User talk:Jsharpminor/Archive 4

Zondervan
Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Basileias (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Zondervan (Second warning)
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Basileias (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Zondervan
I seem to be engaged in an edit war on the page Zondervan.

I have inserted good, sourced material, and Basileais reverted it twice while I was editing it and had put an template on the page. He promises to revert it yet again should I try to insert it again. I do not mind an objective discussion of what is or is not notable, or of what is or is not valid, conspiracy theory, etc., but I am getting nowhere. Please help!! Jsharpminor (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In the event of a content dispute, you should leave a comment at the discussion page, as you have done. Although User:Basileias could be clearer, the concern appears to be over the reliability of the sources, which are almost all Christian publications with a likely bias. If you could offer up additional sources that are less likely to share this bias on the talk page, I think it would help a lot. I think everyone agrees the lawsuit is well documented and relevant. Dcoetzee 07:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Graham, Texas
Why are my updates to this page being reverted and being said that it is vandalism? All the information should be cited at the very bottom of the page, and are reliable sources straight from the public library of graham.01:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)gisd
 * No clue. I'll check. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm reverting vandalism on this page. If you're adding information about marijuana, condoms, one-night-stands, and the like, you'd better source it very well before just adding it. A single edit that fills the page with such information looks an awful lot like vandalism. If this information is true, and that's what you're talking about... well, that'll be quite interesting. If those are your edits and it's not true, then stop. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Resident Evil Code: Veronica
I suggest you re-check the diffs. Here, as you can clearly see, I reverted an IP's edit involving "Rawkit Lawnchairs" to "rocket launchers", which is much more typical in games. I also reverted it to an anti-vandal bot's edit.

Take care when using automated editing tools, else I trout you. --43?9enter ☭msg☭contribs 01:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think. I don't see what I did wrong; please feel free to point it out. I see this edit, in which I reverted from the ridiculous "Rawkit Lawnchairs" to "Rocket Launchers," which is correct, no? If I reverted in the other direction, accept my apologies. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm confused. I think HG seems to have warned the wrong person. --43?9enter ☭msg☭contribs 17:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow! That, IMO, is hilarious.
 * If I'm not mistaken, however, warnings mean little to absolutely nothing. Sorry about warning you; you don't seem to be the person adding the vandalism. Am I correct, however, that a misplaced warning causes little to no damage? Jsharpminor (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks for adding that notice thingy (albeit I almost did it myself before getting an edit conflict) --43?9enter ☭msg☭contribs 17:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

War on drugs
My input is very constructive, as it is COMMON SENSE AND COMMON KNOWLEDGE, that the U.S is only "aiding" ( if you can call it that) the great nation of Mexico out of political gains and greed. But of course, you being an american, are too arrogant to admit that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.223.208.46 (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

[This] does not seem to be constructive. Also, Wikipedia is not the place for your "common sense" arguments: it is the place for verifiable facts. You added a controversial statement without citing a source; of course that is going to be reverted. Jsharpminor (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello back
Hello and thank you for welcoming me but why do people change other people's edits? don't you think that's rude?
 * Not if your edits are vandalism, spam, or original research. Jsharpminor (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

They should at least explain why they made the changes. I'm not an unreasonable person at all.

So please don't misunderstand it and make it out as if I'm the bad guy.
 * You should sign your posts with four tildes, so I know who you are and what page and edits you're talking about. I revert hundreds of vandalism edits every hour; I can't possibly be bothered to guess which were yours. Jsharpminor (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

--

Graphics Processing Unit
Hi... I received a message in your name inviting me to discuss wiki pages on their 'talk' page... thanks for the heads up! I don't actually know how to do that but I would like to lodge a complaint about how a specific page represents its information, which I think follows a line of opinion and user-driven advertising and is not stating cast iron facts. I would like the chance to redress the balance so the wikipedia pages are not abused by users to promote their favourite toys. Please respond so I can discuss the matter, thanks. Vapourmile (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Vapourmile@hotmail.com
 * Thanks. I won't respond by email, partially because I don't give any personal information or email addresses to folks I've never met.
 * But please see the article's talk page, located here to find out more about the rationale of the article and join the discussion.
 * Actually, you're even welcome to edit the article itself; just be aware that edits that aren't backed up by sourced information may be reverted. Jsharpminor (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Huggle
Hello. It seems that you accidentally re-introduced some vandalism here, then warned User:AnnaJune. I thought I'd point it out since there is still a level 2 warning on her talk page. Happy editing. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. ''Please read over your editor review, the issues raised on this talk page, and even your own comments on this talk page - telling an editor that you are too busy issuing hundreds of warnings per hour to even consider working out which editor they are, is not at all collegial. Helping to deal with vandalism is great, but it is supposed to be part of helping other editors to build the encyclopedia. You may need to spend some time thinking about slowing down, providing proper explanations when you revert someone with Huggle, and providing proper feedback to other editors - especially newcomers - who raise concerns.'' --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be right: I am probably quite a bit too hasty to scream "VANDAL!!!" and revert an edit (or, more accurately, just hit that "Q" button in Huggle and keep trucking at a hundred ninety miles per hour). I'll try slowing down a tad. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

