I use Amazon to prove that a book or a good is in wide distributon. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also it said "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." - It has to have a promotional slant. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions about an article's speedy deletion process in the past
Greetings. I have opened a discussion on the talk page of the Ellen Stagg bio about the lack of the subject's notability. I notice that, back in 2008, you initiated a process for the article's speedy deletion. Can you, please, explain what happened, as the article is still up there, still with the "lack of notability" tag? Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)