GPU: Revisited.
Excellent, thanks for the response Jsharp. What I'll do when I get a bit more time is write a bit about the issue in the page on the link you gave me. I'll add an edition to this page right here when I've done it so you can take a look and decide for yourself. How's that with you? Vapourmile (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC).
 * I'd appreciate that. Be sure that the discussion / proposals / other stuff are on the article page and its talk page, and that the note you're leaving here is just to inform me about that. But I'd be happy to take a look at it for you.
 * By the way -- the comments that I removed from the article page are already on its talk page. I moved them there for you. (You may already have noticed.) That way, some other editors might actually see that and start working on it themselves.
 * Welcome to Wikipedia!!!! :-D Jsharpminor (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Understood, agreed. Yes, when I said I intend to leave an edition on your talk page to alert you to the fact I've pitched an entry into the discussion I was referring to pretty much one sentence with a link the page in question.

PS. Thanks very much for adding that link here, it didn't seem to work the with the first one?... I hadn't known of that page earlier (or the talk pages at all for that matter). I've given it a good read and I'd say there is much that is valid being said there. If I'm able to (if it agrees with the Wikipedia rules) I'll include some links to internet resources from which you can grade the factuality of what I'm saying for yourself. Vapourmile (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC).

Thanks!
Hi, thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Occupational hazard I'm afraid! Best ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 21:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Serket page
Sorry :O I'm relatively new on Wikipedia, thanks for the help :) I'll keep that bit in mind. Thanks again :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.89.114 (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Luis Medrano


A tag has been placed on Luis Medrano requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. andy (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there a Vandalism template that says something to the effect of:

Really, vandalism isn't all that worthwhile anyway. It may amuse you for a moment, but your friends don't even get to see it: as you can see, we can and do revert such blatant vandalism much faster than you can produce it. Why not try to help contribute to the encyclopedia instead? Cheers!! Jsharpminor (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Could someone help me find it? Thanks, Jsharpminor (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hm, I've been on Wikipedia for many years and I don't remember seeing a warning with that saying. SwisterTwister   talk  05:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There was "warningkt"; now I look for it, it has for some reason been moved to User:Kingturtle/Warningkt. Not quite what you remember, but similar. I'll leave the helpme in case anyone else can do better. JohnCD (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's it. I too remember a template more similar to the OP's reconstitution than what JohnCD linked to. —  Waterfox ~talk~ 14:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you may be looking for Cakevandal?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh! That's not the one I'd seen before, but I'll certainly take it!! As a quick aside, is there any way to add a custom template such as cakevandal to Huggle? Jsharpminor (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any way of making custom alterations to Huggle, but you could try asking at Huggle/Feedback. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello good friend! There's really no point in vandalizing Wikipedia... countless users have tools and programs that spot vandalism, and we have almost a constant lineup of users who volunteer to monitor harmful edits, as well as automated bots that can locate vandalism and change it back almost instantly. Vandalism just like yours has been done countless times in the past, and we know how to deal with it. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, and sure, it might be tempting to totally fuck an article up, but that's not what we're here to do. If you'd like to edit Wikipedia in a constructive manner that doesn't make you look like a complete idiot, feel free to do so, otherwise, it's best to just leave it alone. That saves you the time of making pointless changes, and saves me the time of reverting those changes just as fast, if not faster, than you make them. Thank you for listening and I hope you enjoy using, and maybe editing, Wikipedia. And if you have any questions, feel free to direct your inquiries to my delicious talk page; where we can sit and make banter over a lovely cup of green tea.

History of administration in Poland
Before 1772 the area was part of Kingdom of Poland, 1772-1919 Prussia and Germany, 1920-1939 Free City of Danzig, 1939 - february 1945 Nazi Germany. For the history of the region, see History of Pomerania. See historic sources. The history is not only 1945!!! 80.171.50.163 (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This looks like a good argument to have on the article's talk page. What is said there?


 * Also, the manner of the edits -- giving a complete history, as well as specifying that before 1945 it was a part of Nazi Germany -- although this may be quite accurate, the term "Nazi" is inflammatory, which makes me question why you would be doing these edits.


 * A good idea would be to go to the talk pages of the respective articles, or perhaps the talk page for the Pomeranian region itself. I suspect the issue has already been discussed. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we do call it, whatever it was, Nazi Germany. So could you please clarify your use of revert, tagging that IP and reporting them to AIV? Materialscientist (talk) 05:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. First, the obvious: the edit in question was poorly written, missing a space or two, used the phrase "Nazi Germany" rather than just Germany (inflammatory language, in my view), coming from an IP with no significant history that I saw at first glance. That looked like vandalism. Second strike, though, was violation of WP:BRD, and insistently replacing the inflammatory content. Third strike, however, was to actually look at the History of Pomerania article he's trotting out: The history of that region is so long and drawn out, it seems at a glance that everyone from France to Britain to Mickey Mouse has owned that territory at one point or another. At this point, though, since we're both in danger of 3RR, I'm quitting it, as I posted on his talk page, and I'm out of this discussion.
 * Have a nice day all, I have actual vandalism to patrol. I'll just continue to watch this and see what consensus decides. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. I'll revert you, at least at the IP talk. Happy editing and please be more careful. Posting templated warnings of vandalism on their talk and using revert was definitely not appropriate here. Materialscientist (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not? He's replaced well-thought-out content with agenda-driven stuff that's not even formatted well. It's vandalism at worst, a run-on sentence at absolute best. Perhaps an actual vandalism warning was over the top, but this guy certainly needs to take a look at the MoS, or learn how to write coherently. Worse still, he's adding the same exact stuff to a hundred pages all over the Wiki. Do you want to be the guy to have to MoS it? I certainly don't. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To keep you out of trouble. Very few editors formatted their first edits according to MoS. I see no sign of well-thought-out content there as it doesn't seem correct and redirects to a cumbersome History of Pomerania. In other words, don't treat such behavior as vandalism by default - seek consensus; start a discussion at the corresponding WP project or WP:ANI if mass changes to many articles appear problematic. Materialscientist (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I guess. I now only hope that someone has a bunch of Pomeranian pages on their watchlist, so they'll see it in the morning and think to change it.
 * In other news, Irene Manning (One Life to Live) is coming up in Huggle quite frequently. I think there may be another edit war brewing or in progress over there. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Irene Manning seems Ok for now - not really much vandalism. Some pages are heavily edited when the described topic is up on TV, but even the editing frequency is moderate for that page. Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Seabreeze Youth Orchestra of Huntington Beach
Hello Jsharp, I wanted to leave a note about this page. In a word, you way overtagged it. Many of them were redundant, and as a general rule, you should try to add as few tags as possible, rather then as many as you can. Thanks for your work,  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  19:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah... while I agree that it didn't necessarily need that many tags (and I don't tag articles that will stick around like that), I was trying to point out all the many reasons why that particular article was a good SPEEDY candidate. Jsharpminor (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I totally disagree with Nolelover. If an article has lots of problems then it's worth pointing out that it has. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Staten Island Smiles
Just to let you know, you can only CSD an article under G4 if the article went through WP:AFD. It doesn't apply if it got deleted through CSD. Thanks. -- Σ  talk  contribs  07:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, didn't know that. Will keep that in mind. Jsharpminor (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Air-tractor sledge
Bravo! I'm impressed. Apterygial talk 12:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit?...
here was altering the spacing of the talkpage and mashing up two different Notices. I tried to fix it but maybe that isn't what you intended? Just wanted to let you know, I'm not used to seeing that code at the end of a Warning but not sure what is wrong (if anything). Shearonink (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No idea, but thanks for fixing it. Dunno, I use Twinkle and Huggle a lot, so it was probably added using one of those tools: did it mess up?
 * Ah well, in any case, if you fixed the issue, I'll consider it over. Jsharpminor (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar Appreciation
I just wanted to say thanks for recognizing my spoken article and posting the award. I had planned to do another one but things got in the way and it never got done. If you suggest an article for me to do I'll be happy to take a look at it. Willsax (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Zombocom.png
Thanks for uploading File:Zombocom.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

AFD: James Jordan (music executive)
Hey Jsharpminor... wanted to know if you had a chance look at the updated version for the article of James Jordan. (music exectuive).. others editors have assisted me with the article, which is great... I was wondering if you could help or teach me so that I can have the correct format for articles so I won't experience this again... also... if the changes are satisfactory to the article now... would you be open to withdrawing the "AFD" tag.Hansomd 21:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansomd (talk • contribs)
 * It's not mine to "withdraw". You can't just take down a tag like that until the discussion is closed. When it's closed, the tag will go away. Jsharpminor (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, if there are no Delete or Merge votes, then you are indeed able to withdraw (close) the nomination if you wish to do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would greatly appreciate it if you would withdraw the nomination... according to the "AFD" policy you can do so... Hansomd 21:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansomd (talk • contribs)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 5 October 2011 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding  to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)